And some more Ink (yes, it's addictive...)

My newest addition...a Tribal Tattoo.

No, it doesnt have a specific meaning, except for the images one conjures up when one thinks "Tribal" (instinctive, ancient, mystical, community, warrior)

And now, for something completely (well almost) non-political...

My Bear Paw Tat, courtesy of Gina at Mom's Tattoo Studio in Keene, NH:

General Pace and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

Well. This will not have to be a long post for me to make my point.

By now we have all read comments by the Marine Core's General Peter Pace in support of the Military's "Don't ask Don't Tell" policy . He stated,

"I believe homosexual acts between two individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts," said the General, and "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way."

Now, in response, many in 'Gay Leadership' (HRC, GLBT Task Force, the usual Pink Mafiosos) went ballistic, and, in an almost habitual self-defeating way, went after the *wrong* issue. They immediately jumped on *what* he said, in proclaiming homsexuality to be immoral, instead of faulting his illogical reasoning as to how it relates to the Policy.

Like it or not, a lot of Americans agree with him on the 'it's immoral' issue. It is not a crime to think differently, or have different opinions abut 'morality,' no atter how odious they might seem. If we focus on the issue of whether or not homosexuality is 'immoral,' we become bogged down in an unwinnable arguement. People will believe what they want about sexual morality.

No, friends, the greater point is this: the good General proclaimed that it is necessary to keep any 'immorality' out of the military: "I do not believe the United States is well served by a policy that says it is OK to be immoral in any way." And this was his arguement in favor of DADT.

Let's be frank, General: soldiers don't have affairs, right? They don't visit brothels. They don't sow their oats when given a pass off-base. They wait until they're 21 to get drunk. They never smoke pot, or send drugs home. Those sailors-in-port stories are just that - stories. The army never talks to its soldiers about STDs or provides condoms, and never treats syphilis. Nope, never happens.

General, would you favor dismissing every soldier who visited a whorehouse? Smoked pot? Got drunk? Had sex with someone not his or her spouse? After all, if immorality is bad for military personnel, why not get rid of all the sinners in the armed forces?

Get off it, General. The most glaring point here is that there is a double standard: we wink at the boys who are off getting their rocks off when they're so far from home...we excuse it - even expect it - from red-blooded American soldiers. But God forbid one of those soldiers might have different inclinations - THAT's immoral, and they must be kept out of the army.

On it's face, the policy is riduculous, and must fall.

Mitt Romney: Like Nailing Jello to a Wall....

Mitt Romney's interview with George Stephanopoulos this morning was a remarkable study of a Teflon Candidate who spoke passionately about having strong convictions about many issues, while leaving the viewer in total confusion. From abortion to the federal role in education, Mitt seemed to be all over the board, each sentence contradicting the one before. But my favorite part of the interview was his internally inconsistent and thoroughly illogical perspectives on gays in the military and gay marriage (which, I guess, could be expected when you're the Mormon Governor of the most Liberal state in the union).

His comments on these issues, with my own comments added, are these:

Concerning Gays in the military, Mitt said:

"Well, "don't ask, don't tell" has worked well. "

"I must admit, I was somewhat uncertain as to whether that would work and I was skeptical as to whether that policy would work. "

"I don't have a policy posture as to allowing gays in the military to serve there openly."

(So, if I have this right, Mitt, you didn't think it would work, but now you think it has worked, and you don't want gays to be 'open')

Mitt continued: "But I can tell you that I'm against discrimination against people who are gay and lesbian."

OK...you don't want Gays in the military to admit to any soul in the military that they are gay. But you are against discrimination. So, it would be OK to admit you are Catholic, Democrat, or of Croatian ethnic heritage; you could admit to being heterosexual and discuss in lurid detail your exploits with those of the opposite sex in the barracks; you could wolf whistle at the strippers in the club and place dollars in their g-strings...as long as it was a dancer of the opposite sex. So tell me again how you are 'against discrimination against people who are gay,' but believe that gays and ONLY gays must be silent about their lives to remain on the job?

And for what its worth Mitt, "Don't Ask Don't Tell" has NOT worked...at all. But we will save that issue for a separate blog entry.

Then, on marriage:

"...I do favor and have always favored traditional marriage and oppose same sex marriage.
..... I've felt marriage is between a man and a woman and not between people of the same gender. "

'....two people can enter into a partnership, whether they're people who love each other or whether they're just friends. They can enter into a contract and have contractual relationships with one another. ... But that doesn't require a sanction by the state and so that's a decision each state would have to make. I wouldn't seek to impose, at the national level, a prohibition on contractual relationships between two people...But my view is, at the national level, we should define marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman..."

Whooa! "It's a decision each state would have to make" and "I wouldn't seek to impose, at the national level...," followed by, "At the national level, we should define marriage."

Mitt, old boy, do you see any contradiction there? Appealing to individual contractual rights and states rights on one hand, and supporting a national policy on the other hand? All things to all people, buster? Or Nothing to Anybody?

But here's the real exciting part:

"... And this isn't about adult rights. A lot of people get confused that gay marriage is about treating gay people the same as treating heterosexual people, and that's not the issue involved here. This is about the development and nurturing of children. Marriage is primarily an institution to help develop children and children's development, I believe, is greatly enhanced by access to a mom and a dad. I think every child deserves a mom and a dad, and that's why I'm so consistent and vehement in my view that we should have a federal amendment which defines marriage in that way..." My view is that the right model for the nation and the right standard for the nation is marriage is between a man and a woman and a child deserves a mom and a dad.."

Well, Mitt, you have pretty clearly stated that marital rights are about 'the development and nurturing of children." So if that's what marital rights are all about, I have some questions for you:

Does that mean you would revoke marital rights for heterosexual couples who are unable, or choose not, to raise children?

Would you revoke marital rights for couples once their children are grown and out of the house?

Would you make adoption by single parents illegal?

If marriage rights and benefits are predicated on the notion of raising children, then by your own standards childless couples should not have these rights. If you favor the adoption of a child by a single woman, how could you logically oppose the adoption of that child by a single woman and her partner? Further, under your own standard, if a state permits gay couples to adopt...wouldn't they have a stronger claim to marital benefits than a heterosexual couple with no children?

At some point, Mitt, you will need to stop sticking your wet finger in the wind while whispering contradictory sweet nothings into three different ears at once. And when you do, then we'll examine your stands on the issues. Until then, we'll give you some time to think about the logical conclusions of some of your 'positions.'

Courage and Independent Thinking in Wisconsin

Lately it's been refreshing listening to politicians out of Wisconsin. Both Democrat Sen. Russ Feingold and former Republican Governor Tommy Thompson have staked out positions on Iraq that place them at odds with their respective parties - positions that show both the courage of their convictions and pragmatism.

The Democrats took control over state legislatures and Congress largely on a wave of public dissatisfaction with the Iraqi mess. But Democrats can not just point the finger at the Bush - they, too, went along with most of this program, and gave been voting to continue it. This week, Democrats tried a lame resolution in Congress - one that passed the House but is stalled in the Senate. The Resolution disagrees with Bush's troop escalation, but does nothing about it. Even if passed, it's merely as if they are children saying "I don't like this!," but nothing happens as a result. It is a mere 'opinion' with no force or effect.

Russ Feingold is a Democrat who insists on 'walking the talk.' Rather than just offering non-binding opinions, Feingold is pushing for Congress to cut off funding for the Iraq war. While the President is the Commander-in-Chief, the House holds the purse strings. That is part of the checks and balances that the Founding fathers built into the Constitution.

If Democrats really want to stop the war, they can support Feingold. I suspect that what they really want to do is *complain* about the war, but not actually stop it. And for that reason, Feingold's bold proposal will probably not be supported.

Then there's Tommy Thompson's approach to Iraq. Thompson shows himself to be the ultimate realist when he sees Iraq not "as we want it to be," and not "as it ought to be," but as it truly is. And in so doing, he has called for the division of Iraq into three separate states rather than trying to hold it together as a single nation.

From the late 1200s until World War I, the land we call Iraq was under the control of the Ottoman Empire. And during the time, there were three states in the region: Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra. That's a long time, folks. After the defeat of the Ottoman Turks in WWI, the European victors tried to create a sovereign nation - Iraq - out of these disparate pieces. One of the casualties of carving up the Ottoman Empire was the separation of the Kurds across four nations: Iran,k Iraq, Turkey, and Syria.

Since then, the Kurds have been one of the most harassed people-groups on earth. In 1925 Turkey suppressed the Kurds, and outlawed their language and cultural expressions. In 1961 the Kurds began rebelling against the Iraqi government, and fighting has continued in fits and starts since then. In 1979, when Islamic Fundamentalists took over Iran, Kurds fought the Islamicists and were brutally suppressed in that nation. In 1988, Iraq engaged in "Al-Anfal," ('The Spoils of War'), and slaughtered thousands of Kurds. One and a half million Kurds fled to Turkey, which, at the time, was the lesser of four evils. During the first Persian Gulf War, the Kurds supported the US invasion and rebelled against Saddam Hussein. Their reward was to be slaughtered when Saddam was permitted to remain in power. Throughout the 1990s, Kurds were subject to raids by Turkish forces crossing the border into Iraq. Finally, in the most recent Iraqi engagement, the Kurds steadfastly opposed Saddam (after thousands had been maimed, killed, and gassed with toxic chemicals by his regime), and assisted the American and European forces.

Since that time, the Kurdish region of Iraq has been stable. The sectarian violence that plagues the Shiites and Sunni Muslims in Baghdad is practically non-existent in Iraqi Kurdistan. While the Kurds live in relative autonomy right now, it came at a price: they still have no homeland of their own, and the oil-rich lands around Kirkuk and Mosul - traditional Kurdish cities - have been wrested from them and given to the Sunnis & Shiites who continue to be engaged in a civil war with each other.

For over 700 years, Iraq existed as three states. Today, the Kurds have suffered at the ends of Iraq and the surrounding states, bore the brunt of Saddam's cruelty, have assisted the west in every endeavor, and have shown themselves capable of peaceful and effective government - and yet, their reward is still to be a people without a homeland, in an Iraqi nation with make-believe borders imposed by Britain after WWI.

It's time to listen to Thompson, give the Kurds their own homeland, and let the Shiites and Sunnis fight their own battles with each other. And time to listen to Feingold, and not just talk about ending a war and whining about it, but actually doing it.

"As Maine goes..."

Starting in about 1840, Maine became known as a political 'bellweather' state, largely because Mainers voted for Governor and Congress in September, not November. With a two month jump on the rest of the country, pundits jumped on the Maine vote to look for voting trends, and indeed, Maine appeared to be a reliable predicter of the national mood up until the FDR years. Somewhere along the line, someone coined the phrase, "As Maine goes, so goes the nation."

Let's hope not.

In the name of political correctness (from the liberals), fighting terrorism (from the neoconservatives), and moral propriety (from the social conservatives), Free Speech is dying an ugly death throughout the state.

The University of Maine at Presque Isle’s Residence Hall Guide contains a policy that prohibits harassment. Part of that policy reads: “Even if the harassment is unintentional, it still occurs and will not be tolerated.”

Excuse me? You can now harass someone, and not even know you're doing it - and be punished for it?! Since when did people gain a right to never be offended by someone? I guess if you're not enlightened in matters of the latest politically correct words, you may be punished simply for plain-speaking. You are guilty if someone doesnt like what you said, no matter what your intention was.

As the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education states on their webiste, "...As a public university, UMPI cannot prohibit speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has defined what schools may legitimately prohibit as harassment: conduct “so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively bars the victim’s access to an educational opportunity or benefit.” By definition, then, an unintentional, off-hand comment or joke cannot be harassment, making this policy legally untenable. This policy is also completely ridiculous. How can a college prepare its students for the real world if it shields them from even the most mild offense? Society is full of people with different personalities and different viewpoints, and being offended is a part of everyday life. It is a disservice to lead young adults to believe they can breeze through life free from offense, because that simply does not reflect reality."

But Maine's assault on free speech is not rrestricted to the campus.

In Portland, Tom Connolly faces charges of terrorizing, reckless conduct, and criminal threatening. Why? Because on Halloween he dressed up as Osama bin Laden, and even carried a plastic squirt gun.

Oh my, imagine that. For 5 years Osama has eluded world wide military scrutiny, and there he was, sauntering down the street in Portland Maine. Yup, I would have believed that he had just flown in for a glass of wine in the Old Port District.... Might the costume have been in poor taste? Yup. Is poor taste illegal? Nope. Have we become so obsessed with terror that now we arrest people playing dress-up on Halloween? Was thatscarier than some of the blood-dripping, eye-ball festering, razor-tooth masks worn at Halloween? Perhaps Maine could outlaw all offensive Halloween costumes, even if they offend unintentionally..that would be consistent with the campus rules, at least...

But the latest blow to free speech came when a British Beer Company attempted to sell "Santa's Butt" in Maine. The label shows Santa from behind, sitting on a Butt (a barrel used in beer fermentation) hoisting a glass of ale.

The Maine authorities prohibited its sale in the state. The Maine Bureau of Liquor Enforcement said the label was considered "undignified and improper."

Since when is "Undiginified and Improper" a legal reason to stifle speech? I can think of many political rants that are both 'undignified and improper.'

The point is, it really shouldnt matter whether someone considers something 'undignified and improper.' That speech which is MOST offensive is PRECISELY that speech that needs to be vigilantly protected under the US Constitution. If it wasn't offensive, it wouldnt need to be protected! Someone may feel that espousing Nazi or Eugenicist philsophies is offensive, and so be it, they are. But it is still protected speech.

NO ONE HAS A RIGHT TO "NEVER BE OFFENDED." Deal with it, Mainers....

In a twist, Maine and other states (notably New York) have realized that they really can't prohibit something because its in 'poor taste.' Now both states are changing their tactic, suggesting that having Santa on the label would 'attract children' to drink it.

Nice try, guys...but there are already 12 Christmas-themed beers in both of those states, including Sam Adams "Old Fezziwig's Ale" and Anchor's "Merry Christmas" Ale. Other brands shows elves. And what 6-year old, enamoured of the picture of Santa, is going to saunter out of the grocery store with a 6-pack under his arm?

The problem here, as always, is that someone with the power of the state behind them believes it is their solemn duty to protect the rest of us: to protect us from being offended, upset, mislead, or scandalized.

Well, that's not your job, buckos. Get off your high horse and let the market determine whether Santa's Butt has a place at the table. We're adults, we can make our own decisions, and don't need you to make them for us.
Santa's Butt

When will the Right stop pretending to be Holier-Than-Thou?

Mark Foley is not the first conservative to have been 'exposed' as a homosexual. And it is sad that his lawyer immediately tried to explain' his situation by revealing that he was sexually abused as a child, an deffor aimed at calming the fears of the militantly loyal (and righteous) religious right. After all, the right has 'tolerated' Dick Cheney's daughter (hey, after all, it is DICK CHENEY'S daughter, right?).

But what about the parade that has preceded this little scandal currently unfolding?

Anyone remember Mel White, press seceretary to Jerry Falwell and behind-the-scenes political operative for a dozen religious right politicos? He not only came out, he smashed the door down and pubished a book about it- "Stranger at the Gate."

And then there was Art Finkelstein, the pollster who enabled the Nassau County Republican machine to maintain its grip on the elctorate for a decade or more, and who propelled Alphonse D'Amato from a Town Presiding Supervisor to a U S. Senator.

How about Bob Baumann, former conservative darling and congressman from Maryland?

And now lets really reach back..back when I was a mere twenty-something, and Terry Dolan was the Chairman of NCPAC (the National Conservative Poitcial Action Committee) that propelled Ronald Reagan into the White House. I knew Terry, and worked on campaigns with him at the YAF headquarters at 25 Jane Street in Greenwich Village. A young man, Terry died in the AIDs crisis that exploded in the 1980s...and had the courage to come out as a gay man at that time.

No, my friends, there is nothing new about Gay Men who are otherwise conservative, hiding in the closets of their parent organizations, lest they be exposed, ridiculed, and shunned. Perhaps this Boston Globe editotial by David Link says it best:

"The inability to deal straightforwardly with gay people leads to other kinds of truth-avoidance when things go south. But that's what comes from not wanting to know something, and going out of your way to remain ignorant.

We've come a long way since homosexuals had two basic options: the closet or jail. But a good portion of the electorate, most of them Republican, still seems to long for the good old days when we didn't have to think about ``those people." Both Libertarians and, generally, the Democratic Party have withdrawn their official support for the closet over time. States, too, are seeing what a losing battle this is, and allowing homosexuals to live their lives in conformity with, rather than opposition to, the law.

But that leaves Republicans and the religious right trying to live a 1950s lie in the new millennium. As Foley prepared in 2003 to run for the Senate, newspapers in Florida and elsewhere published stories about his homosexuality. But you'd never hear any of his colleagues saying such a thing. And Foley himself refused to discuss the issue, until his lawyer acknowledged Wednesday that the former congressman is indeed gay.

But what can one expect from denying grown men -- and women -- a normal, adult sex life? Whether the denial of adult intimacy comes from religious conviction or the ordinary urge toward conformity, people who run away from their sexuality nearly always have to answer to nature somehow. For people who fear abiding and mutual love, the trust and confusion of the young is a godsend. Add to that the perquisites of power, and a degenerate is born.

...the Republican Party in Washington guarantees its own future calamities in its enduring and steadfast habit of pretending that, unlike heterosexuality, homosexuality can be either denied or suppressed."

Foley

The "Federal Marriage Amendment" - once again, Christian Conservatives look to the Beast for help...

Much was made in Enquirer-like circles of the fact that this week started with the date "06/06/06," a reminder of the "Mark of the Beast" in the Book of Revelations. It is a symbol that the End-Times Crowd has often warned about - and so it is increasingly ironic that many of the same Christian Conservatives and Republicans went running to the Beast this week in order to 'preserve' marriage. The Beast, of course, is how I refer to the Federal Government.

For decades, the Republicans have been telling us that they stand for smaller government, for limited government, for local control rather than federal fiats imposed on the states. This was one of Ronald Reagan's key mantras in the 1980s than helped propel him to two unprecendented landslide victories.

But do the Republicans really believe what they are saying?

In the last few years, this "small government" crowd has overseen the largest expansion of federal power since the Civil War - even more so than the much-derided New Deal under FDR. The Patriot Act, telephone surveillance, the development of a national ID card (REAL ID), warrantless searches, secret prisons and detainees held without bail or charges are not the actions of a "small government" crowd.

Of course, some try to tortuously defend all this by claiming we are at war. And yet, that doesn't explain the intrusive "No Child Left Behind" Act, the efforts by the Food & Drug Administration to regulate herbal supplements and fight state laws on medical marajuana, the efforts by Congress to interfere in major league baseball policy, the bloated budget, tariffs on steel and textiles, a government-expanded medicare boondoggle, or the abysmal deficit. These are not the acts of "small government" or "local control" thinking, and they can not be excused as temporary "war-time" acts. What they are is an unconscionable and unconstitutional expansion of Federal jurisdiction over the rights reserved to the States and to the People themselves (See your 10th amendment to the Bill of Rights).

And amazingly, the footsoldiers of Republicanism - the supposedly anti-big-government rank-and-file social religious conservatives - are in the vanguard of supporting the administration that has achieved the largest expansion of federal power in history.

And then comes the Federal Marriage Amendment.

Oh sure, it's great political hay. The Republican leadership can 'energize' its base by appealing to their emotion on the issue of 'gay marriage' and 'activist judges.' This is a formula that regularly works for the Republicans. And to be sure, many judges are activist, and inappropriately so. But a Federal Marriage Amendment is quite possibly the last leg of a journey whereby the lemmings chase each other off the cliff.

The Federal Government has NEVER had jurisdiction over 'family' issues. These issues have ALWAYS been the province of the states.

Indiviual states decide what the criteria for marriage are. Residency, minimum age, and blood tests vary from state to state. It's a state right, not federal.

Individual states decide what the criteria for divorce is. Abandonment, residency, cruelty, irreconcilable differences, alcoholism, impotency, imprisonment, and a host of other causes of action for divorce, as well as alimony terms, are different from state to state.

Other issues of Family law, such as adoption regulations, the legal status of private adoptions, teenage emancipation, and the legal definitions of abuse and neglect - are ALL individual state laws.

And somehow, we have always left these issues to the states, the states have always had conflicting and different standards, and civilization did not fall apart because of it. Rather, we are stronger for it: the genuius of our Constitution is that it recognizes that one size does not have to fit all, that Alaskans do not have to run their towns the way Floridians do, and that the sensibilities of Mexican immigrants in Arizona might be significantly different from tenth generation Maine Yankees.

By running to amend the Constitution, the religious right is doing precisly that which they supposedly fear: they are running to the federal government to impose a one-size-fits all solution on the entire nation, and, in so doing, seeking to hand over yet more jurisdiction over individual families to Federal Power.

It doesnt matter whether you favor gay marriage or not. This is the wrong approach, and is yet anoter examnple of how the 'small government' Republicans are using emotional scare tactics to amass even greater authority and jurisdiction in Washington.

Sincere apprecition must be expressed to the New England Republicans - Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe (Maine), John Sununu and Judd Gregg (NH) and Lincoln Chaffee (Rhode Island) who bucked their own party to vote against this nonsense.

Federal Marriage Amendment

Time for Patriots to stand firm: NO National ID Card!

"I will reject a REAL-ID-compliant NH drivers license/National ID but
only if 199 other NH residents or soon-to-be residents will vow to do
the same."— BikerBill, NH Freedom Fighter

Deadline: Election Day, November 7, 2006

On May 11, 2005, the Orwellian, unconstitutional, unfunded legislation known as the REAL-ID Act, having been snuck through the US Congress without any debate or public scrutiny, was signed into law by a President who believes he is above his country's laws.

On May 11, 2006, a day that will live in NH history as either the start of the revolution or the true beginning of death throes for liberty, sovereignty and representative government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" in NH (and coincidentally the same day the massive NSA phone records database story broke), the NH Senate decided to defiantly, arrogantly and repeatedly disregard the Constitutions of the US and NH, the NH House, Gov Lynch, the Concord Monitor, the Manchester Union Leader, its own study committee and its laughably lopsided
testimony, as well as its rather vocal NH constituency, not to mention international press and organizations as disparate as the Cato Institute and the ACLU.

The New Hampshire House voted to defy the federal national ID card mandate.

But the NH Senate killed the bill sent to them from the House.

Rather, they chose illusory safety over essential liberty. They sold out their constituents, rejected HB1582, and embraced Federal unconstitutional authority in giddy anticipation of $3M in taxpayer-funded "sucker money."

They thus failed their duty, their oath, their citizens, their state, and their country. They are a true and bitter embarrassment to the Founding Fathers and the historic "Live Free or Die" culture of NH.

Let this message of jealously guarded liberty be sent to the NH Senate in no uncertain terms by their similarly defiant bosses (that's you) by Election Day, 2006.

Pledge to Refuse a Real ID

Real ID

My new Celtic Armband Tattoo

This was my first Tattoo, and I am totally jazzed about it. It took 4 1/2 hours start to finish. On a pain scale of 0-10, it was mostly only a 1 (less painful than a mosquito bite) for the outline on my upper arm. As we got to the second or third layer of color on the underside of my arm near my pit, it was more like....er....ripping off strips of flesh and then exposing the remaining raw arm to an open flame...LOL! Actually, I may be hooked on the Pain..heh, heh, heh....

In all honesty, the artist and the parlor were great, professional, friendly, upbeat, and better than all my expectations. Major league thanks to Chris Molloy, the artist who designed the band, and Moms Tattoo parlor in Keene, NH (www.MomsTattoo.com)

Celt
Tattoo

A Tale of Two Cities: Copenhagen and Washington

This time, there is nothing "rotten in denmark," to quote Hamlet. In fact, tiny Denmark is standing as a beacon of freedom and civilization against a backdrop of intolerant Islamic fundamentalism and spineless American hand-wringing.

Last fall, the Jyllands-Posten, a Danish newspaper, published 12 cartoon caricatures of Mohammed. Denmark has a long tradition of guaranteeing freedom of the press, and the cartoons immediately caused an uprising among Islamicists. Palestinaians have rioted in Gaza. Arab nations have withdrawn their ambassadors. Muslim spokesmen have requested UN intervention. Muslim states have embarked on a campaign to boycott all danish products. Even Denmark's fellow European states are hedging their bets and trying to make excuses and find a 'middle ground.'

The Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), representing 57 Muslim states and territories, issued a memorandum on January 1 accusing the Danish government of "indifference" after Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen declined to intervene in the dispute. It should be noted that more than three-quarters of his fellow countrymen agree with his stand. His parties foreign affairs spokesman, Troels Lund, stated "It is important to stand our ground and say that we have a separation of powers in Denmark and something called freedom of expression."

Well, bully for the Danes! This is the same small state whose Christian citizens, when overrun by Hitlers'armies in WWII, rose in solidarity with their fellow Jews and wore yellow Stars of David. Today - when Islamic Fundamentalism seeks to silence any human expression it deems offensive (art, movies, music, prose, poetry, theater, even news) - Denmark is an example of freedoms that western civilization has always held dear. What a statement it would be if the free world would join the "Anti-Boycott" and purchase Tuborg Gold and Carlsberg Beers, and Havarti Cheese and Danish Butter Cookies in solidarity with Denmark's government.

A petition to support Denmark can be found here:

http://new.petitiononline.com/danmark/petition-sign.html?

Meanwhile, in Washington, the State Department has joined with the Islamicists, stating that the cartoons were 'offensive' and that freedom of the press must be balanced with 'responsibility.' In other words, if your message is anything but bland, it shouldn't be protected. As a practical example of this eradication of First Amendment rights, anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested for wearing a shirt with an anti-war message to the State of the Union speech.

It's a sad day when the US government claims to be fighting Islamic terrorism while adopting their mentality...

Denmark
Jyllands-Posten
Anti-Boycott

Impeach Bush....Now.

In the 1950's, far too many Repubicans stood around in silent assent as Joseph McCarthy engaged in planned character assasination. Then, as now, the country feared an outside power, and it took a stong backbone to stand up and say "enough!."

That backbone came in the person of Margaret Chase Smith, (R-Maine), who delivered her now-famous "Declaration of Conscience" Speech on the floor of the U. S. Senate. The McCarthy juggernaut was finally put to rest because of the courage of one woman.

Do we have any statesman ready to stand up today?

Understand that your Blogger voted for Bush - twice. My ancestors arrived in Nieuw Amsterdam in the 1600s and were New York GOP activists for as long as there has been a Republican Party in the Empire State. My break with the party of my heritage has been a long, drawn-out and painful process, but has accelerated as I have watched the Bush administration and its supporters turn the party of 'limited government and liberty' into one that has turned our Federal Government into an all-powerful police state.

My call today for Bush's impeachment is based on three very simple items, which, taken together, form a pretty solid case:

Item #1:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” (U. S. Constitution, Amendment IV)

Item #2:

[The President shall] take the following Oath or Affirmation: - “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the president of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Item 3:

“President Bush acknowledged on Saturday that he had ordered the National Security Agency to conduct an electronic eavesdropping program in the United States without first obtaining warrants, and said he would continue the highly classified program because it was "a vital tool in our war against the terrorists." (New York Times, 17 Dec 2005)

Surely these actions are far more grevious than Clinton's dallying with an intern, and have a far greater significance. It's time the Republicans acknowledge the rot within their own ranks.

impeach bush

Pat Robertson is an Embarassment to Christianity

In yet another outburst that leaves sensible people shaking their heads, Televangelist Pat Robertson has ranted against the town of Dover, Pennsylvania, where voters recently ousted all 8 members of a school board that had required "Intelligent Design" instruction.

Robertson stated, “I’d like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don’t turn to God, you just rejected him from your city. And don’t wonder why he hasn’t helped you when problems begin, if they begin. I’m not saying they will, but if they do, just remember, you just voted God out of your city. And if that’s the case, don’t ask for his help because he might not be there.”

Where does one begin?

Well, as a Christian, I feel I must begin by asking people *not* to think that Roberston represents any semblance of theologially sound Christianity when he pulls these political stunts. Please do not associate the majority of us with this lunatic.

Next, I guess I have to ask Pat, "How do you know what was in each voter's heart as he or she cast their vote?"

No doubt some voters rejected this board because their town was plunged into an expensive unresolved lawsuit and they are unwilling to fund it with their rising property taxes. Perhaps some agree with intelligent design but found the board members too acerbic. Perhaps some agree with Creationism, but reject the specific line-by-line precept approach many Intelligent Design advocates have developed to explain the disappearance of dinosaurs, the ice age, tectonic plate movements, rain, etc. Perhaps some are devout Christians who believe in the evolution of species, but the special creation of Man.

Casting a vote is a highly personal and complex decision. I have voted for candidates with whom I have disagreed philsophically because "my" candidate had poor ethics. I have voted "against" candidates rather than "for" candidates. I have weighed differences and voted for the 'lesser of two evils.' It's not as cut and dry as you would have us believe, Pat.

But most outrageous Pat, is your arrogance in proclaiming that you know how God operates, and your telling people not to call upon Him in their times of need. To suggest that God will take His toys and go home because your candidates lost is juvenile. In fact, it reminds me of Eliphaz, Zophar, Bildad, and Elihu sitting around arguing with Job, each insisting that they knew God's ways and explaining just why Job was suffering so.

In the end, even Job attempted to explain God's interaction with man, and, when God answered him out of the whirlwind, Job finally understood when he said:

"...I put my hand over my mouth. I spoke once, but i have no answer - - twice, but I will say no more....Surely I spoke of things I did not understand, things too wonderful for me to know" - Job 40:4b-5, 42:3b [NIV]

I think Job has some sound advice for you, Pat....

pat

Economic Illiteracy in the Pulpit

It is now quite fashionable in many Christian circles to be an “Environmentalist Christian.” Terms like “Creation Care,” and “Social Justice,” and “Environmental Justice” seem to roll off tongues like other media clichés. Caring for the grass and the whales is getting more attention in some church circles than clothing the naked and feeding the hungry.

Now, don’t think that I’m one of those callous earth-haters. On my little hilltop farm, I bred Jacob Sheep precisely because they were a rare and endangered species. Our garden is strictly organic, and I can spend hours sitting in a meadow, walking through the woods, or canoeing in a marsh. I have a great deal of respect for the cycles of the seasons and the rhythms of the year…yes, I do have a few drops of mystical Celtic blood in me...

But that doesn’t mean that in the passion of environmental exuberance I should cast all other important aspects of life to the wind. I still have financial and family responsibilities. Political and economic issues surround us all in a hundred ways every day. Issues of the very soul go deeper still…and yet, some of our religious spokespersons, in their genuine excitement for a reawakening of environmental consciousness, have gone so overboard as to overstep their expertise, preach a false and dysfunctional message, and mislead their flocks. I would suggest that the Ship of the Church is currently listing about eight points to starboard due to unevenly distributed ecological ballast….

I was used to this, of course, in some evangelical circles. “Creation Care” magazine and the social justice crowd there and at Eastern University offer a veritable smorgasbord of animal rights, anti-business socialists dressing up their philosophy in theology. As a participant in last years' "Microfinance and Environment Conference" at Eastern, I witnessed the fervency with which some other participants embraced feminist agendas and global warming hysteria. Fortunately, due to the fractious, decentralized nature of Protestantism, they can be ignored. It is more difficult when these views come from hierarchical leaders with Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

On October 1, St Vladimir’s Seminary in Crestwood, NY (the seminary of the Orthodox Church in America) held their annual “Orthodox Education Day.” The Rev. Thomas Hopko, Dean of the Seminary, gave a lecture geared for the clergy that I attended (and no, I am neither clergy nor a candidate for said position…). He declared that the problems of society could be summed up by the values embodied by the god “Nike.” On the whiteboard, he identified those ‘problems’ as being characterized as the “P’s,” writing a long list of words beginning with the letter “P” that were problematic. Among these were “Pornography,” “Power,” and “Prestige.” Then of course, he added the filthiest P-word of them all: “Profit.”

Apparently, it never occurred to him that the reason he was able to put on a pair of eyeglasses that morning was because someone earned a profit examining his eyes and making the frames and cutting the lenses. He didn’t stop to think that the whiteboard on which he wrote was made available for his use because the company that manufactured it made a profit. He didn’t quite explain how the enormous book sale taking place in the tent on the lawn outside the class was kept stocked with hundreds of titles without the mechanism of “profit.” Nor did he quite explain how a seminary could survive in high-priced Westchester County, New York without benefactors who make donations out of the profit made by their personal labor.

I am sorry to sound so sarcastic, but I am just so tired of clergy who insist on pontificating on economic topics, though they may be clueless on the subject. A roomful of young, impressionable black-robed students, clergy and clergy candidates sat nodding their heads in agreement…and I noted that St. Vladimir’s does not even offer any courses in business or economics. What half-baked notions will these men bring with them to their future homilies?

Last weekend I attended a different event, “Wealth and Poverty in Early Christianity," sponsored by the Pappas Institute at Holy Cross College (this being the Greek Orthodox Seminary in the US). A wide range of speakers from both secular and sacred backgrounds presented a truly wonderful program – the best ‘professional development’ opportunity I have ever attended, in fact. Unfortunately, the scholarship was compromised by the presence of the Roman Catholic President (and treasurer) of Boston Catholic Charities, the Rev. J. Bryan Hehir. Riding the “Social Justice” train, Rev. Hehir proceeded to criticize those who oppose taxation and programmatic largesse to help the poor. He stated that the philosophy of the [Roman] Catholic Church is such that one need not rely on the Church for implementing the church’s programs, but that other institutions – including Government – are appropriate and even necessary agents to achieve the Church’s goals. He defended Government taxation and wealth redistribution, because, (and I wrote this quote down)

“otherwise, the poor would be at the mercy of the generosity of individuals.”

Ummmm…..yeah? And? Who would you have them at the mercy of, Rev. Hehir? Of bureaucrats? Of Systems and Instructions (not that you have a vested interest in that, would you?) Of those who make their living by insuring the continuity of the poverty-relief system? Of those who take a cut of every offering made and give what’s left to the poor? How does a ‘man of the cloth’ take such a dim view of voluntary Christian generosity? Are you jaded because the world has not given to your institution as mush as you believe you need?

If I am ever destitute, I pray that I am held in the mercy of real people, of caring neighbors, of people with eyes to see and arms to hug - and not a waiting room and interminable lines at government institutions.

I should not end this without giving praise and credit where it is due. His Eminence Archbishop Demetrios, Primate of the Greek Orthodox Church in North & South America, also spoke. But the Primate’s talk consisted of a series of stories – vignettes of real people, how he has seen individuals helping individuals, even poor people assisting other poor people during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. And the overwhelming sense he conveyed was that of our individual responsibilities to our fellow man and woman.

That is a breath of fresh air. I’ll continue to promote the importance of profit and economic expansion, and the need to voluntarily support the poor around us. And I think I’m in good company, according to the writer of Proverbs 31:10-31

10 Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies. 11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. 12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. 13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands. 14 She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar. 15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. 16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard. 17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms. 18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night. 19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff. 20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy. 21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household: for all her household are clothed with scarlet. 22 She maketh herself coverings of tapestry; her clothing is silk and purple. 23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land. 24 She maketh fine linen, and selleth it; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant. 25 Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come. 26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. 27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. 28 Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. 29 Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. 30 Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. 31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.

As the Free State grapples with gay marriage...

Last night, a committee of New Hampshire legislators held an open hearing in Keene, NH, soliciting testimony as to how the state ought to deal with the issues of ‘civil unions’ or ‘gay marriage.’ An organized effort by both gay-rights groups and evangelical churches insured that the room was packed to overflowing, and that battle lines were drawn. Each speaker was limited to three minutes.

The discussion over the possibility of extending marital rights to other domestic partnerships was defined by positions which were mutually exclusive of each other. In addition, each of those positions also fell short of a solution to the many issue that were raised. No matter which ‘option’ is chosen – the current arrangement, gay marriage, or civil unions (as currently defined), someone loses and the arguments will continue.

On one hand, those who wish to maintain the current definition and rights inherent in heterosexual marriage saw attempts to change that as an attempt to change the social, cultural, political, and religious sensibilities to benefit a small minority. Those who would expand and those who would retain the current definition of marriage are asking the State to interfere in what is primarily an ecclesiastical rite. The fact that New Hampshire has chosen, like most states, to define marriage at all (even heterosexually) means that it has already stuck its toe into ecclesiastical waters.

At the same time, the development of a parallel universe of Vermont-style “civil unions,” as popularly conceived, is wholly inadequate. If it’s the exact same thing as marriage, then it is merely a semantic subterfuge. Regardless, it creates a ‘separate but equal’ status for gay couples, and still fails to address to rights, responsibilities, and needs of other households that are not based on sexual activity at all.

What I proposed last night tonight was a different approach that affords protection to all who seek it. What follows is part of that testimony:

“…I do not think that that State ought to have any role in defining the boundaries, purposes, or roles in marriage. Marriage is an Eccelesiastical sacrament, and should come under the purview of the Church and the Church alone - not the state, and not the Church-as-agent-of-the-State. When left to the Church, the sacrament maintains its integrity as a sacrament - not a tax status or organizational tool. If a Church wants to marry two gay men, so be it. If a Church wants to prohibit gay marriage and condemn homosexuality, so be it. Get the State out of the Churches entirely, and let them operate according to their own doctrine and consciences.

On the other hand, the State and society *does* have a vested interest in maintaining stable households. Throughout history, these households have taken many forms - and many of them have not been actively "sexual" at all. The "Mom-Dad-Kids" household is a recent product of the 1950s. Prior to that, households often included an aunt, a grandma, a neighbor's kid, etc. Colonial and pioneer families were more likely to be extended families - including those of no blood relationship whatsoever - than "nuclear" families. Between the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, the majority of marriages west of the Appalachians were common-law marriages that existed without formal state approval at all. Certainly, whenever such people make a commitment to each other, the state ought not to interfere. Rather, they ought to recognize and encourage the arrangement as a private contractual agreement to share rights and responsibilities. The application of intestacy statutes, hospital visitation rights and medical decisions, and responsibilities for debts incurred are normal and natural aspects of household life, and the state need not be in the business of deciding that some households should have those rights while others shouldn’t.

So what am I getting at?

1) Take Marriage away from the legislatures and the courts all together. Let the issue of marriage revert to being a sacrament administered by Ecclesiastical bodies alone, under their own rules without state interference or definitions.

2) Let the State acknowledge a new kind of Civil Union, which is based on Economic Stability, not sexual relations. Under such an arrangement, an elderly brother and sister (think of Marilla and Matthew in Anne of Green Gables) could just as easily be a "civil union" as a husband-wife couple, a single woman and her grandma, two gays, or two best friends who happened to live in a non-sexual house after retirement. Churches would grant marriage certificates under their own rules, and the State would issue Civil Union decrees which simply acknowledge the intent of people to live, love, and be responsible for each other, efficiently granting them a full set of rights in law.

In such a situation, The Church maintains the integrity of her Sacraments. The State recognizes - and grants security - to the many forms that households take. And, it all occurs without Christians or gays or secularists or social workers or politicians or anyone else using the State as a tool to impose a particular view of society.

Kelo v. New London: Mob Rule and Might-Makes-Right

In what will go down in history as perhaps one of the most significant nails in the coffin of American Liberty, the U. S. Supreme Court today, by a 5-4 vote, expanded the right of a city (New London, CT) to take any private property it wants so that ‘private’ development which has some ‘public good’ (such as increased tax revenues) may proceed.

In this case, the private property consists of people's homes. Never mind that one family lived in the same house for 60 years. Never mind that one man sold sandwiches for 21 years to buy his house.

The City Planners decided that they would prefer an upscale, tourist-and-shopper retail experience, and decided to take these homes by eminent domain – and in the process, enrich favored city developers. And they decided that "the people" – acting through their elected officials – have the right to run roughshod over the property rights of the minority simply because they were (1) numerous or (2) powerful. Oh, and yeah, (3) Because They Wanted It. (I weaned my children of the notion that they can take something simply because they want it when they were about three years old...)

Might Makes Right. The Mob Rule (and Reign of Terror) of the French Revolution is here.

Frederic Bastiat explained this over 150 years ago in his treatise, “The Law:”

“… the fatal tendency that exists in the heart of man to satisfy his wants with the least possible effort, explains the almost universal perversion of the law. Thus it is easy to understand how law, instead of checking injustice, becomes the invincible weapon of injustice. It is easy to understand why the law is used by the legislator to destroy in varying degrees among the rest of the people, their personal independence by slavery, their liberty by oppression, and their property by plunder. This is done for the benefit of the person who makes the law, and in proportion to the power that he holds….”

…imagine that this fatal principle has been introduced: Under the pretense of organization, regulation, protection, or encouragement, the law takes property from one person and gives it to another; the law takes the wealth of all and gives it to a few — whether farmers, manufacturers, ship owners, artists, or comedians. Under these circumstances, then certainly every class will aspire to grasp the law, and logically so.

…As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose — that it may violate property instead of protecting it — then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious. To know this, it is hardly necessary to examine what transpires in the French and English legislatures; merely to understand the issue is to know the answer.

….how is…..legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime.

Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law — which may be an isolated case — is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system.

….Do not listen to….sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present-day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it. “

Would that we would listen to this man.....In the meantime, perhaps a boycott of New London might be a response for those who still believe in Liberty...

Kelo

Calling Interference on Congress....

OK, easy quiz: Which of the following words or phrases does not belong:

“Ground Rule Double, Pitcher, Yankees, Shortstop, World Series, Dugout, Congress.”

Hmmmm….that was hard, wasn’t it? Actually, for the self-appointed Inquisitors looking into the steroid ‘crisis’ in Baseball, that is a hard question. Somehow our friendly politicians have decided that only they can determine the rules and penalties under which baseball is played, thus saving the sport from itself.

God help us. Next they’ll be dictating the temperature at which Apple Pies must be baked.

The Congressional Breast-Beaters believe that they are the only solution to whatever perceived problem there is concerning ‘roids. What they have never understood, and still don’t understand, and I guess never will, is that Free Markets are always a more effective and efficient arbiter of ‘problems’ than Congress is.

Long before Congress started holding committee meetings to decide what to do about the Enron scandal, the Market had already reacted. Shareholders and investors pummeled Enron in a matter of days, punishing the company for its transgressions. While Congress talked and argued, the Market decided that Enron should die for its shenanigans. We really didn’t need Congress to say, do , or legislate *anything.*

In an effort to be ‘tough on drugs” and appear in a glamorous setting with sports superstars, the McCarthyesque drama began with an attempt to tear down Mark McGwire. Congress insisted that there was Trouble, Big Trouble, and that starts with T and that rhymes with P…..ooooops, sorry, wrong demagogue…...They insisted that the American Public needed protection from the druggies, demanded honesty from the players, and were outraged at the prospect of steroid use in professional sports.

But how did “we” the public actually feel? How did the Market react? Quite frankly, the McGwire-Sosa rivalry is credited with bringing Major league Baseball back into popularity after fans became disgusted with MLB after the players strike. In fact, the Market has sent the message that it likes Baseball. While Congress may see some Phantom of disgust, the fact is that fans are attending MLB games in increasing numbers.

If the Fans, or the Players Unions, or the Players themselves, or anyone else thought there was a problem, or unfairness, surely all of them have mechanisms to already to address those issues. Since when does Congress need to poke its nose in?

“Ah, but those are America’s heroes! Children are watching them!,” counter our politicians, those Paragons of Virtue and Heroism. “Since children watch them, they need to be held to a higher level!” they say.

Well, when I was a kid, statesmen were my heroes. I read about Lincoln and Jefferson and Washington and a host of politicians. If Congress is so intent on setting a good example, why not concentrate on their own house?

Ah yes, the makeup of the Steroid Scandal Committee is quite interesting.

There’s Tom Davis, who introduced legislation to prohibit government auditors from examining contractors billing records (I’ve never quite figured out how you conduct a fair audit under those conditions.) Or Tom Lantos, the hit-and-run driver who ran over a kid in Massachusetts and sped away in spite of the pleas and shouts of the crowd. Or Jim Bunning, who refused to recuse himself from considering his sons appointment to an appellate judgeship (the American Bar Association expressed “serious doubts” over his appointment). Or Henry Waxman, who strenuously opposes tort reform (for the public good, of course), but whose #1 contributor is the membership of the Association of Trial Lawyers.

Ah, yes, upstanding committee members who set an example for today’s youth, huh? These fine men have suggested that a Baseball player should be forced to sit out 50 games in the event of a ‘steroid’ use, since the youth of America is looking up to them.
Do they think the youth of America does not see what its elected officials do as well? Perhaps each time a Congressman does something that sets a poor example for America’s youth, we should make them sit out the next 50 votes. Or the next 50 elections……

Sitting on my shelf is a bottle of ProLab ThermaPro, a thermogenic designed to raise metabolism and help burn fat. I used this (same basic ingredients as the old Hydroxycut and Xenadrine) several summers ago, while running in the hot Dakota sun every morning while trying to lose weight and tone up (mission: successful!). Ah, but this product contains ephedrine!!! [crowd gasps in horror in the background.] When I used it in 2002, I was using a sports supplement. When the FDA banned it last year, I became the possessor of an illegal substance. When the Court overturned the FDA ban, I was an upstanding citizen again. Then the FDA declared that my 20 mg ephedrine was greater than the amount in the court case, and was illegal, and presto-chango, I’m a criminal again.

And this has been the history of steroids and sports supplements. The non-steroidal Androstendione which was available in every health and vitamin store a few years ago, all of a sudden disappeared because the FDA arbitrarily decided that since it was only “one step away” from a steroid, it is now illegal. However, DHEA, which is two steps away from a steroid, is still OK (for now…stock up while supplies last….)

The steroids that Jose Canseco mentions being used in MLB were by and large completely legal in 1980. Many of them are still legal in much of the world, including industrialized nations such as Germany and Holland. Some (Fina) can be made of 100% legal substances in your kitchen. Others are legal as veterinary substances.

The history of Sports is the history of going the extra mile and being slightly better than anyone and everyone else. Athletes give up much of their personal lives and incur a great personal cost in training. They regulate what they eat. They take vitamin supplements such as Calcium. They take Glutamine to prevent muscle breakdown. They take Milk Thistle and ALA to keep their livers healthy. They take Glucosomine to help repair their stressed joints, and if they’re in trouble, they get shots from their doctors. Some take “stacks” to raise metabolism and speed weight-loss (like my illegal aspirin-caffeine-ephedrine stack). They use Creatine as a muscle volumizer and NO2 to increase muscle pump, while downing extra-heavy whey-protein isolate shakes to increase food to muscle cells. Somewhere along the line Congress is going to find out that many use insulin to increase food nutrition entering the muscle cells as well. Some use 2-step-away prohormones like DHEA, others used 1-step-away-prohormones.’

And yes, some use steroids. Yes, the bar is constantly raised. In the effort to be bigger, better, stronger, greater. And if anyone thinks that taking steroids means you take a pill and you’re suddenly Hulk, they are sadly misinformed. Guys who take steroid injections and just ‘wait’ for the effects find themselves fat and tired. An athlete who has chosen to use steroids will be working his butt off 5-6 days a week in grueling workouts. There is no ‘free ride’ by using steroids.

It is amazing, isn’t it? If someone goes to Beverly Hills and forks over $10,000 to a surgeon to have 40 pounds of lard sucked out of their gut in a two-hour operation, that is not only legal, it’s indicative of being One of the Beautiful People. But if you work your tail off during a 12-week steroid cycle to reduce your body fat from 15% to 6% through arduous workouts, well…..”that’s illegal! That’s immoral! That’s just not right!!!! We must punish baseball players!”

Actually, it seems a hell of a lot more honest to me.

Of course, why stop at baseball players? Do they really think that that high school kids are dealing in ‘roids because of Baseball? Have they considered WWF? Do they think the models on the cover of Mens Fitness go that way from situps and spinach? Have they asked the Governor of California how he got that big? Wake up, gentlemen: when you outlaw a substance, you don’t make it go away….you make it go underground. Anyone remember Prohibition?

What’s more important, is that no one has been able to tell me just who is so harmed by an individual athlete’s choice to juice that it requires federal robocops. Let us *assume* for the sake of argument that Mark McGwire used steroids.

Has he killed anyone? Assaulted anyone? Robbed anyone? Maimed anyone? Can you point to any damage he has caused? (Of course, Congress is probably collectively guilty of all these things). So why the witch-hunt?

There are those who will say that when young people emulate these guys, they are hurt. But that’s like saying that NASCAR should be responsible for kids who drive fast , that McDonalds should be responsible for obese slobs who sit and eat Big Macs every day, and that Clint Eastwood should be responsible for a kid who shoots someone.

If the Players are upset, or the union, or the fans, or the owners, they have immediate remedies and avenues. If they have chosen not to pursue them, perhaps Congress should realize they’re barking up the wrong tree.

We don’t need Congress to decide who should be and shouldn’t be our sports heroes. We’ll do that for ourselves, thank you.