Here’s an article from The New York Post discussing it, and I’m really glad I read it. There are several people who’ve gone down a notch in the respect department with me. Namely, Tim Russert, Harold Ford Jr., and Al Roker.

Onto the Piece:

November 29, 2007 — ALL those politically correct types who piled on last April when Don Imus went down for making his bad “nappy-headed ho’s” joke had better duck and cover on Monday, when the I-Man goes back to work on WABC Radio.

“I think he will have some scores to settle,” the station’s general manager, Phil Boyce, told Page Six yesterday.

It is doubtful Imus will ever forgive CBS chief Les Moonves, who fired him, or regular guest Tim Russert, the host of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” who was “an invisible man” while Imus was under attack.

Private eye Bo Dietl, who will join Imus in the 8 a.m. hour on Monday, also named Harold Ford Jr. and Al Roker as two Imus regulars who abandoned him in his hour of need. “They turned their backs on him so fast,” Dietl said yesterday. “Al Roker had his stomach stapled - he should have had his mouth stapled.”

One longtime listener wondered, “Will Imus ever give Newsweek editors another chance to plug their books on his show since they cut and ran when Al Sharpton started his crusade to get him off the air?”

Dietl said Imus’ controversial remark “brought attention to that Rutgers basketball team. They really benefited. It turned out to be a positive thing.” Dietl expects “a kinder, gentler Imus” next week, “but I don’t know how long that will last.”

The advertising world will also be tuning in Monday to learn which sponsors are coming back to Imus.

The first spot, at about 6:15 a.m., will be for Hackensack University Medical Center, whose CEO, John Ferguson, was in Manhattan Tuesday recording the spot with ad agency Della Femina Rothschild Jeary.

The hospital - which canceled its multimillion dollar budget on WFAN when Imus was fired - is one of the biggest advertisers on his new show on WABC.

Jerry Della Femina, whose agency started calling WABC last summer when Imus’ return was just a rumor, told Page Six: “I, for one, am glad Imus is back. While he was gone, I had to resort to talking to my own wife in the morning.”

Share This

3,895 American soldiers have been killed in 4 years of Iraq.  In 4 years of war against Germany and Japan the Unites States lost 407,300 soldiers.  This is more than 100 times the number that have been killed and wounded in Iraq. 

Some soldiers have served 3 and 4 tours of duty in Iraq.  These men are serving as long as 18 months at a time.    Many of the veterans in World War II were drafted for “the duration.”  These men left their homes and families for an unspecified amount of time.  They were gone, sometimes for years, before they were able to come home.

Civilians were drafted into the service for World War II.  No one has been drafted for the Iraq conflict.  All soldiers in the military now have volunteered for service.  Most of them are proud to serve and want nothing more than to secure the saftey of our country.

The people at home in the U.S. in the 1940s had to ration commodities and industry was converted to war time production.  Many people sacrificed comfort and time to ensure the success of the war.  Today we are asked to sacrifice nothing as a people.  People may moan about the price of gas but there is disagreement about whether this has anything to do with the Iraq war.

After four grueling years the United States was victorious, with its allies, on both fronts.  There was never any talk that we might lose.  The people only knew that we must win or pay the consequences.

Today, we must win in Iraq or pay the consequences.  Each soldier who has given his life or been wounded in Iraq is important and I do not want to minimize what they have done.  But it will be worse for soldiers and civillians if we decide to quit before we are done.

Share This

“Northern Lights,” published in the United States under the title “The Golden Compass,” is the first book in a trilogy that tells the story of a young girl and her quest.  Philip Pullman, the author of the novel, is an avowed atheist and has reportedly made religion and God the evil villian of these stories.  This has raised concern among religious leaders and parents.

Having not read the books, I am unable to say how overt the theme is in the novels, but there seems to be little doubt about Pullman’s intent.  He says that his books are “about killing God.”  He claims that he has difficulty understanding the words “spiritual” or “spirituality.”  And his focus in religious discussions seems to be the crimes and power grabs committed in the name of God over the course of the world’s history. 

The movie, it seems, is a rather watered down version of the book with a somewhat less offensive theme.  The chief worry seems to be that Pullman’s story will continue to make money.  (The books have sold over 15 million copies world wide thus far.)  If children like the film, parents may be encouraged to buy them the books not realizing that it is more provocative than the film.  They further warn that as the trilogy progresses, the books become more and more edgy and dark.

I believe that these are evaluations that any concerned parent would be glad to have when evaluating whether or not to expose one’s children to certain media.  Forewarned, as they say, is forearmed.  However, I doubt that this will make a significant difference to the success–or failure–of the film.  It has obviously done little to stop the sale of books.  Nor do I think that the film will do any significant damage to the religious world overall.

There was a similar storm stirred up around the film “The DaVinci Code” upon it’s release.  The book and film were rather uncomplimentary of the Catholic church and used anti-Christian beliefs to advance key plot points.  (The film was much less detailed and forthright than the book.)  However, most Christians saw the movie and it’s supposed “facts” as a work of fiction.  There was no great earthquake of faith among the churches of the world.

“The Golden Compass” is even less founded in reality.  Most children will probably not make any connections between the characters on the screen and their pastor on Sunday morning.  Adults who make the connection are probably not going to be swayed one way or another by the film.

In the end, it will be up to parents to judge what is best for their children.  Those who are offended by Pullman’s views and the possible premise of the film would be well advised to vote with their dollars.  Another course is for parents to be well-informed so that they can discuss the film and it’s possible implications with their children.

Look here for a forth-coming family friendly review of the book “The Golden Compass” as well as other volumes of the “His Dark Materials” trilogy by Philip Pullman.

Share This

Vouchers are generally seen as the best way to let parents opt out of the Public School System and seek alternative education options.  Supporters contend that allowing parents to send children to the school of their choice, will introduce the market forces of competiton into the school system and improve public and private schools.  Opponents cite cost and contend that the state will end up paying the tuition for the children of wealthy families.

What few people have discussed is how the private schools feel about the plan.  If private schools, many of which are religious in nature, begin accepting government vouchers, how long before they are subject to the same restrictions that have been placed on public schools?  The Utah bill already stated that private schools receiving vouchers would have to be accountable to the state for academic standards. 

Government subsidies always come with strings.  Private colleges that have accepted federal funds have been required to conform to certain government requirements.  The Boy Scouts of America have been taken to court several times on the basis of taking money while maintaining exclusions in their recruitment standards.  Private schools may or may not be willing to alter their standards in order to be eligible to receive government vouchers.

It then raises the question, if private schools must meet government “standards” in order to receive vouchers, will there be any difference between private and public schools?  What choices will be left to parents when these are all the same?

Share This

Share This

In response to criticism, Rowling said, “He is my character. He is what he is and I have the right to say what I say about him.”

The problem is that Dumbledore is no longer Rowling’s character. With the publication of the 7 Harry Potter novels, Rowling has given Dumbledore–along with all of the other wizards, witches, and muggles who inhabit their pages–to anyone who chooses to take the time and energy to read them from the page and into their imaginations. This means that Dumbledore belongs to all of us. And he is whatever any of us choose to make him.

The difference between a fictional character and an actual person, is that the character only exists as the imagination paints him. An author or filmmaker can give us an outline–sometimes a very detailed outline–but there is always room for us to fill in characteristics of our own.

Perhaps few people are as enthusiastic about this literary licence as I am. For instance, as a child I had an extreme admiration for the Star Wars character Han Solo. Among other things, I imagined that Han Solo was a talented pianist who turned to music whenever he was deeply troubled. As a young adult I read several novels written about the early life of Han Solo. Before reading them, I knew I would reject everything in these novels that did not fit in with the character’s history that I had stored in my memory for so many years. Today, I remember little of the novels I read. But I cannot forget the story I built in my own mind.

Now, Rowling may claim ownership of her characters in so far as she has legal rights to protect her intellectual property. She also has the right to say whatever she wants about them. And she can say what she thought about as she was writing about them. But she can no longer dictate what, or who, Dumbledore is. Her words are written and published. And as they are read, Dumbledore is turned into millions of Dumbledores based on the finite amount of words written about him.

Some may have always seen the character in the same light as Rowling. Some may choose to alter their picture of this character based on the Rowling’s opinions. Some, like the screenwriter of her movies, may be contractually obligated to change their view. And to many others, it will simply not matter. But for me, I disagree with Rowling. I choose to paint this character for myself and in my mind he is untainted by the brush strokes of others.

Share This

He takes his blogging quite seriously: writing from his Blackberry at all hours, responding to comments and making sure to post several times a week.

According to the article it seems to be a pretty popular destination.

In August, Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt became the first cabinet secretary to have his own professional blog, which HHS says receives hundreds of visits per day.

Share This

While his remarks were indeed filled with offensive hyperbole, his premise is merely an echo of the arguments of other Democrat Congressmen, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. This is particularly unsettling considering that the President submitted a supplemental spending bill of $196.4 billion to Congress to fund the war on terror during 2008. And Democrats want to behave like my 3 year old and refuse to give him any money, because he didn’t give them any money.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bush-sends-updated-iraq-supplemental-to-congress-2007-10-22.html

It is time that people, and political leaders, in this country remember why the government was established in the first place. A little read and often ignored document from our nations history begins with a statement of exactly why the founders felt that a national government was necessary. It states:

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

No where in this preamble does it mention funding health care for anyone–even children. It does not mention social security, food stamps, medicare or prescription drug benefits. In fact, it does not commit government to provide any individual need besides liberty and justice.

It does, however, reference the general welfare and common defence. These are items that concern every citizen of this nation. And this includes defending all citizens from random and savage attacks of radical, hate-filled terrorists.

This same document names the President of the United States the Commander-in-Chief of the military. He is charged with the protection of the entire country from foreign threats. Whether the Democrats like it or not George W. Bush is the elected President of our country and endowed with these constitutional powers. And no matter who wishes to deny it, our country faces a threat from terrorists of various organizations who wish only for our complete destruction.

Most of President Bush’s two terms has been spent guarding against any further attacks on our soil. He has made tough decisions that have included putting our military in harm’s way so that all children here can play, learn and grow without the fear that they will be blown up. Perhaps he, and other Republicans, can be forgiven for feeling that this is a cause less open to partisan debate than insuring 10 million children whose need is questionable.

Comparing money for the S-CHIP program, which is not even a legitimate function of the government, to money needed for national defense, which is one of the primary functions of the federal government is ridiculous. And withholding money from the men and women who are protecting our security and liberty for political revenge is outrageous and irresponsible. Not to mention, it does no good for anybody’s children.

Share This

I was 23, married and had just suffered a traumatic miscarriage after a brief pregnancy packed with life-threatening complications. The pills nearly sent me over the edge. My most vivid memory is of sitting in a restaurant with my husband and being hit by a wave of despair so complete I was drowning in it. For no reason tears began flowing down my cheeks and into the salad. A few minutes later I was better. But over the next couple of days the despair returned again and again.

During that time I consulted with my husband, my mother, my mother-in-law, a friend and my doctor. I got off the birth control pills and the violence of the mood swings subsided. (Being a woman and still in possession of most of my hormones, I couldn’t get rid of them completely.)

I was appalled, however, at the thought that young girls, still adjusting to the changes of puberty would be subjected to the possibility of side effects similar to mine without being properly informed. Were people so desperate to push the notion of safe sex that they would endanger the mental well-being of children?

Then, however, I did a little research. I went to King Middle School’s website. (see http://king.portlandschools.org/) I read the letter written by the principal explaining the reasoning behind the decision to offer contraceptives. I read the policies of the King Student health center. What I found was not what I feared. It was much more subtle and disturbing.

As it turns out, the King Student Health Center was established in a partnership between the public schools, the Public Health Division, and Maine Medical Center. It had a a pediatrician, a nurse practitioner, a dental hygienist and clinic assistant. Students must have a signed parental permission slip before using the center services. Parents are encouraged to accompany their child on the first visit to the center. Thereafter, parents are welcome to come in with their child but they do not need to come when their child is seen. Parents are also welcome to call or come in to discuss their child’s health.

However, the duty that physicians have to share information with parents remains rather vague. It is clear that the records at the clinic are subject to the confidentiality laws that apply to other medical facilities. Records will only be released with written consent from a parent or legal guardian. Students are allowed to seek services for “reproductive health, mental health, or substance abuse without requiring parental notification.”

This is a glaring example of what is worst about public schools and government health care. The fact that a child can seek medical attention and a parent is merely invited into the proceedings as a removed, but potentially interested, party is appalling. And that the invitation is rescinded when the consultation involves such sensitive and personal issues as drugs, sex and metal well-being. It is a classic example of the devaluation of the role of parents and the family unit by government programs.

Now, I understand that there are parents who have no interest in raising their children. I understand their are parents who have a difficult time finding the time and money necessary to give their children all that they think they need. But in creating “laws” and “programs” and health center policies to cover for negligent or struggling parents simply undermines the rights and responsibilities of all parents. Nor do these programs ultimately help the children.

Unlike parents or a family, the government cannot provide the love, compassion, discipline or moral foundation that a child needs to become a stable adult. All too often we seem to be willing to trade in these fundamentals in order to allow the government to provide useful, but ultimately less important services like secular education or medical care.

Allowing a school to be a co-conspirator in handing out birth control, no matter how responsible the procedures in place for it’s distribution, is placing the role of school and government above the role of parents and family in the life of a child. While this may be the natural course of hierarchy in some dysfunctional families, it is not a position that any government agency should aspire to nor be allowed to claim under any circumstances.

This should be a dire warning to all who hold their children and families dear. This is merely a glimpse of what we will face if we allow Hillary Clinton or any other politician institute nationalized health care. At that point there will be no parental permission slip necessary. There will be no alternative to the government provided doctor. And the list of what the doctor is not required to share with parents will only grow longer and longer.

When I faced the horrible side effects of prescribed birth control pills, I turned to my parents and other members of my family. The relationship developed with my family was at least as valuable, if not more so, than the advice of the medical professionals. To rob our children of the opportunity to develop these relationships is inexcusable. And, as illustrated by King Middle School, all that is necessary for liberals to take this away from them, is for us to sit by and let them.

Share This

It’s truly amazing all the things that you can do without having ever met someone. My husband and I have been running our company for four years, and we’ve never met even one of our clients (I take that back…we have a few clients that we’d met already in person before we started doing business with them), or any of our employees in person. All of our work gets done either via email, instant messaging, or phone calls. This definitely isn’t your grandfather’s way of doing business.

Share This