Evolutionary theory

Scientists in Texas are upset. There are three critics of evolution on the committee that will review proposed curriculum standards for science courses in Texas schools. It doesn't matter that these people are also scientists (one is a biology professor at the University of Wisconsin-Superior, and one is a chemistry professor at Baylor University) -- what matters is that they question evolution.

Texas Freedom Network President Kathy Miller says, it's "simply stunning that any state board members would even consider appointing authors of an anti-evolution textbook to a panel of scientists." I don't now why she doesn't consider a biology professor and a chemistry professor as much "scientist" as the other board members who are described as "veteran science professors from major Texas universities." At least two of the "veteran professors" want to eliminate a curriculum requirement that the weaknesses of the theory of evolution be taught in Texas classrooms. Doesn't a true scientist want to explore all the possibilities?

As Jonathan Saenz of the Free Market Foundation says, "If the theory of evolution is so strong and without weaknesses, why are the evolutionists so afraid to let students have a discussion about it? Close-minded efforts to ban students from hearing both sides is dangerous and a clear detriment to students."

I agree with Mr. Saenz -- what are the evolutionists trying to hide? Maybe the fact that their main goal is not the futherance of science but the futherance of an anti-God agenda?

"3 evolution critics on advisory panel." The Dallas Morning News; October 16, 2008; p. 3A.

News bias and inaccurate reporting

In these pre-election days, I think most of us have seen the obvious bias of the news media. As I was coming home yesterday, I had my car radio on. There was an item on the news about Obama being hanged in effigy at a college campus -- I think in Kentucky. At any rate, they proclaimed it not just political freedom of speech, but a hate crime. The effigy had been taken down immediately by authorities, and an apology was on its way to the Obama family. Then there came this little addendum (paraphrased) -- "An effigy of Sarah Palin was hanged in California. Protestors today tried to cover it with some sheets."

Then there are the flat-out inaccuracies. Last Sunday's Dallas Morning News carried an article by Jessica Sidman. I suppose it was meant to stir up some Halloween fright. It concerned an old homicide case from 1980. Notice I said "homicide," not "murder." Most people from North Texas remember the infamous Betty Gore case. Mrs. Gore's hacked up body was found in her Wylie home. She had been repeatedly struck with an ax. Her baby daughter was found unharmed in her crib. The perpetrator had washed up in the Gore's bathroom before leaving the scene. The community was horrified.

It didn't take long before Candy Montgomery, a friend of the Gore's, was arrested. She had been having an affair with Mr. Gore, and Betty Gore had found out. Mrs. Montgomery, despite having hit Mrs. Gore 41 times with the ax, was found not guilty of murder by a jury of her peers. When I first heard about this case, I was astonished that she could have gotten away with such a heinous crime. But then I read some trial transcripts and read a book on the case, and I agree with the jury -- Candy Montgomery was defending herself. Betty Gore initiated the attack, Candy Montgomery managed to get the ax away from her, and despite repeated blows, Mrs. Gore kept coming after her. Candy Montgomery was guilty of a lot of things, but murder was not one of them.

But Ms. Sidman has decided it was murder. She refers to the case as a murder no fewer than nine times. If I were Candy Montgomery, I would sue. This woman was not guilty of murder, and was so judged in a court of law. The determination of the jury was that no murder occurred. A homicide, yes -- homicide is merely one person taking the life of another, whether it be murder or self-defense or accident. Candy Montgomery was no murderer, and The Dallas Morning News should be held accountable.

"Murders haunt some who live at scene." The Dallas Morning News; October 26, 2008; p. 1B.

Hate crime or 3 thugs hanging out together?

Last month in our community, an incident happened which has put Paris unfairly on the national map. A small contingent of malcontent black wannabe activists have tapped into some gullible wannabe Pulitzer winning journalists (and I use the term loosely) to paint a picture of our city as the ultimate racist town where blacks can't even walk down the street without suffering discrimination.

Here's what happened: Brandon McClelland (whose record includes two charges of possession of marijuana, a probation revocation, perjury, reckless driving, and theft), Shannon Finley (whose record includes at least two charges of marijuana possession, at least two revocations of probation, furnishing alcohol to a minor, at least two DWI's, and manslaughter), and Ryan Crostley (whose record includes at least three charges of marijuana possession, two charges of theft, DWI, and probation revocation) went to buy beer in the wee hours of September 16. They somehow ended up on a lonely county road. For some reason, McClelland got out of the pickup they were in. Whether accidentally or on purpose, the remaining two ran over him, his body became lodged beneath the vehicle, and he was dragged about 40 feet. Shannon and Crostley then attempted to cover up the accident or crime by submerging the truck in a pond. Both have been arrested and charged with murder. There is no need to be upset -- the suspects are in custody, have been charged with the highest charge, and the system is working.

So why are the blacks upset? Because Shannon and Crostley are white and McClelland was black. In their eyes, that automatically makes it a race case. But these guys had been running buddies since they were in high school. That perjury charge McClelland has on his record? He did that for Finley when Finley was charged with manslaughter.

This small contingent of blacks in Paris see a racist behind every tree. If they get picked up for shoplifting, it's a race thing. If a black girl hits a teacher's aide and is charged with assault, it's a race thing. If they are stopped for violating the traffic laws, it's a race thing. If they go to jail for selling drugs, it's a race thing. If their water is cut off for non-payment, it's a race thing. But the real thing is that it's a publicity thing. These people, one woman in particular, enjoy seeing their faces in the media. They think they're headed for MLK status. What they don't seem to understand is that MLK picked real instances of discrimination to focus on. What we have in the McClelland death is three thugs out in the middle of the night getting drunk and paying the consequences. I don't know exactly what happened out there, but I'm 99% sure it was not a race thing!

Obama doesn't learn.

I was looking at Obama's ideas for economic stimulus. One of the points in his plan is to allow withdrawals of 15 percent from retirement acounts up to $10,000 without a penalty for people under age 59 1/2. Has he not learned anything from the "foreclosure crisis"?

A large number of the foreclosures were for people who already had their homes paid for, and for one reason or another borrowed against their equity. Then, when they couldn't pay the money back, they lost their homes. If we allow people to take money from their retirement funds, then in 10-20 years we'll have a "retirement crisis" and we'll have to bail out all those who thought there were more important things to do with their money than put it in retirement.

Obama is the prime example of "people who don't learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them." And the prime example of "I don't care how it impacts you as long as it looks good for me."

"Candidates offer different takes on retirement savings." The Dallas Morning News; October 27, 2008; p. 1D.

Where's the dictionary?

Front page banner headline in The Paris News on October 17 read -- "Chamber tributes doers, shakers."

I don't know what dictionary they're using, but mine says "tributes" is a noun -- no reference at all to it being a verb. When I typed that phrase into my word processing program, it flagged me that it didn't make sense. Surely the newspaper has a word processor at least as sophisticated as mine.

In the same edition on page 4A, we see the headline -- "Concensus on race will take effort by all." Don't they have spell check on their computers?

The editors at the newspaper continue to insist that they have proofreaders, and the managing editor says that he, himself, reads every page before it goes to print. I guess we must be left with the conclusion that they just don't know any better.

The government has to do everything for me.

It looks like Barack Obama may be elected President of the United States. If he is, I can tell you the reason why. Our citizens have been indoctrinated with the attitude that government is there to take care of them. To paraphrase Joe the Plumber who was on television yesterday morning, "When I was a kid, my mom and dad gave me an allowance. The government is not my mom and dad!"

Here's an example of what I'm talking about. There was a letter to the editor in yesterday's newspaper. Stacey Patterson of Dallas says he is worried about the economy. He is 27 years old and either a freshman or sophomore in college (he says he will transfer next year to a 4-year institution). He doesn't say why he's still in college at age 27 when most students have their degrees and are either in the workforce or graduate school at that age. He says his school is being paid for by grants, but he's afraid the grants won't cover it all, and if student loans are scarce, he doesn't know how he'll pay for college. He says if he can't graduate, that will be the ultimate failure for him.

First of all, if he's getting grants, he's much better off than thousands of other students who get no grants. Those students do something called working and paying their own way through. Second, he hasn't even applied for a loan yet, so he doesn't know whether or not he'll be able to get one. Third, he's throwing himself a massive pity party -- "If I cannot graduate, that will be the ultimate failure to me." Get a grip, Stacey! If you don't have the money, then take a year or two off, work and save, and then go back and finish. If you give up that easily, your worries about failure are probably going to be self-fulfilling. Fourth, quit relying on the government to pay your way through life. Get a spine and some self-reliance!

And fifth, if you're worried about the economy, you better vote for McCain!

"Well of student loans drying up." The Dallas Morning News; October 25, 2008; p. 16A.

Does Barack tell the truth?

"Every dollar that I've proposed, I've proposed an additional cut, so that it matches." Barack Obama, October 15 Presidential Debate.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates that his programs will add $281 billion to the deficit at the end of his first term. That means that of the approximate 136,000,000 tax returns filed every year every one would see an increase of $2066.18 to cover the deficit. But wait -- of the 136,000,000 returns filed, 43.4 million pay no taxes. So that means the 92.6 million of us who do would see an increase of $3,034.56 to cover Barack's deficit. Anyone who knows politicians know they rarely "cut" anything -- "cut" is politicianese for "raise somebody's taxes."

"I want to provide a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans, 95 percent." Barack Obama, October 15 Presidential Debate.

As stated above, only 68.1 percent of tax filers pay taxes anyway. When he says tax cut for 95 percent, he means he will raise taxes on those who pay to give tax credits to those who don't -- his "spread the wealth" plan. Even if you take his statement at face value, the Tax Policy Center says his plan cuts taxes for 81.3 percent of households -- not 95 percent.

Does Barack tell the truth?

"Fact Check The presidential debate." The Dallas Morning News; October 15, 2008; p. 16A.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/1410.html

Barack Obama - Kenyan, Indonesian, or American?

When I first heard all the talk several months ago about Barack Obama not being an American citizen, I checked it out on Snopes.com and then dismissed it. But now I'm questioning again.

I heard Phil Berg on a talk radio show, then I looked up the youtube video (link below). Phil Berg is not a nut -- he is a former Deputy Pennsylvania Attorney General and candidate for Pennsylvania Governor with impeccable credentials. And here's the kicker -- he's a Democrat.

He has filed suit demanding that Barack Obama prove his citizenship. To date, Obama has failed to comply. Here are the particulars:

1) Obama has put a birth certificate showing he was born in Hawaii on his website. In fact, two birth certificates have shown up -- one with a seal and one without.
2) Barack says he was born in one hospital in Hawaii, his sister says he was born in another.
3) Barack's paternal grandmother says she was present at his birth in Kenya. If he was born in Kenya, he is not a U.S. citizen under the law, because his father was not a U.S. citizen and his mother had not spent the requisite time residing in the U.S.
4) Even if Barack was born a legal citizen in Hawaii, there is the matter of his Indonesian school records. They record his citizenship as "Indonesian." Indonesia did not offer dual citizenship. In order to be a citizen of Indonesia, Barack's U.S. citizenship would have had to have been renounced.
5) If Barack regained his U.S. citizenship, it would have been through the process of naturalization -- Under the U.S. Constitution, a naturalized citizen cannot serve as President.
6) If Barack did not regain his U.S. citizenship, he is an illegal alien.

This video is kind of long (more than 10 minutes), but I urge you to view it. It raises some very interesting questions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs

House of ill repute

One of my favorite television shows is "House." It is extremely well-written, funny, well-cast, and it makes me think. That is, up until last night's episode.

This is the fifth season, and I guess the writers are running out of ideas. They couldn't think of anything to engage the attention of those who appreciate smart entertainment, so they filled it with gratuitous sex. And not just gratuitous sex -- perverted, gratuitous sex.

One of the doctors on House's team has Huntington's Disease. The episode dealt with how she is handling the emotional aspects of the malady. There could have been many creative ways to let the viewer know she was cruising bars to pick up other women for sex without once showing them in the act. However, we were subjected to several quite graphic scenes from the bedroom.

"House" needs some fresh writers to keep it from becoming a House of Ill Repute.

Everybody's cutting back!

People all over the U.S. are cutting back because of the economic situation. But I saw an item in the newspaper yesterday that just broke my heart.

The City of Aspen, Colorado, has delayed construction of a $360,000 foam pit for training snowboarders in the city gym. Times are tough!

"Cities reeling from fiscal crisis." The Dallas Morning News; October 20, 2008; p. 4A.

Does nearly as high mean cooler?

I'm not a proponent of the "man-made global warming" theory. I think it's a bunch of hooey. The earth has cycled through temperature changes ever since it's been here -- it's just part of the ebb and flow of nature. But the media has jumped with both feet into the global warming propaganda.

Take, for instance, this headline in last Saturday's Dallas Morning News: "Arctic temperatures nearly as high as last fall's record." Doesn't that mean the Arctic temperatures are cooler than last year? So why doesn't the headline say: "Arctic cools! Global warming becomes iffy"?

And in the article, there is no mention of what the average temperature was last year, or what the average was this year -- only that temperatures this year were "almost" as high. What kind of reporting is that? It's the kind I call "pushing an agenda."

"Arctic temperatures nearly as high as last fall's record." The Dallas Morning News; October 18, 2008; p. 5A.

I'd bet on none!

In the hundreds of Dallas Independent School District layoffs this month, wonder how many were coaches?

Score 1 for the good guys!

The FTC got a federal court in Chicago this week to shut down a huge spam network and freeze their assets. This organization is thought to be the largest spam network in existence, hijacking unwitting users' computers to daily send billions of their spam messages touting male enhancement drugs and other pharmaceuticals.

Freezing the assets of this organization will hit them where it hurts -- the investigation indicates they grossed as much as $400,000 a month. I don't know if the government is allowed to seize assets in these cases as they can do in drug cases. If they can't, we need to get a law enacted enabling them to do so. Maybe it will help with the big Wall Street bailout!

"Court unplugs spam sender." The Dallas Morning News; October 15, 2008; p. 5A.

Thought police are on patrol!

I had heard some weeks ago about some St. Louis, Missouri, prosecutors who decided they didn't like the ads being run against Barack Obama. They issued a proclamation that anyone running ads that didn't meet with their approval would be prosecuted. They later backed down a bit from that stance when they were reminded what the First Amendment is all about.

Yesterday, I received an email about Jessica Hughes of Lufkin, Texas. She received one of those annoying phone calls soliciting her support for Obama. She told the Obama volunteer that she would never support a man who "left babies to die on hospital floors." She suggested the Obama volunteer find something better to do with her time.

The next day, the secret service showed up at her door. Her words had been reported to them as "Obama will wind up dead on a hospital floor." According to what she has to say, they were threatening and intimidating (which she didn't fall for). She asked the agents if they had a recording of the conversation. They did not. She is appalled that she could be investigated for merely being rude on an unsolicited phone call, and they don't even have proof of that. I agree -- if being rude to telemarketer type calls is going to start getting you into trouble, I'm just going to have to keep a lawyer on retainer.

If Obama is doing all this before he's elected, doesn't it scare you just a little to think what he will do when he has some real power? Our freedoms are in jeopardy, and we better wake up!


http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=76308
http://www.lufkindailynews.com/search/content/news/stories/2008/10/07/secret_service.html

Freudian Slip?

Rensselaer County, New York, had to redo their ballots for the November election. When they sent out some absentee ballots, someone pointed out to them that the Democrat running for President was named Barack Obama -- not Barack Osama as printed. Essie May thinks they had it right, and all the other counties should be correcting their ballots.

"County replacing 'Osama' ballots." The Dallas Morning News; October 11, 2008; p. 11A.

Can you lend me a few dollars?

Barack Obama went door to door in Toledo, Ohio, Sunday, asking families how he could help them. What a joke! I'd have said, "Well, could you lend me a couple hundred?" Bet he wouldn't have responded to that one.

Anyway, one of these poor fools fell for those political shenanigans. Denise Knisley said she had been thinking about voting for him, but she definitely will now that she's met him. "You've got to believe in somebody," she said.

What kind of sense does that make? Her decision would have carried a lot more weight had she said, "I think his economic policies will help me more than the Republican policies." Or, "I think his foreign policy will keep our country safer than McCain's will." Or, "He has a lot more common sense than McCain does." But she didn't say any of those things. Her comment is as empty as Obama's campaign -- it sounds good, but there's nothing there.

"McCain vows to whip Obama's 'you-know-what' in debate." The Dallas Morning News; October 13, 2008; p. 4A.

Update: Isn't it about time?

I wrote Saturday about the new Texas Department of Public Safety policy requiring non-citizens to prove their legal status before acquiring drivers licenses or state ID cards. State Representative Ruth Jones McClendon (a Democrat) has sent a letter to Public Safety Commission Chairman Allan Polunsky asking for the policy to be revoked.

McClendon says the rule is a major policy decision that should not be initiated as a part of agency rule-making. Well, Ms. McClendon, when the legislature is too stupid to act, somebody needs to! Besides, why should there even have to be a rule -- this is a common sense issue. Our state agencies, especially law enforcement ones, should not be helping people to break the law!

And just for the record, Essie May would add this little stipulation to the rule -- "Applicants must speak English!"

"Lawmaker wants ID rule rescinded." The Dallas Morning News; October 11, 2008; p. 3A.

Sorry, we're fresh out!

A couple of weeks ago, Mike Bacon of The Colony wrote a letter to The Dallas Morning News in response to a letter from Lisa McDaniel. Mrs. McDaniel had taken her grandchildren to Six Flags. Unfortunately for her, she had picked gay day to visit. She was upset that she had to explain all the public displays of affection between men to the little ones.

Mr. Bacon thinks Mrs. McDaniel is intolerant. "How about a little more tolerance? We need it these days," he says.

No, Mr. Bacon, what we need is more people to stand up and say, "This is an abomination in the sight of God, and we're NOT going to tolerate it anymore!" I don't know about you, but Essie May is fresh out of tolerance!

"More tolerance, please." The Dallas Morning News; September 29, 2008; p. 12A.

Isn't it about time?

Texas just put into effect a new Department of Public Safety rule. People who are not citizens of the U.S. must prove they are here legally before they can get a drivers license or state ID card. Under the new "guidelines" (that word makes me nervous -- seems to give them wiggle room, doesn't it), DPS will not issue or renew licenses or ID cards for any immigrant who is here illegally or who has overstayed his residency. A person trying to come to this country legally has to jump through hoops you just wouldn't believe, yet up until now an illegal could just walk up and get a drivers license. Now I ask you, why hasn't this "guideline" been instituted long ago? Isn't it just common sense?

Here's the part of the new rule I don't agree with. If an illegal shows up to get a license or ID card, they will not be turned in to authorities. They will just be denied the license. Why? If they are here illegally, aren't they breaking the law? Isn't the Department of Public Safety a law enforcement agency? Aren't they derelict in their duty if they let a lawbreaker walk out of their offices with no consequences?

State Representative Trey Martinez Fischer says the rule will negatively impact citizens. He says that without drivers licenses, illegal immigrants won't be forced to get insurance on their vehicles. How many illegals do you suppose have insurance anyway? And we could certainly alleviate that problem if we sent them all back! Senor Fischer says that the rule is "an attempt to isolate and single out a class of individuals for no legitimate law enforcement purpose." Duh! Aren't they lawbreakers just by being here?

Up until this rule took effect, anyone could get a drivers license with a foreign passport and a visa -- even an expired visa. If other states had had this new rule and enforced it, the men who orchestrated 9/11 would have had a harder time doing what they did -- they had valid drivers licenses despite being in this country illegally. What kind of ID does it take to get on a domestic flight? ------ A drivers license!

Here we are seven years after 9/11, 30% of Texas households speak no english, the most popular name for new babies in Texas is Jose, and we're just now getting around to this? Don't you think it's about time?

"Immigrants must prove status legal." The Dallas Morning News; October 10, 2008; p. 1A.

Anybody who supports ACORN is a nut!

Obama's pet community organizing association is in a spot of trouble in Nevada. Authorities in Las Vegas conducted a raid on the headquarters Tuesday. Seems they were a little over-zealous in registering people to vote for Obama. Voter registration forms submitted by the organization included the starting lineup of the Dallas Cowboys football team.

My question --- why was this relegated to page 15 in the newspaper? Don't you think if it had been a conservative organization rounding up fraudulent votes for McCain it would have been on page 1?

"Community organizers raided in voter fraud investigation." The Dallas Morning News; October 8, 2008; p. 15A.

You have to ask?

Federal agents raided the House of Raeford's Columbia Farms chicken processing plant in Greenville, South Carolina, Tuesday. They detained more than 300 suspected illegal aliens. Maria Juan waited for word of her grandmother who she says is here legally even though she had no papers with her. "Families are going to be broken apart," Ms. Juan said. "There will be kids and babies left behind. Why are they doing this? Why?"

Well, Senorita Juan, it could be because a review of this plant's paperwork found that 775 of 825 employees had provided false information. "They didn't do anything," Senorita Juan says. Except enter this country illegally.

"Suspected illegal immigrants held." The Dallas Morning News; October 8, 2008; p. 6A.

Hand me a violin!

Richard Fuld, the chief executive of bankrupt Lehman Brothers Holdings, testified before a congressional panel yesterday. Though he was the man in charge, this fiasco wasn't his fault. It was the short-sellers. It was the government. It was an extraordinary run on the bank. All his decisions were prudent and appropriate, he said.

And to top it all off, he lost a lot of money, too. Why, he was once worth close to $1 billion. And now, the poor fellow has had to sell off part of his art collection, and he's worth a paltry $100 million. Makes me feel so much better about my tax dollars bailing him out!

"Lawmakers grill Lehman's chief." The Dallas Morning News; October 7, 2008; p. 1D.

I do not know the man!

Sarah Palin (the pit bull in lipstick and one of my new heroes) has brought Barack Obama's association with Bill Ayers to the attention of the public. Bill Ayers was a founding member of the Weatherman -- the radical 1960's terrorist group that liked to leave bombs lying around. His girlfriend died in a bomb-making accident in 1970. His former roommate, Terry Robbins, was also killed in the same blast. Ayers participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the United States Capitol in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. Ayers was asked in a January 2004 interview, "How do you feel about what you did? Would you do it again under similar circumstances?" He replied: "I've thought about this a lot. Being almost 60, it's impossible to not have lots and lots of regrets about lots and lots of things, but the question of did we do something that was horrendous, awful? ... I don't think so. I think what we did was to respond to a situation that was unconscionable."

So if I were Barack Obama, and I was accused of associating with this man, my response would be, "Not just no, but Hell no!" Instead, what we are hearing from him is, "Republicans are gambling that he [McCain] can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance." That tells me all I need to know about Bill Ayers and Barack Obama and Obama's "substance."

"Palin stands behind 'terrorists' remark." The Dallas Morning News; October 6, 2008; p. 6A.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ayers

I'll agree that there's an audacious whiner in the room.

Taryn McColpin of Denton, Texas, wrote a letter to the editor of The Dallas Morning news about the massive DISD teacher layoffs. I don't know if her problem is jealousy or stupidity, but she definitely has one or the other -- or maybe both.

Earlier in the week, the newspaper had printed an article about the financial impact the district cutbacks would have on those who lose their jobs. The article featured a couple who both work for DISD. Together, they make $100,000 a year. That sounds about right to me for two public school teachers. They have no children. They will both lose their jobs. Of course they are concerned -- their wages will drop from $100,000 to zero until they can find other positions. That may take awhile as DISD has just released a glut of teachers into the market.

Anyway, Taryn says these people are audacious whiners. She says if you have no children, you don't need to make $100,000 a year, and you shouldn't be worried about losing a job. She is infuriated that these people are concerned about their livelihood. She says she and her husband only make $70,000, and they are raising three children. They contend with asthma, allergies, back conditions, unexpected illnesses, and injuries all on one insurance program. I guess teachers who make $100,000 a year never get asthma, allergies, back conditions, unexpected illnesses and injuries. And as far as I know, when they lose their jobs, they'll lose their "one insurance program" as well. Taryn says her family pays $200 a week for gas to commute to jobs that will pay them enough to survive. Maybe Taryn should move a little closer to her job. At any rate, does she think teachers aren't paying high gas prices, too? Does she think it will be easier for them when they lose their jobs?

Taryn summarizes her letter by questioning why these people feel entitled to be worried about a layoff when so many people are so much worse off. I guess she just hasn't picked up on the fact that when these people are making $0 and she is making $70,000, that the audacious whiner is the one with the pen in her hand writing letters to the editor.

"Whining about layoffs at $100K." The Dallas Morning News; October 2, 2008; p. 18A.

Sounds like a plan to me!

John LaBruzzo, a state representative in Louisiana, has a plan. After hearing of Hurricane Ike evacuees who boarded buses with their cellphones and cigarettes but no diapers for their myriad babies, he said he wants to break "the generational welfare cycle" and over-reliance on government. The way to do that is by the state giving women on welfare and food stamps $1000 if they will have a sterilization procedure.

I find only one problem with the plan. Those women collect far more in welfare on all those kids than $1000, so they will not be inclined to do it. But that's not the problem the ACLU finds with it. Marjorie Esman of the Louisiana ACLU says, "This is a misguided and mean-spirited attempt to eliminate poverty by eliminating the poor." Huh? Is she saying she wants to eliminate poverty, but still have poor people? No, what she is doing is twisting the purpose of the plan to make it sound like they're going to be killing people. She's doing what all ACLU people do so well -- twisting the facts!

Essie May's plan is better than Rep. LaBruzzo's. What I propose is that anyone on welfare and food stamps must sign an agreement that they will have no more children as long as they are drawing government money. If they violate that agreement, the money is cut off immediately. Every four months, they must take a supervised pregnancy test. One plus sign -- no more welfare! I'm Essie May, and I approved this plan!

"Legislator: Sterilize the poor." The Dallas Morning News; September 29, 2008; p. 3A.

Now who's stifling teachers?

People who don't believe in evolution are consistently laughed at by "scientists." We are oblivious to scientific proof, they say. We are superstitious believers in a fairy tale book (what they call the Bible) full of contradictions and impossibilities. As I told one scientist arguing this point, those scientists may be a lot smarter than I am (but I doubt it), but God is a lot smarter than they are, so I'll believe God.

Scientists also say that if we don't teach evolution in our classrooms, we are stifling our teachers and dooming our students to ignorance. All theories (except the theory of divine creation) should be place upon the table, they say. Would you like to know how hypocritical these scientists really are?

The 21st Century Science Coalition made up of scientists from Texas universities supports a proposal before the State Board of Education that standards for biology courses eliminate the provision of teaching the "strengths and weaknesses" of theories. They don't want our students to know that the Theory of Evolution is a bunch of hooey, so any teacher smart enough to recognize the parts of it that just don't make sense can't teach about those deficiencies. Who is really stifling the teachers? Who is really trying to brainwash our students with fairy tales?

"Scientists back evolution." The Dallas Morning News; October 1, 2008; p. 3A.

Did you miss this one?

In all the hubbub about the financial crisis on Wall Street, we kind of forgot what else Congress is doing to us. They're planning on using 750 billion of our hard earned dollars to bail out people who don't seem to understand that if you indiscriminately lend money, chances are you're not going to get it all back.

But what else was Congress up to last week? The House approved a spending bill of more than $630 billion. Included in this bill is $25 billion for low-interest loans to the auto industry to help them with research and development and to retool their factories for more fuel-efficient cars. So we're going to get it twice -- when we pay for all that with our tax dollars, and then again when we pay the higher prices for the cars.

Added to that were 2,322 pet projects totaling $6.6 billion. That's approximately $2.8 million per pet project. The paper didn't specify what any of these pet projects are, but I imagine they are probably things like studies to find out why kids fall off tricycles or to determine why some people prefer sweet pickles to dill pickles. Or maybe it's a bridge over a creek that nobody has any reason to cross. You know -- those real important things we hire those congressmen to take care of!

"House apporves $630 billion-plus spending bill." The Dallas Morning News; September 25, 2008; p. 6A.