The SoapBoxers

At this very moment, a gunman – alleged to be a man by the name of James Lee – is holding hostages at the headquarters of The Discovery Channel.  Yes, of all the networks in the world to target, he picks The Discovery Channel.  I’ll admit that I don’t watch much of The Discovery Channel (most of my TV watching is sports or forensics shows), but this seems to be a network dedicated to education.  Why on earth would someone pick on them?  Many other networks are much more controversial.

It turns out that we do not have to look very far to find the answer to that.  According to CNN, Mr. Lee has a bit of a history with The Discovery Channel.  He is an environmental protestor who has been very critical of the network on his website.  Lee considers mankind to be “filth” and his manifesto demands that The Discovery Channel “stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants.”

We all know how this story is going to end.  There is no “good” ending.  The best possible solution – the one that everyone is hoping for – is Lee being dragged away in cuffs and traumatized hostages heading home to spend time with their loved ones.

But surely the publicity Lee gets from this terrorist action will bring publicity to his cause, and make the country think more seriously about the effect mankind has on the environment, right?  Before long, everyone will be making a concerted effort to cut pollution, and the world will be a better place …

Of course not.  Lee’s action’s will actually create a backlash against all environmentalists – both extreme and moderate.  His actions will be counterproductive and will serve to stymie the efforts of those organizations attempting to pursue policy changes in a more civilized manner.  I agree with Lee’s broad viewpoint that it would be good if people were to reduce pollution – but I vehemently oppose his tactics.

You may be able to brandish a gun and force your hostages to do what you want them to, but the gun will not force a civilized society to place any more weight on your words.  In fact, much the opposite.  Not only is the pen mightier than the sword, it is also mightier than the gun.  The strong are those who can convince others that their opinions are current simply by speaking or writing about them.  Only the weak have the need to reinforce rhetoric with violence.  The rule of law trumps the rule of violence.  We have elections in this country, not duels.

As the saying goes, “you are only as strong as your weakest link.”  Those who use violence to push their agenda do more to undermine it than those who simply oppose the rhetoric with words.  We see this sort of pointless violence far too often in the world today.  Instead of inflicting violence on those who oppose us, let us instead beat our swords into plowshares.  Let use make the conference table the first choice of battlefield, rather than the last resort – and let us push the extremist elements to the sidelines.

Dog Poop

There’s a “lady” in my neighborhood who takes her dog for walks.  This is hardly unusual – there are a number of folks in the neighborhood with dogs.  This person stands out because of her unwillingness to clean up after her dog.  I’ve spotted the dastardly duo on neighbors’ lawns a number of times, but never in time to pop my head out of the door to remind her of her duty.  On occasions, there have been droppings on my own lawn, and while I don’t have concrete evidence to prove who the poopetrator is, I have a very good idea.

I’m not a “dog person”, but I have nothing against dogs.  What I do dislike is having dog poop on my lawn.  If I wanted dog poop on my lawn, I’d have a dog.  If you’re going to have a dog, you need to be accountable and clean up after your dog.  Even if this isn’t against the law in your town, this is just basic common courtesy to your neighbors.  Don’t be surprised if you gain a very negative reputation and that your neighbors become hesitant to pitch in when you need help with anything.  You show a complete lack of respect for their property – why should they lift a finger for you?

Bristol Palin

When the next season of Dancing With the Stars kicks off, the dace floor will feature luminaries such as Kurt Warner, Florence Henderson, and Bristol Palin.  For the last couple of years, we have been privy to the love/hate relationship between Bristol and Levi, with occasional commentary from Bristol’s mom.  Allegations have been made that Levi was trying to extend his 15 minutes of fame and would do anything to stay in the spotlight.

That might be the case, but Bristol is hardly staying in the shadows.  For a few months, she was working as a receptionist at a dermatologist’s office.  More recently, she has found more profitable work.  She travels around the country promoting abstinence.  There’s certainly nothing wrong with spreading that message.  The $15,000 – $30,000 fee she receives for each speaking engagements also helps build a college fund for Trigg.  Bristol also appeared on an episode of The Secret Life of The American Teenager.  Now, Dancing With the Stars.  What next – a regular gig on The View?  Is this a family trying to lead, or a family trying to achieve fame?  I was recently discussing Sarah Palin with a staunchly conservative friend of mine who commented “she’s not the leader of MY party.”

Privatizing Social Security

The last item might lead you to believe that I’m a hard core Democrat, but this isn’t the case.  I do lean left on quite a few issues, but I’m an unaffiliated voter who also agrees with Republicans on a lot of issues.  One of these issues is privatization of Social Security.  When Bush proposed this, I aligned myself with him and supported the idea – at least at a high level.

Those who oppose privatization – including lobbyists such as AARP – point to downturns in the market and suggest that those nearing retirement age could have lost substantial portions of their nest egg if they had invested in the market.  This is true – but it’s worth noting that you don’t need to invest in stocks to beat the return of Social Security.  Take a look at the rates of return for Social Security, according to a document on SSA’s web site.  The important table is table 1 (the second table in the document).  If you’re younger married couple at the medium earning level, you’re looking at a rate of return around 2.5%.  In comparison, 30 year treasuries are currently yielding upwards of 3.5%.  Is Social Security safer than treasuries?  Of course not –  both are backed by the US Government.  Essentially, the risk is the same.

NCAA Tackles Jeremiah Masoli On End Around

This one falls into the category of things that no longer grind my gears.  After being kicked off the Oregon football team for off-field transgressions, star quarterback Jeremiah Masoli transferred to Mississippi.  Generally, players who transfer must sit on year before they are allowed to play again (the year off doesn’t count against their eligibility). 

There is an exception that allows (but does not force) the NCAA to grant a waiver (making the player immediately eligible) if the player has completed his undergraduate degree and enrolls at another school in order to pursue a graduate degree in a major not offered by his old school.  This was the case with Masoli.  He is enrolled in the Parks and Recreation graduate program at Ole Miss – a degree not offered by Oregon.

Yesterday, the NCAA denied Masoli’s request for a waiver, saying that this type of waiver is intended to avoid hampering a student-athlete’s academic pursuits, rather than a way to avoid a punishment levied by his old school.  Good call, NCAA.