Tour De France Preview

Now that the NBA draft is over (has ANY team ever had 4 guys in the lottery?). I am hoping some of the faithful sports fan will switch their energy from football and basketball to THE global event of July, the Tour de France.

Naturally, this event has gotten much bigger since an American (is there anyone alive in America who has not at least heard of Lance Armstrong) has been dominating the event for the past six years.

However, I have been watching this event since BEFORE Greg LeMond (the only other American to ever win the event) won the event for the first time. It is a ridiculously difficult test of fitness, toughness, strategy, guile and guts. The winner will negotiate 2300+ miles of riding over mountains, through crowded city streets, over rough pavement etc while avoiding fatigue, dehydration, shattering crashes and just simply not having enough energy on a critical day to win.

Until someone proves otherwise Lance is the man to beat so an American has a builtin rooting interest even they are not a big cycling fan. Here is a quick guide to watching the event. You can catch a summary on the Outdoor Life Network each night or if you really aren't very busy and are a true fanatic you can watch the race live in the early to mid-morning, also on OLN. Naturally you can track results over the web on various sites.

Like any sporting event there is some unpredictabilty. Tours tend to play out a certain way but there is always the possibility for a crash or some other unexpected event upsetting the natural order of things. However, barring the unexpected only 3-5 days out of the 22 days of racing will have dramatic impact on the overall standings or General Classification which is the area Lance is interested in winning. The other days of the Tour allow for excitement through various tactical battles. The other days allow strong riders who have no shot at Lance to have their day in the sun. Finally the other days also are exciting for those that follow the other competitions embedded in the TDF. There are Tour champions crowned for best sprinter, best climber, best young rider etc. While not nearly as prestigious, these awards are a fairly big deal to real cycling fans and can be a ticket to big pay days for the riders that prevail in these areas.

In General Classification the battle is won during the Individual time trial, possibly during the team time trial and most notably during the exceptionally long stages that involve alot of climbing. So here are the days to follow Lance.

Tuesday July 5- Team Time Trial. Nine man team rides as a group. Everyone on the team awarded the time of the fifth place rider. Lance's team should do well here. His team has 4-5 guys that could be the Alpha Male on another team. The only worry here is a crash or less than five guys having a really good day.

Fri-Sun July 14-16- Three monster mountain stages back to back to back.

Fri 136 miles with two tough climbs in the last 20 miles. I could probably ride this in about 10-11 hours and could barely walk the next day. The winner will do this in less than half that and consider it a mere appetizer for the weekend.

Sat- 127 miles with SIX climbs of varying difficulty with the last six miles up hill on a 7.6% grade. And then....

Sun- 110 miles with three fairly tough cliimbs but the last climb comes with more than 30 miles to go. The long run out will give riders a chance to close some off the distance gained by the riders that bested them on the climbs.

I would guess the most blood will be spilled on the Saturday. That day will separate the merely great from the genuine freaks like Lance. The trick will be laying it out on Saturday but holding enough in reserve the day before and the day after to not give back any hard fought advantage.

Whoever is leading the race at the end of the day on Sunday would be pretty tough to beat. However, there will be one more chance.....

The TDF technically ends on Sunday the 24th but the last day of racing is closer to a high speed parade. The last day to move up in the standings will be the 23rd in an INDIVIDUAL Time Trial. In this case, it is the rider on his own against the clock. On normal days riders can get great psychological and physical advantage from riding in groups. In the IT it is man and machine. This trial is 33 miles. enough distance to make some time separation. So if the race is tight going into the last weekend this could be an exciting day.

Lance's chances: As I said, until someone shows otherwise he is the favorite. However, Lance's last two wins have been fairly tight. He has won a 2300+ mile race by 1 and 3 minutes the last two years. So, clearly there is little room for error. One slightly off day, a crash and he could be done. But, Lance has overcome these sorts of things before. Lance will retire after this race. I wonder if MAYBE he has lost just enough of his competitive edge as he eases into retirement for a challenger to make a move.

There is a guy named Jan Ullrich who may be the SECOND best bike racer in history. He had the misfortune of coming along in the Lance era. He has won the TDF once and been second FIVE teams, all to Lance. So he is clearly a threat.

There is also a guy named Ivan Basso. Lance dueled with him up a couple of climbs last year and Basso actually bested Lance on both. Lance later DESTROYED the poor boy on Alp D'Huez but Basso is now a year older and smarter and this year's Tour does not go up Alp D'Huez.

Then, ofcourse there is always the unexpected threat from an emerging rider that uncorks a huge day somewhere along the way and manages to hold on somehow. Still, its Lance's to lose and it should be fun to watch him try to go out on top.


For more on TDF go here

www.answers.com/topic/tour-de-france

This Just In: Terrorists Sometimes Tell Fibs!!

Here is a particularly good example of how U.S. media is SO eager to blame the U.S. without even trying to consider that maybe that is exactly what the bad guys are after. Earth to media: These people do not like us. They want bad things to happen to us, our military etc. Why are we so quick to assume they are telling the truth?


http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050531-121655-7932r.htm

Anna Kournikova Move Over

All those lusty male sports fans between let's say about 16 and 130 may have found their new queen.

Danica Patrick has the following:

1. She is good looking enough that she could probably make a living as a model

2. She is a world class competitor in a reasonably well known sport. She recently finished 4th at the Indy 500 after leading with less than 10 laps to go.

3. A cool sounding, slightly exotic name.


Obviously men like attractive women and they like sports heroes. To get both in the same person is just too good to be true.

For several years the answer was Anna Kornakouva who is very beautiful and until recently an elite tennis player. For some time, just being hot was more than enough for Anna. She was easily the most famous tennis player in the world even though she had not done anything really special.

After a while Anna started taking alot of grief because she had never won a singles title. She had won doubles titles (even majors in that area I believe). As a singles player she never did win (she has now retired from tennis) but she was very competitive and ranked in the Top 10 in the world for some time. For some years Anna Kornikouva was the most queried name on the internet but with her retirement and continued over exposure in the media her star has begun to fade.

Enter Danica who is a fresh face and is making her sports exploits in a field dominated by men. Men, get ready for the Danica era.

Catholic Sacraments

I took a class in Systematic Theology during the Spring term. One of the requirements was a 5-10 page term paper on some topic in the class. I did mine on the Sacraments of the Catholic Church vs the sacraments in Protestantism. I thought it was pretty interesting. Here it is. This sucker is 10 pages and may not be that interesting. If you want the gest you can skip to the heading "Sacramental Efficacy" and read from there.

Introduction

This paper will discuss the differing views of Catholics and most mainline Protestants on the Sacraments. The paper will show why Catholics hold to seven sacraments while most Protestants hold to two and why Catholics and Protestants differ radically on the meaning and power behind sacraments.

The Catholic View

The Catholic Church recognizes seven sacraments Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Reconciliation, Anointing of the Sick, Marriage and Holy Orders.* The first three are part of what the Roman Church calls Christian Initiation. The second two are sacraments of healing and the final two are for a particular purpose. We will discuss the Catholic sacraments individually and as a group after a brief introduction of each. Here are brief explanations of each according to Catholic Cathecism:¹

Baptism: “Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word."

Confirmation: “Baptism, the Eucharist, and the sacrament of Confirmation together constitute the "sacraments of Christian initiation," whose unity must be safeguarded. It must be explained to the faithful that the reception of the sacrament of Confirmation is necessary for the completion of baptismal grace. For "by the sacrament of Confirmation, the baptized are more perfectly bound to the Church and are enriched with a special strength of the Holy Spirit.” Hence they are, as true witnesses of Christ, more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith by word and deed."

* When speaking about or quoting Catholic doctrine we will use the capitalization preferred by Catholics. Thus we will refer to the Catholic Church and capitalize the Catholic rites. The reader will also note, however that the Catholics do NOT capitalize Him or He when referring to God or Her when referring to the Church. This is their convention not mine.

Eucharist: “The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life. The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself.”

Reconciliation: “Those who approach the sacrament of Penance obtain pardon from God's mercy for the offense committed against him, and are, at the same time, reconciled with the Church which they have wounded by their sins and which by charity, by example, and by prayer labors for their conversion."

Anointing of the Sick: “By the sacred anointing of the sick and the prayer of the priests the whole Church commends those who are ill to the suffering and glorified Lord, that he may raise them up and save them. And indeed she exhorts them to contribute to the good of the People of God by freely uniting themselves to the Passion and death of Christ.”

Marriage: “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."

Holy Orders: Holy Orders is the sacrament through which the mission entrusted by Christ to his apostles continues to be exercised in the Church until the end of time: thus it is the sacrament of apostolic ministry. It includes three degrees: episcopate, presbyterate, and diaconate.

Protestant View

As on most theological topics, there are a wide variety of views among Protestants concerning the sacraments. However, generally Protestants and certainly most evangelical and charismatic churches contend that there are two sacraments, Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Most Protestants contend these are the only sacraments instituted by Jesus. Jesus was baptized and participated in the first Lord’s Supper with his disciple the evening before His Passion. Protestants say that the other sacraments introduced by the Catholic Church (and observed by Eastern Orthodox churches and to a lesser extent the Church of England) are not Scriptural but merely church tradition. The Catholic Church relies on the Council of Trent (1545-63) which declared that there seven sacraments, no more, no less. The Council went on to claim that each of the seven had been instituted by Jesus. According to Berkhof, the Council of Trent “imposed an impossible task on the theology of its church.” ² Apparently unmoved by Berkhof’s assessment, the Catholic Church has stuck with the Council’s standard and even now insist that Jesus Himself instituted the rites. Catholics insist on this despite the fact that marriages were not commonly held in churches until roughly 1400 years after the death of Christ³ and even 2000 years later the precise roots of Confirmation appear unclear.⁴

The Five “Extra” Sacraments

Allow me to first address the sacraments that the most Protestants would say are not Scripturally valid.

Anointing of the Sick: Any Bible believing Christian believes that prayer can heal the sick. Healing is listed as among the gifts in 1 Corinthians 12, Ephesians 4 and Romans 12. Most would have no trouble with using oil as the Catholic Sacrament proscribes as this is also Biblical. However, the Catholic tradition has two fatal flaws, one that has been partly corrected and one that his deeply embedded in Catholic tradition and unlikely to change soon. The first problem is that up until recently this rite was only performed on the dieing. Indeed, the sacrament has also been called Last Rites and Extreme Unction.⁵

The result was that it had no real effect other than some kind of comfort for the dieing. There appeared to be no belief that praying for the sick could actually work. Vatican II later renamed the rite Anointing of the Sick and noted that it should be exercised more liberally on all believers who are suffering illness.⁶

The more profound issue is that only Catholic priests may administer the rite and of course it must be done according to a precise script handed down by Rome. This goes to the very root of the difference between the Catholic Church and Protestants. Protestants believe in vary degrees in the priesthood of all believers. Grace Churches International would contend that any spirit-filled believer can pray for healing.

Still, in total, there is a relatively high congruence between the Catholic view of praying for the sick and the Protestant view.

Marriage: As I read the Catholic Catechism on marriage I found a lot to agree with. Certainly, Protestants believe that Christians should be married before God and rely on God for the health and vitality of their marriage. Most Protestants also believe that a church leader should officiate some type of ceremony. Most would further agree that the ceremony does indeed have some effect in the spiritual realm as two are united into one flesh.

However, the Catholic Marriage sacrament has two fatal flaws. First, as we will discuss in more detail below, Catholics believe that all Catholic sacraments are a means of grace. That is, the very act of being married in the church will confer on you God’s grace. In the case of other sacraments, the Church makes some effort to explain why Catholics believe the sacrament itself confers grace. In the case of Marriage, Catholic doctrine appears to make little effort to explain how the sacrament itself confers grace.

The second, more profound issue is annulment. Since, in the mind of the Catholics, only the church can begin a marriage, only the church can end a marriage. The church does not sanction divorce and divorced Catholics are technically not in right standing with the church. Though it appears this is not tightly enforced in many parts of the world.

A Catholic can not get divorced but a Catholic can have an annulment. The Catholic Church will tell you (for a fee of course) that in the eyes of God (or at least the Catholic Church, which in their mind is the same thing) -- you were never married! The fee to have an annulment is profoundly troubling as it smacks of the sale of indulgences that was so critical in sparking the Reformation. The church once had strict rules on what was needed to seek an annulment but has recently loosened the standards to the point of being comical or tragic depending on your point of view. Among the reasons that a Catholic can now present for wanting an annulment are lack of due discretion, defective consent and psychic incapacity. ⁷ These amount to (1) lack of due discretion- I was young/stupid/pressured and did not know what I was doing; (2) defective consent- he/she did not tell they were an previously married/alcoholic/a jerk /boring/not a New York Jets fan; (3) psychic capacity- I was an alcoholic/abuse victim/had mean parents and did not have the capacity for a relationship. There may be some extreme cases where one or more of these reasons have some validity. For example imagine a devout Catholic seduced by a cad who never tells her he is still married.

However, this type of case is more exception than the rule. Instead, parishes now use these loosely defined terms to annul just about any marriage they want to annul. Essentially the system has lost any foundation of reason or relationship to any type of absolute standard, Scriptural or otherwise and Catholics are more or less doing whatever they please.

Holy Orders: Holy Orders is the rite by which men are ordained as priests in the Catholic Church. Like marriage, Holy Orders, looks and feels much what Protestants may do in installing leaders. Most Protestants do some type of ordination, commissioning or sending forth when believers enter into some type of leadership position. Protestants would also generally agree that the ceremony does change things. The one ordained, the one on whom hands are laid is now called by God to another level of service and accountability. In this sense, the ordination of priests is similar. The critical difference would be the Catholic belief that only those that have been through Holy Orders can properly and effectively do much of the ministry of the church.

Confirmations: On the one hand this rite is so meaningless that it is hard to object to. What Christian can not agree that every believer can grow in the Lord, become more deeply committed to the Kingdom etc.? I can also agree that in some cases it may be appropriate to recognize a new level of commitment or maturity. This is one the things behind a Jewish Bat/Bar Mitzvah. I know some believers that have a ceremony when their adult children are brought to a new level of partnership with their parents and the rest of the church.

On the other hand, Confirmation is based on such shaky theology that the rite borders on nonsense. According to John McQuarrie, a professor emeritus at Oxford, the roots of the rite, even to world class scholars, remains obscure.⁸ Even after a careful reading of the Catholic Catechism I can only conclude that Confirmation is meant to bring a Catholic “more fully” into the Church. However, it is difficult to define what that means.

According to the Catholic Catechism, Confirmation is related to the idea that in the Book of Acts being baptized and receiving the Holy Spirit do not necessarily happen simultaneously. Thus, Confirmation, presumably, is when a Catholic receives the Holy Spirit. Catholics apparently are not bothered by the fact that the Holy Spirit appears to descend before, after and during baptism in the New Testament. Rather than concluding that God the Father sends the Holy Spirit when He sees fit, that there is no clear pattern, Catholics are apparently content to attempt to ritualize the Holy Spirits’ arrival well after baptism at a time of their choosing.

As if having no clearly discernable purpose, no clear meaning nor Biblical root were not enough, the biggest problem with confirmation is its relationship with infant baptism. McQuarrie contends that confirmation comes out of the Catholic insistence on infant baptism combined with a need to acknowledge that an infant can not possible have truly chosen to follow Jesus.⁹ Thus, Confirmation becomes something like an adult baptism in the Catholic Church where the person, truly and of their own volition, chooses to follow the Catholic faith.

Where All Can Agree-Sort of

Both Protestants can agree that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are legitimate parts of Christian worship. However, beyond that there is at least some disagreement on just about every other point worth disagreeing about.

Baptism

Catholics and Protestants agree that baptism is an important part of Christian life. The two groups can further agree that baptism is the first step in walking in the Christian faith. After that the two groups diverge.

The general Protestant position is that repentance and faith in Jesus is what leads to salvation and that baptism only makes sense after a person has met the Living God and professed his/her faith. Protestants disagree about whether baptism is essential to salvation or is merely an act of obedience meant to be a powerful symbol of a present reality for the newly saved. Protestants also disagree on the importance and meaning of various forms of baptism. Some denominations are quite insistent on full submersion while others feel any ceremony where the symbolism of being washed in water is sufficient.

In contrast, Catholics are eager to baptize a new born believing that not doing so means the child is in danger of damnation. Catholic theology dictates that baptism removes sin, including original sin. Thus, a ceremony that is obviously completely meaningless to the child can actually ensure that the child will be with Jesus. A Catholic can never be completely right with God, however. Each sin puts the Catholic in some level of difficulty with regards to their eternal state. Thus the Eucharist is meant to be a renewal of baptism.

Eucharist or Lord’s Supper

Protestants recognize the Lord’s Supper as a legitimate part of Christian faith and practice and contend that remembering Christ’s work on the cross through communion is a powerful tool in building the body of Christ. Some Protestants put more weight and meaning on communion than others but none even approach giving the Lord’s Supper the meaning accorded the rite in the Catholic faith.

It would be almost impossible to overstate the importance of the Eucharist in Catholic theology. As stated earlier in our summary of the Eucharist, “The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it.” ¹⁰ Let me give you a sampling of some of what the Eucharist can presumably do according to Catholic doctrine. Each of these quotes is from an encyclical letter from Pope John Paul II written in April 2003.¹¹ In Catholicism this letter is on par with the Bible. Indeed to the extent Biblical text disagrees with the Pope’s letter, the Pope’s writings will rule. Among other things John Paul II proclaims that “The Church draws her life from the Eucharist”; the Eucharist is “the source and summit of Christian life”; “the most holy Eucharist contains the Church’s entire spiritual wealth, Christ himself, our passover and living bread.”

Wow! All that from consuming a wafer and a bit of wine! Who knew the God of Genesis, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the mystery of the atoning work of the incarnate God, Jesus Christ and all the meaning of the Word of God could be reduced to such a small, simple thing? Catholic doctrine contends that during the Eucharist the elements do not merely symbolize Christ’s body and blood but they in fact ARE Christ’s body and blood. This doctrine is called transubstantiation. Catholics are instructed that in one moment that if asked to describe the elements they are to say “it is bread and wine” in the next moment, once the elements have been properly blessed if asked they are to say “it is the body and blood of Jesus.”¹² One might argue, “What is wrong with that? Christian faith is partly about not being able to see things yet still living as if they were real.” Faith for the supernatural and miraculous is wonderful and is part of a dynamic walk with God. Sadly, Catholic doctrine dictates that faith is not what gives Catholic sacraments their power. In fact faith is not even necessary for Catholic sacraments to be effective. This is their fatal flaw.

Sacramental Efficacy

The Eucharist is the most obvious and egregious example of Catholic doctrine pouring a ludicrous amount of meaning and power into a sacrament. Catholic doctrine states that each of the Church’s sacraments, in and of themselves, contain power. This idea is called ex opere operato which means that the rite confers grace independent of the faith or moral character of the celebrant. ¹³ This is obvious in the Catholic idea of infant baptism, the now discredited but once extremely common idea of saying a Mass for the dead and in the incredible power invested in communion by the Catholic Church. Catholic faith would say that merely performing the act correctly will earn merit for the faithful. This is called opus operatum. ¹⁴

This represents a theology of works that obviously must be rejected by any Bible believing Christian. Martin Luther was particularly harsh on the Catholic idea of transubstantiation saying it “is a figment of the human mind, for it rest neither on Scripture nor reason.”¹⁵ Instead, Luther contends that “sacraments are promises attached to visible signs and those promises are found in Scripture” ¹⁶ Sacraments are reminders of God and what he has done for us but do not embody God Himself. As Barth has said, “(sacraments) demand faith…..they are cognitive not causative”¹⁷

Conclusion

I was raised Catholic through age 18. I participated in four of the seven Catholic sacraments (Baptism, Eucharist, Confirmation and Penance). I later met the Lord at age 29 in an evangelical Protestant church. I began this paper curious to see what the Lord would show me about the differences between the Protestant and Catholic view of the sacraments. I confess that I saw more of God’s heart in the Catholic writing than I expected. Based on that bit of encouragement, I made a real effort to find something in the Catholic doctrine that I could connect with, admire or at least more or less agree with.

In the end, I could not find any substantial point where I felt the Catholic viewpoint was superior or even comparable to the Protestant view. Further, I see the Catholic doctrine that the rites themselves contain power as horribly flawed. I am unable to figure how a person could know the God of grace found in Scripture and truly believe that a simple ceremony (properly executed) could actually confer any part of God’s grace absent any accompanying faith. Still, I know from experience that there are people who have met the Lord and yet somehow believe in the power of the sacraments. I bless my Catholic brothers and sisters but must reject every bit of their theology in the area of the sacraments.

Bibliography

1. Catechism of the Catholic Church Prepared following the Second Vatican Ecumenical

Council Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Citta del Vaticano 1993.

2. Berkhof, Louis Systematic Theology Eardmans Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI 1996.
3. White, James T. The Sacraments in Protestant Practice and Faith Abigdon Press, Nashville 1999
4. McQuarrie, John A Guide to the Sacraments Continuum, New York 1997. McQuarrie is professor emeritus at Oxford.
5. Elwell, Walter A. editor Evangelical Dictionary of Theology 2^nd Edition, Baker Books

Grand Rapids, MI 2001

6. Catechism of the Catholic Church
7. Catoir, John C. Understanding Annulments St. Anthony Messenger September 1998.
8. see 4 above
9. see 4 above
10. see 1 above
11. His Holiness Pope John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Ecclesia de Eucharistia Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Citta del Vaticano 2003
12. Anglican and Roman Catholic Commission Eucharistic Doctrine- Final Report, London CTS, SPCK 1989
13. Bouyer, Louis The Word, Church and Sacraments in Protestantism and Catholicism, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1960
14. Ibid
15. Luther, Martin Babylonian Captivity, Luther’s Works Volume 36, Philadelphia A. J. Holman, 1915 revised 2002
16. Ibid
17. Barth, Karl Church Dogmatics IV T & T Clark Edinburgh, 1969

Books referenced but not noted directly

18. Grudem, Wayne Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI 1994

Hellwig, Monika The Meaning of the Sacraments Pflaum Press, Dayton, OH 1972

Kentucky Derby

Every year I do a little evaluation of the names of the horses in the Kentucky Derby. I find horse names fun and once per year I peek into that world to see what is up. It got started in 1979 when a horse named Spectacular Bid won the race. I thought that was a very cool name so I have followed it on a casual basis since then. The next year's winner was Genuine Risk, another cool name and I was hooked.

A good name does well on three criteria

1. Sounds good just rolling off your tongue.

2. Sounds especially good rolling off the tongue of the announcer as he calls the race.

3. Evokes some passion, image or humor because what the words mean or could mean in another context.

You can see why Spectacular Bid hit it out of the park on all three counts and is still the all time champ.

I have to say that the last few years have been pretty weak and 2005 keeps up this trend. The names are ordinary, not original, not poetic, not funny, nothing. The only one that even has a shot is Don't Get Mad. That could grow on you. It definitely has potential.

Sounds good coming from the announcer. Evokes some thoughts and feelings in another environment but just is too ordinary to be poetic or sound good coming of the tongue.

With only one decent entrant I give 2005 Kentucky Derby names a D.

Terri Schiavo

This whole thing is a horrible mess that I don't have time to talk about in full. Let me make one comment. Have you noticed that there was a weird alliance of people on Terri's side? How in the world can Jesse Jackson and numerous Clinton operatives be right along side every prominent conservative in supporting Terri and her parents and opposing Michael?

I saw an article that I thought was insightful. The writer said that the lines are drawn between those that have checked out the facts of this case and those that haven't. Any one who takes any time to find out some of the facts not reported in the mainstream media became, almost without fail, and regardless of general political philosophy and overall worldview, violently opposed to what was happening to Terri. This was a horrible miscarriage of justice that was so heinous that I am sure it will have effects on our culture for years to come. The more I read the more my skin crawls at how evil and sick this whole deal was.

By the standard applied in this case, thousands of people in this country should be put to death immediately, including my mother. My mother is MUCH closer to death, medically, than Terri was. Terri could breath unaided, something my mother can not do. My mother is not on a respirator but does need oxygen 100% of the time. If her oxygen supply were cut off she would die in rougly the same amount of time it would take a healthy person to drown or suffocate. If someone turned off her oxygen it would be murder just as much if they held a pillow over my face or my head under water. I don't understand why this is so confusing to people.

Some will consider this over the top but I don't. We are not that far from the thinking employed by the Nazi's. We may not get there next year but it will not shock me if people with profound medically issues are routinely put to death within the next 10 years. This is a sad, dark chapter in American history

Reasonable people can disagree about the use of "heroic" or "extraordinary" means. Even as a conservative Christian I have no quarrel with people that turn off a respirator or heart/lung machine. That is a tough call and I am not sure what I think of that just yet. I think there is some wiggle room on that based on individual circumstances. That is NOT what happened here. If you have that impression or even 1% of that impression, I would encourage you to do some reading. The power of the internet. When you can actually read the word for word sworn testimony of various medical professionals you start to see how utterly full of crap most of the media is.

My hope is that this case, along with some others, will spur us on as a culture to get our judiciary under control. We are rapidly becoming a government of the judges, by the judges and for the judges. Frankly, I find that trend terrifying. If that continues Terri Schiavo will be just the tip of the iceberg.

Basketball Heaven?

I write this as I am on the verge of the best possible outcome when it comes to college and pro basketball.

First, UNC plays for the national title tomorrow. I have had fun watching this team. They are talented but have also worked hard. On their best day they play just absolutely beautiful basketball. They are a bit up and down as team when it comes to shooting. When they shoot poorly their defense and toughness allows them to hang in and usually win. When they shoot well they are, I think, unbeatable. I have watched them beat good, talented, tournament teams but 15, 20, 25 points.

I am glad for the seniors on this team. They were freshmen on a team that went 8-20. The first UNC team in like a thousand years to not win 20 games. It was an ugly, sad downfall from the heights for that team. Now that class can be remembered as a class that got to the Final Four rather than for going 8-20. Ofcourse, it would be even better if they could be remembered as a class that won the national title.

Second, the L.A. Lakers are all but eliminated from the playoffs. If they suck long enough maybe I will start feeling sorry for them but it will probably take a couple seasons. Now that Shaq is not a Laker I actually kind of like him. You have got to admit he is quite amusing when he talks.

Third, the Nuggets are HOT. Here is hoping they can get up to the sixth seed. If they do that, I think they may be able to go a ways in the playoffs.

Good Comments on Supreme Court

II have pasted a column from David Limbaugh (yes he is Rush's brother) about the Supreme Court. David is an attorney and follows these things more than most. He does a pretty good job of explaining why Courts should not read into laws what suits their fancy but do their best to go by the original intent of the lawmakers. He does this while recommending a book that sounds like a real good one. If the current trend continues most important things in life will be controlled by unelected officials with absolutely no accountabllity to the people. No matter what your politics are that should scare you.

By David Limbaugh

When we understand that our liberties depend on the sophisticated scheme of institutional limitations the Framers of the Constitution imposed on the federal government, we will grasp the urgency of the message of Mark Levin's new book, "Men in Black."

In "Men in Black," Levin takes us on an engrossing ride through history detailing how the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself a sort of tyrannical power that threatens our constitutional architecture and freedom.

We often hear of the dangers of an unchecked judiciary. But few of us have the historical, legal and constitutional background that sets this menacing problem in context. In this book, Levin provides that context in a remarkably readable work that at once educates and captivates.

"Men in Black" is a primer on the United States Constitution as well as a clarion call to liberty lovers to wake up to the alarming damage the Court continues to inflict on our republic. Levin documents how the Court has morphed into a super-legislature, legislating from the bench rather than honoring its constitutional role of interpreting the laws.

From its pronouncements on the Commerce Clause, to its rulings on abortion, immigration, civil rights for terrorists, religious liberty, affirmative action, pornography and election law, Levin shows how the Court has usurped authority from the other two branches to become the most powerful of the three.

The judiciary was never intended to be a policy-making branch, unaccountable to the people. But that is precisely what it has become, as Jefferson and others ominously predicted. And the situation is getting worse.

In recent years, presumably out of some irresistable urge to impress "enlightened" European socialists, certain progressive Supreme Court justices have been flirting with the idea of grafting the laws and customs of foreign nations into the Constitution without a scintilla of authority under the Constitution to do so.

Some people -- mostly on the political Left -- seem to casually dismiss the dangers judicial activism poses to our liberties. To them, as long as desirable political ends are achieved, how we accomplish them is of little consequence. It's alarming that they have so little respect for the principles of limited government and are so oblivious to the indispensability of those limitations to our liberties.

The Framers, being students of history and political science, knew that only if meaningful limitations were imposed on government would the people have any chance of enjoying the personal liberties the Constitution was designed to safeguard. As Levin explains, "[Their] overarching purpose was to prevent the concentration of power in a relative handful of institutions and individuals."

So in addition to investing the federal government with sufficient enumerated powers to perform the essential functions of government, they established a system of federalism, whereby governmental power was divided between state and federal governments.

They also provided for a separation of powers at the federal level, where the government would consist of three relatively co-equal branches, each checking and balancing the power of the others. Finally, they adopted a Bill of Rights to prevent the government from encroaching on specific liberties of its citizens.

By dividing and diffusing power between competing national and state governments, and the three branches of the federal government, the Framers hoped that no level or branch of government would become too powerful at the expense of the others and of individual liberty.

Regrettably, over the years, the Court has not only radically upset the separation of powers, but obliterated the doctrine of federalism by expanding the power of the federal government vis a vis the several states, in ways that would have horrified the Framers.

Levin reveals how the Court, through its obscenely expansive interpretations of the Commerce Clause, gave the federal government the extra-constitutional power to regulate wholly internal matters of the states and their citizens. And by creating constitutional rights out of whole cloth, such as the federal right to privacy, the Court has virtually robbed the states of their sovereignty and severely reduced the power of the people to govern themselves through their duly elected representatives.

If you seek a clearer understanding of the Constitution and a fuller appreciation for the sacred liberties it guarantees, pick up a copy of "Men in Black." If you want to understand why the Left is so determined to block the confirmation of justices who would restore the Court to its proper constitutional role, read the book and join the fight for an accountable, Constitution-respecting judiciary.

Sowell on Soc Sec.

As he almost always does, Thomas Sowell has nailed the current debate over privitization of Social Security. Sowell is an incredibly clear thinker and a good writer. The link is:

www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell1.asp

I issue a challenge to anyone. Read Thomas Sowell's columns from now to the next presidential election. If you do that I would contend you would be unable, under penalty of death, to vote for the Democratic nominee. Sowell will have given you WAY too many reasons why the Democratic policies are just plain stupid and wrong.

Shepard Case Update

I did not see the broadcast referenced below but it is interesting information on the Matthew Shepard Case. I did not follow this closely but if what is said below it is yet another example of how the mainstream media hears what they want to hear, get wrong and just report a story that fits their agenda and worldview. Turns out Laramie got dragged the mud by the media for nothing. The following is a column by Michael Medved who does movie reviews and is also a conservative pundit of sorts.


A recent broadcast of ABC's 20/20 shed new light on a celebrated murder case.
The two thugs who fatally beat Wyoming college student Matthew Shepard granted their first television interviews from the prison cells where they're serving life sentences.
Though mainstream media eagerly embraced Shepard as a victim of homophobia, both killers described a robbery gone wrong that had no connection to sexual orientation.
Indeed, the trial transcript gave no evidence that the two meth-crazed perpetrators — who had brutalized several straight victims in the days, and even the hours, before they assaulted Shepard — had been motivated by homophobia. Nonetheless, all three of the TV movies about Shepard portrayed his death as a "hate crime," as did "The Laramie Project," a play performed across the country in high schools and other venues.
For gay activists, Shepard remains such a convenient martyr that they can't face the increasingly obvious facts about his tragic death

The Bogus BCS

I have long contended that the the college football bowl system and it's new bastard child the BCS is so stupid that it is equal parts tragic, amusing and unbelievable. Why are we committed to this trainwreck? I really do not get it.

I believe that Division I college football may be the ONLY sports league on EARTH that does not playoff to a champion. I mean Pee Wee football, Little League baseball, freaking local bowling leagues and EVERY other sport in the NCAA plays off to a championship including Division I-AA, II and III college football.

What is the trancendent difference with Division I football? The answer is absolutely nothing. I will be shocked if we are not playing off in Division I college football within 10 years. I sense the momentum changing on this issue. Any way, here is a link with a bunch of good information on the topic. Just looking at some of the brackets proposed for this year makes me yearn to have a legit playoff.

http://www.sportsfansofamerica.com/FansInAction/Football/playoffs1.htm

Hilarious NFL writer

If you have not discovered him yet and you like the NFL I suggest checking out a columnist known as the Tuesday Morning Quarterback on NFL.com.

This guy is a real character and has a real tongue in check style but also REALLY knows football, better than many of the pin heads that actually cover it full time. He is not a sports writer but a fellow at a Washington think tank. He does the TMQ column for fun during the season.

Let me give you a quick example. He has goofy names for several NFL teams that range from the obvious The Squared Sevens (49ers, get it) to the obtuse The Potomac Drainage Basin Indigenous Persons (Redskins). Some others that are amusing to me: The Flaming Thumbtacks (Tennessee, those are weird looking helmets), Jersey A and Jersey B (Giants and Jets), Marine Mammals (Dolphins), and the one that is by far the funniest to me, The Flying Elvii (as in more than one Elvis in honor of New Englands very weird looking helmet).

He has some running features like Weird Stat of the Week, an award for the most literary "cheer babe." Obscure college football scores etc. Very enjoyable. Don't check it out unless you have a few minutes. If I print his column it is often 8-10 pages long.

Cool Stuff on The Smoking Gun.com

A web site I like checking out is thesmokinggun.com. It is a web site where they aquire actually physical evidence, documents etc of notorious cases and publish them on the web. For instance in the last few weeks they had a transcript of Kobe's interview with Eagle Co. sheriff's officers and the actual filings in the sexual harrassment case for media personality Bill O'Reilly.

They also have a section where they have mugshots taken of celebrities. I mean photos taken by police for their files. I was checking this out recently and noticed they had some new ones. Apparently, the police in Montgomery AL were cleaning out some storage facilities and found a mugshot of Rosa Parks and MLK, Jr. Pretty cool.

Using College Sports to Analyze the Election

Basically the election gets decided by the Big 10. Here is how it looks right now.

Bush has solid support in Mountain West, Big 12, SEC and ACC.

Kerry does well in the Pac-10 and Big East

The two split those horrible backwaters where neither top tier football nor basketball is played most of New England and parts of the Rockies, Alaska, Hawaii.

So the Big 10 is the battleground, here is how it looks right now.


Kerry wins the PAC-10. Wins California, Washington, Oregon loses Arizona

Bush wins the Mountain West and Big 12. Wins: Nevada, Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas and Missouri. Losses: none. Iowa is a toss up and has one team in the Big 12 and one the Big 10 so Iowans just don't know what to do. New Mexico is also a toss up.

Bush wins the SEC. Wins, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, Arkansas, Kentucky, South Carolina and yes Florida. Losses: none

Bush wins the ACC. Wins: North Carolina, Virginia, and as above, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina. Losses: Maryland, Massachusetts (if we count future member Boston College).

Kerry wins the Big East. Wins: DC, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Connecticut. Losses: Indiana (for Notre Dame) and West Virginia. Pennsylvania which has like half of the Big East and is also a Big 10 state is a toss up.


The slate is about even in states without top college sports

Bush wins: Alaska, Idaho, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota

Kerry wins: Hawaii, Maine, Vermont

Toss up: New Hampshire (leans Bush)


Obviously, Bush has more states but Kerry has some of the big dogs. California and New York alone get a guy about one third of the way to needed tally in the Electoral College.

So, it all comes down to the Big 10.

Bush wins: Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin

Kerry wins: Illinois, Michigan

Toss ups: Iowa, Minnesota and Pennsylvania.


Iowa leans Bush right now, PA clearly too close to call, Kerry probably wins MN but he should not have the fight he is having their. I mean I know he was a favorite son but Minnesota actually voted for MONDALE preventing Reagan from going undefeated in '84.

Using the college sports system the Electoral College looks like this (271 to win):


Bush 284

Kerry 211

Toss up 53 with 37 of those in the Big 10.

Also, the projections may be a bit optimistic in favor of Bush, Florida, Colorado, Ohio, Wisconsin and Nevada all look very good but are hardly locks.

For Kerry I have given him Oregon and Maine both of which could definitely still swing Bush.

Still, Kerry would need to woop up on Bush in the Big 10 to even make it a good fight.

Bush wins.

Can't StopTrying

Now that is painfully clear that CBS's docs are a completely joke, the new clarion call is "ok, the documents are a joke but what they say is right!!" This is being repeated ad nauseum hoping against hope that it will some how work. Here is a brief summary of the truth

1. Dems tried this in '00 and could not find anything, indeed the CBS producer admits she has been working on this for FIVE years.

2. Bush has signed form 180 from the military we have every document relating to his service in the military

3. The documents show that he got six "good years" in and was honorably discharged. I have done what Bush did, skipped the regular drill and made up time at another date. Records show he made up every bit of time and then some. He met the standard to the satisfaction of his superiors.

4. What the real docs show is masterfully summarized here :

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200402180840.asp

5. You will notice that the media never says anything of factual substance but just repeats innuendo, speculation, calls for answers etc. The reason their view is completely devoid of any actual facts.

6. This is a bankrupt and completely dishonorable technique which says that "we know it is not true but if we just say it enough some people will think it is true"

7. Note to the media: If you have something that can be authenticated let us know otherwise SHUT UP!!

Blowing Away Rather II

Here is a link to a story about another sloppy fabrication by Rather 16 years ago. This guy is completely untrustworthy. It will not shock me if he "graciously retires" at the strong urging of CBS in the next few months.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200409150552.asp

Blowing Away Rather

This recent flap over documents that CBS (still) claims are real is proof of one thing that I have contended a long time. It is conclusive proof even to his supporters I think, that Dan Rather is a partisan hack and completely unworthy of his high station. His bias has been an embarrasment for decades. Ninety plus percent of journalist vote Democratic. This is not opinion but a well proven fact. Even among this group Rather stands out. This latest flap proves that Rather is at least one of the following 1) WAY to biased to be fair, 2) an idiot, or 3) a liar.

Here is a list of things that you need to believe in order to believe Dan Rather and CBS are telling the truth.

The Burden of Belief
A list of what you need to believe in order to conclude that CBS's documents aren't forgeries.
by Fred Barnes
09/13/2004 12:55:00 PM


CBS has left the flap over purported documents involving President Bush's record in the Texas Air National Guard in this posture: Who are you going to believe, CBS or your lyin' eyes?

To accept CBS's insistence the four documents from the early 1970s are authentic, you would have to believe the following:

(1) That the late Jerry Killian, Bush's commanding officer, typed the documents--though his wife says "he wasn't a typist."

(2) That Killian kept the documents in his personal files--though his family says he didn't keep files.

(3) That the disputed documents reflect his true (negative) feelings about Bush and a contemporaneous official document he wrote lauding Bush did not.

(4) That he typed the documents on a technically advanced typewriter, an IBM Selectric Composer--though that model has been tested and failed to produce an exact copy of the documents.

(5) That this advanced typewriter, which would have cost $15,000 or so in today's dollars, was used by the Texas National Guard and that Killian had gained the significant expertise needed to operate it.

(6) That Killian was under pressure to whitewash Bush's record from a general who had retired 18 months earlier.

(7) That Killian's superior, Maj. Gen. Bobby Hodges, was right when, sight unseen, he supposedly said the documents were authentic, but wrong when, having actually viewed the documents, he declared them fraudulent.

Now if you can't accept all that, there's another side. To believe the documents are forgeries, you have to believe this:

(1) The documents were typed recently using Microsoft Word, which produces documents that are
exact copies of the CBS documents.

(2) There's no number 2. All you have to believe is number 1.

In response to questions about the authenticity of the documents, CBS has acted more like an embattled political organization than a news operation. It has stonewalled rather than joined with skeptics in a search for the truth.

Last Friday, CBS anchor Dan Rather declared the document authentic and that no investigation by CBS was needed. He told the Washington Post: "Until someone shows me definitive proof that they are not, I don't see any reason to carry on a conversation with the professional rumor mill." In other words, it's not up to CBS to prove the authenticity of the documents. It's up to critics to prove otherwise, a twist on normal journalistic procedure. However, a CBS spokeswoman said on Sunday that the network "continues to work the story."

A forthright news organization would not impede the critics, but CBS has. It hasn't made its handwriting expert, Marcel Matley, available. Nor has it allowed the producer of the story, Mary Mapes, be interviewed by the press. And, so far as is known, CBS hasn't asked two of its sources in Texas, Robert Strong and Bill Burkett, to step forward and answer questions. Finally, CBS hasn't explained where the documents came from, though an explanation would be helpful after Killian's family said he didn't keep files.

Now that Matley's past writings have been unearthed, it is particularly important for CBS to make him available. But Matley told the Washington Post CBS had asked him not to give interviews. CBS relied on Matley as its chief authenticator of the documents, which are copies, not originals. But Matley seems to have violated his own rules.

Here's what he wrote in 2002 in a journal called The Practical Litigator:

In fact, modern copiers and computer printers are so good that they permit easy fabrication of quality forgeries. From a copy, the document examiner cannot authenticate the unseen original but may well be able to determine that the unseen original is false. Further, a definite finding of authenticity for a signature is not possible from a photocopy, while a definite finding of falsity is possible.



That, plus all the other the other evidence of a likely forgery, puts the ball back in CBS's court. Otherwise, you would be free to assume that scenario #2--that the documents were produced recently by a computer using Microsoft Word--is the correct one.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of The Weekly Standard.

Cubs & Red Sox, UM-ND

The only way I will be truly interested in baseball playoffs is if at least one of the Cubs or Red Sox are in. If the season ended today they both make it but the Cubs especially are in a tough fight for a wild card. My dream out come is Cubs-Red Sox World Series. If this happens I will find a way to watch every pitch.

I normally will not spend two seconds watching baseball. I may watch some playoff baseball if I am also hanging out with friends or if I am also watching college football. But, Red Sox and/or Cubs would be magic. Between them they have nearly 200 years without a title. If memory serves Boston's last title was 1918 after which they traded Babe Ruth. Cubs are 1908. Sox have been in the series but lost. I don't the Cubs have even been in the series for decades.

I will be pretty surprised if Michigan can not handle Notre Dame. ND dropped a game to a VERY ordinary BYU team. Michigan is a top team and will be up for the game. ND no longer has the big recruiting advantage it once had. There are at least a dozen schools that start the day with a better rep in the mind of most top athletes. Also, ND has not lowered their admissions standards so they lose some kids who just don't quite have the academics.

It is not possible to coach a team well enough if you simply don't have the athletes. You can win a game here and there with some great coaching and/or motivation and ND may pull it off against Michigan but in the long haul ND needs to start beating out Miami, Michigan, Ohio State, USC, Texas, LSU, Florida, Tennessee etc for some top studs. If they can not find a way to do this they are swirling around the drain. The day will fast approach where they simply have little chance against a top tier schedule.

Based on the BYU performance I would say ND has four winnable games Navy, Stanford, Pittsburgh and Michigan State. I would not want to have my life savings bet on ND winning any of those four. I think 2-2 in those would be a pretty good outcome.

I would expect them to be beaten by Michigan, Washington, Tennessee, USC, Purdue (51-0 over Syracuse,ouch) and Boston College. Since ND already lost to BYU this would put the Golden Domers at 2-9. This follows a 5-7 season.

Well, the only way ND survives as an independent is if they are special. 7-16 over two seasons is not special. Now, they start losing recruiting battles. If you are stud player do you go to a school where you get killed by Michigan and USC and stay home for the bowls? Hell, no. You go to Michigan or USC and play on New Year's Day. Suddenly, even finishing 2-9 becomes tough. Also, if they go 2-9 over even sub .500 the coach is gone. Now ND becomes not special but especially bad and chaotic. Trust me, NBC which has sizable TV deal with ND is not impressed with what is going on and may kick the team to the curb when the contract comes up if things do not improve.

This may be an historic time for ND where they continue to slide out of their once hallowed spot in college football or perhaps rebound to former glory. If they slide much further look for them to join the Big 10 (which actually has 11 teams). This would massively boost ND in nearly every other sport and if football is down that much would likely be at least an even trade on the football side. Also, it gives the Big 10 the magic 12 teams needed for a conference championship game and the big pay that promises.

It takes all kinds

Life with 6,000 scorpions loses charm

The Associated Press


KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia — A Malaysian woman who is trying to reclaim a world record by living in a locked glass box with more than 6,000 scorpions is pessimistic about succeeding.

She has been stung once, is suffering a fever and scarcely sleeps because the creatures keep crawling over her.

Nur Malena Hassan, 27, said Wednesday she has a “50/50 chance” of reaching her goal of being cooped up with the poisonous arachnids for 36 consecutive days to set a new record for the longest stay in a room full of scorpions.

“I'm feeling so much tension,” she said by telephone from the specially built glass room that she moved into Saturday in a shopping mall in Kuantan, about 160 miles northeast of Kuala Lumpur.

“Nighttime is the worst,” she said. “I can only sleep two or three hours, since scorpions get so active at night. But I want to show that Malaysians are capable of world-class efforts.”

Scorpions rarely sting unless they are disturbed, so she remains cautious while moving within the room, which measures about 12 feet by 10 feet.

She set a world record in 2001 by living for 30 days with 2,700 scorpions. Her record was shattered a year later by a woman in Thailand.

Me Thinks Thou Dost Protest Too Much

John Kerry is either getting horrible advice or his opponents have a point. It seems that simple.

Bush has taken a merciless beating over the last several months, being called a liar, cheat, Nazi, idiot etc. He has never suggested any of his opponents should be silenced. Kerry has one group that vigorously oppose him and his team immediately starts imploding, he has been caught in numerous lies and inconsistencies. Rather than dealing with the substance of the attacks he is attacking his opponents, he is saying that Bush should tell them to stop, he is saying Bush's campaign is organizing the effort, his campaign is suing TV stations, trying to stop bookstores from selling a book.

Here is the thing: If all these guys are lying why is he so panicked about it? The desperation of his campaign is lending credibility to his opponents. It is really bad strategy. I am beginning to think it is, however, justified because Kerry has lied extensively about his background and his team knows it. It comes down to this: if Kerry is telling the complete truth then SIXTY FOUR other guys have to be complete liars. I don't think so. Still, if Kerry would just leave it alone it would likely blow over. My guess is he is NOT doing that because he knows that his opponents have a point.

Funny Quotes

One of my favorite writers is Bill Simmons of ESPN.com. He has his own website and one of the features is that he posts amusing quotes made by sports personalities. Here are a few of my favorites to check out the archive and the rest of his site go to:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/quote/archive

"You only get a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity so many times."
-- Steelers CB Ike Taylor on starting a preseason game against the Lions

"I'm running away to an abused fans' shelter. Please don't tell this team where I've gone."
-- Poster ChristineAnn18 on the SOSH message board (following a Red Sox loss in Seattle)

"I'm tired of hearing about money, money, money, money, money. I just want to play the game, drink Pepsi, wear Reebok."
-- Shaquille O'Neal

"I'm like toilet paper, toothpaste and certain amenities -- I'm proven to be good. I've still got 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years left."
-- Shaquille O'Neal

"When my brain exploded, it was the best thing that ever happened to me. I have such a better life now."
-- Sharon Stone

"I may have smoked too much weed, but I wasn't taking drugs or anything."
-- Mike Tyson on his loss to Lennox Lewis

Let's Sort This Out.

Below is a Thomas Sowell article that expresses my sentiments pretty well on the whole Kerry in Vietnam deal. One key point not made by Sowell is this: Can we get over the four months in Vietnam? Kerry was definitely not Seargent York in Vietnam. He was almost certainly not as bad as some of his critics portray him. He was at the very least a sometimes liar and major league kiss ass and self-promoting operator. Not great qualities but hardly damning. I think what he did after he came home is much worse. While still technically a member of the military he met with and gave aid and comfort to the enemy. This is such a bad idea that it is specifically forbidden in the CONSTITUTION. The constitution does not even specifically address murder for crying out loud. No one disputes this and this is much more damning that kissing butt to get another medal. So far we are in about 1972, trust me Kerry gets worse the further forward in time you go. If we get to talking about the '80's, '90's and '00's Kerry fades down the stretch. This guy would make an unimaginable disaster as commander in chief.

Thomas Sowell


Vets vs. Kerry on Vietnam
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | Senator John Kerry's running mate, Senator John Edwards, has said melodramatically: "Ask the men who served with him in Vietnam!" But now that men who served with Kerry in Vietnam are coming forward and contradicting Kerry's version of what happened there, Senator Edwards is calling it a "smear."

Apparently we are to listen only to those veterans who were hand-picked by the Kerry campaign.

One of the photos used by the Kerry campaign shows Kerry as a young Navy lieutenant, surrounded by 20 of his fellow service men in Vietnam — a "band of brothers." But now a new book says that a majority of the men in that photo have objected to having their pictures used in support of Kerry's candidacy for President.


Nearly 200 Vietnam veterans, including many from Kerry's old unit, have organized as Vietnam Veterans for Truth to actively oppose John Kerry and a new book titled "Unfit for Command" by John O'Neill (Click HERE to purchase. Sales help fund JWR.) repeatedly contradicts Kerry's version of events in Vietnam.
There are of course other books with other views on the subject, notably "Tour of Duty" by Douglas Brinkley, with a pro-Kerry slant. If you enjoyed the movie "Rashomon," where different people had radically different memories of the same events, you will love reading O'Neill's book and Brinkley's book together.


The Kerry version of events begins with his volunteering to serve in the Vietnam war. The O'Neill version has Kerry's draft board rejecting his application for a deferment and Kerry then enlisting in the Naval Reserve — not the Navy, as in Brinkley's book.


Enlisting in the Naval Reserves is not very different from enlisting in the National Guard. The big difference is that John Kerry happened to get sent to Vietnam and George Bush did not. But those decisions were made by people far above them in the military chain of command.

Yet some in the media and elsewhere have acted as if it was heroic for John Kerry to have enlisted in the Naval Reserve and cowardly for George Bush to have enlisted in the National Guard. But none has bothered to show what essential difference — if any — there is between these two back-up branches of service.


Both O'Neill's book and Brinkley's book have numerous footnotes to document what they say about very specific events. With all the investigative reporters in this country, someone ought to be able to track down many of the controverted facts and settle these things.


But with Beltway journalists favoring Kerry's election by 12 to 1, according to a New York Times poll, there may not be so much zest for facts this election year.


One discrepancy that does not require much research arises from John Kerry's statement that he was in Cambodia at Christmas time in 1968, while President Nixon was assuring the world that there were no American forces in Cambodia.


Richard Nixon was not yet President of the United States in December 1968. He had been elected in November but, like other Presidents, he did not take office until January 20th.


The ferocity of Kerry's media defenders was exemplified in Chris Matthews' browbeating of columnist Michelle Malkin on his "Hardball" program when she questioned Kerry's Purple Hearts. Matthews repeatedly demanded to know if she was saying that Kerry had deliberately shot himself.


That was never the charge made by the Vietnam Veterans for Truth. Those who were there say that there was no enemy fire, that Kerry on two occasions accidentally injured himself when shrapnel from his own grenades nicked him, and later an enemy mine also got him. The doctor who treated Kerry said that he removed a tiny fragment with tweezers, put a Band-Aid on the spot — and refused to certify it as a wound that merited a Purple Heart.


Kerry's commanding officer at the time likewise rejected Kerry's application for a Purple Heart, according to O'Neill. Later, Kerry got a Purple Heart through another commanding officer who knew nothing about the incident and took Kerry's word for it.


Maybe the media could put some of the energy that they spend trying to discredit Kerry's critics into finding out what the facts are. Or don't they dare risk
finding out?

Thomas Sowell



Vets vs. Kerry on Vietnam, Part II

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | In addition to two key books about John Kerry -- Douglas Brinkley's pro-Kerry book "Tour of Duty" and John O'Neill's anti-Kerry book "Unfit for Command" (Click HERE to purchase. Sales help fund JWR.) -- there is another book that would be well worth reading -- if you can find a copy.


It is John Kerry's own book, written in 1971, titled "The New Soldier." It is out of print and Senator Kerry will not let it be reprinted.


The book's front cover shows protesters carrying the American flag upside down, and inside are photos of members of Kerry's group -- Vietnam Veterans Against the War -- with clenched fist salutes and some of the guys done up to look like Che Guevara.


Also included are photographs of Ramsey Clark, who was a lawyer for Kerry's group. Clark went to North Vietnam and returned to report that American prisoners of war were being well treated there. Those POWs who were finally released after the war told a very different and very bitter story.


No wonder Kerry doesn't want his 1971 book reprinted during an election year. It would not fit in with the image he is trying to create today.


Those in the media who are looking for some kind of political conspiracy to explain why so many Vietnam veterans have organized into a group that has come out publicly against Kerry are overlooking the very obvious fact of what Kerry himself said and did when he returned to the United States after his abbreviated tour of combat duty in Vietnam.


Kerry was not simply part of the "anti-war" movement of the 1960s. Many of us opposed the Vietnam war then for a variety of reasons. What Kerry did was accuse Americans still fighting in Vietnam of widespread atrocities on a daily basis, atrocities authorized all the way up the chain of command, atrocities committed for racial reasons, doing things to the Vietnamese that we would never do to Europeans.


This will no doubt come as some surprise to those Germans whose cities were fire-bombed to rubble in World War II. In John Kerry's speeches and public appearances, however, he said that Americans deliberately killed innocent Vietnamese civilians, raped Vietnamese women wholesale and had "free-fire zones" where troops were under orders to shoot anything that moved.


Decades later, Kerry is now trying to back away from some of those statements, saying that they were the words of "an angry young man." Anger is one thing. Lies are another. If what Kerry said was true then, it is still true now. And if it was a lie then, it is still a lie. His anger cannot change that.


Back then, many in the media repeated such sweeping charges without proof being asked for or given. They disregarded other Vietnam vets who flatly contradicted what Kerry and other activists were saying. The Senate committee that gave Kerry's testimony national publicity refused to allow John O'Neill, who served in the same unit, to testify with a contrary view.

John O'Neill defines free-fire zones as "discretion to fire first if threatened or when confronting enemy forces," rather than waiting to be fired on first. Surely there is some official definition of free-fire zones and some military experts and military historians around to say what it has meant in practice. But the media show no interest in seeking such facts.

What John Kerry and many similar 1960s activists said, amplified by the media, created an atmosphere in which men who had risked their lives for this country in Vietnam returned to find themselves pariahs in their native land, denounced as "baby killers" and spat upon.


A veteran named William Franke said: "I will tell you in all candor that the only baby killer I knew in Vietnam was John F. Kerry."


Do you wonder that these veterans are bitter at what Kerry said about them and horrified at the thought that he might become President of the United States? Is it necessary to dream up some conspiracy theory to explain what they are doing?


America's reputation suffered lasting damage, making it harder to gain international cooperation in life and death struggles, then and now. But Senator Kerry seems to care no more about the repercussions of his words today than he did then.


To view more Thomas Sowell go to

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell.archives.asp