The Noble Pundit

Hmmm.... Is Communism Poised To Take Over The World (Again)?

The Commissar over at The Politburo Diktat is attempting more subversion of capitalist America.

First he tries to cast doubt one the President by pointing out that he got traffic tickets. How can we possibly have such a scofflaw as President? Next thing we'll know he'll be double parking Marine One!

And then in a blatent attempt to reintroduce the banner of communism in a more politically acceptable manner, he suggests naming the Comcast/Disney corporation - Commey. Think of how such a name would slowly subvert our children as they enjoy their annual pilgrimage to Commey World. They could not defeat us in an militaristic or economic fight, so the new plan appears to be defeating us by taking over our culture.

Does any comrade know where I can pick up a good Russian dictionary?

Arrggghhhh!!!!!

I would really love to post more today - I have three good articles to write about - but I was thrown for a bit of a loop a little while ago. I received a job offer paying a good bit more than I'm making now. The excitement has made it difficult at best for me to write anything coherent, so I think I'm going to give up on trying for the rest of the night. Also, don't expect much, if anything, tomorrow as I will likely be pulling a 10 am to 2 am workday again.

To give everyone something to chew on for the rest of tonight and tomorrow here are the three articles with a quickie comment on each:

Bush, Congress Battle Over Transport Bill - I really find it odd that Bush would make a stand against spending in one of the few enumerated responsibilities of government (Article I, Section 8, Clause 7 of the Constitution).

Kerry Avoids Flat Out Denial - Great, Kerry is going to Clinton the issue. If he did, he needs to admit it; if not, deny it like a man. No more weaselly stuff. Must be the francophile in him coming out......

Microsoft a Disney Suitor? - And so the Disney buyout rumor mill begins. I expect that we'll hear about more than just Microsoft before it's all said and done.

Battle Hymn Of The Loser

Via Jay Solo....

The Battle Hymn Of The Loser, a quite nice pæan to the memory of the defeatable Al Gore. Go take a look for a good laugh.

If Only...

Have I ever mentioned how much I enjoy reading Victor Davis Hanson? Yeah? If you hadn't read the posts, you probably figured it out by the fact that the top two permanent book recommendation links are both for VDH books. It has always been an unstated (until now) goal of mine to have someone make the comment that I can write half as well as he.

Today, I read his latest column over at National Review Online and thoroughly enjoyed it, as I do all his columns. But then a few minutes later, I found an article over at IMRA in which a Palestinian official proves that he lives in more of a fantasy world than Hanson could ever dream up.

This official referred to Israel as "Satan's offspring" and decided that the recent decision to swap 400 Arab prisoners for one live and three dead Israelis was part of some kind of a plot to make an Arab life seem as though it is worth less than an Israeli one!

Now I didn't agree with the 400 for 1 and 3 deal at all. I thought that the numbers were way out of line (plus I don't like negotiating with terrorists, but that's another issue.). However, I give Sharon credit for placing that much value on the life of a single Israeli citizen, along with providing closure for three other families. It speaks to the commitment that the Israeli government has to its people.

But it wasn't the Israelis who made their citizens life so valuable, it was the Arabs who demanded 400 prisoners for 1. It was the demands of the terrorists that so cheapened the perceived value of the Arab life in relation to the Israeli one. You can't make outrageous demands and then complain about their effect once they're met. It is not the fault of Israel that the Arab (and particularly the Palestinian) people now see the vast difference in the concern of the respective government for their people. The light of the truth can be very harsh indeed.

I really believe that the fact that this official is even out whining about this is a good sign. I think it indicates a rising pressure from the Palestinian people for some sort of reform that better recognizes their worth to their leadership. Had the negotiation been for 40 prisoners, the Palestinians may have felt like their side simply pressed a good deal. But 400? That number is simply so far out of whack with a reasonable expectation that I can see it making the Arabs feel as though their government views them as 1/400th of an Israeli - and that has got to hurt.

The First Salvo At Kerry

Looks like the Republicans have finally decided to start the anti-Kerry offensive with this short video Unprincipled, Chapter 1, detailing some of the hypocrisy in the Kerry campaign.

The video isn't bad, especially as a first shot, but it's definitely going to need to get stepped up a couple of notches here pretty soon. It's good, but it's not victory material.

It is nice, however, to see the Republicans finally starting to make an effort at taking Kerry down a peg or three.

Abstinence=Bigotry?

The Liberty Council has a grassroots program going on in high schools around the nation today to have kids wear white t-shirts to school to help promote the idea that abstinence is a good thing. The kids also plan on distributing pro-abstinence literature to other students.

Given the current state of teenage pregnancies and STDs, is this really all that bad a thing, to encourage kids to wait until they're married before having sex?

said Alice Leeds, a spokeswoman for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. "It's redefining it in their context to conform to their frankly bigoted agenda." (emphasis mine)

Now Ms. Leeds was referring to the plan to call today a "Day of Purity" as an abomination because it is using the word "purity" in a manner in which she does not approve (but a manner which is consistent with common usage of the word for the last few hundred years).

But how can she honestly sit there and claim that promoting abstinence - even with an unapproved, non-PC use of the word purity - is bigoted? Since when did responsibility become bigotry? Since when did morality, at least that accepted by a large segment of the population, become bigotry?

There is nothing bigoted about the promotion of abstinence. It may be a disagreeable position for Ms. Leeds, and one that she would not teach to her own children, but not every disagreeable position is bigotry. Placing more value on purity than promiscuity does not a bigot make. If Ms. Leeds ever wants to have her message of free same sex love accepted, she needs to become more accepting herself.

And she's not the only one out there complaining about the movement:

Eliza Byard, deputy executive director for the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, said in an e-mail that her group applauded any effort to promote healthy sexual choices by young people.

"Unfortunately, this program seems to have a limited idea of what that means and doesn't appear designed to provide the kind of information students really need," she said.

"Doesn't appear designed to provide the kind of information students really need." That sentence, more than any other in the article, really, really bugs me.

Why is there an assumption that all sides of every issue must be presented at all times? This effort by the Liberty Counsel is engaging in advocacy. They believe strongly in a certain position and want to promote the benefits to others of taking that position. In a court, do we expect the defense to assist in the prosecution while the prosecution assists in the defense? No. We have an advesarial system set up so that both sides of the story are presented and a jury determines which side is the better choice. Ideas are really no different. The grand marketplace of ideas is also advesarial. But instead of lawyers, the marketplace of ideas uses advocates. Sometimes they are politicians. Sometimes they are private citizens or organizations. But if we don't expect the State Attorney to defend a murderer, why should we expect a church group to defend or educate about promiscuity?

If Ms. Byard feel so strongly that an important part of sex education is being left out then she should go out and advocate it. Just like the Liberty Council is. Let the ideas of abstinence and promiscuity fight it out in the marketplace of ideas. Surely if Ms. Byard doesn't feel a twinge of embarassment or guilt at going forth and recommending that girls become sluts. Surely she has no concern with going out and recommending that teenage boys act on their urges with anyone, male or female, who happens to be willing.

Or maybe she does have issues with going out and publically advocating such positions. Maybe Ms. Leeds knows that she cannot legitimately win in the marketplace of ideas, so she tries to brand the abstinence message as bigotry, hoping that the stigma of the word will be enough to make up for her lack of intellectual argument.

I applaud the Liberty Council for making an effort. I don't believe that they'll be too successful as the free love crowd has already made some serious inroads in the educational system - inroads that will be very difficult to reverse. But they have taken a position and they are advocating it in an adult, responsible manner. Got to give credit where credit is due.

Also, as an aside, I am not attacking homosexuality here, only unfettered promiscuity. Please don't read in to this something that is not there.

They Must Be Out To Turn Me Against Them

I've been saying for a while now that I'm am generally for a form of legalized gay civil union (and I'll admit that I sometimes lapse into incorrectly using the term marriage instead of civil union. There is a fine distinction and I believe that it is important to maintain that distinction). First we had the Massachusettes Supreme Court decision that I found offensive because of the way it was handed down. Now we have the mayor of San Francisco defiantly and willfully violating California state law to "marry" gay couples. This is really starting to go to far....

There is no excusable reason for the mayor of a city to deliberately violate state law. He may not agree with the law. He may even believe that it violates a portion of the State Constitution. But until a court rules on the Constitutionality of the law, it is his responsibility to uphold the law as written. The mayoral office is in the executive branch. In our system of government, and even that used in San Francisco, it is the responsibility of the executive branch to uphold the will of the people, as expressed through the legislative bodies, until such time as the judiciary determines that a law violates the Supreme law of the state or the nation.

Now in the system of checks and balances, I can see a real and justified reason for the executive branch to fail to enforce a law, for instance one that requires the summary execution of all three foot tall, one armed black, jewish, American Indians whose mother hailed from any South American country ending with "-zil."

But this isn't a failure of enforcement. This is open defiance. This is a usurption of the legislative and judicial functions of government. It is the Imperial Mayorship.

I also believe that it should be grounds for his immediate removal from office. If the mayor is allowed to openly flaunt the law, why should there be any expectation that anyone else would obey any law either?

The precedents being set in both Massachusettes and now San Francisco are deeply disturbing. In both cases the will of the people, as legally expresssed through our elected representatives is being discarded or ignored by other branches of government that happen to find it distasteful. Our government is one of the people, by the people and for the people. Or least it was.

Now it seems, the people don't matter.

We're becoming more faced with this question every day: are we the government as the by, of and for would indicate or are we now the simply the subjects of a benevolent tyranny?

We're Heading For Nuclear Destruction???

One more quickie before I head out the door for work.

World May Be Headed for Nuclear Destruction-ElBaradei

Gee, isn't it supposed to be a part of his job to help staunch the proliferation of nuclear weapons? He's out there complaining about proliferation, but what are his solutions? Make it "impossible" to withdraw from NPT? Strengthen inspections and export controls?

Doesn't he realize that anyone serious about building a Bomb is going to laugh at these proposals? It's kind of like throwing a single bucket of water on a burning skyscraper.

Maybe I would feel better if he were suggesting inspections enforced by the threat of force. Maybe I would feel better if he were suggesting to involuntary elimination of suspected nuclear proliferation sites. Maybe I would feel better if his organization had any kind of track record worth feeling better about.

I fear that Dr. El Baradei's prophecy is accurate, but that he is absolutely the wrong person to try to change it.

Does The UN Not Study Its Own History?

A UN envoy in Iraq has agreed in principal with a Shi'ite Ayatollah that Iraq should suffer direct elections, altough he did indicate that conditions must be right.

Has he not looked at the General Assembly to see how a direct democracy functions - or more correctly, fails to? Has he not seen the injustices that eminate from that august body? Does he not realize that replacing Saddam with a direct democracy is simply replacing one big tyrant with many little ones?

On anything outside of small, local issues, a direct democracy is a recipe for failure. The US government would most certainly fail if we were to change from a Republic to a direct democracy. Technically, it is feasible. But we would lose sight of our ideals. The tyranny of the majority would ignore the lofty goals set by the Founding Fathers in an effort to satisfy an immediate desire. For anyone not in the majority - which will be everyone given the breadth of issues facing us today - life in a direct democracy would be every bit as oppressive as life in Castro's Cuba or the theothugs Iran.

The Greeks proved the ineffectiveness of a direct democracy over 2000 years ago. The UN General Assembly is consistently reinforcing many of the downfalls of direct democracy - most notably the oppression of the minority by the majority. For a UN envoy to be nearly totally ignorant of those lessons is appalling.

If we want Iraq to become a more tolerant society, with protections for minorities similar to what we have in the US, we need to stick to our plan to introduce the Iraqi people to a republican form of government.

Otherwise, we are just reloading the powder keg.

Who Has Failed The Student-Athlete?

Earlier this week, there was a federal court ruling that cleared the way for Maurice Clarett, former Ohio State running back for a total of one season, to enter the NFL draft, effectively nullifying some NFL rules about draft eligibility. The NCAA is, to be expected, up in arms about the ruling, claiming that it will further harm young men who simlpy aren't capable of playing at the NFL level. The real question here, isn't the one surrounding the draft eligibility ruling. No, the real question is:who is failing the student-athletes?

Is there really any blame that can be placed on the NFL here? You can maybe make the argument that they should have put stiffer eligibility language in the last collective bargaining agreement. But in the end, the league was trying to keep the youngest of the young out of the league. Education may not have been their top concern, but they certainly were not attempting to poach the cream of the crop. Their rules were applied fairly across the board.

Did the court system fail the student-athletes? Perhaps. A little common sense applied by the judge probably would have gone a long ways here, but the judge followed the letter of the law. If blame were going to be placed on government, it would probably be better placed on the legislatures that passed the laws the strictly interpreted.

No, the real failure was by the NCAA and the colleges themselves. How can a graduation rate of 54% be called successful? There are now college football games on ESPN or ESPN2 nearly every day of the week. It's nice as a football fan, but it is terrible for the student-athletes.

Why? Money.

College football generates a huge amount of revenue for both the schools and the NCAA. At many universities, at least some of the money coming in from football is used to improve the quality of education for all students. But is the trade-off worth it?

I don't think so. It is exploitation. Many of these "student-"athletes are kids that really are ill-equipped to be in school in the first place, much less taking on the added stresses of athletics along with their studies. It is not fair to the athletes and it is not fair to the rest of the student body that school funding is being spent on these kids that shouldn't have made it out of high school much less into a major university.

If the NCAA and the universities are looking to place blame, they need to look no further than the closest mirror. The biggest failure of the student-athlete comes from programs that try to convince kids that they are student-athlete material when a 10 year old can read better than they can. Yes, the argument can be made that they are giving underprivleged kids opportunity. But it can also be argued that these same kids are being lied to. Do the ends justify the means?

The state of the student-athlete is deplorable. Something needs to be done to fix the system. Blaming courts and the NFL is not the way to do it.

The NCAA needs to get its own house in order. The 54% graduation rate is their fault - and no one else's. It's time for the NCAA to own up to its failings.

Kerry To Sharpen His Message?

The AP is reporting that John Kerry is looking to sharpen his message, whatever that means, and is also taking a page from the Al Gore manual for victorious campaign advertising.

You know, I'm sure that Kerry would have a much easier time sharpening his message - if there was one there to sharpen. I have, as of yet, to find a single concrete position of John Kerry, well, except maybe for his love of the Vietnamese Communists.

He voted for the war in Iraq, but seems to be rather shocked that it involved real fighting, by real soldiers, with real consequences.

He was against Saddam Hussein, but doesn't seem to believe that he really needed to go.

I'm sure that Kerry is the kind of guy who would tell us that 9/11 was a tragic event, but that that Osama guy really isn't too bad once you get to know him.

(All of the above are personal conjecture. Has he actually said these things? Probably not, but please provide a link if he did. I just happen to believe that they are all real possibilities to come from the mouth of John Kerry.)

I'm sorry, but I just don't think that Kerry gets it. He doesn't seem to realize that national security is not the issue for him to run on. There are few Presidents who have done a better job in the national security realm than George W. Bush. Trying to fight this battle is kind of like bringing a tank to battleship duel in the middle fo the ocean. It seemed like a good idea at the time....

Almost like his decision to take a page from the Al Gore How To Campaign In Florida book (Chapter 1: Get Pat Robertson on the butterfly ballot near your name. Have Palm Beach County voters take to the streets claiming functional illiteracy if the vote doesn't go your way.).

Just as Gore ran ads in Orlando, Tampa and West Palm Beach while Bush saturated all of Florida, Kerry's spending will have to be selective and smart, aides said.

Gee, if I remember correctly, even after the seven thousandth recount by every organization that could pronounce "chad," Bush still won Florida. "Selective and smart" advertising was not all that bright. Gore's message didn't get out to all the people in the state. How much do think Al Gore would have paid to swing 1000 votes from the Bush camp to his? You think he wishes that he had been a little more aggressive with his spending?

I do love this. Sharpening the message and being smart and selective with the advertising dollars. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Also indicates that maybe Kerry's message, while resonating amongst the Party faithful, is not striking a chord with the average American. It's one thing to win the Party. It's another to win the nation.

Oh yeah, for a little more fun go over to the Politboro Diktat and take a look at the Commissar's collection of potential Kerryisms. Some of them are pretty good.

Maximizing Shareholder Value

In my last post I talked about how I believe that the sale of Disney is now, basically, a foregone conclusion. Let me explain why.

The CEO and Board of Directors have one goal when in the employ of a public company: maximize shareholder value. They don't need to be charismatic. They don't need to be innovative. They don't need to have ice water running through their veins. Those personality traits all help immensely, but in the end greed is good. They were hired to be greedy. They were employed to gather the greatest possible value for their shareholders.

CEO and Boards have been sued many times in the past for failing to maximize shareholder value. Most of the suits are bogus and get tossed out pretty quick, but the fact that they can even be filed demonstrates the importance of maximization.

Companies that are doing well, returning decent growth numbers every year usually are not targets for unsolicited takeovers. Why? Because there is a reasonable and defensible belief that shareholder value is being best served by the current management team.

Most boards want to keep the company independent (I'm guessing that there is a greed factor in that, also, since the directors are paid handsomely for their oversight duties) which is why they are so apt to change the management team should the maximization of shareholder value begin to falter. They have seen the history. Companies that are afraid to shake it up at the top end up either being taken over or becoming failures. Now there is, of course, a point at which too much shaking up becomes a problem in and of itself, but still, sometimes change is good.

Disney has needed to make a change at the top for a while. Eisner has not had the magic. It was well known on Wall Street. It is well known in Orlando area (at least for anyone who has been around here for a while). It was even known amongst the Board. Remember Roy Disney's departure from the company a while back? The signs were out there. People in power just didn't heed them.

And now Disney is a takeover target. Comcast offered to buy the company out for 10% premium. 10% for one of the true icons of Americana. A franchise like Walt Disney should have been able to command much, much more than that as an opening bid. 10% for Mickey Mouse. It just goes to show how far the fortunes of the company have fallen over the last few years.

It would be very difficult for the company to make the argument that the current management team will be able to provide returns that justify turning down the deal. The Eisner team hasn't performed up to standards over the last five years. Yes, he has done a pretty good job of managing to the quarterly numbers. But along the way he has allowed the company to lose its vision towards the future and as a result the company has stagnated. Disney has no great plans. It has nothing earth-shatteringly exciting on the drawing board. It is a company marking time right now.

And so, Comcast, believeing that they could do a better job of managing such a great franchise, has put the company in play. Unless Eisner can pull some great secretive plan to overhaul the company out of Mickey's magic hat, he needs to now start concentrating on finding other suitors for the company and starting a bidding war. That will be the only way that he will be able to ensure that he has, in his last days as CEO, maximized the shareholder value.

Is starting a bidding war greedy? Yep. But as Gordon Gecko said: Greed is good.

It's time for Eisner to get greedy for the shareholders instead of himself.

Welcome To Walt Disney World Presented By Comcast?

Oh, boy. Comcast has announced an unsolicited tender offer to buy the Walt Disney Company for approximately $66 billion in stock and debt.

I don't really see the deal going through as proposed, but it does effectively put Disney in play. Someone is likely going to end up owning the American icon. The only question now is, how high will the bidding go?

There will also, of course, be a great deal of teeth gnashing and complaining about the loss of independence for such a great, household name. But his is an issue of Disney's own making.

Michael Eisner should have been gone a few years ago. The board should have been involved in the governance of the corporation than they were. But they were a rubber stamp for all of Eisner's ideas - both the good and the bad.

By rubber stamping the reign of King Eisner, the board effectively failed to maximize shareholder value. Originally, they could say that the lack of return was due to taking a long term approach. But the long term is here and the value still isn't.

Disney has been a company in a bit of a crisis for a while. They had a crisis of leadership. Eisner is no longer a great leader like he was in his early days. The board is finally coming around to finding its collective voice, but it appears that it will be too little too late.

Soon, we will be entering the Walt Disney World Magic Kingdom presented by So and So, maker of This and That. The great iconic theme park will become but another tawdry shtick for some company.

The days of Disney being the 800 pound gorilla are officially over. Soon, they will be part of another 800 pound gorilla.

And a part of the magic of the Magic Kingdom will be gone.

The Kerry Cavalry Charge Continues

Well, it looks like the Kerry campaign is gaining momentum with wins in Virginia and Tennessee, along with another in Maine over the weekend.

To steal a phrase from Kerry: bring it on.

Kerry is not the best candidate to go up against Bush. He is the epitome of everything that so many people dislike: he is the quintessential Washington insider, he is about as far left-wing as anyone in Congress, he has a record of flip-flops and backtracks in his voting record. John Kerry will the easiest candidate for the Republicans to turn into the next Michael Dukakis.

The worst part of this is that in this election year, Bush is vulnerable. He is an excellent wartime President. He handled the post 9/11 events very well. But he has also blundered badly. His immigration amnesty plan is offensive enough to make me have seriously considered voting for someone other than Bush. I probably would have ended up voting for Bush in the end, but still, I believe that Bush is vulnerable.

And the Democrats, rather than nominating an electable candidate like Joe Liberman, are instead going to send up John Kerry to be the sacrifice to pave the way for Hillary in '08.

The Kerry campaign looks to be gaining an almost unstoppable momentum. Tonight almost ceratinly knocked out Clark knocked Clark out of the race. Edwards is on the ropes. Dean is going the way of Kucinich and Sharpton.

But the Kerry campaign has also not met any real resistance from the Bush camp or the RNC. Once the Republicans begin their offensive, I believe that the gap between Kerry and Bush will begin to widen again.

Kerry is making a big mistake by thinking that his primary victories are an indication of a general feeling in America. He is polling well among the Democratic faithful, but how will he fare in a general election is still yet to be seen.

Question

Does anyone have any ideas as to how to pursue a copyright violation against a Chinese company? The website is registered to a Chinese company and is hosted on a .com.cn server.

Chinese companies have made cheap knock-offs of high-quality, high-price billiard tables for years, but this one is actually using the photos of the originals (not the knock-offs) to promote their product.

I know that I can't pursue this personally, but I am interested in knowing what avenues are available - simply for personal edification.

Child Support

Via the Watcher of Weasels we have a rant from Raging Dave at Four Right Wing Wackos about the worst aspects of the child support enforcement program as it exists in many states.

I agree with Raging Dave that the system is broken - no doubt about it. I'm quite sure that there are many stories like that of Mr. Pierce, a man goat-roped into fatherhood (and hence, child support payments). I know that there is a perverse incentive for some states to go after anyone with money, assuming that they must be the father of any child whose mother is a candidate for The Jerry Springer Show (The Father Of My Child Is One Of These 42 Men That I Slept With In Less Than Two Weeks!). Everything that Raging Dave rages about is accurate.

But it is only half the story of why the system is broken. Contrary to the popular belief that only men get screwed under the system, there are instances of women who get the short shrift also. Let me explain by way of personal experience.

First, I believe that any man who fathers a child has automatically signed up for 18-25 years of supporting that child (time depending on whether or not the kid goes to college). If you were man enough to do the deed with Mommy, your man enough to live up to your obligations as Daddy. Period. End of statement. No questions. You're a father, you have an obligation. I don't feel sorry for you and you had better not sit there and ask me to feel sorry for you. Some decisions have long term consequences. Deal with it.

Several times on this site, I've mentioned that I have three kids. Clarification is in order. My other half has three kids. I have none that biologically mine. I support these three and love them like they're mine, but in the end it is only because I'm me. I am not linked to them via DNA. So they're my kids, they're just not MY kids.

The State of Florida is a state that does not take out a cut on child support payments. Awfully nice of them, especially considering the fact that the payments can get down as low as $35/week for a teenager (actually perspective on the cost of raising a kid is something the courts here should get a better grip on). Benefit comes in that without there being a cut taken, there is no incentive for the State to "create" fathers, quite possibly incorrectly. It is also a problem in trying to get the State to enforce child support collection.

The State of Florida also has another quirk (at least in the mid '90s they did. I don't know if the law has changed since). If the mother and father are not legally married at the time of birth, the father cannot be listed on the birth certificate - even if he concedes fatherhood and wants to be named. Paternity can only be established by a DNA test. Sounds all nice and fair, right?

Wrong. Getting the courts to order a DNA test is near next to impossible. Our youngest is already in elementary school. I've been with my other half for over five years, nearly six years, now. We have received exactly one - 1 - payment of $25 towards supporting that child - and the bum had the audacity to ask for it back as a loan! She has gone and asked a judge multiple times to order a DNA test so that his paternity could be legally established and so that she could get a court order for the support payments (she knows that we'll not actually see the money, but he'll at least end up in jail, hopefully working prison labor, which might start to send some money our way). The judges, so far, have refused. This same bum is the father of the middle child. He is listed as the father on her birth certificate (from another state). Over the same time frame, we have seen exactly the same $25 support.

The oldest one, her father has done a little better. Ordered to pay at the whopping rate of $35 week, he is close to, if not over, $2500 behind. Last year he had a decent income tax refund coming, but the State forgot to send in the paperwork to intercept it. From him we at least get the odd $35 check or maybe an occasional $100 check if he was feeling generous. But nothing consistent or meaningful in supporting his child.

We have tried every different avenue we can think of for getting some kind of support for these kids. Both me and my other half have struggled jobwise, and we're, between the both of us, not even making what I was alone just two years ago. It is a fairly constant struggle to make ends meet, which is part of the reason why I'm working two jobs right now. Getting a little, even token help, with support would be very welcome.

But when she's gone to the courts, she gets told she has to use a Department of Revenue attorney. Remember, the DOR doesn't make anything for collecting these payments, all of the money is sent on to the custodial parent. So to say that their interest in taking on another deadbeat was low would be an understatement. They have absolutely no interest in helping her to gain the support she needs and is rightly entitled to (and not in the negative sense of the word "entitlement," it took two people to create this child, yet only one is doing anything to care for the child). They are only interested in processing another case and getting off the docket for now.

The system does fail people like Mr. Pierce by not exercising proper due diligence or by using a presumption of innocence. But it also fails legitimate parents who are trying to play by the rules. The system is in need of a complete overhaul, taking into account the needs of both non-parents and real parents in true need of assistance.

I don't have the end-all solution, but there is more to the story than just the horror stories of the wrongly accused. We need to find a better and more efficient way to screen the alleged parents to better protect the innocent while also holding the real fathers to account.

Are African-Americans Black?

A few days back, there was a little bit of a flap over at OpinionJournal.com regarding the proper way of defining Teresa Heinz Kerry's heritage. Opinion Journal referred to her as "African-American," a completely accurate term given her birth in Mozambique and her later naturalization as an American citizen. Many, however, took offense to the statement of fact and attacked James Taranto, accusing him, among other things, of targeting Democractic bigots.

In my many rants about the loss of distinction in the English language I have kept saying that eventually words would not mean what they actually mean. This whole flap is proof positive. "African-American" is no longer a term to describe American citizens whose heritage is African. Instead, it has been reserved for a few select African-Americans who have a higher degree of skin pigmentation. "African-American" does not mean African-American anymore. It means black.

But, of course, not all African-Americans are black and not all blacks are African-American. One of my teachers in school was African-American. Very pigmentationally challenged, she was an Afrikaaner from South Africa. But she was certainly more African than the black history teacher I had who was of Jamacian descent. Yet, he was the one referred to as "African-American." How does it make sense that the one who is, cannot be referred to that way and the one who is not, must be?

And are we to extend this? Here in Florida, we have very large Cuban-American and Puerto Rican populations. To the uninitiated, they look similar, both having a somewhat darker complexion. They speak a similar language (two different dialects of Spanish). But, if you ever want to have a good rumble in the parking lot, just go up to a Puerto Rican and refer to him as a Cuban-American. Or vice versa. Just because they are similar does not mean that they are the same.

The worst part about all this is that even the most ardent supporter of the black people in the US understands the difference. Am I talking about the National Association for the Advancement of African-Americans (NAAAA)? Of course not! Look at the name of the NAACP. It is the National Assocation for the Advancement of Colored People. I generally think that the NAACP is way out in left field with most stuff, but when it comes to defining who they are, and to be inclusive to those they wish to include, they have hit the nail right on the head with their name.

We are on the verge of losing the actual meaning of a term, African-American, if we haven't already. I understand that OpinionJournal can sometimes inflame passions, but in this case, they merely spoke the truth. And the weight of the PC establishment is trying to come down on them with righteous indignation.

How much of our language must we lose to the PC cops before we revolt and try to salvage what little is left?

Did Lieberman Drop Out Due To Jewish Anti-Semitism?

Did Joe Liberman have to end his run for the Presidency due to the Jews turning their collective back on him? That is the theory being put forth by Jewsweek.

While I find the Jewish anti-Semitism argument interesting, I really don't think that it holds too much water. I don't deny that Lieberman's Orthodox beliefs may have turned off some people. I don't deny that there is a large segment of the US population that would have trouble with electing a President who was Jewish.

But I believe that the real reason behind Lieberman's failed candidacy lies in his relative moderateness. This campaign is becoming more and more defined by extremeism. Why was Dean successful? Is there anyone who really believes that it was because of his consensus building? What about Clark? Sharpton? Kucinich? Even John Kerry? Doesn't he have one of the most liberal voting records in the Senate?

This is developing into an election of extremeism. Liberman, being a relatively classy act, was completely ill-equipped to thrive in such an environment. More than any other factor, it was his personality, his congeniality, that kept him from succeeding in this election.

The media likes the outlandish. The media likes the anger. Lieberman's even-keeledness really served to keep him out of the national spotlight, He was too much Michael Jordan; not enough Dennis Rodman. In the circus environment of today's politics, that was the effective kiss of death.

Surely Lieberman's religion played a part in the events that led to his failure, but I don't think that it was the deciding factor. I also don't believe that the reaction of the Jewish community in the United States was a big factor. It was the lack of momentum, which was caused by his lack of lunacy on the campaign trail.

It's time to face facts, Liberman lost because he was, well, normal. He was soft-spoken, reasonable, moral, and religous. In short, he was much like a large swath of America.

Unfortunately the electorate just doesn't seem to be ready for a normal candidate, yet.

My Reason For Not Posting So Far Today

Had a little more important stuff to do. I had almost forgotten how much fun the moonwalks can be!

Too bad the temperature was only in the 50s for the party. Everything ended up great, but the kids spent a lot of time complaining about how cold it was.