Ever since Neil Armstrong said "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" after setting foot on the moon in 1969, there has been criticism that the statement was flawed. The critics point out that the word man in his statement means the same thing as mankind. They say that he should have said "a man". Well, it looks like he actually did.

AP News reports that an Australian computer programmer has found the missing "a". Using high-tech sound editing software, Peter Shann Ford says he has verified that Armstrong did say "one small step for a man" after all. Apparently it just wasn't audible in the transmission from the moon.

Since that's settled perhaps we can move on to a more important question regarding Armstrong's statement. What about the "giant leap for mankind" part? Where is it? It's been 37 years since we put a man on the moon. What huge benefits have accrued to mankind as a result of our space exploration in general and our missions to the moon in particular? The answer appears to be very few.

Don't bother telling me about all the technology that we have derived from the space programs. That technology could have been developed without traveling into space and at much lower cost. I hope we didn't take all that risk and spend all that money to produce derivative benefits. And don't tell me about all the satellites we've put in orbit. Their benefits are immense but space exploration is not essential to launching satellites.

I'm asking about direct and "giant leap" kinds of benefits from the space exploration itself. Space tourism is not profitable yet, but that might be about to change since private business is getting into the act. Anyway, I wouldn't classify tourism as a giant leap for mankind. No exotic elements have been discovered that could have revolutionary applications here on Earth. No disease has been brought back that eradicated all life on Earth. (No, wait. That's a good thing.)

What exactly did we think we needed from outer space? Cool pictures? Another class of heroes? It's time to shut down taxpayer financed space exploration. When a real need develops private enterprise will rise to the occasion.

---

Wendy McElroy says the media should protect the identity of the Congressional Page caught up in the Mark Foley scandal. She has previously made a case for revealing the identity of the accusers in alleged sex crimes. Many sex crime accusations are false and they have a devastating effect on the accused, even when later proved to be false. In this case though, she points out that the young Page is not the accuser. In fact, he and his family have tried to keep the whole affair private.

I agree with McElroy. I also believe that it is time to move the focus away from Foley. He has resigned from the House of Representatives and has been publicly humiliated. I see no real benefit in searching for some way to charge him with a crime. (It seems to me that crimes worth prosecuting should be obvious. Why do we have to conduct an investigation to see if a crime has been committed?) What we need to do now is move the focus to Dennis Hastert.

His failure to take definitive action when he first got wind of this problem several months ago is inexcusable. Then was the time for a quick internal investigation to determine the extent of Foley's indiscretions, followed by a public announcement of the findings and his resignation.

Hastert's behavior regarding the search of Representative William Jefferson's office was also unacceptable. Although there was strong evidence that Jefferson was engaging in criminal activity, Hastert took the position that the executive branch had no authority to raid Jefferson's congressional office. This is just one more instance of members of Congress believing they are above the law.

Hastert has presided over the disintegration of Republican control of the House. Whether or not Republicans maintain a majority in the House after November, there is little hope that they will be able to pass any conservative legislation. In fact, under his leadership there is no indication that they will even try.

It is time for Dennis Hastert to step down.

---

MSNBC reports that farmers have unpicked crops lying in the fields due to a labor shortage. They say that part of the reason is tighter borders. I say that is good news -- at least the tighter borders part. If the farmers need more workers they should try offering higher wages.

Another reason given for the farm labor shortage is that construction firms are "actually recruiting workers from the sides of the fields." Again, the reason construction firms can do that is because they are offering higher pay or better benefits. All the farmers have to do is match or exceed what the construction firms are offering to keep their workers. It is really that simple.

The farmers argue that higher labor wages will force them out of the market; that people won't pay the resulting higher price for their products. Well, if they won't then apparently they didn't need the products in the first place. Because I guarantee that people are going to have to eat something. They will pay market price for food, whatever that is. If a lot of apples and oranges rot on the trees, then the price of apples and oranges will rise -- and then perhaps the farmers can afford to pay their pickers more.

If farmers are so dependent on Mexican labor, then perhaps they should consider moving their farms to Mexico.

---

Dear Dick,

Thank you so much for the e-mail and nice picture. Some might think that addressing you so familiarly is a bit disrespectful considering that you are the Vice President, but that is the way you addressed me (Dear Carson, not Dear Dick) and I'm quite certain that you don't have the foggiest notion who I am -- although I did work for you for several years. Apparently though, you don't mind being called Dick -- unlike this man that once introduced himself to me thusly: "Hi, I'm Richard Head. Please don't call me Dick."

May I prevail upon you to read my Open Letter to Mike Huckabee and then my Open Letter to Ken Mehlman so that I don't have to restate all my reasons for not sending any more money to the Republican National Committee?

I do want to say that I have changed my mind somewhat about my assurance to Mike that I won't be voting for any Democrats. My reason is stated quite succinctly by Kathleen Parker:

"As politicians square off over shamed congressman Mark Foley's cyber-sexcapades with underage boys, one question persists: Can we just get rid of the whole bunch?"

Since the primary elections have passed, and since I want to do my part in getting rid of the whole bunch, I will be forced to vote for a Democrat because my incumbent representative is a Republican.

Sincerely,

Carson Sasser

P.S. I know this is nitpicking but it should be 'President Bush's agenda...', not 'President's Bush agenda...', unless you are talking about the President's shrubbery agenda -- but you did capitalize 'Bush'.

---

Another scientist is sounding the alarm over the extinction of species. Edward O. Wilson says, "as many as half the world's species may face extinction by 2100 because of pollution, climate change, human population growth and other influences." USA Today reports that he has been dubbed the "father of biodiversity", whatever that is.

So what if a bunch of species disappear! If they are that wimpy perhaps they don't deserve to survive. Why is it assumed that all species need to exist forever? How do scientists know that the disappearance of certain species is not the natural order of things? A lot of creatures have come and gone over the life of our planet and we seem to be getting along quite well without them. Count me as one who couldn't care less if the snail darter hangs around.

The article also says Wilson has "developed a field known as sociobiology, which seeks to link behavior in humans and animals to their evolutionary heritage." It doesn't say that he is the father of sociobiology; perhaps they haven't completed the paternity tests yet. It seems obvious to me that the behavior of every life-form would be linked to its evolutionary heritage.

Well, I looked it up. Wikipedia says:

"Biodiversity has no single standard definition. The most straightforward definition is "variation of life at all levels of biological organization". A second definition holds that biodiversity is a measure of the relative diversity among organisms present in different ecosystems. "Diversity" in this definition includes diversity within a species and among species, and comparative diversity among ecosystems."

So, in everyday language it means that scientists have discovered that there are a lot of different life forms out there, and they want to spend a lot of money studying them without us knowing what they are doing. I'm convinced that the reason we have so many of these arcane disciplines, like biodiversity, is that science students are running out of subjects for theses and dissertations. If a lot of the science stuff you hear about these days seems 'made up', it probably is.

---

Feminists like to claim that there are no innate differences between men and women -- other than that reproduction business. They also like to claim that women bear the brunt of domestic violence. Do you think they don't realize the two claims are contradictory? Or do they think that we are too stupid to notice?

Wendy McElroy believes that women are the perpetrators of domestic violence a lot more than is generally thought. She has a web site called ifeminists.com. She is her own feminist.

_______________

Last year and the year before some 'experts' were saying that the number and intensity of hurricanes striking the US was due to global warming. Do you suppose they believe the fact that none have made landfall (so far) this year is due to global cooling? Probably not. They will likely blame that on global warming too.

_______________

Those who leak government secrets to the New York Times and other venues seem to think they are serving the citizens of this country well. They seem to think the reason the government 'classifies' information is to keep citizens in the dark about what the government is doing. They are, of course, wrong. The government classifies certain critical information to keep our enemies and potential enemies in the dark about what it is doing. Although tens of thousands of government employees and contractors have access to government secrets, it would be impossible for every citizen to know everything and still keep the information from falling into the hands of our enemies. Even the liberal elite should understand that.

Yes, the information classification process is sometimes abused. But there are better ways to bring those cases to light than leaking it to the media. Every agency has a whistle-blower process. And there are always competing elements within an agency that can be exploited by a conscientious employee to expose abuse of the classification process.

I'm convinced that classified information is leaked to the media solely for political purposes.

_______________

We've heard a lot over the last few years about problems in the conduct of elections. Although we certainly should strive to make elections perfect, we need to recognize that we will never reach that goal. And we should understand that elections have never been perfect. I believe that we come a lot closer to counting every vote correctly now than we did forty years ago.

Some complain that using electronic devices to tally votes is too risky -- that such devices might malfunction and lose all the votes. This is certainly possible, but I can remember when boxes full of paper ballots somehow disappeared before the ballots were counted. Some election districts use paper ballots that are counted electronically, but even that is not foolproof. The paper ballots are recounted only when election officials are aware of a problem.

The process of ensuring that only citizens are allowed to register to vote, that only legally registered voters are allowed to vote, that each voter only votes once, and that all the votes are counted correctly will always be an imperfect process.

---

By now just about everyone has heard the terms "celebrate diversity" and "promote multiculturalism." I went to college too long ago to understand why we need or would want to do either.

There are several definitions of 'celebrate', including get drunk at a party and commemorate with ceremonies. But I suppose users of the term mean that we should extol or praise diversity. People have been different for as far back as we have knowledge that people existed. Trees are different too. Will we someday be called upon to celebrate that? I can understand the need to respect people that are different from us, but I don't understand why we need to celebrate something that has been a part of nature for thousands of years.

In fact, it seems a little arrogant to me. Who is doing the celebrating? Do we have the consent of all ethnic or otherwise diverse groups to celebrate their diversity? I seriously doubt that the Amish people want to participate in the celebration.

I have similar reservations about promoting multiculturalism. In this usage, 'promote' means to help or encourage to exist or flourish. Now why in the world do we need to do that? I can understand the need to accept the fact that many cultures differ significantly from our own, and the need to treat them with the respect that they deserve. But there are plenty of different cultures in the world and in our country. I don't see the need to create any more or help the existing ones to flourish. Again, this would seem a bit arrogant to me. If a culture can't flourish on its own, then perhaps it's time for it to disappear. Who are we to think that we can prop it up and help it survive? I believe that we should be promoting assimilation, not multiculturalism.

---

Fox News reports on a study conducted by the University of Connecticut's Department of Public Policy and sponsored by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute.  The researchers asked some 14,000 randomly selected college freshmen and seniors multiple-choice questions about America's history, government, foreign relations and economy.  Some of their findings:

• On average, seniors scored just 1.5 percent better than freshmen did. And had the survey been graded as a test, seniors would have failed; they averaged 53.2 percent.
• Students at relatively inexpensive colleges often learn more, on average, than their counterparts at expensive colleges.
• Students at many supposedly top-flight schools seem to lose knowledge while on campus. At Berkeley (49th on the list) seniors scored 5.6 percent worse than freshmen, and at Johns Hopkins (dead last) they were 7.3 percent worse.
• Overall, of 50 schools surveyed, students regressed at 16 of them.

Could the universities be spending too much time celebrating diversity and promoting multiculturalism?

---

Is there a bigger moron on television than Rosie O'Donnell? I mean bigger in terms of more moronic, not in terms of body weight. I think Rosie is even more moronic than Keith Olbermann. Recently on The View Rosie launches into a rant on gun control and is interrupted by Elisabeth Hasselbeck who tries to make some counterpoints. She listens to Elisabeth for a few seconds then interrupts her saying, "let's talk instead of yell." She clearly was not yelling any more than Rosie was yelling.

Rosie apparently believes that no one should be allowed to have a gun of any kind. She clearly believes that all guns should be registered and traceable like motor vehicles. I don't have strong objections to guns being registered, but I do strongly object to extensive controls on who can or cannot own a gun.

The biggest problem I have with Rosie is her simplistic view that guns are the cause of most of the violence in this country. Guns might be used in much of the violence but that doesn't mean they caused it. She seems to think that if we take away the guns the violence will disappear. She said the recent shooting and murder of the Amish school children would not have happened if Charles Carl Roberts IV had not had access to a gun. She said that if he had a knife instead of a gun the teacher would not have left the children alone with him. She didn't bother to explain what the teacher (remember, she is an Amish woman) would have done to prevent a man with a knife from harming the children.

Too many people have Rosie's simplistic view that most of our problems with violence will disappear if only we could take away the guns. It doesn't take a genius to understand that people inclined to commit violence will find other means to do so in the absence of guns. Thousands of acts of violence are committed each year with knives and clubs, though guns are readily available.

One of the other women on The View (I think her name is Joy) asked how a milkman in Pennsylvania could have a gun or get a license to carry a gun. (Are milkmen in Pennsylvania considered dangerous? It's not like they work for the Postal Service or anything.)  I don't know about Pennsylvania but in most states you only need a license to carry a concealed weapon. There is no license needed to own a gun as long as you don't carry it around with you. Do you suppose she thinks a man intent on killing children would be deterred by the fact that he doesn't have a license to carry his gun with him to the schoolhouse?

There is more intellect in the simple slogans, "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" and "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," than anything Rosie has to offer on gun control.

[I was led to this topic by a great column on OpinionJournal by Peggy Noonan: The Sounds of Silencing - Why do Americans on the left think only they have the right to dissent?]

---

Anyone seriously thinking about voting for a Democrat on November 7 should consider the possibility of these outcomes:

1. The Democrats take over the House and Senate.
2. Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House.
3. The House impeaches President Bush and Vice President Cheney (which some Democrats have said they will do).
4. The Senate convicts both and removes them from office.
5. Nancy Pelosi becomes the 44th President of the United States.

Now that I have managed to frighten you, let me hasten to add that while there is some possibility that all these events could occur, the likelihood that they will is relatively low. I say this because I don't think the Clintons will want to take any chance that Pelosi could become President. That would remove any possibility that Hillary could be the first woman President. It would also drastically lower her chance of being elected President at all, because after a few years of a disastrous Pelosi regime the people will have had enough of Democrats once again.

All this aside, I don't think Hillary has a snowball's chance in hell of ever becoming President under any scenario. She simply does not have the gravitas or personality to conduct a successful national campaign. Many people see her as a comical figure.

---

• <-- Previous page
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next page -->