- Family Features
- Business Directory
- Gallery Of Homes
- Subscribe Now!
- Place A Classified Ad
- New! Digital e-Edition
May 28, 2004 12:00 am
From time-to-time, I like to do columns composed not of one general theme, but a collection of random ideas from the right. Most articles I write sprout from a single idea, but not all ideas develop into full columnhood. Below are themes of articles that never made it into print by themselves, but are still too valuable to me to simply be discarded:
The older I become, the more I realize the value of sage advice. But I have also put into place a few personal barriers to ward off unwanted input. I never take financial advice from someone who's up to his eyeballs in debt, I never take parental advice from someone who's not a parent, and I never take marital advice from someone who's not married.
Most of the social ills we face, whether it be abortion, poverty, crime, divorce, drugs, or whatever, can trace its cause back to the failure of men to be husbands and fathers. I have little respect for adult males who abdicate their responsibilities to their female companions, and who abandon their children to the care of single mothers and the vicissitudes of the world without their protection.
Never think your vote doesn't count. In the 2000 presidential election, there were 105,405,100 popular votes cast. George W. Bush won that election by one electoral vote over the minimum. Races in the five closest states had a combined margin of victory of 16,889. That's 55 electoral votes decided by a number of voters that is roughly equal to the population of Mt. Juliet.
According to the Republican National Committee, there were 59 million evangelicals eligible to vote in 2000. Yet only 35 million of them were registered to vote, and of those, only 15 million bothered to vote at all. Thus, barely one-quarter of evangelicals who could have voted ultimately did. To all the non-voting evangelicals who lament the moral degeneracy of our nation, I can only say that you have allowed it to happen.
I'm completely against human cloning, but rather than engage in debate that will likely change no one's mind, I say we just threaten to repopulate the world with clones of Robert Bork, Rush Limbaugh, G. Gordon Liddy, Jerry Falwell, Bill O'Reilly, Antonin Scalia, Pat Robertson, the entire Bush family, and all the other right-wing icons that liberals hate. That would bring them to the anti-cloning side faster than you could say "chromosome."
You can always tell you've won an argument with a liberal when he starts calling you names.
George Soros says he just might spend his entire $7 billion fortune to defeat President George W. Bush. Thank goodness campaign finance reform got the money out of politics.
Environmentalists acknowledge the science in the film "The Day After Tomorrow" is fiction, but on the other hand ask that we take it seriously enough to "persuade governments to take action now." This suggests to me that only in liberal minds does fiction beget reality.
If the government gave me the choice today of opting out of Social Security, even if I had to forfeit my 17 years of contributions, I'd do it in a second. That's how confident I am that even with my limited investment knowledge, I can do a far better job of planning for my retirement that the government.
Every child needs a mother and a father. There is simply no other arrangement that's on equal footing.
According to the Census Bureau, males comprise 49.1 percent of the U.S. population. This constitutes us as a minority group, does it not?
Why is it that Hollywood finds it so difficult to produce a children's movie without a few gratuitous expletives? There are several films we have wanted to watch with our son, but one or two uses of "d---" or "h---," or Christ's name being tossed around as an expletive has turned us away. I don't know if the film industry realizes it, but it does make a financial sacrifice by turning films that could easily be rated "G" into "PG" fare.
What exactly is a "neo-con?" Other than being the short form of "neo-conservative," I don't know what a "neo-con" is. But if "conservative" is bad, then a "neo-con" must be doubly sinister.
The economy is not zero-sum. Many individuals incorrectly believe the market follows some law of conservation, where wealth can be neither created nor destroyed. This is wrong. Capitalism allows individuals to create wealth. Liberalism/socialism destroys it.
One of the left's greatest ironies is that it claims to epitomize compassion. After all, liberals commonly favor the "right-to-die" concepts of euthanasia and assisted-suicide, while being rabidly intolerant of the motto "choose life."
No oppressed society has ever negotiated itself out from underneath tyranny. To now believe that the United Nations could have prevailed over terrorists and the tyrannical regimes that support them through negotiation is an absurd placement of diplomatic faith in that useless organization.