THE SUBPRIME CRISIS; COULD IT BE OUR OWN FAULT?

Foreclosure after foreclosure, bankruptcy after bankruptcy, the mortgage crisis seems to grow every day. The Dow has taken a sharp hit and dropped more than 10% in the past few months resulting in all of our retirement accounts shrinking instead of growing. Realtors are getting ulcers watching housing prices shrink while inventories of houses grow, and the average homeowner is watching the equity in his/her house disappear slowly. Pundits are all over my T.V., each claiming something different is at the root of it all. Some say the builders built too many houses, others claim shady leading practices are the cause. Still others point to gas prices, inflation, and even rising tuition as factors. Finally there is the argument that government intervention caused banks to be required to give loans to people that had bad credit histories (the definition of subprime is, after all, people with less than prime credit). All of these things contributed in one form or another to the problem, but in the end are we not at fault ourselves? Have we become a society that doesn't know how to take responsibility for our own spending habits? Do we have to have the government step in and tell us when we're over-extending ourselves? Do we need to be given an "allowance" by our paternal government to stop us from financially destroying ourselves?

One only needs to look back 20 years to see how much worse our debt ratio has become. All through the 90's we leaned harder and harder on our credit cards to make ends meet. From 1989 to 2001 alone our credit card debt nearly tripled from $238 billion to $692 billion, this resulted in bankruptcy jumping 125%. Note in the link provided that low income people had the biggest percentage increase in debt. How is it that the people with the least ability to pay, are the ones leading the pack getting themselves more in debt? On the housing side we went from having a U.S. mortgage debt of $2.188 trillion in 1988 to a debt of over 11 trillion in 2007, an increase of over 500%! Are we loaning out to just about anyone, with any kind of credit, in an effort to give everyone a chance at homeownership? Or are people simply over extending themselves and overstating their incomes so they can get bigger and bigger houses? We seem to think we have to have the newest car, the biggest house and thousands of dollars worth of computer components. This has become a country where even the poorest amongst us are driving brand-new lease cars while talking on their cell phone. The new norm is way beyond what most people can afford and to reach it they push themselves farther and farther into debt. But whose fault is it really?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not letting lenders off for their part in the bargain. In their effort to sustain an economy that was overinflating itself, they found new and creative ways to give us more borrowing power than we ever should have gotten. Every quarter report was judged on it's own merit with no thought of the future, so mortgages were bundled and sold and resold. The purpose was always to take the "cream" off the mortgage (the first few years of the loan where the principle was the highest) and then to sell it to someone who would except less money for more risk. It is a game of mortgage "Hot Potato", making quick profit while trying not to get caught holding should the housing market reverse. To keep it sustainable, housing values were constantly pushed up so the borrowers would have even more equity to refinance. Over and over again. To make it even more profitable, they turned to the least educated and most risky borrower, the subprime. To make it worth their time they wrote in high interests rates with appealing first year rates. "You can always refinance." Was their main selling point. The people, convinced that they can't, or shouldn't have to, resist the temptation of putting themselves further in debt, simply borrowed and borrowed all the way to foreclosure.

We desperately want to blame the people who lent us the money, but is it their fault really?. Without them, we contend, we wouldn't have the money to push ourselves into debt. But isn't it also true that if we didn't take their money we wouldn't have gotten into such a mess? We act like we're all little children with no self control. We blame the T.V. for its sexy ads, we blame Hollywood for it's commercialism. "Who can blame us?" we plead. "We're victims of their evil powers." We buy for vanity. We buy to make ourselves feel better. We buy to keep up with our neighbor, or our brother. We buy things to fill the empty spaces inside ourselves that were once filled with the joy of everyday events, or the pride of making something yourself. Have you ever noticed that materialism never leaves you feeling fulfilled for very long?

When I was just a young man trying to understand this complicated world, I was blessed to have a teacher wander into one of my classes who explained finances in a way that has helped me more than anything else I've ever learned. For some strange reason, (I suspect community service), this multi-millionaire was stuck teaching economics in the poorest school in Flint. While the rest of my poverty stricken classmates threw pencils at each other and laughed at his partially stroke-frozen face, he explained credit, financing, interest and budgeting. He told us, "Most of you will be poor your whole lives because you don't understand interest." And I listened intently. He warned against credit cards and refinancing endlessly. He told us to live within our means and to remember, "You can't be better off tomorrow by spending tomorrow's money today." And I listened alone. He taught me to budget and to plan. And to have a plan "B", and even "C". That year I learned those important lessons while my classmates played. Like the proverbial ant, I have lived better for it than my grasshopper counterparts.

It's hard to blame people for lessons they didn't learn. It's even harder to tell people things they don't want to hear. But is it fair to exempt ourselves from the blame for this whole mess when we're the ones that should know what we can and cannot afford? I doubt very much that you could borrow money from a drug dealer or a bookie and then claim, "You should have known better than to loan me money I couldn't afford." So why would you try that on a bank? Ultimately, we are the ones responsible for our own finances. Even though there is plenty of blame to go around for the economic mess we're in, lenders and regulators included, it's clear we're not getting the full view of the problem unless we also look in the mirror. H.C.

THROUGH A CHILD'S EYES

Yesterday, a very unusual incident happened to me. Since we've been discussing people and the way we stereotype each other, I thought it would make a good example of what can happen when we don't give each other the benefit of the doubt. However, while exploring the different ways to approach the story, I thought about my own rules for the media (which to a lesser extent includes me). One of the rules I outlined was to "only bring race into the story when it's relevant." I thought about whether or not this story was absolutely about race and I decided that we could still learn the lesson without it. So, I'm going to let all of you guess the race of the players and I won't tell you any different. But be careful and use this as an opportunity to examine yourself.

While on my way out to my car after work, I noticed a police officer friend of mine (not the same one in the previous post) standing in the shade, watching the students making their way both to and from their cars. We started talking about the safety of the students and how people need to be involved in protecting one another. Suddenly, a call came over his radio about a suspicious man who was standing in front of our day care center. The campus police started swarming toward the day care center from every direction. My friend and I could see what was going on from our view across the river. Another call came across his radio. Several parents were demanding that the police come immediately as the man seemed to be very agitated. We could hear a couple of officers respond that they were nearly there. My friend then commented that he couldn't really see what the problem was as there was no mention of a gun or any threatening actions. More calls came over the radio describing the man, nothing seemed to me to indicate that he was doing anything unusual. Again my friend noted that it didn't seem suspicious to him, but the radio made it clear that the parents and staff were not taking any chances and would not let any kids out until this man was checked out. Finally, after a brief silence, a call came over calling for the "all clear". The man was simply waiting for his daughter and was agitated because she was supposed to be out by then, and he was in a hurry. Somebody it seems, owed somebody an apology.

Now, there are a lot of things to consider here. The staff had never seen this man before because his wife usually picked his daughter up. And he did seem agitated. But it seems to me they jumped from stage one to stage four without considering two or three. Why not just ask the man if he needed help? What was he there for? The answer did seem to be his appearance.

Now, I want you to consider the possibilities. Did you automatically assume he was black? Why? What about my friend? Was he the same color as the man? The same religion? Is it possible the man was a Muslim? An Arab? Maybe even wearing a turban? Could he have been a large white biker-looking guy? How about a skinny creepy-looking guy? What color were the parents? The staff? Take a second and think about where you thought this was all going and why.

Since I'm not going to tell you about the specifics, let me tell you what bothered me the most about this whole story. His daughter. It brought tears to my eyes to think of his little girl (our day care only takes kids under 5) standing there wondering what's going on. "There's a bad man outside?" she must have thought to herself. Certainly she could sense that something was going on. By not demonstrating one simple act; the benefit of doubt, we changed that little girl's perspective of how she viewed her father, and the way she viewed other people's opinion of him, based only on appearance. I'm sure her dad will be fine, by this stage of his life he knows the worst of humanity. But it saddens me to think we robbed a little girl of her innocence, because we couldn't be brave enough to ask an unarmed man, "Can I help you." H.C.

WHAT CAN WE ALL DO TO END RACISM?

As much as I truly hate talking about race, I've come upon a few stories lately that I think can help us all understand one another. My banner on this story is a little misleading, so let me start by saying we're never going to completely eliminate racism. I'm sorry to have to tell you that, but I wouldn't be being completely honest if I didn't come clean and explain that racism, like terrorism, violence, crime, bias, and a lot of the other plagues of mankind are unfortunately here to stay. The best analogy I can give you is one that was given to me by my friend Will, "I mow my grass even though I know it will just grow back, the point isn't to stop it completely, the point is to keep it under control." I think everyone should agree, all the things I mentioned above should be kept under control as much as possible. With that in mind, I have a few suggestions on how we can help keep racism as limited as possible.

* DON'T DEFEND RACISM*

Just so we all understand how extreme racism can get and why it is viewed as such a major issue particularly by minorities, I'm afraid I have to point out this example; Six sick twisted individuals in West Virginia, tortured a young black women in ways that are too horrific to even mention here. If you feel you have to know what really happened , I've linked the story here. Generally, I'm against Capital Punishment, but my reason is the inequity of the application of it, not the morality of it. With this in mind, I say B.B.Q. the bastards......'nuff said. This is the way we should all respond to acts of racism of this degree. No excuses, no examples of equal acts by the other side. In fact, let's just simplify it and say anyone who treats another human being in this way deserves the worst punishment you'll stand for morally. Too often I hear people rush to relativism just because race is part of the story. Think how bad you look when your on their side for any reason. This applies to all races, genders, or sexual preferences. Wrong is wrong and we should never diminish it.

*MAKE RACE AN ISSUE ONLY WHEN IT IS AN ISSUE*

Too often we separate ourselves when we don't need to. I don't care that Mike Vick was black, torturing animals for entertainment is wrong. I don't care that the people in the story above are white, kidnapping and torturing someone is wrong. I never will be able to figure out why race is brought into some stories but not others. Often I've seen articles about acts of violence against white people that would not mention color at all. I was only able to determine that the victims were white by looking at their obituaries or by their pictures in related articles. At the same time, I've seen articles on crimes of an equal degree that make race an issue when the crime was white on black. This is a common complaint by white people. What is the standard? I once questioned the editor of a major local newspaper on why this was so. He told me their policy was to publish race only when a advocacy group made them. When I asked if there was a advocacy group that would do that for white people, he said there wasn't one because they refuse to recognize any group that was deemed a racist organization, and all white advocacy groups get put in that group. I look at it this way; if there is some value in pointing out race, such as a description of a criminal, a systemic flaw in the system showing bias, demonstrating that a wanted criminal has shown a pertinacity toward a certain kind of victim, or anything else that would help the general public protect itself, then it's O.K. to show race. Otherwise, I would like to see this minimized as much as possible. A robbery is a robbery, A murder is a murder, it shouldn't matter what color, gender, or style of clothes the perpetrator or victim had.

*DON'T LET POLITICIANS USE RACE TO DIVIDE*

From Willie Horton to Marion Barry, politicians use race to separate and divide for their own benefit. Sometimes they do it to get elected (Willie Horton) and sometimes they do it to get themselves off the hook (Marion Barry). The idea here is simple, use code words and innuendo to move people (usually the most racist among us) to their side even though we know what they are doing or did is wrong. Unfortunately, this usually works, which explains why they do it. Sometimes they do it even when it makes no sense at all. A recent example of this is the case of Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick of Detroit. Mayor Kilpatrick was sued by two Detroit police officers for firing them in retaliation to complaints the officers had made against the Mayor. The officers had gone to the press about a supposed wild party that Kilpatrick had thrown which included a couple of strippers and an attack by Kilpatrick's wife on one of the strippers. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the two fired officers, awarding them $6.5 million for wrongful discharge. Kilpatrick then went on to assert the verdict was returned due to a mostly "suburban" (read white) jury. Never mind that both officers were themselves black. Even black Detroit Free Press journalist Stephen Henderson expressed his disdain for the Mayor's tactics by saying the Mayor was basically claiming, "Whitey stuck it to him." Unfortunately, the Mayor is right in believing a certain segment of black Detroiters will back him based only on that premise. We have to come to a standard that says it wrong for a politician to act badly....no matter his color, or don't be surprised if our cities fall to corruption.

*HOLD OUR MEDIA TO A HIGH STANDARD REGARDING RACE*

I have to give my friend Andre (Inside Andre's Head) credit on this one. He pointed out to me that the mainstream media has an obsession with missing white women and kids. At first I was a little sceptical, but soon I began to notice that what he was saying was true. (Sometimes it is necessary to point out inequities) White women and kids graced my T.V. screen almost exclusively. I have noticed though, that in recent times Fox News has responded to these accusations by running more stories about missing black children. (I'm still waiting on the missing black women) In the past two weeks they have run a story about a missing 10 day old child and a missing 3 year old. For at least recognizing this inequity, even if only under pressure, I give Fox Kudo's. I hope other networks follow suit. We need to make sure that our media, for whatever reason, doesn't seem to value anyone's life more than someone else's. I've said it before and I'll say it again, everyone's mother, father, brother, sister, whatever, grieve's for their loved one. If for any reason, you find yourself caring less about a child, or for that matter anyone, because of their race, gender, or sexual preference, take a long look at yourself in the mirror and see if you like what you see.

*DEFINE RACISM IN A WAY THAT'S FAIR TO ALL SIDES*

If there is any hope of us winning in our fight against racism, we have to come to terms on what racism is. I would hope that on the first example I gave you at least, we can all agree. As you all went through the rest of my piece, I'm sure it got more debatable. I hope that I at least gave all of you food for thought. One problem I see in our task of defining racism is in who should do the defining. Often on my campus, I see an effort by advocates to be the ultimate definers of what racism is. In there efforts to gain power, they work hard to shut out any other voices besides their own. If we are to come to any real consensus, we need to hear all sides. Certainly the debate will be emotional.... but it is necessary. To have one group do all the judging, or to have a group excluded from contributing is a way of guaranteeing that the problem will continue forever. If we can only make one step toward ending this plague, let it be hearing all sides and coming to a consensus, not a dictation. As I was telling a black police officer friend of mine the other day, " Your Great-Grandfather and mine would have never envisioned us standing here like this today; you a cop and me your friend." We have come far, but we have far to go. Let's all walk down this path together, we don't have to agree on everything. Only on the goal. H.C.

THE ULTIMATE PREDATOR

A lot of noise has been made lately by Animal Rights groups supporting leaving wild areas of the U.S. to natural predation, meaning that they want wolves and mountain lions as the top predators. The theory that the Animal Rights Activists have is this: If we bring back the high end predators, there will be no more need for the barbaric (in their eyes), practice of hunting. I guess on the surface that would seem to make sense. But by looking a little more into it, we begin to realize what we would be giving away. Hunting by humans is a far more specialized method of controlling populations, and I will argue here in this piece why I think you should support your local hunter as the primary force of controlling animal habitat and populations.

Hunting is as old as the earliest forms of man, in fact even before. All animals hunt in some way, either for vegetables, grasses, or meat. No matter what, something dies. We like to play God sometimes and value some life over another based mostly on how big it's eyes are, but to the thing that dies, there is no difference. All life should be treated with reverence, and we are naturally more protective of the lives we know, but I've come to accept that our place in nature is as a carnivore. I've often wondered what would happen if the future showed us that plants have a worse suffering being pan-fried than any animal does being shot.... wouldn't that freak a few vegans into starvation. I've always viewed Vegetarianism as the first step to anorexia anyway. First meat's gross, then crunchy things, then slimy things, and then soon.....you're not eating anything. If that's your path, then more power to you, but for me, I'm not chancing it.

Hunting isn't what it was 100 years ago, or 50 years ago, or for that matter, even 20 years ago. Hunting has evolved into a money machine for government, a specialized tool for game management and a retail business.

Huge stores have opened around hunting, supplying tons of jobs. In fact, in the town of Dundee here in Michigan, they have a Cabala's Hunting Supplies that is now the number 1 tourist attraction in our state. In addition to that public revenue, hunting licenses supply a big part of the cost of running a Department of Natural Resources which maintains our parks, and state forests not to mention buying up tracks of land and supplying access to lakes and rivers. I think it's safe to say, without a functioning DNR, any state would be a far less attractive state both to people and to animals.

So what about the efforts to return areas to "Natural Predation"? Over all, they have been a complete flop. Most often the efforts end up costing lots of money with bad results. A good example of this would be the Isle Royal State park here in Michigan. Isle Royale is a beautiful island and a great research station for Predator/Prey relationships, particularly between moose and wolves. Unfortunately the top predator, man, is missing from all this research. Lately an interesting thing has been happening on Isle Royale. Ticks have been exploding in population, possibly due to global warming. The ticks are impacting the moose health to a point where not only are they dying, but so are the wolves that feed on them. The irony here is: even in their effort to isolate the situation on an island, man has found a way to impact them.

I like to think of hunting as more of an effort to live with our brothers; the mountain lion and the wolf, than an effort to replace them. We assume our role as the Alpha Hunter, and in that role we control the populations of not just the rabbit or deer, but also the wolf and the mountain lion. If you think about it, that's the way it has been since we first stood upright and discovered our thumbs. Frankly, I view the idea of removing us from the predatory hierarchy as upsetting the system and throwing everything out of balance. Why is it we view ourselves as somehow "outside" the order of things when we are so obviously the driving force? We affect things around us in ways that impact everything. From our homes, to our cars, to our roads, we decide how the landscape shall be arranged. Instead of being a pushing force or a caretaker of captive animals shouldn't we be learning to live with nature and not separate from it? There are ways for us to be more responsible, to pollute less, to have less children and to impact the environment less. But what may be our most important role in maintaining a healthy environment is assuming our role as the driving force behind sensible animal control, as the Ultimate Predator. H.C.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF HYPOCRISY

An interesting thought has been reoccurring in the "free zone" of my tattered brain. "Why is it we seem to forgive those that are complete fuck ups as long as they have never claimed to be anything else, but we crucify anyone that claims to be good and has a failing?" It seems we humans have a natural aversion to hypocrisy. As a father, I know that any teenager worth their piercings is going to call you a hypocrite at one time or another. But what is a hypocrite? Should we wear it as a badge of honor, or hide our face in shame? Can the very idea shape the way we look at crimes? should it? When is it O.K. to be a hypocrite? Let's take a look at what I've come up with while pondering the philosophy of hypocrisy.

I guess the first question we should ask ourselves is: "What is hypocrisy and when are we guilty of it?" Well, the clearest definition I could find is,"Insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have." That seems simple enough for me. Practice what you preach. But what is it exactly that someone who's trying to be good believes in? I think that's where it falls apart. We like to think that someone who holds themselves to a higher standard is somehow saying that they're perfect. So, when they show themselves not to be, we attack them as hypocrites, pretending to be something they're not. I think the crucial word here is "pretending". If your intent is trying to be a better person, then I don't see any hypocrisy. If your intent is to deceive people about your character, and you have no intention of trying to change your behavior, then you are indeed a hypocrite.

All that doesn't fit most people's definition of what a hypocrite is. An example of what most people think of when they think of a hypocrite is; Someone who had a child out of wedlock, or who did drugs as a young adult, now trying to give advice on how someone else should live. If you think about it, that doesn't fit the definition. Certainly, learning from your past mistakes and then using that knowledge doesn't mean you have two separate beliefs. It simply means you've learned.

Now, if I were to decide that I can't judge my kids behavior because mine was every bit as bad, I've just given my kids a free pass on some of the behavior that I thought was the most destructive on my life. If every generation keeps doing that and adding any transgressions of their own, my logic tells me you'll have a society that makes more and more mistakes. I want my kids to know I think smoking cigarettes is bad for you, even if I smoked them myself. I want my kids to make less mistakes than I did. I see no hypocrisy.

Finally, if we don't judge someone's behavior just because they'll tell you right off, "I'm a Jerk", "I'm a bit of a Player", or "I can be an asshole sometimes." We give them permission to act that way. Think about it, if the behavior is bad, what does it matter that you admit it? If someone says, "Yeah, I'm a racist." Does that make the behavior acceptable? NO. We need to be a little less forgiving of the people who act badly with no apologies and more forgiving of the people who try but fall. If we suspect that someone may be putting up a front for personal gain, by all means call them out. However, when you see someone who has done a lot of good in their life but had a moment of failing, we need to be a little forgiving. If there is no incentive for people to try to be good and total forgiveness for people who don't even care, we shouldn't be surprised that most people would rather simply give in to their temptations and admit it.... than take a chance at being crucified if they fail once. H.C.

P.S. I'll be out of town on vacation for the next week. I promise I'll answer any comments as soon as I get back.

THE TRUTH BEHIND CONSPIRACY THEORIES

What are they hiding in Area 51? Who really killed John F. Kennedy? Was Humpty Dumpty pushed? And most recently; Did George W. Bush's Administration stage 9/11?. Conspiracy Theories abound and have been with us as long as there has been gossip. I guess it proves that we are naturally suspicious of our Government and that's a good thing. But sometimes I think we take it well beyond the realm of reality.

The reason I bring this up is because someone gave me a copy of the Second Edition of the....hmmm, what's a good adjective?..... "educational" film "Loose Change". First off, it's amazing that there are legions of people who feel they have to evangelize this film as if it were the bible. For those people; take a moment and realize how similar you are to the people you refer to as "Christian Fanatics". Aren't you both just propagating a "Truth" you feel is critically important for people to know? Just a thought.

Anyway, I thought it would be a good research project into understanding conspiracy theories and the people who follow them. So, pen in hand, I set the disk a spinnin', and began taking notes on the most recent "the government did it" conspiracy theory; That George W. Bush and his pack of shady cohorts, planned and executed the attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and even the bringing down of flight 93.

This is the point where I feel I have to make my little disclaimer;

"I don't generally believe in conspiracy theories."

At different points in my life I've worked for the Government on the City, State, and Federal levels. I find Government in general to be disorganized, clumsy, wasteful, and incapable of pulling off most anything effectively. I would point to FEMA, the CIA, Foreign Intelligence, The State Department, and frankly, damn near all government on almost any level as proof. Oddly enough, the people who most ardently believe in Conspiracy Theories agree with me. That seems like a conflict of thought to me, to believe that the Bush Administration is both stupid and incapable at the same time that they're brilliant and capable of preforming the damn near impossible. You know what I think? I believe that Clinton couldn't even get a B.J. without everyone finding out (And there were only two people involved). That Nixon couldn't preform a simple burglary. And that the Bush Administration can't even effectively whisper profanity without getting caught. On occassion, the military can keep somethings under their hat, but usually that's because everyone agrees it's the best thing for the country. Certainly blowing up skyscrapers and killing thousands is not something everyone would agree on.

Now, to go point by point on everything brought up in "Loose Change" would take a huge post. So, here are some sites that do it for me. Loose Change Debunked. Popular Mechanics. Journal of Debunking 9/11. I suggest watching the movie, then reading the debunks and then watching the movie again.

The real truth behind conspiracy theories is simply this; they sell books, they get made into movies, they're relatively easy to produce, and they can generate a ton of money. They can also preform a valuable service to people with political agendas. The Kennedy assassination theories, for example, have made J.F.K. a martyr, who died trying to set things right in a corrupt and prejudice government that would not let him get away with it. I'm sure the Democrats support that on some level. I've even heard that the government likes conspiracy theories on UFO's because it provides cover for sightings of their prototype aircraft. Certainly that would make sense from their standpoint. As for the movie; I found a ton of inconsistancies in "Loose Change". For example; They question why glass wasn't blown out of windows in the Pentagon by the plane's wings, and then, later in the film, they ask why the plane hit the only side of the Pentagon with fortified with high-impact glass. Doesn't that answer the question of why the glass wasn't blown out? I believe if you look at most conspiracy theories there is always an element of truth to them, but usually far more things that just don't make sense. I actually enjoy a few them myself and can be caught watching an "Alien Bodies at Area 51" show on some Sci-Fi channel. But I don't take them seriously. The real truth behind 9/11 is that terrorists attacked us. They tried to bring the Towers down in 1993 and this time they succeeded. Bush used the crisis to further his agenda, that's what politicians do. People made money and people lost money, that's what happens in any situation. You can read more into it if you want to, but I wouldn't recommend it. A good rule of thumb to remember is this; whatever truth you seek, you'll find. Whether it is the real truth or not. H.C.

"ONE NATION, UNDER GOD?"

O.K., everyone get ready for a shock. I think the words "under God" should be taken out of the Pledge of Allegiance. That's right, Pro-American, flag wavin' H.C. thinks those words no longer belong in our oath. If you've read some of my relatively pro-Christian rants, you're probably thinking, (As a lot of people do.) that I'm being inconsistent in my thinking, or that I'm just trying to get a rise out of people. But let me assure you, I believe what I'm about to tell you and I absolutely think that the Pledge of Allegiance should be changed.

It's not that I don't recognize our Christian heritage, it's not that I don't understand the enormous contribution of Judeo-Christian philosophy to our laws or our morality, it's not that I believe in total Separation of Church and State, and not even that I've decided to turn sharply left and join my secular friends so somebody on this planet will finally agree with me 100% of the time. (As good as that sounds sometimes.) So, what is my reason for wanting to blackout the words "under God"? Nationalism, pride, and inclusion.

The history of the Pledge of Allegiance is not as long as you may think, in fact it's only been around for the second half of our nation's history. The Founding Fathers had no hand in it and as near as I could research, didn't even suggest it. It all started with a Baptist Minister named Francis Bellamy who liked the idea first suggested to him by his cousin Edward Bellamy of a pledge to help promote pride in the country. It was first published by Francis in "The Youth"s Companion", a well read magazine of the time, in September, 1891. But it wasn't until two years later when Bellamy introduced the Pledge to the American public during a celebration of Columbus Day in Boston that it started to take hold. Mr. Bellamy, as it turns out, was also a chairman of a committee of state superintendents of education in the National Education Association and incorporated his pledge into the public school system.

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ] Several changes were made to the original, replacing the word "my" with the word "the" and adding the words "of the United States of America" and finally "under God".

In 1954, a campaign by the Knights of Columbus to add the words "Under God" reached fruition. They had been campaigning hard for the last several years for the change based on the change they had made in their own reading of the Pledge at their meetings. President Eisenhower signed the change into law (Public Law relating to treatment of the flag) on Flag Day June 14, 1954, and our present-day Pledge of Allegiance was born.

So what's my problem? I have several.

First off, I believe that having a oath of allegiance to this country is a good idea and we should promote it. Unfortunately, over the past few decades I have noticed that it has become increasingly fashionable for people to trash this country. I'm fairly sure it started with the Vietnam protests and has continued to grow out of it. Add to that the rise in Liberalism and Secularism, both of which fundamentally dislike Capitalism and religion's role in the world, and you have the stage set for a great deal of our populace having no pride in the country they live in. Now, I know there are a lot of reasons, particularly in the past, that people feel our country has fallen far short of what we would have expected from our forefathers. But that is no reason not to have loyalty to the country in which you live in. In order to bring these people into the fold, we need to have a oath that they can say without reservation.

Second reason; the oath shouldn't be confused with a prayer. As much as I'm not a fan of removing Faith from any discussions, your asking people who do not believe in a God (over 8%) to swear allegiance to a country that exists "under God". Think of it this way Christians, would you swear allegiance to a country that had in it's oath "without God"? Of course not. Then there is the problem of incorporating it into our schools. With the present day arguments about Separation of Church and State, keeping those words makes the argument about church and State instead of pride and allegiance to your country where it should be. If you think it's a good idea to teach all of our children pride in this country so they will work hard to make it better, the words "under God" have to go.

Third reason; our country is becoming more and more diversified. We now have a significant portion of our country that believes in Buddhism, Confucianism, Atheism, Wicca, and many other religions that cannot affirm allegiance to a country which recognizes a Deity or even only one Deity. The words "under God" makes it hard for even the most patriotic among them to recite it.

What I'm talking about here is forming an oath that everyone can join in. If we are to survive as a country, we can not continue to find new ways to divide ourselves. You can, and should, have pride in the country you live in. I have heard many times from people who claim they will do nothing to support a country they have no pride in. I understand that pride, like respect, should be earned. But this country was born into the idea that it can change. Having no Nationalism makes our players weak and unmotivated to work toward betterment. I know it's a small part of the puzzle, but if our children at least start with the notion that they are committed to making this a better country, maybe more of them will work hard to make it so. If we continue to keep the words "under God" we may soon see a time when we have to remove the word "indivisible", and that would truly be a shame. H.C.

A "SICKO" REVIEW

Michael Moore's newest opinion film, once again disguised as a documentary, is set to hit the big screen on June 29, 2007. In this film Mike takes a harsh look at the U.S. heath care system and all it's failings. I was lucky enough to have received an early edition, wrapped in brown paper, sent to me anonymously. A special thank you to Mr. X who found a way to get an early release for me. The film was of excellent quality, not the hacked kind you would normally find on the web with shaky filming and "exit signs" on each end. I have to believe it was released on purpose by someone who attended an early review. Heck, maybe Mr. Moore released it himself to create a buzz. At any rate, here's what I thought of Mike's latest effort. As a point of reference for all of you, I'm temporarily moving my two posts "Tax the Rich" and "How they Control You, Part 2" right after this post so you can see what I was talking about and what I think is the best solution to our health care problems.

What Micheal Moore does best, is satirical humor. In "Sicko", Mike shines in the parts where he demonstrates the hypocrisy of our government. In one scene he shows how Americans can go over to Canada and receive heath care for free (provided you pose as the common law wife/husband of a resident) but Canadians fill out forms to extend their coverage into the U.S. so they won't get stuck with a bill. I couldn't help but think how happy the Canadian Government must be that Mike demonstrated for all Americans how to scam their system, but it did point out the difference in how our two countries respond to even a friendly country's citizens. Later in the film Mike goes to the U.K. and then to France and finally even to Cuba, all the time showing us how much better the socialist health care system treats it's citizens. In true Michael Moore style, he uses mostly exampling and not statistics (see my post) to make his point. Some of his examples, particularly the ones involving kids, are very heart-wrenching. At one point I even found myself getting angry at the U.S. government for being so cold-hearted. Some of the more disturbing parts of the film are when Michael interviews two firefighters and a rescue worker from New York who preformed heroically during 9/11. All three were suffering various problems with their health do to their service and found themselves with huge health care bills to pay. The children broke my heart, but it was the firemen and rescue worker that made me the most angry at our system. All and all, I would say Mike did a pretty good job of demonstrating the failings of our system. One scene that I found particularly interesting was an interview with an Insurance Claims Representative. She showed a list of "pre-existing conditions" 36 pages long that the insurance companies would use to either refuse you coverage, or deny your claims. No matter how I personally feel about Michael Moore or his tactics, this was one issue where he is definitely on the right side. As I said in "Tax the Rich", our health care is a disgrace, and an embarrassment to the greatest country on earth. Every day that some child loses his or her life, every day that some decent hardworking American goes into bankruptcy through no fault of their own, we all add to that disgrace. Even though this is a case of the wrong messenger, the message was as true as it could be and on that I give Mr. Moore kudos.

Now for my complaints; (Surely you didn't think I was going to let Mr. Moore off that easy.) In his effort to vilify the American health care system, he neglects to note the good things about our system. Such as our Research and Development, quality of service, or access to the newest drugs and equipment. Mike then stumbles over himself to praise Socialized Medicine. He goes to Canada to see how Canadians like their health care system, and amazingly, can't find a single complaint anywhere. No one having any complaints about a branch of Government is a physical impossibility. The real odd thing is, they all just continue badmouthing the American system and not mentioning the downfalls of their system at all. It's as if Mike never even asked them if their system had any drawbacks. Hmmmmm.

Next stop;U.K.. Where again Mike can't seem to find anyone who has any complaints about their health care system. You know, I'm beginning to think he cut those parts out.

Then to my favorite segment; France. Again Michael forgets to ask them if there's any problems with their system. Again everyone loves every aspect of their health care. Oddly, Mr.Moore didn't go down to the Muslim section and ask them how they liked the system. Then, the greatest irony strikes me. He's gushing about a system (France's) that has just committed the worst health care disaster in the history of man. During a heat wave in the summer of 2003, 14,802 mostly elderly and government-cared-for people died from heat exhaustion, because the nation's health care workers that were supposed to be taking care of them were on a state sponsored vacation. Once again people die waiting for the government to save them. And yet, Mike neglects to mention it. It seemed to me to be a bit like praising FEMA and forgetting to mention Katrina.

Last Stop; Cuba, home of beautiful beaches, Gitmo, and Fidel Castro. You may remember Fidel from the 60's when he wanted to bring in nuclear weapons and point them at Miami. If I didn't know better, I'd swear it looked like ol' Fidel and Michael struck up a deal. You show my country in a positive light, and I let you have all the footage you need. Oh, and I'll even help your Firemen friends. Maybe I'm just being too suspicious. It did make you laugh a little though when Mike is demanding that the soldiers at Gitmo give his friends the same medical treatment that Al-qaeda gets. Once again Mike shows the genius of his satirical side.

All in all, I'd give this movie 3 Peace Signs out of 5. (No I'm not going to start doing movie reviews.) I found a lot of it interesting and even informative. The rumors that Mike was going to be less partisan turned out to be far from true and a few minutes of him gushing over Hilary Clinton might be hard for some Conservatives to stomach. The thing that works in Michael Moore's favor here is; no matter what his methods, in the end he's right. Our heath care IS a mess. If this movie is a vehicle for more people to stop thinking about Paris Hilton and start thinking about our failing health care delivery system, then I guess more power to you Mike, I just hope the message doesn't get lost behind the messenger....again. H.C.

HOW CAN WE STOP "DOCTOR DRUG DEALERS"?

Death by drug overdose, also known as drug poisoning, increased by 68.3% between 1999 and 2004 according to a report by the Center for Disease Control. The majority of those deaths were legal prescription drugs and the majority of those drugs were prescribed to the person who died. In fact, prescription painkillers by themselves now kill more people than Cocaine or Heroin. There has been a recent surge in prescription drug abuse in America and shady Doctors are behind a great deal of it. In this article, I'm going to decipher for you what has been going on and how little the law seems to want to do about it.

This problem strikes home for me, I have a younger brother who has been battling drug addiction most of his life and it will probably surprise most of you that he has always gotten most, if not all, of his drugs through doctors, not drug dealers. A few years back his problem had gotten so bad I was convinced he would end up being one of the thousands of deaths that occur each year here in the U.S.. In fact, once he overdosed at my Mom's house and we fought to keep him alive while we waited for an ambulance. At the hospital, the police summoned me into a private room and questioned me about the montage of various drugs that we had turned over to them that he was carrying on his person. They asked me if he did any Cocaine, "No" I replied. "Does he smoke Pot?" they questioned. "He didn't O.D. on Pot." I informed them. "Does he do any other illegal drugs?" They continued. Frustrated, I pointed to the vial filled with Oxycontin's, Vicodins, Valiums, and other drugs I couldn't even name and shouted, "Those are his drugs! That's what he O.D.'d on. What the hell are you grilling me about this other crap for?" I pointed out the Doctor's name on the vial, "That's your dealer, that's the guy who's killing him, go after him!" That's when I was baptised into the reality of our crazy drug distribution system, a system so crazy, that if you know the right Doctor you can have a script for anything you want. You can even charge it all to Medicaid.

The officer then proceeded to inform me about how, even when they know the Doctors who are creating these "Script Mills", there is very little they can do about it. For those of you that are uninitiated, it may seem like I have to be making this up, but I can assure you, it's true, and it's going on everywhere.

The problem stems from the fact that Doctors go through a great deal of education and debt to get their degrees, and the American Medical Association lobbies hard to make sure that it's very hard to take that profession away from them. They fear that Doctors can get in trouble by simply trying to do their job, relieving the pain that their patients claim that they're suffering, and that they shouldn't be held responsible for the fraction of people who lie to get the prescription and then abuse the drugs they're given. While I can certainly sympathize with that justification, the doctors I'm referring to seem to me to be easy to separate from the decent doctors that are obeying their oaths of office.

Let me run a little scenario by you for a point of reference. A doctor from another country, let's call him Dr. Hindu Bin Ladin, comes to this country with his PHD in Medicine from a prestigious Mid-Eastern University. He sets up shop in a poverty stricken big city in the U.S. and immediately begins writing scripts to any Joe who complains about back pain for Vicodin. Word gets out quickly among the local addicts, many of whom are on Medicaid, and soon a line forms. Dr. Bin Ladin charges all of them for an office call and then refers them to his brother-in-law who runs a local pharmacy to fill the scripts. Soon he's making in excess of $500,000 a year. Local law enforcement gets wind and starts filing complaints (assuming that they even waste their time) and the long 4 to 5 year process of getting his license revoked begins. Since the complaints usually aren't coming from his patients, the AMA moves slowly and when he finally can't write anymore scripts, he gathers his millions and heads back to his home country to practice medicine in his new office paid for by U.S. addicts and taxpayers. Not a bad scam.

However, it's not only foreign doctors writing these bad scripts for profit. Take a look at this long list of doctors being disciplined for abusing their Hippocratic oath.

So what can we do to put the brakes on all this abuse? Well, to start with, we can change our culture of believing that a pill is the answer to all that ails you. While I certainly wouldn't want people to refrain from getting the help they need, the problems you can create for yourself by abusing drugs can be as bad as the problem you started with if not worse. Often, once you are addicted to painkillers or opiates, the need for more may drive you to dealing with people you wouldn't normally even associate with. The cost of maintaining your habit can push you into poverty and bankruptcy. Better oversite of these "Script Mills" can help, better education of doctors wouldn't hurt either. A lot of the time, the only info doctors are getting comes from the pharmaceutical industry itself that down plays the addictive qualities of the drug. To much money is being made both by the doctors, and the pharmaceutical industry for them to monitor themselves, so obviously we need more oversite. But with the problem getting bigger every day, we need to do something soon. H.C.

TAKING IT IN THE GAS

Some time ago, I wrote a piece called "An Inconvenient Truth" where I detailed our dependence on Big Oil, how it will get worse, and how there is very little we can do about it. A lot of people accused me of defending G.W. (again) and being a shill for the oil companies. At that time I felt that considering the War in Iraq, troubles in Iran, Venezuela, Nigeria, and the destruction of oil refineries by Katrina, the high prices weren't all that out of line. Further, I demonstrated for you how, like it or not, it wasn't G. W.'s fault and the prices were consistent with rises in other countries. Well, as you all know, the price of gas has gone through the roof again just in time for summer vacations. (surprise, surprise) This time I have a few problems with it that seriously should be looked into. If G.W. won't do it, then let's get the Democrats off their collective asses and see if the Big Oil CEO's can lie their way out of this one.

So what's so different this time? Plenty. Oil production in Iraq is now about 2 million barrels a day nearly twice what it was this time in 2006 when oil prices peaked at $78 a barrel. Despite what you hear on CNN, things are looking better for the region that produces most of Iraq's oil. (The Sunni's control very little in their deadly triangle) Analysis by petroleum firms put the possible export figure as high as 4 million barrels a day . The War in Nigeria is pretty much settled with Shell Oil set to resume pumping out an estimated 2 million barrels a day, Iran is settling down a little and Venezuela, well, is still Venezuela. The big news for petro-watchers is that there were no major hurricanes in the 2006 season to slow down refineries. It seems the stage is set for a summer of low gas prices, right? Wrong. With an absence of problems to blame their yearly hike on, Big Oil has decided to create its own problems by shutting down at least a dozen of it's refineries for reasons ranging from repairs to they needed the window screens dusted and dandelions were all over the yards. (O.K. I made the last one up). The fact is, this time they're gouging us pure and simple.

So how can I tell that their not justified like the last time when I pretty much defended them? I went back to my old friend Math.

Back in July 2006, when gas was going for $3.015 here in Michigan, (according to AAA) oil was going for $78.40 a barrel, now, according to AAA, gas is at $3.271 and Oil at last check was going for $63.85 a barrel. That makes no sense at all. But wait, don't they say it's because of refining costs? O.K., let's look at refining costs and see if their argument holds up. Refinery costs, for some strange reason, are always lumped together with profits. (hmmmm, I wonder why?) But, even at that it doesn't make sense. In 2006, refinery and profit was only 19% of the cost of a gallon of gas, so, if we do a little math (God I hate Math) it makes sense that we should be able check the past gas prices at $63.85 a barrel and see how much more they're charging us for refinery and profit. (my guess is mostly profit.) The last time oil was at roughly $64 was mid September, 2006 and gas was at $2.60 a gallon. That means the refinery and profit on that price was $.494 at 19% in 2006, and when you subtract that roughly $.5o from the 2006 price of $2.60 you get a net cost of $2.10 before refinery and profit. That means refinery and profit is now $1.17, ($2.10 subtracted from $3.27) more than double what it was a year ago! My guess is a large percent of that will show up as profit in the next quarter. What are the Democrats doing about this you ask yourself? Well, a quick check of DNC.ORG shows them more concerned with the Gonzales firings, Paul Wolfowitz, (honestly, does anyone care?) and the appointment of the new War Czar than what your paying at the pump. In fact, the only mention of it is in a blog.

So what can we do about it? Nothing. Thanks to the Democrats who forced the CEO's of Big Oil to testify in front of Congress when they didn't do anything wrong (instead of waiting until they did) and G.W. and the Republicans acting as a force field against any future Congressional over site, Big Oil sees this as their chance to rape and pillage to their hearts content. I guess there is an offhand chance that G.W. may see this as a chance to improve his sagging poll numbers and ask his buddies to lay off, but frankly, I think Big Oil is now so global, so powerful, and so free to sell their wares where ever they please that they don't care what America, G.W., or anyone else thinks. The only good solution I see is screaming at the top of our lungs for an end to our dependency on oil and maybe our grandchildren will see the day when Big Oil will go the way of buggy whips and kerosene lanterns. Until then, bend over and touch your toes. H.C.

THE H.C. REPORTS ON THE VIRGINIA TECH MASSACRE

Following is the way I wish every journalist would have reported on this tragic event

One week ago today the city of Blacksburg, Virginia was stunned by a mass shooting on the campus of Virginia Tech University. An unnamed student, armed with a Glock 9mm and a .22 Caliber handgun made his way through Ambler Johnson Hall and Norris Hall indiscriminately shooting his fellow students and Professors until 32 lay dead. The shooter then, thankfully, took his own life sparing all of us from having to listen to his mindless, pathetic rants while on trial.

The next day it was revealed that he had mailed a package containing a manifesto and video of his insane ramblings to NBC Studios where he compared himself to Jesus Christ who killed no one. This reporter watched the video and read the rants and I can assure you it contains nothing of any redeeming social value whatsoever. His claims of persecution were not unique and were symptomatic of what you would expect from someone with no concern for anyone or anything except his own exaggerated sense of self worth.

His family, immigrants from South Korea, immediately went into hiding with their shame and grief. A spokesman for them assured the American people they shared our grief and were not aware their son was capable of such a heinous crime. They extend their apologies and sympathies to the families of his victims. A review of the perpetrator's family shows them all to be decent, hardworking people who in no way deserved the embarrassment and shame heaped upon their good family name.

It is the position of this reporter that no part of the shooters actions or character were worth the fame that he sought, so therefore, I refuse to mention his name or repeat any of the material he wanted so desperately to be published. I appeal to all my fellow journalists to follow my lead and discourage, instead of encourage this kind of behavior. Instead, I'm printing the names of all the people's lives that he so senselessly took, who died honorably, and who deserve to be remembered. To the families of the victims, and even the family of the shooter who deserved none of this misery, I extend my sympathies. May God help you through these trying times. H.C.

Ross Abdallah Alameddine, 20, of Saugus, Mass., according to his mother, Lynnette Alameddine. Christopher James Bishop, 35, according to Darmstadt University of Technology in Germany, where he helped run an exchange program.
Brian Bluhm, 25, a civil engineering graduate student, according to friends.
Ryan Clark, 22, of Martinez, Ga., biology and English major, according to Columbia County Coroner Vernon Collins.
Austin Cloyd, an international studies major from Blacksburg, Va., according to Terry Harter, senior pastor at First United Methodist Church in Champaign, Ill.
Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, a French instructor, according to her husband, Jerzy Nowak.
Daniel Perez Cueva, 21, according to his mother, Betty Cueva.
Kevin Granata, age unknown, engineering science and mechanics professor, according to Ishwar Puri, head of the engineering science and mechanics department.
Matthew Gwaltney, 24, of Chester, Va., a graduate student in civil and environmental engineering, according to his father and stepmother, Greg and Linda Gwaltney.
Caitlin Hammaren, 19, of Westtown, N.Y., a sophomore majoring in international studies and French, according to Minisink Valley, N.Y., school officials who spoke with Hammaren's family.
Jeremy Herbstritt, 27, of Bellefonte, Pa., according to Penn State University, his alma mater and his father's employer.
Rachael Hill, 18, of Glen Allen, Va., according to her father, Guy Hill.
Emily Jane Hilscher, a 19-year-old freshman from Woodville, according to Rappahannock County Administrator John McCarthy, a family friend.
Jarrett Lane, 22, of Narrows, Va., according to Riffe's Funeral Service Inc. in Narrows, Va.
Matthew La Porte, 20, a sophomore from Dumont, N.J., according to Dumont Police Chief Brian Venezio.
Henry Lee, also known as Henh Ly, 20, a first-year student majoring in computer engineering from Roanoke, Va., according to Oakey's Funeral Service in Roanoke.
Liviu Librescu, 76, engineering science and mathematics lecturer, according to Puri.
G.V. Loganathan, 51, civil and environmental engineering professor, according to his brother G.V. Palanivel.
Partahi Lombantoruan, 34, of Indonesia, civil engineering doctoral student, according to Kristiarto Legowo, a spokesman for the foreign ministry.
Lauren McCain, 20, of Hampton, Va., international studies major, according to a statement from the family.
Daniel O'Neil, 22, of Rhode Island, according to friend Steve Craveiro and according to Eric Cardenas of Connecticut College, where O'Neil's father, Bill, is director of major gifts.
Juan Ramon Ortiz, a 26-year-old graduate student in engineering from Bayamon, Puerto Rico, according to his wife, Liselle Vega Cortes.
Minal Panchal, 26, a first-year building-science student from Mumbai, India, according to foreign ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna.
Erin Peterson, 18, of Chantilly, Va., an international studies major, according to her father, Grafton Peterson.
Michael Pohle, 23, of Flemington, N.J., according to officials at his high school, Hunterdon Central High.
Julia Pryde, age unknown, a graduate student from Middletown, N.J., according to Virginia Tech professor Saied Mostaghimi, chairman of the biological systems and engineering department.
Mary Karen Read, 19, of Annandale, Va. according to her aunt, Karen Kuppinger.
Reema Samaha, 18, a freshman from Centreville, Va., according to her family.
Waleed Mohammed Shaalan, of Zagazig, Egypt, a doctoral student in civil engineering, according to the university.
Leslie Sherman, a sophomore history and international studies student from Springfield, Va., according to her grandmother Gerry Adams.
Maxine Turner, 22, a senior majoring in chemical engineering from Vienna, Va., according to her father, Paul Turner.
Nicole White, 20, a junior majoring in international studies from Smithfield, Va., according to a family statement released by Suffolk, Va., police department.

GIMME SHELTER

Safe.... I often wonder why there is even a word for something that you could never really be. Once again that point has been demonstrated by a madman with too much anger, and too little feelings for his fellow man. As all of you certainly know by now, (unless you live in a cave) there has been another school shooting. This time at Virginia Tech, where at last count, 33 people died. My news cycle has been filled with every imaginable angle on the story, each one sadder and more heart wrenching than the last. I've seen more photos of people who's lives were cut short than I want to see for the rest of my life. And as I told you in my last 3 posts, every tool is being used to further someone's agenda. I don't know what I find more disturbing, the story.... or the exploitation of it.

However, since it is on everyone's mind. I've decided to put my two cents in.

One more time we are going to have to review the question of Gun Control, of school safety, of right to privacy, access to medical files, and whether crimes can be prevented before they happen. On that I caution everyone, this is not the time to be making major decisions without giving ourselves time to reflect and to allow our emotions to settle to a more rational place. As a case-in-point. After 9/11 we had a serious rush to war with Iraq where damn near everyone thought (77 Senators voted for it and polls supported it as well) it was the thing to do. In hindsight, shouldn't we have waited and thought it out a little better? Let's not allow the powers-that-be use our emotions again to take any more of our rights away, or form stupid and useless committees that will tell us what we've already heard, simply repackaged.

Having said that, let's look at our options. There are good arguments both for and against gun control and arming more people on campuses. I myself lean toward fighting back. It's in my nature. I firmly believe that each and every one of those people who were senselessly killed were wishing for a gun to shoot back with or that someone with a gun would cut the bastard down. Just as there are no Atheists in foxholes, there are no pacifists when your life is next.

While searching my memory banks on school shootings, I came up with a example worth considering by all of you. It is very similar in every way to the Virginia Tech Shootings except the end result. In the Appalachian School of Law in 2002, another crazy student decided to take lives into his own hands. The School of Law is coincidentally also in Virginia. Peter Odighizuma, also a foreign student, made his way on to campus armed with .380 semi-automatic pistol. Mr. Odighizuma first went to the office of Professor Dale Rubin where he discussed his failing grades and his options. He didn't use his gun on Prof. Rubin, but gave this ominous warning of what was to come, he told Prof. Rubin, "Pray for me." He then made his way to the office of Dean Anthony Sutin where he shot and killed him and fellow Prof. Thomas Blackwell at point blank range. Making his way down the halls he shot and killed student Angela Denise Dales and seriously wounded 3 other students, but unlike the Virginia Tech shootings, Mr. Odighizuma was not going to have his way with unarmed people. Upon hearing the shots, two students, CCW holder Tracy Bridges and Police Officer Mikael Gross, unbeknownst to each other, both ran to their cars and returned with their own firearms. Approaching from two sides of Mr. Odighizuma, they demanded that he drop his weapon. Seeing his situation, he complied and was tackled by several other students. Mr. Odighizuma's gun still had several bullets left in the clip.

An interesting side note on this story. It was misreported by almost every single newspaper in the U.S. and overseas. They all reported that Mr. Odighizuma was tackled but left out the use of firearms in their stories. (It was confirmed later by police reports, eyewitness accounts, and the two student's testimonies).

As another example of people standing up. In the filming of an actual event, the concert movie "Gimme Shelter" shows the Rolling Stones performing in front of thousands when a deranged young man raised a gun to try to kill Mick Jagger, the lead singer. An alert man next to the gun wielder grabbed his arm forcing it up away from people. Security people and fans took the gun away and restrained the man till police showed up. The song and movie "Gimme Shelter" are a tribute to those people. During the course of the next months you're going to hear a lot about new laws that should be passed, and none of them will stop the next killer. I promise you that. What may save you is good people standing up against evil people. In my University, they will not allow any firearms on campus and some schools even deny off duty Police Officers their right to carry. They preach pacifism and non-confrontation instead of standing up against evil. Maybe we should all take a moment and consider whether that makes us safer.....or just better targets. H.C.

FRANKENCELLS, THE SCARY WORLD OF BIOETHICS

Jeremy and Jessica Nowelth tried hard to explain to their 16 year old daughter, Lindsey, their reasoning. They only had so much money and her fraternal twin, Linder, had the gene that carried Fragile X Syndrome, the most common cause of mental retardation. The Genetic Specialist assured them that without gene replacement he would have a hard life and would most likely never live on his own. They had no choice. Gene replacement and repair had become such a fast growing part of the birth of children that insurance companies had long ago stopped covering the procedure except for life threatening problems. Jessica had wanted to give Lindsey an improvement over what had become her curse in life, next to no breasts at all. She remembered the torment she had received in Junior High, the jokes about her "Boy Chest". Jeremy's sisters and Mom both had nothing to be thrilled with, so a little adjustment of the DNA sounded like a good investment, but with Linder having a more serious flaw, they did what they had to do. Now the best they could do for her was implants which had taken on the bad moniker of "Second best breasts". Lindsey was inconsolable, how could they have done this to her? In a world of people who had every minor genetic flaw fixed, even the smallest of imperfections meant you were one of "Them". The Troglodytes, the cursed people. The unemployable, the undateable. The people who only sat with each other, only dated one another, and were shunned by the growing lesions of perfect people who suffered no genetic diseases, no genetic imperfections, who were born to lead the perfect life.

Sound far-fetched? I don't think so.

Bio genetics is a fast growing field, and with it comes some real ethical questions. What is an "imperfection"? Should people be allowed to tamper with "God's will"? How far should we take it? What should be covered by insurance? Will people have to have "papers" showing which genetic flaws have been fixed? Do we know what the implications are further down the genetic line? Is it fair for insurance companies to have access to these records? How about businesses when they hire? Should they have access? How will this affect society and morality? Will we create two separate classes of people, those who's genetics have been fixed and those who have not? As we plunge into this unknown world we need to think these things through while we still have the chance.

Here's some interesting food for thought I came across, (those of you with subjective morality just skip this part as you'll see nothing wrong with it anyway.) While thumbing threw some medical literature, I came across an article on G.S.A., Genetic Sexual Attraction. It seems we are, for some unknown reason, genetically attracted to our family. Most likely it's a bonding thing designed to make us care about each other as a family unit, but it also extends to sexual attraction. There is now research that has shown that because of fractured families, siblings, and even parents, are finding themselves sexually attracted to other immediate family members, especially if they were separated from them for long periods , particularly during growing up. This doesn't seem to be as much of a problem amongst family members who grew up with each other for also an unknown reason. Most likely because you have too much knowledge about each other or because societal norms have taught you to suppress those feelings. Incest is generally looked down upon by most every civilized nation and a good part of the reason, besides religion, is because of genetic problems. People of similar genetics can have a host of genetic problems when they have children together. Now, if we can cure those genetic problems is there still a reason to outlaw incest among consenting adults? Isn't it wrong to sleep with your younger sister because she's inclined to look up to you? Or your daughter? Or your son? Even if your both adults? With this hurdle out of the way, subjective moralists are certain to argue no.

How about the gene for aging? Science is making strides towards discovering our genetic clock. If assumptions are correct, we could feasibly shut it off thereby greatly increasing our lifespans. (With my luck I'll already be in my 80's when it's available). Will we make decisions on who should get it based on age? What would be the point of extending some one's life after 70 years old? We already have a problem with Baby-Boomers reaching old age at the same time and the financial burdens it will create for the next generation. Will we limit it and tell the people who need it most (Most likely me) tough chit?

I'm fortunate enough to have a good friend who is a Genetic Scientist. He told me that the possibilities in genetic engineering are endless but so are the problems. When I proposed my concern about creating two separate classes of people, he seemed to think we wouldn't do it as it would shrink the gene pool to a dangerous level. But I don't share his faith in humanity to do the right thing vs. what's best for themselves in the short run. We already see people taking dangerous drugs and having expensive and dangerous surgeries to make themselves more attractive, or to fight off the ravages of old age. In a world of breast implants on kids as young as 12 years old, am I supposed to believe people won't take whatever advantage they can get to have a better life? Have we as a race ever shown much concern for the future? Am I supposed to believe that if people are given the chance to make their kids taller, smarter, stronger, or better looking they won't do it because of some problem 10 generations away? These are issues we will have to face in the all-too-near future, and just like the present issue of embryonic stem cell research, it will be sure to be politicized. To steal a line from Jeff Goldbloom in Jurassic Park, are we so concerned with whether or not we can do something, that we forget to ask ourselves if we should? H.C.

BEN FRANKLIN DAY

As most of you know, on January 15 we celebrate the passing of one of America's great leaders, Dr. Martin Luther King. But did you know that two days later is the Birthday of another of America's great leaders, a man that without, America may not have ever been formed? A man who secured the help of France at the onset of the American Revolution, who's inventions changed the life of every American. A man who printed the first political cartoon, who's words are quoted by nearly everyone. A man who helped draft and then signed the Declaration of Independence, that was the first Ambassador of the United States, who started Fire Departments and the Postal System. That man was my hero, Ben Franklin.

We live in a world without worthy heros. I'm not saying that there isn't any great people to be admired, I'm just saying that in my eyes, they all fall short. When I decided to get a Myspace account, to hopefully increase the amount of people who read my column, the "heros" part of it remained empty as I struggled to think of any person I could honestly call my hero. For a while John Lennon was the only one I could think of and he actually falls way short. I never could understand why he treated his son Julian the same way that he complained that his father had treated him. Abandoning him for long periods and then drifting in and out of his life. Why is it we repeat the mistakes of our parents instead of learning from them? I checked out other people's heros in an effort to find someone I had forgot about. The list was strange to say the least. Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Jon Stewart, entertainers and sports figures. Then my son reminded me of someone I had forgotten, the one person I felt was truly worthy of admiration, Benjamin Franklin.

Ben Franklin was born January 17, 1706, one of 17 children, in Boston, Massachusettes. At age 15 he became a apprentice printer for his brother's newspaper, The New England Courants. Since his brother would not publish any of his articles, young Ben started submitting them under the pseudonym Silence Dogood, a ficticious widow, and probably the first published Feminist. So popular were his pieces, that people began clamoring for the author to step forward, and after 16 pieces Ben confessed to being the author. His brother however, was jealous of Ben's newfound fame and wouldn't publish any more of his pieces. Frustrated, Ben ran away to start a new life in Philadelphia. After working a while as a apprentice printer, Ben purchased the Philadelphia Gazette and began writing in ernest. The Gazette soon became the colonies most successful newspaper.

From there Ben's achievements rained down steady. Author, Postmaster, politician, Fire Marshal, insurance agent, and inventor. We all know Ben's contribution to our understanding of electricity, (he discovered the principle of positive to negative flow) but are you aware of some of Ben's other inventions? He invented swim fins, bifocals, the Franklin stove, the lightning rod, the odometer, improvements to the printing press, postal distribution points, fire stations, the catheter, and Daylight Savings to name a few. And most respectfully, did not patent two of the most important; the Franklin Stove and the Lightning Rod because he felt they were too important to humanity to profit on. What modern day inventor would have been so generous?

Ben's contributions to this country as a politician can hardly be overstated. He was pivotal in the decision to separate from England. His writings to his followers in the Gazette helped form opinions that directly caused the uprisings against England. His cult-like status in Europe helped aline help from the French in the Revolutionary War. He helped draft both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, and continued until his death April 17, 1790 to be both Ambassador and Statesman of the United States No single person more directly caused this country to be formed and liberated than Benjamin Franklin.

So why is Ben forgotten by the citizens of this country? He had an illegitiment child, William, and that was frowned on very much in Franklin's time. (He claimed that was his one great regret, not having married his mother first.) Maybe it's because of some of the erronious claims made about Ben, that he was unfaithful and atheistic. I found no real evidence that would support those claims, although I've seen lots. Ben was married to his one true love, Deborah Read Rogers for 44 years. Ben kept several pews in several churchs throughout Philadelphia. I think some people confuse Ben's reluctance to swear alligence to one church with his not being a man of faith, for you people I offer this quote by Ben, "[I believe] That there is one God, who made all things. That he governs the world by his providence. That he ought to be worshiped by adoration, prayer, and thanksgiving. But that the most acceptable service of God is doing good to man. That the soul is immortal. And that God will certainly reward virtue and punish vice, either here or hereafter."

Was Ben Franklin perfect? No, no one is. But in a world filled with heros who throw balls, tell jokes, or write songs, the achievements of a man as great as Ben Franklin stands out as stupendous and unequaled in our time. Never has one man who has done so many wonder things and effected each of our live so much, been so ignored. We need to stop this injustice and give Ben what he deserves.... Ben Franklin Day, January 17. H.C.

SEPTEMBER FORGOTTEN

Posted in Uncategorized on September 11th, 2006
I don’t need to remind all of you what happened on September 11, 2006. Every one of us over 10 years old remembers the gut-awful feeling of that day. I first heard what was going on from one of our student workers. He was surfing the net when a breaking news story crawled across his screen. One of the World Trade Center towers had just been hit by a plane. Like many of you, my first thought was that an airplane had somehow lost it’s navigation or suffered some mechanical malfunction and clipped the tower. With two of my student employees in tow, we went up to a student recreation room to watch on the big screen T.V. The room was already filling up with curious people who wanted to see how bad it was. I remember being improperly casual about the whole thing, after all, this was just another example of our airline industry not taking care of it’s planes, something that unfortunately happens once in a while. When the second plane hit the other tower right before our stunned eyes I knew, as did everyone else that this was no accident.
I don’t remember what exactly I said after the second plane hit, but I do remember the gasps and the”Oh my God” whispers of my fellow employees. For better or worse, on that day we all realized that the U.S. was no longer immune from the problems of the rest of the world.
I didn’t really plan on writing about this today; I had already started working on my next piece (on the worthless U.N.). What got me all fired-up about this is the way my wonderful Big 10 University is handling the 5 year anniversary. We are recognizing the deaths of nearly 3,000 people from every corner of the U.S. and the world by ignoring it completely. I’m not kidding. No moment of silence, no new memorials, no anything. Not even an E-Mail. It’s like it never even happened. My University puts out a weekly newspaper, ( It’s mostly all agenda driven pieces), and it contained not one reference to 9/11, and it’s even dated “September 11, 2006″. It contains an event calendar that had not one single 9/11 related event. I’m now at the end of the work day and I didn’t see anything that was put out by our University. This has even got ol’ H.C. confused, and that doesn’t happen often.
Why would they do such a thing? Is it because they’re afraid to offend extremist Muslims on campus? Should we offend everyone who feels pride in this country to spare the small fraction of Muslims who think they have the God-driven right to kill us? I don’t get it. Maybe it’s because the left-leaning faculty and administration can’t stand the notion of the U.S. being the victim in any situation. Maybe they figure it’s better to say nothing at all then to for once, stand on the side of America.
Well, I have a little piece of the web and I ain’t afraid to use it. Maybe I’m overreacting a bit here, if I am let me know. But I honestly thought even this left wing breading ground would take a minute to remember the men, women, and children who died on that awful day. On this day, September 11, 2006, I am officially stating that I am embarrassed to be at this University, embarrassed that they can’t even take one day off their stupid agendas to honor people who did nothing but go to work, and died in a war they didn’t even know was coming. H.C.

AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH

Posted in Uncategorized on June 30th, 2006
Some columns are so easy to write. I just pick a subject that interests me, decide where I stand given everything I can find out about it, and then back up my opinion with proof. I thought this was going to be one of them. Gas prices are going through the roof and it seems pretty damn obvious what going on. We have two Big Oil men in the White House (Bush and Cheney) and they’re paying back their donators by letting them rape the consumers at will. With Big Oil posting record profits and Congress and our executive branch doing nothing about it, I was geared up for some serious Republican bashing. But a funny thing happened on the way to the lynching.
Every article I could find took the stand in one way or another that Bushie and his Boys were lining their pockets with campaign monies from Big Oil and that alone is the reason we’re all paying more at the pump. The Cincinnati Post practically accused every paper in the U.S. of covering for Bush while they ran off with our money, and the Boston Globe flat out called the Bush Administration looters. The problem is, while they did a good job of showing us how much money the Republican Party was raking in from Big Oil through campaign financing, they didn’t do anything to show me this was unique to the U.S. and therefore linked to our beloved president’s policies. Well, computer in hand, Ol’ H.C. set out to do just that. First stop, Canada, where Paul Martin (Canada’s Prime Minister up until just recently) and his left wing administration would surely show me how not bowing to the oil companies would translate into cheaper gas for the masses. First I had to do some math as Canada sells it’s gas in liters instead of gallons, (God, I hate math). After multiplying every liter price by 3.78541 (no wonder the metric system never caught on here, sheesh) something strange happened. Not only is our gas cheaper, $2.91 a gallon U.S. vs. $3.98 a gallon in Canada (all of this will be in U.S. dollars), but gas in Canada has been going up faster by percent than in the U.S.of A. From June of 2004 to June of 2006, gas in the U.S. went from $1.66 /gal to $2.91 /gal, a rise of 175%, in that same period, gas in Canada went from $2.18 /gal to $3.98 /gal, a rise of 183%. Gee, I didn’t know Paul Martin was an oilman too, those bastards are everywhere.
In fact, the price of gas throughout most of the world is not only higher than we’re paying, (just check out this list that CNN published) but has been rising faster in most countries than in the U.S.A. This doesn’t do a very good job of proving that the Bush administration is behind the high price of gas.
Well, maybe if I took a different route I could prove how Bush has been helping Big Oil rape us. Let’s look at how the price of gas has paralleled the price of a barrel of oil, maybe we can find something that proves it’s not following the trends that it should. When the price of a barrel of oil was at $35 (spring of 2004) the price of gas in the U.S. stood at $1.74, by June 2006 the price of a barrel of oil was $70 and the price of gas was again $2.91, with refinery costs being relatively stable, it’s right where it should be.
So what about the profits H.C.? Big Oil is raking in record amounts. Well, that’s true, and very frustrating, but their profit margin is based on a percentage of a dollar, as is most businesses. The products in your store are based on the same model, given that fact, your local merchant makes more money on selling something that cost $10 than he does on something that costs $5. Therefore, gas makes more money for the oil companies at $3 a gallon than it does at $1.50. This business model didn’t start under Bush, it’s always been that way. It’s also the way they do business in other countries, not just the U.S..
By now your probably getting frustrated, as am I, that there’s not an easy villain to crucify. If not our corrupt government, if not the big oil companies, if not that bastard Bush, THEN WHO’S TO BLAME!! Well, first, you have to understand that oil is a global commodity and that its supply and demand has to do with a lot of factors out of our control. China and India for instance, have been buying cars left and right (China increased car sales by 24.1% in May ‘06) and with an improving standard of living are adding oil and gas heat to their homes. This is increasing demand on a market already short in supply. Add to that the War in Iraq (one thing you can blame on Bush, but a small part of the total picture, less than 2% of the world’s supply), an unstable situation in Iran, government takeover of oil wells in Venezuela, war in Nigeria, and Katrina disrupting refineries and you have a stage set for high prices. All of this is reflective in the price of oil worldwide, not just in the U.S..
As for the U.S. we all need to face the reality, we consume too much gas. Big S.U.V.s, Two cars in every family, Boats, and recreational vehicles like jet skis and snow sleds are all contributing to the problem. We’ve all been acting like gas was a never ending fountain for us to enjoy whenever and however we wanted. The truth is, it’s coming to an end whether you admit it or not. The consumption of oil worldwide has now reached 90 million barrels a day, production, at full capacity, is only 94 million a day. Not much room for growth. If China and India and a few other countries continue to grow at their present rate we will soon find ourselves either without oil or at war for it. I know it’s hard not to want to blame someone for our situation, but unless we find some way to alleviate the world’s need, we’re going to find ourselves in a much worse way. No matter who’s in office. It’s interesting to note that even with the price of gas nearly doubling in two years; our consumption is only down 3% for May ‘06. New technology for cars will help, but it will be years before enough of them will be on the road to make a difference. The only thing that can help us now is for all of us to seriously cut back. The problem is, we’ll all think our needs are too important, and that someone else should do it. Bitch all you want, at who ever you want, but the times of never ending oil supplies are almost over, and that’s the inconvenient truth. H.C.