You Have to be Alive to Have a "Quality of Life"

Hat Tip: Christina

Terri Schiavo's brother Bobby Schindler has written an article for WorldNetDaily. Reading it made me think back to after Christmas of 2004. My grandmother, who had been recovering from health problems, had bumped her head when she missed the seat of a chair at her kitchen table. A few days afterwards, she suffered from a subdural hematoma. As a result, she lost all most all motor skills, speech, and short-term memory, as well as suffering seizures brought on by the bleeding on the surface of her brain. In the following year, she spent almost nine months in the hospital. During that time, our whole family spent our time in shifts at the hospital, and we got to know the extended care staff quite well.

We were fortunate that the nursing staff were, for the most part, very understanding and actually happy that we, as a family, were so involved with Grandma's care. There was one woman, though, who infuriated me to no end. She was an occupational therapist, which means that she was largely in charge of helping recover motor skills. In the early months of her recovery, Grandma slept a lot because the seizures were physically exhausting. Rather than checking in on Grandma multiple times throughout the day (to see if she was awake), the OT would come in once a day and quickly depart if Grandma happened to be asleep or too exhausted to do the exercises. After about a month and a half, the OT obnoxiously told us that Grandma would be discharged from extended care and her insurance cut off if she did not begin to "make progress". The picture that she painted was one of hopelessness, so convinced was she that my grandmother would not be able to recover from her injuries. I wish that she could see my grandmother now.

While Grandma is still in a wheelchair, she can help move from it to a regular seat. She still has some trouble with her memory, but I am able to spend over an hour on the phone talking to her. To think that there are people out there that would have wanted to euthanize my grandmother because she did not have the same "quality of life" that she had prior to her injury. These same people would think that my mother and aunt are "burdened" because Grandma cannot take herself to doctor's appointments and the grocery store. We know how blessed we are to still have Grandma with us. I am looking forward to her being around to see more graduations and for all of us grandkids get married.

Actions Speak Louder than Words

Let us ignore, for the sake of this post, that it is far too early to be making credible conjectures about who will win presidential nominations from their respective parties. Look at what happened to poor Howard "Yah!" Dean. He was winning in the polls, but ultimately lost the nomination to a man with all the charm of an undertaker. Even after adopting the voice of a monster truck rally announcer ("Sunday! Sunday! Sunday! Monster trucks at Arco Arena! Be there!). There is a lot of "focus grouping" going on, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee a sure winner.

There are a lot of names being marketed to the conservative base of the Republican party, many of them are not conservative in the most complete sense of the word. Some individuals have not even formally announced their candidacy. My short list (for this post) includes Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, and Fred Thompson.

Rudy, as "America's Mayor" makes an attractive candidate for those who prefer to focus entirely on his fiscal and national security policies. However, as a conservative who's standard is Ronald Reagan, Giuliani is far from ideal. His positions on abortion, gun control, and illegal immigration are a bit too liberal a pill for us to swallow. He has tried to make himself more palatable to pro-lifers by saying that he would appoint more "constructionist" judges to the federal courts. What happens if these newly appointed, right-leaning justices overturn Roe v. Wade (which, by the way, is recognized on both sides as being a poorly reasoned ruling)? Well, it will be left to the individual states or Congress to pass legislation regarding abortion. Would Rudy sign pro-life legislation? In typical lawyer fashion, Giuliani would want more gun control legislation, rather than enforcing the laws already on the books. However, in a curious display of contradiction, he would not prosecute people who, by definition, break the law in order to reside here.

Mitt Romney is almost in the same boat as Giuliani. After all, one cannot be governor of Massachusetts and be a Barry Goldwater conservative. For starters, when asked if his faith as a Mormon would affect his policies as President, he said that they wouldn't. Does this mean that he would abandoned Christian values entirely, or the more controversial aspects of the teachings of the LDS? Apparently, his faith didn't get in the way of some of his positions as governor of the home state of Lurch and The Swimmer (that's Kerry and Kennedy). He is only recently decided to be pro-life. I can appreciate (and in fact welcome) a change of heart in anyone on this matter, but my inner cynic tells me this was for political expediency more than a matter of conscience.

While Rudy and Mitt are officially candidates, there are two other men being shopped. Fred Thompson, former Senator from Tennessee, is being billed as the answer to a Reagan conservative's prayers. Thompson won the election for the remaining two years on Al Gore's Senate term and served there until 2002 (when he retired). He has also seen camera time in The Hunt for Red October and on Law and Order. Screen credits aside, his voting record in the Senate is demonstrably far more conservative than that of many of the Republican candidates. Though he has not formally announced his candidacy, James Dobson has come out in opposition of a man who, at present, makes a strong conservative candidate.

In a phone interview with U.S. World News & Report, Dr. Dobson said "Everyone knows [Thompson is] conservative and has come out strongly for the things that the pro-family movement stands for [..., but] I don’t think he’s a Christian. At least that’s my impression." A spokesman for Focus on Family sought to clarify Dobson's statement by saying "We use that word – Christian – to refer to people who are evangelical Christians." So, what was Dr. Dobson try to say, exactly? Why split hairs when the candidate is a strong advocate for policies that one supports? The notion that one should not vote for Fred Thompson because he is not an evangelical Christian (but a Christian nonetheless) makes about as much sense as people who voted for John Kerry simply because he tried to sell himself as a Catholic. It would appear that Dobson's premptive strike on Thompson may be due to his support of another unofficial candidate.

Dobson has come out in strong support of Newt Gingrich. Now, I like Newt. I agree with him about 90 percent of the time. I enjoyed reading the Civil War "what-if" trilogy that he co-authored with William Forstchen. However, there are a few reasons that I would withhold support at this time. The first being political liabilities. He has admitted to having an affair
(ironically) during the Clinton impeachment. I believe, as a Catholic, in the forgiveness of one's sins, but would voters be willing to overlook the perception of hypocrisy? Also, there is the cloud of suspicion under which he resigned from the House of Representatives. Despite the fact that any charges of unethical behavior were dropped by the House Ethics Committee, the "drive-bys" will still smell blood in the water. I fear that pressing Gingrich to throw his hat in the ring may be the same thing that happened when Bob Dole ran in '96. Some people may simply think it's "Newt's turn to run".

I would much rather see George Allen (narrowly defeated Senator from Virginia) run for President. Allen, wise man that he is, will hopefully run in the future. As far as I'm concerned, it is far too soon to tell. All I know is that we conservatives need to remind Republicans that they need to be conservatives first, not just campaign like them.

"You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villiany."

Well, aside from Foggy Bottom, that is. I am currently in San Francisco on a business trip. Our conference is at a hotel on Fisherman's Wharf, which is pretty cool. It is such a shame that a city with as much to offer as San Francisco could be so overshadowed by the exhibition of the worst traits in 21st century America.

This city is the western counterpart to New Orleans, as far as politics is concerned. Liberals have held the reins of power in S.F. since the 1930s, as far as I can tell. That is over 70 years of liberal policies being enacted and reinforced. This place should be Utopia. It is the retirement home for many geriatric flower children, a larger-than-average number homosexuals, and all sorts of people that wouldn't be identified as politically "moderate", let alone conservative. These are the same people that voted to make owning a firearm in city limits a crime. Despite all of this, there's trouble in paradise.

For starters, San Francisco has the highest percentage of unsolved murders of any major city in the United States. Since the no-gun law became effective this January, violent crimes involving firearms have skyrocketed. Criminals of the City by the Bay, like the criminals of the U.K. and aristocrats of feudal Europe, prefer unarmed peasants. Since a federal appellate court recently ruled that Washington D.C.'s gun ban is unconstitutional, what are San Franciscans going to do? If the Board of Supervisors had any sense at all, they would support the police department by making it possible to enforce the laws already on the books. What does this mean, exactly? Well, for starters, they would quit ham-stringing law enforcement when it comes to cracking down on criminals, regardless of a suspect's race, religion, gender, or orientation. It shouldn't matter if you are a minority; if you're breaking the law, you should be arrested and put on trial like anyone else.

Given that San Francisco is one of the most expensive cities to call home (if not, the most expensive) and the immense social safety net the city provides its citizens (in the form of unemployment benefits, health care for "domestic partners" of municipal employees, etc.), everyone here should be gainfully employed and poverty should be outmoded here, right? I, as a tourist, can tell you that I have seen more poverty in San Francisco than in Sacramento. For those of you that have never been to downtown Sacramento, the rumors and jokes regarding the number of homeless in our state's capital are true. However, San Francisco seems to revel in the fact that there is a large population of homeless dwelling in the shadow of its stylish neighborhoods. They buy shopping carts to give to their homeless, rather than using that money to provide genuine help to these people. This past Holiday season, lobbyists protested scented poster advertisements at bus stops because "it would be cruel" to make those less fortunate smell a food item they cannot afford to purchase. The reason for all of this absurdity: it makes them feel better! That's right, people who, for whatever reason, live in squallor are allowed to continue in squallor because some well-to-do yuppie wants to feel better about themselves. If the problem were actually solved, they would no longer have any way to show that they care. It is despicable for human suffering of any kind to be used as a propaganda tool, especially under the disguise of philanthropy.

If the citizenry of this city are morally bankrupt, their elected officials are in it up to their ears. The so-called leadership of the city are more like guests on the Jerry Springer show. Mayor Newsom coming out...wait, wrong choice of words, my apologies. Take two: Mayor Newsom coming clean a few months ago about having an affair with his best friend's wife is only the latest scandal to surface. Wait a tick, this is about sex, and according to Clinton apologists everyone lies about sex. So why was it a scandal? Perhaps philandering is not such a widely accepted practice after all. Now, I know that this city was a major port-of-call for sailors, as well as a frontier outpost (and therefore, a pretty wild place), but California has been a member of the Union for almost 160 years. I think it's time to grow up.

With so many problems so deeply rooted in the psyche of its citizens, is there hope for San Francisco? Perhaps, if not in my generation, then the following generations. In an article by Vicki Haddock in the San Francisco Chronicle of September 17, 2006, studies show that liberals are being driven to extinction by their own life choices. Since it's biologically impossible for homosexuals to have children, and lots of liberal, "committed couples" (since marriage is so bourgeois) elect to not have children, conservative "breeders" (as the homosexual community so loving calls them) have 41 percent more children than liberals. Plus, liberals are overwhelmingly pro-abortion and are more likely to avail themselves of their perceived "right to choose"; thus, as grim as it is, preventing even more children being born. Now, if I had no conscience at all, I would be tempted to consider a change in some of my socio-political opinions.

Statistically, only 10 percent of children adopt political points of view that differ from that of their parents. Assuming these children stay in San Francisco, that means that there will be 39 percent more conservatives voting 18 years from now. Let's just hope that they have a stubborn streak a mile wide and decide to be the new counterculture movement in San Francisco. Vive la revolution!

There's a Reason That It is the FIRST Amendment

I know that this is a couple of weeks old, but I have been asked to opine on Ann Coulter's closing remarks at CPAC. Small surprise, I enjoy reading Ann Coulter's weekly column, as well as her books. I find her to be both entertaining and informative. Some of my more liberal acquaintances believe that the value of her commentary is solely for the amusement of all of us mean-spirited, sexist,bigoted, homophobes who destroy the environment with our SUVs and capitalist society. However, should you doubt her claims, all you have to do is check her references (which are meticulously researched). She, like Rush, is capable of marrying information with entertainment. Bill O'Reilly is fond of lumping Ann Coulter into the same category as Al Franken and Bill Maher. I find this insulting on a few levels.

For starters, Franken and Maher's humor is not derived from wit. Any one with a pre-teenaged brother will tell you that anything from flatulence to watching either of the "Jackass" movies is good for a laugh from the adle-headed youth. Now, I will admit that I you can get a chuckle out me with some well-timed "potty humor", but it must have context! Two guys producing methane a la Terrence and Philip from South Park just doesn't cut it (no pun intended). Unfortunately for Franken and Maher, even a twelve year-old boy (and his older sisters) have limits.

Coulter, while giving a speech at this year's Conservative Political Action Conference, said the following: "I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word 'faggot.'" First off, this was in the context of one of the actors from Grey's Anatomy checking himself into anger management/rehab for referring to one of his co-stars with the same word. If you actually pay attention to what she said, Ann did not actually call Edwards a "faggot". It was inferred from her statement. So, where does the bigotry really lie? Semantics aside, Coulter is not the first commentator to question (in jest or in earnest) John Edwards' sexual orientation. Watch "D.C. Land" on jibjab.com; you'll see caricatures of Edwards and Kerry in bed...and not in a Lucy and Ricky Ricardo way.

On a much larger scale, my problem with the criticism of Ann's speech is two-fold. First of all, we still live in the United States of America. One of our greatest freedoms is the freedom to say whatever we please. That is not to say that we are free from repercussions. Just ask the "Dixie Twits" what happened to their relationship with many of the country music stations that used to play their singles. While you (the audience) can be offended by what I say or write, you do not have the right to stop me from speaking or writing (with the expection of slander and libel). Then there is the hypocrisy of Ann's critics. Jesse Jackson is on record as referring to Joe Lieberman as "that Hymie". Michael Richards can call two hecklers "niggers" (more than once), and all he has to do is go on Larry King and blame it on Bush. So, as long as you're a liberal, you are allowed to use the epithets and slurs of your choice. You can even wish death on someone, as long as somebody in your audience finds it humorous.

Bill Maher inadvertently made my point the same weekend that Ann exercised her First Amendment right. While Ann was dropping verbal bombs, Bill was lamenting that al-Qaeda failed to assisinate the Vice President. This is coming from a member of the same crowd that protests our involvement in a war in Iraq because according to them, we are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Considering that the enemy combatants that attack our troops are not actually uniform-wearing members of a standing army (thereby, they are technically "civilians"), can we say "Duh"?

One of the things that goes along with our Freedom of Speech is our freedom to choose that which we read, watch, or hear. If we don't "vote" with our subscriptions or viewer/listenership, publications and programs get cancelled. Unless they're on NPR, but that's government sponsored, so it doesn't count. That is why parents, rather than asking the government to monitor what is on the TV, should do their job and monitor their children's viewing habits. Besides, have to you seen what earns a grant from the National Endowment for the Arts these days? Believe me, you don't what the federal government as your television nanny. So, where do we draw the line? Is it what society deems acceptable? If so, words like "nigger", "faggot" can't be used, so you'd better start removing literary works such as The Adventures of Huck Finn and The Catcher in the Rye, as well as Mel Brooks' early films and all of those Chris Rock HBO specials. They'll have to make a special section for them behind the bead-curtained doorway with the "No Persons under 18" sign.

My High School Econ Teacher Would Have Kittens!

Aside from the fact that my high school economics teacher was a human being, he was also, well, a he. In other words, it would be quite a feat for him to literally have feline offspring. However, if he had tuned in to the Rush Limbaugh show today, I am sure it would have happened. The discussion was spawned by the news that Halliburton is moving from Houston to Dubai. A caller named Barbara stated the following: "The government needs to put a stop to corporations leaving the country!" On its face, it's not a bad idea. After all, why would we, as a nation, want businesses to take their employment opportunities elsewhere? But then, Barbara kept talking.

She went on further to suggest that there is a legislative solution to this problem. In summary, she would like corporations that outsource and/or relocate to be penalized in some way. Many people who have a protectionist gut reaction fail to understand the fundamentals of economics and how, despite liberals' policies to squelch the workings of the free market, they still apply. The most basic of economic principles is at work: supply and demand. Rather than showing you some graph with lines that have little meaning, I give you a readily seen example...the Playstation 3.

When the Playstation 3 first came out, men and children (and the women in their lives) were lined up around the block several times over. What brought about this phenomenon? If you think back to this past Holiday season, not only were these things spendy (suggested retail at around $600, without taxes), but they were in limited supply. Unless you pre-ordered or took a couple of weeks vacation to camp in front of EB Games, you had less than a snowball's chance in hell of getting your mitts on one. Some enterprising individuals purchased the game system with no intention of taking it out of the box. Instead, these guys and gals took their purchased PS3's and sold them on eBay. The highest bid I saw on eBay was $4000! That is a gain of $3200 for doing very little, but there was a buyer that was willing to pay the price.

Now, if you were anything like my boyfriend, you did your product research and saw that the first generation of PS3 had problems with the Blue Ray technology and with reading discs from the previous two systems. In other words, you waited for the price to decrease and for the technology to improve. Perhaps you're like me and don't see a difference in graphics and gaming capability big enough to justify the cost of getting a new system. This, in combination with the "newness" being worn off, has caused the price to drop. You can go to bestbuy.com and find the basic PS3 system for $500. The lesson to be learned is that as long as you have consumers willing to pay the asking price, the price will stay there. Once consumers either have their fill of goods or find a better alternative, the price will have to come down to stay competitive.

Let's take the economics lesson and apply it to, say, the price of gasoline. You have people all over the world, not just the U.S, driving their vehicles. Most notably, China has an increasing number of drivers. There are only so many oil producing regions in the world that are actively pumping; there are places like ANWAR, the U.S. Gulf Coast, and unexplored regions of the world. Here in the U.S., the cost of obtaining construction and operating permits (not to mention the cost of labor and materials) is such that, depending on where you live, it could take around 5 years before you start turning a profit, if all you're doing is pumping oil. The stuff coming out of the ground isn't the only thing driving the price.

Petroleum has to be refined to a useable form. There hasn't been a new refinery built in the U.S. in the last 30 years. In addition, existing refineries are in dire need of upgrades to refine more petroleum, more efficiently. In order to upgrade equipment, parts of the refinery must shut down. This cuts back the supply even more. We haven't even delved into the cost of labor for the petroleum industry.

The recent increase in the minimum wage means that the cost of skilled labor, such as mechanics, welders, and refinery operators, must also increase or else the company runs the risk of losing their labor force to someone willing to pay prevailing wage. The petroleum industry, like any free-market industry, will pass its expenses on to the consumer. Thus, because of demand and increases in production cost, the price at the pump will rise. Since the major petroleum companies are publicly-traded corporations, decisions are made with one goal: maximize profit for the shareholders. That means everyone from the recent college graduate with a 401(k) portfolio to the member of the board with a twenty percent share in the company.

Any company's decision to leave these shores can be easily attributed to a failure in domestic policy. The education system has failed its students by not preparing them for careers and telling them that the guy who makes his living swinging a hammer is less important than the guy sitting at a computer. Legislators have seen private industries has a cash cow, free for the milking. "Nature Nazis", whose real agenda is to make everybody equally miserable, have seen to it that we are unable to build on existing technology, both in petroleum processing and nuclear power generation. The same people who complained that the Vice President was a former member of the board for Halliburton are now whining about their departure. Somebody call the "waaaaa-ambulance"! I think my econ teacher has gone into labor!

Where's Susan Sarandon When You Need Her?

Now that Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been found guilty by a jury that was screened for its political views (in addition to not even knowing the charges), I wonder whether "Susie Sunshine" and her boy-toy Timmy will step up and start calling for Libby's release. In case you're wondering why I mention these two, let me remind you about Mumia Abu-Jamal.

Mumia Abu-Jamal is a convicted cop killer who, until 2001, was sitting on death row. A federal judge overturned his death sentence, and he now resides in a maximum security facility. Sarandon and Robbins, among other celebrities, have actively protested Abu-Jamal's imprisonment. Apparently, killing a cop while he's making a routine traffic stop is de riguer for these people. Nevermind that the convicted murderer was wounded by the officer, after he shot the officer in the back. Of course, Abu-Jamal was shot before he fired an additional four rounds, one of which was to the face...at close range. When he was taken into custody, he was in possession of a .38 revolver that had five spent cartridages. For the firearm ignorant, a revolver holds six rounds; by my count, Mumia fired five shots. As anyone who knows their science (and weapons) will tell you, people lie but the ballistics don't.

The large majority of Mumia supporters believe that he is a political prisoner because he was a member of the Black Panthers. So they weren't protesting his death sentence; they were protesting his conviction in its entirety. I say that if ever there was a political prisoner in this country, it would be Scotter Libby.

The only things that Libby is guilty of are: having a bad memory, answering questions asked by the FBI, and being on "the right side of the aisle". Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald (or as we like to call him "Nifong Jr.") had to go fishing in the jury pool to find candidates that weren't "too conservative". The jury wasn't even sure why the hell they were there. In day nine of deliberations, they had to ask the judge to remind of the charges brought against Libby. After the verdict was read, some jurors went on record as saying things like "We were hoping to see Dick Cheney testify. How disappointing." A man's life has been ruined, and they are disappointed that the Vice President wasn't called to testify!?!

If the special prosecutor was actually interested in justice (rather than adding a scalp to his belt), he would have gone after Dick Armitage. Armitage, a State Department employee (and war critic), was the one behind the name dropping of a non-covert Langley desk jockey. Hell, go after her husband who wouldn't know yellowcake if it had been shoved (uncomfortably) into certain bodily orifices. Joe Wilson has enjoyed the benefits of being "Mr. Valerie Plame", including making money off of his wife's "outing". Even Plame should bear some judicial scrutiny. Isn't nepotism supposed to be illegal in the human resources department at the CIA?

We won't see Hollywood activists seeking pardon on behalf of this much-maligned man. You probably won't even see conservatives rallying outside of the courthouse on behalf of a man who's life has been wrecked for the sake of making political hay. Because the Bush administration has had its teeth kicked in by San Fran Nan and her ilk, I don't imagine that they will do anything, either. I for my part plan on finding a way to make "Free Scooter!" bumper stickers and t-shirts. If Mumia and Che Guevara can get t-shirts, Scooter can too!

Posers

I'm sure that even if you didn't see the Sunday news shows, you got to hear all about Hillary "I've always been a Yankees fan" Clinton, and Barack "Am I black enough?" Obama. Both of them decided to court the African American vote by going to Selma to commemorate the Bloody Sunday march of the Civil Rights movement. As tempting as it is, I will refrain from going off on a tangent about how affirmative action has gotten away from it's original intent and has simply become revenge racisim.

Hillary was downright insulting. The only way she could have been more patronizing is if she had been wearing black face and had her hair done up like a Quepie doll. Just to recount her background: Hillary was raised in Illinois, attended Wellsley College and Harvard, did a brief stint as Arkansas' first lady, spent eight years in the White House, and is currently in her second term as a U.S. Senator...from New York! Let's face it, she a blue state, upper-class, elitist snob. By all (honest) accounts, she despised her time in Arkansas. The only reason that she stayed with the "Horn-Dog in Chief" was because he was her political meal ticket. Her affected Southern drawl made her posturing all the more ridiculous (as though her pretending to be a preacher wasn't bad enough). The silver lining: she was "showbizzed" by Obama!

Now, that is not to say that Obama was not also rather silly. He himself is also a "Yankee", though he claimed to be "conceived at [Selma]" (an aide had to later clarify that he did not mean it literally). At first, I could not place the enunciation and cadence of his speech. Then it dawned on me: Obama was impersonating Jesse Jackson! Mr. "clean, bright, and articulate" was saying "befo'" where he used to say "before". "Movement" became "move-ment" (as if it were composed of two separate words). This "down-home" act is not going to be enough to hide his extreme left (bordering on Communist) views.

I'm certain there are those floating on the cyberspace ether, reading this, and sneering "You say all sorts of mean-spirited things about their delivery, but nothing about their message!" Rest assured, gentle readers, I would gladly give commentary on what they said...had they said anything at all! However, like many politicians of late, they manage to use a bucket full of words to say a thimble's worth. My purpose here is to point out the ridiculousness and the hypocrisy.

If Senators Clinton and Obama court their African American constituents by standing before congregations, invoking the Name of God, and adopting a stereotypical dialect, what do they plan to do to get the Hispanic vote? How about the "NASCAR Dads"? I have a really hard time imagining either of these two showing up at the Indy 500 to root for Dale Jr. The hypocrisy lies in the fact that if a Republican (even a RINO like McCain) were to step up to the pulpit in a house of worship and even utter anything that could be interpreted as political, they would be drowned out by cries for the ACLU and a lietmotif of "Separation of Church and State has been violated!" If the liberals keep this up, they will eat each other alive...maybe they could use some ketchup.

Where Are Our Heroes?

For almost a month now, we've be innundated with news about Anna Nicole Smith. I feel sorry for her to the extent that she was a human being who, despite her questionable choice of professions, felt joy and heartache like each and every one of us. I feel even more sorry for the infant who will either grow up believing that her mother did not love her enough to want to live or will be a hellaciously spoiled brat with no concept of reality. However, I cannot help but look at the media circus as further proof that we live in a culture of celebrity.

Look at the people who make the headlines every day: Paris, Lindsay, Britney, to name a few. They are living proof that a large portion of our society believes it is better to be famous than to be great. What are they famous for, anyway? Aside from Internet sex videos, drinking binges, and very public mental meltdowns, what have they achieved? While they are busy getting hammered and wrecking sports cars that worth more than my annual income, these people are still being held up as exemplorary human beings. I find it insulting as a young woman that I am told to emulate their behavior and that every man wants his very own Paris or Britney. I have had some of my male acquaintances accuse me of being jealous of these specimens and the lives that they lead.

It is not jealously that I feel. Rather it is a mixture of pity and contempt. I pity them because they are making all the mistakes of adolescence in the public eye. They, for whatever reason, believe that their only value lies in being decorative, arm candy for the next big thing to roll into Hollywood. My contempt stems from their lack of contrition and their apparent unwillingness to grow up. Rather than owning up to their mistakes, they either shift the blame or act as if they are normal and we're just the uncivilized hoi poli. As far as I am concern, people are free to live their lives as they see fit (so long as it does not cause injury to anyone else). What these women fail to see, however, is that we aren't laughing with them so much as at them.

What ever happened to being proud of excellence? When I was growing up, I remember reading stories about George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Betsy Ross, and Florence Nightingale. I learned about explorers and scientists and inventors. People who had ideas and believed in themselves and their God-given talents. Some of today's feminists will surely say "Those are antiquated examples of heroism. Men have oppressed us for so long there are no female role models! We weren't allowed to be heroes!" That sounds like a sexist cop-out to me. Why can't a girl have a man as a role model? And what's so wrong with wanting to be like a woman who put others before herself?

I have heard a few people say that American society's obsession with celebrity stems from a lack of aristocracy. Because we have no scandal-ridden royal family, we need to follow the lives of celebrities who are famous for fame's sake. I believe it stems from boredom; people now seem to live vicariously through the lives of their favorite celebrities, rather than living their own lives. So in death, Anna Nicole has secured her place in the annuls of pop culture. But what will she be remembered as? What will we tell our children and grandchildren when they ask why she is famous? You're on your own for that one.

A Pin to the Conspiracy Theorists' Balloon

So it would seem that everywhere I turn, I hear lots of people who (a) didn't pay attention at Sunday school, (b) didn't pay attention during religion classes at the parochial school their parents sent them to, (c) are simply looking for an excuse to "stick it" to Christianity, or (d) any combination of a, b, and c.

I've just heard for the umpteenth time: "Jesus' tomb has been found! And he had a wife and a son! Dan Brown was right!" Uh, no. Allow me, as a practicing Catholic and someone who attended parochial school for 13 years, to share some of what I learned.

First off, Jesus was a common name back in the first century A.D. (that's C.E. for all of you politically correct shmucks). Don't believe me? Go to behindthename.com, type in the name "Jesus", and you will find that it is actually an English translation of a Greek translation of an Aramaic translation of a Hebrew name. In fact, it is a shorter version of the Hebrew version of the name "Joshua". This is similar to "Mike" being the shorter version of "Michael". So, it's quite possible that there were more than one man named Jesus, living in the Holy Land.

Now, there is the notion that Jesus could not have been a respected member of the community without being a family man. While it was not common for a man to be unmarried, it was not unheard of. Look at the Prophets of the Old Testament, a group largely composed of unmarried men. In fact, Jewish tradition would not have precluded Jesus electing to lead a life of celibacy. Not only this, but could you, knowing that you would one day be put to death for the sake of the whole world, be so selfish as to want a family and put them through that agony? Jesus knew that he was sent to fulfill prophecy and redeem us all.

Hearing people like Larry King joke about this as being "the end of the Easter Bunny" leds further credence to what we have been saying all along. Christianity is under attack by people who consider themselves to be the most tolerate, and most intelligent, of all other people. The only problem is that unless you're an atheist, or an Islamo-fascist, you aren't entitled to benefit from their cultural and religious tolerance. They not only demonstrate their intolerance, but their ignorance as well. "Do not seek to remove the splinter from you neighbor's eye before removing the beam from your own."