Friday, October 30, 2009

Vote "Yes" on Tuesday in St. Louis County

I've never met a tax increase I liked.  Trust me on that one.  Generally, I would prefer that people keep and spend their money as they see fit . . . but some things can't be done privately.  One such thing is emergency response.

And, right now, emergency responders in St. Louis County aren't being given modern tools to do their jobs.  Instead, they're working with antique communications equipment and if disaster strikes, lives will likely be lost because of it.

But passing Proposition E-911 on Tuesday's County ballot will provide a modern communications system for radio communication, give emergency call centers the ability to trace the location of cellular calls to 911, and add or repair tornado warning sirens across the area.  These upgrades would be paid for by a 1/10 of 1 cent sales tax (that's 1 dollar on every thousand spent) on purchases in St. Louis County.

For more detail, check out Nancy Larson's article in the St. Louis Beacon.  (Link here.)

It is worth it.  I'm voting "yes" on E-911.  I hope you will too.

Thursday, October 29, 2009

What's Jim Talent up to these days?

If you're looking for this post, please see this one for an explanation of why it isn't here.

The Big Fat Who Cares Department is Back . . . and a link the greatest celebrity endorsement speech in American history, as relevant as ever

A music writer at the Associated Press gives us this Gordon Sumner gem . . . "Sting isn't a religious man but he says President Barack Obama might be a divine answer to the world's problems.  'In many ways, he's sent from God,' [Sting] joked in an interview, 'because the world's a mess.'  But Sting is serious in his belief that Obama is the best leader to navigate the world's problems.  In an interview on Wednesday, the former Police frontman said that he spend some time with Obama and 'found him to be very genuine, very present, clearly super-smart, and exactly what we need in the world.'"  (Link to full story here.)

So Sting - a musician - is now throwing his celebrity-weight behind Obama.  He thinks he's great.  There's no policy analysis here, just Sting saying, essentially, "I met him and, gosh, he's really neat."

Whoopty-flipping-do!  WHO CARES!

Not me, of course.  Celebrities coming out and expecting us to listen to them on issues because of their celebrity status really annoy me.

Don't get me wrong.  Celebrities have the right to an opinion, and the right to express it.  And if they can back up the opinion with reason and logic, that's wonderful.  The best example of that in American history is Ronald Reagan's speech entitled "A Time for Choosing," which was delivered 45 years ago yesterday in support of Barry Goldwater for president.  If you want to recharge your conservative batteries - and see the type of celebrity support that we should all care about - link here.

Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Unnatural Selection

Scientists at Stanford University have "successfully" created sperm cells and eggs from embryonic stem cells in the hopes of creating a cure for infertility.  (Link to story here.)

To put it bluntly, these scientists have chosen to kill one human being in order to potentially create, through unnatural and artificial means, another.

Is it morally acceptable to abort a child, harvest his tissue, use it to grow cell cultures, all to fight wrinkles?

If you think that it is a ridiculous question - as in who would ever use aborted fetal tissue cultures for a skin-care product - you're wrong.  A company called Neocutis is doing just that.  Check out the details on the Action Alert at this link.

Spread the word about Neocutis' products and tell everyone you know what the key ingredient in Bio-Gel, Journee, Bio-Serum, Prevedem, Bio Restorative Skin Cream, and Lumiere really is.  If they want to smear these products on their skin, shouldn't they really know what is in them?

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Blunt Campaign Adds Political Heavy-Hitter

Congressman Roy Blunt announced today that Ann Wagner (former Missouri Republican Committee Chairwoman, former Republican National Committee Co-Chair, and most recently U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg) will serve as chairwoman of his campaign for the U.S. Senate in 2010.  (Link to story here.)

Liberal Honesty . . . caught on tape

"We are trying on every front to increase the role of government." -Representative Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts) (Link here.)

If you want Barney and Friends to succeed, keep voting for the Democrats.  If, on the other hand, you believe in small government and freedom, these folks have to be ousted in 2010

Buckleys for Lieberman

Back in 1988, Joe Lieberman ran against Republican Lowell Weicker for the U.S. Senate in Connecticut.  Connecticut's own conservative icon William F. Buckley, Jr., announced "Buckleys for Lieberman" as part of the effort do defeat Weicker, a true Republican-In-Name-Only.  In announcing his opposition to Weicker, Buckley described Lieberman as "a moderate Democrat" and stated that "it is always possible that he will progress in the right                                                                                                 direction."

Fast forward 21 years, Lieberman remains a Democrat but has progressed enough to announce today that he will support a GOP filibuster of Harry Reid's version of Obamacare or any healthcare "reform" plan that contains a public option.  (Link to story here.)  According to Lieberman, the Reid plan "to put this government-created insurance company on top of everything else is just asking for trouble for the taxpayers, for the premium payers and for the national debt."  He added that he would vote against any bill with a public option, "even with an opt-out [clause for states] because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line."

Thanks Joe.  Mr. Buckley's faith in you was not misplaced.  

Monday, October 26, 2009

Spin Alert

Americans have made it clear to Washington that we do not want a "public option" in any healthcare reform.  And, guess what, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been listening.  Does that mean that she's going to drop it?  Not a chance - a government takeover of medicine is a liberal's holy grail.  Pelosi and her pals won't give up to a little thing like public opinion.  Not when she can simply change the terminology, so now she's calling the same old plan for a "consumer option."  Another Democrat is floating the term "competitive option."  (Link to story here.)

But, by whatever name you call it, the idea is the same . . . and it is not a good idea.

Be careful.  The "spin" is getting deep.

Carnivores Unite! Save Thanksgiving Turkey!

The "good people" are at it again.  They're trying to save the planet, working toward a new international agreement to combat greenhouse gasses and the myth of global warming.

What would be the consequence of "a successful deal at the Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen" this December?

According to an "influential" global warming nut from Britain, Lord Stern of Brentford, it "would lead to soaring costs for meat and other foods that generate large quantities of greenhouse gases."  (Link to story here.)

I do give credit to Lord Stern for his surprising honesty.  Most of his environmentalist pals won't admit the drastic economic consequences of their wacko crusade.

If they succeed, your lifestyle will change.  Your children's lifestyle will change.  And the planet will survive . . . but guess what . . . it will also survive if we succeed in shouting down the nuts.

For the sake of roast turkey, steaks, pork chops, cheeseburgers, chicken wings, bacon, bratwurst, etc., say no to Copenhagen.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

Is $750 really a "significant penalty"? Nope. It's an incentive to employers to drop health insurance for their employees.

Here's the lead on an Associated Press healthcare article from David Espo . . . "Businesses would not be required to provide health insurance under legislation being readied for Senate debate, but large firms would owe significant penalties if any worker needed government subsidies to buy coverage on their own, according to Democratic officials familiar with talks on the bill."  (Link here.)

That, of course, is the spin.  Democrats and members of the media (redundant, I know) tell us that Obamacare won't result in government-run healthcare because folks with insurance through their employers will keep it.  The employers won't, they say, drop insurance coverage for their employees and toss them onto the "public option" because of those "significant penalties."

Espo details those "significant penalties" in his article . . . "For firms with more than 50 employees, the fee could be as high as $750 multiplied by the total size of the work force."

$750 per employee.  $750.  Any guesses what a employers pay now for health insurance for their employees?  I think that it is virtually certain that they're paying more than $750 per employee.

What we've got in this "healthcare reform" bill, folks, is a massive financial incentive to employers to drop their health insurance plans.  No more insurance premiums, just a $750 fine.

Why would the Democrats want to create such an incentive?  Because it is all about the "public option," a.k.a nationalized healthcare, a.k.a. socialized medicine.

And that's what this is really all about.

Be careful.  Be vigilant.  Be strong and be smart.  The fight against socialism in America isn't over.  Far from it.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Abortion Funding Impasse Could Stop Obamacare

Interesting story from Erica Werner at the Associated Press - link here.  

It seems that a group of Pro-Life Democrats are standing up to their leadership and standing firm against federal funding of abortion in any healthcare "reform."  Unless such funding is removed from the current House version, Michigan Representative Bart Stupak has threatened "to block action on the larger health overhaul bill unless he's allowed to offer a stand-alone amendment during floor debate to include the Hyde amendment restrictions," which prohibit federal funds from being used for abortion except in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother.

Werner notes, "such an amendment would be almost certain to prevail . . . so Democratic leaders won't let Stupak offer it."

Now that's democracy in action.

Thursday, October 22, 2009

Swine Flu Questions to Ponder

Greg Jonsson of the Post-Dispatch reports:  "The director of Missouri's Department of Health and Senior Services granted an exemption Thursday that allows pregnant women and parents of young children to choose whether to receive H1N1 vaccines containing a mercury-based preservative.  A statute prohibits pregnant women and children under 3 from receiving vaccines with the preservative, but Margaret Donnelly determined that a shortage of preservative-free vaccine was preventing those groups from getting the new H1N1, or swine flu, vaccine."  (Link here.)

Donnelly's decision just begs the questions . . . 

If mercury-based preservatives are safe for pregnant women and children under 3, why does Missouri law ban them?

Or, if mercury-based preservatives are not safe for pregnant women and children under 3, why on earth would Donnelly lift the ban?

It certainly seems to me like the medical and government-health types running this vaccination program for swine flu have no clue what they're doing.  One shot.  Two shots.  There's plenty to go around.  Now there's a shortage.  It is safe.  It is mercury-free.  Wait, no it's not.  But it is still safe.  Or, at least we think it is.  It's a new drug and we think it might be safe but, well, you know, swine flu is bad.

Yeah, and swine flu is already here.  Despite the rush to produce the vaccine, it is already too late.  

This whole swine flu scare is looking odder every day.  Something weird is going on.  I suspect that it is nothing sinister, just a bunch of government-types "handling" things as they usually do - poorly.  Glomming on, of course, is the willing media doing their latest version of the Schnuck's Panic Aisle story.

And it really comes down to this, as I've stated before, IT'S THE FLU!  Should anybody really be injecting mercury to try and prevent the flu?

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

The Pro-Life Protest you didn't hear . . . or hear about

Yesterday, I stumbled across a story about a national protest against abortion . . . the Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity.  For the sixth straight year, "hundreds of thousands of students from thousands of schools around the world refused to speak [yesterday] to protest abortion.  (Link to post-protest story here.)  They took vows of silence to stand for one day "in silent solidarity" with the thousands of babies who, every day, "have their voices permanently silenced" and "never get the opportunity to speak."  To be seen, the protesters wrote the word "Life" on red duct tape and stuck it on their mouths or arms.  And to spread their message they passed out these fliers.

Kudos to the protesters.  Thank you all for standing up for the cause.

I'm sorry that until yesterday, I had not heard of this silent protest.  It deserves note.  And, it deserves coverage, but I couldn't find much of that on mainstream media sites via Google tonight.  It is as if the protest never happened.  But if five liberals show up to protest something it's front page news.  But I digress.

It seems like this protest effort is currently geared to student participation.  Could it be expanded?  What a statement would be made if everyone who believed in the Pro-Life cause stood together in silent protest one day?

It couldn't be ignored.

According to a banner on the protest organizer's web site, the Seventh Annual Pro-Life Day of Student Solidarity will be Tuesday, October 19, 2010.  (Link here.)  Can we all mark our calendars?

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Oprah . . . Sarah. Sarah . . . Oprah.

Sarah Palin will be on the Oprah Winfrey show November 16, 2009.  (Link to story here.)

(David Letterman link here.)

Monday, October 19, 2009

How insurance works. And how Obamacare won't work.

Health insurance is complicated, don't get me wrong.  But, at the root, is a very simple concept . . . groups of healthy people pool their money together so that when one of them gets sick or injured then necessary medical treatment (which might be prohibitively expensive as a lump sum) is paid for from the pool of money.  The money is pooled together by an insurance company, which makes money by taking fees off the top and investing the pool itself.  And the system only works as long as more healthy people pay into the insurance pool than sick or injured people draw from it.

Why do healthy people pay into the pool before they need to draw from it?  Because if those people are not paying into the pool and then get sick, they are not generally allowed to buy into the pool after the fact.  If you didn't have to buy insurance while you were healthy and didn't need to draw from the pool but could wait until you needed to draw from the pool before paying any premium at all, why wouldn't you?  Where would the money come from?  Unlike the federal government, insurance companies can't print money.

But Obamacare is set to change the rules of insurance.  Under the latest version, everybody in America is "required" to buy health insurance.  But, if they don't buy insurance, they would face a tax penalty of only $200, starting in 2014, and gradually increasing to $750 in 2017.  (Link to story here.)

I don't know how many of you know what your yearly health insurance premiums are now but I doubt that there is one of you who pays less than $750 per year.  So, if Obamacare passes, and you're healthy, why would you pay into the insurance pool?  Instead, wouldn't you just wait until you got sick or injured and needed coverage.  Then, in theory, you could pay your penalty and get the coverage and treatment you needed?  Insurance companies would be prohibited from denying you coverage for the preexisting condition.

As John Martie, president and general manager of Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Colorado (quoted in the story linked above) says, "people would come in, pay premiums for a few months while they were getting their cancer treatments.  . . . If enough people did that, the whole system would collapse."  Why wouldn't they? 

In fact, people would do just that and if Obamacare passes the resulting systemic failure would be inevitable.

"Medical" Marijuana Supporters ready to thank Obama for his support

(Link to related story here.)

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Aren't you all glad we're paying for this?

From the St. Petersburg Times (via Drudge) . . .

More than $2.3 million in federal economic stimulus grants have gone to eight Tampa Bay area cosmetology and massage schools to pay tuition for the hairdressers, masseuses and nail technicians of tomorrow.

That's swell news for those who see the beauty trades as a way to gain a firmer footing in the job market.  But is there truly demand for more beauty school graduates at bay area salons?

Not really, said Monica Ponce, owner of Muse The Salon in Tampa.

"Instead of encouraging more people to go to beauty schools," Ponce said, "they should probably help the stylists who are unemployed."

. . .

Peas in a Big Red Pod

Russia's ruling party is looking to the Chinese Communist Party for inspiration on how to run a country.  (Link to story here.)

Makes me feel safer at night.  You?

Thursday, October 15, 2009

How many babies are aborted every year worldwide?

The short answer is, of course, too many.  One would be too many but, unfortunately, our world is several million times worse than that.  EWTN reports that a new study from the Guttmacher Institute (a Pro-"Choice" organization) shows that there were 41.6 million babies killed in abortions worldwide in 2003 (the statistic here lags for some reason and '03 data is new).

41.6 million!


In days of $2 trillion healthcare bills, 41.6 million might not seem like much.  But imagine if every year the entire population of Missouri was murdered.  That would be horrific . . . but that many deaths would pale in comparison to worldwide abortion numbers.  To come close to 41.6 million killed, you would have to include every man, woman, and child in Missouri and every single state bordering us (save Nebraska).  That's everyone in Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Iowa.

Imagine that many people being killed off every single year.  Every single year!

May God have mercy on us.

Robin Carnahan's ties to ACORN spotlighted in GOP ad

Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana . . . the land that time forgot?

Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, Louisana, "refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have."  (Link to story here.)  I suppose Bardwell believes that those currently-hypothetical children would prefer not to exist.  Maybe he should ask Barack Obama if he would prefer never to have been born.  What an ignorant fool!

SLC's message to the good folks in Tangipahoa Parish:  get Bardwell to quit practicing his ignorance as justice of the peace, or get him out of office . . . as quickly as possible.

SLC's message to Beth Humphrey and Terence McKay:  may you have a long and happy - married - life together.  And may that life be blessed with many wonderful children.

Wednesday, October 14, 2009

Buying votes . . . government style

"President Barack Obama called on Congress Wednesday to approve $250 payments to more than 50 million seniors to make up for no increase in Social Security next year."  (That's the lead in this AP story by Stephen Ohlemacher.)  Social Security payments are, of course, tied to inflation, which is nonexistent.  No matter, lets give the senior citizens some more money anyway (Obama-money as they might say in Detroit).

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing necessarily against seniors getting a raise.  But its another $13 billion.  The government doesn't have the money.  It doesn't have ANY money.

Again, that doesn't matter to Obama, he's "open to borrowing the money, increasing the federal budget deficit," which is already expected to hit $1.4 TRILLION - that's $1,400,000,000,000.00, in 2009 and it is sure not going to go down in 2010.

This is nothing more than a liberal incumbent politician writing $250.00 checks to every member of a large voting block.

What's the difference between this scheme and simply doling out cash at the polls?  I see two . . . Obama won't go to jail for his plan and the money won't need to come out of his own pocket.

Obama's side job

This evening, on TBS, I saw this commercial . . . (Link here - sorry, I tried to imbed the video from youtube but it didn't work.)

It made me wonder.  What the he@* is the President of the United States doing on a commercial for a new late night talk show?  Has he nothing better to do.  Maybe the country is better off if he spends his days acting in various commercials rather than running America into the ground.  But, unfortunately, he's demeaning the presidency in the process.

Have some respect for the job you hold Mr. President!

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

A headline that would have given me great joy in the days before Obama . . .

"Hillary Clinton Says She Will Not Run for President Again" (Link here.)

Who would have thought that that this country would ever elect someone so radically left of center that even Hillary Clinton would be a step in the right direction?

Olympia Snowe

Today, U.S. Senator Olympia Snowe (RINO - Maine) voted for socialism a.k.a. Obamacare a.k.a. the Senate Finance Committee's version of healthcare "reform."  (Link to story here.)

Monday, October 12, 2009

Clearly . . .

Fun piece by Ben Feller of the Associate Press (link here) analyzing the public speech patterns of Barack Obama.  Feller found that Obama falls back on the phrase "let me be clear:" time and time again.

This reminded me of a college professor of mine who enjoyed using the word "clearly" in lectures far too often.  The word itself became a running joke.

Clearly, using the word "clearly" or the phrase "let me be clear" adds nothing to the statement that follows.  That statement is either clear or it is not.  And the self-proclaimed announcement of clarity is, of course, nothing but a naked attempt to add some gravitas to one's speech.  Nobody in the audience wants to doubt what is proclaimed to be clear.

It surprises me that the AP has run a story poking some fun at Obama.  Either Ben Feller is trying to make the president look more human, or he's joined the crowd jumping off the Obama bandwagon.

Come on off everybody, the weather is fine down here where our feet are planted on the ground.

Why did the White House strips AZ sheriff of immigration enforcement powers?

The Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona, Joe Arpaio, with the agreement of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security "had been authorized to enforce federal immigration law by arresting suspected illegal immigrants in the field and by checking the immigration status of people arrested on other offenses."  Arpaio and his deputies have arrested "roughly 33,000 illegal immigrants" since 2007.  (Link to story here.)

Amid complaints of racial profiling of Hispanic people, the Obama administration has pulled the plug.  As if the Arizona border is being overrun with illegal immigrants from somewhere other than Mexico.

Why would the White House put a stop to the arrest and deportation of illegal immigrants?  Because they've got their eyes on them as voters after the desired amnesty becomes reality.  And the Democrats are not shy about placing electoral politics and special interest concerns over the defense of America.

The borders must be secured.  If the federal government can't (or won't) do the job, more power to law enforcement agency willing and able to do it.

Sunday, October 11, 2009

White House whining about Fox News' fair and balanced coverage

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn says, "Fox News often operates almost as either the research arm or the communications arm of the Republican Party."  According to Dunn, the network provides "opinion journalism masquerading as news."  (Link to story here.)

If Fox News is an arm of the GOP, what is ABC?  CBS?  NBC?  CNN?  MSNBC?  CNBC?

Just wondering.

Did the wheels fall off the global warming bus when . . .

the Phillies-Rockies game scheduled for October 10 was snowed out?

Or when the BBC's climate correspondent ran this piece headlined "What happened to global warming?"

Friday, October 9, 2009

Do you remember when . . .

the Nobel Peace Prize meant something?

Do you remember when it was awarded for actual accomplishments?

Alas, no more.  This year's prize has been awarded to Barack Obama (link here) whose list of actual accomplishments as president includes . . . well . . . we'll have to get back to you on that.

Whatever credibility the Nobel Prize committee had left after presenting the 2007 Peace Prize to Al Gore is now up in smoke (sorry for the carbon footprint).

Thursday, October 8, 2009

A crime is a crime is a crime

Kudos to Representative Roy Blunt for his thoughtful decision to vote against this year's National Defense Authorization Bill because the Democrats who control Congress (for the time being, let's all hope) included new "hate crimes" laws in the Defense Authorization Bill.  The bill that funds our troops.  (Link here.)

"Creating a new classification of prosecutions based on thought compromises the very freedoms our service men and women fight to protect," said Blunt.  That's absolutely right.  Why is murder a lesser crime if your victim is white?  Why is it more okay to beat up a straight man than a homosexual man?  Why is it a federal offense to target a victim because she attends a particular church but not because she works for a particular corporation?

If I don't belong to any protected class, I am not afforded equal protection of the law.  I thought we were all constitutionally guaranteed such protection.  Didn't you?  Congressional Democrats sure don't think that.

A crime is a crime is a crime.  Laws are (at least they should be) drafted to regulate acts, not thoughts.  

{On a side note, what the fudge is "hate crimes" legislation doing in the Defense Authorization Bill?  The Missouri Constitution requires all bills introduced in the General Assembly to have no "more than one subject which shall be expressed in its title."  (Link here to article that, below the ad, quotes the provision.) Wouldn't it be nice if the U.S. Congress operated under that rule?  Might promote honesty in debate, don't you think?}

A night at the ER

No blogging last night because I was in the field doing research on healthcare reform, spending about 3 1/2 hours in the emergency room with a sick toddler.  Nope . . . no swine flu (or cow flu, duck flu, or sheep flu either), just a little croup.

I've been lucky and haven't needed to visit an ER in a long time.  And after last night's experience, I don't desire to go back.  We waited, and waited, and waited some more.  Everyone else waited, and waited, and waited some more.  It was frustrating and, you know what, I'm on board, the American healthcare system needs to be fixed.  But I can't imagine that transforming the ER doctors, nurses, and staff into the functional equivalent of government employees would increase their efficiency.

Tuesday, October 6, 2009

Early voting . . . a bad idea resurfaces

Jo Mannies at the St. Louis Beacon reports that an initiative petition has surfaced to allow Missourians to vote before election day.  (Link here.)  Missouri already allows voters with reason to cast absentee ballots but this proposal would allow anybody to vote early with or without a reason, good, bad, or indifferent.

There are reasons for Election DAY.  Here are just a few that come quickly to mind . . .

First and foremost, the campaigns don't end until election day.  Every election year we find out more and more about candidates for public office in the days before the vote takes place.

Second, the chance of fraud rises with early voting.  Common sense and logistics tells us that much.  Without Santa-like powers, it would be much more difficult to travel from place to place, state to state, poll to poll, casting multiple ballots in a single day, than over whatever time period early voting was allowed.  Is it any wonder that St. Louis City Democrats (Mayor Francis Slay) advocate early voting?

Third, early voting allows the votes of folks who, may they rest in peace, are no longer citizens of the United States but of the Great Beyond to be counted in elections.  For example, link here.  Maybe I'm cold and unfeeling but shouldn't elections be decided by the living?

The latest stupid plan to cut carbon emissions and save the planet . . .

pee before you board the plane.  I'm not kidding.  Link to the story here.

Like parents to a toddler before a car trip . . . do you need to use the bathroom Junior?  No.  Well, try for Mommy.

Monday, October 5, 2009

Who is running the White House these days?

The Dalai Lama is in Washington this week and, for the first time since he started visiting the U.S. in 1991, America's president has refused a White House meeting.  (Link to story here.)

It begs the question, doesn't it.

Sunday, October 4, 2009

St. Louis Sports

The Cardinals won the National League Central and begin a playoff series Wednesday in L.A.

The Blues started their season in Sweden against the Red Wings and beat the defending conference champs twice.

It is certainly a good time to be a sports fan in St. Louis . . . unless you like football.

Freedom of Speech . . . SLU-style

In 2006, the president of Saint Louis University, Rev. Lawrence Biondi, taking heat for his school hosting "The Vagina Monologues" defended intellectual diversity . . . "Sometimes that means hosting speakers, events or plays that some may find inappropriate on a Catholic College campus.  But as soon as censorship begins at any university, where does censorship end?"

That's certainly a good question Father Biondi, and one that you might want to revisit now that SLU has canceled David Horowitz's speech on "Islamo-Fascism Awareness and Civil Rights."  (Link to Kavita Kumar's story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch here.  Kumar gets credit for the Biondi quotation above too.)

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Drug Testing for Public Aid?

We all get dozens (maybe even hundreds) of forwarded e-mails every week. If you're like me, you delete most without reading. For some reason, I read one that arrived in my Inbox today. I've copied it below, verbatim (so don't blame me for grammar or word choice):

Like most folks in this country, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck in my case, I am required to pass a random urine test (with which I have no problem). What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test. So, here is my Question: Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with someone sitting on their butt - doing drugs, while I work . . . Can you imagine how much money each state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check? I guess we could title that program, "Urine or You're Out." Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though. Something has to change in this country - and soon!!!!!!!

Certainly food for thought.