Setting record straight on editorial
Photo © Martin Simonis (
The editorial below appeared in The Lima News on July 27. To set the record straight, while I am on the editorial board, I had no foreknowledge of the editorial and I would certainly have argued against it. The newspaper wrote:
Not thinking?
It's not what you would expect only a week after two teenagers died in an alcohol-related crash. But, sure enough, this past Sunday the Shawnee Township Police Department arrested 10 young adults for underage alcohol consumption. Wednesday, the department charged the property owner with furnishing alcohol to the underage drinkers.
All the people arrested Sunday were between 18 and 20, Shawnee Township Police Chief Mike Keith told us. There were some minors at the scene but there was no evidence they had been drinking, he said. Tami Johnson, 42, was at the property, so you can argue there was adult supervision. You can argue that all 10 of those arrested are adults.
But the fact is, it is illegal for people younger than 21 to consume alcohol. There is a pretty constant ad campaign reminding parents they can be charged for letting underage drinkers do so at their houses.
The fact this happened in Shawnee Township so soon after Cody Dick and Christopher Blosser, both 15, died from injuries sustained in a one-car crash is a bit shocking and more than a little distasteful. The accident shocked the township, where word of it had circulated among classmates within hours.
Cody Dick, the driver of the car, had a blood serum-alcohol concentration level of 0.08 percent, Keith told The Lima News last week. A person younger than 21 is considered intoxicated with a blood serum-alcohol concentration level of 0.03 percent.
Following a loud music complaint, the Shawnee Township Police Department arrested nine men and one woman Sunday night for underage alcohol consumption. The charge the Police Department filed against Johnson is a first-degree, meaning it carries a penalty of up to 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.
That's a light price to pay, all things considered.
I have four major disagreements with the editorial, not the least of which is that it represents a significant shift from the editorial position the paper has taken during the last 40 years. This is in no way a libertarian perspective on the issue.
Read more!
[COLUMN] Put an end to farm welfare
Photo by Maciek Ciupa, of Biskupiec, Poland
Farmers are crawling around Washington begging for alms so it must be time for that quinquennial debate in the Congress over the farm bill. The House of Representatives did not disappoint, passing a farm bill Friday that gave farmers much of what they asked for.
It is finally time to end this debate. The idea of a farm bill and the governmental handouts to farmers that it entails is a remnant of a bygone era. Most of these farm programs are products of the Great Depression and make no sense in today's marketplace.
When the 2002 farm bill ends Sept. 30, the Congress would best serve American interests by not replacing it with a 2007 farm bill.
Of course, that is not going to happen, despite Democrats taking control of the Congress in part by criticizing GOP fiscal irresponsibility. As we all know, however, fiscal irresponsibility to a politician usually means the other party is not being irresponsible in the ways he or she wants to be irresponsible.
The new farm bill, like its predecessors, is nothing but subsidies and trade barriers. It is a handout to rich famers and it raises taxes to boot. After all, you somehow have to pay for the $42 billion in assistance to farmers and the $4 billion in food stamps and other nutrition programs.
Now, before you get your overalls in a bunch, I like farmers because, frankly, I like food. What many farmers do not understand, at least the ones who support such things as subsidies and trade barriers, is that it ultimately hurts, not helps, farmers.
In a free-market economy, the government has no business subsidizing any profession, including agriculture, and every time the government attempts to meddle in the economy, it only makes it worse.
Read more!
Night at the Creation Museum
Too Funny!! This is how young-Earth creationists appear to the rest of the world.
[COLUMN] Creationism still not science
The Creation of Man (Fragment of the Sistine Chapel ceiling) painted by Michelangelo Di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni 1511-12
Wow.
That is about all I can say concerning the reaction to my June 10 column, "Creationism is not science." That column, last I checked, inspired 55 comments on my blog, 15 letters to the editor and hundreds of comments on The Lima News Internet forum. Additionally, I received many personal letters, faxes and e-mails.
One thing I learned is that some Christians are the most un-Christian people on the planet when you point out how they have warped Christian beliefs.
I am responding here in print, against my usual practice, because I left the state on military duty for several weeks after writing that column and was unable to participate, as I usually try to do, in the Internet debate the column sparked. However, there were a few things said, both in the newspaper and on the Internet, I feel I need to address.
The column, in case you missed it, stated the obvious by pointing out that creationism is not science despite some Australian crackpot opening a museum in Kentucky claiming just that. And this is not your ordinary, run-of-the-mill creationism, either. It is young-Earth creationism, the ludicrous idea that the Earth is only about 6,000 years old. It disturbs me to no end that here in the 21st century we are even having this debate. The ancient age of the Earth is proved scientifically. If someone wishes to counter that scientific evidence, he or she had better present scientific data, not some ancient Jewish creation story.
Read more!
[COLUMN] Iraq is Bush's windmill
U.S. Army Soldiers secure the area surrounding a fire burning within the 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment's command point area at Forward Operating Base Warhorse in Iraq June 27, 2007. DoD photo by Senior Airman Steve Czyz, U.S. Air Force.
I cannot help but see similarities between President Bush and Alonso Quixano, a character in a famous 17th century satirical novel by Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra titled "El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha," or simply "Don Quixote."
In the novel, Quixano went crazy because he was reading so much that he did not eat or sleep. He renamed himself Don Quixote de la Mancha and set out on a series of adventures, including battling windmills that he thought were ferocious giants.
There are, however, two distinct differences between Bush and Cervantes' character. One being no one has ever accused Bush of reading too much and the second being that Quixano eventually comes to his senses and realizes the futility of his ways.
Read more!
Happy Birthday, Julius Caesar
On this date in 100 B.C. (or 102 B.C. depending on who you ask), Gaius Julius Caesar (or GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR in the Latin of his day), who would one day be dictator of Rome, was born. Caesar was perhaps one of the most influential men to have ever walked the Earth. When he led a legion across the Rubicon river on Jan. 10, 49 B.C., he forever changed the course of world history. It was that singular action that set in motion a chain of events transforming a small republic into a global empire. It was through the unity of this empire, with its security and well-constructed roads, that the teachings of an obscure Jewish rabbi were able to easily spread and become the center of the world's largest religion. He reformed the calender, making it a 365-day calendar with leap years every fourth year. It was in use until Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 modified it into the modern calendar. Caesar was a military genius and an astute politician whose reforms benefited the lower and middle classes.
As a testament to his influence, his name became a title of power and from his assassination on March 15, 44 B.C., until Tsar Simeon II of Bulgaria's reign ended in A.D. 1946, there was always at least one head of state bearing his name as a title.
Happy 2,107th (or 2,109th, depending on which historian you ask) Birthday, GAIVS IVLIVS CAESAR.
Communication not Bush's strong point
President Bush and his dog Barney at the president's ranch in Crawford, Texas. Where is the president's seat belt? (Photo courtesy of the White House.)
While eloquence is not necessarily a prerequisite to being president, it certainly is a desired trait. I can't help but think this whole mess in Iraq could have been avoided if the president had done a better job of explaining himself.
In his speech saying farewell to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Bush said:
"This guy can really [pause] ... he can talk. He's much more kind of lofty and eloquent than I am."
It's a sad indictment of the American political system that such a poor public speaker can become president.
Perhaps his inability to express himself is at the root of his need to kill other people for dubious reasons. ...
[COLUMN] Pandora's jar opened in Ohio
Illustration by Marta Dahlig, of Poland
Perhaps the greatest problem with our political system today is that there are no longer politicians who demonstrate true courage.
For example, I was recently speaking with a Republican state senator who voted in favor of the strip club bill that passed the General Assembly last month and became law when Gov. Ted Strickland refused to veto it. It goes into effect Sept. 4.
This bill, in case you are not familiar with it, is an egregious attack on freedom. It prevents patrons of strip clubs from any contact with nude or seminude dancers. It also bans most activity between midnight and 6 a.m. In fact, with its many restrictions, the bill effectively neuters strip clubs, which was the true intent of the bill.
I asked this senator about his vote. He said he hated the bill but voted for it because he did not want the Cincinnati-based group spearheading the measure, Citizens for Community Values, targeting him during his next re-election campaign.
Certainly no profile in courage there.
When I told him that, he actually agreed with me. In fact, he told me every Republican who voted for the bill (which was all but one) hated the proposal but used the same logic he did.
I found this attitude disturbing.
Read more!
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.lucente.org/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
