FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE TO PASS A TEST TO BECOME A CITIZEN, EVEN IF YOU WERE BORN HERE

FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE TO PASS A TEST TO BECOME A CITIZEN, EVEN IF YOU WERE BORN HERE

Apparently, American high school students are too busy buying drugs and watching The O.C. to even understand their basic rights, which is both frightening and disturbing, especially since they are the ones who will probably be on the front lines should President Bush's long-term plan to take out the Axis of Evil come to fruition.

A study conducted last spring for the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation by the University of Connecticut found that nearly one-third of US high school students favor restrictions on the press. And 36% believe that news organizations should receive government clearance before running stories (this from the story I read at Insight.com).

Among its findings:

• Nearly three-fourths of high school students either do not know how they feel about the First Amendment or admit they take it for granted.
• Seventy-five percent erroneously think flag burning is illegal.
• Half believe the government can censor the Internet.
• More than a third think the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees.

Principals and teachers were also surveyed. (Scary, no?)

John S. and James L. Knight Foundation Director Hodding Carter III (you may recall him from the Jimmy Carter Administration), described these results as "dangerous."

One thing that both conservatives and liberals can generally agree on is that you lose freedom if you don't use it. That's why Carter III is correct when he describes these results as "dangerous." Between parents and faculty, the result is that three-quarters of American high schoolers believe that flag-burning is illegal. Now, they're welcome to believe it's wrong, but a lot of things that are wrong are still legal. (For instance, property tax.)

These results are understandable, however, in the Big Lie mentality that drives political life today. The current administration seems to make a habit of repeating the same untruth until it becomes "common knowledge." That's why so many Americans believe al Qaeda was in cahoots with Saddam Hussein's Iraq. That was the purpose of the "Mission Accomplished" banner on the USS Lincoln behind President Bush. Heck, that's the purpose of all political spin, on both sides of the aisle.

(Oh, and does anybody remember who invented the Big Lie?)

The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation intends these results to be used to increase the number of high school classrooms that include journalism (or "communications") in their curriculum. Understanding journalism is certainly a useful thing. I know a fellow who freelances for CNN and who teaches at Pacific Lutheran University. He is active in the business today, and he tells me that the trend these days (besides hiring airheads in blonde wigs to read the news) is reporting from a specific point of view. That is so wrong I won't even joke about it. It's one thing to do some investigative journalism; it's another to craft stories so that they reflect political opinion. And yet, there's Fox News, the alleged "balance" to "liberal" news.

How to put this in analogy, for those of you who don't understand what journalism should be? How about reporting on a fire? An objective reporter finds out where it was, what kind of structure it was, whether the structure was occupied by people, whether they were injured or killed, whether it was suspicious. An investigative journalist might ask if the fire department got there on time, had the proper equipment, or used the correct techniques. One of these Fox News types would blame it on Ted Kennedy.

Years ago, tests to determine suitability to vote were thrown out because racist scumbuckets in the South skewed them to keep blacks from voting. I now believe that was a case of throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Our Constitution needs to be revised so that rights are not conferred on a person simply for being lucky enough to have been born in the United States. I contend that citizenship for people born in this country should only be made final upon completion of the same test we give foreigners applying for citizenship. If some high school dropout is home watching American Idol and telephoning her girlfriend to discuss what color to paint her fingernails, perhaps this is not the type of person who should be voting for president, especially if she doesn't know the difference between the Bill of Rights and the Articles of Confederation.

If that's not practical, how about at least requiring a high school diploma before you can register to vote? (Or drive, but that's another rant.) The problem with that is you would also need to have a high school diploma that means something, and there are so many opponents to that one final high school test (whatever it's called in your district) -- including my spouse -- that the distinction would be meaningless.

But, really, is it wrong to forbid anyone to vote if he or she doesn't know why we had to remember the Maine? Or who Lewis & Clark were? Or why Teddy Roosevelt wanted to bust the trusts (and what a trust is, anyway)? Sadly, I fear that the Bobby Hill character on King of the Hill isn't the only creature on this continent who believes that Jed Bartlet is a real president.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the government can censor the Internet. In which case, after he's confirmed later today, Michael Chertoff can just press a button and delete this.

I'M BONED

I'M BONED

According to a Reuters Health story, constant stress and worry may be an important component in getting Alzheimer's disease.

Now I'm really stressed.

MEET THE COUNTRY'S DUMBEST GOVERNOR

MEET THE COUNTRY'S DUMBEST GOVERNOR

The governor of the great State of New York is either crazy or stupid.

Thanks to our current economic crisis (or, as the president would say, "Crisis, what crisis?" -- that's a nod to Supertramp, by the way, for you youngsters), New York, like most states, is facing economic difficulty.

So Governor George Pataki (he's a Republican, don't you know) is investigating the idea of selling public infrastructure to private companies to raise funds.

Like many failed business ideas, this is a short term victory that will lead to long-term disaster.

Companies that buy the New York State Thruway or the Second Avenue Subway are (*gasp*) going to want to make a profit. Here's the thing: If those things were profitable, the state wouldn't want to sell them. So one of two things will happen: Either the new owners will lose money operating the facilities, first letting them deteriorate, then going bankrupt and letting them wither away and die, or, worse, they're going to raise rates on the public so that only the few will be able to afford to take the subway or the Brooklyn Bridge.

Free marketeers generally have their pulse on a good idea -- a free market is great for innovation and reducing consumer costs on consumer goods. But roads, bridges, subways, tunnels and the like are not consumer goods. Public utilities are created because it's insane to have competing power companies, e.g., or because there's a greater public good involved in having a municipally managed water supply, sewer line, subway, or bridge. The rabid free marketeers -- the ones who conveniently forget that even Adam Smith was of the belief that taxes were a good thing because they let the government do things for the whole population -- believe everything should be privately held and government should do nothing.

Washington State has a similar problem now, thanks to the Bush Administration. Washington State law for years permitted taxing estates, and took a share of what the federal government took. When Bush led the fight to reduce estate taxes, Washington State did not reduce what it took. Yesterday, the Washington State Supreme ruled that Washington State could not do that, and must reduce what it takes in from now on and repay what it took in since the federal estate tax reduction. The result is another $400 million or so that Washington State will have to tax from somewhere else or reduce already bare-bones public services. This in a state with no income tax (unless you're self-employed, in which case you must pay a fee for the right to possibly make money), so it sends out armies of "assessors" to invent real estate values, the better by which to steal money you may or not be able to afford. (I.e., if I own a house and am unemployed for a year, I still pay tax on the house, even though I may not have the money to do so, which means the state can steal my property. If I didn't owe property tax, but the state had income tax, the state could charge me zero in this year of unemployment, but receive its full fair share when I was back and employed.)

New York State's problem is that the public interest will not be served by putting these things under private ownership. A business is obliged to cut its losses if things don't go well. Pataki is short-sighted and will help return New York to the depths of its financial problems from the 1970s.

THE BEST WAY TO SEE THE WORST COMBOVER EVER

THE BEST WAY TO SEE THE WORST COMBOVER EVER

The deadline for getting your application in to NBC to be the next apprentice (Trump-style) is February 10. You've got a week! Don't blow your shot -- apply today!

Personally, were I filling in the application, my answer to the question, "What is your most embarrassing moment?" would probably be, "Completing this application."

Maybe Mark Burnett's next show, instead of Martha Stewart, should be a chance for washed-up has-been middle-aged guys like me to get a job in a new career. Like inventing reality shows, maybe.

IS THIS A GOOD THING?

IS THIS A GOOD THING?

When she's released from prison in a month, Martha Stewart will get her own Apprentice. Mark Burnett, creator of Survivor and The Apprentice (both of which I watch, just so you know), will be building a sibling Survivor around America's domestic diva.

I ain't watching.

But I never did watch Stewart. I always found her irritating, condescending, and perhaps just a little bit overbearing. I'm glad that she's going to land on her feet, though, because her conviction seems to be just a little bit unnecessary considering the crime and the profit she made from it given her billion-dollar bankroll. My spouse claims that Stewart was basically convicted for being a woman, and if the spouse is right, that's just wrong.

But, Mr. Burnett needs to know: I ain't watching.

37 DOWN, 14 TO GO (AND THEY'RE ALL RED)

37 DOWN, 14 TO GO (AND THEY'RE ALL RED)

I visit the spouse's Live Journal site, and I keep finding that she's found all these little quizzes. So I have to do them, too.

Dear, please don't ever jump off the Empire State Building…



create your own visited states map
or check out these Google Hacks.

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GRADUATE TOO MANY LAWYERS

THIS IS WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU GRADUATE TOO MANY LAWYERS

My college pal Brian Lehrhoff forwarded the most recent copy of the Stella Awards to me. If you haven't signed up for them, you should at least go to the site (http://www.StellaAwards.com) and look things over. The Stella Awards recognize the stupidest, most nakedly greedy and avaricious lawsuits brought over the past year. I was particularly amused by the #6 stupid lawsuit of 2004:

The Tribune Co. of Chicago, Ill. The newspaper chain owns several newspapers, as well as the Chicago Cubs baseball team. One of its newspaper carriers was Mark Guthrie, 43, of Connecticut. One of its ball players was Mark Guthrie, 38, of Illinois. The company's payroll department mixed the two up, putting the ballplayer's paycheck into the paper carrier's bank account. The carrier allowed them to take back 90 percent of the improperly paid salary, and said they could have the rest after they gave him a full accounting to ensure he not only got his own pay, but wouldn't have any tax problems for being paid $300,000(!) extra. The Tribune Co., rather than provide that reasonable assurance, instead sued him for the rest of the money. Complete list here.
Story Copyright ©2005 Freelance Communications.

Makes you wonder about the future of the republic, doesn't it? It's even more depressing for me, because I object to the trend to legislative limits on lawsuits, whether for women suing because they've dropped coffee on their lap while driving or for widows of men who have died because a surgeon left a retractor in a patient's abdomen. With the right jury, these cases would result in the proper penalty assessed. Perhaps our jury system should be altered in cases like these. Instead of giving lawyers the ability to remove potential jurors before selection, perhaps a pool of x number of potential jurors should be interviewed by both sides, with each side selecting half of the jury. Perhaps the possibility of advocacy on the jury will make for more reasonable awards.

But for the Tribune Company to sue its paper carrier for its own mistake should be criminal.

Which reminds me: Let me soon discuss my theory that white collar crime of certain nature and magnitude should be punished by death. That would have kept those Enron creeps from raping the West.