June 16, 2005

A Government Program Is No Substitute For A Bear-Hug
By Carey Roberts

For the better part of the last 40 years, policy experts and childrearing gurus relegated fathers to the parental minor leagues. Dads were seen as well-intentioned but inept Homer Simpsons who might be able to teach junior how to swing a baseball bat, but little else.

But kids see it differently. Mary Kay Shanley's book, When I Think About My Father, recites these love-words from Amanda, age 6: "At the end of the day when I go to bed, Daddy tucks me in. We talk together about our day. He reads me a story to help me sleep. We pray together. That is my favorite part."

Research confirms with Amanda's endorsement of fatherhood. It turns out that kids with hands-on dads have greater levels of self-esteem and social competence, get higher grades in school, and do better on a broad range of social and psychological indicators. Even in high-crime, inner-city neighborhoods, over 90% of children who grow up in two-parent families avoid becoming delinquents. (Read the rest here)

Another S & L In The Making?
By Ed Henry

Alan Greenspan, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, recently told Congress that he isn’t certain why mortgage rates continue at their low level, some even dropping, while the Fed has been increasing interest rates every time they’re up for consideration. In his words, the situation is “clearly without recent precedent.”

Well, I’m sorry Mr. Chairman, but how “recent” do you want to get? Have we somehow forgotten the Savings & Loan fiasco of the 1980s that ended up costing American taxpayers more than $400 billion collected over time? A fiasco that was caused by the Reagan administration’s loosening restrictions on bankers and allowing them to invest in all sorts of poorly secured loans. (Read the rest here)

The Mehlman Spins Twice - Wait A Minute, You Can Spin It
By Ted Lang © 2004

How can the main feature on NBC's Sunday June 5th Meet the Press be a discussion of the increasingly popular Downing Street Memo? After all, The New York Times has assured US by their silence that either it doesn't exist, or that it is so insignificant that it doesn't qualify for inclusion as "All the news that's fit to print." As Lindorff points out, the despicable "American" media is only now reporting news of the Memo on a "reactive basis."

Adding to their role as secret agents for "mission ignorable," the mainstream media, hereafter referred to merely as "MSM," are churning up marvelous distractions which are best described as totally unimportant and irrelevant. Okay, I'll admit it! I haven't the slightest clue as to "what up" with the Michael Jackson "trial." And I don't care to know! And the buzz on "Deep Throat" – who cares?! (Read the rest here)

Your Feedback and Comments
The Mailbag for Thursday

Libertarian Commentary on The News
By Nathan A. Barton © 2005

Oh, right - Tuesday was "Flag Day" (as well as the Army's birthday) - no doubt why the first story today featured prominently in various places. Unlike many libertarians, I have no problem with showing respect to the flag as a symbol of the nation - but I do wish that more people would pay more attention to the things the flag is supposed to represent and stop making it a _meaningless_ symbol. There are many symbols, good and bad, which are attributed to the flag - but the greatest of these is the sentiments expressed in the Declaration of Independence. In an imperfect world, we should not believe (or even pretend) that the flag represents the achievement of the goals stated by that Declaration, nor let the flag (and respect shown to it) blind ourselves to the real faults (or even the real strengths) of the nation it symbolizes. Symbols are important, but not as important as what they represent. (My opinion, at least - many do not agree with me: if you don't please tell me so!)

Vote on flag desecration may be 'cliffhanger'
from USA Today
"The Senate may be within one or two votes of passing a constitutional amendment to ban desecration of the U.S. flag, clearing the way for ratification by the states, a key opponent of the measure said Tuesday. 'It's scary close,' said Terri Schroeder of the American Civil Liberties Union, which opposes the amendment. 'People think it's something that's never going to happen. ... The reality is we're very close to losing this battle.' Congress regularly has debated the issue since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Texas flag desecration law in 1989 and its own Flag Protection Act the next year." (06/14/05)

It would, indeed, be a serious mistake to add such a thing to the Constitution, and court cases (and stupidity) aside, we have done well without it for 218 years. Fortunately, even if the Senate does pass it, it will be difficult to get 38 states to ratify it. Symbols are just that: symbols which should be judged by each person as to their fitness to be honored or rejected. I may hate the idea of someone desecrating a state or US flag, but I fought for their right to do so - and continue to fight for their right to do so, however much I disagree with them. The passage of this amendment by the Senate (despite the idiot reasons to support or oppose it offered by the 100 conscript fathers and mothers) would be a symbol as well - a symbol that this nation has decided that symbol has won out over substance, and that pride must take priority of place over freedoms.

(Read the rest here)

New At The Price of Liberty!
Liberty Bloggers We Know