Thank you and good night

Johnny Carson died in his Malibu home Sunday morning.

Though Carson retired when I was only 11 years old, I remember watching his shows late at night for several years, especially during vacations from school.  He made me laugh.

Two years ago, I purchased his "Best of" video collection and I still watch them regularly.  They seem to get funnier with each successive viewing.

Johnny Carson was a timeless comic genius.  His humor will always be funny.  Children and adults hundreds of years from now will laugh at clips of his show.

I'm just a fan who admired this man and his work.  Mr. Carson will be missed but never forgotten.

Thank you and good night.

"And so it has come to this. I am one of the lucky people in the world. I found something that I always wanted to do and I have enjoyed every single minute of it."

 

"You people watching, I can only tell you that it's been an honor and a privilege coming into your homes all these years to entertain you. And I hope when I find something I want to do and think you would like, I can come back and (you will be) as gracious in inviting me into your homes as you have been."

 

"I bid you a very heartfelt good night."

 

-- Johnny Carson, May 22, 1992

First Amendment Double Standard

Infamous atheist Michael Newdow's request to ban prayer from President Bush's inauguration on Thursday was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.  Newdow is the same atheist who recently got help from the ACLU to remove the words "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance at his daughter's school.

According to the Associated Press, Newdow's latest claim was that "a prayer at Thursday's ceremony would violate the Constitution by forcing him to accept unwanted religious beliefs."

As evidenced by its pathetic shelf life, this case is far less valid than his previous case against the Pledge of Allegiance.  This case exemplifies pure sour grapes from someone who simply hates Christianity.

Merely hearing a prayer does not force one to accept its message or the details of the associated faith.  Newdow's rationale is LUDICROUS, quite frankly.  This is one more example of one losing sight of the fact that the First Amendment protects the separation of Church and State -- NOT the absolute separation of Church from State.

Based on Newdow's reasoning, several other lawsuits should be expected soon.  Expect Newdow to make the following claims in the near future, perhaps with the ACLU's support:

*American schools need to stop teaching Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech because it ends with, "Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!"

*Americans need to stop cashing paychecks and stop spending U.S. currency because every piece says, "In God We Trust."

*If Newdow sneezes in public and some good samaritan says, "God bless you," that person should be sued for trying to force her religious beliefs on another.

In fact, by Newdow's reasoning, America should just abandon the Justice System because our laws are based on Christian morals.  This is especially true because for years -- and still in many court systems -- witnesses swear to testify truthfully by placing one hand over a Bible and raising the other.

Again, like the liberal argument against strict FCC regulations to radio and TV personalities, if you don't want to hear the prayer -- don't listen to it!  You don't have to watch it on TV.  If you're there in person and it offends you, cover your ears.  The fact remains that no one will be forced to pray just because a prayer is given.

Where was Newdow's protest during previous inaugurations?  Why now?  Every inauguration to date contained prayer at the swearing-in ceremony -- where the president-elect still places his hand over a BIBLE while taking an oath.  Bill Clinton's inaugurations even featured gospel choirs and spiritual incantations from African-American poets.

Newdow's political agenda is clear and, thankfully, no one cares to hear it.  He's worn out his welcome.  And where is the ACLU?  Isn't a prayer free speech?  The ACLU, yet again, demonstrates its anti-religious agenda with its silence on this matter.

This also exemplifies why Tort Reform is an important issue that most Americans support.

Elsewhere in the world, Rolling Stone magazine recently reneged on its prior commitment to run an ad for a new version of the Bible aimed at young people.

As pointed out last night on "Scarborough Country," Rolling Stone magazine has before, even regularly, placed ads for such items as sex parties, escorts, copies of successful term papers written by college students, and marijuana advocacy groups.

Rolling Stone issued a statement declaring that the ad went against the nature and best interest of the magazine by promoting a particular religion.

TRANSLATION: Rolling Stone sides with the anti-religion ACLU and ultra-leftists who want no part of promoting something with which Republicans are heavily associated.

Talk about lack of accountability!  Who on Earth is Rolling Stone trying to fool?  Suddenly the magazine's editors are pretending to be objective and fair-slanted?  And they cite an "unwritten policy" as their excuse for the ad's ban? 

This particular Bible ad never mentions any [G]od or religion.  While I understand the editors' skepticism toward the ad claiming the Bible to provide "truth" -- this is no different from any other advertiser promoting its product as the best of its kind.  While such an ad may be debatable and subjective, the Truth In Advertising Act holds that every advertisement is presumed honest, even if others disagree.

What's more embarrassing is that the ad was accepted last summer and now, at the last minute, Rolling Stone backs out.  That is beyond partisan.  That is just unprofessional.

Still not convinced that the magazine doesn't Republican-bash?  Just take a look at last year's covers:

*Eminem, whose Bush-bashing song/video "Mosh" was released just before the November election, appeared twice.

*Dave Matthews, Ben Affleck, Quentin Tarantino, Prince, Tom Cruise, Jon Stewart, Michael Moore, Cartoonist Garry Trudeau, the bands from the failed "Vote For Change" tour, Howard Dean, Bill Clinton's name (in extra-bold lettering), and even John Kerry himself -- each made the cover once.

So 13 of 24 issues in 2004 featured cover stories on actively liberal media personalities and Bush-bashers.  And now they don't want to promote a certain message?  THAT is a direct hindrance, albeit legal, of free speech.

Don't misunderstand me.  I read Rolling Stone occasionally.  I also have no problem with the private magazine promoting its own agenda.  What I find ridiculous is the facade Rolling Stone presents as a bastion of free speech -- except for when sudden unwritten policies against Bible ads are necessary.  The hypocrisy and double-standard of the matter is bothersome.

Democrats will not win another election so long as their most popular supporters continue to shun or bias against Christians.  Apparently the re-election/mandate for George W. Bush still has many leftists, like Rolling Stone magazine and Michael Newdow, in deep denial.

ATTENTION LEFTIST MEDIA: You have four years to accept that people can see through your BS.  You have four years to better your approach. 

So much for that precious First Amendment, huh?

Tsunami relief telethon is an embarrassment

"If a tree falls and no one hears it, does it still make a sound?"  -- Anonymous

Last night celebrities sang songs, told sad stories and answered phone calls during a prime-time telethon to benefit the Red Cross Tsunami Relief Fund on NBC.

During what the Associated Press described as a "hastily arranged benefit," the bipartisan effort featured famous faces from both sides of the political aisle.  Conservatives like Clint Eastwood, Kelsey Grammar,  Rob Lowe, country-music singer Kenny Chesney, and even Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly worked together with liberals such as Brad Pitt, Leo DiCaprio, George Clooney and Elton John.

The telethon featured Live performances that stretched across the globe, from Los Angeles to New York to London.  The effort even coerced former Pink Floyd cofounder and frontman Roger Waters to make a rare TV appearance, let alone a Live performance with Eric Clapton.

I watched the telethon sparingly, at best.  I'm willing to bet the majority of Americans who watched TV last night did the same.  And why?  Because FOX simultaneously telecast the National Football League playoff game between the St. Louis Rams and the Atlanta Falcons.

The NFL traditionally airs its first two rounds of playoff games on both Saturday and Sunday.  This was nothing new.  FOX was doing what it was scheduled to for the past few years.

What bothers me is how STUPID and IGNORANT the NBC executives were to not wait one more week to hold the telethon. 

No NFL games will be on rival networks next Saturday. 

No college football games until August. 

No other major sporting or television event will compete for time next Saturday.

This would ensure better odds for more viewers.  It would allow NBC time to market the event all this week.  (Personally, I had no clue it was on until I changed the channel during a commercial break from the game.)

If NBC truly wanted to best its opportunity to raise the most money it can for its cause, it would have waited one more week.  I am to believe not a single executive, contributor, or even any of the actors and musicians involved -- knew about the NFL playoff game going on at the same time???  That is ridiculous!

This is exactly why it pays to know something about sports, even if one hates athletics.  Professional sports are part of world culture, and knowing more about them DOES equate to being more cultured.  And if even one person involved had enough wherewithal, moxy, or maybe just a clue -- the telethon could have done more to raise more money for the natural disaster's victims worldwide.

As did this past presidential election, this also shows how truly out of touch Hollywood is with the rest of real-life America.

A lot of Americans watch prime-time football.  That number always increases during the playoffs.  NBC apparently rushed the telethon together.  The advertising for this was all but nonexistent.  To me, all of these combined factors indicate that NBC was more concerned about possibly stealing some ratings from FOX instead of raising money to aid the Red Cross.

Shame on you, NBC.  And to ALL of you celebrities involved last night: DUH!

Sure, this telethon was aired worldwide, and much of the world doesn't care about the NFL.  But let's be realistic: this telethon was targeted to a US audience.  And if you want optimal American attention, you don't rush together something and air it opposite an already-scheduled NFL playoff game.

(Also, don't forget that the Superbowl is still annually the most-watched televised event worldwide.)

Also noteworthy is that NBC hasn't aired NFL games since 1996.  This fact adds to their negligence for not keeping up with such a HUGE cultural entity(NFL football) simply because they're no longer a direct part of it.

Under different conditions, I might consider this a matter of "Good intentions, poor planning."  But I'm thoroughly convinced this was an example of greed (NBC) and negligence (for NBC and everyone involved).

Go ahead, Mike -- make his day!

"Sometimes I think I'd be better off dead.  No, wait, not me.  You."  -- Jack Handey

Look, a funny news story!  Enjoy.  =)

Source: www.imbd.com

Eastwood Threatens Moore

Clint Eastwood has chillingly warned documentary-maker Michael Moore he'll face certain death if he ever points his camera at him.

Picking up a Special Film-making Achievement prize for Million Dollar Baby at the National Board Of Review Awards dinner in New York on Tuesday, Eastwood urged the Fahrenheit 9/11 director to avoid making him the subject of a future project if he values his life.

However, Eastwood - a staunch supporter of the Republicans - did admit he and Moore have a shared view of how American society should operate.

He said, "Michael Moore and I actually have a lot in common - we both appreciate living in a country where there's free expression. But, Michael, if you ever show up at my front door with a camera - I'll kill you."

And when Eastwood noticed the audience had erupted in laughter to his threat, he emphasized, "I mean it."

However, Moore's representatives insist the comments were intended as a joke: "Michael laughed along with everyone else, and took Mr Eastwood's comments in the lighthearted spirit in which they were given."

My favorite part of this story is picturing Clint pausing while everyone's lauging, then saying, "I mean it."  HA!  Go, Dirty Harry.  :)

p.s.  Go Steelers!

Evolution Theory and the chimps on both sides

"If a kid asks where rain comes from, I think a cute thing to tell him is "God is crying." And if he asks why God is crying, another cute thing to tell him is "Probably because of something you did."  -- Jack Handey

*Excerpts from the article provided below appear in BOLDFACE*

ATLANTA (Jan. 13) - A federal judge Thursday ordered a suburban Atlanta school system to remove stickers from its high school biology textbooks that call evolution ''a theory, not a fact,'' saying the disclaimers are an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.  The stickers were put inside the books' front covers by public school officials in Cobb County in 2002. They read: ''This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered.''  [Italics added.]

First of all, both sides here need more tolerance and understandng of one another.

As for the ruling, the Federal Court judge got this one wrong.  As worded, these stickers were NOT an unconstitutional endorsement of religion.  Evolution is still a THEORY accepted by the scientific community, based on circumstantial evidence.  Circumstantial evidence can only create a likelihood that something happened a certain way, but it never irreconcilably proves something factual or not.  For example, convicted criminals are sometimes pardoned or released from prison after DNA evidence later disproves former theories -- established as fact -- formulated from circumstantial evidence.

Had the textbook stickers flat-out stated that Evolution was a lie or a bogus theory, or that Creationism was either fact or even the likely explanation for life on earth -- THEN they would represent an undeniable, absolute and unconstitutional endorsement of religion in a government-sponsored public forum.

On the other hand, I understand the wording that alarmed some parents, teachers and the ACLU.  Stating that Evolution is "not a fact" may sound like "Evolution is a lie."  But that's simply NOT what they stickers said.  In fact, nothing the stickers said is untrue.  Evolution IS indeed a theory, albeit one heavily and widely accepted by the scientific and historical intelligentsia throughout the world (based on circumstantial evidence).

At a trial in federal court in November, the school system defended the stickers as a show of tolerance, not religious activism.  As worded, the stickers did promote tolerance for diversity of opinion, a staple of the First Amendment.  Tolerance is something the ACLU is traditionally supposed to defend.  It is one's civil liberty to choose whether or not to believe something, let alone something unproven.  And one should not be forced to believe anti-religious dogma over religious dogma, or to believe one possible existence theory over another.  Frankly, this federal court ruling now mandates anti-religion more than it saves students from religious bias.  The textbook stickers encouraged students to approach unproven theories with an open mind.  Again, isn't that something the ACLU should fight to protect???  This further evidences the ACLU's grossly anti-religious double-standard.

I'm both an optimist and a realist, and I believe that both teaching students about Evolution and encouraging them to believe whatever existence theory they want -- can coexist peacefully.  Here are some suggestions:

(1)  This case needs mediation, not litigation; in other words, it needs compromise instead of winners and losers.  Nevertheless, I expect this case to make its way to the US Supreme Court.  Before it goes that far, the school needs to hold one or several town hall meeting(s) and let proponents of both sides speak their minds and express their differences.  Let parents know that this is how the matter will be decided.  Print ads in the local papers.  Advertise meetings on the local radio stations.  Let parents and teachers and administrators know that if they miss the town hall meetings, they miss their opportunity to affect the compromise.  All of these expenses will be a mere fraction of thelegal costs being spent now by both sides.

Personally, I believe it's important for the school to teach Evolution as the prominent scientific theory, even if no local student or parent believes in it.

(2)  I teach high school Englishand I've taught students Greek and Roman mythology.  Most high school freshmen still read The Odyssey and other myths in school.  No one can fully disprove that the Greek gods existed and directly shaped life on earth; however, common sense --based on historical and scientific circumstantial evidence -- shows reasonable alternatives.  It is still important, from an historical and aesthetic perspective, to understand what motivated people and their art throughout history and how both have changed throughout time.  Teaching about Greek gods should not automatically be mistaken for teaching students to believe in them as the ancient Greeks did.

Similarly, there is a difference between teaching students that Evolution is a theory and teaching students that they shouldn't believe it.  Or in teaching that they should believe in Creationism above all other theories.  I've never heard a news story about over-zealous religious parents or paranoid agnostic parents accusing an English teacher of imposing belief in Greek gods on his or her child.  Why can't school systems teach Evolution in a similar manner and avoid much of the fuss?

If a student doesn't want to believe it, (s)he doesn't have to.  That is his or her unalienable human and American right.  Likewise if (s)he does believe in Evolution.  However, if I'm a science teacher, I still want to teach Evolution as a predominant scientific theory and NOT as unchallenged fact because it is an important concept to at least understand -- even if one does not believe in it (i.e., Greek mythology).  So many people DO believe in this theory, however, which makes it extremely relevant to modern science and, thus, educational.

The unscientific AOL member poll supports my perception of this issue:
Does labeling evolution "a theory, not a fact" endorse religion to you?
No 58%
Yes 42%
Do you think evolution should be taught in public schools?
Yes 76%
No 24%
Total Votes: 34,334

(3)  Another suggestion is to teach evolution as you teach (dinosaur) Extinction.  Experts have different theories, but it's still important to know which ones are predominant in the scientific community.  No one knows exactlyhow or why humans inhabited and prospered through earth.  That said, it is important for students to learn about the theory of Evolution and its predominance in the scientific community worldwide.  No one has to believe Evolution as fact, but it is plain ignorant to pretend the theory does not: (A) exist; and (B) dominate modern scientific theory.  Teaching students THIS fact is not pressuring them to believe in Evolution, just as encouraging tolerance for alternative theories does not pressure students to believe in Creationism.

The federal judge in this case stated that "[w]hile evolution is subject to criticism, particularly with respect to the mechanism by which it occurred, the sticker misleads students regarding the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community.''

I agree that the significance and value of evolution in the scientific community is invaluable to any modern-day biology class.  However, this judge seems to have viewed the overall case with tunnel-vision as he apparently contradicted his own rationale with this ruling.  Again, if the textbooks indeed promoted Evolution as factual and not just as the leading scientific explanation for human existence, then this ruling actually mandates mind-control instead of preventing it.

(4)  If the community still wants disclaimers in their schools' Science textbooks, perhaps amend the wording.  I would suggest something like: "Though it remains the dominant scientific explanation for life as we know it, Evolution is one of many theories regarding life's origin.  This subject matter should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."  Perhaps change the wording on the stickers to include all forms of Existence Theory, not just Evolution.  Stress again that all theories are just theories; that none are proven fact, though some may have more evidence and may be more widely accepted as fact than others.

There is a bottom line here.  Both sides need more tolerance and compromise because the students (remember them?) need it.  Enough distractions from learning!  This battle is so easy to avoid, even in Bible Belt, USA. 

To both sides involved: Swallow some pride and stop damaging these poor kids' education with senseless (and expensive) bickering.