SamSaid!

BURNING ISSUE

     I like to consider myself an environmentalist  —  well, sort of. I was born and raised on the outskirts of a small town where the woods, fields, and streams were only minutes away. My friends and I climbed trees, picked berries, jumped rabbits and pheasants, waded through unnamed streams and generally enjoyed the great outdoors. The local river had few fish because of acidity due to coal spills from barges, and the skies were clouded by smoke from coke ovens. We were not comfortable with that. Forty years later, the fish are back in the river and the skies are clear.

     I didn't really appreciate the environment until I went west and saw the great vistas, rolling prairies, the great plains, the mountains, deserts, lakes, clear running streams and the big forests. For 12 years, my wife and I lived smack in the middle of the Tahoe National Forest on a property featuring tall lodgepole pines, jeffrey pines, red firs and white firs. Big trees.

     Every spring, we carefully removed combustible broken limbs, underbrush, and dead, diseased or dying trees so as to reduce the fire potential. In other parts of the country people worry about floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, etc., but we worried about fire. Then I read about the eco-wacko environmentalists who say, “leave the forest in its natural state  –  don't touch the combustible fuel on the ground”. Our local Forester said that was like putting a big pile of kindling wood in the middle of the living room so that if you have a fire it will be a big one.

     I just don't buy the notion that mother nature knows best and that man cannot tamper with that sacred domain. We breed animals, develop hybrid crops, and convert wasteland to productive purposes. but only after hassling with the eco-wackos out on the fringe. That's why I want to be sure that my environmental concerns are well removed from those knuckleheads. There is more forestland now that there was 300 years ago, and our air and water are better now than when the industrial revolution began.  Sensible environmentalists and industrialists can claim credit. Not so for the environmental ostriches.

     We need to manage the forests, not set them up for uncontrollable forest fires that cause extensive damages and fatalities. These people  either don't understand, or don't care. I can't decide which is worse.

RACISM AND DIVERSITY

     The Supremes have spoken, and thanks to Sandra Day O'Conner, racism has now been institutionalized into the fabric of the law, and “diversity” (vague and undefined) has been elevated to constitutional status. A truly sad state of affairs. For years. I have been convinced that educational institutions should confine themselves to academics and not be convenient vehicles for societal and political change. Now they have achieved a long sought goal  –  to control the thought processes of the country  –  legally. The high brow academicians will no doubt stretch the decision that went their way and simultaneously find ways to get around the one that is a mere hindrance.

     Of particular concern to me is this notion of diversity, which now becomes the standard for academic admissions. Anything that gets in the way of diversity (no matter how defined) will simply be cast aside. If traditional testing, the ACT scores or SAT sccores do not pomote the cause of diversity ( as defined by a particular school) they can be cavalierly set aside or ignored. The big university major domos will essentially be able to say,  “we will admit who we choose to admit to advance the cause of diversity , and if you don't like it, tough!” After all, if it advances the cause of diversity, who can argue?

     I have always felt that diversity is the RESULT of the social, economic and political inter-action of the various elements of our society. Now the reverse has been officially baptized. Now, diversity becomes the official GOAL of academic institutions. Can't you just see the President of Offset University saying to a graduating class, “Maybe a lot of these kids aren't too smart, but we sure are diverse!” The richness of cultural diversity? Baloney. Who set that as a norm? From here on out, we shouldn't think of Universities as citadels of learning; now they are social laboratories in which academic excellence is academic (forgive the pun).

    It all started with the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 when Equal Opportunity was the cry. That quickly became Quotas. Then when Quotas were struck down. it became Affirmative Action. When that was seen (accurately) as Preferential Treatment. that too was struck down. But now, the Supremes say racism is OK and diversity is the big protective umbrella. Before, the cry was “racism”. Now it will be “not diverse enough”.

     Justice O'Conner is famed for straddling the fence and tilting one way or another on tough decisions. She ran true to form in splitting the baby on the Michigan cases. It is said that she is close to retirement. Bye Bye Sandra, I hope the door doesn't hit you in the fanny on the way out.

     This country has a lot of different races, nationalities, cultures, religions etc.,and as long as we treat them differently and preferentially , i.e., “some people are more equal than others” , we drift further and further away from the “United” found in USA. In football terms, Sandra Day O”Conner just penalized all of us 15 yards. It will be hard yardage to regain.

THE SAMMY SOSA SYNDROME

     Sammy Sosa is a professional baseball player employed by the Chicago Cubs. He is paid an immense salary to hit baseballs  –  a long way. He is a premier slugger. A short time ago, Mtr. Sosa was caught cheating and was suspended from playing for a week or so. His crime was “corking” his baseball bat.

     To the uninitiated, corking a bat means drilling a hole in the end of the wooden bat and filling it with cork  –  a much lighter substance. The bat remains strong, but is lighter in weight. The numbers tell the story. The speed of a pitched ball is about 90 miles per hour and travels about 60 feet –  from the pitcher's mound to home plate. If 60 mph is 88 feet per second, 90 mph is 132 feet per second. Obviously, a batter doesn't have very much time to swing at the ball when it travels such a short distance (60 feet) at such a high speed. Hence, a strong lighter bat is an advantage to the batter when only a fraction of a second is involved in swinging the bat. Corking the bat is not new  –  conniving players have tried to get away with it for years. Some get caught, some don't. Mr. Sosa got caught.

     I have a hard time undertsanding why people who have it all  –  fame, wealth, notoreity, power, secure future, adoring fans, etc. –  feel the need to cheat or steal just to get more. There are only so many “toys” to be bought  –  mansions, jewelry, cars, boats, planes  –  and at some point immense wealth becomes almost irrelevant. I can't quarrel with the desire to maximize talents and skills to accumulate more wealth. But why stoop to dishonesty when so much is available by legitimate means?

     I don't mean to pick on Sammy Sosa, because the syndrome applies to so many others, such as Winona Ryder, Union leaders who loot the treasury, corporate executives of companies like Enron, Worldcom, Global Crossing, Tyco, Adelphia, et., al. Call it the The Sammy Sosa Syndrome. As good a name as any.  “Cheating and stealing are OK as long as you don't get caught”. And to make matters worse, sometimes the penalties are no more than a slap on the wrist. Not much of a deterrent. In days of moral relativity, there is no such thing as “right and wrong”. More and more, the guilty shrug off guilt as if saying “What's the big deal”?

     Mr. Sosa's reputation is gone. It wasn't just a “mistake” as he terms it. His act was deliberate, pre-meditated and concealed. No sympathy from me. He now is just one more reason the change channels.

    “Cheating and stealing are OK as long as you don't get caught”.  Not so. Sorry, Sammy!

HILLARY

     At the time of the Super Bowl, World Series, US Open (golf and tennis), and the NBA finals I am always fascinated at the cost of a 30 second TV commercial. I don't mean to pick just these few events  —  there are others which qualify as well. Millions of dollars for brief TV time. In watching Hillary being interviewed by fawning TV hosts (Katie Cutie, Barbara Walters et.al., ) for extended periods of time  –  5-10-15 minutes or longer  –   I couldn't help but wonder at the tremendous value of that much “free” TV exposure. Gotta give Hillary credit  — she looked good  –  and her clothier, hair stylist and make-up artists should be congratulated. Given “softball” questions, she made her well rehearsed pitches. There isn't any question that these TV heroines wanted to make her look good  – and they did.

     If I were a Democratic presidential hopeful I think I would be seething as Hillary makes them look like political midgets in the mould of modern day Lilliputians. She has pushed them off the front page and the network news. And if they have anything to say, it doesn't make the nightly news. They are collectively, “old whatzizname”. The millions she will make off her book can't hold a candle to the value of uninterrupted and extended

TV time handed to her on a suilver platter. Her supporters will be able to cut and splice for hours in making an image overhaul. Tough lady. And she really knows a lot about cattle futures.

     I dont know if you have noticed, but an increasingly high percentage of TV newscasters are good looking female talking heads. Do you think they might give preferential treatment to Hillary? Nah, not a chance! But if you are a betting person, what do you think will happen when Dan Rather, Peter Jennings and Tom Brokaw hand up their spikes? Want to take any bets on who grabs the #1 microphones? My guess?  Right after the 2004 Presidential election. Watch and wait!!