SamSaid!

B.C./A.D.

     Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Jesus Christ who is by all odds one of the 2-3 most influential humans ever to walk on the earth. That is not a religious opinion; rather, it is a simple statement of fact contested by a very few of intellectual competence. In looking back in history, his birth was a pivotal date in terms of events that preceded that date and the events that followed. Thus, most of us have grown up thinking of historical events that occurred B.C. (before Christ) or  A.D. (after Christ). I was astounded to learn last week that even the History Channel has turned to political correctness,  and BC/AD are now designations committed to the trash heap of history.

     Our family was watching a History Channel program on the 7 Wonders of the Ancient world and we began to hear references to CE or BCE  –  meaning the Common Era and the Before Common Era. They are direct substitutes for BC and AD. Even though the point of historical separation, i.e., the birth of Christ, remains the same, the terms have been changed. As a point of reference, the Birth of Christ has been purged from the history books, and Christmas therefore is of no time based consequence. The last 2000 years is now the Common Era, and anything before that is the Before Common Era. Isn't that a kick??

     Who decided to make a change like that? History is history, and I see no merit in re-writing history just to accommodate as bunch of secular extremists. I guess their real objective is to kill Christmas and at the same time just delete Christ from the history books.

     As a separate item, I have often wondered why BC is expressed in English, and AD in Latin. Curious!

     Isn't it nice that we now can talk about the Greeks and Romans “Before the Common era”. Disgusting!

BSLs

     The Blue State Liberals (BSLs) are at it again. Having lost the White House, the Senate, The House, the Culture War, and most everything else, now they have decided to renew their assault against the Boy Scouts and Christmas. And they wonder why they lost in the 2004 elections?

     Their isn't much doubt that the foundations of this country as outlined in our most precious documents were heavily influenced by religion  –  the Deity. All you have to do is to read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution plus the writings of our Founding Fathers. True, we hold to the idea of religious freedom,  which originally was based on guarantees against  biases among Protestants, Catholics and Jews. In 1776, nobody gave much thought to Hindus, Bhuddists, Muslims , Indian cultures, or manufactured religions like Scientology.  Nowadays, the BSLs denounce religion and seek equivalence for atheists and agnostics who deny the existence of the Deity  — by whatever name. So now the BSL secularists renew their attack on religion  — especially Christianity  — and all of the symbols that accompany religious belief at Christmas time.

     You have to hand it to Fox News and Bill O'Reilly who champion the cause in opposition to the secularist efforts. Again, the Blue State Liberals  do not want any parts of true democracy that seeks to find the will of the people; instead, they seek the support of left-leaning judges who are willing to impose their agenda on the rest of us. Personally, I am not an overly religious person, but I am a church attender and  I am mightily opposed to the BSL efforts to ban Christian observances at the Holiday Season. To me it isn't “Happy Holidays”, it is Merry Christmas  — and if the seculatists don't like it, that's just tough.

     Come to think about it, if the BSLs really want to advance the cause of Red State –Fly-Over–  America in the Culture Wars, they couldn't have picked a better example than attacking Christmas. Maybe the BSLs should have a big ceremony and celebrate the birthday of Michael Moore  — or maybe Whoopie Goldberg.  All that before stomping on the Boy Scouts.

     From a very early age I was influenced by a WW II saying, “There are no atheists in fox holes”. But the secularists sitting in their comfy offices and homes wouldn't know much about that, would they?

SOCIAL SECURITY

     Without a doubt, the Social Security program is the crown jewel of the American welfare state. Enacted during the great depression of the 1930s, it has endured great success and is “politically” untouchable. At least up until now.

    Social Security is a cash transfer program. Payments (taxes) from those actively employed go in the front door and then are promptly paid to retirees or other beneficiaries out the back door. In the past and currently, there has been a surplus in Social Security funds which has been used for other governmental purposes. Within a few years, the surplus will vanish and be replaced by deficits  –  big annual deficits, calculated in the $trillions. The payment liability will greatly exceed the tax revenues being paid by active workers. Hence, the structure of the SS system will have to be changed. The variables  include higher taxes, lower benefits, older retiremen age, or private savings accounts. George Bush is leading the charge for private savings accounts.

     Gerge Bush can be accused of many things by his detractors (and some supporters), but he is not bashful about making major decisions. While many on both ends of the political spectrum cringe at the inevitability of changing Social Security, Bush is willing to tackle the issue head on. He fully intends to pursue the alternative of private savings accounts in which employes will be given the option of detouring some of their taxes out of the Social Security Fund into the individual savings accounts  — like an IRA.

     Some time back, President Bush talked about an “ownership” society  — referring primarily to home ownership and investments such as 401K plan savings, IRAs, stocks and bonds. The SS Accounts would be another step along the road to an “ownership society”. This is not just another catchy term; rather, it has a lot of substance that will register with millions of Americans. I think George is on the right track. To be sure, during the recession of 2000 – 2003 people owning 401Ks and IRAs saw their investments suffer losses, but with the turn in the market they are on the way back up. Over the long haul – let's say a 20 year time span  –   the investment route will yield a lot more than  Social Security will.

     Because of the great change in demographics, a change in the SS system is unavoidable and will likely require increased Federal debt (borrowing) to keep the system going and satify the promises to older citizens. That is true no matter however the system is changed. But long range, the “ownership society” is the best route to follow for the country and its citizens  –  and the proposed change to private Social Security accounts is a constructive step along the way.

     My guess is that George will start the process of selling the Social Security private accounts to people all across America in his State of the Union Address in late January 2005. A positive public response  would be the best way to provide a bit of backbone to balky Senators and Representatives.

SPORTS II

     The University of California Golden Bears will not be going to the Rose Bowl. Instead they will travel to a second tier Bowl, the Holiday Bowl, in San Diego to play a 4 time loser, Texas Tech. Through a highly suspect ranking system Cal was downgraded at the last minute so that The Univerity of Texas Longhorns will go to Pasadena and play in the much more prestigious Rose Bowl. The season records of Cal and Texas were the same.

     There are three parts to the ranking of Colllege football teams  –  a computer analysis, a poll of college football coaches, and a poll of sportswriters. After the final game of the season (Cal won and Texas did not play), several sportwriters changed their votes and placed Texas ahead of Cal in the rankings. Some of the changed rankings came from Texas newspaper writers (surprise?). In addition to the big bucks involved, Cal fans and their team felt cheated out of the season long goal of playing in the Rose Bowl. Hard to blame them.  

     I guess we can be generous and say that no ranking system is perfect and subjective judgments are made from week to week. But the appalling part of this last minute switch to leapfrog Texas over Cal was the active public campaigning by  Texas Coach Mack Brown who solicited both writers and coaches to change their votes to advance the cause of Texas  –  specifically at the expense of Cal. That doesn't say much for sportsmanship, to say nothing of the impartiality of the ranking system and the selection of Bowl participants.

      Brown's tactics were below the belt and should not have been rewarded. I hope Michigan cleans their clock on New Year's Day.

SPORTS I

     The world of baseball has discovered that some of its big name heroes have been using steroids. Will wonders never cease!  Many of baseball's hallowed records are going by the boards, broken by players who have been transformed from 2X4s into fireplugs in just a matter of 2-3 years. And these remarkable physical changes, of course, are due to diet and exercise  — right? Now everyone right up to the US Senate is clamoring for steroid (chemical) testing of Major League baseball players, most of whom have multi-million dollar contracts.  

     Of all sports, baseball is the one that has a fan base strongly attuned to statistics and records  –  batting average, home runs, base hits, runs batted in, earned run average, strikeouts, etc., etc.,etc. For 60 years or so these records were complied over a season of 154 games. Then the season was stretched by 8 games to be 162 regular season games. When Roger Maris (162 games) broke Babe Ruth's home run record (154) games there was a huge debate over whether Maris's record should bear an asterisk to account for the longer season. I personally think the asterisk was merited, but baseball leadership felt otherwise. So the baseball records and statistics do not differentiate between the shorter and longer seasons.

     Now we will have another hassle over the “asterisk”. Barry Bonds is almost assured to break the all time home run record set by Hank Aaron. But Bonds is an admitted steroids user. Should his eventual total be accompanied by an asterisk to show that he used performance enhancing drugs? Again,I think the use of an asterisk is merited. To me, comparative records should be apples to apples to apples. Without proper differentiation, they become useless. Bonds cheated and broke the rules. Should we just look the other way and “move on”?. I think not.

     And when it comes to drug testing of players, don't hold your breath waiting for Union President Donald Fehr to go to great lengths to uphold the sanctity of the game. While giving lip service to the evils of drugs, he will try to minimize the testing program and reduce any penalties to the lowest possible level. Unless baseball management and Congress are adamant, the whole testing issue will be come a sideshow without great impact. It will result in a slap on the wrist,  “don't do it again”, and ” rehabilitate.

     And no asterisks.