California Chronicle Blog :- Home Page

Monday, March 08, 2010

By J. Matt Barber

The U.S. military has always discriminated. There are a host of malignant behaviors such as illicit drug use or habitual criminality that can render a person ineligible to serve. As my father-in-law learned, there are also benign maladies such as vision impairment or flat feet that can bar an otherwise eligible applicant. Any number of behaviors or conditions with varying degrees of severity can dash one's hope of donning the uniform.

This is discrimination only insofar as "discriminating minds" with expertise in these matters have found that such restrictions are necessary to maintain excellence in our historically unparalleled fighting force.

In formal recognition of the long-established finding that "homosexuality is incompatible with military service," federal law – Section 654, Title 10 – objectively prescribes the following:

The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise;
Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion;
The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element
The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability; and
There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

Indeed, federal courts have ruled over and again that a prohibition against homosexual conduct within the ranks of the military is both constitutional and justified.

So now that Barack Obama is president, what has changed? Is there something about "out and proud" homosexuality, hitherto absent or unseen, that suddenly makes it compatible with military service? Is there something about our military that has, for the first time in history, made it compatible with this particular lifestyle?

The answer to both is no.

The fact that "homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline" has not changed. Proponents of military homosexualization offer scant evidence to the contrary. In truth, the only thing that has changed is politics.

Reasons for incompatibility are manifold. They are firmly rooted in both common sense and in the "settled" anthropological, sociopolitical and medical sciences, as well as the theological arena. Taken alone, each provides ample justification for maintaining the status quo. Combined, they prove the case. For now – in the interest of brevity – we'll focus on but one: medical science.

Consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka "gays") from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.

According to the FDA: "['Gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

The FDA further warns: "['Gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in ['gay' men] than in the general population."

A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although "gay" men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

Do the math: If "gays" are allowed to serve openly – as to appease leftists' euphemistic demands for "tolerance" and "diversity" – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?

All things considered (and we've only scratched the surface), is it any wonder that, according to a 2008 Military Times survey, almost 10 percent of currently enlisted personnel say that should "gays" be allowed to serve openly: "I would not re-enlist or extend my service." Furthermore, 14 percent warn: "I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service." The potential exodus of up to 14 percent of military personnel from our all-volunteer services would be devastating.

When we apply these uncompromising medical and administrative realities to the "gays in the military" debate, we find that, objectively, and based solely upon medical science and the imperative to maintain good order and unit cohesion, homosexual behavior and military service remain today as oil and water.

Yet, inexplicably we see reckless movement from this administration, liberals in Congress and even a handful of high-ranking military commanders toward military homosexualization. This type of San Francisco-style social experimentation within the ranks of the armed services would demonstrably weaken, not strengthen, our military, jeopardizing national security.

In a purely civilian world perhaps we can afford to grant liberal social engineers a manageable level of latitude to play fast and loose with wistful "gay rights" rhetoric. However, it's an entirely different proposition when bad behaviors place others – particularly those who've already waged life and limb for country – at both an unnecessary and avoidable level of risk.

For these reasons (and many more) allowing practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle to serve openly in our armed services should not and must not be "tolerated."

Mr. President, it's your sworn duty to place national security above misguided ideology and extreme special interests. It's high time you begin to take your job seriously.

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book "The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War" and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net. (This information is provided for identification purposes only.)

Posted at 15:56 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Friday, March 05, 2010

We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us

By Harris Sherline

One of the most valuable lessons about negotiating that I learned in over 50 years as an accounting professional and businessman was to always leave something for the other side. Successful negotiating is not about winning everything and leaving nothing for the other party. That’s one of the biggest mistaken assumptions made by many people and can sometimes lead to undesirable and unintended consequences.

Negotiating is not dictating. It’s a give and take process that, hopefully, can be a win-win for both parties. Otherwise, it becomes an exercise in power, where one side simply dictates to the other.

That said, the example of the day is the unions that represent government employees vs the government entities that employ them and indirectly the taxpayers who ultimately pay the bill. Think about it. What is the long-term outcome likely to be when unions obtain wages and benefits from the government that cannot be sustained over time?

Pogo’s well known quote comes to mind: “We have met the enemy and he is us.” That seems to be the case with government employee unions, which have negotiated wage and benefit packages that are generally better than those of most the taxpayers who are forced to pay the bill.

The argument is sometimes made that government employees are also taxpayers. True enough. However, that would only be appropriate if they were paying the major share of the bill for their own compensation.

The problem has been a combination of government revenue streams that grew steadily for many years, coupled with compliant politicians who responded to the political muscle of the unions that have actively supported their campaigns for election. A particularly egregious example of this was the Santa Barbara City Council election a few years ago, in which the employees’ union asked candidates for City Council a series of questions but would not release their responses to the public.

Not only do the government employee unions have the power to strike but they also vote and, given the percentage of the workforce that now work for government, they represent a major portion of the voting population.

We, that is, our political leaders can resist, but they don’t. Ronald Reagan demonstrated the value of pushing back against the excessive demands of government employees when he fired 11,345 air traffic controllers in 1981, when they attempted what was then an illegal strike.

The result has been the steady growth of government employee costs, to the point that they can no longer be sustained. This is clearly demonstrated by the current plight of Santa Barbara County, which is currently grappling with a projected budget deficit of some $39 million.

The percentage of government budgets that is allocated to employee retirement has been steadily increasing. At some point, those government entities that fail to stop approving expenditures they do not have the money to pay them will eventually go broke. When that happens, whatever retirement benefits they may be contractually bound to pay to their employees will be drastically reduced, of necessity, possibly by a bankruptcy court, if no other way.

But, both the unions and the various government entities seem to keep trying to “soldier on” as if there’s no tomorrow. One gets the impression that if no one looks, the problem will just go away. But, it won’t. There will be a day of reckoning, which appears to be approaching fast.

Writing in the Santa Maria Times, Julian J. Ramos noted (March 3, 2010): “Faced with the unenviable task of closing an overall $40 million budget gap, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors agreed Tuesday to hold off giving direction to county staff on how to narrow that deficit… Most of the budget gap is linked to skyrocketing county employee retirement costs and shrinking property tax revenues, which makes up the majority of the board’s discretionary funding and supports most public-safety programs.”

Fifth District Supervisor Joe Centeno of Santa Maria said he would rather see cuts to non-essential services than see reductions in services to children and adults who need mental-health care. “We have to find a way to accommodate their needs,” he said.

It all sounds good, but no one seems to have any idea how to stretch the available funds to accomplish that without going broke in the process.

It’s time people in government (at every level) get real.

Read more of Harris Sherline’s commentaries on his blog at www.opinionfest.com

Posted at 12:42 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Friday, March 05, 2010

THE TEA PARTY MEETS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

By Matt Kokkonen

The modern Tea Party movement hearkens back to the efforts of the Sons of Liberty more than 230 years ago. In 1773, the earlier patriots boarded the vessels of the East India Company and tossed tea overboard to protest high taxes imposed by the British Crown upon the American colonies.

Today, millions of Americans are fed up with the ever-expanding power of the central government in Washington, D.C. They have organized themselves into ‘Tea Parties” from coast-to-coast to protest out-of-control government spending, ever-increasing taxes, and a skyrocketing national debt. They are demanding an end to wasteful government programs, to the progressive debasement of the currency through inflation, and to the endless string of government “bailouts” of everything from Wall Street bankers to Detroit automobile manufacturers, all using taxpayer money. The TARP bailout of 2008 was probably the catalyst for the rebirth of the Tea Party movement. TARP represented a colossal, unprecedented transfer of wealth from hard-working, productive Americans to Wall Street investment bankers giving themselves million dollar bonuses as a reward for their disastrous financial decisions which drove the U.S. economy to the point of near-collapse.

The Obama administration does not see one sector of the American economy which should not be ripe for government management and takeover. It has little or no respect for the free market or the U.S. Constitution. The brazen attempt to nationalize one-sixth of the U.S. economy through the health care proposal has only stimulated the Tea Party movement and brought additional Americans to its ranks. Obama’s pork-laden “stimulus” package which claims to have created jobs in congressional districts which don’t even exist has further fueled the growth of the movement as has “cap and trade” which threatens to bankrupt American industry and send utility bills into the stratosphere. The

recent Republican victories in Virginia, New Jersey and especially overwhelmingly

Democratic Massachusetts can be at least partially attributed to the growing Tea Party movement and voters who reflect the philosophy of the movement

“Tea Party” voters are not agents of the Republican Party, as some on the left allege.

Nor are they paid stooges of the giant insurance companies or any other corporate entity.

In reality, the “Tea Party” movement is neither Republican or Democrat. It is bi-partisan

and non-partisan. It boasts a powerful libertarian strain. It rejects the Big Government agenda of both Democrats and Republicans. It is distrustful of the professional politicians in both major parties as it sees both parties as largely dominated by special interests. It has little sympathy for mega-corporations who feed at the government trough. Instead, “Tea Party” voters are Americans who want the restoration of limited Constitutional government. They embrace the vision of the Founders who saw a powerful central government as the chief enemy of the people’s liberties. They seek nothing more and nothing less than limiting the central government in Washington to its original, limited functions under the Constitution and the restoration of all those powers not delegated to the central government to the states or the people, per the Tenth Amendment. They are suspicious of central banking, favor sound money, and take to heart George Washington’s warnings about foreign intervention and President Eisenhower’s warnings about the “military-industrial” complex.

The Republican Party may be the current beneficiary of the “Tea Party” phenomenon, but the GOP can not take the “Tea Party” voters for granted. They must understand that should Republicans betray the fundamental principles of limited government and individual freedom which they claim to embrace, they will be targets of the “Tea Party” voters in the next election.

In 1960, a great Senator from Arizona named Barry Goldwater authored a book called “Conscience of a Conservative” which became the Bible of the modern-day conservative movement. On page 23, Goldwater writes: “I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I

was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best

I can.”

To this day, no better summary of conservative principles has ever been articulated.

The Republican Party is well-advised to embrace the “Tea Party” movement with enthusiasm and energy, recognizing that the movement can offer the GOP a much-needed opportunity to see where the Party has departed from the path of Goldwater and Reagan in recent years and how to restore its authentic heritage of being the party of small government.

Matt Kokkonen is a San Luis Obispo financial planner and citizen-activist. He organized the 2009 SLO Tea Party and was the 2008 Republican candidate for Congress against Lois Capps, winning 80,000 votes. Currently, he is a candidate for 33^rd Assembly District.

Posted at 12:33 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Monday, March 01, 2010

A different point of view on Climate Change

By Richard Fryer

Recently (November, 2009) Central Coast Family News published a two page article entitled “Climate

Change & Global Warming – The Science Behind It & Why It Matters” by Dr. Ray Weyman. This article

disturbed me as adding to the alarming predictions our media are so quick to publish. I believe this point of view distorts what we actually know as scientists, so I wrote a short reply. Central Coast Family News decided not to run this response.

I identify myself as a climate skeptic. I do not doubt that the earth is gradually warming. That process

appears to have been going on - with cycles of warming and cooling - since records began to be recorded in the mid 1800's - perhaps 1°F plus or minus over 150 years - and likely since the end of the little ice age according to records from Britain.

Most local media carry a pretty uniform story about climate change - the risks, causes and possible cures. Other opinions are rarely heard - and perhaps rarely offered. I believe that responsible adults (especially parents and teachers) should make themselves aware of other points of view. My observation is that most media coverage falls into the 'gloom and doom' range, but any reasonable person must look at all sides.

So much is written about the behavior of the climate that it is certainly attractive to allow someone 'else' - perhaps the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to tell us what to believe. On this topic, however, it is risky to do so! The politicization of climate issues has taken us far into speculation and well away from consensus on facts.

The key questions are how large an impact is human behavior having on the climate and whether it is a

result of CO2 added to the atmosphere - primarily from using fossil fuels for energy.

The authors of the IPCC report have certainly pointed to a 'Carbon Footprint' as a cause of climate

change (hence AB 32 and the recent incredible EPA designation of CO2 as a pollutant). The reason you

don't see climate scientists on TV demonstrating the 'truth' of this connection is that they just don't have

one. They have a conjecture, and this is built into climate models. But the earth's climate system is

incredibly complex and interconnected. By comparison, the models are apparently oversimplified (one

climatologist says that "projections of future climate based on these models be viewed with much

caution").

The portion of the warming that is occurring that is a result of man's CO2 contribution MAY be

measurable but it certainly HAS NOT been measured. It seems as likely that it's 1% to 10% as that it's

50% or more. Other human impacts on the climate - aerosols (soot), reactive nitrogen, and land use

impacts such as agriculture - may turn out to be more important than CO2 emissions. These elements

and even climate features such as clouds are not in the models or included as a 'best guess' due to our limited data and understanding.

I am sympathetic with the problems faced by climate scientists. The 'climate signal' - that is, the 'real'

behavior of the climate (or net temperature increase) is very difficult to measure - even at a specific site.

Approximating a good 'value' for temperature shifts requires accounting for wide daily, seasonal and

weather influenced shifts at thousands of sites. Even time of day errors can mess up records.

This figure is drawn from a current Journal of Climate article and is included only to show how noisy the

data is and how slight the temperature increase by comparison - and hence how difficult to derive

sweeping conclusions of causes. And this picture shows only the daily means - not the daily highs and

lows! (Side note - the author DID find that summers in the 1930's were unusually warm, and that

extremely harsh winters of the 19th century were moderating.) The net warming in this medium sized

Midwest college town (pop. about 52,000) over this period is less than 2 degrees F over 179 years!

Figure 1 - Daily mean temperatures in Manhattan Kansas from 1828 to 2009 (Journal of Climate article (in press)).

Climate scientists often use surface temperature records for analysis - that's the primary indicator in the

IPCC reports. Trends are quite difficult to establish - even at a single site, where local changes over the

years (additions of nearby buildings, growth of surrounding urban areas with factories and paved areas,

and even agricultural changes) can mask the tiny signal - which you remember may be about 1/100 of a

degree F over a year. Matt Kokkonen has recently pointed out that two NOAA weather stations in our

county are very poorly sited - yielding temperatures that are expected to be unreliable. And though

NOAA attempts to correct for this, the corrections themselves are obscure and have been shown to

sometimes be inaccurate to an extent that swamps the perceived warming.

Even so, you will have seen a variety of 'hockey stick' graphs that show temperature shooting up near the

end - just as the measured atmospheric CO2 curve shoots up. Several of the graphs that I am familiar

with have proven significantly inaccurate when critically examined by expert statisticians. You may know

that the key IPCC results provided by Briffa and Mann have both been shown to be somewhere between

misleading and just plain false. Even the Thompson ice core results relied upon in An Inconvenient Truth

that show a hockey stick in surface temperatures appear to have statistical problems - recent work shows

that Thompson's calibration method over a few cores do produce a hockey stick but a fuller set of cores

show almost none. In other words, the 'enormous increase(s) in temperature of the last half century'

referred to by Gore is probably just bad math!

To sum up, given consistent, audited graphs, I think most people would conclude that the earth is

warming; that the trend is slight and has not changed much recently - the most recent 30 years looks little

different from many other 30 year periods!

I am quite disturbed by the scary quotes and tone of the media (and many others that urge extreme

action). The words used seem to be chosen to frighten (The earth is at a tipping point! The polar caps

are disappearing! California will turn to desert! Coastlines will be flooded! Coral reefs will dissolve in

acidic oceans! Thousands of species are being extinguished!). None of these are realistic near term

threats – and may be wildly incorrect predictions! Why scare our kids when the science is still so far from

settled?

The California "Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006" (often called AB 32) is law and its economic

impact is expected to be very harmful to business - the hoped-for benefits are elusive. This nation's

House and Senate are currently deliberating a very intrusive and expensive cap-and-trade based

legislative package equally questionable in benefit. Even the prominent Dr. James Hansen of NASA

argued last December that congress' cap-and-trade legislative scheme is old, deceitful and ineffectual,

and he called most carbon offsets hokey. He sees the Copenhagen minimalist agreement as an

"opportunity to move to a more honest path.") The radical emphasis on CO2 reduction and cap-and-trade

legislation may be worse than useless - it may limit our ability to adapt and fight other causes that may

emerge. When has a big government program been terminated because it wasn't working?

You might ask - "What's wrong with being 'extreme' - isn't crying wolf worthwhile if it pushes the politicians

into action?" I think it's ALWAYS wrong to distort the facts no matter how urgently the need is felt. The

behavior of leading climate scientists in the 'climategate' fiasco has already harmed the image of climate

science. Science will be essential to solving many of man's problems in the future - scientists must be as

truthful as we know how to be!

I would be happy to email a longer version of the article that includes extensive references - all derived

from standard climate journals. If you'd like a copy, ask at: anotherclimateview@gmail.com.

Richard Fryer worked at China Lake for the US Navy as a physicist and computer scientist for many

years. He has also taught Electrical Engineering and Computer Science at several colleges including a

few years at CalPoly. He has published several papers in these fields and has been a peer reviewer for

the Association of Computing Machinery. He has been a central coast resident for over 15 years.

Posted at 09:37 AM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)

Monday, February 22, 2010

California vs. the World: Comparing Educational Standards

By Matt Kokkonen

Since children are the future of our society, it is imperative that they are educated well. The global economy is very competitive and if California expects to develop jobs, be a research center, provide manufacturing and have a vibrant economy, our schools and students must be well prepared. How then does California’s high school graduation requirement stack up against the high global standards?

State law requires students in public schools to pass the California High School Exit Exam (CAHSEE) to receive a diploma. The purpose of the CAHSEE is to improve student achievement in high school and make sure students who graduate from high school can demonstrate competency in English language arts and mathematics but not in other subjects. The English language test consists of multiple-choice questions and a writing task. The mathematics test consists of multiple-choice questions that cover number sense, algebra and other basic functions.

Here is one comparison with the 2004 high school graduation exam in Finland. The questions presented are only a small portion of the exam.

While the California language exam tests a student’s use of the correct case of a pronoun that follows a preposition such as “for”, the exam in Finnish language consists of having to read articles and then write an essay, such as, “Based on the article, describe and critique the author’s idea of a perfect society.”

These other sample questions cover the following subjects:

Religious studies: “Explain the problem of the Hindu religion in relation to India’s democracy.”

Philosophy: “Explain utilitarianism as foundation of ethics.”

Psychology: “Evaluate the impact of sleep in relation to concepts of knowledge and emotions.”

History: “The ancient Roman Empire had spread widely during the first centuries. How did Rome’s economy function and why did it subsequently collapse?”

Social Studies: “The nation of Israel was established in 1948. At the same time, a preliminary agreement was made to also form a Palestinian nation. Why has the creation of a Palestinian nation not been successful during the subsequent decades?”

Physics: “ E= -13.6eV/n² represents the total energy of the hydrogen atom.

A) Graph the energy level diagram of the hydrogen atom, B) A photon collides with a hydrogen atom at rest. What happens, assuming the photon has energy of a) 1.89 eV, b) 3.4 eV, c) 10.2 eV, d) 15.6 eV?“

Chemistry: “How does the structure of hydrocarbon molecules affect its chemical and physical properties?”

Biology: “Discuss the use of microbes in handling waste.”

Geography: “The physical locations of information technology enterprises differ clearly from those of classical steel industry. Explain this in relation to a) raw materials b) workforce c) markets d) transportation of energy sources e) environmental services and entertainment.”

Mathematics: “Define the point of the parabola: y = x² - 2x – 3, whose tangent line has an angle of 45º .”

Students in Finland study several foreign languages, such as Swedish, English, German and sometimes French. The English language test has several sections, one being comprehension. The test requires the student to read three articles and write out answers to questions regarding them. They are from “Newsweek”, “Sunday Times” and a one and half page article from “The Economist.”

There are twenty-five questions on English grammar. A sample question: “Blinded at the age of three in an accident, he would never have any memory of being a) seen b) seeing c) sighted d) in-sight.”

Finally, the exam calls for a short composition of 150 to 200 words in English on the topic: “Prepare a speech to try to sell a Finnish invention – new, old or imaginary, to a group of potential foreign customers at a sales promotion event.”

The failure rate of the students taking the exam was 6.5%. It is given once a year.

Our schools permit very polarized results. On the one hand we have schools and teachers producing excellent results while our system also graduates illiterates. In a schizophrenic manner, we insist on the exit exam measuring students’ English language skills yet we permit the student to get the test instructions in another language. How is this possible? Unfortunately, many students have not only been left behind, but they have been left in the educational gutter. And instead of racing to the top they are sliding to the bottom.

The exit exam is a low beginning. Regrettably, as far as worldwide high school graduation exams go, it will merely draw criticism and derision as being more suitable for junior high graduates.

Finland spends $7,500 per year per student while California spends $11,000. Obviously, money is not the issue. Throwing more money at a broken system might solve some financial problems of the organization but certainly has not solved the educational needs of our students. In spite of California’s much lower educational standards, 97 school districts which educate nearly one-third of California’s public school students have continuously failed to make adequate progress even under Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” program. The new slogan from Obama, “Race to the Top” is no different. The Federal government should not be involved with education at all. Parents must assume more responsibility. Our educational system needs to embrace choice and free competition and reduce the power of the unions whose singular goal is the advancement of its own influence and benefits rather than the education of students. The results so far prove this. Our teachers are capable, so leave them alone and let them teach. Set the standards high. The young minds can and will rise to the occasion.

Matt Kokkonen was born in Finland and did graduate studies in philosophy and political science at the University of Helsinki in Finland. He ran against Lois Capps for Congress

in 2008 and received over 80,000 votes. He is currently a candidate for the Republican nomination for the 33^rd Assembly District. He can be reached at 805-886-1880.

Posted at 14:37 PM By admin | Permalink | Email this Post | Comments (0)