“I’m from the government and I’m here to help.” It’s an old joke, but, on the other hand, so is John Kerry. This past weekend, Sen. Kerry met with American and British troops in Iraq. He claims it helped clear his thoughts about what needs to be done to stabilize the country. Kerry also commented that he looked forward to hearing ideas from Iraqis.

Why do I have this nagging feeling Iraqis aren’t similarly interested in Kerry’s?

Question: Don’t most people do their research before forming an ironclad opinion? I could have sworn Sen. “I voted for the war before I voted against it” already knew what was best for Americans and Iraqis. It was just a few weeks ago he told us our stupid troops needed to admit defeat and go home as soon as they could figure out which way home was. And hasn’t Kerry already embraced the suicidal Baker-Hamilton idea that working with Holocaust-denying Iran and their puppet Syria is a necessary step for peace in Iraq?

I am no fan of John Kerry, but there is something I would like to hear him comment on: Why is it the morale of American troops in Iraq remains so high, and why are re-enlistment rates so strong? Elie Wiesel may shed some light on this important question. First, some background on Mr. Wiesel:

In the summer of 1944, as a teenager in Hungary, Elie Wiesel, along with his father, mother and sisters, were deported by the Nazis to Auschwitz extermination camp in occupied Poland. Upon arrival there, Wiesel and his father were selected by S.S. Dr. Josef Mengele for slave labor and wound up at the nearby Buna rubber factory. Daily life included starvation rations of soup and bread, brutal discipline and a constant struggle against overwhelming despair. At one point, young Wiesel received 25 lashes of the whip for a minor infraction.

In January 1945, as the Russian army drew near, Wiesel and his father were hurriedly evacuated from Auschwitz by a forced march to Gleiwitz and then via an open train car to Buchenwald in Germany, where his father, mother and a younger sister eventually died. Wiesel was liberated by American troops in April 1945. After the war, he moved to Paris and became a journalist, then later settled in New York. Since 1976, he has been Andrew Mellon professor in the Humanities at Boston University. He has received numerous awards and honors, including the 1986 Nobel Peace Prize and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He was also the founding chairman of the United States Holocaust Memorial.

Wiesel gave a speech at the White House in 1999 about the indifference that lead to the Holocaust – and other great tragedies. This speech applied as much to the West in the 1930s ignoring the rise of Hitler, as it does to the West today ignoring the plight of the average Iraqi, and ignoring the ascension of Radical Islam – which has as it’s chief aim the destruction of Israel first and civilization, as we know it, next. From Mr. Wiesel’s speech:

Fifty-four years ago to the day, a young Jewish boy from a small town in the Carpathian Mountains woke up, not far from Goethe’s beloved Weimar, in a place of eternal infamy called Buchenwald. He was finally free, but there was no joy in his heart. He thought there never would be again. Liberated a day earlier by American soldiers, he remembers their rage at what they saw. And even if he lives to be a very old man, he will always be grateful to them for that rage, and also for their compassion. Though he did not understand their language, their eyes told him what he needed to know – that they, too, would remember, and bear witness.

So, I ask again, why is the morale of our troops in Iraq so high? Is it because of the people and the evil they witness on a daily basis – bombs blowing up women and children?

In that same speech,Wiesel spoke eloquently about what he considered the real cause of the Holocaust – the indifference to the evil of Hitler. The blurring of the lines between good and evil to avoid confronting evil:

What is indifference? Etymologically, the word means “no difference.” A strange and unnatural state in which the lines blur between light and darkness, dusk and dawn, crime and punishment, cruelty and compassion, good and evil. What are its courses and inescapable consequences? Is it a philosophy? Is there a philosophy of indifference conceivable? Can one possibly view indifference as a virtue? Is it necessary at times to practice it simply to keep one’s sanity, live normally, enjoy a fine meal and a glass of wine, as the world around us experiences harrowing upheavals?

Wiesel dug in deeper to the true menace of indifference. In the end, indifference is always the friend of the enemy. Enemies like Radical Islam and Fascism depend on our indifference.

In a way, to be indifferent to that suffering is what makes the human being inhuman. Indifference, after all, is more dangerous than anger and hatred. Anger can at times be creative. One writes a great poem, a great symphony, one does something special for the sake of humanity because one is angry at the injustice that one witnesses. But indifference is never creative. Even hatred at times may elicit a response. You fight it. You denounce it. You disarm it. Indifference elicits no response. Indifference is not a response. Indifference is not a beginning; it is an end. And, therefore, indifference is always the friend of the enemy.

The Iraqi people are getting blown up by people who don’t want them to succeed. And the men who desire to protect their women and children and join the security forces – they too are targets of this evil. That is why our soldiers’ morale is high. They see the human events unfold on the ground. They see the nature of the enemy, and see the Iraqi people struggling to live normal lives.

Indifference, then, is not only a sin, it is a punishment. And this is one of the most important lessons of this outgoing century’s wide-ranging experiments in good and evil. In the place that I come from, society was composed of three simple categories: the killers, the victims and the bystanders. During the darkest of times, inside the ghettoes and death camps we felt abandoned, forgotten. All of us did.

I recommend Mr. Wiesel’s thoughts to people like John Kerry who think a whirlwind trip to Iraq will provide all the wisdom and information necessary to satisfy their own agendas and, as a side issue/benefit, determine the fate of the people of Iraq. I also believe Sen. Kerry should ponder the vexing question, “Why has the morale of our troops in Iraq remained so high?”

I know one thing, it isn’t because of their indifference.

Related special offer:

“Everlasting Hatred: The Roots of Jihad”

Are you a “denier”?

Currently, the most popular use of that word is in the phrase, “global warming denier.” As far as I can tell, “deniers” are, in reality, people who would be open to all scientific explanations of planetary climatic change, including the one that has been determinative of all past warming and cooling trends: the sun. Paradoxically, people who deny the sun’s impact on warming/cooling, are not “deniers.” Diversity of opinion within the science of climatology is hereby forbidden!

This kind of word play is expected from bullying, intolerant, micro-managing politicians, not scientists. Unfortunately, the media have been of no help in sorting out truth from theory. In fact, the media have played along with this wave of environmental McCarthyism that has drowned out the voices of critical thinkers now known as “deniers.” Here’s a thought: Mob rule doesn’t make for good science or good policy.

I noticed California Sen. Barbara Boxer, the incoming chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, recently chastised the Exxon Mobile corporation for funding climatic-change research. That’s right – Boxer, a public official, believes denying research is in the public interest. Maybe she should tell that to her liberal brethren at the United Nations where they are preparing to announce a significant downward revision in their estimation of man’s impact on the misnomer “global warming.” It appears even the United Nations is warming up to the fact of “solar warming.”

Facts are stubborn things.

The very liberal Boxer’s attempt to shut down both debate and the information needed for informed debate is reprehensible. I thought we got past this kind of thing after the Catholic Church’s dust-up with Galileo.

Why isn’t Boxer labeled a “denier”? Why isn’t she excoriated for her anti-free speech position? One reason is our mal-practicing media are too stupid and/or too cowardly to say it.

In thinking about other items in the news today, it occurred to me the opportunity to label groups as “deniers” is endless. For example, the six imams who were removed from a US Airways flight for their suspicious behavior – why deny people the opportunity to connect the dots? Why label this group of critical thinkers as xenophobic?

The Council on Islamic-American Relations believes the imams were victims of anti-Muslim fears: “We are concerned that crew members, passengers and security personnel may have succumbed to fear and prejudice based on stereotyping of Muslims and Islam,” Nihad Awad, the council’s executive director, said in a news release. Great. Play the race card in an attempt to exploit the facts.

Here’s what happened: The imams were removed after exhibiting suspicious behavior, including uttering anti-American statements, changing their seat assignments so that they would be scattered around the airplane, and asking for seat-belt extenders, which could be used as weapons.

Why attempt to deny the opportunity to connect the dots?

We see this same rush to judgment from a majority of Democrats and the media concerning the Iraq Study Group’s report. Their shared hatred of President Bush has blinded them from taking a careful, critical look at what the report actually recommends. As a result, they are quick to blast anyone who disputes the findings as denying the realities of the situation in Iraq. That is rich when you consider the Iraq Study Group only spent a couple of days in the comfy confines of the Green Zone in Baghdad and only one member briefly ventured out beyond the area. They spent virtually no time speaking with the people on the ground and, in effect, embraced John Kerry and Charlie Rangel’s belief that our troops and their commanders are idiots. This group has no genuine expertise in conducting war, they devoted no time to investigating the facts firsthand and have offered up weakness as a strategy to deal with a part of the world that respects and responds to strength. Baker-Hamilton actually believe promising retreat while asking help from Iran, who has explicitly and repeatedly said they intend to destroy Israel and America, is wise. Yet the media has labeled this group “realists”!

And beyond all this hype about the report itself is the maddening omission that it is the president ultimately who must decide the best course of action in foreign affairs, the deployments of our military and the best way to insure success – which is to speak with one voice. The president’s voice. The Baker-Hamilton report has been treated as an Executive Order. This is pure insanity. Yet, those opposed to the report are said to deny its wisdom.

Please.

I am not nearly as concerned with the facts of climate change, threats to our security, the war in Iraq or the political instability in the Middle East as I am about the manner in which the media and public officials want to steer the debates. Attempts to shut off informed discussion are so 16th century.

We think of ourselves as so smart, and yet we are capable of such stupidity. Three recent examples:

Neville Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain declared the accord with the Germans signaled “peace for our time,” after he had read it to a jubilant crowd gathered at Heston airport in west London.

Newsweek. In 1975, the magazine declared looming disaster due to global cooling. The article said the debate was over:

“There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the north, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

“The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

“To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic.”

O. J. Simpson. An American jury declared him “not guilty” of murder. Millions agreed.

We are not so smart and infallible that we as individuals or as a nation should shut down debate on important public issues – ever. Barbara Boxer tells us more about her own ignorance, intolerance and insecurities when she attempts to quash inquiry, research and speech. She is a “denier.” She is a symptom of a problem that will destroy us long before climatic change. Free speech and scientific method are the tools of true “progressives.” I recommend them to her and every other public servant. Their role is to serve us, not to impose their ignorance.

So, the next time you hear anyone talk about “global warming deniers,” think about what they are really doing. They are attempting to deny you information you may need to reach an informed decision. I’m not willing to go down that path. I sincerely hope you aren’t, either.

Related special offer:

“The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science”

There’s nothing like a long holiday weekend – visiting relatives who can’t put politics aside during Thanksgiving dinner, endless movie previews before the feature presentation and mind-numbing waits at checkout counters – to spark a plethora of thoughts about the stories in the news that just won’t go away. And, fresh from a weekend of giving thanks, I’m grateful for this column as it gives me a chance to refine my thoughts on these weighty matters as we go into the final weeks of 2006 and all of the upcoming Christmas parties:

Global Warming. As more evidence of the sun’s impact on our planet’s climate pours in, politicians and other pseudo-climatologists have become more strident in their declarations that man, and man alone, is guilty of boosting the Earth’s temperature (soon!) to inhabitable heights. This unscientifically, pre-determined cause and effect should baffle post-Copernicus, Galileo and Sir Isaac Newton science buffs. Have you heard the phrase “global warming deniers?” This fully loaded phrase is in vogue with “Milton Friedman deniers,” “Islamo-fascist deniers,” “Weakness invites violence in the Middle East deniers,” and is so shallow and non-scientific in nature it is hard to attack without mocking. As you can tell, I failed miserably. Copernicus was accused of something similar to this, wasn’t he? My question is, why are global warming zealots solar warming deniers? If you want to weigh the seriousness of any given global warming argument, check to see if there is any mention of the sun’s role in planetary warming and cooling. Serious climatologists, and there are some out there, will examine the role of the sun, clouds, cosmic radiation, the Earth’s orbit, the tilt of the Earth’s axis, volcanoes, naturally and otherwise occurring greenhouse gases (By far the most significant greenhouse gas is water vapor. So, if the sun is warming the planet, there would be more evaporation, and more greenhouse gas!), and so on. Global or solar warming is a fascinating topic when the politics are taken out of the equation and science takes its place.

Next time you read or hear someone purporting to be an expert on long-range weather forecasts, note how much time or space is dedicated to the role of the sun. Then, ask yourself if the speaker would be disappointed by a study proving the sun’s disproportionate role in the planet’s temperature fluctuations. That was the problem back when Copernicus, Galileo and Newton were around. So many of the “great” thinkers of the day had an agenda. They did not want facts, only confirmation of their point of view. Is it just me, or is the pseudo-religious zeal of global warming man-blamers reminiscent of the kind of thinking that dominated the 16th-century Catholic Church?

And the next time you hear the solar warming deniers spout off they have 300 signatures of “scientists” who believe in global warming, remember that I can get 500 people to sign a piece of paper saying I’m better looking than George Clooney. “Voting” on global warming is the silliest, most adolescent manner of advancing an argument imaginable.

Michael Richards. I don’t know why we care what actors think, but since so many Americans continue to do so, it struck me as odd how sensitive we can be when learning what Richards and Mel Gibson say/think, yet we are not similarly affected when elected officials falsely accuse the president of being a terrorist, a Nazi, a murderer and worse. What Michael Richards said was sickening, even in the confines of a comedy club where as much hatred is spewed as some mosques we’ve heard about post 9/11. What politicians like Durbin, Kennedy, Reid, Kerry, Gore, Dean have said were not uttered in settings when anyone would assume humor might have been a hoped for result. Yet, their remarks pass with a yawn.

I read where Michael Richards is being recommended for sensitivity training and anger management. I concur. It couldn’t do him any harm and might do him some good. Not that his career would rebound, but like so many actors, he really should have stuck to working with scripts that someone else wrote. Which leads me to ask, why is Rosie O’Donnell on the air?

The Draft. Interesting that reinstating the draft is always advanced by liberals. The draft involves the federal government telling an individual what to do, how long they will do it and how much they will be paid for doing it. Conservatives believe in free choice. And, interestingly, an all-volunteer military is the most effective fighting force. The fact Democrats as a party never renounce the draft on substantive grounds (they don’t like the timing right now) tells you all you need to know about them. The latest proponent, tax-happy New York Democrat Rep. Charlie Rangel, sees the draft as a vehicle for social engineering and that is not something with which a good liberal can disagree. The draft, unless necessitated by an overwhelming crisis, is pure liberalism.

I am however interested in looking at a plan that would encourage our youth to look into service to our country for two years (in a break between high school and college) as a way to learn about and give back to our country. The service could be in the military or building parks, working on improvements to our infrastructure or communities. The student would choose his “Service Of Interest” and in between his/her work they would have classes in U.S. history, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and other topics. This plan would not only teach our youth about why this is the greatest country in the history of the world, but would give them an opportunity to give back. My only problem with my idea is that I am against anything that raises the size or scope of government, so my plan isn’t yet perfect.

Wal-Mart. I see Wal-Mart has introduced a price-slashing campaign offering commonly prescribed generics at four dollars for a month’s supply. This has caused Target to follow suit. There was also news of Wal-Mart cutting prices on groceries and electronics – just before the holidays. Dirty rotten scoundrels. For some reason, I can’t get my mind around a “Hate Wal-Mart” agenda. I’d like to know from the likes of John “I outsource my Wal-Mart shopping to staffers” Edwards why my having more disposable income is a bad thing? Democrats don’t want me to have more disposable income from lower taxes or from shopping at Wal-Mart. Those extra dollars get spread around my community and my guess is those businesses enjoy me driving into their parking lots to spend my savings at their stores. When I save money in one area, I spend it in another. If that’s a bad result, tell it to the merchants getting the benefit of my savings.

Borat. I keep hearing Sacha Baron Cohen, the film’s star, is making a fortune (good for him!) lampooning Americans and American culture. I get that, but I see the hard-wired anti-Semitic, misogynist Borat character as taking a direct shot at Muslim extremists. Who are the world’s most committed Jew-haters? What culture de-values women to such a depressing extent? I think this comic genius is also a packaging genius. By making his character appear to be a product of a country – Kazakhstan – instead of a culture, Cohen has taken the focus off the source in the modern world of this kind of behavior and allowed us to laugh at (or feel shame and humiliation) at ourselves, perhaps, but not get caught up in the war of civilizations taking place right before our eyes. Brilliant. And I think by laughing at Borat’s aberrant behavior, many people who would not normally pay attention to politics and current events will eventually make the connection. Bravo!

Alexander Litvinenko, Anna Politkovskaya and Pierre Gemayel.The assassinations of these three individuals at this particular time tells us everything we need to know about the nature of our enemies and the world we live in. Life outside the Western cultures we have come to know from our overseas trips – during or after college – is dangerous and nothing like our forgiving imaginations might lead us to believe. If you do not believe Vladimir Putin approved of the assassinations of Litvinenko and Politkovskaya, then you are a danger to our country. If you do not believe Pierre Gemayel’s death was part of Hezbollah’s plot – funded and directed by Syria and Iran – to take over Lebanon, then you are a danger to our country. If you do not believe Israelis should be on the endangered species list due to the activities of Iran and Syria, then you are a danger to your country.

Sorry, but remaining free has its responsibilities.

The United States appears to be looking for a way to exit Iraq. It is counter-intuitive, but, as dangerous as the Middle East is, our presence there is required to prevent the deaths of millions and the oppression of millions more. We are showing signs of weakness (electing cut and run Democrats, firing Rumsfeld) and the increased violence taking place in Iraq is a result of our perceived weakness. The post-election/post-Rumsfeld firing violence is as predictable as Rosie O’Donnell going on an anti-Christian tirade just before Christmas.

The war in Iraq, if not an outright win, is a catastrophic loss. To minimize losses and maximize the benefits of our presence in Iraq, we have to unleash the full, deadly force of our military. A show of strength is as important to bringing peace as the victories the strength will yield. We have to stop fooling ourselves. We have to stop lying to ourselves. The Islamo-fascists trying to destroy a peaceful, Democratic Iraq, are the same Islamo-fascists trying to destroy a peaceful, Democratic Israel. We defend Iraq to stabilize the Middle East. We must fight Iran to save Israel. We save Israel to protect Europe. We protect Europe to save ourselves. If we don’t get our heads straight right now, we’ll have them cut off later. If you do not believe this, you have not spent any time studying our enemies. You have spent too much time, like global warming man-blamers, searching for random facts to support your pre-determined theory.

Sorry, but a clash of civilizations is a bitch.

Anyway, long holiday weekends are a good thing. They give us time to decompress and meditate on the thousands of news stories the media is kind enough to share with us. Unfortunately, many of these stories affect our lives and if we value our way of life, we have to put the necessary time in to study the problems we face. Whether it is global warming zealots, people infected with celebrity infatuation, low-price bashers, or evil deniers, they all seem to share a common trait: They are not critical thinkers. They live in fantasy worlds where dots are selectively and subjectively plucked out of the air to fit an agenda. After 9/11, one would think connecting dots, not erasing them, would be all the rage. The only way to overcome sloppy thinking and narrow-minded, self-defeating agendas is to stay dedicated to the truth. Like Copernicus, Galileo and Newton.

I love Thanksgiving! However, as the true conservative that I am, I don’t outsource my cooking like John Edwards outsources his Christmas shopping for his kid’s Playstation 3. I roll up my sleeves, get my hands dirty and destroy the kitchen because that’s the way my American ancestors wanted it. Through trial, error antd much tribulation, I have re-captured the Thanksgiving spirit and hope to inspire you to do the same. Here’s the secret: it all centers around cooking the perfect Thanksgiving Day turkey.

Like the war in Iraq, it’s been a long slog. However, to admit defeat now would be an unmitigated disaster. What kind of lesson would that be for my kids? My name would be “Mud” in the neighborhood, and my wife would never trust me to cook for the family again – Christmas dinner would be non-negotiable and Fourth of July cookouts might come to an end, as well.

There is a lot at stake every time I do battle with Tom Turkey, but make no mistake, I am up to the task.

Sure, there have been setbacks along the way. When any battle plan meets the enemy, everything changes. The Thanksgiving of 1996 comes to mind. It was just after Bill Clinton had won re-election over the great World War II hero, Bob Dole. I was despondent for my country and myself. Neither Bill nor Hillary had shown America any leadership in tax cutting, morality or cooking (Bill was hung up on Big Macs), and I knew the only way to improve upon my patriotic spirit was to honor the Pilgrims and Native Americans (I was born here, that makes me a “Native American” doesn’t it? Note to self: save for later column) by preparing my first Thanksgiving feast. I didn’t need help from friends, relatives, local restaurants, and especially no help from Swansons Hungry Man TV dinners. No, like our brave forefathers who struggled mightily against the elements, disease, famine and their own horrific sense of fashion (they put the “grim” in “Pilgrim”), I was determined to spend the entire Thanksgiving day doing for myself. No more wallowing in sorrow over the Clintons attempts to socialize medicine or promote “Midnight Basketball” – perhaps the shallowest idea from a thoroughly shallow administration. I was determined to honor the American spirit and celebrate my individualism.

It was my first imperfect step toward perfecting a self-made Thanksgiving turkey.

Having lived in two of the great barbecue capitals of the world, Kansas City and Dallas, I had developed a fondness for barbecue (second note to self – column on what style of barbecue is best Texas, Kansas City or Carolina – a debate second only to abortion in intensity). In my mind, slow-smoking meat added flavors that could mask any mistakes an amateur like me might make: Poor choice of turkey, cooking a turkey that’s not completely thawed, unbalanced seasonings. These things would be lost/covered up in the wonderful taste of hickory-smoked turkey.

Nevertheless, I suffered a rather grievous defeat. I admitted my mistake and slogged on. Frankly, I had not calculated the “dryness” factor in slow-cooking. Turkey is a lean meat and I learned why gravy has become the universal cure-all for slow-cookers. Seeking a moist, succulent turkey is a counter-intuitive journey. In an effort to create such a delicacy, we baste, we employ the use of foil, embedded thermometers. Everything except the use of a Cross to ward off whatever Dracula-like force sucks the moisture out of our once-a-year dinners (third note to self – try asbestos Cross next year).

Like the persistent Pilgrims who sacrificed everything so you and I could have a much-needed four-day weekend, I stuck with my Turkey Day experimentations in the kitchen and have created the perfect Thanksgiving Day turkey recipe for you and yours. I have countered the counter-intuitive problem of cooking lean meat and preserving what little moisture it has. As a result, I now use gravy as a flavor enhancement and not a moisture-delivery system.

Here’s the secret: Cook your turkey at a very high temperature. Cooking your bird faster is the only way to successfully combat the moisture riddle wrapped in a mystery inside your oven. It is the answer to all your gravy-fixing problems.

Rusty’s Roast Turkey

Equipment

Roasting Pan
Meat Thermometer
Aluminum foil
Kitchen string

Ingredients

16-18 pound turkey, tops. Heavier birds are still a work in progress
2 teaspoons kosher salt and black pepper
1/3 cup vegetable oil
4 cups turkey or chicken broth
1/2 lemon
3 cloves garlic (whole)
3 sprigs of fresh thyme

Quick, and necessary tips: Basting is not allowed. This discourages skin caramelization and creates wild fluctuations in cooking temperatures (thank you Thanksgiving of 1999). Also, and most important, make sure your turkey is completely thawed (credit Thanksgiving 2001).

Procedure

Dry your thawed turkey, inside and out. Use a paper towel, not a hair dryer (Thanksgiving 2003). Preheat oven to 475F. Mix the vegetable oil, salt and pepper together and then brush on or rub the oil and seasonings mix on the turkey – inside and out. Put the 1/2 lemon, 3 cloves of garlic, and the 3 sprigs of fresh thyme inside the cavity. Fold neck skin under body and tie drumsticks together with kitchen string. Pour the broth in the roasting pan and then place the seasoned turkey in the pan. Cover, do not wrap, the turkey with aluminum foil. Put the pan on a rack in the 475F oven and cook for two hours.

Cook the stuffing in a pan, not the bird.

While the turkey is cooking, fight the urge to baste it. To take your mind off this unnecessary and harmful practice, read the Declaration of Independence. It will demoralize any liberals you might have mistakenly invited over. Then, read the Constitution. Read aloud Article II. That is the part that sets out the powers of the Executive Branch, i.e, the president. Take this opportunity to remind your guests the president is the commander-in-chief, not the now Democrat-controlled Congress. That will really tick them off and you will forget about the basting no-no!

After two hours, open the over for the first time and don’t baste anything! Just take out the aluminum foil and cook at 425F for 20 minutes to brown the skin. Thigh meat should register 170F at this time. Let stand 20 minutes before carving/bragging. Cut the string, thank me and tell all your friends to listen to The Rusty Humphries Show.

Related special offer:

“The What’s-for-Dinner Cookbook”

Two years from now, we’ll know what, if any, lessons Republicans learned from last week’s electoral fall from grace. The conventional wisdom in the conservative New Media is the party will return to its roots, re-discover the awesome power of The Reagan Revolution, and live happily ever after.

That’s a nice bedtime story for those of us not running for office.

The fact is, there is a split in the GOP on fundamental, defining issues. My good friend and former talk show host, Indiana congressman Mike Pence may very well become the next Minority Leader in the House of Representatives (Hallelujah, brother!), and Mitch McConnell or Jon Kyle could step forward to lead Republicans in the Senate (Can somebody say, “Amen”?), but this kind of rock-solid conservative is not positioned to lead the party at the top of the ticket. And, in my view, that does not bode well for my vision for the Republican Party.

Trouble, oh we got trouble,
Right here in River City!
With a capital “T”
That rhymes with “P”
And that stands for……Politics as usual.

John McCain, a politician only The New York Times or CBS could confuse with a conservative, is the early favorite to face off against his good friend Hillary Rodham Clinton. McCain has attained this lofty perch, in part, because:

a. McCain has national name recognition;
b. McCain has campaigned for countless Republicans;
c. The Old Media promotes McCain due to his lack of conservative values; and
d. There is no ground swell of support at the grass roots level for a national conservative candidate.

Combine these factors with the empowering of Blue Dog Democrats in ’06, a Republican president with no passion for conservatism, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s strength as a RINO in the electorally crucial state of California, and you’ve got the making of The Perfect Drizzle: A confluence of moderates, aforementioned political tides and a national media determined to flatten any conservative capable of leading the Reagan Revolution, Part II.

Now all is not peaches and cream with Democrats. There is an under-reported split there that would have torn apart the party had Republicans maintained control of the House and Senate. Their war is between the DNC and the Schumer/Emanuel/Clinton wing of the Democrat party. James Carville hinted at this when heaping praise on outgoing Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman:

”The R.N.C. did a better job than the D.N.C. this year.”

Carville went on to say Democrats succeeded because the party’s House and Senate campaign committees compensated for what Mr. Carville described as the shortcomings of the Democratic National Committee, allowing the party to take advantage of a wave of voter resentment directed at Republicans.

The fact is, Howard Dean is not on the same page as the smart folks in his party. This split could represent an opening for Republicans to exploit, but they may not be in a position to make that happen. Damn that Perfect Drizzle!

The 2008 presidential campaign will determine the near term fate of the Republican Party. They will either choose a conservative or moderate path, and that choice will yield significant consequences. The moderate path, in my humble opinion, will guarantee Republicans will be on the outside looking in for years to come. If they become indistinguishable from Democrats, the propaganda wing of the Democrat Party and the Old Media will seal their fate. That kind of publicity can’t be overcome by any amount of spending by Republican strategerists.

For example, gay marriage is on the verge of erupting as a national issue, which is good. Voters, not judges, should determine whether the institution of marriage will continue to be the foundation of families and a cornerstone of our culture. This issue tends to favor conservatives. It can and should be a defining issue for every politician and the people they represent.

Hillary has staked out the pro-gay marriage position. Will Republicans running for president be equally bold in announcing their rejection of this particular social experiment, or will they moderate? Sadly, I don’t know the answer to what should be an easy question. The pressure from the media will be intense. What to do? Take a poll? Vacillate?

That’s the trouble with moderates. They aren’t, by definition, good leaders because there is always uncertainty as to their position on any given issue. You can’t follow unless you know which path the leader has chosen. Political movements need clarity and direction – things moderates lack.

Which brings me back to the pressing question, what path Republicans will choose in the months ahead? Are they so desperate for power they fall in line behind the current popular poll-i-tician, or do they agree upon a set of conservative principles they believe best for the country and wait for an articulate, committed and passionate spokesman to emerge in the face of The Perfect Drizzle?

My advice is to put on a raincoat and weather the so-called storm.

Related special offer:

Newt Gingrich: ‘Winning the Future’

Your lips move but I can’t hear what you’re sayin’.
When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse,
Out of the corner of my eye.
I turned to look but it was gone.
I cannot put my finger on it now.
The child is grown, the dream is gone.
I have become comfortably numb.

– The Wall by Pink Floyd

Welcome to America in 2006. We live in a country that has created a truly magnificent economic machine. Through trial and error, inspired thinking and the courage to cut taxes, the American economy produces a cornucopia of opportunities, careers and jobs that suits virtually everyone’s talents and desires.

One of America’s great careers can be found in our all volunteer army – the mightiest, most honorable and effective fighting force the world has ever known. Like our economy, it is capable of achieving literally anything it commits to.

And our faith. Our country was founded upon the principle that human rights are derived from God. Most of us still believe that to be true. Recent polling by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press and the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life found that 96 percent of the public say they believe in God or some form of Supreme Being.

One of the most difficult issues we face as a nation is the fact we cannot accommodate the number of people from every corner of the world who long to live here.

We are living the original American Dream.

And, as has become the case, Americans are being challenged by our embarrassment of riches. It is the day before the 2006 mid-term elections and, quite unfortunately, it appears a healthy percentage of the world’s healthiest, longest living people have become comfortably numb. Finding outrage today is on par with finding conservative objectivity at The New York Times.

What just a few years ago would have shocked the body politic passes now evokes an expressionless, “So what?”

I wrote in this column last week about the Democrats’ likely nominee for president of the United States in 2008, Hillary Clinton. Sen. Clinton had just proudly announced to a gathering of New York’s most prominent gay leaders she will not be defending the institution of marriage any longer. Marriage, as being defined between a man and a woman, ceased to mattered to her. Her signing on to this unpopular, untested and unwise social experiment barely raised a murmur. No outrage, no obits written or eulogies delivered on Hillary’s once promising life in politics.

This past week, after yet another tidal wave of positive economic news further validating our hard-charging economy was released, Nancy Pelosi (pronounced “Pe-lousy”) claimed the president, the overseer of this economic juggernaut, had ”the worst jobs record since the Great Depression,” in spite of the news the Oct. jobless rate fell to 4.4 percent. After not hearing any side-splitting laughter from those assembled, Pelosi continued: “While we are glad there is some good news for the American people, this jobs report does not fundamentally change the fact that President Bush’s handling of the economy is not good for America’s middle-income families.”

This country is not immersed in a second “Great Depression.” We are immersed in a cultural numbness that has made the plainly ludicrous the new normal.

Democrats in the United States Senate have, without fear of voter reprisal, compared members of our military to Nazis, Pol Pot, Soviet labor camps, terrorists, and Saddam Hussein. The Democrats’ most recent nominee for commander in chief jokes about our troops being loser/washouts several notches below the Bill Murray-led ne’er do wells in the movie, ”Stripes.”

Last time I checked this country was at war. Please explain how it is possible this anti-American version of the Democrat Party is dangerously close to taking over the Senate? This group argues that patriots undermine the country and its commander in chief during a time of war.

When did we become so cool, so de-sensitized, so comfortably numb, that what once shocked us now can pass without comment or consequence?

In the year 2006, Americans have never had more to be thankful for, more to be prideful of, more to fight for, more reason to vote against those who threaten our way of life, and more to hold dear. Yet we have braced ourselves for depressed voter turnout.

At a time of great national accomplishment, we behave more like retirees than inspired young bucks eager to, as JFK urged, to “let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”

Those words, before we became comfortably numb, were rousing, goose-bump producing, chest-thumping, American ideals.

Abnormal has become the new normal. Why?

There has been a highly unusual ”October Surprise” this past week. A typical October Surprise has one candidate releasing damaging information about his/her counterpart just prior to election day. These have become so common news junkies are no longer surprised. The surprise would be if none occurred, or if a candidate did it to him or herself. Which brings me to Hillary Clinton.

The Gay City News reported on the evening of October 25 (mark down this date), Sen. Hillary Clinton dropped her long held opposition to gay marriage. That is to say, Sen. Clinton will not be defending the institution of marriage.

This is a political blunder of the highest magnitude. Trading a bedrock principle – that marriage is between a man and a woman – for a block of votes is not shrewd. It is deeply misguided, short-sighted and in no way in the best interest of the country.

Paul Schindler reports:

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton indicated that she would not oppose efforts by Eliot Spitzer, the odds-on favorite to become the new governor, to enact a same-sex marriage law in New York.

It was this past February Hillary found herself in deep trouble with the gay community. From Gay.com:

The executive director of the Empire State Pride Agenda gay rights group has described Sen. Hillary Clinton as “a complete disappointment,” raising the prospect that some in the LGBT community may stop supporting her political career due to her opposition to same-sex marriage.

For those of you in the straight community, “LGBT” is an acronym. It stands for “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender” people. This past July, New York’s highest court handed down a ruling upholding the state’s law barring same-sex marriages. Hillary refused to condemn the ruling at the time.

That was then, this is now. Hillary’s about face on the issue of gay marriage/same-sex marriage/ homosexual marriage – whatever – is a defining moment in her political career.

Let me explain.

Right up until Howard Dean was elected chairman of the Democratic National Committee on Feb. 12, 2005, the junior senator from New York had a well thought out strategy to become the Democrats’ nominee for president in 2008. She would pretend to be a moderate, pretend to be pro-military, and she would appear not to be beholden to the radical elements of her party. This was all very doable given the media’s desire for Hillary to get Bill back into the White House.

With just a little help from her friends, Hillary would “tack to the center.” She would give a knowing wink to the loud and proud libs, and accept the nomination for president without breaking a sweat.

But that was then.

When Howard Dean took over the DNC, he brought with him the power, wealth and politics of Moveon.org, The Daily Kos and George Soros. Democrats didn’t know it at the time, but the strident liberal elements of their party would transform the party so rapidly and so radically, that in less than 18 months the party would purge itself of Joe Lieberman, a liberal icon.

No longer would thoughtful, elect-able, well-spoken liberals have a guaranteed seat at the table. Hillary, always keeping her eye on the prize (winning the nomination of her party to be president) dumped her “tack to the center” strategy, and declared herself aligned with her party’s gay activists.

In so doing, Hillary has wrapped up the nomination of the now unrecognizable Democrat Party, and forfeited the presidency. Short term, this particular October Surprise, may have also lost the House and the Senate for Democrats.

This is now: The fact is, this country’s voters are not ready for gay marriage. This country is not ready for a San Francisco liberal to be the Speaker of the House. And, this country is not ready for a Senate who will only confirm judges who share Rep. Pelosi’s and Sen. Clinton’s (new?) values.

If Christians have been looking for a reason to vote on Nov. 7, they have found it. And that’s why Hillary Clinton’s decision to embrace the gay agenda just before the election is such a shocking development.

Surprise!

More from Hillary’s historic Oct. 25 coming out party:
Ethan Geto, a long-time gay activist who described himself as an advisor to the senator on LGBT issues, introduced Clinton, addressing what he called “the elephant in the room.”
“We’re engaged in a dialogue with someone who has the stature, who has the credibility, the viability to be the party’s standard bearer in 2008,” he said. “I think when you look at Sen. Clinton’s record, she may not agree with us on every last policy issue, but when you look at the totality of the record, there is no one in this country who may be the president of the United States with whom we have a warmer, a stronger, a closer productive working relationship.”

Two dates to remember if you are chronicling the fall of the Democratic Party as a serious political party:

February 12, 2005 – Howard Dean becomes Chairman of the Democratic Party; and

October 25, 2006 – Hillary Clinton drops her opposition to gay marriage.

To win national elections in this country, you must appeal to the center, “Reagan Democrats” for Republicans, Independents and RINO’s for Democrats. Of course, in order to appeal to these voters, you have to first win your party’s nomination. Hillary, in a calculated and desperate attempt to secure her party’s nomination, has “evolved” on the issue of gay marriage.

More from Gay City News:

She also suggested that language she used when she first ran for the Senate in 2000 explaining her opposition to marriage equality based on the institution’s moral, religious, and traditional foundations had not reflected the “many long conversations” she’s had since with “friends” and others, and that her advocacy on LGBT issues “has certainly evolved.”

That’s what it takes in 2006 to win the support of today’s movers and shakers in the Democrat Party. Hillary’s evolution is a bombshell. It affects voter turnout for 2006, it completes the Howard Dean makeover of the Democrat Party, it probably secured her nomination for president, and made impossible Hillary Clinton ever winning the presidency.

Now that’s an October Surprise.

Related special offer:

“The Gay Agenda: It’s Dividing the Family, the Church, and a Nation”

The Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks postponed a primary in the state of New York, but did not cause a delay for the upcoming primary in the state of Washington. Days after the attack, Washington’s Secretary of State Sam Reed, in a news release titled, “Secretary of State Asks Citizens to Do Their Patriotic Duty: Vote In Tuesday’s Primary,” said this:

“‘This is an opportunity for Washington citizens to show the terrorists that they did not succeed in shutting down our government – we will continue to exercise our right to vote,’” Reed said.
Reed encouraged voters to pack the polls next Tuesday to signal the strength of our democracy in Washington state.”

Sometimes events focus our minds on the meaning of patriotism. President Bush’s recent signing of the Military Commissions Act, which authorized tough interrogation of terror suspects and smoothed the way for trials before military commissions, sparked this commentary on patriotism from a blogger:

Flag Burning is our Patriotic Duty
Thu Sep 28, 2006

Today is a sad day for America. The House and the Senate have given Bush the power of Adolf Hitler by legalizing Bush’s concentration camps where Americans will be tortured for anything the government wants. In a few years these same senators will be claiming that “I had no idea that Bush would abuse this power when we authorized Bush to set up torture camps” the same way they are presently claiming they had no idea what Bush was going to do when they authorized him to start a war with Iraq. And people will act surprised when America’s allies distance themselves even more from us. I can no longer identify myself as an American. We are like Iraq. We are occupied by the enemies of freedom. We are the Nazis of the 21st century.

I’m Marc Perkel – And I approved this message!

Marc Perkel
My blog: http://marc.perkel.com
Founder of the Church of Reality
“Welcome to the real world!”
Here’s a flag burning to express how I feel about America’s new status as a pro torture country. Now we are just like them. No damn wonder that the UN members cheered when Chavez called Bush a devil. I’m and Atheist, but Chavez might be right.

And this from the rarely funny and over-exposed Bill Maher:

Therefore, I contend – with all seriousness – that ridiculing this president is now the most patriotic thing you can do.

I’m inclined to favor the more traditional way of expressing one’s patriotism suggested by Mr. Reed. The Left’s knee-jerk, blame America first, distrust of the military while actively working to undermine its mission, compels me to vote. Yet, it is predicted many conservatives will sit out this election.

And conservatives are the first to declare themselves first among equals when it comes to patriotism.

This past year has provided me far more reasons to vote than not. While we haven’t been attacked by terrorists hoping to affect the upcoming election, we have been battered by propagandists who seek to affect its outcome:

• The on-going cover up of the Joe Wilson/Valerie Plame scam to undermine the war in Iraq and to smear Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Lewis “Scooter” Libby;
  

• Selective and misleading leaks regarding a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to The New York Times – for the partisan goal of discrediting the president in an election year;
  

• Undermining our ability to capture terrorists by leaking of an NSA program that has provided clues to money trails and ties between possible terrorists and groups financing them, then complaining of a lack of progress in this same area;
  

• Publishing a secret and highly effective NSA program to monitor phone calls and e-mails from terrorists overseas who make contact with people in the United States;
  

• Making unsubstantiated claims of a pattern of pointless torture of captured terrorists and simultaneously downplaying the brilliant work that thwarted a recent mind-boggling plot to detonate ten jets filled with innocent people over America; and
  

• The relentless unbalanced reporting of what our military has achieved in Iraq in rebuilding the infrastructure after liberating 30 million Iraqi’s (we should count the women twice given what they endured) from a man rightfully nicknamed, “The Butcher of Baghdad.”

Which brings me back to the urging of Washington’s secretary of state to vote: It is our patriotic duty.

Optimism about your party’s chances of success is likely a more effective motivator for voter turnout than patriotism, and this is why liberals take great pains to undercut optimism about the state of our union. Our despair is their hope.

To liberals in the upcoming mid-term elections, nothing succeeds like distress.

Remember when welfare was such an agonizing mess? Libs gave away trillions in tax dollars – a never-ending stream of guilt-ridden down payment money. It took over 30 years for conservatives like Wisconsin’s Gov. Tommy Thompson to re-work welfare as we knew it by creating incentives to get recipients back to work. Democrats accused those of us who embraced tough love welfare reform as cruel and unfeeling, but, when you looked at the millions of lives being ruined by “The War on Poverty,” it was Democrats who were keeping generations of poor Americans stuck in despair.

Despair works for liberals and socialists.

The reasoned calculation that attacking confidence and optimism will negatively affect voter turnout is an unspoken attack on your patriotism.

Do you really think it is a coincidence record highs in the stock market and record lows in unemployment are under reported to a spectacular degree? That’s a choice our Tabloid Media has made. The intent is to manipulate emotions and make every effort to emotionally beat down likely voters. And there’s a reason for this. Like the War on Poverty, today’s libs are conducting a massive War on Confidence. Specifically, it is a war on conservative Christians with the hope of collateral damage on Reagan Democrats.

The so-called “Great Society’s” “War on Poverty,” was actually an attack on the confidence of the most vulnerable in our country. Millions of Americans were depressed, lethargic and totally unmotivated. And Democrats had no problem with that. They did nothing to reverse it. Instead of encouraging welfare recipients to work and build self-esteem by earning a living and being responsible for themselves, the message from liberals was: “You aren’t good enough to earn a living and this country isn’t good enough to provide you with a job so we’ll cut you a small check every week. We’re sorry, but this is as good as it gets.”

It makes my blood boil when I think how damaging this was. It is a fact that confidence is directly related to action – it is a key term used by people involved in action-oriented activities like sports, business and everyday life. Economies, societies, organizations, and teams depend on it. We all know success creates positive momentum. People who believe they are likely to win are also likely to put in the extra effort at difficult moments to ensure that victory. On the way down, failure feeds on itself.

A negative image of the president, the country and the war must be drilled into our minds to bleed our confidence dry.

The fact is, many conservatives are rightfully frustrated and disappointed with Republicans in both the House and Senate. They have not delivered on the conservative agenda they ran on. They campaigned on conservatism and legislated as squishy moderates more interested in earmarks than smaller government, closed borders, and less corruption. Our confidence has suffered and the left has seized on this – they know what happens when confidence falls: Voter turnout declines and their chances to regain power increases. This is a war on confidence. A war on self-esteem. A war on voter turnout.

No one can make you vote. But if you are one of those people who doubted the patriotism of the left when they leaked and published secret counter-terrorism programs, smeared good people, down-played the economy, or slandered our troops, look in the mirror. Assess your own feelings of patriotism as we were all urged to do after 9/11. And then ask yourself, is refusing to vote the act of a patriot and whose interests does that serve?

We’ve all seen it. You walk into a room and your kid is standing on a glass-topped table or the back of a chair to change a light bulb. You ask in exasperation, ”Why didn’t you use the step ladder?” He explains, ”This works just as well.” Then, you hope the lesson is learned as you talk it over together on the way to the emergency room.

If you haven’t experienced this particular unintended use scenario, think back to times when your roommate asked where the hammer was after he noticed the television’s picture wasn’t as sharp as the day before; when bothered by a piece of meat wedged between your teeth you used an old fish hook instead of floss; or to avoid a trip to the emergency room for a broken arm, you fashioned a splint out of a tree branch and duct tape.

It has been said that fully appreciating the hazards of the unintended-use doctrine, and the thumb, are what separates us from lower primates.

Which brings me to Madonna’s recent public acquisition … excuse me, adoption, of a one-year-old African child. A child, mind you, with a father who is alive and well. Impoverished, yes. Imprisoned, no. Available for raising his child, yes. Raising his child in a material world, no.

To date, I have been under the impression the intended use of publicity by entertainers was to enhance their marketability. Granted, the adoption of a poor child could be the act of a kind-hearted soul, but this particular post-Angelina Jolie adoption, smacks of a purchase. Andrea Peyser at the New York Post called Madonna’s adoption of the African toddler a ”freakish slave auction.”

And a very public purchase thanks to Madonna’s bizarre use of her publicity team.

I’ve read (how could Madonna’s PR superstars have allowed any of this to be public knowledge?) Madonna’s advance party selected 12 Malawi children, who were then presented to Madonna and husband Guy Ritchie until one lucky contestant was ultimately selected for adoption. And, to cut through the Malawi adoption legal red tape, Madonna is said to have agreed to spend $3 million on a center intended to help hundreds of Malawi orphans she has not yet adopted.

Is this the intended use of publicity? Was this a public relations coup? I would have thought this would be the very thing to do behind closed doors, in the dead of night, on the QT, all on the hush-hush. This is the hammer and the television scenario, right?

But, my initial reaction did not account for the ”Material Girl,” factor. Madonna did attain great fame by vocalizing Peter Brown and Robert Rans’ unforgettable lyrics:

Some boys kiss me, some boys hug me
I think they’re OK
If they don’t give me proper credit
I just walk away
They can beg and they can plead
But they can’t see the light, that’s right
‘Cause the boy with the cold hard cash
Is always Mister Right, ’cause we are
Living in a material world
And I am a material girl
You know that we are living in a material world
And I am a material girl
Some boys romance, some boys slow dance
That’s all right with me
If they can’t raise my interest then I
Have to let them be
Some boys try and some boys lie but
I don’t let them play
Only boys who save their pennies
Make my rainy day, ’cause they are
Living in a material world
And I am a material girl
You know that we are living in a material world
And I am a material girl
Boys may come and boys may go
And that’s all right you see
Experience has made me rich
And now they’re after me, ’cause everybody’s
Living in a material world
And I am a material girl
You know that we are living in a material world
And I am a material girl

Back to my assumption that a public relations ploy such as this (Madonna’s publicist Liz Rosenberg is running up the billable hours on this event!) is meant to enhance the client’s marketability; I suppose there is synergy here in this particular case. The client is known as the ”Material Girl,” and if she is to build on that image, the appearance of the purchase of a human being would tend to reinforce this idea. Also, when this adoption/acquisition story first broke, I have to believe DJs all over the country were playing ”Material Girl” over and over – the royalties must be rolling in as a result! Bingo! A marketing success, right?

Still, the image of yet another millionaire entertainer plucking an impoverished child from their homeland is repugnant to me. It smacks of shameless ”me too” narcissism played out on a world stage in the form of a publicity stunt intended to evoke images of a ”New and Improved!” version of Mother Teresa.

This use of publicists to make us even more aware of how craven and needy for attention celebrities can be, is probably not a good idea. Whatever bad impression I had of Madonna before now, it has measurably declined. In terms of ”image reduction surgery,” this is Michael Jackson bad. This is Tom Cruise bad. And the funny thing is, they are all deeply concerned about their public image. Still funnier, they have at their disposal the best public relations experts money can buy.

Which brings me back to the damage that can be wrought by using people or things in ways they were never intended. Publicity, like a hammer, has its place. But if wielded at the wrong time and in the wrong place, it can cause damage not even duct tape can repair.

Related special offer:

“Is Hollywood in your hamper, too?”

I’m giving myself the last word on the Mark Foley media frenzy (I love saying that, for some reason). Admittedly, I have difficulties focusing solely on the latest details of Foley’s misbehavior, even with all the behind the scenes machinations and manipulations of Democrat activists due to some unresolved anger concerning media coverage of political sex scandals from our recent past.

To explain this stubborn refusal to “just let it go,” let’s compare today’s Old Media to the referees working an NFL football game. (I knew my love for the NFL would pay off someday.) Part of my enjoyment of watching football is not knowing how the game will play out. It’s totally unscripted, and teams are made to play by the same rules. As a result, underdogs win every week due to injuries, turnovers, big plays … whatever. They compete with an equal opportunity for victory.

Now, in the NFL, it goes without saying referees will call an honest game, maybe not a perfect game, but an honest game. Safeguards such as instant replay are built in and, again, far more often than not, teams are treated equally. Even when playing before rabid home crowds, officials are expected to be objective – as objective as a human being can be. Without this kind of attention to fairness, the NFL would quickly degenerate into World Wrestling, and betting on NFL games would end quicker than a Minuteman speech at Columbia University. If only the press covered elections with the same objectivity as NFL referees.

It is now beyond debate the Old Media consistently behaves as an official on the take. The research is in: They are profoundly liberal and vote that way. Media research has proven this inconvenient truth to an extent Al Gore could only dream of. They have chosen sides and happily abandoned their role as fair and impartial officials in political contests. If only our favorite teams got this kind of preferential treatment from referees. There would be no reason to watch the games, of course, but we’d have the satisfaction our teams could do no wrong! Go, team, go!

Is it so naive to believe when Democrats or Republicans lie, spin, are evasive or involved in immoral or unethical behavior, they should be immediately flagged by the press and penalized by voters? Personal fouls, intentional fouls, interference, illegal blocks to the back, unnecessary roughness – anything that gives the other team an unfair advantage should be noted and dealt with, sometimes harshly. Right?

Like exposing and forcing Mark Foley’s resignation. That’s good for the game.

Recently, the NFL handed down a five-game suspension to Tennessee Titan Albert Haynesworth for intentionally stepping on an opposing players helmet-less head for which the victim required 30 stitches. The replay showed it, the officials dealt with it and Haynesworth paid and will pay a very heavy price. That’s good for the game.

Is that why Nancy Pelosi does not want Louis Freeh to lead an investigation about the e-mails and IMs that set off the Foley Frenzy? My thought is a full investigation would be good for the game. I wonder if one of her concerns is Freeh could be biased. Now, why would that matter?

If the NFL’s commitment to fairness were adopted by today’s media, election coverage would be a pleasure to read. John Lennon might never say it, but imagine a world with no press prejudice or bias; it isn’t hard to do.

On the other hand, I suppose that’s why Fox News and talk radio are so popular. Millions are incensed watching the media in their Dan Ratheresque attempts to fix elections and have found an alternative source of information – “Fair and Balanced,” like a well-officiated NFL game.

You want a real scandal? How about an investigative report uncovering bribes to an NFL officiating crew that were secretly paid by a highly successful NFL team. That story would rock this country like nothing we’ve seen in years. On the Richter Scale, Dan Rather and Foley are a 2.7. The NFL scandal would be a 9.5. Why? Because we’ve come to expect the worst from media coverage and the best from NFL officials. Philosophically, the Old Media and Democrats are indistinguishable. They’ve got each other’s backs and it stinks. This kind of blatant favoritism slaps us in the face every few years.

One thing to keep in mind about Clinton’s excellent adventure – the Wild Bill and Monica story was never meant to be. Newsweek had decided not to publish it. Remember? Matt Drudge reached into Newsweek’s trashcan and turned the Old Media’s garbage into the New Media’s gold. In my opinion, that was good for the game.

Gerry Studds’ continued service and Newsweek’s bias ticked me off then and I have never quite gotten over it. The press, “took care of their own” and it is just as wrong today as it was then. And don’t get me started on JFK.

I’m not out for tit for tat (that didn’t used to strike me as dirty). I’m thrilled Mark Foley resigned. There should be a full investigation of every aspect of the sordid mess. For instance, if a political party orchestrated his outing for political gain, I want to know. Why you ask? Because that’s the job of a free press in a free country. You might not want or need to know the rest of the story, but I do. Throw the flag. You know Karl Rove would be kicked out of the league if he were responsible!

If the player Albert Haynesworth assaulted had gouged his eyes just before the spiking, I would still want to see Haynesworth suspended, but maybe the other player would be suspended, too. Why not call ‘em as you see ‘em? Why not “Just the facts, ma’am”? We can handle the truth.

That’s what I’m still angry about. Didn’t Newsweek want to sell magazines?

Look at the attendance at NFL games – it’s huge every week because fans are treated to fair, straight-forward competition. Now look at how many Americans vote – it is a disgrace, and many of them believe elections are corrupt and fixed. And who am I to tell them they are wrong?

If the press played it straight, we’d double the number of people who vote in this country. The Democrats know it and that’s why the Foley non-sex sex scandal has gotten all the hype. Smear an entire party and maybe, just maybe, Republican and Independent turnout will be low. Forget the significant evidence Democrat operatives outed Foley as an “October Surprise.” We don’t need instant replay. We don’t need “After further review.” Throw the flag, penalize the team and Moveon.org.

The press may be actively trying to fix this election, just like they’ve tried to fix elections in our recent past – hello, Dan Rather. Americans resent being manipulated and they will never tolerate being cheated. The Old Media cheats us every day with their admitted and known biases. I hate dredging (Drudging?) it all up again, but if there had been objective officials, I mean if there had been an objective media, Bill Clinton would have resigned for his conduct while president. The pressure would have been too great. His party would have demanded it – like Mark Foley’s party. He would have left in disgrace, and the media could have held their heads high for being objective and non-partisan.

It would have been good for the game.

But that didn’t happen because the fix was in. There. I said it. I got it off my chest. I promise to soldier on, but I will be forever angry at the media in the United States having abandoned their profession and turned to partisan, tabloid journalism. Just like Gerry Studds, Bill Clinton and Mark Foley, but unlike NFL officials, the media in this country are a disgrace.

Related special offer:

“POISON PRESS: How the big media’s death throes are heralding a stunning information revolution”