Fairness and karma

Fairness is a concept with no concrete definition. Kind of like art ... or pornography. I don't know what fair is ... but I know it when I see it. Or, more often, I don't know what UNfair is, but I know it when I see it.

Think back to the first time you told your parents that something wasn't fair. Most likely, they informed you - in a comforting way - that sometimes life isn't fair.

Such is the case in three separate sports-related stories in the news this week. I say sports-related because they all involve athletes ... but none of them are really sports stories.

First, there was the sentencing of O.J. Simpson to a 9-to-33-year prison term for armed robbery. Locally, we recall (although maybe in shame) that O.J. was a phenomenal running back for the Buffalo Bills, reaching the incredible 2,000 yard single-season mark. But to the rest of the world, O.J. has been - at least for the last 13 years - as the guy that got away with killing his wife.

Simpson, of course, was acquitted of murder charges for the deaths of his former wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend Ron Goldman. Many people seemed to think that he "worked the system" and "got away with murder." Literally.

And many legal experts today are saying that Simpson's potential 33-year stint in the pokey has a lot more to do with the perception that he still needed to do time for the earlier crime than it had to do with the merits of the current case ... in which he and some buddies stormed into a hotel and kept people hostage while trying to "reclaim" some things that belonged to him.

Some will say that for karma's sake, the lengthy sentence was fair. I disagree.

Then there's NHL loudmouth Sean Avery, who got a six game suspension for making a derogatory remark about an ex-girlfriend. Specifically, Avery said he didn't know why it was now common practice for fellow NHLers to date his "sloppy seconds."

For those who didn't get the reference immediately, Avery's ex-girlfriend Elisha Cuthbert is now dating Calgary defenseman Dion Phaneuf. And for those who don't understand the meaning of the term ... click here. (warning ... content is inappropriate)

So ... let me see if I can get this straight. With all the cheap shots and stupid stuff that Sean Avery has done on-ice in his seven-year career, he's never been suspended for a single game. But using the term "sloppy seconds" about a girl who was famous for a couple of underwear shots in "The Girl Next Door" and "Old School" nets his six games?

I don't get it.

The NHL, of course, says they're trying to protect their reputation. Apparently the NHL hasn't gotten the memo, but outside of a few select cities in the US and (mostly) Canada, the NHL doesn't have a reputation.

The league cited his ''pattern of unacceptable and anti-social behavior," as a contributing factor into his suspension and the length of it.

In other words, "we're suspending you six games cause you're just not a nice guy."

Fair? Maybe for karma's sake ... but not based on the issue at hand.

And lastly, there's the issue of the NFL's Plaxico Burress who stands to do up to 3 1/2 years in jail because he shot himself in the leg in a NYC nightclub.

According to police accounts, a gun that Burress had tucked into the waistband of his sweat pants slipped down his leg and went off by accident, shooting him in the leg.

The problem for Burress isn't the fact that he was wearing sweatpants in public - although I think that should be a crime. The problem is that he didn't have a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

All accounts of the story indicate that the prosecution is leaning towards throwing the book at Burress becuase he's a high-profile athlete. In other words, he's going to pay for the past indiscretions of other athletes.

Now, I won't get into the fact that I think the law itself is stupid (the 2nd amendment doesn't say that you have a right to apply for a permit to bear arms), but needless to say, I do.

For me it comes down to fairness, yet again. There's no way you can convince me that a three and a half year prison sentence for shooting yourself in the leg is fair. But once again, karma comes into play, and many people will think it fair.

Why I don't believe the hype

A certain mistrust of government is natural, healthy even. In my line of work, it's actually a necessity to be skeptical.

But I - like many other Americans - have moved beyond the level of skeptic. I - like many other Americans - have gotten to the point where I don't believe anything politicians say. Anything.

If congress says something is black, I have a good reason to believe that it's white. If the president says something is up, I can reasonably assume that it's down.

And the reason for this general mistrust ... the move from being a skeptic to a cynic ... is that the level of blatant lies to come out of Washington these past several years exceeds anything that could be considered reasonable.

Fact of the matter is that government works for us. It is a tool of the people by which to perform certain functions that people can't be expected to perform on their own. Because government is supposedly "of the people, for the people, and by the people," many American citizens expect to be told the truth by their government.

And while it's not popular with many folks, I understand why government lies to us sometimes. Occasionally, it's just easier to lie when setting out to achieve a common goal. Sometimes the truth creates bedlam, a state in which working towards any accomplishment becomes almost impossible.

An example: At the scene of a crime, a police officer will tell you "there's nothing to see here," in an effort to clear the scene, making their job of solving the crime easier. Yeah, it's a lie, but it expedites matters.

Unfortunately, many of the lies we've been told over the past few years haven't been this garden variety white lie. They've been dirty black lies, not told for the sake of making our lives better or easier, but told for nefarious reasons, some of which we won't know for decades ... if we ever know at all.

Complicating matters even further is the fact that a certain percentage of the population wants to believe the lie ... and even helps to propagate it. This could be that they just want to believe their government ... or maybe it's partisan ... or maybe they have something to gain from the lie.

Many have even gone so far as to explain away the lies by method of defining lies to the n'th degree. I hear often, "it's not a lie unless you know it to be untrue."

This strategy is often used to defend the "weapons of mass destruction" claim in Iraq, the principle reason we invaded a sovereign nation. It turned out to be untrue, but as long as we didn't KNOW it was untrue to begin with, then it's not a lie, they say.

The problem with this definition, is that a statement such as, "There's a million dollars worth of gold buried at the foot of the Statue of Liberty," wouldn't be construed a lie ... even though I just made it up. It COULD be true. I don't know that it's NOT true. Therefore, it's not a lie by their definition.

But to me, it's a lie. I want to believe that there's a million dollars worth of gold buried at the Statue of Liberty, but as much as I want to believe it, that doesn't make it true. It's still a lie.

I've gotten so used to hearing lies from the government, whether it's about Social Security going bankrupt ... or being greeted as liberators ... or any other number of things, that I just don't believe anything they say.

So when I started hearing last week that the federal government felt that if we didn't pony up $700 billion for some invesment bankers, the whole country could collapse economically, my first thought surely wasn't, "well if the government says it's true, it must be." Instead my first thought was, "if those bastards think they're going to rob from the poor to give to the rich, they've got another thing coming."

Look, I'm no economist. But as far as know, neither is President Bush, Vice President Cheney, or any member of Congress, for that matter. Henry Paulson is, of course. He's also a former Wall Street CEO. This bailout would make a lot of his friends very happy (and lots of money). Just like the war on Iraq made Vice President Dick Cheney's buddies at Halliburton very happy (and lots of money) and the same worldwide boondoggle has made George W Bush's friends in the oil industry very happy (and lots of money).

A friend of mine often tells me, when things don't make sense, look at who's making cents.

In the case of this "bailout," the people making cents would be investment bankers ... many of whom are friends of the political system.

It's reverse Robin Hood and they're hoping that if they lie to you and tell you that it's in your own good, you'll not only believe it ... but demand it.

Don't believe the hype.

MSM proves earlier column right

Less than a month ago, I used this space to discuss the fall of the mainstream media.

You may recall:

There was a time when blogs were used for commentary on stories that had appeared in that days paper or on the TV news. Now TV, radio and the newspapers are being scooped regularly by the blogging community.

In the time since, the media has shot out against local blogs, criticizing them as being unsourced rumors ill-fit for human consumption. Blogs came under fire due to the breaking of a story about Sam Hoyt's affairs with two women by the website PoliticsNY.net.

Of little importance to the likes of the Buffalo News and WBEN is the fact that PoliticsNY.net isn't a blog ... and Joe Illuzi, the penman of the "articles" that appear on it isn't a blogger. He's a paid smearmerchant, but that's neither here nor there.

What the News and Buffalo's biggest talk station knew was that they got scooped ... by some guy. Some Joe ... quite literally. So rather than refute the facts on Illuzi's website, they took the opportunity to shred his character and question his motives.

Granted, Illuzi seems to have a rather colorful past which gives them a lot of fodder to shred him with. And his motives are definately not of "journalistic" nature.

But it doesn't negate the fact that PoliticsNY.net broke a story that the "reporters" at Buffalo's biggest newspaper and biggest news radio station couldn't break. And it doesn't negate the fact that his report has been shown to be factual.

Much more factual than the story that lead the paper ... and that WBEN ran with all morning long on Monday. I'm talking about the story in which Nicole Kidman was working to save Buffalo's Studio Arena.

It later came out that Nicole Kidman "has never heard of Studio Arena."

How oh how could WNY's most powerful media outlets get a story like that wrong? What was their source? "Show business web sites," the Buffalo News said on Monday. WBEN, meanwhile sourced "The Mirror," a web site from the UK. Earlier today, the Buffalo News blamed the story on PR-inside.com.

Local bloggers have had trouble maintaining their glee over the MSM's faux pas.

• The Buffalo Bean headlines a post about the snafu: "Who looks stupid now?"
• Buffalo Pundit headlines a similar post: "The assault on blogs backfires (or Buffalo mainstream press gets PWN3D)

And can you blame 'em? They've spent the last week being told by the media that they're the bad guy. They're the problem.

Bloggers typically get their information from sources ... just like the MSM. Sometimes they get their information from press releases ... just like the MSM. And often, they opine about what they've heard/learned/seen ... just like the MSM.

The primary difference? Most bloggers do what they do because they have a passion for getting information in front of as many eyes as possible ... while the folks at the Buffalo News and WBEN are in it for a paycheck.

I'm not saying there's something wrong with getting paid ... or even getting paid as a member of the media. That is, afterall, my primary job.

But some of us in the media have realized that there is a new game in town ... and they don't like it. They're afraid it's going to eat their paycheck.

Ironically, The Buffalo News has been begging people to blog ... on their website. Driving people to their advertisers. Then, blogging is okay. But when WNY's "alternative media" do it, it can't be trusted.

It's almost like they're promoting their own demise.

Money problems? Cap your own spending!

As I write this, the state Assembly and Senate have been called back to Albany for a special session to try to trim $1 Billion from the state budget ... in an effort to bring our budget deficit down to $5 Billion.

Make sure you read that right. They're trying to bring our deficit down to $5 Billion ... not the budget itself. The budget itself will still be in the $120 Billion area.

And senators and assemblymen from Nassau to Niagara have been sending mailers to their constituents telling them how much they care about their pocket books. So much that they're proposing a tax cap. No, not on their own spending. They want to cap what your local school board spends.

So a group of politicians who are writing in red ink want to dictate what a duly elected school board they have no control over can spend. And they think they're doing you some favor.

No doubt, school districts spend too much money, hire too many people, and create too many new programs. But that's not for my state senator or assemblyman to decide. They've got their own budget snafus to worry about.

State government has a way of creating problems, then asking other people to fix them.

They did this with health care facilitiess, doling out handfuls of cash to every hospital in their district, then complaining that the state was spending too much on hospitals. So they created a committee (the Berger Commission) to then dictate to these privately-run hospitals whether they should remain as-is, close, or merge with a competing privately-run hospital. The simple truth is had they not given money to the hospitals in the first place, the market would have dictated which hospitals would remain open.

Now they're doing it with schools, passing rules and requirements for school aptitude, testing, building requirements, special education, etc. But at the same time, they're complaining that those schools spend too much money. Is there any possibility that the reason those schools spend soo much money is because the state GIVES them money ... with strings attached?

I've been to enough school board meeting to know that the answer is 'yes.' School districts apply for grants or are simply offered cash from Albany, but have to spend "X" amount of local dollars to get that money. And then the school board tells the local taxpayers, "We're only paying 'X.' Albany is paying the rest."

If Albany would stay out of everyone else's business and concentrate on their own problems (I remind you again, we're $6 Billion in the whole), maybe they could actually accomplish something.

Taxpayers, if you want to curtail spending at your school district, run for school board and do it yourself. If you want your state senator or assemblyman to curtail spending at your local school district, you've been duped into believing a) that (s)he cares ... b) that (s)he wasn't the problem in the first place and c) that the state doesn't have it's own problems to worry about.

If they're so good at handling money, how'd they get a $6 billion budget deficit in the first place?

Hate crimes: Lesson in inequality

If you've read, heard, or watched the news lately, you've likely heard the term "hate crime" bandied about.

Some recent headlines:

• Camera catches alleged hate-crime beating
• Erie County District Attorney Frank Clark will prosecute cross burning as a hate crime
• Springville Beating is Possible Hate Crime
• Victim of Suspected Hate Crime talks to 7 News

In each instance, the fact that a crime is motivated by some sort of prejudice gives the charge more weight. The above examples are instances of racially-motivated and sexuality-motivated hate crimes.

I'm just as opposed to prejudice as I am in favor of law and order. But the notion that motivation makes a crime worse, cries of hypocrisy to me.

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed following the Civil War. In essence, it guarantees equal protection under the law for ALL U.S. citizens.

Some history: As is typical, what I learned in grade school and what is historically correct, differ. I learned that the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution were a package deal. The 13th prohibited slavery. The 14th offered equal protection. And the 15th says voting cannot be denied based on race.

In actuality, the 13th was passed, outlawing slavery. So many southern states drew up new laws specifically for blacks. That was the impetus for the 14th, which banned such practices. And the 15th is somewhat of an exclamation point ... just so people understood. We're all equal.

Of course, equality has been a long time coming. And frankly, we're not there quite yet, unfortunately. Many people still believe themselves to be superior to others. And that's where hate crimes come in.

The problem I have, though, is this: Isn't the existence of a hate crimes law an assault on the 14th Amendment itself?

While the 14th Amendment says we should be treated the same, the existence of hate crimes laws says we should be treated differently.

Am I to assume that random acts of assault are somehow less of an affront to social order than those based on contempt for an assumed quality or trait of the victim? Cause that seems to be the message I get from the mere existence of the phrase "hate crime."

Who commits "love crimes," after all. Or "indifference crimes?"

Is it okay to assault heterosexual white men? Or is it just not as bad? If a straight white guy and a black lesbian are both murdered, are they not equally dead?

I understand that some politicians want to work to remove the bias from people. But you can't legislate the thoughts in someone's head. I can't fathom someone saying, "I'm not going to hate (fill in the blank) because it's illegal."

People don't choose not to hate. They learn not to hate. And they don't learn it from a law.

The fall of the mainstream media?

I'm not sure if you've taken note of this, but the bloggers are taking over.

There was a time when blogs were used for commentary on stories that had appeared in that days paper or on the TV news. Now TV, radio and the newspapers are being scooped regularly by the blogging community.

Over the past week, I can't count the number of stories I've heard that have started with "according to (fill in the blank) dot com ..." And I've read more than a handful of stories in WNY's leading newspaper, the Buffalo News, that have referenced topics I had read the day before ... or a couple days before ... on my favorite WNY media clearinghouse, WNYMedia.net.

WNYMedia.net is a sort of media co-op, giving a venue to several writers (including myself) to post their thoughts, analysis, and news scoops. It's a sort of one-stop shop for WNY blog thoughts. It lists four people on staff and 11 contributors. But there's even more than that.

I subscribe to a lot of blogs. Fifty or so. About half of them are from WNY. Most of them are updated daily. Even the mainstream folks have taken to using blogs to get the word out. Ironically, I use my talk shows to promote my blog ... and my blog to promote my talk shows.

There was a day, of course, when newspapers were the only game in town. Then came radio. And newspapers feared that radio would be their demise. But they survived. Then came TV. And newspapers are radio feared it would be their demise. But they survived. Then came the internet. And everyone's worried that it will be their demise.

And it might just be.

After all, the internet offers newspapers via blogs. It offers radio via podcasts and web streams. And TV via YouTube. It is everything the mainstream media offers ... but instantly ... and usually for free. Oh, and now, it's earlier, too.

Before I was a talk show host, I was a reporter. There was a piece of trash web site that would often steal information right from our paper ... and print it as though it was their own. Occasionally, they would get some information online before I got it in print. Oh, man, that was infuriating.

Imagine if your your job is to gather information and distribute it to the world. You work 40 hours each week with this sole goal. And then someone who has no training scoops you ... and for the mere joy of it. He's not even getting paid! Infuriating.

Of course, the honorable thing to do is to attribute the web site for scooping the story.

A few weeks ago, the Associated Press put the blogging world on notice: Don't use our stuff without paying for it. See, some unscrupulous bloggers would pick up AP stories and run them on their sites ... sans attribution.

But that seems to work both ways. Mainstream media has taken information from local blogs and run with it ... sans attribution.

And now ... they're on notice.

Worst president ever?

We have a way of romanticizing history. It is, afterall, written by winners, baby.

But what happens when you find out that the history you learned for years, reading in elementary, middle school, high school and even college text books only told half the story ... on someone you were told was the best president ever.

And what if the other half of the story made you think that he might have been ... the worst president ever?

I'm talking, of course, about our 16th president, Abraham Lincoln.

Interestingly, this is my second column on the misconceptions of Honest Abe. My first column about him dealing with the rumors of his sexuality, which linger to this day.

Lincoln, of course, wasn't all bad. He did free the slaves ... and made those funky stovepipe hats all the rage. But there's something about martyrdom that seems to wipe the slate clean of all his not-so-innocent transgressions.

Our history books teach us that Lincoln ran for office repeatedly, losing over and over. He opposed slavery and won the presidency. The south hated him and seceeded. We had a civil war to bring them back into the fold. The north won and everything was clear sailing after that.

Our history books leave out a lot of details. And fudge some facts.

Here's some facts you may have missed:

• Not only was Lincoln despised in the south, he didn't campaign in the south at all ... and was completely absent from the ballot in nine southern states. He recieved less than 40 percent of the votes nationwide. The other 60 percent being split by three other candidates.
• Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment. It would have given Constitutional protection to slavery in any state in which it already existed.
• The Emancipation Proclaimation did not free the slaves in all states. It only freed the slaves in non-Union states. In other words, only slaves being held in Confederate states.
• Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus during the war.
• Lincoln spent money without congressional authorization, acting as though the executive branch were a monarchy, unchecked by the other two branches of government.
  
• Lincoln imprisoned 18,000 "confederate sympatizers" without due process. They never got a trial.

Ironically, Lincoln's greatest credited "accomplishment" is actually the thing which I believe to be his greatest error. It's often stated that "Lincoln brought this country together."

You may wonder how I could possibly oppose such a great feat. The semantics of it make it sound American as apple pie, right? Let's try it in a different direction. "Lincoln consolidated the states under one federal directive." Doesn't sound as pretty that way, does it?

It's often stated that prior to the Civil War, people used the third person plural when referring to this nation: "The United States are ..." After the Civil War, that reference became third person singular: "The United States is ..." In other words, we went from being 36 indiviual "states" ... to one collective "nation."

Power had flowed upward ... from the people ... to their states ... to the federal government. Now the reverse is true. The federal government tells the states ... and their people what to do. It's almost as though in one fell-swoop we went from being a Republic ... to a totalitarian government.

By further explaination, Lincoln killed the 10th Amendment. I say often that the 10th Amendment is the "forgotten Amendment." it was forgotten in the mid 1860's ... when Lincoln was forcing the southern states to conform to northern ideals.

Please don't misconstrue this as some Confederate propaganda. I can't imagine anything worse than the concept of one human being "owning" another. But what we've got now is the federal government owning us all ... and we've got Lincoln to thank for it.

Casino foes could better spend their time

Over the course of the past couple weeks ... and years, we've seen people from Western New York come out of the woodwork to try to thwart the efforts of the Seneca Nation of Indians to open casinos in Niagara Falls and Buffalo.

They oppose blight. They oppose gambling. They oppose addiction. But mainly, it would seem to me, they oppose progress.

For every study and statistic I've seen showing that legalized casinos are the downfall of any community they're in, I've seen a corresponding study and statistic stating exactly the opposite.

Although I've read several quotes from attorney Joel Rose and heard him on the radio numerous times saying that his organization, Citizens Against Casino Gambling, opposes a new casino being built in Buffalo (and even the makeshift one open there now), I've never fully understood WHY they oppose it.

A visit to their website didn't help much. Frankly, it seems to be the same old tired "facts" and stats. Casinos are a blight. Gambling an addiction. And they suck money from the community. Blah, blah, blah. According to one post, the Seneca Niagara Casino and Seneca Allegheny Casino cost Western New Yorkers $300 million in gambling losses in 2004.

Were it any other industry generating $300 million in sales, it would be heralded as a victory for the area, but because it's casino gambling, it's derided as being akin to satanism.

Personally, I view casino gambling as a form of entertainment. Every so often, I'll go to the Seneca Niagara Casino ... or even one of the Canadian casinos ... and drop $20 into the slot machines. That's my limit. $20.

I understand that other people aren't as frugal as I am ... and some people spend more than they can afford to at the casino. But those people spend more than they can afford to on everything. They spend too much going out to eat. They spend too much going to the movies. They spend too much on junk food. And yet, I don't hear Joel Rose complaining about the movie, restaurant or grocery industries.

And were there not an option in Niagara Falls and Allegheny for those same folks to go gamble at, I believe a very compelling argument could be made that they'd still be losing money at the casino ... just not the local ones contributing to the local economy. They'd be losing their money in Canada.

Or, worse yet, on the lottery.

If Citizens Against Casino Gambling really wanted to help people who can ill-afford to lose money gambling, they'd fight against the biggest gambling entity in the area: the New York State Lottery.

According to the state lottery commission, New Yorkers spent $7.9 billion on the lottery in 2007. Of that, $3.9 billion was paid out (or promised) in prizes, $2.5 billion was spent on education, and over $1 billion was spent on operating costs. Assuming "winnings" and "education" aren't losses, that puts the statewide lottery loss at over $1 billion in 2007. My math says that's more than the $300 million "lost" to casino gambling in WNY.

But I haven't heard a peep from Joel Rose on the state lottery. So it would seem to me that it's the "Casino" part of Citizens Against Casino Gambling that his group really opposes. The "Gambling" part must be fine.

The new gold ...

Seems everyone this days is giving gas away as part of a promotional package. Buy a car, get free gas. Buy a boat. Get free gas. Buy a burrito, get gas. Well ... kind of.

Anyway, people aren't interesting in money, jewelery, or even gold. Diamonds aren't a girls best friend any more. Give 'em gas.

Even the Florida lottery has added gasoline to their list of prizes.

A lottery spokesperson said, “Once a week for the next two months, the second-prize winner in the latest lottery promotion, Summer Cash, will win free gasoline for life. And some people think that is a better deal than the game’s first prize, a quarter of a million dollars. ”

Actually, they'll be getting a $100 gas card every other week for the remainder of their life. That's $50 free dollars in gas a week. Or just over 10 gallons. Not that grand of a prize, really. Especially since later this year it will be just under 10 gallons ... and will likely quickly diminish.

Funny thing is, people don't notice that the value of the prize isn't nearly as good as the first place prize ... the quarter million dollars. They just hear free gas and go gaga.

The price of gasoline, of course, makes up a little bit of the price of just about everything; the food we eat, the stuff we buy ... and of course the places we go.

But keep in mind, it's only a portion of the cost of those things.

With the price of gas at $4.20 a gallon, and assuming, 20 miles per gallon, it's 21 cents a mile. Or $101.01 to get from my home in Lockport to my favorite vacation destination, Washington, DC. Round trip makes it $200 (give or take).

Two years ago, it would have only been $100 for gas for the same trip.

Of course, while on vacation, you'd spend a bunch of money on a hotel, tourist attractions, trinkets, etc. Let's say $1,000.

So add the gas in, and you've got a $1,200 vacation. As opposed to what would have been an $1,100 vacation if gas were $2.10.

Are you really going to skip your vacation over $100?

We need to stop treating gas as though it were gold. Otherwise, it might end up at $1,000 an ounce. And then we really couldn't afford to go anywhere.

Patriotism as decoration ...

Some candidates wear their patriotism on their sleeve ... or their lapel, to be more accurate. Whether or not they love their country is determined by whether or not they have a flag pinned to their jacket.

Some candidates parade their patriotism around as if it were required by the Constitution. Or as if it were a contest to see who loves America more.

Sometimes I wonder why the race for the presidency often turns into a fight over which candidate loves the country more ... or which candidate hates it more. I can't tell you the number of times I've heard some talking head ask, "Why does Barack Obama hate America?" Of course the question assumes that Barack Obama hates America. It's kind of like the question, "When did you stop beating your wife?" There's not good way to answer it.

Sen. John McCain has positioned himself as a God-fearing, America-loving veteran, whose record of patriotism could not be questioned. After all, he was a prisoner of war. And that brings with it some assumptions, too. The assumption being that since John McCain was a prisoner of war - and just as importantly, that he was a veteran of war - that he must love this great republic of ours more than some guy whose name rhymes with Osama.

Interesting that four years ago, the same assumptions did not hold true. Democrats figured that nominating John Kerry - a veteran of Viet Nam himself - would give them the patriotic edge over George W. Bush, who not only did not serve ... he disappeared during 'Nam. That edge never held true because of the trump card that Democrats didn't figure on: Republicans are automatically more patriotic than Democrats (at least according to talk radio).

In fact, while George W. Bush's record of non-service seemed okay with the likes of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh ... John Kerry's documented service was was questioned by the same types ... with a lot of help from a group of professional reputational hitmen, "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth."

It was so successful, that the term "Swiftboat" was immediately added to the American lexicon, defined as "successfully lie about someone or something."

At the time, John McCain spoke out against the "Swiftboat" group. Now, he's hired one of them to work on his own campaign. Hmm.

Meanwhile, Gen. Wesley Clark - an Obama supporter - said "I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president."

Of course, the GOP and McCain himself were all upset by the comment, demanding a retraction or apology from Clark. You can't, after all, question a war hero.

Funny, the Republican party always comes up with these strange rules: You can't question the president in the time of war. You can't say anything negative about America outside her borders. You can't tell the truth about their nominee if it puts him in a bad light. Etc ...

How long until they start calling Wesley Clark. How long until I hear, "Why does Wesley Clark hate America?"

Not long, I'd guess. After all, he can't be patriotic, he only spent 34 years in the Army.

Rated I for incompetent

Once you hit age 18, you stop caring what movies are rated. I mean, as a teen, it's kind of cool to sneak into an R rated film, but after you're allowed in, it just loses it's luster. But those movie rating will become important again.

With two daughters in the house, I try to keep an eye on the movie ratings to make sure they're not seeing anything too inappropriate. But unless we want to watch a Disney marathon, it's nearly impossible.

Take, for example, this recent experience; my wife got a couple movies from our local library, which actually has a pretty good selection. Anyway, one of the movies was "My Super Ex-Girlfriend." It was rated PG-13. The second was an R-rated flick that I cannot recall.

Which one do we watch with the kids? The R-rated one, of course.

At least, we should have watched the R-rated one with the kids. Cause it was - in my opinion - much more "family friendly" than the PG-13 movie. "My Super Ex-Girlfriend" was filled with sexual innuendo and even a couple sex scenes - albeit, no skin was shown, it was pretty obvious what was going on. The other movie was rated R for swearing. I'm not kidding. There was no graphic violence. No sex. Just a lot of F-bombs.

I might not drop F-bombs around my kids, but I know they've heard the word before. I'd much rather they hear someone swear ... than watch someone screw.

So how did one get a PG-13 rating and the other an R? The Motion Picture Association of America. They have certain guidelines for what constitutes what. The "hard swearing" got that second movie an R rating. The explanation for PG-13 is so confusing, I'd swear this was a government operation. But it's done by a "ratings board" which works for the MPAA.

Here's an interesting tidbit I found out. Movies are not required to go to the ratings board. They don't have to be rated. Or they can rate themselves ... as long as it is not "confusingly similar to the G, PG, PG-13, R, and, NC-17." Apparently, those rating are trademarked or something. But if they wanted to rate their movie "I for incompetent," they could do that.

But as I've previously determined the rating isn't so important as the content. Often times a movie will say "Rated PG-13 for sexual content" or something like that. But is that someone copping a feel? Or hard core nookie?

I heard about another movie rating system that sounds ... almost logical. It's called "Kids-in-Mind" movie ratings. They rate movies on three factors; sex, gore, and vulgarity. The give each factor a rating of 1 to 10. The higher the rating, the more of that there is in the movie. Plus, they actually list each instance.

"My Super Ex-Girlfriend," for example, has a rating of 7.6.4. Lots of sex. A moderate amount of gore. And not too much swearing. Exactly the opposite of what I think is appropriate for my kids. Had I known about this rating system, they never would have watched that movie.

They would have watched that other movie. The one I can't think of. And they would have forgotten it by now, too. I just hope they forgot the one they DID see.

Speculation as news ...

You'll often hear people say they wish they could be a weatherman; only get it right half the time and still pick up a full paycheck. Heck, you might have said it yourself at some point. I'm sure I have.

But I have a better gig for you, with even a lower success rate necessary. Become a political pundit.

As a political junkie, I probably read more news on politics and the political process than any 10 people I know. Some of these stories are well thought out and make perfect sense. But often times, they are the political pipe dreams of people who have no clue about history or tradition.

In the past 24 hours, for example, I've read stories about why John McCain not only should, but WILL, drop out of the race for president ... and why the odds say that Barack Obama will pick Republican Chuck Hagel as his running mate.

Now I have no crystal ball. I can't say what will or won't happen. But I can tell you that I'd put good money up against either one of those "predictions."

See, while a weather man has to be right half the time, a political pundit only has to be right once. Just once. Ever. And he can for the rest of his life brag about it. Kind of like your buddy who caught that one touchdown in the state championship 30 years ago who feels the need to remind you during every Bills game - in order to legitimize his criticism of JP Losman.

I have no problem with fantasy. (although if Chuck Hagel and John McCain ever appear in one of my fantasies, I'm suing someone. This gentleman prefers blondes, thank you). I do however, have a problem with taking the least likely scenario and turning it into news.

It's as though these media types sit around smoking pot going, "Man, wouldn't it be totally awesome if Barack Obama picked a Republican running mate? Like that dude from Nebraska ... um Chuck Hagel? Yeah, and then he would totally win every electoral vote out there."

Come morning, they wake up with the munchies and vague memories of their conversation the night before ... but the thought lingers ... and even though no longer high, they still think it sounds like a great idea. Except somewhere along the line they forget that it was a half-baked (or all-baked as the case may be) pipe dream ... and write a column proclaiming that it's going to happen.

See, here's the great part for them: If they're wrong, no one remembers or cares. But if they're right, they're some sort of national heroes amongst the talking heads of the political world.

And worse yet, when they do get one right, it legitimizes every other all-baked scheme they've had ... and makes them "go-to" commentators in the future. So when they comment in 2032 Chelsea Clinton is going to choose the ghost of Walt Disney as her running mate, people will buy into it as though it were gospel.

Imagine if the weather man were only right once. Once ever. How long do you think he'd last?

Springtime - when education turns to ...

I love this time of year. The weather gets warmer. Women start to wear more revealing clothes. And there's music all over Western New York.

But there is certainly one part of springtime that bothers me ... as a parent.

I send my kids to school every day under the misguided belief that they'll come home better educated than when they left.

For the most part, from September until late May, the education system lives up to their end of this unwritten deal. But come June ... once the weather turns ...

On Monday, I went to a spelling bee that my eight-year-old daughter was taking part in. Today my 11-year-old has talent show practice. Tomorrow, too. And then Thursday, there's something else ... non-education related. A field trip, maybe?

Strange that the number of field trips increases exponentially as the school year starts to come to a close.

And not just field trips. There's movies ... and TV. My youngest told me today they were watching National Geographic at school today.

Now, granted, National Geographic, spelling bees, and even certain field trips could have an educational component to them. But do you really think this is anything other than simply extending the school year a couple extra weeks for the sake of state aid?

I seriously get the impression that my children - and likely all children in Western New York - were finished "learning" about a week ago or so ... and now they're in coast mode. Just "getting their time in" so the state pony's up with the right amount of coin.

But hey, at least this week they're full days. Next week, too. But the week after that - the last week of school - it's all half days. Half days filled with Disney movies and picnics.

As if it's not annoying enough knowing that my tax dollars are going towards my kids watching movies that we probably already have at home, the half-day-marathon at the end of the year is a real pain as far as transportation goes.

I mean - if there's a full day of school, that cool. I take them to school. I go to work. I pick them up after work. If there's no school, I line up child care for the day and go about my business. But on a half day? Either my wife or I has to figure out a way to leave work at 11:15 to pick the kids up at 11:30. Usually, my wife has to request those days off ... and if not, I have to go pick them up and then bring them back to work with me. This is even further complicated by the fact that I'm supposed to be live on the radio during that 11 a.m. hour.

I was midly amused today during the spelling bee. Because the teacher reading the sentences to accompany the spelling bee references this half-day-marathon twice. As I sat in the audience and fumed about it.

I swear to God, she was mocking me.

I spoke with my sister in Florida last week. She told me the kids down there have been out of school for weeks. Made me wonder ... why are ours still in school. And sadly, the only answer I could think of ... is that it's all about state aid.

But, hey. As long as they have their priorities straight.

Sticks and stones ... and all that jazz ...

You know the old adage: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me.

And yet people seem to take great offense ... to things I find rather innocuous.

I was listening to Boortz on the radio the other day and a caller referred to someone as being a NeoCon, causing Boortz to go on a rampage. Apparently, he found the word offensive.

NeoCon, by definition means, new conservative. Originally it defined former liberals who became conservatives, but is now used as a synonym for warmonger. It's the Democrats way of saying, "that new uber-right-wing brand of conservatives."

Then there's the other side of that coin: liberal.

Most Democrats try to avoid that label as though it were a disease. And many Republicans like to paint Democrats with that label ... as though it were a disease.

We spend a lot of time worrying about labels. Our own labels. Labels for other people. We can't just "be." We have to be defined.

I used to define myself as a "conservative Democrat," which I later realized is really a Libertarian. At least by my own definition. I could also be defined as a "liberal conservative."

Funny thing is, these labels are only offensive if you let them be. They can be meant as offensive - often times indicated by the tone in which they're stated - but unless you allow yourself to be offended, who cares?

That's where the whole "sticks and stones" thing come from. Names will never hurt you ... unless you're a ninny about it. If you decide to allow yourself to be offended based on what someone else calls you, that's your problem.

There's honor is both liberalism and conservatism. Even NeoConservatism ... well, except the war-mongering part ... which, of course is the definition made up by "the other side."

I guess the moral of this little story is: If you let others define you, you deserve whatever definition they come up with. If you define yourself, names will never hurt you.

Aghast over gas?

Contrary to the recent headlines proclaiming the entire country to be up in arms and aghast at the price of fuel, I'm not.

I want to be angry. I've tried. In fact, I've spent the last few days trying to get angry just so I could write about how angry I am.

Maybe it's that I don't drive enough. Maybe it's that I'm in a better financial situation than others. Or maybe it's just my cool demeanor. But I doubt it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy about $4-plus gas. I certainly don't look forward to spending more and more of my hard-earned money on getting from point A to point B. But I'm certainly not angry.

Who, after all, am I supposed to be angry at?

Should I be angry at the Bush administration for not being able to force OPEC and oil companies to set their prices lower?

Should I be angry at Congress for the same? Or for not having billions of barrels of oil stored out back somewhere to help this crunch we're in?

Should I be angry at the oil companies themselves for wanting to make a profit?

The most frequent excuse I hear for why I should be angry is that "big oil" is reaping larger and larger profits each quarter. Of course, their response is that they actually only make pennies on a gallon and the reason for the high profits is that we keep consuming more and more gallons.

So should I be angry at you? Or myself? Or developing nations in Africa and Asia that are using more oil than they used to?

Cause when it really comes down to it, it's supply and demand. The more in demand something is, the more "they" charge us for the supply.

Sure oil company profits are huge ... but their profit margin is not. Many of you could surely care less about profit margin, but look at it this way: You'd surely invest a dollar to make $10. And you'd likely invest $10 to make $100. But would you be so willing to invest $100 to make $10? You're still making the same $10 you were before when you were investing $1 ... but the deal doesn't look as good now. Profit's the same ... but profit margin is less.

You know the old saying, "Don't cry over spilt milk." Well, I guess I have a similar philosophy on gas. I'm not going to cry over milk someone else spilled ... even if I have to clean it up.

Being angry gets you no where. You still have to spend $4.09 - or whatever it is by the time you read this - on gas ... plus you're angry about it.

Now, if we could bottle anger and use it to run cars ... then I'd be trying even harder to be angry ... and baiting you to do the same.

But that's not the case. Cars run on gasoline. (most of 'em). Gasoline comes from the oil companies. And we're not part of the process until we pull up to the pump.

That's not to say we can't do anything about the amount of gasoline we consume. But most of us - apparently - aren't angry enough to do that yet. I can tell by the amount of SUVs and pickup trucks driving around at any given time.

In the end, unless you're getting 36 miles to the gallon - which many cars get now - the only person you should be angry at about the amount you spend on gasoline ... is you.

And I'm not about to be angry at myself. So I just won't be angry.

A mass transit future?

Sunday began just like any other. Wake up. Eat some breakfast. Mow the lawn. Jump online to hash out to critical details for the day.

That's where it all went awry.

The critical details I was looking for was a means to get from A to B – in this case, A being my home in Lockport and B being Dunn Tire Park, home of the Buffalo Bisons.

I knew I could drive, as I've done dozens of times before, but I hated having to pay nearly $10 to park, and frankly, with gas encroaching upon $4 a gallon, the less driving I do, the better. My mind flashed back a couple weeks to a conversation I had with a friend about going to Bisons games. His advice, "take the train in." The Metro Rail, of course, is what he meant.

I'm a small town guy with a big city mindset. I actually love taking the subway in bigger cities. In New York City, my friends follow me blindly onto the subway, knowing that I'll get them where we need to go with time to spare. Washington DC has one of the nicest subway systems I've ever encountered, and when I'm in the District, I use it almost exclusively. But at 33 years old, I'd never taken Metro Rail in my own back yard.

And I still haven't. See, I couldn't – for the life of me – figure out where to get on. For many of you, this seems silly ... or even stupid, I'm sure. What an idiot I must be to not know where to get on the Metro Rail. There's a web site, for Christ sake!

And we loop back to the beginning of the column. The web site. Where it all went awry.

"How hard can it be," I mutter to myself as I typed NFTA.com into my browser just like my radio had told me to do countless times before. And right there on the front page, there's a link, "Going to the Bisons game" or something like that. "This is going to be a piece of cake," I think.

Then ... the hysteria begins.

I end up in an endless loop of information that means absolutely nothing to me. I figure out that I just get off at Seneca Street. And it looks like I want to get on at University Station. So I type those parameters into the "Metro Trip Planner" and am told that it's impossible. Like the guy in "Funny Farm" telling Chevy Chase, "Ya can't get there from here." Look up some more information. Change the parameters. Try try again.

I finally got it figured out. It takes about 20 minutes. I just get on at University Station and get off at Seneca Street. Hop. Skip. Jump. I'm there. Now ... where IS University Station? There's a handy dandy little map that shows that it's somewhere around Kenmore Avenue. So not the University that's close to me, but the other one. Okay. I know where the university is. But WHERE'S THE STATION?

Upset with the web's lack of answers, I call the number on the website ... in vain ... since it's Sunday. Why would anyone answer the phone on Sunday? It's not like people have anywhere to go.

I understand that there are budget constraints and maybe that's why there's no one manning the phones on a Sunday, but it certainly didn't do me any good. I gave up and drove. Paid $8 to park, plus the nearly $4 a gallon. When I would have definitely preferred to take the rail. If only I knew how.

It made me think that Metro Rail is a country club that you have to know the secret handshake to get into – or on, as it were. Sure wish I knew that handshake. But I'm no quitter, so I'll figure it out for next time.

While I'm on the subject, why is Kenmore the last stop for the Metro Rail? Why don't we have a real mass transit system in Western New York? You can't count the buses. I don't want to take an hour and a half to get from Lockport to Buffalo. Why don't we have a rail system outside city limits? They do it in other parts of the country.

Wouldn't it be great if you lived in Medina and could take a train into Buffalo? Or from downtown Buffalo to the Falls? Of course, I'd be thrilled if there were a Lockport stop. It's not like we don't have the infrastructure. There's train tracks all over Western New York, many of them practically dormant. And it's not like it's unprecedented. I'm reminded often of a rail system from downtown to Olcott that existed 100 years ago.

Is the problem money? Can't we fund it? A couple years ago, Congress approved $320 million for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Don't we rate to get at least a fraction of that money for the NFTA to build rail stations outside of Buffalo?

Is the problem us? Are we too good to ride mass transit and that's why they don't move forward? I hope that's not the case, but might not be surprised if I found out it was.

Look, the NFTA is a good organization. But it needs to go further. It needs to be better. It needs more details on its website. And more train stations.

In a perfect world, it would have all the above.