News Snippets

WARREN FARRELL has authored a new book called “Why Men Earn More,” and he has some interesting information regarding the wage gap. Women may indeed earn 80 cents for every dollar a man earns, but there are reasonable explanations.

According to a recent book review by John Leo, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reports that companies paid men and women equal money when their titles and responsibilities were the same. But women often choose jobs with lower pay and less responsibility in order to care for family and pursue other interests.

Other findings reported in his book: men who have never married and are college-educated make only 85 cents for every dollar earned by women in the same demographic. Women are often paid more than men in more than 80 career fields like financial analyst, engineering manager, statistician, surveying technicians, agricultural/food scientists, and aerospace engineers.

Also interesting: women who work as investment bankers enjoy starting salaries 16 percent larger than men. Women working part-time make $1.10 for every $1 earned by men. And so much for the “glass ceiling” -- Women are 15 times more likely than men to become top executives in major corporations before the age of 40.

IN EARLY March, 80 dolphins found themselves stranded in shallow water in the Florida Keys. No one knows how they were stranded, but volunteers are working around the clock to save them. The dolphins are too weak to eat, so yes – the volunteers are using feeding tubes to provide nutrition to the near-vegetative dolphins.

How do we know that these dolphins didn’t swim into the shallows as an effort to end their own lives? Aren’t the volunteers who are forcing them to keep their blow-holes above water acting as human ventilators?

I hope the Florida court system ordered these artificial means of life-support removed so the dolphins could experience the absolute euphoria that we are told comes from starvation. After all, humans shouldn’t be the only ones to enjoy the right to die with dignity.

NICHOLAS KRISTOF is a columnist with the New York Times. I enjoy reading his work, because even though we often draw different conclusions, he is the epitome of intellectual honesty.

A recent Kristof column looks at the ever-decreasing level of trust the public has for the news media. He says, “Since 1973, the National Opinion Research Center has measured public confidence in 13 institutions, including the press. All of the other institutions have generally retained a good measure of public respect, but confidence in the press has fallen sharply since 1990.”

Kristof continues, “If one word can capture the public attitude toward American journalists, I'm afraid it's ‘arrogant.’ Not surprisingly, I think that charge is grossly unfair. But it's imperative that we respond…not by dismissing [the charge], but by working far more diligently to reconnect with the public.”

I agree with you, Mr. Kristof. Reporters, editors, columnists – everyone connected with the media must stop looking at the general public as a group of uneducated fools. While no aspect of the media is innocent, the large national newspapers are the worst offenders. And Kristof hits the nail on the head with this comment:

‘We also need more diverse newsrooms. When America was struck by race riots in the late 1960's, major news organizations realized too late that their failure to hire black reporters had impaired their ability to cover America. In the same way, our failure to hire more red state evangelicals limits our understanding of and ability to cover America today.”

SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED diseases are spreading at alarming rates. According to Dr. John Diggs, the rates of infection of just one kind of STD have reached near epidemic proportions. Nearly one in five female college students are infected with HPV, or Human Papillomavirus. And don’t think that HPV just means warts, Dr. Diggs notes that “nearly all cervical cancer is caused by HPV. Moreover, in the USA, more women die from cervical cancer than die
from AIDS.”

The Centers For Disease Control estimates that “19 million STD infections occur annually, almost half of them among youth ages 15 to 24.” This in spite of more than two decades of graphic public school sex education – or perhaps because of it.

I find it interesting that every time we start a new program to address a problem, the problem gets no better, and often gets worse. Sex education, like welfare, fails to address the root of many of societies problems – human nature.

We’re basically immoral hedonists by nature, and it takes discipline and restraint to make us good people and good citizens. But many of our social reform efforts are based on the notion that responsibility equals morality. Unfortunately, responsible hedonism is costing us 15.5 billion dollars every year, and that’s just the cost of STD’s.

My Favorite Dirty Words

Comedian George Carlin had a bit he called “The Seven Words You Can’t Say on Television.” The routine revolved around profane words that were banned by the Federal Communications Commission. Mr. Carlin’s words were objectionable, but today we live in a politically correct society that wants to ban perfectly acceptable words.

The first dirty word is “discrimination”. Once, a man with discriminating taste was a man who could discern the difference between the common and the exceptional. But today discrimination is a bad thing. We are expected to go through life with the idea that a hard working, well-groomed and polite young man is no more deserving of a job than a shiftless, irresponsible thug with twelve facial piercings and purple hair.

I discriminate. I prefer effort to sloth, neatness to sloppiness, politeness to disrespect, and proper grammar to street slang. So don’t come to me with your pants dragging the ground and six metal studs in your face and tell me you want a job. I have a moral right (though legally my rights are being eroded every day) to hire who I wish. The constitution doesn’t guarantee you a job, in spite of what the egalitarian movement in this country wants you to believe.

Another good one is “guilt.” The whole notion depends, of course, upon the acceptance of the idea that some things are right and others wrong. If you feel guilt, it’s because you know you hurt either yourself, someone else, or maybe both. In the old days (when people still wrote in hieroglyphics) you cleared a guilty conscience by making your wrong right. You apologized, paid restitution, or did whatever you had to do to undo the damage you caused.

Now all you do to avoid guilt is deny that there are any absolute truths. Sure, it may be a bad thing for you, but it’s a good thing for me. So that makes it OK. Only it really doesn’t, and we all know it. Maybe that’s why Prozac is as popular as Peanut M&M’s.

“Revenge” is a dirty word too. These days words like revenge are reserved for ignorant rednecks who just want to get the guy who “shot my Paw.” However, God explained the principle of revenge, and when properly pursued it is consistent with the more accepted word, “justice.”

“But Mike,” you ask, “how can you say that? Don’t you know that God said, ‘Vengeance is Mine.”? Yes, I know that – however, a few verses later, the Apostle Paul explains how God exacts that vengeance. Government is God’s minister, he explains, “a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

So l agree that God forbids vigilante justice and reserves vengeance unto Himself. But to deny the justice system’s role as punisher and executioner is to deny God’s ordained role for government. Therefore, when a murderer is executed, it is truly a revenge killing – revenge on behalf of the victim’s family, law-abiding citizens, and yes, God.

My favorite dirty word is “judgment.” Judgment is the king of dirty words. Just whispering it can bring the thought police down on you with every condemnation known to man. But where would we be without judgment?

Start with the court system. You know those folks who bang gavels and wear black robes. Why do we call them Judges? Because they judge. True enough, they do a lot less judging than they used to. Maybe we should change their titles to “tolerators.”

We’re constantly told that Christ warned us not to judge, But isn’t he the one who called the Pharisees vipers and hypocrites? Sounds like some serious judging going on there. And the Bible tells Christians to take note of brothers living out of step with the scriptures and to “have no fellowship with them.” Exactly how are we to do that if we can’t execute some measure of judgment?

The worst part is the hypocrisy of those who say we shouldn’t judge. I get letters from readers who condemn me for judging others, and their own words reek of judgment – I’m evil, President Bush is evil, conservatives are evil, Christians are evil, anyone who doesn’t share their utopian dream is evil.

How non-judgmental of them.

Look at yourselves long and hard folks. Every single one of you judges – from the moment you get out of bed ‘til you crawl back in it, you judge. Some judgments are as harmless as deciding which meal deal is better for breakfast, others are as serious as whom to vote for and why. But they’re judgments all the same. I’m tired of the so-called “tolerant” crowd claiming to be above judging others.

We need more love, compassion and mercy. We need more judgment, discrimination and revenge as well. The challenge is knowing when to exercise one and when the other.

Live by the polls, die by the polls

A recent NBC – Wall Street Journal poll shows that 55% of respondents oppose private accounts as a part of social Security reform. The media trumpets opposition to private accounts at every turn. But other numbers from the same poll are being largely ignored.

A majority said they knew the system was in need of a fix, and 65 percent said they were open to changing their minds about Bush’s plan. Far from proclaiming a decisive win for the anti-reform team, the poll indicates that persistence may pay off for the president. Of course, Mr. Bush is plugging ahead, in spite of resistance. And good for him. True leaders don’t stick moist fingers in the breeze. They row against the current when necessary. And this issue is too important to put off until the tea leaves are more favorable.

Another area where polls show Bush in a weaker position is in foreign relations, primarily Middle East policy. There are few true moderates in the professional “commentariat,” but Morton Kondracke is one. Kondracke, no neo-conservative Bushite, is a bit surprised that the American people give Bush low marks when the effect of his policies has been a stronger American position throughout the world.

While many Americans are giving Bush C’s and D’s, some regular critics are grudgingly admitting that his policies are working. Daniel Schorr wrote in the Christian Science Monitor, “Something remarkable is happening in the Middle East - a grass-roots movement against autocracy without any significant 'Great Satan' anti-American component. . . . The movements for democratic change in Egypt and Lebanon have happened since the successful Iraqi election on Jan. 30. And one can speculate on whether Iraq has served as a beacon for democratic change in the Middle East. During the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, President Bush said that 'a liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region.' He may have had it right.”

The German Magazine “Der Speigel” has an article called, “Could Bush be Right?” In the story, they compare the Bush vision to that of Reagan, who was roundly ridiculed throughout Europe, but whose vision transformed the lives of millions.

Pundits speculate that the Terri Schiavo case has played a part in the recent drop in Bush’s approval ratings. The public opposed Washington’s intervention, though 44% of respondents also said that they hadn’t followed the story. Now pollster John Zogby has released a poll that casts doubt upon the earlier statistics.

Zogby, one of the most respected pollsters in the nation, had a different set of questions. "If a disabled person is not terminally ill, not in a coma, and not
being kept alive on life support,” he asked, “and they have no written directive,
should or should they not be denied food and water," the poll asked. 79 percent of those polled said the patient should not be denied food and water. Only nine percent said yes.

In reference to government intervention, the poll asked, "When there is conflicting evidence on whether or not a patient would want to be on a feeding tube, should elected officials order that a feeding tube be removed or should they order that it remain in place." 18% felt the feeding tube should be removed, while 42 percent said it should remain in place.

In other polls, it seemed clear that the public supported a husband’s right to make decisions for his wife in such situations as Terri’s, but they may not have been aware of the specifics of this case. When asked if the husband "has had a girlfriend for 10 years and has two children with her," 56 percent of respondents felt guardianship should have been awarded to Mrs. Schiavo’s parents. 37 percent of those polled disagreed.

Another area of concern seems to be the economy. But again, the facts are at odds with common perception. Growth is at 3.8 percent, as good as during the Reagan and Clinton years. Unemployment is at 5.2 percent, which is as low a rate as during the best economic times. The President’s ideas for tax reform have the potential to spur economic growth to even higher levels.

Fortunately, President Bush isn’t obsessed with polls. He has a plan, and a set of convictions guiding him. He is surrounded by competent advisors who share his dedication to the “Ownership Society,” the defeat of terrorism, the protection of innocent life, and the spread of freedom throughout the world.

Polls are fine. I enjoy keeping up with them and evaluating the mood of the nation. But polls should never be the basis for policy. Sound principle and good judgment are at the root of all good policy.

Real leaders know this.

A news buffet

IN GERMANY, an unemployed person is listed in a government database. Prospective employers can browse the database looking for someone who might be qualified to work for them. Because of the growing strain on Germany’s generous unemployment benefit system, the laws have been revised to require that a person accept a job for which they are qualified, or else lose their unemployment benefits. So far, so good – right?

There’s a wrinkle. Germany legalized prostitution recently, so brothel operators are perusing the unemployment database looking for qualified employees. One “employer” found a 25 year-old former waitress, and decided she was qualified to work for him.

Now the former waitress is being threatened with a loss of benefits because she won’t take the job. A Hamburg lawyer said "There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex industry…the new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."

"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job center when I pay my taxes just like anybody else?" a brothel owner asked. In economics, that is called “The Law of Unintended Consequences.” I just call it one more in a long list of reasons to look at what Europe is doing, and do exactly the opposite.

THE IMPERIAL Wizard of the U.S. Senate, former KKK member Robert Byrd, is touting a copy of the U.S. Constitution that you can get from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. According to an Associated Press report, Senator Byrd “accuses Republicans of threatening to ‘undermine the system of checks and balances described in the Constitution and the fundamental rights we hold dear’ by changing the rules governing confirmation of judges.”

Perhaps Byrd, who claims to carry the constitution with him everywhere he goes, should actually take it out of his pocket and read it. Nowhere does the constitution even mention the “filibuster” – the tool Democrats are using to block Bush judicial nominees. The filibuster is a Senate rule, not a constitutional construct. And the rules can be changed by a simple majority of senators. So for Sen. Byrd to accuse the GOP of threatening to “undermine the system of checks and balances described in the Constitution” is not just demagoguery, it is a blatant lie. No one has used obscure procedural rules to quell minority uprisings more often or effectively than former Majority leader Byrd.

Payback is, well, you know.

For the record, I don’t want the Senate to change the rules. The filibuster is an effective tool that the minority can use to oppose the majority will, and that is, after all, part of what makes our system of government unique. The filibuster has served the Senate – and America -- well.

The arguments for preservation of the filibuster are strong, and do not need to be propped up by lies. The GOP remembers 40 years of minority status, and the Democrats are learning how it feels.

Perhaps Sen. Byrd is banking on the woeful state of civics education to help him pull this one off. After all, there are a lot of folks who actually think the phrase “separation of church and state” is in the constitution too.

THE IDEA of private investment accounts for Social Security may be a hot topic today, but it’s not a new idea. In fact, the plan to make private accounts a part of the overall scheme has been around for years – first promoted by a popular president named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. That’s right, it was FDR who said, "I am greatly hoping that repeated promises of private investment and private initiative to relieve the government in the immediate future of much of the burden it has assumed will be fulfilled."

According to an article in OpinionJournal.com, President Harry Truman’s Treasury Secretary, while still serving in Congress, said, "Many of us think the
time will come when the voluntary annuity plan, which rounds out the security program for the aged, will be written into law."

So what we have today is a Republican president, aware of significant problems looming on the horizon, proposing a plan similar to that which Democrats had formerly hoped to see made part of the Social Security system. Now, for some reason, that’s a bad thing. It’s so bad that armies of activists are mobilizing to defeat the program, though this particular plan protects current retirees, gives imminent retirees the hope of a solvent system, and offers young workers a future where paychecks don’t get confiscated to provide care for the elderly.

The only alternative offered by the opposition is a postponed retirement age for my generation, and higher taxes for the younger. That’s nothing to look forward to, for us or them.

Quality or Sanctity?

I’ve watched day after day as pollsters tell us how many Americans opposed the Schindler’s efforts to save their daughter Terri Schiavo’s life. I don’t have a lot of confidence in these polls.

One example is an ABC poll question which began, “Schiavo suffered brain damage and has been on life support for 15 years.” How many of the poll respondents knew that Terri’s “life-support” was a feeding tube? I spoke to two people this week who assumed that she was on a ventilator, permanent dialysis, or some other form of life support. There are thousands of disabled Americans who receive their nutrition via feeding tube. That is one reason that many advocates for the disabled were on the side of Terri’s parents in trying to get her feeding tube re-inserted.

The poll further stated, “Doctors say she has no consciousness and her condition is irreversible.” Some doctors do say that, but others disagree. And several of the primary care personnel who have worked with Terri echo her parent’s claims that Terri responds and reacts to attention and care in ways that leave little doubt she is conscious. One such doctor is William Cheshire, a neurologist with the Florida Department of Family and Children’s Services.

Critics of Terri’s parents accuse them of hiring doctors who will tell the courts what they want them to hear. That may be so. But how is that any different from Terri’s husband hiring neurologist Ronald Cranford, a euthanasia advocate who has referred to himself as “Dr. Humane Death”?

Many of the people I’ve spoken with bring up Michael Schiavo’s contention that Terri told him she would not want to live in such a state. But if Terri told her husband this, why, when charging two doctors with malpractice, did he say that he would have to care for Terri the rest of her life? Why did he say that he was studying nursing to better care for his wife? Why did he wait seven years to bring his wife’s wishes to a judge’s attention?

The Schiavos were awarded over one million dollars in the malpractice suit to provide for Terri’s long-term care. Before the award, Mr. Schiavo had Terri taken to two different rehabilitation facilities. After the award, he ordered rehabilitation discontinued and began ordering other medical treatments withheld. While nothing in this timeline is conclusive evidence of malfeasance on Michael Schiavo’s part, it is certainly enough to make me question his commitment to Terri’s well-being.

A husband has the right, both legally and morally, to make decisions for an incapacitated wife. That is so in part because the law assumes that no one will have the best interest of a person at heart more so than a husband or wife. But in this case, I strongly disagree. Mr. Schiavo has been living with another woman for years, and has children with her. That causes me to question his sincerity in this case.

Schiavo’s attorney claims that Terri’s death by starvation and dehydration was “painless,” and may have even been “euphoric.” If so, why was she given morphine after her feeding tube was removed? And if starvation is so euphoric, why do the starving children in third-world countries look so miserable in the commercials?

Congress was right to order the federal courts to review the case. Every convicted felon enjoys the right of appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, so why should a disabled woman under a death sentence deserve any less protection? A 17 year old can bind a woman and throw her off a bridge to drown, and he receives more compassion than an innocent woman who has caused no harm to anyone.

Congress acted completely within their constitutional power by intervening in this case (Article III gives Congress the power to set the jurisdictional limits of the federal courts). This was not a “Republican” intervention – The Senate voice vote was unanimous, and only 58 Democrats dissented in the House.

Many Americans told pollsters that Schiavo should be allowed to die, and that they felt Congress should not have intervened. But with misleading poll questions and no other knowledge of the case, I’m not sure how trustworthy those polls are. After all, 44% of the ABC poll respondents admitted to having followed the story either “not very closely” or “not at all.”

Too much has been made of quality of life, and not enough of the sanctity of life. Quality is far too subjective a criterion by which to judge a person’s fate. Innocent life is precious, and is to be preserved and protected. It’s been said many times and in different ways that the measure of a society is in how it protects those who cannot protect themselves.

I don’t have the answers, but I sure do have a lot of questions. Now that Mrs. Schiavo is dead, those questions will most likely remain unanswered.