Alaska Governor Sarah Heath Palin

Please forgive my blatant pun on the central question of a great American novel, but it seems everyone is asking this question. Senator John McCain surprised almost everyone universally in his choice of the Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate for the upcoming election. I have to admit that my first reaction mirrored that of many people, a resounding, “What, in the name of God, was he thinking or smoking?”

However, as I’ve done some research and learned more about the Honorable Governor, I’ve discovered that I rather like her. It is true that she’s only been the Governor of Alaska for roughly two years, but we should note that she was first elected to public office in 1992 as a city councilor. She became the major of her town in 1996, and then Chairwoman of the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (a very powerful position in a state such as Alaska), all before she became the Governor. This resume compares favorably with that of Senator Obama. She is three years his junior but has served in public office five years more than he has.

Speaking of that career, she’s accomplished some pretty impressive feats during that time. When she first ran for city council in 1992 it was on a platform supporting a controversial measure to raise the city’s sales tax while advocating for a “safer and more progressive Wasilla.” She served two terms there before she was elected Mayor, criticizing the incumbent for his support of high taxes and extremely wasteful spending. As the mayor, she reduced her own salary and reduced property taxes by forty percent and became the President of the Alaska Conference of Mayors. She won reelection against the same opponent she had originally unseated by an even larger margin than her first victory.

During her time on the Oil and Gas Commission, which she chaired, she was its Ethics Supervisor. She then resigned from that commission, citing a lack of ethics amongst its Republican members. She leveled formal allegations against one of her Commission colleagues who was also the chair of the Alaskan Republican Party, who resigned and paid a record fine. As Governor she ran on a clean government platform and won handily and then immediately made good on campaign promises. While in office her approval rating has NEVER been reported to drop below 76 percent; most polls consistently place her in the high 80’s to 90’s. Show me a politician who wouldn’t be jealous of those figures. On that kind of look, it’s quite clear that, with no disrespect intended, Governor Palin has more experience as an executive than Senators Obama, Biden and McCain combined, though admittedly not on a national scale.

Governor Palin can also lay claim to doing something that should make Senator Obama green with envy. She’s actually taken on the culture of political corruption and won. She resigned from an extremely powerful position because of corruption, which she then brought to light. Immediately after becoming Governor, she sold the previous Governor’s state jet on EBay. She is also supporting the challenge to Don Young, citing his questionable integrity and pork barrel mentality. That vote isn’t over, but Young is only 151 votes away from losing his seat. As governor, she has issued 4 vetoes (actually  line item vetoes) to curtail pork barrel spending by more than $230 million. One could argue she’s been more effective there than Senator McCain, who makes it a key issue.

It would also be unwise to characterize her as an arch conservative. It is true that her position on abortion is extremely conservative, desiring illegality with the sole exception of medical necessity (an extremely rare event by the way). However, despite this, she has made no move, ever, to actually attempt to curtail abortion legality and in fact supports the use of contraception. On LGBT rights, the Governor is rather enigmatic. She supports the “traditional” definition of marriage and supported the 1998 amendment to the state Constitution to ban same-sex marriage as well as a non-binding referendum to deny state health benefits to same sex couples. However, as Governor she issued the very first veto of her administration to block legislation that would have denied state benefits from the same-sex partners of state employees, in direct opposition to her personal beliefs. She justified her veto by saying that she would have violated her oath of office if she’d signed an unconstitutional piece of legislature. Hardly the staunch level of conservatism the religious right would like to see.

Governor Palin has many other interesting and complex views on issues that I encourage Republicans and Democrats alike to research and think about her views. What they will find is a woman who is neither an inexperienced neophyte nor a grizzled holdover from days past; well, actually, she is a holdover from days past. She still believes that a government should be run with integrity, balanced thought, and unobtrusively rather than rampant corruption, knee-jerk feels goods, and universal pervasiveness that defines the current state of affairs, something to which no proposal from Barrack Obama has put forward remedies. Governor Palin is a strong and vibrant woman who truly has an idea, and if for no other reason than that, I would be proud to call her the Madam Vice-President.

A

President Hall took the time to personally communicate both the increase and his plan for making up the remaining budget shortfall to all of APSU’s students. In his plan, the budget for instruction is to be held sacred and remain untouched. Similarly, the President hopes to avoid cutting any teaching positions, filled or vacant (for the purposes of the budget, money is allocated as if these positions will be filled), another erstwhile goal. Unfortunately, this leaves two areas that will receive big cuts, maintenance and operations, two areas in which Austin Peay has already been struggling in recent years to meet needs. Announcements of various service interruptions in things such as water, electricity, or heat and air due to failure of campus infrastructure are common enough that students expect those emails.

However, President Hall isn’t at fault here. As much as he can do, he does not have control over how the Tennessee Legislature appropriates funding, and he is simply doing the best he can to compensate for their bad decision making. The figures on pork spending for this session aren’t in yet, but looking at last year’s expenditures reveals more than 260 million dollars in spending that is questionable at best, and an amount that is more than enough to cover the shortfalls in essential budgetary items.

Top on the list is Boll Weevil eradication, yes, you heard right. Fiscal year 2007-2008 (that’s last year) featured 6.5 million dollars to combat the little buggers. Yes, they don’t do very much for cotton crops, but according to most estimates there are less than 9,000 of the quarter inch long insects alive in the state in total, meaning taxpayers are spending $730 dollars per insect to attempt to kill them. The kicker, the Boll Weevil population has been stable for roughly a decade. Fortunately, its biggest proponent, Senator Wilder (who coincidentally was president of the Tennessee Cotton Ginner Association in the past and still owns Longtown Gin and Supply Co.) has gone the way of the dodo in the Senate. Hopefully this abysmal waste of resources goes with him.

Next up, 70 million dollars over five years (12.2 million dollars per year) to pay farmers to grow switch grass (a type of prairie grass that most farmers would call a weed) instead of corn to produce ethanol. Before the environmentalist nut-jobs start pointing out this is investing in alternative energy, let’s take a look at something. Ethanol is NOT, I’ll repeat NOT, a viable alternative to gasoline. For starters, ethanol is more expensive to make than gasoline, period, end of story, not changing in the near future, which means it WILL cost more per gallon that gasoline. Second, ethanol contains approximately 30% less energy than gasoline per unit volume. This translates to the Ford Focus at 29 miles to a gallon on gasoline achieving only 20 miles per gallon on ethanol, meaning you have to buy and burn more ethanol to go the same distance. That leads to point number 3, biofuels made from Switch grass grown on land intended for corn production (a staple crop in Tennessee by the way, and a highly profitable one) leads to a 50% increase in carbon emissions as compared to growing the corn and using the gasoline instead. Point 4, this also makes no economic sense. According to the United Nations there is a global shortage of staple food grains including corn. So, instead of growing corn, which could be sold on the world market to help such a shortage, Tennessee wants its farmers to cease corn production (exacerbating the shortage) and grow economically unviable (if it was profitable on its own, why would we pay them?) switch grass. Axing this alone would cover almost the entire budget cut that the TBR system raised tuition to cover.

Corruption also rears its ugly head in Tennessee, at least last year. Rep. Janis Sontany (D-Nashville), put in for $52,000 in earmarks to various organizations, she sits on the board for all of them. She also sent $10,000 to Seth Norman’s drug court. He provided her with generous campaign donations. Rep. Mary Pruitt (D-Nashville) set aside $55,000 for a group she helped found, plus she’s an ex-officio board member. Rep. Barbara Cooper asked for $61,000 for organizations that her own campaign claims she is a key member of.Rep. Joe Towns (D-Memphis) pushed for $10,000 for his college fraternity (which is even more suspect and worthless than the previous examples). This doesn’t even begin to include kickbacks given because of friendship or political contributions.

Speaking of corruption, how about how legislators have been using their general office funds (taxpayer funded general fund that is meant to cover things like paper, printer cartridges, schoolhouse flags, etc) to pay for their campaigns. Again, Rep. Towns takes the cake for the most egregious offender, spending $2,251 to send out campaign newsletters. At least four other legislators have done so. Legislators are also very fond of abusing their Per Diem allowances. House Speaker Pro-Tempore Lois DeBerry (D-Memphis), Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey (R-Blountville), and the Mister Speaker Jimmy Naifeh (D-Covington) all billed the state for more than $30,000 in Per Diem. All three of them billed the state for a trip to China. Speaker Pro-Temp DeBerry billed the state a total of $31,967 with 14 out of state trips. That is, she billed the state for her full allowance for 199 days. That’s far longer than the legislature is supposed to be in session, by about 109 days, actually. Just what were the taxpayers funding on those extra days exactly? Sen. Doug Jackson (D-Dickson) and Rep. Towns both claimed more than $25,000 is Per Diem. In total 22 legislators claimed more in Per Diem than their $18,123 base salary (Speaker Naifeh has a base salary of 3 times that, by the way and he was still in the top 3 for Per Diem billing). Speaking of outrageous though, how about Reps. Sherry Jones and Brenda Gilmore (both D-Nashville) who live less than 10 miles from their offices at legislative plaza and still claimed better than $22,000 in Per Diem allowances. These ladies sleep in their own homes every night, so how they managed to spend $22,000 on room and board traveling to Nashville will forever remain a mystery.

Also, cronyism is alive and well in Bredesen’s administration. State employees received a 3% raise last year; Bredesen’s cabinet received raises that averaged 23%, for not doing their jobs. DCS failed to investigate child deaths in a timely manner, then failed and refused to share the findings with prosecutors and judges. The commissioner received a 63% pay raise. Economic Development failed to collect final reports on over $865,000 worth of grants. Are we rewarding good service, or handing out bones here?

On loose ends in parks and recreation, the state lost over 1.4 million dollars on golf courses, $500,000 on a feasibility study of making a “fishing trail” and “stocking it with fish.” Grant, on a technicality, most parks cost the state money for no profit, but the golf courses charge for use and are supposed to be self sustaining. Only two of the fourteen courses were self sustaining, the two located in urban areas. The other 12 scattered across rural Tennessee in such odd places and Chester County lost money at insane rates. As for the fishing trail idea, the feasibility study is half a million, wagers are open for how much the actual project, the environmental impact studies, continual stocking expenses, etc will cost the state, for no apparent reason.

Another odd project is the resurrection of the Tennessee River ferry between Houston and Benton counties. It cost the state 1.2 million dollars to put the service in operation again, and costs approximately $1,380 per day to operate. Twenty-three people per day pay $.87 to make use of it, meaning the taxpayers are subsidizing 98% of each passenger’s fare (if one were to charge those 23 people the $59 and change their tickets would need to cost to equal the cost of running the service) for something that 99.99… of the people in this state will never hear of, much less use.

This brief rundown cannot even begin to account for every piece of unneeded spending in Tennessee. The lavish and decadent spending at the Governor’s mansion remains, the so-called obligatory spending on the abysmal socialist failure that is TennCare remains unchecked, and there is still no guarantee that money legitimately and wisely appropriated to different agencies was spent wisely or well, or will be in the coming fiscal year. Perhaps instead of asking for hard decisions on spending cuts, Governor Bredesen and the General Assembly should look to remove some of these outrageous and unneeded items of spending first that no one will notice or miss.

Doctors at Massachusetts General Hospital today confirmed 76-year-old Senator Ted Kennedy’s seizure were the result of a malignant brain tumor Kennedy, who was hospitalized after suffering a seizure at his family’s compound on Saturday, has not had a repeat incident and is reportedly in good spirits.

According to statements made by the Senator’s doctors, preliminary results indicate, “the cause of the seizure as a malignant glioma in the left parietal lobe,” the area of brain linked to sensation, movement and language.Malignant glioma is the most common type of primary brain tumor in the United States accounting for more than half of all new diagnosis of a brain tumor condition.

Normal medical treatment is surgery to remove as much of the tumor as possible followed by radiation and chemotherapy, although at this stage, Kennedy and his family are still awaiting further testing by doctors before making any treatment decisions. The average life expectancy for this time of tumor is generally 5 years or less.

While seizures can have many root causes, the determination of a brain tumor and the reluctance at this point to suggest a surgical option is cause for concern that it may not in fact be operable.

Reaction amongst Kennedy’s colleagues on Capitol Hill has been a uniform expression of sorrow and shock. Senators were in closed policy sessions when Majority leader Harry Reid made the announcement

Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois released the following brief statement:

“Ted Kennedy has spent his life caring for those in need. Now it’s time for those who love Ted and his family to care for them and join in prayer to give them strength.”

Sen. John McCain,Republican presumptive nominee John McCain, characteristically emotional, gave an impromptu statement from his Straight Talk Express expressing his concern for Kennedy, calling him “the last lion” in the Senate and “the most effective Senator for getting things done.” McCain had previously interrupted an interview to take a phone call about Senator Kennedy’s condition and both he and Senator Durbin are well known for partnering with Kennedy on legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act.

Kennedy recently endorsed the presidential candidacy of Senator Barrack Obama.

Clarksville Online will update this information as the the situation develops.

In the market, prices are ideally determined by the law of supply and demand. This can be represented graphically on a coordinate plane where units of product are on the x-axis and price is plotted along the y-axis. On this, a supply (S) and a demand (D) line are drawn. The supply line will start at the origin (0 units, 0 price) and increase going to the right (this makes logical sense: the more you can charge for something, the more you’re willing to sell). The demand line moves in the opposite direction starting high on the left and decreasing to the right (again this makes sense; the more of something there is the less we want to pay for it). Since the lines have opposite slopes in the same plane, they intersect. At the point where they intersect (E), the market is said to be in equilibrium, or, at the price indicated at the intersection, supply of something and demand for it are exactly equal to one another. Thus, one would hope, any reasonable person will realize that a change in either of these two lines will affect the prices you pay for a product.

Now, why the detour into the central dogma of economics? Because, that dogma dictates that prices for gasoline will continue to rise. The supply of gasoline is essentially fixed at the current point (or rather, the supply won’t be increasing. It could decrease, but let’s be real here). There’s one basic reason for this: oil companies are unable to produce oil at a rate higher than they have been. Exxon recently reported that its production will not be up this year from last year, despite the opening of several new fields for production. They cite two primary reasons for this:

1. Hugo Chavez’s seizure of the entirety of their production capability in Venezuela (which, by the way, accounted for 15% of all consumption in the United States) and the significant losses incurred because of that action.
   
2. The maturation of old oil fields. Oil fields eventually run dry and the company has to replace them. Exxon takes large capital outlays to replace its lost production and attempt to grow, but Exxon also states that locating new oil fields is becoming increasingly more difficult in the face of environmentalist driven legislation.

Given that Exxon is the largest such company in the world, one could reasonably expect other private companies to be in the same boat. So, let’s go back to that graph discussed earlier and make the supply line vertical (which, the astute person will realize implies that supply is constant, which isn’t strictly speaking true).

This now means that demand (which consumers’ control) is the price determining factor. Simply put, if more is demanded, the price is going to go up because consumers are bidding against other consumers for a limited resource. Of course, demand is increasing, astronomically as a matter of fact. China, and especially India, have rapidly expanding middle class populations who are entering the marketplace for gasoline (and other petroleum products). The respective governments around the world are buying stockpiles of petroleum in mass quantities, and, of course, the US military is buying it in droves (what do you think engines run on, half-baked invasion plans?). For the foreseeable future this doesn’t look to change. So, go back to the graph and take the demand line and shift it up and to the right. As you can see, the market equilibrium point is now at a higher price.

Now that you know the secret to rising gas prices, what can you do about it? The honest answer is virtually nothing. You’re stuck with petroleum until a viable replacement enters the market. In the United States a hard look is being taken at bio-fuels, which create their own problems. Hydrogen is being looked at as another alternative, although the capital outlay necessary for the infrastructure development needed is prohibitive in the current market (in other words, gas isn’t expensive enough that people are willing to pay for hydrogen yet). Your best bet is to buy a fuel efficient vehicle if you’re trying to save money on your gas bill. Toyota and Kia lead the market on this with Toyota offering vehicles in the $20k range with better than 40mpg and Kia offering vehicles in the $11k to $15k range with mid to upper 30s in mpg estimates. Happy hunting and safe driving.

TEP is gearing up for its annual “Advancing Equality Day on The Hill” event. The event will start on February 18 at 3:30 PM with a candidate training at the Red Restaurant at the Tribe Bar on Church Street. The candidate training is free and open to the public, and is meant for those who may be interested in or who are already running for state office. After the candidate training there will be a reception in the small room at Tribe starting at 6PM. The event continues the next morning with a breakfast meeting at the Rymer Art Gallery on 6^th Avenue, where the Honorable Sherry Jones will deliver the keynote address. TEP will then relocate outside the office of Mr. Speaker Naifeh’s office while participants head out to meet with their legislators for the day.

Jenny Ford, TEP’s lobbyist has the following recommendations for visiting a state legislator:

1. Make an appointment.
2. Always arrive slightly early.
3. When you go in great the Legislative Assistant. Tell the assistant your name and that you have an appointment. Don’t sit until invited to do so. Remember, the LA is the guardian of the gate. Would you really want to make St. Peter mad at you as you try and enter the pearly gates?
4. Always have your notes and talking points ready in advance. Legislators are happy to meet with constituents, but we don’t pay them enough to listen to incoherent rambling on top.
5. Any time a legislator enters a room, stand up. They are elected officials and should be show the respect of their office.
6. When meeting with the legislator, remember to introduce yourself to them. The LA knows who you are, but chances are your legislator won’t remember you from the cheap coffee they had for breakfast that morning.
7. Make your points, thank them for the meeting, and keep it on topic. It bears repeating.

TEP also has general recommendations for any time you visit the State Capitol, no matter what your reason for visiting. Most of these should be common sense, but experience dictates they’re not, so here goes:

1. Dress appropriately. The State Capitol is a place of business and very important business at that. Leave your purple hair dye and t-shirts at home. By appropriate dress, we mean business casual. Gentlemen, that means a shirt and tie. Ladies, it means something you can wear hose with. A good rule of thumb: would you wear it while asking Bill Gates for a job? If you answered no to that, back to the closet.
2. Have a photo identification with you. This is post 9/11. Security will not let you in if you do not have ID.
3. If you get lost, ask for directions. The legislators, assistants, and state troopers will be more than happy to direct you in the proper direction.

The Tennessee Equality project is a non-profit organization incorporated in the state of Tennessee. It exists to promote equal rights for Tennesseans regardless of sexuality. The views of TEP do not necessarily reflect the views of the author, Clarksville Online or its staff. For more information please visit TEP at their website

Anne Frank penned those words 64 years ago while she hid from the Nazi regime in Amsterdam. However, on this day, when we commemorate the Holocaust perpetuated by Nazi Germany against Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Slavs, Catholics, and many others, we should be saddened and sobered by the fact the cruelty of which she wrote has not truly ended, but continues on in our own world.” ~The Diary of Anne Frank (1943).

Often, when we look back at the holocaust, we fail to realize our own blame in its occurrence. Before anyone starts sending death threats, think about if for a moment. Yes, the ultimate force behind the deaths of some 11 million people was Hitler and the National Socialists. However, we must remember, the Holocaust started in 1933, six years before war broke out, and seven (almost eight actually) years before the United States became actively involved in the conflict that became World War II. Dachau, first of the concentration camps, opened in that year, while at the same time, the Jews were barred from Civil Service and multiple professions. Hitler went unchallenged by the rest of the world.

In 1935, when the Nuremberg laws were passed, stripping citizenship from Holocaust victims, Hitler went unchallenged. When Hitler annexed Austria, it was allowed. It wasn’t until Germany invaded Poland that Britain and France, admittedly unprepared, declared open war on the Nazi regime. Even then, the goal was not the end of concentration camps and oppression, but the protection of British and French interests in Europe.

As the world turned a blind eye in the hope of avoiding conflict, the foundation for terrible atrocities was laid, atrocities that were carried out 64 years ago. “New” terrible atrocities have been carried out through this century, and continue even now in parts of the world where we turn a blind eye. In 1991, Rwanda experienced a mass ethnically motivated genocide. The Darfur region of Sudan is locked in bloody struggle now. Liberia and Sierra Leone suffered under regimes of mass hatred and violence that killed untold numbers. Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge decimated populations. Millions died under the Marxist-Leninist regimes in Russia, China, and Vietnam. Serbian actions in Kosovo drew international attention to the Balkans, part ofa supposedly free and calm Europe.

In 2005, during the 60th session of its General Assembly, the United Nations passed the first proposal ever put forth by the state of Israel. The proposal, co-sponsored by the United States, Great Britain, and France, declares January 27 (the anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by the Red Army) as United Nations Holocaust Remembrance Day. On this day, let us remember the victims of that event. As we remember them, however, let us also remind ourselves of the solemn promise made at the end of World War II, “Never Again!.”

How many times can we say it and not mean it before “Never Again!” becomes and empty promise that no one believes?

Unfortunately, this means Tennesseans often have to rely on news media sound bytes to obtain information about the candidates. However, since news media are businesses and therefore have as their proper goal the making of money, this often leaves viewers with precious little information about how the candidates would actually go about running the county and a disturbing amount about their private lives.

Let’s be honest, does it really matter than Barrack Obama has an Islamic heritage, that Hillary didn’t leave Bill, that Mitt Romney is Mormon or that John McCain allows his adult children to live their own lives?

With this in mind, the author has put together a series of articles about how the candidates stand on some of the hottest issues of today, from abortion to the Iraq war. With that in mind, there are a few necessary disclaimers. First, the author wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to OnTheIssues for doing most of the leg work for these articles. Despite their sometimes apparent bias, their repository includes sources for its statements that allowed for easy backtracking to the original source to produce the truth. Secondly, the author wishes to note that the opinions and interpretations of the candidates and their stances on the issues are his own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Clarksville Online, its publisher, or any other member of its staff. Further, the author realizes that he has not included analysis on every possible candidate and at no point intends to do so.

An issue that has become recurring throughout recent political cycles has been that of abortion, with people holding positions from outright bans in all circumstances to completely unregulated abortion. Most politicians do not hold such extreme positions as a matter of political necessity, but there is a wide range in positions among the candidates in this election cycle. Generally Democrats are painted as supporting abortion while Republicans are stereotyped as being staunchly anti-abortion. However, the truth is that these labels are not entirely correct in the current field.

Barrack Obama surprised many with his victory in the Iowa caucuses. How does he feel about abortion, though? Obama believes very strongly in the woman’s right to choose. As the junior senator from Illinois, Obama voted against the partial birth abortion ban. Senator Obama also voted against the bill that would require parental notification for minors seeking abortions outside their home state. Obama advocates age appropriate sex education that includes information about family planning and contraceptive use. Senator Obama says he believes that women should be trusted to make their own decisions regarding abortion, but he also says that he extends the presumption of good faith to abortion protestors. Overall then, Barrack Obama has a very permissive attitude towards abortion in line with the hardcore liberal stance.

Hillary Clinton was the front-runner up until the first primary but had a very disappointing finish there. Mrs. Clinton has a somewhat more centrist view of abortion than Senator Obama that has changed somewhat over the years. Clinton’s failed 1993 national health care plan included the legality and widespread availability of RU-486 and traditional abortion procedures. She has also labored strongly to have the Contraceptive Plan B (the so-called “Morning After Pill”) placed on the market.

Clinton, however, has some consistency problems. Senator Clinton indicates that she supports the banning of late term abortion, but she voted against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban that included provisions for the life of the mother. Clinton also claims to support parental notification for minors seeking abortion, but she voted against that bill too. The Senator did, however, vote for a bill that would fund sex education including information on family planning. Clinton says she believes abortion should be safe, legal and rare. She supports the Cairo document, which claims abortion is a right but not a tool for family planning. Overall, Senator Clinton’s words would suggest someone with a more populist view of abortion supporting reasonable restrictions. However, her voting record is somewhat at odds with this and suggests that in practice she adheres more closely to the liberal line.

Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee kicks off the Republican side of the issue. Huckabee staunchly opposes abortion in any form. He says that states rights do not exist for moral issues such as abortion. The Governor says that he would ban all abortion if able and that no consensus with pro-choice advocates is possible as he believes that they want a fundamentally different world from pro-life advocates. Huckabee was part of the leadership that led Arkansas to passing a Human Life amendment to the state constitution expressly stating that life begins at conception.

Huckabee believes that it will be a good day for America when (not if) Roe v. Wade is overturned and until then, he has stated there should be no tax dollars for organizations that fund abortion. Governor Huckabee is also a staunch supporter of Woman’s Right to Know legislation. Governor Huckabee has criticized other Republicans for their stances claiming that hating but allowing abortion, stating that it’s like saying “I hate slavery, but people can go ahead and practice it.” Overall, Governor Huckabee is very consistently against abortion, in all circumstances. Mr. Huckabee takes the hardcore conservative line on abortion.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani takes a more populist view on abortion. Giuliani has stated that he would not sign a Federal ban on abortions. He believes that the government should not be involved and that the ultimate choice should be made by a woman and her health care providers. However, the former Mayor does support the Partial Birth Abortion Ban despite opposing parental notification requirements.

Mr. Giuliani, as Mayor, supported adoption and other alternatives to abortion in an effort to decrease the abortion rate by providing other suitable alternatives to having an abortion. As President, he says he would leave individual states to decide whether or not to fund abortion. He claims he would appoint constructionist judges, but that there would be no litmus test for any nominee he put forward. Overall, Giuliani takes the stand that abortion should remain legal, but that it can be reasonably regulated. His stance fits well with the populist line, although his stance on parental notification bucks that trend.

Senator McCain is the moderate conservative on abortion. Senator McCain said he was concerned about women undergoing dangerous and illegal procedures if the culture and views surrounding abortion were not changed before it was outlawed. Senator McCain believes that abortion is acceptable in cases of rape, incest or medical necessity as determined by a medical professional, and that the benefit of the doubt should be extended to a person claiming rape or incestuous pregnancy. Senator McCain claims that he wishes for Americans to work together to make Roe v. Wade and abortions irrelevant.

Senator McCain’s voting record supports this philosophy for the most part. McCain voted to strip tax money from organizations that support or perform abortions. Senator McCain also voted in favor of the Parental Notification bill and in favor of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. He also voted yes on attaching a criminal penalty to harming an unborn fetus while committing a crime. Despite his claim of supporting alternative to abortion and seeking to make it irrelevant, however, Senator McCain did vote against funding for sex education that includes information on other family planning options as well as contraceptives. Overall Senator McCain has a mdoerate conservative view of abortion, which is fundamentally a view against abortion.

Other candidates generally fall into camp with one of those positions. John Edwards toes the Obama Clinton line. Mitt Romney professes to being roughly in line with Huckabee, although his sincerity on that point could be legitimately questioned given his pro-choice stance as Governor. Fred Thompson is very similar to Senator McCain in his views of abortion, although he opposed the parental notification bill and does include a litmus test for judges. Representative Ron Paul is the odd-man out for both parties, in keeping with his more libertarian mindset and his voting record could reasonably place him on both sides of the fence. However, Ron Paul appears to consistently take decisions that remove the Government from the realm of sex in general, including abortion, at any point in any fashion (he voted against both abstinence only AND comprehesive sex ed, for example) although he did support the partial birth abortion ban.

The Tennessee Code, Constitution, and at least theoretically the United States Constitution provide that private property may only be taken for ‘public use’ and then only after ‘just compensation’ has been given. The Tennessee Code theoretically should prohibit the proposed action, except for the minor problem that theory is fine and well, but as written the title does absolutely nothing to affect the actual eminent domain power with its list of exceptions and lack of definitions of the key terms involved.

This leaves us with a fall back to the United States Constitution. However, the Supreme Court has held that it is legitimate for a government to seize property from one private holder and transfer it to another private holder for virtually any conceivable purpose. The city in this case can simply declare swathes of land blighted and assign it to some entity to correct its status. This is wrong and all Americans should be morally opposed to this action and on the socialist/collectivist philosophy on which it rests.

Let us start by accurately defining eminent domain. The ‘definition’ generally given is “the taking of private property for public use.” However, a better definition would be “extortion by the governmental authority.” Why is this? To begin with, there is no such entity as the public because it consists entirely of individuals. Therefore the idea that the ‘public interest’ supersedes private interests and rights can mean only one thing: the interests and rights of some individuals take precedence over the interests and rights of some others, or more specifically the desire of some individuals for property they did not earn and freely obtain is more important than the rights of the individuals who did earn their property and do not wish to liquidate it. Therefore that which you own will be taken by force (police power of the government) and given to someone else (which is the definition of extortion).

Why can’t anyone stop this? The truth is that eminent domain itself is not the underlying problem, but a symptom of the perverse ideology that grips America. Recall that in the capitalist model of politics the individual and his rights are sacred, including his property rights. Eminent domain exists in such a situation solely as the extension of the legitimate police power (IE: if you use your property for illegal acts you have forfeited your right to said property).

However, America does not exist under such a system. Instead, politicians readily accept the idea that it is permissible to take from one individual and give to another. Actually, they even call it moral. The American political system is currently operating under the delusion that people have some right to something they have not earned, ranging from Medicaid to Food Stamps, Housing and Urban Development, Sub-Prime Bail Out, and yes eminent domain — which are all based on the mistaken idea that some ‘public good’ (a term which suffers the same exact problem as public use) makes the violation of the rights of man acceptable and moral. So long as this perversely immoral philosophical viewpoint is allowed to exist eminent domain will not stop and the Clarksville Center Redevelopment Plan will likely be continued as planned. Of course, the left really shouldn’t be so shocked. After all, their philosophy of altruism enforced by government power made it possible.

Paradise is the second part of O’Malley’s famous war trilogy and is set amidst the horrifying conflict between Israel and the Palestinian terrorists. The play follows the lives of two young girls, one Israeli and one Palestinian who in another place could have been friends. O’Malley follows their lives, their teenage crushes, their dreams as the cloud and horror of war looms over them and colors their world.

The show was first requested by The Cincinnati Playhouse as part of its educational outreach, but in the Post 9-11 world, the tour was cancelled and a threat was made to cease the production. However, the play eventually opened to a sold out opening night at the Kirk Theatre on New York’s Theatre Row in March 2005 for a limited run, and has since played to standing room only audiences through out the United States.

While O’Malley was a playwright at APSU, he often pointed the tragic events of 9-11 as the genesis for his war trilogy. The playwright spent the last five years of his life probing the psyches of religious fanatics, who commit unfathomable atrocities in the name of their God, and the victims of those atrocities. What O’Malley reminds us of in his trilogy is that those victims are not just on the battlefield, but also in those left behind at home during war, or in this case, two little girls caught up in a conflict they do not understand in a world that seems to be falling apart little by little around them.

While at Austin Peay, Glynn O’Malley met the widow of a fallen Fort Campbell soldier. Eventually, O’Malley established the Sgt. Ariel Rico Memorial Scholarship designated for the children of dead or wounded soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division. APSU’s production is directed by Dr. Sarah Gotcher, a long-time friend and associate of O’Malley. The play will run from Wednesday through Sunday with shows at 7:30 PM and a 2:00 PM matinee show on Sunday. The cost is $4.00 for students and $6.00 for General Admissions. Dr. Gotcher, respecting the wishes of O’Malley, has stated that all proceeds from the production will be given to the Sgt. Ariel Rico Scholarship. To reserve tickets call the Trahern Theatre ticket booth at (931) 221-7379.

Click here to view the embedded video.
A video dedicated to the Day of Silence. A day dedicated to those who have been silenced over the years. Not the Average American

As the last event the GSA is hosting this year, it hopes to help give a voice to those whose voices cannot be heard. According to the GSA leadership, the message of the Day of Silence is a very important one. James Butler, GSA secretary, notes how the decision was made to bring the event to the Austin Peay campus, “Basically, we [Butler, David Shelton, and Curtis Davis] were sitting around at one of our weekly get-togethers and we said ‘wouldn’t it be great if?’ and things went from there.”

In the end, the GSA hopes that everyone will take the time to think about the voices that they aren’t hearing and decide to listen.

Shelton’s performance began with an introductory speech by Miss Amber Gaulden, vice-president of the GSA which started off the night’s pattern of somewhat offbeat humor with Miss Gaulden making slight jabs at the potential controversial nature. That was followed by Shelton doing a brief presentation on the upcoming Day of Silence to warm up the audience before beginning his presentation with an analysis of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, before then proceeding to read from his book.

Shelton’s presentation was both highly thought provoking and somewhat irreverent, with Shelton at one point joking, “If God doesn’t destroy Los Angeles, he owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.” However, despite the worry of controversy none appeared during the presentation. Attendees were courteous, and polite, including during a somewhat tense question and answer period where attendees asked Shelton a variety of questions including several about his interpretation of certain verses from the biblical scripture.

When asked after the presentation, however, about his feelings over the appearance that some attendees deeply disagreed with him, Shelton stated, “There are plenty who read my articles who disagree with me on nearly everything. I’m okay with that. I contend one thing: the dialogue must continue.” It appears that Shelton certainly opened dialogue that night.

In his book, Shelton tackles the question “Can a person be both gay and a christian?” According to Shelton the answer is a resounding “yes!” However, unlike other books that have been devoted to this topic, Shelton’s work attempts to take a conversational tone with the reader. According to Shelton the research dissertation tone of other works on this topic detracts from its usability as a resource for gay christians. The book is already gathering positive reviews.

Shelton and the Gay Straight Alliance would like to invite everyone out to the Gentry Auditorium (Kimbrough Building, Room 119) tonight to hear his presentation on the book. There will be light refreshments served and the evening is expected to have a moderate turnout and proceed without incident. Check back later for more detailed coverage of the event after it is done.

I am more inclined to side with the Viacom Corporation. As the copyright holder, Viacom does and ought to have the sole right to reproduce the work, to distribute copies of the work, and publically perform or display the work. These rights can in no way be lessened or abrogated by the fact Viacom doesn’t wish to devote the necessary manpower to watch YouTube continuously to watch for violations, and even if they did, in all likelihood they would not be able to catch all of them. For instance a search for MTV turns up more than 31,000 references, Comedy Central a little more than 1,000, and Paramount a little under 2,000 and that only includes videos that explicitly reference those terms not videos that may solely be referenced by the name of the work or in some other way hidden from obvious detection. A search for Sailor Moon, a show whose original production run ended 10 years ago to the day, reveals more than 29,000 results including three full length movies in multiple languages and all 200 episodes in varying languages. It would be physically impossible for most copyright holders to search through YouTube to insure their rights aren’t being violated. Consider, we hardly require authors to read every publication in the United States to keep their rights from being violated, we instead insist that publishes refrain from publishing material in violation of copyright and hold them accountable when they do. The proper solution for YouTube here is to own up and take appropriate proactive steps on policing itself. YouTube’s current copyright policy requires (recreated under the public domain doctrine concerning policies and regulations):

1. A physical or electronic signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.

2. Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed, or, if multiple copyrighted works at a single online site are covered by a single notification, a representative list of such works at that site.

3. Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity and that is to be removed or access to which is to be disabled, and information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to locate the material.

4. Information reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the complaining party, such as an address, telephone number, and, if available, an electronic mail address at which the complaining party may be contacted.

5. A statement that the complaining party has a good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

6. A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed

All be submitted in writing for each alleged violation. The burden all of this places on copyright owners is excessive and could be easily avoided by YouTube hiring a staff member or two who are charged with proactively dealing with copyright issues. Additionally, YouTube should take steps to prevent users from immediately replacing a removed clip with another one. Naturally, some violators would still get through, but in fairness to YouTube, at the level of volume involved it’s understandable and just the good faith effort to prevent the violation of copyright would go a long way towards soothing the ruffled feathers of copyright holders.

I recently received electronic mail from a friend of mine encouraging people to write to the companies responsible for bringing Coulter’s venomous rhetoric into the public and encourage those companies to end their relationship with Coulter. The suggestion is actually a great idea. The media operates in a free market (or at least, in name) meaning that as long as Coulter attracts significant attention and makes them money she will continue to be featured by various media. The best method of getting rid of Coulter, and coincidentally all the other two-bit venomous commentators of America, is to convince the people that air their rhetoric that it would be in their economic best interests to sever their ties with them. Of course, a necessary corollary to this plan is to stop paying attention to the likes of Coulter, or to make a joke on Coulter’s own words, let her encourage us to conserve energy when we see her on TV by cutting it off and ignoring her.