E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Google Plus
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017
April 2017
May 2017
June 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Seat belt laws are abut money, not safety.

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

The report in the Herald-Times on January 21 demonstrates that the increased effort to cite motorists for seat belt violations is about money, not about safety. The H-T reported an officer said "officers volunteer for the seat-belt duty and are required to make a certain number of stops to comply with the grant."

So there you have it. The purpose here is to get more overtime pay for police officers and more money in tickets for local government. When the nanny state regulates our behavior "for our own good" it is always about power and money, not about public safety. The fact that there are quotas for tickets proves this is a shadow tax increase.

We have become far too willing to allow government to micromanage our lives. It is incredibly foolish and stupid to not wear a safety belt. Had I not been wearing a safety belt a few years ago, I would have been seriously injured in an accident. But it should not be up to government to regulate private choices that only increase private risk and do not directly cause harm to other persons.

And what business does the federal government have in funding local government's efforts to squeeze money out of people who foolishly choose not to wear safety belts? Where in the Constitution is the federal government given this authority? Does not the Tenth Amendment reserve powers not specifically delegated to the federal government to the states or the people?

My pastor often says that when you eliminate God's moral law, you do not get fewer laws. Instead, you replace God's moral law with an infinite number of man's petty laws. It is beyond depraved that someone can be pulled over in front of 421 South College Avenue and fined for increasing risk to himself, but that same person can legally have her child murdered inside the Planned Parenthood building at that address.

Monday, January 30, 2012

Pro-abortion terrorism in Bloomington

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:30 AM (#)

Last week, I criticized the immature response of pro-abortion demonstrators who showed up at the Rally for Life, carrying signs such as "free vasectomies for pro-lifers" and trying to shout down our speakers. Had that been the extent of their childish behavior, that would have been fine. But on January 26, pro-abortion radicals, wearing bandannas to hide their faces, committed an act of terrorism in front of the Planned Parenthood clinic.

While abortion opponents were peacefully picketing Planned Parenthood and trying to convince the women going into the clinic not to kill their children, pro-abortion terrorists arrived with water balloons and threw the balloons and chunks of ice melt at the pro-life demonstrators. It is interesting that they targeted a woman and a black man, suggesting racist and misogynistic motives for the attack in addition to a political motive.

And yes, this absolutely is terrorism. The use of violence to achieve a political end is by definition an act of terrorism. The purpose of this criminal act was to intimidate and threaten those who were peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights to speak on an issue of public debate. The purpose was to use violence and threats of violence to prevent people from expressing a position the pro-abortion extremists dislike.

Of course, pro-abortion trolls on HeraldTimesOnline immediately defended the terrorists and said they should not have even been arrested. One pro-abortion troll suggested pro-lifers deserve "far worse" and another suggested they should have used condoms instead.

Imagine for a moment that people picketing Planned Parenthood had thrown water balloons and chunks of ice melt at clinic escorts. Imagine for a moment that anti-abortion extremists had thrown water balloons and chunks of ice melt at people attending an abortion rights rally at City Hall.

The Left would be hysterically screeching and shrieking about "anti-abortion terrorists" and there would be calls for government action. The very same pro-abortion trolls (who hide behind fake names like spineless, sniveling pathetic cowards) would be hysterically denouncing the anti-abortion violence and each and every one of them knows it. They are two-faced, fork-tongued hypocrites!

Action needs to be taken to punish these terrorists to the fullest extent of the law. Prosecutor Chris Gaal (a Democrat who voted to fund Planned Parenthood with tax dollars while he was a City Councilor every year from 2000 to 2006) needs to aggressively pursue charges against these terrorists to see they are punished.

But that is not enough. Federal action needs to be taken as well. These people need to be prosecuted by federal prosecutors under terrorism statutes. The Obama Justice Department needs to show that it takes terrorism seriously and will not tolerate the use of violence and intimidation to prevent people from exercising their free speech rights under the First Amendment. Both Obama and Gaal need to make an example of these people by punishing them to the fullest extent of the law.

But that is not enough. Bloomington claims to be a "safe and civil city." Both the Bloomington City Council and the Monroe County Council need to pass resolutions condemning this act of terrorism in the strongest terms and naming it as terrorism. The resolution should also call for everyone involved in the abortion debate to refrain from violence.

It should be pointed out that the only violence that has taken place outside of Bloomington's abortion mill (to say nothing of the hundreds murdered inside that damnable building) has been perpetrated by pro-abortion extremists, and this is not the first time that peaceful abortion opponents have been attacked. It is time to draw a very clear line in the sand and send a message that this will not be tolerated.

Much like the Earth Liberation Front terrorists a decade ago, the pro-abortion terrorists who perpetrated the crimes on Thursday have done more damage to their cause than their opponents could have done in a century of activism.. When will Bloomington's radical fringe Leftists learn that violence in pursuit of political ends (also known as terrorism) is not only wicked, but incredibly destructive to the very cause they advance?

Sunday, January 29, 2012

The fake Don Imus "controversy" revisited

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 11:40 AM (#)

Brent Bozell attacks the double standard on the use of the word "ho" and argues this "was about race."

Actually, while there was a racial element to the manufactured crisis, it was not about race or appropriate language. It was much more sinister than that. It was about criminalizing speech Leftists do not like. Se my previous posts about this fiasco from April 10, 2007, April 15, 2007 and August 16, 2007.

Friday, January 27, 2012

Random thoughts of the day

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

♣ I would never sign a fidelity pledge as a candidate for any office. I already made my vow to my wife in 2001 before God and His church. Signing a political fidelity pledge cheapens the marriage vow and reduces a covenant with God to a political statement. It's sickening and these groups should be ashamed of themselves for asking candidates to sign it. Candidates should be ashamed of themselves for signing them instead of rebuking this disrespect for marriage.

♣ This is why "Anonymous" is stupid. They propose to protest SOPA by taking down an opponent of SOPA! Why would you attack your allies? This will only serve to backfire and discredit "Anonymous" as a bunch of spoiled brats who can't be taken seriously. Shut up, already, you bunch of morons.

♣ So yet another American is being held hostage by the Iranian government. The answer to this problem is obvious. If the American hostage is still alive when Ahmadinejad comes back to New York, we arrest Ahmadinejad and hold him hostage. If the American hostage is executed, we retaliate. When Ahmadinejad comes back to New York to deliver a "speech" to the United Nations, he will be arrested and summarily executed.

♣ Rachel Maddow has taken to describing Indiana's Right to Work proposal as "stripping union rights." That's not the case, as this is not the same as taking away collective bargaining rights from state employees, as has been done elsewhere. Right to Work actually gives employees more choice by making compulsory union membership illegal. Which raises the obvious question: What are unions and Democrats afraid of, regarding allowing employees to choose?

♣ President Obama opened his State of The Union speech by praising soldiers returning from Iraq for making us safer. Obama is famous for saying the war in Iraq was "a dumb war." Obama said in January 2008 that Al Qaida was stronger that it was in 2001 because Iraq "distracted" us. Obama said in October 2004 that the Iraq war has made the United States less safe from terrorism and that it was a bad strategic blunder. Could Obama be any more of a hypocrite?

Thursday, January 26, 2012

Penn State fan whines about being "disrespected"

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 6:50 AM (#)

There was some extra-pathetic whining and crying in a letter to the editor from a Penn State fan today:

Dressed in our Penn State gear, my wife and I were treated very rudely by many different people. I have never seen such blatant disrespect by people of all ages.

I know Penn State’s reputation has taken a big hit recently, but maybe people in Indiana don’t realize that every person who roots for Penn State did not commit a horrible crime.

No, but Penn State "fans" did behave like Muslim terrorists when Joe Paterno was fired. As I said before, I actually have exponentially more respect for the Muslim terrorists than the Penn State "students" though, because (while their religion is false) the Muslim terrorists are at least rioting in defense of their god's honor, instead of something so meaningless as college football.

Wednesday, January 25, 2012

Improving black people's lives is not racist

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

This is where we are in racial politics in America: Recognizing the problems faced by minorities and proposing the need to fix those problems is a "racist" argument that amounts to "scapegoating" minorities. This is why it is so difficult to address racial issues in America.

Enter Newt Gingrich, who has criticized Barack Obama as a "food stamp President" and argues we need to find a way to have blacks earning paychecks instead of getting government benefits. Gingrich was immediately attacked for being divisive and racist, and his rhetoric was compared to shouting "n****r, n****r, n****r."

Because I live in Literalville, I am compelled to examine the statistics. TheGrio.com article even admits that 2010 Census data shows that 26 percent of food stamp recipients were black. That is more than double the percentage of blacks in the population. Clearly, this is a problem.

Government benefits, ideally, should be a stop-gap measure to help people though a difficult time and let them get on their feet. (Of course, in a perfect world all poor relief would be handled by churches and private charities.) For far too many people off all races, government benefits have become a way of life instead. This is not compassionate. It is oppressive. People are designed by God to want to provide for themselves, not to be provided for by others.

There are reasons why blacks tend to get some government benefits at a higher rate than whites, and some of those root causes (like out of wedlock births) will need to be addressed in a rational and adult manner. (It should be pointed out that illegitimacy is a problem across all races.) But the important thing here is solutions to improve the lives of as many blacks as possible. How could that possibly be racist?

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

Two verses from a new father

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:30 AM (#)

Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth. -- Ephesians 6:1-3

Children, obey your parents in all things: for this is well pleasing unto the Lord. -- Colossians 3:20

Monday, January 23, 2012

2012 Rally for Life draws 200, plus immature opposition

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

About two hundred people attended the 2012 Rally for Life on Sunday, about the same amount as has attended the last several years. It has been ten years since I got active in the annual event to oppose abortion, and this particular year was very encouraging due to the inclement weather and the previous day's ice storm.

Joseph Bayly (pastor of ClearNote Church in Indianapolis) opened with a quote about a great moral evil:

We must not call it wrong in politics because that is bringing morality into politics, and we must not call it wrong in the pulpit because that is bringing politics into religion... and there is no single place, according to you, where this wrong thing can properly be called wrong!

That was Abraham Lincoln speaking about slavery, but it could easily have been said by someone today about the even greater evil of abortion. Too many churches abandon God's commandment to defend the innocent from those who would oppress them because they don't want to get into politics. When Christians speak about the evil of murdering unborn children, we are told that you can't legislate one religion's beliefs.

Pastor Bayly saved his exhortation for the crowd, rather than our opponents in the fight over abortion. He spoke of a hypothetical pro-life Republican who practices in vitro fertilization, not understanding that the embryos discarded are made in the image of God. Christians do not speak nearly often enough against the "morning after pill" or stem cell research, and many Christians are willingly ignorant of the fact that the birth control pill can kill a newly created life by preventing implantation. We do not speak because we fear losing ground financially.

We have had counter-protesters before, but this year was different in that the immature pro-abortion activists tried to actively shout down the speakers. In this, they demonstrated their hatred for free speech by seeking to silence those advocating a viewpoint they disagree with. I do not respect these people for this reason and another reason.

If you want to be taken seriously, make a serious argument. By holding a sign that reads "fun ends at conception" or "free vasectomies for pro-lifers" you are proving that you do not take the argument seriously enough to make a coherent case for your position. If you do not behave in a way worthy of respect, then you should not expect to be treated with respect. Furthermore, chanting that abortion opponents "don't care when women die" is absurd on its face for an event that is more than half female.

Perhaps in the future, we can have a reasonable debate with counter-protesters at the Rally for Life, but when the only purpose is to mock, taunt and ridicule, reasonable and serious discussion is impossible.

See pictures from the 2012 Rally for Life here.

Sunday, January 22, 2012

Pictures from the 2012 Rally for Life

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 9:30 PM (#)

See pictures from today's event here.

Check back tomorrow for my report on the rally.

Friday, January 20, 2012

Don't forget: 2012 Rally for Life this Sunday!

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:30 AM (#)

2012 Rally for Life
When:Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.
Where: Monroe County Courthouse lawn
Why: To be a voice for the victims of abortion.

Thursday, January 19, 2012

Mitt Romney snatches defeat from the jaws of victory

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:30 AM (#)

I have often complained about Republicans' uncanny ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, and Mitt Romney proved that he also has that ability by comparing his tenure at Bain Capital to Barack Obama's takeover of automotive companies. This was such a missed opportunity to contrast his record to Obama's record.

The differences between Romney and Obama are striking. First and most importantly, Romney's action was one of private enterprise, not centralized government control. Romney should have said that Obama eliminated jobs as President, and people in private industry will not have to worry about having that happen if Romney is President. The distinction between private enterprise and top-down government control is one that cannot be emphasized strongly enough.

Secondly, Romney could have pointed out that decisions made by Bain Capital were market based decisions, while Obama's actions with the auto companies were motivated by politics. Aside from the fact that all decisions made by government are inherently political decisions, Obama's goal was not to help the auto companies. Obama's goal was security for the unions, to be repaid with campaign volunteers and contributions to both Obama and the Democratic Party.

Republicans also need stop attacking Romney for his "I like to fire people" remark. First of all, it is dishonest. Romney was clearly talking about the free market working in consumers choosing a different health insurance company, or any other company that doesn't serve you well. People make those decisions all the time, whether it is to shop at one grocery store over another selection and prices to switching to a different phone company or internet access provider because the offer from the new company is better. I have "fired" a certain phone company twice, and I thoroughly enjoyed it both times.

Republicans are also handing Obama a weapon to use against us. If Romney is the nominee, Obama will echo Republicans attacking Romney over Bain Capital. Even if Romney is not the nominee, Obama will use that line of attack against the Republican nominee by saying the GOP would not protect workers against the "evil" corporations. Because the corporations sit there in their corporation buildings, and they're all corporationy, and they make money.

Bottom line: Republicans should not be attacking free enterprise. Republicans should be defending free enterprise and attacking government overreach into our lives and into the economy. When Republicans use the rhetoric of the Left, we set ourselves up for defeat.

Wednesday, January 18, 2012

You can't separate the ST from the D

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:30 AM (#)

Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. -- 1 Corinthians 6:18

A physician in Bloomington is joining with the CDC to advocate that boys get the vaccine for the Human Papilloma Virus.

First, given the public health issues on the table, it is a good idea to have wider use of the vaccine. Fewer people will become infected with HPV, and therefore fewer will die from cancer caused by HPV. But the good this does is basically using your finger to plug the hole in a structurally unsound dam instead of repairing the dam.

The sad thing about this is that the vaccine for HPV only works to prevent the symptoms of sexual license rather than dealing with the problem of sexual license itself, which has led to innumerable broken lives, the spread of sexually transmitted diseases like AIDS, HPV and many others, and the breakdown of the American family. As society has been under assault by sexual license, we have to pay more taxes to deal with the problems caused by sexual license.

The reality is that those who practice Biblical sexual morality will not get HPV or any other STD. These diseases are called "sexually transmitted diseases" for a reason, because unless you engage in the behaviors that spread the disease you will not be exposed to the disease.

Yes, there are exceptions to this. However, can we please be adults and recognize that limited exceptions to a general truth do not invalidate that general truth?

If we are going to be serious about stopping the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, we are going to have to have a realistic conversation about what we can to do eliminate the behaviors that spread those diseases. You simply cannot separate the ST from the D, and we cannot continue to hide from this plain and simple fact. Government should not advance any policy that encourages sexual immorality, buy beyond that there is little that can be done in public policy.

No, the real failure here is with the church. The church has completely and utterly failed to preach and teach about sexual morality and the boundaries God has placed on sexual behavior. The church has failed to rebuke and discipline sexual sin, instead choosing to remain a few steps behind the culture's latest foray into depravity. In order to honor God and safeguard public health and the structure of society, that needs to change.

See previous posts from December 31, 2005 and February 28, 2007.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Who will stand for the unborn in Bloomington?

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 10:00 AM (#)

Bloomington Herald-Times, January 16, 2012. (Comments.)

To the editor:

The question hovering over the sex abuse scandal at Penn State "University" is why no one intervened to stop the abuse, especially when someone walked in on the abuse.

The question hovering over the disappearance of Lauren Spierer is why someone who knows what happened to her has not come forward to share the information and find her.

It is easy to sit in judgment and say we would have done something or we would have said something in those cases. But are we really any better?

Four blocks south of the Monroe County Courthouse, children are killed every Thursday by the abortionist at Planned Parenthood. There were 845 unborn babies killed in Monroe County in 2007 alone. (See http://www.in.gov/isdh/reports/itp/2007/tbl12.htm)

Yet most of us drive on by the "clinic" where babies die every week, blissfully unaware of (or purposefully ignoring) the slaughter that goes on behind those dark grey walls. Who will stand up to Planned Parenthood and tell them to stop this wicked abomination in the eyes of God?

January 22 will be the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. Come to the Monroe County Courthouse at 2:00 pm and be a voice for the victims of abortion.

Monday, January 16, 2012

In defense of negative campaigning

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 9:30 AM (#)

Note: This editorial was originally written back in 2008. With the Presidential campaign in full gear, and with local and state elections heating up, negative campaigning needs to be defended again.

We hear it every election year. People complain about negative campaigning, attack ads, and the "uncivil" tone of the campaigns. Those complaints get the most attention in a Presidential election year, but there are complaints about candidates going negative in city, county and state elections as well. And yet, every single election season, there are more negative ads from both parties, and within party primaries. Why? Because they work.

It seems that many people casually observing politics think that "negative" and "uncivil" are the same thing. That is not the case. While it is true that nasty personal attacks are common, there are also many valuable, issue-oriented negative ads that inform the voters and enhance the debate. I would argue that in many cases, a candidate for elective office has a responsibility to the voters to go negative at some point in the campaign, especially in a policy-making office from Congress down to county commissioner.

Suppose Candidate A believes Candidate B's tax policy will slow economic growth and/or is unfair to a significant portion of citizens, and B's tax policy is getting no (or favorable) coverage in the media. A should then run an advertisement and communicate with voters about why B's tax policy will not only fail to solve the problems it proposes to fix, but will actually make things worse. B then has an opportunity to respond to the A's arguments in his own ad, perhaps criticizing A's tax plan. Voters then come away able to make a more educated choice.

Obviously, the above is a purely hypothetical example you're likely to hear in a political science class instead of what often happens in the real world. But the fact of the matter is that there are good negative ads that serve a useful purpose in every election season. Those who complain that a campaign is "too negative" lump the good negative ads in with the bad negative ads. It is a "pox on both houses" argument that may make someone feel above the fray, but provides little in the way of content.

Clearly, positive campaigning is needed too. Candidates and political parties need to give voters a reason to vote for them in addition to voting against the other candidate. The 1994 Contract with America provides a good template for how to do that. The Republicans certainly attacked the Democrats for supporting President Clinton's policies, but they also outlined a positive agenda and gave people something to vote for. Republicans should have learned in 2006 that telling voters, especially your base, that the other side is worse simply is not good enough. You have to provide a reason for people to vote for you. Unfortunately, I do not think that lesson has been learned.

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Polyamory will be the next fight

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 8:30 AM (#)

After an utterly sickening episode of ABC's Nightline this past week, it appears the next big push to break down the standards of sexual morality will be for polyamory. Let's examine what God's word has to say in Genesis 2:24:

Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Notice how "wife" is singular, not plural. The Apostle Paul follows up in Ephesians 5:31:

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

Notice how Scripture says the two shall become one flesh, not three or more. Also notice that this is a creation ordinance, having been established prior to the Fall. Christians need to be prepared to fight the world as it tries to make this depravity mainstream.

Friday, January 13, 2012

Santorum's classic libertarian position on contraception

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

Rick Santorum has the Left in a tizzy with his unashamed and unapologetic Christian faith and his uncompromising positions on sexual morality and protecting innocent human life. But some of the most hysterical screeching has come from those who say he would ban contraception. He won't.

As National Review points out, Santorum's position is actually the classic libertarian position regarding federal policy. State governments can choose to do what they wish and can ban it, while the federal government stays out of the debate. Furthermore, Santorum would eliminate federal funding for contraception as well as federal mandates that insurance coverage must cover contraception.

It is true that Santorum said a while back that he is the only Republican candidate who would address the issue of contraception. But he didn't actually say that he was going to seek to ban contraception. He said he would be the only candidate who would use the bully pulpit to speak about the issue and the harm it has done.

There's no question that Griswold v. Connecticut began the downhill slide regarding sexual morality. Once sexual activity became disconnected from responsibility for the consequences of the sex act, promiscuity and other sexual immorality followed. The divorce rate spiked, but even as the divorce rate stabilized we have seenb a worse consequense, which is an increasing number of couples are not getting married at all. Griswold laid the legal foundation for Roe v. Wade and a slaughter that is unprecedented in human history.

But let's say, hypothetically, that Santorum actually was advocating a federal ban on contraception. I happen to live in the real world, and in the real world that is not going to happen. There is not the political will to get it done. For crying out loud, it took eight years to finally get the barbaric practice of partial birth abortion banned, from when Congress started trying to pass it over President Clinton's veto in 1995 to it finally getting signed into law in 2003.

I take a position that goes a little bit farther. I think we should ban "contraceptives" that act as abortifacients. (This includes the so-called "morning after pill" as well as RU-486.) One of the great things about the debate over the "personhood" amendment in Mississippi is that after years of denying that the birth control pill acts as an abortifacient, abortion-rights advocates were forced to admit that the birth control pill can actually kill a fertilized egg by preventing implantation. If abortion opponents are serious when we say that human life begins at fertilization, then we should extend protection for all human life from that point forward.

See previous articles:

Thursday, January 12, 2012

Occupy Bloomington: Stupid statement of the day

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:20 AM (#)

Last week, Bloomington mayor Mark Kruzan (who had been very tolerant of Occupy Bloomington's camp on Kirkwood Avenue) decided to evict the Occupiers after one of them assaulted and injured a police officer during a rally.

Now, Occupy Bloomington gives us the stupid statement of the day:

Strange that a similar response was not seen when Indiana University students recently rioted in the streets of Bloomington after a basketball game against the University of Kentucky. Students broke car windows and a sunroof, surfed on cars and blocked traffic at an intersection while police stood by and smiled. No arrests were reported related to that incident, and I didn’t hear any threats of getting rid of IU’s gym.

Source: Bloomington Herald-Times

Really? Do I even need to explain how stupid this statement is?

Wednesday, January 11, 2012

Nanny state overreach or reasonable protection?

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

I have often complained about nanny state ninnies trying to micromanage our lives with things like legislation mandating prescriptions for pseudoephedrine. This is yet another step in punishing the innocent for the crimes of the guilty. So given my disdain for the nanny state, I found Reason's "nanny of the year award" interesting.

The age of consent in Michigan is 16, but that increases to 18 "if the relationship involves a school administrator or teacher," according to WoodTV.com. After a high school teacher had sex with an 18 year old female student, a Michigan state senator proposed removing the age limit. (See articles here, here, here and here.)

One of the criticisms of the law is that it is too broad and could have a 25-year-old adult education teacher go to prison for having sex with a 30-year-old student. That is silly and indicates the law was written in haste. The language should be tightened so that it only applies to traditional high school students.

But the main point of the law is reasonable. Because teachers have authority over their students and the power to influence the students' grades (and therefore their chances for getting into college as well as future career prospects) it should obviously be illegal for school employees to have sexual relations with high school students. The point is not regulating sex between consenting adults. The point is protecting students from possible academic blackmail.

Monday, January 9, 2012

"Do something" should not be the ultimate goal!

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:00 AM (#)

Crime is a serious problem in the heart of a major American city, and the people are clamoring for a solution to bring the crime rate under control. Politician X proposes that we level every building and kill every person in the high-crime areas of the city. With that part of the city a barren wasteland, we can now rebuild. There is no more crime because no people are left to commit crimes. This would "solve" the crime problem.

Sane people object to this plan, saying it is not only inhumane to indiscriminately slaughter people, it is evil. Politician X responds: "Well, what is YOUR solution? We have to do something!"

This is an admittedly absurd example, but I chose it to illustrate that "do something" is not always the best solution to a problem, because doing something destructive is worse than doing nothing at all.

This leads me to the following statement in the January 1 editorial in the Herald-Times:

Let’s hope all who win, on the national and state levels, are willing to work with their colleagues for the benefit of all.

The problem with the Herald-Times and others is a shallow and vapid desire to compromise and "do something" for the sake of compromise. I am so tired of hearing this I want to scream every time I hear someone spout this nonsense.

We heard a lot in 2011 about the political parties being unable to "work together and get things done" and the gridlock in Washington. But we have to consider the benefits and drawbacks of the policies being proposed, not just whether we are getting something done. If what is being proposed will make things worse, it is better to do nothing at all.

It is the habit of the mainstream media to focus on the template that Washington is "broken," feeding the frustration of the American people with the inability to get anything done. But very little is ever said about the policies themselves, much less about the arguments for and against those policies. You see legitimate analysis of policy far too rarely, with the coverage instead focusing on the fact that legislators disagree.

Well, of course legislators who have fundamentally different philosophies about the role of government are going to disagree about the best way to solve a particular problem. So instead of pouting because they do not agree, we should have both sides put their best ideas and arguments on the table, examine those ideas and arguments, and then the American people can decide which policy is best.

I have intentionally avoided saying anything about any specific policy proposed by either party. That is because the point of this post is not to argue that one party's solutions are better than another. The point is that you cannot expect any legislator to go along with something he believes is destructive for the purpose of saying he "did something." That would be a grave disservice to the American people.

Sunday, January 8, 2012

Vigilantism is not the answer

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 11:30 AM (#)

An inmate faces "jailhouse justice" in Indianapolis:

Authorities say an Indianapolis man charged in the fatal shootings of a 7-year-old girl and her uncle was beaten by fellow inmates the day after his arrest in the killings.

WISH-TV reports Marion County Jail officers found the six men punching and kicking 22-year-old Michael Bell in the head and face Dec. 18.

Source: Bloomington Herald-Times

I am not shedding any tears over the inmate being beaten, but this is just plain wrong. We are better than this kind of vigilante justice. We are obligated to protect those in our custody from having their civil rights violated.

If Michael Bell is convicted after a fair trial by a jury of his peers, he should be executed. Then, I will celebrate his death and praise our justice system. But I do not praise vigilantism - no matter how much he may have "deserved" the beating.

Saturday, January 7, 2012

Vouchers: See? I told you so.

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 12:15 PM (#)

Eleven months ago, I warned against vouchers for private schools by saying that Vouchers are an invitation to government meddling. Now I present the following tidbit over the silly effort to regulate the way people sing the national anthem:

SB 122 sets specific performance standards for any individual or group performing "The Star-Spangled Banner" at public schools — including schools that receive state vouchers — and state universities.

You know I am going to say it. It's in the title of the post after all.

See, I told you so.

Friday, January 6, 2012

NFL Wild Card: Environmentalist Wacko Picks

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:00 AM (#)

Rush Limbaugh used to do a humorous bit on his radio show called "environmentalist wacko picks" for NFL games. He would predict the winners based on the team's mascots and who "deserves" to win the game. The NFL wild card playoffs are this weekend, and since I have not followed the NFL and know nothing about professional football, I will instead shamelessly rip off Limbaugh's gag and use it myself to predict this weekend's outcomes.

Cincinnati Bengals vs. Houston Texans

We have the magnificent Bengal tigers against that destroyer and pillager of planet Earth, mankind. Even worse, these men are from Texas, where they blaspheme our Earth Mother by drilling for Oil. The evil George W. Bush is from Texas too. Clearly, the Bengals deserve to win.

Pittsburgh Steelers vs. Denver Broncos

You have another terrible crime against Gaia, the Steelers. How could anyone pollute the Earth Mother with the pollution brought about by making steel? On the other hand, you have creatures of nature, horses. Not only do they deserve to win on their own merits, but horses have been owned and oppressed by man for thousands of years. The Broncos deserve to win this one.

Detroit Lions vs. New Orleans Saints.

It is another matchup of animals against that evil crime against nature, man. Even worse, these are the Saints - meaning they are named after those who do not worship the only true goddess, Gaia. There should be no question for any true Environmentalist Wacko that the Kings of the Jungle deserve to win this game.

Atlanta Falcons vs. New York Giants

Before mankind defied Gaia by building blasphemous flying abominations that pollute our Earth Mother, the Hawks were one of many creatures that Gaia had given the gift of flight. The Giants also represent that paragon of evil, man. Not only that, but they are even bigger men so they are even more evil. The Falcons deserve to win.

Note for the terminally stupid: This is a parody. It is meant to ne a joke, nothing more. Lighten up.

Thursday, January 5, 2012

Is first-degree murder an appropriate charge here?

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:30 PM (#)

Here's an interesting statement today from an AP article:

However, prosecutors have charged his alleged accomplice, 29-year-old Dustin Louis Stewart, with first-degree murder. According to authorities, Stewart was with Martin but ran away from McKinley's home after hearing the gunshots.

"When you're engaged in a crime such as first-degree burglary and a death results from the events of that crime, you're subject to prosecution for it," Walters said.

Source: Oklahoma mom won't face charges for shooting intruder.

I'm not sure about this one. I admit I cracked a smile that the guy who was shot at is the one being charged with the murder, considering he and his accomplice (who is currently suffering in horrible burning agony in Hell fire) would have likely maimed or killed the woman had she not had a gun. But is a first degree murder charge really appropriate here? Certainly he needs to be behind bars for a very long time, but he didn't actually commit murder here.

Wednesday, January 4, 2012

Rick Santorum for President!

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 7:40 PM (#)

Now that the voting in Iowa is done, it is time for conservatives to rally around one candidate. That's why I am now supporting Rick Santorum.

Follow Santorum on Facebook and Twitter.

Stand against abortion: Come to the 2012 Rally for Life

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:30 AM (#)

The question hovering over the sex abuse scandal at Penn State "University" is why no one intervened to stop the sexual abuse of young boys. Millions were angered and sickened when it was reported that someone walked in on a child being raped and did not step in to stop it.

Here in Bloomington, a young woman named Lauren Spierer vanished in the middle of the night. We do not know exactly what happened that night, but someone knows something. Why has someone not come forward to share the information and find her? Why make her parents suffer through Thanksgiving and Christmas without knowing what happened to their daughter?

It is easy for us to sit in judgment and say we would have done something to protect the victims at Penn State. It is easy for us to sit in judgment and say we would speak up if we knew what happened to Miss Spierer. But are we really any better?

Four blocks south of the Monroe County Courthouse, babies are murdered every Thursday by the abortionist at Planned Parenthood. There were 845 unborn babies killed in Monroe County in 2007 alone. (See http://www.in.gov/isdh/reports/itp/2007/tbl12.htm)

Yet most of us drive on by the "clinic" where these babies are killed by dismemberment for profit by this wicked tax-funded corporation, blissfully unaware of (or purposefully ignoring) the slaughter that goes on behind those dark grey walls. Who will stand up to Planned Parenthood and tell them to stop this wicked abomination in the eyes of God? Who will "rescue those being led away to death" as we are commanded to do in Proverbs 24:11-12?

2012 Rally for Life
When:Sunday, January 22, 2012 at 2:00 p.m.
Where: Monroe County Courthouse lawn
Why: To be a voice for the victims of abortion.

January 22 will be the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court decision that threw out laws against abortion in all 50 states and opened the floodgates to a slaughter that is unprecedented in human history. Please join Christian Citizens for Life and IU Students for Life as we tell our community: No more killing.

Tuesday, January 3, 2012

Republican primary for President: Scott's top five

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:15 PM (#)

Governor Rick Perry of Texas is my choice to be the Republican nominee for President. The Iowa caucuses are tonight. Here is my top five, in order of preference:

  1. Rick Perry
  2. Rick Santorum
  3. Newt Gingrich
  4. Ron Paul
  5. Mitt Romney
  6. Michelle Bachmann
  7. John Huntsman

Gingrich and Santorum have switched spaces due to the despicable and disgusting personal attack by Alan Colmes of Fox News. Colmes actually managed to solidify my support for Santorum with his depraved attack. Instead of harming Santorum, Colmes likely solidified Santorum's base as the politics of personal destruction backfired in a big way.

Paul moves up as I become more convinced of his electability.

Santorum's enemies on the Left are two-faced hypocrites

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 5:00 AM (#)

Watching Leftists attack Rick Santorum is a lot like watching an episode of Beavis and Butthead, except for the fact that Beavis and Butthead are much more mature and serious than Santorum's enemies on the Left. MTV's dopey duo are also much more genuine, despite being fictional characters.

For a few years now, the main line of attack that Leftist trolls on the Internet have used against Santorum is attempting to tie his name to sodomy. Rachel Maddow loves to chuckle about it on her program, demonstrating that she has the same level of maturity as the Internet trolls that have engaged in this childish taunting for years and demonstrating that she too is less mature than Beavis and Butthead.

On the December 29 Maddow program, equally immature guest host Chris Hayes giggled about a troll who managed to get Rick Santorum's official Twitter account to re-tweet a post announcing "Santorum surges from behind in Iowa."

Hardy har har. Wow, that's clever.

Imagine for a moment that Hayes had instead attacked racist statements in Ron Paul's newsletters by implying that Paul might be part black, using race as an insult. Not only would Hayes be done guest-hosting on Maddow's program, but his show would be canceled and he would be fired from MSNBC.

But despite the fact that we hear constantly from the Left that being homosexual is an inborn trait and that discriminating against homosexuals is no different than discriminating against on the basis of skin pigmentation, Leftists like Hayes and Maddow (who is, ironically, a homosexual herself) constantly use homosexuality as an insult.

Could these Leftists possibly be any more two-faced? Leftist trolls tell homosexuals that they support equal rights for homosexuals and oppose discrimination against them, then immediately use homosexuality as an insult as if they believe it is something shameful.

Internet trolls are what they are, and the "spreading Santorum" foolishness is going to continue from people who make Beavis and Butthead look intelligent and mature. But there is no reason for this childish taunting and trolling to be featured on a serious cable news network. At a minimum, MSNBC should discipline both Hayes and Maddow, order both to apologize and make it very clear that this nonsense will not be permitted in the future.

Sunday, January 1, 2012

Sometimes it's better to keep your mouth shut

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 9:00 AM (#)

Newt Gingrich tells NBC Nightly News why he will not run for Vice President:

I'm too strong a personality. Would you want to be a presidential nominee with me as your vice presidential nominee?

He's such a big star that he would overshadow the nominee!

Someone has a high opinion of himself.