Human rights and war are antithetical

Al-Jazeera America had a good essay on so-called military hawks for human rights. I was once a proponent of humanitarian-based military intervention until I realized its fundamental flaw. Its premised upon a scenario that never actually happen in reality. 

Human rights groups may want action based on moral principles but countries always and only act in self-interest. The fact that countries act in this sort of amoral fashion is not inherently bad but it also means that the utopian principle on which humanitarian intervention is based does not happen. Liberal hawks may say, "Who cares about an impure motive if it causes a moral result?" The problem is that the impure motive makes the moral result far less likely to occur and, in many cases, may even result in a bloodshed and destruction worse than what was there before - a 'cure that's worse than the disease' scenario.

Once countries launch military interventions based on self-interest, it affects both how they act and how their actions (and thus perceived motives) are received by the domestic populations. When their motives are questioned, this compromises a 'humanitarian intervention's' chances of achieving even the self-interested goals, let alone the moral ones.

An impartial United Nations' army would be the only chance for the humanitarian intervention principle to be successfully achieved, but such an international army will never be formed in the real world.

The Post-Star war on underage drinking (part 2)

by contributor Mark Wilson

Also see part 1

New York State keeps detailed motor vehicle accident statistics, compiling them year-to-year and county-by-county. Those data as well as the aggregate state figures compiled since 2001 are available online at safeNY.gov. The standards for data collecting and reporting have remained consistent since 2003, the year New York lowered the blood alcohol content standard for drunk driving, and the year the Glens Falls Post-Star initiated its policy on publishing names of teenagers busted for drinking.

Data in the following comparison are derived from police-reported accidents—collisions resulting in fatalities, personal injury or property damage. These records are more uniform within each region and over time than DWI ticketing, for example (another standard measure), which varies regionally and seasonally, skewed by periodic local crack-downs, check points, etc.

To get a sense of how the Glens Falls region’s statistics for underage drivers involved in alcohol-related accidents stacked up against the average statistics across New York, we set the number of alcohol-related-accident drivers aged twenty and younger both regionally and statewide against the number of alcohol-related-accident drivers from all age groups and compared the resulting percentages. A consistent drop in the regional percentage against the statewide percentage would suggest that the campaign was influencing underage drinking trends favorably.

The results
While eight years of data form no solid basis for statistical analysis, the regional numbers—despite countervailing swings in the middle years of the range—seem to track overall with the statewide norms (even to the point of convergence with state figures in 2009 and 2010, the most recent years evaluated). While this may not be enough of a statistical sample to determine failure of the Post-Star’s policy and overall campaign, there is nothing here to encourage their advocates, either.

Not surprisingly Post-Star editors have not brought statistical analysis to bear on their policy of shaming teenage drinkers. Nor have they cited the statistics in their periodic recommitment to the campaign. If anything they seem to be spurred onward by their own often overheated editorial rhetoric on the subject: “Underage drinking is dangerous and if you don’t believe me, I will show you the headstones.”

Ken Tingley publicly declared his own immeasurable standard for continuing the crusade:

“If there is one young person who learns the lesson, if there is one young person who gets grounded for life for embarrassing their parents, if there is one young person who pauses to consider whether to accept a beer at the next party because they don’t want to see their name in the newspaper, then it is worth it.”

There is little doubt, given the power and range of the Post-Star’s editorial voice, that the shaming policy and Mr. Tingley’s angry bluster have successfully reached any number of kids (and/or their parents). On the same token, given the contrary nature of so many adolescents, can anyone doubt that as many kids may have reacted (sadly) predictably to Mr. Tingley’s bullying and ignored the grim statistics, or worse, headed defiantly in the opposite direction?

The lack of movement of the underage drunk driving numbers against the backdrop of statewide figures suggests, at the very least, that some neutralizing backlash may be at work here.

The broader picture
One of the more troubling aspects of the Post-Star policy is its selective and asymmetric targeting of underage drinkers for the sake of reducing the deaths of young people in motor vehicle accidents.

In 2010 alcohol was the primary cause of 30.5% of all motor vehicle fatalities throughout all upstate counties across all age groups. Speed, by comparison, was the primary cause of 29.2%. The statistics in the three counties served by the Post-Star were quite different: In Saratoga, Warren and Washington counties alcohol was responsible for 20.6% of motor vehicle fatalities, claiming seven lives, while speeding was responsible for 35.3% of motor vehicle fatalities claiming twelve lives. Moreover, in 2010 speed caused 439 injuries across the three counties (31.9%), while alcohol caused only 174 (11.3%).

When you add to that the fact that teenagers are far less likely to drive drunk (accounting for 9.3% of all drivers in alcohol-related accidents statewide) and far more likely to speed (accounting for 22% of all speeding-caused accidents statewide), the math becomes clear: speeding—and not drinking—is by far the deadliest behavior by drivers young and old on our roadways. It comes as no surprise that the Post-Star is devoting none of its diminishing resources to publishing the names of speeders in an effort to embarrass them and their families in a misguided effort—no matter how well-intentioned—to alter their behavior.

Two final thoughts on this subject
This challenge to (and argument against) the Post-Star’s policy of publishing names of teenagers fined for drinking should not be interpreted in any way as condoning the behavior. While it may be a rite of passage—as even Ken Tingley concedes—it remains reckless as it ever was. When combined with driving it has abundant potential to be life-destroying. The sole concern of this post is that the approach undertaken nine years ago by the editor of the Post-Star to combat the issue may simply have made matters worse.

The Post-Star is in many respects a fine newspaper. It is, to be sure, a troubled newspaper belonging to a troubled corporation in a troubled industry in a weak economy. The last thing the editors and publisher of the paper should be doing at this stage is alienating its future readers and subscribers in a way that from any angle looks like a double standard. The Post-Star needs to descend from the bully pulpit and get back to its number one responsibility to the community: reporting news.

This article was published as part of a collaboration with the AdirondackAlmanack.

The Post-Star's war on underage drinking (part 1)

by contributor Mark Wilson

Ken Tingley is back in his bully pulpit. Two Sundays ago in his weekly column, the Editor of the Post-Star defended his newspaper’s policy of publishing the names of teenagers ticketed for violating underage drinking laws. In blunt and patronizing language, the crusading editor took on a recent South Glens Falls High graduate who had dared to leave a comment on the Post-Star's Facebook page objecting to the policy:

Mr. Mumblo was probably playing video games and reading comics when we reported the death of 17-year-old Jason Daniels in Warrensburg on May 18, 2003, and four months later, the death of 19-year-old Adam Baker, also in Warrensburg.

The policy was best described in a harsh editorial that ran on June 12, 2011, nearly eight years into the campaign:

Underage drinkers get their names in the paper. We publish the names of all kids arrested for consuming alcohol. We hope the embarrassment factor helps serve as a deterrent to parents and their kids. Not only does the kid’s name go in the paper, it goes on our website. And the Internet is permanent. So whatever they get caught doing today will follow them the rest of their lives.

From this it is hard to tell if the editorial board is angrier at the kids or their parents. The editorial proceeds to insult the children it hopes to protect:

Kids fib... Kids are lightweights... Kids are reckless... Kids are terrible drivers.

The final line of the editorial—A dead child is gone forever—reveals that the true target of the editorial (and the policy for that matter) is the parents; the humiliation of the children is merely a baseball bat to the gut to get their parents to pay closer attention.

Some HistoryOn June 15, 2003, as New York State prepared to drop the DWI blood alcohol content standard from .1 to .08 percent, and after a succession of fatal underage drunk driving accidents in the region surrounding Glens Falls, Ken Tingley wrote a column outlining the Post-Star's policy on reporting crimes:

Here is what are (sic) policies are now:

• We don't use the name of the child under age 16 charged with any offense - even if it is a felony - but we include the age, sex and town of residence. One exception: We will publish the name of any minor who is being prosecuted as an adult.

• We don't use the name of the child age 16, 17 and 18 if they are only charged with misdemeanors or violations, but we include their age, sex and town of residence.

• We do use the name of minors age 16, 17 and 18 if they are charged with felonies.

• We do use the name of anyone 19 or older charged with any offense if the crime is deemed newsworthy because of unusual or interesting circumstances.

• We've also left it up to the discretion of the editor to print the name of a minor if major crimes or unusual circumstances are involved.

The column concluded with hints of transition:

With the recent debate over underage drinking in our communities, we debated recently whether it might do some good to start listing the names of teens arrested for underage drinking. We currently do not print those names unless there is a felony charge.One of our editors suggested that we should print the name of all teens arrested, that the embarrassment of arrest might be an appropriate deterrent for a young person, that it might even bring a weightier meaning to some parents who don't seem to take the issue that seriously.It is something we will probably be looking at in the future.

The future arrived less than five weeks later when the Post-Star published the names and ages of six minors from Corinth who were charged with “the noncriminal violation of possession of alcohol by someone under 21.” The policy has remained in effect ever since.

According to data compiled by New York State, in 2003 the number of underage drivers involved in alcohol-related accidents in Saratoga, Warren and Washington Counties stood at 19. The number rose to 25 the following year and dropped to 17 in 2004. In both 2005 and 2006 the number of underage drunk drivers involved in accidents shot up to 42 and has been declining steadily toward the 2004 level since. 2010 is the latest year for which the state has compiled statistics.

In June 2008 after another cluster of alcohol-related traffic fatalities involving minors, the Post-Star ran an exasperated editorial under the headline “Message is not getting through.” It began:

We give up.

No one seems to be listening anyway.

Sanctimonious and preachy? Out of touch with reality? OK, we concede. You're right. Underage drinking is a rite of passage. A tradition. We all did it as kids. There's nothing that can be done to stop it. Kids are gonna do what kids are gonna do.So have it your way.

Naturally, the editorial does not give up and charges once more unto the breach to deliver the message. It ends with a poignant appeal to the reader not to let the newspaper abandon the crusade.

By this point, nearly five years along, the policy of outing teenagers charged with non-criminal alcohol violations —despite the absence of any evidence that it was doing any good— was so conflated with the broader cause of stopping underage DWI as to be inseparable. For all practical purposes, under guard of the sharp hyperbole of the Post-Star’s editorial position, unquestionable.

This article was published as part of a collaboration with the MoFYC blog.

Next, Part 2: Questioning the Unquestionable

Non-ethics in NYS: more of the same

New York state’s new ethics panel has already destroyed its own credibility after a mere two meetings. I reported here about its first introductory meeting, held behind closed doors.

Earlier this week, it had its first working meeting. The Associated Press reported that members of the panel receive $300 for each day they attend meetings, members will be asked to sign non-disclosure' agreements barring public comment, and that its secretive practices will continue.

Then, the board went behind closed doors. The reason? None was given.

This is how ethics oversight works in New York... even under a 'reform' minded governor. Secret meetings with no public announcements. Going behind closed doors without even contriving an excuse. The fact that all this is legal, that this body charged with regulating ethics and transparency is exempt from the Open Meetings Law in the first place, is a damning indictment of what passes for ethics in state government.

Bob over at Planet Albany doesn't appear to be impressed. He quotes someone named David Grandeau: the state ethics body "doesn’t have to abide by Open Meetings Law. Nor does it have to abide by the Freedom of Information Laws... Those laws apply to every other government body, but not the state ethics panel... Tell me again why that is? Tell me how that inspires confidence in government? Tell me how it sets a standard for others to live up to? Tell me how it represents good government?"

The answer is simple. It doesn't.

The Chronicle should give credit for using MOFYC/Wilson piece (and did... updated)

The Glens Falls weekly Chronicle picked up the most recent story published here written by Mark Wilson... sort of. This was part of Wilson’s series examining troubles at the rival daily Post-Star. But in his article, Chronicle editor Mark Frost referred to, “A blog that a Chronicle reader referred us to put those numbers in perspective...”

His piece did not include the name of this blog, a URL to Wilson's article or, what should have been the bare minimum, Wilson's name.

The excellent blog entry did not appear out of thin air. Mark Wilson has done a lot of research to put together that piece and the entire series. Frost ought to have acknowledged Wilson in his article as the person who “put those numbers in perspective.”

We hear mainstream media journalists complaining all the time about bloggers ‘stealing’ their content without attribution but here it’s just the opposite.

Blogger Wilson did all the work of “putting those numbers in perspective” in a piece of journalism as good as anything you’d read in either The Chronicle or The Post-Star. But Frost used the material Wilson compiled without bothering to credit him. Frost mentioned that he saw it in a blog but consciously chose to not include details about the source, which is even more of a slap in the face to Wilson’s efforts.

This amateur blog’s policy is to always give attribution to material taken from other sources and, whenever possible, to link directly to it. I’ve occasionally referenced articles from The Chronicle, but always with credit given. A professional newspaper operation should do the same.

As such, I’d like to remind readers of that which is listed in the blog’s masthead: Essays are available for re-print, with the explicit permission of the publisher. mofycbsj @ yahoo.com. If brief excerpts are going to be used or if the piece is going to be mentioned in passing, attribution must be given.

Although I don’t usually agree with Frost’s political opinions, I generally consider him someone who tries to be fair-minded. Frost does like claim he stands up for the little guy. As such, he could start by giving the little guy credit for his work.

A discussion is planned with Mr. Frost and we hope they will run a clarification in the next issue. Stay tuned!

Update: The weekly agreed to run a clarification in the next issue crediting Mr. Wilson for his work. We thank Mr. Frost for his cooperation.

Further update: The weekly did run a clarification in yesterday's issue. It was something like "Mark Wilson stopped by the office to request attribution" rather than "I (Mark Frost) failed to give attribution" (which should have been a no-brainer in the first place). But proper credit was finally given albeit, it seems, grudgingly.

Panning the New York state ethics bill

The Glens Falls Post-Star is generally known for offering poorly thought out, small-minded editorial positions completely devoid of any nuance or forward thinking. The one exception is that they typically run pretty good editorials on issues related to governmental transparency, the topic which earned its editorial writer, Mark Mahoney, his Pulitzer Prize.


An editorial earlier this week dealt with the proposed bill in the New York state legislature on ethics and public integrity (try saying that without a snicker). The governor and two legislative leaders fell over themselves patting themselves on the back and describing the agreement as ‘historic’ about as often as Rudy Giuliani invokes 9/11.

The Post-Star points out that the bill is seriously flawed and said that it is, at best, a mere first step. Unfortunately, we know that it’s not to be; Albany only ever does the bare minimum necessary to give the illusion of something meaningful.

It points out that the new ethics commission would have even fewer investigators and less time to do its work than the current, ineffectual panel. The bill makes it virtually impossible for the commission to actually take action, since nearly everyone has veto power.

State electoral law is rigged to ensure that the two corporate parties are the only ones realistically able to win any party-based election. Leaders are so confident of the rigged system that the ethics bill contains no provision for enforcement against elected officials who are outside the two corporate parties. They can’t conceive that there would ever be a non-Democrat or –Republican in state government to worry about.

Ethical standards as well as the organization and conduct of elections are supposed to be non-partisan, not bipartisan. Kudos to my friend Bob over at Planet Albany for being one of those rare mainstream journalists aware enough to actually understand the difference.

A matter of trust: the anti-APA Post-Star plays fast and loose with APA 'facts'

A few weeks ago, Post-Star head honcho Ken Tingley patted himself on the back for how well his paper informed the public. A month or so ago, he did so again by bragging that his 'Newspaper can still make its readers smarter.' (One observer wondered how many issues of The Post-Star he'd have to read to become smarter than non-P-S reader Stephen Hawking.)

Apparently, even Tingley's large ego became so sore from the repeated massaging that he had to take yet another 'brief' two week vacation.

But his claim that reading the Glens Falls daily will make you smarter is accurate if 'smarter' means knowing things that are demonstrably false.

A few days ago, the paper editorialized that Gov.-elect Andrew Cuomo ought to make 'reform' of the Adirondack Park Agency one of his priorities. By reform, they mean abolishing it, as they editorialized earlier this year.

In this week's editorial, the paper wrote:

The 11-member APA board is currently comprised of the commissioners of the Department of Environmental Conservation and Economic Development, the state secretary of state, three members of the public from outside the park and five from inside the park - one from each county [emphasis mine]

There's a little problem (aside from the grammatical error in the beginning): there are more than five counties inside the Park.

I left an online comment pointing out that I thought there were between 9 and 11 counties with territory inside the Blue Line (there are actually 12) and I named them.

They didn't change the wording of their editorial. They didn't claim I misinterpreted the phrasing. They didn't even acknowledge my comment pointing out an apparent factual error in any way shape or form.

This error doesn't seem intentional or manipulative. It's not a detail that's central to the editorial's thesis or the paper's general editorial line. It's easy enough to fix. Why they don't correct it raises some questions? Do they not care? Do they feel that, as the self-appointed watchdog, they are unaccountable?

Even though they can't/won't get their basic facts straight, and refuse to correct them when confronted with their error, I'm supposed to give them credibility and take them seriously on this issue?

Have parts of their purportedly objective reporting on the APA been tainted by such sloppiness with (or manipulation of?) the facts?

Some years ago, I asked my mom if she wanted a subscription to TIME magazine. She said she'd never read that magazine again. When asked why, she said that when she was in college in the late 1960s, the weekly did a story about her university. In it, a graphic or photo misidentified one or more buildings on campus. She explained that if they didn't get the facts right that she knew, how could she trust their account of the facts she didn't know.

As part of the declining newspaper industry, The Post-Star would do well to heed this lesson.

The sleaziest man in Albany deemed a 'hero of reform'

A lot of noise has been made recently by the group NY Uprising, founded by former New York City mayor Ed Koch. The group states three principal goals: non-partisan independent redistricting, responsible budgeting and ethics reform. I support all of these things, as does the truly reform minded Green Party of New York (whose candidates' opinions apparently weren't important enough to Koch's group to solicit).

NY Uprising takes it one step further. It categorically labels those who sign a pledge supporting these three issues as "Heroes of Reform," and those who don't "Enemies of Reform."

I don't like this.

First, I'm not a big fan of this sort of pledge because it essentially reduces complicated issues to black and white, squishing out any nuance.

If I were a politician, I'd be wary about being pressured to sign something by a group trying to put words in my mouth.

Second, it deems people heroes and enemies solely based on whether a politician agrees to someone else's words.

Especially in Albany, talk is cheap.

My local Assemblywoman Teresa Sayward took a shot at Koch's group for exactly this reason.

She wrote: Your lists mean nothing if in fact those who have taken your pledge as reformers have legislative voting records against reform and those named to the list as enemies have consistent reform records.

The ultimate illustration of the meaninglessness Koch's lists is the legislature's most infamous member (a pretty powerful label considering the competition).

You might remember Sen. Pedro Espada as the main instigator of two changes of power in the senate, both exploited by Espada to gain plum leadership positions for himself. Or perhaps you might remember him as the latest legislator to find himself under criminal investigation (for suspected corruption and campaign finance violations). Or maybe you remember him as the guy who dismissed all criticism of his lust for power and alleged corruption as racially motivated.

According to Koch's group, this sleazeball was decreed... (drumroll please)... a Hero of Reform.

If the hope of ethics reform and good governance in New York rests on the shoulders of Pedro Espada, then the state is truly screwed.

Further de-bunking of the hit job against The Nature Conservancy

Another follow up to my original piece about The New York Post state editor Fred Dicker's smear on the Nature Conservancy (TNC)...

The Adirondack Daily Enterprise's editorial page, a venue not typically sympathetic to environmentalists, blasted Dicker's hit job.

Additionally, North Country Public Radio's Brian Mann filed a report noting that it appears that the land sale included a series of checks and balances designed to insure a fair deal.

The report also pointed out that (shock!) Dicker's trash omitted several key facts. It noted, for example, that the state used five separate appraisals before agreeing a sale price.

When asked by NCPR if he had concrete proof of an unethical working relationship between TNC and the state, Warren County Board of Supervisors Chairman Fred Monroe (Dicker's main source) admitted, "Do I have any evidence? No."

So much like The Post-Star's Will Doolittle, The Post's Dicker parroted serious allegations of (likely criminal) collusion between the state and TNC without insisting that the accusers offer a single shred of evidence. To call this merely irresponsible would be a huge understatement. I'm surprised TNC hasn't filed a lawsuit.

And journalistic big wigs think that you have to be a Fox- or MSNBC-loving ideologue mistrust the mainstream news media.

Another anti-green group hit job debunked (corrected)

Earlier this year, The Post-Star's anti-Adirondack Park Agency journalist Will Doolittle did a controversial pair of stories on the workings of the APA which uncritically relayed alleged, but completely unsubstantiated, collusion between the Agency and the non-profit Nature Conservancy.

The story was later accused of having many holes in it on the basis of some excellent follow up reporting by North Country Public Radio's Brian Mann. But that didn't stop The Post-Star from editorializing for the abolition of the Agency the day after the series ended.

It seems to be Groundhog Day.

Earlier this week, outspoken conservative New York Post state editor Fred Dicker ran a story claiming that the DEC "gave environmental org. [the Nature Conservancy] absurd $3.7M profit for forest."

The little-noticed green giveaway of taxpayer cash occurred in October 2008, as the state Department of Environmental Conservation paid The Nature Conservancy nearly $10 million for 20,000 acres of Adirondack wilderness that the group purchased for $6.3 million just a few years earlier, reported Dicker in The Post.

The article quoted Fred Monroe, chairman of the Warren County Board of Supervisors, Executive Director of the Adirondack Park Local Review Board and loud critic of all things related to environmental conservation.

As with the Doolittle story, it was left to NCPR's Mann, who doesn't seem to have an agenda except one of fair journalism, to provide the rest of the story.

In this piece, Mann pointed out that the appraiser quoted in Dicker's story claimed he was quoted out of context and that the appraiser said up front that he hadn't done any investigation into the specific case.

The New York Post quoted someone out of context? Shocking!

Further, NCPR's Mann points out that Dicker, like Doolittle, has been very critical of green groups and the state's management of Adirondack Park land. Crucially, Mann also notes that: The Post article also appears to confuse the collapse of the national housing and real estate market with the very different market for timber tracts.

I think it's a black mark that the Glens Falls' daily can be mentioned in the same breath as Rupert Murdoch's temple of yellow journalism.

We are very fortunate to have a responsible, play-it-straight journalist like Brian Mann who is willing to further examine these dubiously constructed stories and set the record straight where needed. This is why I continue to support NCPR and encourage others to do the same.

Note: Another myth debunked by NCPR reporting: the one that claims that the Adirondacks would see an economic boom if not for the 'fascist' regulations of state agencies. It cites statistics showing that counties in the Adirondack Park have comparable employment and poverty rates, household incomes, housing values and so on when compared to the rest of rural New York.

Things that make you go hmmm....

A few days ago, I wrote about a letter published in The Post-Star written by the Nature Conservancy's Michael T. Carr regarding unsubstantiated allegations of collusion between the group and the Adirondack Park Agency made in an article written by the daily's Will Doolittle.

If you go on the Letters to the Editor page of their website, it lists every letter published in the print edition since Jan. 8... except the two published on Jan. 20 (one of which was Carr's and one of which criticized the paper's crusade against the residents of the Madden Hotel). A site search of 'Michael Carr' does not turn up the letter either.


Update: Carr's letter, published in print on Jan. 20, finally appeared online on Feb. 5, two weeks later. On Jan. 26, a TNC spokesperson told me that they were "working with the Post Star to get it posted online." No indication was given as to why the TNC had to lobby to get the same treatment as every other letter writer.

Medical conscience discussion

One of the interesting ethical questions of late is whether doctors should be able to refuse treatments and pharmacists medication based on their moral or religious code.

This issue in the US, not surprisingly, is usually framed around issues relating to abortion. This fascinating piece from Radio Netherlands Worldwide shows that this issue is far broader than simply abortion rights vs anti-abortion. It's very much worth a listen.

I'd also be interested in what readers think.

Should doctors, nurses and others who give treatment be able to refuse certain practices based on their moral or religious code?

Should pharmacists be able to refuse to dispense medication for the same reason?

The debate is usually framed as Christian medical professionals being forced to do things their religion objects to. But I'd like to turn that on its head. If your answer was yes, would your position be affected by any of the following hypothetical situations?

-A Muslim EMT arriving the site of a car crash, sees that the seriously injured victim is wearing a cross necklace and deciding it's against his beliefs to treat the victim;

-A rape victim getting a doctor who refuses to treat her because he believes her scantily clad dress and drunk state was immoral and that thus she was at fault for her situation;

-A gynecologist so strongly opposed to teen pregnancy that s/he won't treat a pregnant teenager unless the girl agrees to have an abortion.

Please leave your thoughts on these issues.

What I believe

In the spirit of the last entry and of the NPR This I Believe series, here are some beliefs of my own. Some have been posted here before and some are new.

I believe that being humane is more important than being smart.

I believe ethics are a way of life. Either you believe in them or you don’t.

I believe the celebrity culture is not worth anyone’s attention.

I believe in respecting others. Not necessarily agreeing with every life choice they make but respecting who they are.

I believe that politeness is a greatly undervalued in the modern world.

I believe that you are irrelevant except to the extent that you affect other people and other living creatures.

I believe bars are a terrible place to meet people.

I believe narrow-mindedness, snobbery and pomposity are three different versions of the same thing.

I believe Jerry Springer, professional wrestling and most political yap shows are three different versions of the same thing.

I believe that religion is neither inherently good nor evil. Both Osama bin Laden and Martin Luther King Jr. were driven by their religious beliefs.

I believe that if your deity tells you to commit violence against innocent people, you need to shop around for a new deity.

I believe that if the leader of your country tells you to commit violence against innocent people, you need to shop around for a new leader.

I believe that PBS history documentaries are ten times better than History Channel documentaries.

I believe that while small towns have their flaws, they have many redeeming values even for open-minded, culturally inclined people.

I believe that America is not the only country in the world and that Americans are not the only people in the world. I believe that too few Americans appreciate this. And sometimes people in the rest of the world forget that too.

I believe that money is a means to an end, not an end in itself.

I believe that if you define yourself by your job, then you'd better have a meaningful job.

I believe that a life without a dream is not a life.

I believe there’s too little idealism in the world.

I believe that how you think is far more important than what you think.

I believe that your course in life is usually determined by whether you are a fundamentally positive or fundamentally negative person.

I believe that you can learn so much about people and the world by simply closing your mouth and paying attention, really paying attention. If when people aren't talking to you.

I believe that helping others is its own reward.

I believe that children are more interesting than adults. I also believe they are easier to deal with than adults because, for better or worse, they are more straight-forward.

I believe that people who never have doubts are very dangerous.

I believe that people with no sense of humor are very dangerous.

I believe that just because you like to be alone at times doesn’t mean you’re lonely or a loner.

I believe that being alone with your thoughts is important every once in a while.

I believe that sunsets are God’s way of saying, “Take ten minutes to slow down and relax.”

I believe burning leaves is the most evocative smell.

I believe that autumn is the best season.

I believe everyone should try to learn at least one foreign language.

I believe everyone should live in another country at some point, if only for a few months.

I believe everyone should work at least one job in the service industry. It might make them less of a jerk when dealing with underpaid food service, supermarket, department store or amusement park workers.

I believe you should actively seek opinions, perspectives and points of view that are different from your own. I believe that everyone should occasionally read newspapers or consume other news sources from countries other than their own.

I believe America the Beautiful should be this country's national anthem. I believe we ought to do more to heed its lines, "God mend thine ev'ry flaw; Confirm thy soul in self control, thy liberty in law!"

I believe that patriotism must manifest itself in concrete actions, not merely in cheap politicized slogans.

I believe that it's better to be slightly disappointed at someone for not fulfilling high expectations than satisfied that they fulfilled low ones.

I believe citizens expect too little of politicians and even less of ourselves.

I believe that a sense of place is important. Every place should not look and feel like every place else.

I believe every once in a great while, you should do something totally out of character. You might learn something about yourself.

Are you smarter than a first grader?

Click here to find out.

When will his belief translate into action?

"Destroying human life in the hopes of saving human life is not ethical." -President Bush, 6/20/07

I guess the question is will the president's professed belief ever translate into action? Sadly, one has every reason to expect that he'll continue to act in a way that is, by his own definition, grossly unethical.