Under socialism, the producers pay for the non-producers. Apparently, at Langston University, the responsible thinking persons pay for the brain-dead losers.

In a story on NewOK.com, it is reported that because some skull-full-of-jello fired a gun on the Langston University campus, rules are being changed to improve safety on campus. The changes?

• a safety hot line,
• hiring more police officers, and
• a random apartment search policy.

Absolutely none of the above measures will do anything to make campus safer. A safety hotline (isn’t that 911) and more police may help clean up after someone’s been shot. And the random apartment search is ludicrous in a free society. But I’m sure everyone feels better now that there’s a new policy.

And to illustrate how maligned guns are in this society (instead of the morons who accidentally fire them (by the way, guns do not go off accidentally unless they are seriously damaged)), just pretend that, because they found some crack or meth or weed on campus, university officials decide there will now be random apartment searches. See the disparity?

Students, time to move off campus where you can legally have a gun for protection (kept out of reach of idiots who “accidentally” fire them) and where you are safe from your “protectors” searching through your personal effects to make sure you don’t have a gun (or maybe eventually a Bible, or maybe pen and paper, Winston). This is just an example of how the government will erode your rights for your own good if you will let them. Sure, we’ll help you afford college. Sure, you can live on campus. Oh, but wait, you cannot defend yourself with a gun if someone attacks you. But, it’ll be OK because we have an emergency hotline you can call and get one of our many police officers to mop up the blood. Oh, and we’ll be pilfering through your things on a regular basis. We’ll only need this phone hotline until we get the telescreens installed. Now don’t you feel safe?

I’ll be interested to see if the many who have been writhing in anguish over eavesdropping on terrorists will make a peep about this.

P.S. Anyone who’s ever tried to get an open record from a university is probably laughing (if it didn’t hurt so much) at this whole situation. One must move heaven and earth to have access to documents that are public by law, yet the university regularly tramples students’ 2nd and 5th Amendment rights with no outcry. I think I’m gonna be sick.

I am not a typical guy in the sense that my life does not revolve around sports. I love high school sports (and other activities), and we try to attend some of our alma mater’s each year. I even enjoyed OSU sports when I was a student and staffer there. However, I can’t tell you the last time I watched a sporting event on television. And, I go out on a limb saying this in Oklahoma, entirely too much emphasis is placed on sports in our culture.

Something is out of whack when sports, especially football, is placed in this elevated position. As a society, we have a stake in seeing to it that our children (I say this collectively since I have produced no spawn personally) are well educated (including religiously), and that can include sports as a means. Unfortunately, sports–and more specifically, winning at sports–has become the highest aim of entirely too many young people.

Notice I did not say excelling. Anything that is worth doing is worth doing well. We should strive for excellence at everything we attempt. But we must temper our striving with a few other things, like responsibility, priorities, and–oh, say–the law.

That is why it was so disturbing to read the article in the Muskogee Phoenix about Muskogee High School Football coach, Matt Hennesy. It seems the good coach was driving his car and struck a 7-year-old child. No one seems to contest the story that the kid rode out in front of Hennesy, and I do not fault him for the accident, as it sounds like exactly what it was. This sort of accident could happen to any of us. Coach Hennesy even made called the child and saw to it that he got medical attention (from the team’s trainer), both of which are commendable actions. Hennesy did not, however, report the incident to the police. He has now received some flak for that decision.

And here’s where it crosses into the absurd. When asked for comment on the incident by the Phoenix, Hennesy responded:

“I ought to be dealing with tomorrow night’s game — not this crap.”

And that’s where he lost me. He then went on to repeatedly assert that it was the 7-year-old’s fault and somehow expect admiration from the community in that he didn’t file a report even though the kid damaged his car.

A coach should be training young men (in this case, anyway) what it means to prioritize one’s life. And what it means to obey the law. And, for that matter, how not to respond to a newspaper. I can forgive the mistake. I have a hard time excusing the arrogance of Coach Hennesy’s response.

In an age when it’s bad enough that elected officials seem to believe they are more equal, I refuse to accept that a high school football coach has adopted an attitude that he is above the standards we must all abide simply because 22 young men were going to wrestle over a ball the next night.

Good coaches, and I have had some great ones, teach you that the games that are played are a type of life. There are rules and authorities; there are opponents; yet, you must find a way to excel toward the goal while avoiding, outplaying, and outwitting your opponents and abiding and obeying the rules. It’s a shame that the Muskogee Roughers apparently don’t have that kind of coach. Even if they win, they will still have lost.

I always wonder what some executive somewhere is thinking when they make certain decisions.

I had a relationship in the past, the only good aspect which came of was I discovered the Chicken Balsamico at Johnny Corrino’s. I just happened to be in T-Town today, so I stopped in with a hankering for their specialty.

After re-reading the menu about 8 times looking for the Balsamico, I finally asked the waitress if they still had it. She said she was new and didn’t know but would go ask. Shortly, a waiter came to the table and said they still made it but the chicken was not breaded like it used to be. I inquired as to why they no longer made it. His response was that they just quit making anything that is breaded. I went ahead and ordered the new, not-on-the-menu version.

It was OK. It was certainly not the same thing. I only ate half. And I doubt I will be back.

So, I ask: Why do they do that? How could a house specialty all of a sudden no longer be a house specialty. What were they thinking?

Rant over.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

–George Orwell, Animal Farm

Congress has this week added homosexuality to the list of protected classes in hate crimes legislation. My beef is not so much that homosexuals were added but that hate crimes legislation exists at all.

Just as in Orwell’s Animal Farm, we have forgotten the Revolution and its principles. We live in a land that was founded on the principle of freedom and equality. And I will be the first to admit that we didn’t get it right in action [slavery], though our philosophy was perfect. And it was an appeal to that philosophy that aided us as we emerged from the evil of slavery. For America to now re-divide people, based on any number of factors, is naive, dangerous, and insane. But what is most heinous is to assign differing values to people’s lives based on those factors. For example, if you murder me, in the eyes of the law, you have not committed as bad a crime (because I am a heterosexual white male) as if you murdered someone who was a homosexual black transgendered person. I take issue with that, and not because I count myself of greater worth than a homosexual black transgendered person, but I certainly don’t attribute to myself less worth than that person. America is the protector of equality of life. And none of us has more life than any other.

But, what should we expect from a society that has seemingly no qualms with allowing women (and there doctors and clergy, to quote Barack Obama) to extinguish life within their womb for the simple reason that it is within their womb? That’s like saying that because I own a house, I have the right to choose whether the inhabitants live or die, based on whatever my whims may be, unless they walk out the door (but in special cases, I can drag them halfway out the door, drive a pair of scissors into the back of their head and suck their brains out and still be OK. Well maybe not me; I would probably need to employ the services of an individual who has trained and taken an oath to protect life to come by and help me kill those inhabitants of my abode, but I digress). The point is this: when we start subdivind life into usefulness, we make certain classes of people expendible. That is a danger. And it is real.

The Baptist Messenger reports that opponents of the hate crimes legislation

say it would move federal law toward punishing thoughts and beliefs, since the motivation of a person charged with a hate crime would have to be evaluated. In addition, some critics warn it eventually could result in suppression of speech that describes homosexual behavior as sinful.

The story also includes this:

“This is a historic day that moves all Americans closer to safety from the scourge of hate violence,” said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese in a written release. HRC is the country’s largest homosexual advocacy group.

So now we are supposed to believe that mere criticism equals hate violence? If that is the case, Christians, Republicans, and especially President Bush are in line to be the most protected of the special classes because we are all certainly no strangers to criticism. However, no thinking person can understand this to mean that. It means that our ability to criticize certain things as sinful is destroyed, while doing nothing to protect us from “the scourge of hate violence” that is so often directed at us from our opponents.

We need to wake up here. All the animals are equal, period. Murder, of anyone, is evil. Criticism, of anyone, is a freedom. Part of the responsibility of living in a free society is bearing the weight of one’s choices and actions, equally, from person to person.

One of the stories to come out recently is tangential to the eminent domain case at OSU. As you may know, OSU (my alma mater) has decided to create an “Athletic Village” by using the power of the state forcibly to require citizens to sell their property to the State. There have been a few problems with this deal, and I have to say that as an alum I have been embarrassed by some of OSU’s behavior in this matter.

The latest story in the Tulsa Whirled reports that OSU Board of Regents has sued McCloskey Brothers, real estate investors, to get the last piece of property it needs to move on with the whole Athletic Village idea. McCloskey Bros. counters by saying that the Board of Regents is unconstitutional. How so? Well, it seems that our pesky Oklahoma Constitution requires that a majority of the Board of Regents for Agricultural & Mechanical Schools and Colleges be farmers. Yep, you read right. A majority must be farmers.

Oklahoma Constitution, Article 6, Section 31a, states in full (bold emphasis mine):

§ 31a. Board of Regents for agricultural and mechanical schools and colleges – Members – Vacancies – Removal – Terms.

There is hereby created a Board of Regents for the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College and all Agricultural and Mechanical Schools and Colleges maintained in whole or in part by the State. The Board shall consist of nine (9) members, eight (8) members to be appointed by the Governor by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, a majority of whom shall be farmers, and the ninth member shall be the President of the State Board of Agriculture. Any vacancy occurring among the appointed members shall be filled by appointment of the Governor by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The members of the Board shall be removable only for cause as provided by law for the removal of officers not subject to impeachment. The members shall be appointed for terms of eight (8) years each, with one term expiring each year, provided that the members of the first Board shall be appointed for terms of from one (1) to eight (8) years respectively. Provided that no State, National or County officer shall ever be appointed as a member of said Board of Regents until two years after his tenure as such officer has ceased.

You should also know that the President of the State Board of Agriculture must also be a farmer, as all members of the State Board of Ag must be. Eight others, a majority of whom shall be farmers, are to be selected by the Governor with standard advice and consent of the State Senate. A majority of 8 is 5. That means, if the article is correct and none of the Regents are farmers (other than the President of the State Board of Ag), only three of the current OSU Regents appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate are qualified to hold that position of trust; they are illegitimate.

You would think this fact would invalidate their actions. Not so, says the State Attorney General. Or at least that is what OSU is alleging. OSU has said that the makeup of the Regent Board is irrelevent to the eminent domain case due to a 1987 state attorney general’s opinion saying actions by an unconstitutionally composed board remain valid. That would seem contrary to logic. If that were so, what motivation is there to compose board and commissions constitutionally. I have not yet found that AG’s opinion to read for myself, but remember, it’s only an opinion. The current AG filed an amicus brief on behalf of all us Oklahomans against the boy scouts in the big Supreme Court case. Yes, I said against the boy scouts. Not the best use of his opinion powers, eh?

The bottom line for me is that the Constitution is sacred. It is the contract we make with the government, which we empower by its ratification. I don’t care how weird or unreasonable a provision of the Constitution may seem, it is to be obeyed by the government because it was put there directly by the people. If the people determine that OSU Regents all must be left handed, that requirement must be followed to the letter because the people said so. Everyone loves the idea of democracy until a ruling elite thinks it knows better. Some of the current (illegitimate) Regents say things like OSU needs a broader range of experience on the Board of Regents. Ok then, campaign to amend the constitution. You don’t just get to decide that this idea seems better. Plus, the Constitution currently allows a minority of the Regents to be as broad as the Governor wants.

In fact, the OSCN site contains the note that that part about the Regents was: 

Added by State Question No. 310, Ref. Petition No. 87, adopted at election held July 11, 1994

A direct vote of the people put it there, in the section about Board fo Agriculture (think maybe we were serious about the farming thing?), in 1994. If I am not mistaken that is more recent than the 1987 AG’s opinion OSU is clinging to as a way out of this embarrassment.

Long story short: Five OSU Regents are not qualified for the positions they hold. The last five appointed should be allowed to resign, though no resignation is necessary. Since only three seats are properly filled, Governor Henry should immediately appoint five farmers to the Board of Regents, to be confirmed by the Senate. End of story.

Ok, Jeane, her parents, and I ate lunch Friday at one of our favorite Claremore haunts, El Azteca. It was great as usual.

As we stood at the counter to pay, however, we witnessed something I still cannot believe. There were a group of high school students wearing red t-shirts (Claremore Zebras are red and white instead of black and white). The t-shirts are emblazoned with “Red Army” across the front, which to me is bad enough. Beyond that, these shirts had a white star on the chest with the Soviet hammer and sickle logo inside it. Something similar to this: http://kpp.aksios.de/bilder/stern2.gif. I was shocked.

I realize that today’s high school students were born after the Soviet threat was annihilated by Ronald Reagan. But their teachers weren’t. Their parents weren’t. The screen printer wasn’t. I mean, first of all, kids of the age I saw there should by now have some basic understanding of the history of the evils if the Soviet Union, enough so that they would choose not to call themselves the “Red Army” and wear Communist symbols on their chest. Second of all, the parents, teachers, and even the t-shirt maker should have warned these kids that this is not just a little joke. If was supposed to be a joke, it was in really poor taste. I mean, I am willing to give these kids the benefit of the doubt and assume they made the choice to wear Soviet propaganda out of ignorance. What I cannot excuse is people who know better not educating thses kids. I am not in favor of them being censored. I am sure that if the kids knew what they were doing, they would voluntarily choose to wear something else. If they knew what they were wearing, and chose to do it anyway, I find it inexcusable.

And so, do we have little commies running around Claremore? Or is it ignorance run amok?

Compare this with the recent story of the high school coach who put signs on his players’ lockers saying, “Work will set you free.” Harmless enough, wouldn’t you say? Of course, the coach was suspended for a game. Why? Well, the German translation of that phrase is, “Arbeit macht frei,” which was used by the Nazis and posted at the entrance to concentration camps. So, the coach, in his ignorance, posts a pretty motivational phrase for football players, in English, and he is suspended because the Nazis used the same phrase, in German, to do some awful things.

I guess where I am going here, is that the Claremore “Red Army” needs to know the consequences of emblems, slogans, and symbols of evil. They need to realize that there is a history that automatically attaches to them when they are seen publicly weaing the symbols of the evil empire. In short, they need a solid history education. This does not speak well for the education they are receiving at Claremore High School. Just ask yourself, would we see a group of homeschool students out about town in the same garb? I think not.