Blogcritics Author: Abel Keogh

Satire: How to Fix the NFL Playoffs

Abel Keogh — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 19:52:57 EST

The NFL needs experts and computers decide what teams are truly worthy to advance to the Super Bowl.
Those cries of despair you heard after last Sunday’s NFL Divisional Playoff games weren’t from distraught Dallas Cowboys and Indianapolis Colts fans mourning the upsets of their highly touted teams. Rather, it was from professional football fans around the world that now have to settle for a low quality AFC and NFC championship...

The Petty Tyrannies of Heber City

Abel Keogh — Fri, 2 Nov 2007 15:34:31 EDT

If the petty tyrants of Heber City, Utah have their way on Election Day, Wal-Mart won�t be coming to town.
If the petty tyrants of Heber City, Utah have their way on Election Day, Wal-Mart won’t be coming to town.Aghast when the city council voted last April to allow “big box” retail stores as large as 150,000 square feet to establish business in Heber City, a group called Put Heber Valley First launched a petition drive and...

Satire: Politicians Promise Money, Cars and Jobs for Life

Abel Keogh — Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:16:33 EDT

Why stop at $5,000 baby bonds?
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton said Friday that every child born in the United States should get a $5,000 "baby bond" from the government to help pay for future costs of college or buying a home. – Associated Press September 28, 2007Senator Barack Obama quickly moved to one-up Sen. Hillary Clinton by...

Lee C. Bollinger: Free Speech Hypocrite

Abel Keogh — Wed, 26 Sep 2007 20:32:04 EDT

Columbia�s president would deserve free speech kudos if he wasn�t such a hypocrite about who�s allowed to speak on campus.
Lee C. Bollinger is receiving praise from academia and the media for his commitment to free speech by allowing Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University. In defending his decision to allow Ahmadinejad to address the university Bollinger said, "I want to say, however, as forcefully as I can, that this is the...

Why Larry Craig Should Resign

Abel Keogh — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 22:20:09 EDT

Craig was entrusted with a special position of responsibility and should be held to a higher level of conduct.
Senator Larry Craig should resign.He shouldn’t wait for the Senate Ethics Committee to review the case, let Idaho voters decide his fate or even wait to hear what advice his attorney has to give. He should resign and do so immediately. The reason is simple: our elected officials need to be held to a higher standard than the average person....

Announcement: Short-content feeds

Phillip Winn — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT

Sunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding.

People Are More Important than Animals

Abel Keogh — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 00:00:53 EDT

Let's say your next door neighbor becomes angry at his dog. To punish the animal, he puts him in an oven and cooks him for five minutes at 200 degrees. The dog lives but will bear physical scars of the incident for the rest of his life. The next day this same neighbor is arrested for sexually abusing a minor. For what crime should your neighbor receive the severest punishment: torturing a dog or sexually abusing a minor?According to Utah animal rights activists, torturing a dog should receive a harsher sentence. Thankfully, for the time being, the Utah state legislature disagrees.Yesterday, the Utah state legislature balked on voting for a measure that would make acts of animal torture, now a Class A misdemeanor, a third degree felony and punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. This all sounds good until you learn, thanks to Republican Sen. Jon Greiner, that under Utah law such crimes as child abuse, sexual abuse of a minor, assault of a police officer and assault of a school employee are still Class A misdemeanors. "How do we get to a third-degree felony [for animal torture] when we don't have enough respect for human life, sexually abused children, that we don't have a higher standard of care for them?" he told the Salt Lake Tribune.How, indeed.The fact that the legislature is seriously considering this bill shouldn’t come as a surprise. For years, militant animal rights activists have told us that animals have at least the same rights as people: we shouldn’t eat them, perform scientific experiments on them or even consider building homes, roads or bridges where it might disturb them. Their goal has been to get us to treat animals as equals. Now it seems they want us to treat them as our superiors. Think about the message the proposed Utah law would send state residents about the value of humans when stacked up against man’s best friend. Stick a dog in the oven and get five years behind bars. Assault a teacher or abuse a child and, at least in the eyes of the law, a lesser sentence is required. Those who torture animals are cruel, sadistic and should be punished; however, the punishment should not be greater than for harming a person. If Utah state legislators want to make it a third-degree felony to torture animals, they need to increase the punishments for abusing and assaulting people as well. People are more important than animals. This is something our laws should reflect and something the Utah legislators should keep in mind when they reconsider this bill next January.

Abel Keogh is a writer and editor who lives in Utah. His memoir, Room for Two, was just published by Cedar Fort. His web site is www.abelkeogh.com

The Ann Coulter Distraction

Abel Keogh — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:28:54 EDT

Though it hasn’t reached the volatility of the Hatfields and McCoys, the feud between presidential hopeful John Edwards and conservative columnist Ann Coulter is intensifying.The latest salvo came from Edwards while on the campaign trail in Burlington, Iowa. While “rallying against the right-wing media,” Edwards referred to Coulter as a “she-devil.” He then caught himself and added, “I should not have name-called. But the truth is -- forget the names -- people like Ann Coulter, they engage in hateful language.” Though the feud may make for interesting read or television viewing, it illustrates why Edwards is unfit for the presidency and should serve as a lesson for others whose lives come under public scrutiny. Those in the public attract the attention of outspoken critics. Often these critics are simply people searching for attention; and the best advice to people with a following is to simply ignore them. Too often people running for office or in positions of power and authority let minor irritants bother them until those nuisances overshadow everything else. Such is the case with the Edwards-Coulter feud. Their verbal sparing has gone on since March when Coulter jokingly used a derogatory term for homosexuals to describe Edwards behavior in a speech. Even though Coulter was lambasted for her remarks, Edwards didn’t let the remarks slide. Instead, his campaign posted Coulter’s remarks on its Web site, asking readers to “raise $100,000 in ‘Coulter Cash’ this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fighting back against the politics of bigotry.” The two have been trading barbs in speeches, on television and in print ever since. Even Edwards’s wife, Elizabeth, has become part of the act when she called into Hardball and asked Coulter to stop the personal attacks on her husband and family. Edwards may get some mileage out of Coulter’s remarks for fundraising, but the long-term effects of paying attention to Coulter are detrimental to his campaign. Does anyone remember the message Edwards delivered in his Iowa speech? Nope. Instead of making headlines for his proposed agenda or vision of the future, all that came out of the speech was the continuation of his petty feud with a conservative bombshell. The conservative columnist is hardly worth Edwards’s time. Coulter may be an engaging and proactive writer but her sphere of influence is with conservatives, not liberals. Her television appearances and weekly columns are unlikely to influence anyone on the left side of the political spectrum. She appeals only to voters who already loathe Edwards and to no one whose vote he is actively courting. Meanwhile, the blonde provocateur has nothing to lose in the exchange with Edwards. If anything, Edwards’ constant referrals to her bolster Coulter’s profile and show how much the columnist’s jabs irritate the presidential aspirant. Edwards could learn a lesson from former Senator Fred Thomson. Earlier this year Fred Thompson wrote an article for National Review accusing filmmaker Michael Moore of being part of Fidel Castro’s propaganda machine. Moore shot back and challenged Thompson to a debate on healthcare. Instead of lowering himself to the controversial filmmaker’s level, Thompson responded with a short video clip that dismissed Moore as someone not worth further time or attention. The brouhaha immediately went away. The lesson from the Edwards-Coulter feud is this: those in the public eye need to know when to ignore critics and detractors. Presidents are constantly under attack from the opposition and need to know when to respond to an attack and when to simply let it go. There was enough outrage against Coulter’s remarks that simply ignoring her would have done the greater damage to her career. Instead Edwards gave those on the right a reason to rally behind one of their own and make his presidential campaign look desperate for attention. The fact that Edwards continues to take on Coulter even when it hinders his campaign makes him look weak. In the end, it shows how unfit for the presidency he really is.

Abel Keogh is a writer and editor who lives in Utah. His memoir, Room for Two, was just published by Cedar Fort. His web site is www.abelkeogh.com

Sunny Brook Greentree and Global Warming

Abel Keogh — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:02:44 EDT

We’re here today with Sunny Brook Greentree, the all-wise and all-knowing environmental guru who answers questions about the state of our planet. Today we tackle the topic of global warming.Q: With global warming being such a hot-button issue, the latest global temperature readings are usually big news. Why was it when NASA recently announced that the hottest year on record was 1934, not 1998 like many climatologists and global activists had thought, it wasn’t in front page news? SBG: It’s really not important if the hottest year on record was 1934, 1998 or 1845. What’s important to remember is that our planet has a fever and we need to make it better. Q: But we’ve been told that national temperatures are constantly inching their way up and the planet is this close to the point of no return. Don’t you think accurate temperature information is necessary to decide what, if anything, should be done to stop global warming? SBG: Facts and rational thought are never the best way to solve a problem. The best solution is to act on our emotional impulses and worry about the consequences later. It’s like when I lobbied for government-mandated ethanol usage. Even though forests in Brazil are being destroyed at an accelerated rate so farmers can plant more crops for biofuels, I’m proud that I used all of my emotional energy to push for cleaner-burning gasoline. Q: A researcher recently discovered a Page 2 headline from the November 2, 1922 edition of the Washington Post that stated: “Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.” The article states that “great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones,” and ”at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.” Do you think it’s a possibility that the current warming trend is simply a natural occurrence and not man made? SBG: Do you know if anyone was able to save the seals? I hope so. If only the government had taken action to stop global warming 85 years ago, then Earth would now be like the Garden of Eden. There’d be no urban sprawl, cars or McMansions. But there would be plenty of seals. Q: Who do you think is the best presidential candidate to fight global warming? SBG: I really wish Al Gore was running. Have you seen his movie? That guy knows how to scare people into action. If only he had won in 2000, I’m sure global warming would be almost solved by now or at least by the time he left office. That man is in touch with his inner tree. Q: What do you think is the best way to stop global warming? SBG: I think the fact that the world cooled a little after the 1930s should tell us something. What was happened in the 1930s? The Great Depression. Massive unemployment may be bad for people’s egos, but it’s great for the planet. Just think of all the factories that weren’t spewing carbon-dioxide into the air or the cars that weren’t in operation. The environment was in much better shape then. So was humanity. They just didn’t know it. Q: Do you really think that lowering people’s standard of living to Depression-era levels is the best way to stop global warming? SBG: Well, it’s a start. But we need to go further. We should all live in self-sufficient communities. You know, ones where we grow our own food and make our own granola. Think about it. The majority of people who have been born on this planet lived without cars and electricity. Those are things we really don’t need and that keep us from being closer to nature and the true state of the planet. Most people don’t even know the Earth has a fever because they live in air-conditioned comfort. Q: Thanks for your time today. Do you have any parting words of environmental wisdom you’d like to share? SBG: Could you loan me a twenty? I have to pay for carbon offsets for driving my car across town to do this interview.

Abel Keogh is a writer and editor who lives in Utah. His memoir, Room for Two, was just published by Cedar Fort. His web site is www.abelkeogh.com

GOP Shouldn't Fear Clinton-Obama "Dream Ticket"

Abel Keogh — Wed, 15 Aug 2007 16:19:25 EDT

For some election prognosticators, the Democratic ticket is already a forgone conclusion. Senator Hillary Clinton will win the Democratic nomination and pick Sen. Barack Obama to be her running mate. Their combined political "rock star" status will be enough to triumph over any Republican candidates.This projected threat of a Clinton-Obama ticket already has some Republicans worried about their chances in 2008, even though the first primary is still six months away. At a recent campaign stop in Iowa, this concern emerged when presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani stated that he's the only one who can beat the Clinton-Obama "dream ticket." While this ticket may be tempting for a party that still feels wronged over the 2000 presidential election, nominating Obama to be Clinton's running mate could actually help the GOP retain the White House. Ideally, vice-presidential running mates should help offset perceived weaknesses of the presidential nominees. Despite the media love affair with the former first lady, she is far from a perfect presidential candidate. She has a short political record, is perceived as too liberal, has little appeal with voters in the red states and is viewed by many as power hungry and simply using her husband, Bill, as a stepping stone to fulfill her political ambitions. Obama does little to erase these weaknesses. Consider the following: Obama's legislative record is already left of the junior New York senator. When brought under the harsh lights of a presidential campaign, this record could further alienate moderate voters necessary for any national electoral success. Obama is still a political neophyte and has made some rookie blunders on the campaign trail, which includes his recent statement that he'd invade nuclear-armed Pakistan. He represents Illinois, a state that hasn't voted for the GOP since 1988 and is hardly likely to change its ways in 2008. Even though he'd be the first African-American to be on a national ticket, Democrats can usually rely on 90 percent of the African-American vote in national elections. Despite their combined weaknesses, a Clinton-Obama ticket would still be difficult to beat, due to the fawning attention such a coupling is bound to receive from the media. It would require Republicans to nominate a presidential candidate who won't be intimidated by their "superstar" personas. Instead of fearing that ticket, the GOP should work on creating a campaign that highlights Clinton's and Obama's weaknesses and on nominating a strong candidate who won't be intimidated by anyone the Democrats may nominate. Republicans might have reason to worry, however, if Clinton bucks the political hype and nominates someone like New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson. To use a catchphrase from the 2000 election, Richardson would add some serious gravitas to a Clinton nominee. Pluses include: Stellar political resume: current governor of New Mexico, a 14-year congressional career, past ambassador to the United Nations and past Energy Secretary under Bill Clinton. Sizable influence in the American Southwest, which could help swing New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado to the Democratic side as well as other states with sizable Hispanic populations. Allure for Hispanic voters—a block that votes in sizable numbers for Republicans. Moderate voting record, which includes lowering state income taxes in New Mexico—a very appealing attribute for voters who may be sitting on the fence come Election Day. The fight for the presidency often goes to the person with the most guts. Clinton might find the presidency within her grasp if she can buck conventional wisdom and nominate someone who can aid her quest for the White House. Republicans could retain the White House if they nominate someone with the courage and ability to take on any Democratic "dream ticket."

Abel Keogh is a writer and editor who lives in Utah. His memoir, Room for Two, was just published by Cedar Fort. His web site is www.abelkeogh.com

Whose Rights Should Prevail?

Abel Keogh — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 15:53:28 EDT

Let’s say you own a grocery store. Because you think smoking is an unhealthy habit, you make the decision that your store shouldn’t sell cigarettes or other tobacco-related products. However, you happen live in a state where a lot of people choose to smoke. Because smokers have a lot of political clout, they convince the state legislature that their “right” to buy cigarettes supersedes your right as a store owner to choose which products to sell. In response, the legislature passes a law that says every grocery store in the state must sell cigarettes and other tobacco products – even if the store owner has personal or moral objections to selling them.What if you decide to sell tobacco products but have an employee that finds smoking or using tobacco immoral and refuses to sell them when customers ask to purchase them? Should you be able to fire the employee or should his religious or moral beliefs supplant your right to sell legal products to customers? In a perfect world most people would recognize that the law passed in the first example is tyrannical and would be outraged that a store would be forced to sell a product the owner finds objectionable. In the second example most people would realize no one has a right to a job; therefore, if an employee objects to a product that a business sells, the employee is free to find work elsewhere. Sadly, we live in a time when most people choose to be victims and believe that when one of their “rights” has been violated they should be able to force their supposed rights on others via laws, regulations, or judicial fiat. When that happens, you get laws like the one that went into effect this week in Washington state that pits the rights of drugstore owners, employees, and consumers against each other. The new state regulation requires drugstores and pharmacists to sell emergency contraceptives, also know as the “morning-after pills,” despite drugstore owners' or pharmacists' objections to dispensing them. Under the new requirements, pharmacists with personal objections to any drug can opt out by getting a co-worker to fill an order so long as the patient didn’t have to come back for a repeat visit. Drugstores and pharmacists who don’t comply with the new regulations could possibly lose their license. In a truly free society, such regulations wouldn’t be necessary. Consumers would realize that there is no “right” to emergency contraceptives just like there’s no right to purchase bananas, chewing gum, or tobacco. Just because a store refuses to carry a product, it doesn’t mean consumers can’t find what they’re looking for elsewhere and are free to patronize stores that carry the products they want. Even if every pharmacy in the state of Washington refused to carry emergency contraceptives, there’s nothing stopping someone from starting his or her own pharmacy in order to dispense emergency contraceptives to those who want them. Pharmacists would realize that there’s no “right” to a job. Those who have religious, moral, or other objections to filling prescriptions for emergency contraceptives aren’t being forced to “choose between their livelihood and their moral beliefs.” They can talk to their employer, explain their concerns, and find some other way to do their job but still follow the wishes of the store owner to sell a product. If they’re unable to come to an agreement with their employer, they’re also free to seek employment at another pharmacy that doesn’t carry emergency contraceptives or start their own store where they aren’t forced to sell products they find objectionable. Only the rights of the drugstores are truly being violated. Owners are not only being forced to stock a product they may not want on their shelves but they’re also put in a position where they must make special accommodations to employees who don’t want to sell a legal product or be prepared for a lengthy court battle if they choose to fire them. The Washington state emergency contraceptives regulation is simply the result of political pressure to give a “right” to buy a product to those who will keep elected politicians in power when no such right exists. The regulation isn’t even necessary considering state law already allows the pill to be distributed to adults without a prescription. Even the Washington State Pharmacy Association noted that it’s rare that pharmacies refuse to fill these prescriptions. But under pressure from the governor and lawmakers, the pharmacy board decided the “rights” of those seeking emergency contraceptives supersede the rights of everyone else. The new regulation is currently being challenged in federal court by a pharmacy owner and two pharmacists. It will be left to the courts to decide whose “rights” are more important than others. Sadly, history has shown us that when judges are involved in sorting out rights, Constitutional rights tend to be eroded and new rights created out of thin air. A little understanding of true Constitutional rights and the free market from consumers, employees, politicians, and government busybodies would go a long way into settling this dispute without involving state government or the courts. The courts should simply throw out the proposed regulation and let drugstores, employees, and consumers work out a solution that benefits everyone. It’s the price to be paid if we want to live in a truly free society.

Abel Keogh is a writer and editor who lives in Utah. His memoir, Room for Two, was just published by Cedar Fort. His web site is www.abelkeogh.com