The former was a book I picked up while on vacation out west at the site of the Little Bighorn.  My brother and I earlier this summer spent a week camping, hiking, and sight seeing in Yellowstone National Park, the Little Bighorn National Battlefield, and the city of Deadwood, South Dakota.  While at the Little Bighorn, we ate at an Indian trading post right outside the battlefield, and while perusing the gift shop, I spotted the book by Philbrick.  A friend had recommended his book, In the Heart of the Sea, and this book about Custer was fairly recent, so I thought I’d pick it up and give it a shot.  It claimed to have some new information based on never before published accounts of a soldier at the Little Bighorn.

I’m glad I got the book, but there wasn’t anything really new in it.  I had previously read two other books about the Little Bighorn, Son of the Morning Star by Evan S. Connell, and Crazy Horse and Custer by Stephen Ambrose.  The former was a comprehensive look at the battle and the notable figures in it, the latter focused much more specifically on the title characters.  But both had covered much of the ground concerning all things related to the Battle of the Little Bighorn.  Still, Philbrick’s account was interesting.  He gave a much more structured account of the battle, detailing each move made by both the Seventh Calvary and also by the Sioux.  Ambrose really only focused on the battle at the end of his book, and Connell, while having much more detail, was less focused in his approach.  So it was nice to read an account that laid things out in a more precise manner.

That said, there was at least one issue I had with Philbrick’s account, and that is his willingness to repeat any rumor, regardless of how flawed or biased the source might be.  Chief among these was the charge that Custer was a serial philanderer, and had had a carnal relationship with a Cheyenne woman he captured at the Battle of the Washita, even siring a child by her.  There is no concrete evidence that I have read (although I do admit I’m not a Custer expert) that would show that Custer ever cheated on his wife.  On the contrary, there is countless evidence that he was deeply devoted and madly in love with her, even willing to risk his military career to be at her side.  Philbrick’s evidence is highly circumstantial, and his source for the rumors regarding Custer and the Cheyenne captive is Frederick Benteen, who loathed and hated Custer and who some historians believe deliberately abandoned him to his death (I don’t think there’s any concrete evidence of this, for the record, either).  Further, Stephen Ambrose addresses Benteen’s charges in his book, and clearly shows how that the time frame for Custer having a child by this woman would be impossible.  Philbrick mentions the “Custer as a philanderer” theme a couple times, but I saw nowhere any proof that he ever cheated on his wife, except for the word of Benteen, who had every reason to lie.

Otherwise, I enjoyed the book.  While I would recommend it to anyone interested in the Battle of the Little Bighorn, I will say that I found both Connell and Ambrose’s works to be more compelling, and richer in detail.  Especially Connell’s…it’s a great book, and has so much detail, that it’s hard to pass up.

I just finished reading The Greatest Trade Ever, and it is one of the better books I’ve read this year.  It concerns the crash of the housing market, but focuses specifically on Wall Street traders and hedge fund managers who bought CDS contracts and bet against the housing market at the height of the bubble.  The primary focus of the book was hedge fund manager John Paulson.  Greg Zuckerman is a financial reporter for the Wall Street Journal, and he personally interviewed Paulson, as well as many of the other characters discussed in the book.

Regardless of what your opinion is of John Paulson, there is no question that he pulled off one of the most astounding financial coups in history.  Zuckerman details the high’s and low’s of the trade, set against the backdrop of first a booming housing market, and then a devastated economy when everything falls apart.  It’s a fascinating book.  I’m not even as much as a financial novice…I know next to nothing about hedge funds, credit default swaps, or all the rest.  This book, however, does a good job of making things as simplistic as possible for the outsiders.  Chapter 2 is especially great, where it details the causes of the housing bubble, that set it on its eventual path to bursting.

There are a few impressions that people might have that I felt were reinforced by the book.  The first is that folks on Wall Street are obsessed with displays of wealth.  The book is littered with accounts of people making ostentatious purchases, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on things like spa treatments, yachting excursions, and some of them living vicarious playboy lifestyles.  I’m sure there are people on Wall Street who don’t date two supermodels at a time and drop thousands on spa treatments which involve cutting open your back, but most of them weren’t mentioned in this book.  If they were married and had settled down, they usually lived in a forty million dollar mansion and vacationed in St. Bart’s on their private yachts.  More power to them, but it aptly illustrates the second obsession these folks had, and that was the love of money itself.  The book specifically states of many of these investors that they loved money from an early age.  And they were willing to do anything to get more of it.

I’m all about people making money.  Obviously, if you’ve read any of this blog, you know I believe in the power of the free market (although many of our economic problems stem from the fact that the market is not free of government interference).  But as a Christian, I also believe that the love of money is the root of all evil (I Timothy 6:10, Ecc. 5:10).  And it’s clear to me, judging by the manipulations of the market, both by people who were snatching up subprime mortgages as fast as they could, and people who were betting against them, that the love of money is part of what created the economic turmoil we are in in the first place.  The book details how, when Paulson couldn’t find enough toxic CDO’s to bet against, he worked with investment banks to CREATE MORE toxic CDO’s, in order that his payday would be larger when the housing bubble burst.  Of course, the banks foolishly and willingly went along, because they were sure that there was no bubble and they would just be taking Paulson’s money.

Further, it illustrates how consumed we are in America with possessions.  Paulson started betting against subprime mortgages because Americans foolishly believed they could afford $500,000 homes on $90,000 a year combined incomes.  People were possessed with the thought that they had to have a lavish home, complete with a jacuzzi and a wide screen HDTV.  And mortgage and real estate companies fed this lie, by selling them ARM’s and telling them they could refinance when the interest rate went up.  There were no innocent parties here.  People were obsessed with possessions, and consequently, placed themselves in a terrible position when housing prices began to fall.

The book is a little too complimentary of Paulson at times, but it does detail the problems a few other people who were also betting against the housing market had with their conscience.  In one case, an investor admitted feeling guilt because of his pure delight at seeing the housing market crash, because every time a borrower defaulted on their mortgage, he made more money.  He and his wife wrestled with their consciences, and tried to justify themselves, but thankfully, the book tells of his minister, who got in the guy’s face and told him that rejoicing in the misfortunes of others was flat out wrong.  There doesn’t seem to be any evidence that Paulson had a conscience.   In fact, he tried to keep the details of his trade as secret as possible, rather than sounding a warning about the coming crash.  They were afraid that if too many people found out what they were doing, the market would be flooded with people buying CDS contracts and betting against mortgages, and they would have to share a piece of the pie.

I won’t give you the rest of the details.  If you are interested, you should really read the book.  I highly recommend it.

Then, my wife Heather watched a few episodes of Psych, and she loved it.  She was convinced that I would love it too.  So I watched an episode or two, and really enjoyed it, but never committed to the series until we went to Virginia Beach this past spring for my wife’s embryo transfer.  Following the transfer, Heather was going to be on 24 hour bed rest, so before we went to the clinic, we found the first two seasons of Psych on sale and picked them up.  We promptly watched almost all of the first season the two days after her transfer, and immediately grew to love it.  For those unfamiliar with the concept of the show, it follows two best buddies, Shawn and Gus, who run a psychic detective agency.  The catch?  Neither of them are psychics.  Shawn, who inherited extreme observational tendencies from his mother and had his observation and deduction skills honed by his obsessive former police detective father, uses those abilities to solve crimes.  Due to a rather unfortunate incident with the police, Shawn was forced to attribute his deductions to psychic visions, and ever since the police have used him as a psychic investigator.

The show does several things well.  The character development is strong, with each member of the cast being fleshed out to some degree over the course of the show.  The dialogue is witty and engaging, with lots of pop culture and film references thrown in for laughs.  But one of the strongest elements is the relationship between the show’s two main characters.  Shawn and Gus have been friends since childhood, and their onscreen relationship is identifiable to any audience member familiar with the “straight man, funny man” routine.  I’m always a sucker for this thing…I’m a huge fan of Abbot and Costello, so the Psych formula was endearing to me.  Not only that, but I can identify with the idea of having a best friend.

Recently, I read an article on the New York Times regarding best friends.  It seems that in recent years, some educators and child psychologists have become convinced that despite thousands of years of societal and biological impulses, it is bad for children to have best friends.  They have become convinced that children having specific close interpersonal relationships leads to bullying and cliques.

“I think it is kids’ preference to pair up and have that one best friend. As adults — teachers and counselors — we try to encourage them not to do that,” said Christine Laycob, director of counseling at Mary Institute and St. Louis Country Day School in St. Louis. “We try to talk to kids and work with them to get them to have big groups of friends and not be so possessive about friends.”

“Parents sometimes say Johnny needs that one special friend,” she continued. “We say he doesn’t need a best friend.”

And of course, educators and counselors know better than parents the needs of a child.  After all, they have a degree!

Ok, seriously. I find it a bit disturbing that things that used to be considered normal, typical child behavior are now being considered abnormal and dangerous to the social or mental development of a child.  Are there times when friendships lead to bullying and cliques?  Absolutely.  And to that I say, so what?  Bullying and cliques have been around since before there were schools.  I’m going to venture to guess that this new psycho-analysis is not going to eliminate bullying or cliques.  On the other hand, the elimination of best friends is a sad thing, and in my uneducated opinion, is potentially detrimental to the social maturity of a child. Best friends transcend typical group friendships.  They are someone you can confide secrets in, share experiences with, and they help prepare you for adult experiences such as marriage.  For after all, what is a wife or a husband if not a best friend?  My wife is my best friend.  And the valuable experiences I learned as a child navigating the ins and outs of close interpersonal relationships helped prepare me for my marriage.

My best friend growing up was a kid named Courtney Dowland (Courtney, if you read this, what’s up, buddy?).  As far as I can recall, Courtney and I became good friends probably around second grade.  I don’t remember too much about those early days.  I do remember the first time I got permission to stay at his house, and how excited we were.  I remember hanging out with him on the playground, remember playing Nintendo with him at his house, remember setting off firecrackers in his back yard, and staying up all night watching movies.  As we got older the activities changed…we’d ride around town in his beat up Corsica at lunchtime, and drive to Wal-Mart on weekends and randomly move stuff all over the store just for kicks (there wasn’t a lot to do in Greene County).  We’d buy $1 paratrooper toys from the Dollar General to pitch them out the window (they never floated gracefully to earth).  We’d also butt heads a few times, but in the end, we always found a way to reconcile our differences and retain our friendship.

And yeah, there were times when we butted heads with other kids at the school.  My school wasn’t free of cliques or bullies.  But having a best friend helped you navigate the ins and outs of junior high and high school, because regardless of who did or didn’t like you, you knew you had a friend you could count on.

It’s sad to me that some know-it-all might attempt to deprive other kids of that same experience.  Having a best friend taught you valuable lessons about trust, about reconciliation, and about putting people in your life you could count on.  I had a lot of friends, to be sure.  To be truthful, by the time I was  a senior in high school, there wasn’t really anybody left that I didn’t get along with.  I had other close friends, as well.  But the experience of having a best friend in my formative years had prepared me for moments beyond my graduation from high school.

I understand the concept of having “big groups of friends,” as Ms. Laycob puts it.  My wife and I both have wide and diverse groups of friends.  But having a big group of friends, and having someone in your life that you can confide in and talk to about difficult decisions and inner turmoil are two totally different things.

I know cultural and societal norms are changing.  It wasn’t that long ago that Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerburg declared an end to the age of privacy, and to some degree, I understand what he’s saying.  I’m on Twitter and Facebook, and while I try to keep what I share to a minimum, I regularly see people sharing their most intimate thoughts and secrets online.  Wives and husbands tweet or message each other romantic musings for the public to see, or share details of personal interactions with friends and family members.   At any given time, I can know what people are eating, where they are shopping at, or what their plans are for the weekend.  Even blogs like this one…I’ve shared triumphs and experiences for anyone on the internet to see.  And some of this has bled over into our interpersonal relationships with others.

I’ve got 130 connections on Facebook (and I daresay that I’m way below the average FB user).  But the fact is, there are less than a handful of those 130 that I would feel comfortable divulging deeply personal information with.  That, I reserve for my closest friends (primarily, my wife).  And it’s my personal experience that those who become too open, and don’t have a few close personal friendships to rely on, suffer from loneliness the most, and get burnt the easiest.  Trust is an integral part of friendship, and frankly, having “large groups of friends” doesn’t factor in the beneficial aspects of having deeply personal relationships, such as trust and intimacy (and I mean that in a platonic way).  If life has taught me one thing, it’s that you can’t rely on just having large groups of friends.  I can count on quite a few of my friends to offer prayer for me when I’m sick, or when I’m facing a crisis.  I can count on quite a few friends to offer me congratulations when I get blessed, or condolences when I’m in grief.  But the number of friends I can turn to when I need an ear to talk to, when I need a confidant, when I need advice, when I need a kick in the pants, or when I need a shoulder to lean on…that’s another story.  And that kind of friendship needs to be learned from an early age.

What about the dangers of friendships gone awry?

In recent years Timber Lake Camp, a co-ed sleep-away camp in Phoenicia, N.Y., has started employing “friendship coaches” to work with campers to help every child become friends with everyone else. If two children seem to be too focused on each other, the camp will make sure to put them on different sports teams, seat them at different ends of the dining table or, perhaps, have a counselor invite one of them to participate in an activity with another child whom they haven’t yet gotten to know.“I don’t think it’s particularly healthy for a child to rely on one friend,” said Jay Jacobs, the camp’s director. “If something goes awry, it can be devastating. It also limits a child’s ability to explore other options in the world.”

So to protect children from the potential grief of losing a friend, we just protect them from making close friends?  How in the name of common sense can this be healthy?

You can’t protect children from grief.  You SHOULDN’T protect children from grief.  Part of life is experiencing loss.  Whether that loss involves the passing of a beloved family member, or whether it is a friend that walks out of your life, these are experiences you are going to go through (unless you are a hermit and sequester yourself from the rest of the world).  This kind of thinking is not rational, nor is it helpful in developing and preparing children for the real world.  It’s akin to the do-gooders who want to ban recess because a child might fall down and skin their knuckles.  Why in the world would we want to protect kids from the beautiful experience of life?  Yes, losing a friend can hurt.  But it hurts because the experience of having a friend is so valuable.  We should be teaching kids to love hard and live hard.  Fully commit.  How much joy can you get out of life if you are always trying to protect yourself from the pain of loss?  And how are these kids going to be equipped for the realities of life with this kind of attitude?  It’s this kind of attitude that says, don’t fully commit to your marriage because if something goes awry, it can be devastating.  Don’t fully commit to your work, because if the business fails, it can be devastating.  Don’t fully commit to anything or anyone, because if you lose that, you won’t be able to cope. But no amount of protection is going to keep you from experiencing pain at one point or another.  But you can protect yourself from loving, and in so doing rob yourself of the most valuable moments of your life.

Thankfully, the article does take the time to point out that not everyone shares the views being expressed.

“Do we want to encourage kids to have all sorts of superficial relationships? Is that how we really want to rear our children?” asked Brett Laursen, a psychology professor at Florida Atlantic University whose specialty is peer relationships. “Imagine the implication for romantic relationships. We want children to get good at leading close relationships, not superficial ones.”

Many psychologists believe that close childhood friendships not only increase a child’s self-esteem and confidence, but also help children develop the skills for healthy adult relationships — everything from empathy, the ability to listen and console, to the process of arguing and making up. If children’s friendships are choreographed and sanitized by adults, the argument goes, how is a child to prepare emotionally for both the affection and rejection likely to come later in life?

My point exactly.  I wouldn’t have traded my experiences growing up for anything in the world, because they’ve helped prepare me for later experiences in my life.

I’ve got several close friends now, but my best friend is still my wife.  There’s nobody else that I trust as implicitly, nobody else that I feel as confident in turning to when I need help with problems.  We butt heads sometimes, but I’ve learned that proving myself right isn’t nearly as valuable as my relationship with my best friend.  And that’s a lesson I learned a long time ago.

As for the idea that best friends are bad for you….well, as Shawn Spencer says:  “I’d say that’s pretty ridiculous. Not as ridiculous as Denise Richards playing a nuclear physicist named Christmas Jones in a Bond movie, but still.”

I don’t need to point out all the fallacies in this plan, but I will point out some of them anyway.  First is the fact that these kinds of taxes usually end up placing an extra financial burden on the poor.  Look at cigarettes.  We’ve taxed cigarettes to death, and honestly, has it brought smoking to a halt?  No.  It’s true smoking has gone downhill, but that has  a lot more to do with the fact that people have become more aware of the dangers of smoking. Studies indicate that smokers usually tend to be poorer and less educated, and they are the ones that bear the burden of the government’s misguided foray into trying to protect people from themselves.  I predict that if this tax goes through, the same thing will happen.  People will use Link cards and food stamps to continue to pay for sugary beverages, but they’ll have less money to spend on stuff that is good for them.  So the taxpayer will end up subsidizing sugary beverages that they can’t afford to buy themselves, and the people who don’t rely on social welfare programs will be eating even less healthy and paying more for it.

Second is the fact that these kinds of market manipulations always do more harm than good.  Artificially inflating the price of one thing in order to force people to buy something else has NEVER worked.  Stephen Chu, the US Energy Secretary, advocates (or he did) artificially inflating the price of oil to force people to buy costly alternative energies.  But when the price of oil skyrocketed in the summer of 2008, what happened?  It spurred economic downturn, and while it wasn’t responsible for the market collapse, it did play a role.  Like green advocates do with energy, the health food police look at the cost of healthier foods and beverages, and decide that rather than finding a way to bring the prices of those things down, the way to get people to buy healthier foods is to force the cost of unhealthy foods up.  The fact is that this damages the economy, not only because you are maliciously targeting one sector (in this case, the soft drink industry) at the expense of another sector, but also because you are increasing prices on consumers across the board. Consider what the article says:

Registered Dietician Lisa Micetich, from Little Company of Mary Hospital, thinks something like a sweet beverage tax could make a healthier option more appealing.

“If people think, ‘Oh I can get milk cheaper, or for the same price,’ there’s a better alternative,” said Micetich.

But you haven’t made milk cheaper!  You’ve just made soda more expensive.  So you’ve placed an extra burden on the consumer, and additionally, you’ve placed a burden on every person who produces, sells, and distributes soda.  We won’t go into how government policies affect the price of milk…I’ll direct you to this article as one example.  But the fact is, these manipulations are NOT products of the free market.

The article also says:

“I think it’s silly,” said Bill Baffes. He owns the County Fair Grocery Store.

“Where do you draw the line?” he asked.

“That’s what the democratic process is about,” said Bassler.

So now democracy is all about a group of people (I won’t even say a majority, since I doubt a majority of Illinois taxpayers support this) deciding what is best for the rest of us?  We have to be protected from ourselves?  This is the way politicians think.  People need the government to protect them, not from foreign enemies, but from their own bad choices.  The thinking is, you don’t know what’s good for you.  You need someone to make choices for you, because you cannot possibly decide what is right for you on your own. By the way, FYI to Ms. Bassler, but this country is not a democracy.  It’s a democratic republic, and the Founders feared a pure democracy as much as they did a monarchy.

And the County Fair owner said people will still get their soda. If something eventually passed here in Illinois, they might find it cheaper over the state line.

So the only people this will affect are people who aren’t lucky enough to live close to a state with more sense than Illinois.  For me, I thankfully live close to Missouri, so if such a tax passed and I wanted Coke, I could just buy it over here.  Of course, this also brings up the fact that once people start buying a few items across state lines, they will eventually decide to do all their shopping where they buy their soda.  This in turn means grocery stores close to the Illinois state line will suffer because of this misguided tax against soda.

What we need is not protection from ourselves.  What we need is protection from know-it-all politicians who think they know what’s best for you.  Illinois has one of the most corrupt, fiscally irresponsible governments in the United States.  Our previous two governors have both been indicted on corruption charges, and the present governor, Pat Quinn, has advocated raising taxes while giving HUGE raises to people in his administration.  And now these health police advocates believe this state, which can’t restrain itself from corruption, graft, and immoral behavior, should restrain you from drinking Coke and Pepsi.  Is it any wonder residents hate this state and are ashamed to call themselves citizens of it?

The argument is that violent video games may make people more aggressive, therefore, retailers should be prohibited from selling them to minors.  Currently the Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) has a tiered rating system which appears on video games that lets parents know the age appropriateness of a game, but it’s not mandatory and there is nothing to prohibit a retailer from selling a game like Grand Theft Auto to a 13 year old.

I read a short blog post from Focus on the Family’s entertainment site, Plugged In, on this issue.  The main point of criticism regarded a Time magazine piece about the courts and the California law, and the contention of the Time contributor that due to the ESRB rating system, kids are already less likely to be playing violent video games.  Although it isn’t explicitly stated, judging from the tone of the Plugged In article, the author, Bob Hoose, supports the state of California’s efforts to keep kids from buying violent video games.  The majority of the comments seemed in favor of this as well.

Leaving aside, for a moment, the idea asserted by the Time reporter that the ESRB keeps fewer kids from playing violent video games, what is there to say about the fact that a fairly conservative site such as Plugged In supports the California legislation?  I like Plugged In.  I don’t always agree with their assessment of games, movies, and books, but I appreciate that they are a private resource that makes parents jobs easier when it comes to monitoring what kids watch, read, listen to, or play.  Such resources are valuable for parents in a world where they don’t always have time to read every book, watch every movie, or listen to every CD before deeming it fit or unfit for their children.

But I see the California legislation not as a battleground for parents, but rather an attack against freedom.  Let’s face it, legislators deciding what is or is not appropriate for a certain segment of the population is never a good thing, regardless of whether or not you believe children should engage in the activity being legislated against.  This law is for parents who don’t want to bother taking the time to monitor what their kids are watching.  They don’t want to be bothered to access private resources like Plugged In, because it is easier just to let the government tell a store owner he can’t sell certain video games to their kids.

Some people may argue that the legislation isn’t a stand in for parents, but rather is another resource.  After all, you can tell your kids they can’t play Grand Theft Auto, but they could go buy the game and play it behind your back anyway, right?  This legislation will help a parent in their job, not do it for them, correct?

Wrong.  Consider other age restricted products and their availability.  According to the Monitoring the Future Study, since 1993, the number of 12th graders who say alcohol is “fairly easy” or “very easy” to get, has remained virtually unchanged.  Ditto the 10th graders, who dropped about 5 or 10 percentage points but still have over 80% of participants reporting that they can get alcohol if they want it.   Participants who admit to having used alcohol in the last 30 days has dropped increasingly over the years, but due to the fact that alcohol is readily available, I’d say that has more to do with being properly educated regarding the dangers of drinking than it does with the government restricting minors from drinking.  The same goes for other drugs, such as marijuana.  The number of 12th graders reporting that marijuana is “fairly easy” or “very easy” to get has only dropped about 5 percentage points since 1975.  The number of 10th graders reporting availability is “easy to get” has actually gone up since the survey was first done in the early 90′s.  And oh, by the way….10th AND 12th grades have both seen increases in the amount of students using marijuana since those grades were first surveyed in the early 90′s.

What does all this mean?  It means that legislation designed to prevent certain things from being readily available to children often doesn’t work.  All it does is give the government, be it local, state, or federal, a foot in the door when it comes to legislating the lives of its citizens.  What works is when parents, teachers, and other influential figures in the lives of children take time to teach them about the dangers of certain activities like drug use, and parents have an active role in the lives of their children.  To the parents of California who support this law, I say be a parent.  Stop lobbying the government to give you a hand, and step up to the plate.  There are plenty of resources out there to help parents stay abreast of the culture your children live in, and taking the time to love and teach your child will go a lot further than government intervention ever will.  Government legislation almost always sets a dangerous precedent, and this case is no different.  Citizens should fear the power of government, because it is a double edged sword that is just as easily used to violate our rights as it is to protect them.

So what of the author of the Time article, who asserted that “…with an estimated 80% of retailers voluntarily refusing to sell mature games to minors, it stands to reason that the more violent the scenario, the less likely it is that a child is the one mashing the buttons”?

Bob Hoose says:  “What E-rated make-believe land does she live in?”

I’m not sure which part of the comment that Mr. Hoose is disagreeing with.  Assuming that it’s the assertion that voluntarily complying with ESRB ratings and refusing to sell video games with violent content to minors makes it less likely  that children will play the video games, then why are parents advocating for legislation to prohibit minors from buying violent video games?  If an estimated 80% of retailers voluntarily refusing to sell violent games to minors isn’t making it less likely for children to play violent video games, then why would we think 100% of retailers being mandated by the government from selling violent video games to minors would have different results?

I support a retailer’s right to refuse to  sell certain products to certain segments of the population based on a moral or ethical code.  In this case, I agree with the stance that retailers take when they voluntarily comply with the ESRB ratings.  In addition to the fact that retailers should be able to decide what they do with their own property, I agree with the stance that kids don’t need to be playing excessively violent video games.  But that decision should be left up the retailers who sell the game, and ultimately to the parents who feed, clothe, shelter, and raise their children.  Responsible parenting is not a job that the state should have a part in.

In the new “Robin Hood,” Russell Crowe’s iconic medieval hero wears no tights, shows little interest in redistribution of wealth, scarcely bothers with the Sheriff of Nottingham, fights alongside Maid — sorry, Lady Marion and all but forces King John to sign the Magna Carta.

I don’t want to nitpick over this, but I’ve heard this mantra about Robin Hood as a redistributor of wealth a couple times now as the film’s release has drawn near.  But it completely ignores the basis of the tale.

Greedy Sir John, the corrupt governmental leader of England in the absence of his brother Richard, and the Sheriff of Nottingham, another public official, overtax the citizens and drive them into poverty.  Unfair laws that forbid the killing of the king’s deer forced good citizens to become outlaws and flee to Sherwood Forest.  Robin Hood decides to restore justice by stealing from the rich politicians and bureaucrats, who have become wealthy through the taxation of the citizenry.  That’s not wealth redistribution.  It’s called taking from the government what belonged to the people in the first place.  Somehow there is this perception of Robin Hood as a form of the US government, taxing middle class and upper class citizens in order to give back to the poor.  This does not fit with the legend of Robin Hood at all.  On the contrary, Robin Hood stole from the government and opposed the corrupt politicians, in order to give back to people who had been taxed into poverty in the first place.  Wealth redistribution is taking from people who have to give to people who don’t have in the name of equality.  What Robin Hood did was take from the government what they had taken from the people, who didn’t have because the government had taken it from them.  Further, he opposed ridiculous laws which forbade hunting.  I’m sure PETA would’ve been driven quite insane, launching an ad campaign with naked people and fake blood, to shut down Robin Hood’s government opposition.

So when you munch on popcorn and watch Russell Crowe run a few English soldiers through with his broadsword, remember that Robin Hood was the ultimate libertarian.

Now, when I first saw Hannah Montana, to my chagrin, I found it strangely addicting.  It’s not good television.  The acting is, for the most part, pretty horrible.  The story lines are cliched, over-the-top, and patently unrealistic.  But for some reason, I would find it just amusing enough to waste my time on.  It didn’t hurt that Miley Cyrus and her dad seemed like nice enough people, if a little shallow.

Not anymore. Today,  Miley Cyrus and her one hit wonder dad have morphed into everything that’s wrong with the entertainment industry.  In addition to using the family friendly Disney channel as a launching pad into her devoid-of-talent career as an actress and pop star, Miley is a poster child for the ridiculous and lame.  Her singing is at best, average.  Her songs lack any depth and are truly mediocre in every respect.  She isn’t even as good an actor as Lindsay Lohan was, which is saying something.  But her real crime is giving the finger to parents all across the nation who have purchased her crap for their kids and bought into the Disney persona, only to have to explain to their children why Smiley Miley is now appearing as an S & M bird cavorting around in a giant nest.

That’s right, a bird.  I won’t insult my blog by posting the video of her latest musical debacle, entitled, “I Can’t Be Tamed.”  Now, it’s fair to state that I’m not a music connoisseur.  The extent of my music knowledge consists of thumbing through radio stations when there are no Cardinals ballgames on.  I haven’t watched a full music video since I was in high school.  And clearly, the Cyrus’s are making top dollar peddling their daughter as a sexed up version of Big Bird, so maybe I should be taking notes.  On the other hand, I’m more inclined to believe Miley’s continued success is a testament to how greedy sell-outs can exploit vapid teenagers than it is a real triumph of art.  What Miley is doing to her young fan base could probably be compared to what John Paulson and Goldman Sachs did.

Liz Kelly over at the Washington Post’s Celebritology blog had this to say:

It’s called “Can’t Be Tamed,” but should perhaps be called “I Am Some Kind of Sexually Predatory Bird Woman (And Please Ignore the Fact That I’m Still Underage While I Grind Against This Guy).” A mouthful, but it would be more accurate.

Exactly.  For those who haven’t seen the video, it starts out with a new rare and exotic caged bird being introduced as the “Avis Cyrus.”  It’s Miley, replete with huge wings and thick eyeliner, rising up out of a gigantic nest, like a representative of Eagle Insurance.  Or maybe what you would get if Cher and Howard the Duck had a love child.  Anyway, she then prances around for 3 or 4 minutes with a group of leather and feather clad dancers, grinding up against them and touching herself while proclaiming that she can’t be tamed.  And oh yeah…she’s at one point wearing a $25,000 corset.  She can’t be tamed, but if the money’s right she can be bought, I guess.  The video also includes some pole dancing, and a lot of really scary looking back up dancers, as well as various shots of Miley rooting around in her nest.  I kid you not.  Someone, somewhere, thought this was a good idea.  Probably the same poor souls who thought robot humping in Transformers was a good idea.  And then, Miley and her dad had to sign off on it.  Of course, they did sign off on the Hannah Montana movie as well, so I guess their judgment has never been the greatest.  Still, this represents a radical departure from the merely puerile.  Millions of parents are now going to have some explaining to do, as to why Hannah Montana looks like a scantily clad giant peacock.  In this day and age, with lazy parents looking to the government to censor everything from video games to comic books so they don’t have to bother themselves with responsible parenting, it’s more likely they’ll just whine about it while continuing to drop money on Miley merchandise.

Either way, it’s a bit disturbing.

“But it troubles me when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad,” said Obama, who received an honorary doctor of laws degree. “For when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it conveniently ignores the fact in our democracy, government is us.”

Thomas Paine said:

“Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.”

And while James Madison didn’t necessarily consider government an evil, he did consider its necessity a “misfortune.”

“It has been said that all Government is an evil. It would be more proper to say that the necessity of any Government is a misfortune. This necessity however exists; and the problem to be solved is, not what form of Government is perfect, but which of the forms is least imperfect.”

As for Obama’s assertion that the “government is us,”  nothing could be farther from the truth.  First of all, the government has taken powers for itself that do not belong to it.  The Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of all state and federal laws, despite the fact that the Constitution does not give it this authority.  The Supreme Court is NOT elected, and their appointments are for life.  Furthermore, Congress and the Presidency have become a haven for those who can obfuscate, cover-up, and deceive the American people, and then create laws to protect themselves from being held accountable.  The constitutional republic created by the Founders put limitations on the government it created, but the government no longer obeys those limitations, and they are supported by the Supreme Court, who sits on their seats of power and declares whether or not they consider something to be constitutional, regardless of whether or not it’s actually contained in the Constitution.  Historical cases like Wickard v. Fillburn or modern cases like Kelo v. New London prove that the government will not be bound by any restraints.

I quoted Jefferson in an earlier post, but I think his words bear repeating here:

That the principle and construction contended for by sundry of the state legislatures, that the general government is the exclusive judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, stop nothing short of despotism; since the discretion of those who administer the government, and not the constitution, would be the measure of their powers:

So by Jefferson’s definition, our current government is despotism.  Whether or not you would classify the despotism as benign or not is up to you, but if you agree with Jefferson’s criteria, that the government is the exclusive arbiter of the extent of its powers, then you have to agree with his conclusion, that such a state of affairs is despotism.  You, as a citizen, may have the right to vote, but you have no say in whether or not the federal government is acting within it’s constitutional limits, and the people who DO have that say are not elected by you, they are appointed and voted on by the federal government.

The article also points out that Obama tried using the financial crisis as an example to make his point.

The financial meltdown dramatically showed the dangers of too little government, he said, “when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly led to the collapse of our entire economy.”

Funny how he never mentions the lack of government accountability.  Or the unelected Federal Reserve’s accountability.  (The Fed Chairman, like the Supreme Court, is appointed by the President).  Even though it’s clear, from anyone who has studied the meltdown, that the government, Wall Street, and the Federal Reserve combined to make the perfect storm of events that created a financial fiasco.  To blame it all on Wall Street is incredibly naive.  And it’s pretty telling that Henry Paulson, the former Treasury Secretary who was also the former CEO of Goldman-Sachs, has heaped praise on Obama’s Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, who was president of the Federal Reserve bank in New York before taking his position in the Obama administration.  These people are all in bed together.  And the President knows it.  He’s trying to shift the blame in order for further power grabs.

No, Mr. President, the government is not us.  The government is you, and your appointees, and your friends on both Wall Street and the Federal Reserve who consistently deceive the American Public.

PJ and Brittney Walters released a statement, thanking well-wishers for their prayers and concern over the life of their daughter.

Message from P.J. and Brittney Walters:

We would like to thank everyone for their endless prayers and support for the last two months. We can not express enough just how much they meant to us and our family. After going back and reading the posts, we still can’t believe how everyone was praying for Annabelle and us.

We only had Annabelle for a short time but we realize how many lives she touched. She was truly a blessing to us. There are things that we can’t explain and don’t understand, but we do know God had a purpose for Annabelle and we can see that she brought a lot of people and families closer with each other and closer with their walk with God.

Again, thank you to all Cardinal Nation and the Cardinal organization. We are very blessed to be in an organization like the Cardinals. Please keep our family in your prayers.

PJ and Brittney Walters

This sums up in many ways how I felt about losing Madelyn, particularly the part about “can’t explain and don’t understand.”  Plenty of people, in the months since we lost her, have tried in their own ways to give us some sort of reasoned and logical explanation as to why we lost our daughter.  But the truth is that it is just something you can’t explain and don’t understand.  I agree with the Walters that God had a purpose for their daughter, just as He did for Madelyn.  It’s because, as a person of faith, I believe that God has a reason for everything, even when I don’t understand it.  But if you are asking me to explain it, or trying to explain it to me, you might as well save your breath.  There is no explanation that I could understand that would explain the loss of my child.  I simply have to file it in that “I will never understand it” category and accept that God alone knows.

The Walters point out that there were visible effects that showed the impact that their daughter had in her short time on earth, and I’ve seen the same thing with Madelyn.  I won’t lie…I’d rather have my daughter.  But at the same time, she’s made a difference.  Heather’s gotten plenty of opportunities to encourage, befriend, and be a blessing to other mothers wrestling with the grief of losing a child.  I feel like I’m a little closer with some of my family, particularly my parents.  And I’ve had to learn to rely on God in ways that I didn’t before.

I know from experience that the Walters will have a lot to deal with in the coming months, as they try to come to grips with the loss of their daughter.  If you think of it, just say a prayer for them, that God will give them the same grace, comfort, and strength that he’s given Heather and I throughout our painful ordeal.

Still, as I said, I understand why the Cardinals are ranked so low.  But some recognition for the incredible job the organization has done in developing players that have turned into solid major league contributors would not be out of line.  And the Cardinals do have some solid prospects in their organization, just nobody on the near horizon.

But what really burned me recently is Sports Illustrated’s recent ranking of Cardinals GM John Mozeliak as only the 18th best manager in the Major Leagues.  Seriously?  I know Mo hasn’t been on the job forever.  I also know that several of the players on the team were signed or drafted under former G.M. Walt Jocketty’s tenure.  But just look at all Mo has done.  He drafted Brett Wallace, who became the cornerstone of the Holliday trade, which put the Cardinals in the playoffs last year.  He then managed to resign Holliday against the odds and for less than Holliday’s agent Boras had initially indicated he was looking for.  He signed Kyle Lohse, signed Brad Penny, signed Felipe Lopez, all of which have made the Cardinals strong contenders for the NL pennant this year.  He drafted Shelby Miller, who is a top prospect and should be in the Major Leagues in short order.  I think Mo has done a fabulous job, and the Cardinals are now set to contend for at least the next several years.  Of course, Mozeliak’s real challenge will be resigning Albert Pujols, but I see no reason to think he can’t pull it off.

This is what the author of the SI article, Tim Marchman, has to say about Mozeliak:

18. John Mozeliak, St. Louis Cardinals

As is true of Jocketty, it’s a bit hard to know just how much credit to give Mozeliak for the Cardinals’ success, given how predicated it is on the unique talents of the coaching staff and the presence of perhaps the best right-handed hitter since Rogers Hornsby. Ultimately his reputation will probably rise or sink on how wise the team’s $120 million investment in Matt Holliday proves to be — it’s not at all the sort of decision a general manager makes alone, but it’s one he gets the credit or blame for.

So no matter how many brilliant moves Mo makes, he’s never going to get proper respect because he’s got the games greatest hitter and arguably one of the game’s best managers?  This is just a silly argument to make.  Is LaRussa able to get more from less?  Yeah.  Is Duncan able to rehabilitate washed up pitchers and turn them into pitching geniuses?  Yeah.  But none of that negates what a general manager is able to do in seeing talent that can be developed and used by Duncan.  I think a general manager should get credit not just for signing good players, but knowing the strengths of his coaching staff and signing players he knows can be developed and utilized in the best possible manner by his coaches.  Jocketty, and now Mozeliak, have done a fantastic job with this, and combining that with signing an established star like Holliday ought to, in my estimation, put Mozeliak at least in the top ten.  Consider some of Marchman’s top ten picks.

He’s got the Devil Rays Andrew Friedman at number 1, which I don’t have much of a problem with.  Friedman has done a great job of developing from within and turning the Rays into a contending team in the toughest division in Major League baseball.  But what gets me are the next two names on the list, Theo Epstein and Brian Cashman from the Red Sox and Yankees, respectively.  They are the GM’s of two of the highest payrolls in baseball.  No one can argue with their success, but based on Marchman’s criteria, I don’t see how they can rank 2 and 3.  He specifically lists no screw-ups as being a factor in the overall rankings, yet Epstein overpaid for JD Drew, who has never played 150 games, and in my opinion overpaid for Daisuke Matsuzaka, who had one great year in 2008 but otherwise hasn’t been much better than mediocre.  And Marchman specifically references signing costly, terrible free agents.  So why list Cashman at number 3 when he’s tendered contracts to guys like Carl Pavano?  The Yankees can’t get set back when they issue terrible contracts, because they have so much money, but for another team such a signing might be devastating.  Cashman can afford to make mistakes.

I’m not arguing that these guys don’t deserve a high spot in any list of top GM’s.  But when it comes to the criteria specifically cited by Marchman, I don’t think Cashman or Epstein deserve to be at the top of the list.  They’ve got almost unlimited resources at their disposal, and until recently, the Yankees had been spending money without having won the World Series since 2000.  But even more confusing is some of his other picks in the top 10.  Larry Beinfest of the Marlins I get…the Marlins have done a decent job of developing players in their organization and finding ways to compete with a limited salary.  But Doug Melvin, the Brewers GM at #6?  The Brew Crew has had two winning seasons in the last 10 years, has never finished first in their division and only made the playoffs once.  How, exactly, does one trade (Marchman references the Sabathia trade) qualify Melvin for a top 10 spot?  Yeah, the Brewers have got some good young players, but they simply do not have the guns in the NL Central to compete…even if the Cardinals were to stumble, the Cubs pitching staff is superior to that of the Brewers.

Or how about Jon Daniels of the Texas Rangers?  He’s ranked 8th, yet the Rangers haven’t made the playoffs since 1999.  They’ve got a great farm system, but judging a GM on future prospects alone is no way to judge his performance.  We don’t know if Daniels prospects will even pan out.  Meanwhile, the Phillies Ruben Amaro is ranked 19th behind Mozeliak.  Yeah, he’s been on the job one year.  He also has a pennant to his name, as well as the distinction of having brought two Cy Young winners to Philly in Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay.  The Dodgers Ned Colletti is ranked 26th, yet the Post-Dispatch rightly points out that due to his trades for Manny Ramirez and Casey Blake the Dodgers have been in the playoffs the last two years.

The only thing I can gather is that Marchman must love the AL.  Of the top 10, seven are in the American League, and 10 of the top 15 are American League teams.  This despite the fact that NL teams are forced to get a little more bang for their buck out of position players because they don’t have the luxury of the D.H.  That’s a topic for another time, but I just don’t get Marchman’s ratings.  He makes a joke in his article about hating your favorite team, foreseeing, I guess, that fans like me would bawk at where their favorite team is placed.  But c’mon.  Placing the two biggest payrolls in the top three, and then including general managers of teams that have been largely mediocre (Brewers, Rangers) just seems to me to be begging for criticism.   I agree with his assessment that it’s difficult to judge where a GM should be ranked since GM’s have different resources and structures that they work with.  Still, I think he’s missed the mark.

But that’s just me.