drtennis’s whereIstand Blog

They are if we validate the acclaim of their peers in the movie business. Dozens of ballots are cast by members of the Academy. Certainly the opinions of actors, directors, producers and others in Hollywood, should provide a fair evaluation of particular films.

There is at least one caveat. Members of the Academy are likely to vote for films that appeal to them personally. Sometimes their tastes can be esoteric, and their votes can reflect nuances that rscape the viewing public.

This leads us to the question whether audience acceptance is a valid measure of a film’s worth. It may seem crass to certain members of the Academy, to measure worth by boxoffice receipts. Yet without revenue, there would be no artists and studios to produce the entertainment that Middle America pays to see.

It has been said, that Hollywood likes to make films that they themselves appreciate. Unfortunately, these films often bomb at the boxoffice. Of the 5 films nominated in 2008, for best picture, 4 of them did not gross $100 million. That is very disappointing by Hollywood standards.

Films that are G or PG rated, fare much better in revenue, than R rated movies. You would think producers would take note of this. But Hollywood continues to make stuff that they feel proud of, as opposed to what people in fly over country want to view.

So the answer is that awards are partly a valid measure of worth. But only partly.

                                     Dick Brooks

The theory behind the issue question is, that Clinton would get the majority of the female vote, while Obama would draw most of the African-American vote. Plausible theory, but in the primaries thus far, it hasn’t worked out exactly that way.

While it is true that Clinton gets a majority of the women, the margin is disappointly small. If it were not for older women, the margin overall would disappear. Clinton’s unfavorables are alarmingly high, even among women.

On the other hand, Obama has proven to be much more than just a black candidate. In most of the primaries, Obama has scored very well among white men. This tendency showed up right from the start. In the Iowa caucuses, where blacks are a very small minority, Obama won 58 to 41 among white males! The trend has continued. Is it because of Obama’s charisma, or because of Clinton’s high negatives? Probably some of both.

Insiders suggest that Clinton and Obama do not really like each other. Not a good basis for sharing a ticket, although there is historical precedent. Eisenhower -Nixon and Kennedy-Johnson come to mind.

Another question is would either one be willing to accept the second spot?  Clinton might swallow her pride at a long shot to get back into The White House. Obama, probably not. His star is rising and he doesn’t need to carry the Clinton baggage.

So, forget about the proposed ticket. It’s not going to happen.

                                  Dick Brooks

One might answer, why not?  Without a doubt, there has been, in recent years, a movement to get God out of the picture in our country. Some trace its genesis to the removal of prayer in public schools, over 40 years ago. In any event, pressure continues, and removal of God from the Pledge is just the latest battleground.

There is a major problem, however, and that concerns our heritage as a nation.  If we examine our founding documents, we find them loaded with references to God. The Declaration of Independance states, “we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights”. It also includes such phrases as  “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world” and “with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence”. This shows the very powerful mindset of the Founders with regard to Deity.

Other documents throughout our history, substantiate our reliance on God. If we want to change the Pledge, shouldn’t we also be concerned about redactions in other documents, starting with the Declaration?

How about our songs, The Star Spangled Banner, The Battle Hymn of the Republic, and America?  And let’s not overlook God Bless America!

Consider the statues in Statuary Hall. There are many references to the Almighty and the Scriptures. Do we need to take a chisel and obliterate those words?

I think the case is clear. The words “under God” are consistent with our heritage. To those who want to change the Pledge, one might ask, suppose God in fact exists? What then¼/p>

On the surface, this appears to be a laudable concept. Churches and religious organizations are already active in missions of mercy. Certainly, most of them could use additional funds. However, the idea of government funding  is not good.

First of all, wherever the government provides monetary support, ultimately the government gains control of the program. It is not unlikely that decisions would be made, not where help is most needed, but where it might be most useful politically.

Second, churches and religious organizations give money based on the goodness of their hearts. The principle is that God blesses us with all that we need and more. As good stewards, we are to be further blessed by taking care of those in need. If government intervenes, it robs us of one of the blessings of good stewardship. This goes to the very core of most religions.

Third, it violates the doctrine of the separation of church and state. I hasten to add, that this comes from a misinterpretation of the first amendment. However, many people believe that idea, and the program discussed would probably meet with great opposition politically.

While it is true, that most people give small amounts to their churches, i.e. they fall way short of tithing, this is a problem for the clergy, not the government.

                                           Dick Brooks

Teaching sex education of any kind in schools is controversial. There are two main reasons. First, many teachers are ill equipped to teach it. So it often is assigned to a physical education teacher. Then it is covered primarily from a hygiene viewpoint. Second, sex ed is often taught with an agenda, stemming from the theory that kids are going to do it anyway.

Abstinence-only should be taught, if sex ed is going to be in the schools. The use of the word only is strange, since abstinence implies refraining completely. Abstinence is simple, obviously. But if it is in the curriculum, reasons why it is a good practice are important. Let’s exclude morality, religion, and parental responsibility from the discussion. I see three major reasons for stressing abstinence.

First, avoiding pregnancy. One of the myths or lies about birth control, is the efficacy of condoms. They only work about 85% of the time. Breaks and leakage can occur. These are not good odds when an event can occur that can impact the kids for a lifetime.

Second, sexually transmitted diseases go with promiscuity. There are more than 30 defined  STDs, many of which are incurable. Again, a condom is not a protection in the case of some of them.

Finally, the psychological ramifications of sexuality are more than teen-agers are prepared for. It is usually the girl who bears the brunt of the aftermath psychologically.

So if we teach abstinence, let’s do it forthrightly.

                             Dick Brooks

In the distant past, trade unions met a very vital need. That was, to protect workers against exploitation by employers. Exploitation abounded in such areas as unsafe working conditions, and inhuman working hours and days. Wages were depresed, another area where unions could help through the power of collective bargaining and the threat of strikes.

Fast forward to the present time. Legislation has largely eliminated bad working conditions. At the same time, many employers have increased wage scales and employee benefits. This was done either to keep pace with union negotiated contracts, or to keep the unions from getting a foothold in their companies. Good example would be Walmart.

Currently, the impact of trade unions on the economy is unfortunately negative. For example, when a union negotiates higher than natural wages and benefits, these costs must be passed on in higher prices of their products. If potential customers balk, and go to competitors, the company may have to lay off some of the workers for whom the union negotiated a better contract.

When the trade unions were at their peak of power, generally, jobs were scarce. Today, there is on balance a shortage of labor. Point is that an individual worker has choices, and does not need the collective muscle of a union. Conclusion is that unions have a negative effect on the economy.

                                       Dick Brooks

It will be very unlikely that a player who used steroids, to enhance his performance, can receive enough votes to get into the Hall. I  would leave it to the voters, as opposed to categorically banning those players.

There are two reasons for this. First, many players used steroids before they were deemed to be illegal. It is not the American way to make ex post facto determinations.

Second, some players used steroids for healing purposes rather than to bulk up. A good example is the Yankees pitcher, Andy Pettite. It would clearly be unfair to disqualify him, or similar cases from consideration.

The Mitchell Report, as presented, did not distinguish between different reasons for using steroids. As a consequence, the Report, with its widespread publicity, probably besmirched the reputations of many players, based on hearsay and flimsy evidence.

Much of the fault for the steroids debacle, can be laid at the feet of baseball executives rather than the players. The Commisioner’s office had many early warnings, yet chose to sweep it under the rug.

                                       Dick Brooks

From the founding of the country, until about four decades ago, prayer and Bible verses were a regular part of each school day. Then, the atheist, Madelyn Murray O’Hair, became the catalyst fo removal of prayer from the public schools. Since then, have self-discipline and respect for others improved in the schools.

The removal of prayer seems to be based on fallacious reasoning. First, the so-called separation of church and state is used as an argument. This is based on a misreading of the first amendment.

Second, prayer is in itself not an establishment of religion. Third, critics say if prayer were to be permissible, how could you devise a prayer that would be fair to all religions. The answer is, you don’t. Our nation was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. And these are still the 2 predominant religions. Prayers based on the Old Testament, are a very reasonable accomodation.

How do we treat other religions of smaller numbers? We respect them, but also realize they are in the minority. Wouldn’t our prayers offend them? Of course not, that is just a silly argument.

I find no good reason not to have a time of prayer in public schools, and good reasons why it is harmful to exclude them.

                               Dick Brooks

The question itself suggests the possibility of misuse and consequent infringement of civil rights. This possibility should not lead to banning of photo surveillance per se.

Misuse could involve some degree of intimidation. But police power always has this kind of distortion available, regardless of the tool, such as photos, being used. The mere prescence of police can be intimidating, and that is why restraint should always be involved.

Demonstrators could be dissuaded from lawful activity by the prescence of surveillance. This would be more likely to happen if there is a history of intimidation. The onus might well be on law enforcement to prove otherwise through their actions.

Lawful demonstrations can be usurfed by factions that are up to no good. In this era of terrorism, the police need every lawful weapon to combat the threat. But they also have the grave responsibility to protect the civil rights of all citizens involved.

                                          Dick Brooks

I think it does not. While natural selection is considered to be one step in the evolutionary process, and its effect can be observed, the big evolutionary step has not been seen,  and is highly controversial.

Natural selection is fairly simple. Those possessing certain dominant and/or attractive traits, tend to inter-breed. Naturally, of course, not in a forced eugenic or Hitlerian manner. Offspring are endowed with these dominant traits. Examples abound in the  world of sports. Famous athletes produce athletically advantaged sons and daughters. While coaching and urging play a part, the bulk of evidence suggests genetics. Even more conclusive, would be the colts of famous race horses.

The difficult step in evolution, and it follows natural selection, is the mutation to an entirely new species. This is often called the missing link. In my opinion, it is still missing. Sure there have been modifications within species, but where is a brand new species? Hard core evolutionists have sophisticated theories to support the entire theory of evolution, but none are convincing to me.

                                     Dick Brooks