OUT OF THE COMFORT ZONE

Burke: Political restraint is dragging McCain down

2008-10-06T10:21:00.000-07:00

Burke: Political restraint is dragging McCain down

Sunday, October 5, 2008

Halfway through the first presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama, it became apparent that Obama had a competitive edge over McCain. Despite my political leanings, I found myself drawn to the warmer personage of Obama and annoyed with McCain's mannerisms. Although the consensus is that no clear victor emerged from the carefully managed duologue, and lamentably for the press, there were not any juicy sound bites or major gaffes, I believe McCain lost the event.

Clearly, Obama boned up on foreign policy and economics and as usual, he was a personable speaker. McCain was crotchety, even more so than usual, and drew far too much on his distant past to really score under present circumstances. Jim Lehrer tried unsuccessfully to exploit the five-minute "draw your guns and fire!" segments, but his patronizing instructions to the candidates to talk directly to each other, as though they were at a couple's retreat weekend, just made me nauseous.

During the debate, I shouted at the television like a lunatic as though McCain might actually hear me. This silliness caused my three dogs to fling themselves against the back door in case I was vociferously offering them bones, but it did nothing to affect any political outcomes. With many a sigh, I rolled my eyes, twice at least, and watched McCain lose ground.

If McCain is, the left likes to paint him, a crusty old curmudgeon, then Obama is like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with the crust cut off - nice, neat and perhaps tasty, but I like a little fiber in my political diet. The question of McCain's competence to lead is not what is currently holding him back in the polls. It is his strict adherence to the safety of his laurels that is restraining his campaign.

McCain's life experience, his intense dedication to the service of this country, and the weight of the nation's eyes are heavy stuff, but in order to gain certain hearts, minds and "chads," the man needs to step out of his political confines and lighten up. Both candidates have a solid base of voters. However, it is the independents and undecided who, at this point, will determine who wins this election. McCain, whether he likes it or not, needs to woo them and as Obama has shown, a little razzle-dazzle goes a long way.

At the same time, McCain needs to dismiss Obama rather than react defensively to him. As the elder statesman, McCain can effectively wield the weapon of experience, pat Obama on the back for a good effort and then send him to perhaps the University of California at Berkeley, where his socialistic utopian ideas would sit well in a first-year philosophy class.

The adage that politics is dirty business is true, yet it usually refers to what happens behind closed doors. Between now and November, what happens on stage may be much more influential. Uninformed voters don't really care that McCain has visited every country that ends in 'stan, that he was politically active during Reagan's SDI era (which to them probably sounds more like a sexually transmitted disease than a defense program) or that he is bipartisan although the word might get him a misguided "bi-five." Fans of the television show "Scrubs" will understand that last reference.

The younger, uninformed voters are influenced by how cool, fly and sick the candidate is. I had to get an urban dictionary to make that statement, but I think the meaning is clear. In other words, McCain needs to up his "hipness" quotient. Edgy is in and, right now, the word that better defines McCain is staid.

To increase his chances of success in November, McCain must be more willing to play the political popularity game while still holding fast to his well-respected principles. He needs to draw the eye, to produce a laugh based on something fresh, be anything but boring. He should take advantage of his maverick reputation, lose his temper just a wee bit and verbally bite Obama when he is vulnerable. Similarly, the next time Sarah Palin is challenged about her beauty pageant days, she ought to say, "You know what fellas? Hold my tiara and watch this!"

The two candidates need to flip-flop. Obama, no longer able to ride the crest of his glorious oratories of hope and the support of the Hollywood elite, needs to get serious. If his studious air at this last debate is any indication, he is now fully motivated to find ways to back up his words - even if it means redefining the "change" that he exhorted his followers to believe in. McCain on the other hand ought to work on getting some fainting in the aisles, hit the tanning machine, host "Saturday Night Live" and convince some folks that he, not Obama, may be the one they have been waiting for.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Girl Athletes: Future Palin, Clinton or Rice?

2008-09-08T20:15:00.000-07:00

Go USA

Burke: Girls join the game, and the play gets rough

By Alana Burke, Columnist (Contact)
Sunday, September 7, 2008

A distinct blend of sweetness and ferocity emanates from teenage girls who play competitive sports. Sure, they hug, giggle and flip their ponytails. However, when the ball is in play, they sweat just like the boys and their expressions reflect their resolve to be the first to the ball, to win, and they push hard to make it happen. In the heat of the game they are not their gender, they are simply athletes.

Women in politics operate on a similar playing field. They push hard to maximize their skills and to further their agendas while at the same time moderating their femininity (think pantsuits) so as not to appear weak or manipulative in an arena most commonly populated by men. Many of them maintain successful families as well, a multitasking skill worthy of admiration.

At the Red Bluff Labor Day soccer tournament last Saturday, I had the opportunity to watch female athletes compete in the annual games. I also had the misguided opportunity to eat a funnel cake that had been fried in 4 inches of recycled grease. My husband, lured by the vanilla and sugar scent, did the same despite my warnings. Intestinally it was not a good day for either of us.

In the year that had passed since last season, the girls matured and their mannerisms seemed to impart that they knew more, about life, about boys, and given the setting, hopefully about soccer. I wondered how much attention they had been paying to the historic presidential race and the complexities of its unfolding. I wondered too if their mothers were raising them to reach for the stars and to take full advantage of the evolving American perspective on equality.

With that thought in mind, I asked the woman next to me what she thought about John McCain's VP pick, Sarah Palin. My query was met with a blank stare and the question, "Who?" So, I asked about her thoughts on Joe Biden as I realized that the Obama ticket was where her synaptic efforts lay. Again, the blank look only this time it seemed tinged with a wee bit of resentment. Curious, I then asked her if she planned to vote in the election and she responded with an adamant "Yes! I'm voting for change!" with a big ol' head bob to back it up. Her vacuous responses made me nauseous and, at about that time, the funnel cake threatened to re-emerge.

As I watched the game, it occurred to me that one of the girls out on that field might be a future Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, or Condoleezza Rice. Nancy Pelosi came to mind as well, which, I'll admit, made me grimace. I scanned the field wondering which one of the girls might become a political mover and shaker and for one cowardly moment, I wished that fate on none of them.

How do the Hillary Clintons and Sarah Palins of the world withstand the hateful barrage of cheap sexist shots volleyed by the opposition? In particular, the personal vilification of Sarah Palin has gone beyond the pale to the extent that even many Democrat women are appalled. US Magazine disgraced its publication with its headline, "Babies, Lies and Scandal" — the polar opposite of its Obama cover, "Why Barack Loves Her" about his devotion to his wife Michelle. Worse yet, that publication, displayed at most grocery store checkouts, may be the only information some voters imbibe before making their presidential choice.

Liz Trotta, a Fox News contributor who once "jokingly" advocated the assassination of Barack Obama, recently made the sexist statement that Sarah Palin should not be running for any office but should stay at home with her children. Can you say Dark Ages? It is insulting to fathers everywhere when they are not even considered in the equation. For some, the option of staying at home as a full-time mother is an ideal one; for others, not so much. The crux is to find the right family balance and that balance is very much achievable.

On the second day of the tournament, the wind was a fierce opponent and the gusts, some up to 40 mph, made a mockery of the games. The fields were full of thrashing flags, blowing debris and wildly spinning soccer balls, causing the teams to look more like circus performers than athletes. At one point, the clueless woman from the previous day whined about the wind. I agreed that it was a bit rough but remarked that it could be worse — we could be waiting in New Orleans for Gustav. Placidly she looked at me and said, "Who?" I sighed and turned away hoping against hope that the child that was hers on that field had a multitude of resources to pull from so that, despite her mother's apathy, she too might reach for the stars.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

You can burn the flag -- but why would you?

2008-07-06T16:31:00.000-07:00

The First Amendment, which provides for freedom of speech and freedom of expression in the United States, is one of the most powerful pieces of legislation ever drafted. Without it, the dissenting opinions of our citizens that serve to push and pull the progress cart would be lost in a cloud of fear and governmental suspicion. With it, people, such as the Shasta County high school student who earlier this year felt "free" to burn the American flag, can do so without fear of legal persecution.

Much like shareware from the Internet that comes bundled with all sorts of crap-ware, with all the good that the First Amendment provides, it also allows for the bad, the ugly and the asinine. Acts of self-expression are guaranteed to offend some and please others. Determining which examples of freedom of speech are acts of indecency or hate crimes is a process often on politically shaky ground.

There are exceptions to the First Amendment. You can be prosecuted for yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater when no fire exists because of the potential for injury. However, it is acceptable to wear a T-shirt that reads, "I had an abortion" courtesy of Planned Parenthood. You may also fill a glass jar with urine and blood, stick a crucifix in it and receive $15,000 from the National Endowment for the Arts for your "work." In both cases, freedom of expression clearly applies even if the acts are clearly offensive to many.

I recently witnessed a man in a convenience store wearing a shockingly rude T-shirt. Its slogan was deemed too offensive to print, which is ironic in a piece about freedom of speech. Suffice to say it extolled the use of the handicapped in the sex slave trade complete with a truly awful graphic, and yet not one person verbally tackled the man.

On the other hand, CBS canceled shock jock Don Imus' radio show because he used the phrase "nappy-headed hoes" when describing the Rutgers women's basketball team. Presumably, it was the larger audience and the defaming word "ho" that got Imus fired, but apparently self-expression regarding the victimization of handicapped people is OK. So too is the annual Aryan Nations Parade in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.

So where does flag burning fall into the heady mix of freedom of expression, obscenity and hate crime? Flag-burning "patriots" claim that by burning the American flag they are exercising their freedom of expression to protest, whether it is against the current administration or the high cost of gasoline. The student in Shasta County, who burned the flag and published the photo in his high school newspaper, did so just because he could and apparently was starved for attention.

Given the many lurid acts of freedom of expression in our current culture, from dykes on bikes to the "naked guy" on the Berkeley college campus who claimed his nakedness "challenged the sexual repression of Western society," flag burning seems tame. However, the act strikes at the very heart of our country and serves no political purpose.

Yes, you can burn the flag, but why would you? The American flag stands for the freedom of all people not just some people. The flag has no point of view. It is not a tool for the president, the left, the right, the rich or the poor. Of all of the symbols in American society, the flag is the purest, dearest and the most nonpartisan. To burn the flag is to dismiss the very rights it symbolizes, the right to freedom of expression and to burn the flag.

Unless you are retiring the flag in an honorable disposal ceremony, the only justification for burning it is if you despise everything that America stands for including all its inherent rights and privileges. There are innumerable and effective protest options available to address specific perceived injustices. Flag burners are just narcissists who seek public attention but lack any observable talent.

Gen. Arthur MacArthur said, "The flag ... is a visible symbol of the ideal aspirations of the American people. It is the one focus in which all unite in reverential devotion. We differ in religion; we differ in politics; we engage in disputes as to the true meaning of the Constitution, and even challenge the wisdom of some of its provisions; we inject self-interest and cupidity into most of the ordinary transactions of daily life, but through the sanctifying folds of the flag, the collective intelligence of the nation rises superior to the wisdom of its parts, and thus ensures the perpetuity of the Republic."

Americans are blessed, thanks to the intelligence of our forefathers, to live free, and this freedom should never be taken for granted. Rather than burn our national symbol, it would be more fitting to salute the flag first and then proceed to protest with gusto knowing that in America, land of the free, your freedom of self-expression is protected.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Burke: Any chance of seeing a politician's true face?

2008-06-08T09:39:00.000-07:00

There are three things that are true about Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Obama is a mostly black man, Clinton is a white woman, and in dog years McCain is 504 years old. Most of the other "truths" about them bear the political face of manipulative deceit. This manicured visage does not accurately portray true intention, experience or morality, therefore no matter whom you vote for, what you see is not what you get.

There are multitudes of jokes about how politicians, snakes and lawyers distort the truth in order to achieve what they want. With poker faces and forked tongues, politicians unabashedly manipulate facts to further their own agendas. When the lies surface, politicians obfuscate until the truth is buried under the verbiage rubble of conservative and liberal warfare.

If honesty were the policy that garnered votes, Obama could remain committed to his long-standing alliance with the likes of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Father Michael Pfleger instead of hypocritically withdrawing from the Trinity United Church of Christ after more than two decades of loyalty. He would not have to deny his support of black liberation theology and could identify himself as the "black power" president. Of course, if he did so, he could not lay claim to the title the "great uniter."

According to James Cone, an influential mentor of the Rev. Wright, "There is no use for a God who loves white oppressors the same as oppressed blacks. ... What we need is the divine love as expressed in black power, which is the power of blacks to destroy their oppressors, here and now, by any means at their disposal."

Logic dictates that Obama was influenced by this message in his church. The assumption can be made that Obama expects black people to vote for him in order to gain ground against white oppressors. To admit this publicly would be political suicide. Instead he waters down his life so that he is no longer too white, or too black, to fit the generic mold that sits so comfortably with his supporters. As a talented orator, he mesmerizes people with beautifully phrased platitudes and his Martin Luther King-esque delivery and yet I wonder if his "changes" are ones he can implement or if they are just a load of pie in the sky. I'm thinking pie.

If Clinton had admitted during the primaries that she expected women to vote for her because they are angry about lower pay, condescending pats on the rear end and the stigma attached to the title "housewife," she would have received a lot of flak about girl power. Thus, she appeared to disavow the whole "you go, girl" shtick, slugged whisky like a man, invented snipers and wore bulletproof lipstick except when it served her purpose to show her softer side.

McCain can't tout the fact that during his run for the big house he has a competitive edge because his opponents are a woman and a black, but I imagine he is quite pleased and feeling confident of a win. However, going up against a black man and a hardheaded woman on the same ticket might deflate his balloon a bit.

There are men who would not have voted for Clinton just because she is a woman and it "ain't gonna happen." There are whites who won't vote for Obama just because he is black and those ignoramuses will use the N-word over the dinner table. There are blacks who won't vote for anything white because they blame whites for their own circumstances, and there are young people who won't vote for McCain because although he is a tough nut, he's also an old fart.

Rather than remain true to their beliefs, warts and all, the candidates are compelled to homogenize themselves. Like chameleons, they adjust their focus and rhetoric so that they are always sailing with the political wind but never against it.

In a perfect world candidates could state exactly what they intend to do in office, what their religious and moral beliefs are and why they want to wield the highest political power in the land. Perhaps then, we could elect leaders who would lead the country in the direction the majority wish to go based upon their talents and commitments, not their image.

Instead, we will elect a president who will be reviled and ridiculed by at least half the country if he cannot live up to his "I'll say anything you want to hear" campaign rhetoric. Those voters who played lemming to the chameleon will have willingly participated in a national bamboozlement scheme and until we hold candidates accountable, America deserves what it gets.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

In vitro meat: Kind to animals, cruel to humans

2008-05-04T09:31:00.000-07:00

The first International In Vitro Meat Symposium, held last month at the Norwegian Food Research Institute, brought together researchers intent on furthering the science of engineered meat. Couple this assembly of scientists with PETA's (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) recent offer of $1 million to anyone who can grow chicken meat from stem cell cultures, and within a few years we may find animal flesh from a "meatri" dish on the family dinner table.

Whether or not the "meat" will be a big culinary hit depends on whether empathy for chickens outweighs the creepiness of eating flesh that never clucked, walked or took a breath. While it would be more humane to the animals that we eat not to raise them for slaughter, it is not humane to expect people to eat engineered flesh, just because it is possible to create it.

The concept of growing meat is not a new one. In 1932, Winston Churchill suggested that it would be "more efficient to cultivate wings and breasts in vitro rather than growing an entire chicken." Indeed, in 1912, Alexis Carrel, a Nobel Prize winner and surgeon, cut a piece of heart muscle from a chicken embryo and fed it nutrients. When Carrel died 32 years later, the muscle was still alive and thriving. Carrel's experiment was described as "horrific" and, after he died, the living heart muscle was terminated.

The rules of PETA's contest are simple. Produce an in vitro chicken-meat product that has a taste and texture indistinguishable from real chicken flesh. Manufacture the product in large enough quantities to be sold commercially and sell it in at least 10 states. While the rules are simple, the process, which would have been right at home in Frankenstein's lab, is not.

The production of in vitro meat involves taking cells from an animal and then placing them in a nutrient-rich environment. The cells proliferate and are mechanically stretched to increase their size. However, "real" meat is made up of muscle, fat, blood and connective tissue, so to get this vat-grown meat to resemble a steak or chicken breast, other measures have to be applied. For example, by applying an electrical stimulus, muscle cells can be induced to contract and develop. (Frankenfilet anyone?) In addition, researcher Dr. Carlijn Bouten suggests, "One can also simulate blood flow by putting thin tubes in the tissue." This makes me more queasy than the stench of a feedlot.

According to Jason Matheny, the director of New Harvest, an organization that funds research on in vitro meat, the easiest way to engineer edible flesh is to "grow meat sheets," layers of animal muscle and fat cells stretched out over large flat areas. These sheets could be stacked to get a thicker, and perhaps the assumption can be made, juicier cut of meat. Matheny also states that, "With cultured meat, there is no body to support; you're only building the meat that eventually gets eaten."

Is the process of engineering meat any more revolting than the sad state of chickens living in airless warehouses with their little beaks clipped off so they can't peck each other to death? Is a "meat sheet" a better option than antibiotic-laden beef from cattle that have never had a "happy cow" moment? While producing meat without the expense of feeding and slaughtering animals would solve some of our ecological (less burping bovines destroying the ozone layer) issues, the probability of the final product being palatable to the public is slim and there are better alternatives available than pseudo burgers.

It would be more beneficial to apply PETA's $1 million dollar reward to an entrepreneur who developed more humane methods of raising livestock. They could require that the methods consider the quality of life of the animals and put meat in the market while still providing a profit to the farmers and cattlemen. If these methods raised the cost of meat, perhaps meat consumption would be more conservative, thus also helping to alleviate the ecological issues of water pollution and greenhouse gases.

The debate over whether humans are inherently meat eaters will rage on as long as there are vegetarians, carnivores and animal rights activists. Buckminster Fuller, an American visionary, author and the second president of Mensa, once said, "Why would I go to all the trouble of eating all my vegetables when the cow does all the work for me?" Humans eat meat and although we have evolved from eating raw rabbit on a spit to serving up a nice filet mignon, wrapped in applewood-smoked bacon and topped with bearnaise sauce, our biological desire for meat remains the same. Even though advances in nutritional analysis clearly indicate that humans can live without meat, do we really want to?

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Burke: Sanctuary cities undermine immigration laws

2008-04-07T09:37:00.000-07:00

Cities with sanctuary policies ignore federal immigration laws and provide a safe haven for illegal aliens, allowing them to take advantage of local services and report crimes without fear of deportation. These sanctuary policies prohibit the police from reporting an illegal alien to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) unless the illegal has committed a crime.

However, isn't entering the country illegally a crime in and of itself? These hypocritical policies, wherein one crime, that of illegal entry into the country, is ignored so that other crimes might be reported, undermine the legitimacy of United States law.

If Anderson were a sanctuary city, Jose Salvador Alcantar-Ruiz, the illegal alien who ran over a 3-year-old in March, would not have suffered any consequences other than his own grief and guilt. While Alcantar-Ruiz's illegal status didn't directly cause the accident, it certainly adds insult to injury. His time in jail, however, will only add to California's already huge cost of incarcerating illegal aliens -- $1.4 billion a year, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 requires local governments to cooperate with the Department of Homeland Security and report illegal aliens. However, over 29 sanctuaries in California alone have policies that prevent local agencies from reporting them, which simply provides further incentive to sneak across the border.

Proponents of these policies claim to be protecting immigrant rights, and it is true that illegal aliens have been the victim of crimes, in fact may have been targeted specifically because they had something to hide and, therefore, were less likely to report the incident. However, while legal immigrants have the right to local services and protection, illegal aliens don't and should be immediately deported. It's time to stop babysitting criminals and send them packing.

The touchy-feely humanitarian perspective on this issue is nice and comfy but also weak and dangerous. The harsh reality of what the illegal alien invasion is doing to this country is much uglier. From a financial perspective, the invasion is strangling our economy. FAIR estimates that California's illegal alien population costs the state's taxpayers "more than $10.5 billion per year for education, medical care and incarceration."

The tired argument that the tax contributions of illegal workers subsidize this expenditure is flawed. Despite the tax income, the outlay is still over $9 billion per year, FAIR calculates. That is approximately $1,183 per legal household per year, which isn't chump change. The flimsy "American's won't do these jobs!" excuse is, as the younger generation puts it, really lame, because the reality is many of our welfare recipients could do these jobs and, as an added bonus, their money would go back into the economy instead of out of the country.

There is legislation pending that would penalize sanctuary cities. For example, in Maryland, a bill would require local governments to comply fully with federal immigration law or lose state financial aid. Opponents of the bill claim that it is not the responsibility of the local police to enforce complex federal immigration law, and there are not enough local resources to do so. So apparently, the rights and needs of illegal aliens supersede those of legal Maryland residents and their local governments are incapable of upholding complex laws.

If it is not the responsibility of the local authorities to enforce immigration law, than whose is it? When did it become an option to pick and choose which crimes are more convenient to prosecute or which laws should be upheld? Either it is illegal to violate immigration laws, or it isn't. Sanctuary cities make a mockery of the justice system and serve only to weaken the rights of legal citizens.

In California, a bill (AB 2601) has been introduced that would deny sanctuary cities proceeds from vehicle license fees collected by the DMV. This might discourage cities from adopting sanctuary policies, but it will also punish legal residents who did not set the city's sanctuary status.

The hypocritical policies of sanctuary cities serve a political purpose. Politicians want to appease illegal immigration lobby groups and garner financial contributions and votes despite statistics that indicate that illegal aliens contribute to crowding in schools, lower wages and are responsible for a high percentage of crime. Those "humanitarians" who believe that illegal aliens should have full access to American resources while breaking the law are humanitarian only in name. Their support for illegal aliens serves only to further burden the American taxpayers and the economy at a time when our nation is struggling and resources are minimal.

Alana Marie Burke

When sizing up the candidates, trust but verify

2008-03-03T17:17:00.000-08:00

Ronald Reagan once said, "Politics is supposed to be the second-oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." Reagan was right. Political candidates will say anything it takes to be desirable in the eyes of the voters, and then they get paid -- paid with a vote in their favor come election time.

The candidates' speeches are eloquent, some more than others, and they are all finely tuned to manipulate the voter and provoke a positive response. However, can we really trust that what the candidates say to get the vote is what they believe? Rarely does a candidate back up his or her promises with actions in the White House.

According to recent data released by the Davie Brown Celebrity Index, which brand marketers use to determine a celebrity's ability to influence consumers, Barack Obama's score in "trust" is 12 points higher than John McCain's and Hillary Clinton's. Obama is perceived as more appealing, trustworthy and influential. However, are consumers basing their responses to Obama on trust? Or blind faith?

Trust involves a sense of assurance based on strong but not necessarily conclusive evidence. Faith, on the other hand, is an unquestioning and emotionally charged belief. Given that Obama fans are fainting in the aisles, sending him love poems and immortalizing him in John Lennon fashion on YouTube despite his clear lack of leadership experience, faith seems to be the predominate reasoning behind his massive support.

Conversely, it appears that Clinton supporters trust that she is the best leader for this country whether they support her because she's a woman, because they admire her stance on the issues and her experience or because they believe that she will greedily protect and promote her own extensive interests, thus keeping this country protected and economically sound. Certainly, they are not voting for her due to likability, and it is doubtful that her mailbox has been flooded with love poems.

The majority of conservatives back McCain. They are praying (faith) and hoping (trust) that if he wins the presidency he will not just rely on Alan Greenspan's books for guidance, but will get expert advice on economic policy, an area in which he is admittedly lacking and one that is crucial to the welfare of America. They are also performing a "leap of trust" by assuming that, even though he has bucked Republicans on immigration, taxes and global warming, as president he will keep his maverick, "liberal-Republicanism" impulses in check and go with the conservative flow.

Actual candor might increase the trustworthiness of all of the current candidates. It is disconcerting when candidates respond oddly to real-life events that would send "normal" people through the roof. For example, Hillary Clinton could have admitted that Bill really ticked her off, that she despises him for his randy behavior and that, even though the feminists damned her for standing by her man, she did it to further her own political power. If recently she just told him to shut his fat mouth and let her run her own campaign, she might have received a lot more votes in the primaries.

Barack Obama would have done well to say that Michelle Obama made a dumb linguistic mistake when she indicated that this was the first time she was really proud of her country. He could have shaken his head, sighed affectionately and received more support from the men of America who often wish their wives would just stop talking. Further, McCain ought to say that he knows voters are tired of hearing about his POW experience but that he is going to keep talking about it because it was the single most influential event in his life and it matters, damn it.

Even though voters are aware that the candidates are manipulating them, emotionally, intellectually and financially, many remain fiercely devoted to their chosen candidate without researching voting records and historical veracity. As long as people continue to vote based on emotion without a steadfast reliance on issues of integrity, ability and character to help them form their opinion, the question of whether they trust their candidate doesn't matter.

Faith depends on the suspension of critical thinking when listening to an authority figure, and trust requires an opinion based upon incomplete information. Voters ought to get as much critical information as they can -- even when riding the crest of a momentum wave fueled by marvelous ideology. Perhaps it was Ronald Reagan who had the correct approach when he advised, "Trust, but verify."

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Burke: Gay-bias law promotes division, not acceptance

2008-02-04T08:23:00.000-08:00

In 2007, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law Senate Bill 777, cited as the California Student Civil Rights Act and it became effective last month. The bill, sponsored by state Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Santa Monica, amends the state education code and prohibits "promoting a discriminatory bias" against gay, lesbian or bisexual students. In addition, it eliminates the term "sex" as referring to male and female and replaces it with gender and sexual orientation.

Before this amendment, state law afforded "equal rights and opportunities to all persons in the public or private elementary and secondary schools and postsecondary educational institutions of the state regardless of their sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, or mental or physical disability".

This law sufficiently protected the rights of "all persons." Although this version did not specifically name gays, lesbians or bisexuals, the term "sex" refers to male and female, which, albeit with creative modifications, the aforementioned are.

According to new definitions in the bill, "'Gender' means sex, and includes a person's gender identity and gender related appearance and behavior whether or not stereotypically associated with the person's assigned sex at birth." In other words, if you have Bobby chromosomes but you feel like Becky, staff and students alike are required to overlook your genetics and treat you like a girl or face discrimination lawsuits. The trick will be to determine who feels like what, and given the mood swings of teenagers, a weekly survey might be in order.

Senate Bill 777 also dictates, "No teacher shall give instruction nor shall a school district sponsor any activity that reflects or promotes a discriminatory bias against any person" because of their sexual orientation. In addition, "No textbook or other instructional materials shall be adopted by the state board or by any governing board for use in the public schools that reflects or promotes a discriminatory bias against any person" because of their sexual orientation.

Opponents to the bill have pointed out that referring to the traditional family unit, or "Mom and Dad," could be interpreted as discriminatory in the classroom setting, whether in text or conversation. The author of the bill, Kuehl argues that to the contrary, eliminating these references would be discriminatory against heterosexuals. This would seem to require that teachers address every possible gender and perceived gender combination, ad nauseam, in their curriculum to accommodate a very small number of students. This will certainly detract from their lesson time and result in some befuddled kindergartners, and I believe Dr. Seuss would roll over in his grave at the new, politically correct rendition of "Hop on Pop."

Kuehl defends the bill, stating, "SB 777 does not create a radical new definition of gender that will allow boys and girls to shower together and force schools to have unisex bathrooms and locker rooms." However, allowing a person to decide their gender based on perception is radical. The moment will come when a student with a perceived gender other than his or her biological one will demand access to the opposite sex's facilities or programs. If denied access, a discrimination lawsuit will ensue -- if permitted access, a lawsuit on behalf of the definitively male or female students will be filed. This will only result in additional load on the already burdened legal docket and some happy lawyers.

Finally, Kuehl disputes the idea that SB 777 will "change the content requirements for textbooks and other instructional materials." However, given that most textbooks, storybooks and family-oriented media contain traditional representations of sex and the family unit, a student who is a gender bender or is living in a nontraditional environment could claim discrimination.

Debbie Look of the California State PTA, who supports the legislation, states: "We believe in the right to provide a safe school environment for all students. A 2001-2002 survey indicated that 7.5 percent of students reported being harassed based upon sexual orientation." Does blurring the lines between the sexes really promote a safe environment for all students or is it just giving special status to a minority of students? What about the fat kids and the dorky kids? How many of them have been harassed on campus?

Senate Bill 777 is just another example of squeaky wheel special interest groups influencing lawmakers who are afraid to appear politically incorrect, and it will just create further conflict and stigma. SB 777, while claiming to promote equality, serves mainly to further distinguish students with alternative sexual orientations rather than promoting acceptance. Once again, a small minority has dished up self-serving legislation designed to lend legitimacy to their alternative lifestyles and a weak politician has refused to stand up for the majority.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Burke: Can candidates endure technology's unblinking eye?

2008-01-07T12:00:00.000-08:00

The Internet provides access to a glut of news, opinion and political analysis. Voting records are available at the click of a mouse, and the blogosphere paints a truer portrait of voter opinion than any poll.

However, while a "Just the facts Jack" approach is one way to judge a potential president, current technology allows voters to intimately examine the candidates, their character flaws and personal idiosyncrasies and to review every single verbal gaffe. Thus, we have two arenas from which to form our opinions about future leaders: what they do at work and what they do at play. The question is: Is one arena more important than the other and how do we reconcile the two?

Scandal has long been a factor in American politics, and many historically great leaders had checkered pasts or engaged in unscrupulous behavior while in office. However, despite their character flaws, the value of their public service is generally not disputed. These leaders were defined by their clear sense of direction, their ability to influence others, communicate clearly and hold fast to American ideals under duress. They had the gift of inspiration and an ability to garner trust and confidence. However, what did the voters of their time really know about what went on behind closed doors?

John F. Kennedy won the presidency by a very narrow margin. If his sexual proclivities had been plastered all over YouTube, would he have been elected? Ronald Reagan's special relationship with astrology could have lumped him in the Kucinich category, and insinuations that Eleanor Roosevelt was a lesbian while Franklin was a womanizer would surely have made headline news that would have jeopardized his election. With the days of stumping from the back of a train long gone and with them, the ability to escape the voracious eyes of the American voters, political aspirants of the future will need to conduct themselves from day one as though they lived behind glass walls.

Polls indicate that voters find the current crop of candidates lacking and consequently, despite the three tickets out of Iowa, a clear leader has not emerged. Perhaps this is due not only to the lack of an incumbent, but also because voters are feeling queasy about the "truthiness" and tenor of the candidates. Rock-solid conservatives ought to be jumping on Fred Thompson's bandwagon despite the bags under his eyes and the tart on his arm, and Hillary Clinton's cleavage, cackle and the pink panties on Bill's arm (it's the patch, he's trying to quit) ought not to overshadow her political prowess.

While it may seem that the ability to know more about the candidates would enhance the decision-making process of voters in the 2008 election, it may actually obscure or dilute their true leadership value. We can monitor every aspect of a political candidate's life, including marital woes, recreational habits and whether they prefer to wear boxers, briefs or, as is the case with Rudy Giuliani, the occasional dress. However, unless the majority of voters delve deep into voting records, they will be unable to form a balanced perspective and their political opinions will be unduly influenced by rhetoric, campaign spin and ear size.

Advances in technology, from the Internet, cell phone photography and the revamping of debate protocol using sites like YouTube, have irrevocably set a new standard that future candidates will have to rise to. This high level of muckraking will no doubt overshadow the next few elections by skewing the opinions of lazier voters, but it will serve a greater purpose in the future. The fact that candidates' lives are now an open book may actually be the driving force that creates great leaders of the future.

Those of the MySpace generation who have political aspirations already know now that what they say, do and inhale will be exposed and that they will have to answer for it. The end result will be that we'll have future candidates who not only have political adeptness but also arrive at the podium with less baggage and an exceptional commitment to public service and perhaps the ability to unite America.

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Burke: Don't blur Christmas colors into a sterile gray

2007-12-03T12:28:00.000-08:00

By Alana Burke, Columnist (Contact)
Sunday, December 2, 2007

The majority of Americans are not offended by the celebration of Christmas, and the phrase "War on Christmas" is an overstatement coined by the media to grab attention. However, it is irksome that there are those who, with their overly zealous passion for political correctness, find the need to challenge the appropriateness of the holiday.

In Wisconsin, a debate is raging over what to call the giant tree in the Capitol in Madison. State Rep. Marlin Schneider wants to rename the holiday tree the "Wisconsin State Christmas Tree." He states, "I am here today to voice the ire and frustration of the majority of people of the state of Wisconsin who want their Christmas tree back in the state Capitol, not a politically correct holiday tree." In opposition, Annie Laurie Gaylor of the Freedom From Religion Foundation says the "tree would offend nonreligious people and amount to a government endorsement of Christianity." Regardless of what it is called, the tree will be displayed and so will Gaylor's sign, which states that religion is "superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds."

In Fort Collins, Colo., a task force led by an ACLU member determined that the town should not display Christmas lights or Christmas trees or use the colors red and green. The use of icicles and the color brown was deemed inoffensive. After much outcry, the City Council shot down the proposal 6-1. In Michigan, a long-standing traditional Dickens Christmas Festival was renamed the Dickens Holiday Festival because organizers were not allowed to advertise the event to local schools with the word "Christmas" in the title. Closer to home, Tehama County Social Services Director Christine Applegate recently suggested that Santa be banned from any county offices.

The minority of Americans who oppose the celebration of Christmas would have us believe that the event no longer has any shared cultural value except to bolster the gross national product. In addition, they consider the traditional symbols of the holiday -- the Nativity, angels and the Christmas tree -- offensive, insensitive and discriminatory against other religions.

However, the fact of the matter is that approximately 80 percent of Americans are Christians, and the First Amendment of the Constitution promises freedom "of" religion not freedom "from" religion. This allows all Americans the right to worship publicly, free from government interference or harassment. Those who observe Ramadan, Hanukkah and Kwanzaa all have equal access to celebration and tradition. So back off the baby in the manger and leave those cute little Nativity animals alone.

There is a continual debate as to whether this country was founded on Christian principles. However, regardless of a person's position, with 80 percent of the population professing a Christian faith, Christian influence will predominate. Does that mean other faiths don't have a home here? No, because in America you are free to worship in any way you see fit.

So what is it about the celebration of Christmas that is so threatening to some people that they need to bring the Christian traditions under fire? Perhaps this same group also wants to remove the traditions of marriage, revise the national currency and make Spanish the official language of the United States. Alternatively, perhaps they just have too much time on their hands.

There is an underlying nonseasonal issue that, like rotten eggs, is beginning to stink up America. The majority voice is in danger of falling to the wayside in the wake of the liberal blathering of a minority, generally backed by the ACLU. This group takes affront at mainstream ideals under the pretense of furthering the rights of minorities and causes lawmakers and small-town officials to waste far too much energy debating political correctness when as a country we face much larger and certainly more important issues.

If we don't maintain a majority vote democracy, the nitpickers will homogenize our country to the point where we can't have traditions and mores that characterize mainstream American culture. America is in danger of becoming a nonspecific, nongendered populace of "its" without any defining factors and zero cultural value. As for Christmas? As Rep. Marlin Schneider says, "If it looks like a Christmas tree, and it smells like a Christmas tree and it's decorated like a Christmas tree and it has presents under it like a Christmas tree, it's a Christmas tree!"

Record Searchlight contributing columnist Alana Marie Burke can be reached at alanamarieburke@gmail.com.

Hillary Humor

2007-11-05T08:30:00.000-08:00

Hillary Clinton was spending the morning at a primary school in Ithaca, New York, to talk to the children about her job as a US Senator. After her talk, she offered question time. One little boy put up his hand, and the Senator asked him his name. "Kenneth." "And what is your question, Kenneth?" "I have three questions: First - Whatever happened to your medical health care plan? Second - Why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office? And third - Whatever happened to all the stuff you and President Clinton took when you left the White House?" Just then the bell rang for recess. Hillary Clinton informed the kids that they would continue after recess. When they resumed, Hillary said, "Okay, where were we? Oh, that's right, question time. Who has a question?"

A different little boy raised his hand; the esteemed Senator from New York pointed him out and asked him his name. "Larry." "And what is your question?" "I have five questions: First - Whatever happened to your medical health care plan? Second - Why would you run for President after your husband shamed the office? Third - Whatever happened to all the stuff you and President Clinton took when you left the White House? Fourth - Why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early? And fifth - What happened to Kenneth?"

Thanks for the Funny Frank!

Alana Marie Burke

Is There a Time And Place For Torture?

2007-11-05T08:21:00.000-08:00

The use of torture is an ugly issue fraught with emotion and controversy and it's easy to condemn the practice as entirely wrong, especially if the bomb is not in your neighborhood. However, we are a country at war with a radical enemy that has no regard for human rights and a strong intention to annihilate the United States. So how do we elicit critical information when lives are on the line and standard interrogation procedures have failed?

There are times when the infliction of pain, suffering and psychological pressure may be the only way to get vital information that will protect the United States. However, without clear guidelines the likelihood of crossing the line between intensive interrogation and extraordinary abuse is great.

In this era of a "new kind of war" wherein unlawful combatants violate the widely adopted rules of battle, a clearer definition of torture, its applications and limits is critical.

Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions states that prisoners of war must be "treated humanely." Acts such as "violence to life and person," "mutilation," "cruel treatment" and "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment" are prohibited at all times. These policies are humane and representative of the stated philosophy of the United States concerning honorable soldiers. However, what happens when detainees fall outside the scripted lines of convention, have a fanatical intent to harm every man woman and child in our country, and consider death under enemy hands a quick ticket to Allah?

The current administration has determined that al-Qaida and Taliban individuals are not entitled to prisoner of war status. Under the guidelines of the Geneva Conventions, actual POWs are "members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict," "are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates," "have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable from a distance" such as a uniform, and "carry arms openly." In addition, they must conduct their operations "in accordance with the laws and customs of war." Clearly, the tactics of terrorists in no way conform to those mandates.

A quick search of the Internet provides images and stories of torture, some sanctioned, and some that undoubtedly were not, and many of the images would bring even the hardened to their knees. In the United States, the extraordinary atrocities at Abu Ghraib inflicted by a group of twisted individuals without proper supervision clearly demonstrate a flagrant disregard for the conventions of war. Beyond comprehension were the sidewalk beheadings by al-Qaida in Baghdad in which hooded radicals sawed off the heads of two men while onlookers chanted "Allah akbar" -- Arabic for "God is great."

If a known terrorist is in custody and withholds information, measures need to be taken to extract that information. If there is time, psychological means have been proven effective. However, if it is a ticking-bomb situation, is it realistic to expect our military to just sit by, turn the other cheek and say, "Well, we asked him nicely and he didn't want to tell us?"

If there was a bomb threat in your child's school and a terrorist with knowledge of how to stop the bomb stood next to you, would you really accept "no" for an answer? Jack Bauer would look like a cheesecake sales clerk compared to what I would do to get that information. Just as we have a moral and heartfelt obligation to protect our children, don't we also, as citizens have an obligation to ensure the protection of the United States?

The issue of torture versus interrogation is complicated and uncomfortable, but one thing is clear: There are times when coercion is necessary to save lives and the parameters of this process need to be defined, down to the last detail, to prevent flagrant abuse. Administration of the techniques must come from highly trained individuals with proper supervision. In addition, the president and military advisors should not be on a "need to know" basis. They need to be fully in the loop and accountable.

It has already been determined that we, as a country, will never negotiate with terrorists, and they ought to know that we will meet their aggression with the full might of our military. The terrorists don't have a set battleground, don't operate by any set rules and have zero respect for human dignity or life. Therefore, should they be afforded any rights by our country? The answer is yes, but not at the expense of American lives.

By Alana Marie Burke Redding Record Searchlight Columnist
Sunday, November 4, 2007

Do Democrats Forget What Hillary Is All About?

2007-10-08T09:25:00.000-07:00

According to a recent ABC News/Washington Post poll, Hillary Rodham Clinton, candidate for the 2008 presidential election received a whopping 53% approval rating from Democratic voters. This puts her at the forefront to win the Democratic nomination with Barack Obama coming in second with a dismal 20%. Apparently, a majority of Democrats believe that Hillary best represents the core values of the Democratic Party.

If that is the case then the Democrats clearly are supportive of perjury, cheating, adultery, obstruction of justice, and personal malfeasance. In addition, if these statistics hold up, suspicious deaths, bank, tax and mail fraud, obstruction of justice, and serious memory loss are non-issues for left. It’s not easy to forget that CML (Clinton Memory Lapse) occurred more than 250 times during the multitude of investigations into their scurrilous behavior during the Clinton terms.

Arguably, Hillary Clinton was the First Lady and not the president of the United States and she was not the one impeached. Therefore, either she was aware of Bill Clinton’s tawdry and unethical behavior during her 8 years living with intimate access to the Oval Office and she was a willing participant or she’s as thick as brick and a complete airhead. ”Gosh Bill darling, I didn’t know you smoked cigars! Now, where, oh where, did I put those legal bills? Suicide? Oh bother!” If you’ll buy that…

The current, sanitized version of Hillary Clinton shows a woman driven by her ambition, her shrewd manipulative talents and a tenacious arrogance. She believes that Americans will forget and forgive and that we are willing to have Billary back in the white house – even if only for the entertainment value. This shows how cheaply the Democrat vote can be gained. The last time we got “two for the price of one”, we paid a high price indeed.

The trend to vote based on superficial characteristics rather than content is disturbing. Cute hair, ethnicity, and, in this race, gender seem to be more influential than voting records, flip-flopability and criminal behavior. While I sympathize with Elizabeth Edwards and her fight against cancer, I don’t think her plight makes her husband a better candidate. Nor am I affected by the ghost like complexion of McCain, or the reassuring familiarity of Giuliani.

On a similar note, I don’t believe that Barack Obama’s ethnicity should come into play. Some political analysts have suggested that African Americans, while proud that a black man is running for president, won’t vote for him because ultimately they don’t think he can win. This is a sad case of self-inflicted racism and clearly illustrates the issues associated with voting based on appearance – the color of one’s skin.

It is shocking that 59% of women currently view Hillary Clinton favorably. The idea of a woman President of the United States is intriguing, especially since in some countries women still don’t have the right to vote. However, voting for Hillary just because she’s a woman is ignorant. How can any woman support a candidate who insulted feminists by staying married to an adulterous, perverted slob just so that she could maintain her own political power? However, given Hillary’s remarkable ability to obfuscate and distort reality, she will claim it was all for “love”. Can I throw up now?

Hillary Clinton knows full well how to manipulate the gullible voting public, whether it be by acting like she wears the pants in the family to reassure men, chuckling it up to soften her image or by emphasizing women’s issues on the campaign trail. Yet, can this woman really be trusted? Is it possible to suspend our disbelief and conclude that she is a changed woman from the corrupt, devious, power hungry person that she has been? Further, do we really want an impeached president with the morals of an alley cat prowling the halls of the White House under the guise of “First Husband”?

While I do think that Hillary Clinton has remarkable political skills and the ruthlessness to get exactly what she wants, I think the rest of the world will laugh loud and hearty at the corrupt comedic duo that she and Bill represent. Even though I’m a woman, and a mother and education and health care are extremely important to me, this wolf in sheep’s clothing will never get my vote. In fact, while I’ve never been a proponent of vigilante justice, my favorite bumper sticker is “Run Hillary Run” the twist being that you put it on your front bumper.

Alana Marie Burke
Redding Record Searchlight October 7, 2007

9/11 Still heartbreaking.

2007-09-11T09:01:00.000-07:00

God Bless America,

Alana Marie Burke

The Panhandling Way of Life

2007-09-11T08:42:00.000-07:00

Panhandlers hustle people for money either verbally or with signage and may use empathy props such as small children, dogs, or wheel chairs to draw attention to their predicament. While some may be in desperate need, for many, panhandling is their profession and they are not homeless.

The aggressive behavior by panhandlers that don’t get what they want furthers the perception that these people are dangerous and should be given a one way bus ticket out of the city. In addition, studies indicate that a high percentage of panhandlers are addicted to drugs or alcohol and are using their gains to fund their habits. Getting these people off the streets would benefit every community.

Panhandling is legal under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment. However, across the nation city ordinances are being enacted to restrict “begging” rights. These ordinances prohibit panhandling near ATMS, bus stops or outdoor restaurants in an attempt to find a balance between the freedom of open space, the safety and comfort of the public and to protect the economic status of businesses that stand to lose income when “undesirables” are soliciting in their area.

Here in Redding, a successful older panhandler with well-trimmed silver hair, dressed in nice khakis, holds a neatly printed sign that reads “Lost my wallet, need money for gas.” He refuses the opportunity for a ride or the use of a cell phone however and appears to be living quite well off his earnings. Perhaps his unthreatening appearance makes him so successful. In contrast, local youth, with bodies fully capable of working, bum for cash outside of shopping areas. They clearly have enough funds to purchase piercings and when not given what they want they snip, “Screw you man!” In this case, the response really ought to be “Get a job”.

For some panhandlers, their plight is the result of homelessness, mental illness or extreme poverty. A lack of affordable housing, healthcare or education contributes to general decline and if combined with job loss or domestic violence the outcome can be tragic. One grizzled old man sits every day on the bench in front of a local market. He never asks for anything and he is there season after season utilizing plastic grocery sacks as a makeshift jacket for his dog. Many of us know his favorite sandwich and yes, the kind of beer he prefers. He carries a journal that he writes in constantly and the story of his journey is, no doubt, remarkable.

As with most of society’s ills, a partial solution lies in early intervention by the community. However, when a child stumbles, we put a hand out to steady them, but when an adult metaphorically stumbles, the expectation is that they will deal with the issue on their own. Therefore, while there are assistance programs in place such as the Shasta Community Health Center and Loaves and Fishes, they are under funded and cannot possibly meet all the needs, psychological, financial and structural of those who have found themselves on the streets.

Every individual has an opportunity to help resolve this issue, whether it be through donations or on a one-to-one basis. The difficulty lies in determining who will accept constructive assistance and who is swindling for a fix and is unwilling to accept treatment. Either way, their situation is dire. What they really need is long-term help involving education and employment instead of handouts. With an estimated 3.5 million people homeless at some time over the course of each year, the project on a federal level is daunting.

Many people prefer not to be affected by the plight of panhandlers - at least not while they are walking down the street or idling at the stop light. Ask any panhandler and they will state that being ignored is one of the worst things they experience. The tendency is to react with revulsion, indifference and even anger. People walk or drive on by as though the lowliness of the soul on the corner doesn’t merit a moment of their time. Other, perhaps out of sense of guilt, will flip a few coins but won’t make eye contact.

As a community, we can strive to improve the lives of those who find themselves in unfortunate circumstances by offering support to the local shelters and assistance programs and by reducing the levels of indifference. Perhaps a first step is to look each person in the eye, no matter what condition they are in, even if only to say “I see you.”

Alana Marie Burke

Redding Record Searchlight 9/2/07

No excuse for Voter apathy: Either put up or shut up

2007-08-06T08:17:00.000-07:00

By Alana Marie Burke
Redding Record Searchlight

Americans on all sides of the political spectrum heatedly verbalize their opinions on the issues facing our nation today. However, when it comes to exercising their voting rights, Americans are mostly talk and very little action. The excuses for not voting range from a mistrust of politicians to an ignorance of the issues or the sense that a single vote does not have an impact. Unless more people are willing to put their mouths where their voting booths are, governmental policy and progress will continue to be hampered and a true picture of public opinion cannot be seen.

In 1960, approximately 65 percent of Americans turned out to vote in the presidential election, but between 1960 and the 2001 elections, voter turnout dropped radically with the lowest turnouts in 1986 and 1998 at a mere 36.4 percent. These statistics are subject to interpretation regarding voter eligibility and census calculations, but the trend in voter decline is apparent. Voter turnout was higher for the 2004 election, but the percentages have been attributed to the controversial issues of the time. Until the election of 2008, there is no way to tell if a new trend has emerged.

The phenomenon of voter apathy is due, in part, to a lack of trust in the political process and a sense that elected officials will not make good on campaign promises. According to Curtis Gans, director of the non-partisan Committee for the Study of the American Electorate, "the dwindling interest in voting stems from the failures of the two main parties and their leaders." Gans further states, "Presidents from both parties have misled and betrayed voters," creating "the erosion of political trust by the conduct of leadership." The office of the president was at a time held in the highest esteem and to shake the hand of the commander in chief was a great honor. Children were taught to respect the chain of authority from elders, community leaders and teachers to representatives, senators and ultimately the president. The assumption was that these leaders acted on a higher moral ground and selflessly promoted the good of the country. Perhaps it was this assumption that encouraged people to vote. The fact is that we have never had a president who was a saint, and in recent decades, the undignified and scurrilous behavior exhibited by many of our elected officials has resulted in a dire lack of respect from the American public and abroad.

These days the political arena is more analogous to reality television than to the trust inducing warmth of Roosevelt and his fireside chats or Ronald Reagan bringing points of light and boosting sales of breakfast cereal with his "Morning in America" message. In some ways, the laying open of the political machine has cost our country its unity. If President Bush were assassinated today, would the majority of Americans respond with sadness and emotional shock as they did when John F. Kennedy was assassinated? To be sure, mouths would run, pomp and circumstance would imbue Bush's funeral and everyone would be cautiously eyeing Dick Cheney, but the majority would not stop in their tracks for a national day of mourning.

So, given that saints don't run for office, how can the political machine regain the hearts, minds and trust of the voters? It might not be able to. However, with the press now fully in the role of watchdog rather than lapdog, the American public has a potent opportunity to learn about the candidates, their voting records and the issues at stake. While publicly knocking leaders off their pedestals may feel unsavory, Americans can be empowered by the wealth of knowledge available to them, one vote at a time. Therefore, those people who are eligible to vote -- but don't -- need to stop whining, get off their duffs and help shape the policies of this country. In other words, if America is ever going to regain her status as a benevolent guiding light for the world, her citizens need either to put up or shut up.

2007-06-29T13:14:00.000-07:00

"Our own heart, and not other men's opinions form our true honor."

Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772-1834)

Stem the Tide of Illegal Immigrants Using Convict Labor

2007-06-29T12:33:00.000-07:00

A Mexican federal policeman stands next to packages of drugs (believed to be marijuana) that had been removed from a sophisticated clandestine tunnel which passes under the US-Mexico border in Tijuana, Mexico. (AP Photo/David Maung)

The issue of border security is muddled, volatile and vital to the welfare of America. Regardless of the label applied, whether it is illegal alien, undocumented immigrant, or criminal, discussing the issue takes people out of their comfort zone. Depending on the position taken, you can sound like a racist, a bleeding heart, a paranoid security freak or a genuinely concerned citizen willing to look a grim reality in the face.

The best way to stem the tide of illegals coming from Mexico is to stop giving them a reason to come. They aren’t coming here because they like In-and-Out burgers and Britney Spears. They are coming for money, which employers, taking full advantage of the oppressed, pay them under the table in pitiful amounts which doesn’t generate any tax income and reduces the job market for legal citizens. The argument that illegals only take the jobs that Americans won’t do is repugnant, ignorant and insulting to all parties involved.

A partial solution may be on the horizon. A legislative amendment has been agreed upon by legislators Grassley, Kyl, Kennedy, Baucus and Obama (yes, that Obama) that would require all U.S. employers to submit job applicants’ Social Security numbers or other ID to a new federal verification system. If prospective employers fail to comply, they will face much higher fines than any previously levied. The application process would require the production of a U.S. passport or a Real ID driver’s license (to be issued in 2008 under a new law passed after September 11) and to guard against a run on stolen Social Security numbers, the proposal would make identity theft a felony.

In addition, to bolster security the border needs to be fortified. It has been estimated that a 2,000 mile state-of-the-art border fence will cost between 4 and 8 billion dollars. For the bargain price of 851 million dollars a chain link fence could be built and then electrified which might provide a new game for bored patrol agents – zap an alien. After all, they can’t shoot armed drug dealers in the butt while they are crossing the border unless they obtain written approval first so they have to find something to do.

Another option is to build tall security towers and staff them with agents provided with high tech cameras and bullhorns. I can hear it now, “Stop or I’ll take your picture!” In any case, none of these options would successfully deal with the underground tunnels used to circumvent the border. The most recent of these even had electricity and drainage pumps. If only the Mexican illegals would invest that much time and innovation into improving their own country

One way to get that wall built, whether it is out of chain link, concrete or spit and toilet paper is to enlist the help of our prison populations. As of June 2006, in excess of 2,245,189 prisoners were held in Federal or State prisons and they are a viable workforce that can be legally required to work. According to the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution, "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Since states spend approximately 25 billion a year on corrections, a growing number of states are now requiring prisoners to help pay for their own incarceration. The Federal Prison Industries attempts “to employ and provide skills training to the greatest practicable number of inmates confined within the Federal Bureau of Prisons. They pay the inmates a nominal wage, deduct fees, taxes and amounts for victim funds and family support and give the inmates the rest.

While I don’t agree with private companies having access to the prison work force, (the idea of having rapists and child molesters putting Tickle Me Elmo graphics on t-shirts is disturbing), I do believe that giving back to America should be a top priority for our inmates. This labor force could be utilized at a low cost and at the same time be taught new skills and I am sure that with the innovations in technology the cumbersome chain gang security method could be replaced with tracking devices or other escape hindrances. A twisted irony of course would be if we used incarcerated illegals as part of the labor force to bolster the border.

According to statistics, a majority of Americans agree that something must be done to slow the influx of aliens into this country, whether for legal, economic or national security reasons. The solution remains elusive because we are torn between our emotions regarding humanity and the survival of our country. On an individual basis it is difficult to turn away any person in need but when the numbers become between 13 and 20 million the phrase comes to mind “Whoa Nelly!” However, I am all for shooting the drug dealers in the butt.

Alana Marie Burke

Oh the wit, the wit!

2007-06-14T10:10:00.000-07:00

"President Bush was so buoyed by the warm reception he was given in Albania that he immediately gave all 3 million Albanians American citizenship, provided they learn Spanish. The offer was withdrawn when Bush found out most Albanians haven't broken any U.S. laws."
(Ann Coulter 2007)

I could not have said it better myself,

Alana Marie Burke

Cell-phone ban won't stop unethical behavior

2007-06-03T10:33:00.000-07:00

Some of us remember a time when our parents made sure we had a dime in our pocket when we left the house. The money was not for a Baby Ruth or Chiclets; it was for the pay phone, in case we had an emergency and needed to call home. The worst-case scenario occurred when the phone ate your money; the best-case scenario was when someone made an incomplete call and forgot to push the return lever. It was akin to winning in Vegas even if the return was only a dime or later 25 cents.

Old Ma Bell has evolved and now, with the large number of cell phone providers offering competitive pricing, a substantive number of children older than 12 have a cell phone. Like the much-coveted Princess Phone ("It's little, it's lovely, it lights") of ancient history, acquiring a cell phone has become a rite of passage. Parents cave in to the cellular demands of their teens and pre-teens because they see the benefit of being able to get in touch with their child at almost any time. The only real wrangling points are how many text messages they get, minutes provided and the bling-bling accessories such as ring tones and rhinestones.

Before 9/11, many states banned the use of cell phones in public schools and, for the most part, this was due to the perception that the limited numbers of cell users were drug dealers. However, after 9/11 most of these bans were repealed. Now new legislation is being reviewed that will re-instate a ban and make contacting students much more difficult.

The bill, introduced by state Rep. Angel Cruz, D-Philadelphia, proposes to make it illegal in Pennsylvania for students to carry cell phones to school, to school activities or on school buses, even if they are turned off. If this bill passes, the impact on "the freedom to communicate" between parents and students will be dramatic and the legislation could pass from state to state. Not allowing students to carry cell phones won't just be an inconvenience, the students will lose a critical tool that enhances their safety. Given the current concerns about campus violence, sexual predators and drug and alcohol use, denying families' access to their students is lunacy.

The reasons cited for banning the phones on school grounds have been cheating on exams, that they are a distraction in class and the unethical use of the camera function that is now a standard feature on most phones. A small minority of students have taken inappropriate bathroom photos or videotaped premeditated acts of violence. It is likely, however, that the majority of students conform to campus guidelines.

In some districts, input by the parents has been considered regarding policy. In others, there has simply been an edict handed down by administrators that restricts the use of the phones during class hours, with repercussions varying from suspension to repossession of the phones themselves. However, these local ordinances are enforced at the discretion of the school staff, not by the local police and, provided the phones are turned off during class time, carrying them to school is not a critical problem.

This entire issue smacks of gun control. It's not the cell phones that disrupt the class and take nasty photos, it's the students. Hair twirling, note passing, gum smacking, lunch sneaking and excessive chatting are also distractions -- albeit much more difficult to legislate against. The job of monitoring these behaviors on campus falls to the staff and, at home, to parents.

If a student thinks bathroom porn, cheating and an utter lack of respect for teachers is appropriate, then somewhere along the way, the parents of that child failed to teach or enforce the right values and they need to give it another go. Driving and multitasking, which causes a large number of traffic accidents every year, is a similar issue. Again, it's not the phone, the super-sized Big Mac meal or the mascara that is responsible. It's the wacko behind the wheel who is the culprit and even the impending laws banning certain cell phone functions while driving aren't going to prevent poor judgment.

Proponents of the cell phone ban argue that students have gotten along just fine without cell phones in the past. Whether or not this is accurate, in our current culture, cell phones are a vital part of the communication chain that includes the need to know where our children are, whom they are with, and what they are doing. To legislate that away is far more criminal than the irresponsible acts by a minority of students. No parent wants to miss that call when their child says, "Mom, I need you."

Record Searchlight contributing columnist,

Alana Marie Burke

The Wisdom of Cal Thomas

2007-05-31T09:08:00.000-07:00

"What have we come to? We once taught our young people the virtues of hard work, saving, personal responsibility and accountability for one's actions, chastity before and fidelity and commitment in marriage, honesty, integrity and virtue - not to mention the Ten Commandments (especially the one about not coveting that which belongs to your neighbor). We now teach them entitlement, victimhood, class envy and rights to other people's money. When one robs a bank, it's a crime. When government takes our money, it's called a tax. Same result."

Cal Thomas May 31, 2007

Alana Marie Burke