Liberal Bias in Colleges by John Eberhard

In my last article, I described the overwhelming liberal bias that is seen today in the mainstream news media, meaning the major newspapers and the TV news. Luckily, there is also a booming conservative presence in talk radio, on the Internet, on cable TV (Fox News), and in the bookstores, to help balance things out. But if you only read the newspapers and watch TV news, like many people do, you're really only going to get one side of many important issues today.

In this article I'm going to talk about another danger and area of potential propaganda, namely the liberal bias in our colleges and universities, specifically in the faculties.

I have four kids, the oldest 14. So college concerns loom for me in the not too distant future. Paying for it, of course, plus the quality and character of what we're going to get for our money.

One would hope that in sending your kids to college, that they would be exposed to a variety of knowledge and ideas, that they would gain valuable skills that would serve them well in the job marketplace and in the workplace, that they would be taught how to think, and that they would be taught leadership skills.

In studies having to do with things like government, economics, sociology, and history, one would hope for a balance. After all, we do have a two-party system of government in America today, and the differences between the two parties couldn't possibly be more distinct and evident than they are today.

As I reported in one of my earlier articles, a recent Gallup poll showed that 40% of Americans today consider themselves conservatives, 40% consider themselves as moderates, and 20% consider themselves liberals. Of course the moderates in the middle can tend to swing either way on a variety of issues.

Now let's take a look at the percentage of liberalism and conservatism in the faculties on college campuses. A 2002 survey by pollster Frank Luntz of Ivy League professors found that only 3% are Republicans while 57% are Democrats. 84% voted for Al Gore in the 2000 election versus 9% for George Bush.

6% of these Ivy League profs said they were "somewhat conservative", while 30% said they were "somewhat liberal" and 34% said they were "liberal". That's 64% liberal or somewhat liberal versus 6% somewhat conservative (note that none said they were "conservative"). That's a 10 to 1 margin.

In May of 2003, 67% of Americans favored a tax cut, while a whopping 80% of Ivy League professors in the 2002 survey disagreed with any tax cuts.

11% of Americans agree that the federal government owes blacks some sort of reparations for the harms caused by slavery. 40% of Ivy Leaguer profs think so.

In October 03, 70% of Americans agreed that the government should spend more money on a defense system against nuclear missiles. Only 14% of Ivy Professors agreed. 74% disagreed.

21% of Ivy Professors believe that the media is liberal biased, versus 45% of the American public in a recent Gallup poll.

Given the choice of the editorial page of the New York Times (perhaps the most liberal newspaper in America) versus the Wall Street Journal (perhaps the most conservative), 72% of Ivy Professors said they agree more with the editorial page of the Times and 5% said they agree with the Journal.

That's a pretty stacked deck on the side of liberal thought in Ivy League colleges. Other studies in recent years have shown a similar, overwhelming liberal bias in college faculties, and discrimination and denial of tenure to conservative professors.

Sites like Accuracy in Academia (http://www.academia.org), Campus Report Online (http://www.campusreportonline.net), the Collegiate Network (http://www.collegiatenetwork.org), and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (http://www.isi.org), are attempting to catalog this abuse and working to improve education at all levels by bringing about greater balance.

What Causes the Liberal Bias in Colleges?

So this odd situation begs the question - what brings about this strange imbalance in our nation's colleges? Good question.

There is one fascinating theory on what makes certain individuals drawn to liberal/socialistic/communistic thought (they are all just different points in the same spectrum), which is advanced by Allan Levite in a booked entitled Guilt, Blame, and Politics. This is a very interesting book although rather difficult to read and full of rather advanced terminology.

The basic premise of the book is that there is a thing called "political guilt," which is brought about in cases where a person perceives a big difference between his station in life and that of the bottom financial rung of society, i.e. the poor. This political guilt is deepened by situations in which the person does not have to work for a living, where his work is easy, or where he is particularly well paid. This guilt can also be brought about where one sees himself as being separate from the working class by factors other than economics, such as education level or by making a living using his mind rather than by his hands.

Levite doesn't say this, but I'll add that this situation would also be worsened in any of the sectors of society that are "failed", i.e. where they aren't fulfilling the functions effectively that they are supposed to be fulfilling, such as psychiatry and psychology, much of government, and an education system that routinely finds students with lower IQs the longer they stay in school.

Levite states "Academics, especially in the less worldly areas such as art, literature, and the social sciences, may also be affected by their own remoteness from the mundane environment of production and commerce, as well as by the greater extent to which their erudition separates and shelters them from the rest of the world."

"Scholars in the humanities and the social sciences are even further removed from the workaday world than are other academics, and are therefore more likely to favor social leveling."

"College students and graduates can be expected to differ in their exposure to guilt according to the extent to which their major field appears to make a needed contribution to productivity. For this reason, such practical credentials as accounting and engineering degrees will usually provide much more protection from guilt than will degrees in art, music, literature, political science, psychology, journalism, law, history, or philosophy."

Levite also quotes a 1975 survey of university professors and students by Everett Ladd and Seymour Lipset, which found that while 46% of faculties as a whole were rated liberal in the late 1960s, 64% of the social science professors were rated liberal. This compared with 23% of business professors, 24% of engineering professors, and 14% of agriculture professors. At that time 20% of the US public was rated liberal (the same as today). So the liberalism of social science professors outnumbered the general population by three to one.

So essentially what Levite is talking about is exchange. If a person feels like he is working hard and exchanging his work for the money he gets, he won't tend to feel guilty.

But if he grew up in a rich family, is living off an inheritance, is working a cushy job or a job where he gets paid extremely well, or even is working in a field where he doesn't get his hands dirty, or where the field itself is of less tangible benefit to society, he may feel that there is something unfair about the difference between himself and others.

Per Levite, this person who experiences political guilt will favor methods of redistribution of wealth (welfare, socialistic programs), even if he doesn't go so far as to give up his own.

I think Levite makes a rather compelling case. Even if you don't agree with it, it certainly is thought provoking.

Where Do We Go From Here?

So I think the above information makes it pretty clear that the tilt on campuses is decidedly to the left. If we're looking for a balance, we're not going to find it. And college age kids, per Levite, are more susceptible to this political guilt because most have not been exposed to much hard work.

When only one point of view is expressed and others are suppressed, we have a potential propaganda situation. And as I mentioned in my last article, that raises the possibility of being manipulated, particularly if you don't know what's happening.

So what do we do with our kids? Well, first of all, if your child wants to pursue a profession that requires a college degree, certainly a major part of your responsibility has to be thoroughly researching the schools being considered.

Secondly, it is important to educate your kids on the differences between conservative and liberal, what issues each side supports, and what those issues mean. That way, they'll be able to spot any bias, see through it, and even fight it.

About the Author

John Eberhard is President of http://www.CommonSenseGovernment.co, as well as a writer, political analyst and marketing consultant living in the Los Angeles area. He can be reached at: http://www.commonsensegovernment.com/contactus.html

Don't Confuse Me With The Facts by David G. Hallstrom, Sr

These days, speaking with most Democrats is like being "Alice, In Wonderland". Most of them seem to be going under the old saying "Don't Confuse Me With The Facts", it seems that many of their statements are based on emotions instead of reality. I used to enjoy discussing politics, especially with people that disagreed with me (I felt that I might learn something new or different.). I still do, but lately I have found that, while I still enjoy discussing politics with Independents and Republicans, I no longer enjoy discussing politics with most Democrats. They almost all say the same things and they sound as if they are reading from a script.

Numerous Democrats that I have spoken with have stated, to paraphrase, "I don't like Bush (They never say President Bush), he's a thief and a liar and he is owned by the oil companies. He only cares about the rich. Nothing he says or does can be any good. Additionally, he is not smart enough to be President.". The words they actually use are much worse, I just don't wish to repeat them here.

The first thing that they all say is "Bush and his cronies stole the presidency from Vice-President Gore (They say President or Vice-President when speaking about President Clinton or Vice-President Gore.) in 2000.". They say "Bush lied about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction.". They say "Bush has ruined our economy". They say "Bush was too slow in handling the Katrina disaster because he is prejudiced against blacks." They say, "Bush has turned the world against us.". Some are now even saying, "Bush knew that 9/11 was going to happen and did nothing to stop it so he would have an excuse for invading Iraq.". When I ask them how they know these things they quote David Letterman, Jay Leno, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin, Edward Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Barbara Streisand and numerous other far left politicians, celebrities and newscasters.

I attempt to discover all sides of the issues so I watch NBC News, Fox News and CNN, I read the Los Angeles Times, the Wall Street Journal, Time Magazine, Forbes and other magazines and newspapers. When I ask my Democrat acquaintances if they watch Fox News, they all say "No, it's too right wing.". When I ask if they read the Wall Street Journal, Most say "No, it's too biased.", and even the ones that do admit to reading the Journal say, "I only read the financial pages.". When I ask if they read or watch any conservative media at all, they say "No, all that you find in the conservative media are lies and cover ups.".

When I try to counter some of their anti Bush statements with facts, they usually become upset and say "I don't want to hear your facts, they are all lies spread by 'big business' and 'right wing religious groups', and even if they are true, I don't care.". "I don't like Bush and that's all that matters.". When I ask them for proof of their allegations against President Bush, they usually either quote someone on the far left or say "Everyone knows it's true.". If I push them further they get upset and refuse to discuss the matter further. I have found that if you just listen to them and don't disagree with them, they can talk forever about how bad President Bush and the Republican Party are. However, if you disagree with any part of anything they say, they will usually end the conversation immediately by changing the subject.

I don't necessarily agree with, or even care for, everything that President Bush says or does, but the strident clamoring of the Democrats is forcing me to, more and more, side with him and the Republican Party. I am a Republican, but used to consider myself an Independent and voted my conscience rather than for a political party. Now, the blatant partisanship and lack of reason displayed by the Democratic Party has forced me to become an ardent Republican. The Republican Party, at least, still embraces some liberals and moderates. The Democratic Party appears to be trying to silence anyone who doesn't agree with the far left.

About the Author

David G. Hallstrom, Sr. is a retired private investigator and currently publishes several internet directories including http://www.resourcesforattorneys.com a legal and lifestyle resources directory for attorneys, lawyers and the internet public. For more lifestyle

Democratic Budget - PAYGO EQUALS PAYMORE!!

The Democrats promised to balance the budget by 2012. They said they will do this by finding "$900 billion in additional revenues."

Translation-TAX INCREASES!!

They would let the recent tax cuts expire in 2010. This means among other things bringing back the marriage penalty tax and cutting the child tax credit in half.

Democrats want you to believe that they intend to slow the growth in spending. They are using their usual deception with the term PAYGO. No matter how glib their wording, the reality is that PAYGO will become PAYMORE.

Little would be done to curb welfare and other entitlements which are soaring. The average family would see a tax increase of $2641 per year.

A family of four earning $50,000 would see taxes go up 132 percent. A single parent with two children earning $30,000 would see taxes raised 67 percent, according to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, if the president's tax relief is not made permanent.

Some Democrats blame it on the war. Total defense spending takes 4% of GDP. Defense spending as a percent of GDP is a tick away from its lowest point in 50 years.

Democrats are simply being Democrats. They're trying to get their hands on every penny they can to redistribute, mostly to non-producers.

To implement PAYGO, tax cuts must be offset by tax increases elsewhere or with cuts in entitlement spending, which would be helpful if those cuts applied to all entitlements.

Instead, Democrats stayed away from entitlements already in place, which have huge future costs.

Since the 2001-2003 tax cuts, revenues have soared and continue to do so. With revenues pouring in to the Treasury, no legitimate argument can be made for tax increases.

How about the economy? March 2007 produced another sizable jump in new jobs as did worker gains. When workers gain as they have for the last two years, the job market usually remains tight, signaling more good news ahead.

PAYGO may sound good, but it has the potential for much harm.

Hopefully Americans will tell congress to put a healthy economy and job creation ahead of partisan politics.

Mick McNesby is a former tax advisor, consultant and negotiator. He was a frequent guest on political talk shows in Atlantic City, N.J., discussing the benefits of the lower cost of government. He can be visited at http://conservative-politics-infofind.com

The Record on Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton is making a bid to be the first women to be president. Frankly, she has a legitimate chance and if she won the democratic nomination it would not be a surprise. But what do we know about Hillary? Here is a summary of some issues and her stance

Iraq War
Clinton voted YES to engage US troops in Iraq and voted no to a timetable to exit Iraq. This would clearly indicate that Ms Clinton is in favor of the war, but the truth is that she is not. She defended her earlier vote by saying she voted with the information she knew at the time. If the same vote were taking today, she would change her vote. Additionally, Clinton is opposed to a forced time table to exit Iraq but does want the Bush administration to change the course of action in Iraq to get us out.

Education
Clinton has voted YES to many bills that supported education and/or directed funds towards education. Clinton has stated many times that she is interested in education and improving our public school systems.

Health Care
Clintons stance here is clear. She wants a universal health care plan that covers all Americans. She has had this stance and goal for years and years. If elected president, this will no doubt be the primary focus of her administration. Early in 2007, she was quoted as saying that she has the expertise to achieve universal healthcare for all. This will no doubt be an incredible topic to cover.

Free Trade
In the area of free trade, her record, based on voting is somewhat mixed. Clearly though, she is in favor of eliminating tax breaks for those corporations who outsource jobs to other countries.

At the Democratic Primary Debate at Howard University on Jun 28, 2007 Clinton said, "Well, outsourcing is a problem, and it's one that I've dealt with as a senator from New York. I started an organization called New Jobs for New York to try to stand against the tide of outsourcing, particularly from upstate New York and from rural areas. We have to do several things: end the tax breaks that still exist in the tax code for outsourcing jobs, have trade agreements with enforceable labor and environmental standards, help Americans compete, which is something we haven't taken seriously. 65% of kids do not go on to college. What are we doing to help them get prepared for the jobs that we could keep here that wouldn't be outsourced--and find a new source of jobs, clean energy, global warming, would create millions of new jobs for Americans." In that one single response, Clinton hit on many topics that are key to America.

Immigration
When it comes to illegal immigration, Clinton seems to have the attitude of forgive and forget. For example, she voted YES on a Guest Worker Program what will allow illegal aliens who have worked in the US for 5 years or more an easier path to citizenship. At the South Carolina 2007 Democratic primary debate Clinton stated, " I'm in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, which includes tightening our border security, sanctioning employers to employ undocumented immigrants, getting the 12 million or so immigrants out of the shadows. That's very important to me. After 9/11, we've got to know who's in this country. And then giving them a chance to pay a fine, pay back taxes, learn English & stand in line to be eligible for a legal status in this country." She even voted YES to allow illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. This, in my opinion is not the right stance.

With Hillary in the race, the 2008 election process will be fun to watch.

Keith Scott is an writer of many topics including politics. He has started a political forum where you can express your political views He also writes Coin Collecting Articles for fun. Visit his websites for a history of US coins, metal market updates and news about your favorite coins.

The 2006 Elections - What does it mean to the Christian by Rev Michael Bresciani

As always right after any election the phrase "the American people have spoken" is being resounded profusely. Given that only forty percent of Americans have voted and of those the disenthralled, the unlearned and the well coaxed make up a goodly percentage of the voters, some are more willing to say "the American people have regurgitated."

Majority rule has never proved itself to be infallible. From lynch mobs to the landslide re-election of former President Nixon in 1972 which ended in cries for his impeachment, majority rule has in so many ways proven that a crowd can be just as mistaken as an individual.

It is also said that the seats were lost because Americans want a new Iraq policy. Staying the course is out and getting out is in. Abrogation from anything that requires a little resolve and the slightest protraction of time and effort is not so surprising in this country today. America is the undisputed avant-garde of the X generation. In a society where information is ingested in split second spots and daily life is broken down into hundreds of little segments of business and complexity it is little wonder that Americans are said to have the shortest attention spans of any people in the world. Stay the course? It would be easier to stop a swarm of killer bees by asking them to calm down.

Adding to a short American attention span is short sightedness concerning the nature of the conflict in Iraq. Removing Saddam from power can only be a good thing for Iraq and for the rest of the world but that is about where it ends. Trying to set up a democracy where a religion formerly carried the ball for over fifteen centuries is like trying to get the whole world to replace soccer with American football.

We are not dealing with clear cut ideologies like communism, fascism or socialism in this region. We can't call for the removal of a wall as we did in 1989 or send aid to distressed countries as before to help them and generate goodwill for the U.S. Now we are a spiritual entity according to the Muslims (Satan) and it takes more than guns to bring down Satan. It is an Islamic theology not a political ideology that is what is making the U.S. Iraq policy ineffective.

Whether Allah is God or anything like God is up for major dispute but that Arabs rule their countries as not so benevolent theocracies is not. America is anything but a theocracy and there are few Americans who can extend their thinking far enough to understand that kind of government. To America government and theology are miles apart. They may compliment each other but they don't share the same seat.

It is wrong to say that all democrats are liberal but entirely safe to say that the majority of liberals involved in politics can be found in the democratic camp. While it is only a slight overstatement, liberals are the crowd that generally believes that anything goes. They have been severely suppressed these last twelve years by both the predominantly republican house and a strong executive branch that has defined and carried out policy that kept the old jack at bay. The democratic rebellion was inevitable.

What does the democratic victory in both houses mean to the conservative and more so what does it mean to the conservative Christian and the Christian church? It is not a cause for panic but it is something to carefully note because the political shift is probably a precursor of yet darker and far more ominous trends and events.

Prophetically it would seem that just another shift between the political left and the conservatives is nothing new, so why worry? Normally that would be true. American politics has made countless shifts in the past without plunging into confusion. The one difference today is that nearly every major prophecy about the second coming of Christ is now far underway. This put simply means that what America and the world are running out of is not democracy, hopes for peace, theocracy or any other form of government. What we are running out of is time.

It is not the seats in the Congress that are so important to the believer but the seat of the Antichrist. For almost all conservative eschatologists, theologians and Christians in general, that seat is without doubt the newly formed European Union. Also the unanimous cry of the ancient biblical prophets is that when Israel regains independent sovereign nationhood and possesses Jerusalem again there is but a single generation left before the arrival of Messiah. Other signs and portents are emerging in full force through world events, nature and increased warnings from those in the Christian community who have been called upon by God himself to give stern and urgent warning to all who will listen.

Let's do the long and the short of it. What liberals have already engineered and what they are actively pursuing today might give us a clue of what they could seek to accomplish in the future.

Liberals have brought in abortion, removal of school prayers, stem cell research, removal of religious symbols in various places, restraints on military chaplains concerning prayer, gay rights and same sex marriage and civil contract laws. This is just scratching the surface the full history would take up more space than this article is wont to produce.

To the serious student of bible prophecy the liberal progressives are the most likely candidates to bring in the changes that are implied or specifically warned about in the scriptures. With all other last days' prophecies merging and barreling forward to the final rise of the world's last and worst dictator, the 2006 elections look like yet another step in the wrong direction for America.

Here are some of the things that we will see ahead.

1. A totally new view of marriage and family that includes same sex and multiple partners which will be protected under the law.

2. Laws that will attempt to limit what gospel preachers can say from the pulpit about gays, abortion or any other disputed issue that has come under constitutional protection through the law.

3. Removal of many of the protections and freedoms guaranteed under 501-C exemptions for churches and ministries.

4. The possible rise of a politician or someone akin to a minister of science (the false prophet) that will encourage America to ally with the emerging dictator of the European Union. (the Antichrist)

5. A participation in the world's newest economic system that tracks all the personal information on every person in the system.

6. The active demonizing and persecution of Christians first, then on to any religion false or real.

7. The jailing and eventually the instant execution of anyone resisting the new dictator by not becoming compliant with his economic program.

8. The shaking of the whole world by wars, natural disaster, disease and pestilence which culminates in the bloodiest battle the world has ever known, Armageddon. Where all the armies of the world will be gathered in the vast plains of Esdraelon but will fall completely.

9. The second coming of Christ, who removes the governments from men and sits in Jerusalem to rule for one thousand years of peace.

The new cultural churches of the day have become increasingly uncomfortable with these kinds of prophecies. But to those who fully understand the commission laid on them by the Lord Jesus Christ there can be no apology or shrinking away from proclaiming them. I too would rather that the world would come into its own and acquire peace and harmony throughout the nations but this is not what is going to happen. To apologize for broadcasting such portents would be the equivalent of saying "I'm sorry for raising my voice" to someone whose life was spared because you yelled at them to jump out of the way of a falling piano.

One item that is often missing in any warning about biblical prophecy is a bit of advice to bolster or prepare the hearers of such prognostications. The biblical prophets always provided their listeners with a way out or a way to change course at least for individuals if they were willing to listen. Here is my best advice.

Turn your life over to the Lord Jesus Christ. Start by confessing your sins and then ask him to endow you with the Holy Spirit so you can live the rest of your life under His Lordship.

Study your bible starting with the New Testament. Ignorance of Gods plan will cost more than any crash of the stock market or personal loss you may ever experience.

If you are already a believer stop being ashamed of the Lord Jesus Christ and his gospel. If you are in a cultural or any other kind of liberal church that is ashamed of him and every word he spoke...get out of it! "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels." Matthew 8:38

Hurry! I don't know the day or the hour Jesus is coming but I am persuaded that we are approaching the midnight hour at breakneck speed and when the smoke clears every now and then you can see the final station just ahead.

Rev Bresciani is the author of two Christian books. His articles on the second coming of Christ, faith, politics and the American way of life are read in every country in the world. Come visit http://www.americanprophet.org

About the Author

Rev Bresciani is the author of two Christian books. His articles on the second coming of Christ, faith, politics and the American way of life are read in every country in the world. Come visit http://www.americanprophet.org

Republicans Vs Democrats by Calvin Kuefer

Currently in the United States there are two main political parties, the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. While not every person ascribes to every belief of their stated political party, generally, the beliefs held are as follows:

REPUBLICAN PARTY

Republicans prefer a small federal government, only performing those functions that are specifically stated in the Constitution. They believe the federal government should provide for the defense of the country, mint the money and raise the military. They place the freedom and rights of the individual over that of the majority. They believe that taxes should be for the benefit of local government and are opposed to high taxes. Republicans preserve peace by strengthening defense. The strength of the nation's economy is in free enterprise and individual and national prosperity. The role of the individual and the family is placed before that of government. Decisions about local matters are made at the local level.

DEMOCRATIC PARTY

Democrats believe the government should be focused at the federal level. They believe the federal government is empowered to do anything that is not specifically prohibited by the Constitution. They believe that the rights of the individual are less important than the good of all. Taxes should be increased and sent to the federal government to disperse for the benefit of the poorest. Democrats believe that money should be spent on social programs rather than defense. They believe world peace can be based on discussion and good intentions. Democrats believe in stronger business regulations and requirements as well as higher taxes. Democrats have been responsible for many of the social programs that place importance on the government's role in care giving rather than that of the family. Democrats want more federal and state control over the quality and structure of education, particularly at the local level.

Each party believes that they are doing the best for the country. Let no one think that either one or the other is less patriotic. However, good intensions can still harm the country and its people.

About the Author

Which party, Republican or Democratic, has done the most good or harm to our country? Which party is doing the most good or harm presently? You be the judge at http://www.partymonitor.com

Global Warming Update - Eskimos Spot First Palm Tree

In an especially inarguable event that global warming is proceeding apace, a group of Eskimos noticed – while hunting for caribou on the sort of unusually balmy day that they’ve been experiencing with ever-growing frequency – a tree they were not familiar with, growing high above the tundra.

Priding themselves on knowing the flora and fauna of their land, they puzzled over the strange growth.

“Look,” one said, “a tree I never saw before.”

“No branches,” another one puzzled.

“Even a bear couldn’t climb it,” a third one noted.

Then one of them pointed to the groups of large roundish green objects in the high and odd-looking leaves, known in warmer climes as palm fronds. “Look,” he speculated, “big fruit, maybe.”

Just then one of the ovoid objects happened to break loose and fall toward them.

Unfortunately, for the fellow who had just identified it as fruit, the object hit him on the head and, being rather heavy and hard, it knocked him out.

When he awoke, he felt the lump on his head, and concluded, “Not very ripe.”

Respecting the environment, as all Eskimos are famously known to do, except when poaching, they decided not to chop the tree down to take it back via dogsled for identification but to settle for returning with the unidentified object that had hit their unsuspecting fellow villager on the noggin.

When they got back to their village, they went straight to the village elder, who was revered for many reasons, one of them being that he was the only resident of the village who, one year when the salmon catch had been especially bountiful, had managed to wangle a trip to Florida.

When he saw the strange object, his brows fretted and he looked up, saying, “I thought you went caribou hunting?”

“We did,” one of the hunters replied.

“I did not know that there are caribou in Florida,” he said, questioningly.

“Florida?” another hunter asked, now even more mystified.

“Yes, because as far as I know, this thing only grows in Florida. As you know, once, in my younger days, I went there for a mid-winter break.”

“Then you know what it is?” the fellow who had been hit on the head with it asked.

“Yes, he replied. “It’s called a coconut.”

“Coconut?” they variously puzzled, passing it around for another look.

“Yes,” the elder confirmed. “Where did you find it?”

“In a tree we never saw before.”

“And where did you see this tree?” the wizened man questioned.

“In caribou country,” one of the hunters affirmed.

“I swear,” another added.

“Then,” he told them, “thanks to global warming, our way of life is about to change. You have found a palm tree in Alaska.”

“Palm tree?” they wondered.

“Yes,” he said, and whacked the coconut with a large knife.

He savored a sip of the nectar within and, passing the coconut around so the hunters might experience the milky delectation, he concluded, "And so, if I live long enough, maybe I will get to enjoy the climate of Florida without having to make another trip there.”

Tom Attea, humorist and creator of http://www.NewsLaugh.com, has had six shows produced Off-Broadway. Critics have called his writing "delightfully funny," "witty," with "good, genuine laughs" and "great humor and ebullience."

The Irony of Liberal Loudness by E Lawrence Welch

If you've been involved in politics for any length of time - you can't help but notice how much louder the liberal voice echoes when compared to its conservative counterpart. Regardless, what's most interesting about this loudness is its irony. For instance, perhaps you've noticed the correlation between rocketing gun sales with liberal movements to increase gun control laws. Or maybe you're aware of the adjustments required in election poll results? Where it seems liberals are all too happy to boast proudly to a voting poll researcher - while conservative voters are less likely to even bother speaking after casting his/her vote.

Is it possible a loud liberal voice has the opposite of its intended affect? In some areas such as gun control - it's so obvious - you would think the liberals would have learned valuable lessons by now - but I doubt it - and I hope they haven't. Nevertheless, one burning question remains - what effect would a loud conservative voice have on the politics? From where I stand - probably a good one - as it seems a quiet conservative voice carries more weight than that of a loud liberal.

E Lawrence Welch

And Another Thing

Pyle Mountain Holsters

About the Author

Mr. Welch is a student of life, love, marriage, relationships and politics. Also, how owns and operates an online retail holster store.