DO CHEATERS REALLY WIN?

If I have a choice between winning or losing, I prefer to win. I played sports in school and we were all taught that winning was good. However, we were also taught that good sportsmanship was more important than winning. You had to play fair. You didn’t cheat. “Cheaters never prosper” was the mantra of the day.

Has that all changed? Just today the Little League team from Chicago which won the Little League World Series was stripped of their title because of cheating. It seems they violated geographic boundaries when fielding their team to make it a better team.

I am a big fan of Little League, especially their world series. Teams from all over the world come to play and show off their tremendous talents. I understand that these are twelve and thirteen year old youngsters and definitely include young ladies. Early on when this first got started, some of these thirteen year olds showed up with full beards but I think the International League has gotten a better handle on that issue now.

All of the members of the Chicago team were black which added to their uniqueness and let me tell you, they were very talented. They probably would have won even without cheating. Because they are all black, Jesse Jackson is now claiming the team is being discriminated against because of their minority status. No, Jesse, being black doesn’t give you the right to cheat any more than being white. Cheating is no respecter of race.

Let’s consider the New England Patriots. They just won the Super Bowl making them the best team in professional football. Did they cheat to get to that position? Many say they did. In fact there is an ongoing investigation into their practice of deflating the football illegally to make it easier to control when passing. Again, they were so good they would have probably won without cheating. A final determination has not yet been reported but it probably will soon.

So, what is going on? I know that winning is important, especially in professional sports, but is winning at any cost what we are talking about? Are we supposed to look the other way when cheating and lying happen? Where is the honor in that? And, is honor important anymore?

Consider Brian Williams of NBC News. He apparently concocted a story about being shot down in a helicopter while in Iraq. As it turns out, the story was a complete lie. Now here is a respected newsman whose job and future were secure. He didn’t need to make up nonsense to make him look good. Today he has been suspended for at least six months while his employer, NBC, looks to see if there have been other embellishments of stories on which he has reported. No one, including Mr. Williams, knows what his future holds. I am sure NBC hopes this all blows over.

I could fill these pages with other stories of liars and cheaters from bike racers to politicians, to a point of pure boredom, but I think you get my point.

Is fairness dead? Is honor a thing of the past? Do cheaters really win now? Do they prosper? Does the end justify the means even if the means is dishonest?

I hope not. I long for the time when there was honor in sports and in business. I long for honesty in politics. I believe in winning but winning only has value if it doesn’t involve cheating.

Ron Scarbro

WE SHOULD HAVE HAD A DISCLAIMER

I was watching a TV commercial recently and it was for a smoking cessation medication. I once was a cigarette smoker and I know how difficult it is to quit smoking. This particular medication was available by prescription only. The disclaimer was unbelievable. Taking this medication could cause all sorts of maladies including, but not limited to, thoughts of suicide. I considered this as I watched the disclaimer unfold. Wouldn’t it be better to smoke than to commit suicide? In fact most of the possible side effects of the medication were much worse than smoking itself. Why would anyone expose himself to such a situation?

The second thought I had was, since this is a medication only available by prescription, why is it necessary to spend the money it takes to advertise on TV? Now I have read that pharmaceutical manufacturers say that their ads are very effective and that they can trace increased sales to the ads they run on TV.

So, are you telling me that patients go into the doctor’s office and tell the doc what medication they should take? Wouldn’t that be a decision better made by the doctor himself? And, if the disclaimer were true, why would any doctor prescribe such a medication? I wonder if the medications we all take might be cheaper if pharmaceutical companies didn’t spend so much money advertising them. Medication decisions should be made by the doctor and not based on TV advertisement.

While we are on the subject, how much do you suppose car insurance companies spend on TV advertising? You cannot turn on the television without being inundated with auto insurance ads. I wonder how their advertising budgets compare with the amount they pay out in claims. I wonder if they work as hard to keep down their advertising costs as they work trying to get out of paying legitimate claims. Also I wonder how much car insurance would cost if they didn’t spend so much advertising their product. Some conspiracy theorists have opined that these large insurance companies spend so much on their ads that they can and do control some of the programming on television. Could be, could be.

Have you seen the recent spate of ads for Obamacare? If this is such a great program, why do we have to advertise it? How much is that costing the taxpayers? I am told that our government also advertises in Mexico the fact that we give out food stamps and free medical care to needy people. Why, if you have to be an American citizen to qualify for these benefits, would we advertise in a foreign country? Isn’t that just asking for trouble?

I understand and am okay with the right of private business to advertise their products. The U.S. Government is not a private business. The “inconvenient”  truth is that Obamacare is bad government policy and no amount of advertising is going to change that.

A final question. Have you had enough of Barack Obama yet? He was sold to us a slick, glib, intelligent, law professor. One thing is certain. He is slick but that’s about it. The advertising was good, but the product left much to be desired. Maybe the message here is, don’t believe the ads. Too bad Obama didn’t come with a disclaimer, but who would have paid any attention to it anyway?

Ron Scarbro

WISDOM FOR LIVING

As noted in the title of this blog, there is wisdom in living. There is also wisdom in taking the week off. Accordingly I have decided to take a week off and post a new column next week.

Ron Scarbro

WILL THE MILITARY BE TRUE TO THEIR CODE?

According to recent reports Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl will now face a Military Court Martial for desertion. So far the Pentagon has not officially confirmed the reports. You will remember Bergdahl as the soldier who was swapped for the five Taliban terrorists without any consultation with Congress.

I have wondered when or if this was going to be resolved. Reports are that the White House has been fighting to have this matter buried because it is inconvenient to the President and his Administration. It doesn’t fit their narrative. They absolutely do not want a public trial of this, to use their words, military hero who served with honor and distinction.

According to members of the unit in which Bergdahl served, he did in fact desert because he became disenchanted with the whole war thing and decided to go to the other side. He even left a note saying as much. We are told that six soldiers died trying to find and return him.

In 1958 I joined the Army and was inducted at Ft. Jackson, SC before being transferred to Ft. Benning, GA. The first two months of service were what the military affectionately called basic training. Among the first things all service members are taught are the rules. We were taught The Uniform Code of Military Justice. I learned there was a difference between AWOL and Desertion. Being absent without leave infers that you would return. Desertion means that you are done and have no intention of ever returning. We were further taught that desertion in time of war is punishable by death by a firing squad. During peacetime the punishment could be up to life in a military prison at hard labor. There was no nuance. There was no difficulty in understanding the rules. They were clear.

Now, what is to become of Bergdahl? He is no hero. He did not serve with honor and distinction. What he did was desert in the face of enemy fire and caused the death of our soldiers trying to find him. The military knows this and they know   they have to Court Martial him regardless of the pressure being brought to bear by the Administration to bury the case.

Members of the active military as well as all who have served are waiting for a resolution.

Will the military be true to their own Code of Justice? Will Bergdahl be punished for his violation of the law? If so, what will his punishment be? If he is found guilty should he be put to death? How about life in a military prison at hard labor?

Bergdahl has a debt to this country. He has a debt to his fellow soldiers, especially those who suffered and died trying to find him. The fact that this desertion trial would be an embarrassment to the Administration is of no concern to me nor should it be to anyone. The prisoner swap was stupid from the beginning. A savvy Administration would have learned the facts before they acted. These are the things that happen when you believe you are the smartest guy in the room when the evidence proves otherwise.

Personally, I care little about this individual. I care even less about the embarrassment of the President. We are a country of laws. Those laws are for a purpose. When they are violated, regardless of who might be inconvenienced by them, consequences must follow. The Generals who are charged with the responsibility of bringing an action against Bergdahl need to get on with it. All America is waiting.

Ron Scarbro

THE STATE OF THE FOREST...SHERWOOD FOREST

Of course you all remember Robin Hood and his merry band of outlaws who lived in Sherwood Forest. Robin stole from the rich and allegedly gave to the poor. More specifically Robin and his band committed armed robbery. What becomes quite relevant here is that Robin Hood was a fictitious character. It was a fun story, but it was just a story.

We live in America not Sherwood Forest. Our government is not Robin Hood. The continuing proposals coming from the president is to take/confiscate the property of the rich and redistribute it to the poor. Wealth redistribution seems to be the mantra from this president. Obamacare is one such wealth redistribution scheme. Another is the so-called free two year college tuition credit. Well, obviously there is no free anything. Somebody is going to have to pay for all of these freebies.

When I was a youngster just getting out of high school I also had the opportunity for a free college education. It was called the GI Bill. All I had to do was join the military and serve my country and the country would then assist me in getting an education. Oh, and if I didn’t join, they would have drafted me anyway because back then it was believed that all our young men owed the country at least two years of service. What ever happened to that belief?

And so the President, in his State of the Union address, continues to propose new schemes to soak the rich once again and to distribute that confiscated wealth to the have nots. Another incentive-killing, un-American armed robbery. Billions would be collected over the next few years to grow the size of an already bloated government.

What are the chances that a Republican Congress will give this President any of the tax increases he is asking for? I’m going to guess zero. He knows that. So, why is he doing this? Could it be that he believes the Republicans will come across as the bad guys for not taxing the rich to give to the poor? The tax increase proposals are dead on arrival in Congress and because of these proposals by the President, so is any possible agreement between the President and the Congress. In other words the coming two years are going to be rocky at best. A brief word of caution for the Democrats who support this lame duck president in his ongoing tax and spending. You also will have to face the voters in 2016.

I think the president wants a contentious relationship with the Republicans believing they will be blamed for America’s lack of progress over the next two years. Some might even agree with him, but as was shown in the last election, those numbers are dwindling. The clear majority of Americans believe we have been headed in the wrong direction. We now have to right the ship. A part of that righting of the ship is to rein in unrestricted growth of government. Another part of that correction of our direction is tax reform, not tax increases.

It is pretty clear that President Obama didn’t learn anything from the midterm elections. Perhaps his inability to accomplish anything over his remaining term will allow him to reflect on his choices.

This isn’t Sherwood Forest. We are not living in a fictional time or place. This is real life. You want a free college education, join the military. Earn your way. There is no free lunch. The government isn’t Robin Hood and this Congress cannot be complicit in these ongoing incentive-killing policies.

Ron Scarbro

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MONOLOGUE AND DIALOGUE

I keep in my desk a copy of the Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights. I re-read them occasionally to remind me of the great gifts I receive just by being an American. Today I want to talk about the Bill of Rights and specifically the First Amendment.

I won’t print the entire amendment but you will remember it as the “freedom of religion, press, speech and assembly” amendment. We, as Americans, have the right to express ourselves. We can have our opinions published for all the world to see. We have newspapers who publish their thoughts as well as ours. This is called the “OP-Ed” page, or opinion/editorial page. The paper has an opinion and writers offer their opinions. They often disagree. The page then becomes a discussion of issues page.

You will agree then that there is a difference between monologue and dialogue. A speech is monologue and a discussion is dialogue. When a writer offers a column he offers his opinion and thought or a monologue. When a reader disagrees and offers a counterpoint, that becomes dialogue. We are blessed to have the freedom of expression that allows for such disagreements.

What happened in France was an attack on the freedom of speech and expression. While France doesn’t have a First Amendment, they still enjoy free speech and expression. The terrorists who attacked Charlie Hebdo have no interest in dialogue. They only want monologue. They believe you do not have the right to disagree. You do not have the right to your own opinion. Your only option is to obey.

Well, of course, that is never going to happen. Years ago there was a song that had a lyric, “how you gonna keep them down on the farm after they’ve seen Paree.” Once reasonable, intelligent people have tasted freedom, they will never return to servitude. When you have breathed free air, any other condition chokes the life out of you. The primary reason Radical Islamic terrorism will fail is that the world will never return to the twelfth century. Along the way they will be an ongoing irritant. They will kill some people. They themselves will all die horrible deaths. Freedom will endure and freedom will reign. But it is not now nor has it ever been free.

I welcome the opportunity to offer my opinion/monologue on this site. I value equally your willingness to offer your thoughts/opinions both in agreement and in  rebuttal. I am honored by the fact that my thoughts are read and considered. Dialogue and discussion is the basic foundation of our democracy.

I think an excellent exercise for all would be to get a copy of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and re-read them. They are easily available online. We all need to remind ourselves from time to time of the blessings we enjoy as Americans. We need to remind ourselves of the reasons we are who we are.

Dialogue, discussion, and disagreement are the foundation by which we advance. They are the cornerstones of discovery. “The world is flat.” “No, it is round and I am going to prove it.” Disagreement leads to discovery.

Ron Scarbro

THE RESULT OF LIBERALISM AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS

How could this be? Masked gunmen rushing into a newspaper office with automatic weapons blazing, killing, as of this reporting, twelve innocent newspaper workers, screaming “Allah Akbar,” in a country known as a poster child for liberalism. What country you ask? Why, it’s France of course. France, the bastion of liberal, progressive thinking. A country with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. A country which elected a socialist as their President. A country with open borders who seems to welcome anybody from anywhere with no strings attached. A country which taxes her successful citizens to such a degree that they move out. A country which has adopted “political correctness” in order that no one should ever be offended. There must be some mistake.

Well there is no mistake. What we are witnessing today is the result of liberalism and political correctness run amok. What we are witnessing is the precursor to many countries, including our own, of what these weenie policies create.

The newspaper in question, Charlie Hebdo, happened to be under “police protection” because of previous threats. Where were the cops? Were they on a coffee break? Were they polishing up their Billy Clubs?

The attack on this newspaper office is an attack on the freedom of the press throughout the world. This particular paper was famous for tweaking political leaders, Catholics, Muslims, and anyone they chose. Apparently tweaking the “humor impaired” was their calling. Freedom of the press and freedom of speech is a fundamental right of any free society. When that right is attacked anywhere in the world, the whole world suffers.

The gunmen are still at large. They evidently had a plan to attack and to escape. So far they have been successful. But they will show up. Somebody will rat them out. And when they are found, they should be lined up against a wall, gut shot with buckshot and fed to feral hogs. The Muslim leaders in France should be witness to their execution. These people did not act alone. They had help. They had funding. They had big support. The entire free world should rush to the aid of France and get these perps and make an example of them for all of the Muslim world to see.

Is it just me or can anyone else see a correlation between France and say for example, America? How about Great Britain?  Do we just not get it? How many times must we point out that these radical terrorists are not people with whom we can negotiate? These are murdering thugs, baby killers. They have no uniform and represent no flag. They are just killers. They don’t care what your laws are. They don’t care that guns are illegal. Outlaw killers rarely do.

It is long past time that the free world get off their duffs and hunt down all of  these radicals and rid the world of their miserable presence. This world has passed radical Islam by and it will never return to that century and there is no place in the modern world for this extremism. If moderate Muslims don’t want to be shot down in the street, they had best round up their children and rein them in. The world is not going to put up with this.

Ron Scarbro