The big news today is the Israeli attack that has apparently killed something like 56 Lebanese children and women.  The international community is after the U.S. and Israel to achieve a cease-fire, while ignoring Lebanon's responsibility in all of this.  Does that impress anyone as nuts?!  Hezbollah started this by repeatedly rocketing Israel from Lebanon, killing eight Israeli soldiers and kidnapping two.   Lebanon is claiming "plausible deniability" since it's Hezbollah is doing this without the permission of the Lebanese government.  So, Hezbollah is firing thousands of missiles from Lebanon, and the Lebanese government doesn't know about it?  The Lebanese government is doing nothing to stop the rockets because . . . ?  Lebanese civilians are being killed because the Israelis are trying to defend themselves from Hezbollah and the Lebanese government.

The Israelis are also being condemned for an attack on a UN outpost and killing several UN observers.  Kofi Annan continues extreme criticism of Israel while ignoring the actions of Hezbollah and the Lebanese government.  Everyone is insisting that the U.S. and Israel comply with the "Laws of War" while simply ignoring the fact that Hezbollah, Hamas, al Qaeda, and every other terrorist group is in violation of those laws by their very existence.  A story in the Ottawa Citizen is reporting that one of the UN observers killed in the Israeli attack, only days before he was killed, was complaining that Hezbollah was using the observation post as a shield.  Why isn't that anywhere else in the mainstream media?

These pseudo-Islamists have no concept of civility, nor of the Laws of War.  They will do anything to destroy Israel and all Israelis.  Let Israel do what it needs to do.

Since this will be my maiden effort at blogging, please be patient while I try to get rolling.

By way of introduction, I am one of those rarest of all people: I'm a part-time community college instructor (sometimes called an "adjunct professor") and a former broadcast journalist who also happens to be very conservative. 
During my 28 years as a journalist and overlapping career as a teacher, I've come to realize that "objectivity" is not all that it's cracked up to be.  I believe "ethics" is far more important to a journalist and to a teacher.  I simply don't think that objectivity is attainable, though it is admirable and should be a goal of any journalist or teacher.  I think objectivity is a goal that is included within the concept of ethics.
For example, I tend toward the idea that Dan Rather's error was not that he failed to be objective but that he failed to admit that he wasn't objective.  Had he been ethical, he likely would have caught his own biases and done a more objective job.  Had he been willing to admit that he is a mere mortal, like the rest of us, I believe the public would have been more accepting of his errors.  As it was, he took CBS' ratings further into the toilet and had to be sacrificed in order to save the network. 
Unfortunately, too many of us believe that our point of view is mainstream, and therefore is acceptable as objective.  Either that or we believe anyone who doesn't believe "our way" is either stupid, naive, ignorant, crazy, lying, foolish, etc.
The point is that I think we're far better off to admit to our biases and proceed with an intelligent, civilized dialogue, realizing that everyone's life has led them to where they are in their beliefs today.
As far as my beliefs, I guess the best way of describing them is to talk about preferences.  I very much enjoy listening to talk radio and especially to Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Rush Limbaugh, Larry Elder and a variety of other conservative or conservative-leaning talk show hosts. 
I love history and I love studying the effects the media have on our culture.
I think George W. Bush may prove to be one of our greatest presidents, despite the fact that he doesn't know how to pronounce "nuclear."  Neither did Jimmy Carter.
I view the War on Terrorism as exactly that.  It's not the "Iraq War," which implies a geographic war, but rather a war of ideologies or cultures.  I do believe it is a religious war, but not because Americans have made it so, rather because fanatical Pseudo-Islamic maniacs have made it that.  Our battle is to preserve our culture, and so is theirs.  What many people don't seem to understand is that our culture is willing to tolerate and, in fact, accept other cultures, while these Pseudo-Islamists are not.  Their goal is the annihilation of anyone who does not agree with their religious and cultural views.  Ours is to preserve a world where we learn from other cultures and therefore improve upon ours and theirs.
There are a number of issues that I hope to discuss over the coming months.  I hope I'll hear from people about their views on these issues, but I simply will not tolerate threats or baseless criticisms of myself or anyone else.  If you're going to slam me, or anyone else, do it with facts, not with innuendo, lies or imaginings.
I've mentioned some basic thoughts on the War on Terrorism, but I think my initial effort will be on illegal immigration, simply because there's a concern I haven't heard expressed, but I believe to be critical in the debate.  The concern is, what if illegal immigrants choose not to become "guest workers"?  I imagine an awful lot of people would say, "Why wouldn't they want to become "guest workers"? 
I suspect a significant number of illegal immigrants will choose not to opt into this program simply because it's not to their advantage to do so.  For example, if I realize that I can sell my product (In this case, labor) to someone at a lower price than my competitor, and make a comfortable living, I may be able to drive my competitor out of business and then raise my price to make my living even more comfortable. 
If an illegal immigrant were to join the "guest worker" program he would immediately lose the advantage he has for employment.  Many employers, though not all, perhaps not even most, hire illegal immigrants simply because it reduces the employer's cost of labor.  Once that employee becomes recognized as a legal resident, the employer must pay minimum wage, social security, workers compensation and all the other things our society requires.  Thus, there may be no advantage to hiring the illegal.  I don't think illegal immigrants are idiots.  I'm sure many of them realize they have that advantage.
I've come to realize that many employers hire illegal immigrants as "independent contractors," thus avoiding all of the payroll deductions.  I've had construction contractors brag to me about this tactic. I once had a general contractor explain to me that he would go to one of his "Mexican" workers and offer him a given amount of money to bring in a specified number of laborers.  He told the worker to take all of the money and keep whatever might be left over.  That way the laborers got jobs and the worker increased his pay.
The point is that the "guest worker" program could well prove to be a band-aid on a bullet hole.  I haven't heard many people say we should immediately throw all illegal aliens out of the country, simply because to do so would destroy the nation's economy.  Assuming only 10 percent of the estimated 12-million illegal immigrants chose not to take advantage of the "guest worker" program, that means we'd still have to throw out 1.2-million.  That too would devastate the nation's economy.  I think my point is best exlained by the cancer analogy.  If someone has operable cancer they can choose to have painful chemo-therapy and surgery, or they can simply die.  Most would elect the pain.  That's what I'm saying here.  Maybe we're going to have to suffer a bit in order to get rid of this illegal immigrant "cancer" that I believe is slowly but surely eating away at our nation.
That's my opinion.  I may be wrong.  If I am wrong, please tell me why.  If I'm right, please let me know.