Phil Fragasso's Blog: Blogs, Insights & Rants, page 8

The Doomsday Mulligan

Maybe God was too busy on Saturday placing bets on the Preakness (I'll give you 5-to-1 He picked Shackleford but, unfortunately, had Dialed In for the exacta). Or maybe He just forgot to end the world. But if anyone deserves a mulligan it's God. The same however does not go for Harold Camping, the doomsday charlatan who used his once-per-round mulligan back in 1994.

Camping is determined to prove himself the Donald Trump of the evangelical set with bluster, an unfettered sense of self-importance, and a blind faith that he -- and he alone -- knows how to save (and/or destroy) the world.

Am I the only one hoping that Camping tosses his name into the motley crew of Republican presidential candidates? It sure would make for a fun campaign.

Minnesota Legislature Defines Sex, Love & Marriage

Energized by their approval of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman ( http://tinyurl.com/3lt3ulb ), the Minnesota House has proposed some additional definitional amendments.

Amendment 11-666 defines "love" as a transitory illusion which exists for the sole purpose of allowing genital copulation without fear of parental scorn. The amendment further states that heterosexual love is good, but homosexual love is bad. A sub-clause goes on to define "bad," in the context of homosexual love, as "evil."

Amendment 12-666 defines"sex" as missionary-style copulation between a heterosexual man and woman, between the ages of 21 and 55, between the hours of 10pm and midnight, with the lights off, and with no trace of alcohol or other intoxicants.

Next up for the Minnesota House are redefinitions of "faith," "justice," and "constitutional."

Why Gold Bugs Bug Me and Should Bug You

[image error] This is perhaps the stupidest and most egregiously misleading ad I've ever seen. Yes it's true that gold has had a very strong run in the last two years -- but with equally strong and gut-wrenching volatility. Gold is down 10% from its December peak and, during the 2-year period the ad touts, gold prices suffered several multi-digit downturns. It is not for the faint of heart.

But what really gets me is the suggestion that anyone could have had their entire IRA filled with gold. It's absurd. How many people would click on the ad if, instead of gold, it were touting the 75% return that you could have experienced if your IRA was filled with Apple or the 95% return delivered by a portfolio filled with Ford. No one in their right mind invests -- or should invest -- like that. But that is exactly what this gold bug would have you do.

I am not a big fan of gold, primarily because I just don't understand its fluctuations. But even the more temperate proponents of gold suggest that investors limit their exposure to a small position in the range of 2%-5% of your portfolio. Gold is an inflation hedge. It is not a long-term buy-and-hold investment.

When Does a Criminal Become a Terrorist?

In the Republican rebuttal to President Obama's State of the Union address, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell quoted from Massachusetts Senator-elect Scott Brown in stating that "we should be spending taxpayer dollars to defeat terrorists, not to protect them." The quote was from Brown's campaign and referred to the Christmas day attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound flight. Clearly, Brown, McDonnell and their Republican cohorts believe that America's approach to terrorists is too coddling and they long for the good old days of water-boarding.

The problem that no one seems willing to address, however, is how to determine when a criminal act is a terrorist act -- and when to suspend America's legal system. Abdulmutallab has all the characteristics of a terrorist (i.e., he's Muslim and brown-skinned) and the McDonnell/Brown contingent believes that his civil liberties should be abandoned because of that. Perhaps so.

But remember Lee Harvey Oswald? If "terrorism" is defined as the use of violence to make a political statement or intimidate and/or coerce the actions of a government, then Oswald could and should be viewed as a terrorist. Same goes for Sirhan Sirhan, who killed Bobby Kennedy in 1968, and John Hinckley Jr., who wounded President Reagan in 1981. Would Brown have urged that the legal and human rights of these three individuals be ignored? Or would only Sirhan Sirhan fall under his terrorist label?

JFK and Reagan were sitting presidents and RFK was a presidential candidate, so one could contend that the acts against them were acts against the United States and, hence, acts of terror. But what happens when a senator is assassinated -- is that a terrorist act? How about a cabinet member or congressman? How about a policeman or fireman? What exactly is the threshold to suspend liberty and due process?

Many people view the Ft. Hood killings as a terrorist act, but is that because it was on a military base? How different was Ft. Hood from Columbine High School? Deranged people do a lot of weird and horrific stuff.

"Terrorist" is a label that cannot have a hard and fast definition. Because of that, we cannot have a dual-approach to justice and legal due process. It works in a sound bite but does not work in reality -- or at least any reality that I would want to live in.