I'm buying an iPhone - but I can't use it.

FOX news reports that University of Missouri journalism school will require all incoming freshman to purchase an iPhone of iPod touch.

Why?

So they can listen to lectures.

"Lectures are the worst possible learning format, There's been some research done that shows if a student can hear that lecture a second time, they retain three times as much of that lecture," Associate Dean Brian S. Brooks told the Columbia Missourian.

Brooks admits that students could use any MP3 player, but the school will require the Apple devices so you and I can pay for them.

Yes, taxpayers will help foot the bill for these students’ iPhone.

"If it's required, it can be included in your financial-need estimate," Brooks told the Missourian. "If we had not required it, they wouldn't be able to do that."

Financial aid primarily consists of government backed student loans, as well as Pell grants and other federal and state aid programs. You may not find yourself completely on the hook for all of these student’s iDevices – assuming they pay off their loans, but some of your hard earned dollars will ultimately find their way to Apple’s coffers.

In a further example of convoluted statist thinking, Brooks insists the policy will cost student’s nothing, because Apple offered a back-to-school package in the past that gave students who bought an Apple laptop a coupon for a free iPod touch.

"It's not going to cost them a cent," he said.

So let me get this straight. If the student spends over $1,000 on a laptop, she can get a free iPod touch, and that constitutes not costing a cent? Not to mention that any competent Economics 101 student (granted, there aren't many of those) will tell you - nothing comes free. Somebody has to pay for it. Believe me, Apple will recoup the cost of that "free" iPod touch, and I doubt the University of Missouri will foot the bill.

And what about students that don't receive student aid? They'll have to fork out the cash themselves - whether they want an Apple product or not. Nothing like a hidden tuition increase.

But that's OK. They're probably rich kids anyway.

Brooks also admits that students could conceivably just listen to the lectures on their laptop, but he said few students do.

So because they suddenly have a different device to listen to, they will now magically find themselves motivated by the desire to listen?

Confused yet?

I am amazed that I made it all the way through journalism school with a 3.9 GPA without ever listening to a recorded lecture. I didn’t even own an iPod touch.

I must be really special.

I propose -

In the wake of today’s Environmental Protection Agency ruling declaring carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases a public health threat, I am calling for an immediate ban on breathing – more specifically exhaling.

The average human exhales 1,140 grams of carbon dioxide each day, comparable to a car driving about five kilometers. Multiplied by some 6 billion people, this figures to about 2.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year.

Clearly if we hope to save the planet and humanity, we must stem this massive influx of CO2 into the atmosphere.

I will propose the breathing ban take effect immediately upon passage by the legislature. It will remain in effect for approximately 15 minutes.

My family, hand chosen individuals and I will receive an exemption from this legislation due to the necessity of maintaining my brilliance for the further furtherance of humanity.

Citizens may apply for their breathing offset credit through the Department of Breathing Regulation. Automatic government credits will be provided for all citizens taking less then 250,000 breaths per year.

The Department of Breathing Regulation will label any world citizen found circumventing this law without documentation of approved breathing offset credits as a right wing extremist and will summarily shoot them.

Some my oppose this legislation, but I will simply remind my fellow citizens that the science is settled and we must act now to avoid cataclysmic and irreversible consequences.

Have a nice day.

“Texas has yet to learn submission to any oppression, come from what source it may.” -Sam Houston

On April 9, Texas Gov. Rick Perry expressed his support for a bipartisan resolution affirming states rights under the 10th Amendment.

Rep. Brandon Creighton authored the resolution.

Perry said that the time has come to rein in an ever growing encroachment of federal power over the states.

"I believe the federal government has become oppressive," Perry said. "I believe its become oppressive in its size, its intervention into the lives of its citizens and it interference with the affairs of our state."

Rep. David Floyd (R-Bardstown), Rep. Adam Koenig (R-Erlanger) and Rep. David Osborne (R-Prospect) introduced a similar resolution in the Kentucky State House in February.

The bill died in committee.

I'm thinking Texas might make for a good place to retire.

Watch Gov. Perry's remarks.

Member of Congress linked to terrorist?

According to a New York Times story, the National Security Agency has overstepped its bounds while conducting surveillance operations.

"Several intelligence officials, as well as lawyers briefed about the matter, said the N.S.A. had been engaged in “overcollection” of domestic communications of Americans. They described the practice as significant and systemic, although one official said it was believed to have been unintentional," the Times said.

I am torn over the N.S.A's use of domestic surveillance. I understand the necessity to gather information, especially in a time of war - and many have forgotten that we ARE engaged in a war. But I also appreciate the potential erosion of liberty and the potential government overreach of power.

But a little tidbit buried deep in the story should cause concern of another kind.

Apparently the N.S.A. sought to wiretap a unnamed congressman during an overseas trip to the Middle East in 2005 or 2006 because this representative was in contact with an "extremist" with possible terrorist ties.

Does it bother anybody out there that a member of the Congress of the United States was possibly communicating with terrorists? The lack of media attention to this little detail astounds me.

Blast them

Bullies, thugs and depots thrive on weakness. They target the vulnerable and count on intimidation to achieve their nefarious goals.

Knowing this, why do so many insist on dealing with criminals from a position of weakness?

The maritime rules outlawing the arming of merchant ships represents this irrational thinking. These wizards of smart theorize that arming the law-abiding merchant marines would simply encourage the pirates to attack with greater force and risk the crews. So instead, we leave these large cargo ships, representing millions of dollars to the potential pirate unarmed, and when they are captured, kowtowed governments immediately reward this lawless behavior by paying off these thugs.

And then we wonder why they keep doing it.

A few heavy automatic weapons and some grenades, along with the advantage of elevation afforded by a cargo ship would easily thwart an attack from a small pirate vessel. And don’t you think these thugs would think twice if they knew they were likely to get blasted instead of welcomed aboard and rewarded with a few million in ransom money?

I honestly can’t fathom the thinking that capitulates to force believing that the bad guy will just leave us alone if we play nice with him. Anybody that has ever dealt with a bully knows that weakness simply invites continued and ever increasing attack.

Some political pundits display the same lack of logic when it comes to international relations. After North Korea’s saber rattling missile launch, President Obama made a speech about disarming and ridding the world of nuclear weapons.

He's kidding right?

I wish we could live in a world without weapons, but that dream will forever remain naive and dangerous.

Liberals fail to understand the reality of evil in the world. They look at every group and every individual with moral equivalence. They can’t fathom that some people may just possess evil motives and that no amount of understanding or negotiation will thwart them. They will continue to operate until somebody stops them.

Disarming nations make them weak and vulnerable and open to attack. A position of strength ensures peace. Disarming law abiding citizens make them weak and vulnerable and gives the lawless an advantage, because by definition, laws outlawing weapons mean nothing to the lawless. Disarming merchant ships makes them weak and vulnerable and invites teenagers with motorboats to hold hostages and wreck havoc on the high seas.

When the good guys - and yes, good guys exist – place themselves in a position of weakness, they simply invite attack, not peace. It’s happened over and over again throughout history.

But some people never learn.

Mike Adams provides some additional thoughts on this subject.

Profundity of the week

"What does 'economic justice' mean, except that you want something that someone else produced, without having to produce anything yourself in return?"

-Thomas Sowell

Big Brother coming at you from your computer

I don't have much sympathy for people downloading copyrighted music illegally. I think it represents part of the ever growing entitlement mentality prevalent in our society. I also understand the recording and software industries desire to protect their intellectual property through enforcement of copyright laws. But giving the government power to snoop around in private citizens computers goes way over the top.

That could happen if an international copyright treaty between the U.S., the European Union and some other countries currently in the works comes to pass.

Scary stuff.