Words to Live By Since 1993 A SPIFF Publication Vol. 4, No. 3 F. Lee Bailey. Jail. There is justice. Oil of Ole, Part Two It's Still Full of Bull It looks like there will be a vote on the deal to bring the Oilers to Nashville. That's not quite right, of course, but that's the way the local medialibs keep describing it. What's really going to be on the ballot is a referendum on whether or not to use your tax dollars to build a stadium in which the yet-to-be-renamed team will play football and sell beer on Sundays. (We've heard rumors that the stadium will be constructed with all the latest modern features vital to football success: potty parity and at least a 100-foot gap between the walls and the nearest church.) Another of the not-quite-true-but-close-enough statements they're using a lot is to refer to all of the people who signed petitions in favor of the referendum as "opponents" of the Oilers. Under normal sporting circumstances, we could assume that they mean the Pittsburgh Steelers, but this isn't exactly normal. What they'd find if they asked around is that some people who signed petitions don't want the team to move to Nashville. Some people don't want tax dollars used to do it. Some people want the Oilers and want their taxes used for the stadium, but think it's such a big commitment that the entire city should approve the expense, instead of just the Metro Council. (If you took the time to count them, you would find that only half of the population of Nashville is currently on the Metro Council.) Some others just don't like the way Mayor Potholes and Bridges Bredesen has rammed this thing through. The opponents of the referendum (Could we call them the opponents of democracy? We could if we had a newspaper or television station.) had been saying that just having a vote_win or lose_would kill the whole Oilers deal. Now that there will be a vote, they're saying that if the Oilers' opponents (See how easy it is?) win, it will kill the Oilers deal. Why is it that we can't have a privately owned football team in Nashville without a government-owned stadium? The government doesn't own Dudley Field, where some of the best college football teams in the country play Vandy. Even the biggest supporters of biggest government can't claim that Vandy's lack of gridiron success is because of who owns the deed to the stadium. Maybe this late in the deal, the vote could kill Nashville's chances of getting an NFL team. Maybe Yankee Phil (Lifelong Conservative) Bredesen should have thought about that before he rushed headlong into a deal that didn't even give capitalism a chance. An Extreme Example We actually have some good news this week. For once, we here at Spiff are more mad at the medialibs' negative reporting than the GOP candidates' negative ads beating up each other. It would be nice if this would happen more often, but we'll take what we can get. Sadly, though, this one was so subtle that a couple of you might have missed it. Even more sadly is that at least three of you fell for it. So what is it? Of those of us at the Spiff Executive Tower, on the banks of the mighty Cumberland River, responding, 81.7% believe it's polling data. Well, not exactly the data, but the questions themselves. Recently, we've seen surveys that tell us that something-or-other percent believe that Pat Buchanan is too extreme. People can think what they want about Pat, but why is it that we're even entertaining the idea that there is such a thing as "too extreme"? Think about it. What does it mean? Could he be less extreme. Yes. But could he be less extreme while still being extreme? No. Barry Goldwater once (well, more than once) said, "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." He was right. Were Washington, Jefferson, and friends too extreme when they risked everything to found our country? Of course not. But what could they have done that would have been considered "too extreme"? Nothing. There was no "too extreme." There is no "too extreme." Why are the medialibs doing this? For one thing, it's designed to make Pat Buchanan look worse, either because of or in spite of the fact that it makes Bob Dole look better. Some are so afraid of Pat Buchanan's chances against their President Clinton and Bill that they'll gladly give Bob Dole a boost. Others so underestimate Bob Dole's ability that they think he's the Clintons' best reelection strategy. The big reason, though, is that it's all part of a global scheme (And you thought only flat-tax plans could be called "schemes.") to shift the country's ideology. Nobody wants to be "too extreme," so people run away from "tooist extremism" toward something less "too extreme." Something like "moderate" or the "center." In a different world, that would mean that people would run from the far right and from the far left toward the mushy middle. In this world, or at least the medialibs' view of it, there are no liberals who are "too extreme." Well, you can do the math, but the result is a shift to the left. But wait. Isn't it true that the myth of a liberal media is, well, a myth? Answer it yourself. What do you call a conservative Democrat? A conservative Democrat. What do you call a liberal Republican? A moderate Republican. How many times do you see a reference to someone who is "far right"? How many times do you see a reference to someone who is "far left" or even "left"? Do we sense a conspiracy here? No. A conspiracy would require that the medialibs get together to plan this type of attack. They don't get together. They don't need to. They think this way naturally. Jack of All Tirades Jack* Kevorkian and his press agent_er, lawyer are in the news again, as they intended. They're on trial, as God intended. Who'll win? Well, God, of course, but remember: He works in mysterious ways. But then again, so do Dr. Death and his pimp. God will win, even despite the verdict and the related recent federal court decision. (Once again: why do we need a Republican president?!?) During one of his last trials or publicity stunts_we can't tell the difference_Jack the Grim Reaper claimed that he was helping these people that he killed to "die with dignity." Sadly, that line worked with a lot of people. But in an uncontrollable episode of bad judgment, the Bad Doctor left one of his victims to be discovered in the back seat of a car. Oooh, there's dignity! What was his defense during the last trial? He's not trying to kill people. He's not trying to help them die. He's just helping to ease the pain. Now, if you're a doctor and you just accidentally give a patient a little too much pain killer_something a little more conventional than carbon monoxide_and he dies, you might have been able to say that you were trying to ease the pain. But when you're 0 for 27, most of us long ago would have got the idea that that pain excuse is not quite working. But why is this guy responsible? Wouldn't these people have died even without Dr. Death? That's like trying to justify the Lincoln assassination by asking if Lincoln would have died without Booth's help. Of course he would, but that doesn't justify the crime. Except to a money-hungry, publicity-hungry lawyer. And a really messed-up jury. *A lesser publication would have inserted a nasty nickname here. We won't because: 1. We're a family publication. 2. We have friends named Jack. 3. We really can't think of a nickname nastier than Jack Kevorkian--with the possible exception of President Clinton. Well, maybe not even then. At least she's never killed anybo--well, you get the idea. Quote of the weak: "Private charity is built on the foundation of government welfare." Sharon Daly Quote of the strong: "The size of the federal budget is not an appropriate barometer of social conscience or charitable concern." Ronald Reagan Words to Live By is published every week at about this time by Spiff. You can send a fax to us here in the Spiff Executive Tower, on the banks of the mighty Cumberland River, at 615-847-2259, or you can send us e-mail at spiff@nashville.com.