As much as I enjoy sports and respect professional athletes for their athletic prowess, I’ve never been much of a fan of them off the court. For the most part, I find them totally egoistic, self-serving, and intellectually vapid, much like most Hollywood types.

There have been some notable exceptions to this generalization. I think of some greats like Bill Russell, John Stockton, Andre Agassi, Julius Erving, Jerry Rice, and Larry Bird. They were not only phenomenal athletes on the court, but they appeared genuine, sincere, and thoughtful off the court. They were more than just athletes, they were the type of people you wouldn’t mind having your children emulate and lionize.

One prominent athlete I’ve had little regard for has been Kobe Bryant, guard for the Los Angeles Lakers. He came onto the NBA scene with a splash in the post Michael Jordan era when the NBA was hungrily seeking a new “face” for the league. As a prodigious high school player in Philadelphia, Bryant opted to bypass college and go directly to the pros.

His play has become legendary, and his highlight reel is nearly as full of spectacular plays as Dr. J’s (Julius Erving) and Michael Jordan’s. But as a youngster in the NBA, it’s all too evident that the accolades heaped upon him went to his head, and he became the epitome of self-centered, pampered professional athletes. His antics off the court have been a deterrent to holding him in higher regard.

But to many, especially youth, Bryant is an icon of “coolness.” His jersey, the Laker yellow #24, is the top selling NBA jersey, as is evidenced even on the streets of Pocatello.

In light of his “coolness,” it was extremely gratifying to hear his interview with Chris Collinsworth, a former wide receiver with the Cincinnati Bengals, on NBC this week. Collinsworth asked Bryant, “Tell the story when you first got your USA uniform.” To which Bryant responded, “Well, I had goosebumps and I actually just looked at it for awhile. I just held it there and I laid it across my bed and just stared at it for a few minutes; just because as a kid growing up this is the ultimate, ultimate in basketball.”

Collinsworth continued, “Where does the patriotism come from inside of you? Historically, what is it?” Bryant answered, Well, you know it’s just our country, it’s... we believe is the greatest country in the world. It has given us so many great opportunities, and it’s just a sense of pride that you have; that you say ‘You know what? Our country is the best!’”

Collinsworth took it a step further, “Is that a ‘cool’ thing to say, in this day and age? That you love your country, and that you’re fighting for the red, white and blue? It seems sort of like a day gone by.” Bryant replied, “No, it’s a cool thing for me to say. I feel great about it, and I’m not ashamed to say it. I mean, this is a tremendous honor.”

Bryant climbed several notches in my esteem for him with those comments. Here is the icon of “cool” for youth, not just in our country, but as we see in Beijing, around the world, and he’s saying it’s cool to love America, and recognize American exceptionalism for what it is.

The founding principles of this nation of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and our uniquely determined dependence on deity for our very existence as a country, has made us the envy of the world. Of equal significance, is our adherence to principles of freedom and liberty even in our economic system. Why else would China, a nation with nearly 4 times our population, and an economy of roughly 1/5^th the size of the U.S. go into the Beijing Olympics declaring openly that their primary goal was to achieve parity with the U.S.? I for one would be much more impressed by a move to achieve civil rights parity with the U.S.

For some reason, many Americans who enjoy the fruits of freedom here don’t seem to appreciate enough the tree from which those fruits grew. They lament a purported fall from grace and somehow think it’s “cool” to belittle and disparage our country. They point incessantly at the great moral evil of slavery, while failing to concede the monumental moral victory of our nation in eradicating it. In my estimation, not only is it possible to love America and all she stands for while being critical of politicians and policy, but I think that is what’s meant by dissent being the ultimate form of patriotism: a devotion to America and a commitment to her perpetuity so great that we speak out in opposition to those policies that we’re convinced challenge the role of America as an ensign of freedom to the world.

I’m grateful for Kobe Bryant’s expressed love of country, and am equally grateful that he never went to the Obama’s church or we might never have heard them.

Last week’s column by Cecil Andrus regarding John McCain and Social Security was long on subjective, unsubstantiated opinion, and extremely short on fact. While attempting to paint with a pejorative and broad brush all conservative approaches to shoring up Social Security, the former Governor betrayed a bias that was ill-informed and oblivious to the facts.

In his first paragraph, Andrus displayed an ignorance of the history of Social Security that could only have been tainted by his political bias for it resembled nothing historical. He stated, “…one thing seems to be constant: the Democratic (Presidential) candidate wants to strengthen and sustain Social Security, and the Republican candidate wants to do harm to [Social Security].”

When the political rose-colored glasses are on, such a statement might be tenable. When they’re off, we realize that for all presidential candidates, Social Security is a sacred cow, the veritable “Third Rail of American Politics” that candidates can only issue supportive platitudinous statements about. You touch it as a presidential candidate, and it can spell political doom. Addressing the future challenges of Social Security, George W. Bush in the 2004 election was harangued and harassed mercilessly for suggesting the possibility of allowing 2% of a workers’ FICA contribution to go to a personal account where they could direct the composition of the investments even though it could ultimately make Social Security more beneficial and more secure.

Also, when the political rose-colored glasses are off, we recognize that there is one party that has been most destructive to Social Security, and it’s not the one Andrus targeted. While Presidential candidates can’t seem to touch the issue for fear of political reprisal, the party in control of Congress for fifty of the past sixty years has done tremendous damage to Social Security.

It was Andrus’ party which moved social Security from an independent trust fund and put it into the general fund so that Congress could spend it. It was his party that during the Johnson administration put a tax on Social Security benefits. It’s his party that has increased that tax on Social Security two times since, with Al Gore casting the deciding vote the last time around. It is his party that has moved aggressively to expand benefits to illegal aliens who haven’t contributed a dime to the solvency of the program. It is his party that has expanded benefits 12 times since the program’s inception, which is politically popular with those new beneficiaries, but spells trouble for the continued solvency of the program. It is his party that has increased FICA withholding taxes 20 times since the program’s inception in order to attempt to pay for those expanded benefits.

Factually, Andrus’ premise rings hollow and is nothing more than political bias. Presidential candidates can do little to ameliorate the solvency issue because it’s Congress that controls the purse strings, and by a vote can contribute to future instability and insolvency by continuing to expand benefits according to their political desires. And it is Andrus’ own party that has done more to undermine the future stability and security with the program than any other.

What we do know is that the program has problems. According to the Social Security Administration, “Social Security has been changed over time to meet the needs of the American people. It will need to change again to meet future challenges… In 2017 benefits owed will be more than taxes collected, and Social Security will need to begin tapping the trust funds to pay benefits. The trust funds will be exhausted in 2041. At that time, Social Security will not be able to meet all of its benefit obligations if no changes are made.” In light of that, it’s much easier to correct course early on by making minor adjustments than to wait until the last minute to make drastic adjustments to save the program.

Andrus posited as fact that “John McCain would dismantle and destroy [Social Security].” Since he didn’t bother to quote what the Senator has actually said about the program, why don’t I. McCain’s official position is, “Everything’s on the table,” in order to address future funding issues. And frankly, shouldn’t that be the properly objective approach to solving the problem? It certainly seems more viable than simply increasing the tax to pay for the problem (as Obama suggests) and certainly more viable than what our Congress wants to do by making Social Security benefits available to 12 million illegal aliens. Sorry, Cecil, I think I’ll take McCain’s realistic and more objective approach. And to put that in perspective, I’m far from a McCain apologist. I’m the one with the bumper sticker that says “McCain ’08: Better half right than all left.”

Social Security should be an issue in the Presidential sweepstakes. But keep in mind, that in the end it’s Congress that makes the changes, regardless of what the President proposes. And I have about as much confidence in our Congress to do the right thing in this regard as is warranted by their latest dismal 8% approval rating. 

The political party in control of congress touts itself as the “party of the people,” as represented by their party name. Their legislative priorities then are subject to scrutiny to ascertain their commitment to pursuing the interests of the people they claim to be the voice for.

It seems obvious that one of the primary concerns of “the people” is the high price of gas. Having gone from $2.19 per gallon in November of 2006 when they took over, to $4.00, the price of gas is dramatically affecting the prices of everything, because of the high cost of transportation.

Since high fuel prices are such a concern we would assume that the leadership of the “party of the people” would want to do something about it, right? Well, obviously that’s assuming too much. Rather than dealing with the crucial energy issue at all, Congress strikes out on its 5 week August recess. But they did take the time to deal with one really critical issue: apologizing for slavery and Jim Crow laws of the 19^th Century. Wow, that makes it so much easier to pay $4.00 for gas! So much for legitimate legislative priorities.

Without so much as allowing a discussion on their own proposals to reduce high gas prices Congress is now officially on recess. There is no indication whatsoever that Congress will follow the President’s lead and rescind the Congressional ban on offshore drilling in the outer continental shelf. In other words, what matters most to “the people” is not a concern of the Congressional leadership. They wouldn’t even allow their own plan to be voted on, which was conspicuously absent any substantive recommendations to increase our supply.

Congress has no viable solutions to alleviate the pricing pressure of oil. Their “solutions” have been anything but that. Speaker Pelosi recommends releasing 10% of the Strategic Petroleum Reserves to alleviate pricing pressure. That amounts to about 2.5 days of U.S. consumption. I’m sure that’ll make a big difference. Harry Reid (true to form) wants to sue OPEC. I’m sure that will drop the price. Senator Obama wants to give us another stimulus check, which again, does nothing to solve the pricing problem. And his most recent recommendation this week was to put more air in our tires. And they all want to tax oil companies more. That sure creates incentive to produce more! Can these people really be so devoid of logic and detached from economic reality? If this is the best leadership the “party of the people” can muster, they should be disbanded and start a new party that has at least a modicum of common sense and economic consciousness.

All they had to do before their recess (I think we could actually argue that they’ve been on recess since they took control two years ago!) was agree to rescind the Congressional ban on offshore drilling. Witness what happened two weeks ago after the President announced he would rescind the Executive Order banning outer continental shelf drilling. The price per barrel dropped from $147 on July 11 to $122. That’s a 17% drop in the price of crude based on the market’s perception that supply might be increasing. That’s even with the threat of a tropical storm disrupting operations in the Gulf. The weekly report from the EIA (Energy Information Administration) indicated a drop of 2.1% in gasoline consumption from a year ago, and inventories increased by 3mm barrels the prior week. That type of news typically causes crude prices to drop about 1-1.5%. The only other factor then is the President’s announcement. If Congress was to follow the President’s lead we would probably see crude oil drop to $100 per barrel, and drift slowly toward the $80-85 level that is fundamentally justifiable.

Many contend that it would take years to start seeing any production from offshore. However, a Sanford C. Bernstein & Co. analyst said recently that there is a lot of offshore crude that can be produced relatively quickly. The Minerals Management Service said that of the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil in off-limits coastal areas, almost 10 billion are off the coast of California. California could actually start producing new oil within a year if the moratorium were lifted, because the oil is under shallow water, has been explored and drilling platforms have been there since before the moratoria.

There are some who think that the President has been asleep at the wheel on the energy issue, and have choked at a gnat over the Vice President’s “secret” meetings with energy officials early in the first term. From that series of meetings, the President’s energy plan was spelled out in detail, calling for more expanded drilling domestically, more funding for alternative energy sources, and expanded implementation of nuclear energy into the mix. A drastically watered down version was finally enacted in 2005.

But here we sit with $4.00 gasoline, with a lame-duck President no one listens to, and a congress that is perpetually on a mental recess. “The people” deserve better.