LJWorld.com

For the first time since the BCS held its first "national championship" game after the 1998 season, there won't be any bowl game that can realistically be portrayed as a "national championship" game.

This year's game can only be considered as giving the University of Alabama an opportunity to avenge its loss against Louisiana State University(LSU). The two schools can only play for the championship of the western division of the Southeast Conference(SEC). Alabama cannot even claim the championship of the SEC from a victory because that would require Alabama to defeat eastern division champion , the University of Georgia.

LSU cannot prove it deserves a national championship by defeating a school it has already defeated, particularly a school that mostly defeated the same schools that LSU defeated. LSU needs to defeat the champion of another conference in the championship game to prove it is the best team in the country

An Alabama victory would indicate the two schools are equal rather than that Alabama is the best because they would each have one victory over the other. A third game would be necessary to prove Alabama was the better team. In those sports in which the champion must win multiple games against the other team, the champion must win a majority of the games.

The NCAA does allow a conference runner up to play the conference champion for the national basketball championship, but only after the challenger has defeated the other teams in its bracket to get into the championship game.

The NFL allows the runner up in a division to play the division winner in a conference championship but only after the runner up has defeated two other teams. Two teams in the same division cannot play each other in the Super Bowl. The Super Bowl participants must be from different conferences.

Those who suffer from the delusion that a computer or sports writers, etc can choose the best two teams ignore the fact that it isn't unusual for teams rated by writers or computers to lose to teams that are rated lower.

It's time for people to realize that the claim that a BCS bowl game is for a national championship is just a public relations gimmick. The only valid way to determine a national football champion is for teams to earn their way into a championship game by defeating other teams that aspire to be the national champion.

Determining a legitimate NCAA major college football champion wouldn't necessarily require extending the college football season longer than it is now with the phony BCS championship game. There would need to be a way to get the number of teams playing for the championship down to 8 for a 3-round tournament which could include some of the existing bowl games.

With the ongoing conference changes, the number of conferences could change in the next few years. Champions from smaller conferences could play qualifying games after the end of the season, possibly the same weekend some of the large conferences have their championship games. The extra game would provide money for the schools and their conferences.

The first round of the tournament could come just before Christmas or be part of the New Year's day bowl games. Having the first round on New Year's would be especially attractive for the Big 10 and Pac 12 because it would allow their champions to play in the Rose Bowl and still participate in a championship tournament.

The college bowl games aren't nearly as important as they used to be. Most of them are on cable because they don't attract sufficient advertising to be worth a bidding war among the broadcast networks like there is for the Super Bowl.

A true championship tournament could be as popular as the NCAA basketball tournament is. At the very least the schools participating in the tournament would make money for themselves and their conferences.

In 1980 President Jimmy Carter was in trouble with voters because of economic conditions and the capture of the American embassy in Iran by students. Democrats decided to renominate him in spite of efforts by Sen. Ted Kennedy and Gov. Jerry Brown to replace him as the Democratic presidential candidate. Gov. Ronald Reagan buried Carter in a landslide. Republicans also gained control of the Senate and picked up 34 House seats.

Democratic incumbent President Lyndon Johnson was in trouble in 1968 because of his handling of the Vietnam War. Johnson wisely decided to drop out of the race after a strong showing in the New Hampshire primary by Sen. Eugene McCarthy and the entry of Sen. Robert Kennedy into the race. Although the assassination of Kennedy robbed Democrats of their best candidate, they nearly won anyway in a close popular vote. They retained control of the House and Senate.

Obama may be an even weaker candidate than Carter was. Unemployment in the Carter administration was only 7.5% compared to over 9% under Obama. Many voters are very upset about Obama's health care program. As in 1968 there are widespread student protests about a national policy.

Presidents Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush were all voted out of office with unemployment around 7.5%. President Ronald Reagan is the only post Depression president to win reelection with unemployment over 6%, but Reagan had gotten unemployment down to 7.4% from 10%. If Obama is the Democratic candidate, the Republican candidate will likely suggest voters ask themselves Reagan's question in 1980: "are you better off than you were four years ago."

Republicans have already taken control of the House under Obama and will likely take over the Senate if GOP candidates can run against Obama. Replacing Obama as the presidential candidate would free Democrats challenging Republican incumbents in the House of the need to support Obama's policies. Democrats could suggest that voters needed to change the House of Representatives as well as the White House.

Democrats who think the Republican candidates have too many problems need to review the 1992 election. Their candidate in 1992, Gov. Bill Clinton, won in spite of questions about how he avoided military service and possible involvement in the White Water savings and loan scandal that eventually led to his impeachment.

Changes in filing deadlines mean those wanting to challenge Obama cannot wait as long to decide as Bobby Kennedy did in 1968. A few Democrats must decide quickly whether to challenge Obama or risk sitting by and watching Republicans choose the next president.

The people who produced the "Primetime Television" segment on women in television obviously didn't bother to research the wide variety of characters played by women in the fifties. PBS likes to bragg about having quality programming, but the episode on women is drivel.

They suffer from the delusion that the only roles available for women in the fifties were housewife roles. Actually housewife roles were in a minority. Even many sitcoms had women playing characters other than housewives, including Ann Sothern's highly rated "Private Secretary". Sothern subsequently appeared as an assistant hotel manager in the equally popular "The Ann Sothern Show".

Some people may have the delusion that women primarily played housewives because the family sitcoms from the fifties were more frequently rerun in subsequent decades then the dramas and action / adventure shows that provided women a wider variety of roles. Society in the fifties attempted to prepare young girls to become housewives and mothers. Fifties television demonstrated that women could do other things including running their own businesses.

Primetime Television devoted an excessive amount of space to misrepresenting Mary Tyler Moore's character Mary Richards on the "Mary Tyler Moore Show" as being the first "independent woman". They apparently forgot that Rose Marie had appeared as television writer Sally Rogers on "The Dick Van Dyke Show" on which Moore had played Laura Petrie. Actually independent female characters had been appearing on television since "My Friend Irma" in 1952.

The character Mary Richards was much less independent than many of the earlier female characters. Ann Sothern's characters on "Private Secretary" and "The Ann Sothern Show" were much stronger than Richards.

The character Lois Lane on "Superman" makes Richards look like a wimp and a klutz. Lane was a serious journalist and didn't mind taking risks to get a story. Lane not only wanted to beat other reporters to the story, she wanted to solve crimes before the police did. Noel Neill who played Lois Lane for most of the show's run later toured college campuses. She told a reporter for the University of Kansas student newspaper "The Daily Kansan" in early 1972 that she often had young women come up to her and tell that her character had sparked their interest in a journalism career.

Mary Richards was an employee of a male run television station. Dale Evans played a truly independent woman on the popular "Roy Rogers Show" in the fifties. Her character Dale Evans owned a cafe with a male employee. She often ignored the advice of Roy Rogers and played a major role in catching the bad guys.

In an episode recently broadcast on RFD-TV Evans walked into a house where bank robbers were holding a family hostage by pretending she was just visiting the mother and baby even though she was wearing a six gun just like the men. She forced one of the robbers into a closet and then shot through the bedroom door at the outlaws in the living room to protect the mother and baby. Her action allowed Roy Rogers to come in behind the other two robbers.

In the sixties Anne Francis appeared as the owner of a private detective agency on "Honey West". Honey West, like Diane Rigg's character Emma Peel on "The Avengers", could subdue the bad guys using martial arts skills.

The fifties had many anthology dramatic programs, including "The Loretta Young Show". Young appeared in many roles. One week she might play a nun seeking to improve morale at a hospital, a judge another week and in another week a self centered businesswoman best described with the b-word.

Primetime Television illogically compares women in modern dramatic programs to sitcom characters from the fifties.

Anyone wishing to compare modern dramatic programs to the fifties need to examine the fifties dramatic programs rather than fifties sitcoms. Comparisons of sitcom characters from the fifties should only be made to characters on more recent sitcoms, including programs like "Home Improvement", "Married with Children" and "Seinfeld". Comparing dramatic characters to sitcom characters is going to make the sitcom characters appear less complicated because complex characters don't work very well in sitcoms.

Comparing the fifties sitcom housewives to the female characters on shows like "Friends" and "Married with Children" could support a claim that television is doing a poorer job of portraying women. If Primetime Television wanted to make a serious comparison of how television portrayed women in the fifties and today, it would have compared the characters Betty White played in "Life with Elizabeth" and "Date with the Angels" in the fifties to her current character in "Hot in Cleveland". White has appeared in various sitcoms over the last 60 years. A study of her various characters, including those from shows that didn't catch on, might be very interesting.

In the fifties women could appear in many different roles involving many occupations. June Lockhart, who is best known as the mother of Timmy on "Lassie" and the mother on "Lost in Space", appeared as a frontier doctor in a couple of episodes of "Have Gun will Travel". Mary Tyler Moore played a bank clerk in an episode of "Surfside 6"

Not all fifties housewives were obedient. Alice Kramden routinely told off her oversize husband Ralph on "The Honeymooners". On the "Alfred Hitchcock Presents" episode "Lamb to the Slaughter" Barbara Bel Geddes played a young pregnant housewife who killed her police officer husband with a frozen leg of lamb after he told her he was leaving her for another woman. She then put the lamb in the over and went to the store to establish an alibi before returning home to discover the body. Later in the evening she served the lamb to the officers investigating the murder.

Bel Geddes wasn't the only woman to play a criminal in the fifties. Barbara Billingsley, June Cleaver on "Leave it to Beaver", played a smuggler whose partners mysteriously died on an episode of "The Lone Wolf". Frances Bavier, Aunt B on "Andy Griffith", played the leader of an outlaw gang on an episode of "The Lone Ranger".

French sociologist Jacques Ellul uses the term "prepropaganda" to describe information received before a "propaganda campaign" that makes people more inclined to accept the claims of the propaganda. Incidentally, Ellul uses the term propaganda to include true statements that are presented to support come claim.

References to the women's movement failed to mention the possibility that the non-housewife characters on fifties television made women more willing to recognize that women could do other things besides being a housewife. Women might not have remembered specific instances of seeing women work as doctors or as business owners, but that information was in their subconscious memory

Society might have told girls that their goals should be to becomes wives and mothers, but television was showing them that they might have other options.

The Kansas Constitution doesn't authorize cities to set up their own independent court systems with the power to order people to jail. Even if it did, the lack of separation between the different functions within city governments violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. Some enterprising attorney might benefit from filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of those the courts have illegally jailed. Such lawsuits might be profitable in the larger cities like Wichita or Kansas City.

Many city leaders seem to think their cities are like the imperial cities of old which could do anything they wanted. They ignore the fact that under our system of government, government can only do what it is authorized to do.

Federal and state constitutions define the circumstances under which government may punish individuals. The U.S. Constitution recognizes only two levels of government, the federal government and state governments. Local governments only exist as agencies of state governments. Local governments have no independent authority to regulate human behavior except for the authority they receive from the state.

The Kansas Constitution vests the judicial power of the State of Kansas "exclusively in one court of justice, which shall be divided into one supreme court, district courts, and such other courts as are provided by law" with the Supreme Court having "general administrative authority over all courts in this state."

The Kansas Constitution does not authorize local units of government to set up their own separate court systems or authorize local officials to contract with attorneys to serve as "judges" for those courts. Local judges often have a contract to operate the local court, which is inconsistent with a judge being a government official holding an appointed or elective office.

The U.S. Constitution places a major emphasis on limiting the ability of government to punish individuals. The Bill of Rights are based on the premise that it is better to risk allowing some criminals to escape punishment then to allow government to ignore the rights of its citizens.

For example, the Constitution prohibits arbitrary searches of private property to keep government from searching homes until it gets lucky and finds the evidence it's looking for. The courts have repeatedly allowed guilty individuals to go free in cases where the police failed to follow the law when searching them or their property.

The Constitution makes the judiciary an independent branch to limit the ability of law enforcement to control the conviction process. The guarantee of a jury trial was placed in the Constitution to cover situations in which a supposedly independent judge might be prejudiced in favor of the prosecution.

The City of Wichita has only one branch of government. The City Council controls selection of law enforcement officials and judges which creates an incestuous relationship in which individuals cannot expect the judge to be independent of those who decide whether he or she might be replaced.

The integrity of our system of government requires that government strictly obey the law. Adherence to the law is particularly important for the court system. Courts must be properly authorized by the federal or state constitutions and judges chosen in a manner that keeps them separate from law enforcement.

Someone needs to challenge the unconstitutional municipal courts in Kansas. I suspect an enterprising attorney might be able to make some money filing a class action suit charging the judges and city with false imprisonment which is what kidnapping by government is called.

Incidentally, the 14th Amendment requires states to guarantee "equal protection of the laws". That would seem to require laws to be uniform throughout the state. If an individual city provides some type of "protection" that isn't available in other cities then the state is not providing its citizens with "equal protection of the laws". Thus, local ordinances that differ from the state law could potentially be challenged.

The current situation in Topeka demonstrates how local ordinances could put the state in violation of the 14th Amendment. Topeka recently rescinded its domestic violence ordinance. Fortunately, the state prohibits domestic violence, but what if it didn't. What if Lawrence prohibited domestic violence and Topeka did not? Residents of Lawrence would have greater protection from violence then would residents of Topeka and the state of Kansas wouldn't be providing victims of domestic violence with "equal protection of the laws."

The only way Kansas can provide equal protection of the laws is if the state has a uniform system of laws overseen by a single court system.

Television in the fifties at times was very liberated in its portrayal of women as being able to perform many different jobs.

This statement may come as a surprise to those who think of female television characters in the fifties in terms of sitcom housewives like June Cleaver on "Leave it to Beaver". It may be an even bigger surprise that "liberated" women were often found on television westerns.

Dale Evans was one of the first to appear on TV in what would normally be considered a male role. On the "Roy Rogers Show" she ran a cafe with a male employee in a western town. When necessary she would strap on her six gun and help Roy and the sheriff catch the bad guys just like the male heroes. Dale could shoot the guns out of the bad guys' hands just as well as Roy could. In the first episode Dale put on a shooting demonstration at a local celebration.

Dale was married to Roy in real life, but on the show both were single. Both used their real names on the show.

The program referred to Roy as "King of the Cowboys" and Dale as the "Queen of the West". Ironically, the "King of the cowboys" was part Choctaw.

An interesting aspect of the show is that it was set in the contemporary era. Motor vehicles appeared at times, especially a jeep named Nelly belle, but most of the time the characters were riding horses.across country in an area which seemed to have a shortage of improved roads.

RFD-TV has brought back "The Roy Rogers Show" after purchasing Roy's stuffed horse Trigger. The network specializes in rural oriented programming including shows dealing with farming and ranching. It's schedule also includes cooking shows, travel shows and various music shows including old music programs such as "Hee Haw". Dolly Parton fans can see her on the old "Porter Waggoner" program. Loretta Lynn is a regular on "The Wilburn Brothers Show".

Dale Evans wasn't the only woman who helped enforce the law in old westerns. Gail Davis portrayed "Little Sure Shot" "Annie Oakley". Annie was the sheriff's niece and helped the deputy catch the bad guys when her uncle was in "another part of the county". She was usually the one who figured out who committed the crimes. A couple of episodes of the "Gene Autry Show" even had women sheriffs.

Incidentally, many western bad "guys" were women, including a woman banker on "Roy Rogers" who killed farmers with mortgages so she could sell the farms to someone else.

Saloon owners often were prominent characters in westerns and some of those saloon owners were women, particularly Miss Kitty Russell (Amanda Blake) on "Gunsmoke". Like Dale Evans she had a male employee who took orders from her.

Lily Merrill (Peggy Castle) was a similar character on "Lawman" which is currently running on Encore's Western Channel. An earlier female saloon owner on the program was a killer who was able to get away with her crimes until the Lawman convinced the judge to seat an all female jury. She decided to plead guilty.

Women appeared in various roles on other westerns including operating stage lines, owning ranches and even participating in trail drives. "Timmy's mom" June Lockhart appeared in a couple of episodes of "Have Gun Will Travel" (also on the Western channel) as a frontier doctor.

Characters like those played by Dale Evans and Amanda Blake provided girls growing up in the 50's with female role models who weren't wives and mothers.

In a previous post I criticized the new "Charlie's Angels" which has now been cancelled. I wasn't the only one who recognized it was a bad show.

If Democrats want to win next year's presidential election, they need a new candidate. President Barack Obama has very little chance of being reelected in the current economic situation because he is clueless about how to deal with the economy.

His so-called "jobs bill" is just more of the same approach that hasn't worked. Then there is the ticking time bomb in the deficit proposal he foolishly agreed to.

The election laws in 1968 allowed potential presidential challengers to wait until the primary season had begun to enter the race. Sen. Robert Kennedy had the opportunity to reconsider his decision to not run for president in 1968 after it became obvious that fellow Democrat President Lyndon Johnson was unlikely to win reelection. Kennedy decided to run after Johnson's poor showing in the New Hampshire primary running against largely unknown Sen. Eugene McCarthy. Many of those who voted for McCarthy falsely believed that McCarthy, who opposed the War in Vietnam, wanted a stronger war effort

Two weeks after Kennedy announced he would run, Johnson dropped out of the race because of the situation in Vietnam.

Kennedy was well on the way to winning the nomination when he was stopped by an assassin's bullet. Had he won the nomination, it is very likely he would have defeated Republican candidate Richard Nixon. The assassination of Kennedy caused the Democrats to nominate Vice President Hubert Humphrey instead.

Obama's consistently low approval ratings indicate he has little chance of reelection. Democrats shouldn't let themselves be misled by worthless public opinion polls showing how he would supposedly do against potential Republican candidates. Most voters aren't paying close attention to those running for the Republican nomination and their final decisions may be influenced by whatever ads the Republican candidate and private groups run next fall.

Democrats need a dynamic candidate who knows how to appeal to independent voters. Considering the low opinion voters have of Congress, the strongest candidate would be someone from outside of Washington.

Granting United Nations membership to the Palestinians would create a vary dangerous precedent. The Palestinians aren't the only ethnic group that desire to have their own country independent of the one in which they live. Nor are they the only group that has used violence to try to gain independence.

The Kurds have long desired to set up a country they would call Kurdistan including land currently a part of Turkey, Iraq, Syria and Iran. If the U.N. grants membership to the Palestinians, shouldn't it also grant membership to Kurdistan? The Kurds have their own culture and language.

The Palestinians are a collection of Arab peoples who happen to live within the boundaries of the nation of Israel. They are called Palestinians not because they have a unique culture like the Kurds, but because they aren't Jewish. The term "Palestine" was used by the Romans to refer to a geographic region rather than any specific ethnic group.

Might the area of Chechnya also qualify for U.N. membership? What about the Basque region of Spain? Could Tibetans argue that they should have U.N. membership even though the Chinese currently occupy the country?

If the Palestinians should get their own country because they are Muslims, what about the Uighur Muslims in China?

Many other countries have groups that might want their own country if they thought it were possible, particularly in those areas of the world where European nations arbitrarily forced different ethnic groups to live in the same country. Granting U.N. membership to the Palestinians would encourage members of these groups to develop nationalist aspirations.

There is nothing special about the Palestinians. Many groups of people would like to have their own nations. The U.N. cannot arbitrarily grant membership to the Palestinians and ignore the aspirations of the Kurds, Basques, etc.

Nations that are considering voting for Palestinian membership should make sure they don't have groups that might make a similar request.

Over the last several thousand years regions of the Middle East have been controlled by whatever ethnic groups have been strongest at the time. Some groups such as the Persians and Assyrians have established empires. Others such as the Israelites have been content to control only small areas. The current situation in Israel has been occurred many times in the past and will likely to be repeated in one country or another in the future.

The U.N. should not attempt to arbitrarily adjust national boundaries or decide which groups should have their own countries. Many of the ethnic problems in Asia and Africa are due in part to the arbitrary national boundaries imposed by imperialistic European nations If the Palestinians, Kurds or other groups want their own nations they should handle their own situations rather having the U.N. impose a solution from outside.

If evolutionists are correct that biological life developed through a process of gradual changes, then it is far more likely that some type of Intelligence Designed life rather than that life developed without any intelligent controls.

Development through gradual change is the process humans use to produce things from automobiles to literary works to computer programs. The original automakers developed a simple vehicle with some type of motor, wheels, chassis, etc. Subsequent engineers modified these various components to produce faster, more efficient and safer vehicles.

Two groups of True Believers control the debate over the origin of life. The Evolutionists believe that life could only have developed from one original cell through a slow process of gradual changes that was not controlled by any type of Intelligent Being. Creationists believe that God created life and the only way God could have created life was to zap each individual species into existence fully developed.

Creationists don't explain why God would go to the trouble of designing life that can develop from a microscopic sized cell to something the size of an elephant or whale and then initially make each one fully developed instead of creating the cells and letting them develop in some nutrient rich medium. A being capable of creating a universe would be capable of creating an environment in which individual cells could develop into fully sized forms.

Nor do they explain where this belief comes from. Genesis says for the various life forms that God commanded the earth to "bring forth" and the earth "brought forth". That does not indicate God created each species separately. It indicates He ordered the earth to produce various classes of life forms such as plants or fish.

Both groups misunderstand the concept of Intelligent Design. The Intelligence wouldn't necessarily be the God of Abraham. The Designer might be inhabitants of a distant planet who put the necessarily biological products in comets and sent them throughout the galaxy. A Designer might have controlled the initial development of biological life and then allowed it to change without control. The Designer probably would not have made the first member of each species fully developed as Creationists believe.

Both Creation and Evolution involve ancient ideas. Charles Darwin didn't invent the idea of one species becoming another, he merely tried to come up with an argument for it. The ancient Tibetan religion went so far as to suggest that humans descended from monkeys. Darwin only suggested that humans and apes have a common ancestor.

The biggest argument for Intelligent Design is the extremely sophisticated characteristics of biological life, especially animal life. Presumably intelligent humans have only recently developed the necessary knowledge to duplicate the ability of the sophisticated audio input output "devices", video input devices, etc. possessed by animals. It seems unlikely such devices could just have happened to develop.

The cell itself can be described as a computer because, like a computer, when it receives an input, it checks its memory for the appropriate instruction and then executes that instruction. Biologists refer to the bases that make up the DNA molecule using four letters, but they can also be represented by "zeros" and "ones" like in a computer. Each link in the DNA molecule consists of one set of bases or the other("0" or "1"). Within a link one member of the set or the other ("0" or "1") is attached to a specific side.

One approach an Intelligent Designer might have been likely to have used would have been to create one cell to serve as a prototype. The Designer could then have added different modifications to the daughter cells of that original cell. A Designer unaffected by time might periodically have changed the design of life forms for various reasons including being bored with the older life forms.

An Intelligent Designer could have developed subsystems like eyes, hearts, etc. by making specific genetic changes, but development of such subsystems through random genetic changes would be mathematically improbable at best.

Evolutionists ignore the fact that an environment capable of producing one cell would almost certainly produce millions of cells that would probably have begun with subtle differences. Such cells could have had the ability to produce different sets of DNA and then "share" DNA when one cell ate another.

Creationists and Evolutionists would have more believable theories if they would switch one of the components of their theories. Creationists should be claiming that God started with a single cell and developed different species from it. Evolutionists should claim that different species developed from separate cells with the necessary DNA to produce animals with hearts, skeletons, etc. as the animal developed.

"She Spies" was an NBC show that aired from September, 2004, through May, 2004. The show used a similar format to Aaron Spelling's 70's ABC series "Charlie's Angels".

Like "Charlie's Angels", "She Spies" featured three women with a male supervisor who battled evil doers.

There were three major differences. The "Spies" worked for a government spy agency rather than a private detective agency like the "Angels". The "Angels" had been "good girls" who had become bored with the job duties they had had as police officers. The "Spies" were bad girls who were let out of jail to work for the government. The "Angels" used their wits and feminine charms to outsmart the evil doers. The "Spies" used martial arts much like Emma Peel on the 60's series "The Avengers".

Oh, there is one other difference, at least to my eyes. The "Angels" were much better looking than the "Spies".

The new "Charlie's Angels" involves the Townsend Detective Agency like the original show and Charlie only communicates with his Angels by phone with a man named Bosley serving as their immediate supervisor. However, the new "Angels" resemble the "She Spies" more than the original "Angels".

The new "Angels" are bad girls like the "Spies". One had been a cop, but she was a "dirty cop". They are martial arts experts like the "Spies".

The first episodes of the two series have an interesting similarity. One of the "She Spies" was temporarily incapacited and they needed to bring in another "bad girl" from jail as a temporary replacement. On the new "Charlie's Angels" one of the "Angels" is murdered and they have to hire another bad girl, who was a friend of the woman who was killed, as a replacement.

The first episode begins with the Angels kicking in a door and assaulting the kidnappers to rescue a teen who has been kidnapped by sex traffickers. Then as they are leaving the area one of the Angels is blown up in her car.

The woman who becomes the new Angel is suspected by the Angels of killing their partner. When they go to her boat to ask her about it, the bad guys start firing at the boat with a machine gun from a helicopter. The show ends with them beating up the bad guy in charge of the kidnapping operation.

If the first episode indicates what the rest of the series will be like, ABC needs to switch the show to the last hour of prime time from the first hour. The show is too violent for that time period. The show time is strange considering that the nonviolent "Body of Proof" airs in the third hour of prime time.

The new "Charlie's Angels" isn't ABC's first venture with women who are experts in martial arts. ABC produced "the Avengers" and the short lived "Honey West" series in the 60's. Both series are available on DVD and would be a better choice for viewers even though "Honey West" was in black and white. The Diana Rigg (Emma Peel) episodes of "the Avengers" are particularly worth watching and not just because TV Guide picked Diana Rigg as the sexiest woman of the first 50 years of television. Even in black and white, Anne Francis is sexier than any of the new "Charlie's Angels"

Martial arts fans have an opportunity to see the original martial arts master, Bruce Lee, in action as Kato in reruns of "Green Hornet" on YOUTV.

I'm getting tired of Republicans crying that the "poor" rich shouldn't have to pay any more of "their" money in federal taxes. Republicans falsely claim that allowing those with high incomes to pay lower taxes will result in creation of new jobs.

Perhaps that is the case with entrepreneurs like Donald Trump or the owners of small businesses.

However, many, if not most, of those with high incomes, including corporate CEO's, work for someone else. They aren't going to use any tax cut money to create new jobs at their employers' businesses. Many corporate executives look for ways to reduce the number of people working at their companies so more money will be available to pay them.

How many high income people really deserve the income they receive? The Wall Street executives who wrecked the companies they worked for certainly didn't deserve the large bonuses they received from President Barack Obama.

In 2005, federal prosecutors got a conviction of Westar CEO David Wittig and assistant Douglas Lake for looting the corporation to increase their own income. However, a Supreme Court ruling favorable to corporate executives receiving questionable compensation caused the conviction to be overturned and prevented another successful prosecution. Wittig had been previously convicted of a crooked loan scheme with a Topeka banker who increased Wittig's line of credit so Wittig could loan him money for a real estate venture.

NBA Hall of Famer Dennis Rodman told Jay Leno recently that the NBA really needed to restructure its labor contract because many teams were paying players $20 million a year just to sit on the bench. Fans sometimes complain that some highly paid athletes don't play like they deserve what they are being paid.

The Christian Science Monitor reported in 2010 that 30 private college presidents had incomes of over one million. How can anyone justify paying a college president a million a year, particularly considering the high cost of college? Millionaire college presidents aren't likely to use their "tax cut" money to create jobs. If they were interested in creating new jobs they would take lower salaries.

Some major colleges pay athletic coaches million dollar salaries as if they were profit making businesses rather than charitable organizations. College coaches are unlikely to use any tax cut money to create new jobs. They are in coaching to make as much money as they can.

The sports programs they work for are preoccupied with making money. Schools jump from conference to conference depending upon how much money they can make. Congress needs to consider taxing major college sports programs like professional sports teams. At the very least Congress should eliminate the practice of allowing tax deductible "contributions" to major college sports programs. Tax deductions for payments to organizations should be eliminated to those organizations that exist to help others. College sports programs exist to make a profit in the form of high pay for sports employees.

Colleges aren't the only "charities" that help their executives and coaches get rich. Some charities pay very high salaries to their top executives. Many environmental organizations pay multiple executives over $200,000 per year.

The Boys and Girls Clubs of America at one time was paying its CEO nearly a million in salary and benefits. The March of Dimes CEO has received over $600,000 a year.

Actor Charlie Sheen might have used some of his tax cut money for some "fun dates" but not to create permanent jobs. A few actors may finance their own movies and touring singers may be responsible for paying band members and "roadies". How many overpaid actors use tax cut money to hire anyone other than domestic staff for their mansions.

If income were based on one's contribution to the welfare of society, farm workers would be much better paid than entertainers.

If Republicans want to use the tax system to encourage business owners to add jobs, Congress should allow deduction for any expenses, including equipment purchases, associated with hiring new employees. This approach would reward those who hire new employees. The Republican approach rewards those owners who don't hire new employees by allowing them to keep more of their incomes. The Republican approach also rewards those who have no interest in using the income they receive from their employers to hire new workers.