No Easy Answers for Sandy Hook Tragedy

The massacre of 26 children and adults at a Connecticut elementary school Friday has left us searching for answers. Why did it happen? How could it have been stopped? Is there a way to avoid such tragedies in the future?

Predictably, the first knee jerk reaction to such a heartbreaking event, was for more gun control--or, as some have suggested, the prohibition of all guns in the United States.

That, of course, would require the elimination of the Second Amendment which says, in part: 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.'

Let's look at some facts about gun ownership in the United States.  According to the  General Social Survey (GSS), there are approximately 44 million gun owners in the United States. This means that 25 percent of all adults owned at least one firearm.

The National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms (NSPOF), conducted a few years ago, reported that Americans own 192 million guns, with 36% of these consisting of rifles, 34% handguns, 26% shotguns, and 4% of other types of long guns. In the United States, 11% of households report actively being involved in hunting, with the remaining firearm owners having guns for self-protection and other reasons.

Imagine trying to confiscate 192 million guns. It simply will not happen--nor should it. After all, gun owners are not criminals. And while criminals do use guns to commit crimes, criminologists have  found no correlation between overall firearm ownership and gun violence.

It is interesting to note that at the outset of World War II the Japanese scrapped plans to invade the West Coast of America because they knew there were some 80 million guns in the hands of American citizens. That was not the case in places like China, Southeast Asia and other countries occupied by the Imperial Japanese Army.

That aside, what can possibly explain the massacre of innocent children, teachers and others at the Sandy Hook Elementary School and other places such as Virginia Tech University in 2007 when 32 people were killed and 17 others wounded by a deranged student who was diagnosed with severe anxiety disorder.

What caused Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old killer in the Sandy Hook shootings, to first shoot his mother in the face and then drive to the elementary school and slaughter defenseless children in their classrooms?

We may never know what demons infected Lanza's mind, though I am sure in the next several days and weeks armies of psychiatrists will offer up their opinions.

No matter what motives and reasons are put forth for such a horrific crime, there is little doubt that some will argue for changes to the Second Amendment and others will blame guns as the sole cause of such terrible violence.

This is simply wrong-headed. What about Hollywood's pandering to audiences with violent movies? What about gangster rap? Or the increasing violence in sports?  

And what about those graphically violent video games?

Scientists have long debated whether violent video games have an adverse effect on young people and recently the Supreme Court overturned a California ban on violent video games.

The court said that video games, even offensive ones, were protected by the First Amendment, and that there wasn't clear evidence that playing games such as Grand Theft Auto and Postal really harmed people.

However, research has shown that immediately after playing a violent video game, kids can have aggressive thoughts, angry feelings and physiological effects such as increased heart rate and blood pressure. In addition, studies that survey large populations of kids on their game-playing habits and measure aggressive personality traits or self-reported aggressive acts — physical fights, arguments with teachers — often find an association between games and aggression.

Other known factors more strongly linked to child aggression are a history of abuse, poverty, genetics and personality — and the risk climbs higher when several factors are present in combination.

For example, the continued destruction of the traditional family in which children are reared by two caring and responsible parents has been linked to children who are overly aggressive and angry.

In the case of Adam Lanza, for example, his parents divorced in 2008. Studies have shown that many children of divorced parents have difficulty adjusting and often blame themselves for the breakup. That in turn leads to feelings of hostility, bouts of depression and a sense of isolation.

Is that what set Adam Lanza off on his mission of murder and suicide? Once again, we may never know definitively.

But what we do know is that the Second Amendment was put in the Constitution to allow Americans to defend their lives and property from the aggression of individuals or government.

In the history of the world it has been governments, not individual gun owners, that have been the greatest origin of genocide and oppression. When governments want to control their populations, the first thing they do is eliminate the ability of individuals to defend or protect themselves.

People who want to scrap or dilute the Second Amendment should take a few moments to reflect on that.  

Old Journalism or Impartial Journalism?

There has been a lot of criticism leveled recently at journalists and the craft they practice--and in some cases, rightly so.

However, a lot of that criticism is coming from academia and professors who tell students that they need to go "beyond reporting the news"--code for what they think news organizations should not keep doing: traditional news stories with traditional structure and content.

They like to refer to that kind of journalism--the kind that I and thousands of my contemporaries practiced, as "old journalism"--as if somehow journalism today has shifted into a higher gear and the fundamentals we all learned are simply passé.

For example, they talk disparagingly about conventional newspaper journalism: "stories that package painstakingly gathered facts on current events -- what happened, who said what, when -- have lost much of their value. Journalists must "stop romanticizing the mere gathering and organization of facts." 

 New Journalism has advanced beyond the old Who, What, When, Where, Why and How era into this new realm that values subjective interpretation and analysis, they insist. Where I diverge from these critics is in the way that analysis and interpretation has been allowed to seep into what should be thoughtful, balanced reporting that allows the reader or viewer to form opinions without having them jammed down his or her throat. 

Recently one journalism professor at New York University wrote that "the extra value our quality news organizations can and must regularly add is analysis: thoughtful, incisive attempts to divine the significance of events — insights, not just information; wisdom, not just facts."  I have no argument with this.

But thoughtful and incisive aren't enough, he added. Insights must be speedy as well.

"Being fast with the analysis is as important today as being fast with the news has been for the last hundred years," he said. 

  In theory, that may sound plausible. But the problem is that fast and thoughtful seldom go together. Fast and wise is even more improbable. 

 I speak here as someone who has worked in both worlds--some 27 years with the Chicago Tribune, mostly as a foreign correspondent in Asia and Latin America (and as a national and metro editor) AND as a professor and Dean of the College of Media at the University of Illinois for 13 years. The classes I taught were heavy in fundamentals.

We talked about careful sourcing of stories, of fairness, of keeping biases out of what is produced. We talked about not rushing to judgment, of making sure that you got as many of the facts as you could and that no matter how complete a big story may seem to be on the first day, it will become more complete with time and more reporting.

Stories that are not carefully sourced or that are too subjective are highly unlikely to contribute wisdom, especially in the first hours of a big breaking news event. What they are far more likely to be is wrong or misleading. Rather than adding value for the reader, trying to write analytically before enough facts are in will usually result in the kind of shoddy, careless journalism that journalists are often criticized for producing today.

I am aware that those who taught in our Media Studies program focused more on the perception of news rather than the old-fashioned donkey work required to gather it with speed and accuracy. They came up with books that lambasted journalism and journalists for failing to generate national conversations about issues, when in fact, that is exactly what good, incisive reporting does. As someone once said: "A good newspaper is, I suppose, a nation talking to itself."

For folks who think in terms of semesters and six year tenure clocks the idea of being first with a story is a quaint image that belongs in an old movie like "Deadline USA" or "The Front Page." Most have never worked in a professional newsroom with its attendant pressures of deadlines, accuracy and skilled writing. Or if they have, it may have been for a year or two until they decided this kind of work was "not suited" to their more cerebral, languorous brains.

I bit my tongue more than once during my time in academia because, just as a soldier can never explain what it is like to be in combat to someone who has never experienced it, I found it impossible to impart to academics the rush and sense of satisfaction a reporter feels when he or she is first with a breaking or exclusive story.

It isn't just the fact that the reporter was first with the story, there is also the aftermath of the story--that it will possibly have a positive impact on people's lives, or that it will right some wrong, or that in some other way it will make a difference because the reporter was there to witness and report.

A Big Reason Obama Won: The News Media

Something has happened to journalism in America. And it's sad.

Skillful, tough reporting has been replaced by reporters, editors and producers who are allowing their political biases and agendas to get in the way of what journalists once valued as a search for the truth.

The So-Called Big Five

Truth is no longer the goal. Instead the objective for reporters today is to provide uncritical enthusiastic support for the person, position, idea or social stance that best conforms to their worldview.

How things have changed from the time I entered the journalism profession in 1969 right out of college.

I made the leap from being the editor of my college newspaper (The University Daily Kansan at the University of Kansas) to covering the city of Chicago for the Chicago Tribune.

It was a not an easy leap! First, I was exposed to some of the best reporting in the United States. There were five competing newspaper in Chicago then and the competition was fierce. I learned very quickly just how little I knew about being a good reporter.

Second, what I wrote was passed through some of the toughest editors I have ever known. And it was that experience that allowed me to hone both by reporting and writing skills to the point that I was given the ultimate job as foreign correspondent.

But before I made that move, I spent five years covering Chicago, often working horrible hours and covering just about every kind of story. This was called "seasoning" and I am still grateful for that experience.

I learned quickly to keep any bias I might have out of what I reported and wrote. Any hint of opinion in one of my stories and I was called to the City Editor's desk where I was (how shall I say it?) Critiqued? Disparaged? How about verbally bludgeoned?

"Keep your opinions to yourself!" the late Don Agrella, my feisty old Day City Editor would say. "People don't give a shit what YOU think!"

Don must be screaming his head off when he looks down from heaven at the Tribune and other newspapers today.

Too many stories today are filled with opinion--or even worse--are made incomplete by the deliberate omission of facts or information that would create a fair and balanced report.

Even worse are the media's purposeful failure to cover stories that might be damaging to a position or a person that the reporter, editor or producer doesn't want to harm.

Look at the way the media have covered President Obama--or should I say, have refused to cover him when stories were deemed detrimental to him.

If you watched the debates you saw this for yourself in the second debate when Candy Crowley, CNN's chief political correspondent who was moderating the event, jumped in and corrected Mitt Romney when he challenged Obama on his failure to call the attack on the Benghazi consulate an act of terror--even though Obama was obviously lying.

 Look at this exchange from the second debate:

ROMNEY: I -- I think it's interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.

OBAMA: That's what I said.

ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?

OBAMA: Please proceed governor.

ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.

OBAMA: Get the transcript.

CROWLEY: It -- it -- it -- he did in fact, sir. So let me -- let me--call it an act of terror...

OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy?

CROWLEY: He -- he did call it an act of terror. It did as well take -- it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.

ROMNEY: This -- the administration -- the administration indicated this was a reaction to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.

But of course, the damage was already done. Crowley's action made it seem as if Romney didn't have his facts together, when in fact, he did.

According to the transcript of Obama's Rose Garden remarks Obama spoke only generically about how “no acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this nation.” Not once did he directly refer to the violence in Benghazi as a "terrorist attack."

Next, let's look at Hurricane Sandy. Obama makes a one day trip to a few places, including New Jersey and FEMA and other federal agencies begin patting themselves on their backs praising the great job they are doing to help victims of the storm.

In fact, millions of people are still without power, food, medical help and other forms of assistance and are wondering where FEMA is.

Now rewind back to Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans and recall, if you will, the way President Bush was excoriated for not doing more to help those victims.

Yet here we are with a storm that has left millions more Americans homeless and without shelter than Katrina and the media has said nary a discouraging word about our recently re-elected Golfer-in-Chief and how his administration has obviously dropped the ball.

If this were a Republican president I can guarantee that the media would be hammering him (or her) relentlessly on their callous disregard for the suffering millions along the East Coast. But not Obama. He gets a pass.

Then there is the most relevant issue of all--the horrible U.S. economy. The media seldom said anything about it during the campaign nor did it hold Obama's feet to the fire they way it did with President Bush.

According to a study by the Media Research Center's Business and Media Institute in 2004 the economy under George W. Bush was far better than it is today — higher growth, lower unemployment, smaller deficits and cheaper gasoline — yet network coverage that year was twice as hostile to Bush than it was towards Obama this year.

The Media Have Put a Halo Around Obama

How many stories have you seen about $4 and $5 per gallon gasoline in the past six months? Now think back to 2004 and 2005--the last time gas prices were this high. Stories were rampant about the high price of gasoline and guess what? The media blamed President Bush!

Today, we have 7.9 percent unemployment, 23 million Americans without jobs and a president who has increased our national debt to $16 trillion and is likely to push it to $20 trillion before he is finished.

Of course when you have a president like the one half of this country just re-elected and who the media apparently think is able to walk on water and turn it into wine, news organizations are strangely silent.

They refuse to report critically about the economy, about a president who spent more time the past six months on the campaign trail and on golf courses than he did in the oval office, about the deaths of four Americans in Libya and the dismal failure of FEMA and other federal organizations to help Hurricane Sandy victims.

No, this is definitely not the kind of hard-hitting, watch dog journalism that I cut my teeth on in Chicago.

This is nothing more than classic public relations with a media working on behalf of a president that now has four more years to destroy traditional American values, undermine capitalism, weaken our military and eviscerate the nation's position as the world's only democratic superpower.

Where are the Don Agrella's of the world when we need them more than ever?

Who Won and Who Lost in the 2012 Election?

 The Presidential election of 2012 was less of a contest between Republicans and Democrats than it was a battle between those who want the government to give them "stuff" and those who feel, as JFK once said in 1960: "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

Democrats who elected President Kennedy in 1960 were not the same as those who elected Obama in 2008 and reelected him Tuesday. Those Democrats still believed in the bedrock values of hard work, self-reliance and the traditional family that made America the economic and political beacon of the world.

Today, with Obama's reelection, I fear the nation is moving further down the slippery slope to bigger government, greater dependency and quite possibly European style of socialism.

For example, today, more people than ever before depend on the federal government for housing, food, income, student aid, or other assistance once considered to be the responsibility of individuals, families, neighborhoods, churches, and other civil society institutions.  

Let's look at some facts.

·       For the first time in our history 50 percent of Americans pay no income taxes--meaning that those who are productive contributors to the economy are supporting those who are not.

·       The number of Americans on welfare has increased from 97 million to 107 million since President Obama took office, according to research by the Senate Budget Committee.

·       Some 47 million Americans already are on food stamps.

·       Almost 71 percent of all federal spending goes to dependency creating programs.

·       The American public's dependence on the federal government shot up 23% in just two years under President Obama, with 67 million now relying on some federal program, according to a newly released study by the Heritage Foundation.

·       Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that 49% of the population lives in a household where at least one person gets some type of government benefit.

What Obama has done and what he will continue to do is expand the culture of dependency that the Democrat Party thrives on. Poverty is a trap. It causes long-term welfare recipients to lose job skills and work habits and ultimately they wind up failing to participate in a marketplace that can lead to new and better jobs.

What we saw in this presidential election was a mandate for Obama to continue the tax and spend policies that place a greater economic burden on productive members of society so Democrats can continue to win votes from those who feel they are entitled to more and more government handouts.

Our national debt is already at $16 trillion but watch out. You ain't seen nothin' yet. Under another four years of Obama it will likely grow to more than $20 trillion and as it does, the dollar will become a joke in global currency markets. To some extent it already is.

Under Obamacare, Medicaid is set to explode as well. Within just one generation, total federal spending could reach nearly 36% of GDP, and the Congressional Budget Office says debt held by the public could reach nearly 200% of GDP.

These are facts that those who voted for Obama ignored or were too uninformed to understand.

I grew discouraged listening to people in exit polls explain why they voted for Obama.

"I think he is good looking," said one 20-something woman..."and he cares about my right to have birth control and for the government to provide it."

Wait a minute. Since when is it a "right" for birth control and for the government to provide it? If it's in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, I must have missed it.

At one polling place Obama voters were asked what party currently controls Congress. The answer from several dozen people asked: "Republicans." Uh huh.

Others were asked to identify Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They couldn't.

One woman said this: "Obama did lots of great things besides killing Osama bin Laden! I just don't want to talk about any of those things right now, for no particular reason."

Thank God! It's depressing enough to learn that these are the people who helped re-elect one of the weakest presidents in our history without having to listen to them attempt to speak coherently about why they did it.

But hey, these are the "winners" in this election...and the rest of us get to continue to pay the bills.

Who Won The Final Debate?

The last of the three presidential debates has come and gone and the spin meisters are going full speed trying to convince voters that their candidate won.

Frankly, Scarlett, I don't give a damn who won last night's debate. Most pundits have called it a draw. I would give the edge to Mitt Romney on substance and style. He was certainly more "presidential" than a grinning, condescending, boorish President Obama.

Of Course, there are still two more weeks of furious campaigning ahead and the attack dogs will be off their leashes and barking as vociferously as ever.

So what is one to make of the 2012 presidential race?

I can't recall a more negative campaign in my lifetime. The most disconcerting thing to me is the insertion of characteristically malicious Chicago political tactics into the race for our nation's highest office.

In Chicago, where I spent a majority of my professional journalism career, the norm in political battles is to launch personal attacks and to demonize your opponent at every opportunity.

Tune in to the Starz TV show "Boss" and you will see what I mean.

Kelsey Grammer as Chicago's "Boss"

The political goon squad in the White House is a throwback to the original Mayor Daley--the one who pushed JFK over the top in 1960 and who periodically raised the dead so they could vote.

Mayor Daley knew how to win elections. Buy votes by giving people free "stuff" and make your opponent appear to be some kind of reprobate.

The gang of political operatives who surround Obama are following the same strategy.

To the credit of the majority of Americans, however, it is not working. Most Americans do not live in Chicago or Cook County and most do not like the dirty, in-your-face kind of politics that got a succession of Chicago mayors elected.

You can argue who won last night's debate, who delivered the most zingers, etc. But you cannot argue with Mitt Romney's steady climb in the collective presidential campaign polls.

I think Americans are finally seeing past the veneer of Obama's "messiah complex" and finding that this man, who was less prepared for the job than any other president in our history, is simply in over his head.

Not only does he not understand how the U.S. economy works, he is fundamentally opposed to capitalism--though you will never get him to admit it publicly.

His denials during last night's debate to the contrary, Obama DID go on an apology tour in 2009 after his election. As N. Y. Yankee's manager Casey Stengel used to say: "You can look it up." Fact checkers have already run clips of Obama apologizing in Egypt, France, and Latin America.

Specifically, in Strasbourg, France Obama said: "there have been times where America has shown arrogance and has been dismissive, even derisive."

 During a speech in Egypt Obama talked about: "a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world, one based on mutual interest and mutual respect." Then, citing the "fear and anger" after 9/11, Obama said that in some cases, "it led us to act contrary to our traditions and our ideals."

And of course, who can forget the awful display of cow towing when an obsequious Obama bowed before the Saudi king. I thought he was going to kiss the king's ring.  

Obama bowing to Saudi King

But more troubling is the fact that this is a president who believes the federal government has all the solutions to our fiscal woes, when in fact, the federal government is more often the cause of our economic problems.

Remember what Ronald Reagan once said: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

 Thank you President Obama. You have "helped" our nation enough. Go play another round of golf. Show us how cool you are and have another dance with Ellen DeGeneres. Visit the cackling magpies on "The View."

Or better yet. Start packing. It's time to put the adults back in the White House.

Smirkin' Joe Biden Can't KO Paul Ryan

I think the following Biblical quote sums up Joe Biden's bizarre behavior in last night's debate with Republican V.P. nominee Paul Ryan very well:

"If a wise man has an argument with a fool, the fool only rages and laughs, and there is no quiet." --Proverbs 29:9.

Naturally, Democrats have rallied around Joe "the gaffer" following last evening's debate, saying that was just Joe being Joe.

I thought he was the vice-president and as such he owed a national TV audience a modicum of vice-presidential behavior--that is, being respectful rather than disdainful of your debate opponent.

Smirkin' Joe Biden in Action

And where was the alleged moderator in all of this? ABC's Martha Raddatz was strangely quiet as Biden smirked, lifted his eyes to the ceiling and shot mocking stares at Ryan.

In fact, Raddatz followed the Biden lead– interrupting the debaters 50 times. She jumped often and  heavily on Ryan, interrupting him 31 times, 12 more than the 19 times she cut off Biden. She also took a liberal tone on abortion and let Biden control the tone of  the debate by never cutting him off when he stepped all over Ryan during his remarks.

 Even CNN’s left-leaning anchor Anderson Cooper said after the debate that Biden managed to “continually inject himself” into Ryan’s comments--an understatement if ever I heard one.

Ryan suggested that Biden's behavior signaled desperation.

"Mr. Vice President, I know you are under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground," Ryan said.

Biden immediately uncorked his biggest throaty laugh of the night.

"... But I think people would be better served if we don't keep interrupting each other," Ryan said.

 In my opinion, Ryan was not forceful enough in going after Biden.

At those points when Biden burst out laughing at Ryan's remarks on such issues as Iran working toward building a nuclear weapon or how the administration was AWOL when the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three other Americans were murdered by terrorists in Benghazi, Ryan should have stopped talking and said: "Joe, I am not sure why are these issues are so funny to you, but I can guarantee you they are not funny to the American people."

Smirkin' Joe Biden Guffaws Again

This is the kind of verbal counter-punching that was missing from Ryan's performance. It was patently obvious that Biden's mission was to keep Ryan off balance the entire night with his annoying eye rolling, condescending, smug attitude.

That Ryan managed to stay on his feet and weather what has to be the most disrespectful and rude conduct of a sitting vice-president in American history says something about his character.

He would not be pulled into below the belt verbal punch fest that Biden was hoping to create.

Instead, he remained on point and despite the constant badgering by both Biden and his willing sidekick Raddatz, he answered questions as best he could.

There are those who say style is not as important as substance. In a national debate for the nation's highest office, I beg to differ. Substance should take precedence. That's a given. But style should not be ignored. It says something about a person's character.

In 1988 Biden, then a presidential candidate, admitted plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, leader of the British Labor Party. It was also reported that he also plagiarized a law paper at the Syracuse University School of Law in 1965 for which he received an "F."

These revelations were reported by no less a left-leaning authority than the New York Times and as a result Biden was forced to resign from the presidential race that year. The Times and other papers said in numerous stories that Biden lacked the mental and verbal discipline to be President.

After last night, it appears he lacks the same qualities needed to be Vice-President.

EUROPE AND THE US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

I have just returned from a three week sojourn to Europe--specifically, Paris, Munich and Venice--and points in between aboard various trains.

A couple of things I noticed. Many Europeans are terrified that Barack Obama will be defeated in the upcoming election. This in spite of the fact that Chicago's political mafia is running the Democratic party and the Democrats NEVER or rarely lose elections in Chicago and Cook County.

After watching a plethora of German talk shows and reading a few German newspapers it was interesting to note that while many Europeans now realize Obama is NOT the political embodiment of the Second Coming, that he is in fact (horrors) a mere mortal, and that he and his socialist policies have made things worse in the U.S. and not better, they still believe it would be some kind of celestial blasphemy if he is not re-elected.

As one person on a talk show put it: "He is so intelligent and truthful."

This was, of course, before this week's debate with challenger Mitt Romney. I wonder what she thinks now after the big can of whoop ass Romney opened on an obviously ill-prepared Obama. Without his teleprompter, Obama was exposed as a shallow and ineffective speaker.

As the Bumbler-in-Chief scrambled for answers and to make his case to the American people during the debate I am sure he was wishing he could be on yet another golf course somewhere.

Obama is a very good golfer--having had plenty of practice to improve his golf game during his tenure in the White House. So far Obama as played 105 rounds of golf during his 3.5 years in office--more than anybody since President Eisenhower, who played about 200 rounds in his 8 years in office between 1952 and 1960.

According to Keith Koffler, a reporter for the White House Dossier: “Obama’s golfing takes about five hours, including the motorcades back and forth from the fairways. If one thinks of this as taking up much of the day – include getting ready to go and cooling off afterward – it's fair to say that Obama has spent more than three months of his presidency golfing.”

He might have added that he has spent another six months campaigning for re-election and three months on vacation. That means for almost a year the nation has had a president who has done everything but work at the job he was elected to do. I won't even go into the tax-payer dollars spent by Michelle Obama on her 16 vacations to places like Spain, South Africa, Aspen and Hawaii.

Michelle and Friends in Spain 2010

And believe me, these were not taken sitting in coach in the back of the plane or on a Greyhound Bus.

Of course, Michelle is not running for re-election. But it seems rather insensitive to be taking lavish vacations at a time when some 23 million American are out of work and millions more have lost their homes, businesses and savings.

But, hey, that's OK. After all, it is Barack Obama and he can do no wrong. Certainly not in Europe.

It is amazing how naive some Europeans are about the United States. Of course, the all act as if they know everything there is to know about this country--from its politics to its economy to its social issues.

It is difficult to blame them when you read European newspapers or watch news and talk shows.

For example, after this week's debate, a few European newspapers reported that Obama actually did well in his face off with Romney.

What debate were they watching--maybe it was a re-run of the Nixon-Kennedy debate of 1960.

Of course, maybe they were affected by Denver's mile-high altitude--an explanation that former Vice President Al Gore offered in Obama's defense.

The fact is this. Most, if not all, of the European nations that make up the European Union are left-leaning and are pushing hard for an Obama victory in November. In nations where the quality of life is measured by how many cradle-to grave entitlements you can extract from government, a U.S. that has a closet socialist in the White House is one Europeans can readily identify with.

Romney and Ryan scare the hell out of Europeans. They are, after all, in favor of reducing government's size and checking its intrusion into our lives and businesses. This is a philosophy that few Europeans understand or will ever embrace.

Just look at the rioting in Greece, Spain and Italy when governments attempt to get spending under control by curbing unsustainable pensions that begin at 55 and can amount to some 80 percent of one's annual salary.

When you make the majority of the populace dependent on government entitlements and handouts you wind up with Greece, Spain and Italy.

Now look at what's happened in the U.S. since 2008l. When Obama moved into the White House the number of Americans getting food stamps was 31 million. In 2000 there were just 17 million Americans on food stamps.

Today, some 47 million Americans are on food stamps--otherwise known as the newly named "Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program" or SNAP. That means some 23 million American household are using food stamps--fully 15 percent of the U.S. population.

And that's not the whole story. Today, there are more Americans dependent on the federal government than ever before in U.S. history.

According to the Survey of Income and Program Participation conducted by the U.S. Census, well over 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government.  Many are enrolled in more than one.  

That is about a third of the entire population of the country.  That figure does not include Social Security or Medicare.  Today the federal government runs almost 80 different “means-tested welfare programs,” and almost all of those programs have experienced substantial growth in recent years. 

I agree that we will always need a safety net for those that cannot take care of themselves, but it is utterly ridiculous that the federal government is financially supporting one-third of all Americans.  How much farther do things really need to go before we finally admit that we have become a socialist nation like our European neighbors? 

At the current rate of government-sponsored dependency, it will not be very long before half the nation is on welfare.  However, we likely will never get to that point because the colossal and unsustainable debt that we are currently running up will no doubt  destroy our financial system before that ever happens.

I can hear the shovels in China already digging our grave.