An April 21 article in the New York Times entitled “In Push Before Vote, Obama Sharpens Tone, reported “In television commercials and in appearances before crowded rallies, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, cast his opponent in one of the most negative lights of the entire 16-month campaign, calling her a compromised Washington insider.”

 On August 23 Obama announced his selection of Senator Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate. Biden has been a Senator from Maryland for about 35 years, the sixth longest period in officer for current senators, unsuccessfully ran for President in 1998 and 2008, and is currently concurrently running for senator in 2008.

An Ole Seagull cannot help but wonder what the difference is between Clinton and Biden is in terms of being a “compromised Washington insider?” To him Biden is as much a “compromised Washington insider,” as is Clinton and more so. It would be interesting to know Obama’s definition of “compromised Washington insider” and why Mrs. Clinton meets it but Biden doesn’t or, in the alternative, why it should have been a factor in Clinton’s case but not Biden’s?

The Ole Seagull is certainly not a liberal but does anyone see the irony in todays AP story on the fact that North Korea has just set off an underground atomic test. Comparatively speaking, in terms of known weapons of mass destruction potential, prior to the invasion of Iraq, on a scale of 1 to 10,  Iraq posed a threat of what as compared to North Korea?

Give us a break, the City of Branson can keep the term “Dodink” but leave “Branson” alone, please!

On Sep. 15, the attorney for the City of Branson, Paul Link, under the leadership responsibility of the City of Branson’s highest ranked unelected official, city administrator Terry Dody, sent a letter to the “Branson Sports Club, Inc., c/o Pamela Sue Dapprich, 414 Buchanan Rd., Branson, MO 65616.” In the letter Link said, “The City of Branson, Missouri owns the federally registered service mark BRANSON, MISSOURI” and that the purpose of the letter was to “protest your [her] unauthorized use [of] ‘Branson’ in connection with a business not located within the city limits of Branson, Missouri.”

Link’s letter then calls the business’s use of the common term “Branson” in its name a “deceptive trade practice” and alleges, among other things, the violation of federal statutes relating to the “false designation of geographic origin” and trademark infringement.” It goes on to say that “Within 10 days of the date of this correspondence, we expect to receive from you a written undertaking that you will formally change the name of your business to delete all references to ‘Branson.’”

But not to worry; the letter goes on to say that all can become wonderful again if Dapprich “would consent to annexation into the City of Branson when the City is ready to take you [her] in, then we would not prohibit the use of ‘Branson’ in your name.” Dapprich said that she was an outspoken opponent of the City of Branson’s recent failed attempt to force the annexation of the area that the Branson Sports Club is on into the City of Branson. She also pointed out that she had called a number of businesses with the term “Branson” in their names, located outside the city limits of the City of Branson, and that none had received a similar letter.

At about this point, to an Ole Seagull, the resulting stench is starting to grow and is eerily reminiscent of what he calls “Dodink Law.” In the instant case it’s the kind of law that appears to try to intimidate and coerce by alleging that the use of “Branson” in its name is a crime related to the “false designation of geographic origin” even while ignoring the fact that the very letter making the allegation is being mailed to a specific “Branson, MO” address.

It’s the type of law where the City of Branson can take, what it alleges is a proper service mark, “BRANSON, MISSOURI,” and say that it gives them the right to prohibit the use of the single word “Branson.” What’s next, a prohibition against a business using the word “Missouri” in their business title if they don’t meet some condition that the City of Branson establishes?

Dodink Law appears to delight in going after individual small businesses; it intimidates and coerces them to give into the demands of the city or face the alternative of fighting its unlimited resources and people, like Dody and Link, who receive their fat salaries regardless. It’s a choice that causes a lot of small businesses to give in simply because they don’t have the time or money to fight “city hall.” One can only wonder, although not for too long because of the obvious, why the City of Branson didn’t go for the maximum deterrent effect by sending letters to the City of “Branson” West and the owners of the Showboat “Branson” Belle with the same demands.

Was it because they would have probably told the City of Branson what to do with their demands? Surely the failure to do so had nothing to do with the fact that they have the resources to, not only fight them on its frivolous assertion that, based on the alleged validity of having the service mark “BRANSON, MISSOURI,” it also has the right to the term “Branson” but to challenge the validity of the City of Branson even being able to register the term “BRANSON, MISSOURI.”

Isn’t “Branson” a surname and the name of the post office that Ruben S. Branson started decades before there ever was a City of Branson? Would not most people say that the term “Branson, Missouri” is a post office address or is “primarily geographically descriptive?”

“Branson’s” biggest and longest running attraction, Silver Dollar City, is located where? Oh, and last but not least, doesn’t the fact that the City of Branson’s registration for the service mark upon which its letter is based, Registration Number 2594679, contains a disclaimer stating that, “No claim is made to the exclusive right to use ‘Branson, Missouri’…” mean, at least as to the service mark covered under that registration, that any one is free to use those phrases as is otherwise permitted?

Republished with the permission of the Branson Courier.

The Ole Seagulls columns, appearing in the Sunday edition of the Branson Daily Independent and on line in the Branson Courier, normally involve the happenings of small town America, as illustrated by life in Branson, Missouri. His September 24 column, entitled “At least ten things that the Ole Seagull is positive about,” contains an interesting perspective on what an “opinion columnist” is and their value to their readers. For the most part that perspective is discussed under “positives” 1 and 10.

Can someone help an Ole Seagull understand exactly how the movement for reparation, payment of some sort, to today’s black Americans by the rest of today’s Americans because of slavery in America’s past, does anything but help divide our nation? Is the term “African American” a term of unification or division? Does it not remind all Americans “of the vestige of slavery?”

These and other questions came to mind as the Ole Seagull read a recent Associated Press story by David A. Lieb entitled, “Mo. to Fly Confederate Flag.” The story quoted Mary Ratliff, president of the Missouri State Conference of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People as saying, “It is just appalling to me that the governor would again raise a flag that is so humiliating and reminds us of the vestige of slavery that has divided our nation for all these years.”

According to the story the governor had “ordered that the Confederate flag be flown Sunday [June 5] at a state cemetery where former rebel soldiers were buried, a move denounced by black leaders.” The story was very clear that the flag would be flown “for one day at the Confederate Memorial State Historic Site in Higginsville, where a service is planned to mark Confederate Memorial Day.”

Will someone give an Ole Seagull a break here, what “reminds us of the vestiges of slavery that has divided our nation for all these years” more? Is it a Confederate battle flag waving from a flag pole at a Confederate Memorial State Historic Site or the constant reminder of slavery in America’s past that Ratliff, the NAACP, and some black leaders use to imply that today’s black Americans are owed something because their ancestors were slaves?

No right thinking person can condone slavery or the concept that one person can be another person’s property. That’s why, were the Ole Seagull a betting Seagull, he would bet that about as many non black Americans living in America today own slaves as there are black Americans living in America today who are or were slaves.

Is it totally inappropriate to suggest that it is the constant reminder of slavery in America’s past, in the attempt to obtain preferential treatment and economic advantage for today’s black Americans, at the expense of, among others, today’s white Americans, that divides this nation far more than the display of the Confederate battle flag. Comparatively speaking, exactly how divisive to our nation is the display of the Confederate battle flag for one day, over the graves of Confederate soldiers “at the Confederate Memorial State Historic Site,” in connection with a service “to mark Confederate Memorial Day?”

Is it as divisive to our nation as was the practice of bussing? Might some Americans view the practice of affirmative action where, among others, black Americans are given preferential treatment over white Americans, merely because of the color of their skin, as divisive?

It’s an amazing thing to an Ole Seagull how those who call themselves “African Americans,” instead of just “Americans,” can talk about being either reminded about the vestige of slavery or something being divisive. Was not slavery a well established institution in Africa before European traders arrived? Was it Americans who enslaved black Africans or was it their fellow black Africans?

History testifies to the fact that it was black Africans who enslaved their fellow black Africans. Then, after enslaving them, they sold their slaves to, among others, European slave traders and transported the purchased slaves out to the slave ships.

In terms of black Americans not being reminded about “the vestige of slavery that has divided our nation for all these years” may an Ole Seagull make a suggestion? Why not put the same effort that is currently being expended against the display of the Confederate battle flag, in not just in this situation but nation wide, into encouraging black Americans to use the term “American” rather than “African American?”

“Ah Seagull, is that politically correct?”

“That depends on who is determining what is politically correct.”

An Ole Seagull would echo the words of Abraham Lincoln. He said, “I do the very best I know how - the very best I can; and I mean to keep doing so until the end. If the end brings me out all right, what’s said against me won’t amount to anything. If the end brings me out wrong, ten angels swearing I was right would make no difference.”

A Mar. 18 AP story entitled “McGwire Evades Questions on Steroids Use” reported, “In a room filled with humbled heroes, Mark McGwire hemmed and hawed the most. His voice choked with emotion, his eyes nearly filled with tears, time after time he refused to answer the question everyone wanted to know: Did he take illegal steroids when he hit a then-record 70 home runs in 1998…” In an Ole Seagull’s opinion one would have to be a hero first to be a “humbled hero.” Based on the actions described in this and other articles one could wonder if the term should have been “humbled caught cheaters” instead or if their “records” are really records at all.

A Denver Post article published on Feb. 3, entitled, “Regents won’t fire Churchill” said “The American Indian Movement of Colorado, which counts Churchill as one of its leaders, also entered the fray Wednesday, saying in a statement that Churchill ‘is under attack by racists who would prefer to silence indigenous voices altogether.’” Give me a break, does one have to be a racist to be offended by the comments of Wade Churchill in his essay, entitled “Some People Push Back,” wherein he called those killed at the World Trade Center on 9-11 “little Eichmanns?”

Shortly after the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center on 9-11, Professor Ward Churchill, of the University of Colorado, wrote a essay entitled “Some People Push Back,” containing his perceptions about why the attack took place and what it bodes for the future. To an Ole Seagull, statements such as “If there was a better, more effective, or in fact any other way of visiting some penalty befitting their participation upon the little Eichmanns inhabiting the sterile sanctuary of the twin towers, I’d really be interested in hearing about it.,” indicate he could be a few slices short of a full loaf. Oh, well, interested or not, he’s “hearing about it!

The area of south west Missouri, including the city of Branson, celebrates “Ozark Mountain Christmas” every year between Nov.1 and Dec. 31. It spends tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars advertising “Ozark Mountain Christmas” and attracts hundred of thousands of visitors who spend millions of dollars, yet, in this world of being politically correct and not wanting to offend anyone, one is more likely to hear the greeting, “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmas” the very name of the holiday that is being advertised and promised. Shouldn’t it be the other way around?

http://explorebranson.com/whatsnew/christmas/

When Massachusetts Institute of Technology biologist Nancy Hopkins, an attendee at a “two-day, invitation-only conference of the Cambridge-based National Bureau of Economic Research,” walked out during the comments of Harvard President Larry Summers because, according to Hopkins, “this kind of bias makes me physically ill,” she testified as to the success of what Summers had been asked to do by the conference organizers, “to be provocative.” At the time Hopkins walked out Summers was discussing “Hypotheses based on the scholarly work that had been assembled for the conference” and “had cited research showing that more high school boys than girls tend to score at very high and very low levels on standardized math tests, and that it was important to consider the possibility that such differences may stem from biological differences between the sexes.” Hum, on second thought, maybe her actions illustrate more than Summers ability to provoke.

A recent story entitled “24 making nice with Muslims,” appearing in the Sunday Jan. 12 edition of E! Online, reported that “Rabiah Ahmed, spokeswoman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, told Broadcasting and Cable that the show [Fox’s ‘24’] is “taking everyday American Muslim families and making them suspects ….It’s very dangerous and very disturbing.” The current Fox series 24 depicts the all too possible scenario, of a Muslim extremist family, appearing to be like just any other American family, performing terrorist acts, such as blowing up trains, killing people at random, kidnapping the Secretary of Defense, etc. within the United States. If the situation described by Ahmed does exist an Ole Seagull would suggest that it is the actions of certain Muslim extremists on “9/11” that are the primary cause and not “24” or any other TV show.

In a Jan.13 opinion column, entitled “Roots grow deeper on the Supreme Court,” about the life tenure of Supreme Court justices, Tony Mauro said, “To a growing number of legal scholars, the trend toward longer-serving justices has resulted in an increasingly unaccountable Supreme Court.” To that an Ole Seagull would say, “Amen” and add “Ditto for the entire federal judiciary.” Isn’t it amazing, the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides for the removal of the president if “unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office” but there is no similar provision for the Supreme Court or other federal judges?

As Missouri’s new governor, Matt Blunt, took office on January 10, one portion of his inaugural address, to an Ole Seagull, defined the man, his philosophy, and his convictions. He said, “I took the oath with my hand upon two Bibles. One is the Book I turn to each day. It will remind me of the solemn pledge I have made before God and my fellow citizens. The other is a Bible that Melanie and I will give to our son upon his birth. It will remind me that what we do today, tomorrow and across the next four years will help define the future opportunities of every Missouri child.

“May God grant that in the days of prosperity and contentment, He will fill our hearts with praise and that in moments of trial, we will remember to seek His aid.

“Together, we will chart a new course for our state. With your prayers, encouragement and support, we will succeed. May God bless Missouri and the United States of America.”

Some might say, “Well that’s not politically correct and violates the separation of church and state.” To that an Ole Seagull would say, “It just might be the epitome of the political correctness and since when can a persons expression of what they believe, the guiding principles that they live their lives by possibly be a violation of the separation of church and state?”

What a difference in the quiet dignity of a Payton Manning, as he stuck to business and guided his team on victory after throwing an NFL record breaking touchdown pass and the antics of a Randy Moss who did a simulated “mooning” of the Green Bay Packer fans after catching a touchdown during a recent playoff game. Moss says he was “just having fun with the boys” but other have called it “disgusting” and Peter Schmuck of the Baltimore Sun called “Moss’ version of a not-so-full-moon” childish and crude. Why can’t we just play football and leave all the dancing, “fun,” and showboating etc. to others. A “champion” is, to an Ole Seagull a matter of heart and dignity as well as technical proficiency.

Sundays column, “A cartoon, a consent order, and a Branson Landing Bingo,” about the alleged illegal electioneering activities of one of the principals with the developer of the Branson Landing Project and Convention Center in Branson, Missouri, gives yet another example of how those with money and influence can flout the law to their economic advantage. But, in the final analysis, can any reasonable person really believe that it will be any different in any other place where hundreds of millions of dollars is involved?

Bill O’Reilly’s recent column, entitled “The culture war is getting hotter,” acknowledged a growing national trend when he said “Back home, we are coming off a Christmas season where the federal holiday was bruised and battered by secular forces that see any Christian public display as an affront.” He went on to point out that “The unbelievable nonsense surrounding the culture war is not going to end soon. Billionaire secularist George Soros is pouring millions into the American Civil Liberties Union so it can sue your butt off if you step out of the politically correct line.” An Ole Seagull would suggest that the “culture war” has always been with us, it is the battle of ones perceived “right” against their perceived “wrong” and will be with us until Christ comes again. Unfortunately, if the results of the “war” thus far are any indication, it appears, that God’s army seems more concerned with doing that which is politically correct or financially expedient rather than standing up and fighting for that which they know is “right.” What’s the effectual difference between having an army that won’t fight and having no army? From an Ole Seagull’s perspective, not much, not much at all.

On Dec. 22, 2004, a family court judge in Rochester, New York ordered a drug addicted women to have no more children until she could take care of the seven other children she had birthed and who “were removed from her care and custody because she could not and did not take care of them.” At last a ray of hope, with rights comes responsibility and that is particularly so with the “right” to have children.

What do faith and moral values have to do with the success of a small town in the Ozarks, called Branson, Missouri? Perhaps as much as it did with getting President Bush reelected.

The Ole Seagull is a conservative and voted for for George Bush twice but he is inclined to agree with Pat Buchanan’s December 27 World Net Daily Commentary entitled, ‘“Stay the course’ Is not enough.” Whether or not one agrees with our reasons for going to war why are our troops still bleeding and dieing after the mission was declared accomplished? This has to be one of the first wars on record where more people died after the war was over than during the war. Oh, that’s right; although the mission was accomplished the war goes on. Is it America’s roll in the world to try to impose its version of democracy on the rest of the world?

The victory of the St. Louis Rams over the Philadelphia Eagles on December 27 means something in the standings and, sadly, might actually get them into the playoffs at the expense of some other NFL team but in terms true NFL football, putting the best team available on the field, it is meaningless. As is the case in “pre” season football, the RAMS did not beat the best team the Eagles could put on the field. They beat the Eagles “playoff expendable team” (pet) which, for most of the game, if not all of the game in some cases, had healthy star players like running back Brian Westbrook, offensive tackle Tra Thomas and quarterback Donovan McNabb off the field saving them for the playoffs. How fair is that to teams like the Carolina Panthers, the fans, the RAMS, and what kind of message does it send to those players on the Eagles that are “expendable?” Shouldn’t the NFL at least charge a reduced rate for the “pet” games?