EverybodyHasOne

When Does Life Begin?

2011-11-08T18:58:00.006-06:00

Given the vote today in Mississippi, here is a blog from 2007. Click on the title below.

Does Life Begin At Implantation?

If Mississippi makes a fertilized egg legally a human, every miscarriage will have to be investigated as a murder.

"Excuse me, mam. I am Officer Jones. I understand from your doctor that you recently had a miscarriage so I am required to ask to some questions. Prior to your miscarriage did you engage in any activities that might put your unborn child at risk? This could include use of alcoholic beverages or tobacco, but it also could include any activity that could be considered unhealthy to a child. Please tell me all drugs, legal and illegal, that you have used from the time of the miscarriage back to a month before you became pregnant....."

Is this really what the people of Mississippi want?

Why Exempt Seniors Over 55?

2011-04-20T18:53:00.007-05:00

In their new budget plan, Republics plan to basically end Medicare, but not for people 55 or older. They say their rationale is that people 55 and older have made plans based on the current system and it wouldn't be fair to take Medicare away from them now.

I suspect their are a lot of people under age 55 who have also been counting on Medicare. Parents putting kids through college may be counting on catching a break on health care costs once they turn 65. Call me cynical, but I think this exemption for older people is probably an attempt to buy them off. If seniors aren't affected, maybe they won't be quite as mad about the proposal.

If privatizing Medicare will lower medical costs and reduce the deficit, why not start it today? We can protect seniors already enrolled in Medicare by giving them vouchers to pay for the full cost of private health insurance. Seniors wouldn't be hurt economically and the country would benefit.

Implementing vouchers for seniors health care now would also give us a chance to see if the idea really works. Come to think of it, has anyone asked insurance companies to develop the kind of insurance policies that the Republics say will be available for seniors under their plan? I'd like to see what they cost and what is covered.

Dog Smart

2011-04-20T18:40:00.002-05:00

I saw a bumper sticker today that said

My bulldog is smarter than your honor student.

I'm not so sure about that, but I'd bet that bulldog is smarter than its owner.

Republic Plan To Ration Health Care

2011-04-10T18:18:00.005-05:00

Republics screamed about rationing and death panels in the Democratic plans for health care reform. Of course there has been health care rationing forever. As I've written before, unless there are unforeseen changes to health care in the future, there will always be rationing of health care. The question in whether we can find rational, humane ways to ration.

Republics plan to save Medicare by giving people tax credits and having them buy insurance on the open market. From the reports we've heard, the plan is to control and reduce health care costs by giving people less in tax credits than insurance is expected to cost. Therefore people will have an incentive to buy only the coverage they need and use only the services they need. This is self rationing. In addition, the amount of tax credit the government will give will not be tied to the rising cost of health insurance. So as rates go up, individuals will have to pay ever more out of pocket costs or decrease their coverage.

From reports I've heard, Republics believe this difference between what people will have to pay and what the government will pay will incentivize private health insurers to control costs. It's nice to know Republics still have a sense of humor.

The Republic plan is guaranteed to work just as they plan. The costs to the government will go down and Medicare will be destroyed. Will the health of Americans be better?

Pass The Damn Bill

2011-04-10T17:55:00.003-05:00

The stakes for the next budget battle are even greater than the one just completed. If Congress fails to authorize an increase in the debt limit the result could be devastating. History and current Republic statements indicate that many Republics will not vote for an increase without guarantees of drastic spending cuts.

There will be an agreement before the United States defaults. Banks and big business know that default is not an option. Even threats could damage the credit standing of the United States in the world. Business will jerk the leashes of Republics and make sure a bill is passed.

I would like to make a suggestion. Republics should agree to increase the debt limit enough to cover the debts projected for the next three years under the Ryan budget without any policy riders. That's right, for all their huffing, the Ryan plan has significant annual budget deficits for years to come.

Can Republics really destroy the credit of the United States when their own budget plans will require that the debt ceiling be raised significantly?

In three years, the Republics will have time to elect a Republic Senate and a Republic President. Then they can do whatever they want. In the meantime, raise the debt ceiling without bullying and threats so we can tackle other issues. Like the FY12 budget.

Responsible Chickens

2011-04-10T11:50:00.003-05:00

The recent budget debates that threatened to shut down the government have been compared to a game of chicken. An example of this game was depicted in the movie "Rebel Without A Cause". Two young men race to run their cars off a cliff. The object is to see who jumps out of their car first and therefore is a "chicken".

The budget battle wasn't really a game of chicken. The two guys were risking their own lives in those cars. Politicians were risking the American people and economy.

The two guys in the car were willing participants. They may have been pressured into the game, but they could have said they wouldn't play. Republicans and Democrats had to play the game and reach an agreement or the government would have shut down.

The choice was over the stakes and what the other side would agree on. Republicans chose to set the stakes high and then force negotiations to the eleventh hour to see how far they could push Democrats. This wasn't a game of chicken, it was blackmail perpetrated by Republicans.

This wasn't so much a fight over the budget as a test by bullies to see how much Democrats were willing to compromise rather than hurt the country. Democrats jumped first and further. I guess they are the "chickens".

Do Your Job or Quit.

2011-04-10T11:22:00.000-05:00

There is a legal battle going on in Illinois over whether health professionals can be forced to provide services that go against their religious or moral beliefs. I think it started with doctors and nurses objecting to being forced to provide abortions.

I can understand that unless you work in the emergency room and then you help anyone that comes through the door. The most recent battle is over two pharmacists who object to dispensing emergency contraceptives. In particular, I think they object to dispensing the morning after pill.

Give me a break. If they succeed, what is next? Doctors and nurses who refuse to treat drug addicts when they overdose because doing so just "enables" them.

Pharmacists who won't fill prescriptions for any contraceptives.

The checkout person who won't ring up condoms because their religion thinks contraceptives are a sin. Or sell lottery tickets. Or beer. Do you think the sales person should lose their job?

I respect people who are willing to honor their convictions when it might otherwise not be in their self-interests. But it is not honorable to abandon people who you have pledged to serve.

A pharmacist that refuses to dispense a legal medication should find another line of work.

President Obama's Poll Numbers Rise

2011-04-07T21:02:00.002-05:00

Tonight on the news I saw a poll asking who you would blame if the government is shut down?

The numbers seemed to be confuse some of the pundits.

Who would voters blame?

Republicans: 37%
Democrats: 20%
President Obama: 20%

So it looks like Democrats would bear the brunt of voter anger, 40% to 37%.

But more than 20% of voters think President Obama is a muslim, not a citizen, a socialist, hates America, etc. Democrats should be happy that the President's numbers are so good. Only 20% would blame him for the shut down!

What Is Important To You?

2011-04-06T19:25:00.008-05:00

Republicans hate government. Keep that in mind as you listen to their solutions to problems. The Republican approach to financing government is to cut taxes then figure out what services to cut to live within that new number. How about a different approach?

What if we tried to agree on what is important to us and then figured out the most cost effective way to make it happen?

For example, what if we said that it is a national goal that all senior citizens are able to live out their final years with dignity, access to health care, housing and nutrition? We could then talk about what levels of assistance meet these goals, who qualifies and how we pay or provide this assistance.

Money is the easiest way to transfer value from one person to another, but there are other ways. We might help offset some costs by requiring two years of community service from all young adults. One of the options would be for some these young people to help take care of the elderly. Or build and repair houses. Or cook and deliver food. Or staff a community home. This would decrease taxes and offset the lost revenue with labor.

Anyone might be able to opt of paying taxes to support elderly and instead meet their obligation by working some number of days each year. I'm sure there are other, much better ideas. The point is instead of generating n dollars of revenue and then deciding how we divide that pool of money, why not decide what is important to us and then figure out how to make it happen?

As a country, how about discussing what is important to us?

Look For Alternatives

2011-04-06T19:12:00.004-05:00

Mark Halperin was on Hardball with Chris Matthews tonight. He wanted to give Representative Ryan credit for a plan to cut Medicare because if we don't cut it, costs will balloon and bankrupt the country.

Wait a minute. He has bought the Republican line. Medicare may need to be changed, but why isn't the possibility of adding revenue to the system an option? Couldn't there be parts of Medicare that are so valuable we might consider ways to increase funding to save them rather than cut service?

The Republicans only have two ways to solve a problem. Cut services or cut taxes. We probably will have to cut something, but there may be alternatives if we look for them.

Shared Pain

2011-04-06T18:31:00.004-05:00

Representative Ryan has released his budget plan.

It cuts -
Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Taxes for business
Taxes for the rich

Give him credit. He makes sure everyone takes their share of cuts.

What would you pay for?

2011-04-03T10:20:00.005-05:00

In the current debate over the deficit and budgets, Republics want to take any tax increase off the table. Their current framing is, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. That is, cut spending; do not raise taxes.

It is clear that Republics and Democrats have a different philosophy about the purpose of government and how to pay it. In general, Republics believe that less government is always better (at least that is what they say, if not always what they do). Government is the problem, not the solution. Republics want to decide how much they are willing to spend on government (which is always less than what we spend today) and then determine how to distribute that money. Preference is always given to the generators of wealth.

In general, Democrats believe that government is about creating a civil society. Democrats would rather first decide what is important to do and then decide how to pay for it (sometimes). Preference is given to the less fortunate. The Democratic position is obviously harder to sell.

While Democrats have certainly authorized new spending without determining how the additional expenditures would be paid for, they managed to live under the PAYGO rules of the 1990's. Had these rules been extended, the budget busting 2003 tax cut, the Medicare prescription program and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might have had to have been paid for instead of just adding to the debt.

The two Bush era tax cuts added significantly to our debt. Let me state again, tax cuts when you are already running a deficit without the same dollar cuts in spending add to the long term debt! Republics constantly berate Democrats about spending more than we have revenue to pay far and passing that debt on to future generations. Fair enough. But cutting taxes without cutting spending has the same affect and is just as destructive. The math is simple. Revenue minus expenses equals surplus or debt. When you are already running a deficit, increasing spending without increasing revenue will increase the debt. Likewise, decreasing revenue without decreasing spending will increase the debt.

Contrary to popular belief, the Republics have actually been winning the deficit/debt debate. "Starve the Beast" has been Republic dogma since Ronald Reagan. This is the policy of always cutting taxes without concomitant cuts in spending in the belief that the eventual fiscal crisis will force drastic decreases in the size of government.

Republics have succeeded. The public believes we have a fiscal crisis generated by too much spending not a problem generated by a weak economy, tax cuts and spending. The discussion is how do we cut taxes, expenditures and the size of the government. Why aren't we also discussing what functions of government are worth paying taxes to support and how do we generate the revenue to pay for them?

Save My Marriage, Vote For Obama

2011-03-27T18:40:00.003-05:00

Recently, to explain his infidelity and the failure of two previous marriages, Newt Gingrich basically said that his patriotism and love for this country caused him to work too hard for his country and not hard enough at maintaining his marriages.

What a novel explanation. What he is basically saying is, I'm so patriotic I was willing to sacrifice my marriages for the good of the country.

If Newt should win the Republican presidential nomination for 2012, do you think the current Mrs. Gingrich will vote for Newt or vote for President Obama and possibly save her marriage?

Chameleon Gingrich

2011-03-27T09:48:00.005-05:00

Newt Gingrich has been making conflicting statements about Libya. He was emphatically for a no-fly zone before President Obama decided to support the UN resolution. Once President Obama expressed support for a non-fly zone, Newt was suddenly emphatically against it.

The argument's he uses to defend his flip-flop are tortuous. It is obvious his opinions are purely driven by a simple logic - I don't agree with Obama. A tactic he fully developed years ago when it was - I don't agree with Clinton. He should change his name from Newt to Chameleon. His opinions quickly change to match the current Republican political landscape.

Japan: 50Hz and 60Hz

2011-03-26T11:48:00.005-05:00

I heard that Japan has lost 20% of its electrical generating capacity. This would be devastating in any country, but it is even worse in Japan. In the U.S., the electricity in our homes is standardized at 60Hz AC. That is, the polarity of the electricity alternates 60 times every second.

In Japan they use two different systems. In the south/west they use 60Hz. In the north/east (where the failed reactors are located) they use 50Hz. While 60Hz can be converted to 50Hz, Japan has a limited capacity to do this. So surplus energy in the south/west cannot easily be diverted to the north/east.

I've heard predictions that it will be months, possibly years, before full power is restored to Japan. It is sad that such bad public policy will make Japan's disaster even more painful.

There are some lessons to be learned from Japan's disaster that may be very important for the U.S.. There may be some things we should be doing right now to prevent large scale, long term power failures in the United States.

More later.

You didn't know that Japan has such an irrational power system? You aren't listening to National Public Radio! NPR is a national treasure. Don't let politicians damage it.

Why Libya?

2011-03-26T07:53:00.004-05:00

I must admit that I wasn't watching the run-up to what seems to be a U.S. led military action against Libya. I think this was partly because the no-fly zone was being pushed by Great Britain and France. The U.S. seemed to be much less interested. China and Russia seemed ready to block any action in the UN. I thought enforcement of a no-fly zone, if it happened, would be led and possibly staffed primarily by other countries. I was surprised when the UN authorized the no fly zone and the U.S. took the lead.

I don't believe it is in the best interests of the U.S. to be participating in such a significant way in Libya. I'm surprised President Obama has allowed us to be drawn in and took the initial lead. I'm disappointed that he hasn't done a better job of explaining why he took these actions and I don't see indications that a successful outcome is likely.

I've always scoffed when opponents of military actions insist about a prediction of how it will end before we start. That's impossible. It is also a political stunt for opponents to insist on some clear statement of exactly why we shouldn't intervene in Bahrain or Syria since we have attacked Libya. Every situation is different.

It would be nice to hear the principles that guided President Obama's decision. I think they've given some: humanitarian support, the Libyan government was threatening mass reprisals against citizens, a chance to get rid of dictator who has caused problems around the world, there was support for action from other governments in the region, there was significant internal dissent and armed resistance, there was military assistance offered by other countries from within the region and outside, international bodies supported intervention and it was militarily feasible with acceptable risks.

I would like to hear, and probably won't, that the analysis for success is high, that there are groups and institutions in Libya ready to form a civil society, that whatever government comes after military success has a reasonable chance to be much better than the current government, that there is a chance for some form of democracy, that human rights and living conditions in the country will eventually improve and that the country will not be destabilizing in the region.

And, why is it in our national interests to remove Khadafi?

I think the President could have done a better job keeping us informed, but the fact is, he has made a decision and he will be responsible for the consequences.

Don't Listen

2011-03-06T10:25:00.003-06:00

This morning Fox News Sunday had an interview with Margie Phelps, a member of and attorney for the Westboro Baptist Church. This is the small group that stages those obnoxious demonstrations near the funerals of American service men and women killed in action.

She recently won a Supreme Court case that affirmed the First Amendment rights of the Westboro Baptist Church to express opinions that most people find to be disgusting.

I agree with the Supreme Court, but Ms. Phelps has given us the antidote to her groups hateful speech. She said that the Supreme Court put a megaphone to the mouth of her tiny church. She is wrong. They didn't do that. They only said that governments could not silence them. Her group has a megaphone only if the news media gives them coverage and we listen.

The answer is to not give these people the attention they crave. They are irrational and delusional. Reason is not going to change them and attention only reinforces their delusions. If no one listens, if no one stages counter protests, if we all change the channel when they are given news coverage, then news organizations will stop covering them . This won't mute their hate or cure their ignorance or diminish their delusional view that they speak for God. They just go back to being a nameless group of kooks no one pays any attention to.

The beauty of our system is that our Constitution prevents governments from deciding which speech should be heard and which should be suppressed. It leaves it to people to listen or not listen and make our own decisions.

I've heard what the members of the Westboro Baptist Church believe and totally reject those ideas. From now on I choose not to listen.

Political Compromise

2010-12-05T09:22:00.001-06:00

Click on image to enlarge.

Elephant Butts As Political Strategy

2010-12-05T09:14:00.003-06:00

We need cooperation and compromise, butt this is what we get.

Click on image to enlarge.

Dilemma

2010-11-27T21:47:00.005-06:00

Click on cartoon to enlarge.

Created at ToonDoo.com

Global Warming Deniers

2010-11-26T19:23:00.001-06:00

Global Warming Deniers by LogicalOne

National Security vs Politics

2010-11-21T10:08:00.005-06:00

Senator Jon Kyle (R, AZ) and Republican Senators have put politics above our national interest by refusing to vote on the New START Treaty with Russia.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, was on ABC's This Week this morning where he was questioned by host Christiane Amanpour. He unequivocally supported the START Treaty. When asked repeated questions about whether this treaty was good for the country and should be passed, he made clear that it was in the best interests of National Security that the START Treaty be passed ASAP. Even in a lame duck session. He emphatically said "ASAP".

When asked if the Republican opposition was based on politics or policy, Admiral Mullen obviously refused to comment. But it was clear from all his other comments that he saw no national security reasons for delaying ratification of the treaty.

Sometimes is hard to tell when Republican obstructionism is principled or political. In this case it is obvious.

WTHWYT - Rep. Allen West

2010-11-21T09:54:00.006-06:00

Representative Allen West (FL), recently elected Tea Party Republican, was on Meet The Press this morning. He was commenting about the uproar over the new TSA airport screening procedures which give passengers a choice between a revealing electronic scan or a thorough pat down search. He was complaining about the poor job of marketing for the new TSA rules when he said that the Obama administration should have had a better marketing plan and should have "put out some feelers" to airline passengers.

Really! What The Hell Were You Thinking?

If your marketing plan was to get your face on every late night comedy show, you succeeded.

Repeal tax cuts for rich

2010-11-08T12:15:00.000-06:00

Republicans want to extend all the Bush tax cuts, including the tax cuts for people making over $250,000. This would be $250,000 of taxable income, after deductions, etc.

Their argument is that many of the people affected are small business owners and the extra tax burden would cause them not to grow their businesses.

Let's think about this.

First of all the, these high income people would still get the tax cut on the first $250,000 of their income. Assuming that the current tax rates on income under $250,000 are extended, the higher rate after January 1 would only be on any income over $250,000.

So if I understand the rates correctly, the rate for income over $250,000 will change on January 1, 2011 from 35% to 39.6%.

Let's say you are a small business owner, have $250,000 of taxable income and starting 01/01/2011 you have the opportunity to grow your business and raise your income from $250,000 to $350,000. At the end of the 2011, your tax bill will be $4,600 greater if the Bush tax cuts for the rich are not extended. The federal tax on that $100,000 would be $35,000 if the tax cuts are extended and $39,600 if they are not.

So Republicans think this business person would not grow their business by $100,000 and increase their after tax income by roughly $60,000 because they would have to pay an extra $4,600 a year in federal taxes. That doesn't make sense.

I know that $39,600 in taxes on $100,000 sounds like a lot, but these rates would be the rates that were in effect in 2000. Not exactly a bad year for business.

When the current lower tax rates were passed:
1) They were not paid for. These tax cuts were paid for by increasing the debt. The Chinese and others loaned us the money to cover the increased debt these tax cuts caused. Everybody got a tax cut that would have to be paid for by tax payers in the future when that debt (plus interest) was paid off.

2) The tax cuts were not made permanent when they were initially passed as part of a political ploy. The tax cuts were designed to expire in 2011 because they were so damaging to the debt. Republics used a gimmick based on how the actual cost of the cuts were calculated and reported at that time. Politicians made the total effect of these tax cuts look lower than they would actually be by making them expire in 2011 rather than making them permanent. Secretly they figured politicians in 2010 would be politically forced to extend them.

We can debate whether or not a tax rate of 39.6% on adjusted income over $250,000 is reasonable or excessive, but to argue that this change would hurt job creation is Elephant Shit.

This will be a fight. We need to balance the budget and not extending the tax cuts for income over $250,000 can help us get there. Democrats need to clearly explain why it makes sense that we do not extend the tax cuts for the rich.

Constitutional Scholar

2010-11-07T12:07:00.012-06:00

Constitutional Scholar.

Click on comic strip to enlarge.

Are Republics Principled Or Just Political?

2010-11-06T11:40:00.001-05:00

Senator McConnell has announced that one of the highest priorities of Republics is to repeal health care. I thought the number one priority was jobs. I guess I just haven't been listening over the last few months.

I've heard several Republics say that they favor complete repeal of the new health care law and then they would pass a series of common sense measures to replace it.

Bull. If they are really interested in making health care better, let's demand that they explain what they are going to replace the new health care law with before they try to repeal the current law.

Everyone agreed that we needed to reform health care. Well, almost everyone. Democrats finally got an imperfect bill passed. We all agree that the current health care law was not the best we can do. We knew this sausage would need some fixing. If Republicans have better ideas, I want to hear them. I really believe they have some ideas that would help. I just want to hear these ideas debated before they try to repeal the whole bill.

What we have is not perfect, but it is better than nothing. It is a starting point that we can modify and build on.

But just in case the Republicans have some ideas they have never told us about, let's hear what they propose to replace the current health bill with. Then we can decide if we agree before we throw out the current bill. Is that unreasonable?

This is a test for Republics. They will soon have control of the House. Republics in the House can propose and vote on any legislation they want.

If Republicans in the House and Senate show us their proposed legislation to reform health care before or when they propose legislation to repeal the Democrats health care plan, I will admit they are acting on their principles.

If Republicans propose legislation to repeal the Democrats health care plan without showing us legislation for how they will reform health care, their actions can rightly be labelled as purely political. This would prove they are more interested in scoring political points than helping people.

So we lost. Stay the course.

2010-11-04T18:50:00.003-05:00

The voters have spoken. They've made it clear they are angry and are more interested in punishing someone rather than understanding the issues.

The president inherited the worst economy in decades and voters blame him and Democrats for not fixing it in 2 years. Do they really believe if it were at all in the president's power or Democrat's power to turn the economy around they wouldn't have done it? Instead, voters decided to give control back to the party that led us into this mess. Remember, Republicans and the Tea Party only got serious about budget deficits when it became a good way to attack the president.

Back in the early days of the last presidential campaign, before the economy tanked, I had a letter published in the local paper explaining to Senator McCain that you can't really cut taxes when you are running a deficit as he promised to do if elected. You can't really cut taxes when you are running a deficit, you are just deferring payment until some time in the future. Your tax reduction plus interest will be paid by someone later. Where were the Tea Partiers back then?

Were voters watching while the Republicans did everything to block the president for the last 2 years? Where were all the great ideas from Republicans to turn the economy around? Republicans didn't have any ideas or at least not any they would make public. By the way, if they had or have any great ideas, why didn't they offer them when they did have power in the first six years of the Bush administration?

Republicans have had no incentive to help make the economy better. If they had worked with Democrat's the past two years to make the economy better and they were successful, would Republicans have made such large gains in this week's election? Not likely.

Republicans have no incentive to help make the economy better over the next two years. They rightly believe that if the economy stays bad for the next two years, President Obama will be a one term president. Pay attention over the next two years. Are Republicans trying to help or just stalling for two more years?

The Republicans goals for the past two years have been to make things look as bad as they could and they lied whenever they needed. Remember death panels? A total lie. And either Republicans knew it was a lie or they are just stupid. Would you really vote for someone that stupid?

Republicans railed against the bail out of banks, automobile companies and the stimulus bill. A large number of voters believed the bail out was Obama's. Of course the bailout was passed under President Bush. People are crying about losing jobs, especially good paying manufacturing jobs. How much worse would the economy be if we had lost the automobile industry? Republicans act like helping the automobile companies was complete folly. Why?

All we hear from Republicans is how worthless the stimulus bill was. Of course economist tell a different story. And most people are unaware that many Republicans actively worked to get stimulus money to their states or districts. They never said it out loud, but there is a paper trail of letters they wrote asking for money and saying how many jobs that money would generate. We are not talking about a few Republicans. We are talking about dozens and dozens. The list is very long. The stimulus bill generated or saved millions of jobs. Republicans have been lying about it for political gain.

Republicans brag that they stopped “cap and trade”. Of course, many of these Republicans were for cap and trade until it became politically advantageous to be against it. We need to address global warming. It is real. The Department of Defense identified global warming as a national security threat years ago.

The Republican goal for the next two years will be to look like they are doing something, but hoping Democrat's will block them so they can get even more power in 2012. Be are smart voter. Pay attention. Whenever either party obstructs or is uncooperative, are they doing it for principle or political gain? Voters want jobs. Let us see who is working to make jobs and help the economy and who is not.

Republicans are saying the the President and Democrats need to heed the election results and cave into all Republican ideas. Do you remember the Republicans acknowledging the election the President and Democrat's won in 2008? Did they cooperate with the new president even a little? Not hardly. Hell, many of them still won't admit he is the president.

President Obama is too smart to think that Republicans will do anything that will make him look better. It is not in their self interests.

Republicans act like the entire country is behind them. But there are millions of people who want the president to stand up for his and our principles. We should stay true to our beliefs. If we lose again in 2012 so be it. I would rather lose defending my principles than lose trying to work with a party that has no incentive to cooperate.

Rotten Apple

2010-08-30T18:36:00.000-05:00

The salty old man who lives next door and I were talking about a kid down the street who had been causing problems in the neighborhood.

The old guy commented that, knowing what a jerk the kid's dad was, it wouldn't do any good to talk to him.

I wisely noted that "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree."

To which my neighbor replied "or a turd from an asshole."

New York City Mosque II

2010-08-28T17:46:00.005-05:00

The debate about building an Islamic center in New York City close to ground zero is really very simple.

You either accept the concepts embodied in the First Amendment or you don't.

The driving force that caused those guys to fly planes into the WTC was intolerance. We are better than that. Or at least we should strive to be.

You don't honor the people killed by intolerance and hatred by being intolerant.

New York City Mosque

2010-08-28T17:40:00.000-05:00

Too many people want to memorialize any tragic death. If a drunk driver kills someone, should we ban bars and alcohol within a 1/4 mile of the site?

Incentivize Good Behaviour

2010-07-24T20:07:00.006-05:00

Unemployment benefits were extended this week when Democrats finally got enough votes to overcome Republican objections. The Republican's primary objection was that the roughly 30 billion dollars the extension would cost was not paid for. It would just be added to the debt. While that objection is factually correct, I believe their objections were actually based on political rather than balance sheet calculations.

I was particularly intrigued by another objection from some Republicans that extending unemployment benefits actually did more harm than good. They reasoned that many people were unemployed because it was easier and better to just stay home and collect the unemployment benefits. Cutting off the benefits would give these lazy people an incentive to get off the couch and get a job.

As I've said before, Republicans like simple ideas. Remember "Drill, Baby, Drill"? How about "Benefits Enable Indolence" or "Incentivize Work, Not Laziness"? No, too many syllables.

After I thought about this a while I decided maybe they were on to something. Some people probably do prefer unemployment benefits over a pay check.

The economy is still very sluggish. I've heard it said many times that the engine of growth is small business and they are just not creating many new jobs. Only when small business is creating jobs will unemployment come down and the economy really pick up. How do we incentivize small businesses to create new jobs?

Then the other day I heard a pundit say that we need to extend the Bush tax cuts to the very rich because many small business people are in this rich group and we don't want to hurt them. That's when the light bulb went off.

Small business is not creating new jobs because they have gotten lazy. They did very well under the Bush administration. If we don't extend their tax cuts, their income will go down. Just like the lazy unemployed, this decrease in income may be just what small business needs to get them off the couch and incentivize them to start growing their businesses. Small businesses that grow will recoup their lost income and create jobs for the few unemployed who prefer pay checks over unemployment checks. That in turn will fire up the economy.

I'm looking forward to seeing some Republican support for incentivizing small business growth by not extending the Bush tax cuts to the richest Americans. Finally something we can agree on.

Then again, maybe not. If Republicans and I are right and all we need are the right incentives for small businesses, then the economy will fire up and unemployment will go down. With the economy under control, President Obama and Democrats are more likely to get elected. Republicans are not going to like that.

So now we need to figure out an incentive for Republicans to help grow this economy.

Ethnic Profiling vs Comprehensive Reform

2010-07-24T17:31:00.007-05:00

Opponents of Arizona's new immigration law (SB1070) say it could lead to racial or ethnic profiling. Supporters say that is nonsense since the law specifically prohibits this.

The law requires that police check the immigration status of people they believe may be in this country illegally, but only during a lawful stop, detention or arrest. Supporters insist that since police can only check immigration status once a person is being questioned for some other offense, there can be no racial or ethnic profiling.

Forty years ago a friend and I were driving across Kansas (or maybe it was Colorado) on our way to the Rockies in my friend's brand new Camaro. In the middle of nowhere about 11PM at night we were pulled over. The officer said our head lights were not properly aimed. The officer asked for my friend's driver's license and the car registration, which we had trouble finding. We were both college students and my friend's mom had just bought the car for him. It was clear we were not going anywhere without showing the registration, which we eventually found buried in the glove compartment.

We were sent on our way after promising to have the head lights checked. Many miles down the road we found a gas station and borrowed some screw drivers to aim the head lights. I'd done this before. We pulled the car up to a wall at the gas station to adjust them. The car was brand new. There was nothing wrong with the lights.

Naive me. It was sometime later that it dawned on me that we were pulled over for some other reason. There was nothing wrong with our headlights. I have no idea why we were pulled over. It wasn't racial profiling, we were both white kids and it was at night. The point is that when the police want to pull you over, they can. This is not a knock against the police. But, when someone tells you that this law can't lead to racial or ethnic profiling because the police must have some other reason for questioning you, you can bet you are not talking to a minority.

I do not object to checking immigration status out of sympathy for illegal immigrants. I object for the people who are here legally, especially citizens, that will be harassed and inconvenienced if this law is implemented the way it seems to be written.

My understanding is that the law allows citizens to challenge police if the citizen believes the police are not checking immigration status when they should. This is a just a way pressure police to make this a priority. It is clear that Arizona legislators are afraid police may not work hard enough to enforce this law. This pressure to identify illegal immigrants may also lead to to profiling.

I would wager that more people are killed by speeding drivers in Arizona than by illegal immigrants. Why not empower citizens to challenge police whenever they seem to ignore someone driving over the speed limit? The answer is that Arizona wants to harass illegal immigrants and they don't really care if legal immigrants or citizens are caught in the middle.

If Arizona is serious about finding illegal immigrants, they should call for a national ID and require everyone to carry their ID at all times. Or better yet, why doesn't the entire Arizona Congressional delegation stand up and call for comprehensive immigration reform?

The answer from Republicans is that the border must be sealed first. We've been talking about sealing the border for years. During both Republican and Democratic administrations. It is not easy to seal the border. It isn't going to happen any time soon, if ever. If there are enough incentives for people to be in this country illegally, they will find a way to get here.

Part of the purpose of comprehensive immigration reform is to decrease the incentives for coming here illegally. We have been trying to seal the borders for years with limited success. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have put money and people into border security. Why not continue to work on the borders at the same time we work to reduce the incentives? Why not work on comprehensive immigration reform now?

Start Preparing For The Worst

2010-06-24T18:40:00.011-05:00

We know that we have not been hearing full, honest descriptions of the oil spill in the Gulf or about possible worst case scenarios.

When the drilling rig first collapsed, I wondered why BP didn't send down a big crimper and crush the pipe that was leaking most of the oil. My understanding is that this was at least one of the ways the failed blow out protector was supposed to stop the leak.

It took many weeks, but I finally heard an expert raise this same solution and then explain that the underwater infrastructure might be too fragile. BP may have known or suspected that the blowout protector was so badly damaged by the collapse of the drilling rig that it might not be able to handle the pressure that would build up if the oil escaping from the well were shut off.

Now we hear that the blowout protector is leaning to one side by 10 to 12 degrees. There is some thought that the pipes below the blow out protector are disintegrating from the wear and tear of the last two months. If there is no longer a pipe coming out of the sea floor it will be much harder to collect the oil coming out.

The latest doomsday scenario is that the oil coming up is under so much pressure that the bottom shot, pumping drilling mud and/or cement might not be able to stop the flow. The estimate I heard is that there is only a 1% chance that the bottom kill won't work.

That is the worst case scenario. We can't stop the leak. Oil will be coming out of the ocean floor for years.

Any possibility that the bottom kill won't work means we should be working on other solutions right now.

Could we drill 50 wells into this same area and extract enough oil to lower the pressure and allow a plug in the pipe to hold? Can we drill 50 wells quickly without another disaster?

How about a cap that is three hundred feet by three hundred by three hundred feet feeding into four pipes, each 20 feet in diameter, to bring the oil to the surface where it is pumped into tankers? The sheer weight of this contraption would force the sides deep into the ocean floor helping to keep out sea water that clogs pipes.

Can we pump oxygen down and burn some of the natural gas as it emerges from the well? Maybe the heat would help warm the water and help get the oil to the surface without forming ice crystals.

I know these sound outlandish, but someone should be working on several different solutions now rather than waiting until October to decided we need a plan F.

Hell No We Won't

2010-04-02T20:09:00.003-05:00

The Democrats and Republicans have each chosen the slogans they will use to guide their campaigns this fall. It is

"Yes We Can!" versus "Hell No!".

Health Care Hyperbole vs Voting

2010-03-25T17:48:00.005-05:00

I’ve been reading and hearing a lot of comments from people who believe that Washington is not listening to the American people. I’ve heard a lot of complaints about a rushed process that didn’t allow people to see the details of the complicated health care proposals, 2,700 pages, back room deals, secret negotiations, trashing of rules and the Constitution.

I’ve been listening to these complaints daily for months. Months! So where was the rush?

I couldn’t tell you how many hours I’ve spent listening to or reading about ideas and comments from both sides of the health care discussion. I think I understand the major parts of this bill. I believe people who don't understand the basics of this bill have no one to blame but themselves. I listened and read a lot so I could understand the issues and arguments. Isn't that what you are supposed to do? Too many people are lazy and want someone else to do their thinking.

I suspect I understand health care reform at least as well as I understand my credit card agreements, my car insurance, the privacy statement from my bank, my health insurance policy, the 30 pages of documents I signed for my home loan or any other number of complicated documents we have to deal with. This is a complicated world. I’m sure I understand the health care bill better than those agreements I am constantly being forced to accept when I use my computer.

Back room deals. Secret negotiations. I think I’ve heard about all of them. I agree the “Cornhusker Kickback” was disgusting, but we all know that. What was secret about it? If it hadn’t been removed in the reconciliation bill, a simple bill next week could remove it. Why didn’t Republicans just write a bill to do that and then dare Democrats not to vote for it? (Answer: That solution is too reasonable. It is not inflammatory enough.)

Health care was passed by a majority in the House and a super majority in the Senate. Democrats correctly used the rules of the Congress to pass the bill. Democrats correctly used the reconciliation rules to make some changes to the health care bill that had just been passed. No rules were trashed.

There may be a debate about whether parts of the bill are unconstitutional. OK, if that is what you think, we have a way to deal with this. The courts.

As to Washington not listening to American, well I’m an American. I and millions of other Americans believe Washington has been listening. Now was the time to start making health care available to all Americans and to start the process to bring some rationality to how health care is provided. The bill that passed is not perfect and not what I would have liked to have, but it is a start. We now need to work to make it better.

I heard a woman on NPR yesterday complaining about the health care bill. She seemed very reasonable until she admitted that she was glad that at least conservatives had the Second Amendment and their guns since they might be needed. I wished someone had asked her how her guns would help resolve her concerns about the health care law.

One thing I know. If you believe that Washington is not listening to you, there is a way to make sure they get the message – vote. Leave the rifle over the fireplace.

My Bad

2010-03-25T17:45:00.003-05:00

In a previous blog, after Scott Brown was elected in Massachusetts, I suggested President Obama should scale back his plans for health care reform. I want to assure readers, that was the only bad advice I’ve ever given anyone.

Advice For President Obama

2010-01-24T09:41:00.012-06:00

Peggy Noonan, a columnist for the Wall Street Journal and a speech writer for President Reagan, was on Meet The Press this morning. She believes that the reason Scott Brown won last week was the distrust voters have of all institutions, especially government.

That is certainly a symptom of the problem. But why are people so upset with government?

I think there are several reasons.

It is easier to destroy than to build. It is easier criticize than create. It is easier to divide people than to unite them. In the current political environment it is easier and safer to oppose than to compromise. And it is politically safer and more effective to offer specious criticism than to propose alternatives.

People don't get mad and motivated by something they are satisfied with, unless someone threatens to take it away. So the best political strategy is to get voters mad and motivated. Republicans are historically better at this than Democrats.

In general, people have short memories. What have you done for me today?

People crave simplicity.

People want government to leave them alone until they need something. Then they want government to fix it now.

For all these reasons, it is politically expedient to blame the government for all problems.

Thomas O'Neill, Sr., famously said "All politics is local." Today it is "All politics is personal." People are apprehensive about the economy and deficit spending and will punish politicians who do not vigorously share their concerns and their solutions. Except for the people who think abortion is the most important issue. Except for the people who think guns are the most important issue. Except for the people who think Iraq, Afghanistan, health care, terrorism or (fill in the blank) is the most important issue. And more importantly, what good is government if it can't fix it now.

The primary goal of most politicians is to get re-elected or, better yet, get elected to a more powerful position. So politicians, like Ben Nelson of Nebraska, believe it is in their interests to use the power of their offices to buy the support of voters and/or donors. Such abuse of the political system properly disgusts voters. Instead of venting their anger on the offending politician, it is often redirected to a political party, Congress in general, the president or all of the above.

Polls show that people think we are still going in the wrong direction and they blame Democrats and President Obama for not fixing it. Fair enough, they are in office, but it took years to generate the problems that confronted President Obama last year. Why do we expect him to fix them all in a year?

I have some suggestions for President Obama. Learn a lesson from your predecessor. Decide what you think is important and go for it. To hell with what voters think. Show that you have ideas and principles that you will fight for.

Pick a few issues. Pare the concepts down to bumper stickers and work to implement them. No foreign oil. Pre-existing shouldn't mean uninsured. The American economy should make jobs for many not billions for a few. A job for everyone who is willing to work (twenty years ago that would have probably gotten you labelled as a communist, but it may work now).

Global warming and true health care reform are too complicated for voters. Do what you can to move the country forward. Make it better than what you found, but take your own advice and don't make the perfect the enemy of the possible. Only when health care and climate change are true disasters will people really understand and you'll probably be out of office by then.

If that is too cynical, try this. Work to make government more responsive, competent and effective by doing a few important things well and soon. Stay away from any issue that might force voters to think. Restore trust in government. Win in 2012 and use that mandate to do a few big things in your next four years.

Free Speech. Not Priceless.

2010-01-21T19:37:00.009-06:00

I was astounded when courts interpreted the Second Amendment while consciously ignoring the reference in the amendment to militias.

I was appalled when Congress passed a law that destroyed habeas corpus.

Now I'm speechless.

Today the Supreme Court some how decide that corporations, that previously had at least some of the same rights as an individual, actually have the constitutionally protected right to free speech.

And when I say I'm speechless, I'm actually speaking for all of us. We are all speechless. Our individual speech will now be drowned out by unlimited speech from corporations.

Politicians generally do not vote their consciences. They vote to please their constituents and their donors. Now corporate donors are no longer limited in the amount they can funnel to a candidate. Sure, we still have to vote, but the political discussion and process can be bought with huge sums of money. That happens all too much today. Starting tomorrow there are no limits on how much a corporation can spend to buy an election. No politician will be able to get elected without lining up huge sums of money from corporations. They will be bought and you and I are too poor to play in this game.

Corporations are not individuals, even though they may have been granted some of the same rights. They are not citizens. They can't be drafted. They can't serve on a jury. They can't vote. They can't marry (think about that). Or can they? Once they can buy elections, there is no limit to what powers they can give themselves. Their power will only be constrained by other large corporations.

We have been trying for decades to prevent individuals or large groups from buying elections and politicians. That is all gone.

You can imagine dire consequences of this ruling. Maybe we are making too much of this. But if we are correct and this is as bad as we think, once the tipping point is reached and corporations really control Congress, we won't be able to change it back.

I think the solution may be to change the law to make it clear that corporations are not people.

Pop-Top Health Care

2009-11-08T11:08:00.009-06:00

Health care reform took another step forward last night with the passage of a bill in the House.

I don't know if we will ever get a bill or if it will cost a lot of money or if it will accomplish what I hope needs to be done. I hope it passes, but I don't have a lot of hope. If a bill passes and becomes law, flawed as it will be, at least we will have a framework which future generations can build on. Assuming they have more guts and foresight than current and previous generations.

Personally, I believe a single payer, government run system would be better, but we are not good at legislating big, contentious issues like health care. Isn't that a good reason for government to stay out of health care? Yes, except everyday we live with evidence that the alternative is worse.

I try to listen to lots of different ideas so I was interested in listening to stories about health care systems in other countries. Contrary to what you often hear, I think most people in these countries are satisfied with their health care systems. I heard about one country on NPR (National Public Radio, if you don't listen to it, you should) where you can call and talk to health care professionals day or night, and if your condition warrants it and you can't come in, they will send a doctor to make a house call. Amazing.

In the U.S., I believe we pay about twice as much per person for health care as other countries with government sponsored health care. We do benefit from some of the best health care in the world, if you can afford it.

But two other anecdotes really bother me.

I believe it was the man in charge of health care in Great Britain who said that no one in his country ever goes bankrupt trying to pay for health care. In the U.S., health care bills are the number one cause of personal bankruptcy. He also pointed out the people in Great Britain never have to worry about losing their health care because they lose their job.

In my office we have containers to recycle soda cans. Someone recently added old gallon milk jugs and asked people to tear off the pop-top tabs and put them in the jug to help pay the medical bills for a very ill two year old girl. I heard an official from a foreign country comment on NPR that they were taken aback the first time they saw such an appeal in the U.S.. He was shocked that a parent in the United States of America had to resort to begging to get money to pay for health care for their seriously ill child. That was unheard of in his country.

Think about, some parents in the United States have to beg for health care for their sick children!

The news this morning talked about a few Democratic members of Congress who threatened to stop the health care reform bill unless harsh anti-abortion language was added to the bill. The language was added to gain their votes. Abortion is a serious ethical issue and I understand that people can have strong beliefs on both sides of the issue, but this move really bothers me. Supporters of a woman's choice could take the same stand and refuse to vote for the bill unless the abortion restrictions are removed (the Hyde Amendment would still apply).

I have a question for people who think the current health care system is fine or would rather not have reform if they can't have their personal needs satisfied.

What do you think when you pass the milk jug begging for help for a sick child?

Obama Administration Uses Torture!

2009-09-18T18:41:00.010-05:00

Breaking news. Terrorist suspect Najibullah Zazi has admitted ties to al-Quida and attending a terrorist training school in Pakistan.

But that isn't the real news.

The real news is that the Obama administration has taken former Vice-President Cheney's advice and used torture!

They haven't admitted they used torture, yet. But we know that real important information can only be forced from terrorists with torture. Therefore, the Obama administration must have tortured Najibullah Zazi.

Darn, I expected better from President Obama.

You Lie!

2009-09-13T10:55:00.008-05:00

A few weeks ago I heard a TV commentator advise that Democrats needed to learn from Republicans how to speak in "bumper stickers". This is the common wisdom that by labeling an issue, you control it.

Drill, Baby, Drill!

No New Taxes!

Life Begins At Conception!

Death Panels!

Secede!

Of course, this is a lot easier for Republicans. They think and communicate via bumper stickers. "Nuance" is an epithet that Republicans use to denigrate Democrats. Institutes of higher education are always "bastions of liberalism". The mainstream media always has a "liberal bias" (as compared to?). Climate change is a fraud. President Obama isn't a citizen. Evolution is just a theory. Medicare is not a government run health plan. Do you see a pattern here?

During the Bush administration, more than once I complained to conservative friends that I objected to being called unpatriotic or worse if I questioned administration policies. My conservative friends countered that they objected to being considered stupid. That is fair enough until you listen to them explain their positions. Bumper stickers may be a simple way to summarize your position, but they don't form the basis for a discussion and they do nothing to convince anyone you know what you are talking about.

Joe Wilson has apologized for his "You Lie!" outburst. I listened to him today on Fox News Sunday. He did not apologize for calling the president a liar. A lie is conscious effort to not tell the truth. So he really believes the president intentionally meant to lie to Congress and the American people. He never once explained why he thought the president would presumably want to give insurance coverage to all illegal immigrants. That would require too much explanation. Way too much for a bumper sticker.

What bothers me most about Representative Wilson's outburst is that it only feeds the outrage in people who who much prefer a bumper sticker rather than a discussion and continues to distort the debate.

I'm sure there are already cars with "You Lie!" bumper stickers.

I'd like to ask Representative Wilson why he didn't yell "That's Not True!" or "You Are Wrong!"? Too many syllables?

Let's Hear It For A Wise Latina Woman

2009-07-12T18:28:00.006-05:00

Tomorrow, confirmation hearings will begin in the Senate for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor.

Republics will make a show, just to show they can.

This morning on Fox News Sunday, Texas Senator John Cornyn questioned Judge Sotomayor's qualifications to be on the Supreme Court partly because of her often quoted comment "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Senator Cornyn strongly believes justice should be blind.

Supreme Court rulings are seldom nine to nothing. What accounts for this difference of opinion? Justices hear the same facts and come to different conclusions, often based on predictable ideological lines. Maybe some of the differences come from life experiences.

Also, there are eight men and one woman currently on the Supreme Court. There have only been two women Supreme Court Justices in our nation's history. This in a country that has about the same number of women citizens as men (actually, today women are in the majority). Those facts would suggest that, historically, male presidents and predominantly male Senates have decided that a man's legal opinion is better than a woman's.

So Senator Cornyn's opinion that the legal system should be blind to characteristics such as gender and race is noble, but these ideals don't seem to apply to the executive and legislative branches when it comes to judicial appointments.

Simple Universal Health Care Plan

2009-07-05T14:30:00.007-05:00

Universal health care will involve rationing, but as I explained in a previous blog, our current health care system already has rationing. In fact, health care will always involve rationing because in an advanced technological society, the cost of unlimited, advanced health care options for everyone will always exceed our ability to afford them.

I have a proposal. When a person is born, they are given a health care fund. For this discussion, let us say it is one million dollars. They can use this money for all their non-elective health care needs. Preventive care, medicine, surgeries, mental health, dental, etc. All these costs would be deducted from the balance of their account. When the money runs out, their access to further health care is ended, although they can continue to receive hospice care until they die.

In addition, starting at age 21, the balance in their account goes down every year on their birthday. On each birthday starting at age 21, the balance in their fund goes go down by 15,000 dollars.

Ideally, this would be the entire system, but we could add incentives as long as they are objective and consistently applied. For example, once a year you could take a fitness test. Those who don't smoke, keep their weight down, exercised and could pass the test, would have their balance reduced considerably less than the standard 15,000 dollars. I know this doesn't seem fair to people with unpreventable conditions, but life is not fair. But people who actively work to keep themselves healthy may decrease overall health care costs, freeing money to increase the lifetime allowance or decrease the annual reduction. This would benefit people who can't qualify for a fitness allowance reduction.

People would be able to buy supplemental insurance, but the premium would greatly exceed the cost to provide this benefit. The additional money would be used to help pay for the system and thus make insurance available to everyone.

Universal Health Care and Rationing

2009-06-28T11:27:00.006-05:00

In the current debate over a national health care system, we have heard a lot about how this will lead to rationing. The truth is that we have a lot of health care rationing under the current system.

Anyone who isn't rich or have a job with health care benefits suffers from rationing.

Elective surgeries, experimental procedures and procedures that are considered to be ineffective are usually not covered by health insurance. This is certainly rationing and who determines what is covered? The health insurance company. Or in some cases, your employer, who opts for a less expensive plan.

If you are not covered by health insurance at work and you have the money and you haven't already been diagnosed with a serious condition, you can sign up for any number of insurance plans. Every plan has limits (rationing) and you pay more for less rationing. For example, many of the lower cost options for women do not have any maternity benefits.

Rationing is often used as another term for "cost control".

Another complaint against universal health care is that people don't want to pay for other people's health care. They accept the shared costs of insurance, but object to paying for people who don't contribute any thing to the cost of the insurance. I believe these people think it is a matter of fairness.

But, of course, people without health insurance go to the emergency room and the cost of that care is passed along to people who use health care and can pay.

But even for many people with insurance, the costs are not shared fairly. Every employer plan I've been in charges different fees to the employee depending on how many people are covered. Covering just the employee costs the employee a lot less than covering the employee and a spouse. A family plan costs the employee even more except a family plan is the same cost whether the family has one child or ten. How is that fair?

Life's not fair, so why should paying for health care be fair? Health care costs must be controlled and that will inevitably lead to what some people will call rationing.

So lets have a discussion of the best way to create a health care system that is "fair" and affordable. "Rationing" will be one of the tools we use to achieve this.

Torture Proof

2009-04-26T17:23:00.000-05:00

Several conservative pundits have stated that water boarding is not really torture. Well if water boarding (and other questionable techniques the Bush Administration approved) are not really torture, why were they effective at getting information?

You’ve captured a terrorist and believe he has information about an attack that could kill hundreds, thousands or millions of people (the Jack Bauer scenario). What would convince this terrorist to tell you what you want to know? Threat of a wedgie? A water balloon fight? No, according to the Bush Administration, the only thing that would work is some sort of coercion that would force a person to talk. You might need water boarding, thumb screws, nail pulling, the rack or something equally painful.

But wait, if water boarding is not really torture, why would anyone tell you something they otherwise wouldn’t just because of water boarding?

So the proof that water boarding is torture are the very claims by Bush Administration officials that it was effective

Why Not Really Torture?

2009-04-26T16:52:00.001-05:00

I’m also bothered and confused by the “the ends justify the means” defense of "enhanced interrogation techniques" being espoused by Bush Administration defenders. How did the Bush Administration decide where to draw the line of acceptable versus unacceptable techniques? If they were really worried about the safety of U.S. citizens and convinced that torture, excuse me, "enhanced interrogation techniques" were required, why weren't they willing to authorize techniques more severe than water boarding?

The line had been drawn for decades with the Geneva Conventions and U.S. law. The Bush Administration thought these rules were inadequate to the threat we faced. They decided they needed to move that line, but they only moved it a little.

I'm missing something.

Who Deserves Jail Time?

2009-04-26T16:08:00.005-05:00

There are many things that bother me about the Bush Administration torture policies.

The Administration didn’t have the balls to admit what they were doing when they were initially caught. They let U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib go to jail for using techniques that somehow just happened to be many of the same techniques that Bush Administration lawyers had approved in written memos. If soldiers can do jail time for using these techniques, it sure seems logical that people up the chain of command can go to jail for authorizing them.

Ugly Alert!

2009-04-26T15:55:00.004-05:00

There is one thing sure about the current controversy over U.S. torture policies under the Bush Administration; it is going to get ugly.

We’ve heard accusations that President Obama has lost control of the torture issue. Of course, he never had control. Too much was already known. He could have tried to prevent release of the torture memos, but the courts would have eventually forced their disclosures and then President Obama would have been accused of being complicit.

Former Vice-President Cheney has not helped. Well maybe he has helped…, helped himself and fellow former administration members. He has positioned himself and them to be vindicated should another attack occur (after 9/11/2009, that is).

Their argument is that the Bush policies kept us safe after 9/11 and that fact justifies whatever they did. Of course, as I’ve previously written (Who Has The Best Record?), Bill Clinton kept us safe after the first World Trade Center attack in 1993 and I haven’t heard anyone claim he authorized terrorism (although there may have been renditions). And we have at least one documented case (the planned bombing of the LA airport in 2000) where they thwarted a terrorist attack.

I don’t think we know why the terrorists attacked when they did and why we haven’t been attacked since 9/11. But if water boarding 3 terrorists is the reason we haven’t been attacked in the U.S. since 9/11, we are in trouble. I haven’t heard about any recent high level terrorists we’ve apprehended who we could torture to prevent the next attack.

Nuts and Dolts of the Republican Party

2009-02-26T18:21:00.004-06:00

Did I just hear Republican strategist Todd Harris on Hardball call CPAC the "nuts and dolts of the Republican Party"?

HA!

Republics Got Deficit Religion

2009-02-26T17:54:00.008-06:00

Senator Judd Gregg was on NPR today complaining about deficit spending by President Obama. He was outraged that Democrats were heaping debt on our kids and grand kids.

This is standard Republic talk. I was appalled by the deficits run up under President Bush. Why weren't Republics concerned then? Suddenly they've gotten deficit religion.

Sorry guys, you missed your chance. If President Obama currently had the financial situation that George W. Bush had when he became president, I'd be on you side.

As it is, we are in a massive hole that in large part was created by President Bush and the Republics.

I suggest Republics wait for 8 years. We can then see how well President Obama did with the economy he inherited compared to what President Bush did with the economy he inherited.

Until then, Republics, SHUT UP!

Foreclosures: We Needed More Lawyers?

2009-02-22T12:42:00.006-06:00

This past week, I heard a talking empty head (i.e. television analyst) complaining about President Obama's mortgage rescue plan bailing out people who faced foreclosure . He wanted to know why the rest of us should have to help people who made bad decisions. When the host said that some of these people were duped into taking these loans, the talking empty head was astounded. He couldn't understand. Didn't these people have their lawyers look over these loan contracts? This guy then asked the host something like, "Did you ever buy a piece of property where you didn't have your lawyer check everything?" The host said "No" when he should have told the guy he was an out-of-touch idiot.

It might be a better world if we all had lawyers who could look over our shoulders and check all our decisions. What do you think?

There Is Always A Silver Lining

2008-11-18T18:35:00.005-06:00

It is becoming clear why most Republics won't support a bailout for the Big 3 auto makers, they see a failed auto industry as a chance to bust the unions.

Margin Of Mischief - Again?

2008-11-03T20:22:00.009-06:00

It is election eve and there are concerns about what kind of difficulties voters will encounter tomorrow. We can hope there will be few, but the question is, why should there be any?

We cannot call ourselves a democracy if we cannot hold a fair and accurate election. Another election won by either candidate within the margin of mischief is unacceptable. In a landslide, a few uncounted or miscounted votes, while not acceptable, will not affect the outcome of the election. But in an election that is close, especially with our outdated electoral college, a fair and accurate count is essential.

In a democracy, holding fair and accurate elections must be the number one priority!

We accept the thought that people should pay their taxes, but they shouldn't have to pay one more penny than they are legally obligated. Said differently, do everything you can to minimize the amount you must legally pay, but if you can cheat and not get caught - go for it. Our current system treats elections much the same way. If you can manipulate an election to you or your party's favor, go for it. It doesn't matter if what you are doing is essentially preventing a qualified voter from voting or tricking them into voting the way you want them to vote. As long as you don't get caught - go for it.

I suggest that for presidential elections, the ballot be limited to federal offices, president/vice-president and Congress. Why should there be long lines because of long ballots? Why should elections be swayed by contentious ballot issues whose main purpose may be to affect presidential voting? Democracy is worth the cost and inconvenience of having another election for these other issues on a different day.

While I'm not in favor of the federal government running the national election. I would be in favor of a non-partisan group establishing requirements that states would have to meet. Our current system allows local and state politicians to game the system to their party's advantage.

I hope this election is not won within the margin of mischief, but I can't understand why, eight years after we saw what problems incompetent and/or malicious election officials can cause, we are still facing a national election with worries about whether or not it will be fair and accurate.

The Dark Side

2008-10-22T19:40:00.001-05:00

Jane Mayer's book "The Dark Side" was more disturbing than Woodward's book. I have to admit I started to read "Hubris" (by David Corn and Michael Isikoff) right after I finished "Cobra II" (by Michael Gordon and Gen. Bernard Trainor) and had to stop reading because I went into overload. The lies, deceptions and mismanagement were just too much. I was getting sick. So I waited a few month's before tackling Jane Mayer's book. Even with the pause to calm my anger, several times while reading this book I had to pause again for fear I would soon jump up and start screaming. At other points I just became very sad for the things that were done in our name.

Much of the story about torture and the attack on civil liberties had already been documented in the press., but I was struck by several points.

It is clear that the emotion driving the White House after 9/11 was not fear, but panic. The basic policy mandate was not analyze, but act. The extent to which panic overrode everything, even the Constitution, was amazing.

I was also struck by their total disregard for civil liberties, international law, the Constitution of the United States and in many cases, common decency, fairness and common sense. The guidance from the top, particularly the Vice-President, was that we are in a war for our existence and we should do anything and everything to counter this threat. One can understand this rational on 9/11, but that mind set prevailed for several years.

People who were identified as "bad" were no longer human. They no longer had any rights including the right to know what they were accused of or defend their innocence. While there were terrorists in the group of people that were tortured, there were also many innocent people who were tortured for extended periods. The fact that they were innocent didn't really seem to matter. It also sounds like there are still people, dead and possibly alive, that we do not know about. I think the torture program was much broader than I thought and there may still be people imprisoned, tortured and killed that we will never know about.

I was amazed at the lengths people would go to sanction and defend these terrible torture policies.

I was also amazed with how many people had no moral compass or whose compass always pointed up. When legal opinions were needed to justify torture, the question was not what does the law tell us, but how do we twist the law to justify what the people we report to want us to do. The extent of this legal and moral plasticity was at times breathtaking.

I was somewhat surprised, and a little ashamed at my surprise, at how many good people stood up to authority, resisted pressure and took personal risks to do what they thought was right. Much went wrong in the last few years, but even when this administration went to great lengths to surround itself with right thinking, compliant, sycophants, it managed to let in some people who were willing to take risks to do the right thing. There are heroes in this book.

I think it is important that people read Jane Mayer's book. The use of torture was more widespread than I had appreciated. But even more importantly, I came away with the strong feeling that freedom is tenuous and the threat is more internal than external. I can't seem to find the right words to explain how this book has affected me, but it did. Of all the terrible things that happened on 9/11 and since then, I wonder if the Bush descent to the "Dark Side" is the worst.

If you read this book, hang in there and read the entire book. It has a lot of details that get wrapped up into a hell by the end.

The War Within

2008-10-13T16:25:00.010-05:00

I recently finished two books, Bob Woodward's "The War Within" and Jane Mayer's "The Dark Side"

Woodward's book was interesting, but most of it was confirmation of information that I already knew. What was particularly interesting was the description of the organizational dysfunction that existed in the White House. I know that this is not unique to the Bush White House. I suppose that when you have that many smart, powerful, egotistical people in close proximity, squabbles and fights are to be expected. I did wonder how useful work or sound policy making was ever accomplished. I also wondered if a less ideological group could have worked together more effectively.

I was taken by President Bush's seeming serenity and resolution in the face of such obvious failures. Obvious even to him, although there were incidents that seemed to indicate he never knew or, at least would never admit to himself, the full extent of the problems. I still think his psychological defense is to refuse to acknowledge failures and "Stay the Course." I don't believe that the Surge was so much a new strategic direction as much as it was the only option available that let him continue on the same path and not have to challenge his basic beliefs or admit fundamental errors.

I'll discuss Jane Mayer's book in a later post.

Right Of What Center?

2008-10-11T10:13:00.007-05:00

While reading an article I came across another comment that the United States is a right of center country.

That may be, but a more accurate statement would be, "This is a right of center country on a political path that historically tacks to the left."

Another way to say this might be "The United States is a country that dislikes change, but can't resist its innate appetency to be better."

Let's Hear From Sarah

2008-09-25T19:26:00.008-05:00

Senator McCain again tries to manufacture political theater rather than address issues.

He is so absorbed in the current financial crisis that he has suspended his campaign (or so he says). And his leadership is so desperately needed to resolve this crisis that he really can't afford the time to fly to Mississippi to debate Senator Obama (but it took him about 5 days to find time to read Secretary Paulson's plan).

I suggest Senator Obama tell Senator McCain that he and Senator Biden will be in Mississippi tomorrow night, so if Senator McCain can't make it to the debate, Senator McCain could send Governor Palin so she and Senator Biden can debate. Senators McCain and Obama could then have their national security debate next Thursday when the Vice-presidential debate was scheduled.

Hunt And Peck Works

2008-09-25T18:52:00.000-05:00

Twice in the last few weeks (once on Fox) I heard outrage over comments from people who criticized Senator McCain for his lack of knowledge about "the email." The outraged response was something about how Senator McCain's war wounds prevented him from using a keyboard.

Aren't these comments demeaning of people with disabilities? We've all worked with people, or seen their stories on TV, whose disabilities are much worse than Senator McCain's. Many of them have made the effort to learn and utilize new technologies. I've been watching Senator McCain and it sure looks like he can use his arms and hands well enough to send an email.

Sending and receiving email may not be a good use of Senator McCain's time, but to blame his lack of knowledge about a basic technology that billions of people use on his war wounds is disingenuous.

You can you put a tutu on an elephant...

2008-09-10T18:44:00.008-05:00

This lipstick fiasco is just more of the same from Republics.

I suggest using the tactic against McCain.

Obama should use the same lead up attack in every speech, but every time change the ananolgy.

You can put mascara on a pig, but it is still a pig.

You can put tennis shoes on a turtle, but it still can't run.

You can put ketchup on baloney, but it's still baloney.

You can put a dress on lassie, but she is still a.........forget that one.

Pretty silly isn't it.

You can put a tutu on an elephant, but it is still the same old GOP.

Would you marry the President?

2008-09-06T15:10:00.006-05:00

It occurred to me while watching the conventions, that in the age of 24/7 news coverage, politics is like a soap opera. You might think it is more like a reality show, since they generally have winners and losers, but at the end of each season the reality show cast goes away.

Like a soap opera, politics has a long history. Plot lines can go on for years, even decades. Some characters hang around for years and some fade quickly. New faces are brought in when ratings sag.

While in this pensive mode I also decided that most people choose their president using the same logic and though processes that they use to pick a spouse. And with about the same results. I haven't given up on this election, but I do believe that whichever candidate wins it will have little to do with reality.

Grandpa and Ellie Mae in '08

2008-08-30T13:02:00.011-05:00

I don't know much about Sarah Palin, but then again who does? Probably not even John McCain. But what little I know takes my breath away.

The man who famously says he would rather lose a campaign than lose a war has chosen a neophyte to join his ticket. Wasn't Ann Coulter available? Was Angelina Jolie already under contract? Why not Phyllis Schafly? And there were would be the added benefit that it would make him look young!

For all his straight talk and claims that given his age and prior health issues he would choose someone who would be ready on day one, John McCain panicked. He went for the “Hail Sarah” in desperation. Is this an example of how he puts the country first?

Governor Palin has said she hasn’t focused much on Iraq. Here is her widely quoted statement from 2007:

Alaska Business Monthly: We've lost a lot of Alaska's military members to the war in Iraq. How do you feel about sending more troops into battle, as President Bush is suggesting?

Palin: I've been so focused on state government, I haven't really focused much on the war in Iraq. I heard on the news about the new deployments, and while I support our president, Condoleezza Rice and the administration, I want to know that we have an exit plan in place; I want assurances that we are doing all we can to keep our troops safe. Every life lost is such a tragedy. I am very, very proud of the troops we have in Alaska, those fighting overseas for our freedoms, and the families here who are making so many sacrifices.

Governor Palin has a son who will soon deploy to Iraq. Governor Palin is in charge of the Alaska National Guard. The Iraq War has been the major issue facing this country over the past five years. If she hasn’t put much thought into the Iraq war, what else hasn’t she thought much about? What business does she have being a heart beat away from the Presidency?

In August, 2008, when asked about being considered by McCain to be his Vice-President, she said,

But as for that VP talk all the time, I’ll tell you, I still can’t answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I’m used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we’re trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question. (Kudlow & Company)

Really!

It is bad enough that our current Vice-President doesn't believe he is part of the Executive Branch. John McCain chooses a person who wants to know how taking the job will help the people of Alaska.

Somebody wake me up! This nightmare has to end!

I’ve said several times that Republics and Democrats think differently, but there must be millions of Republics who are ashamed, dismayed and embarrassed but this obtuse selection. But then again, I’ve already heard from some die-hard Conservatives who can’t wait for the chance to vote for Grandpa and Ellie Mae.

Play Ball Or Stay Home

2008-08-21T20:06:00.006-05:00

No one reads this blog. That's not a complaint. But since no one reads this blog I feel safe telling Republics something it doesn't look like they've figured out.

Republics believe that the next president may get 2 or 3 picks for the Supreme Court and are salivating that McCain will appoint another Alito or Roberts or Scalia. Guess what folks? Unless there is some big turn around, the Democrats will gain seats in the Senate in November. Democrats should insist that any Supreme Court nominees are centrists. Maybe they should demand that if they approve one centrist jurist, the second nominee must lean to the left.

The Supreme Court may be making decisions with only 6 or 7 justices, probably on conservative majority court. I would rather see 4 years of conservative rulings than watch Democrats help a Republic president add 2 or 3 young conservative justices who will distort the Constitution for 20 or 30 years.

Democrats should keep this plan secret until, if McCain is the next president, a seat on the Supreme Court becomes open. At that point they should make it clear that while the President nominates, the Senate must approve. Play ball or stay home.

I don't believe it would be in the best interests of the country to have a Supreme Court made up of all liberal justices, but a court of all conservatives is frightening.

Democrat or Jackass

2008-08-21T18:27:00.008-05:00

Ralph Nader will forever be a pariah to many Democrats who believe he took votes from Al Gore and cost him the 2000 election.

Now we hear Hillary Clinton supporters whining that they are still so upset with the primary they might vote for McCain or at least not vote for Obama.

I find if hard to believe that many Hillary Clinton supporters would be comfortable with a McCain administration that would largely be a continuation of current Bush and Republic policies.

These people are clearly not Democrats, just jackasses who since they didn't win now threaten to take their votes and go home.

I expect that most of these people will come to their senses before November, but their support is needed now. Wake up people!

OPAWTY? SOS-Save Our Seas

2008-08-10T12:19:00.014-05:00

As I watch the TV news or read the paper or read science or news magazines, I constantly encounter stories that scream OVERPOPULATION. Often these are about damage to the environment, but there are many others about hunger, desperate poverty, deaths from preventable diseases, war, strife and other calamities.

The July issue of Discover Magazine contained two articles about the ocean that support my concerns.

In “Better Planet - Garbage Patch” (click here for the web version) author Thomas M. Kostigen describes a trip to the Great Pacific Garbage Patch. This is an area in the Pacific Ocean where circular ocean currents trap some of the floating refuse of humans.

“Around and around: bottles, plastic bags, fishnets, clothing, lighters, and myriad other man-made items, held until they disintegrate, make their way to distant seas, or merely bob among the waves before washing up on someone’s beach.”

Unfortunately, much of the material floating here does not disintegrate quickly. Many of these items took several years just to get to the garbage patch which is like a soup made of garbage floating on or near the surface. While the dimensions of this garbage patch are still being mapped, it is believed to be about one and a half times the size of the United States and may reach a depth of 100 feet or more. How much damage is being done by all this garbage is still being studied, but from what we already know, from the damage done to wildlife that often eat plastic thinking it is food to chemicals in the water from disintegrating plastic, the threat is believed to be very serious.

The second article is Ocean Reflux by Kathleen McAuliffe (click here for the web version). It has long been known that the oceans can sequester carbon dioxide as they naturally absorb excess carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. In fact, the oceans were seen as such a good place to store carbon dioxide, there have been suggestions that we pump liquid CO2 into the deepest parts of the ocean rather than let it disburse in the atmosphere and contribute to global warming.

Now new research has found that increasing levels of carbon dioxide in ocean water increases its acidity which may have profound effects such as destroying coral and many of the marine creatures at the bottom of the food chain. Among other problems this might cause, the loss of reefs and small ocean creatures could eventually threaten the planet’s fisheries.

I can’t begin to relay all the scientific details from these two articles, but you can read them yourself if you want more details.

Some scientist or researcher or politician will eventually tell you what we might do to mitigate or reverse these threats, but what you won’t hear them offer is a plan to reduce the number of people on the planet as a way to reduce the damage we are inflicting. Why is that?

Over Populated – Are We There Yet?

Name one!

2008-07-25T20:02:00.007-05:00

Tonight on Hardball with Chris Matthews former Bush Press Secretary Scott McClellan admitted that the White House would feed talking points directly to Fox News - Fox commentators, not journalists. When Matthews displayed outrage, McClellan again stressed that the White House didn't feed this kind of propaganda to the journalists at Fox.

Really?

There are real journalists at Fox?

Name one.

Acknowledge Sucess and Failures

2008-07-20T10:47:00.017-05:00

Opponents of the war in Iraq have a problem. Republicans are making the point that the surge has worked and opponents are intellectually dishonest if they don't accept that fact.

They have a point. For several reasons, one of which is the surge (which I did not support), the situation in Iraq is much better today than it was a year and a half ago. There is certainly more hope that we can leave an Iraq that will become a nation that will not be a source of violence and instability in the world.

The problem, of course, is such an admission would be seen as an endorsement of the war and the policies of the Bush Administration. Even though the surge didn't meet many of its own goals and it is generally agreed the war was a mistake and the Administration bungled badly many major issues during the first 3 or 4 years, any concession of success now would be used by proponents of the war as proof that the opponents were wrong. Wrong about opposing the surge. Wrong about opposing Administration policies and tactics. Wrong about questioning the rationals for going to war. Of course, all such assertions would wrong.

While the adage "Hindsight is 20/20" may seem to be irrefutable, it is merely a statement that it is easier to link a known result to prior actions than to predict which actions will achieve a particular result. Even when we have a result, it may not be possible to tell which actions were instrumental in achieving the result. And such analysis often cannot rule out that other actions might have produced even more favorable results.

That is a complicated way of saying, yes, our situation in Iraq is better today than it was a year and half ago and the surge was one of the actions that got us to this point. It was not the only action. It may or may not have been the most significant action. Finally, there may have been other actions that were not taken that would have put us in an even better position.

Even if you agree that we are in a better position today, it will be a long time before we have the perspective to say whether, given the costs in lives, injuries, dollars, etc., the surge was worth those costs.

Senator McCain says that if Senator Obama's plan from several month's ago had been followed we would now be facing defeat in Iraq. I'm sure he believes that, but he has absolutely no way to prove that or even make a convincing argument. A speedy withdrawal as Senator Obama proposed may have forced the Iraqi's to step up more quickly. It might have eventually resulted in situation similar to today, though possibly more costly for Iraq, but less costly for the United States. Remember, at the time there were reports that the threat of a speedy withdrawal seemed to force the Iraqi government to start planning for an Iraq after a U.S. withdrawal.

Books have and will be written about Iraq successes, failures and missed opportunities, but that doesn't help Democrats acknowledge some obvious success without conceding defeat.

I think Democrats should acknowledge the success of the surge when Republics acknowledge that we should never have invaded Iraq, but that is not going to happen. The next best plan is to closely link an acknowledgment of success to an abbreviated list of the failures and a transition to a defined exit strategy.

Something like, Given that we were misled into a war that was unnecessary and badly managed for four years, the surge has had more success than events up to that time would have predicted. The United States military has once again performed their duties magnificently and rescued this country and this Administration from a precarious situation. Now that the violence in Iraq is down from the high levels at the start of the surge, that the Iraqi's are moving closer to a position where they can govern and defend themselves and that Iraq has expressed a desire for us to withdraw our troops by 2010, it is now time for us to develop a plan and set a timetable to leave Iraq and finally concentrate on the real war on terrorism.

Fox-Fair, Balanced and Hypocritical?

2008-07-20T10:07:00.007-05:00

Watching Fox News [sic] Sunday today generated a couple of thoughts.

The panel talked about the significant news coverage that the major networks are giving Senator Obama's current foreign trip. While the "liberal media" whining was not as pronounced as I expected, their was consternation that even since the end of the Democratic presidential campaign the coverage of Senator Obama on the major networks has been significantly more extensive than the coverage of Senator McCain. This was from a panel that itself seemed to me was talking a lot more about Senator Obama than Senator McCain.

The untimely death of Tony Snow gave Vice-President Cheney a chance to laud his many accomplishments. Among those was this quote, "...he was a major player in the conservative movement." Tony Snow was the founding anchor of Fox News [sic] Sunday. I guess bias in the media, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Windfall Profits - Apples and Oil

2008-06-19T18:40:00.004-05:00

Several times over the past few months I’ve heard that the oil companies should not be singled out for a windfall profits tax because their return on sales is only about 8.5%. They whine that several other industries have much larger returns.

I’m certainly not an economist, but this doesn’t sound right.

Suppose I sell apples at my roadside stand. I sell 100,000 apples a year at a dollar a piece (I’ll keep the numbers simple to make this easier – on me). My return is 10% so I normally make about $10,000 a year. Half my sales are from apples I grow and harvest the other half I buy at market value from other farmers.

Luckily I live in an area where people eat their apples religiously believing that it keeps down their health care costs. So when an apple blight in Brazil quadruples the price of an apple, my sales are unaffected. The cost of apples I buy to resell goes up, but the price I charge for each apple rises correspondingly, so now my annual sales are $400,000. I’m still making my 10% of sales so suddenly I’m raking in $40,000 a year. That is an extra $30,000 a year for doing absolutely nothing.

Suppose that for the 50,000 apples I used to pay 80 cents each to buy, I’m now paying $3.20. People are pretty much willing to pay whatever they have to so they can have their daily apple, so I just pass these costs along (maybe a little larger markup since I deserve to get more per apple since the apples are worth so much more). My overhead costs didn't go up, but I can make a much larger profit. I can put some of this money back into the business (a new truck, a new tractor, repave the parking lot, etc,) and still be making extra money.

But what about the 50,000 apples I grow? Although my costs to grow them did not change at all, each apple is worth 4 times as much. I’m raking in a ton of money with no additional effort since I can now sell them for the same price as I sell the apples I buy from other farmers.

I’m also not a tax expert, but I'll bet there are significant tax breaks to offset my additional profits and decrease the taxes I would otherwise pay. This may be where my example breaks down since I guess I would have to pay taxes on my increased profit for each apple. But if this were a non-renewable resource (my apples are a renewable resource since I can grow more apples next year), I bet there would be significant tax breaks that increase as the value of the resource being sold goes up, such as depreciation. So I can probably avoid a lot of taxes because I am selling a resource that by market valuation costs a lot more to replace.

Oh yeah, the value of my farm also just increased dramatically since my orchards can now generate higher revenue.

So when the oil companies cry that their profits are not excessive, tell them you’ll agree when your boss quadruples your salary and you don’t have to do anything extra to earn it.

You Have To Speak More Clearly!

2008-06-05T18:43:00.006-05:00

I realized years ago that the thought processes of Democrats and Republics are different. I was recently reminded of this when I pondered John W. McCain's insistence that the war in Iraq was justified, even if it wasn't always properly executed at the beginning, and his adamant assertion that he would never surrend - which is the way he characterizes Democratic plans for an orderly withdrawal from Iraq.

I then realized that members of both parties probably agree that Obama's statement "We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in..." actually reflects what he will do if elected.

What! Republics and Democrats agree that Obama will do what he says?

Yes. Democrats hear Obama's statement and believe that since we were very careless getting into Iraq, Obama is promising to be very careful getting us out. Republics, who still believe the war in Iraq was justified and see no problem with the way it was sold to the public, believe we were not careless at all about getting into Iraq, which means Obama is promising to be not careful at all about getting out of Iraq - thus their claim that he plans to surrend in Iraq.

OPAWTY? - Virtual Water

2008-05-31T16:00:00.007-05:00

The June issue of Discover Magazine had an article about virtual water (Better Planet: Virtual Water..., by Thomas M. Kostigen). Virtual water is the amount of water it took to provide a service or item for you - from start to finish. For example, it is estimated that it takes about 1,900 gallons of water to put that one pound steak on your grill and about 53 gallons to put a single egg in your refrigerator.

I'm not sure why these are virtual gallons of water. I am pretty sure I've never consumed a glass of virtual water, but then again who really knows what is in all those bottles we consume. Maybe it is virtual water and that is why we have to pay so much for it.

From the article I learned that like your carbon footprint, you have a virtual water footprint. The average person on earth has a virtual water footprint of about 328,000 gallons of water a year. That is the number of physical gallons of water a person uses directly in a year plus the number of virtual gallons used in a year to produce the food and goods a person consumes and uses. In the United States the virtual water footprint of the average person is about 656,000 gallons a year while in China the average is only about 185,000 gallons - which is good since there are so many more Chinese. If their footprint were as large as ours, they would be very thirsty.

Why are we talking about virtual water? Because we, who live on a water based, water rich world are running out of fresh water. The virtual water concept is supposed to allow us to make better choices. The author, Thomas Kostigen, makes the point that if each of us avoided wasting just one cup of coffee a day we could save enough virtual water to give two gallons of water a day for a year to each of the 1.1 billion people who currently don't have access to clean water. Remember, it is not just the physical water in the cup, it is also the virtual water used to grow the coffee bean, roast it, ship it, etc. Luckily I don't drink coffee so I don't have to carry the guilt of ignoring a billion thirsty people. It took me years to get over the trauma I caused the starving Chinese people when I didn't eat my vegetables as a child.

If the concept of virtual water catches on you can bet it will be added to the content list of packaged food. 180 calories, 0 grams of trans fat and 319 gallons of virtual water.

Let's get real. Are dwindling supplies of fresh water a problem? Yes! But not because we are wasting water on unconsumed coffee. And not because we eat too much meat and not enough grain. The problem is there are too many of us. As the Chinese become more prosperous their virtual water usage will go up. If their virtual water usage even rises to the current world average they are going to be in serious trouble. Likewise, we could cut our virtual water footprint in half, but if our population doubles in 100 years, as might happen, we have put off our problem, but not solved it.

When we are talking about a global water shortage on a water rich planet, people should take note. The problem is not too little water, it is too many people.

Over Populated - Are We There Yet?

You can check your virtual water footprint at WaterFootPrint.org.

Ignorance and Stupidity Are Not Free

2008-05-27T20:18:00.003-05:00

Anyone who was an adult during the 1970's knows that $4.00 a gallon gasoline or even $10.00 a gallon gasoline prices are not the worst that can happen. The worst is when you can't buy gasoline at any price.

Anyone who was an adult during the 1970's should not be surprised at the current price of gas. If back then you thought about the issues even a little, you should have known that this day was coming. You couldn't know when and you couldn't know exactly what would cause it, but you should have known it was coming and you should have known that if we didn't plan ahead, the situation could be even worse.

There was a short period in the 70's when people lined up for hours to get gas to fill up their cars. Fights broke out in gas lines as frustration soared and tempers flared. Imagine how your life would change today if you couldn't buy enough gasoline to get to work or drive to the grocery store or if you had to spend hours in line to buy it.

Given the events of the 70's, it is hard to understand why we aren't better prepared today. Not!

Al Gore was accused of proposing a 50 cent a gallon gas tax back in 2000. The rational was that higher gas prices would make alternative energy sources more viable and provide incentives to use this finite resource wisely. I don't know whether or not he really made the proposal, but I don't remember many people thinking it was a good idea. Long term thinking is not a strength that comes naturally to people. It is also not a strength of most businesses (SUVs and large pickup trucks are really cheap right now). It should be a strength of government, but not when people vote their short term self-interests and politicians don't have the character to educate people with the painful truth.

Actually, the current high price of gasoline is one of the best things that could happen to us. The painfully high prices may provide motivation to address the problem before there are severe shortages that would turn a problem into a disastrous. Let me put it another way - a return to $2 a gallon gasoline would be bad for the country.

I do wonder if $4 a gallon gasoline is painful enough. It may take even higher prices. It will also take some time for people to realize that $2 a gallon gas is a thing of the past and accept that difficult changes must be made. I know that many people are struggling with these high gas prices, but there is a valuable lesson to be learned. Ignorance and stupidity may be natural and easy, but they are not free. The high price of gas is an indication that we failed to acknowledge the obvious; oil is a precious and finite resource.

So here is the question of the day - what other important issues are we ignoring because the problem is not obvious or the peril is not immediate or the issues are complicated or the solutions are painful?

Ignorance and stupidity are not free.

Clinton For Vice-President

2008-05-25T18:00:00.006-05:00

It is long past the time that Senator Clinton should have thrown in the towel. She has waged a magnificent campaign and we all know the best candidate doesn't always win. She needs to graciously concede after the final primary on June 3rd.

Senator Obama should offer Senator Clinton the vice-presidency, if they can come to a few agreements.

They each must be able to forget the rancor and anger of the primary campaign. Senator Clinton must agree to work whole heartedly for Obama's election, success as president and reelection and he must promise to support her presidential ambitions when his terms are complete.

Finally, Bill Clinton must never publicly offer political or policy advice during an Obama administration. He can work with his foundation and he might be called upon for special projects, but he is to stay out of the political limelight and preferably well away from the White House.

I'd have a prenuptial drawn up for everyone to sign. That includes President Clinton.

OPAWTY?-What is a Pest?

2008-05-25T07:11:00.014-05:00

If overpopulation by any other species caused as much environmental damage as human overpopulation does, we would have long ago created an industrial strength pesticide to control their numbers.

Over Populated -
Are We There Yet?

You Can Have My Flintlock...

2008-03-29T09:45:00.002-05:00

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

To my reading, the Second Amendment clearly states that the right of people to bear arms is linked to service in a Militia. Since “well regulated Militia”, as they existed in 1789 when the Second Amendment was written, no longer exist, the un-infringed right to bear arms no longer exists. Militias are archaic and references to them in the Constitution should be removed. The US Constitution is a magnificent document, but references to slavery had to be removed. The Second Amendment applied to an historical situation that no longer exists and it should be repealed.

But what I believe is unimportant, the Supreme Court is in the process of determining how the Second Amendment applies to a Washington, DC, ban on handguns. The high level arguments generally revolve around whether the amendment grants a collective right related to service in a Militia or an individual right.

The questions posed by the Justices in open court seem to indicate they believe the Second Amendment grants an individual right. I hope their decision does not upset the status quo which has allowed reasonable legislative restrictions on firearms. I don’t believe there are currently many laws that seriously infringe gun ownership for hunting, sport or self-defense.

If the strict constructionist justices on the Court rule that the Second Amendment grants an individual right, they will unleash a domestic arms race. “Infringe” is a strong verb, the kind strict constructionist judges like and all judges will find hard to circumvent. If residents of DC are “infringed” by a restriction that they cannot own handguns, although they can own long guns, certainly laws that allow ownership of semi-automatic weapons, but do not allow ownership of fully automatic weapons, “infringe” gun owners rights. How many other current laws will be challenged as infringing? If I can own a fully automatic assault rifle, why not a heavy machine gun?

If the Court rules the Second Amendment grants an individual right, will they try to allow for restrictions to the right? How will they do that? There are restrictions on the right to free speech, but given the clause that links arms to Militias, any weapon appropriate for a Militia would seem to be appropriate for an individual. Given the link to Militias, is a law against ownership of an RPG an infringement?

I guess a strict constructionist judge could rule that an individual has an un-infringed right to any firearm available to a citizen of 1789.*

* Maybe Charlton Heston had it perfectly right when in 2000 as president of the NRA he held a flintlock rifle over his head and said you could only take it from his “cold dead hands”.

Monuments To Stupidity

2008-03-14T07:00:00.008-05:00

The shoulders of highways in my area are becoming littered with shrines to people killed in traffic accidents. Aren't many of these monuments to stupidity? Either the stupidity of the person killed or a victim of the stupidity of another driver?

I have sympathy for the person killed through no fault of their own, such as a passenger in a car hit by a drunk driver, but I'm not in favor of a roadside shrine for them. And what about the person whose bad behaviour caused the crash and died? Does their stupidity and/or bad driving deserve a monument?

Maybe we should have a way to indicate if the person memorialized was a victim or a perpetrator. Maybe a white flag for a victim and a red flag for a perpetrator. Or maybe shrines to victims can have candles or lights and perpetrators can't. If you caused your own death and maybe the death of someone else, you can't advertise at night.

Some of these monuments can be large and garish. If you have an accident because you were distracted by a garish monument for a previous accident victim, are you a victim or just stupid? I wonder if you can sue.

Should monument construction guidelines be driven by an apportioning of blame, like insurance claims? Maybe the victim should take a 25% share of the blame for their own death because they were talking on their cell phone and didn't notice the on-coming car swerving into their lane. The blame flags can have red and white panels sized proportionally to the persons share of blame for their death.

And why do we call these "accidents" when so many are the result of lack of skills or bad judgement? Too many people want to be the fastest driver on the road rather than the safest.

What is the protocol and etiquette of monument building? On a dangerous corner where many accident's have occurred, do earlier victims have squatters rights and later victims have their monuments erected nearby with arrows to show the actual location of denouement?

When an accident takes the life of both the perpetrator and victims, do victims receive a preference for the location of their shrine based on the percentage of blame they were assigned? Come to think of it, is it really appropriate for the family of a perpetrator to erect a memorial if other people were killed or injured?

Is it ever appropriate for a victim's family to trash a perpetrator's memorial? Possibly as way to find closure (a much overused concept these days).

A corner of an intersection I traverse on my daily commute has two crosses (presumably to accident victims/perpetrators, but I guess they could just be advertisements for the local churches). This corner was farm land that is being converted to a strip mall. I've been wondering what they are going to do with these monuments. Leave them alone? Tear them down? Rebuild them in an architectural style to match the mall? If monument builders are smart they'll get easements before they build anything elaborate.

At what point should memorials be taken down? I suppose these monuments are meant to honor the deceased. In that case, shouldn't you take care of them in perpetuity like tombstones? If you put them up to honor the deceased, what are you saying when you take them down? Are you saying you don't care any more? If you just let the monument decay from the elements, what does that say?

I first saw this monument trend 30 years ago when I lived in the southwest. Now it is a national movement. What is next, monuments in emergency rooms, hospital rooms and nursing homes? You can't have people tripping over monuments in the emergency rooms. How about using those walnut plaques with spaces to add names at later dates - like the ones used for employee of the month. These wouldn't take up much space and people could take comfort in knowing the place of their loved one's demise has been documented. Can you imagine buying a house and finding a brass marker in the living room noting the location of the passing of Uncle Stewart in 1985 after an overly rich Thanksgiving dinner?

As you can tell I think these roadside memorials are ridiculous. I understand the grief that motivates people to build them, but grief is an emotion that we all deal with at some point. Put up a garish headstone in the cemetery, keep pictures on the wall, but let's not clutter the shoulders of our highways. Show a little sympathy for the people who have to mow the roadside weeds.

Tag Team: Democrats vs John W. McCain, III

2008-03-08T08:23:00.010-06:00

Clinton and Obama should pledge that for the rest of the nominating process they will treat Senator John W. McCain as the opponent, not their fellow Democrat. Democrats fear that the during the next few weeks, in their attempt to secure the nomination, Obama and Clinton will damage each other and make it easier for McCain to defeat them in the general election. Since, for the Democrats, it should really be a contest about who can beat McCain, start the general election campaign now. It would be two candidates (and campaign treasuries) against one. Obama and Clinton should make their case to Democratic primary voters by showing which one will be the best at beating John McCain. They should each realize that for the sake of the country, to paraphrase McCain, it would be better for either of them to lose the nomination than for a Republic to be elected president.

For a more detailed discussion, see my post below.

Clinton/Obama Tag Team Against McCain

2008-03-08T08:05:00.008-06:00

I was hoping that Senator Obama would score a decisive victory over Senator Clinton in Texas and Ohio. We can't afford a continued Democratic nominating process that might weaken the eventual Democratic nominee. Too many times I’ve watched Democrats nominate qualified candidates only to have them trounced in the general election by a Republic.

The past eight years have made it clear.

The American voter doesn’t know a qualified candidate from an unqualified candidate.
The country can’t afford another president like Bush (John W. McCain is just Bush Heavy).
It is the responsibility of the Democrats to nominate a candidate that can win. Whether or not that candidate is the most qualified is not important.

With that in mind, I propose that Clinton and Obama make a pact and take a pledge.

Clinton and Obama should pledge that for the rest of the nominating process they will treat Senator McCain as the opponent, not their fellow Democrat. Democrats fear that the during the next few weeks, in their attempt to secure the nomination, Obama and Clinton will damage each other and make it easier for McCain to defeat them in the general election. Since, for the Democrats, it should really be a contest about who can beat McCain, start the general election campaign now. It would be two candidates (and campaign treasuries) against one. Obama and Clinton should make their case to Democratic primary voters by showing which one will be the best at beating John McCain. To paraphrase McCain, they should each realize that for the sake of the country, it would be better for either of them to lose the nomination than for a Republic to be elected president.

Michigan and Florida need to schedule primaries. Those voters plus Pennsylvania would be judging which candidate is better against McCain. Even if the voters don’t follow the script, we would have weeks of tag team effort and massive campaign funds to use against McCain. Obama and Clinton can highlight their differences, but do nothing to attack or weaken their Democratic opponent. If the Democrats stay united, they will have significantly weakened support for McCain and made the true general campaign, no matter which candidate is nominated, much easier.

Obama and Clinton should also pledge that the losing candidate will whole heartedly continue to vigorously campaign and raise money for the winning candidate. It would be their responsibility to deliver their supporters to the Democratic nominee. This should be a team effort all the way through Election Day in November.

Michigan and Florida must be primaries, not caucuses. While Obama may do better in a caucus, this is a test for electability in the general election. New elections in Michigan and Florida are just a matter of money.

In a country that abhors rewarding law breakers, it may seem unfair to give Michigan and Florida such power after they ignored party rules, but the blame should go to party and elected officials, not voters. Besides, Democrats should focus on winning not retribution. One way to appropriately punish Michigan and Florida would be to require that all delegates from those states be new people. Florida and Michigan would have to come up with new slates of delegates and any super delegates that owe their credentials to association with these states would have these credentials revoked.

Democrats need to stay focused. This is not about Clinton or Obama. It is about putting a Democrat in the White House in January, 2009!

Elephant Shit

2008-03-01T15:00:00.001-06:00

Click on cartoon to enlarge.

Technorati Tags: Political Cartoon Republicans Elephant Shit

Used with permission.

Who Has The Best Record?

2008-02-10T15:12:00.000-06:00

President Bush and the Republics, over many years, repeatedly claimed that their policies have kept us safe since 9/11. A gutsy claim since a single attack on the U.S. would have opened their domestic antiterrorism policies to even more questions.

Over and over they've told us we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. Another gutsy move since an attack here would raise questions about how terrorists we are defeating in Iraq managed to get to the U.S..

While their Iraq logic is also less than flimsy, they are correct. Thankfully, we have not been attacked in the United States since 9/11. By my calculations, that is about seven years and five months.

Mitt Romney dropped out of the Republic presidential race because he loves his country so much, he would rather not be president than see this country fall into the inept hands of Democrats and then, eventually, inevitably, to defeat at the hands of terrorists. (Is this not an echo of McCain's I'd rather lose the presidency than lose a war?)

I understand that logic and truth are not bullet points in the Republic platform. Heck, they are never even on their New Year's resolution lists. The lists that are forgotten by January 2nd. I am continually astounded that there aren't some voices in the party who can stand up for reason and logic. There are flakes at both ends of the political spectrum, but Republics like to elect and follow them. If the Democrats are the big tent party, the Republics are the closed room, closed minds party. And yes, sometimes the Democrats' big tent seems like a circus tent, but I'll take a big top with three rings over an ideological dungeon of fear.

But, as usual, I digress. I believe the first attack in the U.S. by Islamic extremists was the first attack on the World Trade Center in February 26, 1993. We didn't have another attack in the U.S. during the remainder of Bill Clinton's term which ended in January, 2001. That was a period of about eight years. Do Republics ever give Bill Clinton credit for having kept us safe for eight years? We weren't attacked again until he left office and George Bush and the Republics were in charge.

This year Republics will once again run a campaign of fear and once again claim that only they can keep us safe. Democrats need to remind the country that after seven years, yes, thankfully, the country has not been attacked again, but Osama bin Laden has not been captured or killed, the justified war in Afghanistan has not resulted in a secure country, Pakistan is even more insecure, Iran has been enabled and emboldened and Iraq is an unnecessary mess that has cost thousands of U.S. lives and casualties, billions of dollars, degraded our military options and cost us diplomatically.

Terrorism is a serious threat that cannot be ignored, but statements that only Republics know how to keep us safe are inane.

Does Life Begin at Implantation?

2007-12-30T18:10:00.000-06:00

If human eggs are destroyed, no one seems to be concerned. Possibly because very few human eggs result in a child. Of the up to 2 million oocytes (immature eggs) that each human female is born with, only about 400 will mature and be ovulated. For each monthly cycle, about 20 cells begin the process to become a mature egg, but only one or two will complete the process. By the way, this maturation process for each egg begins about 100 days before ovulation.

If human sperm are destroyed, no one gets concerned. Even more sperm are produced than eggs, so the chances of any sperm resulting in a child are minuscule.

Once a sperm and an egg are joined, commonly called conception, many people call the merged cells a human. While estimates vary, the chances of a fertilized egg resulting in a live child are only about 33%. Natural events end the process for most fertilized eggs before they are implanted. One can conjecture that many women who are "late" really are pregnant, but the process is halted naturally very early.

Once implantation occurs (the egg is implanted in the uterus about the 6th day after fertilization), the embryo at this point has about a 66% chance of surviving to birth.

The process of human development is very complicated. There are many problems that can interrupt the process before the birth of a live child.

We have an on-going ethical debate about when life begins. Why is it that an egg or a sperm is not seen as human life, but a fertilized egg is? None of the three can result in a child by themselves. At the minimum, the fertilized egg must be implanted in the uterus. This would argue that cells in a petri dish are not human. Yes, those cells could be implanted and result in a child, but an egg could be fertilized with a sperm in a petri dish and then implanted. If the embryo in a petri dish is human life, then the egg and sperm in their petri dishes are also human life. Of course, that is absurd.

Since invitro fertilization and some birth control methods routinely kill fertilized eggs, a belief that human life starts at fertilization not only is not supported by natural events, it would cause many people to be labeled murders.

When life begins is an ethical question, not a scientific one. But science shows us that for those who believe human life starts very early in the process, implantation is a more logical starting point than fertilization.

Cartoon used with permission.

For more information on the latest science on human reprodcution, see the article The Good Egg, printed in Discovery magazine, May, 2004.

Goober for President

2007-12-29T11:12:00.000-06:00

A YouTuber suggested the perfect nickname for Governor Huckabee, Goober.

I'm not sure why I'm writing so many posts to prove the Governor deserves that nickname. Well, sure, he is an easy target and it is a lot of fun, but why do I keep pointing out how unqualified he is?

If Huckabee is the Republic nominee for president, the Democrats won't have to spend a dime to campaign against him. Except maybe they should buy him airtime to talk to directly to the American people about his views on the important issues facing the U.S. Heck, Democrats could even give him a little help and tell him what the important issues are. (Hint: it is not Pakistani's crossing the border illegally.) I think about 30 minutes of Huckabee's Homilies would be enough to convince the vast majority of voters that Huckabee should go back to preaching in Arkansas.

Democrats could save the money they would have used in the presidential campaign to maintain a permanent majority in Congress. "Permanent majority." I never really liked that phrase until now.

Maybe I should consider laying off of Goober and concentrate instead on McCain, the only qualified candidate the Republics have.

God to Huckabee: Shut up!

2007-12-13T19:21:00.000-06:00

When asked why his campaign has suddenly taken off, Governor Huckabee basically said it was God's work.

I know people of faith don't have a lot of need for reason and logic, and I don't like to question or make fun of someone's faith, but Governor Huckabee brought this into the public domain, so let's think about his statement.

His god is obviously a god of action. That is, his god is active in the world. His god changes things in ways that would otherwise not have occurred. For example, Huckabee would not be leading in Republic polls were it not for his god, God, either manipulating the results of the polls or getting into peoples heads and making them support him.

I believe that people of faith do not normally claim to know why God does what he does, so unless Huckabee is having conversations with God that already fall under the cover of executive privilege, even he doesn't know why God has chosen to move him up in the polls.

For all we or Huckabee know, maybe God isn't rewarding Huckabee, but rather punishing Romney. As soon as Mitt mends his ways, he'll go up and Huckabee will go down in the polls.

If Huckabee does go on to win the presidency, won't he have one hell of a political debt to pay? This makes other campaign contributors look like pikers. Would Huckabee have to turn the U.S. into a theocracy to pay off the debt? Then again, if an active God wanted the U.S. to be a theocracy, why didn't he just make it that way to begin with? The first ten articles of the constitution could have been the ten commandments.

If Huckabee doesn't win the presidency, what is he going to say? Probably something like, "We aren't capable of understanding God's plan. I'm sure he has some other tasks for me." Or maybe, “I sinned by presuming to divine God's actions.“ What he won't say is something like, “I was just making that crap up to win favor with the evangelicals”.

If Romney wins, Huckabee will probably just think Mitt made a pact with the devil. If Clinton wins, Huckabee will have to question his faith in God and the power of prayer.

If God is really manipulating the election so that Huckabee or one of the other candidates will be the next president, why are we all bothering to help our candidate or even vote? If God is picking the next president, then he can also vanquish all the terrorists, end the war in Iraq, feed the poor, hook President Bush up with Scarecrow and put a man on Mars. What does he need us for? (Duh... The Wizard of Oz... Scarecrow has a brain.)

So, if you believe Huckabee is corrrect and that God is making him go up in the polls, then quit watching the debates. Don't worry about voting. What you think about politics or who would make the best president doesn't really matter. God will cast the final vote. Relax and read a Good Book.

If you think Huckabee has been listening to too much of his own preaching, then support and vote for a candidate that believes they and we are responsible for our own actions, successes and failures.

Hot Stock Tip

2007-12-12T18:40:00.001-06:00

Here is a hot stock tip for you - buy book publishers. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are so secretive and they've presided over an administration with so many scandals and failures, come February, 2009, there will be dozens of books published.

White House insiders will be running to get their story out first and distance themselves from the worst president and vice-president in the history of the United States.

Gov. Huckabee, Does God Answer Your Prayers?

2007-12-08T19:49:00.001-06:00

I heard an evangelical minister on NPR yesterday say that some ministers who wanted to support Mitt Romney were having a problem. They had previously demonized Mormons from the pulpit and now were having trouble finding ways to retract those statements and recommend Mitt Romney for president. I can see they have a problem, but then again their plight is a admission of on-going ethical problems. Sounds a lot like situational ethics to me.

In Charles Krauthammer's column, "Huckabee exploits religion in fighting Mitt Romney", Mr. Krauthammer takes Governor Huckabee to task for playing the Mormon religion card for political gain while refusing to label Mormonism a cult. Krauthammer also points out that Huckabee claims that religion isn't the most important issue when choosing a president and then labels himself a "Christian Leader" in political ads. Finally, Krauthammer laments that Mitt Romney has to defend his religious beliefs.

I disagree. The evangelicals, conservatives and Republics have worked hard to thrust religion into politics. Now they have to live with the results of that invasion. When people like Governor Huckabee call themselves a "Christian Leader" and when he says he believes his recent political success to be the work of God, he opens himself to every question the voting public has about his religious beliefs. When candidates publicly exploit their religion for political gain then that religion must be open to examination just like any other institution or organization where the candidate has previously worked or served. It a candidate publicly exploits their religious beliefs for political gain, then those beliefs should be subject to the same level of examination as any other part of the candidate's public or political life. If your religion and faith is a private matter, keep it private.

I suggest another YouTube debate for the the Republic presidential candidates dedicated to religious issues where the faithful and skeptics can ask each candidate tough religious questions.

When Is Treason Warranted?

2007-12-08T13:15:00.000-06:00

In previous posts I've complained about Governor Huckabee's weird belief that the Second Amendment not only guarantees a citizen's right to keep weapons to use against the government if it doesn't do what it is supposed to do, he acts like it is a citizen's DUTY to keep weapons to use against the government.

I would like Governor Huckabee to give us some reasonable scenarios where the use of violent armed actions against the government might be justified, but he doesn't seem to be reading my blog. Does Governor Huckabee understand that the definition of treason includes "the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance..." (Merriam-Webster)?

I've tried to ask Second Amendment supporters to give me some examples of government actions that might justify an armed revolt. Ignoring those people who think I am an uneducated idiot, the responses are usually incidents from two hundred years ago or they cite Randy Weaver's stand-off at Ruby Ridge. I think some of them would include Waco, but I doubt that many would claim Oklahoma City. In short, they have no good historical examples and they have not suggested any likely future scenarios where violence against the government would be warranted.

It is interesting that Oklahoma City is not seen as a good example of justifiable violence against the government. I believe that it was government actions at Waco that motivated Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Federal Building. Don't people who believe that they need guns for self-defense against the government realize they are using the same basic reasoning that Timothy McVeigh used to justify his violence?

Actually, I see a situation looming that many people might use to justify violent action against the government. That is the up-coming review of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court.

I predict there will be violence if the Court should rule that the Second Amendment is a collective right (the right to bear arms is only as it relates to Militia) rather than an individual right. I also predict you will never see a constitutional amendment to repeal the Second Amendment. The threats of violence would be so intense politicians would decide to leave it to the courts to slowly rein in our obsession with guns and violence.

Star Wars Are Conservative

2007-10-17T19:11:00.001-05:00

I was watching C-SPAN a few weeks ago. A conservative Hollywood screen writer was giving a talk about how conservatives could and should use Hollywood to get their message out. He, of course, lamented that so few movies with a conservative point of view are being made.

I don't know about you, but last time I checked, Republics and conservatives had a lock on the pro-gun crowd. Wouldn't that make every movie where guns are used to solve a problem a conservative movie?

The next time a conservative whines about Hollywood, just look'em in the eye and say,

"Star Wars".

OPAWTY? - 4

2007-09-29T10:04:00.001-05:00

Over Populated - Are We There Yet?

The quotes below come from Urban and Slum Trends in the 21st Century by Eduardo Lopez Moreno and Rasna Warah (UN Chronicle Online Edition, The State of the World's Cities Report 2006/7). Emphasis added.

Sometimes it takes just one human being to tip the scales and change the course of history. In 2007, that human being will either move to or be born in a city, and demographers watching urban trends will mark it as the moment when the world entered a new urban millennium in which the majority of its people will live in cities. It will also see the number of slum dwellers cross the one-billion mark, when one in every three city residents will live in inadequate housing, with no or few basic services.

There are now about 6 billion people on earth and 1 billion of those people live in urban slums. Also from the report,

This report unfolds a new urban reality, showing how poor living conditions impact slum dwellers: they die younger, experience more hunger, have less or no education, have fewer chances for employment in the formal sector and suffer more from ill-health.

And finally,

The growth of slums in the last 15 years has been unprecedented. In 1990, there were nearly 715 million slum dwellers in the world. By 2000, the slum population had increased to 912 million and to approximately 998 million today. UN-HABITAT estimates that if current trends continue, it will reach 1.4 billion by 2020.

Over Populated - Are We There Yet?

Huckabee - Prepare For Armed Revolt

2007-09-27T18:48:00.000-05:00

My previous post hit some of the low points of Governor Huckabee's speech to the NRA, but the more I thought about it, I decided it was important to focus on one part of his speech that clearly shows he is not qualified to be President of the United States.

He said "The Second Amendment is about preserving freedom." and then he said of the Second Amendment:

“It is the last goal line. The last bastion of defense against even our own government should it go completely awry and turn into tyranny. And I know that sounds a little radical in this day and time, and some people don't understand it, but if they really would think through it they would realize that an unarmed citizenry is a citizenry that has no capacity against even its own government should its government forget what it is supposed to do.”

Yes, Governor, that does sound a little radical.

What he is saying is that citizens should arm themselves just in case they need to take up arms against their own government! He wants to be President of the United States, the head of the Executive Branch which is charged with enforcing our laws, and he is telling people they should be prepared to take up arms, violently break the law, if the government does things they don't agree with.

At what point should we take up arms against the government? First Governor Huckabee suggests it is when our government goes "completely awry and turn[s] into tyranny." Later he expands on this benchmark and suggests armed revolt when the "government forget[s] what it is supposed to do."

Does he understand the Constitution? Does he understand the concept of checks and balances? Does he not believe that, as a country, we can continue to follow the constitution and protect the rights of its citizens? Does he have no faith that people elected to office will honor their oaths to the Constitution? Doesn't he have confidence that citizens will use their votes to correct problems before we reach the need to start shooting at each other?

Does he understand that what he is proposing would be civil war and the end of the United States?

He is not advocating sedition, but he is saying you should prepare for it. He believes our government is clearly capable of going "awry" or forgetting "what it is supposed to do". Crimes so heinous that armed revolt would be justified.

By the way, he makes the point in another part of the speech that you can't count on getting a weapon when you need it, which means you should get a weapon before you need it. I think this explains why he is not in favor of a ban on assault weapons. You are not going to take on the government with shotguns and deer rifles.

It sounds like Governor Huckabee thinks it is quite possible that the United States government will "go completely awry and turn into tyranny" which means he is not ready for prime time. I find his logic frightening. It makes me wonder if his interpretation of "Militia" in the Second Amendment is closer to the militia currently terrorizing Iraq - lawless citizen armies that fight a government they don't believe responds to their desires.

Huckabee Panders to the NRA

2007-09-25T21:05:00.000-05:00

I caught part of Rudy Giuliani's speech to the NRA and all of Governor Mike Huckabee's speech. Before Republican's complain about how Democrats pander to MoveOn.org, they should watch these speeches (click here and then on Archived Materials/Browse Archive). The way these guys torture logic may not be covered by the Geneva Convention, but it should fall under the rules of common sense.

Huckabee described the time he chided a reporter who stated she didn't understand why a hunter needed an automatic weapon. The reporter clearly didn't understand the difference between an automatic and semi-automatic weapon (which she should have) and asked Huckabee to explain. Huckabee drew a laugh from the audience when he admitted he wanted to respond by questioning the reporter's intelligence. Huckabee and the reporter obviously shared a bond of ignorance (pun intended).

Huckabee then went on to try to explain why the Second Amendment is just as important as the First Amendment. I suppose that might be true if we choose candidates using bullets instead of ballots. Or if we made laws based on the size of your gun rather than the strength of your ideas. Actually, maybe Huckabee and his friends at the NRA would consider trading ballots for bullets, read on.

Note to Huckabee: Guns may be required to defend a democracy from external physical threats, but it is speech, debate and ideas that build democracies, keep them strong and growing and protect them from insidious internal threats.

Governor Huckabee spent a great deal of time explaining that it was important to protect hunting and a way of life many Americans value. I agree. But like too many NRA members, he couldn't stop there. He also argued that the Second Amendment was about more than just hunting. Smart move, since the amendment starts with "A well regulated Militia". He then spoke about the importance of guns for self defense and finally about guns as the final defense against a rogue United States government. Here is a man who wants to be President of the United States telling people to arm themselves so they can overthrow the government if it isn't doing what they want. Unbelievable! Would citizens taking up arms against the government still qualify as "A well regulated Militia"?

To his credit, he never raised the possibility that we would all need to get out our guns and man the barricades against Islamic Fascists!

Huckabee was fired up. I wasn't sure if he was energized by the smell of gun powder or the smell of power. He admitted he had a permit in Arkansas to carry a concealed weapon. A fact he wanted critics of his politics to know about and he wasn't talking about critics in the Republican party. Listening, I had to wonder if, as President, he would give the State of the Union address while packin' heat.

Just to make sure everyone in the room understood he was also a cowboy, he included a wistful thought about the United Nations breaking off and floating down the East River. That, of course, energized the crowd. That wimpy lot over at the UN talk too much for these NRA gun slingers. For that matter they probably also think too much.

If Governor Huckabee gets the nomination there is enough material in his speech for the Democrats to make at least half a dozen good campaign commercials.

Straw Men Deserve A Medal

2007-09-23T18:23:00.000-05:00

How do you know when the President and Republicans have no clue how to extricate us from Iraq?

When their best option is a preemptive attack on MoveOn.org

Someone should start a body count of the straw men who have been sacrificed in defense of this administration. They certainly deserve a Presidential Medal of Freedom.

Were Senator Clinton's Answers Delayed?

2007-09-23T11:37:00.000-05:00

Was it just me, or was there a delay between the end of a Chris Wallace question from the viewer's perspective and the start of Senator Clinton's response (Fox Views Sunday, 09/23/2007)? It looked like it might have been a small satellite transmission delay. It was not as long as a delay as we see on interviews from Iraq, but it was long enough to make it look, at times, like Senator Clinton was pausing before each answer. A couple of times I thought it made her look like she was being tentative with an answer.

I didn't notice the delay when Senator Clinton was being interviewed by George Stephanopoulos on ABC News' 'This Week' even though I believe Senator Clinton was interviewed from the same location. It is quite possible the ABC interview was prerecorded and they had the delay edited out.

For all their proclamations of Fair and Balanced, I don't trust FOX.

Hillary Out-foxed FOX!

2007-09-23T09:53:00.001-05:00

Senator Hillary Clinton was a guest on FOX Views Sunday this morning. Chris Wallace served up a knuckle-ball question to lead off the interview and sprinkled in a couple of screwballs and curves, but Senator Clinton didn't take a swing at any of the junk pitches thrown at her. In a hostile stadium and without the home field advantage, she hit a home run and took home a victory.

For those of you who don't like sports analogies, she refused to be goaded into confirming stereotypes and kept her message clear and focused. She consistently made the point that she was more interested in solutions than partisan distractions. She handled all the questions, serious and right-wing red meat, with ease. She looked prepared, intelligent, serious, reasonable and presidential. Even worse, for the Republicans, she looked like a winner.

By the way, as always, Chris Wallace told her at the end of the interview that she was always welcome on FOX Views Sunday. I doubt that she will be invited back for another one on one interview with Chris Wallace. She out-foxed FOX!

Time For Change! Time For Action!

2007-09-22T20:59:00.000-05:00

I'm tired of hearing that the Democrats only want defeat in Iraq or that the Democrats have no plan. It has become clear that the President is the one who has given up. He doesn't want the failure to come on his watch so his plan is to stall and turn the mess over to someone else. There is hope for Iraq, but the new ideas are not going to come from this administration.

Senator Joe Biden has been talking about his Plan For Iraq for over a year. He has, with Senator Brownback and Senator Boxer, sponsored a bill to implement this plan. Please read his letter below and sign the petition. The vote on this measure is coming up next Tuesday and we need to put pressure on members of the House and Senate to get behind this approach.

The following is a letter from Senator Joe Biden sent to supporters.

As it becomes clear that President Bush plans to pass the Iraq war off to our next President, the debate over our policy there has reached a fevered pitch in Washington, DC and around the country.

Surge, Don't Surge, Timetables, Funding, Militias, Iran, Al Quaeda -- with all the lingo and spin being thrown around by everyone, it's easy to lose track of the most important factor that will determine what happens in Iraq.

That's the need for a political settlement in Iraq among Iraqis. Every Democrat and most Republicans agree there is no purely military way to stabilize Iraq -- there has to be a political settlement. That begs the question: what is that political settlement?

When you boil it all down, there are really only two choices in Iraq:

1. Continue to support, as President Bush has done, the idea that a strong central government will emerge in Iraq that will pull the country together, or

2. Realize that there is too much hatred and distrust for the various groups to reach consensus on the big issues, and begin to establish a federal system -- where each region of Iraq is given a great deal of control over its laws and government.President Bush, and many Democrats continue to cling to choice #1, hoping against hope that if we just keep enough troops in Iraq long enough, or threaten to leave one more time, we can build or force unity where none exists.

Five years into this war, what's left for us to say to the Iraqi government? "We really, really, REALLY mean it this time."

It's time to abandon this strategy. It's not working.
I have called for a loose, federal system with strong regional governments for more than a year now, as Iraq's constitution provides. It would give Iraq's people local control over their daily lives -- the police, education, jobs, government services, etc. And people from both sides of the political aisle are joining me to try to make this a reality.

Senators Sam Brownback (R-KS) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and I introduced the Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment, which calls for working with the Iraqis to transition the country into a federal system, as their Constitution allows and securing the support of the United Nations and Iraq's neighbors for this plan.

Majority Leader Harry Reid has called on Dems to unite in support for the measure and Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Bill Nelson (D-FL), Chuck Shumer (D-NY), Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), Blanche Lambert Lincoln (D-AR) and Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) have joined us as co-sponsors. In an important display of bipartisanship, Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA), Gordon Smith (R-OR), and Kay Bailey Hutchinson (R-TX) are also supporting the amendment.

MAJORITY LEADER REID HAS SCHEDULED A VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT FOR 10 A.M. ON TUESDAY. So now, more than ever, we need your help.

There are 3 things you can do today to help us reach the only viable political solution in Iraq and begin to bring our troops home without leaving a bloodbath behind.

1. Click here to sign our petition in support of the Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment. We will send your signatures to other members of the House and Senate to convince them to support the amendment.

2. Call the presidential candidates in the Senate, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and Chris Dodd to urge them to vote against the failed Bush administration's policy of propping up a central government by supporting our Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment.

Hillary Clinton: (202) 224-4451
Barack Obama: (202) 224-2854
Chris Dodd: (202) 224-2823

3. Call the other presidential candidates, Bill Richardson and John Edwards, and tell them to support a federal system in Iraq by supporting the Senators behind the Biden-Brownback-Boxer amendment.

Bill Richardson: (505) 828-2455
John Edwards: (919) 636-3131

As I said earlier, the choice is pretty stark: you either think the central government in Iraq can get the job done or you don't. It's time for our nation's leaders, especially the ones campaigning to be President, to take a stand.

I know where I stand.

Join me to convince others that this is the best way to end the war and avoid a total catastrophe when we leave. Your action today will help shape this debate. Please act and forward this message to others who care about what's going on in Iraq.

Thank you,

Joe Biden
09/25/2007 Update. It looks like the vote won't happen today which means there is still time to call and ask the candidates and your Senators to support the resolution.
09/26/2007 Update. The bill passed the Senate today 75-23. Maybe we can change the course in Iraq before January, 2009. Thank you, Joe Biden!

Note to Senate: Stand Up For The Troops!

2007-09-19T19:12:00.000-05:00

Back in December, 2004, then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld famously said,

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want."

As has been demonstrated, this administration inherited a damn good military. What shape will the military be in when President Bush leaves office in January, 2009?

It is time to pass the Webb-Hagel Dwell Time Amendment.

Ban Assault Weapons, Not Gay Marriages

2007-09-18T19:07:00.000-05:00

Several years ago I heard an NRA spokesman downplaying the idea that allowing the sale of assault weapons in the United States could be a problem. As I recall, he claimed that an assault weapon had not been used to kill anyone in the U.S., or something close to that. I thought at the time that it sounded like an absurd claim.

This week we have a report from the Associated Press that assault weapons are now becoming the weapon of choice for gangs in Miami (Assault-Weapon Attacks on Rise in Miami Area, Where Police Officer Was Slain, by Matt Sedensky).

The spray of bullets that killed a police officer and hurt three others
this week came from something increasingly common on this city's streets: a
high-powered assault weapon, fast becoming the gun of choice for gang members
and violent criminals.

Will the United States become like Iraq, where you have to have an assault weapon in your house to feel safe? How long before builders are advertising houses with bullet proof glass and walls so people don't have to worry about stray high powered bullets?

We consider ourselves a civilized country. But does a civilized country allow weapons designed for war to be sold legally for as little as $200?

There is something very wrong in this country. We have people who will only vote for politicians who support a ban on gay marriage, but don't seem to be the least upset that we allow our country to be filled with guns meant only for war!

Return On Success - Stay On Failure

2007-09-17T19:12:00.000-05:00

The Conventional Wisdom Watch in this week's Newsweek (September 24, 2007) nailed the new Bush policy:

Return On Success - Stay On Failure

Actually, this doesn't sound like a new policy. It is just a better explanation of their policies from day one and explains why President Bush has been saying for several years that getting out of Iraq would be a task for the next president. The man knows his limitations.

President Bush The Actor

2007-09-08T19:13:00.000-05:00

Fred Thompson has entered the presidential race. He joins another famous actor, Ronald Reagan, in his pursuit of the presidency. Maybe he will make a good president, but we have an actor in the White House now and it is not working out very well.

The first excerpt in Slate (read excerpts here) from Robert Draper's new book, Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush, makes it even more clear what motivates President Bush's policy in Iraq. To pursue anything but clear success in Iraq would be to dishonor the men and women who have fought there. Especially those who were wounded or died there.

Here is an excerpt from the book,

He viewed it as the commander in chief's obligation to visit with those who had suffered loss as a result of his decisions. "Sometimes it's not pleasant, and I understand that," Bush said as he leaned back from his vanquished bowl of ice cream. "And they have every right to be unpleasant. Sometimes there are disagreements. ... Yeah, it's hard. And to see the wounded, the head injuries. But that's part of the presidency, to immerse yourself in their emotions. Because they look at the president and they—most of them—say, 'My son or daughter did what they wanted to do.' The interesting thing is, the healer gets healed. I appreciate it."

And later,

For the first and only time in that seventy-minute monologue-dominated conversation, Bush fell silent for several seconds. "Yeah, well," he finally said. "When you're responsible for putting a kid in harm's way, you better understand that if that kid thinks you're making a decision based on polls—or something other than what you think is right, or wrong, based upon principles—then you're letting that kid down. And you're creating conditions for doubt. And you can't give a kid a gun and have him doubt whether or not the president thinks it's right, and have him doubt whether or not he's gonna be supportive in all ways. And you can't learn that until you're the guy sitting behind the desk."

To admit doubt or misgivings would be telling these men and women that their sacrifices were for nothing. He could never look a wounded warrior in the eye again. He could never face the tears of a grieving parent, spouse or child.

No, George Bush will not let polls change his direction. He won't logically reflect on what might be best for the country at this point. He can't he even consider what might be best for the troops who haven't yet been wounder or killed. His plan is to stay loyal to the troops who have made sacrifices and insist that the cause is worth their effort as long as he is president. Someone else will have dishonor their sacrifices. He has to play the part of a President loyal to his troops. A script he wrote himself.

Stay and Play

2007-09-08T18:39:00.000-05:00

With the revelations from the new book Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush by Robert Draper (read excerpts at Slate) we have learned that President Bush's Iraq slogan has morphed again.

He has gone from "Stay the Course" to "Stay and Pray" and now to "Stay and Play".

Senator Biden's Plan For Iraq

2007-09-08T12:03:00.000-05:00

I heard a Republican strategist on TV whining that Democrats complain about President Bush, but she hadn't heard any of the Democratic candidates put forth their own plan to deal with Iraq. That's probably because she never listens to anything except Fox Views. Or maybe she said she hadn't heard any Democratic plan to WIN in Iraq. Which would be even more absurd because it is clear that President Bush's plan is to pass Iraq off to the next president.

Below is a copy of an email sent by Senator Biden to supporters. In it is a link to the Plan For Iraq that he and Leslie Gelb, President Emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations, proposed in May of 2006.

Republicans may disagree with Senator Biden and Mr. Gelb, but they should stop saying no one besides President Bush has a plan. (By the way, I heard a pundit say that a version of the Biden plan is being quietly talked about in the White House as plan CWDWDN, the fall back if the President is forced to do something.)

Text of Senator Biden's September, 4, 2007, email:

Yesterday we learned that President Bush went to Iraq to survey the situation on the ground first hand. This is good news. The President needs to see what the rest of us have seen and know. While his plan for a surge in Iraq has had limited and temporary military success, it has not brought about the kind of political reconciliation the President and his Cabinet had hoped for.

It is my sincere hope that the President went to Iraq, not with an outcome in mind, but with his eyes open looking to learn the facts on the ground. And the facts are: there is no chance that Iraq can be governed by a strong central government no matter how many troops we have there.

We'll be hearing a lot about the "surge" over the next several weeks, but we all must remember its original purpose: to buy time for the central government in Iraq to get its act together and win the trust of all Iraqis.

That will not happen.

Absent an occupation which we cannot sustain or the return of a dictator which we cannot support, Iraq cannot be governed from the center at this point in its history.

There is no trust within the government, no trust of the government by the people, no capacity by the government to deliver security and services, and no prospect it will build that trust and capacity any time soon.

I've been making that case for over a year. And so have more and more experts, in and out of government.

Back in November, CIA director Michael Hayden made this very point in a private meeting with the Iraq Study Group. He said "the inability of the [central] government to govern is irreversible." There is no "milestone or checkpoint where we can turn this thing around," he said. "We have spent a lot of energy and treasure creating a government... that cannot function."

Two weeks ago, our entire intelligence community came to the same conclusion. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq found that "Iraqi political leaders remain unable to govern effectively" and predicted that "the Iraqi government will become more precarious over the next six to twelve months."

As everyone knows, I have offered a plan (PlanForIraq.com) that contains the possibility, not the guarantee, of promoting stability in Iraq as we leave. It's based on the reality that Iraq cannot be governed from the center.

Instead, we have to give its warring factions breathing room in their own regions, with control over the fabric of their daily lives - police, education, jobs, marriage, and religion.

A limited central government would be in charge of truly common concerns, including protecting Iraq's borders and distributing oil revenues.

The good news is: the federal system at the heart of my plan is already in Iraq's constitution and in its laws.

We should refocus our efforts on making federalism work for all Iraqis. It is past time to make Iraq's the world's problem, not just our own.

Thank you,

Joe Biden

OPAWTY? - 3

2007-09-05T19:48:00.001-05:00

Over Populated - Are We There Yet?

I watched NOVA on PBS last night, "Dimming The Sun". They described some of the scientific research that proves that airborne particles (and the cloud formations that they facilitate) significantly reduce the amount of sunlight that strikes the surface of the earth. This reduction in sunlight has a measurable cooling effect on the earth.

While this reduction in sun light and the cooling effect might seem to be a beneficial counter to global warming, it also causes problems. Scientists believe it may have contributed to some of the devastating droughts in Africa and, of course, air pollution is a serious health concern.

The most sobering observations were that global dimming has masked the effects of global warming and that as we continue to make progress decreasing air pollution, we will greatly increase the rate of global warming. The current models that attempt to project the rate of global warming do not take into account the full effects of global dimming. We may have much less time to bring global warming under control. Many decades less time. There is a point at which the effects of global warming begin to cascade and there will be nothing we can do to reverse it. Let me say it again, there is a point where reversing global warming will be completely out of our control. That time may be closer than we think.

It has taken decades to convince people that global warming is real. How long would it take to convince people we should stop trying to prevent air pollution until global warming is under control?

I'm sure there are people who will argue that global dimming is just as unreal as global warming, but they've been arguing against global warming for years and so far no good, hard evidence has appeared to suggest they are correct. Global warming is a big problem that will take massive and, probably, painful solutions.

One of the solutions to global warming should be population reduction. Reducing the world's population by itself will not reverse global warming fast enough, but it should be a another tool.

Doesn't common sense tell us that more people on the planet will only make our environmental problems worse? At some point there will be more people on earth than the planet can support. When that time comes we can reduce population several ways: nature can make drastic reductions (disease, famine, loss of habitat), governments can force family planning or we can make voluntary reductions. Since the first two have already occurred in some places, shouldn't we be proactive and start voluntary reductions?

By the way, if we don't bring global warming under control soon, population reduction will occur.