Brit For RNC Chair

After watching Fox News Sunday this morning, it is clear that Brit Hume is missing his true calling, Chairman of the RNC.

Technorati Tags: Political Brit Hume

Are We Terrorists?

A recent Reuters news article says that Pakistan now believes as many as four al Qaeda members were killed in the Predator airstrike last week. I would imagine that the administration and the CIA are breathing a little easier now. An attack that killed 18 presumably innocent villagers without killing a top level terrorist would have been hard to explain. But even so, does killing 4 terrorists justify killing 18 Pakistanis?

Are you bothered that we killed 18 other people to get those four terrorists? I want to kill terrorists as much as anyone else. I have no problem killing those guys. I hope we can get some more.

But what if the 18 civilians were men, women and children from Peoria, IL? Would we make the moral trade-off quite so easily? If an al Qaeda member crept into Peoria some night and blew up 18 people, what would we call that person and what would we like to do to him and people who supported him?

What message do we send to the people of the world when we are willing to kill innocent people to achieve our military and political goals? I know that innocent people are always killed in wars and the President keeps telling us this is a war, but there is something about this attack that bothers me. Are we really willing to kill innocent people around the world on the chance it may save some of us? Are American lives worth more than Pakistani lives?

I suppose you can justify the civilian deaths in Iraq because the fighting there is needed to defend their new freedoms, but how do we justify the deaths of these Pakistanis? They might have been providing support to al Qaeda, but we aren't even sure we killed any terrorists so what would make us believe these people were not just innocent civilians?

This bothers me. I can see why some people might think we are also terrorists.

Technorati Tags: Political Terrorists

What's In A Name?

The abortion debate is not likely to end soon. I've suggested that we try to come together on a position that may not satisfy everyone, but might give a common goal that many of us could agree on. See Let's Make Abortion Rare.

We need a tag that quickly and clearly defines this view. Each side has used a term that tries to capture in a positive way their position.

"Pro-life" replaced "anti-abortion" which was too negative. I've argued that for many people who claim this position, "pro-life" is a misnomer. They should more appropriately be called "pro-birth" because they are more interested in making sure a child is born and much less about it's future. Too many pro-lifers care little about what happens to the mother or child after birth. In their zeal to insure that no abortion ever be tolerated, they lessen the moral weight of their arguments.

"Pro-choice" replaced "pro-abortion" as its proponents tried to remove the moral implications of an abortion. It is not the act or its consequences that are important, it is just important that women have the right to choose. In their zeal to insure that no abortion ever be prevented, they lessen the moral weight of their arguments.

What would be a good tag for people who believe that we should work to make abortions rare through positive actions, but retain the right of women to choose to have an abortion with reasonable restrictions? There is the obvious temptation to call the movement "pro-something". "Pro-rare?" "Pro-moral?" Neither of those is promising. How about an acronym? Keep abortions legal, but make them rare (KALBMTR)? Ugh! Make abortions rare, but legal (MARBL). Better, but someone with more imagination can suggest a better name.


Technorati Tags: Political Abortion

Robertson on Robertson

OK, I've changed my mind, it is now time to pray for Pat Robertson to come down with facial shingles (see Shingles For Robertson).

Pat Robertson has managed to utter another outrageous statement. Of course, I knew he would. He won't stop until he is no longer able to open his mouth. I don't predict or wish any bad things to happen to Reverend Robertson (except for the shingles), but we all die and bad things happen to many of us.

What kind of comments will we hear when Rev. Robertson dies or suffers from some serious disease or injury? I think a comment, in the Robertson tradition, would go something like this.

Did he really believe he could continue to make those outrageous statements without incurring God's wrath? There is a price to pay for pretending to speak for God. You can say he was an old man and his time had come, but I think God finally got fed up with his pretentious panderings. I liked the man, but I don't expect to meet him in Heaven.

Technorati Tags: Pat Robertson

Intelligent Design Explained

With apologies to Arthur C. Clarke,

Any sufficiently complex natural phenomenon will prove intelligent design to the insufficiently skeptical.

Technorati tag: Intelligent Design

Immigration Is A Population Issue

Population policy in the US and the world is not a hot topic, but it should be. Especially with the looming debate on immigration. Many of the world's problems are related directly or indirectly to population. China, the worlds most populous nation, is already suffering from many problems caused by over-population and has implemented government programs to try to control its population. You may disagree with some of its population policies, but they have at least recognized the problem and are trying to resolve it. Read Lindsey Grant's essay "China As An Emerging Nation; What It Means To The Rest Of US" for more information.

China and India (the world's second most populous country) are poised to become future super powers because of their large populations of cheap, skilled labor. The U.S. (the world's third most populous country) cannot grow its population fast enough to compete. Even if we could, our high level of consumption of resources per person would doom us. If we could lower our consumption (and standard of living?), we might be able to compete, but a declining standard of living should not be our goal.

Increasing immigration for cheap labor may do us all much more harm than good. It is obvious that cheap labor around the world has harmed the manufacturing base in the U.S. Do we really believe that bringing cheap labor to the U.S. will make us stronger? Or will it just lower the standard of living for even more Americans? For an example, read Lindsey Grant's essay "Social Security And The Fear Of Aging" which explains why mass immigration makes the problems with social security worse, not better.

If we want to increase immigration, we should encourage people with skills we need, like scientists, to immigrate. We should maintain our standard of living through innovation, wise use of resources and education, not cheaper goods, cheaper services and an ever growing population. Cheap labor may mean cheaper goods and services, but only for those who make enough money to afford them. If we win this race to the bottom with cheap labor, what is the prize?

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Immigration Over-Population

Why All The Secrecy?

In two previous posts I suggested that the NSA wire tapping story may have involved wide scale wire tapping and that there was more to this story than we are being told. In the past I've read accounts that indicate the government can scan massive amounts of telecommunications data looking for specific items and then focus on those conversations. Many political pundits have wondered why the administration didn't just go to the courts for approval for their wire taps. One reason may be that the way they are wire tapping is highly technical and highly controversial. The administration did not want to divulge details of this technology because it is so new, current laws may not cover this new technology and/or they did not want to face possible legislative limits on this new technology.

I came across an article that more clearly states the technical possiblities. The article on arstechnica.com is titled "The new technology at the root of the NSA wiretap scandal". You can agree or disagree with the authors opinions (be sure to read his/her followup post), but the technical discussion is very interesting.

The President may have tipped his hand when he kept saying that release of the New York Times article gave our enemies information they didn't previously have. Terrorists have to suspect we are trying to intercept their communications, but they may not have understood how sophisticated the technology had become or that we were using it to monitor communications to the US.

I don't like to be cynical, but I lived through Watergate and know how easily illegal government actions can be rationalized and hidden. How sure are we that this technology, if it exists, is not being used on purely domestic telecommunications?

On Meet The Press this morning, William Safire described how his home phones were, unknown by him at the time, tapped by the FBI for six months while he was working in the White House. It started when he had made an innocuous comment that was misconstrued. It can happen to any of us.

Technorati Tags: Political Wire Taps

Which is it Charles?

On Fox News Sunday this morning (Why do they call it Fox News Sunday?) Charles Krauthammer reiterated the administration claim that we are fighting terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here. A little later he asked why we hadn't been attacked in the US since 9/11. He then proceeded to answer his own question by crediting President Bush's secret NSA wiretapping program.

Which is it Charles? We haven't been attacked because all the terrorists are busy fighting us in Iraq or because our wiretapping has foiled all attacks?

Obviously we don't know why we haven't been attacked again. It might be because of the secret wiretapping, but for security reasons we are not going to be given any details. It might be because they are all fighting us in Iraq, but I doubt it (see my previous blog, Bush Divulges Secret Info). The fact is we don't know why we haven't been attacked here in the US since 9/11. I would assume that it is probably a combination of many factors (but not because we invaded Iraq). Maybe the terrorists just aren't ready.

Mr Krauthammer is basically echoing the administration line, "Trust us". Who was the sage who said "Trust, but verify"? Oh yeah, Ronald Reagan. If the NSA program is so crucial, why not bring in the top political leaders and describe the successes and risks of the program? Then the President could propose legislation to clearly authorize this kind of wiretapping. While they couldn't give details, the legislators who were briefed could attest that the value of the intelligence gained was significant and the risk to privacy was minimal (assuming it has been).

This won't happen for several reasons. One, I believe, is because there is more to this story than we've been told.

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Wire Taps

Bush Divulges Secret Info

I missed President Bush's address last Saturday. I've heard a lot about it so I went back and checked the text (click here for text).

About his authorization of questionable wire tapping, President Bush says,

Yesterday, the existence of this secret program was revealed in media reports after being improperly provided to news organizations. As a result, our enemies have learned information they should not have.

And the unauthorized disclosure of this effort damages our national security and puts our citizens at risk. Revealing classified information is illegal, alerts our enemies and endangers our country.

Are we really to believe that terrorists don't assume every attempt is being made to intercept their communications? I would be astounded if we weren't. As it is, I'm astounded that the President decided to do this in a way that circumvents the law.

If a someone, especially a news organization, has classified information about illegal or possibly illegal actions by government officials, what should they do? I think they have a responsibility to require the government to prove to their satisfaction that no laws were broken. If this is not done, they have a responsibility to go public. If they believed the actions were legal and that the government was correct that public disclosure would damage national security, they should sit on it. They could still go public with the info if it becomes public some other way or they come to believe the actions were, in fact, not legal.

He also said,

And the activities conducted under this authorization have helped detect and prevent possible terrorist attacks in the United States and abroad.

Duh! Even a half-witted terrorist could guess that their communications would be monitored, but did they know that monitored communications had actually foiled attacks? It seems to me that the most sensitive information about this monitoring was revealed by the President himself.

I've heard several news commentators say that the President has ordered 30 possibly illegal wire taps. I reviewed his Saturday address and I disagree with the number 30.

President Bush said,

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks on our nation, I authorized the National Security Agency, consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution, to intercept the international communications of people with known links to Al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. Before we intercept these communications, the government must have information that establishes a clear link to these terrorist networks.

Later he said,

The activities I authorized are reviewed approximately every 45 days. Each review is based on a fresh intelligence assessment of terrorist threats to the continuity of our government and the threat of catastrophic damage to our homeland.

Still later,

I have reauthorized this program more than 30 times since the Sept. 11 attacks and I intend to do so for as long as our nation faces a continuing threat from Al Qaeda and related groups.

I think he meant that he reauthorized the program every 45 days which over almost 4 years is about 30 times. The only reason I make this point is that some commentators seem to believe this was a very limited program of only 30 wiretaps. I don't believe that is what the President said. We do not know how many wiretaps were authorized. This could have been wide spread listening.

I don't doubt that the President had the best of intentions when he authorized this program, but good intentions don't trump the law. While the President feels strongly that it his duty to defend and protect the American people, it is our responsibility as citizens to elect and retain representatives that adhere to the law.

We correctly praise our armed forces for their sacrifices in defense of our liberty. We worry that dissension at home will send the wrong message to our troops. But our armed forces are not just defending their fellow citizens, they are also defending our constitution. What does it say to men and women who risk their lives every day in defense of this country, that we as citizens are so fearful for our lives that we are willing to ignore the constitution and laws to prevent another attack?

If fear allows our laws to be broken and our constitution to be ignored, we dishonor those who have sacrificed in their defense.

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Wire Taps

Defeatists Help Bush

President Bush's poll numbers are up a bit. Some pundits think it is because of his media blitz and his admission of mistakes in Iraq. Of course, he still isn't leveling with us.

He continues to link Iraq with terrorists and the war on terror. Actually, he is correct when he says that Iraq will become a haven for terrorists if we leave too soon. He doesn't mention that he created the situation by invading Iraq and botching the victory. The war on terror and the war in Iraq are only linked by this administration's failed policies.

And how stupid is the President to keep insisting that we need to fight the terrorists in Iraq so we don't have to fight them here? In Iraq we are fighting terrorists and insurgents. Not all the people going after US forces are terrorists whose only desire is to kill Americans. Some of them are insurgents who just want us to leave Iraq.

Does President Bush think the terrorists can't walk and chew gum? In Iraq we've given the terrorist a first rate recruiting and money generating operation. Besides, who says that the terrorists that we are fighting in Iraq are the only terrorists that would try to attack us at home? I would wager there are more than enough capable terrorists who are not in Iraq that can bring the fight to us. If you watch any news analysis shows you know that the experts think that it is only a matter of time before the terrorists again attack us in the US. What will President Bush say then? My guess is he'll blame the "defeatists".

By the way, I would wager that Representative Murtha is one of those "defeatists", but Murtha can claim a lot of the credit for getting Congress to question the conduct of the war and for President Bush to admit some mistakes and start talking about his plan. The very actions which seem to have brought up his poll numbers.

Unfortunately, too many people are easily confused and don't realize President Bush is still not leveling with us.

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Iraq

Iraq Ideas From Democrats

It is a frequent Republican compaint that Democrats have no ideas and just attack the President for political gain. Senator Carl Levin was on Meet The Press yesterday and made a strong case for the need to change course in Iraq. If you missed the show, you can view the netcast here. The entire show is very good, but Levin's explanation of what needs to happen next in Iraq starts at about 30:30. His questions about the recently disclosed spying on Americans starts at about 24:00. Secretary Rice's interview starts the program.

Senator Levin makes the case that a "stay the course" policy no longer works. He argues that the administration must pressure the Iraqi's to amend the constitution to bring the Sunni's into the political process. He is basically saying that "we will stand down as the Iraqi's stand up" is not a solution. It may describe a face saving way to get our troops out, but as the President correctly says, the idea is not just to get the troops out, it is to leave a stable and democratic Iraq.

To those who think the Democrats have no new ideas. Start listening!

Technorati Tags: Technorati Tags: Political Iraq Levin

Merry Holidays, Bah Humbug

Even though the issue is over-blown and over-discussed, I have to weigh in on the Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays/Holiday tree debate.

It is undeniable that the United States is historically a Christian dominated country. Christianity is the religion of the majority of US citizens. This has given Christians a level of privilege that has allowed them to legalize some of their traditions. Heterosexual marriage is one, the Christmas federal holiday is another. I suspect most Christians do not see their religion as privileged, so any action that seems to question these legalized beliefs is seen as an attack on Christianity. Christians should be cautious about invoking religion or the Bible when defending the ban on homosexual marriages or perceived acts against Christmas. They bring into question the constitutionality of these laws.

It is obviously silly to call a Christmas tree a holiday tree, but it is equally silly to be offended by the term. What is Christian about a Christmas tree except the name? A Christmas tree is a symbol of Christmas, but so is Santa Claus. Fireworks are the symbol of the Fourth of July so should be call local governments that ban fireworks unpatriotic?

Just like the heterosexual/homosexual marriage controversy, Christians are confusing the religious and the secular. For most people, Christmas trees and Santa Claus are secular traditions that are observed on the same day as Christians celebrate the birth of Christ.

Should Christians be offended when a store clerk wishes them "Happy Holidays"? Of course not. What is the proper etiquette? It is obviously appropriate for a Christian to greet a fellow Christian with "Merry Christmas". It is also seems appropriate for a Christian to greet a stranger with "Merry Christmas". They are expressing their beliefs and including the stranger in the joy of their holiday. How should a stranger greet a person they know to be Jewish? "Merry Chistmas" would be appropriate for the same reasons it would an appropriate salutation from a Christian to a stranger. "Happy Hanukkah" may be more appropriate since you are acknowledging this person's religion, although some people might feel uncomfortable invoking the blessings of a religion they are not a member of.

When a store clerk offers a holiday greeting are they expressing their beliefs or the store's? A store probably does not want its employees expressing their personal religious beliefs. If some Christians are sensitive to "Happy Holidays", how would they react in a store where the clerks are all wishing customers "Happy Hanukkah"? Since a public corporation has no religion, if the clerk is representing the store and does not know the religious beliefs of the customer, "Happy Holidays" seems appropriate. The clerk is acknowledging that this is a special time of the year in the midst of a secular transaction.

For Christians who are truly offended by "Happy Holidays" and "Holiday tree" I suggest that you treat Christmas as a strictly religious holiday. Do not put up a Christmas tree (or a holiday tree). Do not buy presents. Do not confuse your children with the myth of Santa Claus and lobby your elected representatives to remove Christmas from the list of federal holidays. Return Christmas to a purely religious holiday. But don't be suprised when the holiday greeting you get is "Bah, Humbug".



Technorati Tags: Happy Holidays Religion Holiday Tree

Crude, Oily, Executives

So now we find out that big oil executives are no better than tobacco executives. According to documents leaked to the Washington Post, oil executives lied to Senators last week when they said their companies did not speak to the Vice-President’s energy task force. These guys give new meaning to the term “crude oil.” When you say Conoco, put the emphasis on CON. Shell game? BP - Big Prevaricaters. EXXON, Exhonest.

I guess the oil executives thought they were safe since the Vice-President’s Office has refused to tell who was interviewed by the energy task force. Why the secrecy? Could it be that the Vice-President doesn’t want to show how much input oil executives had on administration policy? Maybe they were embarrassed by having sent a bill to Congress that gave huge tax benefits to oil companies at a time they are making huge profits. Maybe they realize that while they can see the big picture, we can't. And even if we might be able to understand, it is just too much aggravation to try.

And now the Republican refusal to ask oil executives to be sworn in before testifying to the Senate committee sounds more sinister. Did someone know these guys might need to lie?

I am more outraged by these shenanigans after reading yesterday about the internal investigation at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that showed that its former chairman, Kenneth Y. Tomlinson, broke federal law in his attempts to politicize PBS. This Republican, Bush appointee believed PBS, the Public Broadcasting System, (and the show "Now" in particular) was too liberal, even though polls show that Americans rate the public network as the most fair in its coverage. I don't think that it is just Republicans who are arrogant enough to believe only they can see the truth. But now that they are in power, they certainly believe that any action taken to serve these truths is justified.

By the way, even before Tomlinson tried to gut "Now", that program and its host, Bill Moyers, were my examples of how a news/commentary show should be run. Even when Moyers interviewed people he admitted on air he didn't agree with, he did so with respect and civility. He didn't try to shout them down, humiliate them or embarass them. He even asked questions, believe it or not, that were intended to help him understand the issue from the other person's point of view. Given today's TV climate, it was very refreshing.

I believe this administration is using a new twist on the old philosophical debate, “If a tree fell in the forest and no one heard it, did it actually make a sound?” Their new version is, “If you tell a lie and no one can prove it, is it really a lie?”

Technorati Tags: Political Oil Tomlinson

NY Paramedics Are Heroes

60 Minutes this evening had a segment on 13 New York paramedics who, on their own with no official support, went to Pakistan to help earthquake victims. These brave men and women were helping hundreds of people. Even weeks after the quake, these paramedics were the only help some of these people had received. Working with inadequate supplies, but lots of Yankee ingenuity and American can do attitude, they were making a difference in the lives of people who had never even seen an American before this. They are truly heroes.

They made the point that the people of the remote valley they were in would have a positive image of Americans for years to come. This reminded me of an article I read a few months ago (I can’t recall the actual source or author) that suggested that we finance a fleet of hospital ships. These ships would be state of the art and could bring world-class medical help to places without such facilities. While they would provide help around the world on an on-going basis, these ships could also be quickly moved in an emergency to areas of greatest need.

While part of the reason to do this is to improve the image of the U.S. around the world, if we can do this and provide medical help to people who might not otherwise receive it, we all win. While Karen Hughes is trying to figure out how to boost our image in the Muslim world, our troops (and 13 brave paramedics from New York) in responding to the tsunami and the earthquake have made us a lot of friends.

The Navy has the hospital ship Mercy which can be deployed in an emergency but it took 30 days to sail from San Diego where it is based to the Indian Ocean region for tsunami relief. A fleet of hospital ships and other ships outfitted to respond quickly to natural disasters deployed around the world would prove that we are truly a super power. A nation that not only has a big economy and a big military, but also a big heart.

Technorati Tags: NY Paramedics Hospital Ships

Shingles for Robertson

Once again Pat Robertson has channeled God to let us know that the people of Dover, Pennsylvania should be prepared for God’s wrath after they voted pro-intelligent design advocates off the school board.

According to Pat Robertson, "I'd like to say to the good citizens of Dover: if there is a disaster in your area, don't turn to God, you just rejected Him from your city."

Reverend Robertson, What The Hell Were You Thinking?

No one in Dover voted for the pro-intelligent design candidates? One would expect that if there were a disaster in the area, voters who voted for the pro-intelligent design candidates would be affected as well as the sinners. What about people who voted a split ticket? How would that work? If you voted for even one anti-intelligent design candidate are you doomed? Since this was an election, maybe God works on the simple majority rule. You are OK if you voted for more pro-intelligent design candidates than anti-intelligent design.

I might have some respect for televangelists if they weren’t millionaires who make a living retailing salvation.

Rev. Robertson believes so strongly in the power of prayer I thought about suggesting we all pray for some painful affliction to strike him. Something like facial shingles every time he makes an outlandish statement. Then I realized it had already happened. He already suffers from chronic stupidity and unremitting foot in the mouth disease.

Technorati Tags: Pat Robertson WTHWYT

Make A Deal

The courts have overturned the conviction of Andrea Yates because a prosecution witness was shown to have lied under oath.

This gives the Texas legal system another chance to show that it understands that mental illness is a medical problem. From what we've learned from the media, can anyone really believe that Andrea Yates truly wanted to harm her children? She suffers from a mental illness that led her to methodically drown her children; a horrendous act that will haunt her forever.

What is the purpose of putting Andrea Yates in prison? To make sure she doesn't do this again? No. To remove a threat to society? No. To show others that killing their children will not be tolerated? No. To avenge the deaths of five children? I guess. The courts can insist that she receive treatment and counseling to insure that she is not a threat to herself or others, but putting her in jail serves no purpose. No punishment can be worse than the agony she faces every day as she relives her actions.

I believe at one time the outrage of the prosecutors led them to consider seeking the death penalty. They changed their minds. Was that because even they realized that an execution would probably be closer to euthanasia than punishment?

The law may need to be blind to everything except the facts, but there must be a way for compassion and understanding to temper cold logic and insure true justice. Texas prosecutors need to offer a deal that gives Andrea Yates help and not jail time.

Technorati Tags: Andrea Yates

Let's Make Abortion Rare

Abortion is a devisive issue in American politics, but we are beginning to hear some reasoned discussions that might bring us together, at least all except the extremes on both sides.

First, let us agree that we would all prefer that abortions be rare. If you can't agree with that statement, save your time and move on because you won't agree with anything else I've written. If you think there should be absolutely no abortions you are unrealistic. No matter what laws you pass or who sits on the Supreme Court, abortions will continue. They may not be legal, but they will occur. If you think abortions should be unrestricted you are also unrealistic. That isn't the law now and I can't believe it ever will be. There will always be restrictions on abortion.

So let's try to modify our agreement to say that abortions should, in some cases, be legal, but should be rare. The catch is in the "in some cases." For the moment let's set aside in which cases abortion should be legal. Since we haven't been able to agree on the "in some cases" up to this point, I don't believe we are going to solve that one easily.

So let's tackle how we make abortion rare. I don't believe I can lay out (or you would be willing to read) detailed proposals for doing this, but some options might be:

• Better, required sex education in schools. Basic science and facts. Including contraception and abstinence.
  
• Required ethical discussions. These could be conducted by religious institutions and/or in schools.
  
• Make family planning available to everyone and free.
• Make adoption easier and give financial incentives.
• Make the morning after pill readily available.
  

I'm sure there are many people with more insight and experience in these matters than me who can make additional suggestions. Don't tell me that making abortions rare is unrealistic. We won't know until we've really tried. We've been fighting the abortion battles for more than 30 years and neither side is happy, let's work hard to decrease abortions over the next 30 years.

If both sides could set aside their opinions on abortions and concentrate on ways to make it rare, maybe we could reach a point where the legal issues are just not as important as they are now. Pro-life advocates could take solace in how many abortions they've prevented. The number of abortions wouldn't be zero, but then it never will be. Pro-choice advocates could protect a woman's right to choose. There will continue to be restrictions and attempts to add more restrictions, but if abortions are rare these fights will not have to be so political. We may be able to make reasoned decisions rather than take hard political stances which seldom leave room for compromise.

Technorati Tags: Political Abortion

How Do You Spell Hypocrisy?

Conservative politicians killed the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court before she even had a chance to defend herself before the Senate. What about all the outrage from Republicans that every judge should have an up or down vote? How do you spell hypocrisy?

So if Democrats decide to filibuster Bush's new nominee, Samuel Alito, will Republicans show their moral mutability, decry the attempt to prevent an up or down vote on Alito and invoke the nucleur option? You can bet on it. The moral compass of politicians is moved by expediency.

Technorati Tags: Political

The Earth Has A Disease.

The Earth has a disease. Environmental problems are symptoms and people are the infectious agent. It is irresponsible to discuss environmental problems without discussing the affects of overpopulation.

Individuals are the problem. There are too many of us. Even though our personal impact may be small, multiplied by billions we cause global problems. One SUV does not significantly damage the environment. Sixty-eight million SUVs on American roads is a problem that is the result of 68 million individual decisions.

As individuals we must continue to take responsibility for the environmental damage we cause directly and demand the same from the organizations that serve us, but we must also confront the more basic problem, overpopulation. Given our current lifestyles, there are more people than the planet can support. No matter how little damage we do as individuals, if there are enough of us, we will destroy the planet. We can reduce the Earth's human population and let it heal itself or we can let nature take its course. Nature will solve this problem, I hope there are some people around to enjoy whatever is left.

Technorati Tags: Political Ideal Population Overpopulation

Who Should Pay For Katrina?

Ron Harris, in Monday's St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reported on the fight in Congress over how to pay for rebuilding the gulf coast after Katrina. The Republican leadership is trying get the funds by cutting some current programs, mainly in areas that affect the poorest of our people. $10 billion from Medicaid and Medicare. 8.5 billion in increased fees to lenders who make student loans. An amount that will undoubtedly be passed on to the students. All the while refusing to discuss rolling back tax cuts to the richest Americans or revisiting the pork ridden highway bill. Medicare is not allowed to negotiate with drug companies to reduce the price of drugs (a huge benefit for the pharmaceutical industry), but we can make it harder for students to get the money to go to school.

I guess the new version of that old saying is "The rich get richer and the poor foot the bill."

I hope all those people who voted for Republicans because they believed them to be the party with morals will take note. It doesn't seem that the Republicans are the party who care for the least of us.

Technorati Tags: Political