Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Crude, Oily, Executives
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
Sunday, November 13, 2005
NY Paramedics Are Heroes
60 Minutes this evening had a segment on 13
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.
Technorati Tags: NY Paramedics Hospital Ships
Friday, November 11, 2005
Shingles for Robertson
Once again Pat Robertson has channeled God to let us know that the people of
According to Pat Robertson, "I'd like to say to the good citizens of
Reverend Robertson, What The Hell Were You Thinking?
No one in
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
Thursday, November 10, 2005
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
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.
Technorati Tags: Andrea Yates
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Let's Make Abortion Rare
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.
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
Thursday, November 03, 2005
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
Monday, October 31, 2005
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
Monday, October 24, 2005
Who Should Pay For Katrina?
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
Sunday, September 25, 2005
Debt To Chinese A Threat?
He pointed out that what we now owe the Chinese is approaching a TRILLION dollars and asks what kind of influence that amount of money will give the Chinese in our affairs.
Has our debt to the Chinese become a national security threat?
Technorati Tags: Political National Debt
Iraq Shoudn't Pay For Katrina
If you had to choose, which of the following would you say would be the best way for the government to pay for the problems caused by Hurricane Katrina: increase the federal budget deficit, raise taxes, cut spending for the war in Iraq, or cut spending for domestic programs such as education and health care?The response was (9/16-18/2005):
Cut Iraq Spending 54%We should not have gone into Iraq, but we now have moral obligations to the people of Iraq, just like we have moral obligations to the people devastated by Katrina and Rita. We cannot take money needed to pay our obligations in Iraq to pay our obligations to our fellow citizens.
Raise Taxes 17%
Increase Deficit 15%
Cut Domestic Spending 6%
Other, Unsure 8%
Technorati Tags: Political
Tuesday, September 13, 2005
Does This Sound Familiar?
H. L. Mencken
Technorati Tags: Political
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
Withdrawal By 12/2006 Is Good Idea
- Insurgency violence must decrease significantly.
- The Iraqi army and police must be ready to take over security.
- Infrastructure projects must be completed or on a timeline to be completed. Clean water and electricity must be available at all hours.
- Iraqi citizens must enact a constitution that creates a democracy where the rights of women, ethnic and religious minorities are protected.
- A stable, elected government must be in place.
- The oil industry is producing revenue to help support the country.
All of these tasks should be able to be accomplished in the next 15 months if there were no insurgency. The prospect of our departure would give the insurgents an incentive to backoff. If the Bush administration is correct and the insurgents will just wait until we leave, that would be OK as long as the violence decreases significantly in the mean time and we achieve our other goals. If the insurgents want to keep fighting, we are no worse than we are today. We would need to make it clear that we don't intend to leave until these tasks are complete.
These benchmarks should be coupled with checkpoints and dates so that everyone knows if progress is being made or not. If progress is not being made, the spector of a delayed withdrawal will motivate extra effort. As progress is made towards these goals, we would decrease the troop levels as has already been suggested.
This allows us to give a date which is the incentive to meet the goals. It also provides benchmarks we can use to prevent the Bush administration from cutting and running as next year's US elections draw near.
If the checkpoints and benchmarks are met, we can leave with a clear conscience knowing the next steps will be up to the Iraqis themselves.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Quote
William Proxmire
Win Millions, Identify Intelligent Designer
Technorati Tags: Religion Satire Intelligent Design
Monday, August 15, 2005
NRA Stalls Iraqi Constitution
No laws may be created that infringe upon the right of any Iraqi citizen (except women) to own and bear arms (defined here as any device containing explosive materials, such as hand guns, assault weapons, machine guns, rocket propelled grenades, mortars, etc.).
When Iraqi representatives balked at including this clause and when no compromise could be reached (i.e. the NRA didn't get it's way), the NRA halted the entire constitution drafting process which required a time extension.
One Iraqi delegate pointed out that such a broad definition of arms prevented the outlawing of IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices). NRA spokesman, Wayne LaPierre reportedly responded, "IEDs don't kill people. People kill people."
There was an attempt to keep the process moving with a promise to consider the clause as an amendment. Wayne LaPierre, again speaking for the NRA reportedly said, "Bearing arms is a god given right and deserves to be in the constitution, not in some stinking amendment! Been there, done that. "
Political insiders say that the Bush administration is in a quandary. It wants an Iraqi constitution soon, but it can't afford to offend the NRA. An unnamed source claims that Karl Rove has pictures of all of the Iraqi constitutional convention members in lurid, homosexual encounters and promises to make them public if any member continues to oppose the amendment.

Technorati tags: Political StopNRA Satire
Ideal U.S. Population?

The United States Census Bureau estimates the current population of the United Status to be about 290 million. While the number of people in the US may stabilize at some point in the future, there are economic pressures to have an ever growing population. Depending on the assumptions made, the US Census Bureau estimates that the US population in 2100 will range from 571 million with a moderate growth rate to 1.1 billion with a high growth rate.
Imagine this country with four times the number of people it has now. As you drive to work or walk through the mall, imagine three other people standing or sitting next to each person you see. Image cross country interstate highways with eight lanes in each direction. Imagine having to make reservations at national tourist attractions years in advance.
Would the United States with a population of somewhere between 571 million and 1.1 billion be the same country we love today? How would the quality of life be affected by such a large number of people? What would be the impact on the environment with so many people needing food, water and other resources?
Most of us consider an expanding population to be part of the natural order, but common sense tells us that at some point the population of the US will stabilize. Whether that will happen before or after we’ve done irreparable damage to the environment is up to us.
What is the ideal population for the United States? 1 Billion? 500 million? 300 million? 200 million? We can just wait and see what happens, but wouldn't it make sense to start a national discussion and build a consensus on an ideal population for the US? We could then talk about how we reach and stabilize at that level.
Technorati Tags: Political Ideal Population
Saturday, August 13, 2005
Citizens Must Speak English
All naturalized citizens and guest workers should be required to read, write and speak English. This is not a barrier to keep people out. Without English, new immigrants cannot fully participate in or contribute to the American Dream.
Technorati Tags: Political Official Language
Citizens Must Speak English
Monday, August 08, 2005
Limbaugh - The Entertainer

I think Rush Limbaugh is correct when he characterizes himself as an entertainer. Like Jay Leno he uses satire, out of context quotes, hyperbole and mischaracterization to make fun of politicians and captivate his audience. Unfortunately, Limbaugh poisons public discourse by claiming his one sided show represents truth, fact and excellence in broadcasting. And, sadly, his uncritical listeners believe him.
Technorati Tags: Political Rush Limbaugh
Sunday, August 07, 2005
"This Week" Is Worth Watching
While I have watched and like Meet the Press with Tim Russert for years, I really like the format of This Week. Their guests are great and Stephanopoulos is an excellent interviewer. I'm also always impressed with their panel discussion in the last segment of the show. George Will is a regular. Fareed Zakaria is often on. Of course, both are first rate. This morning had Cokie Roberts and Sam Donaldson who are both great. If you can only watch one Sunday morning show, This Week is a great choice. On weekday evenings, you can't go wrong with the NewsHour.
By the way, both This Week and PBS's The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer end with lists (and on the NewsHour pictures) of men and women killed in Iraq. It is done tastefully and I don't take it as antiwar. I always read the names and it is the custom in our house that anyone who is watching stops all activity and watches the names. No matter what you think about the war, we never want to forget the sacrifices the men and women in our armed forces are making.
Political
Support Our Troops
NRA - Not In My Backyard!

I wrote a post a few weeks ago congratulating the Columbus, Ohio, City Council for passing regulations banning assault rifles. Because of these new regulations, the NRA cancelled plans to have their 2007 convention in Columbus. I guess they were planning on bringing their assault rifles.
How depressing. The NRA has decided to come to St. Louis instead. I live in St. Louis. The NRA is correct; they won't have to worry about the elected representatives of Missouri passing any inconvenient laws. As a matter of fact, Missouri legislaters passed a concealed carry law last year even though the people in a referendum voted the idea down.
I guess I'll have to get myself a bullet-proof vest. Oh heck, that won't work. The NRA stopped the banning of cop killer bullets. I guess they can bring their assault rifles and bullet-proof vest piercing bullets. What the hell do people in the NRA do that requires assault rifles and cop killer bullets? I'll bet this is one super civil convention. You don't dare say anything that might piss someone off cause everybody's packin' heat. One cross word could start WW III in the hotel lobby.
StopNRA
NRA
