Bush Sets Target for Iraq Transition

(See here) a Washington Post article by Peter Baker that reports on a recent speech given by Dubyah.

First, my position on Iraq. I was against the invasion of Iraq for a number of reasons. Amongst these reasons is that I did not think the American people would have the stomach for a long slog if, as has happened, a long slog became necessary. Now that we have made a mess over there, I think it is our duty to clean up the mess we have made. I do not think we should "cut and run" however I am unwilling to stay over there forever, beating our heads against the wall without any significant improvement. I hope our leadership has the wisdom to lead us in doing the best job we can and then pull us out when we have done all that reasonably can be done. Hopefully we do not wear out our welcome to the point that our presence aggravates the situation instead of contributing to stability.

So what does Dubyah have to say about it?

"As more capable Iraqi police and soldiers come on line, they will assume
responsibility for more territory with the goal of having the Iraqis control
more territory than the coalition by the end of 2006," he said in a speech
to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me. He defines a goal which might be reasonably attained.

But what does the Democrat opposition have to say about it? From House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif):

"Instead of launching yet another public relations campaign, President Bush
should use his speeches this week to provide a strategy to bring our brave men
and women home safely and soon..."

OK Nancy, instead of just throwing stones, what steps should Dubyah take that are not being taken. Sounds to me like we are not going to make Nancy happy unless we "cut and run" and then the sooner the better. To tell you the truth, the fact that the majority of Democrats serving in the House elected Nancy to be their "Leader" is one of the reasons I would have difficulty calling myself a Democrat.

From Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (N.J.) said:

"It is time for President Bush to stop the spin and start telling the truth
about the harsh realities we are confronting in Iraq."

OK Frank, do you really think Dubyah should reasonably be expected to point out how bad things are going over there? I am fairly certain most Americans realize we are not engaged in a walk in the park. I am more interested from hearing from Dubyah where he thinks things could end up and where, as he fulfills his duties as Commander-In-Chief, he is trying to lead us. From Dubyah I heard a little bit of something, and yes I even sense he might be facing up to failed policies and setting slightly less grandiose targets. From you, Frank, I am hearing carping.

From Rep. Dan Boren (Okla.), a reportedly centrist Democrat:

"This was a step in the right direction... Benchmarks set, clear, defined goals, and if we see more and more Iraqis being trained and put on the ground, then that means we can bring more Americans home."

Now that is more like it. Less partisan sniping and a willingness to meet Dubyah halfway. Instead of insisting anything Dubyah has to say must be wrong for some reason or another, Dan is willing to sign on when leadership attempts become reasonable. Hopefully people like Dan can hold Dubyah's feet to the fire. Dubyah can talk the talk, will he walk the walk?

From the Washington Times comes (this) report on Dubyah's speech written by Stephen Dinan. In passing I will remark that the Times chose to spend more time reporting on what Dubyah had to say about Iran becoming involved in the conflict then where Dubyah was trying to lead us (the Post also reported on this). I only point to this article because it includes a quote from Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (Nev) who had this to say:

"Instead of redoubling his efforts to help form the representative government in
Iraq that is essential for defeating the insurgency and ending the sectarian
violence, the president has launched another public-relations campaign here at
home"

Harry's position is worthy of note because here, at least, I see some honest criticism. It has been months since the Iraqi election took place and the elected officials have still yet to form a government. Perhaps the Dubyah administration does need to pay more attention to this detail.

I am willing to listen to what Dubyah has to say. Yes I will join in condemning Dubyah for getting us into the mess in the first place, but as I remember it, there were a whole lot of Democrats supporting Dubyah as we rushed into the invasion of Iraq. There is plenty of blame to go around. If Democrats think they have a better way to get us out of the mess, I am waiting to hear about it. Democrats, too, better be willing to shoulder some of the blame for us finding ourselves in the situation we are in.

Personally, I am going to try and hold the Democrats as accountable for finding a reasonable solution as possible to the problems we face in Iraq. I do not define unabashedly partisan sniping as being reasonable.

The Wicked Bible

From lewrockwell.com comes (this piece) by Laurence M. Vance.

As I read his piece, at I was set upon pointing towards it without comment. However midway through he lost me. In conclusion, he states:

What part of "Thou shalt not kill" is so hard to understand?

To which my reply is, when our enemies understand it, we too can live by it.

Worthless Military Awards

(See here) this Newsweek article that describes the commendable efforts of a humanitarian to make the world a better place.

But what gets me is the trumpet of:

He left a desk job for the front lines of Fallujah—and a horror show few doctors
ever see. How Richard Jadick earned his Bronze Star.

Don't these guys realize that military awards are now worthless? The Republican party has been successful in thoroughly discrediting the little bits of ribbon we hang on our warriors chests. John Kerry served in Vietnam, and earned some of these little bits of ribbon, however somehow Republicans were successful in throwing these awards into the dustbin while honoring Dubyah's service. How many pieces of ribbon did Dubyah have to point towards?

Military awards do not mean anything. Republicans have been successful in dragging military awards through the meat grinder. Even someone who has served in Iraq and won the Purple Heart really has nothing to point towards. You can thank Karl Rove and the Republicans for that. Military awards no longer mean shit.

Go ask Dubyah.

Electricity From Windmills

Windmill electricity generation is again in the news. (See here) a New York Times article that reports on new windmills within upstate New York.

First the good news. Environmentalist leaders are speaking about this development from a positive perspective. They are not trying to cut the efforts by pointing out the threat to migrating birds and saying we have to come up with another solution (such as we must all become Amish while "they" continue to enjoy air conditioning and do not join the Amish).

Second the bad news. I am rather wide traveled. I have noticed with interest, OK, OK, downright glee, the expansion of windmills to wide areas of our nation. Every time I see another oversized truck headed down the road with an overlength windmill propeller I have smiled and attempted to give him all the room he needs because putting up with these oversized loads is part of the cost of solving America's future energy needs. But even proponents of windmills point out this is going to do little to dent our energy needs. (See here) a proponent site that claims:

Today, wind produces a small percentage of our nation's electricity. But
some believe wind power can produce up to 6 percent of our electricity needs
by 2020.

All this effort yields only 6 percent? Not just all the progress we have made, but the expansion that is to come only yields a paltry 6 percent? I guess we are going to have to expand our efforts.

Another positive development is that while Dubyah only spoke of, as a goal, ending our dependence on foreign oil, he spoke of many energy developments that have nothing to do with oil. Little American electricity is generated from oil anymore. What Dubyah included in his State of the Union Address, while it did sound the bugle on ending the dependence on foreign oil, also sounded the horn for starting progress on turning back global climate change. Even Dubyah, the big business, pro big oil, man was willing to look reality in the face and attempt to lead us to change. Apparently America might be willing to follow Dubyah's lead and make real progress. Proof is in what is already going on with little effort being made.

Just imagine what could be accomplished if we really set our minds to it!

Hamas's Legal Rights

(See here) a Haaretz article that reports on what Hamas thinks are "their rights" to continue armed resistance.

Armed resistance is a legal right and method of achieving Palestinian rights,
Hamas announced yesterday in its proposed platform for the next Palestinian
government.

OK, armed resistance is "a right". Hamas will not get much argument from me on that point. Legitimate resistance is "a right". But just where do we draw the line? How do we define "legitimate resistance"? Something tells me that my own definition is going to leave Hamas swinging in the breeze. What Hamas wants the international community to allow ain't going to happen. Personally I object to Hamas thinking they could conduct resistance that I would call resistance and expecting Israel should be forced to hold fire, however the international community might be more forgiving of them then I would be.

As an example of how I think Hamas defines legitimate resistance, I would imagine that Hamas "the terrorists" want to be able to conduct suicide bombings while Hamas "the political party" is held blameless and is free from reprisals. Come on now, Israel is supposed to hold her fire while the Palestinian government engages in this type of warfare against them?

We are not talking about just any warfare, we are talking about suicide bombings against civilian targets. There is no military value in targeting a discotheque or pizza parlor. We're not talking about collateral damage, we talking about deliberate attacks upon a civilian population. Just what part of international law does Hamas thinks allows this?

Hamas is now the freely elected representative of the Palestinian people. If the Palestinian people, through a Hamas led government, continues to wage war in an unacceptable fashion, then I say there is hell to pay.

As long as Hamas continues to insist on unreasonable, official, positions that hold no hope of fruitful negotiations? Well I am going to be amongst those who turn a deaf ear to anything the "official representatives" of the Palestinian people have to say.

I am willing to meet unreasonableness with unreasonableness and you want to know something? I think the Prophet might have done the same. What did the Prophet say? "Be harsh with them?" And when he spoke those words he was speaking about being harsh with whom?

I will close with another quote from the Prophet. Words of wisdom. "If they want peace we will give them peace, and if they want want war we will give them war." If Hamas wants a war, I say we give the Palestinian people what they voted for.

Settler Movement Founder Backs Kadima

The Israeli political party Kadima received (at least to me) an unexpected endorsement from within leadership circles of the Israeli settler community. (See here) a Washington Times article by Joshua Mitnick that reports on this.

Seems some settler leaders are starting to wake up to reality. Israel is not going to be allowed to continue the occupation while simultaneously continuing to expand the settlements. Some type of resolution is going to be forced upon Israel, Israel (and her chief benefactor, the United States) can not continue to defend the hypocrisy. Even Ariel Sharon came to realize this.

Rabbi Yoel Ben Nun endorsed Mr. Olmert's Kadima party, acknowledging that
the dream of Israel's controlling all of the biblical land of Israel is
unrealistic and accusing settler leaders of isolating themselves from the
Israeli mainstream.

I would imagine Rabbi Yoel Ben Nun has surveyed the landscape, reached the conclusion that change is coming, and decided the best way to influence what the changes will be is by being on the inside. There is little reason for Kadima to include Likud (or any party further to the right) in any coalition government that is formed, or else why was Kadima established in the first place?

Perhaps that will not hold true if election results do not follow current polls, and it is now Olmert who sits at the helm of Kadima, not Sharon. But if Kadima is still "Sharon's party", and from I have heard this is how current Kadima leadership is trying to sell the party in current campaign adds, it would be foolish for Kadima to attempt to form a government with the very people Sharon was trying to divorce himself from.

I doubt this endorsement is going to lead to numerous Kadima bumper stickers sprouting up on settler automobiles, however it could lead to stemming the erosion of support from amongst those who are most likely to support Kadima anyway.

Where All the Founding Fathers Christians?

Where all the Founding Fathers of America Christians? If you listen to Christian Radio stations they will lead you to believe this is so.

But is this so? How about Thomas Jefferson? I wish to share a passage that was penned by Thomas Jefferson himself that I found at Andrew Sullivan's blog, The Daily Dish.

"My views of the Christian religion are the result of a life of inquiry and
reflection, and very different from the anti-Christian system imputed to me
by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of
Christianity, I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of
Jesus himself. I am a Christian in the only sense in which he wanted anyone
to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others;
ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed
any other," - Thomas Jefferson, in correspondence with Benjamin Rush.

Seems as if Thomas Jefferson was a Christian, he was not like those Christians who describe themselves as evangelical. From the above quote I think one might safely call into question whether or not Thomas Jefferson believed Jesus was God.

Perhaps this is why so many of our forefathers (and it clearly must have been a majority) insisted upon "freedom of religion" and did not state it so that this freedom was restricted to being "freedom of Christianity"?

Polygamists Demand Their Rights

Polygamy is in the news again, (see here) a Newsweek article by Elise Soukup that reports on the issue.

Gay rights advocates do not like their "struggle" for legal same sex marriages to be tied to the issue of polygamy, but polygamy advocates are having none of that. Polygamists are looking at some of the successes gay rights groups are having in the courts and are using the same arguments in trying to get laws barring polygamy overturned. As the article points out, one of their arguments is if a child can have two mommies, then a child should be able to have two mommies and a daddy.

If it is OK for consenting adults to enter into a same sex marriage then why should it be illegal for multiple consenting women to enter into a marriage with one man?

Homosexuals describe the connection of the two issues as specious, however they ignore reality.

My own viewpoint is that society has the right to encourage monogamous, heterosexual relationships. One of the ways society does this is by granting special status to those who engage in such relationships, and grant them significant priviledges, when they engage in "marriage". The arguments that homosexual couples make for why they should not be denied this "right" can just as effectively used by those who wish to have their polygamist relationships granted the same recognition.

It is ironic that most of those who engage in polygamist relationships are (or at least the article describes them as such) "generally religious and conservative".

What might be the effect if society stopped discouraging polygamy? Seems polygamists always talk about one man marrying multiple women, you rarely or never hear of it being the other way around. Birth rates for men and women are roughly equal, so if large number of men start taking multiple wives, what about all the men who are left out without a woman to marry? If these men want to engage in an intimate relationship with "somebody" wouldn't these men then be FORCED into a homosexual relationship because there would no longer be enough women to "go around"? Don't these religious polygamists think homosexuality is a sin? But if "everyone" started doing things "their way" wouldn't we then be encouraging homosexuality?

Perhaps these devout Christians will come up with another solution? Perhaps all the men who are lucky enough to win more then one wife should be required to give "self help" lessons to all of our young adolescent men and teach them how to masturbate? After all, if homosexuality is a sin, and they are going to have to endure a life without a female because there are not enough to go around anymore, we are going to have to give them some way to relieve sexual tension. Perhaps these devout Christians will encourage masturbation as an alternative? Heck, I guess they could even incorporate masturbation in religious instructions at Sunday School.

Nah, they won't do that because masturbation is supposed to be a sin. Homosexuality is a sin. Adultery is a sin. Prostitution is a sin. But the Bible says polygamy is OK. OK polygamists, what does the Bible say all the single men you are going to force on society are supposed to do? Perhaps they are all supposed to convert to Roman Catholicism and become priests?

As for me, I am going to continue to vote against polygamy. I do not care what the Bible says about it. In my opinion polygamy is not good for society and we should not allow it. If you want to be a polygamist, then move somewhere else. The article says Canada is thinking about legalizing polygamy (to go along with same sex marriages) so you might want to head north.

Peacemaker Killed

(See here) this report that the American peace maker Tom Fox has been killed.

(See here) a JPost article that discusses just how involved in the peace process was this man called Tom Fox.

The "Swords of Righteousness Brigades" is attempting to do what? Claim the life of this genuine peacemaker must be sacrificed for what greater cause? Evidence is he was subjected to torture before he was rewarded with death.

If such a righteous soul can be snuffed out, what hope is there for the rest of us?

Competing With Hillary in 2008

Competing with Hillary in 2008. (See here) a Washington Post article written byThomas B. Edsall and Chris Cillizza that discusses Hillary's extreme fund raising ability and the impact on the 2008 Presidential election.

My own input on this subject is: Hillary can raise record amounts of money? So what? Hillary could raise a couple billion bucks and it is going to have little to no impact on whether or not she gets elected. Hillary is so well known, and people already have such ingrained opinions of her, that even if she was to swamp the airwaves with campaign commercials, these commercials would do little to increase her chances of winning. Hillary with a billion to spend stands little more chance of getting elected then Hillary with only a dollar in her pocket, she is that well known.

Truth is that Hillary was not even able to walk into her desired Senate seat from dark blue New York state. She had to engage in a rather competitive race even there to get elected. Hillary can pretty much lock up the dark blue states by just announcing her candidacy. However all the money in the world is not going to make her competitive in red states, and as long as the Republicans do not get ridiculous with who they nominate, that money is not going to help her in the light red ones either.

Using a deluge of campaign commercials to pound in a message that the majority of people reject is not going to be effective. It will only motivate those who reject the message to go vote come election day.

Transportation and tolls

Transportation and tolls.

I am a self employed truck driver. I have traveled well over a million miles on our nation's highways, covering all 48 states within the continental United States. This does not make me uniquely qualified to state an opinion, since I am one of only many truck drivers with similar experience (and not all of them would agree with me) however certainly I am better qualified then many of the politicians who wield the power on transportation decisions and who's experience is pretty much limited to commuting to work each day.

(See here) a Heritage Foundation article by Peter Samuel that discusses what is called "Smart Growth" by proponents as they push for approval of their ideas on how to meet our surface transportation needs in the future. Please notice a large portion of this idea is the use of tolls for funding construction needs.

Republicans are typically the politicians who are making the decisions and they seem to have fallen in love with the ideas of tolls. They refuse to raise the fuel tax, because they want to cut taxes, not raise them. But tolls? Somehow they have convinced themselves that tolls are "not really" a tax and putting tolls on all of our highways is the smart way to go. But is it really? Let's examine one of the new toll proposals in detail and see if this proposal holds up. Let us examine the proposal to make the entire length of Interstate 81 in Virginia a super tollway for trucks.

(See here) a New Republic article written by Clay Risen that discusses this proposal. I-81 is bustling with traffic. I would hardly call it extremely congested, and could come up with numerous examples of interstates that are far busier, however a large portion of the existing traffic is heavy trucks. This stretch of road has earned the nickname "NAFTA Highway" because it is one of the main freight corridors for trade goods coming out of Mexico headed to the Northeast US and Eastern Canada. Projections are for ever increasing truck traffic on this corridor, so even if it is not yet that badly congested, if nothing is done, it indeed could get ugly.

So what is the plan? The plan is to increase the number of lanes from four to eight with four of these lanes being dedicated truck toll lanes. The plan is to separate the truck and automobile traffic, which, since this corridor is fairly mountainous, is not such a bad idea. At first the proposal was for all traffic to pay tolls, however this met with opposition from the citizens of Virginia who didn't want to pay a new toll. Citizen opposition was silenced by nixing the tolls for cars and requiring that only trucks will have to pay for the improvements.

Traffic prognosticators forecast ever increasing traffic. But as the New Republic article states:

But the plan's fatal flaw is that, to recoup its investment, star assumes a
steady increase of truck traffic and a minimal amount of diversion onto state
highways and other roads. Basic economics, however, proves otherwise.

The article then goes on to discuss all the truck traffic coming out of Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina that will be diverted to the US-29 corridor to avoid the toll. Left undiscussed is the fact that a lot of the traffic that is on I-81 is there in order to avoid the tolls that already exist on other, shorter routes. Once I-81 becomes a tollway, the motivation for truckers to take the longer I-81 route into the Northeast will be removed. If you have to pay a toll either way you go, you might as well stick with the shorter route.

Also left undiscussed is all the truck traffic currently coming out of Mexico, Texas, Arkansas and all points from the Southwest. Much of this traffic will be diverted to the only slightly longer Bluegrass Parkway, I-64, I-79, I-68 corridor finally meeting up with I-81 in Maryland to avoid the tolls in Virginia.

Won't happen? Let us examine what happened to the New Jersey Turnpike Authority when they recently increased tolls on the New Jersey Turnpike. New Jersey figured that if they increased tolls by a certain percentage, multiplied by existing usage rates and factoring in projected increases in traffic they would reap a certain increase in revenues. Only problem was the full increase in projected revenues did not happen, and the New Jersey Turnpike Authority was faced with major revenue shortfalls. This was even after rather draconian steps by New Jersey (possibly in violation of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act) to force all truck traffic onto the tollway.

It is perhaps ironic that the New Jersey Turnpike Authority might actually benefit if I-81 becomes a tollway, since some of the increased truck traffic on I-81 is there to avoid the tolls on the I-95 corridor.

So what would I propose? Well, since I AM a citizen of Virginia, I would suggest that Virginia raise the fuel tax. Virginia's fuel tax is less then all neighboring states, and even with a sizable increase, would still be downright reasonable in comparison to many examples nationally. As far as this citizen is concerned, a toll is a tax, and if you are going to raise my taxes I would like to see it done in as fair a manner as possible. I certainly do not want to later hear the eggheads asking for forgiveness if the whole I-81 improvement project becomes a boondoggle because "no one could anticipate" the revenue shortfalls.

Yes, I did write my state Senator, Frank W Wagner, about this. He's even on the Transportation Committee. Problem is that man is so in love with tolls, he wants to even put a tollbooth on I-85 at the North Carolina state line. I did not receive a response from him, and it looks like full speed ahead on tolls in Virginia. All I can say is wait till election day!

Alternative Fuel Subsidies

Exxon Mobil objects to subsidies of alternative fuels. (See here) the Australian Financial Review article that reports upon this.

Seems Exxon Mobil has trouble figuring out how to compete with existing tax incentives. Rather then investing in alternative fuels, taking advantage of the tax incentives, and helping us get over that which the President of the United States describes as our "addiction to oil", they seem to be motivated to keep us addicted.

It is not as if crude oil is the energy of the future. Even without the threat of global warming becoming ever abundantly clearer, the future of our dependence on oil is evident for anyone who chooses to google "peak oil". But where does Exxon Oil put their profits? They invest in the past instead of looking into the future and investing for their future profits in the world that will come.

Instead of facing reality and seeking future profit potentials, they seek to do their best to drain as much profit from the bladder before the bladder runs dry. They are like a leech that has attached itself to a body. As long as the body lives the leech has an endless supply of blood. But if the leech has the unfortune to attach itself to a cancerous body that is set to expire?

Heh heh, some Exxon stock holders need to slap the leadership that guides their corporation. These leaders do not need a crystal ball, all they really need is a clear set of eyeglasses. The future is clear, and Exxon is getting ready to expend money on how they wish things could be, and ignoring the future that is going to happen.

Exxon is not part of the solution, Exxon is part of the problem. Let's put a windfall profits tax on them as they try to milk the profits from an ever decreasing market. If Exxon refuses to invest for the future, perhaps we can come up with a way to invest for the future like they refuse to do.

I do not have a whole lot of faith in getting the government doing anything wise, however if we can tax Exxon while giving subsidies to Exxon's competitors in the alternative energy market, we might achieve the balance.

If Exxon can not figure out how to be America's energy company, then we just need to figure out a way to replace Exxon.

Anti-trust Provisions of the Patriot Act

(See here) an article by S. M. Oliva that appears at lewrockwell.com that discusses an anti-trust enforcement provision that was tucked away in the Patriot Act.

First, let me state that I condemn this provision being included in the Patriot Act, since it has nothing to do with what the Patriot Act is supposed to be about. However, as near as I can tell, things like this happening is not unusual. Congressman often include absurd items in things like Defense Appropriation bills that have nothing to do with defense. If Mr Oliva was only seeking to condemn this, that the item did not belong there, well I would be all ears. But he was speaking against this provision before it found its way into the Patriot Act. Often powerful congressman include unpopular provisions, items that would not pass if they were voted for on their own, in popular bills and then dare the opponents to vote against the bill because of all the bullshit that was tagged onto it.

But is this item in and of itself really that bad? Perhaps the reason it was included is that if the "average citizen" has to surrender as much of what we think is our right to privacy, then the corporate boardroom should also have to surrender a little bit of a right to privacy. Perhaps this was the only way to get the item approved.

Truth is, that the American corporate players have been engaged in constricting the number of players that are competing on the playing field. Big companies are buying out numerous small and even large competitors and the American public is being sold the bill of goods that they will benefit in the long run because of increasing economies of scale. This works as long as the players that remain are competitive and do not engage in price fixing. As long as the players that still remain engage in honest competition, well then the consumer benefits. But if the few players that remain start price fixing?

Let us examine what is happening in the oil and gasoline markets. Back in the early 1900's Standard Oil was broken up because it had become a trust in the market place. Standard oil had removed just about all competition and the consumer had to either pay Standard Oil's price or go without. As a result Standard Oil was forced into breaking up. For a long time this led to honest competition in the marketplace because it took only one honest competitor to keep the market honest, for prices to be set at reasonable, profitable and competitive levels.

But what is happening now? For a long time we have heard of constriction of the number of players within oil companies. I could list a few, but let me just say, who has not heard of the new oil company known as Exxon/Mobil due to these mergers?

Did this merger hamper competition? Well let us examine what happened after hurricane Katrina. Hurricane Katrina rolled through and supposedly caused extreme damage to both American domestic crude oil production as well as refining capacity. Some of this damage might have been covered by insurance, however all the damage should have resulted in at least a challenge for American oil companies getting over the devastation and still remaining profitable.

But that is not what happened. Instead of having to put on their thinking caps figuring out how to finance recovery, American oil companies made record profits and had to figure out ways to hide the embarassing riches. Is anyone not familiar with Exxon's reports of record profits in the last quarter?

So am I in favor of strong anti-trust enforcement powers? Well you are damn right I am. If I am willing to put up with the possibility that some government agency might examine which library books I might be reading I want corporate executives worrying about someone listening in as they get on the telephone and decide what price I have to pay at the fuel pump.

Truth is that I do not want to end up paying $10 a gallon for fuel anytime real soon, and our recent hurricanes have proven that some people will take advantage of us everytime we, or Mother Nature, give them the opportunity or excuse to do so. I am hoping these new powers might catch some of the guilty red handed.

The proof is in Katrina, the fuel prices we paid, and the record profits. Now that is reality. Do not try and tell me someone didn't deserve to be thrown in jail. Let's go get them.

No Future For Fusion Power?

No future for fusion power? (See here) a New Scientist article written by David L Chandler that discusses a paper written by now deceased physicist Williams Parkins that was published in the journal Science.

William Parkins contends research in fusion power generation is not apt to ever produce anything useful.

According to the article, even the staunchest of advocates admit power producing fusion plants are decades away, perhaps as much as 50 years, and even then might not be economically viable. Economic viability will depend on what the cost is of other energy sources by that time.

In the past, I have heard some speak of fusion power as if it might one day be the Holy Grail that will solve all of our future energy needs and be key to solving the global warming problem. This might still be the case, however those involved in the quest for fusion power, those who best might know the future, seem to have their doubts.

My own hope is that we push on with other alternative energy sources. There appears to be little reason to hold back while we wait for fusion power to solve all the problems.

Let's Tax Soda Pop

Let's tax soda pop. (See here) an MSNBC article that discusses the sugar laden drink as being the main cause of obesity.

We need to tax the public until they give up on this public health threat. This is what we are doing to tobacco and the threat to the public health from sugar laden beverages should not be ignored either.

Please be quick to note that my beverage of choice, beer, should not be taxed. Turns out you are better off drinking your average beer beverage then you are drinking your average softdrink.

So it turns out drinking beer is good for you if it is drank in moderation. Now if I could just get that "moderation" part perfect!

What the heck, as long as I do not drink and drive, consuming beer to excess is probably no worse then drinking soda pop in moderation, that is as long as you are not on the Adkins diet! Even then some beer advertisers claim that if you drink all of their beer you want, you can do so with zero carbohydrates!

OK, let us tax Coca-cola, Pepsi-cola, Kool-aid, and all of these other purveyors of sugar laden beverages. Childhood obesity is on the increase as reported (here). The REAL threat to the health of our children does not reside with the tobacco industry inducing our children to smoke. It lies with all the parents who are raising little fat kids.

This will still be an American free society. If parents want to raise little fat kids by pouring soft drinks down their throats they will still be allowed to do so. However we should make it more expensive for them to follow this behavior that threatens the greater public health by imposing taxes upon them.

Once we have succeeded in taxing soft drinks out of existence, the next stop is taxing pre-sweetened breakfast cereals and donuts to the point they too are unaffordable. Here too in a free society you can consume them if you want, we are just going to make it unaffordable for you to do so.

Meanwhile, those of us who continue to live "healthy lives" within the ever changing definition of just what exactly a "healthy life" is are going to pay for everything we want from the taxes we are going to get from those of you who refuse to conform.

Just be forewarned. Do not try to include beer in this definition. We are willing to give up soda pop, we are willing to give up sugar pops. But if you dare to include beer, well you are going to have a real problem. Grin.

Jimmy Carter Speaks About Middle East Peace

Jimmy Carter speaks about Middle East peace. (See here) this transcript of a speech he delivered that comes from his Carter Center website.

While I too can find fault with some of what he says, let us look at what he states as a whole. Can anyone find fault with his expertise on this issue? This man was once President of the United States. I think his opinion matters. For anyone who feels they will be corrupted by this "damn liberal" viewpoint, let me point out that he also points to pronouncements from that most respected of conservatives, Ronald Reagan.

I wish that peace was as possible if we only followed the lead of Jimmy Carter. I fully appreciate his opinion, and would wish that his opinion is correct. I guess I could take the easy shot and say if peace was that easy to achieve, well why didn't he achieve it during the four year opportunity he had? But if I am truthful with myself and with Jimmy's legacy I have to admit that when it comes to the Middle East, the Jimmy legacy ain't that bad. His leadership has provided more peace then that which would have been possible without his leadership. Strong acknowledgements also go to the involvement of Sadat and Begin to where we are now. But from an American perspective, I am going to point to he who led my nation at the time, and that man was Jimmy Carter.

No one can dispute the efforts of Jimmy Carter. Can anyone dispute that since Jimmy Carter's days we have yet to see Egyptian tanks poised to invade Israel? I am not saying everything this man states is indisputable. I am only saying the opinion of this elder statesman is worthy of consideration.

While Jimmy Carter was in office, when it comes to Middle East peace, America, and the world, achieved more progress in this area of the world that that which has been achieved by all other American administrations, combined, since.

The opinion of Jimmy Carter might not be coming from God. His stated opinion might be open to honest debate, but please do not dismiss his opinion out of hand.

When it comes to Middle East peace, out of the mouth of Jimmy Carter we're hearing the expressions of an expert.

I pray that Jimmy Carter continues to enjoy the health with which he has thus far been blessed. And I hope he continues to be motivated to share his opinion with us.

Conspiracy Theories - What About the Anthrax Attacks?

Recently I have been debating with Boris Epstein on his blog (see here) about conspiracy theories about the attack on the World Trade Center. I am of the opinion that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks and we might as well take Osama at his word when he claims responsibility. As far as I am concerned, the facts dump responsibility in his lap.

But what about the Anthrax attacks? (See here) a website that discusses some of the problems associated with the "official version" we have thus far been fed. Please be aware that no guilty person or party has yet been positively identified. My problem is not with what they discuss but with what I know from personal experience.

My own problems with the Anthrax attacks is that as I was listening to what was going on as America endured the attacks my own mind was racing trying to figure out who could be behind the attacks. One thing that was reported upon, in fact as far as I know it was the last attack to be reported upon as occurring, was the attack, via mail, upon an orphanage in South America. The letter that contained the attack had a Florida return address yet it bore a postmark from Switzerland. I found this report to be extremely interesting, and it pointed to a source of the attacks that I myself thought to be incredible but which might be possible.

Since those days, our government has tried to point that the culprit must have been some "evil genius" scientist who was acting on his own. This might yet be fact, but what troubles me is that when I search the web for information about the attack on the orphanage, this loose thread in the explanation we are given, I can not find anything about it.

I can google until I wear blisters on my fingertips trying to find additional information on this and I get nothing to reward my efforts. Where was this reported? While I not 100% sure, I am pretty certain I heard this reported upon by NPR. I can even search NPR's website without reward for my efforts.

This disturbs me because I am 100% certain this occurrence was reported as happening. What causes me great trouble is that information about this attack is totally absent from the web. I can even search NPR.org and it is as if this was never reported upon.

Was the internet "cleansed" of this attack? Would this attack have been too difficult to match up with the explanation that we are being offered about the anthrax attacks?

I am left wondering just why any information about this attack is totally absent from the web. Donald Rumsfeld said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." But in this case, does absence of evidence point to something else?

I am not going to go into what I think is the explanation for this. All I know for fact is that the attack on the South American orphanage (I no longer can recall exactly which country) was reported as happening. As far as I can see, any evidence of the reporting of this occurrence has been erased from human history.

So what am I left wondering? Why is it that I can google until my fingertips are blistered and I can not find any further additional reports about it? If the report had just been erroneous (which it could have been) I should have been able to find additional info, or if nothing else find the report itself. Instead it has been erased as if it never happened, or even reported upon as happening.

What does this mean? I am not going to jump to conclusions, but I am left wondering if the "outrageous" conclusion I reached way back then might still be the truth. I am convinced that efforts to hide the truth is evidence that the truth is out there, and the truth might be pretty horrible indeed.

Perhaps if "the truth" had not just been erased? And perhaps if those who erased "the truth" had replaced it with a lie? Why did they feel it necessary to erase the truth in the first place?

I almost feel like I am living a case of X-Files. Perhaps the truth really is stranger then fiction.

Iraq, Saddam and WMD's

Iraq, Saddam and WMD's.

While exploring the internet I came upon reports of tapes that Saddam made while he was still in power. (See here) and (here) articles at Investors.com and (here) an article at Mediachannel.org that report on this. Many additional articles can be found by doing a search of Google News with "Saddam tapes WMD" as the search criteria.

From what I can see, thus far the only thing the tapes prove is that Saddam once had a WMD program, and that if he could ever get UN Weapons Inspectors to leave him alone he intended to reconstitute this program. I do not think there are many people who would have disagreed with this conclusion even without the tapes.

However many people are trying to point to these tapes and then make the jump to that the tapes prove that Saddam possessed weapons that the inspectors never found, and that what Saddam did was move these weapons into Syria and Lebanon to avoid their capture by American forces. As far as I can tell, there are no statements on the tapes that prove this actually happened, but some still point to the tapes as proof anyway.

There are statements that the Iraqi government, under Saddam, was not being fully cooperative with UN Weapons Inspectors, but this was not anything new. Perhaps the tapes are "something new" in that they would seem to prove what many already suspected probably was factual, that Saddam at some future point in time intended to resurrect his WMD program if he was ever given a chance.

Some are trying to lace what is on the tapes together with "eye witness" accounts from the likes of Georges Sada and Ali Ibrahim to make the case that Saddam had WMD's all along, and, yup, Russian Special Forces assisted Saddam in spiriting them into Syria.

To these people I state, well, these eyewitness accounts might be reliable, but then again they might not be either. Ever heard of a guy by the name of Ahmed Chalabi and how he fooled the CIA and the Dubyah administration? Isn't one of these guys trying to sell a book and isn't his book apt to sell a little better if it presents wild claims as fact?

Seems to me that if Saddam really had an ongoing WMD program which was as robust as the Dubyah administration claimed prior to the invasion of Iraq, our intelligence agencies should have been able to find concrete evidence of it by now, considering they have had the ability to go where they want and interrogate whoever they want within Iraq for how long now?

Let's try to think about this reasonably. If Saddam possessed WMD's, why didn't he use them against invading US forces? Did he have anything to lose by using them? What, if he didn't use the WMD's against US forces he could somehow escape being put on trial like he is right now? If he diabolically figured out there was some greater advantage to be gained by spiriting these weapons into Syria, why didn't he himself sneak into or through Syria? If he was smart enough to realize his cause was hopeless, with or without the weapons, and that the best thing he could do was prevent their capture... and he was able to get Syria to sign up with him to hide these weapons... if Syria was so willing to cooperate with this, why was there not also a plan for Saddam himself to escape into or through Syria as US forces advanced?

If Russia was involved, wouldn't even Russia have been willing to secretly provide him with safe haven in order to maintain his silence? During the time Saddam was a fugitive, didn't he have ample time to actually cross the reportedly porous Syrian border? If at the last minute Syria refused to provide him with safe haven wouldn't Saddam now be motivated for revenge and be singing like a canary during his trial?

The Saddam tapes are interesting, however they sure do not seem to expose much of anything that we did not already know.

Cindy Sheehan Arrested

Cindy Sheehan was arrested as she staged another protest. (See here) a Concord Monitor article that reports on this.

Cindy is making getting arrested quite a regular event. Please note that this time the article reports Cindy was invited inside to talk and deliver the petition she was carrying but she refused. Seems most of her entourage was not going to be allowed inside with her, leaving all the reporters standing on the outside, so Cindy was not going to have any of that. I guess that would have meant her demonstration would have ended with a fizzle and she wanted fireworks. Her party set themselves to blockading the entrance to the US Mission, so authorities gave her the fireworks she wanted and she was arrested.

So why is it that Cindy's movement gathers so little traction? Do you think that perhaps visions of an anti-war, Cindy Sheehan led, explosion being ignited dances in her head? Something akin to the great anti-war movement of the 60's and 70's? With Dubyah's approval rating sinking, and opposition to the war rising, why is this apt to not happen?

Seems to me all those serving in Iraq are volunteers, not a single one of them was drafted. Even Cindy's own son, by his own choice, raised his right hand. No Americans have to head for Canada in order to not be drafted. If you do not want to serve over there then just do not volunteer.

Back during the first Gulf War, under Dubyah's Daddy, there were some cases of reservists being called up who "Never imagined I would be called up to active duty, and this is just so horrible." But this time around even the reservists should have been fully aware they were subject to being activated, and yes it does happen.

Perhaps there were some already serving who never intended to serve in combat, or those who wouldn't mind combat but who just disagreed with this particular war. I myself spent almost 21 years in the service, not all of them with a Commander-In-Chief that I voted for. However as I remember it, the oath I gave was to obey those in charge of me whether I voted for them or not. The first Gulf War did not happen so far back in history that anyone who did not want to actually serve in combat did not have the opportunity to serve out their time and get out of the service.

So for me, anyway, as much as I respect Cindy Sheehan, and as much as I support her right to demonstrate against a war she disagrees with, well... her actions are starting to wear a little thin. As much as she may have disagreed with her son's action, her son volunteered. The time for her to act was before her son did so. Her son was not drafted, he willingly raised his right hand, no one put a gun to his head.

So Cindy, I mourn the loss of your child as much as I mourn all those who have lost their life while serving their nation. I think I understand your feelings on the war, however I do not think your son completely shared your position. After all, your adult son did volunteer. If he had shared your viewpoint, I doubt he would have been caught anywhere near a recruiter's office.

I wonder what Casey Sheehan would make of the political impact his mother is trying to make using his death? I wonder, if he were able, would he be writing her E-mail notes of support and encouragement or would he be politely and respectfully asking her to knock it off? Perhaps he would have tried a moderate approach, something along the lines of "Mom, I respect your right to freedom of speech. You have as much right to speak out as every other American, but Mom, please, 'Not in My Name'."

Shock and Awe from the Iranians

Shock and awe from the Iranians.

Dubyah has proposed referring the issue of Iranian nuclear enrichment to the UN Security Council. Iran has promised that the US (and thus the rest of the world) will "feel the pain" if this happens.

Where is the truth? Truth is that the pain will be felt by both sides. Iran is dependent on the income from the outflow of oil. The western world is also dependent on this continuing flow. Which side is going to blink? Which side can live longest with the problems that will be created by drawing this issue to a head?

Each side is dependent upon the other. The Iranians are banking upon the fact that their society will be able to outlive opposition because they will be able to maintain order and remain in power even if the western world takes action. If the western world tries to fine tune economic sanctions so that oil continues to flow they can play their trump card and cut off the flow of oil.

Will the western world be willing to beat them at their game? By this I mean cut off the outflow of oil? They are threatening to cut it off if we do not bow to them. Are we willing to live without their oil, and even cut the flow off, if they do not become reasonable?

This is the dance we are doing up there on the dance floor. One partner on the dance floor daring the their partner to blink while the dance is underway. Is the Iranian economy more dependent on the infusion of money from oil exports then the western economy is dependent upon the continuing supply of Iranian oil?

Can the Iranians strangle us by tightening the noose of the already tight worldwide oil supply?

Seems to me the Iranians are better prepared for this struggle then the western world is. While the Iranians might be prepared to deal with the hardship that they have dealt with in their recent past, I am left wondering just how ready the western world is to deal with the reality of where Dubyah is leading us?

Which side is going to blink first? Which group of people are going to be willing to make the sacrifices because the sacrifices are worth it and which are going to demand change first?

I would hope "my side" comes up with the leadership that could explain that if we are going to win during this struggle we might have to be willing to sacrifice, but I am not going to hold my breath.

We are headed for a real confrontation, and which side is going to blink first?

Mohammed Cartoons

OK, I am now ready to address the subject of the Mohammed cartoons.

(See here) this Aljazeera defense of Moslem outrage written by Soumaya Ghannoushi. No one can say this defense is lacking only due to failure to understand one another's language. This woman evidently understands my language better then I do. She not only knows what words like hermeneutical and eschatology mean, she knows how to include these words in a sentence.

First let me state that I have never viewed the cartoons. I tried a Google search, and I would imagine that if I persistent enough, I would have eventually found them, but I was lazy. I have however heard of one of them described. Mohammed as depicted as having a bomb under his turban.

Was this cartoon offensive? Yeah I guess it was if you are thin skinned. But if Moslems are so offended by this depiction, a parody, and could demonstrate and even take violent action, where were the demonstrations after 9-11? If "a minority" of Moslems can be motivated to take such action after a newspaper publishes a parody that depicts Mohammed (probably wrongfully), in Soumaya's words, "as a bloodthirsty warrior with a sword in one hand and a Quaran in another", where were the demonstrations from the majority of Moslems to the reality that some Moslems flew jetliners into the World Trade Center and this so called minority took to the streets to celebrate the event while screaming "God is great"?

What about us Christians? OK, fair question. But how many "Christians" (although many of them were secular) took to the streets to demonstrate against the invasion of Iraq? Compare this to the number of people that took to the streets when the Crucifix was placed into a glass of urine, as one artist placed it. There was DISCUSSION of the insult to religion based upon the actions of the artist. There were real demonstrations against the invasion of Iraq.

Compare this to the actions of our Moslem brethren. When the so called minority of devout Moslems seek to (at least we are told) twist the teachings of the Prophet into killing innocents, what does the majority do? And when the Prophet is insulted by a cartoon what happens?

Seems to me the Moslem masses are more insulted by a cartoonish parody then they are with the reality of the attacks of 9-11. In one case Moslems are energized to demonstrate, in the other they are energized to celebrate.

Young lady, Soumaya, you better look at the dirt in your backyard and quit trying to defend it. Your property is cluttered with garbage and the rest of us are going to describe what we see. If the Prophet was a man of peace then "the majority" better start proving this is so. Thus far it seems to me the majority, including you, are willing to defend the so called minority.

I have an open mind, I try my best not to be a bigot. When the level of objection to actions like the 9-11 attacks reaches the level of the fury over some stupid cartoons?

Until then I am going to continue to think that there is something wrong within the Moslem religion in that adherents will try to defend indefensible violence, that it is all too easy to twist the Prophets teachings to this violence, and the inaction of so-called peace loving Moslems speaks louder then words. Even when these words include words I had to look up in Merriam-Webster.

Military Coup in Palestine?

A Military Coup in Palestine? (See here) a DEBKA article that argues for this "solution" to the Hamas election victory in Palestine.

Someone take the crack pipe away from the DEBKA writers. Why is a Hamas victory such a disaster that it requires a military coup? Look what has happened since the Hamas victory. Hamas has been cornered into extending the Hudna. If the "legitimate government" of Palestine, which is now comprised of a Hamas majority, sanctions violence against Israel, Israel now has someone to hold accountable. If Hamas, the freely elected representatives of the majority of Palestinian voters, allows or even encourages violence, then any reprisals upon the Palestinians will have been earned. The Palestinians had the freedom of choice and they chose Hamas. Now the Palestinian people must deal with the repercussions of how they voted.

If a military coup was launched and was successful, Hamas could once again retreat into the shadows. The insurgency that results could make Iraq look like a peaceful neighborhood in contrast. Hamas could launch suicide attacks within Israel while the military government of Palestine claims they are powerless to prevent them. What then? Israel is going to launch military attacks against the military junta they encouraged to take power?

I tend to think Hamas is pretty much boxed in. If they, acting as the "official government" conduct terrorist attacks against Israel, Israel will be retaliating against a group that was put into power by the majority of Palestinians. It will be difficult for any but the most unreasonable within the international community to object to this justified retaliation.

Oh, there is a caveat to that last paragraph. That is contingent upon Israel continuing to make progress when it comes to halting the continuing expansion of the illegal settlements and putting a muzzle on the more rabid settlers that try to stir up trouble. Thus far it would seem PM Olmert is promising some further progress on this issue and his Kadima party is poised to retain control of the Israeli government.

While what Olmert is talking about is not "enough" on the settlement and final borders issue, former PM Sharon has shown us what is possible once the head of Israeli government actually takes control and starts living with the reality of international pressure. If Sharon can be pressured into withdrawing from Gaza after the campaign promises he made to win election, just think what is possible with PM Olmert with what he is already stating will be necessary.

Israel is just going to have to face reality, just like the international community is going to have to face reality. The reality is that Hamas is not a realistic partner with whom Israel should have to negotiate. However that does not mean that "final borders" are going to be decided by dictates from the Israeli government. Concerns from the international community are going to have to be taken into account. If Israel is reasonable, the international community will support her as she takes reasonable steps to defend herself. However if Israel is obstinate and insists on the unreasonable international support is going to be eroded.

If the Palestinian People want to be part of the equation when it comes to deciding what a final settlement might look like. They were given the chance to vote for what they wanted and what they voted for was unreasonable. If they want a seat at the bargaining table, the people they voted for are going to have to signal they are reasonable. If their government insists on the unreasonable they will not even be invited to the bargaining table and all the issues will be decided without their input.

As long as Israel is reasonable, Israel has nothing to fear from a Hamas led government. However the danger is that the right wing will prevent Israel from taking this turn of events and taking advantage of it.

Abortion again

The subject of abortion, again.

Recently I heard it described on NPR that there was no other issue that divided moderates like the abortion issue. So I am going to take one more (and this will not be the last) attempt to heal the divide.

I stumbled upon this site while I was traversing the web (see here). This site helps to expose the truth behind the abortion debate.

What have we wrought? Even women who "know it is wrong" have abortions out of convenience, and as a result condemn themselves for the rest of their lives for having done so.

What is wrong with abortion? Go ask the women who undergo the procedure. When you sample the opinions, please be sure to sample "normal" women and not just only the opinions of the caustically pro-feminine group. Please be sure to include the opinions of the "average" women.

My own opinion is that the "average" woman wants the availability of an abortion "in her case". However I think the average woman would be willing to live with reasonable constraints on her "right to choose". What am I proposing? I propose that we allow abortions up till, and not past, the point the thing that is growing within the woman has a "mind of its own". Up till then we should all agree the woman has the right to remove this unwanted growth from her body as much as she might want a cyst surgically removed from her body. But once she has allowed this growth to continue to the point where it has progressed to the point it has "a mind of its own" the woman loses the right to choose.

Thus far, in my own opinion, I think a woman is protected up till the end of the first trimester. You can not even get those educated in the medical field to honestly consider when the fetus "has a mind of its own" because they seem to be more worried about allowing the woman to have the time it takes to discover if the fetus has a problem, after it has developed a mind of its own, that would cause a woman to abort the pregnancy.

Well, damn it, if them Doctor's want to offer them women the right to terminate an undesirable pregnancy they better sharpen their tests. Once the synapses within the cerebrum start firing we have a new human being. I am not willing to kill those who "fall short" outside the womb and I am unwilling to kill those who "fall short" within the womb after they have developed a "mind of their own".

ALL OF US, or at least the vast majority of us, are going to have to come to a conclusion on this matter. Even us men are going to have to agree to something reasonable or see our wives subjecting themselves to back alley procedures that endanger their lives.

But where do we draw the line? Even if we draw the line, some women (and men) will feel the need to cross it. Even though we all understand the common description of "murder" some people murder none the less. But society has come up with limits when it is "OK" to kill without it being described as murder. It is OK to kill in self defense for example.

So when is abortion OK? It is OK until that which is growing in the woman develops a mind of its own. Prior to that the woman should have the right to remove the unwanted growth as if she would remove the growth of a cyst. But once she has allowed the growth to continue to the point the growth develops a mind of its own? Well then we have two people to worry about, and if the woman no longer worries about what is good for the second individual, then society has the right to do her worrying for her.

I guess I am "Pro Choice", that is as long as the woman is forced to exercise her choice early.

Hamas and Israel's Targeted Killings

Israel has announced that Hamas political leaders will not be immune from targeted killings if Hamas renews attacks on Israel. (See here) a BBC News article that reports on this.

Please note that left unsaid is that Israel will not hold Hamas accountable if it continues to honor the cease fire (or Hudna). While leaders of Islamic Jihad will be held accountable for the actions of Islamic Jihad, Israel will not strike out against Hamas for Islamic Jihad's actions.

This is the position of the Kadima led Israeli government. I think I support PM Olmert and Kadima on this. While Israel can not be expected to negotiate with a group that will only engage in negotiations as a partial step towards their ultimate goal, which is driving the Jews into the sea, it should allow this group time to come to their senses as long as they honor the cease fire. However this group must also allow Israel to attack any groups within Palestine that refuse to honor the Hudna. If Hamas has a problem with this then they need to become self policing and enforce the Hudna within their own society. If they will not enforce it themselves, then they should not object if Israel does the enforcing.

Olmert has also announced that Israeli government funds will be cut off to settlement expansion. (See here) this Haaretz article that reports on this. I look at this Kadima and PM Olmert position as signs of progress. It is an acknowledgement of the international communities opinion that unrestrained settlement expansion during the absence of a final resolution of the conflict is unacceptable. Israel should not be allowed to continue with unfettered expansion of settlements absent a final agreement. Those within Israel who are motivated to hinder a peace agreement should not receive any reward (continuing expansion) for any actions they take to prevent a resolution.

(See here) a Haaretz editorial that discusses the Kadima position that, absent a genuine partner for peace in Palestine, Israel must adopt a position of unilateral withdrawal. I am rather torn by this position. I find this stance to be preferable to the status quo. However I do not think it is the wisest course of action. For the international community to be satisfied, Israel is not going to be allowed to dictate the terms of the final settlement. Either Israel is going to have to accept some international approval of a final agreement through UN Security Council action or they are going to have to find someone to negotiate with. Final "agreement" will not be reached through Israel dictating all the terms.

Since Hamas is not in a negotiating mood, who could Israel negotiate with? Seems to me the Arab League might be such a "partner for peace". Even Saudi Arabia is somewhat reasonable in her proposals. Perhaps Israel will not find everything in the Saudi proposal as being acceptable, but I doubt the Saudis would describe everything in the Israeli position as being acceptable either.

What would Israel need to agree to in order to win international support? Well something along the lines of the Geneva Accords proposed settlement is what I envision. Anything Israel tries to force on "the world" is not going to win the war of opinion. Something like the Geneva Accord settlement will win this war of international opinion. I would imagine it would win acceptance by the UN Security Council and perhaps even support from the Arab League. However if Israel tries to hold out from "a position of strength" for an unreasonable result, Israel will find her "strength" position eroding to weakness.

The Palestinians voted for Hamas. The Palestinian people voted for driving the Jews into the sea. Since the Palestinians voted for the unreasonable, and the people they voted for, thus far, can not adapt to reality, we just cut them out of the equation. But that does not mean we need give up on a solution, and that does not mean we need to allow Israel to take advantage of the situation.

Palestine voted. Palestine voted for Hamas. Palestine wins a big thumbs down. Thus far Israel seems poised to vote for Kadima. Kadima (at least in comparison to Hamas) wins a big thumbs up.

More on Terry Schiavo

I've been rethinking the Terry Schiavo situation. If I had been Terry's husband, what would I have done? Or if I had been Terry, and my spouse was in Terry's husband's shoes, what would I want her to do?

Could it have been possible to turn this tragic situation into something good? After all, Terry was not in any real physical pain. If I had been Terry, under what circumstances would I be willing to linger on and wait with going to meet my maker? If there had been circumstances that I could not have envisioned, as I would imagine Terry never envisioned what happened with her case?

Think of the potential good that could be done. You can't buy that kind of publicity. Some wealthy soul volunteered to donate a million bucks towards Terry's long term health care if Terry's husband agreed to allow Terry's parents to become responsible for her. Now that would not have changed my own opinion about my own situation, however would there be the potential for something even more?

I would hope my spouse would take advantage of the situation, and think big. If I had been Terry and my spouse was the one making the decision I would have wanted her to hold a press conference and announce: "While I am certain my husband would not want to linger on for no good reason, if some good could come of it, he would agree to continuing to live on. My husband would feel medical resources were being wasted on him, however if he were provided with sufficient motivation, he would agree to the expenditure of these resources if it were for good reason. I am proposing that a trust fund be set up in my husband's name. If donations for this trust fund reach 10 million dollars, I will agree to signing over responsibility for my husband's care over to his parents. Money from this trust fund will be used to pay for medical care for young infants who suffer from life threatening diseases but who's parents lack healthcare coverage and resources to pay for their medical treatment."

I think my wife knows me well enough to know that I would pat her on the back if she used all the publicity for some greater good. I would be willing to wait with going to heaven if it were for a good reason. Helping the unfortunate would be good enough reason for me. Of course I would also expect her to divorce me and get on with her life.

Terry Schiavo and Death With Dignity

They are still carping about the Terry Schiavo case. (See here) this Washington Times article by Paul Greenberg that discusses this unfortunate case.

Why do people get so upset about this case? If they do not want to be in Terry's shoes, and do not want their spouse to make the decisions for them when they are incapable, then all they have to do is draw up a legal document designating that someone else, such as their parents, be given the responsibility.

Who I see as the victim in this case is Terry's husband, you know, the guy the conservatives try to paint as being a demon. How can I say such a thing? Because I try to envision myself as being in Terry's shoes (or between her sheets) with my spouse making the decisions for me. What would I want done? What decision would I want my spouse to make?

I would want my spouse to do what Terry's spouse did. That is why I did not get fired up and rush out and draw up some legal document because I feared "What happened to Terry could happen to me." You see, as I understand the law, my spouse will be the one making the decision. Not my deceased parents, not my siblings, not my children, it is my spouse. My spouse knows my feelings on this as we have discussed this. We are pretty much in agreement on how we stand. If I am ever the one faced with this horrendous decision, I know what standards I will use to reach a conclusion. If it were me, what would I want my wife to do, and then I would do that. I hope if my wife is ever burdened with such a decision she will use the same criteria.

But what if my wife wins a large court judgment that could be used to take care of me? I would be saying (if I were capable of it, which I guess I would not): "Good for her. Now don't waste any of your good fortune on taking care of a near hopeless case and use some of that money for something good like educating our kids. But please be sure to spend at least a little bit of it on yourself." If her conscience would bother her, she can take some of the money that would have been wasted on me and donate it to a worthy cause in my name, like paying for scholarships for orphans or something. But by no means would I have wanted the money wasted on me, if it had been me in Terry Schiavo's situation.

So that is why I do not get worked up about what happened to Terry. If it had been me occupying Terry's bed, I would have wanted my spouse to do as Terry's husband did. I most certainly would not have wanted American society to put my spouse through the wringer for carrying out my wishes like happened to Terry's husband. If this were to occur, I would hope my spouse has the intestinal fortitude to stand up to all the moralistic finger wavers and carry out my wishes anyway. But I would ask everyone else to butt out just the same. I know my wife is the one making the decisions, and I think her decision is going to be tough enough as it is without all the rest of you sticking your noses in where it is not wanted.

If you do not want your spouse making decisions for you, then appoint someone you trust. Perhaps you might want to designate Dr Dobson, Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell or even the Pope. But for those of us who do trust our spouses, please leave our spouses alone. My wife knows me better then anyone else. I also know she is capable of making the tough decisions. My wife is a strong woman and she is perfect for the job. I am sorry if others do not have spouses whom they trust as much as I trust mine. There is a legal remedy for you, go see a lawyer. As for me, I do not have to do anything, because the law says my spouse makes the decision, not Jerry Falwell. I do not see a problem with that, as long as religious leaders like Jerry Falwell, and newspaper columnists like Paul Greenberg, mind their own damn business.

Saddam and Al Qaeda

Would you believe there still are some who try to point towards a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda? (See here) a Washington Times article by Michael Barone that tries to paint such a picture.

Mr Barone does accurately make the connection between the insurgency now going on in Iraq and Al Qaeda. He will not get any argument from me on that. Al Qaeda may not have been active in Iraq BEFORE the invasion but they most certainly are busy there now. However we can not blame Saddam for what happened in Iraq AFTER we invaded and threw him into chains.

How does Mr Barone deal with the absence of evidence of operational cooperation between Saddam and Al Qaeda? Why he quotes Donald Rumsfeld:

"But, as Donald Rumsfeld likes to say, absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence."

He goes on to say:

Neither al Qaeda nor Saddam operated under a Freedom of Information Act. Any
collaboration between them on September 11 would have been kept very secret --
al Qaeda did not want to leave a return address. We do not know there was such
collaboration. Nor do we know there was not.

So there you have it, the - ahem - "strong" argument of those who continue to insist Saddam was somehow behind the 9-11 attacks. There is not evidence of this and that proves they are right. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" so the fact that there is no evidence proves Saddam must have been behind it. Yeah, right.

Gosh, what a powerful argument. Heck, I can use this one all the time. If I want to argue that within the beltway of Washington DC resides the greatest minds within the United States for example? And if someone demands that I "prove it", why I can just quote Donald Rumsfeld, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" and I guess I would then win the argument. Why should I have to bother proving something when "wisdom" from the "great" Donald Rumsfeld will suffice?

As for Michael Barone, why he really is an intelligent columnist, trust me. Don't be fooled by the drivel he publishes, he really is one smart fellow. What do I have for proof? Well let me just quote Donald Rumsfeld, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

Free trade is OK if we balance the federal budget.

I am going to fess up. I am a free trader.

Before we give up on free trade, why don't we give it a serious try?

Let's throw out the "borrow and spend" politicians and put some real Americans in office. Throw out those who are willing to sell us out and put someone in office that has two brain cells in their head they can rub together to come up with something that at least mimics wisdom.

"Free trade" is not going to work as long as we have "borrow and spend" politicians at the wheel. As long as China can convert trade surpluses into "guaranteed" US Government Treasury Bills they need not recycle the excess dollars they receive into something that might create American jobs.

Did anyone else notice that during the Clinton administration, when the federal budget approached something near being balanced, the American economy took off? The economy flew so high that for awhile there it looked like we were faced with how we were going to pay off the deficit so quickly without delivering earthquakes to the economy!

Those who preach "free trade" while they vote in Congress "borrow and spend" are leading us to disaster. It is not "free trade" that is the culprit, it is the spendthrift ways of our members of Congress while they continue to cut taxes while they increase spending. They are going to make America into basket case. The same economic forces that visited upon Argentina and Brazil will one day come knocking at our door. That is if we continue to vote into office braindead politicians who will lead America into becoming a third world nation.

Think about it. China has a huge trade surplus. What does China do with the money? China buys US Treasury Bills that are offered because America has such a large federal deficit. If China was forced to spend the money elsewhere? They could either pile the money up in their back yards or buy something American.

"Free trade" is not going to work as long as America insists on conducting our government as if we are a "banana republic".

Damn Environmentalists

Damn environmentalists. Once again the environmentalists are standing in the way of steps towards solving global warming. They are all too eager to point out we have a problem, but when somebody actually tries to take steps to help solve the problem they often seem to be the first ones to stand up and try to throw up roadblocks against progress.

(See here) a Washington Times article that discusses Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy's opposition to electricity generating windmills off the coast of his state. Senator Kennedy is supposed to be a staunch environmentalist. But in my opinion he is only staunch when it comes to preaching about the problem. When it comes time to actually DO SOMETHING about the problem he objects.

You know what gets me? Texas, a "big oil", red state, is amongst the leaders when it comes to wind generated electricity. When Senator Kennedy's "concerned about the environment" blue state is asked to help with the effort Senator Kennedy comes up with BULLSHIT reasons to put a stop to it. Please note that Senator Kennedy proposes windmills must be 1.5 nautical miles from shipping channels while it is common for OIL RIGS to be allowed within 500 feet of shipping channels. Well I have some experience in navigating ships in shipping channels, I was never in command, but I was able to observe and even participate first hand. In my opinion, if it is OK for an oil rig to be a navigational hazard it is OK for something that is global warming friendly to be a navigational hazard. Any pilot of a ship that can not avoid a known, stationary hazard needs to find another job for a living.

Could there be incidents involving the windmills? Yeah, I guess there could, but as shown by the Exxon Valdez, incompetent ships' Captains and pilots need not have a man made obstacle around for them to run into. If they are that incompetent they will find some shoal to run aground on.

If nothing else, perhaps Senator Kennedy will prove he really is concerned about safe shipping. Perhaps he will suggest we move the windmills closer to the beach. After all, if we put them in 10 feet of water right off the beach of his mansion any shipping will run aground before it even comes close to running into the windmill. Your choice Senator Kennedy, we move them closer to the shore line so as not to hazard shipping or we keep them at the proposed distance and you accept that the risk is reasonable.

What is not acceptable is that a "staunch environmentalist" stands in the way of solutions to the threat of global warming. Your state, Massachusetts, is way behind the ball when it comes to helping solve this problem. The Nantucket Sound possesses the winds necessary to support windmill electrical generation. Massachusetts, too, needs to make the sacrifices necessary if we are going to be victorious.

Senator Kennedy, please stop being a hypocrite.

Canadian Socialized Medicine a Disaster?

Is Canadian socialized medicine a disaster? (See here) a New York Times article that discusses the issue.

I think I am still in favor of some kind of socialized medicine. One thing that has impressed me is that when I have discussed Canadian socialized medicine with Canadian truckdrivers on the CB, they almost universally have been in favor of it. However the NY Times article leads me to wonder just how informed these truckdrivers are about the problems within their own healthcare system. Since Canadian truckdrivers are like American truckdrivers in that they must pass a physical in order to drive, and thus they must be in reasonably good health, perhaps the reason they like their health care system is because they have not yet needed to be treated by their health care system.

As the article points out, in the Canadian system:

The median wait time between a referral by a family doctor and an
appointment with a specialist has increased to 8.3 weeks last year from 3.7
weeks in 1993, according to a recent study by The Fraser Institute, a
conservative research group. Meanwhile the median wait between an
appointment with a specialist and treatment has increased to 9.4 weeks from
5.6 weeks over the same period.

This would mean that the median time it takes to actually receive treatment for a serious problem once you have consulted with your family doctor would be 17.7 weeks!

The article also points out that:

Canada has a national doctor shortage already, with 1.4 million people in the
province of Ontario alone without the services of a family doctor.

So some people in Canada do not even have a family doctor to go see in the first place so that they can even get the ball rolling towards the 17.7 week waiting period for treatment.

Perhaps "the Canadian model" of public healthcare is not such a good idea. Their system seems to be unraveling, or as the article states:

The country's publicly financed health insurance system... is gradually
breaking down.

However we American's can not sit back and gloat as if "our system" is better. Oh yeah, I guess it is better if you are lucky enough to have decent health care coverage. But if you are amongst the unlucky millions within America that have no coverage what-so-ever I would imagine the Canadian model would still indeed be an improvement since at least after a waiting period you get some medical attention instead of facing no healthcare at all.

While I am fortunate in that I have what I would describe as fairly decent coverage due to my almost 21 years of service in the US Navy and have little to personally fear from the arising crisis that faces us, I am still concerned about the healthcare crisis that looms for my society as a whole. The ever increasing costs of Medicare and Medicaid threaten to bankrupt my nation. More and more workers are facing cuts in healthcare coverage as American businesses attempt to shed costs and become "lean and mean" in order to compete in the global market place. While Medicaid covers the most impoverished with at least some health care, the "working poor" who struggle to make ends meet at near minimum wage jobs make too much money to qualify for Medicaid while making too little to pay for private health coverage.

One thing for certain is that something is going to have to give. America can not continue to follow the path we are on. Perhaps the Canadian model is wrong, and perhaps America can come up with an "American Way" that will be an improvement. However I can not point with pride at the current "American Way". We should hang our heads in shame at how we treat our own citizens, and even then the little we already do threatens to drive us into bankruptcy.

Dubyah on Global Warming

This is a little late, but I have been on the road since Dubyah's State of the Union address, so I will address it now that I have the chance.

Dubyah spoke of many things in his State of the Union Address, not all of which I agreed with, but he spoke of one thing that set me back on my heels and this was his Advanced Energy Initiative.

While Bush spoke of America being "addicted to oil" (a phrase I myself had previously used) I noticed that he spoke not just of relieving our dependence on foreign oil. He also spoke about furthering other alternative energy sources that had nothing to do with oil. He spoke of alternative and renewable energy sources for electricity that have everything to do with combating global warming and little to do with foreign oil since little of America's electricity needs are met from oil.

Damn it, this is a start. One of the reasons I voted for Kerry over Dubyah was I never, ever, thought such words would pass through Dubyah's lips. What Dubyah is proposing, in addition to alternative energy sources for electricity, is reducing America's dependence on imported oil by 75% within 25 years. Me? I do not think that gets us far enough, fast enough, but at least this will get us out of the starting gate. What did the Clinton administration (with Al Gore doing our negotiating for us) get us other then an unapproved Kyoto Protocol proposal that would do NOTHING to end global warming?

George Dubyah Bush, the Big Oil man's man, has proposed a substantial, some might even call it an ambitious, effort towards solving global warming. While I am not an expert, I would imagine that his proposal would take us far beyond meeting the requirements of Al Gores Kyoto Protocol.

Will Democrats sign on to the Dubyah leadership? I too think what he proposes is not enough, but Democratic leadership has been getting us nowhere in this area and if it takes a Republican to get us started I am going to sign up. If Democrats stand in the way of progress I am going to do my best to hold them accountable.

Dubyah has proven he can talk the talk. Let's see if he can walk the walk. Let's hold his feet to the fire on this one. Let the majority of Democrats support him and force him to only convince a minority of Republicans that this path is the path that is good for America and good for mankind. If Democrats cause Dubyah to fail in this effort to lead, while he is trying to lead towards what Democrats supposedly want, what is a guy like me supposed to think?

George Dubyah Bush, the "Big Oil" man has tacked his boat towards us. I propose we fill his sails with wind.

God, Grace and Tithing

While I tick off the miles as I deliver my next load of freight I spend a lot of time listening to the radio. While my favorite network is whatever Public Radio station that happens to be within range that is delivering some brain wave material it is not unusual for me to find areas that are underserved by NPR (National Public Radio). One thing that there is abundance of throughout the airwaves is Christian radio stations. One Christian network I am fond of is KLOVE. While I am not a Christian I do love Jesus, and I find that KLOVE delivers on what they advertise, which is "positive and encouraging".

Anyway, amongst the Christian broadcasting is a lot of preaching. Here is my viewpoint on the "fundamentalist" or "evangelical" slant of preaching:

If you want to get to heaven you must be "saved" (or perhaps "born again"). To be "saved" you must accept Jesus as you Lord and Savior. Once you have done this the deed is done. No further action is required, because it is "grace alone" that reserves your place in heaven. You need not worry about doing "good works" because "good works" will not get you into heaven unless you have the grace that is granted by accepting Jesus.

Do you understand this? What they preach is that once you accept Jesus it is the "Grace of God" that is going to get you into heaven and you really do not have to do anything else. This is important to understanding "fundamentalists" and "evangelicals".

However they seem to be willing to compromise their standards when it comes to "tithing". No "good works" are required, and they can site Bible passages to prove it, until it comes to money. When tithing is the subject they will then come up with Bible passages that prove that you must tithe. I think this is because someone has to pay the salary of the preacher. If the preacher can not convince his congregation to tithe he is going to have to get what the rest of us would call a "real job". Ahem, shouldn't "tithing" be included in the list of things that would be described as "good works"?

I would not be so condemnatory of "tithing" except that I heard it described in such terms that I must absolutely SHOUT out against. I heard one preacher state that when he was asked if an impoverished widow should tithe off her Social Security stipend the answer was yes. His reasoning was that God pours out his blessings to those who tithe. The poor widow should not be denied these blessings by not tithing.

Meanwhile, the preacher who's salary is paid by the tithing puts steak on his table while the poor widow buys a smaller can of cat food for dinner, or chooses to forgo medicine she needs so that she can afford to tithe. Why? Because the preacher says that is her ticket to heaven.

Since these preachers love quoting from the Bible, I am going to quote a little bit of it at them. Exodus 16:18 "And when they measured it by the omer, he who gathered much did not have too much, and he who gathered little did not have too little. Each one gathered as much as he needed."