Egads - Higher Prices for Beer

Egads, fighting global warming is going to mean I have to pay higher prices for my beer! (See here) an Associated Press piece that appears on the MSNBC website that reports beer prices are going up in Deutschland (Germany).

Well, if beer brewers in Deutschland can't resist the need to raise prices, how will American brewers resist?

If the price of a six pack is going to rise, then can the price of a double cheeseburger off the McDonald's value menu not follow much longer after? Let's see, they're going to raise the minimum wage which means the worker who builds my double cheeseburger needs to be paid more. The worker is going to take those two all beef patties which (coming from a cow, which is fed corn grain) now costs more and then take two slices of cheese which (coming from milk, which comes from a cow, which is fed corn grain) now costs more and I still am going to expect to be served this delicacy at a mere buck?

Whoa is me. Defeating global warming is going to be more expensive then I thought!

More on Global Warming

While surfing the web, I came across an article (see it here) written by George Reisman that appears on the LewRockwell website. The article is titled: "Global Warming Is Not a Threat But the Environmentalist Response to It Is".

Let me identify who George Reisman is before I go any further. George is a Pepperdine University Professor Emeritus of Economics and the author of at least one book on economics.

For a summation of George's argument, I am going to quote from him. The whole purpose of the argument can most accurately be summed up with his statement:

One essential piece of information is the comparative valuation attached to retaining industrial civilization versus avoiding global warming. If one values the benefits provided by industrial civilization above the avoidance of the losses alleged to result from global warming, it follows that nothing should be done to stop global warming that destroys or undermines industrial civilization. That is, it follows that global warming should simply be accepted as a byproduct of economic progress and that life should go on as normal in the face of it.

Now George seems to be a hard core Capitalist. Anything that gets in the way of a completely free market capitalist society is evil or something in his viewpoint. Perhaps this is not a completely accurate description, however it is not too far off the mark if we look at this piece and only note the title of the book he has written: "Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics".

I could attempt to go through the article paragraph by paragraph and rip into the arguments presented. However I am going to try and keep my response brief so as not to bore anyone who happens to read my own input.

Professor George seems to agree global warming might indeed be a fact. He states:

Although such anecdotal evidence as January’s snowfall in Tucson, Arizona and freezing weather in Southern California, and February’s more than 100-inch snowfall in upstate New York, might suggest otherwise, global warming may indeed be a fact.

While he opens it up with Rush Limbaugh style examples of cold extremes that will still exist in the face of global warming, he will at least admit that he can not prove global warming is fictitious. Progress people, we're starting to see some progress! It is starting to become rare for educated people to attempt to claim global warming does not exist.

But George wants to argue that unfettered or in any way restrained free market capitalism is the answer to the threat of global warming. I included this sentence in a previous quote of George's article, but it bears repeating:

That is, it follows that global warming should simply be accepted as a byproduct of economic progress and that life should go on as normal in the face of it.

Excuse me, if we continue down the path we are following, life is NOT going to "go on as normal".
Even if we seek to restrain greenhouse gas emmissions, getting the freight train slowed down and turned around is going to take some time. Shoveling coal into the firebox is not going to help us obtain a favorable outcome.

George seems to think that there is no room for government regulation or providing motivation to businesses in dealing with global warming. In his own words:

Even if global warming is a fact, the free citizens of an industrial civilization will have no great difficulty in coping with it – that is, of course, if their ability to use energy and to produce is not crippled by the environmental movement and by government controls otherwise inspired. The seeming difficulties of coping with global warming, or any other large-scale change, arise only when the problem is viewed from the perspective of government central planners.

Does George think that government regulation does not deserve any credit for the existing quality of our air and water in our nation? Does he think hard core capitalist businessmen would have been motivated to clean up our air and water if it was not through governmental regulations that motivated them to do so? If the only motivation that is provided is "making a buck" and harm to the environment is not factored in (through governmental regulation) I shudder to think of what we Americans would be living with today.

So how would George go about dealing with global warming? He states:

There are rational ways of cooling the earth if that is what should actually be necessary, ways that would take advantage of the vast energy base of the modern world and of the still greater energy base that can be present in the future if it is not aborted by the kind of policies urged by the environmentalists.

Did you catch it? "There are rational ways...". So just how rational is George willing to be? What are his ideas? Here's a sample:

Certainly, there is no case to be made for an atomic war. But there is a case for considering the possible detonation, on uninhabited land north of 70°, say, of a limited number of hydrogen bombs.

George seems to think we can save the world by blowing it up! He wants to explode nuclear bombs and introduce radioactive particles into the environment in order to save us from global warming. Why, this man is surely a genius. (Sarcasm intended.) Please note that one such instance of nuclear detonation would not solve the problem. Every few years we would have to find new "uninhabited" islands to incinerate in order to introduce the required amount of dust particles into the atmosphere. Once we turn the surface of an island into glass, it is no longer going to serve the purpose. Please note this "solution" must be amongst those the learned professor would describe as being "rational", chuckle.

OK, what would I propose? Through goverment action that motivates and encourages developement of renewable fuel sources we ask capitalist businesses to help us to adapt. Fossil fuel energy sources become expensive and renewable energy sources become cheaper. Captitalist businessmen will be motivated to come up with ever cheaper and more economical methods of generating renewable energy in an effort to make a quick buck. We throw a harness on the capitalist and get this strong work horse to do what we want (which is save the world) instead of allowing the horse to run willy nilly in the plowed fields and destroy the harvest.

As much as previous generations found a way to harness the power of the horse to plow the fields, we harness the modern business man to save the world.

Ken Ham - Answer In Genesis - Creationism

Recently, while travelling down the road, I was treated to some preaching, via a religious radio station, from Ken Ham.

If you are unfamiliar with Ken Ham, you can (see here) a Wikipedia description of him and some of his activities.

Ken Ham is quite a speaker. He argues that the Bible should be taken literally and that when the Book of Genesis says that God created the world in six days (resting on the seventh) that the human understanding of "days" (a period of 24 hours) is what is meant. His argument is that if the Bible is to be taken literally, then the Book of Genesis must be taken just as literally.

As I said, he is quite a speaker. He is extremely entertaining in his arguments. I will say that if you are a Bible Literalist, you probably will walk away, after hearing him speak, convinced that God did indeed create the world in a mere six 24 hour periods of time.

Ken Ham seems to concentrate solely on Genesis in his preachings, which I think is a shame. This preacher apparently describes himself as a Christian, and as a Christian preacher, I wish one as brilliant as he occasionally attempted to preach the Gospels.

I offer a challenge to Ken Ham. How about applying your reasoning's to the Gospels. If every word of the Old Testament Book of Genesis is to be taken so literally, how about applying this point of view to the Gospels?

I could come up quite a few examples from the Gospels for this so called Christian preacher to preach about, but will settle for just one example which I challenge him to preach about.

Matthew 19:16 "The Rich Young Man" (all quotes are taken from the NIV - New International Version). Quoting:

Now a man came up to Jesus and asked, "Teacher, what good thing must I do to get eternal life?"

Now Jesus starts by saying the man should obey the commandments, however the young man was not satisfied with this answer and in Matthew 19:20 he asks

:"All these I have kept," the young man said. "What do I still lack?"

How did Jesus reply? In Matthew 19:21 we find:

Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Now if Ken Ham is going to insist that there are "Answers In Genesis" then I expect that, as a Christian, we must also even give equal weight that there are "Answers in the Gospels". So what does Ken Ham have to preach about this which is contained in the Gospel of Matthew?

Does Ken Ham even have so much as a wrist watch on his arm? (I have noted a picture which shows he does.) Should the Gospels be taken so literally that "sell your possessions" means if I am going to be perfect that it includes selling the clothes you wear (because they are possessions) and following Jesus naked?

If Genesis is to be taken so literally that "days" means a 24 hour period, shouldn't "possessions" in the Gospel of Matthew then be taken literally to include the clothes on your back because you own them? Perhaps Jesus did not mean for us to run around naked following him (because there is no indication Jesus went around naked) however if we take it literally, "possessions" means possessions in Matthew just like "days" means days in Genesis.

If Genesis must be taken so literally that days must mean a 24 hour period then Matthew must be taken just as literally to include the clothing one owns.

Perhaps Ken Ham can be forgiven for not running around naked while he preaches (I certainly hope so) but what excuse does he have for having a wrist watch on his arm? Does he "possess" an automobile? (Jesus had to borrow a donkey when he could not walk.) Does he "possess" a home? (Apparently Jesus never owned real estate and counted on others to provide him with a place to rest his head at night.)

I'm waiting to hear this so called Christian preacher to apply his logic to the Good News contained in the Gospels. If he just as faithfully uses his reasoning in application to the Gospels as he applies it to the Old Testament, well now, then we are going to hear some fine preaching. Of course, then he is going to have to deal with "Practice what you preach" coming from the congregation.

My challenge is that Ken Ham close the Book of Genesis and open the Gospels for inspiration. I want to hear this preacher preach the Good News. I do not think I am asking for too much. He claims to be a Christian doesn't he?

Rethinking No Child Left Behind

As I have travelled our nation's highways, I have frequently been witness to the debate that goes on about George Dubyah Bush's "No Child Left Behind" program.

I guess I am torn by this debate. It is hard to come down firmly on one side or the other, because both sides raise valid points.

Amongst the valid points of opponents of "No Child Left Behind" is that it is just another "unfunded mandate". It is full of "you must do's" without providing any money to do the doing. However I support that, at a minimum, a high school diploma should represent something.

So I suggest a compromise. We rescind "No Child Left Behind" for the most part and replace it with something that is optional for each state, or even each school district within a state, to adopt or turn their back on. There would be no threats of cutting off federal funding if this program is not adopted. It is my intention to make this proposal so attractive that, even though it does not come with any new funding, most states and school districts will willingly participate.

Now I like the "Standards of Learning" tests. These tests mean that a student meets a minimum level of knowledge once they reach certain milestones in their education. My suggestion is that we replace the whole "No Child Left Behind" thing with a battery of tests that only measure the level of knowledge of the student. I propose that each school district be offered the chance to include a "federal seal of approval" on the diplomas and certificates that they issue based upon the recipients being able to pass a federal "Standards of Learning" test appropriate for the grade level in question. To simplify things we can restrict these seals to two milestones within a students progression. Eighth grade level and High School diploma. The federal government could provide a battery of tests that each school district could choose to administer or not at their own expense. Additional tests could be made available for other grades, but the eighth grade and High School completion tests are the only ones, that after successful passing, would result in a "federal seal of approval" that witnesses to the fact that the education received by the student meets a minimum level of measurement.

Nothing in the education process would be mandated by the federal government. Each state and school district could decide on its own how to best yield a successful outcome for the student.

Nothing would tie the hands of state or local educators. The only thing that will be measured would be the outcome. Gone would be the days of meaningless high school diplomas where the recipients can not even read or write. Or at least these worthless "certificates of attendance" would not bear the federal seal. Gone also will be the days of legislators in Washington DC trying to micromanage what goes on in the classroom.

If members of the NEA think they know a better way to educate our kids, have at it. The only thing that will be measured is the outcome. Failure of the student to pass the test results in failure to issue the "seal of approval".

I feel my proposal successfully dispatches all reasonable objections to "No Child Left Behind" while maintaining the accountability of those who claim they best know how to educate our children.

By the way... home schoolers should also be held accountable to the same standards.

Evolution Points to Jesus

I am going to have a little fun with this one.

(See here) where a Washington Post piece seems to argue that Jesus is the answer.

The piece seems to point out that the human brain is wired, through evolution, to do that which is good.

Well, then I am going to argue that you can't go wrong with Jesus. Follow Jesus and your brain will reward you with pleasurable feelings. If you want to do "the most good" and have evolution reward you with the most pleasurable feelings, follow Jesus.

Now I am not going to tell you to follow the preacher. You can follow the preacher and still end up in depression. However if you follow Jesus (and to hell with the preacher) evolution will reward you with your brain releasing chemicals that will result in pleasure.

Can you find where I find it difficult to not follow the siren call of Jesus? Jesus said something like "Sell everything you own, give it to the poor, and follow me." I resist what I call the siren call because I realize that if ALL of us respond to it, we are no longer going to have farmers that grow the food that feeds us. While Jesus gives us the siren call, we depend on some continuing to resist and doing the work we depend upon to feed us, even those of us who "lock, stock and barrel" follow Jesus.

For the "pure" to exist, the "impure" (by Jesus's standards) must also exist.

I still love Jesus. This "most pure" man still established the foundation. I am willing to build everything I do upon the foundation he established.

The Best and Worst Highway Maintenance

Recently while traveling through Arkansas I was getting bored so I brought up the topic of which states do the best job and which do the worst when it comes to highway maintenance on the CB radio. Why does it matter that the conversation came up in Arkansas? Because it was only a few years back that Arkansas was widely viewed by truck drivers as having the worst highways in the nation. Arkansas was embarrassed by this, raised their fuel taxes a little bit, and started reconstruction on their interstates. Now that much of the work is completed, Arkansas ranks at least in the top half of all states by the standards I use to judge road maintenance.

What standards do I use? My standards are heavily biased towards how high the highway use and fuel taxes are for commercial truckers and how much value we receive back for the taxes we pay.

So who do I think does the best job and who does the worst? First, let's start with the worst which are easiest to identify. There are only two states that seriously compete for the bottom rung in the rankings and these states are Oregon and New York State. This is based upon what these states charge commercial trucks to run on their highways. I do not think it is mere coincidence that both of these states have what is known as a ton-mile tax which charges trucks by the number of miles travelled in the state. The ton-mile tax is rather unusual with only four states using this method of charging commercial trucks.

Oregon has a hefty 13.16 cents per mile ton-mile tax while not charging any fuel tax to large trucks what-so-ever. To compare the Oregon tax rate to most states which rely on a per gallon tax on diesel one needs to come up with an acceptable miles per gallon (MPG) fuel economy standard for the comparison. I could use my own actual fuel economy from last year which was an impressive 7.25 MPG. Using this figure, we take 7.25 and multiply it by the 13.16 and come up with Oregon would have to charge me 95.41 cents per gallon to receive the same amount of revenue if it abolished the ton-mile tax. However my 7.25 MPG, while not unique is at least rather unusual. It is my understanding that the industry average is something more like 6.00 MPG. Using this figure instead of my own, we come up with 78.96 cents per gallon. While 78.96 cents per gallon is considerably less, it is not in any way reasonable. The average fuel tax is somewhere (I did not do the exact figures) in the mid twenties per gallon. For what Oregon is charging commercial trucks, the highways should be paved with gold.

New York state uses both a ton-mile tax and a per gallon fuel tax to fund highway maintenance. The ton-mile tax runs 4.95 cents per mile, which again using a 6 MPG figure, would equate to 29.70 cents per gallon for comparison. The per gallon fuel tax is a hefty 37.95 cents per gallon. The only state with a higher per gallon fuel tax is Pennsylvania with 38.10 cents per gallon, however Pennsylvania has no ton-mile tax. Taking the "result for comparison" 29.70 cents from the ton-mile tax and the 37.95 per gallon figure, we can see that if New York state were to abolish the ton-mile tax and switch to a fuel tax only, New York would have to charge 67.65 cents per gallon. There is one other factor that might favor New York state winning the bottom rung in the rankings. New York state relies heavily on toll roads. The New York Thruway runs from the Pennsylvania state line to the Massachusetts state line with generous sections of toll roads beyond that. In fairness, New York state does not charge commercial trucks the ton-mile tax on miles travelled on a toll road. There are a few other factors that weigh towards giving New York the "honor" of bottom rung status. Open up a trucker's highway almanac for the state and see how few routes are designated as STAA (Surface Transportation Assistance Act) truck routes. Also, in the same trucker's almanac, note how many low clearances (lower then 13 foot 6 inches) there are in the state.

Now in my judgement, New York state and Oregon are running nose to nose in the race towards the bottom. It's a photo finish! Too close to call. If I am the judge, well, I declare them equally worthy of last place. It's a tie!

Now for top place. It would be fairly easy to come up with a top rung finisher if the only consideration was that the state with the cheapest fuel tax wins automatically. I wish to use a more nuanced approach with an attempt to reach a decision of value returned for amounts paid. However this approach still seems to yield most (but not all) states charging the lowest fuel tax rates finishing in the top ten.

In appraising value returned for taxes paid I wish to point out some of my considerations. Mountainous states can justify higher tax rates due to the higher cost to build and maintain highways in the mountains. Northern states can normally justify higher tax rates due to the high costs involved in keeping the highways open during winter weather conditions. States that continue construction to improve traffic flow and relieve congestion deserve credit for the high costs of new construction if they continue to do a good job of maintaining existing highways.

The state I have selected as "top rung" is going to surprise a number of truckers. In fact, I am fairly sure that my selection is going to cause a number of truck drivers to spit and sputter. But before I go into that, let me point out some of the other contenders and the reason they were eliminated.

First, let us examine the state with the lowest fuel tax rate, and that would be Oklahoma. Oklahoma charges a bargain basement 13.00 cents per gallon fuel tax, the cheapest in the nation. Another factor in their favor is the extensive inclusion of most highways in the STAA network. The eliminating factors? Toll roads and highway maintenance. Oklahoma over relies on tolls to pay for past construction and continuing maintenance of these same toll roads. It is my experience that toll roads are all almost overly maintained as the Oklahoma toll authority seeks justify its existence while other highways (such as Interstate 40) suffer from under maintenance. It is my opinion that Oklahoma should can the toll roads and increase the fuel tax so that funds received can be used to maintain the highways that are most in need of the maintenance. I am not even sure that Oklahoma warrants a place in the top ten.

Next in line in order of low fuel taxes is Wyoming with a thrifty 14.00 cents tax per gallon. Worthy of note is that Wyoming is both a mountainous and northern state. They also do a pretty decent job of maintaining existing highways however there is little new construction that requires (or justifies) higher taxes. The eliminating factor is the extremely poor job Wyoming does of keeping Interstate 80 open in the winter. It is my opinion that Wyoming should raise the fuel tax by a couple cents per gallon and invest in a few more snow plows along with employing a few more drivers to operate them. However, Wyoming certainly qualifies for a top ten ranking.

I am going to group a few other "reasonable" fuel tax rate states together. Missouri weighs in at 17.00 cents per gallon. Missouri almost qualifies as a northern state and does an impressive job of keeping the highways open in the winter. However Missouri has little new construction in progress and at times seems to do a mediocre job of maintaining existing highways and keeping traffic flowing. Missouri is also a little stingy when it comes to including highways in the STAA network. Tennessee also weighs in at 17.00 cents per gallon. Tennessee hardly qualifies as a northern state and does a fairly poor job of keeping the highways open when the snow does fly. Tennessee is also stingy with the STAA network, however is engaged in improving traffic flow at bottle necks within the state. Problem is that Tennessee can't seem to figure out how to keep traffic flowing during the construction. South Carolina weighs in at an impressive 16.00 cents per gallon. South Carolina does a pretty decent job of maintaining existing highways but is involved in little new construction where traffic warrants it. South Carolina is also a southern state with little need for winter condition funding. South Carolina is stingy when it comes to the STAA network. However I am still impressed by South Carolina's frugal tax rate in comparison to her "damn Yankee" neighbors up north in North Carolina!

I could go on and on with all of the "also rans" such as Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Colorado, Texas, Indiana etc etc.

Now I am going to identify that state which I believe has grasped the gold ring. If you are a truck driver, please let me warn you that you need to put your coffee down and swallow that last gulp before you read any further.

The winner is? The Buckeye state. Yeah that's right, Ohio. Ohio's fuel tax rates are a rather steep 28.00 cents per gallon, however when it comes to "bang for the buck" the trucking industry is getting its money worth. Open up a trucker's almanac and note how Ohio includes almost every highway they have in the STAA network. Drive through the state even during blizzards that shut down the highways in neighboring states and witness how the Ohio highways remain open. Marvel at how well traffic continues to flow along Interstate 70 during reconstruction or along Interstate 71 as the Buckeye state widens the freeway to six lanes all the way from Columbus to Lodi! Note how new construction has made most of US 30 almost as good as a freeway from Mansfield to the Indiana state line with only the small section between Upper Sandusky and Beaverdam remaining as two lane and even there traffic flows smoothly with only a single stop light! (Construction continues that will replace this section with four lane.) Note how you can now travel from Gallipolis (at the West Virginia state line) to Dayton on US 35 with all of it being almost as good as a freeway until you run into a couple stoplights near Dayton. Note how Ohio includes generous truck parking in new rest areas even along the new section of US 30 between Upper Sandusky and Bucyrus and when she refurbishes existing rest areas includes ample parking for trucks in the refurbishment. The only blemish Ohio suffers from is the Ohio Turnpike along the northern tier of the state where trucks suffer from not only the stiff fuel tax rate but must pay an additional stiff toll for running it. However, even here, at least ample truck parking is included in the travel plazas along the way which softens the sting of the toll. In my opinion, the parking place is not worth the toll paid, however at least they give me a place to rest my head at night while they rape me!

Israeli Extremism

What to do about Israel?

Things are still SNAFU in the Middle East. If you do not know what SNAFU means I am not going to educate you. Go search Google or something. Let's just say things are coming to a head in Israel. Like a pimple that needs to be squeezed, I am going to apply some pressure to rid the body of what ails us in the hope that eventual healing might result.

(See here) where the Associated Press reports on a piece that appears on MSNBC that reports on what is going on in Israel.

( See here) a Haaretz piece that further reports on the goings on in the Middle East. I am going to lift a quote from this piece. I am going to attempt to delicately balance where I stand on the issue of Israel. I am not going to satisfy either side on this issue. I am going to attempt to become the fulcrum upon which both sides, if they are reasonable, can find a balance. I am going to engage in criticism of Ehud Olmert because I think he stands closest to my position and only attempt to get him to fall in line behind me so that I can support him as he attempts to thwart the goals of his opponents. I will attempt to expose the weakness of his "We're only victims." argument and try to expose the truth. If he wants my support, he is going to have to "change his evil ways" and compromise himself.

As the Haaretz piece reports:

"No one who is involved in terrorism is immune," said Olmert. "Israel will not
be subject to a timetable regarding its operations in Gaza."

OK Ehud, you are going to engage in conduct that many of us would describe as unacceptable. Personally, I would describe this conduct as probably being necessary, but I could be wrong. You have the power to prove this conduct MUST happen if you were only willing to exercise your power as Prime Minister of the Israeli Knesset.

What am I talking about? Olmert is not stopping the cancerous spread of Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory. If he stopped this spread WITHOUT EXCUSE, his "No one who is involved in terrorism is immune" argument would fall upon fertile soil. If the nation he leads did everything necessary to obtain a reasonable settlement, his cries that heavy handed action is required would be proven as fact. However, as long as he allows the settlements to expand and incite violence some of us are going to argue the actions of the Palestinians are justified.

Personally, I do not think the resistance of Hamas will cease with he stop of the expansion of the settlements, however I am willing to put my beliefs to the test. I insist that the expansions, which incite resistance, stops. After the cancerous spread of the settlements, which incites violent resistance, stops, and the resistance does not fade, I am willing to POUND the continuing resistance into submission.

But for me to agree to the pounding, first Israel must show, through actions, that they will be willing to abide by the results of negotiations. Until the cancerous spread of settlements is halted, I say the Palestinians have a right to resort to violence to stop this spread.

Once the spread of settlements stop, I am willing to agree to the pounding of our opponents into submission. But until we agree to stop being hypocrites I am going to insist the Palestinians have the right to resist.

Do I make myself clear?

Phil Kellam for Congress

Alternately I considered titling this post "A Shot Across Their Bow".

Here is the text of a message I sent via e-mail to the Virginia Beach Democratic Committee.

I am writing to enquire as to whether Phil Kellam is considering running again for the House seat presently occupied by Thelma Drake.

First, let me state that I am not registered (at least not yet) as a Democrat, I am registered as an independent. However, as an independent I have tended to vote for Democratic candidates recently. As an example I have voted for both Phil Kellam and David Ashe in the past couple elections for the House. I also voted for Senator Webb even though I wasn't particularly pleased with him, but I strongly wanted to run George Allen out of office. To display why I have remained an independent instead of just becoming a Democrat, I fully intend to cast my vote for Senator Warner in his next election, if he chooses to run, no matter who he runs against because I have been pleased with his service to our state and nation.

Anyway, why am I enquiring about whether or not Phil is going to run again? Because I want to run Thelma Drake out of office. I am willing to support any "reasonable" candidate that has a chance to do so. I think Phil Kellam, should he decide to run again, probably stands the best chance of success. Sure he made some mistakes last time, however possibly he has learned some lessons and can run a more polished campaign this time around.

I can imagine that David Ashe might be itching to run again, and while I certainly would vote for him, I do not think he has the universal appeal necessary to carry an election from the now incumbent Thelma. If he couldn't carry the election against her after the Republicans were disgraced by Schrock, I can not imagine voters will now find him any more appealing.

If Phil Kellam is not going to run again, I am considering registering as a Democrat and seeking to run against Thelma myself. I might not have the "universal appeal" necessary to carry the election but I am not completely without some strong points that could help me to become a serious contender. What I absolutely do not want to see is where the Democrats give up (like they did against Schrock a few years ago) and not field any candidate at all.

If Phil will agree to run again, I have no desire to run against him. I would encourage him to do so and I might even be willing (if I can convince my wife) to contribute a modest amount to his election campaign. I am certain my wife will not allow me to contribute much, but I would love contribute the extremely modest amount I might be able to get her to agree to.

I sent this e-mail to a man who goes by the first name Brent who evidently is chairperson of the Virginia Beach Dems Candidate Recruitment Committee. Now I can not give you Brent's last name because when I went back to the Virginia Beach Democratic Committee's website to get it, the "contact us" tab had for some reason had suddenly disappeared.

Perhaps the Virginia Beach Dems do not care to see an infusion of fresh moderate blood into their party apparatus? My own e-mail motivated them to remove the avenue for offers from citizens at large to run? Perhaps the removal was nothing more then a coincidence (this is probably the explanation) however I am left to wonder if it was nothing more then an attempt to slam the door to the Democratic Party in my face!

Now please note that I am not being unreasonable in my overtures to the Virginia Beach Dems. I have pointed out to them that if they agree to field a candidate like Phil Kellam, I am willing to support him. However, I am fearful that the Virginia Beach Dems are infested with ultra left wing extremists that will not agree to allow a genuinely moderate candidate to run. Well if they are not interested in "allowing" even "encouraging" my candidate (that would be Phil Kellam) to run once again, I am probably not interested in supporting their candidate. If they are as serious as I am about unseating Thelma Drake, they will field a moderate Democrat, not a left wing extremist. MUST the candidate be Phil Kellam? No. Perhaps someone even better then Phil Kellam can be found, however it is my appraisal that it will be extremely difficult to discover such a candidate. However I am going to put whoever they select, other then Phil Kellam, to a litmus test. Can such a candidate win the endorsement of the Blue Dog Democrat Coalition? If the answer is yes, I probably can support such a candidate. If the answer is no, I am going to consider running as an independent (unless I can get Phil Kellam to do this) with an attempt to win the endorsement of the Blue Dogs myself with the promise that if I win their endorsement I will caucus with them even if I win election as an independent (much like independent Joe Lieberman continues to caucus with the Democrats in the Senate).

So I am firing a shot across the Virginia Beach Democratic Committee's bow. They either field a candidate that is acceptable to me or I am willing, if necessary, to run myself. If they are genuine in their desire to unseat Thelma Drake, they should be willing to accept my compromise. If they insist on an ultra "progressive" candidate, I am going to try to siphon off enough votes from them to win the election myself (although I would prefer to convince Phil Kellam to be my candidate). Even if I can not win enough support to win, I bet I can win enough support to thwart them.

I want to run Thelma out of office. However I want to replace Republican conservative extremist Thelma with a moderate, not replace her with some extremist "progressive" candidate.