The American sheeple are at it again I see, blindly mouthing all the catchphrases and buzzwords tossed at us by the various political campaigns. Currently the magic word is still “change”, as in “It’s time to kick the other guy out and elect my crook… err… candidate for (fill in the blank) elected office”. So we can continue with "business as usual" of course.
Almost two years ago consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high, gasoline sold for around $2.20 a gallon, and the national unemployment rate was in the 4.5% ballpark. Since those fondly remembered days we’ve suffered through a mid-term election that saw Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi take over the leadership of congress. Their loudly promised withdrawal from Iraq hasn’t happened, improved border security hasn’t happened, and government expenditures still aren’t under control. The Obama – Clinton mudslinging contest has reached epic proportions unseen in recent decades, the news media constantly displays the political posturing of every incumbent and office seeker in the country, along with all the gory details of every major or minor scandal to come along. Oh yeah, the Hollywierd celebrities still seem to think they’re the nations foremost experts on just about every conceivable subject and they never tire of telling us all about it.
The candidates keep calling for “change”, but I’m not real sure just what sort of change they have in mind, and I expect I probably won’t much like it either. It seems that the war in Iraq has calmed down somewhat since the “surge”, which indicates to me that it’s working despite all the loud claims that the war is/was lost. So now the political hopefuls have changed their line of attack to our financial woes, attempting to make us believe that vague and undefined forces like "the economy," "inflation", or "politics" have prevented them from doing what they took a solemn oath to do.
Since we voted in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we've seen a lot of changes, although they weren’t necessarily the changes we were promised. So far, consumer confidence in our financial system has dropped into the basement, and now it seems we have a recession staring us in the face. The cost of gasoline has risen to well over $3 a gallon, and I can just envision OPEC ministers gleefully rubbing their hands together as they plan further inroads on the American consumer’s finances. Unemployment has seen a roughly 10% increase, now it’s at about 5% of our national workforce. Keep in mind that that increase is after all those “jobs Americans don’t want” have been filled by a horde of illegal aliens, and it doesn’t count the how many other unemployed folks who have completely given up looking for work (and likely given up hope as well). American households have suffered a $2.3 trillion loss in stock and mutual fund equity, while their home equity has fallen by around $1.2 trillion dollars, and something like 1% of all American homes are currently in foreclosure.
The republicans blame the democrats, the democrats blame the republicans, the media weeps and wails, and yet nothing seems to get done to solve our quite severe national problems. Well, remember that one hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - out of the 300 million of us in this country, are directly responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House, stood up and criticized President Bush for creating deficits, apparently forgetting that the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, gives responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. “We the People” don't have the Constitutional authority to pass appropriations bills, nor does the Senate or the president. But the members of the House of Representatives certainly do. The president can propose a budget, he can wheel and deal all he wants to get it passed, but he can’t force Congress to pass it. Ms. Pelosi and the House membership can approve or disapprove any budget they want. If the president doesn’t like what they pass, that’s tough.
If both the Democrats and the Republicans are against budget deficits, why do we still have budget deficits? If our politicians are against inflation and high taxes, why do we still have inflation and high taxes? If they don’t like our runaway trade deficits, why do we still have those deficits? If they don’t like American jobs going overseas, why do we still have NAFTA? If energy independence is so vital to the country’s security and well being, why aren’t we doing anything about it? If affordable health care is so important to Americans, why isn’t congress doing something about runaway medical costs?
Politicians seem to be the only people who can create major national problems, and then constantly get themselves reelected by campaigning against them. When you understand that among our entire population these people alone exercise the power of the federal government, then it would appear that the existing situation is what they want to exist. If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it that way. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the US Army is in Iraq, it's because they want them in Iraq. The basis of the problem is not with the federal bureaucracy, whom Congress can hire and fire at will. The problem is not with lobbyists or special interests whose “advice” they can reject. Nor is it with government agencies to whom they give the authority to regulate our activities, and from whom they can just as quickly remove that authority. I can't think of any domestic problem, from our rickety tax code to budget deficits, from the war in Iraq to our collapsing economy, that is not the direct responsibility of our congressional representatives in the nation’s capitol. Those people alone are responsible for causing, or failing to correct, the problems that plague our nation. I’d think they should be held fully accountable by the voters every two years. It seems strange to me that a nation of 300 million supposedly intelligent citizens cannot replace 535 politicians (and one President) who stand guilty of malfeasance, as demonstrated by the sorry situation we presently find ourselves in.
Today we stand before the world, bloodied and bruised. Not defeated by a foreign power, not beaten by insane religious zealots, not laid low by homegrown extremists. Instead we’re being destroyed from within, by our own congressional leadership. We voted for a change in 2006, and we certainly got one. Now, with another presidential election rapidly approaching, I’m wondering just how much more “change” our once great nation can stand?
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Sunday, March 9, 2008
Asteroids?
The recent near impact of an asteroid with Mars, our northwest meteor flap, the highly visible lunar eclipse, and now the spy satellite shoot-down have certainly focused our attention on space in the last few weeks. As a predominately agricultural area, the majority of us are far more concerned with the timber, beef, and grain markets than we are with spaceflight, but still, space is a rather interesting area of scientific endeavor. It also generates a lot of curiosity in the public mind, and often a lot of national pride in most Americans. Like everything else however, the interest can’t last long in the minds of a fickle American public.
In recent years scientific research has been adopted by the “Chicken Little” set as their source of gloom and doom “the sky is falling” catastrophic threats to the world. These of course range from global warming to the threatened Bird Flu pandemic, from a giant asteroid impact to massive overpopulation. While the sky is not falling, and the world is not necessarily coming to an end anytime soon, all these threats do have some probability of happening. Generally a pretty low probability, but like everything else, I’d never say it can’t happen. The predicted Mars/asteroid impact didn’t occur, but Mars did have a pretty good chance of getting smacked by a flying rock. Sort of an interplanetary fender bender that had a lot of space scientists all excited. Based on the known orbital parameters available late in January, asteroid 2007 WD5 had a high probability of hitting the northern hemisphere of Mars, sometime in the evening of January 30th, 2008, with the best guesstimates at about a 4% chance of impact. WD5 is only about 160 feet across, which puts it a long way from being the “Planet Killer” so beloved of the science fiction movie writers. From a purely scientific viewpoint however, most of us with an interest in space happenings rather did hope it would hit. What a fireworks display!!
Assuming that the gentle reader has a working knowledge of meteors, comets, and asteroids, I’ll explain that 2007 WD5 is what’s known as an “NEO”, a Near Earth Object. An NEO is an inner system body (usually an extinct comet core or an asteroid) whose orbit periodically crosses that of Earth, and that often brings them fairly close to our little blue planet. WD5 was first discovered on November 20, 2007, after the object had already passed within 5 million miles of Earth on November 1. Astronomers calculated its course and noticed that it would be passing quite near Mars as well. NEO’s routinely pass close to Earth several times every year, and occasionally we get hit by them. Arizona’s half mile wide “Meteor Crater” is the aftermath of one such impact a few thousand years ago, and interestingly enough that rock just happened to be about the same size as WD5. The Arizona strike produced an explosion equivalent to about 2.5 megatons of TNT, or about 150 times the size of the A-bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The inpact occurred during the Pleistocene epoch when the area was an open grassland dotted with woodlands and inhabited mostly by woolly mammoths, giant ground sloths, and camelids. I can just imagine the wildlife stampede when that thing hit!
A comparable incident occurred in 1908, when something exploded above the Tunguska region of Siberia, flattening trees in a 25-mile radius from the center of the blast. Scientists are pretty sure it was a comet or asteroid, considerably smaller than WD5 that was torn apart by its own shock wave as it plowed through the atmosphere. (UFO enthusiasts have long believed it was a flying saucer that somehow made it across light years of interstellar space, only to blow up above Russia.) The scientific explanation would account for the aerial explosion, and also the fact that no crater has been found. However, an Italian science team has recently measured seismic waves reflecting off a high-density spot in the bottom of a suspiciously crater-shaped Lake Cheko which lies quite close to the event's ground zero. It could be a piece of the original object and finding it could help investigators understand exactly what happened in 1908. If they find burned-out flying-saucer remains however…
Created by a much bigger object, the Chicxulub Crater underneath the Yucatan Peninsula is believed by many scientists to have brought about the end of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. The crater is over 110 miles in diameter, making the feature one of the largest confirmed impact structures in the world. That particular asteroid or comet was at least 6 miles in diameter. Recent evidence suggests that the impactor was a piece of a much larger asteroid which broke up in a space collision more than 160 million years ago. Ahh… where’d the other pieces go?
While the potential Mars impact was interesting, it would be quite another story if 2007 WD5 were heading toward Earth. "Something of this size could take out a fairly large metropolitan area," said Donald Yeomans, a planetary scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., who manages the agency's (severely under funded) Near-Earth Objects program. It was this congressionally mandated search for potentially threatening asteroids and comets that turned up 2007 WD5 as a target in the first place. Originally identified as a possible risk to Earth, later analysis showed that the asteroid just might collide with Mars. While WD5 flew right on past Earth and Mars, that may not be good news for Earth, which will sometime again find itself in the asteroid's path. It would seem that even if they miss us this time, they keep coming back for another try.
Unlike the 1908 event, in the future we should have some warning of a possible strike, as well as (hopefully) the tools to divert the threat. We do have the technology to deflect something like this today, but before we send the Space Cadets out to blow it up with an A-bomb, we might remember that blowing one up Hollywood style will do little more than send a whole lot of slightly smaller fragments our way (somewhat like exchanging a rifle bullet for a shotgun blast). However, all we really need to do is slow it down a bit, which we could readily do with a nuclear rocket engine, if we start several years before it’s due to hit us. What we don’t have at present (thanks to congressional budget cuts and NASA’s constant dithering) is the means to reach an NEO with anything big enough to help.
For the moment however, we don’t even have any plans to save the Earth from a major NEO impact, nor any idea of what hardware we’d need. And unsurprisingly there are tens of thousands of them out there, ranging in size from little bitty things that we’ll never notice, to a lot of flying mountains several miles across. While the odds of an impact on any particular day are pretty slim, the question isn’t “if” one will hit us, it’s “when” will it hit us. We really do need to develop a means of defense, even if it's not a real high priority item. Meanwhile, congress keeps passing out earmarks while they can't find the money needed to keep NASA viable, and NASA seems to be asleep at the switch as well.
In recent years scientific research has been adopted by the “Chicken Little” set as their source of gloom and doom “the sky is falling” catastrophic threats to the world. These of course range from global warming to the threatened Bird Flu pandemic, from a giant asteroid impact to massive overpopulation. While the sky is not falling, and the world is not necessarily coming to an end anytime soon, all these threats do have some probability of happening. Generally a pretty low probability, but like everything else, I’d never say it can’t happen. The predicted Mars/asteroid impact didn’t occur, but Mars did have a pretty good chance of getting smacked by a flying rock. Sort of an interplanetary fender bender that had a lot of space scientists all excited. Based on the known orbital parameters available late in January, asteroid 2007 WD5 had a high probability of hitting the northern hemisphere of Mars, sometime in the evening of January 30th, 2008, with the best guesstimates at about a 4% chance of impact. WD5 is only about 160 feet across, which puts it a long way from being the “Planet Killer” so beloved of the science fiction movie writers. From a purely scientific viewpoint however, most of us with an interest in space happenings rather did hope it would hit. What a fireworks display!!
Assuming that the gentle reader has a working knowledge of meteors, comets, and asteroids, I’ll explain that 2007 WD5 is what’s known as an “NEO”, a Near Earth Object. An NEO is an inner system body (usually an extinct comet core or an asteroid) whose orbit periodically crosses that of Earth, and that often brings them fairly close to our little blue planet. WD5 was first discovered on November 20, 2007, after the object had already passed within 5 million miles of Earth on November 1. Astronomers calculated its course and noticed that it would be passing quite near Mars as well. NEO’s routinely pass close to Earth several times every year, and occasionally we get hit by them. Arizona’s half mile wide “Meteor Crater” is the aftermath of one such impact a few thousand years ago, and interestingly enough that rock just happened to be about the same size as WD5. The Arizona strike produced an explosion equivalent to about 2.5 megatons of TNT, or about 150 times the size of the A-bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The inpact occurred during the Pleistocene epoch when the area was an open grassland dotted with woodlands and inhabited mostly by woolly mammoths, giant ground sloths, and camelids. I can just imagine the wildlife stampede when that thing hit!
A comparable incident occurred in 1908, when something exploded above the Tunguska region of Siberia, flattening trees in a 25-mile radius from the center of the blast. Scientists are pretty sure it was a comet or asteroid, considerably smaller than WD5 that was torn apart by its own shock wave as it plowed through the atmosphere. (UFO enthusiasts have long believed it was a flying saucer that somehow made it across light years of interstellar space, only to blow up above Russia.) The scientific explanation would account for the aerial explosion, and also the fact that no crater has been found. However, an Italian science team has recently measured seismic waves reflecting off a high-density spot in the bottom of a suspiciously crater-shaped Lake Cheko which lies quite close to the event's ground zero. It could be a piece of the original object and finding it could help investigators understand exactly what happened in 1908. If they find burned-out flying-saucer remains however…
Created by a much bigger object, the Chicxulub Crater underneath the Yucatan Peninsula is believed by many scientists to have brought about the end of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. The crater is over 110 miles in diameter, making the feature one of the largest confirmed impact structures in the world. That particular asteroid or comet was at least 6 miles in diameter. Recent evidence suggests that the impactor was a piece of a much larger asteroid which broke up in a space collision more than 160 million years ago. Ahh… where’d the other pieces go?
While the potential Mars impact was interesting, it would be quite another story if 2007 WD5 were heading toward Earth. "Something of this size could take out a fairly large metropolitan area," said Donald Yeomans, a planetary scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., who manages the agency's (severely under funded) Near-Earth Objects program. It was this congressionally mandated search for potentially threatening asteroids and comets that turned up 2007 WD5 as a target in the first place. Originally identified as a possible risk to Earth, later analysis showed that the asteroid just might collide with Mars. While WD5 flew right on past Earth and Mars, that may not be good news for Earth, which will sometime again find itself in the asteroid's path. It would seem that even if they miss us this time, they keep coming back for another try.
Unlike the 1908 event, in the future we should have some warning of a possible strike, as well as (hopefully) the tools to divert the threat. We do have the technology to deflect something like this today, but before we send the Space Cadets out to blow it up with an A-bomb, we might remember that blowing one up Hollywood style will do little more than send a whole lot of slightly smaller fragments our way (somewhat like exchanging a rifle bullet for a shotgun blast). However, all we really need to do is slow it down a bit, which we could readily do with a nuclear rocket engine, if we start several years before it’s due to hit us. What we don’t have at present (thanks to congressional budget cuts and NASA’s constant dithering) is the means to reach an NEO with anything big enough to help.
For the moment however, we don’t even have any plans to save the Earth from a major NEO impact, nor any idea of what hardware we’d need. And unsurprisingly there are tens of thousands of them out there, ranging in size from little bitty things that we’ll never notice, to a lot of flying mountains several miles across. While the odds of an impact on any particular day are pretty slim, the question isn’t “if” one will hit us, it’s “when” will it hit us. We really do need to develop a means of defense, even if it's not a real high priority item. Meanwhile, congress keeps passing out earmarks while they can't find the money needed to keep NASA viable, and NASA seems to be asleep at the switch as well.
Sunday, March 2, 2008
CIA
Despite well over a decade of military observers, investigations, “fact finding” missions, and intensive intelligence gathering, the American military and intelligence communities found themselves repeatedly explaining to four consecutive US presidents that a guerilla war against the Viet Minh (Viet Cong) in Indochina was not something the US could win, with both the military and CIA vehemently opposing the US entry into the Indochina war. Irregardless, with the Tonkin Gulf incident as LBJ’s excuse, we soon got the US Marines landing on the beaches near Da Nang, massive troop build-ups, and a full scale shooting war in South Vietnam. Apparently, because the White House better understands the conduct of field operations than do military commanders on the scene, the military soon found themselves “micro-managed” by Washington to the extent that then President Johnson often bragged the Air Force couldn’t bomb an outhouse without his express permission. At the same time, the CIA was directed to conduct an “in the black” covert war in the jungles of Laos, a mission that the agency was totally unprepared to handle. The Pentagon, and Langley, put their best efforts into following orders, but even so the effort was somewhat akin to bailing out New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina with a leaky teacup.
Towards the end of the war, the previously hawkish US Congress began looking for scapegoats to take the rap for the perceived US failure. As it was (and apparently still is) totally inconceivable that our political leadership could possibly make any errors in judgment, political expediency told them that the fault must obviously lie within the US Armed Forces and our intelligence agencies. With that political decision, congress began a multi-year effort to emasculate the US military and CIA, an effort that the far left continues to this day. The military survived those efforts, just barely, and thanks to President Ronald Reagan, managed to revive themselves sufficiently for George Bush the elder to successfully conduct the Desert Storm war. The CIA, starved of funds and under severe oversight by congressional amateurs who haven’t the vaguest idea of what intelligence gathering is all about, wasn’t quite as fortunate. The media had predicted that after the near wrecking of the CIA, it would take decades to rebuild our foreign intelligence capabilities. That time has passed, and the job still hasn't been done.
Following the congressional hatchet job at Langley, President Jimmy Carter's administration, in its incessant playing to the radical left, cut even deeper. The Carter efforts had gotten rid of nearly all the US “humint” (Human Intelligence) assets worldwide that would have been able to properly keep track of the goings on in the clandestine world, resulting in the only intelligence resource available to the United States being satellite photos, along with whatever was forwarded by our friends and allies throughout the world. With 9-11 and the War on Terror, we trusted the intelligence data passed on to us by the British, French, Germans, and several other nations, a necessity required by the need to fill the artificial void created at CIA. As it’s also politically unthinkable that the intelligence agencies of these allied countries could have misled us, George W. Bush believed the information we received concerning Iraq was credible, so apparently did Colin Powell and the US Congress. After the invasion, and after no Iraqi WMD’s had been found, we heard the wails from European capitols that “we didn’t say the information we passed along was reliable or credible”. Apparently they didn’t say it was unreliable either, until well after the war had started. And if they thought it was unreliable, why did they join us in attacking Saddam’s Iraq? And yet once again Congress, and the media, laid the blame squarely on the CIA.
I rather think that this questionable intelligence data was considered reliable at the time by all parties involved. After all, we know that Saddam did have chemical weapons. He used them against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. We know that he used those weapons against his own restive population on several occasions. We know that he had those weapons at the time of Desert Storm, because we found many of them lying around Iraqi ammunition dumps after the cease fire. What we didn’t know, and apparently still don’t, is just how extensive Saddam’s WMD programs actually were.
FBI special agent George Piro, a Lebanese-American who speaks Arabic, questioned Saddam after he was captured near Tikrit in December 2003. Prio told CBS's "60 Minutes" program that Saddam expected only a limited aerial attack by the United States and thought he could remain in control. "He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions," said Piro. "He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack." "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack," Piro added. The Associated Press spoke to an aide of Saddam's in August 2003, who also said that Saddam did not expect a U.S. invasion and deliberately kept everyone guessing about his weapons program, although he already had gotten rid of it. Saddam publicly denied having these weapons before the U.S. invasion, but prevented UN inspectors working in-country to prove or disprove his claims. Piro said that Saddam wanted to keep up the illusion, partly because he thought it would deter a possible Iranian invasion. Instead, his “faking” brought about a US led invasion and the fall of B’aathist Iraq. Piro added that Saddam had the intent of restarting the Iraqi weapons program, and did have the scientists and engineers for future chemical, biological and nuclear weapons development. Despite the UN’s inability to find anything, given the geography of Iraq it would not be difficult to believe that Saddam did have a quite large stockpile of WMD’s hidden in the desert. I’m reminded of the difficulties we’ve had in finding Saddam’s hidden ammunition dumps, and a chemical artillery shell isn’t very large. Humm… What other nasty little surprises might be stashed away in Iraq’s deserts?
With the gift of 20/20 hindsight, the American political left in this election year continually decries the invasion of Iraq and the ongoing war, accusing President Bush and the Republican party of being militaristic, along with a wide assortment of other failings. Yet what else was the president to do? He is after all, sworn to defend the United States to the best of his ability. Arab terrorists had already used civil airliners as missiles, causing extensive death and destruction in this country. He was well aware that Saddam was the sworn enemy of the United States, and had previously demonstrated both possession of, and a willingness to utilize, WMD’s. Saddam’s continued deliberate faking of having these weapons fooled nearly every intelligence agency in the world apparently. With that, how hard would it have been to believe that Saddam might happily hand a few chemical weapons over to al-Qaeda, for use in terrorist attacks against the United States?
If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, at first sight most of us would probably think it’s a duck.
Towards the end of the war, the previously hawkish US Congress began looking for scapegoats to take the rap for the perceived US failure. As it was (and apparently still is) totally inconceivable that our political leadership could possibly make any errors in judgment, political expediency told them that the fault must obviously lie within the US Armed Forces and our intelligence agencies. With that political decision, congress began a multi-year effort to emasculate the US military and CIA, an effort that the far left continues to this day. The military survived those efforts, just barely, and thanks to President Ronald Reagan, managed to revive themselves sufficiently for George Bush the elder to successfully conduct the Desert Storm war. The CIA, starved of funds and under severe oversight by congressional amateurs who haven’t the vaguest idea of what intelligence gathering is all about, wasn’t quite as fortunate. The media had predicted that after the near wrecking of the CIA, it would take decades to rebuild our foreign intelligence capabilities. That time has passed, and the job still hasn't been done.
Following the congressional hatchet job at Langley, President Jimmy Carter's administration, in its incessant playing to the radical left, cut even deeper. The Carter efforts had gotten rid of nearly all the US “humint” (Human Intelligence) assets worldwide that would have been able to properly keep track of the goings on in the clandestine world, resulting in the only intelligence resource available to the United States being satellite photos, along with whatever was forwarded by our friends and allies throughout the world. With 9-11 and the War on Terror, we trusted the intelligence data passed on to us by the British, French, Germans, and several other nations, a necessity required by the need to fill the artificial void created at CIA. As it’s also politically unthinkable that the intelligence agencies of these allied countries could have misled us, George W. Bush believed the information we received concerning Iraq was credible, so apparently did Colin Powell and the US Congress. After the invasion, and after no Iraqi WMD’s had been found, we heard the wails from European capitols that “we didn’t say the information we passed along was reliable or credible”. Apparently they didn’t say it was unreliable either, until well after the war had started. And if they thought it was unreliable, why did they join us in attacking Saddam’s Iraq? And yet once again Congress, and the media, laid the blame squarely on the CIA.
I rather think that this questionable intelligence data was considered reliable at the time by all parties involved. After all, we know that Saddam did have chemical weapons. He used them against Iran during the Iran-Iraq war. We know that he used those weapons against his own restive population on several occasions. We know that he had those weapons at the time of Desert Storm, because we found many of them lying around Iraqi ammunition dumps after the cease fire. What we didn’t know, and apparently still don’t, is just how extensive Saddam’s WMD programs actually were.
FBI special agent George Piro, a Lebanese-American who speaks Arabic, questioned Saddam after he was captured near Tikrit in December 2003. Prio told CBS's "60 Minutes" program that Saddam expected only a limited aerial attack by the United States and thought he could remain in control. "He told me he initially miscalculated ... President Bush's intentions," said Piro. "He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998 ... a four-day aerial attack." "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack," Piro added. The Associated Press spoke to an aide of Saddam's in August 2003, who also said that Saddam did not expect a U.S. invasion and deliberately kept everyone guessing about his weapons program, although he already had gotten rid of it. Saddam publicly denied having these weapons before the U.S. invasion, but prevented UN inspectors working in-country to prove or disprove his claims. Piro said that Saddam wanted to keep up the illusion, partly because he thought it would deter a possible Iranian invasion. Instead, his “faking” brought about a US led invasion and the fall of B’aathist Iraq. Piro added that Saddam had the intent of restarting the Iraqi weapons program, and did have the scientists and engineers for future chemical, biological and nuclear weapons development. Despite the UN’s inability to find anything, given the geography of Iraq it would not be difficult to believe that Saddam did have a quite large stockpile of WMD’s hidden in the desert. I’m reminded of the difficulties we’ve had in finding Saddam’s hidden ammunition dumps, and a chemical artillery shell isn’t very large. Humm… What other nasty little surprises might be stashed away in Iraq’s deserts?
With the gift of 20/20 hindsight, the American political left in this election year continually decries the invasion of Iraq and the ongoing war, accusing President Bush and the Republican party of being militaristic, along with a wide assortment of other failings. Yet what else was the president to do? He is after all, sworn to defend the United States to the best of his ability. Arab terrorists had already used civil airliners as missiles, causing extensive death and destruction in this country. He was well aware that Saddam was the sworn enemy of the United States, and had previously demonstrated both possession of, and a willingness to utilize, WMD’s. Saddam’s continued deliberate faking of having these weapons fooled nearly every intelligence agency in the world apparently. With that, how hard would it have been to believe that Saddam might happily hand a few chemical weapons over to al-Qaeda, for use in terrorist attacks against the United States?
If it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck, at first sight most of us would probably think it’s a duck.
Lincoln Day
Last week I talked about the Idaho County Democratic Caucus, so with fairness in mind (I believe in picking on everyone equally) I’ll talk about the Republican “Lincoln Day” assembly held in Ferdinand on Saturday. Essentially this event was put on by the Idaho County and Lewis County Republicans to allow various GOP office holders and hopeful candidates to meet the public, and jump up on a stump to do a bit of speechmaking. Sen. Mike Crappo was there, as were Rep. Bill Sali and Lt. Gov. Jim Risch, along with about a hundred other folks.
Problem number one for the day just had to involve my navigational skills. I mean, how can you possibly get lost in Ferdinand!? But never fear gentle reader, I managed. I had in mind that the assembly was to be held at the Ferdinand Community Center (a big building with a lot of cars parked out front), which I didn’t remember seeing before, so I drove right on by the Gym (a big building with a lot of cars parked out front), looking for a “Community Center” sign. Please don’t ask me where my mind was, I think I left it at home…
Most of the office holders present were on pretty tight schedules, so they were scrambling around shaking as many hands as possible and then moving on. That doesn’t allow a poor reporter much time to ask the dozen or so questions he has in mind. I think I spoke with Sen. Crappo for probably thirty seconds before he disappeared into the crowd, and I never did get near him again. Rep. Sali wasn’t in quite such a hurry, so I did speak to him for a moment. I’d never met him before, but he seems like a pretty nice guy who definitely will take the time to talk with his constituents.
One of my current hot button subjects is the latest “Gun Grab” deal, whereby many military veterans are denied the right to possess a firearm. It is of course quite sensible from a bleeding hearted liberal public safety point of view, in that veterans with possible PTSD aren’t allowed to possess guns with which they might commit mass murder. Unfortunately, under this law, nearly anyone from a doctor, to the cop on the beat, to a casual acquaintance can simply say “He’s nuts” for as little as having an occasional nightmare, and true or not, the vet is up the proverbial watercourse, without the proverbial means of propulsion. The burden of proving otherwise is laid on the vet, and getting this “nuts” label removed is going to be very difficult. I asked Rep. Sali just how this thing got passed, and he explained that the law was slipped in as a rider on another measure, and apparently no one knew it was coming. (I’d think that congressmen would at least read the entire Bill coming up for a vote, before they passed them.) The next question was obviously “Are we going to get rid of this?” to which he quickly answered “Yes”. He says there is a movement afoot to repeal this particularly odious measure that specifically targets military veterans, but he didn’t want to get into any of the particulars. I for one certainly hope it gets repealed, and soon! There have been a lot of unfounded claims in the eastern mass media of late, of how so many returning “mentally disturbed” Iraqi War veterans are indiscriminately killing people or committing suicide. From some of the news reports you’d think all Iraq vets were automatically incipient mass murderers. In reality the chance of being killed by a mentally disturbed vet is much lower than that of being killed by a member of the general public, particularly in New York and Washington DC, and the so called suicide rate is actually some sort of a “violent death” rate that counts all causes, including any returnee who just happens to be the victim of a traffic accident!
Many of the candidates present were running for Larry Craig’s soon to be vacated Senate seat. The speeches from these hopefuls covered pretty much the standard GOP fare, cutting back on the federal “tax and spend” feeding frenzy (which unfortunately nobody can seem to get a handle on), protecting individual rights, enforcing immigration laws, guarding our borders, and of course the perennial fight against big government. I didn’t hear much said about the “abortion on demand” question, or of biological research, but the undercurrent was there of course. For the most part I fully agree with the ideas our GOP senatorial hopefuls are trying to get across, and I hope one of them does get elected to Larry’s senate seat. But I also rather worry about the chances of their really accomplishing anything in the near future. They all have good ideas I’d say, but we also know how much clout a freshman senator has.
Nothing much was said about the presidential race unless you spoke with some individual or other, unfortunate, as I consider that to be extremely important in this election. Of the Republican candidates (McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Paul), I can’t really accept any of them. I’ll probably agree with Paul’s ideas more than the others, but even if he does manage to get elected president I really can’t see congress cooperating with him at all. He wants to cut the federal budget, yet the congressional budget battles remind me of a whole mess of hogs pushing and shoving at the feeding trough. Does anyone really think they’re going to cheerfully eliminate their chances to spend our hard earned tax money!? He wants to severely reduce the size of the federal government, but will congress agree to toss patronage in the wastebasket? I’d like to see him go through with repealing the Patriot Act, eliminating the Department of Homeland Security, and outlawing domestic spying. Generally our Idaho senatorial hopefuls seem to be on the same wavelength even if most of the presidential hopefuls aren’t. Yet these are all programs strongly supported by Republicans across the country, and I rather doubt congress is going to smile benignly on any attempt to eliminate them.
There were several people around that I know, anywhere from “sorta-kinda” to fairly well, so there was a lot of “Hey, how ‘ya doing?” going on. I ran into one particular friend as well, Brad Mittendorf, who’s running for Lewis County Sheriff. We go back quite a ways, and the last time I saw him we were both still wearing Army uniforms. As I can’t vote in Lewis County we didn’t discuss politics much, but rather caught up on the past few years a bit, and like old soldiers do, promised to meet again one of these days, something I really need to do.
Problem number one for the day just had to involve my navigational skills. I mean, how can you possibly get lost in Ferdinand!? But never fear gentle reader, I managed. I had in mind that the assembly was to be held at the Ferdinand Community Center (a big building with a lot of cars parked out front), which I didn’t remember seeing before, so I drove right on by the Gym (a big building with a lot of cars parked out front), looking for a “Community Center” sign. Please don’t ask me where my mind was, I think I left it at home…
Most of the office holders present were on pretty tight schedules, so they were scrambling around shaking as many hands as possible and then moving on. That doesn’t allow a poor reporter much time to ask the dozen or so questions he has in mind. I think I spoke with Sen. Crappo for probably thirty seconds before he disappeared into the crowd, and I never did get near him again. Rep. Sali wasn’t in quite such a hurry, so I did speak to him for a moment. I’d never met him before, but he seems like a pretty nice guy who definitely will take the time to talk with his constituents.
One of my current hot button subjects is the latest “Gun Grab” deal, whereby many military veterans are denied the right to possess a firearm. It is of course quite sensible from a bleeding hearted liberal public safety point of view, in that veterans with possible PTSD aren’t allowed to possess guns with which they might commit mass murder. Unfortunately, under this law, nearly anyone from a doctor, to the cop on the beat, to a casual acquaintance can simply say “He’s nuts” for as little as having an occasional nightmare, and true or not, the vet is up the proverbial watercourse, without the proverbial means of propulsion. The burden of proving otherwise is laid on the vet, and getting this “nuts” label removed is going to be very difficult. I asked Rep. Sali just how this thing got passed, and he explained that the law was slipped in as a rider on another measure, and apparently no one knew it was coming. (I’d think that congressmen would at least read the entire Bill coming up for a vote, before they passed them.) The next question was obviously “Are we going to get rid of this?” to which he quickly answered “Yes”. He says there is a movement afoot to repeal this particularly odious measure that specifically targets military veterans, but he didn’t want to get into any of the particulars. I for one certainly hope it gets repealed, and soon! There have been a lot of unfounded claims in the eastern mass media of late, of how so many returning “mentally disturbed” Iraqi War veterans are indiscriminately killing people or committing suicide. From some of the news reports you’d think all Iraq vets were automatically incipient mass murderers. In reality the chance of being killed by a mentally disturbed vet is much lower than that of being killed by a member of the general public, particularly in New York and Washington DC, and the so called suicide rate is actually some sort of a “violent death” rate that counts all causes, including any returnee who just happens to be the victim of a traffic accident!
Many of the candidates present were running for Larry Craig’s soon to be vacated Senate seat. The speeches from these hopefuls covered pretty much the standard GOP fare, cutting back on the federal “tax and spend” feeding frenzy (which unfortunately nobody can seem to get a handle on), protecting individual rights, enforcing immigration laws, guarding our borders, and of course the perennial fight against big government. I didn’t hear much said about the “abortion on demand” question, or of biological research, but the undercurrent was there of course. For the most part I fully agree with the ideas our GOP senatorial hopefuls are trying to get across, and I hope one of them does get elected to Larry’s senate seat. But I also rather worry about the chances of their really accomplishing anything in the near future. They all have good ideas I’d say, but we also know how much clout a freshman senator has.
Nothing much was said about the presidential race unless you spoke with some individual or other, unfortunate, as I consider that to be extremely important in this election. Of the Republican candidates (McCain, Huckabee, Romney, and Paul), I can’t really accept any of them. I’ll probably agree with Paul’s ideas more than the others, but even if he does manage to get elected president I really can’t see congress cooperating with him at all. He wants to cut the federal budget, yet the congressional budget battles remind me of a whole mess of hogs pushing and shoving at the feeding trough. Does anyone really think they’re going to cheerfully eliminate their chances to spend our hard earned tax money!? He wants to severely reduce the size of the federal government, but will congress agree to toss patronage in the wastebasket? I’d like to see him go through with repealing the Patriot Act, eliminating the Department of Homeland Security, and outlawing domestic spying. Generally our Idaho senatorial hopefuls seem to be on the same wavelength even if most of the presidential hopefuls aren’t. Yet these are all programs strongly supported by Republicans across the country, and I rather doubt congress is going to smile benignly on any attempt to eliminate them.
There were several people around that I know, anywhere from “sorta-kinda” to fairly well, so there was a lot of “Hey, how ‘ya doing?” going on. I ran into one particular friend as well, Brad Mittendorf, who’s running for Lewis County Sheriff. We go back quite a ways, and the last time I saw him we were both still wearing Army uniforms. As I can’t vote in Lewis County we didn’t discuss politics much, but rather caught up on the past few years a bit, and like old soldiers do, promised to meet again one of these days, something I really need to do.
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Local Democratic Caucus
In my role as a “fair and balanced” member of the press corps, I attended the Idaho County Democratic Caucus last Tuesday evening, the first time I’ve been to one of these things. There were 179 people attending (nearly twice the attendance of their last presidential caucus), so I’m tempted to say that the Idaho County Democrats are taking this election very seriously. With my red bordered nametag (red for non-voting observers), I was invited several times (somewhat tongue in cheek I suspect) to join the Democratic Party. Thanks, but no thanks, I’ve been a somewhat contrary independent voter for well over forty years and don’t really plan to change now.
Remembering my Granddaddy’s description of California’s democratic conventions of the 1920’s and 30’s, it appears that things have changed somewhat. I didn’t really expect to see any “smoke filled rooms”, but I didn’t see any serious horse trading going on either, and nary a fist fight. This was more like an old time Sunday church social, with of course somewhat different subject material. Apparently Idaho Counties Democrats are more peaceable people than the Los Angles Irish of a few decades back. I ran into several people I’ve known for a long time, and we did get into politically related discussions, mostly with me asking questions, and they trying to explain their stance to this unreconstructed conservative.
There were signs indicating where the supporters of various candidates were supposed to congregate, and although everybody seemed nice and friendly, I rather thought I might get in a bunch of trouble if I asked where the Republican cheering section was. So, following my well developed sense of self preservation, I wandered over to the designated press and observer area and generally kept my mouth shut. I did get a bit of name recognition though, and despite my reputation as not being all that friendly to Democratic political policies, not a claw or fang came out. I guess they left whatever wide-eyed far left radicals they might have on the rolls at home for the night.
I’ve never been a fan of the Caucus system, probably because I never really understood how they operate. However, in rural areas such as this I can see where they do save the county treasury a lot of money. Holding any sort of public election, with all the mandatory polling places, election workers, and official protocol can get pretty expensive in an area with a comparatively small tax base. This caucus was short and to the point, and doesn’t require polling stations all over the county. Personally I still think I’d prefer a primary election, but the caucus took a lot less time, effort, and expense.
I don’t know of any attempt to determine actual percentages, but from looking at the crowd I would estimate that Hillary had a higher percentage of women supporters than did Obama, which I believe is happening nationwide and should be no surprise. Another thing that didn’t surprise me was the fairly large number of current or retired federal employees attending as delegates. I always did think that the Forest Service was our local hotbed of raging liberal politics. (Oops, gotta watch that “fair and balanced” part.)
Of the 167 voting delegates present, the initial tally was 113 votes for Obama, 43 for Hillary Clinton, with the remainder either for Edwards or uncommitted, about what I might expect in this rural area. Unfortunately, from my viewpoint at least, the sound system left a lot to be desired, my inexpensive tape recorder failed, and thus I missed a good part of the many speeches intended to sway delegates to one candidate or another. These speeches were deliberately kept short, and thus were “to the point”, unlike much of the long winded political oratory by the well known “big guns” we often see on TV. There’s much to be said for living out in the country where most people can generally get their point across in only a few words. The caucus chairman was also kind enough to take a few moments to explain the workings of the democratic caucus system to those of us unfamiliar with the process, which certainly eased much of the confusion on my part.
In general the speeches were of the “Why I’m for So-and-so, and you should be too” genre. I didn’t really hear anything new in praise of the Democratic presidential hopefuls, but I did sort of miss the expected heavy duty digs at the republicans in general, and George W. Bush in particular. These were of course local speakers, not the candidates themselves, or their direct representatives. Several speakers did get a chuckle from the crowd, and a round of applause, from minor comments about the opposition, but these comments were more in fun (I think) than anything else. Nor was there any of the mudslinging and cat fights we’ve seen of late from the candidates of both parties. For the most part, Hillary was described as “caring”, and “A tough lady with political experience”, while Obama was praised as a man who has fought his way up from nearly nothing to a position of national recognition and leadership.
One common thread among the speakers seems to be their candidates desire for government mandated “affordable housing”, “a fair living for everyone”, “economic stability” and “affordable medical care”, perfectly understandable and even desirable points, particularly for lower income people, that we can all easily understand. And all you might note directly descended from FDR’s “New Deal” policies. What I thought conspicuous by its absence is an explanation of just how our government, teetering on the verge of federal bankruptcy, is supposed to pay for all this without a massive tax increase and even more government borrowing. We’re talking tens of trillions of dollars here, each and every year! To my surprise not much was said about the Iraqi war, or the proposed troop withdrawals. I would have expected this to be a major point of discussion. Still, the purpose of the caucus was to select the party’s standard bearer, not to determine campaign issues.
Anyway, after the second and final tally, it was reported that Barrack Obama had 121 votes, which comes to 72.5% of the Idaho County Democratic vote, at the upcoming state Democratic convention. Not exactly a clean sweep, but close enough.
Thank you folks, it was an interesting evening, and I for one appreciate the chance to learn a bit more about the American political process.
Remembering my Granddaddy’s description of California’s democratic conventions of the 1920’s and 30’s, it appears that things have changed somewhat. I didn’t really expect to see any “smoke filled rooms”, but I didn’t see any serious horse trading going on either, and nary a fist fight. This was more like an old time Sunday church social, with of course somewhat different subject material. Apparently Idaho Counties Democrats are more peaceable people than the Los Angles Irish of a few decades back. I ran into several people I’ve known for a long time, and we did get into politically related discussions, mostly with me asking questions, and they trying to explain their stance to this unreconstructed conservative.
There were signs indicating where the supporters of various candidates were supposed to congregate, and although everybody seemed nice and friendly, I rather thought I might get in a bunch of trouble if I asked where the Republican cheering section was. So, following my well developed sense of self preservation, I wandered over to the designated press and observer area and generally kept my mouth shut. I did get a bit of name recognition though, and despite my reputation as not being all that friendly to Democratic political policies, not a claw or fang came out. I guess they left whatever wide-eyed far left radicals they might have on the rolls at home for the night.
I’ve never been a fan of the Caucus system, probably because I never really understood how they operate. However, in rural areas such as this I can see where they do save the county treasury a lot of money. Holding any sort of public election, with all the mandatory polling places, election workers, and official protocol can get pretty expensive in an area with a comparatively small tax base. This caucus was short and to the point, and doesn’t require polling stations all over the county. Personally I still think I’d prefer a primary election, but the caucus took a lot less time, effort, and expense.
I don’t know of any attempt to determine actual percentages, but from looking at the crowd I would estimate that Hillary had a higher percentage of women supporters than did Obama, which I believe is happening nationwide and should be no surprise. Another thing that didn’t surprise me was the fairly large number of current or retired federal employees attending as delegates. I always did think that the Forest Service was our local hotbed of raging liberal politics. (Oops, gotta watch that “fair and balanced” part.)
Of the 167 voting delegates present, the initial tally was 113 votes for Obama, 43 for Hillary Clinton, with the remainder either for Edwards or uncommitted, about what I might expect in this rural area. Unfortunately, from my viewpoint at least, the sound system left a lot to be desired, my inexpensive tape recorder failed, and thus I missed a good part of the many speeches intended to sway delegates to one candidate or another. These speeches were deliberately kept short, and thus were “to the point”, unlike much of the long winded political oratory by the well known “big guns” we often see on TV. There’s much to be said for living out in the country where most people can generally get their point across in only a few words. The caucus chairman was also kind enough to take a few moments to explain the workings of the democratic caucus system to those of us unfamiliar with the process, which certainly eased much of the confusion on my part.
In general the speeches were of the “Why I’m for So-and-so, and you should be too” genre. I didn’t really hear anything new in praise of the Democratic presidential hopefuls, but I did sort of miss the expected heavy duty digs at the republicans in general, and George W. Bush in particular. These were of course local speakers, not the candidates themselves, or their direct representatives. Several speakers did get a chuckle from the crowd, and a round of applause, from minor comments about the opposition, but these comments were more in fun (I think) than anything else. Nor was there any of the mudslinging and cat fights we’ve seen of late from the candidates of both parties. For the most part, Hillary was described as “caring”, and “A tough lady with political experience”, while Obama was praised as a man who has fought his way up from nearly nothing to a position of national recognition and leadership.
One common thread among the speakers seems to be their candidates desire for government mandated “affordable housing”, “a fair living for everyone”, “economic stability” and “affordable medical care”, perfectly understandable and even desirable points, particularly for lower income people, that we can all easily understand. And all you might note directly descended from FDR’s “New Deal” policies. What I thought conspicuous by its absence is an explanation of just how our government, teetering on the verge of federal bankruptcy, is supposed to pay for all this without a massive tax increase and even more government borrowing. We’re talking tens of trillions of dollars here, each and every year! To my surprise not much was said about the Iraqi war, or the proposed troop withdrawals. I would have expected this to be a major point of discussion. Still, the purpose of the caucus was to select the party’s standard bearer, not to determine campaign issues.
Anyway, after the second and final tally, it was reported that Barrack Obama had 121 votes, which comes to 72.5% of the Idaho County Democratic vote, at the upcoming state Democratic convention. Not exactly a clean sweep, but close enough.
Thank you folks, it was an interesting evening, and I for one appreciate the chance to learn a bit more about the American political process.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Change
In My Opinion – by Bob Fogarty
It appears that the current buzzword in American politics is “Change”. I’ve also noted that the candidates from both political parties are using it in the sense of “it’s time for a political change in Washington, and I’m the best bet”. Well, yes, change is in the air, and it’s high time I’d say. President Bush is finishing his second term in office and now we have a constitutionally mandated change in the regime. However, changing from one party (in this case the Republicans) to the other side of the aisle (the Democrats) doesn’t appear that it’s going to be the answer to our problems. I’ve hears the term “Republicrats” a number of times, and used it myself, as an indicator that the two primary political parties have nearly merged in their goals. This is of course only partially true. Over the last few years the neoconservative republicans have been on a spending spree unprecedented in our history, ignoring the fiscally conservative wing of the party. The Democrats for their part have been weeping and wailing about all that federal spending, but since they’ve become the majority party in congress the spending continues unabated. Both parties have become the free wheeling high rollers so beloved of special interests.
They do differ in their response to the War on Terror however. While the Republicans apparently want to continue their “Romp and Stomp” all over the Arab world, the Democrats want us to come running home with our tails between our legs. Neither option will do the United States any good whatsoever, merely making us an even more inviting target for the terrorists. Both parties pay lip service to the problem of border security, but aren’t doing anything about it. The Republicans want to continue their self proclaimed authority to spy on American citizens, the Democrats continuously wail about that spying violating our civil liberties, while in the meantime the NSA continues reading our mail and the FBI is still checking up on our library cards. Both parties are all in favor of continued illegal immigration, the republicans for “cheap labor” apparently, while the democrats seem to like the idea of even more under privileged (read Democratic) voters, despite the fact that the American public has responded to amnesty for illegal immigration with a resounding NO, several times!
Both parties blame the other for our nation’s financial woes, conveniently not mentioning that congressional free spending has been pushing us to the verge of national bankruptcy for decades. Fiscal moderation apparently isn’t something taught to budding politicians anymore. We might keep in mind that the collapse of the Soviet Union was brought about by government bankruptcy, not by the number of tanks and planes in the US inventory. The soviets printed money like it was going out of style, with nothing to back it except vague promises. The US Federal Reserve has been doing the same thing to us for over two decades. The soviets were burdened with an enormous, ineffective, and very expensive bureaucracy, something else our federal government seems to favor. Despite all their bragging, the soviet educational system was an abject failure. Our federal control of the US educational system is today failing our kids, and our nation.
The public, in the meantime, has been taken to the cleaners in the form of taxes upon taxes, and a few government mandated corporate profit schemes as well. The Republicans are preaching a massive tax cut, with no corresponding cut in spending. I expect they’ll want to run the presses overtime printing even more valueless paper money. For their part, the democratic presidential candidates are proposing to increase our taxes, which I’m sure congress will find a way to spend on even more pork and earmarks. They’re also proposing that the government require everyone in the country to have some sort of private health insurance, which would be a windfall for the insurance companies. ‘Course they don’t seem to have any suggestions about how we (John Q. Citizen) are supposed to afford that high priced insurance.
It would seem however, that even after seven years of being severely bashed by almost everybody, President Bush still has a sense of humor. Either that, or he’s slipped his trolley completely! In his January 28th State of the Union message he said, “The actions of the 110th Congress will affect the security and prosperity of our Nation long after this session has ended. In this election year, let us show our fellow Americans that we recognize our responsibilities and are determined to meet them. And let us show them that Republicans and Democrats can compete for votes and cooperate for results at the same time.” A moment later he said, “…we must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy”. Congress recognizing its responsibilities!? Or that the two major political parties might co-operate over anything besides wrecking the country!? And the concept of allowing Americans to keep their own money certainly wasn’t something he picked-up in Politics 101 or in lectures covering “tax and spend”! Overall, I thought those lines were good for a real belly laugh.
We’ve all heard of the huge national budget each year, and the media is constantly reminding us about congressional pork and earmarks. Wasteful spending and its rabid defense has been a trademark of congress since creeping socialism in the form of FDR’s “New Deal” first hit the streets. Now, if a democrat wins the presidency, it seems that we’re probably going to get a Canadian style socialized medical care system. Don’t get sick under that program, it might be a couple of months, or a couple of years, before a doctor sees you. At the same time I’m not very hopeful about a federally mandated medical insurance program either. After all, something like 30% of Americans don’t have any medical insurance, simply because they can’t afford it. So now, at the snap of congressional fingers, we’re all going to miraculously have the extra few hundred dollars a month to spend on medical insurance? What a deal for the insurance companies!! “But it’s free, it’s free!” the socialized medicine proponents shout from the rooftops. Sorry boys and girls, “TANSTAAFL”, There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Somebody’s going to get stuck with the bill, and in this case it’s going to be the taxpayers, again, for only a “few” hundred billion dollars each year.
Certainly any change in the wrong direction, as proposed by liberals and so many Republicans is a step backwards. But there are changes we know must come about. We know we face enemies who want to kill us. We know American jobs are going to Mexico, China, and India. We know our schools are failing our kids. We know our borders are severely leaking. And the proponents of change in Washington aren’t doing much more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Perhaps there really are two Americas, the Washington beltway… and the rest of us.
It appears that the current buzzword in American politics is “Change”. I’ve also noted that the candidates from both political parties are using it in the sense of “it’s time for a political change in Washington, and I’m the best bet”. Well, yes, change is in the air, and it’s high time I’d say. President Bush is finishing his second term in office and now we have a constitutionally mandated change in the regime. However, changing from one party (in this case the Republicans) to the other side of the aisle (the Democrats) doesn’t appear that it’s going to be the answer to our problems. I’ve hears the term “Republicrats” a number of times, and used it myself, as an indicator that the two primary political parties have nearly merged in their goals. This is of course only partially true. Over the last few years the neoconservative republicans have been on a spending spree unprecedented in our history, ignoring the fiscally conservative wing of the party. The Democrats for their part have been weeping and wailing about all that federal spending, but since they’ve become the majority party in congress the spending continues unabated. Both parties have become the free wheeling high rollers so beloved of special interests.
They do differ in their response to the War on Terror however. While the Republicans apparently want to continue their “Romp and Stomp” all over the Arab world, the Democrats want us to come running home with our tails between our legs. Neither option will do the United States any good whatsoever, merely making us an even more inviting target for the terrorists. Both parties pay lip service to the problem of border security, but aren’t doing anything about it. The Republicans want to continue their self proclaimed authority to spy on American citizens, the Democrats continuously wail about that spying violating our civil liberties, while in the meantime the NSA continues reading our mail and the FBI is still checking up on our library cards. Both parties are all in favor of continued illegal immigration, the republicans for “cheap labor” apparently, while the democrats seem to like the idea of even more under privileged (read Democratic) voters, despite the fact that the American public has responded to amnesty for illegal immigration with a resounding NO, several times!
Both parties blame the other for our nation’s financial woes, conveniently not mentioning that congressional free spending has been pushing us to the verge of national bankruptcy for decades. Fiscal moderation apparently isn’t something taught to budding politicians anymore. We might keep in mind that the collapse of the Soviet Union was brought about by government bankruptcy, not by the number of tanks and planes in the US inventory. The soviets printed money like it was going out of style, with nothing to back it except vague promises. The US Federal Reserve has been doing the same thing to us for over two decades. The soviets were burdened with an enormous, ineffective, and very expensive bureaucracy, something else our federal government seems to favor. Despite all their bragging, the soviet educational system was an abject failure. Our federal control of the US educational system is today failing our kids, and our nation.
The public, in the meantime, has been taken to the cleaners in the form of taxes upon taxes, and a few government mandated corporate profit schemes as well. The Republicans are preaching a massive tax cut, with no corresponding cut in spending. I expect they’ll want to run the presses overtime printing even more valueless paper money. For their part, the democratic presidential candidates are proposing to increase our taxes, which I’m sure congress will find a way to spend on even more pork and earmarks. They’re also proposing that the government require everyone in the country to have some sort of private health insurance, which would be a windfall for the insurance companies. ‘Course they don’t seem to have any suggestions about how we (John Q. Citizen) are supposed to afford that high priced insurance.
It would seem however, that even after seven years of being severely bashed by almost everybody, President Bush still has a sense of humor. Either that, or he’s slipped his trolley completely! In his January 28th State of the Union message he said, “The actions of the 110th Congress will affect the security and prosperity of our Nation long after this session has ended. In this election year, let us show our fellow Americans that we recognize our responsibilities and are determined to meet them. And let us show them that Republicans and Democrats can compete for votes and cooperate for results at the same time.” A moment later he said, “…we must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy”. Congress recognizing its responsibilities!? Or that the two major political parties might co-operate over anything besides wrecking the country!? And the concept of allowing Americans to keep their own money certainly wasn’t something he picked-up in Politics 101 or in lectures covering “tax and spend”! Overall, I thought those lines were good for a real belly laugh.
We’ve all heard of the huge national budget each year, and the media is constantly reminding us about congressional pork and earmarks. Wasteful spending and its rabid defense has been a trademark of congress since creeping socialism in the form of FDR’s “New Deal” first hit the streets. Now, if a democrat wins the presidency, it seems that we’re probably going to get a Canadian style socialized medical care system. Don’t get sick under that program, it might be a couple of months, or a couple of years, before a doctor sees you. At the same time I’m not very hopeful about a federally mandated medical insurance program either. After all, something like 30% of Americans don’t have any medical insurance, simply because they can’t afford it. So now, at the snap of congressional fingers, we’re all going to miraculously have the extra few hundred dollars a month to spend on medical insurance? What a deal for the insurance companies!! “But it’s free, it’s free!” the socialized medicine proponents shout from the rooftops. Sorry boys and girls, “TANSTAAFL”, There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. Somebody’s going to get stuck with the bill, and in this case it’s going to be the taxpayers, again, for only a “few” hundred billion dollars each year.
Certainly any change in the wrong direction, as proposed by liberals and so many Republicans is a step backwards. But there are changes we know must come about. We know we face enemies who want to kill us. We know American jobs are going to Mexico, China, and India. We know our schools are failing our kids. We know our borders are severely leaking. And the proponents of change in Washington aren’t doing much more than rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Perhaps there really are two Americas, the Washington beltway… and the rest of us.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
VFW
Last week my wife and I had the opportunity to attend the Veterans of Foreign Wars Mid-Winter Conference held in Boise. Despite having been a sometimes active VFW member since the mid-seventies, I’ve never been to one of these shindigs before, I really didn’t know just what to expect, and the conference was an eye opener for this ‘ol country boy. For one thing, I got to meet a lot of VIP’s (including the National Commander George Lisicki), and I learned a lot about the internal workings of the organization. I also got a much better idea of just how serious the VFW is about our military veterans who are still serving America in non-military ways.
While the VFW and the American Legion are two of the better known veterans organizations, there are plenty of other groups out there. A quick search of the internet reveals more than 40 organizations nationwide that are currently recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs as veteran’s service organizations. Many people consider these veterans organizations to be marching and drinking societies, where the members (generally a bunch of old soldiers), do little more than sit around the clubhouse swilling beer and telling the same tired old war hero stories that everyone’s already heard dozens of times. And I’ll admit that happens, with a very few members, and on rare occasions. But these groups are a lot more than just social clubs. They are after all, Service Organizations. Personally I’m much more familiar with the VFW than any other group, so I’ll speak about them, but remember that the following generally pertains to all veterans organizations.
The VFW provides numerous services to both veterans as well as to active duty military personnel and their families. Each post has a service officer readily available to assist veterans, members and non-members alike, in filing for their veterans benefits, whether it’s for a service connected disability, GI Educational benefits, vocational rehab, military life insurance, or whatever. The three main efforts of the VFW Military Services department are, the Military Assistance Program which has helped fund Farewell and Welcome Home gatherings for military units worldwide. Operation Uplink, which provides free, pre-paid phone cards to service members, and Unmet Needs, which can give a one-time grant of up to $2,500 to qualifying service members and their families that are experiencing financial hardship.
Fostering patriotism and honoring America's veterans, whether it’s on Memorial Day, Independence Day or Veterans Day, is part of the VFW's philosophy. Public commemorations hosted by VFW Posts worldwide cultivate an appreciation of the responsibilities and benefits of being an American. The flags you see lining Grangeville’s Main Street on national holidays are purchased, maintained, posted, and recovered by members of the VFW and American Legion. Our local Memorial Day ceremonies are hosted by the VFW and Legion as well. Flags and flag etiquette are important components of the VFW's Citizenship Education program. Every year, hundreds of thousands of students participate in the Voice of Democracy and Patriot’s Pen contests, garnering more than $3.4 million in scholarships and incentives. Additionally the VFW honors an outstanding scout each year through the VFW Scout of the Year Scholarship program. The VFW has a longstanding tradition of community service, working closely with other organizations such as Boy Scouts of America, America Supports You and America's Promise-The Alliance for Youth. Constructive community service is a founding VFW tenet benefiting education, the environment, health sciences and civic projects. The VFW's citizenship education program is designed to stimulate an interest in America's history, its traditions and institutions, as well as promote patriotism. The VFW also works closely with the National Rifle Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, International Association of Firefighters and the Salvation Army.
There are numerous projects and services that VFW Posts and its Auxiliaries offer to promote citizenship in the local community and educational facilities. Besides the VFW's outstanding scholarship programs, Posts and Auxiliaries across the nation work with youth in scouting, sports, ROTC and military cadet programs. By providing leaders, funding, sponsorships and other resources, the VFW and its Auxiliaries encourage millions of America's young adults to higher ideals and greater personal achievement.
Among all the flowers that evoke the memories and emotions of war is the red poppy, which became associated with war after the publication of a poem written by Col. John McCrae of the Canadian Army following WW I. The poem, "In Flander's Field," describes blowing red fields among the battleground of the fallen. For more than 75 years, the VFW's Buddy Poppy program has raised millions of dollars in support of veterans' welfare and the well being of their dependents. The poppy soon was adopted as the official memorial flower of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. In 1923 the VFW decided that VFW Buddy Poppies would be assembled by disabled and needy veterans who would be paid for their work to provide them with some form of financial assistance. Today, VFW Buddy Poppies are still assembled by disabled and needy veterans in VA Hospitals nationwide.
Just who are these veterans anyway? Well, they’re your friends and neighbors, along with probably more than just a few relatives. The VFW was started by returning veterans of the Spanish-American war, and has included veterans of every war this nation has been involved with ever since, including the current unpleasantness in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’re people who once wore the uniform of the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard. Nowadays there are a lot of women who are full members of the VFW as well. They’re all people who once, at great personal risk, served this nation in uniform, and today, now in civilian clothes, continue to serve our country. They’re simply Americans, who, timeworn as the phrase may be, are patriotic citizens who strongly believe in the greatness, the strength, and the promise of our country.
Volunteering our time, efforts, and even our hard earned money is an American tradition that dates back to colonial days, with the militia and firefighting being the best known historically. Yet how many pioneers, arriving at their new home, found the neighbors quickly gathering to help build a cabin or raise a barn? If someone was sick or injured the neighbors again responded, to gather in a crop, do the chores, or care for the family. We have a quite admirable national culture of helping ourselves, our relatives, our neighbors, and the community. Veterans organizations are nothing more than a fraternal extension of that culture.
If you’re a veteran, and not a member of the VFW, perhaps you should consider joining. If so, please contact me, and I’d be glad to help get you started. If you’re an inactive member, perhaps you should get active again.
Veterans, forever serving.
While the VFW and the American Legion are two of the better known veterans organizations, there are plenty of other groups out there. A quick search of the internet reveals more than 40 organizations nationwide that are currently recognized by the Department of Veterans Affairs as veteran’s service organizations. Many people consider these veterans organizations to be marching and drinking societies, where the members (generally a bunch of old soldiers), do little more than sit around the clubhouse swilling beer and telling the same tired old war hero stories that everyone’s already heard dozens of times. And I’ll admit that happens, with a very few members, and on rare occasions. But these groups are a lot more than just social clubs. They are after all, Service Organizations. Personally I’m much more familiar with the VFW than any other group, so I’ll speak about them, but remember that the following generally pertains to all veterans organizations.
The VFW provides numerous services to both veterans as well as to active duty military personnel and their families. Each post has a service officer readily available to assist veterans, members and non-members alike, in filing for their veterans benefits, whether it’s for a service connected disability, GI Educational benefits, vocational rehab, military life insurance, or whatever. The three main efforts of the VFW Military Services department are, the Military Assistance Program which has helped fund Farewell and Welcome Home gatherings for military units worldwide. Operation Uplink, which provides free, pre-paid phone cards to service members, and Unmet Needs, which can give a one-time grant of up to $2,500 to qualifying service members and their families that are experiencing financial hardship.
Fostering patriotism and honoring America's veterans, whether it’s on Memorial Day, Independence Day or Veterans Day, is part of the VFW's philosophy. Public commemorations hosted by VFW Posts worldwide cultivate an appreciation of the responsibilities and benefits of being an American. The flags you see lining Grangeville’s Main Street on national holidays are purchased, maintained, posted, and recovered by members of the VFW and American Legion. Our local Memorial Day ceremonies are hosted by the VFW and Legion as well. Flags and flag etiquette are important components of the VFW's Citizenship Education program. Every year, hundreds of thousands of students participate in the Voice of Democracy and Patriot’s Pen contests, garnering more than $3.4 million in scholarships and incentives. Additionally the VFW honors an outstanding scout each year through the VFW Scout of the Year Scholarship program. The VFW has a longstanding tradition of community service, working closely with other organizations such as Boy Scouts of America, America Supports You and America's Promise-The Alliance for Youth. Constructive community service is a founding VFW tenet benefiting education, the environment, health sciences and civic projects. The VFW's citizenship education program is designed to stimulate an interest in America's history, its traditions and institutions, as well as promote patriotism. The VFW also works closely with the National Rifle Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, International Association of Firefighters and the Salvation Army.
There are numerous projects and services that VFW Posts and its Auxiliaries offer to promote citizenship in the local community and educational facilities. Besides the VFW's outstanding scholarship programs, Posts and Auxiliaries across the nation work with youth in scouting, sports, ROTC and military cadet programs. By providing leaders, funding, sponsorships and other resources, the VFW and its Auxiliaries encourage millions of America's young adults to higher ideals and greater personal achievement.
Among all the flowers that evoke the memories and emotions of war is the red poppy, which became associated with war after the publication of a poem written by Col. John McCrae of the Canadian Army following WW I. The poem, "In Flander's Field," describes blowing red fields among the battleground of the fallen. For more than 75 years, the VFW's Buddy Poppy program has raised millions of dollars in support of veterans' welfare and the well being of their dependents. The poppy soon was adopted as the official memorial flower of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States. In 1923 the VFW decided that VFW Buddy Poppies would be assembled by disabled and needy veterans who would be paid for their work to provide them with some form of financial assistance. Today, VFW Buddy Poppies are still assembled by disabled and needy veterans in VA Hospitals nationwide.
Just who are these veterans anyway? Well, they’re your friends and neighbors, along with probably more than just a few relatives. The VFW was started by returning veterans of the Spanish-American war, and has included veterans of every war this nation has been involved with ever since, including the current unpleasantness in Iraq and Afghanistan. They’re people who once wore the uniform of the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force, and Coast Guard. Nowadays there are a lot of women who are full members of the VFW as well. They’re all people who once, at great personal risk, served this nation in uniform, and today, now in civilian clothes, continue to serve our country. They’re simply Americans, who, timeworn as the phrase may be, are patriotic citizens who strongly believe in the greatness, the strength, and the promise of our country.
Volunteering our time, efforts, and even our hard earned money is an American tradition that dates back to colonial days, with the militia and firefighting being the best known historically. Yet how many pioneers, arriving at their new home, found the neighbors quickly gathering to help build a cabin or raise a barn? If someone was sick or injured the neighbors again responded, to gather in a crop, do the chores, or care for the family. We have a quite admirable national culture of helping ourselves, our relatives, our neighbors, and the community. Veterans organizations are nothing more than a fraternal extension of that culture.
If you’re a veteran, and not a member of the VFW, perhaps you should consider joining. If so, please contact me, and I’d be glad to help get you started. If you’re an inactive member, perhaps you should get active again.
Veterans, forever serving.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Genetics
Quite some time back I wrote an article about genetic research which was unpublished due to it's very long length. So, after considerable editing...
I’ve noticed that there’s still a lot of ongoing public comment about genetic and stem cell research currently being conducted in the US and several other countries. And that many people get quite verbal in their opposition to this ongoing research, with arguments ranging from honest concerns to the downright ludicrous. For the most part, the loudest opposition appears to come from the “Right to Life” folks who oppose research utilizing aborted fetal stem cells. I can certainly understand their opposition to abortion, and to the experimental use of aborted cellular tissue, but an aborted fetus is not the only source of stem cells! Over the last couple of years, researchers have discovered numerous alternative sources of stem cells, nowadays they can be acquired from just about any part of the adult body, not just from a fetus. So, with that fact in mind, consider me to be a voice in the wilderness, crying “Yes, we do need that research!” I’m not opposed to genetic research, stem cell research, or even cloning research, if accomplished for ethical purposes. I firmly believe that these investigations have the possibility of being one of the greatest boons to humanity in medical history.
Cloning people is pretty much a waste of time as far as I’m concerned. First of all, don’t we already have more than enough people in this world? And secondly, a clone isn’t, and can’t be, an exact copy of the original. Physically, yes, it may well appear to be a copy, but the physical body isn’t everything. We’re all aware that the person is the sum total of the physical being, and the mental state of that persons upbringing, education, and past experiences. A lifetime of those mental processes can’t be duplicated, and thus a clone can’t be a duplicate of the original. Even if we did manage to clone Albert Einstein, how could we possibly repeat the unique set of circumstances that made him the worlds premier theoretical physicist? Besides, I rather doubt that very many of us would wish our entire past history on our worst enemies, much less on a copy of ourselves! Then to, if human cloning became a common technology, there’s always some idiot that would want to steal the Shroud of Turin, gather some DNA from it, and attempt to clone Jesus of Nazareth. Someone else would want to clone Napoleon, Adolf Hitler, or Attila the Hun, and turn them loose on an unsuspecting world!
Even if such duplication were possible, can you imagine the flurry of clones we’d see of so many super rich personages in Hollywood!? Or do we really want duplicates of our rich politicians telling us that they know “so much better” than anyone else? Really, if there’s something that the world doesn’t need, it’s even more highly placed, power hungry, and unstable egotists running around loose! Then of course we’ve all seen the fictional movie “Jurassic Park”, with an island full of “cloned” dinosaurs. While that’s extremely unlikely to actually happen, does anyone really want a twelve ton carnivorous lizard with a bad attitude running the city streets? I rather doubt the animal control people would be looking forward to that. If, and when, we can clone individual body parts, we’d be looking at an entirely different situation. “What if” we could readily grow a replacement heart, liver, lung or kidney for those who need one? Perhaps this would bring an end to transplant rejection problems? Come to think of it, there are a few people in this world that I’d nominate for a brain transplant as well. An even better option to cloning would be the possibility of repairing physical damages through stem cell technology. I rather doubt that, by themselves, stem cells could defeat old age, but how about non-intrusive repairs for severe accident injuries? Could we perhaps grow a new leg for a soldier maimed in combat? Could we repair a child’s disease ravaged nervous system? Or provide new skin for burn victims? I also understand that there are aspects of stem cell research indicating possible cures for Alzheimer’s, and even cancer. Here I think the possibilities are endless, if we don’t ban all research.
“Non-human” genetic research and engineering raise a number of other possibilities. Improved crop yields, and/or pest resistance would be a boon to people in many third world countries, IF those agricultural products can be proven environmentally safe, and safe for very long term human consumption. How about engineering a microbe that specifically attacks the AIDS virus? Here again we have a long list of possibilities. What I do vehemently oppose is the seriously proposed hybridization of various animal species, and particularly that of human/animal hybrids. The concept of “Humanzees”, genetically engineered, intelligent, human/chimp “servants”, bring forth visions of Dr. Frankenstein’s laboratory, and smacks of a return to slavery in my mind. Perhaps in our playing God, we actually will have a master race, and our very own home brewed “Untermenschen". It’s not a concept I particularly care for, and fortunately it’s a long way in the future. But what bothers me is that it was a serious proposal, and is being seriously investigated! As I understand the proposal, a “Humanzee” is supposed to be a multi-purpose “aid” for people with severe disabilities, sort of a hi-tech seeing-eye dog. In itself not a bad idea, but not this way! Robotics are a lot further along than genetics, and if we could show the Japanese a viable market for robots, they’d have a “robot personal assistant” for sale, probably by the middle of next week!
We also have the possibility of “designer babies”, another idea with both good and bad points. It’s been pretty well accepted that a tendency toward cancer and heart disease are genetically linked. If science can tinker with the parents genes, it may then be possible to eliminate those tendencies in their children, and in following generations. Once the genetic causes of birth defects are identified, it may well become a regular procedure to repair those defects in utero. The downside is that so many people would decide that they want the “perfect baby” with a physical appearance “just like my favorite rock star”. Prospective stage mothers could get together and compare notes about designing the ideal beauty queen, while football fathers can start seriously thinking about the Super Bowl. Life is going to be rough on those kids.
There seems to be no particular medical reason why the human body can’t repair itself as needed, if we could just find the triggering mechanism, and of course understand why this capability doesn’t naturally work all the time for us. On occasion we see reports of an individual whose body apparently regenerated severely damaged tissue. Might these incidents be cases of latent stem cell regeneration, brought about by… something? Personally I think it’s a phenomena well worth investigation, and only ongoing cellular research will tell the tale.
The technology of bio-engineering will be developed, someplace, by somebody. It might be banned in Boston, or even all across the United States, but a complete ban on such research won’t stop it in the rest of the world. Wouldn’t we be much better off if we accept that fact, and approach this knowledge with a well considered set of moral and ethical guidelines already in place? Perhaps it’s time for the social and religious leaders of the world to quit arguing about their differences, sit down with the leaders of the medical profession, and establish those moral guidelines.
I’ve noticed that there’s still a lot of ongoing public comment about genetic and stem cell research currently being conducted in the US and several other countries. And that many people get quite verbal in their opposition to this ongoing research, with arguments ranging from honest concerns to the downright ludicrous. For the most part, the loudest opposition appears to come from the “Right to Life” folks who oppose research utilizing aborted fetal stem cells. I can certainly understand their opposition to abortion, and to the experimental use of aborted cellular tissue, but an aborted fetus is not the only source of stem cells! Over the last couple of years, researchers have discovered numerous alternative sources of stem cells, nowadays they can be acquired from just about any part of the adult body, not just from a fetus. So, with that fact in mind, consider me to be a voice in the wilderness, crying “Yes, we do need that research!” I’m not opposed to genetic research, stem cell research, or even cloning research, if accomplished for ethical purposes. I firmly believe that these investigations have the possibility of being one of the greatest boons to humanity in medical history.
Cloning people is pretty much a waste of time as far as I’m concerned. First of all, don’t we already have more than enough people in this world? And secondly, a clone isn’t, and can’t be, an exact copy of the original. Physically, yes, it may well appear to be a copy, but the physical body isn’t everything. We’re all aware that the person is the sum total of the physical being, and the mental state of that persons upbringing, education, and past experiences. A lifetime of those mental processes can’t be duplicated, and thus a clone can’t be a duplicate of the original. Even if we did manage to clone Albert Einstein, how could we possibly repeat the unique set of circumstances that made him the worlds premier theoretical physicist? Besides, I rather doubt that very many of us would wish our entire past history on our worst enemies, much less on a copy of ourselves! Then to, if human cloning became a common technology, there’s always some idiot that would want to steal the Shroud of Turin, gather some DNA from it, and attempt to clone Jesus of Nazareth. Someone else would want to clone Napoleon, Adolf Hitler, or Attila the Hun, and turn them loose on an unsuspecting world!
Even if such duplication were possible, can you imagine the flurry of clones we’d see of so many super rich personages in Hollywood!? Or do we really want duplicates of our rich politicians telling us that they know “so much better” than anyone else? Really, if there’s something that the world doesn’t need, it’s even more highly placed, power hungry, and unstable egotists running around loose! Then of course we’ve all seen the fictional movie “Jurassic Park”, with an island full of “cloned” dinosaurs. While that’s extremely unlikely to actually happen, does anyone really want a twelve ton carnivorous lizard with a bad attitude running the city streets? I rather doubt the animal control people would be looking forward to that. If, and when, we can clone individual body parts, we’d be looking at an entirely different situation. “What if” we could readily grow a replacement heart, liver, lung or kidney for those who need one? Perhaps this would bring an end to transplant rejection problems? Come to think of it, there are a few people in this world that I’d nominate for a brain transplant as well. An even better option to cloning would be the possibility of repairing physical damages through stem cell technology. I rather doubt that, by themselves, stem cells could defeat old age, but how about non-intrusive repairs for severe accident injuries? Could we perhaps grow a new leg for a soldier maimed in combat? Could we repair a child’s disease ravaged nervous system? Or provide new skin for burn victims? I also understand that there are aspects of stem cell research indicating possible cures for Alzheimer’s, and even cancer. Here I think the possibilities are endless, if we don’t ban all research.
“Non-human” genetic research and engineering raise a number of other possibilities. Improved crop yields, and/or pest resistance would be a boon to people in many third world countries, IF those agricultural products can be proven environmentally safe, and safe for very long term human consumption. How about engineering a microbe that specifically attacks the AIDS virus? Here again we have a long list of possibilities. What I do vehemently oppose is the seriously proposed hybridization of various animal species, and particularly that of human/animal hybrids. The concept of “Humanzees”, genetically engineered, intelligent, human/chimp “servants”, bring forth visions of Dr. Frankenstein’s laboratory, and smacks of a return to slavery in my mind. Perhaps in our playing God, we actually will have a master race, and our very own home brewed “Untermenschen". It’s not a concept I particularly care for, and fortunately it’s a long way in the future. But what bothers me is that it was a serious proposal, and is being seriously investigated! As I understand the proposal, a “Humanzee” is supposed to be a multi-purpose “aid” for people with severe disabilities, sort of a hi-tech seeing-eye dog. In itself not a bad idea, but not this way! Robotics are a lot further along than genetics, and if we could show the Japanese a viable market for robots, they’d have a “robot personal assistant” for sale, probably by the middle of next week!
We also have the possibility of “designer babies”, another idea with both good and bad points. It’s been pretty well accepted that a tendency toward cancer and heart disease are genetically linked. If science can tinker with the parents genes, it may then be possible to eliminate those tendencies in their children, and in following generations. Once the genetic causes of birth defects are identified, it may well become a regular procedure to repair those defects in utero. The downside is that so many people would decide that they want the “perfect baby” with a physical appearance “just like my favorite rock star”. Prospective stage mothers could get together and compare notes about designing the ideal beauty queen, while football fathers can start seriously thinking about the Super Bowl. Life is going to be rough on those kids.
There seems to be no particular medical reason why the human body can’t repair itself as needed, if we could just find the triggering mechanism, and of course understand why this capability doesn’t naturally work all the time for us. On occasion we see reports of an individual whose body apparently regenerated severely damaged tissue. Might these incidents be cases of latent stem cell regeneration, brought about by… something? Personally I think it’s a phenomena well worth investigation, and only ongoing cellular research will tell the tale.
The technology of bio-engineering will be developed, someplace, by somebody. It might be banned in Boston, or even all across the United States, but a complete ban on such research won’t stop it in the rest of the world. Wouldn’t we be much better off if we accept that fact, and approach this knowledge with a well considered set of moral and ethical guidelines already in place? Perhaps it’s time for the social and religious leaders of the world to quit arguing about their differences, sit down with the leaders of the medical profession, and establish those moral guidelines.
Monday, January 21, 2008
Firefighters
I think most of us remember the horror of 9/11, the TV shots of two jetliners deliberately crashing into New York’s fabled Twin Towers, and shortly thereafter the sight of those great buildings falling to the city streets. In my case I’ll never forget the three hundred and forty three members of the Fire Department of New York who died while taking part in one of the most successful rescue efforts in history. Thousands of people, the total number numbers will never be known, owe their lives to those men. Wearing and carrying nearly a hundred of pounds of equipment each, they ran up smoky stairwells filled with hazardous fumes, looking for victims. They pulled trapped office workers out of the rubble and performed whatever emergency care they could give to the injured. Despite their best efforts, the scope of the disaster was too great. Ordered to evacuate, many remained behind helping even more people to escape. The towers finally collapsed, killing almost 3,000 people. Looking back on it all, nothing seems more heroic than what members of the New York Fire Department did that day. But the fact is that firefighters perform these sorts of heroic deeds every day, in every county and city across the nation, and around the world. Simply put, it's the firefighters job to put out fires, from outside, inside, or any way they can. Firefighters respond to a whole host of other emergencies as well. They are usually the first to arrive at car accidents, gas leaks, the sites of natural disasters, or when someone has taken ill or been injured.
Many years ago, a young Puerto Rican immigrant woman was told a bit about survival in New York City. “If you’re ever in trouble and desperately need help, pull the fire alarm box” she was advised. “If you call the police, they may or may not come. If you call the ambulance, they may or may not come. The firemen, they always come.” False alarms create many problems for firefighters, but I’d think this is a rather left-handed compliment to the greatest bunch of people in the world. Firefighters, volunteers, part timers, and full timers, structural, industrial, and wildland, both men and women, are a very special breed of people who, over time, generally view their occupation as a nearly holy calling rather than just a job, and are completely dedicated to their work. They have to be, since each call brings with it the threat of severe injury or even death. Uncommon valor is a very common trait among firefighters.
People join the department for any number of reasons, but they soon develop the intense trust and faith in their fellows, instincts needed when you deliberately ignore a natural fear of the red devil, to enter a burning building that’s quickly crumpling around you, dragging a fire hose while you search for a missing child. Who else but a firefighter would join his crewmates in closing on a raging forest fire, armed with little more than shovels, trying to save a total strangers property. If you don’t develop that trust, you won’t stay on the department for long.
Besides bravery and physical strength, firefighters need common sense and patience. In emergency situations, people depend on firefighters to stay calm and give clear directions. Firefighters must work quickly, but at the same time, they need to take into account numerous details--the color of smoke, the construction of the building, and the way the fire is burning--when deciding how to go about their jobs. This means that they have to know an enormous amount about how fires behave under different conditions, how the fire is likely to progress, and what techniques and materials they need to use to deal with it.
James Taylor is a former Fire Captain, and author of the 1969 essay “What is Fire Fighter?”, generally considered to be the definitive essay on firefighting. “A Fire Fighter is a lonely man holding a midmorning watch with book in hand and a telephone within a split seconds reach. A darkened apparatus floor, a complicated alarm system, now silent, but perhaps within the next blink of an eye or turn of a page will scream out with the clanging of bells, the turning of gears, and the ticking of tape. What is as Fire Fighter? He is years of constant training that must guide him in every move once that Great Silver Bell again must exact "Awake ye from your beds!" Your heavy resting hearts within the sigh of an awakening must now beat with the strength of an athlete, a fighter, for a fighter you are. A fire fighter is a man responsible for thousands of dollars of equipment, and for the lives of his fellowmen he knows he must protect. He is a man constantly studying for promotions, not content that as a private he already represents leadership in the community. For a young girl or boy there is no doubt who he is. Yes he was the one who found time to smile down at them. From the top of his protective helmet to the bottoms of his steel reinforced boots he appeared to be a giant, "Get back!" he shouted, as he strained to move hundreds of pounds of water-filled hose only to disappear into a hell of smoke and heat. Are you worried about your smoking habits? The fire fighter must now inhale the truly king size of them all, three stories high and filled with foreign and domestic sofas, carpets, paints, and woods. The Tolls are great among these men, greater than almost every other occupation. The rewards; long hours, working weekends and holidays. He gives up time with his own family for the sake and safeguard of those who see only the superficial man and not the superman that perhaps he is. For this he is if only in the heart and mind of a child not blinded by the isms of life, but instead opened by a tear as his floppy-eared puppy responds to the carefully applied artificial respiration given to it by a combination doctor, fire fighter, truck driver and yes, maybe a superman. Perhaps that tear is the fire fighter's reward. Someday he too may shed a tear for a fallen comrade, silently praying that his own last alarm will herald the end to a glorious career through retirement, and not through death or injury. What is a fire fighter? Ask the people that he has helped in times of fire, flood, plane, car and boat disasters, accidents through carelessness or in times of war. When others walk away the fire fighter must now take on the responsibilities of saving lives and property. A giant, a superman, a constant vigil for the prevention of fire. Oh, to have the eyes and faith of a child, If only grown-ups were so blessed, the fire fighter's life would be the richest on earth."
I had not intended to single out the FDNY, but they are the countries largest and busiest fire department. Even so, that same intense sense of duty is demonstrated in even the smallest volunteer department. The next time you see one of your local firefighters, remember to thank him for his unstinting service to your community.
Many years ago, a young Puerto Rican immigrant woman was told a bit about survival in New York City. “If you’re ever in trouble and desperately need help, pull the fire alarm box” she was advised. “If you call the police, they may or may not come. If you call the ambulance, they may or may not come. The firemen, they always come.” False alarms create many problems for firefighters, but I’d think this is a rather left-handed compliment to the greatest bunch of people in the world. Firefighters, volunteers, part timers, and full timers, structural, industrial, and wildland, both men and women, are a very special breed of people who, over time, generally view their occupation as a nearly holy calling rather than just a job, and are completely dedicated to their work. They have to be, since each call brings with it the threat of severe injury or even death. Uncommon valor is a very common trait among firefighters.
People join the department for any number of reasons, but they soon develop the intense trust and faith in their fellows, instincts needed when you deliberately ignore a natural fear of the red devil, to enter a burning building that’s quickly crumpling around you, dragging a fire hose while you search for a missing child. Who else but a firefighter would join his crewmates in closing on a raging forest fire, armed with little more than shovels, trying to save a total strangers property. If you don’t develop that trust, you won’t stay on the department for long.
Besides bravery and physical strength, firefighters need common sense and patience. In emergency situations, people depend on firefighters to stay calm and give clear directions. Firefighters must work quickly, but at the same time, they need to take into account numerous details--the color of smoke, the construction of the building, and the way the fire is burning--when deciding how to go about their jobs. This means that they have to know an enormous amount about how fires behave under different conditions, how the fire is likely to progress, and what techniques and materials they need to use to deal with it.
James Taylor is a former Fire Captain, and author of the 1969 essay “What is Fire Fighter?”, generally considered to be the definitive essay on firefighting. “A Fire Fighter is a lonely man holding a midmorning watch with book in hand and a telephone within a split seconds reach. A darkened apparatus floor, a complicated alarm system, now silent, but perhaps within the next blink of an eye or turn of a page will scream out with the clanging of bells, the turning of gears, and the ticking of tape. What is as Fire Fighter? He is years of constant training that must guide him in every move once that Great Silver Bell again must exact "Awake ye from your beds!" Your heavy resting hearts within the sigh of an awakening must now beat with the strength of an athlete, a fighter, for a fighter you are. A fire fighter is a man responsible for thousands of dollars of equipment, and for the lives of his fellowmen he knows he must protect. He is a man constantly studying for promotions, not content that as a private he already represents leadership in the community. For a young girl or boy there is no doubt who he is. Yes he was the one who found time to smile down at them. From the top of his protective helmet to the bottoms of his steel reinforced boots he appeared to be a giant, "Get back!" he shouted, as he strained to move hundreds of pounds of water-filled hose only to disappear into a hell of smoke and heat. Are you worried about your smoking habits? The fire fighter must now inhale the truly king size of them all, three stories high and filled with foreign and domestic sofas, carpets, paints, and woods. The Tolls are great among these men, greater than almost every other occupation. The rewards; long hours, working weekends and holidays. He gives up time with his own family for the sake and safeguard of those who see only the superficial man and not the superman that perhaps he is. For this he is if only in the heart and mind of a child not blinded by the isms of life, but instead opened by a tear as his floppy-eared puppy responds to the carefully applied artificial respiration given to it by a combination doctor, fire fighter, truck driver and yes, maybe a superman. Perhaps that tear is the fire fighter's reward. Someday he too may shed a tear for a fallen comrade, silently praying that his own last alarm will herald the end to a glorious career through retirement, and not through death or injury. What is a fire fighter? Ask the people that he has helped in times of fire, flood, plane, car and boat disasters, accidents through carelessness or in times of war. When others walk away the fire fighter must now take on the responsibilities of saving lives and property. A giant, a superman, a constant vigil for the prevention of fire. Oh, to have the eyes and faith of a child, If only grown-ups were so blessed, the fire fighter's life would be the richest on earth."
I had not intended to single out the FDNY, but they are the countries largest and busiest fire department. Even so, that same intense sense of duty is demonstrated in even the smallest volunteer department. The next time you see one of your local firefighters, remember to thank him for his unstinting service to your community.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Questions
I recently read an interesting article written by game show host Pat Sajak, in which he asks several excellent questions about global warming and climate change. The subject of man-made global warming is nearly impossible to discuss without getting into screaming, raging, and name-calling between the participants, particularly if there are “hard core” environmentalists in the crowd. I consider myself fairly well-read on the subject matter, and I’m still skeptical because there are so many aspects of the issue that really don’t make a lot of sense.
If we are to launch ourselves onto a lifestyle-altering mission to lower the global temperature, what’s the goal? Do we know that one setting on the global thermostat is better than another? If we do, just what is that preferred temperature, and how do we reach it? Oh yeah, once there, how do we maintain it? Will we have to warm things up again if it drops below that preferential point? After all, juggling with the temperature on a global scale is going to be a whole lot different than adjusting the air conditioner setting at home. And just what is the average temperature of the earth anyway? How did we come up with that magic number? There are temperature extremes all over the planet remember, and have been since time immemorial. How do we come up with an average, and how do those normal temperature variations fit in with our desire to slow global warming? Then we get into asking what factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend? There is no argument that warming (or cooling) cycles have been a part of earth’s history. Geological records indicate that our planet has routinely cycled from pretty darn cold to a whole lot hotter than we see today. Are we so sure that this cycle is any different?
Another thing that bothers me is the strong effort to shut off any argument with the “obvious” problem of global warming. Anytime a true believer in anything begins his tirade with “Everybody agrees...” or “Everyone knows...”, all my alarm bells start ringing! As a matter of fact, there is a good deal of dissent in the scientific world about the theories of man-made global warming. A large and rapidly growing segment of the scientists who study climatology are questioning many of the basic premises of the “warming is bad” theory. Why should asking serious questions about such an important subject be wrong? Recently one of the world’s top climatologists made comment that most of the signatories of the intergovernmental study on global warming weren’t climatologists or even meteorologists, in fact most of them weren’t scientists at all, but rather were “a mob” of politicians, environmentalists, and more than a few Hollywood celebrities! The Kyoto agreement threatens to cut the ground out from under the world’s industrial nations, severely limiting their industrial ability, and crippling their economies. That is a pretty big deal and will impoverish most of the western nations while leaving the world’s worst polluter (China) completely untouched! We really should have the best information and opinion from the best minds on the subject, rather than a vague “I think” from people who really don’t know what they’re talking about!
And why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming? Predictions of 20 or more foot rises in sea levels have given way to talk of only a few inches over the last year or so, and whatever happened to the global cooling threats of only a couple of decades ago? In many cases, all these sea level predictions are less than the historically recorded rises and falls of the last few hundred years. Whatever the case, why are the global warming advocates trying so hard, and apparently with more than a little success, to scare us? Besides, are there potential benefits to global warming? Would a warmer climate in some areas actually improve living conditions? Would such a possible improvement in health, crop production, overall lifestyle and such counterbalance any negative impact? I do know that our local winters were a lot colder fifty years ago, and personally I have no desire to return to those frigid winters and deep snows!
Should the drastic changes in public policy that are currently being called for be based on a “what if?” proposition, just because Al Gore says so? There are some who claim we can’t afford to wait for further studies, and, even if there’s some doubt, we should move on with altering the way we live. Many of their arguments for changing some of our environmental policies are good ideas, but should they also be based on “what it?” Again I’ll ask, what will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live, based purely on man-made global warming concerns? Much of the third world wouldn’t be affected I’m sure, but things are going to be tough on the worlds industrialized nations, along with the newly emerging nations as well. Consider that there are always unintended consequences to all our actions. I for one wouldn’t want to find myself forced to live in a society stuck at a stone age, or even medieval, sustenance level! There are many other implications as well, some good and some bad. What are they? Shouldn’t we be thinking and talking about them now, instead of just trading carbon credits? How do we determine if our efforts are successful? Is the measure of success going to be based on the Earth’s average temperature, or perhaps the sea level? The number of hurricanes each year, average rainfall, or maybe all of these things? Again, do we have a particular goal in mind? If so, what is it, and what happens when we reach it?
How, and why, has the global warming movement gained such momentum? Humanity has faced environmental issues throughout the history of our species, but I don’t remember hearing of one that has gained such “celebrity status” in such a short time. To my mind there seems to be an almost religious fervor about the subject that makes me wonder. I remember all the rhetoric about eggs being an unhealthy food, and that breakfast cereal was poisoning our kids… both claims were proven to be junk science, but both were widely believed at the time. How about the commotion generated by Rachel Carlson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring”? Essentially she forecast the imminent and total collapse of nature due to the overuse of DDT. Agreed, DDT was being badly overused, but banning it altogether wasn’t such a good idea either, as you’ll well know if you’ve ever suffered from mosquito carried malaria.
A steady reduction in the dire predictions about global warming has not led to a reduction in the doomsday rhetoric. Does this perhaps indicate that the movement has become little more than an activist cause rather than scientific reality?
If we are to launch ourselves onto a lifestyle-altering mission to lower the global temperature, what’s the goal? Do we know that one setting on the global thermostat is better than another? If we do, just what is that preferred temperature, and how do we reach it? Oh yeah, once there, how do we maintain it? Will we have to warm things up again if it drops below that preferential point? After all, juggling with the temperature on a global scale is going to be a whole lot different than adjusting the air conditioner setting at home. And just what is the average temperature of the earth anyway? How did we come up with that magic number? There are temperature extremes all over the planet remember, and have been since time immemorial. How do we come up with an average, and how do those normal temperature variations fit in with our desire to slow global warming? Then we get into asking what factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend? There is no argument that warming (or cooling) cycles have been a part of earth’s history. Geological records indicate that our planet has routinely cycled from pretty darn cold to a whole lot hotter than we see today. Are we so sure that this cycle is any different?
Another thing that bothers me is the strong effort to shut off any argument with the “obvious” problem of global warming. Anytime a true believer in anything begins his tirade with “Everybody agrees...” or “Everyone knows...”, all my alarm bells start ringing! As a matter of fact, there is a good deal of dissent in the scientific world about the theories of man-made global warming. A large and rapidly growing segment of the scientists who study climatology are questioning many of the basic premises of the “warming is bad” theory. Why should asking serious questions about such an important subject be wrong? Recently one of the world’s top climatologists made comment that most of the signatories of the intergovernmental study on global warming weren’t climatologists or even meteorologists, in fact most of them weren’t scientists at all, but rather were “a mob” of politicians, environmentalists, and more than a few Hollywood celebrities! The Kyoto agreement threatens to cut the ground out from under the world’s industrial nations, severely limiting their industrial ability, and crippling their economies. That is a pretty big deal and will impoverish most of the western nations while leaving the world’s worst polluter (China) completely untouched! We really should have the best information and opinion from the best minds on the subject, rather than a vague “I think” from people who really don’t know what they’re talking about!
And why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming? Predictions of 20 or more foot rises in sea levels have given way to talk of only a few inches over the last year or so, and whatever happened to the global cooling threats of only a couple of decades ago? In many cases, all these sea level predictions are less than the historically recorded rises and falls of the last few hundred years. Whatever the case, why are the global warming advocates trying so hard, and apparently with more than a little success, to scare us? Besides, are there potential benefits to global warming? Would a warmer climate in some areas actually improve living conditions? Would such a possible improvement in health, crop production, overall lifestyle and such counterbalance any negative impact? I do know that our local winters were a lot colder fifty years ago, and personally I have no desire to return to those frigid winters and deep snows!
Should the drastic changes in public policy that are currently being called for be based on a “what if?” proposition, just because Al Gore says so? There are some who claim we can’t afford to wait for further studies, and, even if there’s some doubt, we should move on with altering the way we live. Many of their arguments for changing some of our environmental policies are good ideas, but should they also be based on “what it?” Again I’ll ask, what will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live, based purely on man-made global warming concerns? Much of the third world wouldn’t be affected I’m sure, but things are going to be tough on the worlds industrialized nations, along with the newly emerging nations as well. Consider that there are always unintended consequences to all our actions. I for one wouldn’t want to find myself forced to live in a society stuck at a stone age, or even medieval, sustenance level! There are many other implications as well, some good and some bad. What are they? Shouldn’t we be thinking and talking about them now, instead of just trading carbon credits? How do we determine if our efforts are successful? Is the measure of success going to be based on the Earth’s average temperature, or perhaps the sea level? The number of hurricanes each year, average rainfall, or maybe all of these things? Again, do we have a particular goal in mind? If so, what is it, and what happens when we reach it?
How, and why, has the global warming movement gained such momentum? Humanity has faced environmental issues throughout the history of our species, but I don’t remember hearing of one that has gained such “celebrity status” in such a short time. To my mind there seems to be an almost religious fervor about the subject that makes me wonder. I remember all the rhetoric about eggs being an unhealthy food, and that breakfast cereal was poisoning our kids… both claims were proven to be junk science, but both were widely believed at the time. How about the commotion generated by Rachel Carlson’s 1962 book “Silent Spring”? Essentially she forecast the imminent and total collapse of nature due to the overuse of DDT. Agreed, DDT was being badly overused, but banning it altogether wasn’t such a good idea either, as you’ll well know if you’ve ever suffered from mosquito carried malaria.
A steady reduction in the dire predictions about global warming has not led to a reduction in the doomsday rhetoric. Does this perhaps indicate that the movement has become little more than an activist cause rather than scientific reality?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)