Expectation

Lucky Brand Jeans,
Steve Madden shoes,
Dragonfly shirt.
God, I’m such a cliché!

Hey,
at least the jeans
are made in America.
Does that matter?

At least I look
like the man I want to be.
Now if I could just
act the role.

Expectation is
the surest way
to kill a dream.

The effort to expect
nothing
is difficult. Always
the shysters and politicos
standby to “educate”.

Oh how I despise them.

Meditating on music

Somewhere along the line
life became the quest of traveling
from free moment to free moment.

Those periods in my days
when I sit in quiet solitude
focusing on nothing but now.

Times when I can
put on my headphones,
twist the wheel on my iPod,
increase the volume,
and allow the auditory pleasure to
fall over me like a wave.

This sensation surrounds me,
inhabits me,
delivers me, to
the waiting hands of total liberation.

The electric crackle of the bass
beats steady as metronome
pulverizing my ears.

The clear and powerful melody
fills me with an alert awareness
of every part of my body.

The slippery and sultry vocal
snakes around in my mind
breaking through the crevices of my mind.

These are the parts of my mind
that are left idle in all but
the most precious moments of my day.

Moments of solitude,
they do not make me a clone of Moliere.
For I am no misanthrope.
I am me.

Poem #1

Speakers set to
the maximum acceptable level.
A level below which
my non-functional ears can
even begin to comprehend.

The old printer moans
and then it groans,
churning out page after page
of utter nonsensical blather.

The fluorescent lights hum
dimly ensuring that my paultry green
office tan is maintained for
another day.

Another day here.

Rest In Peace Senator Lloyd Bentsen

This post is here to thank the late Senator for the greatest gift. a gift that one could wait a generation to receive. On that fateful day in 1988, in that debate with Dan Quayle, Senator Bentsen transformed, for just that day, Politics into a spectator sport.

“He was responsible for one of the most memorable moments of the 1988 presidential campaign, when during a televised debate with Republican Vice Presidential nominee Dan Quayle, he countered Quayle's self-comparison to John F. Kennedy with the famous rebuttal, ‘Senator, I served with Jack Kennedy. I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy.’"

The next day, politics returned to its natural state as total and utter tomfoolery!

The Eye of the Tiger!

You know, invariably this blog lends a voice to that which is wrong with this world. Today I would like to focus on what is right. I spent last weekend in Los Angeles visiting a friend who is recovering from a very serious motorcycle accident. It is the aftermath of accident that proves the strength and resilience of human beings as well as humanitarian arm of our public health establishment. This story isn’t perfect good news. Perfect good news is a myth. It is our ability to see the silver lining that assures our happiness. This story isn’t a harrowing tale of overcoming all odds to win the big one. This story is about the ability of humans to cope and cope well.

My friend’s name is Carl. Carl is best described as “perfectly non-traditional.” He has lived his life following his own compass. By and large, in this writer’s opinion, that compass has served him very well. Carl took what Robert Frost called “The Road Less Traveled.” For most people, the purpose of life is to get from point A (birth) to point B (death) by going in as straight a line as possible. We are all guilty of this, to a certain extent. Carl has deviated from the path more then anyone else I know. It is what I truly admire about him. Deviation from the set path is not easy. We are dissuaded from doing it by our society of “conspicuous consumption.” Their sales motto is: “don’t BE alternative, BUY alternative.” That way they can still control us. It is bullshit, and Carl taught me that!

Last fall while riding his motorcycle through the streets of Los Angeles (a chore which even drivers of automobiles will tell you is a pretty harrowing experience) Carl was involved in an accident whereby a car jammed on its brakes and he crashed into it from behind. It was this weekend, for the first time since the accident that Carl shared with me those first few moments following the accident. Laying on the cement doing an inventory of his body: neck, arms, legs. It was at this point that he realized that his right leg was severely injured.

At this point I should mention that one of the less positive bi-products of living an untraditional life in the United States is that often one lacks health insurance coverage. Such is the case with my friend Carl. He worked a job that did not provide him with benefits. He did not work full time and enjoyed the flexibility of his job, but was forced to sacrifice health care coverage to achieve the flexibility that he desired. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2004 there were 45 million Americans under the age of 65 that faced the challenges and hazards of everyday life without even basic health insurance. This figure doesn’t even include the many, many millions of Americans that have insufficient health insurance coverage that would not financially protect them in the case of catastrophic injury or illness.

Other key facts:
1. Eight out of ten uninsured Americans comes from a working families.
2. 59% of the uninsured have gone without coverage for over two years.
3. 30% of the uninsured are children

This piece is not meant to be a rant on our health care system. It is broke. There is no need to debate that fact. No reasonable or rational argument can be made to defend the status quo and no one does. Let me tell you about how social services (welfare, as it used to be called by Republicans) have helped my friend Carl.

Carl was very fortunate to have been taken to the Emergency Room at UCLA Medical Center, one of the finest hospitals in the western United States. It was in this ER, in the early moments after the accident that doctors saved his leg. Carl was subsequently transferred to Harbor UCLA in Carson, California to receive his care, also a very good hospital. In the early days after the accident it wasn’t quite clear whether he would be covered by the state MediCal system or the County of Los Angeles public health social services. It turns out that my friend Carl was eligible for both and the process of putting Carl back together again began.

Federal law mandates that enrollment in Medicaid funded services (of which MediCal is one) may take no more than 90 days. Shortly after completing his paperwork Carl received a letter from Governor Gröppenfuhrer informing him that it would take upwards of 10 months to process his paperwork and get him covered. This is, of course, the loophole in the Medicaid law. A letter from a state governor explaining the delay is all that is required. But let’s put aside the bureaucratic BS. Eventually the bills will be paid. That is the miracle! Of course, Carl will have to go back and repair his ravaged credit rating after the delays in paying his bills, but that is doable if one has the patience and legal support.

I won’t get into the many operations or the clinical aspects of this recovery. Suffice it to say that Carl went under the knife more times in a six month period then most people do in their entire lives. He is past all that now. Carl is at the point where he is re-growing leg bone with a gnarly looking contraption attached to his leg. To watch him, it amazes that he can move around as ably as he does. He has also begun physical therapy to regain flexibility and strength in his leg. He says that this is an exhausting process; just to have it explained leaves one panting for breath.

Carl has always been a utilitarian wunderkind, but the set up of his bedroom would impress even MacGyver! From his bed hoisted on cinderblocks, to his bed side computer table, to the fact that everything that he needs on a daily basis: medical supplies, books, his computer. Everything is within arms reach. He may as well be in the cockpit of an F-14 tomcat with all his implements of destruction at his near command.

The doctor says that the prognosis for Carl’s leg is still to be determined. At this point it seems promising that he will walk again with only a modest limp. I told Carl that he would make quite dapper gentleman dressed in a seersucker suit with a cane.

In our talks this weekend Carl talked about wishing that they had taken his leg. His word were: “you can climb Mount Everest with a prosthetic leg.” That may be the case, but if anyone could overcome this and climb Mount Everest it’d be Carl! In all likelihood Carl will never run the Boston Marathon, it is probably safe to say that he won’t climb K2 but I wouldn’t put money on it, if I were you. Carl is a pretty ornery guy sometimes and lives for proving you wrong! To my mind it is always better to have your own flesh and blood then have a piece of plastic and metal. Plus, Carl, save the prosthetics for the bullet sponges (as you call them) coming home from our foolish war.

So, that is the medical re-birth of my friend Carl, but to tell just that portion of the story is to ignore that which is most compelling. I have always known him to be a man of great personal strength and mental fortitude, but to see his confidence in the face of such challenges should leave even his oldest friends awed. As one of them I can say: it does!

Most people would be ready to quit. Depression is not uncommon when dealing with major health issues. Certainly, Carl isn’t happy about what has happened, but he has not allowed it to ruin his life. In talking with him, it is clear that Carl has plans, things that he wants to accomplish. The better of half of his life obviously lies ahead of him. The part where he takes his many obvious gifts and talents and focuses them onto that which is his natural calling and leaves the world stunned.

Perhaps the biggest problem with the old Carl was his clear belief that he was invincible. We all have that to a certain extent, but few people are as alive as Carl and thus few people were as invincible as he was. The illusion of invincibility is gone now. What is left is the clear understanding that everyday is a gift and the next one isn’t assured. We must make the most of each day. I think there are few people in the world that better understand that now then my friend Carl.

I look forward to watching Carl move through his life. The first 30 years seemed to have entertained everyone that knows Carl. I am sure that the many to follow will not disappoint!

Happy Birthday Carl!

“Greatness is a road leading toward the unknown…”

It is a difficult time to find oneself deeply involved in the political process. We are faced with an overwhelming litany of critical issues and yet we are completely without a leader. When I say we, I am not talking about the Democratic Party, of which I am a loyal member, but rather the United States. Not only is our President not leading us, there is no one stepping in to fill that rather astronomical void. With a war in Iraq, a war against terrorists, a ballooning chasm between the poor and the rich, a swelling number of people who are not only uninsured but under-insured, a school system which is leaving more and more children ill-equipped to face the challenges of increased international competition, leadership is what we sorely need.

Clearly none of these issues has an easy solution and most will take many years to rectify and bring about healthy and efficient solutions, but with the clear absence of leadership that we face in this country, I fear the situation will worsen before it improves.

Charles De Gaulle once said: “Greatness is a road leading towards the unknown.” I have thought about this quote for many years. I always liked it for its ambiguous optimism, but I am not sure that I understood it until now. I think what De Gaulle meant was that a leader pushes forward despite the fact that he or she knows not what lies ahead. Leading in the face of uncertainty is a sign of greatness.

Our times are marked by cowardly leaders who do not take action without a poll of a poll and a focus group which is statistically analyzed and weighted to adjust for ethnic discrepancies. By this measure, Bill Clinton, while a highly intelligent leader, was not a great man. In the aftermath of September 11^th, George W. Bush was presented with the opportunity to demonstrate greatness. He was faced with unprecedented circumstances that could not be polled. He was faced with the absolute unknown and he failed the test. This was, of course, inevitable. George W. Bush is among the most unremarkable leaders that this country has ever had. Not only is W not great, he is downright mediocre. To his credit, he has sailed according to his own compass. With greatness assisting in navigation, this is a good thing, but Bush was bound to foul it all up.

Despite this mediocrity; Kerry, with the benefit of hindsight, is also not a great man. The difference is that Kerry was a good and intelligent man.

Where is our Washington, our Lincoln, our Roosevelt, or our Kennedy? The men I have just mentioned faced some of the greatest challenges ever faced by our country, and instead of dividing our country, they brought us together. Washington was the first great unifier. In the infancy of our country Washington bridged the gap between federalists and anti-federalists and took a massive amount of grief from both sides. Lincoln came to office just in time to watch our fractious union disintegrate. Not only did Lincoln not shirk his responsibility. He faced civil war bravely and unapologetically and did so with a cabinet filled with his fiercest critics. FDR jumped in head first to the Great Depression and successfully rebuilt our economy and prepared us for inevitable war. John F. Kennedy’s keen analytical mind allowed him to remain calm and make sound choices in the face of really bad advice during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

How did George W. Bush unite our country in the aftermath of September 11^th? He played the very blame game that three years later he claimed he would not engage in after Hurricane Katrina. W’s response to 9/11 was to paint his political opponents as terrorist sympathizers. Instead of being a unifier, Bush opted for the cheap political score. As we face more uncertainty, it is clear why we will never return to greatness under the reign of President Bush. People do not respond greatly when faced with mediocrity. The sad thing is that no one has not stepped forward to fill the void who has displayed even the slightest hint of greatness.

The American people, despite the bilge reported in the press, want to be united. Conservative and liberal; religious, agnostic, or atheist; rich and poor; this country hungers for unity. We know it is the only thing that will save our dying republic, “for which it stands, with liberty and justice for all.”

Youngstown, Ohio - Anywhere America!

I have been absent from this blog for some time. It is hard to balance writing for someone else and for yourself. This assignment will end and I will return to posting on this blog shortly.

It is also difficult to know exactly what to write about these days. There is so much bad in the world, it is quite overwhelming. Be it the chaos in Iraq or the growing threat we created in Iran. Be it the issues with immigration in this country or immigrant unrest in Europe. Be it the continual decline of our environment by a President who couches that destruction in the rhetorical guise of environmental stewardship. Be it our “strong” economy which is creating more and more millionaires and makes the rich even richer while swelling the ranks of the poor.

Our country is a failure. Our experiment in liberal democracy is a failure. I hate to sound like a socialist, but if you want to help our economy you should kill a rich man! They are ruining us. There is a group of wealthy people born of the philosophy of Andrew Carnegie, which believe that they grow wealthy (in matters of soul, if not in matters of finance) when we all prosper. But they are a paltry minority. The rich don’t give a damn about you if you are poor. They will suck your life and your work ethic in an effort to leave a few extra nickels to leave to their lazy and stupid progeny. Make no mistake that this country was not only built by the blood, sweat and tears of the poor. It was also paved with their bones!

I feel nothing but hatred for George W. Bush and his filthy, evil cabal. The worst is that they sedate us with tales of Christian morality. I hope his bible study group enjoys their meetings as they rot in the fires of HELL!

That said, I leave you with the words of a man who says it better then I ever could. The song is Youngstown. The poet is Bruce Springsteen! Viva la revolution!

Here in north east Ohio
Back in eighteen-o-three
James and Danny Heaton
Found the ore that was linin' yellow creek
They built a blast furnace
Here along the shore
And they made the cannon balls
That helped the union win the war

Here in Youngstown
Here in Youngstown
My sweet Jenny, I'm sinkin' down
Here darlin' in Youngstown

Well my daddy worked the furnaces
Kept 'em hotter than hell
I come home from 'Nam worked my way to scarfer
A job that'd suit the devil as well
Taconite, coke and limestone
Fed my children and made my pay
Then smokestacks reachin' like the arms of god
Into a beautiful sky of soot and clay

Here in Youngstown
Here in Youngstown
My sweet Jenny, I'm sinkin' down
Here darlin' in Youngstown

Well my daddy come on the Ohio works
When he come home from world war two
Now the yards just scrap and rubble
He said, "Them big boys did what Hitler couldn't do"
These mills they built the tanks and bombs
That won this country's wars
We sent our sons to Korea and Vietnam
Now we're wondering what they were dyin' for

Here in Youngstown
Here in Youngstown
My sweet Jenny, I'm sinkin' down
Here darlin' in Youngstown

From the Monongaleh valley
To the Mesabi iron range
To the coal mines of Appalacchia
The story's always the same
Seven-hundred tons of metal a day
Now sir you tell me the world's changed
Once I made you rich enough
Rich enough to forget my name

In Youngstown
In Youngstown
My sweet Jenny, I'm sinkin' down
Here darlin' in Youngstown

When I die I don't want no part of heaven
I would not do heavens work well
I pray the devil comes and takes me
To stand in the fiery furnaces of hell

Copyright © Bruce Springsteen

Vive la France!!!

Those of you who have read my blog in the past, or know me, know that I have no special fondness for the French and their cultural elitism. I like French wine and French cheese but French attitudes just aren't my bag. On occasion, however, they do something that is just so totally "right on" that I have to give credit where credit is due!

There is a heated debate going on in many nations around the world regarding the balance between work and home life and what level of growth is necessary to maintain the health of a country's economy. As globalization continues to make people in various countries susceptible to the impacts of their global neighbors there is a move to place all nations on an equal playing field economically. Obviously that is good news for people in the developing world. For so long they have simply the producers of our cheap goods. Look at the example of Malaysia. For decades the southeast Asian nation has built an economy based on low cost labor. Malaysia is now working on an economic development plan, which seeks to build a high tech economy which is based on more than just cheap labor. That is huge for a nation classified as part of the "developing world." To be sure, economic strength has not been shared equally by the Malaysian people. Ethnic Chinese fare much better then ethnic Malays, but it is a step in a positive direction.

In France, students and organized labor are striking in protest of changes to labor laws, which would, among other things, make it easier to fire young workers within the first two years of employment. The CPE, as it is called by the conservative government, is an attempt at reform in the wake of poor economic performance and rioting by disenfranchised immigrant youth. These youth suffer from unemployment rates twice the national average (approximately 20%). The changes were meant to make it more attractive for employers to hire young workers. Taken on their own the changes are really rather innocuous, but considered within the greater context of the global economic climate these changes should absolutely be seen as a serious threat to the French people and their culture.

This debate in other countries is looking at the balance between work and home life. Important in this debate is how much workers should be willing to commit to their employers in order to ensure sustained and robust growth. In the United States the debate is playing out over the role of illegal immigrant labor in our strong economy. In some states, like North Dakota, the impact is likely negligible, but in California the impact of illegal labor from Latin America is not clearly quantified but believed to be great. (as seen in the satirical movie, A Day Without A Mexican)

If I am giving my opinion, which I am never shy about, I would say that the employers role in peoples lives in the United States is disgustingly over inflated. People in the United States work a ridiculous number of hours for comparatively paltry compensation. I believe they do so because, on average, American workers are slower then in other countries. The impact of this "job dedication" on our society has not been adequately studied. What effect does this have on marriage and divorce patterns? While parents are selling their souls to employers for more and more money, who is watching our children? What role does it play in youth drug use, violence, and teenage pregnancy?

Clearly the profit motive drives corporate practices. This is the sole focus of corporations from a legal perspective. A corporation could be sued by its shareholders for violating its fiduciary duty if it considers the employees or community at the expense of investors. The Majority Leader of the Hawaii House of Representatives, in an Op-Ed in the Honolulu Advertiser this week, discussed the subject of corporate social responsibility and striking a balance between fiduciary responsibility to shareholders and the responsibility that corporations have to their employees and the larger community.

I believe that there is a parallel of sorts between the struggle for more corporate social responsibility in this country and what is going on in France with loosening of labor protection statutes. The question we need to be asking through all of this is: is it better for societies to change to be more competitive and profit driven like America, or should we all change to be a bit more "liberal" like France.

The French government fears that in the new global marketplace they will not be able to compete with emerging economies in the developing world and within the European Union as Eastern European countries continue to expand economically. To a certain extent, this is a rational fear. Certainly, reform is needed. But does the needed change include rolling back the European welfare state model, which has served them all so well in the post World War II era? Obviously it is too simple to lump all European welfare states into one pile, but I will do so for the sack of simplicity. To me it is a frightening idea to contemplate that the new economic climate is one that requires more competition and less worker freedom.

That is totally unacceptable. Obviously, eventually emerging economies will rise to the level of the developed nations and benefits can be put in place to the betterment of all people. But that leaves people in developed countries with one or two generations of retrograde motion. I reject the belief that in order to make life better for people in the developing world we need to endorse economic growth that embraces industrial revolution, pre-organized labor benefit standards. That will undercut labor in developed countries. Certainly we can find a way to raise the fortunes of those in poor nations without destroying the economies and culturally ingrained social systems of the developed world.

I reject the American model of "live to work," and, to a certain extent, I concede that the European model of "work to live" needs adjustment. Some hybrid between the French and American model is favorable. Both systems are sufficiently flawed, though, to my mind, the French way is favorable. Sure, the French make less then we do. At the same time, the French work less. We are told that worker productivity is weak in France, but the economy does grow, and if they put in the hours that American workers do then I believe they would be on par with us.

In the final analysis, the French see their families and friends more then most American workers. With fatherhood impending, I think about that a lot!

So I say, today, to the people on the streets of France, on the front line of the battle for corporate social responsibility: "Vive la France!!!"

Would we get anyone better???

There has been a lot of news lately about shuffling of line-ups at the White House and within the Administration. Rumors seem to fly fast and furious these days. They range from the impending firing of Karl Rove, to the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld, to Dick Cheney stepping down and being replaced by Condoleeza Rice, to Condoleeza Rice's resignation and subsequently taking the job as Commissioner of the NFL.

Certainly in this lull before the storm of the midterm elections the talking faces need something to blither about, but my question is this: why the hell do we care? Do you really think we would get anyone better to replace the fool that's leaving? To my mind, the devil you know is better then the devil you don't!

In recent days we have seen the resignation of Andrew Card and his subsequent replacement by Joshua Bolten, the former Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I would die of shock if this crew hired anyone who was not incestuously related to their little cabal of corruption. It has been under Joshua Bolten that the United States has driven up record budget deficits. I have an idea lets replace stale with tired.

As for the rumors of Karl Rove stepping aside, I just don't see anything like that happening before the midterm elections in November. Republicans may be wary of being too closely tied to the President right now, but the one thing they fear more is running for re-election without the wisdom of Bush's Brain. Assertions that Rove would step down or that Bush would ask him to step down would in some way indicate that they acknowledge that their policies are not resonating. They don't for a second believe that. Replacing Andrew Card was the easy step. Card was the White House scheduler and gate-keeper. He held everything together from a administrative perspective. I think that it is obvious that he was NOT intimately involved in making policy or shaping a policy direction. Sure, he was at the table, but did anyone listen? Rove trust a Mass-hole? Surely you jest!

My personal favorites deal with the future of Condoleeza Rice. One rumor has Cheney stepping down as the Vice President making way for Rice to be the VP and launch her Presidential Campaign. The press are wishing for a Hilary vs. Condoleeza to the extent where one would imagine that the debates would be settled in a mud wrestling ring. As if these two women weren't serious intellects with very important thoughts. It's not enough to have a female President, we have to have an estrogen-off for Presidency of the United States. It is amazing that in this country, which purports to being so wise and modern, that we still regard female politicians as something quaint and cute. How disgusting!

As for Condi being the Commissioner of the NFL, well, if she approaches that job as she does her current one, she will go out of her way to alienate the Players Association, the owners and sponsors. If there is one thing that is abundantly clear, Rice is a very intelligent woman with an incredible work ethic but an aloofness that leaves people not particularly moved. President Rice? First she should try answer the question that she is being asked. She doesn't have the knack for outright lying like the rest of the "good ol' boys". It sets her on the outside.

In the end, any changes in the Administration would not address the one glaringly obvious problem: the President is a buffoon who simply lacks the delicate hand that is required to do his job with even mediocre results. He says he wants a line item veto but would he dare actually veto any pork spending. If he takes away the Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens memorial bridges and the disgusting pork handed out by this "fiscally conservative" Congress they would in turn stall his agenda. How do you pronounce "Lame Duck"?

We are all filthy rotten liars!

There is a perception that all politicians are professional at is lying. It has forced me to step back and consider the role of truth in politics and in our larger society. The culture of deception, half-truth, innuendo, and outright lies is not exclusively the purview of professional politics. It’s time for us to take a hard look in the mirror.

We live in a society where we are bombarded by a constant barrage of “non-truths”. Look around at our everyday lives. We accept lying in politics because it is forced on us in so many other aspects and areas in our lives. We have become desensitized to the absence of truth. We see commercials on TV, billboards and in magazine which lie to us. We turn on the news and watch famous people who lie to us. We routinely lie to one another to hide the message behind the message.

Some lies are larger in scope then others but they all pose the exact same moral and ethical quandary.

“No dear, your ass doesn’t look fat in those jeans…” (translation: “Yikes, when did she get so fat?”)

“It’s so huge!!!” (translation: “Holy mini pecker batman!”)

“I was at John’s house watching the game…” (translation: “Johnny and I were drinkin’ beers at the nudie bar.”)

“Angelina and Brad are just good friends…” (translation: “Angelina and Brad are worried about their ‘images’ so they are going to deny that they are in a relationship for as long as possible…”

“My fellow Americans, the evil-doers that committed these evil attacks on our just and pure society will be made to pay…” (translation: “My first year as President hasn’t been going all that well, so we are going to whip this tired old story for as long as we can…”)

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky…” (translation: “I am an ego maniac who never takes responsibility for my actions…”)

But I guess that is the handle, isn’t it. We are a society that is afraid of taking responsibility for our own beliefs. We assume that everyone else is stupid and so they can and should be manipulated to see things from our own perspective. That is certainly the case in politics. Bill Clinton didn’t feel bad about having an affair, he felt bad about being caught. Clinton believed that the American people were stupid and needed to be manipulated to minimize the negative spin that he felt would invariably ensue. Clinton’s biggest asset was that he was a likeable guy and I am sure his “spin doctors” were mortified that the affair would change that perception, thus changing the power dynamic in Washington. Enter lying, stage left!

We will continue to receive egocentric mediocrity as long as we expect perfection. We will get leaders who are unable to admit flaw when we place our leaders on a pedestal and expect perfection. People criticized flawed leader like Senator John Kerry for seeing the world in shades of gray. I would rather have a slightly bland politician with gray scale vision like Kerry or Senator Arlen Specter than filthy rotten liars like George W. Bush, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan.

I did a little research on the notion of truth. I found that there is a whole school of philosophy dedicated to truth. Apparently what is true and what is false are open to multiple interpretations, but I would boil it down to this: those who actively deceive know what they are doing. Unless they are sociopaths they know in their hearts what is true and what is false.

Until we take the truth seriously it will never be a central virtue in our society. In outlining the Code of Chivalry, 19^th Century French historian Leon Gautier stated: “Thou shalt never lie, and shall remain faithful to thy pledged word.”

This doesn’t just go for our elected officials. Just because their lies are on a grander scale does not put us in the place of feeling some sort of moral superiority. A lie is a lie, is a lie, is a lie. I will end by quoting Master Yoda: “Size matters not, judge you me by my size? And well you should not!”

The truth matters!

Has the whole damn world gone insane? Moderates are wimps!

The past weeks have seen such utter madness in this world that your dear beloved blogger has been simply dumb-founded. I have found it difficult to maintain my focus on any one issue long enough to string together enough coherent thoughts to write a readable blog piece. I fear I am still futless, and for that I apologize.

Where do I begin? George W. Bush apparently feels that it is his constitutionally mandated right to spy on Americans without any judicial oversight. He's wrong! I can say no more on this subject. Our deeply disturbed Vice President feels it is his right to de-classify any classified information at any time without the President's permission. Who knows, maybe he can! But, I think that doing it retroactively is a blatant CYA for the impending sh*t storm coming down the pipe from the on-going Valerie Plame leak investigation. Scooter Libby claims that he got permission from above to discuss Plame's identity. Well, if you are Chief of Staff to the Vice President, who is left above you??? Hmmmm… And while we are discussing Dick Cheney, lets discuss the fact that he shot a man in the face with a loaded shotgun after having drank alcohol and he did not report the incident to the press in a timely fashion. Dick, if you have to shoot Republican fundraisers, you could at least have the manners to kill them stone dead. I was pleased that you came forward and took complete responsibility for the events. That was big of you. I mean I wasn't sure who was at fault; considering that you drank the beer, you were holding the gun and you pulled the trigger. Seems like at least one person in this administration can take responsibility for a snafu when all evidence blatantly points to their being at fault. Well done Dick, you're a killer!

Does anyone else think that Dick "Four Deferments" Cheney probably shouldn't be allowed to shoot guns?

All that ballyhoo aside, I want to discuss the One million dollar reward being offered in Pakistan for the murder of each of the Danish cartoonists. "'Whoever has done this despicable and shameful act, he has challenged the honor of Muslims. Whoever will kill this cursed man, he will get $1 million from the association of the jewelers bazaar, 1 million rupees ($16,700) from Masjid Mohabat Khan and 500,000 rupees ($8,350) and a car from Jamia Ashrafia as a reward,' [cleric Maulana Yousef] Qureshi told about 1,000 people outside the mosque after Friday prayers."

Here is my reward offer. To the man or woman that kill Maulana Yousef Qureshi goes a bacon cheeseburger and a large lager beer at the restaurant of their choice.

The liberal in me wants to be tolerant of all people and all cultures no matter what, but how do you show respect for a culture that is so blatantly disrespectful. The shear idiocy of this reward scheme is mind boggling.

Again, as I did after the September 11th terrorist attacks, I concede that a vast majority of Muslims are peace loving and moderate in their views. I know this to be absolutely true as I have met many Muslims and not one of them is a militant radical. But it is time to discuss a painful truth. Moderates are cowards. Not just Muslim moderates. All moderates. Moderate is another term for dispassionate, and when one lacks passion one lacks the motivation to stand up against insanity. I see myself as relatively moderate on most views. I am a liberal libertarian (is that an oxymoron?). It is time for moderates to be passionate about moderation. Extremists are a miniscule minority, but they are damn loud. It's time to shut them up! Moderate Christians, moderate Jews and moderate Muslims; we are watching you!

Freedom of Speech is as sacred as God!

Many in the United States may not have noticed the uproar that has been occuring in the Muslim communities in the Middle East and Europe over 12 cartoons by 12 Danish artists that were published in the Danish newspaper Morgenavisen Jyllands Posten. For those of you who have missed this news story in an effort to keep up with the Jennifer, Brad, and Angelina triangle, here is an article from the Boston Globe to give some background.

Events have since exploded with protests in every major country in the Muslim world, as well as Europe. Certainly the printing of these cartoons was insensitive, but the thing that Middle Eastern Muslims miss is that even if the Government of Denmark (and subsequently Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, Spain, and Hungary) wanted to censor or sanction the newspapers that printed these articles, they could not do so.

I have looked at signs held by protestors around the world threatening death, destruction and mayhem on Europe in general and Denmark in particular as punishment for these acts. The funny thing is, as Muslim people complain about being racially profiled based on the actions of extremists. So too do these protestors profile Europeans and hold an entire country, a continent even, accountable for the actions of 12 cartoonists and the editorial board of the Jyllands Posten.

Since this outcry, protests have spread around the Muslim world and Europe, culminating in a day of protests to coincide with Friday prayers. Jyllands Posten has posted a letter to the Muslim world, which succinctly summarizes their position (that no offense was intended, but to point out the importance of free speech and free expression). I respect the newspapers right to publish any material that they deem appropriate or newsworthy, but what did they honestly think was going to happen?

Freedom of Speech is sacred to people in democratic countries. Our right to say, print and draw anything we want is absolutely sacred and 100% off limits for compromise. If Muslims truly want us to respect their beliefs and that which they are passionate about, then that respect must be met with mutual respect for the Freedoms that we hold dear. Not all in the west endorses the printing of these cartoons, but we do recognize the right to print them.

This incident clearly shows that which separates us. We hear President Bush give speeches filled with bilge, where he discusses our common values. Clearly, we do not share that many common values, and until we do; can I just say… lets ramp up that alternative energy initiative and cut off the oil money that funds the fanatical elements in these societies.

My commentary is this; if you believe in freedom of speech, and freedom of expression on the whole, go out and buy some Danish butter and cheese and stand united with our friends and family in Denmark!

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle... Build it Green!

After my diatribe about all that is wrong with politics yesterday, today I want to write a bit about public and private efforts to make the planet a cleaner and more hospitable place to live. Despite all the problems that this country has and our rabid and rampant ignorance about the environmental footprint that Americans leave on this planet, there are many who labor righteously on behalf of the environment.

Conservatives fear the tactics employed in this effort and being draconian and oppressive to business. In fact there are many efforts undertaken by the private sector that seek to use technology to reduce the impact that people and all of our crap has on this planet.

One need not be an engineer to become knowledgeable about the steps that we all can and should take to reduce our consumption. One very simple way to be involved is to recycle. It sounds like a tedious and labor intensive process that doesn’t really have that large an impact. This sentiment can be particularly infectious in a place like Hawaii where the powers that be have made recycling as difficult a process as necessary, to the extent of canceling a curbside recycling pilot project. But nowhere in the world is recycling more vital than in an island community. In island communities like Hawaii there are finite resources, particularly land and water. There is no excuse in this day and age to put any refuse into a landfill. Nearly everything is recyclable in one way or another. Whether we burn garbage to create power, recycle paper to create insulation, use food stuffs as agricultural animal feed, recycle plastic bottles to create plastic lumber.

Of particular interest to me is ways to eliminate waste in the building industry. Anyone who has been involved in a building project or even walked past a construction site know how much materials go into building structures for either residential or commercial purposes. Buildings need to be demolished to make room for new development. Certainly there must be parts of the old structure that can be redeveloped for new projects, if not onsite, at least in other projects.

Here are a few resources for those interested in private efforts to reduce, reuse and recycle:

Energy Efficient Building Association

U.S. Green Building Council

Building Green

Sustainable Sources

Sustainable Architecture, Building and Culture

Suppliers of Alternative Building Materials

The Carbon Neutral Company

Just as there is a role for private efforts in the efforts to reduce our footprint, the government has to be a willing partner. The government, to my mind, plays three very vital roles in environmental policy; incentive, enforcement and education.

The government should knock off the whole tax subsidies for fossil fuel and SUV gas guzzlers and get real with subsidies for green building, recycling, and renewable energy sources. It is not enough to just create incentives but the government must play the unpopular role of creating disincentives for using products and resources that are either harmful to the environment or not made of at least part recycled materials.

The ability to regulate and enforce existing environmental regulations is not a responsibility that can be effectively handled by the private community. Only Big Brother has enough reach, influence, and strength of force to ensure that unscrupulous businesses are complying with the law, not just in words but in intent as well.

The last role for the government is its most important. Education is hard for relatively small nonprofits and organizations to accomplish. Certainly they have a role to play in these efforts, but the government already has an educational system and they should incorporate environmental education standards into the curriculum. Children are far more impressionable then adults and if we teach efforts early and often, they may well stick.

In addition, public information and education campaigns on a wide enough scale to have clout must be undertaken by government.

Here are some links to several government initiatives being undertaken on the federal, state and municipal levels:

Energy Star

U.S. Department of Energy – Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy

City of Austin – Green Building Program

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

State of Hawaii – Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism – Energy Efficient Buildings

A feeding frenzy: there is blood in the water!

Ed Case is all about Ed Case. I watch him and I think: jeez, what a cracker. That guy is more mainland haole then I am, and I am about as mainland haole as you get! (Proudly) He is stiff and arrogant and completely unimpressive.

Several things strike me, and I want to note them here. First off, I agree, in principle, that our Senators have reached an age when they should seriously consider stepping down for the good of this state and for the good of the Democratic Party. They have reached an age when one can legitimately and fairly begin to question their ability to effectively fulfill the duties and obligations of the offices to which they have been elected. All that being said, it is the height of arrogance that Ed Case assumes that he, after less than three terms in office is the natural successor to a man like Daniel Akaka. Senator Akaka, for all his faults (i.e. voting for drilling in ANWR and the fact that he rarely returns to Hawaii) is a much loved man in this state. He is fundamentally decent and takes the best care of this state as he knows how. Perhaps Ed Case has forgotten his colleague Congressman Neil Abercrombie who has a bit more seniority in the U.S. House of Representatives (essentially he has served the first district of Hawaii since 1991). I am not saying that Congressman Abercrombie is next in line either, but he has a more legitimate argument when taken in the one dimensional frame that Case has cast his bid.

Ed Case has a long history of political opportunism. He was a member of the state House of Representatives until he saw an opportunity to run for Governor in 2002. He just lost to Mazie Hirono. Shortly thereafter Congresswoman Patsy Mink died. Case immediately jumped in the race and in a true sign of the fact that he lacks class, beat Mink’s widower in the special election to complete his term. He did this despite the fact that Mink announced that he would not run for re-election. As clear a sign as there is that Case is all about Case.

Lastly, it should be pointed out that Case is hardly a Democrat. Not only is he not loyal to the state party, but he strays regularly from the national party. Clearly, no one wants a robot who marches to the drum of the party. An elected official that votes his conscience is something that anyone should be able to respect, but Case doesn’t just vote his conscience, he has no loyalty. There are times when a party needs to stand together, united for a common cause. Otherwise, what is the point of having political parties?

Ed Case is an opportunist. In this state where race matters so much (yes it matters elsewhere, but is never discussed), he conveniently went out and married a Japanese-American woman just before running for Governor. Some believe his story of re-connecting at a 30^th Reunion, but I am too cynical for all that (I guess you can take the boy out of the Northeast, but not the Northeast out of the boy). Seems like she is a trophy, at least to me, and there is a bit of whispering around the state capitol to that extent as well. I personally think one should be able to be married to whomever one wishes and that should be sufficient, but Hawaii just isn’t like that. It is a fact and a state of mind here. Often the first question, when meeting someone here, is a discussion of ethnic background. That would make the wasps where I come from positively red with embarrassment.

At the opening day of the 2006 Legislature, Case was seen mingling quite happily with the Republican caucus. Loyalty must be remembered, and no one ever wins a Democratic primary against a much loved elder statesman by running to the right.

Remember that Eddie, when we finally rid ourselves of you!

As a result of this sudden move, many an eager state legislator has been seen at the Capitol trolling for support. It is like a fishing boat sailing into Kewalo Basin, fish bits falling off the back, and the sharks trailing behind. Innocent bystanders should watch out for the impending feeding frenzy, lest they lose an arm or a leg to this crew of political opportunists. A good politician would hang back and observe a bit before throwing in with this set. Never trust a politician that acts so rashly on their own behalf. Decisive action in leadership may be valued, but decisive action in selfishness is not!

Ariel Sharon, man of peace or man of war?

I figure we should put some words on this blog about Ariel Sharon. The Israeli Prime Minister is, as I write this, laying in a Jerusalem hospital bed fighting for his life, after suffering what the talking heads refer to as a “serious stroke” (I didn’t know that there was any other kind). Pundits are also trying to predict what impact this will have on the peace process. I guess I should just say outright to the CNNs the FOXNews’ that in the history of Israel it has been damn near impossible to predict what events mean and what their outcome will be. So quit it with all the lame guessing. I will save you all a lot of effort. No one knows what comes next, and only Prime Minister Sharon’s doctors know the true extent of the damage to his health at this point.

Instead of focusing on the legacy that Prime Minister Sharon leaves behind, I would like to talk about where he comes from. I decided to read up on the man’s past. It turns out the Ariel Sharon was born Ariel Scheinermann (I’d change that name too!) in the British Mandate of Palestine or BMP (the last time that Jerusalem was “Palestinian”). His parents were Eastern European Jews that had immigrated to the “holy land”. His parents were affiliated with a number of “left leaning” (read Commie) groups.

From an early age, Sharon was a member of a paramilitary group called Haganah. They were a small group that was formed to protect Jewish settlers after the Jews determined that the British had no interest in confronting the Arabs for their continual attacks on Jewish farms (Kibbutzim) and settlements. During World War II the British asked Haganah for assistance in fighting the war, which they provided. They were deployed in North Africa in case German General Erwin Rommel broke through English lines. After having served Haganah returned to the BMP and began undertaking paramilitary (a friendly substitute for the more apt: terrorist) actions against the British in Palestine.

The mission of Haganah sounds vaguely familiar, I am not quite sure, but there exists somewhere an organization dedicated to a similar premise. That’s right, they are called The Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO formerly PLA substituting the word Army in, but Organization is so much more respectable). How quickly we forget what the L stands for when we just use the acronym.

Well, I have strayed sufficiently off course. Let me sum up Ariel Sharon’s career by saying that he gained fame and acclaim in what became Israel for ruthlessly fighting Arabs. From the early 1940s until the early 1980s it was Ariel Sharon’s job to kill Arabs and defend the state of Israel. He was controversially linked to the massacres in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. I am not going to get into a debate over the merits and/or ethics of his job. I will leave that spitting match to Arabs and Semites. I will say that throughout its history the Israelis have been surrounded by neighbors that would gladly see every single Jew in the holy land dead. Living in that kind of neighborhood can make someone understandably skittish.

The next phase of Ariel Sharon’s life saw him parlaying his fame into a political career. Ariel Sharon spent over 30 years as a backbencher or in the opposition. From the cheap seats Sharon became very comfortable spouting off about the hard line and the calamity that will come from negotiating with Palestinians. As a life long member of the Likud Party, Sharon was appointed to the government of Menachem Begin. His career followed many twists and turns winding up with his appointment to the position of Foreign Minister in the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (1998-1999). When the Likud government fell in election to Ehud Barak, Sharon position within the Likud was elevated. It seems that his vocal opposition to negotiations with the Palestinian Authority reached its zenith during these years, but when Barak’s government fell in 2001 and Sharon found himself as Prime Minister the slow thaw of his stubbornness regarding negotiations and peace began. Sharon, like many ex-generals come prime minister, learned that once you are in a position of leadership the intractable side of ones nature is instantly obsolete. This was not an instantaneous change in Sharon. It took a number of years, bad years for the peace process, before he came to the realization that peace is more important than rhetoric.

So now, what comes next? I think it is pretty obvious that Sharon’s career in politics is over, but perhaps he may have gone out in the perfect way. To simply walk away would have left a vacuum. To be removed forcibly, before people were emotionally ready has made him into a Yitzhak Rabin, of sorts. He has left a cause without a standard bearer. Perhaps someone will step up to seize the reins. While I won’t endorse a candidate I will say to the people of Israel that they should be very wary of Bibi Netanyahu. This is a man who has already been prime minister. He has learned the challenges a leader faces first hand and yet he still tows the hard line and actively works against efforts to make peace. This is a man who is woefully obstinate; Israel will never know peace under a man like this.

In the end, Sharon’s legacy is unknown. He walked away from his beloved Likud Party because they could not see, as he did, that peace will never come from violent resistance but through dialogue and slowly breaking down prejudices. Ariel Sharon is a man who started as a nationalist, became a Zionist and finally wound up a patriot. A better path could never be charted by a man. He is no saint. He most certainly has blood on his hands, but as a good Jew he made efforts to atone for past wrong-doing. Peace will not come quickly, but come it must. A warrior like Sharon learned that the hard way. Let that be his legacy.

Wisdom from a coffee cup...

“Everywhere, unthinking mobs of ‘independent thinkers’ wield tired clichés like cudgels, pummeling those who dare questioning ‘enlightened’ dogma. If ‘violence never solved anything,’ cops wouldn’t have gun and slaves may never have been freed. If it’s better that 10 guilty men go free to spare one innocent, why not free 100 or 1,000,000? Cliches begin arguments, they don’t settle them.”
-- Jonah Goldberg, Editor-at-large of the National Review Online

It is true, there is nothing I detest more than lame clichés carted out to convey an argument that is so weakly constructed that it needs said cliché to add force. By far my favorite cliché of the last several years is: “There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.” Say what you want about George W. Bush, but a wordsmith, he is not. People said they wanted a "common man" President, and they sure got what they asked for. I am not sure whether President Clinton was one of the most eloquent Presidents of the modern era, or he just looks great when compared to Dubya. I don’t want this blog posting to get into a spit of the President rant. I do that enough, and it really isn’t the point.

What Mr. Goldberg has laid out so eloquently is the collapse of oratorical and written debate skills. The ability of persuasion is dead in America. It may well be dead worldwide, but I will focus on the United States. We blame the press for their failures to play their historical role in the debate of policy and current events in this country, but I do not think they are alone in this failure. Lets face it, Congressional debate is a joke. Judicial debate is a joke too. Our failure is not in one segment of our society and it is not systemic, but a vast majority of people in the United States have simply never learned to critically analyze anything. I blame that on standardized curriculum. We are creating a generation of swine. I am reminded of the image of kids on a conveyor belt dropping one by one into a meat grinder in Pink Floyd's The Wall. Do not be shocked to learn that we are living in a second Dark Age!

Anyways, I slipped off my point (as I tend to do).

You might be very surprised if I told you that the biggest failure in persuasion is not the President of the United States failing to lay out and valid, let alone sound, argument for military (and now continued military) action in the Middle East. Unfortunately that failure pales when compared to the inept failure of the liberal portion of our society (to which I belong) to convince the people of this country that military action was not just a bad idea, but a colossally stupid idea!

The United States kicked a hornet’s nest and unfortunately it is a case of, as Secretary Powell put it, you broke it, you bought it. We have no choice but to (and you have no idea how painful this is for me to say…) “stay the course”. What are our alternatives? Honestly, can anyone layout a scenario where we pull out of Iraq and it doesn’t collapse into sectarian violence? Does anyone really think that Shi’ites won’t begin killing Sunnis and vice versa?

It is the perfect Catch 22 that we have got ourselves in. We are obviously that cause of a lot of the disdain and anger. Our presence is contributing the spark that ignites the anger into violence. But I don’t believe that simply removing the U.S. troops would extinguish the fire. That is like removing the spark that ignites the bonfire and expecting the flames to be instantly quenched. It ain’t going to happen.

Like in Korea, where U.S. troops and one million landmines stand between the North Korean Army and Seoul fifty plus years after the end of the Korean War, there is no clear way to eliminate our presence in Iraq before the government can support itself and it will never be able to eliminate threats, internal or external, until the U.S. and our allies leave. It’s quite a pickle.

So, the question begs. If Iraq is bound to fall, why not get it over with? To which I reply. That would be fine with me except that a failed Iraq will send shockwaves all over the Middle East, which will impact the price of crude oil the world over. Are we ready to pay $4-5 per gallon for gasoline?

I won’t answer that question but leave you with this to think about. Did you know that if every car in the United States got 4 miles per gallon better fuel economy we could eliminate our entire reliance on Middle East fuel sources?

Swing and a miss, strike TWO!

Boy, the hits just keep on coming for Turkey. 2005 was supposed to be the year that Turkey finally proved that they belonged in the economic brotherhood of states called the European Union. All we hear is about how progressive this country, Turkey, is. They are, I guess, if you compare them with Iran!

Many of you will remember my articles chastising both the Turkish government and the Danish newspaper over some caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad that were published in the Jyllands Posten. Well, it seems that Turkey’s year is now in total unravel mode. There are recent reports that Turkey is going to move ahead with trying Orhan Pamuk. Pamuk faces up to three years in prison for criticizing Turkey’s role in the Armenian genocide (namely killing thousands of Armenians).

Once again the Turks have displayed that they clearly share no cultural link with Europe. I truly feel bad for the liberals in Turkey. They are held back by the backwards think troglodytes who can only see their nation through the rose colored lenses of nationalism. Turkey is guilty, like most countries (including the U.S.), of having parts of its history that are shameful. The mark of progress away from those attitudes is the ability to review what they did and take responsibility for their actions.

Unfortunately Turkey is not beyond this. Their systematic mistreatment of the Kurdish minority living in the eastern portion of the country clearly indicates that there is a level of racism that is endemic to Turkish culture. It has permeated the halls of power in Ankara and become institutionalized. Clearly that cannot be condoned, and a country like that must never be handed an economic reward like EU membership.
I hope Turkey makes the progress it need to. I believe that the dream of a secular Islamic country being an EU member is a goal that everyone should hope and strive for. But we can not put our heads in the sand and ignore blatant problems to speed the issue to fruition. That end can only be justified by following the appropriate means. No other course will ensure that liberty and freedom are truly cherished and realized by all of Turkey’s people, Turk and Kurd alike!

Goodbye Leo McGarry

Rest In Peace John Spencer. Thank you for the privilege of watching you on television for so many years. Your brilliance will be missed.

The Carrot vs. The Sledgehammer

A friend from Germany recently wrote me an e-mail soliciting my opinion on the Montreal Conference and climate change issues in general. It struck me that I have not written an environmental piece for my blog in some time. It seems that now, as we reflect on the many messages of John Lennon, 25 years removed from his assassination, that one of the lasting lessons was the importance of mindfulness. Lennon urged us to be constantly thinking about how to make the world a better place. I try to embody that spirit with somewhat limited success. As such, I dedicate this blog piece to his memory.

A lot of Americans feel that the goals and intent of the Kyoto Conference on Climate Change and the subsequent protocol pursue an end that is right and prudent, but would have an extremely negative impact on the U.S. (and indeed the wider world) economy. Many Americans feel that Europe and other developed nations agreed to extremely drastic cuts, as called for by Kyoto, with the knowledge and understanding that the U.S. would never sign on. This creates a perception that the United States is far less environmental than Europe (which I would generally acknowledge as true when discussing politicians, but not when discussing individual citizens).

It should be pointed out that many developed countries, which agreed to serious and real cuts in emissions, are nowhere near fulfilling their obligations to comply with emissions reductions. A particularly poignant example would be Tony Blair's United Kingdom. It could be argued that these countries signed on for reductions when their economies were strong and now that they are in a tenable position they find compliance to be a more difficult proposition. To comply when the United States did not would put them at an economic disadvantage, which is what the U.S. has argued all along.

So, the Europe Union ccountries signed off on Kyoto and the United States did not. Does this mean that Europeans are tree-huggers and Americans are lumberjacks? There is the belief in the EU that because the United States government is not in favor of the Kyoto Protocol that therefore the U.S. is hostile to the environmental movement. If you look more closely, the problem is a matter of perception. Upon scrutiny you will find that many politicians, even Republicans, hold quite "green" views (insert John McCain and Tom Harkin’s names in this category). Though, admittedly, many are akin to Neanderthals when it comes to environmental issues (insert Tom Delay and Daniel Inouye’s names in this category). Despite this perception, quite clearly the concept of sustainable development is gaining much traction in the United States.

The difference is in how you effect change. Europe believes in a central model with forced change through government mandates. It is a "network model, where government, private firms, and civil society interact in spaces in between their formal roles" (to quote a friend of mine). This is simply not how the U.S. works on any public policy issue. There are many in this country who think the European model is a better approach, including myself, but it is not an attainable goal when you consider the American economic culture of laissez-faire capitalism and the concept of Manifest Destiny. We do not undo what we have done, we learn and move on.

I am not a Green in the political sense because I vehemently oppose environmental policy that neglects all other aspects of society and economics. The Green Party movement in Europe and the United States has been one dimensional since its inception. Their Party platform is pretty heavily skewed towards the belief that any type of growth and development is bad. I could not disagree more strongly! I am a avid believer in the, Al Gore espoused, philosophy of sustainable development. No, Al Gore didn’t invent the concept of sustainable development any more than he invented the internet. But our former Vice President did give wings to the concept which was first formalized at the United Nations by the Brundtland Commission in 1987. Al Gore believed that you could create an entire economy around environmental stewardship. I agree completely.
Three people that I know well are working in the environmental sector, but each comes at the problem from a different angle. I have a friend working in Oregon on tradable pollution credits. I have a brother-in-law working on building turbines which maximize the productivity of the windmills. I have another friend at the National Renewable Energy Lab in Colorado who works with businesses who are trying to maximize their energy efficiency to help reduce costs. All these efforts are good examples of how the environmental movement will move forward in the United States.

In Oregon there is a state and local effort to control pollution going forward through these tradable pollution credits. This will help regulate pollution while allowing flexibility. Those companies in the forefront of environmental responsibility will be able to further profit by selling their pollution credits to those companies which need to catch up. Likewise there is a financial penalty for the practice of polluting. The incentive exists to promote sustainable business practices.

My brother-in-law, who admittedly lives in Europe, but his company sells windmills in the United States, works for a private corporation that makes a profit off environmental sources of energy. If the government was in charge of technological innovation windmills would look like the old mills you find in Holland. Private innovation in developing new and ever more efficient technology will be the central component in reducing our footprint.

The last component towards change is the role of the government. NRELs approach is to educate as opposed to mandate, working with businesses that want to reduce waste. Once you educate businesses that an initial investment will yield vast savings in the long run and be environmental then you will find businesses willing to take those steps. Who cares that the motive was profit as opposed to environmental responsibility.

In addition to these three efforts there is a new “green” industry growing. That industry runs the gambit from recycled paper to recycled building supplies. More and more products are offering a recycled alternative. Everything from reclaimed wood and cement that uses recycled glass to engines that burn used vegetable oil. I believe that very soon it will be not only financially possible, but fiscally responsible to build homes that not only blend into their environment but are in fact built entirely out of recycled materials and in such a way as to have a minimal impact on its surroundings.

In discussing this piece a friend pointed out that the United States needs to realize that Kyoto is a WHEN, not an IF. Climate change is a reality and there is little to no dissent in the scientific community to the hypothesis that it is a man made (or man accelerated) problem.

The U.S. approach is, and always will be, a free market approach. I am not a believer in pure laissez-faire capitalism. It is simply too hard to quantify the environment into dollars and cents to make the benefit-cost analysis of environmental protection appear profitable. As such, some regulation is necessary. Environmentalists in the United States are getting hip to this market driven approach. Many have abandoned the “beat you over the head with regulations” approach.

The sooner Europeans catch on, the less frustrating the efforts will be for them. There must be cultural sensitivity from Europe to the fact that America works significantly differently. The central government, in its current context, does not hand down decrees. You watch! This patch-work of state and municipal efforts, combined with the economic might of the American shopper will have a very real and powerful effect. It requires educating the American people, and that is where the federal government and nonprofit environmental groups can play a key role.

How about this for an ad campaign: "If every car in America was a hybrid, not one American soldier would have to die building 'democracy' in Iraq!"

Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord!

As my regular readers know, I am not a religious man. But as we sit and reflect on the 1000^th execution since the United States reinstated the death penalty in the 1976, one cannot help but become reflective over state sanctioned vengeance. Make no mistake, when the state executes people they are doing nothing less than usurping God’s divine right to exact vengeance and, in so doing, tacitly committing murder.

No matter whether you are religious or not there is no way to legitimize executing prisoners who have committed heinous crimes. First, allow me to take the Judeo-Christian approach to this argument. I will be on somewhat tenuous ground so I urge my readers of faith to post comments and corrections as necessary.

As I see it, there are many passages in Holy Scripture which denounce the practice of state sanctioned executions. The following passage is from the New American Standard Bible. There can be no ambiguity over the intent.

Romans 12:14-21 - [Verse 19 in Original Greek]
14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse. 15 Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. 16 Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation. 17 Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men. 19 Never take your own revenge, beloved, but leave room for the wrath {of God,} for it is written, "VENGEANCE IS MINE, I WILL REPAY," says the Lord. 20 "BUT IF YOUR ENEMY IS HUNGRY, FEED HIM, AND IF HE IS THIRSTY, GIVE HIM A DRINK; FOR IN SO DOING YOU WILL HEAP BURNING COALS ON HIS HEAD." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

Clearly, vengeance is a divine right, not to be usurped by Man. The death penalty sends the wrong message to society. It says that murder is okay if it can be justified. Murder can never be justified. Many people of faith have actively opposed capital punishment. Great men like Pope John Paul II and the Dalai Lama.

Many of us who are not believers, however, the idea of basing our system of punishment on religious doctrine is very troubling, so I will expound a bit on the policy arguments against capital punishment.

• The death penalty is a violation of human rights primarily Article 3 and Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Some assert that it violates the "natural rights" laid out by 17th-century English philosopher John Locke who set out many of the foundations of American law. The American Declaration of Independence also includes the "right to life" as the first listed of the natural rights. While those against capital punishment might claim this as an irrevocable right, proponents may claim that, as protection from abuse is the basis of such rights, that the right was forfeit by the seriousness of the crimes.
• Many mistakes are made in our criminal justice system. Many people are tried and convicted by a jury of their peers only to later be exonerated by due to error, new evidence and/or evidence police malfeasance. Since 1973, 119 people in 25 US states have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence. This is made even more troublesome by the advent of DNA evidence and linking people to crimes via their DNA.
• Over 95% of defendants cannot afford legal representation. These people’s fate ends up the responsibility of public defenders that are often impossibly over-worked. The defendants often end up receiving mediocre counsel.
• Despite all claims otherwise it has NEVER been proven that the death penalty is a deterrent.
• It denies the possibility of rehabilitation. Some hold that a judicial system should have the role of educating and reforming those found guilty of crimes. If one is executed he will never have been educated and made a better person.

I can end only by quoting one of the wisest men to ever walk this Earth, who said simply: “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” What did Mahatma Gandhi understand that our Congress does not?