A lot of scientists, economists, politicians, and just about everybody else has a lot to say about global warming, its causes, and what needs to be done to slow it down or reverse it.
But very few address the real culprit to global warming and fewer, if any, who do address it aren't given a second of mainstream airtime to intelligently debate the issue.
What is the culprit to global warming?
Population growth. In simple terms, there are way too many people in this world.
No, I'm not talking about the doom and gloom predictions of the seventies where people lived stacked on top of each other all starving to death because there won't be enough greenspace left to grow enough crops to feed them all.
I am talking about the effects of over six and a half billion people has on the increased energy needs to clothe, house, and feed all those hungry mouths.
While the US can boast that it has more trees today than in 1900, on a global scale, the world has lost over half of its forests. Trees absorb CO2, a major greenhouse gas. As we clear the forests for more farmland, houses, roads, firewood and...well, you get the picture. It's the same as poking pinholes in your water filter. The filter can only take so many pinholes before it starts letting dirty water get through the faucet.
Six and a half billion people running around need to heat their homes in the winter, cool them in the summer, get to work (translation - drive) and factories need to burn more energy to manufacture more clothes and food, which means more greenhouse gasses are pumped into the atmosphere.
It's time to reign in uncontrolled population growth. We could start by mandating those who are slowly unraveling the moral fabric of our society be sterilized to prevent them from reproducing. In this country alone, think of the millions of births that would be prevented to the likes of rapists, murders, theives, religious fundamentalists, serial killers, and child molestors. Expand that policy to a global scale and population growth may actually be reversed.
With less people in the world, we could reforest many areas that would no longer be needed for housing or farmland. Energy companies and factories wouldn't have to produce as much, reducing pollution and greenhouse gasses.
And there will be less people on the road, which is not only good for the environment, but it would mean I might get to work on time tomorrow instead of sitting for an hour in a traffic jam.
Good night all. Time for me to duck on out of here.
Thursday, February 08, 2007
The Real Culprit in Global Warming
A lot of scientists, economists, politicians, and just about everybody else has a lot to say about global warming, its causes, and what needs to be done to slow it down or reverse it.
But very few address the real culprit to global warming and fewer, if any, who do address it aren't given a second of mainstream airtime to intelligently debate the issue.
What is the culprit to global warming?
Population growth. In simple terms, there are way too many people in this world.
No, I'm not talking about the doom and gloom predictions of the seventies where people lived stacked on top of each other all starving to death because there won't be enough greenspace left to grow enough crops to feed them all.
I am talking about the effects of over six and a half billion people has on the increased energy needs to clothe, house, and feed all those hungry mouths.
While the US can boast that it has more trees today than in 1900, on a global scale, the world has lost over half of its forests. Trees absorb CO2, a major greenhouse gas. As we clear the forests for more farmland, houses, roads, firewood and...well, you get the picture. It's the same as poking pinholes in your water filter. The filter can only take so many pinholes before it starts letting dirty water get through the faucet.
Six and a half billion people running around need to heat their homes in the winter, cool them in the summer, get to work (translation - drive) and factories need to burn more energy to manufacture more clothes and food, which means more greenhouse gasses are pumped into the atmosphere.
It's time to reign in uncontrolled population growth. We could start by mandating those who are slowly unraveling the moral fabric of our society be sterilized to prevent them from reproducing. In this country alone, think of the millions of births that would be prevented to the likes of rapists, murders, theives, religious fundamentalists, serial killers, and child molestors. Expand that policy to a global scale and population growth may actually be reversed.
With less people in the world, we could reforest many areas that would no longer be needed for housing or farmland. Energy companies and factories wouldn't have to produce as much, reducing pollution and greenhouse gasses.
And there will be less people on the road, which is not only good for the environment, but it would mean I might get to work on time tomorrow instead of sitting for an hour in a traffic jam.
Good night all. Time for me to duck on out of here.
But very few address the real culprit to global warming and fewer, if any, who do address it aren't given a second of mainstream airtime to intelligently debate the issue.
What is the culprit to global warming?
Population growth. In simple terms, there are way too many people in this world.
No, I'm not talking about the doom and gloom predictions of the seventies where people lived stacked on top of each other all starving to death because there won't be enough greenspace left to grow enough crops to feed them all.
I am talking about the effects of over six and a half billion people has on the increased energy needs to clothe, house, and feed all those hungry mouths.
While the US can boast that it has more trees today than in 1900, on a global scale, the world has lost over half of its forests. Trees absorb CO2, a major greenhouse gas. As we clear the forests for more farmland, houses, roads, firewood and...well, you get the picture. It's the same as poking pinholes in your water filter. The filter can only take so many pinholes before it starts letting dirty water get through the faucet.
Six and a half billion people running around need to heat their homes in the winter, cool them in the summer, get to work (translation - drive) and factories need to burn more energy to manufacture more clothes and food, which means more greenhouse gasses are pumped into the atmosphere.
It's time to reign in uncontrolled population growth. We could start by mandating those who are slowly unraveling the moral fabric of our society be sterilized to prevent them from reproducing. In this country alone, think of the millions of births that would be prevented to the likes of rapists, murders, theives, religious fundamentalists, serial killers, and child molestors. Expand that policy to a global scale and population growth may actually be reversed.
With less people in the world, we could reforest many areas that would no longer be needed for housing or farmland. Energy companies and factories wouldn't have to produce as much, reducing pollution and greenhouse gasses.
And there will be less people on the road, which is not only good for the environment, but it would mean I might get to work on time tomorrow instead of sitting for an hour in a traffic jam.
Good night all. Time for me to duck on out of here.
Thursday, January 18, 2007
I'd Rather Share the Road with a Drunk
You heard me right. I'd rather share the road with a drunk because at least a drunk is trying to drive. That's more than can be said for the makeup queen, the cell phone jabber, the old lady who barely peers above the steering wheel, the lost couple in an argument because he won't stop for directions and the map he's trying to read keeps flapping all around, the cow searching for that open bag of cookies in the back seat, the Mom yelling at her unruly kids in the backseat, or the nine out of ten zombies going to work or home from work.
And while a drunk pales in comparison to these drivers, none of them can hold a candlestick to the most fearsome road monster, the common idiot jerk, referred to as the agressive driver in professional circles.
The annoying ones are those who see the warning signs for a lane closure, but insist on speeding pass the slowed down traffic and then fully expect to be able to cut in line further ahead. The bad ones are those who weave in and out, cutting people off to get ahead. But if any of them deserve the full penalty of the law, and I mean license revocation for life, minimum ten years in jail, and possibly the death penalty is that assinine jerk who always manages to get behind me.
Why is it everytime I am in the fast lane doing a good fifteen or so over the limit, keeping a safe distance from the car ahead of me, this jerk manages to find me and start flashing me to get over? First, if you expect me to get over, then you get over and pass me. I'm already speeding so I don't need to go faster. Bottom line is you aren't going to go any faster than me because of the car in front of me so get over in the other lane. But if I can't go any faster because of the car in front of me, and I can't get over because of the cars next to me keeping pace, just where the Hell do you think I can move over to and just where the Hell do you think you're going to go with all those cars still in front of me?
MADD needs to expand to MAAD - Mothers Against Agressive Drivers and get these dangerous drivers off the road.
And while a drunk pales in comparison to these drivers, none of them can hold a candlestick to the most fearsome road monster, the common idiot jerk, referred to as the agressive driver in professional circles.
The annoying ones are those who see the warning signs for a lane closure, but insist on speeding pass the slowed down traffic and then fully expect to be able to cut in line further ahead. The bad ones are those who weave in and out, cutting people off to get ahead. But if any of them deserve the full penalty of the law, and I mean license revocation for life, minimum ten years in jail, and possibly the death penalty is that assinine jerk who always manages to get behind me.
Why is it everytime I am in the fast lane doing a good fifteen or so over the limit, keeping a safe distance from the car ahead of me, this jerk manages to find me and start flashing me to get over? First, if you expect me to get over, then you get over and pass me. I'm already speeding so I don't need to go faster. Bottom line is you aren't going to go any faster than me because of the car in front of me so get over in the other lane. But if I can't go any faster because of the car in front of me, and I can't get over because of the cars next to me keeping pace, just where the Hell do you think I can move over to and just where the Hell do you think you're going to go with all those cars still in front of me?
MADD needs to expand to MAAD - Mothers Against Agressive Drivers and get these dangerous drivers off the road.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
What Does Win Mean?
Well over three thousand Americans dead in Iraq. Apparently, that’s not enough so we are sending 20,000 more targets over there. Maybe with the increased targets, the insurgents will have more practice and get better at killing. We should be bringing our soldiers home, not adding to the casualty list.
Damn, that’s a liberal leftist thing to say. It might even be a quotable quote from the Democrat Party.
One thing I notice in all the debates is a lack of a “win” plan. On the left is “Bush lied to get us in the War and we need to get out” and on the right is “Bush was right to try to bring a democratic state to the Middle East and end terrorism”.
Everything since has been "Bush is wrong" or "Bush is right".
Let me be upfront. We were wrong for taking on Iraq. Hindsight is 20/20, but I even had my doubts prior to our invasion. Now I know we made the wrong decision.
But that doesn’t take away from the fact that we are there, made a mess of the country, and need to “win”. The question is “What does win mean?” Is ousting Sadam a win? If so, we won. How about forming a democratically elected government? If so, we won.
The bigger question is "How long do we give the new Iraqi government a chance to form a self-sustaining government?" Six more months? A year? Five years? And if the new Iraqi government turns into an iron-fisted dictatorship or theocracy, did we lose the war?
And is winning everything?
As long as we debate along partisan lines about exactly what we are doing in Iraq, we'll never win. Even if we withdraw our troops tomorrow and the new Iraqi government manages to establish a thriving democratic government in spite of us, we still lost the war.
We're there so now how do we ensure that we leave with a solid Iraqi govenment in place that will best serve the Iraqi people? Bush failed to give a clear plan. The Democrats fail even worse.
Damn, that’s a liberal leftist thing to say. It might even be a quotable quote from the Democrat Party.
One thing I notice in all the debates is a lack of a “win” plan. On the left is “Bush lied to get us in the War and we need to get out” and on the right is “Bush was right to try to bring a democratic state to the Middle East and end terrorism”.
Everything since has been "Bush is wrong" or "Bush is right".
Let me be upfront. We were wrong for taking on Iraq. Hindsight is 20/20, but I even had my doubts prior to our invasion. Now I know we made the wrong decision.
But that doesn’t take away from the fact that we are there, made a mess of the country, and need to “win”. The question is “What does win mean?” Is ousting Sadam a win? If so, we won. How about forming a democratically elected government? If so, we won.
The bigger question is "How long do we give the new Iraqi government a chance to form a self-sustaining government?" Six more months? A year? Five years? And if the new Iraqi government turns into an iron-fisted dictatorship or theocracy, did we lose the war?
And is winning everything?
As long as we debate along partisan lines about exactly what we are doing in Iraq, we'll never win. Even if we withdraw our troops tomorrow and the new Iraqi government manages to establish a thriving democratic government in spite of us, we still lost the war.
We're there so now how do we ensure that we leave with a solid Iraqi govenment in place that will best serve the Iraqi people? Bush failed to give a clear plan. The Democrats fail even worse.
Friday, December 22, 2006
It's as bad as the War in Iraq
I'm talking about the War on Christmas. You know, that war where the rallying cry is "They're trying to take Christ out of Christmas!" Under the leadership of the ACLU, nativity scenes are being shoved in the closet and the big stores like Walmart and Target instruct their employees to say "Happy Holidays", but are never, ever to utter the word, "Christmas".
The atheists and secularists are losing and losing shamefully. Despite the well-organized, all-out effort to remove Christ from Christmas, those pesky Christians, like terrorists, pop up everywhere to drop the "Merry Christmas" bomb.
"How", you might ask, "do you know the War on Christmas is being lost?"
Let's take my typical day, today, as an example.
I stopped in an Exxon station for my donut like I do every morning. As I left, I said to the clerk, "You have a Merry Christmas."
He responded, "Thank you and you have a Merry Christmas, too."
As I walked out the door, it dawned on me that his name is Wasim and he is obviously of Mideastern decent, which means there's a good chance he isn't Christian. Considering the nature and spirit of the exchange, though, I don't think Wasim lives in fear that Exxon may fire him.
I could be wrong. If he's not around next week, maybe Exxon did fire him. Not only did he dare to speak the word, Christmas, but if he's not Christian then that means he turned on his own kind. I shudder to think what might happen to him. In addition to being fired, he might be brought to trial on charges of being a traitor and have to face the death penalty.
I thought no more of the innocent exchange until I got to work. There's about 800 employees and the CEO of the company is Jewish. Surely the War on Christmas must be experiencing victory on this battlefield.
Nope. Those pesky Christians infiltrated the company and, gasp, dared to decorate their cubes with not only secularist decorations but also Christian symbols - an angel here, the word Christmas there, and the Star of Bethlehem shining over it all. Sure, the Christian symbolism is subdued, but most certainly there.
Oh, and I lost count how many employees wished me a "Merry Christmas". That word is spoken freely and without penalty on this battlefield.
I went out to the parking garage to smoke a cigarette.
Hmmm, now there is a war being won - the War on Smokers.
But back on topic.
Like a common criminal, I went to smoke my cig in hiding. I struck up a conversation with another guy, Marc, like I do every day. "So Marc, do you know where I can get a good deal on a Christmas tree, one that I can plant after the holidays?"
"Hell if I know. I'm Jewish."
"Oh. Well, Happy Hannukah, I guess."
"I don't celebrate Hannukah, but thank you. And Merry Christmas to you."
"Thank you, but I really don't celebrate Christmas. It costs too much."
We both got a good laugh, finished our cigarettes, and went back to work. Neither one of us lost our jobs, had a scolding from our supervisors, or ended up in front of our human resources rep.
I have a feeling that my experience today is typical of almost everyone's day. The War on Christmas is being fought all around us, but no one seems to notice - or care.
That's probably because there is no War on Christmas. Most people run around wondering if they can get off work early and if they can beat the crowds at the stores to finish their last minute Christmas shopping. They're making a list of last minute gifts they need to pick up and wondering if someone will be giving them the gifts they really want. Christmas morning, on the way to Church, they'll think about Jesus, but all the time building up to that genuine moment of Christmas celebration, the Christian aspect of the holiday is AWOL in most peoples' minds.
Of course, there are exceptions. There are people who live and breath Jesus. They're the ones who see the War on Christmas and they are the soldiers fighting the War. Hey, all the power to them. I wish them the best, and a Merry Christmas.
And I'm sure their daughter, Carrie, will be a big hit at her senior prom some day.
For the rest of us, another Christmas will soon be upon us and gone. Then we can shed all our compassion and goodwill to men and pick on the smokers, again. That war hasn't been won - yet.
The atheists and secularists are losing and losing shamefully. Despite the well-organized, all-out effort to remove Christ from Christmas, those pesky Christians, like terrorists, pop up everywhere to drop the "Merry Christmas" bomb.
"How", you might ask, "do you know the War on Christmas is being lost?"
Let's take my typical day, today, as an example.
I stopped in an Exxon station for my donut like I do every morning. As I left, I said to the clerk, "You have a Merry Christmas."
He responded, "Thank you and you have a Merry Christmas, too."
As I walked out the door, it dawned on me that his name is Wasim and he is obviously of Mideastern decent, which means there's a good chance he isn't Christian. Considering the nature and spirit of the exchange, though, I don't think Wasim lives in fear that Exxon may fire him.
I could be wrong. If he's not around next week, maybe Exxon did fire him. Not only did he dare to speak the word, Christmas, but if he's not Christian then that means he turned on his own kind. I shudder to think what might happen to him. In addition to being fired, he might be brought to trial on charges of being a traitor and have to face the death penalty.
I thought no more of the innocent exchange until I got to work. There's about 800 employees and the CEO of the company is Jewish. Surely the War on Christmas must be experiencing victory on this battlefield.
Nope. Those pesky Christians infiltrated the company and, gasp, dared to decorate their cubes with not only secularist decorations but also Christian symbols - an angel here, the word Christmas there, and the Star of Bethlehem shining over it all. Sure, the Christian symbolism is subdued, but most certainly there.
Oh, and I lost count how many employees wished me a "Merry Christmas". That word is spoken freely and without penalty on this battlefield.
I went out to the parking garage to smoke a cigarette.
Hmmm, now there is a war being won - the War on Smokers.
But back on topic.
Like a common criminal, I went to smoke my cig in hiding. I struck up a conversation with another guy, Marc, like I do every day. "So Marc, do you know where I can get a good deal on a Christmas tree, one that I can plant after the holidays?"
"Hell if I know. I'm Jewish."
"Oh. Well, Happy Hannukah, I guess."
"I don't celebrate Hannukah, but thank you. And Merry Christmas to you."
"Thank you, but I really don't celebrate Christmas. It costs too much."
We both got a good laugh, finished our cigarettes, and went back to work. Neither one of us lost our jobs, had a scolding from our supervisors, or ended up in front of our human resources rep.
I have a feeling that my experience today is typical of almost everyone's day. The War on Christmas is being fought all around us, but no one seems to notice - or care.
That's probably because there is no War on Christmas. Most people run around wondering if they can get off work early and if they can beat the crowds at the stores to finish their last minute Christmas shopping. They're making a list of last minute gifts they need to pick up and wondering if someone will be giving them the gifts they really want. Christmas morning, on the way to Church, they'll think about Jesus, but all the time building up to that genuine moment of Christmas celebration, the Christian aspect of the holiday is AWOL in most peoples' minds.
Of course, there are exceptions. There are people who live and breath Jesus. They're the ones who see the War on Christmas and they are the soldiers fighting the War. Hey, all the power to them. I wish them the best, and a Merry Christmas.
And I'm sure their daughter, Carrie, will be a big hit at her senior prom some day.
For the rest of us, another Christmas will soon be upon us and gone. Then we can shed all our compassion and goodwill to men and pick on the smokers, again. That war hasn't been won - yet.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
I Hate America
That's the common theme I've heard since I was a kid. No, no one outright says, "I hate America", but listen to them long enough and you have to wonder what they like about America if America is so wrong.
The laundry list is long. Americans are rude overseas. American foreign policy has screwed up more countries than it's helped. American support of Israel created the Mideast turmoil. American news caters to the lowest common denominator - short blips of what the news people think Americans want to hear because their attention span is much too short to grasp anything more complex. Americans are the biggest global polluters and largest consumers of natural resources. American military is guilty of condoned human rights abuses. Americans still sentence criminals to that barabric practice of the death penalty. Americans can't feed their own poor, but the rich keep getting richer. Americans think their culture is the only one that counts and don't care to respect other cultures.
Americans [fill in the blank here].
For Americans being the rude, bumbling oafs they are, one glaring point stands out: Americans don't go around bashing every little detail of another country's people and culture. (Ok, maybe the French, but France isn't a real country.)
Why do so many people in other countries find it perfectly acceptable to criticize anything American? In fact, without living in this country, isn't it rude for non-Americans to be criticizing every little aspect of American life? For the life of me I can never figure out how a foreigner can say "The average American has no clue or doesn't care or is too uninformed or..." when odds are that foreigner probably has never even talked to an average American.
Yup, never talked to an average American. How do I know that? Simple. The foreigner is always quick to point out how rude and arrogant the average American is. Who makes it a point to talk to rude, arrogant people?
I sure don't, which is why I don't talk to foreigners. Maybe some day they'll learn to respect other cultures, including the American culture.
The laundry list is long. Americans are rude overseas. American foreign policy has screwed up more countries than it's helped. American support of Israel created the Mideast turmoil. American news caters to the lowest common denominator - short blips of what the news people think Americans want to hear because their attention span is much too short to grasp anything more complex. Americans are the biggest global polluters and largest consumers of natural resources. American military is guilty of condoned human rights abuses. Americans still sentence criminals to that barabric practice of the death penalty. Americans can't feed their own poor, but the rich keep getting richer. Americans think their culture is the only one that counts and don't care to respect other cultures.
Americans [fill in the blank here].
For Americans being the rude, bumbling oafs they are, one glaring point stands out: Americans don't go around bashing every little detail of another country's people and culture. (Ok, maybe the French, but France isn't a real country.)
Why do so many people in other countries find it perfectly acceptable to criticize anything American? In fact, without living in this country, isn't it rude for non-Americans to be criticizing every little aspect of American life? For the life of me I can never figure out how a foreigner can say "The average American has no clue or doesn't care or is too uninformed or..." when odds are that foreigner probably has never even talked to an average American.
Yup, never talked to an average American. How do I know that? Simple. The foreigner is always quick to point out how rude and arrogant the average American is. Who makes it a point to talk to rude, arrogant people?
I sure don't, which is why I don't talk to foreigners. Maybe some day they'll learn to respect other cultures, including the American culture.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
Is This a Fair Comparison?
Somone once said the difference between Muslim extremists and Christian extremists is one is 90% physically violent and 10% psychologically violent and the other is 90% psychologically violent and 10% physically violent.
We can guess which is which.
Sure, Christians don't fly planes into buildings, but remember, it was a Christian who committed the second largest terrorist attack against this country resulting in the second largest number of deaths on American soil - second only to 9/11.
And, of course, some Christians have called for the assasination of a foreign president, bombed abortion clinics, killed abortion doctors, alienated the "heathens" by demanding their "born again" conversion else burn in Hell, strive to enshrine parts of their religion in law, and have gone all out to demonize the second largest religion in the world - Islam.
In comparison, some Muslims have called for the assasination of an author, bombed just about anything, killed those who oppose Islam, alienated the "infidels" by demanding their complete acceptance of Islam else face a fatwah, make their religion the law of the land, and have gone all out to demonize anything Western or Jewish.
So how accurate is the comparison?
We can guess which is which.
Sure, Christians don't fly planes into buildings, but remember, it was a Christian who committed the second largest terrorist attack against this country resulting in the second largest number of deaths on American soil - second only to 9/11.
And, of course, some Christians have called for the assasination of a foreign president, bombed abortion clinics, killed abortion doctors, alienated the "heathens" by demanding their "born again" conversion else burn in Hell, strive to enshrine parts of their religion in law, and have gone all out to demonize the second largest religion in the world - Islam.
In comparison, some Muslims have called for the assasination of an author, bombed just about anything, killed those who oppose Islam, alienated the "infidels" by demanding their complete acceptance of Islam else face a fatwah, make their religion the law of the land, and have gone all out to demonize anything Western or Jewish.
So how accurate is the comparison?
Thursday, November 23, 2006
A Group Gone Too Far?
Or maybe outlived it's usefulness?
Prior to 1980, the laws and attitudes towards drunk driving were lax - almost as if drunk driving was an acceptable fact of life. But 1980 saw the formation of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Through their efforts, public awareness was raised, laws were toughened, and drunk driving deaths took a nose dive.
Over the last few years, the decline has plateaued, remaining at around 13,000 deaths per year due to drunk driving.
MADD has decided to take a more agressive path to get that number declining again, preferably to zero. They are calling for a breathalyzer in every vehicle for every person convicted of a DUI, even first-time offenders. To start the car, the driver has to breathe into a tube and if he's over the legal limit, the car won't start.
Sounds noble until you consider a few things. First, such a device would mean that a 120-pound woman who drinks two glasses of wine during a two-hour dinner won't be able to get her car started. Second, the device can be rigged to require the driver to blow in the tube periodically during a course of a trip to ensure he didn't enter the vehicle sober and then started drinking or had a sober friend blow in the tube to begin with. And third, everything in this country is set on precedence. Rumors (and I emphsize rumors) are being whispered that the ultimate goal of this program is to require this device in every newly manufactured vehicle as "standard equipment". Not only that, but there is equipment that can monitor every movement in the car as well as the air quality, and if alcohol is suspected, the car can shut down.
I don't know about you, but I don't need Big Brother in my car. I'm all for getting drunk drivers off of the road, but I draw the line at requiring equipment in my car that presumes I'm guilty before I start the engine.
Prior to 1980, the laws and attitudes towards drunk driving were lax - almost as if drunk driving was an acceptable fact of life. But 1980 saw the formation of Mothers Against Drunk Driving. Through their efforts, public awareness was raised, laws were toughened, and drunk driving deaths took a nose dive.
Over the last few years, the decline has plateaued, remaining at around 13,000 deaths per year due to drunk driving.
MADD has decided to take a more agressive path to get that number declining again, preferably to zero. They are calling for a breathalyzer in every vehicle for every person convicted of a DUI, even first-time offenders. To start the car, the driver has to breathe into a tube and if he's over the legal limit, the car won't start.
Sounds noble until you consider a few things. First, such a device would mean that a 120-pound woman who drinks two glasses of wine during a two-hour dinner won't be able to get her car started. Second, the device can be rigged to require the driver to blow in the tube periodically during a course of a trip to ensure he didn't enter the vehicle sober and then started drinking or had a sober friend blow in the tube to begin with. And third, everything in this country is set on precedence. Rumors (and I emphsize rumors) are being whispered that the ultimate goal of this program is to require this device in every newly manufactured vehicle as "standard equipment". Not only that, but there is equipment that can monitor every movement in the car as well as the air quality, and if alcohol is suspected, the car can shut down.
I don't know about you, but I don't need Big Brother in my car. I'm all for getting drunk drivers off of the road, but I draw the line at requiring equipment in my car that presumes I'm guilty before I start the engine.
Tuesday, November 14, 2006
Catholic Bishops Are So Understanding
American Catholic bishops on Tuesday called on gays to live a life of celibacy, but still referred to homosexuality as "disordered". They also encouraged gay Catholics to remain in the closet, both spiritually and sexually, by only telling a close circle of family and clergy of their homosexuality. -story
The bright note?
They declined to endorse reparative therapy, claiming there was no evidence it was effective. Instead, they called on homosexual Catholics to seek therapy that would help them lead a life of celibacy.
They still oppose gay couples adopting, but do encourage children of gay parents to be baptized.
At their anuual meeting, they also called on Catholics, especially those of child-bearing years, to shun birth control methods.
"The goal is not negative to stop people from doing things," George said. "The goal is positive—to give themselves entirely to Christ and to do that lovingly. So the goal is to empty yourself of yourself and hold nothing back, including your own fertility, and embrace human life and sacrifice yourself for the sake of something greater."
Perhaps the real motive against contraception - produce more babies because we're losing too many Catholics rejecting our shallow, and sometimes backwards, way of thinking? I'd like to see the New Way Ministries (a break-away Catholic religion who accepts homosexuality) issue their own paper, one encouraging condom use among homosexuals and celibacy for heterosexual Catholics, especially thos of child-bearing years.
The bright note?
They declined to endorse reparative therapy, claiming there was no evidence it was effective. Instead, they called on homosexual Catholics to seek therapy that would help them lead a life of celibacy.
They still oppose gay couples adopting, but do encourage children of gay parents to be baptized.
At their anuual meeting, they also called on Catholics, especially those of child-bearing years, to shun birth control methods.
"The goal is not negative to stop people from doing things," George said. "The goal is positive—to give themselves entirely to Christ and to do that lovingly. So the goal is to empty yourself of yourself and hold nothing back, including your own fertility, and embrace human life and sacrifice yourself for the sake of something greater."
Perhaps the real motive against contraception - produce more babies because we're losing too many Catholics rejecting our shallow, and sometimes backwards, way of thinking? I'd like to see the New Way Ministries (a break-away Catholic religion who accepts homosexuality) issue their own paper, one encouraging condom use among homosexuals and celibacy for heterosexual Catholics, especially thos of child-bearing years.
Wednesday, November 08, 2006
Homophobia Is Homophobia, Mr. Hyman
Here's a new one. Yeah, I know. I've been kind of slacking. (For anyone new to this blog, periodically, I counter the general manager of the Sinclair Corporation, parent company of Fox News. I encourage everyone to lend him an earful.)
Mark Hyman took three days to try to link the ACLU to the support of pedophilia. I won't rehash all three reports here, but do encourage everyone to take a look at his remarks (use the drop down menu and choose the ones titled NAMBLA).
My response to his three-days of lying:
Wow! It took you three days to blow a thick smoke screen in an attempt to convince your viewers the ACLU supports pedophilia. The only problem is most of your viewers can see through the twisted facts and lies.
Point one: the ACLU is not against the Boy Scouts nor do they wish to not “separate men from copulating with young boys.”
First, according to the FBI, 90% of the pedophiles are heterosexual, not homosexual. By your reasoning, there should be no scout leaders.
Second, the very homophobic implication that homosexuals want sex with young boys warrants an apology on your part to your viewers and homosexuals.
Third, the ACLU is against discrimination, born out of homophobic myths like the one you have tried to perpetuate. They only argued that if the Boy Scouts receive public money and use public facilities, then they have to scrap their discriminatory practices against homosexuals.
Point two: the ACLU did not support NAMBLA. What they did support is free speech. Since the material NAMBLA publishes is not illegal, the ACLU argued that the group cannot be held liable for any crime committed because someone “got ideas” from their literature.
Now think of the implication for a moment. Every night I watch your reporters teach me how to deal drugs, rob banks, of kill someone. Sure, they don’t give me the lessons all at once, but each story reported gives me ideas of what I should and should not do if I were to commit a crime.
Do you want every criminal behind bars suing you for putting ideas in their head that caused them to commit their crime?
Perhaps they should sue you for giving them faulty information, much like this three-day expose on the ACLU and NAMBLA.
Mark Hyman took three days to try to link the ACLU to the support of pedophilia. I won't rehash all three reports here, but do encourage everyone to take a look at his remarks (use the drop down menu and choose the ones titled NAMBLA).
My response to his three-days of lying:
Wow! It took you three days to blow a thick smoke screen in an attempt to convince your viewers the ACLU supports pedophilia. The only problem is most of your viewers can see through the twisted facts and lies.
Point one: the ACLU is not against the Boy Scouts nor do they wish to not “separate men from copulating with young boys.”
First, according to the FBI, 90% of the pedophiles are heterosexual, not homosexual. By your reasoning, there should be no scout leaders.
Second, the very homophobic implication that homosexuals want sex with young boys warrants an apology on your part to your viewers and homosexuals.
Third, the ACLU is against discrimination, born out of homophobic myths like the one you have tried to perpetuate. They only argued that if the Boy Scouts receive public money and use public facilities, then they have to scrap their discriminatory practices against homosexuals.
Point two: the ACLU did not support NAMBLA. What they did support is free speech. Since the material NAMBLA publishes is not illegal, the ACLU argued that the group cannot be held liable for any crime committed because someone “got ideas” from their literature.
Now think of the implication for a moment. Every night I watch your reporters teach me how to deal drugs, rob banks, of kill someone. Sure, they don’t give me the lessons all at once, but each story reported gives me ideas of what I should and should not do if I were to commit a crime.
Do you want every criminal behind bars suing you for putting ideas in their head that caused them to commit their crime?
Perhaps they should sue you for giving them faulty information, much like this three-day expose on the ACLU and NAMBLA.
Tuesday, November 07, 2006
Protect the Everglades of the North - Final Outcome
Yesterday, it was announced that over 700 acres of the 1,000 acre proposed site will be sold to the state to become a permanent part of the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge. We're assured (ahem) that the announcement's timing has nothing to do with today's election.
The Critical Bay Commission nixed the hotel, convention center, retail center, and golf course but did allow the 2,700 homes since they were far back from the Little Black River. With the crux of the project (read, moneymaker) axed, the developer decided to negotiate the sale with the state and settled for building a654 homes, instead, that will mostly cater to the elderly.
The developer will still get 10.4 million for that 700 acres, though. I wonder if he will take some of his profit from the sale and donate it to the refuge he threatened to destroy.
Probably not. Stay tuned. I'll see what I can find out.
The Critical Bay Commission nixed the hotel, convention center, retail center, and golf course but did allow the 2,700 homes since they were far back from the Little Black River. With the crux of the project (read, moneymaker) axed, the developer decided to negotiate the sale with the state and settled for building a654 homes, instead, that will mostly cater to the elderly.
The developer will still get 10.4 million for that 700 acres, though. I wonder if he will take some of his profit from the sale and donate it to the refuge he threatened to destroy.
Probably not. Stay tuned. I'll see what I can find out.
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Protect the Everglades of the North - Governor's & Gubantorial Candidate Letters
Here are the next two sample letters. As usual, they are presented as guidelines to help you get started on your own letter; however, feel free to use them ver batim if you feel uncomfortable writing your own.
Both these letters are important ones. The letter to Governor Ehrlich urges him to intervene in the project on behalf of the state. The letter Mayor Martin O'Malley subtlely encourages him to take a public stand on the project forcing it into a campaign issue. That may add pressure to Governor Ehrlich to intervene.
As a reminder, in order of most impressiveness on elected officials:
- Snail mail followed by phone call
- Snail mail
- Phone call
Any method you decide to use will be a great help.
Governor Ehrlich:
Contact:
Office of the Governor
The Honorable Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr.
State HouseAnnapolis, Maryland
21401-1925410.974.3901 (PH)
410.974.3275(Fax)
Toll Free 1.800.811.8336
TDD 410.333.3098
MD Relay 1.800.735.2258
webmail: http://www.gov.state.md.us/mail/
Dear Governor Ehrlich,
I am writing you with regards to the proposed Blackwater resort project tentatively approved by the Dorchester County and City of Cambridge commisioners. I urge you to intervene on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of Marylanders who, directly or indirectly, depend on the Chesapeake Bay for their livilihood.
The proposed project will butress the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge. Managers of the refuge have expressed their concern that the project will put the habitat and surrounding marshlands in jeopardy. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has publically declared its firm opposition to the development. A full 73% of the voting residents of Dorchester County oppose the project.
All share the fear that the 1,000 acre project, over three hundred of which cut through critical bay habitat, will seriously damage, if not destroy, the refuge and surrounding marshlands. Damage to the wetlands will have a ripple effect far beyond the Dorchester County line. Being an important nursery for the fish and crabs of the Chesapeake Bay, fishermen and crabbers up and down the Bay will feel the crunch in lower catches and businesses dependent on the seafood harvests - both commercial and tourist orientated - will feel the pinch in higher prices or in a search for better fishing grounds outside of the Bay.
While I do appreciate the local governments' desire to spurn economic growth in their communities, the laws governing critical bay habitat development shouldn't be broken just to make a fast buck today. People come to the marshlands to enjoy its natural beauty. If the resort being built to accomodate these people end up destroying the marshlands, they will stop coming. All the jobs and revenue createdby the project will dry up tomorrow and hundreds of thousands of Marylanders up and down the Bay and in Dorchester County will pay a heavy price for the bad decisions being made today.
I urge you to step in and encourage the Dorchester County and City of Cambridge commissoners to reconsider the project. The Chesapeake Bay Foundation has offered a good solution: move the project closer to the heart of Cambridge to revitalize depressed sections of the city and designate the 1,000 acres of the proposed site as a buffer zone between the delicate wetlands and the future growth of Cambridge.
This sounds like a solid and smart plan to follow.
Sincerely,
[Your name here]
Mayor Martin O'Malley:
Contact:
Campaign Headquarters
2400 Boston Street
Suite 203
Baltimore, MD 21224
Phone: 410-814-4206
Fax: 410-814-4218
email: email: campaign@martinomalley.com
Dear Mayor Martin O'Malley,
As a leading gubanatorial candidate, I would like to know your stand on the proposed Blackwater resort project tentatively approved by the Dorchester County and City of Cambridge commisioners. Unfortunately, if the project goes through as planned, groundbreaking will begin in October, a month before the election, but your stand on this project will give me and Maryland voters a good idea where you might stand on any future development plans along the Chesapeake Bay.
The resort project may not be an election year hot topic, but it is extremely important to the 73% of voters in Dorchester County who oppose it and to the tens of thousands of Marylanders who have already signed the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's petition urging Governor Ehrlich to intervene on behalf of the state.
Hundreds of thousands of Marylanders depend on the Bay, either directly or indirectly, for their livlihood. They are keenly sensitive to any issues that may threaten their way of life such as destruction or damage to major wetlands that the Blackwater resort may cause. I know I, and many other Marylanders, eagerly await your public stand on the Blackwater project and the future of the Chesapeake Bay.
Sincerely,
[Your name here]
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Protect "The Everglades of the North" - Commisioners' Sample Letters
As part of the ongoing effort to protect the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge and the surrounding marshlands, below is a sample letter to use if you decide to write the Mayor of Cambridge and the Cambridge and County commissioners - all who have supported the resort project.
A few formalities first.
A few formalities first.
- The sample letter below is a guidline to help you get started on your own. However, you may feel free to use it ver batim especially if you're uncomfortable writing your own.
- In order of most impressiveness on elected officials:
-Snail mail followed by phone call
-Snail mail
-Phone call
-Email - Proper envelope addressing will be "The Honorable" for mayor and "Commisioner" for city and county commisioners.
Contacts
City of Cambridge and Cambridge Mayor:
Commisioners Kenneth P. Knox, Donald Sydnor, La-Shon M. Brooks, Gilbert (Gil) Cephas, Walter Lee Travers
[Elected official's full name]
City Hall
307 Gay Street
P.O. Box 255
Cambridge, MD 21613
Phone:
410-228-4020
410-228-4554 (Fax)
1-800-735-2258 (TTY)
Email:
info@ci.cambridge.md.us
County Commisioners:
Glenn L. BrambleWork:
(410) 228-5272
E-Mail: gbramble@docogonet.com
Effie M. Elzey
Home: (410) 228-8736 (Please note that the home phone is publically listed on the Dorchester County Government's official website.)
E-Mail: effie@shorecable.com
E-Mail: eelzey@council.docogonet.com
William V. Nichols
Home: (410) 221-1371 (Please note that the home phone is publically listed on the Dorchester County Government's official website.)
E-Mail: mailto:wnichols@docogonet.com
David Yockey
Work: (410) 943-4025
E-Mail: dyockey@docogonet.com
dyockey@comcast.net
Ricky Travers
Work: 410-228-4313
Home: 410-228-1532 (Please note that the home phone is publically listed on the Dorchester County Government's official website.)
E-Mail: travers@fastol.com
Jane Baynard
Work: 410-228-1700
Fax: 410-228-9641
E-Mail: jbaynard@docogonet.com
Address for all:
Commisioner [full name]
County Council of Dorchester County
County Office Building
P.O. Box 26
Cambridge, Maryland 21613
(410) 228-1700
Sample Letter:
Dear Mr. (Ms.) [mayor's or commisioners' full name here]:
I am writing you with regards to the proposed Blackwater resort project. While I do recognize your sincere desire to spurn economic growth in Cambridge and Dorchester County, I believe the site location for the proposed project will do more harm than good in the long run.
I urge you to seriously consider the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's reccomendation to move the proposed resort closer to the heart of Cambridge or another suitable location already approved for development and designate the present 1,000 acre site as a buffer zone between Cambridge's future growth and the wetlands encompassing and surrounding the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge.
Since 1938, over 8,000 acres of marshland has laready been lost primarily due to natural causes. Despite the best efforts of the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge managers, Army Corps of engineers, and the Baltimore National Aquarium, the marsh still looses about 130 acres per year primarily from rising sea levels due to global warming and wave action from the increased area of open water. In fact, the U.S. Geological Survey ran a conservative model of the refuge showing a good portion of it will be under water within the next forty-five years. Despite the best efforts of many organizations trying to save the drowning marsh, rising sea levels can't be stopped. Hopefully, the marshlands will have time to adjust by slowly moving inland as the water levels rise.
Placing a resort on the edge of the refuge and allowing it to cut into over three hundred acres of designated critical bay areas will surely speed up the demise of the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge and the surrounding marshlands. Storm runoff will inundate the marsh with pollutants from paved surfaces; and fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides from homoeowners lawns and the golf course. The greater increase in the freshwater flow into the marsh will surely alter the salinity levels. All this can only spell disaster for the fragile ecosystem.
And even if the above scenario fails to play out as the experts fear, the marsh will have nowhere to move inland as the sea levels rise. The resort will be in the way.
The big attraction for building the resort is the refuge and marshlands. That is what people will come to see and enjoy. While the short-term spurt in economic growth may be an economic boon for a few years, once the marsh disappears so will all the people who come to enjoy it. The harmful effects won't stop at he county line, either. The death of the marshlands will have a ripple effect up and down the Chesapeake Bay's shores and will be felt by the hundreds of thousands of Marylanders - if not more - who depend, directly or indirectly, on the Bay for their livilihood.
The Blackwater Wildlife Refuge and surrounding marshlands are one of Cambridge's and Dorchester County's greatest and most valuable asset. Planned growth to benefit the citizens should be made around protecting this asset for today's and tomorrow's generations.
Sincerely,
[Your name here]
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
Protect "The Everglades of the North" - Update
In my previous post, point one directs you to an online petition. If you notice, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation provides a printable version for people to circulate in their communities and return to them by 23 Jun.
I just received an email from Mr. Terry Cummings of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation confirming that the deadline has been extended to 21 Jul! He stated that because of an unexpected large response to new signatures, they extended the deadline.
So please, sign the online petition and if you are inclined, gather signatures and mail the petition to the Foundation.
I just received an email from Mr. Terry Cummings of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation confirming that the deadline has been extended to 21 Jul! He stated that because of an unexpected large response to new signatures, they extended the deadline.
So please, sign the online petition and if you are inclined, gather signatures and mail the petition to the Foundation.
Protect "The Everglades of the North" - Intro
The Blackwater Wildlife refuge, a 27,000 acre refuge of marshland for the threatened bald eagle and endangered Delmarva fox squirrel, is under attack. Designated a critical wetlands area, the marshes provide important habitat for over 250 species of birds, is a major wintering route under the Atlantic flyway (the main route taken by many migratory birds), is home to the largest colony of nesting bald eagles in the 48 states except for Florida, and acts as a major nursery for much of the Chesapeake Bay life - seafood many watermen up and down the Bay depend on for their livilihood. It has earned the nickname of "The Everglades of the North" because of its size and variety of wildlife.
Since 1938, over 8,000 acres of marshland has been lost at the rate of about 130 acres per year. Once recognizable channels and ponds are now submerged. A US Geological Survey study predicts that by 2050, most of the marshland will be open water. In effect, the marshland is drowning.
The largest contribitors to the marsh's decline has been the introduction of nutria, a South American rodent broght to the marshes to boost the fur trade, rising sea levels that alter the salinity of the marsh, and an increase in wave energy produced from the ever-expanding open water.
While the managers of the wetlands work with Baltimore's National Aquarium and the Army Corps of Engineers to restore the marsh, a new threat looms on the horizon. A developer has won approval to build an 800 acre resort comprising of 2,700 homes, a 100-room hotel, a conference center, a retail center, and a golf course next to the refuge. Three hundred thirteen of the acres will cut through the designated critical habitat of the wetlands. Normally, that means very strict building guidelines need to be followed in critical areas. For example, new homes must be separated by 20 acres of land; every tree a property owner cuts down must be replaced with a new tree; vegetation destroyed for other than maintence of an existing lawn must be replaced in certain percentages elsewhere on the property. These laws are waived for the developer of the Blackwater resort.
To date, no environmental impact study has been completed. Mangers of the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge, however, have expressed their concern. The project is only hundreds of feet away from the Little Black River, which feeds directly into the wildlife refuge. They estimated the project would add 12-13% more impervious surface to the area (roads and parking lots). With soil already sitting on a high water table, storm runoff from the development would inundate the marsh with pollution from the road surfaces and fetilizers, insecticides, and herbicides from the golf course and home owner lawns. Previous studies on wetlands have already shown that a 10% addition of impervious surfaces result in substantial loss of fish life in the surrounding wetlands and sharp drop in quality of the water.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation is more outspoken in its opposition to the proposed project. Recognizing the city of Cambridge's desire to attract new business and spurn economic growth, they encourage the project to be moved into the city itself or in areas already designated for growth and make the presently proposed site for the project a permanent natural barrier between Cambridge's growth and the delicate wetlands.
And what do the residents of Dorchester County think? They are, after all, the ones who stand to gain the most (economic opportunities) or lose the most (loss of quality of life, destruction of their environment, loss of economic growth - those who depend on the marsh and the bay for their livilihood). A full 73% of voting residents oppose the Blackwater development plan.
But if the Dorchester County and City of Cambridge councils get their way, groundbreaking for the new resort will begin in October.
With this background, I urge all Marylanders to do any or all of the following to protect the wetlands: (You may use any letter samples ver batim or as a guidline to creating your own):
Obviously, I have quite a few letters to write. Over the next two weeks or so, I'll be posting them. But I wanted to get this up so any Marylanders can at least sign the petition (the first thing in my long list to do) before Thursday's town meeting. I reckon if you don't live in MD, but have visited the refuge, there's no reason why you shouldn't voice your concern, too. And heck, if after visiting the website of the refuge and seeing what is all there, I reckon it wouldn't hurt to voice your opinion through one of the appropriate outlets listed above like a letter to the editor or something.
Since 1938, over 8,000 acres of marshland has been lost at the rate of about 130 acres per year. Once recognizable channels and ponds are now submerged. A US Geological Survey study predicts that by 2050, most of the marshland will be open water. In effect, the marshland is drowning.
The largest contribitors to the marsh's decline has been the introduction of nutria, a South American rodent broght to the marshes to boost the fur trade, rising sea levels that alter the salinity of the marsh, and an increase in wave energy produced from the ever-expanding open water.
While the managers of the wetlands work with Baltimore's National Aquarium and the Army Corps of Engineers to restore the marsh, a new threat looms on the horizon. A developer has won approval to build an 800 acre resort comprising of 2,700 homes, a 100-room hotel, a conference center, a retail center, and a golf course next to the refuge. Three hundred thirteen of the acres will cut through the designated critical habitat of the wetlands. Normally, that means very strict building guidelines need to be followed in critical areas. For example, new homes must be separated by 20 acres of land; every tree a property owner cuts down must be replaced with a new tree; vegetation destroyed for other than maintence of an existing lawn must be replaced in certain percentages elsewhere on the property. These laws are waived for the developer of the Blackwater resort.
To date, no environmental impact study has been completed. Mangers of the Blackwater Wildlife Refuge, however, have expressed their concern. The project is only hundreds of feet away from the Little Black River, which feeds directly into the wildlife refuge. They estimated the project would add 12-13% more impervious surface to the area (roads and parking lots). With soil already sitting on a high water table, storm runoff from the development would inundate the marsh with pollution from the road surfaces and fetilizers, insecticides, and herbicides from the golf course and home owner lawns. Previous studies on wetlands have already shown that a 10% addition of impervious surfaces result in substantial loss of fish life in the surrounding wetlands and sharp drop in quality of the water.
The Chesapeake Bay Foundation is more outspoken in its opposition to the proposed project. Recognizing the city of Cambridge's desire to attract new business and spurn economic growth, they encourage the project to be moved into the city itself or in areas already designated for growth and make the presently proposed site for the project a permanent natural barrier between Cambridge's growth and the delicate wetlands.
And what do the residents of Dorchester County think? They are, after all, the ones who stand to gain the most (economic opportunities) or lose the most (loss of quality of life, destruction of their environment, loss of economic growth - those who depend on the marsh and the bay for their livilihood). A full 73% of voting residents oppose the Blackwater development plan.
But if the Dorchester County and City of Cambridge councils get their way, groundbreaking for the new resort will begin in October.
With this background, I urge all Marylanders to do any or all of the following to protect the wetlands: (You may use any letter samples ver batim or as a guidline to creating your own):
Sign the Chesapeake Bay Foundation's Petition (http://www.cbf.org/site/PageServer?pagename=bw_home)
Write the Dorchester County and City of Cambridge council members, the two councils that have given the green light for the project. (Sample letter and contacts to follow.)
Write Governor Ehrlich asking for state intervention. (Sample letter and contact to follow.)
Write Mayor Martin O'Malley of Baltimore and gubernatorial candidate. Force the project to become an election year hot button. (Sample letter and contact to follow.)
Write the major news stations encouraging them to cover the story. (Sample letters and contacts to follow.)
Write an editorial/letter to the editor to the two popular newspapers. (Sample letters and contacts to follow.)
Write the state senator and rep urging state intervention. (Sample letters and contacts to follow.)
Write the Department of Interior urging federal intervention. (Sample letter and contact to follow.)
Write MD Senators and District Rep urging federal intervention. (Sample letters and contacts to follow.)
Obviously, I have quite a few letters to write. Over the next two weeks or so, I'll be posting them. But I wanted to get this up so any Marylanders can at least sign the petition (the first thing in my long list to do) before Thursday's town meeting. I reckon if you don't live in MD, but have visited the refuge, there's no reason why you shouldn't voice your concern, too. And heck, if after visiting the website of the refuge and seeing what is all there, I reckon it wouldn't hurt to voice your opinion through one of the appropriate outlets listed above like a letter to the editor or something.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Single Is Not A Disease
I happened to watch the Today Show this morning. I know, who in their right mind gets up before twelve noon on a Saturday? Trust me, I don’t do that often. But my getting up way too early on a Saturday morning is not the subject I want to talk about. A story they had on about being single rubbed me the wrong way. Being single is what I want to talk about.
The authors of a new book tell us why we’re single, and if you’re single, it’s your fault. No, I don’t know who the authors were nor the name of the book. My impression is they are a couple and now want to teach everyone else how to suffer with a mate. The only point I got out of the five minute interview with them was a flashback years ago to a Newsweek cover story proclaiming unmarried women over forty had a better chance of falling victim to a terrorist attack than they did falling in love and marrying.
Of course some couples would tell you that marriage is an act of terrorism.
I really want to know why so many people look at being single as some sort of disease that needs a cure. If I can get a solid answer to that question, then I am dying to know why married people are so eager to hook their single friends up as if there’s a hurry to get them married.
From a man’s perspective, I can understand the desire to get married before middle age. Thinning, gray hair can’t rightfully be called attractive. And the beer gut really gets in the way of chasing women. It slows one down and most of the pretty, young things can out run the middle aged man. All he’s left with is women judging the size of one thing in his pants – his wallet.
Women, though, seem to be in a hurry to marry, too. The other day I was smoking a cigarette at work and two young women barely out of college came out to smoke and talk. I’m not normally an eavesdropper, but they were talking loud enough that I couldn’t help but catch their conversation.
The one boasted about meeting this really nice guy at the nightclub over the weekend. He wasn’t tall like she likes nor broad-shouldered. On top of that, he’s Jewish, which she felt might clash with her Christianity if the relationship moved on to raising a family. What won her heart, though, was his being a really nice guy with a gentle personality and the fact that he had a very good paying job didn’t hurt.
Now, I really don’t understand this. She’s young with a whole life ahead of her. She has a good job that could turn into a successful career if she wanted. She knows she wants the Marlboro man, but is willing to settle for a pudgy Jew with a sweet personality and money.
What the Hell is her hurry? She’s not anywhere near the age where all she has to look forward to is a terrorist attack.
Being single is not a disease. Focusing on marriage as being important, the goal to achieve, and willing to settle for less just to get married is a disease.
The authors of a new book tell us why we’re single, and if you’re single, it’s your fault. No, I don’t know who the authors were nor the name of the book. My impression is they are a couple and now want to teach everyone else how to suffer with a mate. The only point I got out of the five minute interview with them was a flashback years ago to a Newsweek cover story proclaiming unmarried women over forty had a better chance of falling victim to a terrorist attack than they did falling in love and marrying.
Of course some couples would tell you that marriage is an act of terrorism.
I really want to know why so many people look at being single as some sort of disease that needs a cure. If I can get a solid answer to that question, then I am dying to know why married people are so eager to hook their single friends up as if there’s a hurry to get them married.
From a man’s perspective, I can understand the desire to get married before middle age. Thinning, gray hair can’t rightfully be called attractive. And the beer gut really gets in the way of chasing women. It slows one down and most of the pretty, young things can out run the middle aged man. All he’s left with is women judging the size of one thing in his pants – his wallet.
Women, though, seem to be in a hurry to marry, too. The other day I was smoking a cigarette at work and two young women barely out of college came out to smoke and talk. I’m not normally an eavesdropper, but they were talking loud enough that I couldn’t help but catch their conversation.
The one boasted about meeting this really nice guy at the nightclub over the weekend. He wasn’t tall like she likes nor broad-shouldered. On top of that, he’s Jewish, which she felt might clash with her Christianity if the relationship moved on to raising a family. What won her heart, though, was his being a really nice guy with a gentle personality and the fact that he had a very good paying job didn’t hurt.
Now, I really don’t understand this. She’s young with a whole life ahead of her. She has a good job that could turn into a successful career if she wanted. She knows she wants the Marlboro man, but is willing to settle for a pudgy Jew with a sweet personality and money.
What the Hell is her hurry? She’s not anywhere near the age where all she has to look forward to is a terrorist attack.
Being single is not a disease. Focusing on marriage as being important, the goal to achieve, and willing to settle for less just to get married is a disease.
ACLU Lynch Mob
Ok, he makes this way to easy. I met his challenge this week.
For those of you who may be new to this blog, I am referring to Mark Hyman, general manager of Sinclair Broadcasting, home station of Fox News. I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point.)
His point this week criticized the ACLU for challenging a North Carolina ordinance that would ban sex offenders from the parks. Hyman artfully led his audience to believe that the ACLU was defending child molestors. The conservatives do have a knack for twisting the facts to spread hysteria.
So here goes, and feel free to click on the links above and give your opinion to Mark Hyman.
Mark Hyman wrote:
Court-ordered pre-trial negotiations broke down last month. Town Administrator Jason Young told The Point his side isn't backing down. So Woodfin, North Carolina and the ACLU are headed for a court date as early as this summer. Get pen and paper handy. You'll need it in a moment.
At issue is an ordinance banning registered sex offenders from the town's three public parks. The law was enacted after a 16-year old girl was raped in a park and after a pedophile living in property overlooking a park had molested several children. Child sexual predators often frequent locations popular with children. The ACLU sued this western North Carolina town of 6,000 on behalf of a registered sex offender, who was convicted of attempted sexual battery with a handgun, and is now demanding access to the parks. One of the busiest parks is adjacent to an elementary school, which uses the park for recess.
There are 21 known sex offenders living in Woodfin or in close proximity. Town officials know from first-hand experience that mingling pedophiles with young children is a tragedy waiting to happen.
Police Chief Brett Holloman, who is being sued along with the town, told The Point his job is to enforce the law.
It is disgusting that the ACLU, that is, the Anti-Children Litigation Union is anxious to support sex offenders, but shows no compassion for the safety of our children.
You can share your thoughts with the ACLU of North Carolina at (919) 834-3466 or at their website, www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
I responded:
I see the conservatives are whipping up a frenzy and forming a lynch mob again. No one wants to give pedophiles free access to our children, not even the ACLU. To imply otherwise is disingenuous at best, outright lying at worst.
The ACLU objected to the Woodfin law on several grounds including the right to free travel and the protection from retributive punishment once all terms of a sentence has been completed. The law, itself, is written too broadly and punishes people based only on their status and not on any threat they may pose to the public.
More disturbing is your connection of the case to child molestation. The case was filed on behalf of an adult convicted of a crime against another adult back in 1987. The plaintiff has completed all terms of his sentencing including prison and probation. Sex offender does not automatically equate to child molester. I would expect a member of the news corps to understand the difference and not purposely mislead the public simply to tell a rousing story to make a point.
Sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rate of any criminal, as can be verified through the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Many sex offenders return to their families and live out normal, law-abiding lives. Is it right that we tell them they can’t take their children to the park because of a crime they committed twenty years earlier? If we allow this law to take hold, where do we stop with the retributive punishments? Should murderers be confined to the empty deserts of the southwest? Should thieves be barred from entering a business establishment? Should speeders be permanently taken off of our roadways?
Sorry, I can’t join your lynch mob. The ACLU got this one right.
For those of you who may be new to this blog, I am referring to Mark Hyman, general manager of Sinclair Broadcasting, home station of Fox News. I run a challenge over at my MSN group, Boston Tea Party Protests. The challenge is simple; watch your local Fox News program for the general manager's editorial and respond to it. (Complete challenge with past responses, Fox News - The Point.)
His point this week criticized the ACLU for challenging a North Carolina ordinance that would ban sex offenders from the parks. Hyman artfully led his audience to believe that the ACLU was defending child molestors. The conservatives do have a knack for twisting the facts to spread hysteria.
So here goes, and feel free to click on the links above and give your opinion to Mark Hyman.
Mark Hyman wrote:
Court-ordered pre-trial negotiations broke down last month. Town Administrator Jason Young told The Point his side isn't backing down. So Woodfin, North Carolina and the ACLU are headed for a court date as early as this summer. Get pen and paper handy. You'll need it in a moment.
At issue is an ordinance banning registered sex offenders from the town's three public parks. The law was enacted after a 16-year old girl was raped in a park and after a pedophile living in property overlooking a park had molested several children. Child sexual predators often frequent locations popular with children. The ACLU sued this western North Carolina town of 6,000 on behalf of a registered sex offender, who was convicted of attempted sexual battery with a handgun, and is now demanding access to the parks. One of the busiest parks is adjacent to an elementary school, which uses the park for recess.
There are 21 known sex offenders living in Woodfin or in close proximity. Town officials know from first-hand experience that mingling pedophiles with young children is a tragedy waiting to happen.
Police Chief Brett Holloman, who is being sued along with the town, told The Point his job is to enforce the law.
It is disgusting that the ACLU, that is, the Anti-Children Litigation Union is anxious to support sex offenders, but shows no compassion for the safety of our children.
You can share your thoughts with the ACLU of North Carolina at (919) 834-3466 or at their website, www.acluofnorthcarolina.org/.
And that's The Point.
I'm Mark Hyman.
I responded:
I see the conservatives are whipping up a frenzy and forming a lynch mob again. No one wants to give pedophiles free access to our children, not even the ACLU. To imply otherwise is disingenuous at best, outright lying at worst.
The ACLU objected to the Woodfin law on several grounds including the right to free travel and the protection from retributive punishment once all terms of a sentence has been completed. The law, itself, is written too broadly and punishes people based only on their status and not on any threat they may pose to the public.
More disturbing is your connection of the case to child molestation. The case was filed on behalf of an adult convicted of a crime against another adult back in 1987. The plaintiff has completed all terms of his sentencing including prison and probation. Sex offender does not automatically equate to child molester. I would expect a member of the news corps to understand the difference and not purposely mislead the public simply to tell a rousing story to make a point.
Sex offenders have the lowest recidivism rate of any criminal, as can be verified through the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. Many sex offenders return to their families and live out normal, law-abiding lives. Is it right that we tell them they can’t take their children to the park because of a crime they committed twenty years earlier? If we allow this law to take hold, where do we stop with the retributive punishments? Should murderers be confined to the empty deserts of the southwest? Should thieves be barred from entering a business establishment? Should speeders be permanently taken off of our roadways?
Sorry, I can’t join your lynch mob. The ACLU got this one right.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Top Ten Worst Songs Ever
I decided to post a little something fun for a change.
What are the ten worst songs ever recorded that made a hit? You know, the songs that come on the radio and you absolutely have to change stations before you barf. Even if the button lands you on a country station, or even a rap station, it's better than being tormented by that song.
Here's my highly subjective list because, let's face it, musicians are dime a dozen and there's way too much music out there for any one person to be able to listen to in a lifetime.
9. We built This City by Starship. Nothing but a sellout to 80's commercialism.
8. I Will Always Love You by Whitney Houston. Dolly Parton wins with this song hands down. Poor Whitney tried too hard.
7. YMCA by the Village People. Heck, make that anything by the Village People. Or was that their only song?
6. Do You Really Want To Hurt Me? by the Culture Club. I hesitated adding this one to the list because it was funny in Shrek, but deep down, yes, I really did want to hurt Boy George for having the balls to torment us with this song.
5. My Way or the Highway by Limp Bizkit. It might have been better if Fred Durst actually broke out in tears during the song. Whining through the whole song as if he's on the verge of tears, though, doesn't cut it.
4. 2004 by Rueben Studdard. If American Idol weren't a rigged competition, we all could have been spared this tragedy.
2. Bob Dylan. Pick a song, any song. He made legendary status because all the hippies were high --- and still are.
1. Ebony and Ivory by Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder. Aside from being boring and out of tune, the metaphor was too obvious and cliched. Goes to show you that even legends lay an egg once in awhile.
Ok, here's one song that is so far in the lead as the worst song ever, I give it a spot all its own separate from the list because I didn't want anyone to think that I even consider it in the same league as the above ten.
Roxanne by Sting. Dragging your fingers deeply across a chalk board as the nails scrape backwards, peeling off your fingers is a slightly better sound and experience than listening to this...nope, I can't do it. I can't say song.
What are the ten worst songs ever recorded that made a hit? You know, the songs that come on the radio and you absolutely have to change stations before you barf. Even if the button lands you on a country station, or even a rap station, it's better than being tormented by that song.
Here's my highly subjective list because, let's face it, musicians are dime a dozen and there's way too much music out there for any one person to be able to listen to in a lifetime.
10. Muskrat Love by Captain and Tenille. What perverted mind would create a love song about horny rodents?
9. We built This City by Starship. Nothing but a sellout to 80's commercialism.
8. I Will Always Love You by Whitney Houston. Dolly Parton wins with this song hands down. Poor Whitney tried too hard.
7. YMCA by the Village People. Heck, make that anything by the Village People. Or was that their only song?
6. Do You Really Want To Hurt Me? by the Culture Club. I hesitated adding this one to the list because it was funny in Shrek, but deep down, yes, I really did want to hurt Boy George for having the balls to torment us with this song.
5. My Way or the Highway by Limp Bizkit. It might have been better if Fred Durst actually broke out in tears during the song. Whining through the whole song as if he's on the verge of tears, though, doesn't cut it.
4. 2004 by Rueben Studdard. If American Idol weren't a rigged competition, we all could have been spared this tragedy.
2. Bob Dylan. Pick a song, any song. He made legendary status because all the hippies were high --- and still are.
1. Ebony and Ivory by Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder. Aside from being boring and out of tune, the metaphor was too obvious and cliched. Goes to show you that even legends lay an egg once in awhile.
Ok, here's one song that is so far in the lead as the worst song ever, I give it a spot all its own separate from the list because I didn't want anyone to think that I even consider it in the same league as the above ten.
Roxanne by Sting. Dragging your fingers deeply across a chalk board as the nails scrape backwards, peeling off your fingers is a slightly better sound and experience than listening to this...nope, I can't do it. I can't say song.
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
Open Letter to the President
Sure, I know. Today, the Senate is expected to reject a proposal for a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage. But the issue is far from dead. The House is expected to take it up again later this summer. And then there is the Replay of 2004 principal at play here.
I figured it would be best to start letting our elected officials know how ridiculous they really sound. So I wrote the letter below to President Bush. I wonder if he'll have someone read it to him so he can understand what I have said...
At any rate, you, too, can write the President - and your senators and representative too! I even provide a way to write the President anonymously if you are worried about his tendency to snoop into our lives. Get the details here.
If you're really ambitious, check out other things you can do to promote same sex marriage...or just tee somebody off.
Now, back to my letter to President Bush:
Dear President Bush,
What do murderers, rapists, thieves, child molesters, alcoholics, and drug addicts have in common?
They can marry.
What do death row inmates and lifers with no chance of parole have in common?
They can marry, too.
Here’s a clincher. What can an illegal alien do that a native born, law abiding, US citizen, who is gay, cannot?
That’s right. The illegal alien can marry, too.
All those marriages are condoned and recognized by the federal government and all fifty states without question. A gay couple, however, is viewed as a threat to the institution of marriage and an undermining force to the American family.
This summer the House is expected to take up the issue of gay marriage and an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. I urge you to make an about face on the issue and oppose the amendment effort.
First, marriage has been and always should be a state issue. Second, the proposed constitutional amendment serves only to enshrine discrimination and bigotry into our laws and society in general. If it were about protecting the American family and the great institution of marriage, the people I mentioned above wouldn’t be allowed to marry either.
Highest regards,
Mark Darien
I figured it would be best to start letting our elected officials know how ridiculous they really sound. So I wrote the letter below to President Bush. I wonder if he'll have someone read it to him so he can understand what I have said...
At any rate, you, too, can write the President - and your senators and representative too! I even provide a way to write the President anonymously if you are worried about his tendency to snoop into our lives. Get the details here.
If you're really ambitious, check out other things you can do to promote same sex marriage...or just tee somebody off.
Now, back to my letter to President Bush:
Dear President Bush,
What do murderers, rapists, thieves, child molesters, alcoholics, and drug addicts have in common?
They can marry.
What do death row inmates and lifers with no chance of parole have in common?
They can marry, too.
Here’s a clincher. What can an illegal alien do that a native born, law abiding, US citizen, who is gay, cannot?
That’s right. The illegal alien can marry, too.
All those marriages are condoned and recognized by the federal government and all fifty states without question. A gay couple, however, is viewed as a threat to the institution of marriage and an undermining force to the American family.
This summer the House is expected to take up the issue of gay marriage and an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage as being only between a man and a woman. I urge you to make an about face on the issue and oppose the amendment effort.
First, marriage has been and always should be a state issue. Second, the proposed constitutional amendment serves only to enshrine discrimination and bigotry into our laws and society in general. If it were about protecting the American family and the great institution of marriage, the people I mentioned above wouldn’t be allowed to marry either.
Highest regards,
Mark Darien
Sunday, June 04, 2006
Build Your Own Platform - The War on Terror
(For details on the build your own platform project, please visit my outline in the Boston Tea Party Protests MSN group. And feel free to participate either here or over there.)
As a card carrying Republican, I’d like to see the Republican party do an about face on its approach to the War on Terror. The present overt, “we’re going to kick your ass” approach costs too many American lives, distances many of our allies from us, and foments more distrust and hatred among nations that already didn’t like us much.
There is no War on Terror any more than there ever was or is a War on Drugs or a War on Poverty. Such campaigns are destined to fail because the scope is much too broad.
The first victim in this about face on the War on Terrorism would be the Department of Homeland Security. Their three primary missions are prevent terrorism within the US, reduce our vulnerability to terrorism, and “minimize the damage from potential attacks and natural disasters”.
I quoted the last part directly from the Homeland Security’s website because it struck me funny. “Potential attacks” don’t cause any damage. Real attacks do. The Department’s own mission statement clearly illustrates its ineffectiveness not to mention its redundancy. Instead of creating a new department to handle what existing departments are supposed to be doing, we should be tightening, redefining, and coordinating the efforts of existing agencies to accomplish the same objectives. Preventing attacks, reducing our vulnerability, and minimizing damage is already the responsibility of the FBI, CIA, federal and state law enforcement, the military, and FEMA. More bureaucracy solves nothing.
The Patriot Act needs to be scrapped, or at least parts of it. The sections that help redefine the roles of our existing agencies to better coordinate intelligence sharing and communication should stay. Everything else should go.
Tightening our borders shouldn’t be physical barriers designed to keep Mexicans out because they don’t speak English. It should be more coordination between our law enforcement agencies and the Mexican and Canadian law enforcement agencies to better identify potential terrorist threats entering or exiting all three countries. Illegal immigration is another issue and shouldn’t be confused with our efforts against terrorism.
Identifying the terrorists’ funding sources should continue and the sources interrupted. Countries openly harboring terrorists or turning a blind eye to the activities within their border should be dealt with diplomatically. Effort should be made for them to take an active role in fighting terrorists within their borders. Isolating uncooperative nations from the world community both diplomatically and economically should be our first course of action. Our most effective tool to make this approach work effectively would be winning the trust and support of our allies. If we make the issue as important to them as we feel it is to us and make them the key players in the diplomatic battle, the fight is half over.
No country has a need for WMD. However, it is near impossible to convince any nation to scrap their WMD or shelve efforts to develop them as long as the major world powers have their own stockpiles. A moratorium should be placed on the development of any new weapons or increases in current stockpiles. For nations that currently have stockpiles, a plan to reduce and eventually eliminate them should be in place and clearly promoted. Such a plan may reduce the incentive for other countries to develop their own weapons.
Military action against nations that harbor or aid terrorists or is perceived as a possible threat against the US or her allies should be a very last resort move only. Pre-emptive strikes against nations should never be an option. One thing we have that a terrorist nation doesn’t have is time and lots of it. With worldwide cooperation, sanctions can be at least somewhat effective and a rogue nation leashed to its localized influence. Only when its activities reach beyond its borders despite all diplomatic attempts and sanctions against it should military force be considered and only with a truly international coalition. The one exception – a direct attack on the US. Just as we would support one of our allies if it were attacked, we should expect support from our allies if we are attacked, but we don’t need their permission to protect ourselves.
Lastly, we must lead the way in preventing new terrorist-friendly countries from developing. An adopt-a-nation program needs to be developed. The major industrialized nations should be encouraged to adopt a poorer, developing nation and help them become a more stable, richer nation. The goals of the adopt-a-nation program would be to help nations fight poverty and raise the standard of living of the average citizen. This would be accomplished by bringing new agricultural techniques to the country, helping to build basic civil engineering projects like dams to provide irrigation and clean drinking water, building new schools, providing basic medical care and helping to build new hospitals and training new doctors and nurses, and aiding the country in developing the necessary economic infrastructures to ensure its own self-reliance.
Because of the potential for abuse and fraud by both the sponsoring nation and the leaders of the nation being helped, the world community should closely monitor the program, perhaps through the UN. Just like corporations that have all sorts of internal controls and audits to ensure their legit operation, the adopt-a-nation program could develop similar controls. For example, let’s say country A adopts country B. Both countries make quarterly reports to the UN detailing the money spent, projects built, and programs instituted. The reports can be reviewed by the other nations and other nations could step in and perform independent audits and make suggestions. If enough nations think there is something seriously going wrong with the program, they could vote to end the sponsorship by country A.
In effect, the adopt-a-nation program isn’t much different than what nations currently do on their own accord. The only difference is that there would now be a formalized program and countries that normally get neglected may actually get the help they need and, some day, may be in a position to join the world stage and take a bow.
As a card carrying Republican, I’d like to see the Republican party do an about face on its approach to the War on Terror. The present overt, “we’re going to kick your ass” approach costs too many American lives, distances many of our allies from us, and foments more distrust and hatred among nations that already didn’t like us much.
There is no War on Terror any more than there ever was or is a War on Drugs or a War on Poverty. Such campaigns are destined to fail because the scope is much too broad.
The first victim in this about face on the War on Terrorism would be the Department of Homeland Security. Their three primary missions are prevent terrorism within the US, reduce our vulnerability to terrorism, and “minimize the damage from potential attacks and natural disasters”.
I quoted the last part directly from the Homeland Security’s website because it struck me funny. “Potential attacks” don’t cause any damage. Real attacks do. The Department’s own mission statement clearly illustrates its ineffectiveness not to mention its redundancy. Instead of creating a new department to handle what existing departments are supposed to be doing, we should be tightening, redefining, and coordinating the efforts of existing agencies to accomplish the same objectives. Preventing attacks, reducing our vulnerability, and minimizing damage is already the responsibility of the FBI, CIA, federal and state law enforcement, the military, and FEMA. More bureaucracy solves nothing.
The Patriot Act needs to be scrapped, or at least parts of it. The sections that help redefine the roles of our existing agencies to better coordinate intelligence sharing and communication should stay. Everything else should go.
Tightening our borders shouldn’t be physical barriers designed to keep Mexicans out because they don’t speak English. It should be more coordination between our law enforcement agencies and the Mexican and Canadian law enforcement agencies to better identify potential terrorist threats entering or exiting all three countries. Illegal immigration is another issue and shouldn’t be confused with our efforts against terrorism.
Identifying the terrorists’ funding sources should continue and the sources interrupted. Countries openly harboring terrorists or turning a blind eye to the activities within their border should be dealt with diplomatically. Effort should be made for them to take an active role in fighting terrorists within their borders. Isolating uncooperative nations from the world community both diplomatically and economically should be our first course of action. Our most effective tool to make this approach work effectively would be winning the trust and support of our allies. If we make the issue as important to them as we feel it is to us and make them the key players in the diplomatic battle, the fight is half over.
No country has a need for WMD. However, it is near impossible to convince any nation to scrap their WMD or shelve efforts to develop them as long as the major world powers have their own stockpiles. A moratorium should be placed on the development of any new weapons or increases in current stockpiles. For nations that currently have stockpiles, a plan to reduce and eventually eliminate them should be in place and clearly promoted. Such a plan may reduce the incentive for other countries to develop their own weapons.
Military action against nations that harbor or aid terrorists or is perceived as a possible threat against the US or her allies should be a very last resort move only. Pre-emptive strikes against nations should never be an option. One thing we have that a terrorist nation doesn’t have is time and lots of it. With worldwide cooperation, sanctions can be at least somewhat effective and a rogue nation leashed to its localized influence. Only when its activities reach beyond its borders despite all diplomatic attempts and sanctions against it should military force be considered and only with a truly international coalition. The one exception – a direct attack on the US. Just as we would support one of our allies if it were attacked, we should expect support from our allies if we are attacked, but we don’t need their permission to protect ourselves.
Lastly, we must lead the way in preventing new terrorist-friendly countries from developing. An adopt-a-nation program needs to be developed. The major industrialized nations should be encouraged to adopt a poorer, developing nation and help them become a more stable, richer nation. The goals of the adopt-a-nation program would be to help nations fight poverty and raise the standard of living of the average citizen. This would be accomplished by bringing new agricultural techniques to the country, helping to build basic civil engineering projects like dams to provide irrigation and clean drinking water, building new schools, providing basic medical care and helping to build new hospitals and training new doctors and nurses, and aiding the country in developing the necessary economic infrastructures to ensure its own self-reliance.
Because of the potential for abuse and fraud by both the sponsoring nation and the leaders of the nation being helped, the world community should closely monitor the program, perhaps through the UN. Just like corporations that have all sorts of internal controls and audits to ensure their legit operation, the adopt-a-nation program could develop similar controls. For example, let’s say country A adopts country B. Both countries make quarterly reports to the UN detailing the money spent, projects built, and programs instituted. The reports can be reviewed by the other nations and other nations could step in and perform independent audits and make suggestions. If enough nations think there is something seriously going wrong with the program, they could vote to end the sponsorship by country A.
In effect, the adopt-a-nation program isn’t much different than what nations currently do on their own accord. The only difference is that there would now be a formalized program and countries that normally get neglected may actually get the help they need and, some day, may be in a position to join the world stage and take a bow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
