Shop for great Usborne Children's Books!
www.DaveTheBookGuy.com
Shop for great Usborne Children's Books!
www.DaveTheBookGuy.com
I'm in the Pioneer Press today. Read my column.
And Everyone
Else Can Burn in Hell?
I like columnist Leonard Pitts Jr., but even he misses it sometimes. I refer to a recent column in which he goes after Ann Coulter for saying she want everyone to go to heaven.
That's not exactly what she said, but that's the logical conclusion to be drawn.
Last week, Coulter said that in her perfect America, everyone would be a Christian. She said this to Donny Deutsch, who was hosting her on his CNBC program, The Big Idea. Deutsch, who is Jewish, expressed alarm. Whereupon Coulter told him that Jews simply needed to be ''perfected'' -- i.e., made to accept Jesus as savior. Which is, of course, one of the pillars (along with the slander of Christ's murder) supporting 2,000 years of pogroms, abuse and Holocaust.
So what should Coulter have said? What else can a Christian say? That is basic Christian doctrine -- Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, Jesus said he is the ONLY way to salvation, and he said to spread that message to all the world. How can someone profess to be a Christian and say, "But I don't care whether anyone else is"? Does a Christian say, "Everyone else can burn in Hell, for all I care"?
Isn't Coulter saying she wants everyone to be a Christian the same thing as a PETA member saying she wants everyone to refrain from wearing fur?
Does Al Gore say that he believes in being carbon neutral, but he wouldn't dream of imposing his beliefs on anyone else? (Or does he favor the government forcing his beliefs on everyone else?)
Wouldn't a Muslim say that in his perfect world everyone would be a Muslim? Wouldn't a Jew say that in his perfect world everyone would convert to Judaism? Or don't members of those religions care about the souls of all the diverse peoples of the world? If they believe their faith is correct, they should want everyone to come to that realization.
Regarding Ann Coulter: I don't know much about her. Her columns aren't in my daily paper, and I don't seek her out anywhere else. Mostly what I know about her is what I hear from people who dislike her.
I think Ann Coulter and Al Franken may have a lot in common. Both like to use their big mouths to hurt people and make themselves lots of money.
Okay, let's see if I've got this straight. President Bush's Democrat critics say he has turned the world against us, just when we need allies for the War on Terror.
One ally in the war in Iraq is Turkey. But Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat friends think now is the time to tick off Turkey by blaming them for the sins of the Ottoman Empire.
Meanwhile, President Bush is honoring the Dalai Lama, an icon of peace and human rights and a hero of the American Left. But Bush's Democrat critics are mad because this might tick off the Communist Chinese.
Does any of this make sense?
I was in Minneapolis checking out the 35W bridge site last night, close to where the University of Minnesota has some sort of physics lab where they conduct experiments in who-knows-what. You probably know where I mean. Anyway, I happened to notice a sheet of newspaper crumpled up and stuck in some brush. I probably wouldn't have even noticed it, as it was already starting to get dark, but it was as if the newspaper had a sort of glow to it that caught my attention.
I picked up what I thought was just another piece of litter, but my curiosity got the better of me, and I flattened it out to see just what I'd found. I was surprised by this headline:
"President Carter urges nation to button up to stay warm."
Now, you might think that's strange. But you ain't heard nothin' yet. The strangest part was the date on the newspaper: August 1, 2107.
Here's the story:
President Carter Urges Nation to Button Up to Stay Warm
Associated Press
Washington, D.C.President Jamie Carter last night called upon Americans to put on their sweaters, as temperatures across the nation plunged to record lows not seen since her great-great-grandfather occupied the Oval Office. The President also promised that the federal government was doing all it could to help.
That brought an angry response from Diverse Community mayor Marianne Barry, who snorted, "They may have changed the name, but nothing else. Bad weather still hits the poor and minorities the hardest."
Meanwhile, city officials in Detroit continued to beg for help. The city has been bankrupt ever since the last American auto maker closed shop. Now, thousands are dying from the cold, as the nation's solar- and wind-based energy grid cannot keep up with the demand. As if the former Motor City did not have enough problems, residents are now afraid to leave their homes to scavenge for food and fuel, as a booming population of polar bears continues to migrate south. "It's enough to make you long for the days when we could own guns," said one resident, who withheld his name for fear he could be arrested for expressing such hate-thoughts. "Then at least we could defend ourselves."
Indeed, there are some reports that people are doing just that, with Chinese-made weapons being smuggled in from Canada, along with millions of undocumented immigrants -- derisively called "frost backs" -- escaping the oncoming glaciers.
The problem for residents of Detroit and other northern cities is that even if they have the means to leave, there is nowhere for them to go. Warmer states along the Gulf Coast and in much of the southern part of the United States suffer from a severe housing shortage, the result of decades-long building moratoriums, brought on by the belief that "Global Warming" would bring more frequent and more severe hurricanes.
In the past, a President might have sent the National Guard to help. Of course, that's no longer possible now that the the U.S. has disbanded its military. There had been a consensus that a standing army was no longer necessary, since permanent peace had been achieved through the anti-"Global Warming" efforts of former U.S. Vice President and prophet Al Gore, Jr. In addition, the United States had come to rely on the stability of a world with only one Superpower, an era that came to be known as the "Pax Beijing."
And China may be the one place the United States can turn for help. Many government officials believe that Beijing will not allow the U.S. to fail, as China's booming fossil-fuel based economy and high standard of living are dependent on cheap, American-made goods. U.S. and Chinese officials are meeting this week at the United Nations headquarters in Havana.
Many people are now beginning to openly criticize the legacy of the Nobel Peace Prize winner, Al Gore, Jr., but so far President Carter has remained mum on the subject, out of respect for her life partner, First Person Al Gore V.
Some fringe critics continue to call on the government to act in response to what they say is a coming Ice Age, but the consensus of the scientific community is that they are "flat Earthers" who still think that the Sun Goddess circles Mother Earth. Nonetheless, they cling to their belief system, which dates back to the 1970s. Although still outside the mainstream of the scientific community, their ranks have steadily grown since the mid-21st century, when it was discovered that so-called "Global Warming" was actually caused by Big-
continued on page 6
That was it. Unfortunately, I only had the front page, not the jump. "Big" what? Big oil? Big business? Big cars? Why is it capitalized? Why the hyphen? I guess we'll have to wait to find out.
There was a second story on the front page that you also might find interesting:
"Bridge Dedication Today"
by Nevaeh Michalski
Twin Cities Pioneer Press staff writerMinneapolis mayor Hubert H. "Biff" Humphrey VII will be among dignitaries gathered this afternoon for the dedication of the George W. Bush Memorial Peace Bridge, exactly one hundred years to the day that its predecessor suddenly collapsed. Also expected on hand is the mayor of Minneapolis' long-time sister city, Falujah.
Construction of the bridge was slowed by lawsuits, political squabbling, and disagreement over whether to provide for a long-obsolete travel technology known as "light rail." The bridge as finally built instead provides lanes for hybrid flying cars, which futurists continue to say are just around the corner.
The collapse of the previous bridge on August 1, 2007, permanently changed the political landscape of Minnesota, as dozens of politicians and bureaucrats took the fall in the blame game. Those who had their careers ruined found little solace years later when it was determined that the bridge fell due to a localized rift in the space-time continuum. The rift caused the otherwise-sound bridge to instantaneously age 100 years, weakening it and causing its collapse.
Is a Piece
of This Really Such a Prize?
Was it Groucho Marx who said, "I wouldn't want to join any club that would have me as a member"?
I think of that in relation to St. Algore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. St. Algore joins such noted peace makers as international terrorist and murderer Yasser Arafat.
With members like that...
Democrats are quick to brag about how their man -- who really is the president in their minds -- won a Nobel Prize, while President Bush is blamed for a now-unpopular war that the American people used to be in favor of.
That makes me think of how former President Jimmy Carter has been awarded a Peace Prize, but not the man who defeated him, President Ronald Reagan. Of course, Reagan was a crazy warmonger, and he got us all blown up in a nuclear holocaust. Didn't you see that documentary "The Day After." Wait, that wasn't real. Now I remember, Reagan won -- and ENDED -- the Cold War without firing a shot. Shouldn't that be worthy of a Peace Prize? But, no, instead it went to Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev, the man who finally saw the handwriting on the wall, and basically waved the white flag.
And then what did we have? We had the "Peace Dividend," and Bill Clinton embarked on eight years of sex, drugs and rock and roll, neglecting the supposedly no-longer-needed military.
If we want to give a Peace Prize to a former Vice President, then how about Dan Quayle?
Why? Quayle, with his "Murphy Brown" comments, tried to get us to stop trivializing single parenthood, point out that children are not just toys for their parents to acquire, and recognize the importance of every child having two good parents.
If we had listened to Quayle, we might now have fewer feral youth going around shooting people, and a lot more peace. RIGHT NOW, not sometime off in some undefined future.
You see, we have a lot of different "environments." St. Algore and his ilk are concerned only with the natural environment, they don't seem interested in the cultural, social, or economic environments. Dan Quayle wanted us to take better care of our social environment, but the "progressive" types didn't want to hear it.
I think it's really ironic that we have these self-described "progressive" types who want us to get back to the Earth, back to basics, back to the tried-and-true wisdom of the ages, and really go back to doing things the way we used to. They like to talk about how we can learn things from ancient customs of native peoples, things like that.
But then when it comes to the social environment, they're all about throwing away centuries or millennia of wisdom and convention. Marriage? Outdated concept. Single mother? Why not? All families are equal.
But this is an area where we would really benefit by following the wisdom of our forebears. What would Grandma say? "He won't buy the cow if he can get the milk for free." But in pursuit of "equality," women have abandoned that sort of wisdom. And what happened? Now more than ever women find themselves paying the price for irresponsible men, with no husband, and raising children on their own.
But maybe I just don't understand modern motherhood. There's a story in the paper today about the "mommy makeover," a set of plastic surgery procedures to help women get back their pre-baby bodies. And why is that so important? I mean, if my wife's body has been affected by bearing children, that's OK, it's a reminder of those beautiful children she gave me. It just makes her more beautiful, right? Turns out I'm naive:
There is more pressure on mothers today to look young and sexy than on previous generations, [39-year-old mother Sharlotte Birkland] added. "I don't think it was an issue for my mother; your husband loved you no matter what," said Birkland, who recently remarried.
Oh, so that's it. Mom needs to look hot so she can hit the singles scene.
Beam me up, Scotty. No sign of intelligent life down here.
The New
Triple Standard: What's Their Stance on Sen. Craig?
There's more news today of men being arrested in the Twin Cities for making gestures indicating that they want to have sex with other men in a public place. This time it's in a park in St. Paul, just a few miles from the Twin Cities International Airport where Sen. Larry Craig made his stand.
I'd like to point out that on Sept. 26, I wrote a post suggesting my puzzlement that Sen. Craig wasn't being portrayed as a victim of homophobia. And I also asked whether we were going to start arresting men who buy women drinks, and women who twirl their hair and coyly look away. My thought was that Sen. Craig was arrested for, basically, flirting.
That's why I was blown away by this portion of Mara Gottfried's story in today's St. Paul Pioneer Press:
Critics said the sting operations are unfair.
"We often downplay or pay little attention to indiscretions between males and females who engage in sexual encounters in public - be it in the back seat of a car, in the back of a bar, in a unisex restroom - and then sensationalize any cases that involve same-gender contact," said Lorraine Teel, executive director of the Minnesota AIDS Project.
Teel said there's a double standard and her perception is that law enforcement's attempt to crack down on men cruising for sex "waxes and wanes with public outrage."
But police said they are targeting the illegal behavior, not the sexuality of the people involved.
So where was Lorraine Teel on the Sen. Craig story? Why didn't she rush to his defense?
I think I know. It's obvious, really. There's not a double standard; there's at least a triple standard. No gay rights activists came to Sen. Craig's defense for the simple reason that he is a Republican. Let Rep. Barney Frank get arrested in an airport men's room, and we'd be overwhelmed with cries of "homophobia."
So I called reporter Gottfried and asked her: Did you seek out Teel for comment, or did she initiate making herself heard? And what I learned was enlightening.
Gottfried said that she had called Teel for comment on this story, as she had earlier done for a story she wrote about the Craig arrest, which ran in the paper on Aug. 31. Although Teel's comments did not end up in that story, Gottfried told me that Teel had expressed similar concerns about Sen. Craig and airport arrests. (Gottfried's story featured comments -- in defense of Craig -- from University of Minnesota law professor Dale Carpenter.)
So in this case, Teel has been consistent, and Gottfried has been consistent. Of course, the Sen. Craig story was largely a national media story. So now my question is, more narrowly, why didn't the national media coverage seem to include the sort of angle suggested by Lorraine Teel's comments? I still think that it would have been part of the story, if it had been Barney Frank that had been arrested.
------
Boy, I tell you, gay guys sure could use some better PR right now. We keep hearing about how they are looking for anonymous sex in public places. And then who comes to their defense? The AIDS project person. (I thought AIDS wasn't a "gay disease"?) So there we've got two stereotypes being perpetuated.
Actually, I question whether it's accurate to call some of these guys "gay." Like Sen. Craig, they are married and have kids. Are they really "gay"? Or are they basically heterosexual guys looking for some cheap sex thrills wherever they can find them? Calling them "gay" may be doing a disservice to men who truly are.
Brother,
Can You Spare 49 Cents?
We've been hearing a lot about how food costs are going up. Farmers getting a fair price are being blamed for Mexican peasants starving, beer prices going up, just about anything you can think of. Here's an excerpt from a story by Lauren Villagran of the Associated Press:
This morning, your bowl of cereal and milk probably cost you 49 cents. Last year, it was 44 cents. By next year, it could be 56 cents. It's enough to make you cry in your cornflakes.
Well dry your eyes before you drive off to work, stopping for your morning $6 cup of coffee. Oh, and make sure it's "fair trade" coffee. We want Latin American farmers to get a fair price, even if we complain when American farmers do.
Forty-nine cents for breakfast? How's a person supposed to afford to eat!
While the prices of farm commodities have indeed risen greatly recently, it's hard to make a case that they are "too high." Here's something that should be required reading. This is from Scott Kilman of the Wall Street Journal:
...the declining real price of grain has long been one of the unsung forces behind the development of the global economy. Thanks to steadily improving seeds, synthetic fertilizer and more powerful farm equipment, the productivity of farmers in the West and Asia has stayed so far ahead of population growth that prices of corn and wheat, adjusted for inflation, had dropped 75 percent and 69 percent, respectively, since 1974. Among other things, falling grain prices made food more affordable for the world's poor, helping shrink the percentage of the world's population that is malnourished.
Sounds like America's farmers are owed the prices they are finally getting.
Good Intentions
Yield Unwanted Fruit
The path to Hades might not be literally paved with good intentions, but there are enough of them there that they rise up behind you and bite you on the butt now and then.
That's what the member-owners of the Wedge natural foods cooperative in Minneapolis are learning. They thought they had arrived at a win-win deal. At first glance, it sure looks like it. The co-op had reached an agreement to buy a 97-acre organic farm south of Minneapolis in Farmington. The owners of the farm are wanting to retire, and this move will keep the land an organic farm, and provide a convenient source of produce for the co-op.
It sounds like a great idea. Except for one thing. The deal appears to be illegal.
Yes, state officials say that the proposed deal runs afoul of state law against "corporate farms." And, yes, that's what the co-op is, it's a corporation, even though it may be a non-profit. Same would be true for the Minnesota-based cooperative and agribusiness giant Cenex-Harvest States (CHS), if it tried to buy up farmland on behalf of its farmer-members. Or publicly-owned Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) if it tried to buy up Minnesota farmland to grow corn to feed its ethanol plants. Or privately-owned Minnesota behemoth Cargill.
"But wait!" Wedge members will cry, "We just want to preserve the farm and grow healthy food. Those evil corporations just want to... make money!"
But it's awfully tough to try to legislate based on that distinction, which may really be a very subjective, personal judgement. The farmer-members of CHS would ask why you want to deprive them of bettering their families' lives. Little old ladies who own stock in ADM would ask what you've got against them. And the wealthy Cargill and MacMilllan families... well, to heck with them, they've got enough money. (But that's just the populist in me talking. More on that later.)
The intent of Minnesota's law seems to be to prevent insurance companies and other large companies from investing in Minnesota farmland, driving up prices, and turning the state's family farmers into tenant farmers. I appreciate the sentiment.
But how is the Wedge's proposed purchase really so different? My point is, the members of the Wedge also see buying this farmland as a good investment, even if the return is not being looked at as cash gains. (Which still might be realized later.)
I believe that some principles of physics also apply in economics. Just like with Newton's second law, in economics for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. In other words, economic activity doesn't happen in a vacuum. And although at first blush this may look like a win-win proposition for everyone involved, some people are still likely to be hurt.
Whom? Perhaps the same family farmers intended to be protected by the anti-corporate farming legislation.
How are they supposed to compete with the 1,300 members of the Wedge, who earn big-city salaries, and now want to take over production of their own organic food?
Here's what I'm talking about: The farm in question is located in an area where fields are fast turning into houses. The natural progression of things would suggest that this farm will be turned into housing. That's sad, yes, but it seems to be the natural progression.
But at the same time, that opens up opportunities for other farmers. Suppose there are some other farmers, a little farther out than Farmington -- let's say my hometown, Braham -- who have been following trends and thinking, "The city is really sprawling out. Pretty soon that big organic farm in Farmington will become housing. We could get our farm certified organic and exploit that growing market ourselves."
So that farm family in Braham might have begun to invest time and money into becoming a certified organic farm. But now what happened? A bunch of investors from the big city have bought that farm in Farmington, and cut the family farmers from Braham out of the loop.
Is that consistent with the ideals of the Wedge?
And what about down the road? Will the farm in Farmington really remain in cultivation for 100 years? Or will rising real estate prices spur a sale? What if 10 years from now the Wedge is offered $10 million for the 97 acres for which they paid $1.5 million. Will they be able to turn that down? Or will it make sense for them take the money and establish a new organic farm on lower-valued land a little farther out from the city?
Are we to believe they wouldn't do that with their store in the city? What if they were offered $4 million for their store, by someone who wanted to develop their block, and they could build a brand new, 100 percent "green" store a block away for $2 million. Wouldn't they be fools not to take the money? They could spend the excess $2 million to feed the poor if they so desired.
--------
I think we can link this story to the cut-price prescription drugs being offered by Wal-Mart and Target. The mega-retailers are offering many common prescription drugs for only $4. But not in Minnesota. You see, we have some old laws against selling products for less than cost. The intent was to protect small retailers from large retailers that might use temporary below-cost prices to put their smaller competitors out of business. But the result is, Minnesotans end up spending more for health care than they would otherwise have to, and, they are actually forced to give more money to Wal-Mart and Target than they would otherwise have to!
Now that's counter-productive!
These laws are an outgrowth of Minnesotans' "prairie populism.*" We like to think that we look out for the little guy whenever possible. The irony is, do the minimum pricing laws -- and anti-corporate farm law -- really do that? Not in all case, it would seem.
(Some might argue that what we call "prairie populism" is simply what other people call "socialism.")
Accident
or Design? Appendix Has a Purpose After All
I've always heard that the appendix serves no purpose. Scientists told us that it was some sort of leftover product of evolution.
But now, scientists say the appendix does have a purpose after all. It serves as a repository for good bacteria that are needed in the digestive system.
I think this is another illustration of what I've previously called the Arrogance of Science. Scientists like to assume that they finally have it all figured out. Sure, the scientists who came before them have been proven wrong time and time again, but we've finally got it all figured out. How did they know that the appendix had no purpose? Because they didn't know what the purpose was. And if they didn't know what the purpose was, then there must not be one at all.
Now that's arrogance.
It's also interesting to note that the appendix has been held up as some sort of evidence of evolution theory. It's said to be something left over from earlier in the evolutionary chain.
But now, if we know that the appendix has a very important, potentially life-saving function, doesn't it seem instead like evidence of some very good -- very intelligent --. design? Design so good, so intelligent, that we couldn't understand it until now. I suspect that are many more such discoveries waiting out there for us. If only we have the humility to admit how much we don't know.
Elwyn Tinklenberg announced last week that he will seek the DFL endorsement for Minnesota's 6th congressional district, so that he might challenge incumbent Michele Bachmann. What I find very interesting is a statement that Tinklenberg made last week, and which was played over and over as a sound bite on the radio.
Tinklenberg said that the 6th needed new leadership, citing three specific reasons: the Iraq War, Hurricane Katrina, and the 35W bridge collapse. Let's think about that.
Bachmann is in her first term. She took office in January, 2007 -- this year! Let's see, the Iraq War has been going on since 2003, Hurricane Katrina hit in 2005 -- I'd say Michele Bachmann is new leadership since then! (And what does the 6th district congressman from Minnesota have to do with Hurricane Katrina, anyway?)
But the most interesting aspect of this is the 35W bridge, which, incidentally, is not in the 6th district.
I think it's the most interesting aspect, because do you know why Elwyn Tinklenberg's name sounds familiar to Minnesotans? No, not because he sounds like a character from Mr. Roger's "Neighborhood of Make-Believe," but because he was Minnesota's Commissioner of Transportation from 1999-2002!
Sounds to me like he already had a chance to exhibit his leadership when it comes to bridges. But he didn't prevent the collapse.
Now is that Chutzpah, or what?
Italian
Tacos and Mexican Spaghetti
Today is Columbus Day, the day when we remember Christopher Columbus, who had no idea where he was going, still didn't know where he was when he got there, but gets credit for "discovering" people who didn't know they were lost.
Anyway, ol' C.C. was Italian, but his voyage was funded by the Spanish crown. That led to the Spanish colonization of much of the Western Hemisphere, and to this day, most of the nations from Mexico south speak Spanish. (The language of Brazil is Portuguese.) It also set us upon the path that now has many, many Spanish-speaking people legally or illegally coming into the United States, reshaping our own nation.
So I wonder, what if Columbus had gotten his backing from his own people? What if he had sailed under the Italian flag? Would Mexicans eat spaghetti instead of tacos?
Here's another Columbus Day oddity: It's a federal holiday, but not a state or local holiday in Minnesota. That means federal offices and banks are closed, but most people are at work, and state, county, city offices are open. That seems rather odd, because a federal holiday should mean everyone observes it, shouldn't it?
But when it comes to parking meters, the city of St. Paul is treating this as a holiday, and meters aren't being enforced! I guess that means that all the public employees who work downtown can park free on the street all day today, hogging all the meters, and those members of the general public who have to go downtown to deal with the bureaucracy will have to pay to park in a ramp.
A killer amoeba that lives in lakes, enters the body through the nose, and eats the brain has killed six swimmers in the U.S. this year.
You can read the story yourself.
What I'd like to call your attention to is this quote from Michael Beach of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
This is a heat-loving amoeba. As water temperatures go up, it does better. In future decades, as temperatures rise, we'd expect to see more cases.
Does EVERYTHING have to be linked to global warming?
Already, every report of a summer heat wave and deaths of the elderly is filled with predictions that this tragedy will grow with global warming. But does it work both ways? How about a blizzard or a cold snap? Have you ever seen a news report that said, "If not for global warming, even more old people would have frozen to death"?
No, you haven't. And you won't.
Some people claim the changes brought about by rising global temperatures will actually do more good than bad. More people will benefit than be harmed.
I don't know whether that is true, but I do know the mainstream media aren't going to be giving us both sides of the story. Even if rising temperatures might mean more brain-eating amoebas, but fewer people falling through the ice.
Hurry, the
Garbage Is Going Fast
The Pioneer Press yesterday had a story about trash hauling, how different cities handle it, and how people get upset if a change is proposed. Some cities, such as Minneapolis, make trash hauling a city function, performed by city employees. Other cities geographically apportion their city among haulers. Some may award the entire city to one hauler. And in St. Paul, anything goes -- all residents and businesses are free to contract individually with any hauler they choose.
It would seem that St. Paul's "anything goes" system is inherently inefficient. Trucks from many different companies travel down the same alleys each week. Wouldn't it be more efficient if there was only one hauler? It sure would seem that way. But consider this: Did the price of phone service go up, or down, when Ma Bell's "efficient" monopoly was broken up?
I happen to think that competition is good. It inspires all the competitors to do their best. Those that can't keep up drop out of the race.
The story mentions how one St. Paulite has taken the initiative to organize most of the households on his block to sign up with the same hauler, and cut down on how many trucks cruise through their alley. That meets with my approval, because it is the result of individual choice and the free market. The garbage hauler -- Ken Berquist & Sons -- agreed to give the neighbors a group discount. This makes a win-win for all involved: Fewer trucks, lower fees, and more (and more efficient) business for Berquist!
Yes, I think competition within the free market is what gets us good service and fair prices. Let me share a little anecdote with you.
My trash is picked up about noon, and a few weeks ago I was out checking on my garden at that time when I heard the distinctive sound of a garbage truck approaching. But I was surprised when, before the truck arrived, one of the workers from the truck came running up, grabbed my trash can, took off the cover, and then dumped it into the truck as soon as it caught up to him. The truck then took off, and the runner took off running again to catch up with the truck.
Boy, those guys know how to work. (Berquist, by the way.)
But a couple of days later, I saw something completely different. Watching out the window, I saw the truck arrive to pick up my recyclables. This truck belongs to a business that has a contract with the government to pick up recyclable materials in exchange for my tax dollars. It's a very impressive truck. It's huge -- so huge that we now have to put the stuff out in front of the house, so that it takes two passes by the Earth-saving, bio-diesel burning truck with the cute name to service one block, rather than the old way, in which one pass through the alley could service both sides.
So, nice, expensive, impressive truck. But how about the guy who got out to pick up my recyclables? I've never seen anyone work so slowly! He sauntered over, picked up some stuff, took it to the truck. Slowly walked back to get some more. A milk jug fell out as he picked up the bin by one end, but he just left it. Then he made an extra, super-slow trip back just to pick up that jug.
Hourly worker, for an employer with a monopoly, and paid by our tax dollars. Should we be surprised?
But that slow worker wasn't an isolated case. Later in the day I observed another one of the company's trucks, with a different operator. Not only did she also move like molasses, but she exposed the slowness of the entire process. She pulled up in front of a house, but before she put those recyclables into her truck, she had to pull a lever and wait while a bin on the side was hydraulically hoisted to the top of the truck, where it dumped its contents inside. Then she waited for the bin to return to her, slowly -- oh, so slowly -- loaded some more material into it, and then waited again while she raised the bin and dumped it again. I couldn't believe how long she spent servicing just one house.
Contrast that with the hustling guys working for the family-owned business.
Hate Crimes
and Terrorism (Wait a minute -- terrorism is a hate crime!)
What do hate crimes have to do with terrorism? Plenty, it turns out. And if you are an advocate of the idea of designated "hate crimes," you'd better be the biggest hawk in town when it comes to the war on terror.
The U.S. Senate last week passed an amendment to federal "hate crime" statutes, despite a threatened veto by President Bush. The legislation would extend "hate crime" protection to people based on gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability. Proponents hope that they will be able to avoid a veto, because they have attached the legislation to a high-priority defense bill President Bush wants passed.
Now, those of you who have been reading here for some time know that I oppose the concept of "hate crimes," because they are really "thought crimes." If you assault or murder someone, you have committed a crime and should do the time. Whether you had a "bigoted" or "tolerant" state of mind at the time -- as decided by someone else -- doesn't matter. And this is a very dangerous concept, because if the government can punish you more severely for assaulting a member of a group of which you don't approve, then it follows that you also might be punished less severely -- or not at all -- for committing crimes against members of a group of which the government doesn't approve. (No, Adolph, that doesn't sound like a good idea.)
According to a news story from Shailagh Murray of the Washington Post:
[Senate Republicans] were furious earlier this week when Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., announced he would force a vote on an expanded hate-crimes statute, with Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, calling Reid's maneuver a "shameful" attempt to "hijack" essential defense legislation.
Democrats argued that the amendment addresses terror of a different form. "The defense authorization is about dealing with the challenges of terrorism overseas," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. "This is about terrorism in our neighborhood."
Wait a minute. If Sen. Kennedy (a philandering alcoholic, born into a life of wealth and privilege, the result of his family illegally trafficking in controlled substances, and who left his secretary to drown after he drove her off a bridge -- can you imagine the mainstream media letting a Republican get away with a record like that?) says that "hate crimes" are terrorism, then is terrorism a "hate crime"?
Well, of course it is! If anything is a "hate crime," terrorism is. The terrorists even say as much. They say they want to kill us all because they hate us. They hate us because we are different from them. They hate Christians and Jews. They even hate homosexuals.
That's why they blow up trains and buildings, and fly airplanes into buildings.
That being the case, shouldn't liberal "hate crime" advocates such as Sen. Kennedy insist that the war on terror be prosecuted with extra zeal, since it's the response to a "hate crime"?
Why do they instead blame the victim and say, "We have to ask ourselves what we did to make them hate us so"?
This legislation expanding "hate crime" statutes is said to be written in honor of Matthew Shepard, a gay man who was beaten, tied to a fence and left to die near Laramie, Wyoming, in 1998. Can you imagine anyone saying, "Matthew Shepard's family should ask themselves what he did to make people hate him so much"?
We hate getting "spam" in our e-mail. We sign up for the "do not call" list. We worry about our privacy -- President Bush or Dick Cheney might be listening in to our phone conversations!
So what are we to make of this?
California startup Pudding Media Inc. introduced a service Monday that monitors Internet phone calls and dishes up promotions based on what people say. Consumers place calls for free over their computer, talking into a microphone, and in exchange they agree to let Pudding eavesdrop and show on-screen ads based on the conversations. Advertisers select from tens of thousands of keywords, similar to how they buy ads linked to the text of Internet searches. The service may show links to movie trailers to people talking about films or send game statistics to sports fans, San Jose, Calif.-based Pudding said.
Do you think this will succeed? If it does, it just shows that people don't really care about their privacy. At least not more than they care about their pennies.
I know, maybe President Bush could announce his own "promotion": If you happen to say the magic word "jihad" while he happens to be listening in on your conversation, you'll earn an all-expenses-paid trip to an exclusive Caribbean getaway!
I had lunch with former Minnesota Attorney General Mike Hatch today. OK, me and three dozen others, but he was at my table. Hatch came to our meeting of the Highland Business Association to speak on the subject of "The Future of Health Care."
Unfortunately, he didn't have any great revelations for us, or any magic solutions. I asked him if it was possible that our ability to invent and provide treatments and medications has simply exceeded our ability to pay.
He didn't seem to understand the question, and talked about how progress is a good thing, and he didn't think we should stop inventing things. (Which I had not suggested.)
Anyway, I think the "problem" may be that simple. We simply can't afford all of the health care options that are available. Just because someone invents a home theater system doesn't mean I can afford one. Just because we have free-range, fair-trade, organic, hand-plucked pheasant breasts for sale doesn't mean everyone can afford it. Just because someone invents private jets doesn't mean we can all have one. I might have to "settle" for 32-inch color TV, plain old chicken, and flying coach when I can afford to fly at all.
But wait! you say, Those are luxuries. Health care is a necessity. Maybe so, but how are you going to pay for an unlimited amount of it? You can't get something for nothing. Someone has to pay.
Everyone is looking for some magic "plan" that provides us all with all of the latest health care options at little cost. It ain't gonna happen.
What exactly is the "problem" with health care, anyway? I know it costs a lot. Believe me, I know. But why does it cost a lot? If we want to lower the cost we have to first figure out why it costs what it does.
Does the cost of health care rise steeply year after year because the cost of the same treatments is going up? Or is it because we are using more health care "products"? Or because new treatments cost more than the treatments they have replaced?
I don't know. But I do know that if I was in charge of trying to hold down health care costs, I'd be finding out.
Several aspects of the Sen. Larry Craig toe-tapping case puzzle me. For one thing, it almost seems like what he is "guilty" of is being gay. News accounts today report how he pleaded guilty to soliciting not "public sex," but "gay sex." I thought we were supposed to be beyond that. I thought his preference didn't matter. I thought it was all the same these days.
Where are all the diverse and tolerant Democrats? Why aren't they defending Craig?
And as others have pointed out, Craig didn't actually do anything that could be considered indecent. His "crime" is engaging in non-verbal behavior that is described by authorities as a come-on, with the assumption that it would lead to sexual behavior in a public restroom.
While the toe-tapping and other gestures didn't mean anything to me, what Craig did sounds an awfully lot like flirting. So are we going to start arresting men when they buy women drinks? And are we going to arrest women when they respond by smiling, looking away, and twirling a finger in their hair? Aren't those actions part of a courtship ritual that could lead to sex? And even in a public restroom, for all we know. You don't think there's ever been a heterosexual liaison in a public restroom?
All We Have
to Fear Is That We Might Run Out of Fears
My brother Dan and I were talking out behind the barn this weekend, solving the world's problems, and he mentioned how some people (usually liberals and/or mainstream media journalists) just seem intent on always having something to be afraid of. There always has to be a fear. They seem to want that. And I said, if it's true as some would have us believe that if God didn't make man, then man would have to make God, because of some need deep within the human psyche, then all of these fears fill the bill, too. And the fear of GLOBAL WARMING has all the marks of a religion. There's the sin of harming the Earth, our condemnation as we destroy the planet, end times, but a chance for redemption and salvation through our works if only we repent and follow the teachings of Brother Algore.
I think Global Warming is only the latest in a long line of fears, many of which were going to kill us all. Witches, the coming ice age, reefer madness, the Red Scare, the population bomb, mass starvation. Those weren't so bad, were they? Yet they've all had their turn as the threat that's going to destroy us.
Here's a great example of how the liberal media loves to fear the worst. Sam Schulman, writing about trends and trend watchers for the Wall Street Journal, gives us this:
The tipping point for trend analysis was Mr. Naisbitt's publication of "Megatrends," which went on to sell nine million copies. What was the appeal? A New York Times reviewer denounced the book for--of all things--its cheerfulness. "What is striking about Mr. Naisbitt's forecast is its irrepressible optimism. If you are depressed by the recession or have nuclear nightmares, try 'Megatrends.' Everything is better than you think, and this chipperness . . . may explain the book's rise on the best-seller list." The book was a slap in the face to the Jimmy Carteresque malaise that the chattering classes of the time felt was proper even in the Reagan years.
Isn't that the truth? So, did that recession do us in? How about nuclear weapons? No, those were just the worries of the day for liberals in the 1980s. But soon enough, we had Bill Clinton's "new economy" and the "peace dividend." No wonder they had to invent Global Warming! They needed something to worry about!
Hmmmm... Why is it that after decades of insisting that they didn't need to stop for directions, men are so quick to snap up electronic devices that will tell them exactly where they are and exactly where to drive?
Here's another thing to worry about: A Russian scientist says that as Siberia warms, thawed mammoth poop is decaying and releasing CO2 that contributes to GLOBAL WARMING.
Furthermore, the story reports that as the permafrost thaws, frozen river banks are collapsing into the water. Add this to stories that say within a few years all the glaciers will be gone, and a Northwest Passage will finally open through the Arctic ice, and I think we've got pretty good evidence that GLOBAL WARMING is... a mammoth bunch of hooey.
That's right, while these events might indicate that the Earth is warming, they contradict the theology of GLOBAL WARMING, which contends that it is entirely caused by humans. Consider, please, what we've been told about GLOBAL WARMING. We've been told that according to GLOBAL WARMING science, the average temperature of Earth would increase something like one degree over the next hundred years, but that would be enough to cause drastic changes. Therefore, we were told, we must act so as to not ruin the Earth for future generations.
But now what has happened? We're being told that the dreaded events of long-term projections are already upon us! But GLOBAL WARMING theology told us that this would take a century. Rather than prove their point, I think this shows that the Global Warmists don't know what they are talking about. Their "projections" are meaningless. They may be tracking a trend, but they don't have any idea what is really going on.
Cleary, the "science" of GLOBAL WARMING is not to be trusted. Something must be going on other than CO2 emissions from power plants and automobiles. Something bigger. Something that little old mankind can't control or influence.
I've said before that reducing pollution for the sake of reducing pollution is a worthy goal. But I don't have faith in GLOBAL WARMING theology. I think faith in GLOBAL WARMING is perhaps the ultimate in human hubris, believing that man is so powerful that he is bigger than nature. It reminds me of the Biblical story of the Tower of Babel, in which God ultimately punishes humanity for its hubris in thinking that it can build a monument to itself that reaches God's own Heaven.
Hmmmm.... could these extremely rapid environmental changes now being reported be God's way of saying, "You think you can cause Global Warming? I'll show you Global Warming!"
But must we only focus on the downside of GLOBAL WARMING? Pete Du Pont writes for the Wall Street Journal on the upside of GLOBAL WARMING -- all the lives it would save -- based on Bjorn Lomborg's book, "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming."
Today, September 19, is International Talk Like a Pirate Day. I kid you not. There's a Website and everything.
For great pirate-themed books for the little landlubbers in your life, go to my Usborne Books site -- http://davethebookguy.com -- and search for the key word "pirates." There are lots of great titles. I particularly recommend the "Pirate Handbook," a humorous but informative primer in piratehood and pirate-tude, and "True Stories of Pirates," a chapter book containing, yes, true stories about pirates.
Bonus! Mommy
and Daddy Are Getting Divorced
A few months back the Pioneer Press started running an "Ex-Etiquette" advice column, dealing with issues affecting divorced and/or remarried people and their children. I have a variety of feelings about this column. I'm sad that these issues are widespread enough to warrant such a column. I guess I'm glad that if it's needed, it's here. But I'm worried that its existence validates or gives a stamp of approval to adults who have children and then mess up their children's lives with their own personal affairs.
This strikes me as weird, too: The column is written by "Jann Blackstone-Ford and her husband's ex-wife, Sharyl Jupe." I guess I'm glad they get along. They are authors of "Ex-Etiquette for Parents" and founders of Bonus Families.
They're big on the whole "bonus" thing. I hadn't run into it previous to seeing their column, but they don't use "stepdaughter" or "stepmother." Instead, they write "bonus mom" or "bonus daughter," like it's a good thing when people tear apart their children's families. Boy, it makes it sound like everyone should get a divorce and remarry!
Just by eliminating the nasty-sounding "step" prefix and substituting the wonderful-sounding "bonus," they've entirely changed the nature of divorce. I wonder how else we could apply their problem-solving technique. I know, let's eliminate poverty! "Poor people" sounds so unpleasant. But if we take into account that poor people use less of the world's resources, we can turn that into a positive. No more "poor" people; bring on the "small environmental footprint" people!
Here's a good column by Paul Mulshine, a columnist for the Star-Ledger of Newark, New Jersy. Mulshine discusses what universal (government) health care might be like, looking to Europe for guidance.
Mulshine points out that if filmmaker Michael Moore actually got the wonderful, European-style "free" health care that he wants, the tubby director might be hauled in a for a mandatory checkup and told to lose 100 pounds, or else he might lose his "right" to further health care.
Mulshine notes that presidential hopeful John "Pretty Boy" Edwards endorses a plan for government health care under which you would have no choice about going to the doctor for preventive exams. You would have to go.
That would include mandatory mammograms for women! But what about "privacy"? What about a woman's body being a matter of choice between her and her doctor, and not the government? What about Roe v. Wade?
It seems to me that under Edwards' thinking, we'd have to force all females (starting at about age 12) to submit to mandatory pregnancy tests every three months, so that we could make sure they were offered proper care in a timely manner, which would include encouraging a first-trimester abortion to limit the government's financial exposure. After all, abortion is just an extreme form of preventive care that saves money in the long run.
Mulshine describes how Edwards made his big bucks suing doctors for malpractice, and says that would not have been possible under a government-run system of health care. I got to thinking, if Edwards really cares about people getting good healthcare, why doesn't he donate those millions he "earned" toward healthcare for the poor, instead of building himself a "compound." Why should he benefit from others' suffering? His actions speak more loudly than his words.
One Brain,
Two Brain; Red Brain, Blue Brain
Here's another post dealing with the differences between the "liberal brain" and the "conservative brain." A news story this week told me that scientists have found that "political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information."
No surprise there, at least to my (conservative) mind. As the Los Angeles Times story reported: "Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments, whereas liberals are more open to new experiences." But you don't need a study to know that, do you? I think that description doesn't merely describe "liberals" vs. "conservatives," it is the very definition of the two types.
Read the story if you want the details of the research experiment.
I think it's interesting to analyze the news story itself. The reporter, Denise Gellene, leads off her story by telling us that "scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work."
Interestingly, I think she shows her own brain's biases by the way she presents the finding in terms of liberals' brains being not "different," but "better." (How would she have handled it if the tests showed some races' brains were "better" than others?) And the story concludes with this paragraph:
Lead author David Amodio, an assistant professor of psychology at NYU, cautioned that the study looked at a narrow range of human behavior and it would be a mistake to conclude that one political orientation was better than another. The tendency of conservatives to block distracting information could be a good thing depending on the situation, he said.
The very fact that such a statement needed to be made and reported reveals a bias in the brains of the researcher and the reporter! But that's OK; we all have our biases. But why did the same reporter who wrote that last paragraph still lead with a reference to liberal brains being "better"?!
I say, both the "liberal brain" and the "conservative brain" can have strengths and weaknesses. A "conservative brain" that blocks out distraction and sticks to the proven course can be an asset. A "liberal brain" that isn't afraid to consider and try new (and possibly better) ways can be as asset. But either can also be a hindrance, because just as the old way of doing things is not always the best possible way, neither is the new way always an improvement.
So the trick is to make good decisions about when to stick with the old, and when to try the new. Not being afraid to consider anything new, but not just embracing change for change's sake. As a counterpoint to the story from reporter Gellene's brain, let me offer some examples of how a "conservative brain" can be a plus, and a "liberal brain" can be a minus.
Consider the Berlin Wall. Ronald Reagan doggedly clung to the "outdated" notion that the communist regimes of Eastern Europe were a bad thing, and that the Soviet Union should give those nations their freedom. More "enlightened" liberal minds called Reagan names, and told us that the people behind the Iron Curtain were happy with their situation. Who was proven right?
Now consider the "Murphy Brown" flap of the Dan Quayle years. Vice President Quayle said that the TV character set a bad example by glorifying voluntary single-motherhood. He clung to traditional ideas of family. But the liberal minds tried to make a laughingstock of Quayle, saying that there was nothing wrong with creating new kinds of families.
Of course, eventually even Al Gore admitted that Dan Quayle was right; it was a mistake for liberals to embrace any sort of familial arrangement just because anything new is good.
An amusing aspect of always embracing the new is that sometimes the "liberal brain" goes in circles. As an example, I'll offer the choice of how to feed babies. I don't have any historical details on this, but I'd guess that when "modern science" brought us baby formula to replace mother's milk, "liberal minds" were quick to advocate the formula as "modern" and "progressive." Meanwhile, a "conservative mind" would have said, "I'm sticking with the way that God intended it."
But after a while, the new becomes the old. After a couple of decades the "new" thing became to go back to breastfeeding, and the "liberal minds" advocated it as a new sort of embrace of doing things the "natural" way.
A Liberal
Man-of-Action Demands that Someone Do Something
An item in last Friday's Wall Street Journal "Best of the Web Today" intrigued me. It told about Duke University women's studies professor Kathy Rudy and her "Organizing 101" class in which the teacher went AWOL. I think that Rudy's description of this episode illustrates the differing mindsets that help explain how people continue to divide into different political camps. Here's what I mean:
Ms. Rudy recalls that 1/3 of the students did nothing. They just continued to show up and accepted their fate. These people represent the "victim class" of people who may complain that life isn't fair, but take no action to improve their lot.
The other 2/3 did indeed take action, but what sort of action did they take? They decided that their version of doing something would be to "make demands that would get our needs met."
In other words, they expected someone else to solve the problem.
Nowhere does Rudy appear to consider the possibility that the students could HELP THEMSELVES! Perhaps they could have organized themselves into a sort of group independent study, or invited guest lecturers from outside the University.
Sadly, helping themselves was not an option. That mindset practically defines modern-day liberals. Their only options are to complain about their lot in life and live a life of envy and hatred of those of whom they are jealous, or, demand that SOMEONE ELSE do something FOR THEM.
But organize in a matter to benefit yourself through your own efforts? That sounds too much like capitalism. They couldn't possibly do that.
You can see this helpless liberal mindset all around us. A letter to the editor in the St. Paul Pioneer Press this week decries the way that chain drug stores are putting independent pharmacies out of business. But the letter writer says there is something we as individuals can do.
"Fight back. Vote."
He says we can do "Something powerful and simple: Search now for candidates who can make a difference and vote for them."
That's a liberal's idea of "doing something."
How about this for "powerful and simple"? If you don't like chain stores putting independent stores out of business, then DON'T SHOP AT THEM!
Ah, but here's the problem, and it illustrates what drives much liberal-inspired public policy. An individual person can decide not to patronize chain stores, but he can't stop EVERYONE ELSE from patronizing chain stores. So he needs the government to impose his views on everyone else, and MAKE them do what HE wants!!!
We see this in those "Willing to Pay More for a Better Minnesota" yard signs advocating a tax increase. The Minnesota Department of Revenue will gladly accept any excess tax payments these warm-hearted people would like to make as donations, but that's not good enough. These people want the government to raise the tax rates to MAKE EVERYONE ELSE pay more, in order to fund their own pet projects.
Numbers are really too dangerous for newspeople to try to handle. Bill Moyers offers us more proof of that. On one of his Bush-bashing PBS programs, he offered this "proof" that the war in Iraq is a mistake and a failure:
1. More soldiers have died in Iraq than in the 9/11 attacks.
2. We've been in Iraq longer than it took to defeat the Nazis in WWII.
And what, exactly, do any of those numbers have to do with each other?
If he wants to go down that road, I have some other examples that he could have used, except they don't support the "newsman"'s poltical agenda.
1. American troops killed in WWII were 176 times as many as were killed at Pearl Harbor.
2. More Americans were killed on 9/11 than at Pearl Harbor.
3. U.S. combat deaths in Iraq are less than 1% of those killed in WWII, even though this war has lasted longer.
4. The time that passed between the FIRST attack on the World Trade Center and the SECOND attack on 9/11 was twice as long as we have been in Iraq. Yet in all that time, the best Bill Clinton could manage was to blow up an aspirin factory and a Chinese embassy.
No, those four examples don't prove anything. That's the point. Moyers didn't prove anything, either.
Following the collapse of the I-35W bridge, there's been a chorus of "we're neglecting our infrastructure." Looking around the Twin Cities, it doesn't necessarily appear that that is the case. For instance, news reports on the radio today are telling drivers that I-35W south of downtown Minneapolis will be closed this weekend due to an ongoing project replacing bridges over the freeway (which began well before the bridge collapse).
And on the St. Paul side of town, you might think that I-35E would take up some of the traffic that can't go through the Twin Cities on I-35W anymore. Yeah, good luck with that, because I-35E is already in the middle of a multi-year project to separate its commons area with I-694, and that has been causing traffic jams on I35E.
So the irony is, it's extra hard to compensate for the I-35W bridge collapse because of all the other freeway maintenance projects that were already underway. The I-35W bridge may have been neglected (and we still don't know that), but it's not like we're not doing anything with the roadways.
A Wisconsin man accused of killing his live-in girlfriend has come up with his defense: Peter Whyte says he killed his lover because he didn't want to have sex with her.
Now, guys, isn't it almost more embarrassing to admit to that than to being a murderer? He must have had one heck of a headache.
But, seriously, can you imagine a woman trying such a defense? That she killed her lover because she didn't want to have sex and he wouldn't take "no" for an answer? Wait, you don't have to imagine, that defense has been used successfully by women.
I doubt it will work for Whyte. Nor should it.
Pontiff,
Indulge Thyself / St. Algore's Special Treatment
It's been mentioned that this practice of buying "carbon offsets" is reminiscent of the Roman Catholic church's one-time practice of selling indulgences to absolve people of their sins.
Now, the Vatican is buying "offsets."
Included in a recent news roundup was an item about a Catholic youth conference coming up in Loreto, Italy. The conference will have an environmental focus, which is fine by me, but get this:
...trees will be planted in areas of southern Italy recently devastated by forest fires to make up for the carbon dioxide emissions generated by the festival, organizers said.
I've got to ask, Wouldn't trees be returning to those areas, anyway?
Forest fires are part of nature. They likely charred even more acreage before humans started trying to control and prevent them. After a fire, trees and other vegetation grow back. Sometimes much more intensely than prior to the fire. So unless I'm mistaken and burned-over areas turn into paved parking lots unless humans with guilty consciences plant trees, the Vatican isn't really accomplishing anything.
Meanwhile, closer to home, operators of a proposed Big Stone II power plant to be built near the Minnesota/South Dakota border have announced a plan to offset the plant's carbon emissions.
Those methods, some of which are still in the developmental stage, could range from burying carbon-dioxide emissions deep underground to buying carbon credits valued at $10-a-ton on a trading exchange. The exchanges could use the money to fund environmentally friendly projects such as tree planting to offset or neutralize the effects of utility greenhouse gases.
But environmentalists aren't pleased:
[Beth] Goodpaster, an attorney with the St. Paul-based nonprofit Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, said the agreement to offset carbon dioxide produced by the plant is meaningless. The utilities could charge themselves $10 for every ton of CO2 produced and pass along the cost to ratepayers without paying for an offsetting project, she said.
Wait a minute. This sounds like what St. Algore does to "offset" the energy used in his "compound." I guess what's good enough for St. Algore isn't good enough for 2.3 million "little people" who depend on power from the electric co-ops that plan to build Big Stone II.
All this gives me an idea for another way to fight GLOBAL WARMING. We know that without the sun, the Earth would be cold. So what if we could reduce the amount of sunshine hitting the Earth? Well, I've figured out how to do just that. All I ask of you is that you send me $29.95, and I will immediately start reducing the amount of the sunshine hitting us. You'll soon notice a little less sunshine every day.
I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "Dave, daylight offsets are such a great idea that it might go too far. What if so many people send you money that the days get too short?"
I've got that covered. We'll try my daylight reduction program for three months. Then, if we think enough cooling has taken place, I'll start selling darkness offsets, and increase the length of the day. That will be December, so people could buy the darkness offsets as Christmas gifts. Why, I'd bet that by just a few days before Christmas, we could reverse the darkening trend.
Woman Says
There Is No War on Boys
Yesterday's post suggested that society might be exhibiting some bias against males. Not to worry, Ellen Goodman has set me straight. In a column telling the rest of us how boys should behave, the Boston Globe columnist refers to "assorted imaginary 'wars against boys.'"
Good of a woman like Ellen to set that straight for us stupid males.
Isn't that ridiculous? What would Ms. Goodman (there's an ironic name for a Pulitzer Prize winning man-hater!) think if I wrote a column about the "imaginary 'glass ceiling'"? What would she think if a white guy like me wrote a column about "so-called racial prejudice"?
I'd be told I didn't know anything about it. That I shouldn't comment, because I couldn't possibly understand what it was like because I wasn't a member of those groups.
But there seems to be no such constraint against females preaching on what it's like to be male.
Discrimination
OK Against the Largest Minority
What minority group is it OK to stereotype and discriminate against? Men, according to a story by Jeffrey Zaslow of the Wall Street Journal. Zaslow addresses whether we are teaching children to be afraid of all men as potential sexual predators, and whether adults are making that judgment themselves.
Proponents of gender profiling say they're just playing the numbers when they try to put children in the proximity of women rather than men. Explains John Walsh of "America's Most Wanted Fame":
"It's not a witch hunt," he says. "It's all about minimizing risks. What dog is more likely to bite and hurt you? A Doberman, not a poodle. Who's more likely to molest a child? A male."
Well, that is logical. I can't really argue with the practical application here. It does raise an interesting question, though. Let's do a little hypothetical thinking for a moment. Suppose, just suppose, that statistics showed that members of any certain racial group were disproportionately committing violent crimes in a city. Now, suppose you were walking down a sidewalk one night a saw a member of that racial group approaching from the other direction. If you decide to cross the street to the other side, are you "minimizing risks," or are you just being prejudiced?
Hmmmm.....
dave ["at" ] downingworld
[.com] -- If you'd like to know what I
think about a particular topic, drop me a line: I may use it for a future
blurb. But remember: I'm not really a know-it-all; I just play one on the
Web. Thanks for tuning in, from your host David W. Downing.
HOME -- Public Affairs -- Marriage -- Ronald Reagan
Farm Life -- Slice of Life -- Humor
DowningCommunications -- Downing Pumpkins
Dave's Usborne Books Online Store
keep count with WebCounter, http://www.digits.com/