Immigration Reform is Fine - But How About Government Accountability?

Recently, I've been researching and compiling my family's history. On a popular genealogy website, I found information about my grandparents & great-grand parents dating back to the mid-1800's. It has been a lot of fun. My mother's family immigrated from Germany and my father's from Italy. One interesting similarity I proudly noted is that the records I found always said "Date Immigrated," rather than "Date Snuck In."

The distinction between these two phrases is clear: There are no such things as "Illegal Immigrants." Immigration is a legal process supported by the Constitution, codified in laws, and {supposedly) enforced by the government. People who come here without following the rules are criminals. Why has this point been missed by our elected officials? The government was wise to put a set of milestones for the government of Iraq into the war funding bill. How about a set of milestones for OUR government in the immigration reform bill?

First, the government should be required to show measurable progress toward improved security - and that those steps are working. Not just checks in the box. Why not put the National Guard on the Canadian and Mexican borders? We use the Coast Guard to patrol our nation's wet borders. Certainly it's appropriate to use soldiers to also patrol the dry ones. Second the government must also show that it is actually starting to enforce the laws already on the books, and the new ones it is passing. Otherwise, they aren't worth the paper on which they are written.

We've too long in this country given the government (Democrat or Republican controlled) a pass on doing the job we ask it to do, or that it has promised to do. We've been settling for excuses and lip service rather than results. We are the bosses and they are accountable to us. It's time they start proving they are worth all the time we spend electing them. They need to be accountable for their responsibilities - especially when it comes to something like security.

Portions of this post were part of a recent letter to the editor of the Hartford Courant.

A Chance for Compromise

A lot of people are worried. I hear the same gloom and doom from hard core Republicans about losing the majorities in the Senate and House in this week's elections that I heard from Democrats when Republicans swept into office six years ago. I don't understand why, though, because this situation is totally different. First, this was not as much a democratic sweep, where the needle shifted far left, as it really was a minor perturbation. The balance has shifted left of center, but just barely. Second, the Republicans still have George Bush and a more conservative Supreme Court than six years ago.

In reality, I see this as a good thing. Here's why...

If we forget about the fact that a good portion of the Democrats that were just elected are fiscal and social conservatives, and just go with the fact that the Democrats now have the majority, then OK, they can pass darn near any bill they wish, and propose any tax increase they want. But George Bush still has his veto power and isn't afraid to use it. Further, the Democrat's majority is no where near enough to override the vetoes. So, what that really means is that for the next two years no piece of legislation is likely to be enacted unless both sides of the aisle agree to it.

True compromise, at last. Both sides are looking out for their party's interests, are involved in the decisions and neither side gets to whine about the results. That will be nice for a change!

To the winners: Congratulations - you got the job now serve us well.

To the losers: Better luck next time.

To the whiners, detractors and critics from around the world, hear this:

I am tired of terms like "Regime Change," "Taking Control," "Losing Power" or "Seizing Power." This country is a republic with a representational democracy and our government has had continuity for over 200 years. The overlaps we have between the term lengths of the different branches of government are what gives us that continuity. What you have just seen is not a coup. It's the way we transition responsibility in the United States and we are proud of it. Let's get some things straight: We don't kill or exile our leaders when they leave office; We don't redesign our government every time political majorities change; We don't rewrite our constitution just because it suits us, or you. We are Americans and we are, on the whole, a bit more politically mature than that. Like us or not, we have the oldest and most stable constitutional republic/democracy on the planet and that says something.

Why I Voted For Joe Lieberman

Tonight I voted for Joe Lieberman for Senator. Why? I'll tell you.

It wasn't for his staunch conservatism. Being a hawkish democrat doesn't make him a conservative.

It wasn't for his charisma or eloquence. His public speaking skills and droning voice are only slightly less likely to make me cringe (or sleep) than are President Bush's - and I voted for Bush - twice!.

It wasn't his voting record - either the liberal votes he cast or how few he actually showed up to cast compared to other Senators.

It wasn't his loyalty. Let's face it, his third term as Senator was a consolation prize for him not being elected Vice-President. We weren't his first choice. (Accordingly, he wasn't mine, either.)

It wasn't his ability to keep a promise."18 years only"

No, it was none of those reasons. It was simply this: Joe Lieberman is a known quantity. Be he good or bad, we know how to deal with him. Schlesinger, for all his good ideas or positions is, sadly, unelectable. Lamont, the man against everything and for nothing, was to me an unacceptable choice.

I hate it when my I find myself using my vote as a preventative measure rather than a step forward. But, in politics as in chess, sometimes you get to advance, and sometimes all you can do is block. So, I realized the only way to keep "little Neddy" out of office was to keep "ol' Joe" in. Joe's no prize but thankfully, in my opinion, he's no Lamont, either.

Keeping my fingers crossed...

Making Your Mark In America

I just saw a TV commercial for Mitsubishi (Motors). Their opening line was "It's been 25 years since we made our mark in America..." Well, maybe for the car company...but...I seem to remember their AIRPLANES made quite an impression on Dec 7, 1941.

How quickly they'd like us to forget!

Why Is This Such A Surprise?

President Bush acknowledged using provisions within the Patriot Act to authorize wire taps on American citizens suspected of having links with terrorist groups. Now, Democratic lawmakers are all in a tizzy, calling for hearings, investigations and more. Can anyone explain this to me? Bush asked for these special provisions following September 11, and congress approved them. Why is anyone surprised that he actually usedthem as intended? I can only think of a few reasons why they are so upset:

1: They never expected him to use them, in which case they are stupid.

2: They never wanted him to use them, in which case they don't care about national security.

3: They planned for him to use them just so they could criticize him later.

Any of these three would be consistent with the current Democratic Party policy machine. More's the pity...

Morgan Freeman Talks Straight on Racism

I have always had deep respect for Morgan Freeman. As an actor, I think he stands out from the crowd with few equals. As a human being, he always impressed me as an intelligent, thoughtful person with a deeply held sense of personal integrity. I have never known much about his politics, and I'm sure that just as with most people. he and I wouldn't agree on everything. But he is one celebrity who I always thought it would be an honor to meet because he is a true gentleman. When I heard what he said on 60 Minutes, my respect went up even more, if that's possible. Way to go, Morgan!

Back in the late 1970s, I would watch the news with my parents on the weekends. On Saturdays, the 10:00 news on WNEW (Channel 5) was only 1/2-hour and at 10:30PM, the station presented another 1/2-hour show called "Black News." One Saturday night, I remember calling the station (I was only about 12 at the time) at about 10:35PM and asked them why they had that show? The producer said it was to highlight news in the black community. I said, "Oh, so that means the first half hour was White News?" I heard a long silence on the other end of the phonefollowed finally by "Um, no...but..." I thought it was a fair question.

The only way to end racism IS to stop talking about it. It's takes practice to look across a crowded room and not point someone out as "the white/black/oriental guy next to so and so," but it's important to try. If the our differences aren't important enough to be criteria for how we treat each other, then they aren't important enough to keep talking about! It's true that we shouldn't be as overly sensitive to labels (I AM white, after all), but it's really our similarities that are more important to brag about. I had an article published about this in a local Op-ed page two years ago. If you're interested, you can read it here.
Cheers to Morgan Freeman for so beautifully standing up for his rights as an American sans hyphen!

I'm In The Wrong Business

For the last several nights, I've received phone solicitations from my undergraduate university looking for donations. Most of these calls have been during the dinner hour. For most of the calls, I had not been home, but two nights ago, I was. And I was eating. And it was 6:30PM. I took the call. Someone, presumably an undergraduate student, Identified himself and asked for me by name. I told this kid that yes, I am so-and-so and asked if he was aware that this was most people's dinner time and told him that I wasn't interested. I then hung up and went back to my meal. I was rude, yes. But I had had enough.

Look, let's say I go to some major department store near my home and buy a refrigerator. I finance it and pay it off after a few years. Since that time, I have moved, and even though the first refrigerator was immensely useful to me, having stored my meals and enabled me, in part, to get where I am now...I bought another, more advanced refrigerator from another major store.

Years later...the first fridge is paid for, the old store closed its branch near my old home, and doesn't even sell refrigerators anymore. But I still get these calls asking me to help the store expand its headquarters or help other people buy other appliances. Now, to be fair, I am allowed to come back and watch other people shopping for those appliances free of cost (called auditing)...which could be cool. And I receive mailings updating me on other former customers and am occasionally invited to dinners. On the downside many of the sales reps are politically liberal...but...I digress.

Alright, enough analogies. The point is that I graduated 18 years ago and paid off my student loans. My campus was bulldozed and made part of an expanding mall and my degree program was canceled. For all intent and purposes, the school I graduated from doesn't even exist any more. And yet, the calls keep coming. Give it up already. What other business...and yes...colleges and universities ARE businesses...tries to get away with this? Surely, not one I would be lucky enough to own. A nice job if you can get it, though, I guess.

Pragmatism

"The pessimist sees a glass that's half empty. The optimist sees a glass that's half full. I see a glass that's twice as big as it has to be." George Carlin

See that third option? That's me. I'm a proud pragmatist - with a touch of cynicism and a dash of sarcasm thrown in for good measure. When I look at a subject, I'm guided less often by emotion and more often by a desire to seek out a root cause or to ask a question thathasn't been asked. A perfect example is the assault on Christmas.

It's been in the news more this year than any other. From "Holiday Trees" to "Season's Greetings" it's all so hypocritical and stupid. The way I see it, it's not as much anti-Christian or pro-secular as it is poor marketing. I mean...if you own a business and go so far as putting up decorations and offering goods which are obviously associated with the modern celebration of Christmas, then you obviously want my money.That's one reason I hate malls at this time of year. The greed is so blatant.

Maybe at one time there was some element of good will and spirit to it. Now, the decorating is all clearly done to empty my wallet. And it used to be confined to after Thanksgiving. When I was growing up, I wouldn't see decorations in stores until after you cracked the wishbone. Now...they're up BEFORE Halloween. That's right, ghosts and goblinsright beside Santa and Nativity scenes. It's disheartening.

Look...it's all about sucking up, right? Remember that shopping scene in Pretty Woman where Richard Gere tells that annoyingly insincere salesman that "I think we need some major sucking up here." That's my point. Do you really expect to get my money by luring me into your store with Christmas decorations then trying to wash the meaning rightout of the season? WRONG.

Charm me. Woo me. At least try to make me believe that you actually give a darn about what I think is important. If you want our money at this time of year, call it Christmas.

A "Perspective" On Global Warming

Beware of Junk Science. Let me take you through a thought experiment...

Imagine you are driving up a steep hill and find yourself behind someone pushing a stalled car up that hill. You see it's a pretty good size SUV, and yet one man is pushing it not much slower than he can walk unencumbered on level ground. You think to yourself "That man is pretty strong!" You may also conclude that pushing an SUV up a hill isn't as tough as you might have expected, if only one man can do it - regardlessof his individual strength.

Since you've got some time, you run a few numbers in your head and determine that each of his steps moves the car three feet and burns so many calories of energy. You conclude that given his probable weight, and the distance to go, he will arrive at the top of the hill in 25 minutes about 3 pounds lighter. All this is from your vantage point of being behind the man pushing the SUV. But what if you look at itdifferently?

Well, if you were to look at it from the side, you would also see his three equally burly friends PULLING the car by a rope attached to the front bumper. From this perspective, the impact of the man in the back drops significantly. While he is still contributing to the effort, he is only doing 1/4 or less of the actual work. This little scenario demonstrates the importance of understanding all the variables contributing to a problem, and one of the reasons why I don't subscribeto the current hysteria of global warming.

The problem with the global warming fad is that I don't believe the "scientists" really understand the phenomenon they are studying. I also don't believe they are looking at all the contributing factors, nor are they properly weighting the ones they are counting. If they were, then the correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature rise would be closer. In actuality, I have seen reports that global temperature rise more closely matches the fluctuations of solar activity and its interactions with the Earth's magnetic field - factors most of the"scientists" ignore or underestimate.

Also, many temperature readings used by the "scientists" are taken in or around population centers or at airports. Large numbers of people and large areas of concrete are going to produce local temperature spikes. But, temperature readings taken by satellite over the Earth's
oceans...4/5 of the planet's area, do not support the panic. The average global temperature may be rising, but not as fast as the fear-mongers would have us believe.

As an engineer, I understand the difficulty of making computer simulations of complex, multi-variable systems. The atmosphere is a very complicated system...so complicated, in fact, that the best models we can make of it still do not predict the weather with any significantly higher accuracy than 50 years ago - before computers and satellites. We've only begun to scratch the surface. We don't yet evenknow what we don't know about it.

CO2 emissions, ozone levels, solar radiation and the planet's magnetic field are all contributing factors. But we don't yet know what all the variables are. And I resist the political agenda that wants to push the idea of "bad humans...bad humans." While I have no problem with the
idea of working to reduce emissions and look for alternate, clean fuel sources, there are significant hurdles. The two largest being cost and efficiency.

What ever new energy system is introduced, people need to buy into it by buying it. So, they need to be able to afford it. If it's wonderfully efficient, but too expensive...then it will be relegated to a precious few and companies won't waste their time working on it too fast. Similarly, if it's cheap but inefficient, the same problem occurs...no one will buy it. Fuel cells have been around since the 1960's, but are too expensive for significant private use. Solar power has been aroundquite a while also...but it is still too inefficient.

Replacing oil will take time, and as that happens...slowly...the pollution of the atmosphere will go down. When that happens, if we still see the global temperature rising, what do we blame it on then if not our cars and factories? Maybe ourselves. After all there are 6billion of us...exhaling CO2 24/7. Hmm...let's see...

If I assume an average person's lungs holds 2 liters of CO2 per breath...

And an average person might breath 15 times a minute, or 900 times an hour or 21600 times a day...

That's 43200 liters or 43.2 cubic meters of CO2 per day, per person.

Multiply that by 6 billion, and that's 259.2 billion cubic meters of CO2 per day or ~107 trillion cubic meters per year.

Now, factor in population growth, and all the other mammals on the planet pumping out CO2 (and more mammals as well) and the numbers sound down right daunting. How soon before we fill up the atmosphere with CO2? We need to do something about all this rampant exhaling!!!!!!!!!

BREATH RATIONING!!!!!!!

Pretty stupid, huh? This is the stuff of junk science and media hype....not serious research and responsible journalism. Back in the early 1970's, many scientists believed the Earth was actually cooling and we were headed towards another ice age. I admit I need to read more on exactly what the Bush Administration's position on this is, but based on what I have heard, I don't think it is too far askew from reality. They don't entirely dismiss the problem...but they do want to make sure the science is sound, and they don't want to buy into the hysteria.

Worrying about the economy is also part of the President's job - if he didn't, the press would nail him for that, instead. Besides, our country is hardly the greatest offender...just look at China, Africa and what the locals are doing to the rain forests.

The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and has gone through repeated cycles of global heating and cooling - even within recorded history. This may be just another which, from our our limited perspective in time, we may never understand fully. In many ways, the planet doesn't even know we are here and will do as it darn well pleases. So, do your part as best as you can; slow down, turn off unneeded lights, support research into fuel economy and alternative fuels...but breath easy and relax. We'll get away from oil soon enough for the planet, if not the environmentalists. Until then, we need it and should not be afraid of it.

A Simple Solution?

So...the debate on abortion is back in the Supreme Court. This time, there is a concern over parental notification for minors. The pro-choice side wants the law re-written to say parental notification shouldn't be required if the girl's life or health is in jeopardy. The pro-life side says doctors can get a court order to get around notification.

Quick analysis...both sides are right...and wrong. Parental notification is ALWAYS required for minors. But, waiting for a judge to issue a court order can impose a dangerous delay. So...what to do?

Well...DUH!

Allow doctors to provide the abortion if it is a medical necessity without needing a court order, and THEN they MUST notify the parents afterwards. See...everyone is happy. Health is not put on hold, and parents find out. It's the same as if your kid was on a field trip or in an accident and needed immediate attention and you weren't around to consent.

Jeesh...do I have to solve EVERYTHIHNG?

A History Lesson

Time is a river, and history, our boat. We may be able to have some effect on the boat's course, but, in many cases, the river will take us where it darn well pleases. We credit or blame many people throughout history with having done this or that thing. What is interesting is if we care to look a bit closer, we see that the event was historically inevitable. The person remembered for it was simply lucky or unlucky enough to have gotten there first.

History credits Columbus with having "discovered" America. A better phrase would be re-discovered. In truth we now know that the Vikings were here 400 or so years earlier, being apparently the first to arrive after the people we call the native Americans. They, however, found the land not to their liking, and went home. There is evidence to suggest that the Chinese actually arrived in 1421, but the proof was lost because the emperor who sent them was deposed while they were enroute. Upon their return, they never got credit and none of their countrymen followed.

Columbus got the credit because people from Europe did follow, and the race to colonize was on. But, if he hadn't been successful, or hadn't come at all, someone else would have, probably within the next 20 years. Europe was going through a resurgence. Exploration was all the rage. History was ready for where time was leading it. It was inevitable. Things downstream might have looked a bit different, but, America would have been discovered and settled at about the same point in history.

Sir Isaac Newton discovered the Calculus...or did he? Ask some, and they will credit Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a contemporary of Newton. Who did or didn't isn't as important as the fact that it was discovered then. Newton, either because of better standing within the academic community or better press, or both, got the credit. But, if he hadn't discovered it, again, it was inevitable. Two men, at the same time, working on the same ideas...time was ready for Calculus.

Charles Darwin is known as the father of the Theory of Evolution and the concept of Natural Selection. But was he really the only one to discover the mechanisms of the natural world? Ask a biologist about Alfred R. Wallace. You might discover that he, too, was developing a theory on natural selection, at about the same time. Darwin, however, beat Wallace to the presses and his name is now forever linked with that discovery.

These are but three high profile examples. Delve deeper into history, and you will find that it is replete with similar stories. Our actions and events may be brought about by free will, but when taken as a whole, humanity moves in ways that are oddly predictable, at least in hindsight. Further contemporary examples would be the first flight, discovery of the double-helix of DNA, personal computers, and on and on. Time creates opportunities for many innovators. History remembers the fastest, even if the race was only won by a few seconds.

Politics is no exception to these rules. Its path is sometimes even more inevitable than other fields of human endeavor. Democracy would have re-emerged into the world roughly 200 years ago with or without America leading the way. All the forces of politics, society and economics were rushing headlong in that direction. In our country, had not a civil war brought slavery to a close, then further northern industrialism and simple social pressure along the lines of the temperance movement might have. It just might have taken until the 1870's or 80's for the slaves to see emancipation. The waves of immigrants in the late 1800's might have also had an effect on the viability and logic of slavery. Whatever the cause, it was doomed to die out roughly when it did.

Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev share the credit for ending the Soviet Union. They had the temerity, stubbornness and courage to bring about change. But, the USSR was a faulty lid on an over-pressurized cooker. Had not these three people emerged on the scene when they did, pushing and pulling the wall down, someone, or something else would have caused the same effect. It's possible the hammer and sickle might have seen the new millennium, but they'd have never celebrated their centennial. When I look back and read some of the internal things going on during it's 73 year lifetime, I'm sometimes surprised it made fifty.

It's like the chicken and the egg. Did the people make the events great, or was it the other way around? An now, to tie it all together. The war in Iraq was inevitable.

If George W. Bush was not elected president, Iraq would have been invaded. There was simply no way around it. Gore would have been president and had to deal with the UN resolutions and inspectors, and he would have gone in. He would have used his numerous statements as Vice President as rationale, and probably have blamed the former president Bush for not doing it right the first time, but he would have gone in.

If the attacks on September 11, 2001 had not happened, Iraq would have been invaded. It might have take a few more years for it to have happened, but Saddam Hussein's arrogance and disregard for others would not have gone unchecked. His days were numbered. Not by us, but by history. If we didn't take him out, the British would have. If not them, then the Russians. Regardless of who led the charge, Saddam Hussein's reign would not have seen the close of the first decade of the 21st century.

If John Kerry had defeated George Bush in 2004, he'd be defending our position in Iraq and bemoaning the negative press and the lack of reporting on the progress being made. Oh, he'd say he's doing things better, but he would be constrained by events to act much the same way President Bush is today. He's a politician, and when placed in a certain position, he would also have to become a realist.

You can blame a president for being a poor public speaker, or for having no morals, or for being naive, or lots of things. But, some things they do are just inevitable because they are right and/or their time has come. Given similar circumstances and pressures from without and within, different people will often choose the same course of action. Even if they claim it was for different reasons.

Saddam Hussein was not singled out because George W. Bush was president. He just happened to run out of time WHEN George W. Bush was president.

In God We Trust!

In retrospect, it almost seems prophetic that only one day after Supreme Court nominee John Roberts stated in his confirmation hearings that a judge should not legislate from the bench (I paraphrase), another judge did just that.  U.S. District Judge Lawrence Karlton ruled that saying the pledge in public schools is unconstitutional - primarily because of the phrase "under God.".

 

Maybe he was trying to get his last ups before the rules started getting enforced again.  Because, what is actually unconstitutional is a judge making a law, which is what this man did.  It's ridiculous.  It's abhorrent.  Fortunately...it also won't stand!  The line has finally been crossed...brace yourselves for the storm about to hit.  The people of this country will not let this ruling survive.  It's one thing to take away their homes...that's bad enough.  It's another thing to take away their right to publicly affirm their belief in God.  Ultra left-wing liberal fanaticism and societal mass-intimidation has just peaked, my friends, and I'd say it's days are now numbered.

 

We need the extremes in this country, both left and right, because they help us maintain our focus.  Most of what we have regarding laws are the products of hard-fought compromise.  I remember a friend in 7th grade who wouldn't say the pledge because he was a Jehovah's witness.  Fine - that was his choice and right.  At least he stood out of respect for the rest of us.

 

Please read my posting from December 15, 2004.  What's old is new again!

 

Oh, and I hope Michael Newdow got paid in chickens or something for his legal services, because I'd hate to offend his sensibilities by forcing him to take money emblazoned with such a blatantly coercive slogan as "In God We Trust." 

 

September 11, 2001

REMEMBER!

Rehnquist's Legacy

Those of us who have lost parents can appreciate what Chief Justice Rehnquist's family is going through. My thought's and prayers go out to them during this time of mourning. His death is also loss for the nation. Since 1969 from the US Attorney General's office, to the supreme court beginning in 1972, the Chief Justice's family shared him with the nation. For this, I am grateful. He was a champion of judicial restraint in a time of increasing activism in his own, and lower courts. His candidness and direct approach on the Supreme Court's rulings will be missed by the country.

His loss creates not just a second vacancy on the court, but actually, also a third. President Bush now has to fill two Associate Justice positions, and the vacancy left by Chief Justice Rehnquist. While he could nominate someone from outside the court directly as Chief Justice, filling two positions at once, I believe he should, and will nominate from within. While this will present the nation with months of speculation, nominations and, finally, three confirmation hearings, I believe it is the right approach.

The best way to honor Chief Justice Rehnquist's judicial legacy is to fill his vacancy with someone who shares his view of the constitution and the court's role. To do this, President Bush need look no further than Associate Justices Thomas and Scalia. This nomination should occur first, and quickly, as the president suggested in his press conference this morning. It would be neither imprudent nor inappropriate for the Senate to conduct confirmation hearings for a new Chief Justice nominated from within before conducting the confirmation hearings for John Roberts or a second Associate Justice.

I am in the middle of reading Mark R. Levin's book, "Men in Black." If you haven't read it yet, you should. If you haven't heard of it, find out here. I can't say I agree with every one of his interpretations on the Supreme Court's rulings, but his basic premise is hard to dispute - judicial activism is leading the Supreme Court away from the role intended by the founders. Throughout the book, Justice Rehnquist's opinions are referenced as examples of a judicial originailism and restraint. He was a voice or reason and will be missed by a grateful nation.

RIP: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist

Chief Justice William H. Renquist, who served on the Supreme Court for almost 34 years, passed away this evening at 80 after a long struggle with cancer. During his tenure, he was involved in many landmark cases and helped shape the current face of the court. Frequently, he was among a conservative minority trying to stem the tide of judicial excess. He was surrounded by his three children when he passed away.

Links:

Michelle Malkin
Fox News
New York Times

In Katrina's Wake

For the past few days, I have been watching, listening and reading the reports of the damage and loss in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama.  To say I am saddened and shocked is an understatement.  There is absolutely nothing I can use as a basis for comparison in my own life.  It actually hurts to watch.

My heart goes out to all the victims and survivors.  My prayers are with them and the rescue workers as they struggle try to put their lives back into some semblance of order.

Please, to anyone who reads this if you're interested in helping, please do it smartly.  I was reading the on the Red Cross web site that "in-kind" donations must actually be handled carefully in order to not overwhelm relief workers and make sure they get to their intended recipients.  Who would have thought - but it makes sense.  Check out the following link.

About Donating Goods to the Red Cross for Areas Impacted by Hurricane Katrina

If you see a a call for in-kind donations, please check to make sure that they have their own distribution structure in place, or have linked with a local one prepared to receive and distribute the goods.

Gifts of cash can be made at:  Red Cross Online Donation Form - be sure to select "Hurricane 2005 Relief" from the box to target your gift.

I haven't heard anything yet about blood donations in response, but if you do, I encourage you to donate.  It is an often overlooked resource, and often in short supply.  I have been donating blood for 22 years and find it very rewarding.

My best to all of you, and keep the people affected by Katrina in your thoughts.

Sugarcoating A Crime

I am confused by something. I was watching Hannity and Colmes earlier. Sean Hannity was in El Paso, Texas with the border patrol and the Minutemen. The topic of the show was, obviously, border security. My confusion is in the different terms used to describe people who sneak across the border. Sean Hannity calls them illegal aliens. Alan Colmes calls them undocumented immigrants.

Let's stop with the euphemisms, OK? There are no undocumented immigrants. An immigrant is someone who comes here by applying for the right. As such, they are documented throughout the immigration process. The people caught by the infrared cameras bypassing the rules and breaking our laws may very well be undocumented, but they are NOT immigrants. They are illegal aliens.

Mr. Colmes, my ancestors came to the United States from Germany in the 1870's and from Italy in 1906. They followed the rules and obeyed the laws. They learned the language, contributed to society, paid taxes, and fought in our wars with distinction. THEY, sir, were immigrants. Do not insult their memory or their honor by grouping them with people who show blatant disrespect for our country. Do not slander them by elevating criminals to their level just because you find the truth too distasteful to speak.

Get a backbone, sir. You would call the Minutemen criminals before you would call the illegal aliens the same. What is wrong with you?

A Reason to Explore - Our Very Existence

For those who thought my blog was only political...surprise. I am an engineer. I spend each working day like all engineers...improving yesterday's technology and creating tomorrow's. When the MSM disparages, misrepresents, over emphasizes the bad or just plain screws it up regarding science and technology, the hairs on the back of my neck rise up.

Media scare tactics and gloom-and-doom tirades are the bane of my existence. They can kill progress fast because at best, they only tell partial truths. Unfortunately, the press loves junk science because it sells. As with all subjects, they feel whole story...the truth...just isn't always as interesting or worth telling.

Every now and then, someone from outside the MSM gets it right. The link below is one such case. It is an essay by Dr. Robert Zubrin, formerly of NASA, now a leading proponent of increasing our manned exploration of space, and making Mars the next destination. I have read this before, but am doing so again in the wake of the latest shuttle mission and the press hungrily looking for the chinks in NASA's armor.

A New Martian Frontier: Recapturing the Soul of America

Please do read it and comment. All the whiners and cowards and nay-sayers out there - especially in the MSM - who want to shut off funding to NASA don't, won't or can't see the point...or don't care. We need this - our continued vibrancy and existence as a nation and species depend on it. Anyway...I digress too much...just have a look.

I will be talking more about science and technology in the future, too. Don't worry, though...politics and history are still passions...and they'll still be discussed here.

Amendments I'd Like to See

Things are hopping politically and if you're interested in the goings on in government, whether executive, legislative or judicial, there should be something juicy to follow. With this as inspiration, I've decided to draft a few Amendments to our Constitution. I am not deluding myself into thinking they'll ever be ratified, but I can dream, can't I?

(Please forgive me if my language isn't 100% constitutionally perfect.)

On Legislative Responsibility
Congress has been running amok for years...no decades...no maybe well over a century. They need to be told to self regulate how they draft legislation. If they miss, then the President needs the line-item-veto to put things back on track.

Congress shall add no amendment to any proposed legislation which is not relevant to the said bill. All legislation regarding pay and benefits for Congress shall be submitted for consideration only as a bill, and may not be an amendment to any type of proposed legislation. Congress shall endeavor in all earnestness to remove all irrelevant and inappropriate amendments from pending legislation prior to voting and submitting to the President. The President shall have the power to enforce this amendment by vetoing individual amendments from legislation he intends to approve if the amendment is determined to be irrelevant and/or inappropriate.

On Presidential Nominations
"No one truly qualified for government wants the job." Thank the MSM and sniping, backbiting, mud-slinging politicians for this fact. Well, this proposed amendment might help, in part, by sharply reducing the amount of time a Presidential nominee is exposed to the political elements. Recently I was reading a book of biographies of all the Associate Justices and Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. Congress often approved them within a week of being nominated. What a wonderful world that would be...Congress getting things done in a timely manner.

The President shall make all nominations to federal offices by noon (local time - Washington D.C.) on non-holiday Mondays while Congress is in session. To ensure expediency, the Congress shall approve all nominations without exception by five in the evening (local time - Washington D.C.) on the second Friday following the nomination. The President may not nominate someone for federal office if sufficient time in the legislative session does not remain for a full debate and voting cycle. All votes on nominees will be simple yes or no votes, with a simple majority being required for ascension. All regular rules of legislative conduct apply, but Congress may censure any or all of its members who deliberately seek to unreasonably delay or disrupt the proceedings of advise and consent. Legislators may not apply any political, religious or ideological requirements to nominees. Judicial nominees my not be questioned as to how they would vote on specific legislation.

On Elections to Congress
OK, enough is enough...let someone else have a chance already! This proposed amendment was inspired, in part, by Hillary Clinton's hijacking (yes, I said it) of a New York Senatorial seat. Career fat cat and dead wood politicians also inspired it - regardless of on which side of the aisle they resided.

No person may be elected as a Senator more than twice, nor may any person be elected a Senator more than once if that person served more than half the term of another Senator. No person may be elected as a Representative more than six times, nor may any person be elected a Representative more than five times if that person served more than half the term of another Representative. A person who has served the maximum time allowed in either the Senate or the House of Representatives may also then run for and serve for the fully allowed time in the other house. No person may be elected to either the Senate or House of Representatives from any state if that person is not a current resident of that state and has not lived in the state for at least three years prior to taking office. If a person is a resident of a state but also serving in the military during the three years prior to taking elected office, that person may only be in actual residence for two of the three years (in any combination) prior to serving.

On Elections to Federal Offices
Come on, people, let's not be greedy. This proposed amendment was also inspired by Hillary Clinton's usurping one of my home states Senatorial seat and her obvious disregard for it given her intent to leave it cold one day. It was also inspired by Senator Lieberman's dual run for Senator and Vice-President in 2000.

No person may run for two elected federal offices at the same time, nor may a person currently holding any federal elected office run for any other federal elected office unless the terms of the two offices do not overlap more than one month... Where the terms of office do overlap more than one month, the person must resign the first office in order to run for the second.

On the Election of the President
OK...let's close the barn door BEFORE the horse escapes again! The citizens do not elect the President, because he/she is not our president, directly. The President is the leader of our Republic - our union of sovereign states. As such, we don't use a direct popular election. Rather, we have muddied the water with the Electoral College, so each state receives electors for president based on the total number of congressional representatives plus senators.

The problem is that the electoral span between the largest and smallest states was only nine votes in 1788 whereas now it's fifty-two. This huge disparity disrupts the compromise the delegates made in 1787 and returns us to a popular vote in all but name. When the election is very close, well, we see what happens. Under the proposed amendment below, George Bush would have received 78 electoral votes in 2000 and Al Gore only 61. This system would return the power to elect the president back to a split between the state and population. It would also prevent a tie, and help persuade candidates to campaign in more than just the heavily populated states. Eight votes isn't too wide a spread - so every state counts.

The electoral votes of the various states shall apportion as follows: No state shall have less than two and no more than ten electoral votes for president. The electoral votes shall be normalized to the most populous state and rounded to the neatest even number representing the ratio of its population to that of the most populous state. The District of Columbia shall have only one electoral vote for president. The various states shall assign their total electoral votes to only one candidate. The electoral votes are legally bound to the winning candidate in that state and may not be arbitrarily or deliberately assigned to any other candidate. The ceremonial position of elector is hereby abolished.

Since When is This Backtracking?

Today during a press conference, the president answered questions about Karl Rove and the continuing investigation into who leaked information about the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Bush's comment (as reported on CNN.com) was:

"I think it's best if people wait until the investigation is complete before you jump to conclusions. I would like this to end as quickly as possible so we know the facts. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration."

This was reported today on CNN.com under the headline "Bush appears to shift course on CIA leak." In it, the president is accused of back-pedaling on his June 2004 statement that he would fire anybody who was responsible for the leak.

Um...how?

Oh, yeah, because he wants to wait until someone is proved guilty BEFORE punishing them. That's right. Silly me. We're supposed to shoot first and ask questions later if a conservative politician wants to wait until all the facts are in, but look the other way if a liberal is under suspicion.

The MSM doesn't care about the news, or informing the people. No longer is it "All the news that's fit to Print." Instead it should be "All the news that's fit to distort, exploit and misrepresent." Grow up!

Oh, and while we're on the subject, how about the disrespect the MSM paid to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh? Wasn't this a joint press conference? I think it was inappropriate of the press to ignore the prime minister and divert the attention of the conference to other non-related subjects. India isn't some backwater, third-rate nation. And even if it was, it was rude and inexcusable of the press to push the prime minister to the side. And the president should have told them so.

How to Spot a Liberal

I am not politically correct, or always tactful. But, I feel that if someone is acting stupidly, they need to have it brought to their attention. Otherwise, how can they ever change? Following are two real life encounters with liberals - nearly 10 years apart - where I was able to give them something else to think about...

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Encounter 1: The Mock Senate Hearing

In the spring of 1982 when I was in 11th grade, my American History teacher decided to hold a mock Senate hearing to teach our class about the way legislation is drafted. He picked a topic which was in the news - whether or not to have a peace time draft. Each student was assigned a role, either a senator from the Senate Armed Services Committee, or a lobbyist. I was to be a senator from New York.

While I am not specifically advocating a draft now, I didn't and don't see one as necessarily evil - especially if needed. My senator, however, was dead against it. So, ever the actor, I was true to the part and opposed the draft, despite my personal feelings. My teacher was surprised because he always referred to me as his personal Joe McCarthy. My nemesis in the class, a very liberal girl, got her dream role - a lobbyist from the ACLU.

On the second day of the hearings, my nemesis testified - saying that a draft was completely unconstitutional. In fact, she felt it violated a citizen's rights to make them serve in the armed forces at all, for any reason what so ever! I hated sitting there - keeping quiet and not arguing with her. I think I perforated my lower lip from biting it so hard. One of my friends who knew I was conservative asked me how I kept my cool. To this day, I still don't know.

The encounter came during the break that followed. The class broke up - all of us meandering around the room - the teacher standing in the corner by the door, just watching. I saw my nemesis talking to a friend, her purse on the desk in front of her - a ten dollar bill sticking partly out. I walked up to her desk, looked at her, then the purse, took the ten and began to walk away.

She went berserk. She grabbed me and said "Give it back!"

I said "No, it's mine now" and broke away. (All the while, our teacher is just watching from the corner). She followed and hit me - HARD - in my shoulder and yelled again for me to return it. That's when I turned on her.

I held up the ten in her face and said "What, are you gonna fight me for this?"

"Yes!" she said and she pushed me again.

Then I said "Oh, you'll fight me for this money, but not for your freedoms? Babe, your priorities are all screwed up!" I threw the ten in her face and walked away. As I looked into the corner of the room, our teacher (a US Navy & Viet-Nam vet) was just shaking his head and laughing.

LESSON 1: Liberal extremists don't always understand what is really important. As such, they rarely fight the fights worth fighting and often come across as hypocritical - leaving themselves wide open to quick-thinking conservatives.

(Note to kids - DO NOT DO WHAT I DID! I was lucky I didn't get in serious trouble!!! Given the chance to do it again, I would have found a way to do it differently.)

***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** *****

Encounter 2: The Political Survey

Back in the late summer of 1992 during the home stretch of the presidential elections, my wife and I were moving house. To save on expenses, we rented a truck and did it ourselves. While loading the truck, I was approached by a college student conducting a political survey. Bear in mind, I was carrying large, heavy boxes from my house to the truck. Below is the conversation that took place to the best of my memory:

Student: Hello sir, I am a college student, political science major, and I was wondering if you would mind answering a few questions about the upcoming elections.

Me: Well, (grunt, groan) this really isn't the best time. I'm kinda busy. (I put the box in the truck and returned for another)

Student: (following) That's OK, I can walk next to you. I won't get in your way at all. It's only about 10 questions.

Me: (reaching the truck with the next box, I put it in the truck and looked at him, breathing hard) You're a Democrat, right? "Progressive," liberal, support Bill Clinton, hated Reagan, right?

Student: Yes, that's right, how did you know?

Me: A Republican would have offered to carry a box!

The student left without asking any questions.

Lesson 2: In my experience, activist liberals seldom practice what they preach, like REALLY helping others. They'll watch you carry the box, even tell you HOW to do it, but won't really lift a finger to help. Case in point - Al Gore circling the globe warning us about "man-made" global warming all the while emitting more CO2 in a day than many families emit in a month.

1000 hits! Thank You!

Today I reached 1000 hits. Well, OK, a portion of them are mine
(visiting, editing, etc.), but the vast majority are not. So, thanks to
everyone for stopping by and reading - and also tracking back -
something I have just gotten into myself. It's been fun so far and I
look forward to more.

Regards,

A Layman's Point of View

Why Do They Hate Us?

From the moment the first airplane struck on September 11, 2001, people here have been trying to understand why it happened. What could posses people to do this to others, let alone to themselves? As if our grief wasn’t enough, we were also filled with a thirst for answers that seemed beyond satiation. We joined to mourn, console each other, and begin the long search for answers.

It didn’t take long for sorrow turned to self-recrimination. People started asking “What did we do to deserve this?� and “Are we being punished for something?� Surely, no one would do this without provocation. Eventually, however, introspection turns to accusations and the victim is put on trial in the court of public opinion. It happened here four years ago and it will happen in England. Just give it time.

All we can do for the UK right now is to keep them in our thoughts and prayers, and be there as friends, as they were there for us. For America, however, it may be appropriate to examine the why. Let's look at our behavior as a possible cause. Do we bring these attacks on ourselves? Do we do things that anger Islamic extremists? If we look through the eyes of our attackers, yes, of course we do. We do many things, everyday, on purpose, even proudly, which anger people all over the world.

Our society and its principles exist in such stark contrast to so much of the rest of the world, we can't avoid it in many cases. We have a free and open society. Our culture moves fast and to those on the outside, it can appear chaotic and reckless – sometimes even amoral. Our Bill of Rights is seen as threatening to oppressive, fundamentalist governments and groups.

Our laws are based on ancient religious principles, yet we use those laws to guarantee people of all faiths (or none) equal treatment and respect. Rather than kill each other, many different faiths live side by side in peace. Religion is accepted, supported and even encouraged to some extent, but the ultimate decision as to how to or if to worship is private. In spite of this, our societies are essentially secular. We work very hard to keep a clear distinction between religious and public law.

We guarantee individuals equal treatment under the law, regardless of their race, gender or status. Even today, many nations consider this a dangerous concept. Our respect for women, for example, contributes to global animosity. The lines between genders have been all but completely erased in many cases. When women in rigidly controlled countries see this and ask: "Why can’t I have this, too?" their governments cringe.

Our foreign policy also bears some scrutiny. For example, we preach separation of church and state, but openly support a religious nation - namely Israel. We say we respect the sovereignty of nations; yet openly oppose those with governments that conflict with our national interests and ideals. We don’t just pay lip service to our ideals, either. We have gone to great lengths to protect and defend them for ourselves and others when we saw them being denied. We have the power to do it, with almost total impunity, and yet, we hold back, in many cases. Add to this that we rush to aid victims of tragedies and natural disasters – regardless if they are our friends or not. The appearance of hypocrisy is staggering.

So, to make no small point of it, yes, we have done and still do many things to cause many nations around the world to hate and fear us. As American's, it would be hypocritical of us to admit otherwise. Having acknowledged the obvious and owned up to our actions, we must now ask: “Have we actually done anything wrong? Here again, the answer is also obvious...it's no.

We are imperfect, and we make mistakes, but overall, our aim is true and right. We do stumble sometimes on the way toward our goals, but that’s only because they are lofty and difficult to reach. The ideals on which our nation was founded are noble, and worthy of the striving for and acting upon. If our quest for freedom for ourselves and others around the world angers some, then they need to also look to themselves.

There’s an old saying that you can’t please everybody. It’s time we stopped trying. Our freedoms may come at the expense of always making a good first impression, but I submit that the problem may lay in the eye of the beholder. The entire world doesn't have to like us or agree with us, but they have to live with us as much as we have to live with them. The responsibility for getting along is not ours, alone.

The above post contains excerpts from the July 7 post - "Terror Attacks in London." It has been submitted for editorial publication.

Terror Attacks in London

You know what it's like getting up in the morning from a deep and comfortable sleep? The alarm goes off and you're jolted awake. You hit the snooze button and lie there. You tell yourself you'll get up in a few minutes, but without fail, you fall asleep again. Then the second alarm goes off. It's softer, not quite as dramatic, but still startling. And the message is the same...that it's time to wake up.

September 11 was the free world's alarm clock. We were jolted to our very core. And we were awake. In spite of our best efforts, however, we got comfortable and fell asleep again. This morning's attacks in London were the world's snooze alarm. The death toll was lower, and the material damage less, but the effect on people with consciences was no less devastating. Even one death is too many.

Sometimes I think religion and politics have very little to do with any of this. It just seems as though there are people in this world who want to kill us just because they can. Well, let's stop them, if for no other reason than just because WE can. They need to learn that the rules of living in a civilized society apply to them, as well. They don't have to like us or agree with us, but they do have to live with us. The responsibility is not ours, alone!

In the mean time, let's all keep the people in London (and the UK) in our thoughts and prayers. Now is when our friends need us to be there for them, like they have been there for us.

Independence Day Reflections

Today, as we celebrate our nation's independence, it's important to respect the culture out of which that independence was born. The men who fought, debated and crafted our free country were a complex mixture if persistence, intelligence, foresightedness and religious conviction. Those who followed had respect for the men and gratitude for their gift. We who are the inheritors of that gift should not forget this.

I can think of no better way to spend the day than to enjoy it with my family. But, as always, I plan to watch the musical 1776, re-read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Defense of Fort McHenry, the poem by Francis Scott Key which became the lyrics to our national anthem. I attached it below for your reading pleasure. I always find it's imagery stirring. Back then, words were to writers what paint was to an artist. When you read it, pay attention to the last stanza. Then, as now, it is relevant.

Happy Independence Day from A Layman's Point of View!

**************************************************

The Defense of Fort McHenry
“The Star Spangled Banner�
Francis Scott Key
20 September 1814

Oh, say can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

On the shore, dimly seen through the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, now conceals, now discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner! O long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wiped out their foul footstep's pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, for our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner forever shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!