Is Nothing Sacred?

So, I go the market and one of the things I am asked to get is a "sweet" for
desert. "Something Halloweeny." I go down the aisle with all the Halloween
candy and get some choice goodies. On the end-cap, I see the sides of boxes
that make me pause...candy canes. I turn the corner to be faced with a
four-foot wide, seven foot high display of candy canes. I shake my
head...candy canes out before Halloween? Well, I say to myself, at least
it's just candy canes. I turn to back down the candy aisle and am
dumbfounded by what I saw next. All along the middle of the aisle, across
from the Halloween candy at which I was just looking, were Christmas
decorations. My back was to them the whole time. Christmas trees, or
rather "Holiday" trees. Come on, can't you even wait until after Haloween
is over? Let me enjoy one holiday before you start inundating me with the
next!

Fred's Saying What Needs to be Said

I've heard the complaints and read the articles complaining that Fred
Thompson is saying a lot with out saying much. What some people don't
understand is that he is saying very important things - things that need to
be said. Instead of talking about abortion, gay marriage or some other
polarizing, hot-button issue, he has chosen to focus much of his time and
energy a much more important issue, specifically, restoring the roles and
responsibilities of the President, Congress and Supreme Court to those
defined by the Constitution.

Fred is big on Federalism. I, for one, am glad to finally hear a candidate
talk about this. I firmly believe it is the lack of respect towards and
adherence to the basic design of our government that is really at the heart
of many of our problems. To begin with, the President is not a king. Now,
many people would answer me by saying that they know this. If that's the
case, then why do they continue treat him like one? Why is every President
and candidate besieged by questions about issues over which the office of
the President has absolutely no authority?

Let's think about this. The <http://www.constitution.org/constit_.htm>
Constitution is very specific about the roles and responsibilities of the
three branches of our government. A President's word is by no means
absolute and is usually subject to the "advice and consent" of the Senate.
He/she alone does not have to power to raise or lower taxes, create or
overturn laws, declare war, peace or alliances or find people guilty of
crimes. A President may and, according to the Constitution, is expected to
make suggestions to Congress regarding budgets, taxes, laws and treaties.
Often, this happens on an almost daily basis, but at the very least, it is
Constitutionally required at the yearly State of the Union Address.

For things such as declaring war and appointing most federal officers
(cabinet members, judges, etc), he must basically ask permission. With
respect to military action, a President may take limited, immediate action
to defend America, its citizens or interests, or in retaliation for some
attack but a prolonged military engagement or war itself requires the
Senate's approval. So, what this boils down to is a job 90% of which
consists of suggesting, advising and asking permission. Only 10% of the
President's job is autocratic, such as the aforementioned limited military
action, granting reprieves and pardons, dismissing federal officers or
employees, or making temporary recess appointments to fill vacancies. For
the really big stuff, it's "mother, may I?"

So, why is the President held publicly accountable for poverty, inflation
and taxes when it's the House of Representatives that controls the money?
Why is he to blame for a war or lack of protracted action when the Senate
must approve of it? Why is the continued existence of a bad law or failure
to pass a new one assumed to be part of the President's job when it really
belongs in the hands of the Congress to create them or, in limited cases,
the Supreme Court to overturn them? Three groups are to blame: the public,
the press and the candidates.

Regardless of what these groups may actually know of the President's
responsibilities, by and large, they ignore it. Instead, they revert to the
sheep and shepherd mentality of one person in charge of all. Maybe it's
human nature to always want to follow a single leader. It sure makes it
easier to blame someone when things go wrong. But in the President's job
description, the words "official scapegoat" or the like don't appear
anywhere. Nevertheless, people whine and gripe, the press publishes and
editorializes, and candidates pander. As a result, we usually elect our
Presidents on promises they are completely impotent to uphold once in
office.

The most important thing a citizen or candidate can do is to read the job
description of the office for which they are voting or running. If the
candidate is talking about things that don't relate or making promises they
can't guarantee, the voters should look for another candidate and the
candidate should look for another job. Fred Thompson has read the
President's job description. Now it's the voters' turns. Read the
Constitution and listen to the candidates. You'll be surprised how few
really know what is expected or allowed by the job for which they are
competing.

But, Fred does!

A Somber Anniversary

Yesterday morning my company, like most American's companies, had a moment
of silence to remember the victims of the September 11th terrorist attacks,
and the soldiers now fighting overseas. Ours was at 8:46 AM, the time the
first plane struck. It's hard to believe it's been six years. Honestly, it
feels like it's been longer...much longer. It seems like history -
something you learn about in class that happened long ago to other people.
Sometimes, I equate it to learning about the attack on Pearl Harbor. I know
better, but I can't shake the feeling of remoteness. Ironically, just
like six years ago, I was sitting in a training class at 8:46 AM. You'd
think the added sense of deja-vu would have made me feel more connected to
the day, but it didn't. After some serious thought I realized why I feel so
far removed from that day...one word...complacency.

I suppose it's natural to feel somewhat complacent about something that
happened six years ago. I mean, it wasn't yesterday. But to feel so
completely distant from it, like I remember hearing about it rather than
remembering it, makes it very surreal. It wasn't surreal for my friend who
got off his morning train at the WTC station at 8:46 AM to confusion and
fear, only to emerge on the street into a war zone. Or for my other friend
who, while coincidentally looking out of his office window at 7 Liberty
Plaza at 8:46 AM actually watched the first plane hit. It was very real for
my cousins, also, both NYC firefighters who showed up later that afternoon
for their regular shifts to continue fighting the blaze and, for weeks
afterward, assist in the rescue and recovery efforts. All four of them,
gratefully, for me and more importantly, their families, survived.

All the while, here I was, safely tucked in Connecticut, a long distance
spectator. Now, six years later, that distance seems so much greater.

The signs of that day are all around us. From security lines at the airport
to terror alerts to metal detectors to Al Qaeda videos to the war itself.
No where was it more obvious than in Washington, D.C. This spring, my
family took a vacation there. It was very sad to see a city specifically
designed for openness and accessibility hiding within itself behind jersey
barriers. Gone are the days when you could just walk into the Capitol or
the National Archives, or wait in line for a same day tour of the White
House. I don't know if we'll ever get that innocence back again.

Maybe that's really what I'm feeling - a loss of innocence - and with it
went all the expectations of safety and security I grew up feeling were mine
just because I was an American. That could be why I feel so detached from
the events of September 11...it's complacency born of a forced realization
that we are targets. Maybe I feel this way because I've so convinced myself
that we can never and have never truly been safe that I think what happened
was just natural or inevitable. Hey, it's going to rain again some day, why
get all excited when it happens and melancholy looking back? It's part of
life. But things like 9-11 aren't, or at least shouldn't be. Not for us, or
anyone.

People say we have lost our liberties over the past six years, but I think
what we've really lost is our sense of freedom. We're scared, so we hide
and stop doing things the way we used to. We guard ourselves more, close
ourselves off more. We mistrust and grumble. We immerse ourselves in
pop-culture because the reality of the world is too scary, and we think that
maybe, just maybe, if we hide from it and divert our attention, it won't
catch up with us. Imagine that...a nation of 300 million suspicious,
possibly paranoid, reality-TV watching shut-ins. No wonder we're at each
other's throats...we have cabin fever. We keep fighting and looking for
someone or something to blame for how we feel, but we're aiming at the wrong
targets.

The President isn't our enemy, neither is Congress, nor the Supreme Court,
nor the Patriot Act, nor the soldiers, nor Republicans nor Democrats nor
minorities nor whatever. Complacency...that's the enemy. These other
things are parts of our culture, something too many of us have been
avoiding for too long. Oh, we talk, or rather, argue politics, for example,
but are we really involved in it? Do we really understand it? How long has
it been? Twenty years? Thirty? One hundred? We talk about fighting the
war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but what about the war here. The war for our
freedom starts here.

We need to start fighting ourselves - not each other like we have been - but
our individual selves. It's time we fought the complacency within each of
us that keeps us shut off and became involved again in our lives and our
country. Instead of watching our neighbors, how about watching out for
them? Rather than protesting something going wrong, how about celebrating
or working to further something that is going right? Why spend money on the
latest fad: save it or invest it or donate some to charity. Become involved
in your community and/or church. Don't snipe at the political opposition,
engage them in a thoughtful debate, taking the time to listen and consider
their point of view.

In the end, we'll probably find more freedom and security by doing these
things than we have known for a while. And maybe we'll put an end to that
awful complacency that tells us that what happened six years ago in New
York, Washington and Pennsylvania was just inevitable and that we had it
coming. If we gain anything from 9-11, it should be to always remember that
such things were, and forever ought to be, the exceptions, not the norm.

A Different Perspective

Sean Hannity used to (and may still) interview people on the street every
Thursday afternoon on his radio show. The segment was called "Man in the
Street" and had as its main purpose demonstrating how ill-informed many
Americans (especially liberal and younger ones) are about their country,
leaders and history. At the same time, it showed how well versed so many
are in pop-culture, sports and gossip. These well done segments were both
entertaining and enlightening, and quite scary. It's sobering to hear
person after person not recognizing photos of George Bush, Dick Chaney or
Condoleezza Rice but having no problem recognizing Michael Jackson or
Brittany Spears. Truly frightening!

Sean would frequently express worry that these people were cancelling out
the votes of Republicans - a sentiment I shared - until yesterday. You see,
my mind inverts things...thoughts...constantly rolling them over and over
and providing different ways of looking at them. Yesterday, while I was
driving home, this thought must have gotten the Tony Robbins
positive-thinking treatment because I suddenly realized that I am actually
cancelling out THEIR votes. WOW! What a difference? In one flash, I went
from victim to crusader - Defender of the Right (pun intended) and all that!
I was pumped.

So, now armed with this new perspective, I have gone from worried to
hopeful. After all, there can't possibly REALLY be more Americans believing
the liberal-wing nuts instead of ascribing to conservative principles. With
that, my new mission is clear - get our numbers talking. To any
conservatives out` there who feel that you have no say, start writing
letters, speaking to friends, and making your voices heard. The Republican
Party needs you to be silent no more!

Fred Gains Ground!

Well, it was only a matter of time. Fred Thompson is now (statistically)
tied with Rudy Giuliani for the lead among the GOP candidates. While I
don't place much stock in polls as final determiners, this one does show
several things: first the general dissatisfaction Republicans have with the
other candidates, and second, the potential Fred Thompson has to win this
race. Let's face it, he was second without actually running, now after only
a week, he is tied with the leader. With this kind of momentum, the
possibilities are looking pretty good.

Now, to keep things moving, Senator Thompson needs to push for his 1-on-1
debates - and lots of them. He should start with Huckabee since he was the
first to accept, then keep working through the crowd. Hey, while he's at
it, debate some Democrat contenders also. There's nothing in the rules that
says he can't. I know other polls show Hilliary and Obama leading over
Fred, but the people just need to see the man in action.

Why Don't People Think Anymore?

I was on my way home from work and came to a "T" intersection with a stop
sign for me - the side road. I needed to turn left, so I stopped at the
line, then pulled up to see around the corner in both directions. Just then,
a driver that wants to turn right pulls up on my right a bit ahead of me and
blocks my view so I can no longer see right, but he can see left. So I pull
a little further ahead, restoring my view and blocking his. And this
numbskull has the nerve to shoot me a dirty look.

DUH!

If I'm turning left, I need to be able to see both directions. And if it's
safe for me to turn, then it is, by default, safe for the dumb-dumb next to
me to turn also. But just because it's safe for him to turn right, doesn't
mean that there isn't a car coming from that direction preventing me from
turning left.

Why don't people think??? Is it that hard to work out the logic, and maybe,
also apply a little consideration in the process?

The Huckabee - Thompson Debate...Let's See It!

Senator Fred Thompson said in an interview after formally announcing his candidacy that he would prefer a Lincoln-Douglass style of debate rather than the current multi-player, sound-byte oriented style. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee has said he accepts the challenge. So let's see it! This would be a welcome change from the current debate style and if it occurred often enough with the players shifting, it would give voters a great opportunity to really see the lesser candidates and hear real discussion on the issues.

Again, one-on-one, single topic, hour long. Real discussions - real answers - I'm all for it.

So...when's it gonna be, Fred?

Senator Craig, Stay Resigned

I maintain my position on Senator Craig's restroom incident - that the
police officer was over-zealous, the transcript was ludicrous and one sided,
and that he shouldn't have plead guilty and shouldn't have resigned.

Having said all that, now that he HAS resigned, he should not do an
about-face. I say this for the same reasons I say he shouldn't have plead
guilty and shouldn't have resigned in the first place...it made him appear
weak-spined. Now, waffling on whether or not to stay in office only makes
him appear more so.

This isn't an indictment of Senator Craig's career, service or general
character - no doubt the recent events have sent his life and mind spinning.
However, he needs to stick by his decision to resign - there can be no
turning back.

Senator Craig, go ahead and fight your legal battle over the guilty plea -
and best of luck there! But as for your Senate seat, go gracefully. Doing
so will allow you a final measure of self and public respect.

Put Your Standards Where Your Mouths Are!

Once again, important issues are being pushed off the front page in favor of
selections from the seedier side of life. The main-stream press and high
blogsphere are having field-days with Senators Craig and Vitter. While
Senator Craig's guilt looks in-question to me, Senator Vitter's has been
confessed. Still, do these things need to be discussed to the extent to
which they are? Day after day, the same stale sound bites followed by the
same tired analyses. Why? To sell papers or ads and keep us interested.
Hey, sex sells, and no one knows that better than a journalist. When it
comes to influencing public opinion, the press puts Madison Avenue to shame.

It isn't just sex, however, that sells. Financial misdealings, money in the
freezer, war records (or lack thereof), birthday party wishes, drugs,
partying children, plagiarism. The list goes on. I'm not condoning
immoral, unethical or illegal behavior, but all the coverage does make
innocence rather irrelevant. People are tried and convicted in the press
and the not-guilty never seem to get separated from the guilty. Certainly,
the press never attacks vindicating and apologizing with the same zeal they
attack accusing. Why? Again, guilt sells, innocence bores. To some caught
in the crossfire, it doesn't seem fair, but that's the way life goes, I
guess. Especially in politics.

While it's true that we want our elected officials to be people of high
merit, we can't expect them to be any less human and fallible than
ourselves. People make mistakes and within reason, we need to try to
forgive, or at the very least, be somewhat understanding. Lets not forget
that elected officials are also fellow citizens. Just because they chose to
serve doesn't mean they should forfeit all rights to privacy. And let's
face it, illegalities and ethics issues aside, many of the things discussed
are private matters - best left out of print and off the record. Some of
the issues brought to light are just ridiculous. It's one thing to try to
defend against something worthy of a fight, but how do you defend against
the absurd? It makes me realize the truth in the saying "Anyone truly
qualified for a political office doesn't want it." Can you blame them? If
we want people to continue step forward and serve, they need to have some
assurances that they will not be convicted solely on accusation - especially
stupid ones, and if they do make some mistakes, that they'll be given the
chance to apologize and/or make amends.

But if people who are supposed to serve the public trust are to be held to a
higher standard, where does that leave journalists? Aren't they, too,
supposed to serve the public trust? Don't they, too, have a responsibility
for fairness, restraint, honesty and integrity? If they are going to
question other's ethics and morals, shouldn't theirs be subject to similar
scrutiny? So to the people of the press, before you ask your next
accusatory question or write your next career ending article, ask yourself
"is it worth it?" "Who else will be hurt by what I say or write and do they
deserve it?" "Is it journalism, or sensationalism?" "Am I serving the
public trust or just trying to sell papers and maybe win a Pulitzer?" More
importantly, ask yourself if you are truly qualified to stand in judgment of
others. Ask yourself if you could pass a similar personal test. Do you
truly have the moral high ground? It's time you apply the same standards to
yourselves that you apply to others. Subject yourselves to that through
which you put others. I, for one, don't believe you have the stomachs, or
empty closets for it.

Don't Go To The Bathroom In Airports!!!

The word is out! Don't go to the bathroom in airports or you may be arrested for lewd conduct.

Senator Larry Craig resigned from his senate seat because an over-zealous police officer held his interpretation of events over the Senator's and decided to played judge, jury and executioner all at the same time. He called the senator a liar. How did he lie? I listened to the tape of the questioning between Senator Craig and the officer...it was ludicrous! "You touched the bottom of the stall between us." "Your foot touched mine." "Your palm was up." "I see this type of stuff in here every day." Whoa...sounds incriminating to me! Let's lock the sicko up and throw away the key!!!

I'm talking about the cop, actually...not Senator Craig.

If the Senator did anything wrong based on what I heard on that tape, it was giving up too damn quick. Explain something to me. How can the police officer say he was NOT trying to entrap people, but then say he sees this type of stuff every day? Sounds like a prolonged sting peration to me. Either that, or the officer has some explaining to do about his OWN intentions in the restroom. How great would it have been if the conversation went as follows?

Officer: Your foot touched mine

Craig: No it didn't, yours touched mine.

Officer: And your hand reached down. And I saw your ring.

Craig: Why the hell were you looking under my stall?

Officer: I saw you looking into the stalls while you were waiting.

Craig: Were you checking me out even before I sat down? You really need a new hobby.

Officer: I'm disappointed in you, Senator.

Craig: I'll bet. It seems you had hoped for a livelier afternoon. But you're really not my type. I like women - my wife, in particular.

Officer: Never mind, wise ass, just go catch your flight (sound of ripping ticket)

Craig: Thanks, officer. By the way, you should know it's probably illegal to solicit sex in a public restroom. They probably have bars for this type of thing...

Obviously, I don't know the officer's intentions, and have no real basis for making any accusation, but this invented dialogue shows how absurd this incident is, and how easily one side can dominate a discussion, putting the other on the defensive and making them sound guilty.

Welcome, Fred!

Well, now we're going to see a campaign. Fred Thompson will be announcing
his candidacy this Thursday, and I can't wait! I'm not deluding myself into
thinking that just because he is entering the race that he has it locked
up...far from it. But, he has a good chance and I hope he gets it. Even if
he doesn't get the nomination, he is definitely going to shake things up and
get Republicans focused on more important issues. Given the problems we've
been having lately, we need that focus badly.

So, welcome, Fred. Make it count!

Please run, Fred!

I've made my decision. I want Fred Thompson to run for President of the United States of America. I know there are people who are going to argue this with me, but I have good reasons. Mostly, I agree with him on many issues. Notice I said many, not all. I don't believe it's possible to fall in line totally with a candidate's beliefs. I agree with President Bush on many issues, but certainly, not all. However, when choosing a candidate to back for public office, we must weigh our options against all the issues currently in need of attention and make our choice. Most often, we must compromise some desires in order to get most of what we want.

Here are just a few examples of where I agree with Senator Thompson:

1. Illegal aliens should not be given any preferences just because they happened to make it in to the country and evade capture long enough. They certainly do not deserve the rights or benefits of a citizen or resident alien, nor especially protection under our laws. Remember, they flouted our laws to get in here in the first place, Now they (supported by the ACLU and Democratic party hierarchy) want those same laws to wok in their favor when it suits them? I don't think so. A sovereign nation has the right to control the flow of people into its borders and to deal with those who enter illegally.

2. Tax cuts stimulate the economy. Every time taxes get lowered, people save more, invest more, spend more, work more and general revenues to the government actually increase. Every time taxes go up, people stop saving, investing and spending...tax increases, unemployment and inflation follow. This is not theory, it's economic and historic fact.

3. The death penalty works, and is fair. We must not as a society or nation dictate to states how to prosecute criminals. Local judges, not federal ones, must be allowed to make local decisions based on locally passed laws. Pressure groups like the ACLU and Amnesty International must not be given federal forums to lobby against issues rightfully belonging to states.

4. Abortion is not a national or Presidential issue. It should be left to the states. Rowe v. Wade was not wrong in its support for legal abortion, but rather in it usurpation of state authority over how to best manage this delicate and personal issue locally.

Detractors say "he's an actor playing the role of President." To that, I say..."So what?" These same arguments were made a generation ago about President Reagan. They have as little relevance now as they did then. Let's face it, actors have always been involved in things outside sound stages - often with great success. Does that mean that we should not pay attention or support them?

* Are Oprah Winfrey's efforts to help the poor in Africa to be chided because she is an actress?
* Should we have not contributed to hurricane Katrina relief just because Sean Penn said we should?
* Were Tom Hanks' efforts to promote human space flight shallow because he played an astronaut in a movie?

Certainly not! Celebrities actually have distinct advantages in politics: knowing how to handle the media; being able to sell themselves and, as follows, their ideas; being able to speak clearly and engagingly in public. These are some things our current President lacks in abundance - and I say this even though I voted for him twice. President Clinton, on the other hand, could sell flannel long johns in the desert, make you feel honored for the chance to buy them and eager to put them on. Had he not not run for public office, President Clinton might have made it big as an actor or salesman.

Some people will say he was a lazy Senator. To this, I say that having your name on as many pieces of legislation as possible is more about self aggrandizement and less about active legislating. Supporting a bill by voting for it is doing the job he was sent to do. Some say he made his money as a Washington insider, and now wants to play the outsider. Well, he is an outsider because his approach to running for and being president would be outside the normal pattern of behavior for most candidates or Presidents - low key, firm, and approachable. He also has a better understanding of the tactics of lobbyists, having been one himself, and is better suited than most for handling them.

Besides all that, I just feel like I can trust him. I feel completely comfortable with the thought of him as President. I haven't felt that with any candidate since 1980 and 84 (Reagan).

While I am still learning about all of Senator Thompson's positions, I have heard enough to know I like what he is saying. Most candidates, regardless of party, want the same end results for our nation and citizens: liberty, prosperity, security and happiness. What we really vote for is the method, or path, we want to take to get there. In the end, we vote for who we feel will lead us where we need to go in the most efficient and/or appropriate way. I believe Fred Thompson is that person.

So, Fred, won't you please run for President?

NASA Needs PR Help!

A few words of explanation about Science and Engineering:

Science is about investigating, discovering, explaining and understanding. Engineering is about imagining, planning, creating and inventing. Scientists probe the mysteries of the universe and look for the laws that govern how things happen. Engineers use those laws to make things happen on command. Scientists ask "Why?" Engineers say "Because!" I'm a mix of the two. With a BS in Aerospace Engineering and a MS in Mechanical Engineering under my belt, I have worked in a variety of fields. Sometimes I've been an engineer, sometimes a scientist, sometimes both. Both jobs are tough, but they can also be very rewarding...much like writing. One thing engineers and scientists don't always do well, however, is selling their work.

Discovery and invention require money. Without it, ideas die, and gadgets just gather dust on shelves. No one organization I can think of suffers from this dilemma more than the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, better known as NASA. Born 50 years ago from the former National Advisory Council for Aeronautics (NACA), NASA was to be the agency that would lead America to the stars. In just 12 years, we went from rockets that blew up on the pad, to the moon...six times. It looked like there were no limits. But that was thirty eight years ago. Today, we are stuck in Earth orbit going around in circles at 17,500 miles an hour. Such is the current state of our space program. The reason? NASA is suffering from PRDS - Public Relations Deficiency Syndrome.

Here's an example. To date, over 100 extra-solar planets have been discovered. Recently, one was found possibly approaching the size and composition of Earth. What do the scientists always say when interviewed? "This can help us figure out how the universe began?" I know I'm a techno-weenie and supposed to be really into this stuff...but...SO WHAT? What good is this to us? Is NASA planning on starting their own universe somewhere? Maybe the government is looking to license the technology, or franchise it out in "Universes R Us" stores. Maybe do-it-yourself kits, like Tinker Toys® or Legos®.

I understand the implications such information holds, and the possible benefits. And the general public, by-and-large is not stupid, many of them get it, too. But, as the people who have to foot the bill, we need, want, expect, and are entitled to more. If NASA wants to put us in space again, then they must gather public support for it and the reasons must be more compelling, and promise more tangible pay-offs than just knowledge. But as smart as these rocket guys are, they just don't get it. NASA needs to explain things in ways that address specific problems.

For example:

- Perfecting methods to discover extra-solar planets can help develop methods for future spacecraft navigation.

- Being able to detect and view Earth-sized objects around distant stars increases an interstellar ships chances of detecting and avoiding interstellar material that can damage it.

- Long range detection methods will also improves our ability to find Earth-bound objects much farther away - giving us more time to react.

- Being better able to determine the composition of distant planets and atmospheres allows us to better search for resources on our own planet, and monitor our environment.

- Putting men back on the moon could lead to permanently manned manufacturing facilities which would not contribute to the pollution of our atmosphere, water and land.

- Lunar-based telescopes could be bigger and more elaborate than those in orbit, allowing improved capabilities for the first few bullet items above.

- Manned space exploration would increase the need for on-ship recycling of all manner of waste into usable materials that don't pollute. This would trickle down to Earth and help us control our waste.

- Large scale manned and unmanned exploration will prompt major improvements in clean and efficient energy sources such as fuel cells and solar power.

There, that wasn't so hard was it? And I don't even work in the space business. Imagine what those guys could think of if they try. Maybe they already have, but they just need to find their voices. This isn't lip-service, either. There are true, real and highly tangible benefits to the Earth for space exploratin. But, as the Mercury Astronauts realized in the movie "The Right Stuff," "No bucks…no Buck Rogers." If NASA wants to go anywhere and do anything, they need to step up and start talking to the American people about what's in it for them.

It sounds like Michael Griffin needs to plan a trip to Madison Avenue before the moon!

Emotional Guardrails

I've been quiet recently. Mostly, my paying job has kept me very busy. However, at those rare moments when I found myself with both the time and energy to write anything happily coinciding, I have been at a loss to know what to say. Quite frankly, it all just seems so ridiculous. Here is one example of something that has been bugging me for some time. I am tired of being confronted...no...assaulted with instructions on how I am to behave. Be courteous...don't offend anyone...consider the other's opinions...and my favorite...the incessant safety reminders. The list goes on. These "emotional guardrails" are meant to provide a safe and secure environment in which we may live peacefully together and walk happily hand in hand, smelling the thornless roses and kissing the stingless bees.

The problem with this type of sappy, happy-slappy stuff is that while it may be fine for kindergarten right before milk and cookies and nap time, it doesn't make it in the real world. Life is messy, dangerous and people can be downright mean. It's bad enough our schools have sterilized our children's environments to the point where they can no longer take a punch, literally or figuratively, but now they are trying to do it to adults as well. You can't just tell people to be careful and hope they never fall. They will fall...and when they do, it's going to hurt.

When I was growing up in the 70's, I was fortunate enough to have parents from the Greatest Generation. They knew about tough...they knew because they lived it. My parents gave me advice and warnings, and then sent me on my way knowing I would fall, get hurt (emotionally and physically), embarrass myself and fail. When things happened, they weren't automatically fixed for me. Most often, my parents would explain why the thing happened, then tell me to go make it right. This approach gave me scars, again, both emotionally and physically but I wouldn't trade them because they helped thicken my skin - something sadly lacking in many people growing up today.

I'm certainly not advocating that people start engaging in reckless, dangerous, discourteous or hateful behavior. Far from it. What needs to happen, however, is that as best as we try to get along or be safe, we need to be prepared for failure, how to deal with it and, most importantly, how to get past it. We also need to understand that sometimes, the failures come from outside our immediate sphere of influence. Sometimes we and those with whom we are immediately associating are trying our best. Sometimes, it's someone or something else causing problems. We need to be prepared for those situations, too.

We live in a world with many people who don't share our concerns or dreams, and on a planet that doesn't know or care that we are even here. Both our fellow inhabitants of Earth, and even the Earth itself can cause us pain. Again, life often is messy, disorganized, chaotic and, yes, downright dangerous. We can't always change other people or the planet to suit ourselves, and we will be forever debating the merits of trying. But, we can change ourselves. Alongside things like courtesy, respect, caution and compassion we can and must adopt in ourselves and instill in our children the additional characteristics of determination, perseverance and
resilience.

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.