Environmental Nimbyism

Before I do this one let me develop my street cred.

I belong to the Audubon Society. I garden organically and compost, I avoid chemicals and fertilizers on my lawn and have developed my yard into a wildlife habitat.
My vacations are usually at National Parks and I support the acquisition of open space.
I recycle (one of my motto's is waste not want not). I hate ATVs snow mobiles and Jet Skis.
I once gave money to Green peace and belonged to a save the rain forest organization.
I camp, hike, scuba dive and do tons of other outdoor activities.
As you can see I am not exactly anti-environment.

Now recently it was proposed to build 2 natural gas terminals twenty miles off the cost of New Jersey. This is being vigorously opposed by environmental groups and the local newspaper has editorialized against it. First lets face it, we need these things. One of the reasons gasoline is expensive is lack of refining capacity. Do we want to be looking at a Natural Gas shortage in 10 years. Then people will be looking at fuel oil and coal fired electricity to heat their homes. Both worse for the environment and using more oil is bad for our national security. Is there a risk of an environmental or safety accident. Sure there is always a risk. Would you you rather have the accident happen out at sea or at a terminal in Queens NY or Bayonne NJ. Do you want your Gas bill to triple?

By the way these same groups have opposed Windmills off the coast until "more studies are done" of course some of the opponents have been honest enough to say they just do not want their view ruined.

I am happy to say some of these people have come to there senses. One of the founders of Green peace is now in favor of Nuclear Power.

Environmentalists have to realize that we owe civilization to energy consumption. Their attitude will throw us back to time when travel was difficult, life spans were short and even the spread of knowledge was slower. No one really wants to go there. Yes alternate sources of energy need to be developed. Yes conservation is good and should be encouraged.

However you also need to do some risk /benefit analysis and the benefit side of all three of the above energy projects are not being added into the mix. We also need to loose the NOT IN MY BACK YARD ATTITUDE. If it was nuclear power plants, these gas terminals and especially the windmills would be built.

Thoughts on Presidential Politics

First, a great column by Peggy Noonan. read it. She is a great writer.

Hillary won Pennsylvania by a small enough margin so that she and Obama will be at each others throats from now through the convention. The Democrats are actually giving the Republicans a shot at winning.

A saw the other day that one of the regional papers (Maine I think) had an editorial America not ready for a Black president. Hogwash!

The opposite is true. America yearns for a black president. America wants to prove to itself and the world that it is not a racist country.

The problem is that we are a moderate to conservative country and most prominent black politicians that have expressed an interest in the office of president are unreconstructed radical liberals. Barack Obama is the first one to wear a thin coat of moderation. He speaks to the voters in a way that is none threatening. he speaks convincingly of unity and moderation and protecting the little guy from the predatory corporations out there.
This is why if he gets the nomination the Republicans MUST NOT PLAY THE RACE CARD. That would insure that Obama won. Under that scenario people will vote for him just to prove they are not racist.

However, he can be beat. That thin coat of moderation must be stripped from him. He must be shown for the con artist that he is. He must be attacked not for his race but his policies. His radical economic and foreign policy must be exposed.

He is a threat to the middle class and the security of this nation not because of what or who he is but because of what he thinks. the only way to defeat him is to expose that.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

The cause of America is in great measure the cause of all mankind. Many circumstances have, and will arise which are not local, but universal, and in which the principles of all lovers of mankind are affected, and in the events of which there affections are interested. The laying a country desolate with fire and sword, declaring war against the natural rights of mankind, and extirpating the defenders thereof from the face of the earth, is the concern of every man to whom nature hath given the power of feeling..." -
Thomas Paine

THE PROBLEM WITH OUR CULTURE

Christina Ricci poses for BlackBook's May issue. "I think people are learning to actually aspire to be objectified. It's like the highest form of flattery for teenage girls," she says in the mag.

This is the problem with our sex obsessed culture.

This product of Hollywood (that is what she has reduced herself to, a product) has summed it all up.

This is why pornography, Girls Gone Wild videos, going to strip joints, Hooters restaurants, prostitution, the sexualization of our children (the greatest crime of our culture) and casual sex are wrong and immoral.

These things are not immoral because there is something wrong with sex itself or with beautiful women or the naked human body. It is not sinful because Christians or religious people are prudes.

It is immoral because it takes a human being, something beyond precious in Gods eyes and turns that person into a simple object whose sole purpose is satisfy someone else's desire.

Once a person is objectified they are devalued and dehumanized and that may be the worst sin of all. At that point anything becomes possible. They are nothing more then an object not a unique person with a soul. You can then enslave them, exploit them, rape them, abuse them, even kill them.

They are just objects.

We as a society no longer understand this. We are lost and I am not sure we can collectively find our way back.

Columbia and Free Trade

There is a lot in the news lately about this issue. The President wants to sign a free trade agreement with Columbia. The Democrats are holding it up to curry favor with unions in an election year.

This will not harm our economy. There are more Tariffs on goods we ship them then on goods they ship us. It will benefit both countries economically. We will both get new markets (interesting by the way that NAFTA never caused a big sucking sound, we have not lost jobs to Mexico).

The more important reason for doing this is strategic. The best way to deal with our enemies in South America is to ignore them but reward our allies. Columbia is our ally and they are right next to Venezuela who is currently our enemy and is seeking to undermine the democratic government in Columbia. This agreement is imperative to our national security.

The Democrats need to stop playing politics with our security.

QUOTE OF THE WEEK

"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm. "
George Orwell

Charlton Heston

As most of you have probably read a great actor and a great American, Charlton Heston passed away.

It was interesting to read his obituary. He was of late known as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment right to bear Arms. Few people remember that he was an early supporter of Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement.

He was consistant in that he uncompromisingly supported FREEDOM. He worked to protect ALL constitututional rights for ALL Americans.

His passing brings peace to him but is a great loss for us.

Education

The Washington Post had an interesting note in Inside Politics by Greg Pierce.

"Forgotten help
Many families of students in low-performing schools fail to take advantage of help offered to them under the No Child Left Behind law, according to an administration report.
Under the 2002 law, families whose children attend schools that consistently fail to meet the standards of No Child Left Behind are eligible to choose another public school or to access free after-school tutoring.
But the Education Department released a report yesterday that found that although the number of students participating in each option has indeed increased, many eligible families aren't taking advantage of the options, reports Amy Fagan of The Washington Times.
In the 2004-05 school year, 1 percent of the nearly 6.2 million eligible students participated in the school choice option and 17 percent of the 1.8 million eligible students participated in the tutoring services option, the report found.
Supporters of the programs have said schools have done a poor job of getting the word out"

This illustrates the fallacy behind no child left behind that policy makers fail to recognize.
The problem is not that schools have done a poor job getting the word out it is that the parents do not have the right priorities.
The biggest indicator of a childs success in school is the parents involvement.

If the parent will not stay on top of the kid and make education a priority in the household it does not matter rich or poor black or white smart or not their chances of success are greatly diminished. The converse is also true if a socially and economically disadvantaged family makes school a priority that child can succeed.

There is very little that the education system can do to overcome this sad fact. If you took a bunch of kids from a poor inner city school and switched them with a buch of kids in an affluent top notch suburban school you would see very little change in the performance of the children.
This does not mean we should not try to reach these children. It does mean we have to be realistic about the outcomes and perhaps develop strategies that address the family attitude at an early stage in the childs development

WALKING THE WALK

George Will recently had an excellent column. It was about a book by Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.

It has all kinds of facts to prove its point. For instance "Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). "

This goes back to a theme I hit on a while ago . We have an individual responsibility to help the less fortunate. The solution is not confiscatory taxes collected at virtual gunpoint used to fund income redistribution. This does not relieve you of your personal responsibility.

More Government is not the answer. More charitable works are the answer.