I supposed the best thing you can say about Dick Cheney’s performance last night was that he did a surprisingly good job trying to defend the indefensible.

The worst thing you can say is that his defense was based on the same litany of distortion —
about the reasons for going to war, the conduct of the war, the current situation in Iraq, and distortions about Kerry’s record on defense.

Meanwhile, John Edwards succeeded in bringing to the debate the abysmal record of the Administration on domestic issues — jobs, health care and the deficit. His self control was evidenced by his ability not to guffaw when Cheney spoke of “putting the U.S. economy on an upward path.”

Sad for the country when the Vice-President is more qualified than the President — and yet shows no
better judgment on matters foreign and domestic.

The most telling aspect of the vice-presidential candidates debate was Cheney’s inconsistency regarding Iran and Iraq. He was perfectly willing to attack Iraq virtually unilaterally — let’s
not kid ourselves — but when there was money to be made he was against unilateral sanctions against Iran. In both cases, Cheney seems to have had his company’s interests before his country’s.

So, the GOP spin masters want me to believe George Bush has heart. I’ll buy that.

Bush said it was tough to send troops into harm’s way. Right, it should be. But this is coming from the macho “bring ’em on” President, who’s lost thousands of killed and wounded American troops since “mission accomplished.”

Bush said that to call the war in Iraq “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time” would be sending a mixed message. Well, maybe for him.

And that’s the problem. Bush cannot admit that he made a terribly reckless and costly decision to fight an unnecessary, illegal and hence immoral war. And that his administration has conducted it incompetently. For him to admit this would be a mixed message: “I’m right. Whoops, I was terribly wrong.”

But John Kerry has had a consistent, message, not a mixed one. And I believe it would hearten the troops to know they have a new commander-in-chief who has the sense to conduct the war properly and devise a realistic exit strategy.

Which is why we need a new president. John Kerry will not make the foolish, reckless decisions Bush has made.

If your horse is mad, you damned well better change it in midstream.

So, the GOP spin masters want me to believe George Bush has heart. I’ll buy that, at least provisionally.

Bush said it was tough to send troops into harm’s way. Right, it should be. But coming from the “bring ’em on” President, I have the feeling that he was feeling more macho than concerned about sending in troops.

Bush said that to call the war in Iraq “the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time” would be sending a mixed message. Well, maybe for him.

And that’s the problem. Bush cannot admit that he made a terribly reckless and costly decision to fight an unnecessary, illegal and immoral war. And that his administration has conducted it incompetently. For him to admit this would be a mixed message: “I’m right. Whoops, I was terribly wrong.”

But John Kerry has had a consistent message. And I believe it would hearten the troops to know they have a new commander-in-chief who has the sense to conduct the war properly and devise a realistic exit strategy.

Which is why we need a new president. John Kerry will not make the foolish decisions Bush has made.

If your horse is mad, you damned well better change it in midstream.

Bush’s main point was to accuse Kerry of inconsistency, of sending mixed messages. What Kerry hasn ‘t done (so far, I’m still watching) is to point out that Bush has been consistently WRONG in Iraq, and elsewhere in the world. It’s not sufficient to be consistent. You have to be consistently right — or willing to admit mistakes and learn from them.
test

The correct answer is “Business.”

Government should not be run like a business; businesses should not be run like goverment.

Schools should not be run as businesses; businesses should not be run like schools.

Churches should not be run like business; business should not be run like a church.

Are we clear?

I realize that I’ve spent much of this space expressing my disdain for George Bush and his administration, — there is so much to loathe — but let me turn to why I’m supporting John Kerry.

1) Philosophically, I believe that government has an important and positive role in establishing the public good. I believe that one of government’s tasks is to act on a check to the profit motive, which we have seen must be somehow controlled (see Teddy Roosevelt; see Enron). I think John Kerry shares this view; I think George Bush views government as a servant of overweening corporatism. (I don’t think that all Republicans are as irresponsible are George Bush!)

2) I believe that John Kerry is a more sensible and thoughtful person than George Bush (whose personal and political history is unencouraging). For some sense of Kerry’s public service, I recommend reading this summary in “The Nation.” (I tend to think of “The Nation” as a fairly wild-eyed leftist publication, but this is a very measured look at Kerry’s record.)

3) I believe that Kerry will develop policies — particularly tax policy — that lead to a more sensible distribution of goods and services in this country; a more thoughtful, measured response to the threat of terrorism; a wiser foreign policy; a decent health care system; a cleaner environment.

4) I believe Kerry is neither corrupt, nor reckless, nor deceitful, and I am sure George Bush is all of those things.

Caveat: It’s 4 a.m. and cold medication have given me a restess night.

But, I need to ask: Is this country sliding toward fascism?

Here we are, in a war begun recklessly at best, and conducted with gross incompetence.

Here we are with roughy 50% of the voting public allowing itself to be lied to about the war in Iraq, about the fiscal management of the nation, about tax policy, about the environment.

Here we are with the vice-president manifestly corrupt(he lies that he has severed connections with Haliburton, but is being paid large sums by Haliburton; Halliburton, under his watch, defied the embargo of Iraq), a defense department run by arrogant fools, the legislative leadership running on politics of distortion and deceit.

Here we are, with a major political party whose current hallmarks are destruction and deceit.

Here we are with an electorate swayed by the politics of fear.

Here we are with a religio-ethnic scapegoat.

Here we are, with government being made subservient to radical ideology and corporatism.

I’m fundamentally an optimist, but things don’t look so good at the moment.

I’m fundamentally a democratic (small D), but the voting public has been irresponsible. I don’t see an alternative mind you, but it is deeply disappointing to watch the voting public swallow lie after lie.

This is serious, folks.

Let’s see, why are we in Iraq?

Weapons of mass destruction? Horrid mistreatment of citizens? Bringing democracy?

Sounds like we should be fighting in North Korea, which has nuclear weapons, has created mass starvation in its own country, and has a certifiably insane leader.

Moreover North Korea is an imminent dnager to our ally, Sounth Korea, which would also be able to step in and establish democracy its ethnically identical neighbor. Iraq has no such potential assistant.

As usual, Bush has it all wrong. OR, more likely we aren’t really being told why in the hell we are fighting in Iraq. Unless it’s a personal vendetta against the man who “tried to kill by daddy.”

Bush delenda est!

So when are we going to hear the mainstream media talk about Dick Cheny’s Halliburton doing business with Iraq during the embargo? See http://www.prospect.org/web/page.ww?section=root&name=ViewWeb&articleId=8498

Pat Robertson (I think it was) says the spate of hurricanes in Florida is a sign of God’s wrath at the Republican election fraud over the past four years.

I think it’s just the weather, but heck, I’m not Bush Republican…

I’m not a Republican. I don’t even play one on TV. But, while I don’t agree with what I consider the basic tenets of the GOP, I can respect those who have differing views about the role of government in creating a just society and sensibly distributing goods and services.

However, I believe that since roughly Nixon, the GOP has been hijacked by people who are not content to have their ideas tested in the intellectual and political marketplace, but instead resort to a relentless campaign of lies, distortions, character assassination and fear-mongering.

Ultimately, this is simply a reflection of the American public’s refusual to subscribe to the Republican view of the world. But in the short term I believe that the right-wing hegemony in the GOP is foully corrupting the public discourse in this country.

Let’s review the record.

Reagan. Convinced the American public that “the government” was the enemy, rather than the democratically created instrument of the people. He convinced the people that there was something evil about taxes. This despite the obvious: Taxes build roads, protect property, educate the citizens, eliminate misery and suffering, defend the country. Iran-Contra: Hello? U.S. Constitution?

Bush Sr. Read my lips: The beginning of the Oil Oligarchy.

Clinton. Hmm, what is it about eight years of peace and prosperity that people don’t like? As far as I’m concerned, the attacks on his personal life were a tacit admission that alternatives to his successful policies were bankrupt. It also revealed the win-at-any-cost mentality of the right wing.

And now we come to George W. Bush. Destined to be remembered as the most reckless, deceptive and corrupt administration in my lifetime. (God I hope so; I couldn’t take worse.)

• Reckless? Iraq. Or an obsession with a missile defense system that missed the fundamental problem of stateless terrorism. Or experimentation with Social Security?
• Deceptive? Iraq again, plus a host of other policies, such as the polluting Clear Skies Act, the underfunded No Child Left Behind (Which does what? Leaves millions of children behind.)
• Corrupt? Long list again, but let’s confine ourselves to the sort of secrecy that led to Cheney’s energy summit with his corporate pals. Or, wait, let’s add the no-bid contracts for reconstruction in Iraq. Or how about …?

But enough. I’ll have separate entries for each of those categories in the future.

Then, I promise, I’ll be more positive. (Think Health Care.) Here’s a positive thought: I liked eight years of peace and prosperity (the Clinton years). Let’s have eight more (the Kerry years).

And, to my Republican friends: Can’t you do better than this administration?

Religious Tolerance versus Incipient Theocracy

When considering questions of Islam, terrorism, abortion, and stem cell research, those on the right may to wish to consider an America in which you can?t eat ham, bacon or bratwurst because it comes from an unclean animal.

The point of the first amendment is to let those who enjoy pork (Christians, generally) eat pork, and those who abhor pork (many Jews and Muslims) avoid pork.

I am opposed to abortion, and consider it an abomination. Essentially, I feel that it is tragic that someone would choose to destroy a life they could create. However, I view it more as an indictment of society than as a personal sin. However, I am frankly agnostic on the question of whether it is the destruction of a human life.

There are many, however, who do believe that it is murder, and further, seek to impose their beliefs through the rule of law. This is a serious mistake. Furthermore, many of those are willing to allow abortion in the case of rape. How is it that it’s murder in the case of careless or concupiscent conception, but not in the case of rape?

(As a matter of social policy, it?s worth noting that abortion rates steadily declined from Reagan/ Bush Sr. rates during the Clinton administration. I?m willing to bet they are rising during Bush W?s administration, but I haven?t seen figures, yet. Why hasn’t CDC released fiures recently?)

The stem cell research issue is similarly riven with inconsistency and theocracy. First off, it should be noted that many fertilized eggs are created — and destroyed — in the process of in vitro fertilization. I imagine the number of destroyed embryos approaches the number of abortions. Those who feel that life begins with conception should, I think, be opposed to in vitro fertilization, at least as it’s currently conducted. That, however, is not the case. Beside that, we are again brought to the question of when human life begins. I don’t that that’s a matter of fact, but a matter of faith or belief, and hence not appropriate for legislative force. For my part, if I were to be destroyed, I’d like to see some of my parts go to some use to other human beings. In fact, that’s why I’ve designated myself as an organ donor.

Regarding radical fundamentalist Muslims, I feel about them the way I feel about radical fundamentalist Christians and radical fundamentalist Jews. I don’t see a great difference between Muslims who want to attack America, Jews who want to attack Palestine, or American Christians who want to attack Iraq. Troglodytic thinkers like Lt. Gen. Boykin who regard the war on terror as a Christian crusade should keep their mouths shut or resign from public life.

A useful source when considering issues like this is http://www.religioustolerance.org.

I’ll turn to positive approaches soon, but for now, when discussing Bush I think we can keep it to three simple themes:

1) He’s reckless. The Iraq misadventure is the main case, obviously. But also the general refusal to accept science.

2) He’s dishonest. Where to begin? How about the middle class benefits of the tax cuts. OR medicare. OR no child left Behind. Or… you get the idea.

3) He’s corrupt. In two senses. His stock sales shenanigans come to mind, but also the way he corrupts the political system with his evil attack ads (e.g., against McCain and Kerry) , and also the way he corrupts government with hiding data (e.g. with medicare) or secret deal making (e.g., Cheney’s “energy summit”). **Tip of the Iceberrg Dept.** When Bush was on board of Harken Energy, he dumped stock just before significant losses, saving him $600,000.

The following is a fragment from aq discussion on emergency contraception (EC) and the “metaphysical” case against it (i.e., that it’s murder).

Many scientists and doctors disagree, claiming that EC can prevent but not terminate a pregnancy. EC works much like birth control pills: Taken in two doses, the drug stops the release of an egg from the ovary, preventing fertilization. In the case of fertilization, EC may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb. If a woman is already pregnant and an embryo is already implanted in the wall of the uterus, EC will have no effect. [from alternet]

Okay, so everyone gets on the freeway and sees those “Speed Limit 60 MPH” signs, but, since it’s rush hour, there’s no way they are going to go 60 miles per hour.

I should say, there’s no way they’re going to _average_ 60 mph, but in fact, some may actually hit those speeds BECAUSE THEY’RE KNUCKLEHEADS!!!

Here’s the thing: People get on the freeway and think that the only way they are going to get home on time (whatever that means) is by sticking to the bumper of the person in front of them. What this means is that they play the “hurry up and wait” game. Rather than going a near-constant speed, they zoom ahead to the next stopped traffic, come to a stop, then speed up again to the next stop. (This behavior is often accompanied by a lot of lane-changing, which I’ll bet is the leading cause of rush-hour accidents.)

Now, as anyone who’s ridden a bike extensively can tell you, the hardest work is starting up from a dead stop. This is true for autos, as well, and so the lion’s share of fuel consumption is spent the same way. The enine is at its lest efficient under those loads, so the pollution output is worst at this point, as well.

I’m willing to let people waste their money on gasoline, I guess (though that’s probably at the root of the war in Iraq and other Mideast headaches). But I also have to breathe the air they pollute this way. I don’t have figures, but I’ll bet that >40% of auto pollution in rush hour is caused by cars starting up from a dead stop — repeatedly.

The point is, you’ve built up some kinetic energy by burning gas. You can either maintain that, or squander it as heat by stopping. (Your brakes convert kinetic energy into thermal, and a little acoustic, energy to stop your car)

In my town — Milwaukee — we have “variable message signs” over the freeways that give travel times to some arbitrary destinations. This strikes me as less than helpful, to put it kindly. What we need are signs that tell people their _average_speed_ to those destinations — a variable they have some measure of control over.

So, if you know you’re only going to be travelling, say, 18 mph between here and Mourners Corners, you can go 0-60 multiple times — and still average 18 mph. Or, you can save gas and minimize pollution by travelling as close to 18 mph as you can, varying between perhaps 10 and 25 mph, and keeping braking to a minimum. In other words, by prudently managing your energy.

One way to make your commute more interesting is to see whether you can get to your exit without using the brakes, or at least without coming to a stop. This involves leaving empty space in front of your car when people zoom head to the next stopping point (usually at curves in the road); you’ll catch up to them at the next stop, but ideally only once they’ve started moving – so you don’t have to stop.

Sure, some people will switch lanes in the misguided belief that they’re shortening their trip substantiantially. (Actually, I think they’re probably behaving more like ants than truly acting out of some considered belief.) However, you may also notice a phenomenon I’ve observed:

Very often, when you leave space in front of you, the person behind you leaves a space, too. I don’t quite understand what’s going on here, but it’s my fond hope that they are noticing that my brake lights aren’t going on. Curiously, when I change lanes to head for my exit, the same person who’s been following at a distance for several miles will speed up to the bumper of the car I was behind. (Back to the ant theory, I’m afraid.)

Generally, you’ll find that driving this way make the commute more interesting, and more relaxing. It’s also more economical (both in gas and general wear on the car).

One final note: If you use your engine to brake, you’re cheating, and perhaps running the engine inefficiently (the root of excessive polluting. One way around this is to get a Toyota Prius, or some other gas-electric hybrid, which will turn excess kinetic energy into reusable electric energy.

Several years ago, I was driving into Detroit to visit my sister-in-law and I saw an interesting thing:

The left lane was closed up ahead, and two truckers were driving side by side, one in the soon-to-be closed left lane, and the other to his right. I noticed the empty lane stretching far ahead of the semi in the left lane. At first I was puzzled — why wasn’t he moving ahead to close that gap — but then I realized the two were combining to maximize their speed by eliminating any merging ahead of them. I thought that was very cool, and decided I’d use that tactic myself.

And recently I had the opportunity in a very similar situation: The left lane was going to end about two miles ahead, and I going about 15 mph in the middle of three lanes, saw people zooming by on on my left. I realized that they would merge into my lane far ahead, right near the end of the left lane, and everyone in the middle lane would have to slow down to accomodate them. At the next break, I moved into the left lane and pulled alongside the person who’d been ahead of me. Once the merging ended ahead, my speed picked up considerably, as did the speed of everyone in the middle lane.

Glancing in the mirror, I saw an irate driver behind me. At first I felt a little sheepish, but then I realized I was doing exactly what she wanted to do: maximize my speed. The difference was, I didn’t want to do it

Just checking …

Welcome to my blog.

I’ve been meaning to record some of my thoughts for posterity, so this is the spot I’ve chosen.

I hope my thoughts are interesting and thought-provoking for you, and I welcome your comments.

Greg