The Voice of Reason

To those of you who like to jump to arrogant conclusions (even some of you "educated" folks on the left): 

LaSalle Parrish District Attorney Reed Walters was elected as and still is a Democrat.  Does this make all Democrats racist pigs?  No.  I've seen A LOT of criticism of this "Racist Republican" DA that may be fair, but is obviously inaccurate regarding his political affiliation. 

It took me one heck of a search to find his actual affiliation, after scrolling through scores of blog sites that all decried his inferred Republicanism.  I had to go through a maze of Louisiana State government websites to actually find it.  The media has no problem pointing out the Democrats calling for the Jena 6 to be pardoned, but they conveniently have left any and all political information about the man at the center of this whole fiasco. 

Do you see why I HATE political parties?  In addition to shooting each other to avoid real change on behalf of the WHOLE populace, they even bring misinformation to the table through the "objective" media. 

Since some bloggers can't seem to figure out how to allow comments in their discussions, I'll open my own discussion on this hero-of-the-left and what he really represents. 

Ramsey Clark, the founder of Act Now to Stop War and End Racism, or ANSWER, is a self-proclaimed socialist who just can't get enough of bashing anything & everything that has to do with the current administration.  Fair enough; whatever floats your boat, but let's take a really quick gander at this guy's recent track record.  Aside from promoting rallies that allegedly call for peace, he volunteered to serve on Saddam Hussein's defense team.  Hmmm....  This man wants to STOP war and promote PEACE, and he wants to associate himself with a man who started at least two major wars and wiped out hundreds of thousands of his own people because of their heritage and/or religious differences???  Sounds a little (okay, A LOT) hypocritical to me.  Remember Slobodan Milosevic, the "Butcher of the Balkans," who decided that parts of Yugoslavia were due for "ethnic cleansing?"   Clark attended his funeral and praised Milosevic.  More hypocricy.   Mr. Clark also visited North Vietnam in the early '70s (1972 I believe) while the U.S. was at war with them.   Don't give me the "free speech" argument crap on this one.  I don't know if he posed for any pictures near anti-aircraft missiles (the same ones fired at U.S. planes carrying 1 or 2 of America's sons) a la Jane Fonda, but there's quite an odor coming from his portfolio, if you ask me.  I don't care if you're conservative or liberal, the hypocrisy here is blatant.  Any true peace activist should question him about these stances, but most of them are on the same political team, so these "inconvenient truths" are pushed aside, hopefully to be unnoticed by the American public.

If you're a peace activist, good for you.  This guy stands no more for peace than the very administration that he despises, and it's time for someone to uncover his true motives.  If you want to make the claim that he was merely making sure that Saddam got a fair trial, you are purposefully denying truth. If you lie with dogs, you get fleas.   The Bush administration has a record that is FAR from clean, but the vicious direct opposition is just as soiled.  Don't be fooled for a second. 

(Let me have it, Gorbash)

Is there a new policy on this site, or is this just happening to me?  Every time I type a comment, I get a message saying that my comment will be posted within 24 hours, pending approval by the Fox8 moderators.  What gives?   

I have to say, I think the "Delete" option in this forum is a cop-out for the original poster to avoid critical discussion.  My case in point was a discussion by another blogger (initials P.K.; most of his blogs are complete nonsense) in which he made a somewhat derogatory (and very tasteless) remark about black babies being raised strictly by black families.  I called this person out on his rediculous remarks, and he deleted my comments three seperate times.   I didn't call him names, and I was even LESS critical than some of the other remarks in that blog.   I'm flattered that my criticism is apparently taken to heart more than the others', but it really takes away from the discussion at hand.

Is this forum for promoting open discussions, or isn't it?     If everyone deleted their opposition's viewpoints, this would be a very boring place to be.

That's the gist (jist?) of my point.  As far as the example I mentioned, that person is welcome to discuss his actions here (undeleted), but I don't expect him to surface from beneath the muck to do so. 

I know how a few of you feel about this already (and I'm sure you'll chime in to shoot this down!), but I was wondering how the "general populace" of this site feel about  surveilance cameras on the city streets like the ones in Britain.  These cameras captured the images of at least two of the suspects who have since been arrested for planting those car bomb "duds" in London.   Some countries (Singapore comes to mind) have cameras EVERYWHERE, even in public restrooms!!  I wouldn't go that far, but I think that cameras on the street would certainly be a deterrent to those who might be committing certain types of crime, especially violent crimes.   It's not a cure-all, but it would certainly help in closing some open cases, therefore getting more of the cretin off of the streets and making the community safer. 

Such a plan would not be cheap, but some (if not all) of it would be saved by police departments who would have a new tool for fighting crime. If the cops could stop someone before he/she strikes over and over, then they're saving money by not investigating case after case brought about by the same criminal.   If Cleveland is willing to shell out big bucks to stop the EVIL red light runners, why not try to prevent or solve muggings, kidnappings, assaults, vandalism, etc.?   Plus, there's little doubt that people would feel somewhat safer knowing that cameras were watching the sidewalks, so the economic impact in the city could be very positive as well. 

I haven't been living under a rock, and I know the ACLU would never let it happen here (Criminals have a right to attack old ladies in private, you know), but I wonder how many would like (or hate) such a proposal.  

Here's where the two-party system shows its hypocracy and ineffectiveness.  Most of us figured that Scooter Libby would be pardoned by President Bush at some point.  He wasn't quite pardoned, but his sentence was commuted to allow him to avoid jail time.  Democratic legislators and Presidential candidates jumped right out with their prepared speeches (prepared weeks ago, shortly after Libby was convicted, I'm sure) expressing outrage over this.  I'll be the first to say that this IS croneyism, or whatever you want to call it.  It's certainly not exclusive to other administrations, though.  Just about every President pardons a lot of his "buddies" in his last couple days in office in what I can only describe as a big "Up Yours!!"  to the American judicial system.

As outrageous as this practice is, it's not the main point of my post.  It's been going on as long as there have been Presidents, and it surely will continue as long as it's legal.  My point is that politicians' hypocracy and lies shows so well in these situations.  Republicans tried to pass this off as the proper thing to do, even though it may not be popular.  The GOP candidates have to be fuming underneath it all, but they can't say that, even though it would make them look a lot more trustworthy, in my opinion.  Democrats are acting outraged, even though they're probably high-fiving one another behind the stage, as this gives them another bullet in the arsenal.   They've been waiting with baited breath for the moment that Libby was emancipated, and now they've got their wish.  If you think ANYONE (on either side) cares about the Valerie Plame case itself, you're wrong.  This is all politics, from the disclosure itself up to this point, and both sides have to put on the "justice" act to further their party's cause. 

The question is:  Are the parties so mafia-like that everyone must follow the rules to protect the honor (cough!) of their "family,"  or is this whole plot being written like some WWE cage match?  OR, are politicians so dumb as to not really know their own game?  I could have predicted every bit of this story, once the allegations started flying.  We know how each player will use his/her cards, and yet the pols involved acts surprised and shocked with their opponents' moves.   

Just F.Y.I.

While we were all watching the coverage of Jesse Davis, Paris Hilton, and the Senatorial debate (and ultimate demise) of the "Amnesty Bill," our trusty congressional reps DID agree on one thing:  They overwhelmingly passed a $4,000/year pay increase.......actually, it was merely an increase to cover "Cost of living expenses." 

Gee, milk, gas, and overall product prices are getting up there quite a bit.  When do I get MY cost of living raise?  I guess since I'm not a "poor" Congressman making a mere $170,000 per year, I don't need one. 

....all of this for a Congress that has even LOWER approval ratings than the President---and that's saying something!

I guess those "sweeping changes" that the newbies promised were all located on the payroll end.

In case you haven't heard, the FDA banned the importation of 5 types of fish for consumption from China, including Shrimp and Catfish.  This is only the latest in a string of alarming problems with products imported from the PROC.   Let's look at just the last couple months:

Remember the huge pet food recall?  The contaminated wheat gluten ALL came from China.

Toothpaste used in prisons, hospitals, and other large institutions has been recalled, contaminated with chemicals also found in auto antifreeze.  (presumably Propylene Glycol or some derivative of it)

Some toys made in China were recalled after it was discovered that they had been painted with lead paint.

Millions of tires made in China were found to have dangerous faults that have caused tread separation on a couple hundred cars.

Some Chinese pork was found to contain contaminants caused by pigs being tube-fed wastewater (ugh!) to fatten them up.

The aforementioned seafood has been found to contain some contaminants and medications that are banned from seafood here in the states.

As of today, over 60% of all recalled goods in the U.S. are manufactured in China.  The Chinese product safety record is about as scarred as its occupational safety record.  The Chinese government claims to be cleaning up product safety, but it's also claiming that the U.S. is overreacting, and that its products are some of the safest on the market.    We know how honest and human-rights oriented the government in Beijing is.  

This may be something you want to think about the next time you reach for the "cheaper" product at Wal-Mart.

FREE TRADE: AIN'T IT GRAND?!

...Much more to come, I'm sure....

Finally, a little sanity has momentarily come over at least one of our courtrooms, as the rediculous lawsuit (brought about  by a judge, nonetheless!) was dropped.  Not only did the judge NOT get his money, but he was forced to pay all of the court costs for both sides.  Hopefully, he gets voted off the bench next time he's up for reelection. 

If you're not familiar with the story, this judge took a pair of pants to the drycleaners.  They lost his pants, and he threatened to sue.  They soon tracked down the pants, but he still sued them for $78 million for the inconvenience and emotional stress.  He then rethought the lawsuit and lowered the amount.....to a mere $54 million.  What a jerk.   

Anyone still wonder why lawyers (including judges and politicians) are considered to be only slightly higher life forms than slugs??  Until such frivolous lawsuits that can destroy the lives of entire families are brought under control, all attorneys are going to be grouped (fairly or not) with these scumbags. 

After Desert Storm,  Jay Leno had this to say:  "Over a thousand American attorneys are helping to assess the monetary damage done to Kuwait by the Iraqi occupation....You see, they have it all wrong.  First, you send in the lawyers, THEN you drop the bombs!!

Is there any way that we could try to use a little common sense when it comes to redundant postings?  I realize that everyone wants to start their own blog, but I just counted TWENTY TWO blogs about Jessie Davis.  The vast majority of these had either 1 or 0 responses added to the original posting.  Is it too much to ask people to add their thoughts, prayers, speculation, whatever on one or two blogs, instead of page after page of "My thoughts and prayers are with the family of Jessie and Chloe" blogs. It's nice, but enough is enough!! 

There wouldn't be 300 or so pages of blogs if we didn't have so many unnecessary ones about the "hot button" story of the moment. 

Not trying to sound too grumpy, but c'mon!  

Can you tell it's past my bedtime?

How many different hair-brained boycotts and protest schemes can we come up with to "hurt" the oil companies?   How effective have these brain children been so far? 

There are several flaws in each one of these "ideas:"

1) None of them address the REAL problem which is a gross lack of fuel conservation in this country.  Boycotting on a certain day or a certain company does NOTHING to help save fuel.  If you quit smoking for a day or buy a different brand of cigarettes, is your health going to improve? 

2)These are all extremely short-term fixes.   What if your plans work?  What will we have, $.05 cheaper gas for a few days?  a week maybe?  If you cut your finger off while sawing wood, you're not going to slap a Band-Aid on it and call it "fixed," are you?  I would hope you would seek medical attention ASAP, and maybe  learn how cut wood without cutting your finger off next time. 

3)These require participation by EVERYONE for the concept (which is already flawed) to even start to work.  No matter how much "Rah-Rah!"  banter you stir up, it is all but impossible to create real results when you rely on the rest of the community to follow your plans. 

Here's an idea:  How about if we share ideas on how to save gas, and put some of our intellectuals in positions where they can help derive more precise ways to use gas more efficiently?  Here's some real ideas that have already been mentioned:

-Combine your errands to limit trips into town.  If you have to go to the grocery store, the bank, the gas station, and maybe to buy clothing (wherever), try doing them on your way home from work, or at least on one trip into town, instead of making several different ones. 

-If you're heading to the corner store a few blocks away, try WALKING.  It's really simple; one foot in front of the other.  Hell, you may even meet one of your neighbors on the way!!  If it's a little too far to walk, and you're not buying a lot, you could ride a bike perhaps. 

-Own a motorcycle?  Use it when you simply need to get from point to point and capacity isn't an issue.   They get 3X the fuel mileage of even small cars. 

-If you have more than one vehicle, use the one that gets better mileage as much as possible.  I said these are simple!

-If you live near a coworker(s), maybe start to carpool to work if it's feasible.  Even carpooling with only one other person will save you 50% of the gas you use in your commute.  How's that for results?  You could also carpool to the grocery store with your sister, mother, the neighbor you met while walking, whoever.  ;)  This also saves $$ on the maintenance and wear-and-tear on your vehicle.

These are not long-term solutions by any means, I know.  But, like I said, you'll see FAR BETTER results by taking your own actions, rather than wasting time brainstorming ways to bring down big oil. 

With fuel prices reaching record highs, there's been a lot of talk about the virtues of Ethanol in the media.  The country of Brazil will be 100% energy-INdependent by next year thanks to Ethanol.  They produce their ethanol from sugarcane.  In the U.S., most ethanol is derived from corn. 

While it seems that corn ethanol is a win-win for the country and our farmers, let's look at some of the pros and cons associated with this "wonderfuel." 

Pros:

-naturally occuring alcohol.

-burns much cleaner than gasoline or diesel.

-renewable resource, as corn can be grown over and over, not "tapped out" like a dry oil field that won't regenerate for centuries. 

-keeps people farming.  It's no secret that our country has been urbanizing ever since the Industrial Revolution.  Without farmers, we don't eat.  Plain and simple.

-prices aren't as volatile as oil

-takes the country's energy dependence off of foreign (often rougue) governments and OPEC

Cons:

-energy-intensive to produce

-still produces SOME carbon emissions

-will certainly drive up the price of corn

-With more farmers choosing to grow corn, supplies of other crops will be lowered, resulting in (you guessed it!) higher prices for other vegetables, grain, and fruit.

-If veges, grains and fruit cost more, livestock farmers will pay MUCH more to feed their animals, which again  will raise prices, this time of meat, milk, and any other animal products

-A switch over COMPLETELY to ethanol is unrealistic, as there isn't enough available land to grow enough corn to feed our thirsty driving habits.

Before we sink all of our energy hopes into the "Ethanol Solution," we need to examine the good, the bad, and the inevitable truth that it most certainly doesn't pose a permanent solution (See the last "con" if you don't know what I mean).

Personally, there's a place for ethanol, but I'd like to see the U.S. concentrate on hydrogen fuel cells and cleaner electricity generation.  If we can  generate enough "clean" electricity, we can power vehicles (saving gas), as well as heat our buildings (saving natural gas, heating oil, propane, coal, and all of the emissions associated with them).  Electricity is the most versatile energy available; we need to figure more reliable ways to generate it and more efficient ways to use it, instead of always concentrating on the internal combustion engine.  My opinion.

Feel free to add to the lists or just share your thoughts.

I've always thought this was a good idea, but with gas prices as high as they are, maybe this is something to look into:

Instead of using the model of a 5-day work week (8 hrs. per day), why not work a 10 hr. shift for 4 days?   I'd surely trade the longer day for an extra day off each week. 

Most of the gas we waste is when we drive alone, which is usually on our commute to and from work.  If you take away one of those trips per week per commuter, think of the gasoline that would be saved.  Not that people would stop travelling on their days off, but I'd be willing to bet that we'd save quite a bit of gas over what we use now. 

It's not a perfect solution by any means, but it's something to ponder.  Feel free to share your thoughts about it, especially if you're someone who DOES work "four tens" a week.