No One Can Tell Me I Came From Monkeys

The "debate" rages on between Evolution and the newest incarnation of Creationism, Intelligent Design.

From Physics Today:

When word got out that the well-produced movie [The Privileged Planet: The Search for Purpose in the Universe], based on a book by two Discovery Institute fellows, was going to show at the Smithsonian, the scientific community voiced great concern. In mid-June, just days before the scheduled screening, top officials from seven major science organizations, including the American Physical Society and the American Institute of Physics, sent a letter to the Smithsonian's board of directors that said, in part:
"We urge you to preserve the Smithsonian Institution's prestigious scientific reputation by not allowing the film to be shown. . .. The Discovery Institute, a religiously-based advocacy organization, attempts to persuade the public that Intelligent Design is a legitimate scientific theory. It is not. Intelligent Design is a variation of the religious belief of creationism."

On Point on NPR had a back-to-back debate on the merits of Intelligent Design last night, with George Gilder of the Discovery Institute representing Intelligent Design advocates and Richard Dawkins, of whom I am an unabashed fan, representing the scientific community. While I understand why scientists will not debate this issue head-to-head (Creationism of any kind is not science and thus scientists don't want to give it even the veneer of scientific legitimacy), I was somewhat disappointed at not getting to hear Dawkins take Gilder completely apart.

Dawkins did have my Quote of the Day though, when asked if there was such a public debate on the two issues in Britain:

"Well, we certainly have wingnuts here as well, they just aren't allowed political power."

Dawkins also noted the apparent hypocrisy concerning the Discovery Institute's recent hiring of public relations firm Creative Response Concepts to push the Discovery Institute's anti-Evolution message. Science doesn't require high-powered PR firms to establish its legitimacy.

This issue is simple, really. No matter how loudly Creationists cry and beat their breasts, they cannot escape the simple truth: Evolution is one of the bedrock theories of modern science and it has been experimentally tested and proven for over a century. Creationism, no matter how it is dressed up, is an unprovable and untestable metaphysical belief.

There is no debate!

Anti-Choice Across Wisconsin

I am inspired to write this after having ingested a cocktail of Time Magazine's article on Creationism vs. Evolution with a chaser of talk radio on the evils of emergency contraception. I ended up looking like a raving lunatic as I drove down the scenic byways of western Wisconsin yelling counter-arguments peppered liberally with crude insults at my radio. I will leave the Time article for others to read if they like, though I warn you that it's the intellectual equivalent of eating Pixie Stix for lunch. Instead, I will focus on the radio show hosted by Wisconsin Public Radio.

Today's conservative Christian firebrand was Julaine K. Appling, executive director of The Family Research Institute of Wisconsin (basically a miniature Focus on the Family). FRI's beef today is the pending decision by the FDA on whether or not to allow emergency contraception, such as Plan B, to be sold over-the-counter. The decision is due in September and has the Anti-choice community trotting out its shrillest advocates to storm the airwaves. Let's turn over the rotten log of Ms. Appling's self-righteous indignation and see what's wiggling around underneath, shall we?

Emergency contraception causes a fertilized egg not to implant; ergo, abortion.

While it is true that emergency contraception does inhibit implantation, the argument that it constitutes an abortion is ridiculous. We don't call miscarriages "accidental abortions". I also find it ludicrous that anti-choice groups want to consider a fertilized egg as a "human being". Does this mean that ALL cells bearing the human genome are human beings? If so, that means 96% of men admit they have much killing to answer for and the other 4% are lying about it. To the question of "When does life begin?" I ask: When is life not life? Sperm is alive and eggs are alive. Why does a fertilized egg get special treatment?

Emergency contraception may not be used as directed.

In exactly what way does this differ from every single other over-the-counter drug at your local Walgreens? Liberal as I am, I still don't approve of an oppressive "nanny state" that holds people's hands through every decision that may have a negative outcome. Emergency contraception will have the same label requirements as any other medication and some people will fail to follow those directions. It is their choice to take that risk (this anti-choice thing runs deep!).

Emergency contraception has potential negative side-effects.

Again, just like every other drug. The FDA will require the manufacturers to disclose said side-effects and potential users will have to decide for themselves. Yes, sometimes the FDA approves drugs which later turn out to have negative side-effects that were unknown or, as in the case of Vioxx, undisclosed. Shortfalls in scientific knowledge and corporate malfeasance are risks that potential users will have to choose to bear if they want to use the product. (Are you sensing a theme about choice in these arguments yet?)

Emergency contraception promotes sexual promiscuity.

Now we're getting to the real meat of the anti-choice argument. It has nothing to do with medical science and everything to do with ideology, which, if you're a liberal as I am, should come as no surprise. Ideology has become the sole breadwinner for the Conservative Right; facts are only facts if they support your religious and moral beliefs. Promiscuity is a completely subjective term and the objections of the Conservative Right are based on a Puritanical discomfort with sex in general. How an individual chooses to conduct their own sex life is no one else's business; not the government, not the church and not anti-choice PAC's.

Over-the-counter emergency contraception could be purchased by minors.

Of all the excuses the Conservative Right uses to justify their political views, "Do it for the children" is the one I despise the most. I'm the father of two (soon to be three!) children but I don't for one second believe that my love for my children should be used as a justification to curtail the rights and freedoms that we enjoy in the United States. I don't need religious and political organizations trying to mold public policy around their narrow view of what's best for my children. My wife and I will decide what's best for them, thank you very much!
Moreover, I reject the notion than somehow minors in this country don't enjoy the same fundamental rights as adults. I would prefer that my daughter not be sexually active at 16 but I would much rather she have a safe sex life than an unwanted pregnancy. This whole argument is nothing but a ham-handed attempt to generate a knee-jerk emotional response, which is why it doesn't work on free thinking liberals.

Emergency contraception doesn't prevent sexually-transmitted diseases.

No kidding. Prilosec doesn't prevent male pattern baldness. Good thing I don't take it for that...

I could go on with this but the arguments go downhill from here (believe it or not). The point is that groups like FRI and people like Ms. Appling are trying to impose their interpretation of Christian morality (nothing "Judeo" about it) on others by having it legislated into law. This is both blatantly against the teachings of Christ and is really an attempt to step around the First Amendment. Ms. Appling and FRI want the government to legislate away the right of others to make decisions with which Ms. Appling and FRI don't agree, all in the name of promoting their version of acceptable family structure and culture.

It will be a Pyrrhic victory at best.

A Steep Price for Free Trade

Joe Baker on the impact of CAFTA:

"The residents of these countries in the last century have lived through state violence and torture, ecological and cultural degradation, political dictatorship and the 20th century mode of forcing small farmers off their land to make way for big corporate agro-export industries.
CAFTA is an effort to further lock them into another such century so it will be more difficult for them to enact laws to protect their own industries, to resist the big multinational corporations or to work together to create other means of production or financial networks. And the poor U.S. consumers? No hard evidence exists that if a manufacturer saves 50 cents on the production of a T-shirt that the savings will be passed on to consumers. It is ridiculous to think that a marginal saving in labor cost will appear in the price consumers pay."

Trade agreements like CAFTA greatly benefit the executives and stockholders of major international corporations and not much else. This is basically a give-away to these corporations, an incentive for outsourcing more manufacturing and agricultural jobs. Even if the price of consumer goods in the U.S. is lowered, many of the jobs needed to buy them are disappearing. While I think that the day of the United States being the foremost world leader in manufacturing is probably behind us, there is a good argument to be made for maintaining some of that economic infrastructure. Moreover, our economy cannot support a growing trade deficit indefinitely.

A fully-employed U.S. middle class can do much more to give economic aid to South America (and the rest of the world) than can any trade agreement creating partnerships dependent on unchecked American consumerism.

These corporations, with the Republican party in their pockets, are outsourcing our middle-class prosperity and replacing it with a corporate-controlled neo-feudalism.

The only thing "trickle-down" economics does is make Middle-Class Americans wonder who's pissing on them!

(Note: Joe Baker is my favorite writer at the only newspaper I read, the Rock River Times. Love it and it's free!)

It Ain't Like Dusting Crops, Boy!

(Photo courtesy of NASA/AP News)

A big "Welcome Home" to the intrepid astronauts on board the Space Shuttle Discovery today. I'm sure I wasn't the only one waiting and listening with my breath held, hoping that this would not be a repeat of the Columbia disaster. The delayed landing and the mid-mission repairs were certainly enough to make even a casual follower of the space program a little nervous.

Having said that, the Return to Flight mission made me stop and think a bit about the significance of manned space flight and this mission in particular. Certainly this mission had to take place in order for any discussion of the future of manned space flight to have any meaning. We had to know whether or not continued flight into orbit around the Earth was even feasible with our present technology and I think this mission established that future trips are possible.

For me, the idea of manned space flight takes on a significance that exceeds any practical usefulness, however. True, there are some types of scientific experimentation that requires a human instrument to conduct and certainly the International Space Station requires the support of the U.S. shuttle fleet for its construction and operation. But I believe there is an over-arching emotional and ideological justification that is at least as important as any scientific need.

The exploration of space represents the fundamental need for humanity to expand beyond any barrier, to peek behind any curtain. It's intrinsic in the fundamental need for mankind to search for our place and our purpose in the universe. Space exploration represents the cutting edge of human ingenuity and innovation, ideals which are part of the bedrock of our society and culture. Space exploration stands as grand testimony to what we can accomplish and how we can grow.

Further, these ideals speak to a great commonality among all of us living on this planet. From space, we are one very tiny community of like individuals. These ideals speak to something greater in us than nationalism and idealism; they symbolize a common thread that makes us one people. Not Americans, not Iraqis, no race, religion or political party but one human species that shares in this common expression of our own potential and our own search for meaning. Manned space exploration will always be dangerous; such is the nature of exploration throughout human history. But the reward sure to be shared by us all at the first imprint of a new footprint on the Moon or of the first picture of a space suit waving from the red dustiness of Mars will be well worth that risk.

I must admit I was a little misty-eyed in the car this morning listening to a NPR correspondent's coverage of Discovery's landing this morning, which is unusual for me, being the stoic, Midwestern fellow that I am. Maybe it was recognition of those fine ideals of exploration and discovery that moved me. Or perhaps it was the need for some good news in these troubled days; some story demonstrating the finer side of humanity often obscured by the clouds of war and social strife.

For whatever it was, I'm grateful.

More on Sheehan

See Scout Prime here.

And here.

Why is Bush Afraid of This Woman?

Ms. Cindy Sheehan is the mother of Army Specialist Casey A. Sheehan who was killed in Iraq in 2004. Ms. Sheehan has been a staunch critic of the war and the Bush Administration since before her son's death and continues to be one today.

Today in particular she has been protesting both Bush and his war, picketing at his pretend ranch in Crawford, Texas. Her actions have been harshly criticized and derided by commentators on the Right. I am certainly not going to link to their worthless sites from here but if you'd like to read them try the Drudge Report and Mens News Daily, both of which had extremely offensive and one-sided diatribes against Ms. Sheehan. Further, it has now come to light via Daily Kos that if she does not end her protest by tomorrow Thursday, she will be arrested as a national security threat.

Is this how Bush supports the troops? By arresting the mother of a dead soldier because she refuses to carry water for this illegal war?

George W. Bush: Coward and Hypocrite.

Judging Roberts

Last week a family member of mine asked me what were my thoughts on the nomination of John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court. The short answer that I gave him at the time was that Roberts is the kind of judge one would expect George W. Bush to select. He's a pro-business, anti-choice Conservative who has worked for prominent Republicans his entire career. He appears, at least on the surface, to be a devoutly religious man and I think it's likely that he will share a similar view on the separation of church and state with Justice Clarence Thomas. Given that his wife was an executive member of a prominent anti-choice organization, I think it's likely that Roberts' personal view on abortion tends towards criminalization, at least in part. All in all, no big surprises.

And yet, the more I think about the nomination, the more I wonder about the propriety of it. I'm too much of a realist to believe that a Justice is able to completely set aside any political views in the interest of good jurisprudence. I would think that a given judge's political views and judicial philosophy would inform each other; just as my views on politics and accounting ethics are inextricably linked. Judge Roberts is a Conservative because of his judicial philosophy, not in spite of it. Thus, given that Roberts' judicial philosophy is likely linked to his politics, I find I have a problem with the nomination of such a staunch Conservative as a Supreme Court Justice.

In spite of what his supporters seem to believe, Bush does not just represent the half of Americans that voted for him in the last election. A Supreme Court nomination was never intended to be the spoils of an electoral victory. We are ill-served as a country when our Supreme Court becomes a political football to be thrown back and forth between the pillars of our two-party political establishment. This is why President Clinton, a legal scholar of no small merit himself, met with and garnered the approval of the Senate Judiciary Committee for both of his Supreme Court nominees.

I also take issue with the "stealth" tactic utilized by President Bush to circumnavigate the sort of Senate hearing issues that scuttled the nomination of Robert Bork. Roberts has so little experience as a judge that it is very difficult to find any written track record of his judicial philosophy. The reason the Bork nomination failed (and rightly so) was due to Bork's extensive writings as a legal scholar demonstrating a judicial philosophy that was, shall we say, unique in nature. By way of example, Bork suggested in his writings that the Congress be given the legislative power to overturn past Supreme Court decisions, thereby injecting partisan politics into the judicial process. This was something which the Framers of the Constitution were clearly trying to avoid. Roberts has so little written track record to speak of that it's difficult to really get a sense of just what is his judicial philosophy.

My third issue with the Roberts nomination, and I imagine I would have this objection regardless of nominee, is Bush's insistence on a "strict constructionist" interpretation of the Constitution. Make no mistake, when Bush says he wants a "strict constructionist" what he really wants is a judicial activist that will rule in his favor. If you have any doubt, just look to Bush vs. Gore in 2000, arguably the most activist Supreme Court decision of the modern era, and then listen for the chorus of outraged Conservative "strict constructionists" decrying the decision. Hear any? How about now? Hint: you'll be listening for a good, long time.
"Strict Constructionist" and "Judicial Activist" are political terms, similar to "Partial Birth Abortion" and "Death Tax". They are designed purely to convey a political stance and have nothing to do with the practice of law. All Supreme Court Justices base their decisions and opinions on their interpretation of the Constitution; that's their job. The Constitution was purposely written in a vague manner to give it the flexibility of a changing interpretation that allows our society to grow; that's its job. How set-in-stone can any document be that has been amended 27 times? Never forget as well: from a "strict constructionist" point of view we have no Right to Privacy and the federal government has no right to create a standing military.

Upon further thought, I find that when I look at John G. Roberts, I see a "made man"; a man with a custom-designed career path for a Republican appointment. I especially like the pro bono work he did for a gay rights organization; talk about a ready-made foil for liberal objections. Maybe I'm too cynical, but I see said pro bono work as an obvious strategic decision designed to derail future Democratic objections to Roberts' federal appointments. Roberts is clearly a brilliant man, a skilled lawyer and savvy political mind; thus, I have no problem believing he'd slip in a little work for a cause that runs counter to his personal moral philosophy in the hopes of making himself a more attractive candidate in the future.

To close, the more I think about Roberts, the more I believe his is a nomination that the Democrats should challenge aggressively. Too much of what I know about Bush's politics tells me that Roberts will be another "strict re-constructionist" in the same vein as Clarence Thomas. I, for one, am not inclined to see the country shifted judicially to a conservative religious paradigm nor do I wish to see a further shifting of power to corporate interests in the United States from a reinterpretation of New Deal-era understanding of the commerce clause.

If the Democrats roll over on Roberts, imagine what the next nominee will look like. Not a pretty picture...

30 Reasons to End the Iraq War Last Week

30 more brave young Americans sacrificed to the reckless arrogance and incomptetency of the Bush Administration.

They deserved better.

Friday Funblogging from Seaxneat

This stuff was too funny to pass up. Enjoy!

Friday Fun-Blogging 8-5-05

The Secretary of Offense

If you need some fresh, steaming government doublespeak on a Friday morning, you can do no better than the one man call-and-response rhetorical squaredance that is Donald Rumsfeld. I don't know what this guy puts in his coffee but I'm guessing they warned against it at Altamonte.

A few choice selections from the DoD's recent op-ed attributed to Rummy (I refuse to believe he actually wrote it):

...Coalition forces operate in Afghanistan and Iraq at the request of democratically elected governments.

Of course Karzai wants us in Afghanistan; what little control he has comes from the threat of U.S. military force.
As for Iraq, am I the only one that thinks this sounds like a Mafia-style protection scam? "Nice little oil-producing democracy you have here. Sorry we had to rough up the locals a little; eggs, omelets, you know the deal. For a modest cut of that oil and some no-bid contracts, we'd be happy to keep an eye on it for ya. Just until you get back on your feet and all. It'll be good for the neighborhood." Surely an offer they couldn't refuse.

It is the extremists, not the coalition, who are intentionally targeting and killing countless Muslim civilians in a series of barbaric attacks in recent months.

Not countless, Mr. Rumsfeld. According to Iraqbodycount.net, the number is between 23,000 and 26,000. The Lancet Online Medical Journal sites a study from the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health that estimates nearly 100,000 Iraqi civilians killed. Now, I don't wish to cast derision upon the integrity of our military personnel but I find it very difficult to believe that the U.S. invasion and occupation bears no responsibility for these casualties. Didn't we learn in Vietnam that a guerilla war blurs the line between civilian and military personnel? The continuing "We are the good guys, they are the bad guys" rhetoric from the Bush Administration is both myopic and damaging to our nation's foreign policy goals. Pretending that we bear no responsibility for any of the death and destruction in Iraq does a grave disservice to the people to whom we're supposed to be "spreading freedom".
And, by the way, Mr. Rumsfeld: How is a car bombing any more barbaric than "Shock and Awe"? War is barbaric. That's why most other modern nations are loathe to use it as a foreign policy tool.

Some seem to believe that accommodating extremists' demands -- including retreating from Afghanistan and Iraq -- might put an end to their grievances, and, with them, future attacks.

Who, exactly, believes this Mr. Rumsfeld? Democrats? Liberals? Peace-activists? This is the kind of disingenuous political hackery that the Right has practically perfected in recent years. They take an imaginary political stance, a "straw man" if you will, and then attribute it to some amorphous, undefined group of "some people" that doesn't really exist. It shows just how desperate they are to paint Neo-conservative foreign policy as anything but the abject failure that it is.

Why does this man still have a job? Is there an upper limit to the amount of incompetence that Bush and his supporters will accept? Maybe Bush can come back from yet another month-long vacation and clear some dead brush at the Pentagon.

Butchering the Language

"Of all the varieties of virtues, liberalism is the most beloved." -- Aristotle

Time for me to rant for a moment on something that is a huge pet peeve of mine: the butchering of the word "liberal".
I was listening to the radio yesterday on my way home from the office and I actually heard a caller on Wisconsin Public Radio accuse the president of the Ayn Rand Institute (they gets no link from me!) of being a "liberal". Needless to say, my head exploded. Good thing the sun roof was open.

Let's review for a moment, shall we, what "liberal" actually means, given that it's so carelessly thrown around these days:

Generous in a large and noble way.

That seems to be a virtue that both sides can agree on. Seems at odds with the philosophy of self-interest espoused by the Rand Institute, though.

Open-minded, unselfish; enlarged in spirit.

Again, who wouldn't be proud to be thought of this way? OK, maybe not Rick Santorum, but otherwise?

One who favors greater freedom in religion and politics.

By George, that sounds like something our Founding Fathers would have said! Could it be that our very country was founded on Liberalism?? Banish the thought!

Not bound by orthodox tenets or established forms in political or religious philosophy; independent in opinion; not conservative; friendly to great freedom in the constitution or administration of government.

Now we see where the problem arises. Damn independent-minded liberal free thinkers!

As a liberal, I believe the only hope for our future is to find new and innovative ways to tackle the problems our society faces. A conservative believes we should go back to a simpler time, a Leave-It-To-Beaver-esque "Good Old Days" that never really existed. Every era of our country has been fraught with social injustice and conflict between various ideologies. It's only been through progressive liberal thought and action that these injustices have been remedied and these conflicts resolved. A noble work, and one that continues today in spite of unrelenting attacks from the conservative Right.

Joe Conason says it better than I ever could:

"Liberal policies made America the freest, wealthiest, most successful and most
powerful nation in human history. Conservatism in power always threatens to
undo that national progress, and is almost always frustrated by the innate
decency and democratic instincts of the American people."

So, conservatives, time to brush up on your English. "Liberal" does not mean any idea or person with which you disagree. We are not out of the mainstream, unless you also consider the Founding Fathers out of the mainstream.

One last PSA: Anytime someone named Coulter, Hannity, Limbaugh, O'Reilly or, generally, any politician with the letter (R) after their name begins a sentence with "Liberals think...", they're about to lie through their teeth. Protect yourself accordingly.

Is Our Children Learning?

Much has been said about President Bush's recent remarks about Intelligent Design being taught alongside evolution in public schools. I will add my 1/50th of a dollar to the pile on.

I have no issue, per say, with Creationism of any faith being taught in school if it's taught as religion and not science. There is no Theory of Intelligent Design; it is a metaphysical belief based on the idea that the universe is too complex to have happened "by accident". Thus a divine Designer must be working behind the scenes.

From an empirical perspective, there is no evidence for Intelligent Design. It cannot be tested, proven or falsified in any way. It requires faith in some sort of metaphysical reality, be it the Creation myth in Genesis or any of the thousands of other origin myths that populate the history of human culture. The purpose of Intelligent Design is not to explain, in any quantitative way, the nature of the universe. The purpose of I.D. is to promote a human-centric view of the nature of reality; that some Divine Engineer acted in a human-like capacity and designed an ideal universe that conforms to a human sense of integrated complexity. It's a "God in the gaps" philosophical device used to explain away the aspects of the universe that yet defy our understanding. The same has been true of metaphysical beliefs throughout all of human history and such beliefs have often been discarded in the light of scientific discovery.

Science needs to be taught in our public schools with no interference from faith-based ideology. The blurring of the line in our public schools between faith and science has some very concrete consequences for our childrens' futures. As science is supplanted by faith in schools, we take from our children the ability to compete in the disciplines of science, leaving behind the role of the United States as a leader in research and innovation. That's too high a price to pay.

Mashing science together with religion weakens both.

In the Interest of Fairness and Balance...

... I have to post a picture of my handsome boy, Liam, caught playing with daddy's PlayStation2.

A Warning Shot Across Their Bow

Big congratulations to Paul Hackett for running one hell of a race in Southern Ohio. For those not following the race, Hackett , an Iraq war veteran, was challenging Republican Jean Schmidt for an open Congressional seat in a district the Republicans have held for over 40 years. While he was unable to pull out a victory, Hackett ran a very competitive race, showing once again that a Democrat with convictions can compete anywhere in the country (you paying attention, DLC?).

From Hackett:

"For the first time in almost 40 years democracy has succeeded in southern
Ohio," Hackett told his supporters. "We as Democrats demonstrated what we can do
when we put our heads together and roll up our sleeves."

Given Schmidt's paltry 4% margin of victory, I'd say the GOP has much to be concerned about in 2006. The American people are once again realizing which party represents the American People's interests and which one clearly does not.

I predict we'll be hearing from Mr. Hackett again very soon.

Support Our Magnet Retailers

We've all seen those lovely yellow magnets in all their wondrous variety as we tool down the freeway each day. But what does the statement "I Support Our Troops" really mean? It seems to be a relatively meaningless statement on its face. Support the Troops. How, financially? I already do that when I pay my taxes. Support the Cause, then. So, then why are we in Iraq? We've certainly found no WMD's to speak of and the idea that they were miraculously shipped out under the cover of darkness to neighboring Syria is laughable. We did remove Hussein from power, based on the fact that he was a tyrant and killed his own people. The problem is that the invasion to remove Saddam Hussein has resulted in over 100,000 dead Iraqis, untold infrastructure damage to the country and a destabilization that seems unlikely to improve any time soon. Iraq teeters dangerously close to civil war, a situation exacerbated by growing sectarian tensions among Iraq's disparate peoples. So, I cannot Support the Cause, both because I'm not sure exactly what it was any longer and because it has carried too dear a cost.

So maybe the ribbons really mean "Support the President". I think this is much more likely as I've heard the idea expressed that we should show solidarity with our President in this time of war. Not to put too fine a point on things, but I couldn't disagree more with that sentiment. In fact, I believe there is no more essential time to question our leadership than in a time of war. President Bush and his staff should be grilled unrelentingly about every aspect of this war and its costs to our country. The President needs to be held accountable for the decisions he makes and, in turn, should be holding his appointees accountable as well. That's what a true leader does and the fact that Donald Rumsfeld still has a job in Washington is a clear indication to me that this has not been happening.

"Support Our Troops by Bringing Them Home and Holding President Bush Accountable." I'm going to need a big magnet...

It Ain't Easy Bein' Green

Just last Wednesday, the Bush Administration entered into a largely-symbolic global pact called the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, which is reminiscent of the Kyoto Accords without actually holding the members to any concrete benchmarks. It's more of a "police yourselves" set of guidelines that leaves improving pollution standards to businesses and governments to enact as they see fit.
It is far past time where we as a people need to decide that preserving the environment for our kids may be worth the loss of some corporate profitability here in the United States. Barring a serious leftward swing of the political spectrum in the next few years, it is clear to me that the U.S. Government is not going to take the necessary steps to regulate industrial pollution. As one would expect from a Republican administration, those currently in power in Washington would prefer to see market forces dictate a change to cleaner energy and production. However, as long as the dirtiest energy sources remain the cheapest, I don't see industry doing much self-correcting.
That's where the U.S. consumer comes in. Let's start by rewarding companies that DO make the effort, via our dollar votes. If market incentive is required for change, then it's time for we, the consumers, to create that incentive. If we, as environmentally-concerned citizens, are forced to play the corporatist game, then let's show that we mean business to Big Business. For after all, pollution won't destroy the Earth. It will destroy our habitat, our health and our way of life. Seems a high price to pay for a few more pennies per share in profits.

A Mighty Veto Pen

Being fairly new to Wisconsin, I had no idea that Governor Jim Doyle had this sort of power. He can actually cross out words in legislative bills to create new sentences, such as was done here to transfer money from the transportation fund into the general fund to add more money in the 2006 state budget for education. Naturally, the Republicans in the state Legislature are now spoiling for a constitutional amendment to ban this, shall we say, creative bit of editing on the part of Wisconsin's Democratic Governor.
Personally, I applaud Doyle for this move; education should be a high priority in every state. Wisconsin's educational spending limits are dictated by a 1993 law that defines the annual increase allowed for educational spending. Sadly, this annual increase has failed to keep up with growing costs for the K-12 school districts, something that Governor Doyle was adamant about addressing for 2006.

I also can't help but notice that in all the years that Republican Governor Tommy Thompson was using the same veto pen, nary a contrary word was uttered by the Republicans in the Legislature. How do you spell "hypocrisy" again?

Talkin' 'bout my girl.

Just to test my photo-posting kung fu, my lovely daughter Livi!

Because I can...

Which is the answer to the question: why begin a blog? I've done so to provide myself with an outlet for my interests, really. A place for me to post my thoughts and opinions on politics, science, religion, philosophy...really anything that catches my interest on a given day. I've seen others do their own blogs and do them well, so I humbly submit my attempt at such.
By the way, the name "A Beginner's Mind" refers to the idea of treating each learning experience as a fresh experience, unhindered by previous ideas or notions of how things are. This is how I endeavor to approach learning new things, that I may understand them on their own merits and not be locked into my own preconceptions.
Well, that sounds about pompous enough. So, without further rambling, I will say "Welcome" to A Beginner's Mind.