Almost a month ago I posted a column about Electric Cars and their possible benefits to the Electric Utilities.
Well, yesterday the Christian Science Monitor posted an article about the possible electrification of the United States Postal Service's fleet of delivery vehicles. This article also mentions the possibility of the vehicles being used for power storage so they can then supply power Vehicle-To-Grid (V2G) when the grid requires it.
Basically, the nature of the way postal vehicles are used - routes of 25 miles or less a day, lots of stops and starts, low speed - would be perfect for electric. And because the vehicles spend significant time when they're guaranteed to be sitting at "home" then there's no problem getting them charged.
And there are some possibilities for V2G uses, but these vehicles really should be out and about during peak electrical demand hours, so that may not be the best use for them. Still, the postal service surely has to keep some spare vehicles around, yes? Any vehicles not in use on a given day can be designated fair game for V2G, I should think.
The postal service has a fleet of over 200,000 vehicles, over 140,000 of which are archetypal Long Life Vehicles - the postal service vans we picture when we think of a postal vehicle.
Currently those vehicles get spectacularly horrid gas mileage because the way they are used - low speed, lots of stops and starts, remember? - is absolutely non-ideal for efficient fuel use. The postal service might actually SAVE money by having an electric vehicle designed specifically to replace their current delivery vans.
Sounds like a job for GM.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
The Instinct Diet
For a while I've been worried about my pants. They were shrinking, you see. Getting tighter at the waist. Maybe I was washing them wrong?
I went out and bought new pants, an inch bigger around the waist, but they were slowly getting a bit tighter, too.
Incidentally, as my pants were getting tighter I noticed that I weighed about 5-10% more than I used to. Perhaps the problem was not my washing machine after all.
Devoted readers of this blog - both of you - may remember that I discovered The Daily Beast during the 2008 election. Well, I've continued to read The Daily Beast since then, which is why I happened to read a column from April about the Instinct Diet.
It sounded interesting. I flipped through the book at my local bookstore, and then actually went so far as to purchase the book in question.
During the same time period the book's primary author, Susan B. Roberts, began contributing columns to The Daily Beast.
With book in hand and columns online and - most importantly - with the support of my intended I actually began the Instinct Diet a week ago. So far I've lost 3.5 pounds which, the book says, is about as much as you should possibly expect to lose in a week.
Basically I'm eating a lot more fruits and vegetables and I'm eating a lot less bread and white rice. Shocking, I know.
It's probably slightly more complicated than that, but not by much.
I'm also just eating less, in terms of sheer volume.
Oh, and I have planned snacks each day instead of cravings I satisfy out of a vending machine.
Speaking of which, it's time for my morning snack: An apple and 4 pecan halves.
I'm not a fan of pecans, but I can eat them with other things, it turns out. I don't even have to cover them with chocolate.
Speaking of covering things with chocolate: The Instinct Diet lets you do that, too. Of course, the thing you're covering with chocolate is a small serving of All Bran cereal. And you're covering it with just an ounce of dark chocolate. But served with just a bit of milk (or with some low-fat yogurt and some raspberries) it's surprisingly satisfying.
This is a snack I've indulged in almost daily in the past week, and it does not appear to be inhibiting my progress.
On the flip side, every 3 days I'm supposed to have half a grapefruit. I did this once a week ago, on the first day.
Here's the thing: I really, really don't like grapefruit. Accompanied by a couple of slices of high-fiber bread thinly coated with a meager amount of low-fat cream cheese I was able to choke it down, but I'm going to be substituting some other fruit for the grapefruit, I've decided. So far I've been substituting melon chunks, but that's mostly because we had a lot of melon to work our way through.
I've sent an inquiry to Dr. Roberts through instinctdiet.com requesting recommendations as to alternative fruits. If you're interested I'll let you know her response.
It's an interesting experience. I've never really tried making major changes to my eating habits before. I mean, I've tried to eat less. And I've switched to diet drinks. (These days I pretty much drink tea and water.) But I've never really cut - or mostly cut - sweets out of my diet before. Or pizza.
What makes it possible is that when following the Instinct Diet I'm not focusing on what I'm not eating. I'm following a meal plan. When I'm hungry there's already a specific plan for what I will eat.
That's probably the way a lot of diets work, but this is new for me, so bear with me.
Also, the plan has variation in it. What I'm eating today is not what I ate yesterday, and what I'm going to eat tomorrow is different, still.
(With the possible exception of the chocolate-covered bran snack, which is an extra I can add to the daily plans within reason.)
I'm excited with my progress so far, and I'll keep you - both of you - updated.
I went out and bought new pants, an inch bigger around the waist, but they were slowly getting a bit tighter, too.
Incidentally, as my pants were getting tighter I noticed that I weighed about 5-10% more than I used to. Perhaps the problem was not my washing machine after all.
Devoted readers of this blog - both of you - may remember that I discovered The Daily Beast during the 2008 election. Well, I've continued to read The Daily Beast since then, which is why I happened to read a column from April about the Instinct Diet.
It sounded interesting. I flipped through the book at my local bookstore, and then actually went so far as to purchase the book in question.
During the same time period the book's primary author, Susan B. Roberts, began contributing columns to The Daily Beast.
With book in hand and columns online and - most importantly - with the support of my intended I actually began the Instinct Diet a week ago. So far I've lost 3.5 pounds which, the book says, is about as much as you should possibly expect to lose in a week.
Basically I'm eating a lot more fruits and vegetables and I'm eating a lot less bread and white rice. Shocking, I know.
It's probably slightly more complicated than that, but not by much.
I'm also just eating less, in terms of sheer volume.
Oh, and I have planned snacks each day instead of cravings I satisfy out of a vending machine.
Speaking of which, it's time for my morning snack: An apple and 4 pecan halves.
I'm not a fan of pecans, but I can eat them with other things, it turns out. I don't even have to cover them with chocolate.
Speaking of covering things with chocolate: The Instinct Diet lets you do that, too. Of course, the thing you're covering with chocolate is a small serving of All Bran cereal. And you're covering it with just an ounce of dark chocolate. But served with just a bit of milk (or with some low-fat yogurt and some raspberries) it's surprisingly satisfying.
This is a snack I've indulged in almost daily in the past week, and it does not appear to be inhibiting my progress.
On the flip side, every 3 days I'm supposed to have half a grapefruit. I did this once a week ago, on the first day.
Here's the thing: I really, really don't like grapefruit. Accompanied by a couple of slices of high-fiber bread thinly coated with a meager amount of low-fat cream cheese I was able to choke it down, but I'm going to be substituting some other fruit for the grapefruit, I've decided. So far I've been substituting melon chunks, but that's mostly because we had a lot of melon to work our way through.
I've sent an inquiry to Dr. Roberts through instinctdiet.com requesting recommendations as to alternative fruits. If you're interested I'll let you know her response.
It's an interesting experience. I've never really tried making major changes to my eating habits before. I mean, I've tried to eat less. And I've switched to diet drinks. (These days I pretty much drink tea and water.) But I've never really cut - or mostly cut - sweets out of my diet before. Or pizza.
What makes it possible is that when following the Instinct Diet I'm not focusing on what I'm not eating. I'm following a meal plan. When I'm hungry there's already a specific plan for what I will eat.
That's probably the way a lot of diets work, but this is new for me, so bear with me.
Also, the plan has variation in it. What I'm eating today is not what I ate yesterday, and what I'm going to eat tomorrow is different, still.
(With the possible exception of the chocolate-covered bran snack, which is an extra I can add to the daily plans within reason.)
I'm excited with my progress so far, and I'll keep you - both of you - updated.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
More on Utilities and Electric Cars
In my previous post I posited that the electric utilities would be the ones to actually make electric cars go. And that they'll profit from the change, long term, while making the world a bit greener in the process.
The oil companies will lose out, but that's okay. The oil companies' loss is the electric utilities' gain.
There have been some news items in the past week that indicate that more and more utilities are figuring this out.
San Diego Gas and Electric is establishing milestones that will enable them to deliver electricity to electric car drivers. It will take a while, but it appears that SDG&E is in it for the long haul.
Fifteen Michigan utilities are participating in a pilot program with Ford. The utilities get plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs) to use in their daily operations. But in order best to use them the utilities need to create charging infrastructure for the vehicles. The utilities and Ford will share information resulting from the project.
The last article I'm going to reference in this post has a spokesperson from Southern California Edison stating that they expect electric cars to account for over 10% of their demand by 2020. Considering that our overall demand for electricity has been steadily increasing over time, this is significant.
The oil companies will lose out, but that's okay. The oil companies' loss is the electric utilities' gain.
There have been some news items in the past week that indicate that more and more utilities are figuring this out.
San Diego Gas and Electric is establishing milestones that will enable them to deliver electricity to electric car drivers. It will take a while, but it appears that SDG&E is in it for the long haul.
Fifteen Michigan utilities are participating in a pilot program with Ford. The utilities get plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) and battery electric vehicles (BEVs) to use in their daily operations. But in order best to use them the utilities need to create charging infrastructure for the vehicles. The utilities and Ford will share information resulting from the project.
The last article I'm going to reference in this post has a spokesperson from Southern California Edison stating that they expect electric cars to account for over 10% of their demand by 2020. Considering that our overall demand for electricity has been steadily increasing over time, this is significant.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Utilities Can Make Electric Cars Move
Utilities stand to benefit - more than any other companies or entities - from the advent of electric cars.
Most obviously, all those electric cars will be using electricity. It’s one more appliance for the consumer to plug in, and the more appliances consumers plug in then the more money the electric utilities stand to gain. For this reason alone the electric utilities should be actively encouraging adoption of electric cars.
There’s another reason, though, but it’s more complicated. And it requires the electric cars in question to have V2G technology.
V2G or Vehicle-To-Grid technology allows electric cars plugged into the electrical grid to be used by the utility for load-levelling.
Load-levelling is something the utilities currently do every week, every day, every hour, every minute. They track electricity demand and they make sure that they are able – at all times – to meet and exceed that demand. Because of the demand for more electricity during peak hours, electric utilities have plants that spin up before peak hours begin. These load-levelling plants then go out of service after peak hours are over. Other, baseload plants are running all the time. During the night when electricity use is low these baseload plants are producing more electricity than is being used.
And really, that’s what power companies do all the time – produce more electricity than is being used. Currently there is always always always extra electricity that goes to waste.
V2G cars will usually charge at night, making use of the additional electricity produced by the baseload plants at that time.
During the day, then, any V2G cars still plugged in at home – or plugged in at a V2G parking / charging station – can be used by the utility for load-levelling. The utility can delay or avoid spinning up the load-levelling plants. Instead they can just draw unneeded power from the V2G cars. Current projections are that an owner of a V2G car would make perhaps $2000 a year from the utility for allowing said utility to use his/her car for V2G load-levelling.
In this manner the V2G cars would serve as Grid Energy Storage. That is, a place to store excess electricity which, remember, the utility is currently producing all the time.
Many utilities are looking into building Grid Energy Storage systems for the same purpose discussed above, but if V2G cars can serve this purpose then that’s a project the utilities can scratch, avoiding that capital expenditure.
Instead, that cap ex can be spent working with car and battery manufacturers to create V2G standards that will work for the purposes outlined above, and possibly subsidizing the cost of the car or the battery for the consumer.
Basically, the utilities need to adopt the Better Place model, perhaps even to the extent of retaining ownership of the electric car batteries. The cost of the battery is what makes an electric car expensive, after all. Utilities will need to run a cost-benefit analysis, but it seems to me that there is enough benefit to the utilities (in the form of additional revenue and reduction of load-levelling costs) to offset the cost of the batteries.
This seems like a real win-win, and the beginnings of a smart grid, to boot. It's all very exciting.
Here are links to additional reading on the topic of V2G electric cars.
CBS Interactive's BNET article from 4 May
Christian Science Monitor article from 24 April
Hartford Courant article from 8 April
Discovery Channel article, undated
Additional Discovery article from 2 February
Most obviously, all those electric cars will be using electricity. It’s one more appliance for the consumer to plug in, and the more appliances consumers plug in then the more money the electric utilities stand to gain. For this reason alone the electric utilities should be actively encouraging adoption of electric cars.
There’s another reason, though, but it’s more complicated. And it requires the electric cars in question to have V2G technology.
V2G or Vehicle-To-Grid technology allows electric cars plugged into the electrical grid to be used by the utility for load-levelling.
Load-levelling is something the utilities currently do every week, every day, every hour, every minute. They track electricity demand and they make sure that they are able – at all times – to meet and exceed that demand. Because of the demand for more electricity during peak hours, electric utilities have plants that spin up before peak hours begin. These load-levelling plants then go out of service after peak hours are over. Other, baseload plants are running all the time. During the night when electricity use is low these baseload plants are producing more electricity than is being used.
And really, that’s what power companies do all the time – produce more electricity than is being used. Currently there is always always always extra electricity that goes to waste.
V2G cars will usually charge at night, making use of the additional electricity produced by the baseload plants at that time.
During the day, then, any V2G cars still plugged in at home – or plugged in at a V2G parking / charging station – can be used by the utility for load-levelling. The utility can delay or avoid spinning up the load-levelling plants. Instead they can just draw unneeded power from the V2G cars. Current projections are that an owner of a V2G car would make perhaps $2000 a year from the utility for allowing said utility to use his/her car for V2G load-levelling.
In this manner the V2G cars would serve as Grid Energy Storage. That is, a place to store excess electricity which, remember, the utility is currently producing all the time.
Many utilities are looking into building Grid Energy Storage systems for the same purpose discussed above, but if V2G cars can serve this purpose then that’s a project the utilities can scratch, avoiding that capital expenditure.
Instead, that cap ex can be spent working with car and battery manufacturers to create V2G standards that will work for the purposes outlined above, and possibly subsidizing the cost of the car or the battery for the consumer.
Basically, the utilities need to adopt the Better Place model, perhaps even to the extent of retaining ownership of the electric car batteries. The cost of the battery is what makes an electric car expensive, after all. Utilities will need to run a cost-benefit analysis, but it seems to me that there is enough benefit to the utilities (in the form of additional revenue and reduction of load-levelling costs) to offset the cost of the batteries.
This seems like a real win-win, and the beginnings of a smart grid, to boot. It's all very exciting.
Here are links to additional reading on the topic of V2G electric cars.
CBS Interactive's BNET article from 4 May
Christian Science Monitor article from 24 April
Hartford Courant article from 8 April
Discovery Channel article, undated
Additional Discovery article from 2 February
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Sovereign Immunity??? Really?
I’m an Obama fan. People who know me – and I know of no one who reads this blog who doesn’t know me directly – are aware of this.
And I’m very happy with what President Obama has done in the 85 days of his first 100 days in office. I have high hopes for the next 2 weeks and the next 4 (and possibly 8) years.
Specifically I’m thrilled that President Obama has:
Transparency was one of candidate Obama’s big campaign issues. It’s probably something he’s not going to want to bring up for a while, though.
I’ve written previously (in my last few blog entries) about this one area - transparency - in which I am disappointed in President Obama.
Well, it’s gotten worse.
Previously, President Obama’s Department of Justice has continued many of the previous administration’s legal claims to secrecy. The previous administration had a very impressive record of secrecy, so this is not a good thing.
Well, now the Department of Justice has taken things to the next level. Now they’re claiming a right of “sovereign immunity” under the Patriot Act. Basically, they’re claiming that the state has the right to spy on its citizens so long as the state doesn’t release the information gathered in this process to the public.
Say what you will about the second Bush administration – and I’ve said a lot – but they never went quite this far.
In my naiveté I am looking forward to an about-face on this issue from the Obama administration. Until that happens, though, then I’m going to be linking to the various sources of information on this:
Here’s Politico.com’s article
Here’s Salon.com’s.
Here’s the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s.
And here’s the Atlantic’s.
And I’m very happy with what President Obama has done in the 85 days of his first 100 days in office. I have high hopes for the next 2 weeks and the next 4 (and possibly 8) years.
Specifically I’m thrilled that President Obama has:
- Begun the process of shutting down Gitmo as a detention center
- Effectively banned torture by directing that the Army Field Manual be used as the rules for interrogation
- Raised fuel efficiency standards
- Allowed states to raise fuel efficiency standards higher still
- Ended the Global Gag Rule on abortion
- Signed legislation that will insure 4 million previously uninsured children
- Lifted restrictions on stem cell research
- Effectively reinstituted a Reagan-issued Executive Order that sees to the archiving of presidential papers
Transparency was one of candidate Obama’s big campaign issues. It’s probably something he’s not going to want to bring up for a while, though.
I’ve written previously (in my last few blog entries) about this one area - transparency - in which I am disappointed in President Obama.
Well, it’s gotten worse.
Previously, President Obama’s Department of Justice has continued many of the previous administration’s legal claims to secrecy. The previous administration had a very impressive record of secrecy, so this is not a good thing.
Well, now the Department of Justice has taken things to the next level. Now they’re claiming a right of “sovereign immunity” under the Patriot Act. Basically, they’re claiming that the state has the right to spy on its citizens so long as the state doesn’t release the information gathered in this process to the public.
Say what you will about the second Bush administration – and I’ve said a lot – but they never went quite this far.
In my naiveté I am looking forward to an about-face on this issue from the Obama administration. Until that happens, though, then I’m going to be linking to the various sources of information on this:
Here’s Politico.com’s article
Here’s Salon.com’s.
Here’s the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s.
And here’s the Atlantic’s.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
More State Secrets
Back in February I wrote about my concerns regarding the State Secrets privilege which has been used - and possibly abused - by both the current and the previous presidential administrations. Well, yesterday the Washington Post had a good article on the subject, so I direct your attention to it.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Obama's first signing statement
Well, it's been a month since I last posted anything. I was thinking that today - on the monthiversary of my last post - I really should write SOMETHING, but what?
I was thinking I could offer some uninformed commentary on a recent encounter between the US Navy and the Chinese navy in the South China Sea (which took place in the same area in which a Chinese air force plane clipped a US spy plane in 2001, forcing the crew to make an emergency landing and resulting in their capture by the Chinese government. 9/11 made everyone forget about this.) This incident (and the 2001 incident) both have everything to do with an underground submarine base located on (under) the island of Hainan.
On a lighter note, I was thinking of maybe writing about how much I deeply, deeply hate the ads that Hulu has made for themselves. (Evidently Hulu makes it difficult to link directly to the diatribe I have posted on their site, so if you're interested then go HERE, click the Discussion tab and then look for the thread titled "these ads are not good")
I was forwarded an article today in which one of my favorite authors describes as a "Multi-generational Ponzi scheme" the faulty accounting associated with burning lots of carbon when this action has lots of environmental penalties but utterly inadequate economic penalties, and I'm tempted to put in my two cents on that...
But then President Barack Obama issued his first signing statement. Just like his predecessor had a tendency to do, President Obama has signed a bill into law accompanied with a statement that says, in effect, that he's going to ignore portions of the law in question.
It's basically a line-item-veto by another name.
In December 2007, candidate Obama clearly stated that he would not use signing statements in this fashion.
I voted for Obama. I'm disappointed.
That said, this is the Omnibus spending bill we're talking about. If the president didn't sign it into law then it would force a government shutdown. And since the previous administration had demonstrated the efficacy of a signing statement as a line-item veto then why not use it as one?
I'm glad I'm not the president. I'm glad I don't have to make the decision between 3 bad options:
UPDATE: CBS has the best article I've seen so far regarding the signing of the spending bill. Its article also includes the full text of the signing statement that accompanied the new law. For that matter, CBS also has an article covering a memo the Obama administration released on Monday regarding signing statements and their use by the Bush administration.
I was thinking I could offer some uninformed commentary on a recent encounter between the US Navy and the Chinese navy in the South China Sea (which took place in the same area in which a Chinese air force plane clipped a US spy plane in 2001, forcing the crew to make an emergency landing and resulting in their capture by the Chinese government. 9/11 made everyone forget about this.) This incident (and the 2001 incident) both have everything to do with an underground submarine base located on (under) the island of Hainan.
On a lighter note, I was thinking of maybe writing about how much I deeply, deeply hate the ads that Hulu has made for themselves. (Evidently Hulu makes it difficult to link directly to the diatribe I have posted on their site, so if you're interested then go HERE, click the Discussion tab and then look for the thread titled "these ads are not good")
I was forwarded an article today in which one of my favorite authors describes as a "Multi-generational Ponzi scheme" the faulty accounting associated with burning lots of carbon when this action has lots of environmental penalties but utterly inadequate economic penalties, and I'm tempted to put in my two cents on that...
But then President Barack Obama issued his first signing statement. Just like his predecessor had a tendency to do, President Obama has signed a bill into law accompanied with a statement that says, in effect, that he's going to ignore portions of the law in question.
It's basically a line-item-veto by another name.
In December 2007, candidate Obama clearly stated that he would not use signing statements in this fashion.
I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president's constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.It appears, though, that President Obama has just used a signing statement for this very purpose. Rather than veto a law with provisions that he claims are unconstitutional, President Obama has chosen to sign the law accompanied with a statement saying he's going to ignore some bits.
I voted for Obama. I'm disappointed.
That said, this is the Omnibus spending bill we're talking about. If the president didn't sign it into law then it would force a government shutdown. And since the previous administration had demonstrated the efficacy of a signing statement as a line-item veto then why not use it as one?
I'm glad I'm not the president. I'm glad I don't have to make the decision between 3 bad options:
- Sign the law and enact it as written
- Veto the bill and cause a government shutdown
- Compromise my principles and leave it for the Supreme Court to sort out, possibly years from now.
UPDATE: CBS has the best article I've seen so far regarding the signing of the spending bill. Its article also includes the full text of the signing statement that accompanied the new law. For that matter, CBS also has an article covering a memo the Obama administration released on Monday regarding signing statements and their use by the Bush administration.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
State Secrets
Obama’s Department of Justice is continuing to support a policy of Bush’s Department of Justice – one that Obama explicitly campaigned against.
It’s all about state secrets.
There is such a thing as a State Secret. I’m all about transparency in government, but I acknowledge that there is information gathered by our intelligence agencies that cannot be immediately shared with the general populace, and that there is information about our government’s capabilities and activities that needs to be kept from our enemies and therefore may need to be kept from the general populace also. The fact is that some stuff is just Need To Know.
But we do need to balance this somehow, which brings us back to transparency in government. It would be very easy for our government, in its quest to protect us or to protect the interests of our country, to undertake a program of truly evil actions in our name. Some level of vigilance has to be exercised in order to prevent this.
Civil courts are often part of this process of vigilance and transparency.
The state secrets privilege was first recognized by the US Supreme Court in 1953. Family of civilians killed as a result of a crashed B-29 bomber sued the government for information as to the cause of the crash. In recognizing the state secrets privilege, the court allowed the government to withhold evidence from the proceedings.
But the proceedings did continue with whatever evidence was admitted.
Evidently in the following 24 years – between 1953 and 1976, inclusive – the government invoked the state secrets privilege 4 times, including the original case.
After 9/11 the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege 23 times.
But wait! There’s more! President Bush’s Department of Justice used the state secrets privilege to have cases entirely thrown out of court. They didn’t just withhold sensitive information.
This is what Obama promised to end. State secrets will continue to exist, and the state secrets privilege may need to be invoked from time to time in the interests of national security, but it should not prevent court cases from proceeding, albeit lacking whatever secret information is withheld.
And yet this policy is what Obama's Department of Justice is inexplicably continuing.
The court case in which this policy is being upheld is one that concerns Extraordinary Rendition – the tendency of our intelligence agencies to transport suspects to fun places like Syria in order to have Syrian intelligence have a go at them, since they use interrogation techniques that we ... do not.
This has evidently been done to innocent people.
And information about the particular case that is slowly making its way through the court system has been reported in the press.
So what remains to be withheld?
There’s only a few possible conclusions I can draw from all this.
Between this and Obama’s flip-flop on the FISA legislation, I find that I’m concerned about whatever he knows that I don’t.
I remain an Obama supporter. Fundamentally I believe that Obama is trying to change things for the better. But it appears that he must have become informed of something that our government has done or is doing (in the course of its intelligence gathering) that he has decided must remain unknown, for our safety, and for the safety of our country.
I leave it to the more seasoned conspiracy-theorists out there to go on about Black Sites and Total Information Awareness and whatnot. I personally am hesitant to speculate further about what exactly it is we have done – what it is we are doing – that must remain a state secret. All I can say is that something is being done in the name of our safety, and its something that - in the name of our safety - we evidently can't be allowed to know about.
It’s all about state secrets.
There is such a thing as a State Secret. I’m all about transparency in government, but I acknowledge that there is information gathered by our intelligence agencies that cannot be immediately shared with the general populace, and that there is information about our government’s capabilities and activities that needs to be kept from our enemies and therefore may need to be kept from the general populace also. The fact is that some stuff is just Need To Know.
But we do need to balance this somehow, which brings us back to transparency in government. It would be very easy for our government, in its quest to protect us or to protect the interests of our country, to undertake a program of truly evil actions in our name. Some level of vigilance has to be exercised in order to prevent this.
Civil courts are often part of this process of vigilance and transparency.
The state secrets privilege was first recognized by the US Supreme Court in 1953. Family of civilians killed as a result of a crashed B-29 bomber sued the government for information as to the cause of the crash. In recognizing the state secrets privilege, the court allowed the government to withhold evidence from the proceedings.
But the proceedings did continue with whatever evidence was admitted.
Evidently in the following 24 years – between 1953 and 1976, inclusive – the government invoked the state secrets privilege 4 times, including the original case.
After 9/11 the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege 23 times.
But wait! There’s more! President Bush’s Department of Justice used the state secrets privilege to have cases entirely thrown out of court. They didn’t just withhold sensitive information.
This is what Obama promised to end. State secrets will continue to exist, and the state secrets privilege may need to be invoked from time to time in the interests of national security, but it should not prevent court cases from proceeding, albeit lacking whatever secret information is withheld.
And yet this policy is what Obama's Department of Justice is inexplicably continuing.
The court case in which this policy is being upheld is one that concerns Extraordinary Rendition – the tendency of our intelligence agencies to transport suspects to fun places like Syria in order to have Syrian intelligence have a go at them, since they use interrogation techniques that we ... do not.
This has evidently been done to innocent people.
And information about the particular case that is slowly making its way through the court system has been reported in the press.
So what remains to be withheld?
There’s only a few possible conclusions I can draw from all this.
- One possibility is that President Obama has gone mad with power.
- Another possibility is that he reserves the right to go mad with power at some point in the next 4 to 8 years.
- And the last possible explanation is that whatever information has not yet come to light about the practice of extraordinary rendition – or related intelligence gathering practices - is amazingly, amazingly horrible.
Between this and Obama’s flip-flop on the FISA legislation, I find that I’m concerned about whatever he knows that I don’t.
I remain an Obama supporter. Fundamentally I believe that Obama is trying to change things for the better. But it appears that he must have become informed of something that our government has done or is doing (in the course of its intelligence gathering) that he has decided must remain unknown, for our safety, and for the safety of our country.
I leave it to the more seasoned conspiracy-theorists out there to go on about Black Sites and Total Information Awareness and whatnot. I personally am hesitant to speculate further about what exactly it is we have done – what it is we are doing – that must remain a state secret. All I can say is that something is being done in the name of our safety, and its something that - in the name of our safety - we evidently can't be allowed to know about.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Important news
I try to stay informed. Really I do. In my quest to be aware of current events I read news when I ought to be doing other things. As a consequence I know about the drought in China that is causing a "National Emergency" there, about the simultaneous floods in Australia and in Fiji and in the Solomon Islands, about the slow disappearance of the Maldives and of Kiribati and their populations' hope to relocate, about Iceland's new Prime Minister who happens to be the first openly gay leader of a nation, about the fact that China bought more cars and trucks in January than the US did and that this is the first time this has ever happened for any month, ever...
But sometimes important news slips through the cracks. News that, evidently, is of great importance to many people. And I missed this one until today:
Jessica Simpson has gained weight.
My reaction to this news is different than most, though. My reaction is Thank God. That woman was just too skinny.
Evidently I am out of step, though. According to the Daily Beast (my preferred news site these days) other media outlets are referring to Simpson as a “fat cow”.
The Daily Beast goes on to talk about the weight-loss industry and what an incredible opportunity this is for Jessica to cash in – provided she can lose the weight. Evidently she could easily get a 7-figure sponsorship from Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, Nutrisystem or others if she simply hawks their products in the course of losing the weight. If she stops losing the weight – and definitely if she gains weight – then she’s out. All-gone-money.
Let me take this opportunity to state for the record that if someone wants to pay me upwards of a million dollars to get in shape then I will make that my full-time job.
That stated, I don’t think Jessica should lose the weight. I mean, if there’s millions of dollars involved then sure, go for it Jessica, but if there’s not and it’s all about image then I just gotta say I much prefer the new image.
I haven’t done a full web search for photos, so maybe I’m not seeing what others are seeing. All I’ve seen are these two photos:
And I gotta say, I much prefer the one on the right.
That is all. Thank you for your attention.
UPDATE: In other terribly important news, it turns out that Miley Cyrus is a teenager.
But sometimes important news slips through the cracks. News that, evidently, is of great importance to many people. And I missed this one until today:
Jessica Simpson has gained weight.
My reaction to this news is different than most, though. My reaction is Thank God. That woman was just too skinny.
Evidently I am out of step, though. According to the Daily Beast (my preferred news site these days) other media outlets are referring to Simpson as a “fat cow”.
The Daily Beast goes on to talk about the weight-loss industry and what an incredible opportunity this is for Jessica to cash in – provided she can lose the weight. Evidently she could easily get a 7-figure sponsorship from Jenny Craig, Weight Watchers, Nutrisystem or others if she simply hawks their products in the course of losing the weight. If she stops losing the weight – and definitely if she gains weight – then she’s out. All-gone-money.
Let me take this opportunity to state for the record that if someone wants to pay me upwards of a million dollars to get in shape then I will make that my full-time job.
That stated, I don’t think Jessica should lose the weight. I mean, if there’s millions of dollars involved then sure, go for it Jessica, but if there’s not and it’s all about image then I just gotta say I much prefer the new image.
I haven’t done a full web search for photos, so maybe I’m not seeing what others are seeing. All I’ve seen are these two photos:
And I gotta say, I much prefer the one on the right.
That is all. Thank you for your attention.
UPDATE: In other terribly important news, it turns out that Miley Cyrus is a teenager.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
We have to spend on infrastructure
News is trickling out that the stimulus is not going to pass as written, and that a plan to add infrastructure spending to the stimulus did not garner sufficient support.
I'm sorry, didn't a bridge collapse in Minnesota recently because we've not been spending sufficiently on infrastructure?
And people need jobs. When people are unemployed they stop spending, and then the companies whose products aren't being bought and whose services aren't being used have to lay people off. The pool of unemployed grows and the problem worsens.
We need to employ people.
During the New Deal the government employed people through the WPA and other programs, and by doing so the government accomplished - among other things - the following:
"The government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York's Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.
It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country's entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters."
Well, we need to repair our existing infrastructure. We always need more hospitals, schools, and teachers. We need to make some fundamental changes to our electrical infrastructure - transmission lines to take wind-power from where it's generated to where it's needed, smart grids to make energy use more efficient and less expensive. Simply put, there's work to be done.
Normally the markets take care of this. Something needs to be done and from the market emerges companies competing to do it.
But the market is broken just now. Companies are cutting back on the spending that would be necessary to enable them to do the jobs we need. Also states and municipalities are cutting back on spending on the necessary infrastructure changes, so even if there were companies to do it, who's going to pay them?
The government has to step in and pay to get things done, and we need to let them. In the process, folks will be employed, and those employed folks will spend money on various goods and services.
Employment good. Unemployment bad. It's simple, really.
Does it have to get worse before we'll allow our government to start addressing the situation in a meaningful manner?
Personally, I think we should pass an infrastructure bill. Not an economic stimulus package. An infrastructure bill. We need the infrastructure upgrades, and people need jobs.
Also, we don't know what a stimulus package is going to do, exactly, but we know what an infrastructure upgrade is, or what it can be, anyway. It can be what it was in the New Deal, and in the process it will provide economic stimulus as a convenient side effect.
I'm sorry, didn't a bridge collapse in Minnesota recently because we've not been spending sufficiently on infrastructure?
And people need jobs. When people are unemployed they stop spending, and then the companies whose products aren't being bought and whose services aren't being used have to lay people off. The pool of unemployed grows and the problem worsens.
We need to employ people.
During the New Deal the government employed people through the WPA and other programs, and by doing so the government accomplished - among other things - the following:
"The government hired about 60 per cent of the unemployed in public works and conservation projects that planted a billion trees, saved the whooping crane, modernized rural America, and built such diverse projects as the Cathedral of Learning in Pittsburgh, the Montana state capitol, much of the Chicago lakefront, New York's Lincoln Tunnel and Triborough Bridge complex, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the aircraft carriers Enterprise and Yorktown.
It also built or renovated 2,500 hospitals, 45,000 schools, 13,000 parks and playgrounds, 7,800 bridges, 700,000 miles of roads, and a thousand airfields. And it employed 50,000 teachers, rebuilt the country's entire rural school system, and hired 3,000 writers, musicians, sculptors and painters."
Well, we need to repair our existing infrastructure. We always need more hospitals, schools, and teachers. We need to make some fundamental changes to our electrical infrastructure - transmission lines to take wind-power from where it's generated to where it's needed, smart grids to make energy use more efficient and less expensive. Simply put, there's work to be done.
Normally the markets take care of this. Something needs to be done and from the market emerges companies competing to do it.
But the market is broken just now. Companies are cutting back on the spending that would be necessary to enable them to do the jobs we need. Also states and municipalities are cutting back on spending on the necessary infrastructure changes, so even if there were companies to do it, who's going to pay them?
The government has to step in and pay to get things done, and we need to let them. In the process, folks will be employed, and those employed folks will spend money on various goods and services.
Employment good. Unemployment bad. It's simple, really.
Does it have to get worse before we'll allow our government to start addressing the situation in a meaningful manner?
Personally, I think we should pass an infrastructure bill. Not an economic stimulus package. An infrastructure bill. We need the infrastructure upgrades, and people need jobs.
Also, we don't know what a stimulus package is going to do, exactly, but we know what an infrastructure upgrade is, or what it can be, anyway. It can be what it was in the New Deal, and in the process it will provide economic stimulus as a convenient side effect.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
I Don't Tweet
I post infrequently to this blog. I posted fairly frequently during the election, I suppose, but I have posted less frequently post-election. I have posted occasionally in the last 10 days to express my considerable approval for the job our president is doing in his first days in office. I expect I will continue to do so. I heart Obama, I suppose.
I also heart Stephen Fry, as attested by a couple of posts in December. (One on the 18th. Another on the 19th) And as someone who enjoys Stephen and his blog and his blessays I was quite happy to see that he has finally posted a new blog entry – not a blessay, this time – on his site. Stephen blogs less frequently than myself, you see, but when he does it’s worth reading.
And I suppose today’s would be worth reading if I tweeted. If I were a Twitter user. Which I am not.
If I were it might have been useful to absorb, fully, Stephen’s suggested ground rules for tweeting / twittering him. He has a number of Twitter followers you see, and he simply cannot keep up with them all, but he shall try and he has presented them with suggestions for how best to tweet in his particular case.
He ends the post saying “Welcome to my twitterworld, I am delighted to have you as a follower. Let’s enjoy ourselves and to hell with those who don’t get it.”
Well, I don’t get it. I will not be a part of Stephen's twitterworld, or anyone’s. So to hell with me.
(Well, maybe Obama’s… That might be cool… I don't know if Obama ever tweeted, though, and if he did I doubt he is permitted to do so now. So...)
I don’t tweet.
I don’t tweet. I haven’t tweeted. I do not intend to tweet. I will not tweet.
On some level the very concept of constantly updating people as to where I am and what I’m doing simply disturbs me.
I think I can safely say that Twitter was inspired by Facebook and its users’ ability to update their status, and their tendency to do so constantly.
Just now I logged into Facebook to see exactly how I worded my last status update. I see that on the 19th I updated it to reflect that I am “indulging in high hopes for the Obama presidency” and I see no need to update that. I still am indulging my high hopes even though many of my hopes have already been met. I have higher hopes, still.
The point: Apparently it’s been 10 days since I updated my facebook status.
...
In the midst of this column I find myself tempted to update my Facebook status, which is annoying, as I am in mid-rant about the frivolousness of the entire enterprise.
Here’s the thing: It might not be frivolous today.
...
We’ve had kind of a big week in Louisville, Kentucky. Many hours of freezing rain has caused trees to become over-weight with ice. This was later compounded with snow, so trees have fallen or dropped branches, snapping power-lines in the process. Some of the power-lines snapped under the weight of the ice and snow without any trees’ helpful assistance. This has resulted in power outages for roughly a third of the population of the city / county.
Louisville had finally recovered from the remnants of Hurricane Ike which had much the same effect back in September. (My neighbor finally got his roof fixed last week...) Of course, Ike knocked out power for nearly three-fourths of the metro area, affecting many more people than are affected now.
So I find, as I look at Facebook, that I am becoming apprised of the status of various folks I know. A few are thankful they have power. Others have uploaded photos of various ice-covered or icicle-laden objects.
Perhaps it would be of some utility to update my status to “is without power at home, but is able to get to work without difficulty from his fiancee’s.” Anyone concerned for my well-being would be instantly updated, with no real effort on their part.
I’d like to see a little effort, though.
During this time of difficulty my parents have called to make sure I’m alright. (They have power, incidentally, but they have one tree leaning on their garage and another that is partly in their neighbors’ driveway.) My intended and I have been updating each other frequently. (She’s safely at work at our state capitol today, although there was a significant delay on the interstate.) Through my parents I am aware that my brother and his family have power and cell phones, although their land-line is out (but the DSL is working – what’s up with that?).
What I’m saying is that I do not feel the need to broadcast my status, or changes to my status, to any group of people. Individuals can learn of my status by contacting me directly, or through traditional social-networking to which the word “online” does not pertain.
Individuals can alternatively simply assume that everything’s fine - that's usually the case - in a detail-free kind of way.
I guess that’s it – the details. So much of current online interaction is about sharing the details of one’s life with everyone who cares to know. I did this effectively - but much less efficiently - in my 20’s through direct social interaction and near-constant use of the phone (and a little email, too) until I finally had a minor epiphany that even my best friends did not require and were perhaps uninterested in the level of detail I was providing.
This was a hard-won revelation, and I find myself unwilling to reverse my relatively newfound position.
For that matter, the older I get the more I appreciate a certain degree of privacy, just for its own sake.
And then there’s the matter of security. If I broadcast the details of my daily routine then characters of a malicious nature would be able to know when my house is empty and therefore easily robbed. They might also know that there’s nothing worth stealing, so it would probably be moot, but still...
It just seems odd, in an age in which many people are very concerned about identity theft and fraud, that many people are now willing to put many details of their life out there for all to see. A traditional con artist could make bank exploiting this. It seems to me like a constant series of unnecessary risks.
I guess I don’t get it. So to hell with me.
Maybe I should update my status to “is going to hell.”...?
That wouldn’t really be an update, though. Surely my Facebook friends already knew that.
I also heart Stephen Fry, as attested by a couple of posts in December. (One on the 18th. Another on the 19th) And as someone who enjoys Stephen and his blog and his blessays I was quite happy to see that he has finally posted a new blog entry – not a blessay, this time – on his site. Stephen blogs less frequently than myself, you see, but when he does it’s worth reading.
And I suppose today’s would be worth reading if I tweeted. If I were a Twitter user. Which I am not.
If I were it might have been useful to absorb, fully, Stephen’s suggested ground rules for tweeting / twittering him. He has a number of Twitter followers you see, and he simply cannot keep up with them all, but he shall try and he has presented them with suggestions for how best to tweet in his particular case.
He ends the post saying “Welcome to my twitterworld, I am delighted to have you as a follower. Let’s enjoy ourselves and to hell with those who don’t get it.”
Well, I don’t get it. I will not be a part of Stephen's twitterworld, or anyone’s. So to hell with me.
(Well, maybe Obama’s… That might be cool… I don't know if Obama ever tweeted, though, and if he did I doubt he is permitted to do so now. So...)
I don’t tweet.
I don’t tweet. I haven’t tweeted. I do not intend to tweet. I will not tweet.
On some level the very concept of constantly updating people as to where I am and what I’m doing simply disturbs me.
I think I can safely say that Twitter was inspired by Facebook and its users’ ability to update their status, and their tendency to do so constantly.
Just now I logged into Facebook to see exactly how I worded my last status update. I see that on the 19th I updated it to reflect that I am “indulging in high hopes for the Obama presidency” and I see no need to update that. I still am indulging my high hopes even though many of my hopes have already been met. I have higher hopes, still.
The point: Apparently it’s been 10 days since I updated my facebook status.
...
In the midst of this column I find myself tempted to update my Facebook status, which is annoying, as I am in mid-rant about the frivolousness of the entire enterprise.
Here’s the thing: It might not be frivolous today.
...
We’ve had kind of a big week in Louisville, Kentucky. Many hours of freezing rain has caused trees to become over-weight with ice. This was later compounded with snow, so trees have fallen or dropped branches, snapping power-lines in the process. Some of the power-lines snapped under the weight of the ice and snow without any trees’ helpful assistance. This has resulted in power outages for roughly a third of the population of the city / county.
Louisville had finally recovered from the remnants of Hurricane Ike which had much the same effect back in September. (My neighbor finally got his roof fixed last week...) Of course, Ike knocked out power for nearly three-fourths of the metro area, affecting many more people than are affected now.
So I find, as I look at Facebook, that I am becoming apprised of the status of various folks I know. A few are thankful they have power. Others have uploaded photos of various ice-covered or icicle-laden objects.
Perhaps it would be of some utility to update my status to “is without power at home, but is able to get to work without difficulty from his fiancee’s.” Anyone concerned for my well-being would be instantly updated, with no real effort on their part.
I’d like to see a little effort, though.
During this time of difficulty my parents have called to make sure I’m alright. (They have power, incidentally, but they have one tree leaning on their garage and another that is partly in their neighbors’ driveway.) My intended and I have been updating each other frequently. (She’s safely at work at our state capitol today, although there was a significant delay on the interstate.) Through my parents I am aware that my brother and his family have power and cell phones, although their land-line is out (but the DSL is working – what’s up with that?).
What I’m saying is that I do not feel the need to broadcast my status, or changes to my status, to any group of people. Individuals can learn of my status by contacting me directly, or through traditional social-networking to which the word “online” does not pertain.
Individuals can alternatively simply assume that everything’s fine - that's usually the case - in a detail-free kind of way.
I guess that’s it – the details. So much of current online interaction is about sharing the details of one’s life with everyone who cares to know. I did this effectively - but much less efficiently - in my 20’s through direct social interaction and near-constant use of the phone (and a little email, too) until I finally had a minor epiphany that even my best friends did not require and were perhaps uninterested in the level of detail I was providing.
This was a hard-won revelation, and I find myself unwilling to reverse my relatively newfound position.
For that matter, the older I get the more I appreciate a certain degree of privacy, just for its own sake.
And then there’s the matter of security. If I broadcast the details of my daily routine then characters of a malicious nature would be able to know when my house is empty and therefore easily robbed. They might also know that there’s nothing worth stealing, so it would probably be moot, but still...
It just seems odd, in an age in which many people are very concerned about identity theft and fraud, that many people are now willing to put many details of their life out there for all to see. A traditional con artist could make bank exploiting this. It seems to me like a constant series of unnecessary risks.
I guess I don’t get it. So to hell with me.
Maybe I should update my status to “is going to hell.”...?
That wouldn’t really be an update, though. Surely my Facebook friends already knew that.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
President Obama! (continued)
In Friday's post I went over many of President Obama's accomplishments in his first 3.5 days in office. Today I want to draw your attention to a couple things that have transpired since.
I'll update this post or add new posts as I become aware of additional exciting or interesting accomplishments of the new administration.
- President Obama has been interviewed by Al-Arabiya, and Arabic-language news channel that broadcasts from Dubai. Here's a transcript of the interview.
- President Obama has signalled the reversal of a decision made by the EPA under Bush. California will soon again be allowed to set its own car emissions and fuel-efficiency standards, as it did prior to 2005.
I'll update this post or add new posts as I become aware of additional exciting or interesting accomplishments of the new administration.
Friday, January 23, 2009
President Obama!
In fact, I think I owe that same friend another “I was wrong.”…
I was, of course, overjoyed by the inauguration. That being said, I am yet more joyed (over-overjoyed? Uberoverjoyed? Superjoyed?) at what Obama has done in just a few days in office.
- He’s begun the process of closing Gitmo.
- He’s ordered an end to torture by American intelligence.
- He’s begun the process of withdrawing from
- He’s also approved a drone-strike on an Al-Qaeda leader within
- He’s instituted a pay freeze for White House staff making over $100,000 a year.
- He’s banned anyone who serves in the administration from lobbying the executive branch for the entire duration of his presidency
- He’s directed decision-makers to err on the side of transparency when it comes to Freedom of Information Act requests and other requests.
- He’s been in direct contact with
- He’s appointed George Mitchell as Middle East Envoy.
- Key components of his recovery plan are making their way through the House.
- And the FDA has allowed increased stem cell research.
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
The latest on Electric Cars
Every once in a while I pop over to betterplace.com to see what's the latest with their take on the electric car. It so happens that Fareed Zakaria of Newsweek has recently interviewed Shai Agassi of Better Place. Here's the interview, in which Agassi makes the case for electric cars.
This is gonna take a while, but I think it's going to happen for populated areas. There will still be huge portions of the midwest where some kind of fuel-burning vehicles - or perhaps hybrids - will have to remain the norm for a long, long time, but for the East Coast and the Left Coast I think Agassi has made his case.
This is gonna take a while, but I think it's going to happen for populated areas. There will still be huge portions of the midwest where some kind of fuel-burning vehicles - or perhaps hybrids - will have to remain the norm for a long, long time, but for the East Coast and the Left Coast I think Agassi has made his case.
Monday, January 12, 2009
The Presidency, Homosexuality, and The Church(es)
There are a number of items in the news lately that have me thinking about these evidently interrelated subjects.
Let’s start with Rick Warren.
I like Rick Warren when he’s speaking out of the public side of his face. He has seemed, at times, to be moving past the big hot-button issues of abortion and homosexuality – almost setting them aside as issues that are being adequately addressed by conservative Christian churches already – in order to concentrate on other issues that are in need of more attention such as poverty, illness, and illiteracy. Those three issues are specifically addressed in the ACE portion of his PEACE plan, in fact. I agree with him that doing these things is part of the “Great Commandment” (as it is sometimes known) to “do unto others...” For that matter, there are more specific verses in the Bible that command its followers to feed, clothe and shelter the poor and the sick then there are to heave stones at the occasional homosexual, so I applaud someone who prioritizes appropriately.
But out of the other side of his mouth Warren exhorted his parishioners to vote in favor of California’s Proposition 8. And he also made a – possibly unnecessary – statement the day after his presidential election Civic Forum that let it be known that he could not find it within himself to vote for Obama. Specifically, Warren compared the aborted to victims of the Holocaust, and likened Obama to a Holocaust denier.
Nice. Yeah.
So Warren is now giving the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Many people on the left are completely up in arms about this. They seem much more upset about Warren’s support of Proposition 8 than they do about the Holocaust comparisons.
Warren is certainly an interesting choice on Obama’s part. It shows Obama’s willingness and ability to work with people with whom he has disagreements.
Obama doesn’t support gay marriage, though, so Prop 8 may be an area in which he and Warren agree.
It’s not an area where he agrees with another inaugural invocator: Openly gay bishop the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson. Robinson stated in an interview with The Advocate that he would be "pushing" Obama on the issue of gay marriage, in fact.
Incidentally, Robinson has not been placed on the bill as a response to complaints about Warren.
He was scheduled prior to the dust-up about the Saddleback pastor.
Maybe it just shows foresight on Obama's part. Foresight is a good thing for a president to have.
I have to admit that playing to both sides of this issue really clouds Obama’s position. Which is probably what he wants. Obama is a centrist. He was often portrayed as a leftist, but anyone who familiarizes themselves with Obama’s positions shouldn’t mistake him for one. (That doesn’t mean Obama won’t give people opportunity to mistake his position on the political spectrum, though.)
And then there’s Ted Haggard.
At best, Haggard is tangential to this post, I admit. Still, it seems like I should be able to fit a former pastor who continues to wrestle with his own sexuality into a post about religious leaders on both sides of the gay marriage issue.
In this story from Newsweek it is revealed that Haggard was completely rejected by his church at a time when he most needed their support and help. His church even required him, for a while, not just to leave the New Life Church but to leave the state of Colorado. The church has since relented and has allowed him to return to both, if he chooses.
He has chosen to return to Colorado, but not to New Life Church. Haggard’s new life, then, is that of a mortgage salesman. Evidently he’s doing okay.
His spiritual life is a purely private matter now. He and his family are not attending services at any church. He fears he is not able to do so without bringing inordinate attention to any congregation he might encounter.
You know, if there’s a church in Colorado that would like some publicity, all it would have to do is invite Ted to attend... Just saying.
Hmmm, maybe Obama could invite Haggard to the inauguration? It would confuse the issue even more, if that's possible.
- Rick Warren of Saddleback Church is delivering the invocation at Obama’s swearing-in ceremony next Tuesday.
- Openly gay Episcopal bishop Gene Robinson will deliver the invocation for this Sunday’s kickoff inaugural event on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
- Ted Haggard, former head and founder of New Life Church and formerly an unofficial advisor to President W, is leading a quiet life these days, but not so quiet that it doesn’t warrant a piece in Newsweek. (That may say more about Newsweek than it does about Haggard)
Let’s start with Rick Warren.
I like Rick Warren when he’s speaking out of the public side of his face. He has seemed, at times, to be moving past the big hot-button issues of abortion and homosexuality – almost setting them aside as issues that are being adequately addressed by conservative Christian churches already – in order to concentrate on other issues that are in need of more attention such as poverty, illness, and illiteracy. Those three issues are specifically addressed in the ACE portion of his PEACE plan, in fact. I agree with him that doing these things is part of the “Great Commandment” (as it is sometimes known) to “do unto others...” For that matter, there are more specific verses in the Bible that command its followers to feed, clothe and shelter the poor and the sick then there are to heave stones at the occasional homosexual, so I applaud someone who prioritizes appropriately.
But out of the other side of his mouth Warren exhorted his parishioners to vote in favor of California’s Proposition 8. And he also made a – possibly unnecessary – statement the day after his presidential election Civic Forum that let it be known that he could not find it within himself to vote for Obama. Specifically, Warren compared the aborted to victims of the Holocaust, and likened Obama to a Holocaust denier.
Nice. Yeah.
So Warren is now giving the invocation at Obama’s inauguration. Many people on the left are completely up in arms about this. They seem much more upset about Warren’s support of Proposition 8 than they do about the Holocaust comparisons.
Warren is certainly an interesting choice on Obama’s part. It shows Obama’s willingness and ability to work with people with whom he has disagreements.
Obama doesn’t support gay marriage, though, so Prop 8 may be an area in which he and Warren agree.
It’s not an area where he agrees with another inaugural invocator: Openly gay bishop the Rt. Rev. V. Gene Robinson. Robinson stated in an interview with The Advocate that he would be "pushing" Obama on the issue of gay marriage, in fact.
Incidentally, Robinson has not been placed on the bill as a response to complaints about Warren.
He was scheduled prior to the dust-up about the Saddleback pastor.
Maybe it just shows foresight on Obama's part. Foresight is a good thing for a president to have.
I have to admit that playing to both sides of this issue really clouds Obama’s position. Which is probably what he wants. Obama is a centrist. He was often portrayed as a leftist, but anyone who familiarizes themselves with Obama’s positions shouldn’t mistake him for one. (That doesn’t mean Obama won’t give people opportunity to mistake his position on the political spectrum, though.)
And then there’s Ted Haggard.
At best, Haggard is tangential to this post, I admit. Still, it seems like I should be able to fit a former pastor who continues to wrestle with his own sexuality into a post about religious leaders on both sides of the gay marriage issue.
In this story from Newsweek it is revealed that Haggard was completely rejected by his church at a time when he most needed their support and help. His church even required him, for a while, not just to leave the New Life Church but to leave the state of Colorado. The church has since relented and has allowed him to return to both, if he chooses.
He has chosen to return to Colorado, but not to New Life Church. Haggard’s new life, then, is that of a mortgage salesman. Evidently he’s doing okay.
His spiritual life is a purely private matter now. He and his family are not attending services at any church. He fears he is not able to do so without bringing inordinate attention to any congregation he might encounter.
You know, if there’s a church in Colorado that would like some publicity, all it would have to do is invite Ted to attend... Just saying.
Hmmm, maybe Obama could invite Haggard to the inauguration? It would confuse the issue even more, if that's possible.
Pirates receive ransom then capsize, drown.
In case you haven't heard: The pirates who seized a Saudi oil tanker received roughly $3,000,000.00 in exchange for letting the ship go. They took their loot and fled, releasing the tanker.
According to this article in the Telegraph, "dozens of pirates" left the tanker. One small getaway boat carrying eight of the pirates capsized in a storm. Five of those eight pirates drowned, and all of the eight pirates' portion of the $3,000,000.00 ransom was lost at sea.
Fascinating.
CNN also has information on this, but its article says that the getaway skiff had five pirates aboard, four of whom drowned.
UPDATE: CNN is somehow talking to a surviving pirate, who is providing some kind of first hand account of the mishap.
According to this article in the Telegraph, "dozens of pirates" left the tanker. One small getaway boat carrying eight of the pirates capsized in a storm. Five of those eight pirates drowned, and all of the eight pirates' portion of the $3,000,000.00 ransom was lost at sea.
Fascinating.
CNN also has information on this, but its article says that the getaway skiff had five pirates aboard, four of whom drowned.
UPDATE: CNN is somehow talking to a surviving pirate, who is providing some kind of first hand account of the mishap.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Legalize it Obama!
With a headline that says "legalize it" I expect to attract a number of potheads to this blog. Sadly, weed is not what I'm wanting legalized. Not today, anyway.
No, I actually would like to see the American military presence in Iraq legalized. I want to see Congress legalize the SOFA.
Our presence in Iraq was legal. I'm not one of those Bush-detractors who claim that we went in there illegally. (I'm a Bush detractor who claims that we went in there immorally and unethically, but not illegally.)
Here's the thing: As of January 1st - as of today - our military presence in Iraq is illegal.
Our presence in Iraq was approved by Congress. Specifically, they approved the use of force in order to “defend the national security of the US from the threat posed by Iraq” and “enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions.”
Iraq no longer poses a threat, and the relevant UN Security Council resolution expired at the end of December 31st.
Our military presence in Iraq is no longer approved by Congress. It's illegal.
It can be made legal. Bush has negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. Congress needs to approve the Status of Forces Agreement - the SOFA - in order to make our military presence in Iraq legal.
If they don't - if they let the SOFA stand without their explicit approval - then it sets a dangerous precedent that tacitly expands presidential power.
Obama, please present the SOFA to Congress for their approval.
Read more at the Daily Beast.
No, I actually would like to see the American military presence in Iraq legalized. I want to see Congress legalize the SOFA.
Our presence in Iraq was legal. I'm not one of those Bush-detractors who claim that we went in there illegally. (I'm a Bush detractor who claims that we went in there immorally and unethically, but not illegally.)
Here's the thing: As of January 1st - as of today - our military presence in Iraq is illegal.
Our presence in Iraq was approved by Congress. Specifically, they approved the use of force in order to “defend the national security of the US from the threat posed by Iraq” and “enforce all relevant UN Security Council resolutions.”
Iraq no longer poses a threat, and the relevant UN Security Council resolution expired at the end of December 31st.
Our military presence in Iraq is no longer approved by Congress. It's illegal.
It can be made legal. Bush has negotiated a Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. Congress needs to approve the Status of Forces Agreement - the SOFA - in order to make our military presence in Iraq legal.
If they don't - if they let the SOFA stand without their explicit approval - then it sets a dangerous precedent that tacitly expands presidential power.
Obama, please present the SOFA to Congress for their approval.
Read more at the Daily Beast.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)