The Ambivalent Environmentalist

In 2002, on NBC's Meet the Press, then Vice President, Dick Cheney stated, "In my opinion, prospect of a future attack against the United States is almost certain. We don't know if it's going to be tomorrow or next week or next year." He added that it was "not a matter of if, but when." At that time -- as I do now -- I agreed with him wholeheartedly...it seems extremely likely there will be more attempts of terrorist attacks.

Now, 7 years later Mr. Cheney has embarked on a crusade to secure validation of his previous statements. In a recent interview with Politico he stated we are dealing with "people who are absolutely committed to do anything they can to kill Americans." He again warned that there is a "high probability" that terrorists will attempt a catastrophic nuclear or biological attack in coming years. Again, I can agree -- the radical religious beliefs of certain sects who hate us will never be eliminated. Even as old ones go out, new ones will crop up and we must remain forever vigilant.

That being said, what I DON'T agree with is Mr. Cheney's concepts on (1) how to protect against these problems (e.g. subject all of the people who don't like us to American military rule unless they form "democratic" capitalistic systems, or kill them), and (2) our need to forfeit the long-standing moral values our society has been founded upon including personal and civil privacies; freedom of cognizant thought; and purported "Christian" ethics (although not at all limited to those of the Christian religion). As Benjamin Franklin once warned, "Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security."

What concerns me most is that a former Vice President of this country seems to relish the idea of additional terrorist attacks for the sole purpose of proving that he and the administration he controlled were justified in their application of an unnecessary war, illegal torture, and various violations of Constitutional law regarding habeas corpus, etc. Without such an attack he is finding it difficult to defend his premise that his administration and their illegal actions were what prevented additional attacks after 9/11 while the current administration, in keeping with national and international law, encourages such.

Interestingly, one of Mr. Cheney's responses to an interviewer was would he (the interviewer) support torturing someone if he might deter an attack that threatened a family member? Obviously, the answer he was given (and expected) was "of course." Yet, in essence, what he's asking is "how far you are willing to alter your moral, ethical and legal values for the potential of increased safety to yourself and/or those you love?" Would you be willing to shoot an innocent stranger to save your child? Would you shoot a neighbor; your sibling; your wife; your mother for the same? Where is your limit? In such a predicament, one must consider Ugolino dell Gheradesca (portrayed in Rodin's Gates of Hell) and if was indeed justified in devouring his starved children?

Although raised in the Episcopalian faith and having primarily studied the New Testament, I am neither a Christian nor a member of any other religious sect. Yet I am appalled in what the Bush-Cheney Doctrine has asked this country to do; defer from individual and societal values, many which were advocated by Christ, and accede to a governmental-interpreted value system based on a hegemonic doctrine fueled by fear. Even if such violates Christian canons or international law, its "survival of the fittest" foundation proffers an attitude that if applied globally would ultimately result in a collapse of all human societies. Yet acceding to such gives us the perfect out by saying, "Well, it wasn't me that made the final decision or applied the torture, it was the government." As far as Mr. Cheney's history of Christian activity goes, there is little, if anything known. In reviewing his actions, Get Religion.Org. offered this: "(T)here are some win-at-any-cost religious conservatives and they may have viewed Cheney as someone who -- because it was in his interest -- would back their cause. But I have never sensed that many of them trusted the guy or thought his interest in their issues was sincere."

Mr. Cheney, a purported member of the United Methodist Church, has, in fact, been indicted by members of that church who stated he is "undeniably guilty of at least four chargeable offenses as listed in 2702.3 of the 2000 United Methodist Church Book of Discipline. These offenses are: crime, immorality, disobedience to the Order and Discipline of The UMC, and dissemination of doctrine contrary to the established standards of doctrine of the UMC. Big surprise? Why? His past congressional record on social and human rights shows he voted against every civil rights bill to pass his desk, including any attempt to desegregate schools. He voted against all hate crime initiatives. He voted against the Equal Rights Amendment for women; voted to reject hospital cost control plans; he consistently voted against sanctions on South Africa for its policy of apartheid (which, translated in English, means "God's chosen few"); and he voted against every House resolution calling for the release from prison of Nelson Mandela making this irresponsible statement, "Nelson Mandela is no different than most black men - he is a criminal."

David Neff, in Christianity Today writes, "The expansion of the executive branch's power, like the expansion of government in general, is something Christians must be wary of. If history shows anything, it demonstrates that people flourish most when they enjoy their God-given liberties. This is especially true of the church in free societies. This is why we, among all citizens, champion these principles: mutual accountability among the branches of government; rule by law, not by the raw assertion of power; and government actions limited by the nature of the liberties government is called to protect."

A professor of Christian ethics, David Gushee, stated, "There is a version of Christianity in America that I think is... insufficiently committed to the peacemaking teachings of Jesus and the example of Jesus as one who did not resort to violence or cruelty to accomplish any of his goals and instead suffered violence instead of inflicting it." In my view, these people disregard the New Testament, of which their religion was primarily based upon, and revert to the mythological Old Testament tales of violence, wars, retribution, and punishment as the "Christian" way to world order. The "an eye for an eye" folks are overwhelming the "turn the other cheek" faction and "Vengence is mine, sayeth Dick Cheney" seems to be the basis of his cause. Vengence for what? For 9/11? Or, for getting his party's butt kicked in 2008. I think the latter.

As Christmas approaches and the final chaotic rush for gift selection of one or more of the countless primarily unnecessary items (soon to be obsolete or out of fashion) occurs, my thoughts turn inward. I’ve been contemplating the meaning of gift-giving and, as a final admonition, the concept of gift certificates as a substitute for innovative thinking of what the recipient of my gift would be pleased with.

To begin with, my concept of giving or receipt of a gift begins and ends with “surprise!” An item you didn’t ask for, didn’t expect and maybe didn’t even know existed. An item that shows that the person giving the gift gave conscious thought to your personality, interests, and dreams. Next, it should be something for which monetary value is immaterial. It could cost $1,000 or $1 or better yet, be hand-made by the giver. Finally, it should depict the value of the love and friendship between the giver and the receiver.

As the custom of gift-giving at Christmas has its foundation in the ancient legend of the three wise men who brought gifts to Christ (or maybe to his parents) on the event of his birth, each had a prophetic meaning above their monetary value — gold as a symbol of kingship on earth, frankincense (an incense) as a symbol of priestship, and myrrh (an embalming oil) symbolizing suffering. Today’s gift-giving is far from that. Primarily it appears to be based on only two criteria: First, of being on a list that someone has provided and, second, the cost is a primary factor, the higher the cost, the greater the showing of affection.

Today’s society, even my wife, kids and grandkids, call me a miserly old-fart who sounds more like Scrooge than like Santa. In the eyes of today’s society, that may be so. Yet, I can only look back to my childhood to determine how my current thoughts were formed.

I was an only-child in a small close-knit family where Christmas was traditionally celebrated in our home. There, my parents, two grand-parents, and aunt and uncle and two adult cousins gathered on Christmas eve, talking and lauughing. As there was no such thing as television at that time and advertising of children’s toys was very meager (these were the years during and following WWII when money was scarce but resources were even scarcer) my list to Santa was normally comprised of things that really didn’t exist but that I thought would be fun (in one letter my mother saved have I asked for “toy cigarettes, matches and an ashtray.”) Of course, I never got any of these therefore Christmas morning was a complete surprise, all of the gifts from Santa were things I’d never envisioned. One memorable Christmas I received an unexpected, but very plain bicycle (that I learned in later years my grandfather had acquired as a bonus for selling newspaper subscriptions).

Today, what appears under the tree for my grandchildren are the items that have been imprinted into their heads as “essential to happiness” through the television advertising processes. All these things they’ve already seen in the stores and/or played with at the homes of friends. They know exactly how they work, what their capabilities are, and since they know all about them, grow bored with them after a short time. Not like my first Erector Set or Lincoln Logs that I’d never even known to exist before Santa put them under the tree. And, each is only supplied with a basic number of functions so that to maintain interest, new accessories that must be added in the future, bringing in continuous revenue for the manufacturers. However, in time…a very short time, these too, become obsolete and are relegated to the garage, the Good Will, or the trash bin, unlike my Erector Set that I didn’t quit constructing things with until in my mid-teen years.

Today we’ve all bought into the process…demand and price. What one has requested and how much it costs are the primary criteria of the perceived value of a gift. What happened? How did we get into this highly commercialized, but thoughtless process? Well, from my perspective there are several reasons.

First, (and I myself am as much to blame as anyone) those of my generation and the post-war generation where resources were scarce, wanted their children to have the things they believed they missed (and that we saw on television). My wife, coming from a mill-worker’s home with four children and where money was always scarce, got one gift at Christmas. I’m not sure she ever got a bicycle. Therefore, it was our desire to make Christmas awesome for our kids. Since they were the first in both families, the Christmas tree was often hidden beneath the pile of presents. And, in turn, when our children had their own families, they wanted no less for their children and the piles of presents grew.

Second is television. I believe television has been both a blessing and a curse to society, and I’m not certain which has been the winner. The curse being that the indiscriminate (and often grossly misleading) advertising lures us into thinking that luxuries, especially those touting instant gratification, are essential to life. This is especially true of advertising of children’s toys, primarily the electronics and other gimmicks. Last week’s The Office realistically depicted parents buying fantasy dolls at 10 to 20 times their retail value because television had captured their kids into believing that Christmas would be a failure if they didn’t receive one. This is factual, not fantasy (remember the Cabbage Patch dolls or the Tickle Me Elmos?)

Third -- and most of this also relates back to television and advertising -- is fashion. Here, advertising is the primary element that creates demand. This is especially rampant in teen-agers who, in wanting to belong, are led to believe they can’t without certain attire or items. Usually these items are absolutely non-functional and are manufactured, not for sustainability, but for a short life to have to be replaced by another. As an example, it’s not “cool” to wear anything but designer jeans. Recently my wife priced a pair of these for our grandchild and the price was $70. The photo of them in the ad had a close-up of the HOLE IN THE KNEE…that’s what makes them “cool.” Being an “old fart” I buy my jeans at a warehouse store paying $13 for them. They are sturdy, of heavier material, and last longer than designer jeans but they are definitely not “cool” (and my wife throws them out if the et a hole in the knee). To some degree I understand fashion (I was a teenager once myself) but what I don’t understand is how we, as rational adults, have let ourselves and our children become completely trapped by the advertising world. Both the designer jeans and my jeans are made in China or India. There is little to indicate that either costs significantly more to manufacture, mine being of heavier cloth and the designer jeans having to have the hole put in the knee. So where does the price discrepancy come in? Why, it’s to the importers who can make a 1,000% profit over a 100% profit. And we accept this? Shame on us!

So now I’ll conclude with my initial reason for writing this…gift certificates. To my way of thinking, giving these are contrary to all aspects and reasons for gift-giving. My personal philosophy of gift giving can be defined in one word…love. My desire to give someone a gift is because I love that person and want to express that love by giving something of myself. The gift may be whimsical, it may be useful, it may be short-lived or eternal. It could be expensive or it could cost nothing but it is something I believe the person will like and will understand that I give it to them through love. A gift-certificate has none of these attributes…it is a piece of thoughtless paper of only monetary value.

So, this Christmas, if you get a gift from me there will be some thought connected with it plus a lot of love. What you requested and how much it costs will not be part of the equation. Please consider that if you give me something because that’s the way I want Christmas to be.

Well, as we could all have predicted, the conservatives are ballyhooing the choice of Joe Biden as Obama’s VP as “proof” of Obama’s lack of expertise in the fields Joe excels in: Foreign policy and economics. Yep, choice of someone knowledgeable in those fields was dumb…why didn’t he follow the successful Senior Bush strategy and find someone charismatic like Dan Quayle (who didn’t know jack about anything, even the English language)? Apparently the Republican strategy will be that their VP pick will not be as “smart” as the Presidential nominee (possibly that’s why Joe Lieberman is still in the running) and definitely should not be up on world affairs and have the ability to change course at the drop of a hat (Romney?)

Maybe, with someone as qualified as Biden, Obama could challenge some of the records set by our current President. Bush, having spent 27% of his tenure in office on vacation (is that more than a year off/term?) may be like Michael Phelps in that it is a record likely never to be broken. However, with Biden as a relief pitcher, Obama has the opportunity to try. Bush also set a record for fewest press conferences since the advent to television. Maybe Obama could turn most of those over to Biden and seriously challenge that record. And, besides being the first U.S. President to attack and invade a sovereign nation without provocation, Bush shattered the record for presiding over the largest annual deficit in U.S. history. Now those are some records worth going after!

I seriously hope the majority of the American public isn’t stupid enough to buy into these new Republican accusations that inexperience forced Obama to select Biden. Would we really expect the CEO of General Motors or AT&T to seek out and select an assistant using the criteria, “they can’t be smarter or have more experience in any field than do I.” The stockholders would rebel. I certainly hope the voters do too.

Holy Moley! I think the California State Legislature finally recognized that there may be a water shortage…at least in the future! Their insight is exceptional; their bold statements to be praised; and their objective…nothing short of glorious: “We need to get more water,” they say (or maybe we could just use less…nah!)” Why couldn’t have any of us thought of this before? Just because the late Mark Reisner predicted all of this twenty-two years ago in The Cadillac Desert (without even invoking the knowledge of global warming) and was condemned by many State ands federal legislators as an extremist, doesn’t mean anyone should have paid any attention to it. Liberal blather! The book gave an insight into American politics where the two federal organizations responsible for water development repeatedly deceived the public, Congress and the Senate and ignored presidential directives, frequently acting outside the law. What? In this country we might have public agencies ignoring the law? No way!

Shortly after Reisner’s untimely death in 2000, I attended a symposium on future water supplies in California. A spokesperson for the State water interests gave a glowing report of the future “wetness” of California, telling us of “new water” that had been “discovered” in the Sierra Nevada that would meet our future needs. Upon questioning, it was revealed that this “new water” was merely a matter of applying a different mathematical model for precipitation and run-off, one that was more optimistic than the one previously used. (Such a strategy is somewhat similar to the Corps of Engineers re-drawing the 100 year flood plain in the Natomas Basin to allow for additional residential development). But, change a decimal point or add a factor of two and the answer is bound to change.

Well, here’s the rub, folks…there isn’t any “New” water and there won’t be MORE water in the future. We’re stuck with a lot of old water that’s been here for millions, if not billions of years. From time to time it changed in form but water is still water whether it’s in a glacier, an iceberg or in a cloud. Yet in all likelihood (hold your hands over your ears, neo-con readers) due to climate change caused by global warming it appears there will be a lot less old water here in California. So, one solution presented by our Governor is to build more dams (usually the panacea for water shortages like exploring for more oil is the panacea to get us off foreign oil). Now if the global warming predictions are true (and they may be according to the majority of scientific evidence collected by the best scientists in the world) then there will be less snowfall in the Sierras and lower rainfall in the foothills and Central Valleys of California, thus less overall run-off. Higher temperatures will result in increased evaporation in reservoirs. This year most reservoirs were very low so how can adding another reservoir in front or behind it store more water, especially as collection of water from California’s major river systems is already at capacity with little or no water reaching the ocean. Sure, occasional flood events can result in more captured water, but these are uncommon and may well be less common in the future. Shortly, however, I’ll explain to you how we can avoid this and life can go on without major trauma or interruption; boats will race across the Central Valley Lakes; bass and catfish and other exotic species will thrive; golf courses will prosper; and showers can last an hour or more.

But, before I solve this and in deference to the neo-con readers (who so look forward to my sacrilegious blogs), I am going to employ two evil words (thought by some to be preceded by 666 in the liberal dictionary). The first is the “C” word (hold your hands over your eyes if this offends you) CONSERVATION!!! I know, I know…everyone has a right to use as much water as they want because the Constitution says so and besides, the more they use, the more that will be produced plus water use is everyone’s right. But, it seems that spending billions of dollars on new storage sources should, as a minimum, go hand-in-hand with mandatory conservation practices. These include limitations on landscape watering; use of recycled water; efficiency requirements for residential facilities (toilets, showers, etc.); and maybe even rationing.

The second word is even more sinister, it’s the “L” word (grab your children, hide them in a sound-proof room and cover their eyes and ears), LIMITATION! Now, for all of you who believe water availability is governed by the same processes as Jesus employed with his fishes and loaves, try taking a single bottle of Evian and quenching the thirst of everyone in ARCO Arena at a Kings game. Think it’ll work? More than likely the biggest meanest strongest individual will wrench it from your hands, stomp you into submission, and drink the whole thing themself. And, if you resist, they will invoke their 2nd Amendment rights and shoot you to death.

But, given the fact that currently the population of California (39 million) each uses about 30,000 gallons/year, the projected increase of 6.6 million by 2020 will require an additional 198 million gallons or approximately filling two reservoirs the size of Black Butte annually (wow…more jet boat sales are in order). And that’s just for increased use of domestic water that only accounts for 11% of California’s water use.

According to the California Department of Water Resources, “Climate change is already impacting California’s water resources. In the future, warmer temperatures, different patterns of precipitation and runoff, and rising sea levels will profoundly affect the ability to manage water supplies and other natural resources.” (California Department. of Water Resources. 1994) (My apologies to Anthony Watts of but this quote is directly from the state agency, I can’t help it if their scientists are liberal alarmists).

How we fix it is to look at how water in California is used? Well, as I said, 11% goes for domestic use…what you and I use to drink, flush the toilet, bathe our armpits and water the lawn, and what businesses use to cool their generators, dilute their toxic materials, or put in their steam engines. Next there’s agricultural use. That’s the water that is given…oops, I mean SOLD, to the agricultural interests here in the State. It floods rice fields, irrigates pistachio orchards, and is sprayed on alfalfa fields (where the conversion of water to beef is 2,500 gallons to produce a pound of meat.) (Robbins, 1987). Of the irrigated crops grown in the western states, alfalfa requires the greatest amount of water, about 31%, followed by cotton, corn and wheat. Once we get into July with temperatures in the 90's and strong winds, alfalfa fields use over 1/3" of water every day. Of the water withdrawn for irrigation to be incorporated into crops, 17 percent (23,6000 Mgal/d) was lost in conveyance e.g. evaporation or leakage to the groundwater system. (O’Donnell and Rademakers, 2003).

But, here’s the kicker…while domestic and agriculture use 11% and 43% respectively, ENVIRONMENTAL uses (Oh No!…the dreaded “E” word) such as water for rivers, streams, lakes, marshlands, etc. adds up to 46%...almost half! So when was a salmon or a duck or a beaver worth more than a nice green lawn in suburbia? Now, here’s the really scary thing; the north coast counties (where hardly anyone lives) and the SF Bay Region (where only weirdos live) are hogging 37% and 42% of this water respectively…nearly three-fourths of our non-essential water!

Well, the obvious solution is to just take it from the high user (environmental) and give to the low user (residential). Heck, we’ve already taken half the natural water and channeled it into residential, agricultural and industrial, so what’s the problem with taking the other half? What good does Lake Tahoe do for the thirsty people in Brawley? And saving salmon? There’s plenty in Alaska for everyone. So, let’s put the water to a better use, like for golf courses in Palm Springs or waterslides at Disneyland.

But, if Mark Twain is right, we can’t waste much more time. Those of us in the Central Valley need to consider invading the San Francisco Bay and moving up the north coast to Oregon (and beyond, if at all possible). You need to take control of the bay and rivers and streams and re-channel all of that water that’s being wasted; that stuff that flows into the ocean; that stuff that’s being polluted by salmon and waterfowl feces; that stuff we desperately NEED to wash off our cars and clean our driveways; and channel it into new recreation lakes, onto our lawns and to provide for new sub divisions.

Of course, there’s those scientist-types that’ll tell you that the real truth is that without oil we’ll have to drastically change our way of life; alter our methods of transportation, heating, energy, etc., and that things would be tough…very tough. But, they conclude, without water…we, as biotic organisms, would cease to exist! Can we really afford to believe them?

California Department. of Water Resources. 1994. Regional Water Use. in California. Bulletin 160-98. DWR, Sacramento, CA.
California Department. of Water Resources. 2008. http://www.water.ca.gov/climatechange/
O'Donnell, M. and J. Rademaekers. 2003. Water Use Trends in the Southwestern United States 1950-1990.U. S. Geological Survey URL: http://geochange.er.usgs.gov/sw/impacts/hydrology/water_use/
Robbins, John. 1987. Diet for a New America. Stillpoint Pub. International, Walpole, New Hampshire.

Let’s see…Al Gore is pushing non-carbon alternatives to energy because:

1. He is truly concerned about the state of the country and the earth, or;
2. He has a lot of investments in wind and solar energy companies, or;
3. His Nobel Peace Prize is being withheld until Dubai goes bankrupt, or;
4. He thinks this is the best way to get acknowledged by Bill O’Reilly, or;
5. He wants to make another movie, this time on the coming ice age, or;
6. The world scientists he uses to support his concerns have less than a fifth-grade education, or;
7. He needs another Oscar for the other side of his mantle, or;
8. Oil pumps remind him of giant grasshoppers, or;
9. He still can’t get over the fact that a failed oil executive wrenched the Presidency away from him or;
10. When she was pregnant with him, his mother was scared by a polar bear, or;
11. He wants the economic situation to worsen to the point that nobody, but he, will run for President, or;
12. He has always hated America and feels lying about global warming is the best way to derail it, or;
13. All of the above except 1.

What can you do about it? Well, you can:

1. Buy a big dual-wheel diesel 1-ton 4WD pickup as your primary family transportation, and/or;
2. Take a cross-country trip by yourself in a large RV and tow an Expedition to use for side trips, and/or;
3. While away, leave all your lights on and your AC running so people will think you’re home, and/or;
4. Buy a large walk-in cooler to store your beer and soda, and/or;
5. Go to the grocery store for one meal at a time; go to the store furthest from your house, and/or;
6. Don’t patronize businesses or associate with people using solar energy, and/or;
7. Refuse to support public transportation and rapid transit systems. Drive to work individually, and/or;
8. Associate Al Gore with Gore Vidal every time his name is mentioned, and/or;
9. Blame Al Gore for the Monica Lewinski debacle (“He must’ve known about it…!”), and/or;
10. Pretend it’s colder in Phoenix, Fresno or Miami by wearing fur coats and ear muffs in August, and/or;
11. Choose an ostrich as you’re family mascot, and/or;
12. Be scared…be VERY scared, or;
13. All of the above except 12

Last month’s headlines read, “It’s Over…Hillary Concedes!” Well, I wish it were over but it’s not…maybe it never will be. Yes, Hillary conceded and Barack is the Democrat’s presumptive candidate but that’s only fired up the neo-cons to go all out on their “let’s invent some new facts” program (Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly are burning the midnight oil reading Stephen King to stimulate their minds to fuel the invention of horror stories about pending liberal devastation). Just this past week I’ve received e-mails (forwarded from neo-con neighbors and acquaintances) or read in letters to the editor in our local paper regarding “proof” that Barack is secretly a Muslim and plans to destroy the U.S.; that Michelle Obama will turn the White House into a Mosque; that the book money McClellen received was from an Iranian bank; that all our troops in Iraq (except the cowardly unpatriotic weenies) support a continuation and/or escalation of the war; that high gas prices would be cut in half tomorrow if Congress would agree to drilling off-shore and in ANWR; that if gays are allowed to marry Armageddon is right around the corner; and on ad infinitum. My neo-con neighbor tells me that there is “proof” that the lower taxes are, the happier people are (so just discount the recent data showing the Danish as the “happiest people in the world,” even though they pay about 50% in taxes). I think the most insane was an article published in the Ontario Financial Post which claimed that we should be pumping more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere as “The planet is the greenest it’s been in decades, perhaps in centuries”…because “(h)igher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates.” Just to help out I dashed outside and exhaled for a minute or two.

What I can’t figure is how on earth the people that actually follow this doctrine have made it so far. They must’ve had to actually hold down jobs, speak English, and balance their checkbooks from time to time. Logic tells us that if you cut your income, you must cut your spending (unless you have multiple plastic cards to charge against). That’s all well and good but the same public wants the government entities -- city, county, state and federal -- to provide lots of free services. Police and fire protection; adequate schooling for our children; Social Security; jobs; cheap gas; good roads; recreation sites; etc. But, they think this should all come from somewhere else but their pockets. Where, I might ask? Doesn’t all government income come from taxes?

It eludes my sense of logic that these same people who want government “out of our face” really want government “in our face,” or at least, in our bedrooms, computers and telephones. Listening in to personal telephone calls or checking out their library records they are in lock step (just as long as it is fellow neo-cons who are doing the listening). They are enamored with the Bush Administration’s total disregard for the Constitution and support their secrecy of actions that we’ve seen these past 8 years. They also want the government to keep plugging money into agricultural and oil subsidies; want them to take over the airlines so they can have cheap air fare with Champaign service and plush seating; keep wages high and prices low; and make sure the drug companies have continued record profits (at their expense). They want house values to double every three or four years, interest rates to stay around 4%, and have China and India import lots of cheap foreign goods but decry the exportation of jobs so that these cheap items can keep flowing in. They definitely want the government to ban abortion because “killing is bad,” but go ahead and bomb Iran because “killing is good!” They want to stop those “damn Mexicans” from coming across the border, except to provide them cheap labor for something agricultural and domestic services. Then its “let them in; let them do the work; and as soon as its done, kick their butts out.”

In his essay, The Fall of Conservatism, George Packard writes, “Now most conservatives seem incapable of even acknowledging the central issues of our moment: wage stagnation, inequality, health care, global warming. They are stuck in the past, in the dogma of limited government.” Limited government is great if you don’t demand anything of it. But, that’s not what working-class America demands. Basically, when talking about those who have less than they, the attitude is “if they can’t make enough, they should just die…unless, of course it’s me, then send the unemployment check to my house” philosophy that pervades the neo-cons. They seem to base this philosophy on “prayer will heal the righteous,” thus those that die probably weren’t. Biblical tales such as The Good Samaritan and seem to fall on deaf ears unless it’s the government who is designated the “Samaritan.”

History shows us that our American government was formed by the most learned and educated class of men of that time. And, whether you want this brought to your attention or not, the richest. And these were just not a little bit richer, they were rich in a time when there was a huge monetary and educational gap between them and the common folk. These were the elite of the elite. One has only to look at history to see that Washington, Adams, Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin and most the others who signed the Declaration of Independence were of well above average means and most had college education. Most were lawyers. One might say they were the educated elite. Yet today, if someone seems to have more education and/or better diction than the average laborer, they are branded as an “elitist” and are trashed at every opportunity.

And then we have the “Disgruntled Hillary Supporters for McCain.” Can there be anything that shows the complete disregard for solving problems in this country more than this group? Like a bunch of spoiled children they’ll forego the changes Hillary wanted to make (get out of Iraq; affordable health care for everyone; reforms on taxes and spending; etc) just to spite those who didn’t believe Hillary was the best choice. As Obama supports all those issues, it is pretty obvious that personality, race and gender are the primary interests of these people. Forget about making this a better country…that’s immaterial! If you wear a pants suit, you get my vote; if you wear a Brooks Bros suit, I’ll fight you to the bitter end. Stupid, stupid, stupid!

No…it’s not over. The trash talk; the innuendos; the purposeful misinterpretations; and the out and out lies will continue to grow. And, there are a good number out there that will believe and repeat. As a line in an 1876 nonsense poem by Lewis Carroll states, "I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true." And they call us a “civilized” society!

It appears that to validate my blog title of Ambivalent Environmentalist I should, at least occasionally, write on environmental issues.

To begin with, I have been a staunch supporter of the Endangered Species Act since its inception in 1972. Most of my professional career has been directed at trying to recover wildlife, fish and plant species in jeopardy of extinction. That being said, I have also been a long-time critic of the application of this act, particularly the use of it for other agendas. Let me be specific: The act was written to preserve and recover species that had been depleted -- primarily through human activities -- to the point of near extinction. It was not designed to set aside wilderness; not meant to stop economic, social, or human population growth; not meant to quell pollution; and not designed to punish development. In many cases these all may be effects of enforcement of the Act, however these are its ancillary effects, not its objectives. More than once have I been contacted by a potential client who asks if I can survey some area “to find an endangered species” so that a project they find undesirable can be stopped. I tell them I can survey but my objective is to assess what is there, not find something that isn’t. That quite often costs me the job.

Right now there’s a big push to list the polar bear, an obvious casualty of global warming. And what will listing of this species do to stop its decline? Well, it will allow environmental organizations to sue the government for allowing release of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere and to sue private companies who are doing it. How will this help the polar bear? Technically, if greenhouse gas emissions are stopped there will be an eventual climate reversal and the arctic ice will reform, bringing back the polar bear habitat. How long will this take? Maybe a couple thousand years, or much more. How long before the polar bear becomes extinct? Maybe only a few decades, the way things are going. How long will this be in court? Probably a couple of decades or more. Who will benefit? Primarily, the lawyers.

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m all for immediately stemming the release of greenhouse gasses into our atmosphere and to do otherwise jeopardizes not only the polar bear, but hundreds of species including Homo sapiens. Yet I don’t see the effort being put into the listing of the polar bear as being a positive or effective effort in achieving this objective. If we get another Neo-con Bush-thinking Whitehouse they’ll simply ignore the science, the law and the courts, and go merrily on their way. Let’s put the effort into voting those out of office who oppose the Kyoto Accord and support big oil...like Wally.

Today’s presidential press conference was equally enlightening as to what’s really going on in this country. As if we didn’t know it all the time, it was refreshing to hear the President finally admit to who and what was causing our current economic woes…Congress! Congress, it seems, has not permitted oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska, resulting in our high fuel prices and likely contributing to the collapse of the housing market, Taliban resurgences in Afghanistan, and the high price of rice. In addition, Congress has selfishly considered enacting restraints on Greenhouse Gas emissions, further damaging the frail and barely thriving oil companies. Why? They must have a thing for glacier preservation, penguins or snow cones. For shame!

But, having he reviewed and analyzed the “facts” the President indicated not only had he had come to opposite conclusions of federal and private economists, scientists and other world leaders, he could fix things in a heartbeat. What is even more telling is that simultaneously, Dick Little, columnist for the Paradise Post, ardent supporter of President Bush and all his policies, and antagonist of anything that is done to protect the environment or keep the rich from becoming richer, came to exactly the same conclusion. So, when two outstanding minds -- one national and one local -- conclude that our failure to drill in ANWR is the crux of our recession, it obviously must be true.

The problem is that most of us are not astute enough to review the facts and read between the lines as can these two intellectuals, thus our conclusions are faulty and often vastly different from theirs. Even those professionals employed by our government and responsible for analysis of these issues continually mess things up and it has taken Bush and Little to effectively analyze the situation. Case-in-point: In a report published by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), a branch of the U.S. Energy Department in 2004 it was concluded that “The opening of the ANWR 1002 Area to oil and gas development is projected to increase domestic oil production starting in 2013. In 2025, the coastal plain of ANWR is projected to reach 0.9 million barrels per day under the USGS mean oil resource case, and 0.6 and 1.6 million barrels per day under the low and high resource cases, respectively.” So, using this available (but obviously faulty) government-generated data, we can easily see that with our current domestic oil use of 20.7 million barrels of oil/day (of which 10.1 billion barrels are imported), that adding ANWRs 0.9 billion barrels maximum output (that would not even begin for about 10 years and not reach maximum until 2029) would result in an expected price impact that “might reduce world oil prices by as much as 30 to 50 cents per barrel.” Now as there are 42 gallons of crude/barrel and that refines to 19.5 gallons of gas, we can expect a potential price drop of ($0.50/19.5) a whopping TWO CENTS A GALLON!

Wow, not only can we have an immediate effect in reducing the price of gas at the pump, increasing jobs, and eliminating home foreclosures, but with a windfall such as this we might go a long way to resolving world hunger. And, let’s quit worrying about the escalating releases of methane trapped in the melting arctic permafrost. According to the Arctic Council, the last methane “burp” 55 million years ago only caused “rapid warming and massive die-offs,” not nearly as the one 251 million years ago that “came close to wiping out all life on Earth.” Certainly this must be directly out of Grimm’s Fairy Tales.

Nope, let’s get with it and go after the black stuff -- all of it -- and use it up just as fast as we possibly can. As should now be obvious, science-based estimates and figures are always wrong. Since both Bush and Little have either an apparent supernatural ability to foretell the future or a direct contact with their creator on the “real facts,” why aren’t we all following them like a herd of sheep? Could it be it is because…THEY’RE IDIOTS?

"Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies. From these proceed debts and taxes. And armies, debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." James Madison 1795.

Considered to be the "Father of the Constitution", Madison was the principal author of it and was primarily responsible for writing the first ten amendments. Yet, doesn’t it seem odd that today, those conservatives supporting the continuation of our war and occupation of Iraq and are standing on the Constitution as their platform, choose to ignore the words of the person who was most responsible for the document our country was based on.

Let’s face it, our economy is staggering. This is partly from the opulence of our life styles; our wasteful utilization of natural resources; and our “if it feels good, do it” philosophies. However, as Pulitzer Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz has determined, the war, if it lasts another year, will ultimately cost us 3 to 5 trillion dollars. (In case you can’t comprehend five trillion dollars, if the dollars were put end to end they would go to the moon AND BACK almost 100 TIMES). And, it is this cost and the debt it has incurred that our great-grandchildren will be paying back (maybe in yuans since we’re borrowing from China to keep this thing going).

Surprisingly, although support for this war is only advocated by 39% of our citizens, half of the voting population is still likely to support John McCain who has promised to continue this war indefinitely. On the flip side, half will support Hillary or Barack who promise pie-in-the-sky fixes to current woes (health care, economics, immigration, etc.) but never mention how they’re going to pay for the projected 5 trillion war debt. Taxing the rich is o.k. with me but I fear there are not enough rich folks to cover national health care, refurbishing of our failing infrastructure, stemming global warming, fixing Social Security, dealing with immigration, AND the 5 trillion in war costs. McCain says he’ll do it by cutting government “pork” (but, of course maybe add another 5 trillion in continuing the war).

What scares me is that the voting public seems more concerned about what Barack wears in his lapel or what the minister in his church may have said 2 years ago; whether Hillary should have divorced Bill for infidelity or whether she has real emotions; or whether McCain was really a war hero or why he went through a divorce many years ago. Well, my vote will be based on a lot of factors but none of those will be in the top 1,000. I plan to consider whether my grand-children will have opportunities for college and a profession or whether their children will have any educational opportunities; whether they’ll be obligated to 2, 3, or 4 tours in Baghdad; whether global warming will drastically change (if not eliminate) our way of life; or whether I’ll need to put bars on the windows of my home to keep the immigrants out.

Now is the time for us to get out of our self-serving rut and begin to seriously look at the future. Do I think we’ll do it? Nahhhh!

On Tuesday, our local weekly newspaper columnist and pundit on the fallacies of global warming again decried both the obvious and the proven. He has again dredged up and mis-interpreted some “data” that, as I read his inferences, indicate we’re actually rapidly moving into another ice age (the wooly mammoths will be pleased to hear this news). That same evening the national news (dominated by the lying liberal media) revealed that an ice block of 220 square miles in size broke off of the Antarctic ice shelf with dire predictions of more to come. Maybe he’ll believe it just got too cold and it snapped. Uh huh! Of course, you must realize that these “facts” were reported by the same person who once wrote that it wasn’t dams on the rivers that had dramatically decreased our salmon runs, but it was the fact we’d stopped shooting bald eagles and they were now eating all the salmon. We have yet to see his data on that issue.

This month’s National Geographic shows a map developed from satellite photos of the dramatic decrease in the Arctic ice shelf in the last 8 years and the unprecedented “opening sea routes usually limited to ice-breakers.” Oh…right, we can blame the liberal editors of NG for doctoring up these photos just to fool us into thinking these changes were factual. His editorial indicates “record levels of ice in the Antarctic sea,” but just maybe it actually read “record levels of ice are breaking off in the Antarctic Sea and he just “accidentally” left out a couple of words.

What this points to is the dangerous mind-set our society has worked itself into. The predicted effects of global warming are not pleasant, nor are the societal changes necessary to reduce and defray some of the effects. It’s like the smoker saying, “I’ll wait until I get cancer, then I’ll quit.” Sorry…that’s usually too late. Our overriding problem appears to be that whether it’s global warming; gun ownership; cancer from smoking; creationism; obesity; fuel costs; or religious fervor, the prevailing attitude ignoring it is “Because I don’t want it to be, therefore it isn’t!” And regardless of what highly educated and experienced scientists might say, if it doesn’t fit with their agenda (or even results in the slightest inconvenience), it’s considered liberal BS to be chastised and ignored.

Someday I may have to explain this to my great-grandchildren. I wonder what will I tell them?