Republicans want Democrats to nominate someone from the mainstream for Supreme Ccourt.

Nominating someone from the mainstream sounds like a resonable request. But would the Republicans agree to sign a pledge to do the same thing when their turn to nominate comes up?




We need both liberals and conservatives on the bench to ensure that the system of checks and balances keeps of working.



Whether one is liberal we all must recognognize that if either party were to gain complete and uncontestable dominance of all the branches with the minority party having no strength to oppose whatsoever, then liberty as we know it would cease to exist. The conservatives seem to think that every darn thing the Dems do is Destroying the country.



The most damaging thing the Democrats have done in the past decade was to actually support the Republican administrations bid to go to war with Iraq. If the Dems had been as insolant then as the Republicans are now, we wouldn't be bogged down in the Iraq Quagmire. Say what you may about the the threats we faced at the time, there could have been a better way than invading and occupying Iraq.



There is a reason why we have a system of checks and balances and that is because the nations founder understood that if all the power were to be invested into one single power group,then the individual liberties of those who did not belong to that group would be forever lost, only to be regained through violent revolution or overthrow of the government.



While the holders of power shift back and forth every few years may create some animosity and anger and drive the opposing side further apart, it prevents one party from holding too much power for too long. So the laws and the way we run government shifts in one direction as one party holds power, Eventually the opposing party holds power and changes things towards their way of thinking. But the swinging pendulum of American politics has prevented either party from ever pushing things irreversably one way or the other.



The checks and balance are there to prevent the extremes. Because the extremeists on either side have never been able to have full control of the government, they are frustrated and make alot of noise. But basically, the extremes represent a very small portion of the political spectrum. Nothing can get done because the parties have become hostage to the extreme minority. But were we to embrace the ideals of mainstream middle of the road political views, then each party, instead of pandering to the extremes, they would be pandering to the middle of the road and as a result they will be able to make compromises and pass substantive legislation that actually get things done



As things stand the Repubs are afraid to make compromises and lose the support of right wing extremist and Dems are afraid of losing the support of the far left. Contrary to the untruthfull and totally baised reports that claim that America is generally conservative, the reality is that Americans are generally moderate and understand the concept of compromise and checks and balances. Americans appreciate the freedoms we have and our greatest fear is losing them. The fastest way to lose them is to grant one party to much power.



We allow the President to nominate Supreme Court Justices so that there is a mix of politcal phiosophies represented in the High Court. We wouldn't want it any other way.



I would be wonderful if we could fill the courts with Judges who are completely without political bias, but then we would have a court filled with people with no brains.

Could geothermal be the answer?

 In response to thisYahoo new Article http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100320/ap_on_bi_ge/us_geothermal_town

 During the 08' campaign, I thought we might be headed for a big increase in the use of geothermal when they were chanting "Drill Baby, Drill!"


  Geothermal has certainly been overlooked. Because the technology is basically drilling and plumbing, it's doable now, all that is required is project funding and the will to act.

  But Geothermal is not limited to the volcanic regions. Even here in geologically cool New England where the bedrock is an unremarkable sixty degrees, that sixty degrees can be tapped for airconditioning in the summer and to suppliment heating in the winter..This kind of geothermal is affordable to homeowners and businesses and is very cost efficient for apartment complexes.

  Another overlooked alternative energy source is free flow hydro power, in which small turbines that look like jet engines or windturbine, are installed in river beds, tidal zones , or attached to the pylons of bridges and docks. Rivers flow 24/7 ,365 days a year providing a more reliable source of energy than wind or solar,.The generators do not impede the flow of water, do not raise water levels and pose no threat to navigation. Compared to other forms of alternative energy, they are inexpensive and easy to install and once in place, they are hidden from view so they do not disturb the landscape.like a windturbine. Free flow generators are designed to allow fish to swim through them without harm.Fish are more than capable of avoiding the spinning turbine blades.

  In regards to heating sidewalks and roads I'm surprised that the excess heat left over from nuclear powerplants and large coal and oil plants is not tapped into for that use, instead of just being vented into the atmosphere.

  The downside with geothermal on a large scale is that even though there is no carbon footprint, geothermal releases alot of actual heat into the atmosphere that would otherwise be sequestered underground. While alot of attention has been given to carbon emmissions and the effect carbon has on global warming, little has been said about actual heat release from burning fossil fuels, nuclear power and geothermal.All three methods release huge amounts of heat into the atmosphere that would have otherwise been sequestered deep in the ground in one form or another.

  Wind, hydro and solar power are only tapping into the pre-existing energy matrix of the atmosphere, converting it from one form to another.There is waste heat produced during the generation or consumption of this energy but it's release does not result in a net gain of atmospheric energy.

  Even biofuels produced from fast growing plant material have a neutral carbon and atmospheric heat footprint. The heat and carbon released during the burning of these fuels was extracted from the atmosphere during growth of the source plant material. A full scale biofuel system could create a closed energy cycle with plants removing carbon from the air and absorbing solar heat, which is later released back into the atmosphere when it is burned.The next crop of plant material would be actively absorbing carbon and solar energy.

  The key to the success of alternative methods is to keep them free from excessive regulation and to also keep them from being controled and monopolized by large corporations, taking it out of the hands of individuals and small businesses. Over the past few years politcal wranglings have delayed the construction of the Cape Wind project. In the meantime, small operators have been installing wind turbines, one at a time,all over the place. There's even an order of Nuns in Massachusetts who have installed a large wind turbine to power their convent and it's candy making operation.You can't see the turbine until your right underneath it so it doesn't disturb the landscape. And it didn't require a billions dollars and an act of Congress to get it built.

Geothermal may be a contributor to heat in the atmosphere, but it is at least cheap and carbon free.

http://spotofdaylite.blogspot.com/

Nightline to be canceled and replaced by late night tabloid.

If your worried that Nightline will be canceled and replaced with a late night tabloid news program, your worries are over. It's already happened. They just didn't give it a new name so that loyal nightline viewers would be sucked inthe the programing change without even knowing there was a change.  The change in faces was obvious, but loyal viewers had hoped that the new reporters would maintain the high quality of reporting that Ted Kopel held. They didn't. Martin Bashirs calm delivery with his sophisticated accent fools us into thinking we are listening to a serious and intellectual news program, but the material is becoming more and more lowbrow.

Last nights program hit a new low with a report on a medium who talks to the dead. Is this serious news reporting? It certainly isn't the kind of news that I tune to Nightline to hear. Regardless of whether this report portray this medium to be the real deal or not, I can never trust such report to be nothing more than staged theatrics. When I stand face to face with a person who can present irrefutable proof to me that she has contacted the dead, then maybe I can believe this is real. But any presentation on TV is not to be trusted to be anything more than smoke and mirrors.

The truth be told, I after seeing the opening blurb, I didn't stay to watch the program and I will continue to not watch it unless they can put on some programming worth watching and address the issues the way good old Ted Koppel did.

Nightline turning tabloid?

Has Martin Bashir turned Nightline into a late night tabloid program?

While The Leno / Conan saga began to unfold last year, there were runors that Leno might move over to ABC to take the Nightline time slot. That didn't happen and instead gave Leno the ill fated 10 pm timeslot.

We Nightline viewers sighed a breath of relief . Our prefered late night show was saved! But was it?

After Ted Kopel departed  Nightline and the Anchor spot was given to Bashir, Nightline has taken a decidely wrong turn away from in depth coverage of the important news of the day towards sensationalism and pop culture news.

The format of the show under Kopel was a full half hour dedicated to a single subject, often featuring interviews from major politcal leaders from around the world, addressing both sides of the issues. We even saw leaders from adversarial nations trying to defend their positions to the American public.

When Kopel left, Bashir turned Nightline into something more of a tv magazine with several  unrelated issues being covered in shorter segments. In tabloid TV fashion, we are tempted to stayed tuned with blurbs for upcoing stories only to find that the "story" is a poll question that one has to go online to answer. The viewers never see the results of the previous nights question. It's only a ploy to get viewers to log onto the Nightline web page.

 After Michael Jacksons death, Bashir, a friend of Jackson, fully dedicated several nights to him and kept on the story night after night  until it seemed that Nightline was about to become all Michael Jackson , all the time.

Yesterday President Barak Obama attended the annual Republican Retreat to answer questions. The local news programs didn't cover the story and the evening network news barely scratched it. Ted Kopel would have spent the entire half hour covering it and would have had politcal analysts and Republican and Democratic representatives to give their impressions of the meeting.

But that's not what we got. Instead we got coverage of the John Edwards scandel, a lesbian custody case and the discovery of the body of a Florida lottery winner.

Didn't we see those stories covered on "Extra?"

Martin Bashir missed the opportunity to cover an important story that would have been of interest to a great many people that did not get any prime time coverage. Instead he brought us the latest tabloid news.

Those  of us who worried that we would lose Nightline to  another late night talk show, breathed a sigh of relief when Leno was moved to 10 O'clock instead of ABC. But it seems that Nightline was lost anyway.

While there still remains on the air a showed called Nightline" it is Nightline in name only. The program that was the best alternative to late night talk, disappearred when Kopel left and Bashir took over the reins.

Republicans oppose tax cuts and access to credit for small business.

President Obama presented his first State of the Union address last night.The speech he gave is probably a little bit different than one he might have made if Democrat Martha Coakley was the Senator Elect and not Republican Scott Brown. He was treading a thin line, trying to appear strong and resolute, but also trying to appease the Republicans with an effort to reach across the aisle in a spirit of. bipartisanship..

The Republican weren't buying it,  or rather, they appearred to have made a pact to not respond possitively to anything Obama said, even if it was something that they supported and argued for.

The most obvious snub came when Obama proposed cutting taxes for small businesses and recovering TARP money from the big banks that were bailed out , and diverting it to make it available for loans to small businesses. There was no response from the Republican side of the chamber. All I saw was the dour crossarmed glare. They seemed agry that Obama actually had a good idea, that he actualy proposed a tax break for someone.
This should come as a loud message to small businesses that the Republicans are not on their side. They seem to be all for bailouts and tax breaks for giant corporations but  lack the same support for small businesses. They liked the idea of renewing offshore drilling and nuclear power but were not moved by Obama's enthusiasm for small businesses making solar panels and developing biofuels.

Perhaps they don't understand that small businesses make up a significant portion of business in America . They can also do something that big businesses cannot do; recover from downturns and return to their former levels of  earning and employment much faster than big corporations . When a big factory closes down and lays off thousands of people, those jobs are not going to reappear any time soon. It takes years and maybe decades for the giant corporations to grow to their giant size and employ thousands of people. When those companies go bancrupt, there isn't going to be another giant company rising out of the ashes overnight. Granted their are always other established companies that may fill the void, but those companies reap the benefits of a greater market share that do not necessarily translate into new jobs. Even when they choose to expand and build, the process of deciding to expand, getting financing, devloping plans, getting all the necessary permits and approvals,  can take years before the first shovel even breaks into the ground. And then maybe a few more years before permanant non contruction jobs appear.

Small businesses on the otherhand, can appear seamingly overnight. Someone gets an idea, puts together a plan, secures financing and finds an existing facility to work out of, hires employees and opens for business in a much shorter time frame than the giant corporations can.

Drive around anywhere in the US and you will find empty storefronts, offices and warehouse and abondoned factories just waiting for some enterprising small businesses to move in. Small businesses can fuel the recovery and rebuild employement and become profitable, taxpaying enterprises much faster than the struggling mega-corporations can.

The naysayers may argue with this and point out the many large comapnies that have already recovered and are making profits again. Off course they are, they received huge bailouts to help them do that while small businesses were left in the shadows to die. They also have fewer employees to pay as they haven't been rehiring people as fast as they laid them off.

Obama is proposing making the money available as loans, not as a bailout or a grant. The small businesses that borrow the money will have to repay it and are not going to reap windfall profits and pay themselves seven figure bonuses.

A small business that had to lay off half it's staff and closed facilites in the past two years could very easily , in a recovering economy,  hire as many people back and grow much sooner than a big business can. Multipy that by thousands of small businesses and the nation could see positive job growth much sooner than we would if it were left to big corporations alone.

There are many laid off people who just can't find work so they turn to starting their own business. Some of the small businesses of today will be the giant corporations of tommorrow. It's time to turn our attention to the small businesses for a change. Then instead of the American workers relying on big business to create jobs for them, they can create jobs for themselves, and others along the way.

There are  two reason I can think of why the Republicans would oppose tax breaks and loans for small businesses. First is that small businesses cannot afford to make large contributions to politicians or pay for lobbyists to champion their interests. The second is that if small business were given the chance to step up to the plate and were successful in making their contribution to rebuilding the economy, that would make Obama look good. That is something the Republicans must avoid at all costs, even if it means holding back the recovery for working class families. The cause of rebuilding the Republican Party's strength in Washington is far more important to the party than solving the problems that America is struggling with. After all, they all have a steady paycheck and health insurance. They don't feel the urgency that the millions of laid off workers across the country do. They claim that their "rise to power" that came with one single extra vote in the Senate, was fueled by the frustration of independent voters over the way the economy is being handled. But they are willing to delay real substantive solutions for the sake of political ambitions. The same independents who turned against the Dems in Massachusetts and swept Brown into office, could very easily turn against the Republicans  before the next elections in November. Turning their backs on support for small businesses could undo the gains they've made.

What's happens to money donated for Haiti disaster relief?

Ever wonder what happens to the money you donate for disaster relief? We like to hear that all of the proceeds will go to benefit the victims of the disaster. Of course there are always administrative costs and overhead, but we don't want our donated funds to be paying big salaries to charity directors or padding the pockets of the people who run the charities. Some of them are professionals who do nothing but raise funds and are paid for their services. They are good at what they do and if  paying them to run fund raisers ends up yielding more money than would have been raised without them, then it was worth the investment. But just like bank salaries or bankers bonuses, there is a limit to what what is considered fair and reasonable compensation. A charitable organization doesn't seem so charitable when the people who run it are getting very wealthy from it.

Before donating money it's always good to check into the organization before sending the check, to make sure that the ratio between the amount donated and the amount taken by the charity is reasonable. After great disasters like the Haiti quake, there is a flood of charitable efforts ready to accept our donations. Most are set up by well intentioned individuals and organizations, but some are outright scams. The donations need to be made quickly so one doesn't have alot time to research the organization who are requesting donations. Many of them just pop up and there is now way of verifying that they are legitimate.

If the church you belong to asks for donations for disaster relief then you know who is running the charity. But where does the money go after it is collected by the church? Does someone from the church oversee how the money is spent?Is it directed to a larger relief organization, or is it used to purchase supplies that will be sent down?

There's a;ot that has to happen with the funds after it is collected but who's in charge, is it being used appropriately and can you be sure that it really is providing any benefit to the victims?

After the Bangaladesh disater, George Harrisons concert for Bangaladesh raised a record breaking sum of money, but it took years before any of those funds were actually used to benefit the victim. Much of it was bled off for administrative and legal costs.

Donating money to a known charity like the Red Cross, or to a very high profile fund raising effort from reputable and reliable sources increases the likelyhood that the money will be used for it's intended purpose.

Some donations will be used to buy supplies that are sent to the disaster zone, some used to pay for sending and supporting specialists to the scene.

And some will be sent as direct cash donations to the local organization and governemt. Thats where things become really dicey.

Yahoo reports curruption in Haiti.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100126/wl_nm/us_quake_haiti_corruption

Given the history of corruption in Haiti, it's not surprising that aid money would be skimmed off by corrupt Haitian officials . This only underscores the need for coordinated relief efforts. Since much relief money would be sent to third world countries where there is less oversight and government corruption runs rampant, the likelyhood that some, if not alot of that money would not be used for it's intended purpose. This is the risk of sending direct cash payments.

When dealing with a disaster of this scope, where the government is in disarray, there is greater opportunity for corrupt officlas to pocket the money with notice. All funds should be provided with a provision that there be outside oversight of where the money goes to and how it is used. Foreign aid should have the same provisions.

This is something that a disaster relief command like I have proposed could handle. Through oversight of the command, the donated funds can be directed to where it needs to be and officials could observe how the money is spent to assure that it is used for it's intended purpose. Recipient countries would have to agree to this oversight in order to receive direct donations of cash.

It would be difficult for any private organization to do this but a large international organization with protocols and procedures set in place would be able to handle the flow of money. Private donators can set stipulations on how and where they want their funds to go, but sometimes private donators don't really know what is really needed on the scene and could be advised by those who know. In situation like that in Haiti, we know that they need everything, food, water, clothing, shelters,medical supplies doctors and rescue crews. But when the donations are just made willy nilly without any coordination, there might be too much of one item and not enough of the other. Then money is wasted and the all the needs of rthe victims are not being met.

While there will be administrative costs to coordination the distribution of funds, it ultimately saves money by making certain that the right kind of assistance get to the places where is is needed.

There have been reports from Haiti of some areas getting more food than they need while others don't get enough. In some cases the excess is taken by profiteers who sell them on the black market, while others on the others side of town are still going hungry.

Greater international coordination and cooperation are needed so that donations and foreign aid can best serve the victims in need. If there were more coordination then we would not be hearring these reports from Haiti of slow responses, imbalances in relief supply distributions and corruption.

This coordination needs to be in place and ready to spring into action before disaster happens and not haphazardly put together in reponse.

The International Disaster Response and Relief Command; A Proposal Part 2

(Scroll down to read part one)

Who would the command be manned by?

The upper echelon of the command would be made up of former military commanders, individuals who have experience conducting such large scale operations. There would be something of a military structure to the command and it's members would serve in a manner similar to military service. There would be a central Corp of full time servicemen on call at all times and ready to jump into action upon first notice of a disaster.

Other members could serve like the National Guard, with occassional short term periods of duty that allows them to have their own lives and careers but provides for a large force of people with the skills needed to provide disaster relief.

A third tier of volunteers who would be oncall to respond to situations like the Haiti quake . These people would be ready to report for duty in short notice. All the  assignments would be predetermined, procedures and protocols for reporting for duty would be established and all equipment and materials they would need would already be in place and ready for transport with the volunteers. They would simply report to a preassigned location for transport to the disaster zone.

The service men and volunteers would come primarily from all the countries in the region. Superpower countries like the US, who would actually command the vessels, would contribute to the commands for all regions of the world.

The Command would have predetermined procedures for working with soveregn nations and their own coast guards, military forces and  disaster responders who would already be on scene.

It would have in place protocol and procedures for working with international relief organizations like the International Red Cross.

For example, there would be a Western Atlantic Disaster Responce and Relief Command covering the entire Western Atlantic coast from Canada to the Southernmst tip of South America. There would be more localized commands covering areas such as the Gulf of Mexico, the Eastern US coast, the Carribean,  and the Easter South American Coast. The main Navel componant could be based in the Carribean, a central location that would enable it to reach anyplace in the eastern Atlantic region on very short notice. This is also a disaster prone region which has experienced many Hurricanes and even volcano eruptions and now earthquakes.

Similar Commands could be established for other regions of the world so that fast response Commands will be in place all around the world.

Bases of operations could be established in regions that have been the been subjected to disaster. Participation in it's operations could provide temprary relief to people whose livelyhoods have been destroyed or disrupted by disaster.

For example, if the Command were temporarly stationed in Haiti, Haitians could be provided work at the station working in warehouses on the command support base and around the area. This would help to re-establish the economy and aid in the recovery of the region. Permanant bases could be established that would provide long term work and economic stabilty in the area.

All countries in the region would be welcome to participate, including countries that might not be on the best terms with the US, like Cuba and Venezuela. It would offer the oportunity for adversarial nations to work together towards a common humanitarian cause. The Command could serve as a rallying point for international cooperation and reconciliation between rivals.

The Command would be funded by all the Governments in the region except for those who are under severe financial contraints like Haiti, which could serve as a host nation. It would also be funded by humanitarian organizations and relief funds. Instead of having benefit concerts in response to disasters, the giant carrier could travel to different cities and host and support giant fund rasing events, like a concert on the deck. That would also bring the Command to the people of all nations so they could feel a sense of ownership of the effort.

This may sound all grandios, but it is entirely possible to accomplish if enough people rally together to make it happen. Then , when disasters strike like the Haiti earthquake, or the great zsunami, or a typoon in Bagaldesh, or a Hurricane Katrina, instead of the world scrambling to put together a response and tripping all over everyones feet, there could be a rapid and coordinated response that saves many many more lives and helps the regions recover much faster.

"You may say that I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope someday you'll join me and the world can live as one." John Lennon