Archive for April, 2007
Hypocrisy
Days after a [now conservative controlled] Supreme Court ruled in favor of anti-abortion law, the New York Times ran this article on infant deaths in the southeast US. A recent study reveals an alarming rise in infant mortality rates in Mississippi and other states. This corroborates a long-held personal theory: the social conservatives who sovehemently oppose abortion, citing the sanctity of the life of an un -born fetus, promptly abandon their cause as soon as the baby is born. By systematically reducing funding for social welfare programs that support expecting and new mothers, the policies of the current conservative administration have led to an increase in infant deaths. (Not to mention, the ignorant-if-not-criminal practice of “abstinence only” sex education increases the number of unwanted pregnancies. But that’s for another day.)
Another interesting point to consider: many of the loudest anti-abortion advocates are also pro-death penalty. A position that one can only describe as hypocritical, it seems that the precious sanctity of life applies only to the unborn, not an adult charged with a crime. Given the number of cases in which a death sentence isreversed upon discovery of new evidence, it is safe to say that the death penalty claims innocent life. This adult, innocent life must not be as valuable as that of the fetus.
Of course, this isn’t the real explanation. If the abortion debate were truly about terminating pregnancies, or if the death penalty debate were truly about dealing with criminals, the outcome would be much different. The sad fact is that these emotionally charged subjects are routinely paraded down Main Street as a means to influence the electorate. It’s no wonder that these subjects seem to emerge only during election season or when political reality (read: Iraq quagmire) is less than pleasant for the team in charge.
The real tragedy in this is not that we are distracted by sensational politics but that the rights of women have been thrown by the wayside to preserve political power. As a closing note: is in coincidence that the five consenting justices are all men?
Filed under culture, politics : Comments (0) : Apr 22nd, 2007
3 easy energy choices
1. CFL light bulbs. This one is a no-brainer. Modern compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFL) are cheap, energy efficient, and they produce high quality light. (But don’t take my word for it, read this review in Popular Mechanics.) The beauty of the CFL is two-fold: first, they use 25% as much energy as their incandescent cousins. If you replace your most-used lights, this can lead to significant monthly savings on your energy bill. Additionally, the bulbs last much longer–8000 hrs or more (compared to 1000 hours for incandescents). And at only $2-4/bulb, you are saving on bulb replacement costs as well!
There’s really no excuse for keeping your old fashioned light bulbs. Go to the ecoLightBulbStore and order a dozen bulbs. Or check out your local hardware store, as CFLs are now very common and easy to find. As a final added bonus for all you Wisconsin locals, you can get a rebate of $2/bulb from Focus on Energy!
2. Ride a bike. If you live in anything resembling a city, your life will be greatly improved with the addition of a bicycle. Any destination within 5 miles of your home is easily accessible by bike. With a little careful planning, you can greatly reduce the amount of driving you do on a daily basis. Plus it’s great exercise!
Now for a few minor caveats: First, do not mistake the two-wheeled junk heaps at Target, K-Mart or Walmart for a bicycle. They most certainly are not. If you want to buy a bicycle, you must go to a bike shop. A brand new bicycle will cost $300-500. This may seem like a lot, but keep in mind that a well maintained bike will easily last 10 years or more. A used bicycle will cost $100-200, and if you buy it from a reputable used bike shop you will likely end up with a great bargain.
Bicycles, like cars, require regular maintenance. You can easily perform this maintenance yourself with a few tools and a little know-how. This is why you bought your bicycle at a bike shop–they will happily instruct you on how to oil a chain, adjust your brakes, and add air to your tires.
Finally, buy a helmet and front & rear lights. Don’t take unnecessary chances!
3. Opt-in for green electricity. Many utilities offer voluntary programs for customers to pay a little more on their bill to support green energy projects. Here in Milwaukee, WE Energies offers their Energy for Tomorrow program. I pay an extra 1 cent per kWh of electricity which goes to fund projects like wind turbines and biofuels in the region. I know that MG&E (in Madison, WI) offers a similar program, and chances are that your local utility does as well.
These programs serve a few purposes: most importantly, they support projects that reduce the environmental impact of generating electricity. As an added bonus, it serves to remind you to conserve electricity by gently pinching your wallet every month. It also demonstrates to utilities, politicians, and the public that there is a very real demand for green energy.
Don’t delay. Make a change today. Here you have three easy ways to make an appreciable difference in your personal impact on energy resources and environmental impact. Pick one that you like and make the change today. Or be a super all-star and do two or three. We simply can’t wait for top-down government regulations to reverse the trend of environmentally costly energy. We can all take action today and drive change from bottom up.
Filed under climate change, culture, energy : Comments (2) : Apr 18th, 2007
Genius.
I stumbled upon this newspaper clipping and couldn’t resist publishing it here:
(I trust you can find the logical error in Ms. Meskimen’s letter.) From: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/treehugger_read_2.php
Filed under Uncategorized : Comments (3) : Apr 18th, 2007
Progress in Iraq
Sometimes Jon Stewart says it best: http://www.ifilm.com/video/2842691
This one is a real gem.
[Sorry, can't imbed video from iFilm. You'll have to click through.]
Filed under politics, war : Comments (0) : Apr 14th, 2007
Fukuyama
I had the opportunity to see Dr. Francis Fukuyama give a lecture on U.S. foreign policy in the Bush doctrine era. Fukuyama was once a part of the Neo-Conservative inner circle, and has worked for or with many of the current Bush Administration officials. It was very interesting to hear his insight and reflections on how we got to where we are today and why the Neocons so radically shifted their policy in the last six years.
He offered five lessons in foreign policy learned during the Bush presidency:
1. Hard power has limited use in unstable regions like the Middle East. This is in contrast to classic foreign policy doctrine of using a large military for deterrence and persuasion. The critical difference in the Middle East is a lack of powerful central states. Al Quaeda and Hezbollah are two examples of powerful non-state actors that operate within the framework of weak states. Simply put, a strong military presence is not an effective deterrence in the absence of true state power. Worse, our presence in Iraq actually empowers non-state groups by further destabilizing the region.
2. Preventive war is not an effective strategy in enforcing nonproliferation. Quoting Otto Von Bismarck, “Preventive war is like committing suicide out of fear of death.” Supposing that the goal was to prevent Iraq from acquiring WMD, preventive war was not the correct action. Economic and political sanctions are much more effective at enforcing nonproliferation, and as we discovered all too late, they were working in the case of Iraq. The only deterrence to come out of our adventure in Iraq is self-deterrence: the U.S. public is now much less likely support military intervention with other dangerous regimes such as Iran and North Korea.
3. Promoting democracy does not directly stop the spread of terrorism. Quite to the contrary, most influential radical leaders use the spread of modernity and democracy as a recruiting tactic. The teachings of Islam are centered on rules and a highly structured community–quite different from the personal liberties and freedoms favored in a democracy. In the long run, the spread of democracy is a good thing, but in the short run it may fuel more radicalization if done too aggressively.
4. Multilateral solutions are critical to nonproliferation and world peace. The U.S. has lost its claimed moral superiority in the world, and anti-US backlash is at an extreme. We cannot act unilaterally in the future if we hope to avoid further conflict.
5. The current U.S. government is incompetent. The ambitious goals of the Bush doctrine were carried out with such egregious incompetence that there was never the possibility of success. The decline of Iraq into civil war was preventable at the onslaught of the war, but with so many errors in judgement it is now impossible to make a clean exit.
Filed under culture, politics, war : Comments (0) : Apr 12th, 2007
