Natural/Conservation Burial

The ultimate in perpetuating the cycle of life. An alternative to contemporary funerals/burials.

read more | digg story

What's the Difference Between "Misspoke" and "Lie"?

Hillary Rodham Clinton has, at the very least, embellished her experiences in visiting Bosnia as First Lady in 1996. The Democratic presidential hopeful refers to her false statements about arriving in Bosnia "under sniper fire" as that she "misspoke" or it was a "minor blip" (Sanner, 3/25/08).

Former Army Secretary Togo West, who accompanied the First Lady on her trip, asserts that he doesn't find it unusual that someone could get the details of such a visit confused after twelve years (Sanner, 3/25/08). I don't know about you, but the details of whether or not myself, my daughter, and accompanying party were under sniper fire or not are not mere "details." Something like that would stand out in my mind.

We aren't talking here about whether Senator Clinton was greeted with a bouquet of flowers, whether the carpet she walked on was red or blue, or even if children were there to greet her. Those are mundane details. Being shot at is definitely not a mundane detail.

Senator Clinton explains this "minor blip" as just confusion among the million or so words she speaks each day. If one accepts this explanation, then the logic would follow that there may be other things the candidate says each day that are inaccurate. Hmmm...

To determine whether this "minor blip" was accidental or an outright lie, one would have to consider the rationale for this imagined happening. Did it present the candidate in a better light? Did saying such a thing imply she has more experience in foreign lands than her opponent? I think the answers to these questions answers the question about whether Senator Clinton simply had a slip of the tongue or told an outright untruth. Source: Sanner, A. (2008, March 25). Clinton 'misspoke' on sniper fire story. AP. (WWW document). Retrieved from: http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/clinton-misspoke-on-sniper-fire-story/20080324223409990001

Sidestepping the Real Issue

In a New York Times article dated 3/14/08, it was reported that the U.S. House of Representatives voted just barely against granting immunity to the telecommunications companies who took part in the illegal wiretapping post 9/11. Surprisingly, when the House met to discuss this, they held a secret meeting, something not done in twenty-five years.

The vote is reported to have gone essentially along party lines. President Bush had already threatened to veto a bill that failed to provide immunity to the telecom companies. That outcome will be pending a return of the bill to the Senate for voting before being sent to the president for signature/veto.

What I've been surprised to read about this issue are the number of people who support the Democrats on this issue. The reason I'm not surprised isn't because I have such a high opinion of the telecom companies, but rather because I view the telecom companies as middlemen--as a means to an end. The person responsible for asking/commanding the telecom companies to perform the illegal wiretaps is the person Congress should be going after, not the middlemen.

I think The House of Representatives were not at all courageous in their stand to deny immunity to the telecom companies. First things first: let's recommend impeachment hearings on the president who ordered the anti-Constitutional wiretaps in the first place. Whatever happened to "The buck stops here"?

It is common sense to hold accountable those who are on the top. If people lead from the top down, then certainly responsibility flows in the same order. The fact that we haven't been doing so of late is no excuse for continued errors in this direction.

If the Democrats, or the Republicans, or a bipartisan coalition, want to show the American people that they have chutzpah, that they value the Constitution and all that it stands for, then those elected officials will take the correct action to send that message to all Americans, and to the world. To read the article from the New York Times, click on the title link.

Judge Me By MY Words

American politics can be an ugly arena. It's difficult to imagine that any elected official can go through a major election campaign and remain unscathed. That being said, I believe that Barack Obama has eloquently addressed the issue that has been in the news of late, about a message his former pastor and long-time friend and spiritual advisor made some years ago.

There are those in politics and the media who tell us that we are to judge a potential presidential candidate by the thoughts and words of his/her friends. I would hope that common sense prevails in this issue. Who of us agrees with every word or thought uttered by our friends or family members? If we threw away meaningful relationships with everyone with whom we disagreed, we'd each be isolated people. Being a friend means we care for someone in spite of their flaws.

I would be sorely disappointed if Obama had denounced his friendship with Rev. Wright. That would make him a far smaller person in my eyes. Anyone who would end a friendship for political gain is not a person I would respect.

In these words below, Obama explains his thoughts on what Rev. Wright said, and his thoughts on the man and their longstanding friendship: I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Rev. Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely -- just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed. But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leader's effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America, a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam. As such, Rev. Wright's comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems -- two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all. Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Rev. Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Rev. Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and YouTube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than 20 years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine, who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing God's work here on Earth -- by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS. To read the entire transcript of Barack Obama's March 18 ,2008 speech, click on the title link.

The News Has Made It to the Ivory Tower

At long last, President Bush acknowledges what the rest of us have long known.

read more | digg story

The News Has Made It to the Ivory Tower

President Bush noticed the other day that our economy has hit a rough spot. I think for those of us in the trenches on America, that could be viewed as a drastic understatement. And what is our president's biggest concern about this state of affairs? That the federal government doesn't do too much; doesn't over-correct the problem.

If a reporter talks with the many families across the country whose homes are facing foreclosure, or have been foreclosed upon, I am certain their views would be altogether different. Talk to the single parent families, or the families with two bread-winners, or the retired or otherwise not workin who are living on fixed incomes; their views would be different from our president's as well.

Talk to the unemployed, seeking work in this "rough spot" in the economy. Talk to the employed who aren't sure they're going to be able to buy the gas they need this week to get to work. I'm pretty sure their concerns are different from the president as well.

Alan Greenspan, former Federal Reserve chief, also views the economy in a picture more in keeping with the average American. Click on the title link to learn more.

Independent Truckers Need Our Help

Over 300,000 men and women criss-cross our country every day in big rig trucks they own, hauling every type of product we consume, use, and desire. These men and women represent 9% of the truckers on the road; they are the Owner/Operators, the independents who work without the net of a union--probably the closest thing to a cowboy in our present society.

The cost of diesel fuel has doubled in the last four years; the rate-per-mile these drivers receive has changed little in the same time period. Fuel is the single biggest cost for the drivers, representing a full half, or more, of their gross pay each week. Paydays are dismal affairs for many of these independents whose take-home pay is one-fourth of their gross pay.

Independent truckers are rugged individuals for the most part, not looking for handouts or sympathy. What they want is to be able to continue to do their jobs and to bring home a decent wage for doing so. Independent truckers don't have health insurance or 401k plans because they are self-employed. Those necessities must be paid out-of-pocket from their take-home pay, in addition to the monthly bills everyone else incurs.

Then there is maintenance on their trucks: an oil change, needed about every 15,000 miles costs over $200.00. Most drivers are logging 3,000 miles/week, so an oil change is a frequent need. Tires are the most replaced items on these trucks; one tire costs $400 or more. Big rig trucks have ten tires to maintain; each lasts approximately 100,000 miles.

What these independent truckers are seeking is either a cap on diesel fuel prices, or a tax credit on fuel expenses. Just as the farmers who in the recent past needed assistance to keep from going under, the independent truck drivers are in the same situation today.

Think it won't effect you one way or the other if independent truckers go the way of the dinosaur? If the trucking business became completely company run, it would decrease competition for reasonable shipping rates. Shipping rates would increase. Increased shipping rates will be passed onto consumers.

We don't need to do a lot to help these people out. A letter, a phone call, an email to our elected officials letting them know we support the struggle of these self-employed folks, that we endorse either or both the cap on diesel fuel prices or tax credits for fuel expenses. A letter to the editor of your local newspaper with the same information would be useful to spread the word. When we help these small business owners survive this critical economic situation, we are helping ourselves, too.

For more information, click on the title of this post.

Stop the Fuel Price Madness Now

Let's unite our voices and make them heard by the people with the power to do something about the outrageous fuel prices.

read more | digg story

Stop the Fuel Price Increase Madness NOW

Along with groceries, utilities, and healthcare, fuel affects every single person in this country. You don't have to drive a vehicle, ride public transportation, or fly in a jet plane to have these outrageous increases in fuel prices affect you personally. And woe to the people who do drive, use public transportation, or have the need to fly.

The cost of goods--all goods--is going to increase right along with the price of fuel. It costs a lot more money to get product from one place to the next, and we all know to whom those extra costs will be passed.

I can't imagine anyone of any income level not being affected by the rising fuel prices, but I am truly wondering how families with minimum wage incomes manage to put gas in the tank to get to and from work, let alone to the grocery or doctor's office.

We have to make our voices heard soon and in a united way. Our elected officials are not talking enough about this fuel price crisis and doing even less. Our presidential hopefuls need to know how serious this concern is to all of us. Write letters to the editor, call, write or email elected officials and candidates' offices and campaigns. Let's not just talk amongst ourselves--let's make our voices heard in all the places that count--including the voting booth.

See also: http://llwoodard.blogspot.com/2008/02/gas-gasmy-kingdom-for-reasonable-fuel.html

Additional reading: http://www.news-press.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080309/BUSINESS/803090364/1014 How fuel prices are affecting trucking's Owner/Operators

Only in American Politics...

"U.S. Attorney General Michael Mukasey Friday said he will not ask a federal grand jury to investigate whether two top Bush administration officials should be prosecuted for contempt of Congress" (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/congress.attorneys/).

Harriet Miers, former White House Counsel, and Josh Bolten, White House Chief of Staff, each invoked executive privilege when subpoenaed by Congress in regards to the U.S. Attorney firings in 2006.

President Bush has asserted that to force these two individuals to testify and/or produce documents would infringe on the separation of powers between the executive and legislative branches of the government. Congress contends that the inaction of these two individuals in regard to the subpoenas violates a federal statute.

Can both be right? If not, which is the law? And why isn't someone asking this bigger question?

Let's see...Roger Clemens may have a Justice Department investigation as to whether he perjured himself or not...Meirs and Bolten, employees of the federal government will not be subject to such an investigation, nor will the larger matter of executive privilege versus Congress's right to subpoena individuals from the executive branch. Really, how many places in the world, let alone how many republics in the world, operate like this? Only in America...