PostLeft.com

Well…. As you can see, I haven’t been blogging for the past couple of months.

I’m a liberal, but not an unquestioning Democratic partisan.  I generally support pragmatism over extreme ideology.  I often agree with Democratic Party goals in principle, but often do not agree with their priorities or their complete agenda. I vote for Republicans, on occasion.   While I read radical web sites from both sides of the aisle, I believe most Americans are oriented closer to the political center (despite the fact that we elect more ideologues these days).

I’m a bona fide “political junkie.”  But I’m far more interested in thinking about governing than in thinking about the election process.

I want to write about my thoughts.  I’d prefer not to get caught up in the daily epithets I hurl at the TV.  But, if I’m writing daily, the things that attract my interest (approval, rage, disdain…) are the things in front of me.  I didn’t start blogging until Obama clinched the Democratic nomination to try to avoid getting caught up in the Hillary-Barack wars.  And I’d just as soon this election were over today, rather than 5 weeks from now.

I’m skeptical about much of what I hear and read, but I try very hard not to be cynical.  Particularly when it comes to people with whom I disagree, I try to think through my emotional reactions and to understand why they hold their particular beliefs and whether I might be wrong.  I choose to believe that most people hold their beliefs just as firmly as I hold mine, and that they are generally telling the truth (with some broad exceptions during campaign season), unless they prove otherwise. That can be viewed as naive or unrealistic; I would argue the opposite.

I have supported Senator Obama for President for over 3 years.  I knew from the beginning that if he were to be elected, he would do and say things that I disliked.  And he has.  But I have become convinced that it’s critical for me, my family, my town, my country and the world that we elect Barack Obama as the next President.

That said… even if few read what I write, I need to make the effort again.

Welcome (back) to Postleft.com!

Emotions are running high over three billboards on display in Orlando, Florida, linking Democrats to the 9/11 attacks. Erected on Monday by Mike Meehan, the advertised website sells a CD for $5, featuring his song “Please Don’t Vote For A Democrat.” according to ABC News. (hat tip to Think Progress)

I hesitated to post this, as I think the ABC article gives far too much play to Meehan’s ideas and I hate to contribute to publicizing him. But its all over the cable channels, and I think it’s important to think about such such public accusations and to think about reasonable ways to counter them…. and anyway, nobody reads this blog so it isn’t really publicity.

I started using computers before the advent of Windows and mice. So I still prefer using the keyboard for some things…. sometimes because it’s faster and sometimes because my “left-click finger” gets tired. For those of you who like keyboards and who use Windows, Google or Firefox, “7 Essential Cheat Sheets To Download” has some great stuff.

Perhaps you saw the video released yesterday of excerpts from Omar Khadr’s interrogation at Guantanamo Bay by Canadian authorities from their Air Force Office of Special Investigations.  Khadr was 15 when he reportedly threw a grenade at an American soldier; the video was made in February 23, when he was 16.  If you missed it, here are 10 minutes of the highlights.

Documents released a few days earlier apparently paint a somewhat more detailed and less emotional picture.  If I run across the documents, I’ll post a link to them here.

On Fox News, host Trace Gallagher presented the video, and suggested “maybe he deserves” whatever treatment he received. (video).

One of the many problems with the use of torture is the negative effects it has on both the practitioners and the society which condones it.   From “Among Empires: American Ascendancy and Its Predecessors,” by Charles S. Maier (Harvard University Press, 2006):

Ruination, as Calvino’s emperor would have understood, does not mean just defeat.  It can mean an acceptance of violence, a coarsening of values, the arrogance that insists, no matter what brutal exceptions may ensue: “Trust us, we’re uniquely selfless.”

I think this successfully answers the media complaint that Obama can’t be satirized.  Watch it!

Undersecretary of State William Burns is the U.S. State Department’s third ranking diplomat.  In a startling change of direction, an official from the State Dept. has revealed Burns will be joining the Iran talks in Geneva this weekend. These talks, headed by Javier Solana of Spain, Secretary-General of the European Union (EU), are focused on convincing Iran to stop enriching uranium for its planned power plants.  The U.S. has long insisted that Iran must stop its enrichment program before any negotiations of other issues can begin.  The Iranians, on the other hand, argue that as a signatory to Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), they have a right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes.  While Iran has expressed a willingness to talk, they refuse to accept such preconditions to negotiations.

In addition to Solana and Burns, participants in the Saturday session will include Saeed Jalili, Iranian nuclear negotiator and representatives from China, Russia, France, Britain and Germany.  Although the Bush Administration has consulted with the EU group from the outset of these talks, they have steadfastly refused to participate directly.  Although Burns presence will be new, the U.S. insists it is not a policy shift, as he will not meet privately with Jalili and he will be present to listen, not to negotiate.

According to Al Jazeera today,

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, said on Monday that Jalili and Solana were to discuss a timetable for future negotiations to break the deadlock.

“It is possible that, in the near future, talks in different fields will take place with the  United States,” he said.

I can think of two possible interpretations of this new twist in the Iran saga:

1. This is good news!  President Bush has decided to side with Condoleeza Rice against VP Cheney and John Bolton and to moderate his position for the sake of his legacy.  (It won’t hurt oil prices either…)  It signals a continuation of a policy shift we first saw with the North Korea agreement three weeks ago, and will hopefully foreshadow more moderate foreign policy positioning for the remainder of this administration. (See “Watching The Schizophrenia In Bush Foreign Policy“)
2. This is nervewracking news!  Several months before the Iraq War, the Bush Administration decided to work with the U.N., allowing inspectors to return to Iraq.  Many who were opposed to war at that time breathed a sigh of relief, thinking this move signaled a return to a more multilateral and reasoned approach to the problem.  In hindsight, the decision to engage the U.N. appears to have been only a tactic, designed to still dissent and to focus conversation while necessary preparations for the spring war were made.  For the cynics among us…. once burned, twice shy.

There are other possibilities, to be sure.  Being an optomistic cynic, I’m hoping the truth lies somewhere in the neighborhood of possibility #1.

Air Quality Action Day for Ozone. That’s a mouthful for the newscasters. Couldn’t they just call it a smog alert?

We didn’t have such things in Northern Indiana when I was growing up. I wonder if that’s because we didn’t have smog? Or because we didn’t have alerts?

According to IDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management), we’re not supposed to drive or fill the gas tank or mow the lawn or use too much electricity or paint the house with solvent-based paint… at least until the sun goes down. Sounds more like an Air Quality InAction Day… I guess I’ll stay home.

Senators Obama and Bayh are coming to Indiana this morning, along with former Senator Sam Nunn and a few others. They’re doing a roundtable discussion at Purdue on National Security. Called “Controlling 21st Century Threats” the event is invitation only, running from noon until two. They won’t be encountering Air Quality Action alerts in Tippecanoe County; it’s only smoggy on the northern and southern borders of the state.

I wonder if I they’ll be doing a webcast of the event…  Found one!  Log on to jconline.com for live streaming video, starting at 11… since I’m staying home anyway.

In “My Plan For Iraq”, Barack Obama stakes out his Iraq Policy. The Op-Ed, published in The New York Times this morning, is ostensibly a policy response to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s call for a timetable for withdrawal of foreign troops. But more importantly for the Obama campaign, it’s a political response to concern from his supporters about his commitment to troop withdrawals and charges of flip-flopping.

Tomorrow, Senator Obama will follow up with a policy speech on Iraq, which he hopes will calm the political firestorm ignited on July 3. The campaign had just announced that he would be making a trip to Iraq before the convention, and would consult with generals while there. Standing on an airport tarmac in Fargo, North Dakota, he was asked about concerns he was hedging on his much-publicized 16-month timetable for withdrawal. Obama concluded his remarks with,

And when I go to Iraq and have a chance to talk to some of the commanders on the ground, I’m sure I’ll have more information and will continue to refine my policies.

After eight years of an administration which has rarely “refined” its policies based on either changing circumstances or expert input, I found Obama’s comments welcome and fairly innocuous. Further, based on my research over the past couple of years, I found nothing in his remarks that indicates any changes in his policy on Iraq. My reaction was not echoed by the press or the blogosphere.

Analysts, journalists and bloggers immediately seized on the words “refine my policies” and raised questions about whether he would continue to support his stated withdrawal policy. In response to a rising furor, Obama held a second press conference that afternoon. He said explicitly that his policy was unchanged, discussed the difference between strategy and tactics, and reiterated his intention to withdraw combat troops within 16 months.

Obama’s clarification didn’t calm the waters. The press and the blogs exploded with stories proclaiming an Obama flip-flop or policy shift on Iraq, all seemingly based on his use of those three words, “refine my policies.” These characterizations defy a long series of Obama statements which outline identical notions of his plans for Iraq.

Just as the military is said to be preoccupied with “fighting the last war,” political commentators seem to be focused on “covering the last election.” The “flip-flop” label (widely applied to both candidates this past month) was a key to sinking John Kerry’s candidacy four years ago. Many argue that “words matter,” and the words of a president (or a candidate) must be scrutinized and held to the tightest of standards. But labels (such as “flip-flop”) used to characterize candidate’s speech also matter, and are chosen at times to fit a preconceived narrative, to oversimplify an argument or to ridicule nuance.

In the lexicon of this particular campaign narrative, the contrast to “flip-flop” has been described as firmness, strength, holding to one’s principles, “staying the course.” It’s obvious how this played out in the 2004 election, to the chagrin of most voters today. But how can we ever elect capable leaders when the hypervigilant focus on parsing the minutia penalizes candidates who evince thoughtfulness, intelligence or growth?

Discussion of the upcoming cover for The New Yorker will make the rounds on the cable networks and the blogs in the morning. The July 21, 2008 issue goes on sale tomorrow, and early reaction indicates there’s a firestorm coming.

Senator Obama has not commented personally. But Politico reported statements from both the Obama and McCain campaigns agreed the cover is “tasteless and offensive.”

Defending his work, artist Barry Blitt wrote in an email, “I think the idea that the Obamas are branded as unpatriotic [let alone as terrorists] in certain sectors is preposterous. It seemed to me that depicting the concept would show it as the fear-mongering ridiculousness that it is.”

Generally I enjoy satire, and I don’t have any problem with seeing the cover for what it was intended to be. And even if I did, The New Yorker has no obligation to pander to my tastes. It’s not a news organ per se; instead the magazine includes art, literature, cartoons and even satire along with its journalism. So I don’t see the cover as subject to the same journalistic “standards” to which I might hold Newsweek or Time.

But Rachel Sklar argues at HuffPo this will ultimately prove to be a gift to the Fox News ilk. “Anyone who’s tried to paint Obama as a Muslim, anyone who’s tried to portray Michelle as angry or a secret revolutionary out to get Whitey, anyone who has questioned their patriotism— well, here’s your image.” She has a point. The New Yorker may find itself the victim of unintended consequences, perhaps as a result of its own poor judgment. We’ll have to see how this one plays out.

I was astonished on Friday to read that Mark Halperin at Time announced Republicans as the winner of the week in the Presidential contest.  My first reaction was to review my own analysis. Was I missing something?  Was I being more unreasonably biased than usual?  No, I concluded; Senator McCain’s campaign had a horrible week, one of the worst I remember in its cumulative effect.  If indeed he “won,” it could only be because Halperin and other media analysts pronounced it so.

I can’t think of a single positive thing McCain did this week to help himself.  Interestingly, Halperin doesn’t mention any either. So why does he conclude Senator McCain “won” the week over Senator Obama?  He discusses four issues and suggests the Republicans won three of the four.

• Public image: Halperin perpetuates the meme that Obama has shifted to the center and has damaged perceptions of his integrity.  If Obama loses, he suggests, this week was the turning point.
• Iraq: “Now that [Senator Obama has] shifted from stressing the withdrawal of U.S. troops to assessing the situation in Iraq first, [his] advantage is reduced substantially,”  according to Halperin.
• Arrival of the cavalry: New advertising by the RNC and by a veteran’s group alleviated Republican fears that their candidate would be underfunded.

He pronounced the fourth, the Economy, a draw. Halperin’s analysis? “[T]he answers still sound like “yada, yada, yada”—on both sides.”

Now I’d disagree on Public Image; it probably deserves its own article.  Perceptions of Obama’s integrity will only be damaged if the press insists on pushing that story line.  He’s certainly damaged some perceptions of his ideology and angered some of his supporters.  But it’s arguable that he hasn’t shifted nearly as much as some are suggesting.  This is even more true on the Iraq argument.  Here, I don’t believe he’s changed his position in the slightest.  And parsing differences in what particular word or phrase is stressed in a series of speeches or position paper is like chasing your tail.  On the third point, Arrival of the Cavalry, I would agree with Halperin.  It has always been doubtful that the Republican side would ultimately be underfunded.  But again, this is a media created issue: the press has created the myth of Obama’s unlimited wealth, so when the “truth” is revealed it’s a benefit for McCain?!?

I’ll deal with my disagreement with Halperin on the Economy topic at more length.  But first, a thought… These four issues are debatable.  I can envision arguing either side of them.  My larger disagreement with Halperin is in his choice of these four topics as delineators of  what’s important in the week just past.  It seems to me that he’s overlooked a series of events that may not be individually critical, but as a group belie his conclusion.

Read the rest of this entry »

I was startled yesterday to see billionaire T. Boone Pickens pushing an energy plan on a TV advertisement. I would have expected to see the oil mogul and former corporate raider promoting more oil drilling. Instead, he acknowledged that we’re not going to drill our way out of the current U.S. energy crisis, and must immediately look to wind power and domestic natural gas to slow our export of cash for foreign oil.

He is promoting what he calls the PickensPlan. He asserts, “At current oil prices, we will send $700 billion dollars out of the country this year alone — that’s four times the annual cost of the Iraq war.” Pickens admits world oil production peaked in 2005 and “the simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.” His plan calls for generating 20% of the U.S. electricity from wind within 10 years. Additionally, utilization of natural gas for transportation could save up to 30% of our oil imports, he states.

We’ve known for 30 years that our wind resources have been dramatically underutilized, but those with vested interest in our oil infrastructure have resisted such alternatives. The conversion of someone of the stature of Pickens signal the possibility of a change in direction. As Martin LaMonica points out at Green Tech blog,

On the face of it, the Pickens Plan is not at all radical… But the conversion of a famed and politically conservative oil prospector to a proponent of wind power will no doubt be eye-opening to people who still associate renewable energy with fringe environmentalists.

Pickens agrees with President Bush that America is addicted to oil, but he doesn’t agree on the cure. According to a Thomas Friedman op-ed a couple of weeks ago, the new Bush energy plan is:

Get Saudi Arabia, our chief oil pusher, to up our dosage for a little while and bring down the oil price just enough so the renewable energy alternatives can’t totally take off. Then try to strong arm Congress into lifting the ban on drilling offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

While Pickens’ proposal will be evaluated and manipulated and probably talked to death, it is a welcome step forward and improves the likelihood we can move toward a more sensible energy policy next year. Although he was a major contributor to George W. Bush’s campaigns, his proposal apparently bypasses the current President. Appealing to the Internet audience, he avers:

Together we can raise a call for change and set a new course for America’s energy future in the first hundred days of the new presidency — breaking the hammerlock of foreign oil and building a new domestic energy future for America with a focus on sustainability.

MSNBC just reported that that the District Attorney from Boulder, Colorado has formally cleared the family of JonBenet Ramsey of suspicion in her murder 11 years ago, apologized, and indicated that they will now treat the Ramsay family as victims, rather than suspects. Apparently some new DNA testing technology (touch DNA) has concluded specimens taken from her body belong to an unknown male, not in the Ramsay household or in available DNA databases.

It is difficult to imagine the lives of her immediate family for the past 11 years, with both public and private notoriety and suspicion following them everywhere they went. They had to suffer the loss of their child, and then the loss of their privacy and the respect of much of the community. Unfortunately, Patsy Ramsey died two years ago and wasn’t able to hear today’s news.

It is also difficult to determine the villain in this piece, although we can place blame with several parties. Sure, the Boulder police botched it, but because they were out of their depth than out of malice or fundamental incompetence. The role of the local District Attorney’s office has been debated. And what about the role of the press? There was non-stop media coverage for years… well, maybe it was only months, but it seemed like years. Finally, what’s our role in this tragedy…. the role of the public? We who listened, demanded more coverage (or at least, didn’t protest), bought magazines or tabloids with pictures of the 6-year-old beauty queen? It’s just really sad.

I don’t usually recommend beta versions of software. But this one isn’t likely to mess anything up… other than itself. I first noted “PDF Download” version 2 beta at Chris Pirillo’s blog this morning, and immediately went to sign up for downloading the beta. I received an email with download instructions from Nitro Software within about 15 minutes.

I’ve had problems with most software I’ve used to archive web pages as .PDF files. Usually, either the hyperlinks don’t work or the formatting is messed up. I haven’t done a lot of testing with PDF Download yet, but so far, I’m impressed. While it clipped the right hand character column from one of the pages I saved, it is a beta after all. Hyperlinks worked flawlessly and formatting generally looked great.

I liked the ease of use. It installs an icon on the right-hand side of the navigation toolbar. If you’re viewing a .HTML web page, clicking on the icon saves/emails the page as a PDF, depending on your preference. When you want to handle a .PDF from within Firefox, you have even more options. As a default action, you can set the extension to display a popup, open, download, or view it as HTML. Further you can choose to open it within your browser or to use an external .PDF viewer of your choice. Although I haven’t had time to try it out yet, it will also convert .PDF files to .HTML.

.PDF was adopted as an ISO standard last week, so I expect there will be more free and inexpensive software available soon to create and modify PDF files. For now, if you use Firefox, this one is worth a try.

If you use Zone Alarm for your firewall… and I do… don’t install the Security Update for Windows XP (KB951748) that was released yesterday (Different versions are out for different operating systems). If your system was already patched, you won’t be reading this warning as your Internet access has been cut off.

According to The Register today, Zone Alarm recommends you uninstall the Microsoft patch. Microsoft, on the other hand, would probably prefer you uninstall Zone Alarm and use their firewall. Microsoft Security Bulletin MS08-037 outlines the problem the patch is designed to fix.

Possible workarounds and comments are posted in response to The Register’s article.

Update: 10 July 2008 - Zone Alarm has issued detailed instructions for dealing with the conflict between several Zone Alarm products and yesterday’s Microsoft’s update. It offers options to: update Zone Alarm to latest version, modify Zone Alarm settings, or uninstall the Microsoft hotfix. I chose to update my copy of Zone Alarm Pro (on Windows XP), installed the latest Microsoft patch, and all seems to be well.

I’m working on a longer post on some of the impact the Bush Administration has had on the study of science over the past eight years. In the meantime, I wanted to mention another of yesterday’s articles in the Chicago Tribune online. AP writer, H. Josef Heber describes testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee by Jason K Burnett, former senior advisor to the EPA Administrator.

Burnett’s testimony suggests the OVP had significant influence, downplaying the role of global climate change in reports coming from the EPA and the CDC; VP Cheney’s desired changes were based on political, not scientific, considerations. “The Council on Environmental Quality and the office of the vice president were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony (concerning) … any discussions of the human health consequences of climate change,” according to Burnett.

Read it here.

I’m still trying to catch up on some of the news I missed while I was offline for a week. I’m about ready to just dump everything over 24 hours oldl! But while I’m not ready to write any major posts yet, there are a few things that stand out from the crowd that I’d like to mention….

Anick Jesdanun has written a very interesting AP piece, which I’d like to recommend. Entitled “Online free speech has its limits,” it appeared yesterday in the Chicago Tribune online. Highlighting issues users and providers have had online, it outlines conflicts between laws, community standards and free speech. It discusses eBay, Verizon, AT&T, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, My Space, Flickr and YouTube, and various incidents involving the development and use of standards. Check it out!

Well, we made it home from Northern Michigan. I didn’t plan on a Internet-free week, but the best laid plans of mice and men…

It looks like the system took a lightning strike or line surge or something over the winter. We replaced some ethernet and a couple of fried plugs, but the router may be shot. Of course, the guy who installed it wasn’t available, and I didn’t have any testing equipment with me. So I was frustrated for a couple of days, as was most everyone else (who all looked at me like it was my fault). I saw a Burger King advertising WiFi on the way up, but I never got around to driving 50 miles or so to find it. My mother kept asking me to find out things that of course couldn’t be discovered offline, and it was a good lesson in how much all of us, from 7 through 87, have integrated the Internet into our day-to-day lives.

But I really can’t complain. We had a great week in the sun, with lots of kids, dogs and naps and only one day of rain. Here are a few of Dalan’s pictures of Duncan in the lake…

Would you have believed there was anywhere in the U.S. where you couldn’t find some backup wifi access when your vacation spot’s router got zapped???? Well, I found one… Nice scenery, though. Home on Saturday…..

Washington dumps its bad news on the press on Fridays; reporters are theoretically on the way to the shore or the mountains and won’t pay much attention. Scott Shane and Eric Lichtblau stayed around to write up the results of Steven J Hatfill, M.D. vs Attorney General John Ashcroft, U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, et al. According to their story in The New York Times today, the five-year-old lawsuit was settled yesterday, with the Department of Justice to pay $2.825 million in cash plus a 20-year annuity yielding $150,000 a year.

In the 2002 anthrax scare, Hatfill was publicly listed as a “person of interest” by then-Attorney General Ashcroft, and was followed by FBI investigators and the press for months. The Times article asserted,

After Dr. Hatfill came under suspicion in the anthrax case in 2002, an F.B.I. surveillance team began following him everywhere, and a small motorcade sometimes trailed his car around Washington.

In May 2003, an F.B.I. surveillance car ran over Dr. Hatfill’s foot in Georgetown as he approached the car to take the driver’s picture. He was given a ticket for “walking to create a hazard” and was fined $5.

According to the complaint, federal employees “have ruined Dr. Hatfill’s current and future employment prospects by repeatedly leaking anonymous, defamatory, and erroneous information about his character and criminal culpability to the news media, expecting that it would be widely disseminated.” The text of the 2003 suit provides detailed allegations of numerous civil rights violations by the government in the investigation of Dr. Hatfill.

There have been costs for the media also. Toni Locy, formerly of USA Today, still faces a contempt order for refusing to reveal her source in the case. Hatfill’s suit against Vanity Fair and Reader’s Digest was reportedly settled last year. And he is appealing the dismissal of a separate suit against Nicholas D Kristof and The New York Times.

A Justice Department statement yesterday admitted no liability. Representative Rush Holt (D-NJ) commented,

As today’s settlement announcement confirms, this case was botched from the very beginning… The F.B.I. did a poor job of collecting evidence, and then inappropriately focused on one individual as a suspect for too long, developing an erroneous theory of the case that has led to this very expensive dead end.

Dr. Hatfill’s attorneys summarized: “We can only hope that the individuals and institutions involved are sufficiently chastened by this episode to deter similar destruction of private citizens in the future — and that we will all read anonymously sourced news reports with a great deal more skepticism.” I strongly support these hopes. There is plenty of criticism to go around for the handling of this investigation, both for the government and for the press. If any good can come from it, it will be the potential of the incident to become a cautionary tale for our institutions, provoking more careful (and lawful) behavior….. for economic reasons, if not for ethical ones.

I just heard a bit of Senator McCain’s speech at a GM assembly plant in Warren, Ohio this morning. He referred to his earlier proposal for a summer “gas tax holiday.” In mid-April he was challenged about his proposal’s potential effectiveness, and he replied,

Let’s have some straight talk, it’s not a huge amount of money. But it might be nice to be able to save a few bucks and maybe buy something else the next time that they have to fill up their gas tank and say, “You know I’m going to be able to afford that little expense now.” A little psychological boost. That’s what I think it would help.

This morning he continued that theme, explaining that his “gas tax holiday” proposal wasn’t meant to be a way to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. But he was talking with a truck driver the other day, and “Wouldn’t it be nice,” he said “if we could give him a break” from the 24 1/2 cent per gallon tax on diesel? The truck driver agreed that it would be nice.

Hey, it would be nice if someone offered me a job earning, say, $100,000 per year. It would be nice if the air conditioning were working in my car, too. Heck, it would be nice if I’d win the lottery tomorrow.

Here are a couple of questions I’d like to ask Senator McCain’s friendly truck driver.

Wouldn’t it be nice if you felt confident that the bridge you’re driving over won’t fall down and there isn’t a chuck hole around that curve that’s going to blow one of your tires? If given a choice between making sure maintenance repairs are made to roads and bridges this year and saving 24 1/2 cents per gallon for a couple of months which would you choose?

Wouldn’t it be nice if the oil companies would pass the 24 1/2 cent per gallon savings on to you if the federal government cuts out the gas tax this summer? Do you believe that would happen, or would the oil companies keep that extra 24 1/2 cents and then pass continued increases on to you?

I wonder how that truck driver would answer today. I wonder whether this “feel good” strategy will be effective in generating votes. And as long as I’m wishing,

Wouldn’t it be nice if someone would display some leadership and develop some responsible energy policies and lead the public to support them and Congess to approve them…. policies not locked into the vested interests of either the oil lobby or the environmental lobby…. policies that lay out a realistic path to energy independence… policies that don’t reward one small segment of society at the expense of the vast majority… But let’s have a little straight talk; it would be naive to think we can wish our problems away. Eh?