Trust Kills

Why is it that we follow others? If we are truly a nation built on the individuality of people, why do some people rise while others fall? Why do some people allow themselves to be herded to blindly follow a leader that may or may not be the right person for the job? If history has taught us anything, it should be this – never trust your leaders.

Trust is not something that should be offered to leaders, especially political leaders. I do not care if the man or woman can perform miracles; you have to doubt your leaders at all times. Doubting your leader should be mandatory because it keeps you thinking, questioning and analyzing their movements and actions. Its doubt that allows you to see a "leader" for what they truly are – your equal that is capable of making mistakes and errors just like you. Doubt helps you to understand that leaders are not better than you because they are simply operating on authority you gave them and you can take away.

I understand that there are people that need to trust their leaders, but that need is flawed. Trust is something that should be earned and it simply cannot be done on a national level. The people of this country can't sit back and claim to know the President; they don't know him at all. They know the image and the brand. They know the shiny exterior that is packaged and presented to the world, not the real person. I don't care if you have seen a President hug their children and kiss their wives – that is nothing more than a framed snippet presented to make the leader more likeable to the "common" people that are so willing to give away their own authority in the world.

Yes, many of you will read this and think I am talking about Obama followers, but others will look at this see Bush followers. It doesn't matter. Apply it to whomever you want but you must understand that if you are willing to trust a leader without question, you are doomed. After all, the people of Germany trusted Hitler because he was a moving and powerful leader that rescued the nation from a crushing depression and restored national pride lost during World War I. Look what happened to that nation when trust was given rather than doubt.

When will we learn to attack problems in the proper order?

Ahhh…electric cars. Clean. Safe. Eco-friendly. These babies don't produce the noxious gasses that their gasoline driven brethren create. Global warming will abate as the CO₂ levels drop with the ever decreasing population of gasoline-driven automobiles. The consumer will not be beholden to the gas company and their ever-fluctuating prices. National security will improve as we reduce the dependence our nation has on foreign oil imports. It will simply make the Earth a better place. Right?

As Detroit and Japan push forward on the release of new electric plug-in vehicles, we need to reexamine our condemnation of the auto industry as the chief party responsible for global warming. Plug-in vehicles sound great to most Americans because we simply plug them in and "POOF" – no more combustion engine pollution. The problem with electric cars is the myth that they are the solution to our problems.

Americans and the rest of the world face a bigger problem than our vehicles and that is our energy industry. Beyond the obvious stranglehold that oil producing nations have over the world we have big problems. Oil is the BIGGEST energy producer on the planet (not to mention a primary source for plastics). In the US, nearly 40% of ALL energy produced in the country is created by oil and most of that energy produced is done by vehicles.

So what happens when we take all of the power producing vehicles offline and put the burden on our aging power grid? What happens we have to nearly double the capacity of our aging grid? We have to build more power plants.

New power plants will probably result in new coal plants and an increase in the ever-growing demand for coal. Currently, 51% of our electricity comes from coal and that isn't likely to change anytime soon. People seem to be on a "clean coal" kick to include top Democrats like Obama. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "clean coal". No matter how much you scrub the gasses or trap them in underground storage facilities, there is still a host of environmental issues involved like the destruction of mountains, rivers and streams through mountaintop removal mining techniques.

Sadly, renewable energy sources are expensive to install (although the prices are dropping) and the profits are minimal compared to those the energy industry is used to seeing. That means they aren't truly motivated to implement the cleaner energy sources. Also, the large scale national grids that are plagued by transmission losses and health risks make the sale of energy more profitable; this eliminates their interest in more sustainable, secure and eco-friendly microgrids.

We have attacked our environmental problems in reverse. Rather than addressing the need to double the capacity of electric power production FIRST, we have pushed for the production of vehicles that will drain an already overtaxed system. This will most assuredly result in haphazard regulations and lenient rules that will allow the power industry to expand its production capabilities with cheap, dirty energy.

Source Department of Energy - Annual Energy Review 2007

 

 

First off, let me start by saying that Obama gave me the one major change I wanted out of the last election cycle - an end to the presidency of George W Bush. So for me, anything else that changes (for the better) is gravy. For me he has done some great things to help protect women's reproductive choice (GRAVY!).
The reason I ask this is because for so many people, they voted for a dream in 2008 not reality.
They voted for the troops to be magically transported out of dangerous warzones. However, they got the very approach that McCain promised - a coordinated withdrawal of combat troops while leaving a peacekeeping force to assist the Iraqis that would be withdrawn (hopefully) in a year or so but would stay as long as needed if something changed (*cough* remember McCain's 100 years comment?)
They voted to end Guantanamo. However the reality is the closure of the prison leaves 100s of terrorists without anywhere to go (we don't want them here, their countries dont want them). The prison is set to close in a year but where will those 200+ prisoners go? I personally doubt that they will make their way to mainland America so they will probably end up at one of the secret prisons we run (or our allies run on our behalf).
They voted for a new kind of "non-partisan" politics. However we have all seen that both the Republicans and the Democrats (Obama included) are firmly entrenched in their party alliances and wars. Just because Pres Obama declares a bill he wrote to be "non-partisan" does not make it true. You can not expect people to go completely against their ideology and beliefs to accept legislation that is radically different. It didn't work under Republican rule and it wont work under Democrat rule.
They voted for an end to lobbyists that are beholden to large corporations and the rich. President Obama even declared that his administration would be lobbyist free. However, he backtracked on that promise within days of making it by hiring multiple lobbyists who owe companies like Raytheon massive favors.
They voted for Obama because he would restore the USA's standing in the world and bring peace. The reality is that plenty of countries simply don't like us and they haven't liked us for generations - with or without George W Bush.
Now, I don;t want President Obama to fail. In fact, I want him succeed. I just know that there were a LOT of naive people that believed Obama to be this mythical figure that could solve the world's woes. They believed he would bring peace while protecting us from all harm. They believed he would bring an economic revival that would make the poor rich (or at least middle class). They thought he would fix our educational system. They thought he had magic in him that would fix everything. So I wonder this, at what point will their fantasy view of Obama end and reality set in?
Worse yet, will their inevitable disillusionment with Obama lead to a return to their apathetic voting practices? I would hate to see Sarah Palin come into power because Democrats decide to not vote (thats how we got Bush!)

Flag Burning - Yay or Nay?

OK, so today I received a rather annoying traffic ticket because I drove down a public side-street that has been closed to local residents only. While researching the laws to find out how I am being denied access to a tax-payer maintained road that had its snow plowed before mine and is only 500 feet from my home (seems local to me), I found an interesting local law.

Sec. 19-4. Flag and coat of arms.
(a) Definitions. The words "flag," "standard," "color," "ensign," "cost-of-arms" and "shield," as used in this section, shall include any flag, standard, color, ensign, cost-of-arms and shield or copy, picture or representation thereof made of any substance or represented or produced thereon, and of any size, evidently purporting to be such flag, standard, color, ensign, coat-of-arms or shield of the United States or of this state or a copy, picture or representation thereof.
(b) Exhibition and display of flag. It shall be unlawful for any person within the city to in any manner for exhibition or display:
(1) Place or cause to be placed any word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing or advertisement of any nature upon any flag, standard, color, ensign, coat-of-arms or shield of the United States or of this state or authorized by any law of the United States or of this state;
(2) Expose to public view any flag, standard, color, ensign, coat-of-arms or shield upon which shall have been printed, painted or otherwise produced or to which shall have been attached, appended, affixed or annexed any such word, figure, mark, picture, design, drawing or advertisement; or
(3) Expose to public view for sale, manufacture or otherwise or to sell, give or have in possession for sale, for gift or for use for any purpose any substance being an article of merchandise, receptacle, or thing for holding or carrying merchandise upon or to which shall have been produced or attached any such flag, standard, color, ensign, coat-of-arms or shield in order to advertise, call attention to, decorate, mark or distinguish such article or substance.
(c) Mutilation of flag. It shall be unlawful for any person within the city who shall publicly mutilate, deface, defile, defy, trample upon or by word or act cast contempt upon any such flag, standard, color, ensign, coat-of-arms or shield.
(d) Exceptions. This section shall not apply to any act permitted by the statutes of the United States or of this state or by the United States army and navy regulations, nor shall it apply to any printed or written document or production, stationery, ornament, picture or jewelry whereon shall be depicted such flag, standard, color, ensign, coat-of-arms or shield with no design or words thereon and disconnected with any advertisement.
(Ord. No. 75-51, §§ 13.1--13.4, 2-11-75)
State law references: Similar provisions, MCL 750.244 et seq., MSA 28.441 et seq.

So then I researched the State of Michigan laws which say the same thing. I guess it never occurred to me that the flag burning amendment would be pointless in this state because it was already illegal. I probably also didn't notice because burning a flag never seemed like something I wanted to do (with my luck my hair would go up with the nylon flag). However I think that American citizens should have the right to burn a flag in protest just like the colonist burned the British flag and effigies of the king during the Revolution.

So what do you think - should flag burning (and other form of flag "desecration") be banned?

I know that I won't be doing it any time soon because, as an Army brat, I was brought up to look at the Flag a certain way. However - that does not mean that I should be allowed to tell others that they cannot burn one in protest.

Please note - you cannot equate burning a flag with urinating or defecating on it. Both of those acts are considered indecent in public (as they should be) so they are automatically out of the "desecration" category.