Armed Neighborhood Watch scares me as much as criminals…

The shooting death of a black teenager in Florida brings forth the issues of black people being suspect for just being black or racial profiling, stand your ground gun laws that give citizens wider leeway is shooting people and race relations in general, but it seems to me one of the more pressing issues is self-appointed, armed citizen cops.

The only people who really know or knew what happened in the shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida are him (but he is dead) and George Zimmerman, the shooter.

There is a lot of conjecture, much based on racial prejudice and animosity on both sides.

And on the web you can find character assassinations (based on truth or not) on both characters.

The victim was a black teenager and the shooter is described as being of Peruvian and white descent, 29 years or so old.

The truth likely is that there was blame on both sides, although since Martin was reportedly unarmed, the weight falls heavily on Zimmerman. Zimmerman claims he was attacked and was acting in self defense. But some of what has come out so far makes it appear that it was not as simple as that or at least complicated by the fact he may (or not) have provoked the attack.

But what bothers me in all of this is that besides the worst thing, a teenager is shot to death walking down a street, is the idea of vigilantism — a Neighborhood Watch commander, as Zimmerman is described as being, carrying a gun and going after someone. While he claims he was attacked, I believe it has also been established that he took it upon himself to follow young Martin and bug him about what he was doing at night in the neighborhood.

Excuse me. I think Neighborhood Watch people are just supposed to observe and report things to the authorities. In fact, I heard part of a 911 tape and the person representing authority on the other end was telling Zimmerman to stay put and not follow. Zimmerman complained that “they always get away…” and did not follow that instruction.

Supposedly Young Martin was doing nothing more than carrying back snacks from a store to where he was staying. Zimmerman claimed the young man was poking around the area, which in and of itself, depending on what he meant, is not illegal (unless you’re trespassing, I guess), but at night is not a good thing to do — you might get bit by someone’s dog at the least or killed at the most (even if shooting you is not legal).

I won’t even go into the subject of a hoodie, the garment that Martin was wearing, and which some contend led Zimmerman to rightly surmise the young man was up to no good because some so-called “ganstas” wear them, except to say I wear a kind of light sweat jacket with a hood in my work (a kind of hoodie, I guess). Oh, and I am white and I am not a gangsta.

Okay, I will say something more on that. If you dress like a bad guy (or gal) you might be taken for one. But that has nothing to do with whether Zimmerman or anyone else in his position should have shot someone. Again, what bothers me is regular citizens acting like the police or for that matter self-appointed militias. I’m no more afraid of bad guys or big government than I am of so-called citizens committees (or I guess Neighborhood Watch in the Zimmerman manner) or militias.

As far as the Stand Your Ground doctrine that allows citizens to use deadly force in some jurisdictions, to include Florida, and in some situations, I think the burden has to weigh somewhat heavier on the shooter and should only hold in clear self-defense situations, if not we have a shooting free for all with a lot of innocent victims.

P.s.

But in cases where there is an intruder into or onto someone’s private domain (to include inside and outside) and such person can show that he or she logically feared for his or her life, I think that should be seriously considered in exonerating the shooter — but of course that has nothing to do with the Trayvon Martin case.

The U.S. needs to return to the happy medium between the welfare state and the one per centers vs. the 99 per centers…

A lot of people might think that down-home simple folks, such as the kind always pictured enduring the Great Depression — hey buddy can you spare me a dime?– have to be leftist or liberal or at least Democrat in their outlook, with Franklin Delano Roosevelt (the traitor to his rich brethren) being the Great Savior.

But maybe this is not new, but  a lot of the lower segment of society — I don’t mean low lifes, I just mean not in the upper middle or even middle class — decry leftists and liberals and Democrats as Godless and against American values and as being traitors and taxers.

I want to make this simple (but of course I can’t). Probably a long time ago when things were desperate people were looking for anything to pull them out of their misery. We do know that a lot of folks way back when — the desperate 30s — flirted with things like communism, but if alive today would or will not admit it.

But things got better, as they always do, just not always soon enough.

A lot of people of all political and ideological persuasions since those desperate times have taken advantage of  government social programs — Social Security (the biggie), student aid, food stamps, free or reduced school lunches, Medicare, Medicaid, government loans or even grants to business (some would not call that a social program, but really…), public education, unemployment compensation (that’s a popular one), government-funded disability benefits (another big one), aid to families with dependent children, and so on. And I should add most people take advantage of consumer protection rules and clean water rules, and safety at the work place rules — all things conservatives seem to abhor, at least in their rhetoric.

But a lot of people who have abandoned liberalism or progressivism or just the Democratic Party, will take any benefit available and say, “I worked for it; I deserve it”. They may have or may not and a lot depends on how one defines all that.

Meantime, upstanding hardworking people see not upstanding and not hardworking people take advantage of all manner of handouts. In any well-meaning program, there will always be people who take advantage. Some people shrug this off and just say, unfortunately that is the cost of doing the right thing. You try to control it, but people are clever and it costs a lot to control it. My late wife worked for a time as a food stamp eligibility worker. At first she actually went out and made home visits. That was cut out, to save money of course. Some would argue, though, that the money saved would be offset by the cheaters now free to cheat away.

The people who probably resent social programs and those who support them (usually Democrats in the greatest numbers) the most are those caught in the middle, often referred to as the “working poor”. They have a large enough income to not be considered eligible for help, but may well need it just the same.

I know the stories of the welfare queens, first begun I think by Ronald Reagan when he got into politics, are often exaggerated, making it sound as if that were the norm, but they do exist. Cheating the system exists on a large scale. Anyone who has their eyes and ears open knows this — well maybe not some who live in an insulated class and I am not putting them down by saying that, I’m just saying…

So I said all that to explain the phenomenon of people seemingly voting against their own interests by supporting Republicans who in fact really do not represent their interests generally.

There must be a happy medium between the welfare state, which eventually sucks the life out of an economy and a society, witness the problems in Europe, and a society of the one per centers versus the 99 per centers, between the extremely rich and the poor, with a severely eroded middle class.

I believe history shows that way back when, way back even before the U.S. existed, it was an industrious middle class who replaced the feudal system and who brought us the kind of democracy we enjoy today here in America.

A society without a middle class or a large enough one and where wealth is concentrated among a minority results in strife like we see (or ignore) in Mexico today. In some ways the drug war there may be a kind of proxy war between the haves and have nots, even though in reality the multitude of people just want peaceful lives (but they are conflicted because of all the corruption and all the money flowing upwards).

The United States needs to return to that happy medium.

The argument for no taxes at all is no more valid than the one for getting all the taxes out of the wealthy.

P.s.

Political correctness, pushed by many in the liberal camp (not all), is another thing that has given progressivism a bad name. Yes it is nice that telling racist jokes at the work place has become an official taboo, but simply stating fact or stating one’s opinion, or reading or writing true literature (which includes the best and worst of a society and all its warts) should not be prohibited if we are to have a free and thinking society. And we don’t need any Orwellian Newspeak to channel or limit our thinking either, thank you.

If there is no pay for troops at war, then there should be no pay for anyone in government and anyone with anything to do with withholding that pay should resign in disgrace…

While I find the mantra of “support the troops” tiresome in that it is a device used to blackmail people into supporting a particular policy, I find the idea of not paying them, especially ones in the field, to be unconscionable.

Yet once again we hear that threat, this time indirectly from the outgoing chairman of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen. I don’t mean it is his fault, but he says he does not know for sure whether troops in Afghanistan and elsewhere would be paid (immediately, most likely later, though) if the government defaults on its debts by congress and  the president not okaying a raise in the debt ceiling.

Seems to me that while the ultra-conservative and or/ neocon war mongers are the ones who usually use that mantra of “support the troops” as blackmail, this might be a form of blackmail from the other side, even though I doubt the admiral is part and party to it, other than the fact he has gotten no assurances from the administration that the troops would be paid.

Personally I think troops, especially those in combat areas, have to be paid if anyone can be paid.

I could not support any politician, whether he be the president, or he or she a  member of congress — Senate and House — and no matter what political party he or she is a member of who had anything to do withholding pay to the troops or did nothing to make sure they were paid.

As a matter of fact, I would expect anyone who had any part in withholding pay from the troops to resign and/or be subject to impeachment (although, technically that may not be an impeachable offense).

How could you pay anyone in good conscience without paying those who put their life on the line in your name (regardless of the merits of the policies that sent them there)?

The story that inspired this blog post is:

http://www.dawn.com/2011/07/30/unclear-if-us-will-be-able-to-pay-troops-on-time-mullen.html

God or Mother Nature makes a statement down south; are we jealous we don‘t have royalty?

BLOGGER’S NOTE: I’m going to try to use larger type for these posts in the future — but for now, maybe just up the type size on your own screen.

——–

Say it’s God or say it is Mother Nature, but natural forces have shown who’s boss in the Southern U.S.

As I look out at the beautiful view from my apartment, the greenery of the riparian jungle, with a full stomach, and in quiet tranquility, I think about the images of devastation and the anguish on the faces of some of those in Alabama and elsewhere in the South who were (are) victims of one of the worst onslaughts of multiple and incredibly strong tornadoes in history, with 300 or more dead and whole towns virtually destroyed. These images I saw on my computer thanks to the NBC Nightly News. I’ve been on the road all week and barely saw any of it until now. NBC did a good job of reporting, I thought.

The landscape looked like an atomic bomb had blown through.

Certainly the federal government can and should do everything in its power to help in the rescue effort and restore life as best it can down there. From all reports, the people, as a whole, are survivors, quite capable of doing for themselves with what they have. But they are follow citizens who deserve all the help possible.

This is where the National Guard and even the Army and other services need to be, and to an extent are, as far as I know. Just tried to glean more about that off the web. All I found is that National Guard troops were backing up overwhelmed local police chasing down looters. Looters should be shot on sight, I would say (but of course then there could be mistakes — but how low can one get?).

But it is far more important to look inward and help ourselves than it is to try to remake the rest of the world.

Already there has been speculation that global warming or man-induced climate change may have contributed to the unusual number and size of the tornadoes. This is something we need to know about, but I am afraid that it all will just get caught up in the political fight over what should be a scientific question.

While I have always realized that so-called conservatives balk at environmental concerns because they don’t want to be bothered by what they see as hindrances to their profits and that they prefer to worship at the altar in the shape of the almighty dollar, rather than protect what God gave them, I now have heard another explanation:

A caller to a talk show said that socialists want to use so-called environmental concerns as leverage to get government to force people into socialistic practices.

But I would prefer to judge things by real science, not political science.

Real science may or may not go against capitalistic practices, but it will weed out environmental extremism, if you can divorce science from politics.

I’ve noticed that the need to make money — and the need is real of course — always seems to put people at a conflict with nature. An example: after the Gulf oil gusher disaster, people whose livelihoods depend upon the oil industry could not wait to get back to drilling in the deep water, while those whose livelihoods depend upon the natural fishery of the Gulf needed things to be cleaned up and possibly tighter regulations on drilling. And you cannot eat or drink oil. But then again, many can’t buy eats or drink without oil money.

We humans have a  natural habit of concentrating more on short-term gain than long-term sustainability (killing the goose that laid the golden egg and all).

Meanwhile, no matter what we do, we are at the mercy of God or Mother Nature, if you will.

—————-.

Also caught up on the Royal wedding. I had thought I was not interested. But it is nice to see tradition lives. And while the very next in line seems kind of a dud — sorry Charlie — his son Prince William would look good, kingly, on the throne, with his fine new wife, commoner, turn royal Kate Middleton at his side. Hopefully she will not be the wild distraction the royal family has recently suffered from on the female side — no real offense meant to these women. They just apparently were not cut out to go along with the often stodgy royal program.

I think many in the U.S. are a little jealous that the British have something to look up to. Our own so-called elite have let us down.

It is increasingly difficult to be a statesman in the atmosphere of modern American politics that seems more like a tawdry, vulgar circus than a sober discussion or debate on governmental policies.

Although the British royals have little to no political power, they give that nation a sense of dignity as representatives of the state, Great Britain, and its dominions.

I now understand why in the United States we have gone through periods of what has been called the Imperial Presidency — I think Ronald Reagan being the last actor (literally and figuratively at the same time) in that show.

I do recall that when Britain went to take back the Falklands from Argentina, many years ago now, then Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher went to the Queen to announce her intentions and get the monarch’s blessing.

And give it to the Brits: they had a successful little war down there. I say, good show!

Government employees bribe elected officials into giving them perks with their power as a voting block…

When economic times were somewhat better or at least not as unstable, maybe no one paid that much attention to public employee salaries and retirement benefits, except maybe a lot of people thought it might be nice to get a government job.

But now I read in the LA Times that California Gov. Jerry Brown wants to plug a loophole or provision that allows state workers to collect increased retirement benefits for years they did not even work for the state. It’s called “air time”. I don’t need to go into the details because that is not the point here. I’ll just note that the story explained the provision was originally written up on the behalf of staffers for elected office holders who did not draw state wages while they campaigned for their bosses. But in order to make the thing fly, the perk was given to all state employees. It allowed them to buy into a program that was kind of like an annuity you might buy on the private market, only with a lot better payout — a whole lot better, and at the taxpayers‘ expense.

Not to pick on poor former Gov. Gray Davis, but I think the story said that he signed the measure into law after originally opposing it because he needed the votes from the employees in his bid to fight of the recall in which ultimately he was not successful.

But that is definitely how it goes in these things. If you scratch your head and try to figure out what our elected officials were thinking when they granted all these lavish retirement programs to government employees, the answer is that it is a way to get votes.

I first noticed this in local elections in the small (in population) county where I first worked as a newspaper reporter. The only real major local voting block was the local county employees’ association, so candidates for local office always sought to curry favor with them. Kind of ironic, elected representatives of the people look out for government employees (who are of course people too) first and then the regular taxpaying-citizens second.

Once upon a time we were taught that the theory was that government jobs should be stable and the benefits fairly good but in return they might not pay as much as private employment which itself in return could be risky on the stability side.

But over the years salaries and the benefits grew like Topsy in public employment and the public was not paying attention or was considering government employment themselves on an individual basis.

But unless we want to enter into some kind of state socialism, we can’t all work for the government. And even if we did, well, those systems just don’t seem to work over the long run.

And this may be extreme but I think if I could find out which elected officials voted for the most egregious of these over-inflated perks, I’d cast my vote against them where I could in the next election and write them a note telling them why.

P.s.

You know I probably will not do that … and you know? If I had had any sense I would have gotten a government job in that county where I started as a reporter and would have been retired now…

Are corporate taxes really too high in U.S.? and, you could pay lower taxes in Oklahoma, but you’d have to live in Oklahoma…

Time and time again I hear the claim from the pro-business or conservative set that corporate taxes in the U.S. are uncompetitively high and that is why the U.S. is at a competitive disadvantage and furthermore that taxes in California are sky high and that is why the Golden State is seen as unfriendly to business and therefore that is why California government is in such dire economic straits.

The notion that corporate taxes are higher in the U.S. than in other industrialized nations is virtually accepted as a truism among the conservative/pro-business set.

I really don’t feel I know the facts in this and I can find no easy way to get the answer.

At first reading, all I get from Wikipedia is that comparing corporate tax rates among nations is difficult because of the complexity of tax laws.

While I hear the constant refrain from Republicans on the radio that corporate taxes are too high and are higher here in the U.S. than other industrial nations, I just heard an admittedly left (or Democratic) – leaning “expert” claim that corporate tax rates in the U.S. are lower than many of the other industrialized nations — who to believe???

Also I just heard on the radio (well recently, now) and read an article that claims that far from business unfriendly, California has lower tax rates than even Texas, which seems to hold the claim among the conservative/business set that it is the most friendly to business state  — of course I do not know the accuracy of this article, interestingly enough, written by a chamber of commerce,  and that has to be difficult because chamber hacks must always slant articles to claim that taxes are too high, unless it is in their own territory and they are trying to attract businesses.

I also read that California offers a number of tax breaks to businesses, despite the actual tax rate. So businesses that know how to take advantage of such incentives or to game the system put themselves at an advantage.

And I also heard that despite Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman’s call to fire a lot of state workers to save money, California — the most populous state in the union — actually has fewer state employees per capita than many other states (but the statistics to back up this claim might be suspect — you have to realize that lobbyists, say for the public employee unions, churn out all kinds of propaganda and contact news outlets suggesting good story ideas).

Unfortunately those seeking the truth in all of this are at the mercy of those who under the guise of providing information actually provide one-sided propaganda — whose statistics do you want to believe? Objective analyses are not so easy to come by. The press has been weakened in this regard by falling profits of major old-time reliable news outlets and the pressure to produce more copy with fewer staff members and to not waste time on all that investigative stuff. Thank heavens that some outlets, such as the LA Times, are still at it, finding out such things as the inflated city manager and other top employee salaries in the city of Bell and other communities.

———————-

Add 1:

And now  I read a news story that reminds me that not only City of Bell managerial staff were raking in the dough, so were four elected and part-time city councilmen, to the tune of $100,000 per year each. The city manager was essentially paying himself close to $800,000 per year, plus it was estimated he netted some $1.5 million from illegally created contracts. In fact city officials are charged with misappropriating $5.5 million from the city where one in six people live in poverty — all this according to an Associated Press story.

———————————– 

(Belying to an extent my assertion of the lack of media watchdogs are those fact check or keeping-them-honest features you see from time to time — I hope that instant research is accurate.)

And here’s another point:

If you live and work and/or run a business in California, you might get by with cheaper taxes in, say, Oklahoma. But you would have to live and work in Oklahoma (no offense intended to Oklahoma).

Few people like taxes, but they are necessary in order to have a government and government is necessary in order to prevent chaos. While we may say some taxes are too high, we may actually be objecting to how they are being used. As long as the taxes are being used for a legitimate public purpose, it seems to me that it is wrong to simply call them unjust (although they still might be too high). But if they are really being used literally to line the pockets of public officials, such as was exposed in the Southern California community of Bell, then of course they are unjust. But other than that, the reason taxes are what they are is the result of policy made by elected representatives put into office by the vote of the people. It is not necessarily the government that is the enemy, it may be the majority of the people who indirectly gave their sanction to the policies government carries out by voting those who voted in the policies in the first place, or by being too busy, such as Meg Whitman claimed to be, to pay attention in the first place.

——————————-

Add 2:

As an afterthought, I now realize that I should have mentioned that regardless of tax rates in the U.S. we always hear those stories about various major multi-billion corporations paying zero taxes, due to tax loopholes. So really the term tax rate becomes nearly meaningless.

————————————-

 P.s.

I try not be anti-business, for even though I do not own a business, I know that most of us earn our living thanks to business. Then I hear this caller on a right-wing radio talk show say that he runs a small business in California and that he does not think taxes are the problem. What is the problem? Employees in California have too many rights. It’s a challenge for me to be pro-business — but I try.

Social programs are a tough sale with behavior of many who use them, such as going out to Taco Bell instead of fixing a cheaper home-cooked meal

I’ve always considered myself a supporter of government social programs, in general anyway — not necessarily every program out there.

But with the behavior of those who use them, I’m afraid it’s becoming a tougher and tougher sale to those who either are against them or at least dubious about them.

This came to my mind yesterday evening as I was cruising along the interstate with my load of tomatoes.

An unemployed woman was being interviewed by NPR and she was asked how being unemployed for the extended period she has been without a job changed her lifestyle. Her answer was that her family does not go out to dinner at restaurants anymore; they go to Taco Bell.

Maybe I’m taking it somewhat out of context or misinterpreting, but it seems to me she is saying that because she does not have enough money she cannot go out to eat, but she has to go somewhere to get food, so she goes to Taco Bell (some would call that going out to eat).

In my simple mind I was wondering if it occurred to her that you can buy food at a grocery store and prepare more economical and more nutritious meals at home.

In my 1950s/60s childhood the only time we went out to dinner, to include to what we used to call drive-in restaurants, with few exceptions, was when we were on the road (vacations, primarily).

Something else I caught in the interview, the woman referred to a daughter and her kids living in the home, and she was thankful that they did get some support from a government program. No mention of a man anywhere.

Now I don’t know the rest of their story — it could be that the father of her daughter’s kids is deceased. But I suspect it’s the same old story. A single mother — with the help of grandma — is raiding the kids.

Single mothers raising kids is often seen as a problem in the black communities, but it is really the norm now among black and white.

What we have here is a near complete break down of society. Families are created with no thought as to how they will be supported. There is a saying that “the Lord will provide”. But the truth is the government or the taxpayers will provide.

Now I know a woman whose husband died many long years ago. Fortunately she received private life insurance and just as fortunately she was able to take advantage of student aid made possible by government programs put into place by one of the king of social programs President Lyndon Johnson. She was able to get a college education and get into a field that provided her with excellent employment and she is now retired. So, thanks to private life insurance and government education benefits she was able to be a productive and self-sufficient member of society. And that’s a good thing.

But sadly for a large portion of society, government benefits have become an accepted way of life.

I used to live near a government food stamp center. Once a month the parking lot would be filled with gas-guzzling boat cars and people standing around smoking cigarettes.

Government aid recipients ensure the continuation of their poverty with their life habits and at the same time sour the atmosphere for those who could really use government help to get on their feet and do something positive.

Socialism is becoming a harder and harder sale.

Voting is important, if more people did politicians would have to make some sense…

Today’s election day, but I already voted absentee — have been doing that for years. I never have understood why anyone would say they don’t have time to vote. But as I have blogged before, I would just as soon people who don’t follow the issues and don’t think they have time for it not bother.

On the other hand, we might be better off if more citizens kept abreast of the issues and were ready to hold politicians’ feet to the fire and were not as susceptible to their lies or half-truths through their own ignorance.

As it stands now, most candidates on the state and national level just raise money, get their mindless talking points and ready sound bites down and that’s it. Few people seem to have patience or interest for debates and even when they do, the so-called debates still usually produce platitudes and sound bites. A true debate format is seldom if ever used. But it would be refreshing to hear one, with each candidate having to present his or her case backed up by some evidence and then be able to rebut his or her opponent’s case.

The question and answer so-called debate form usually amounts to either loaded or softball questions. The candidate is either made to answer a question that makes him or her out to be in the wrong no matter how answered or he or she is thrown a softball (Larry King like) that sets the candidate up to look good.

If more people kept up on the issues maybe they would not be so shocked when things went to hell. I think the Tea Party sounds for the most part like a bunch of folks who never paid attention and then said: how did this happen? It happened because you were asleep at the switch and did not make your feelings known via the ballot box.

Then there are those who voted once but their candidate did not win, so they lost interest. If the only reason you see for voting is to see your candidate win, I think you’re missing the point. You have no control how others will vote (unless you go around convincing people yourself), but chances are there are many other like-minded folks around and all of your votes together make a statement, even if your candidate or ballot issue does not come out ahead.

If you are in a small minority, you do have an uphill battle and maybe no chance to win, but as it stands now since only a fraction of eligible voters even bother to cast a ballot, candidates know they do not have to present cogent arguments. They only have to preach to the choir or say the things that will make sure the extremists on the right or left will vote, since for some reason they are the most likely ones to vote.

If politicians knew they had to persuade rational and objective-minded voters, especially those in the broad middle ground, we might get a different more reasonable and more positively effective type candidate.

But while I wished more of the electorate would vote, I think that better than get out the vote programs would be to provide a new emphasis on civics in the schools.

As a free nation, whose citizens are allowed to vote, we as a whole pretty much deserve what we get and have to suffer the consequences.

For those of us who do pay attention and vote, it is not our fault. Sometimes I am in circles where I feel almost ashamed that I keep up with the issues and try to look at them in an objective manner. But I shouldn’t.

P.s.

I do not favor the idea of a legal requirement for citizens to vote, as is the case in Australia, though.

ADD 1: Well, on second thought, maybe it isn’t so easy to vote or maybe one should make sure to vote absentee rather than in person. Just saw a video and story about California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger having his ballot rejected because it appeared he had voted for two opposing candidates in the primary.  Just like a politician, trying to have it both ways or like the Democrats in Chicago used to say: “vote early and vote often”.

Gulf Oil disaster a bigger threat than Afghanistan

A month after the disaster of the exploding of the BP Deep Horizon platform and subsequent uncontrolled underwater oil gusher in the Gulf of Mexico I have now seen (on TV) the gooey think oil washing up on the Louisiana mainland and the oil-covered birds and turtles and realize there has to be one heck a of a lot of fish threatened and already killed as well as other sea life, not to mention the direct threat to human life. It’s shaping up to be an ecological disaster of gargantuan proportions — maybe the worst man-caused disaster of all times.

I can’t believe BP is now saying it could be August before it gets the underwater gusher, spewing out thousands to millions of barrels of oil, plugged. This disaster has thought to already have surpassed the Exxon Valdez spill (and that was a finite amount since it came out of a tanker — the current one is virtually unlimited).

Exact numbers or estimates of oil escaped (and to escape) into the ecosystem are hard to come by and estimates are all over the board, but millions of barrels by the time its all over (if it is to end) will suffice for now.

And I am incredulous that from what I am hearing and reading the Obama administration, although trying to be in charge, I guess, is at the mercy of BP. For nearly a month now we find BP has been withholding info — to include live video feeds, from which independent scientists can calculate the actual volume of the leak. We find that BP apparently skimped on and short circuited or ignored various safety requirements.

This is somewhat different from Katrina in that something could have clearly been done and done a lot sooner there. I mean when the news media could get in, why couldn’t the rescuers? And why were some brave people able to walk or swim out while thousands were left stranded, waving in desperation to TV cameras mounted on overhead helicopters? A group of old people in a rest home was left to drown — and all President Bush could do is fly over at high altitude — his wife to explain years later that he didn’t want to cause a fuss and distract from the emergency effort, such as it was in the first few days.

In the current disaster no one really knows for certain what to do to stop that oil — of course, as one scientist testified (on TV), it would help if BP had been more forthcoming with the necessary info.

But clearly this has to be top priority for the Obama administration — we’re actually talking a disaster that could poison the entire Gulf and work its way around Florida and up the East Coast and elsewhere in the oceans all over the globe.

Even if the leak were to be plugged shortly and the visible oil cleaned up, no doubt severe damage has already been done that will gradually become even more apparent and will continue for a generation. Even before this there were dead zones (no sea life) in the Gulf — now there are likely to be many more (who knows? The whole Gulf?).  And to add insult to injury BP is dumping thousands of gallons of toxic chemical into the Gulf to break up the oil.

But after a month and for the foreseeable future this massive oil leak appears likely to continue.

President Obama needs to really take charge on this and not let up.

This thing is a bigger threat than Afghanistan has ever been.

P.s.

While I realize the mood among many is government is the enemy and big government is particularly bad, I have to ask if people would be happier to simply leave humongous private corporations, such as BP, in charge. And does not the world’s only superpower require a rather large government?

Of course we could (well not really) go back to the days before 1787 and live under a much smaller government and abolish the Constitution that enabled a strong central government and live with a loose confederation of states connected by the Articles of Confederation. When that was the case our economy was hampered because pirates and despots in Northern Africa robbed our ships and demanded and received millions of dollars in tribute. We were impotent and could not fight back because the states could not agree to supply the money for an adequate navy.

I’m a little unclear about the anti-ethnic studies law in Arizona…

This is what I don’t understand about the new Arizona law to ban ethnic studies (said to be aimed at primarily one program in Tucson public schools).

Is Chicano Studies or whatever it is called taken only by Hispanics or do all students take it or is at least open to all students?

(Please see Add 2 at the bottom of this post)

When I went to college I was required to take an ethnic studies class. As it turned out,  I took Black History. I am white. I believe the whole idea of the class was not to promote black pride but to inform white boys like me (as well as minorities) about the history of blacks in America. The emphasis in the class as I recall was on the law, to include Supreme Court decisions, and the civil rights movement. The class was taught by a black man from Africa.

I see nothing wrong with ethnic studies being required, particularly if the idea is to let us whites know about the struggles of other ethnic groups, but it is a whole different ball game if ethnic  minorities (or ethnic group members, minority or not) are taking separate classes about their own ethnicity at the expense of accepted U.S. History and national unity. I never thought that ethnic studies were intended to promote race pride at the expense of American patriotism.

I read several stories about this current situation but have not yet gotten in straight what is or was going on in Tucson.

It is true that U.S. History as taught in the past concentrated primarily on the perspective of those of white European descent, but then again that is our history — you can’t change that. But ethnic studies requirements have or were designed to give us all a fuller picture of history and a better appreciation that this nation has attempted to overcome racism and ethnic strife that has not only caused problems in America but continues to cause upheaval all over the world.

But again, if the idea of the Tucson program was to use public education dollars to promote the pride of one race, that does not seem wise or right. But if  it is open to or required of all as a needed supplement to standard U.S. History, I would not think that should be outlawed.

ADD 1: (May 13, 2010)

A friend and former boss of mine turned me onto the fact that columnist Dough MacEachern of the Arizona Republic newspaper has written extensively on this subject, so I am going to try to read up on this for more info. If you’re interested you could google: ethnic studies, MacEachern, Arizona Republic.

—————- 

ADD 2:  From what I have now read since beginning this post, the ethnic studies program in Tucson schools has been put together and run by people who some might regard as left-wing activists. Just as having history written by white European ethnocentrists can have a misleading effect on the truth (what we should all be after, the truth, that is), so can history slanted another way. I’d say: let’s be objective and pile on the facts and have discussion, but leave out the slant (well possibly except as needed for some good old fahioned patriotism — you have to believe in something good about your country). I have also now read in an article from the Christian Science Monitor that the ethnic studies classes are supposedly open and attended by students of ethnic groups other than the ones under study. And it notes that the Tucson district is 56 percent Hispanic in enrollment.

——————–

P.s.

I know there have been charges that the Tucson program promoted racial strife. Well of course that would be wrong, but the program could be changed to do away with that I am sure.