Looking back at independence

I visited Independence Hall in Philadelphia yesterday for the first time. I get the same sense of awe every time I enter a building of historical importance — to imagine George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Ben Franklin and the rest walking into the same rooms joking and arguing, to know that Mr. Washington sat in the presiding officer’s chair. Amazing!

A great thing about this trip is that my wife and three of our kids got to experience this, as well. At the building next door which served as our nation’s second capitol, the park ranger repeatedly asked Meredith and Cameron questions. And they answered correctly. He was amazed and asked our older daughter Tabitha about them. She told them they are home schooled. We are blessed to be able to do this type of education.

After this wonderful experience, I then hear Mia Farrow speak about her family motto — with knowledge comes responsibility. I think about the great knowledge that our founding fathers possessed, but they did not allow it to just satisfy themselves; they put it to work and created this great nation of government by, of and for the people. To honor our nation’s founders, we must be looking today for our own responsibilities and step up to meet them.


Touched by Mia

Today, I heard Mia Farrow speak at the international conference of the Public Relations Society of America. Amazing! She communicated with a mixture of facts and stories regarding the genocide in the Darfur region of Sudan. I knew, of course, about Darfur; but it had not been connecting with me. There was something about seeing this somewhat frail, western celebrity pouring her whole being into this situation that grabbed my heart and my mind.

Tonight, I became a member of the Genocide Intervention Network. I wrote there, “It is easy to condemn what the Nazis did before I was born; but now I stand condemned for not having stepped up sooner as various genocidal situations have arisen in recent years. Of course, I always have condemned genocide, but I have been too ‘busy’ to do anything. I heard Mia Farrow speak today, Oct. 21, 2007, and I hope I will never be the same again.”

Hooray! Gonzalez resigns

Alberto Gonzalez has finally stepped down as U.S. attorney general. It shouldn’t have taken this long.

What distresses me, however, is President Bush’s comment that Gonzalez was “a man of integrity, decency and principle.” Hogwash! Even if Gonzalez didn’t perjure himself, which I think he did, he was involved in some underhanded dealings that undermine the integrity of the high office of attorney general.

Hensarling nixes energy future

I love H.R. 3221, also called the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007. It was passed by the House Aug. 4, 2007, by a vote of 241 – 172.

Rep. Hensarling voted against this wonderful bill. He was one of 163 Republicans and nine Democrats on the losing side. Twenty-six Republicans and 215 Democrats voted for it.

I hope to find out more about this is coming days, but this is the kind of thing that makes me think about becoming a Democrat.

Here’s more on the bill:

“Title: Moving the United States toward greater energy independence and security, developing innovative new technologies, reducing carbon emissions, creating green jobs, protecting consumers, increasing clean renewable energy production, and modernizing our energy infrastructure, and to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide tax incentives for the production of renewable energy and energy conservation.” (Congressional Record)

The bill would seek to do several things:

1) The Green Jobs Act of 2007 — It would “establish an energy efficiency and renewable energy worker training program.”

2) The International Climate Cooperation Re-engagement Act of 2007 — It looks to me that this portion of the bill would put the U.S. back on track to participate with the rest of the world in combating global warming. In other words, it seems to repudiate President Bush’s decision of not signing onto the Kyoto Protocol. It also would establish an Office of Global Climate Change within the Department of State.

3) The Small Energy Efficient Businesses Act — It would provide small businesses with incentives to purchase energy efficient buildings, equipment, fixtures and other technology because it is in the national interest.

4) The Renewable Fuel Capital Investment Program — It would “promote the research, development, manufacture and bringing to market of renewable energy sources by encouraging venture capital investments in smaller enterprises primarily engaged such activities.”

5) Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy — It would create this agency within the Department of Energy to “overcome the long-term and high-risk technological barriers in the development of energy technologies.” The agency would seek to identify and promote “revolutionary advances in fundamental sciences,” to translate “scientific discoveries and cutting-edge inventions into technological innovations,” and to accelerate “transformational technological advances in areas that industry by itself is not likely to undertake because of technical and financial uncertainty.”

6) Marine Renewable Energy Research and Development Act of 2007 — It would support programs of “research, development, demonstration, and commercial application to expand marine renewable energy production.”

7) Advanced Geothermal Energy Research and Development Act of 2007 — It would “support programs of research, development, demonstration, and commercial application to expand the use of geothermal energy production from hydrothermal systems.”

Good vote on a bad war

On July 12, 2007, Rep. Jeb Hensarling joined other Republicans in voting against a bill that would have set a timetable for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I support the congressman’s vote on this.

Here’s how the Washington Post describes the bill:

“Vote 624: H R 2956: This bill would require the president to begin reducing the number of U.S. troops serving in Iraq 120 days after its enactment and would require most troops to be withdrawn by April 1, 2008. The bill also states that the 2002 congressional authorization for the Iraq war only authorized the president use force to confront an Iraqi government that threatened the United States. The measure says that the new Iraqi government is not a threat and that it “now be responsible for Iraq’s future course.” Language in the bill requires the president to submit a “comprehensive strategy” for Iraq to certain congressional committees by January 1, 2008 and requires him to update that strategy again in July, 2008 and every 90 days thereafter. The bill passed the House on July 12 by a vote of 223 to 201. President Bush has promised to veto any bill that sets a deadline for troop withdrawal.”

While timetables for withdrawal should not be set at this point, this is an issue that may need to be revisited. The mistake we made was in invading Iraq in the first play, and President Bush will be held responsible by history for this terrible foreign policy decision. It was terrible primarily because it was based on a lie, a lie promoted by the Bush Administration. In short, they found the “evidence” they wanted to support the move they wanted to make. A disgrace! And I voted for President Bush.

Despite that mistake, we need to be careful how we disengage. We now have a responsibility to the people of Iraq. Of course, they also share the responsibility for their future. If the Shiite and Sunni factions cannot share power, then one of two things will happen — the most powerful faction will dominate the weaker or the nation will have to be partitioned.

Earmarks need to go

I received an e-mail newsletter from Rep. Hensarling the other day in which he bemoans “earmarks” — read as pork for a particular constituency back home. Kudos to our congressman.

“In 2006, Congress spent $29 billion on earmarks, individual spending requests inserted into spending bills by individual lawmakers that benefit a very specific, limited number of people. $29 billion is more than the Department of Veterans Affairs spent on both medical research and services in 2006. That is also enough money to fund the monthly Social Security benefits of over 34.5 million Texas seniors. It is obvious that Congress’ priorities are out of line,” Rep. Hensarling writes.
“What makes the situation even worse is that Washington has a budget deficit. That means that all of the money we waste on earmarks is coming out of the Social Security Trust Fund. This is money that millions of Americans are counting on for their retirement, and Congress is using it to fund “Bridges to Nowhere” in Alaska and other equally ridiculous pork barrel spending projects.”

My question is this: Americans have been complaining about pork barrel spending for as long as I can remember, but why does nothing ever get done about this in Congress? Answers: First, we voters have not exerted enough pressure in regard to this issue. Second, too many well-connected citizens keep pushing for their personal earmark favorites.

I don’t give our congressmen and senators a free pass on this, but generally they do what they think we want, which is not always the same as what we say we want. I praise Rep. Hensarling for this position. Of course I do have a question for the congressman: Have you been putting forth any earmarks yourself?

The congressman sets forth his support of a line-item veto in order to help combat earmarks. I support that, as well; but I do have a concern that a president will use that power to reward his friends (by not using a line-item veto on their projects) and punish his enemies (by slashing their projects).

Sustaining the RNC

I received my annual blue and gold “Sustaining Member” card from the Republican National Committee today. If I’m sustaining the RNC, then it is in trouble.

The RNC hasn’t gotten any money out of me in a couple of years, but it sends me a new card each year that says I’m a member since 2002. I stopped giving as my doubts about the party began to rise. And when I did give, it was only at about $25 or $50 a year. So that made me a Sustaining Member. I wonder what the good givers get called.

I receive mailings all the time from the committee. A few months ago, I returned it and said I will not start giving until the GOP gets serious about campaign finance reform — no money included. I’m sure that hand-written message from a Sustaining Member went straight to the RNC chairman.

But it’s not just campaign finance report, other issues that are important to me include the following:
— Environment (save it now)
— Iraq (bad war, bad decisions)
— American jobs (they’re just as important as corporate profits)

You get it. I’m sounding more and more like a Democrat every day. But I have my complaints with them, as well.

As for right now, I’m sustaining no one, at least not a political party.