...I have in the past railed against a sometimes excessive use of litigation by environmentalists.  And I understand the argument that, if you can't demonstrate the success of Recovery Plans for endangered species to restore a healthy population, then what is the use of a Recovery Plan?  And what is the best evidence of success?  To remove a species from the list of threatened or endangered species.

Which is what happened this year for the gray wolves in the contiguous 48 states (they were never listed as threatened or endangered in Alaska).  Having watched the process unfold since the Recovery Plan was first formulated.......having written my own recovery plan of sorts for the wolf for a senior project in college........I did count the move as a measure of success.  I did. 

I get it.  And in the case of the wolf, some of the Fish and Wildlife Service folks who have been working on wolf reintroduction for many, many years claim there is good reason to delist them. But delisting them is one thing.  Actively opening up hunting season amongst a group of people who hate this animal is quite another. You can just see the licked lips and cocked guns of the men waiting to (legally) bag themselves a wolf in the lower 48 states with management turned over to Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.  And it isn't a pretty picture.  There are better ways to manage the population.

And logic can be known to fly out the window for me when I am dealing with a topic that can either warm my heart or boil my blood.  I can admit that.  And this topic can, and has, done both for over 20 years for me.

So, ha.  I'll count this as a victory for the wolf.  From the news article: 

A federal judge has restored endangered species protections for gray wolves in the Northern Rockies, derailing plans by three states to hold public wolf hunts this fall.

A victory for my animal.  Not the entire environmental movement.  Don't attribute motivation to me that I don't have.  This is an emotional issue for me and it is limited to this one animal.  Whatever the battles in court, the wolf will eventually be delisted permanently.  Is it too much to ask these states to not try and hunt them into extinction the moment that happens?  Go back and work on it Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana.  Haven't we learned any lessons from our past actions here in the United States?

Wait.........what was I talking about?

This is the questions I posed to my Sweetie the other night:

In the case of the removal of children from the "Yearning for Zion" ranch in Texas, there are many questions surrounding the identity of the original female who placed a 911 phone call for help.  Is she the same person who just made a phone call to authorities in Colorado City, Arizona about the FLDS sect in that area?  Was she even in the Texas compound?  How does that affect the child-protection cases now under review?  So, I guess my question is - how much does it matter?  Does the facts that the kids are out of the compound, and that evidence has been gathered, and that decisions will be made about custody of these kids outweigh the methods and circumstances that got us to this point?

My Sweetie's answer?

"I don't have enough information to make a decision."   Which may have been HusbandSpeak for "I want to go to sleep right now." 

My answer?

I need to qualify it, but I think - yes.  In the face of possible child abuse in this case, the ends may justify the means.

Now, I don't want to trample on due process.  And I don't want our society to turn into a modern-day Salem, with false accusations raised by power- and attention-hungry children/people.  That is why we have a process in place, and the legal authorities in Texas are now faced with the massive task of figuring out if abuse occurred and what to do with the children.   If anyone wants to pursue criminal charges than they may be hampered by the fact that the search may not have been legitimate in the first place.  There are all sorts of rules and regulations in place in the U.S. to back up the "innocent until proven guilty" premise. 

But I'm not sure how due process works in the case of child abuse and child protective services.  If the kids are out and there is evidence of abuse, does the law say that a glitch in the process nullifies the evidence, as in criminal trials?  I don't think so.  I guess if you think there has been abuse and want people to be punished, the authorities may have made a mistake.  But, as in my case, if you are less concerned about the parents and more concerned about the kids - and protecting them - then maybe this situation is good enough.  If absolutely no abuse occurred - hopefully the judge will figure that out.  But if these children were abused - both physically and psychologically, both by being physically punished and by being forced to "marry" and get pregnant as early as 14 or 15 - then their needs are paramount.  If you heard the statements of one ex-compound mother, she says her ex-husband would hold kids' heads under water while telling them to pray for their mother's death.  And that was one of the lighter punishments.  I don't think every father in the compound did that.  It's a society same as any other - with good and loving parents and, possibly, bad and abusive parents.   But if people did hurt these kids, they can't change the fact that abuse is wrong, just by hiding behind walls and religion.

I am not the type of person to say the ends always justify the means.  Which is why I guess I feel the need to qualify my opinions here.  Of course, the lawyers for the FLDS will say "We smell a rat" about the initial allegation.  But, looking at the information I have at this time, I smell a decaying, fetid, disgusting corpse.  Freedom of religion does not protect against statutory rape.   And just because a child may be brainwashed to think physical abuse is just punishment don't make it so.  I'm no Nancy Grace, but I feel strongly that children should be protected.  Should the authorities have waited?  I don't think so.

Look at a couple of news articles that came out today. 

Seventeen of the nation's 50 largest cities had high school graduation rates lower than 50 percent....(news article here:   http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,344190,00.html)

and

The Pentagon is $295 billion over budget on dozens of key programs and taking more time to deliver the systems to the front lines, according to a report released by a government watchdog agency.

(article here:  http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/01/pentagon.overspending/index.html)

Isn't it a pity we taxpayers can't check boxes to indicate where we would like our tax money to go?  Personally, I'd like to see this country spend more of its money on US CITIZENS and less on foreign wars and policies.  I'd like to see a President who stops facing across the Atlantic with his back to his own people struggling to make a living, teach their kids, and take care of their parents.  I'd like to see Congressional leaders who stop cherry-picking money and back-stabbing each other and start helping the average person/family in their state or district. 

Do you know how much MORE money we spend on foreign policy and war, than we do on our own citizens?

If I can quote from my previous blog on Federal Budget numbers:

How big is the federal budget allocation for the Department of Defense? In 2007, it is (requested) 439.3 billion dollars.

Or in other words, the Defense budget is 8.07 times larger than the Education budget.

The Defense budget is 6.50 times larger than the Health and Human Services budget.

The Defense budget is 43.50 times larger that the Department of the Interior budget.

The Defense budget is 60.18 times larger that the Environmental Protection Agency budget (a "cabinet-level"federal department).

I have a cousin who is a principal of an elementary school in the Bay Area.  Talking to her sister, I hear that she is tired and frustrated and out of money and working her a** off to try and get the basic necessities for her kids.  Her school doesn't have enough money for toilet paper.  Don't you think we should be spending more of our money on our schools?

Would you like to see what your money could buy? 

Check out:  http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home

The site lets you pick a geographic area in the United States.  Then, you can see what the trade-off is of the cost of the war in Iraq versus things like elementary school teachers, public safety officers, or people with health care.

I can't vouch for the accuracy, but I think it is an interesting exercise.  A sad and futile exercise perhaps.  But interesting.

For example, if I pick the state of Hawai'i, and pick "total Iraq war spending approved to date" and pick "public safety officers" - I am told that - for the $1.7 billion that Hawai'i taxpayers have shelled out for the war, we could have had 38,760 public safety officers. 

Here in Maui, the news is that the police department is so backlogged with reports, they are still working to investiage automobile deaths (and possible criminal negligence) from 2006.  2006.  They are two years behind.  Not to mention how many crazy drivers are never pulled over around here.  How many police do we have patrolling?  In my opinion, not enough.

Can I have my money back?

You know, I've been a fan of some well-written television shows in the past.  Most notably, The Twilight Zone and MASH. 

There are so many reasons why Battlestar Galactica may have percolated up to become my favorite series of all time (it's pretty close to Twilight Zone).  Fantastic writing with some very complex and usually-untouchable themes of war, politics, religion, and human nature.  Some very dark moments.  Complex characters and incredibly strong performances every week.  It would take too long to explain every reason it's worth watching.

The only thing that absolutely SUCKS is - this is the last season.  Why ER is still on the air, yet I have to say goodbye to Battlestar at the end of this season is beyond me.  I understand the writers have a plan, but hell - couldn't that plan have been dragged out just a tiny smidge longer??  Maybe?

Fine.  At least I have one last season to look forward to.  *sigh*

This is a question I will probably come back to from time to time.

What do you think is/are the best song lyric lines?  Not a whole song.  Not all the lyrics. 

What are the best lines from songs you've heard?

My favorite, for a long time, has been:

"We had a little son and we thought we'd call him Sonny."

Paul Simon.  "The Obvious Child."  I can't explain it.  I love this line.  It brings a smile to my face.  Actually, this whole song may be on my top 20 of all time.  Look out for the line here:

As my CD player randomly shuffled around tonight, I was reminded of another doozy of a good line.  I would also like to nominate -

"Well I feel deep in your heart there are wounds time can't heal."

Tears for Fears - "Woman in Chains."  Definitely one of my top ten groups of all time.  You can listen for the line here:

So.

What do you think are some of the best music lines of all time?

Stop reading now if you are offended by bad language.  Or if educating yourself offends you.  Or if you don't want to know that other peoples' lives are actually worse than yours.

When the fuck are people going to wake up!?  Does anyone even read a newspaper anymore?  Watch the news?  Look at pictures of the news in their tabloid magazines?

I've read one blog about Benazir Bhutto's assassination.  One.

I won't get too political about this.  About that fact that Pakistan is already a nuclear power.  With warheads and the missiles to use them.  Or the fact that Secretary of State Rice (and others in this administration) thought they could really manipulate things to their advantage in that roiling country by going to Bhutto in October and helping convince her to go back to Pakistan now.  No - it's not their faults alone.  It was Bhutto's decision, and if you listen to what she has said before she died, it was her decision to go back to Pakistan.  It's not their fault, but just another example of international ineptitude. 

If you give a shit at all about the the Presidential candidates are saying, you can move your mouse and click on what they said when Katie Couric asked 10 of the leading Presidential Candidates "What country frightens you the most?"

Every single Republican candidate followed the lead sheep to say "Iran."  Bahh bahh bahhhhh.  Not that Iran is not dangerous, but how long can they use the same rhetoric to scare votes their way?  How long?  We shall see in 2008.  Scare. Scare.  Scare.  Does what happened this week scare you? 

The politics of Pakistan is complex.  And Bhutto's own reasons for seeking power are complex.  But when someone takes the time (and her life) to stand up for democracy, can those of us who say we enjoy the freedom (do you vote?), stand by and say nothing?  Even if she had other ambitions?  Can we say nothing about a so-called "War on Terror" that never ever ever finished the job in Afghanistan, but ending up spreading the terrorists to more ports and swelling their numbers?  I'm sick and tired of hearing people assume that people who were always against the Iraq war are just pacifists or don't support the troops.  If we had finished the job in Afghanistan, instead of using it as an excuse to try and exert power in another nation (NOT fight terror), then no one would have cheered louder than those of us so angry over the billions of dollars wasted.  Billions.  Care about U.S. education?  Your roadways/infrastructure?  Our own defenses?  Our ability to respond to natural disasters?  How much could we have done with that money (OUR taxpayer money) for OUR OWN country?  How much?  Who the hell knows.  It's gone now.

Think hard about what international battles you want the next President of the United States to fight.  Real battles?  Or battles as excuses to exert power over others who are NOT controllable. 

Oops. I guess I am getting more political.  I am sorry that the extremists won this round.  I am sorry there is more chaos now.  I am sorry that the Prime Minister daughter of an executed Prime Minister has died in a terrorist attack.  I am sorry that the future is completely uncontrollable, US international diplomatic credibility is even more in the toilet, and we probably won't get any help from any other country next time we need it. 

This about sums it up.  The music is actually from the musical Jekyll and Hyde (which has some awesome music).  Someone came up with some pretty bizarre images.

There is no good lesson I can come up with.  Sorry to be so ranty.

You know that old saying?  The one Depeche Mode wrote a song about?  Some consider it gospel?

“You don’t really know a man until you’ve walked a mile in his shoes.”

Well, first off, I’m not a man.  And I’ll tell you now, if you ever meet me, want to talk to me, or really want to know me - -  I wear a size 6, usually comfort-over-fashion foot coverings, and - - you don’t have to walk one damn step in them. 

Not one step, let alone a mile.  Don’t bother.  Don’t worry about it. 

If you want to know about my life, why I feel the things I do, why I have such strong opinions about things - try this..........ask me.  Talk to me about it.  Listen.  And keep an open mind.  That is all I ask of people. 

It’s not that I think that old saying is complete garbage, but I think it enables a closed-mindedness that is infuriating.  I think it allows people to rant and rave about things, and then try and shut down differing opinions by saying “Well, you don’t know because you’ve never experienced it.”  Or, to be exact “You've never experienced it in the exact way and fashion that I have.” 

Well of course not.  Nobody has.  But why should I?  Why are other peoples' opinions negated if they have not taken the exact same journey that you have?  Everyone has his or her own lifetime of experiences.  Maybe one grew up rich, one grew up poor.  Maybe one lost a grandfather, one a mother.  Maybe one was raised religious, one learned to hate religion because of an oppressive childhood.  Maybe one has an alcohol addiction, one is a workaholic.  Maybe one walked through snow to school, one was home schooled.  No one can know for sure what those experiences were like, but I think that some people have valuable insights and valid opinions without the first-hand knowledge.  And I think one of the most valuable lessons you learn is that - your own opinions *can* change.  And that there is wisdom in unlikely places.

Very very rarely in my life has someone pulled this card on me.  And you know why it happened?  It was because I gave some advice that didn’t want to be heard.  Someone came to me to talk through a relationship problem, but when I pointed out a very harsh reality of the situation, I was shot down with “Well, you’ve never been in a real relationship.”  Which I could only take to mean I had never been married since I very well thought I *had* been in a real romantic relationship.  And up to that point, I think she thought so too.  She didn’t say this to me when we started the conversation.  She had never, in all the years I’ve know her, used this as a reason to not talk to me about relationships.  But, I said something that put her on the defensive, and that was the response.  A way to shoot down an opinion that was absolutely unwanted.   Because I had never been in a relationship that was *exactly* like the one she was in.  Well, of course not.  But I can still see truth in circumstances.  And I can still hold the same opinions I’ve always held. 

But you know how this goes.  Defensive people.  Or defensive situations.  Mothers who won’t listen to a childless woman’s advice even if she’s taken care of kids since puberty and the mother never changed a diaper before she popped out a kid.  People who have been through trials and tribulations who won’t take advice because “You don’t know what it’s like.”  People with a different opinion who think no one can relate to them.  But you know what.  If you live long enough, you realize there are no unique situations in the entire world.  Which, I’m sorry to say, leads to the fact there are no unique people.  There are some real characters out there, that’s for sure.  But no one so unique that someone down the block doesn’t know someone just like you.   No kidding.  It's not such a bad realization.  Personally, it took me until some time after college and into my 20s before the realization hit me.  Can't say it made me a less whiney person.  But at least I know I have good company.

If you surround yourself only with like-minded and like-lived people, when do you learn something new?  And how can you shut down so many others so fast, without thought?

Now, I’m not naive enough to not really understand.  These are basically rhetorical questions.  I know closed-minded people are not going to change their stripes overnight.  And I know there is comfort in certainty, and people will latch onto their own version of certainty, no matter what.  But let’s be honest about it, shall we.  So, stop using that expression as a shield.  People can understand you without duplicating your life.  And, I think people can hold valuable opinions based on their own lives, their own education, their own feelings.  I may not agree with you.  I may sit and wonder if you were hatched from a pod left by malignant aliens.  But if I’m going to disagree with you, I will try and do two things.  First, I will try and admit that your opinions have some grounds for legitimacy.  And I will try and understand those grounds and then make a reasonable argument.  Or else, I’ll just leave you be.  I can be as dismissive as the next person when someone becomes too much of a “vexation to the spirit.”  I can even argue that your opinions are wrong.  But I won’t do so just because you’ve lived a different life than me.  I can come up with much better retorts than that!

So, my shoes may get bare.  They may be uncomfortable at times.  They may be hideous to look at.  But they are my shoes.  They can stay on my own feet, and I will leave you to yours.  Thank you very much.

Sorry for the short and ranty entry today.

Why does the media play into the hands of those who don't deserve media attention?  Why do they assume that the viewing public is dumb enough to go along with them? 

Oh.....wait.....maybe it's because so many of us do.  The hypocrisy of entertainment media is astounding.  And the pure stupidity of the rest of them is disheartening.  I've channel-surfed and watched entertainment shows dedicate whole segments to answer the question "How irrelevant is Britney Spears" or some such dribble.  They rant on and on about Paris Hilton and ask a panel of 'experts' "Why the heck is she famous?"  Uhhhhh.....maybe because you can't seem to fixate your revenue-loving-cameras on anything else, you idiots.  You can make fun of all the celebrities you want, Showbiz Tonight, but stop looking at each other with your smarmy "We're SO better than that" plastic smiles.  Are you kidding?  No, wait.  It doesn't matter.  People are so much more interested in celebrities than world events they'll flock to your pretty lights and lap up the lectures.

And ya know, with the stupidity of the news crews this week, I think I'll just stick to Showbiz Tonight.  So, a sad angry guy says "I'm going to be famous."  And since he's not a rich Daddy's kid or a wanna-be American Idol reject, the only way he thinks he can be famous is to rampage.  And what happens?  The TV news broadcasters make him famous.  Congratulations ABC, CBS, NBC, and every single newspaper that showed his face and letter.  You just contributed to the next public rampage.  Used to be, in my day, when a guy or gal was so sad, depressed, and angry and decided to end it all - they just killed themselves.  Now, this is notably sad.  Tragic and noteworthy.  And requires work and effort to make sure that no other sad, angry kid does that again.  But, now - in the days of instant news feeds, for anyone who wants more people than just his family and friends to take notice, he has to take some others out with him while he does it.  And there is nothing more atrocious than that.  But if you contemplated such a thing for the notoriety, but you knew - absolutely knew - that no newspaper would print your name, no newscaster would show your face......maybe you'd restrict the killing to just yourself.  And leave the innocent bystanders out of it.  This kid didn't have a beef with anyone in that mall.  He didn't rant against Mall Shoppers or Consumers or what have you (I don't think he did - I haven't actually read his notes.)  He didn't say "I hate you all."  He said "I'm going to be famous."

And guess who played right into his hands?  The media.  Don't tell me they have to report the news.  They could have given the news without harping on the details.  Without printing his letters.  Without showing his face.  They could have.  They could have prevented the next copycat from doing the same.  Why didn't they?  I honestly don't know.  Can anyone explain that? 

So, there is a news story about a prison inmate who is on a hunger strike.  He and others say the prison is obligated to serve him healthy food, and the prison  would not serve him vegan food, and he should have vegan food. 

Last I checked:

 a) veganism is not a religion. People don't *have* to be vegans.  It is a choice for many reasons,  (www.vegan.org) and it is a lifestyle and a philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan). 

and

b) you don't get a menu in jail.

There are certain things about jail - one being you lose certain privileges you were granted in life before you *chose* to commit a crime.  One obvious loss is the ability to go wherever you want to go and do whatever you want to do.  Probably for good reason.  Another loss is the ability to pick your dinner choices off a menu.   Too bad.  Guess what?  You were found guilty of a crime by a jury (he was).  You're in JAIL.  Good gravy - this is why so many people think ALL environmentalists are whacked-out crazy heads. 

Menus are offered at McDonalds, Olive Garden, and other fine restaurants.  They are not offered in prison. Am I wrong?  Thoughts?

Reading an article on Ben Affleck in Time.  Generally positive about his new work as movie director. 

The interviewer and Affleck talk a little about politics towards the end of the article.  I thought this quote from Affleck was particularly insightful:

"Politics, man.  It's so ugly.  The Internet allows you to completely immerse yourself in the world of politics without ever listening to anyone who has anything to say that might offset at all what you believe.  So you can become totally validated all day long."

Quite true, in my opinion.  Truths like this are one of the reasons I spend time talking to people with diverse opinions.  Good friends, co-workers, my brother-in-law.....plenty of people have political opinions that are different (some may say polar opposite) of mine.  But I don't shy away from a good discussion.  Not to try and change anyone's opinion.  At least at first.  I'll debate a point I'm passionate about.  But how can you change anyone's opinion of something if you don't understand where they are coming from?  If you don't know what motivates them?  And if you don't acknowledge that other perspectives, though different from your own, have some valid points - even if you cannot agree with the conclusions.

It does us no good to surround ourselves only with like-minded people. While it can be comforting, we need to poke our heads out of the sand from time to time and listen to what other people are saying.  Well said, Mr. Affleck.  Who'd a thunk it?

In my opinion, you can do one of two things: You can threaten a lawsuit against Christmas trees, OR, you can complain that people accuse you of being a Grinch.  You cannot do both.  That may seem logical to most people.  It takes a lawyer not to see the irony of trying to do both.

Yes, I’m talking about the fact that officials at the Seattle Airport dismantled nine holiday trees, rather than facing a potential lawsuit from a rabbi who asked that a menorah also be displayed.  If you haven’t read the stories - the Airport had nine holiday trees decorated with ribbons and bows.  A rabbi asked if a menorah could also be displayed.  A lawsuit was threatened.  The airport managers decided to remove the trees, saying they would have to rethink their policies about representing all sorts of cultures around the holidays.

In the report, the rabbi was quoted as being “appalled” by the agency’s reaction to what he believed to be a simple request.

No.  See.......threatening someone with a lawsuit is not a simple request.

A simple request is “Hey, I see you have some nice holiday trees set up here at the airport.  They seem sort of Christmas-y.   In the interest of representing other holidays celebrated in December, would you consider putting up a menorah also?”  That is a request.  Maybe you talk to the airport officials.  Maybe you write a letter. 

When you go out and hire an attorney, make your case along with an attorney, then threaten to have your attorney SUE when your request is turned down.............this is NOT a “simple request.” 

So, the rabbi and his attorney did not get their way.  But then neither did the people who wanted to keep the holiday trees.  The lawyer (not the rabbi) is then quoted as saying “There is a concern here that the Jewish community will be portrayed as the Grinch.”  Well, you should have thought of that before you threatened to sue. 

Because after the fact, guess what? You (Mr. Attorney) are the grinch.  Not the entire Jewish community.  But you.  Not because you asked for a menorah.  Not because you made the airport officials rethink their decoration policies, but because you resorted to America’s favorite extortionist tactic - The Attorney-Backed-Threat-of-Lawsuit. 

My complaint is not necessarily against “the attack on Christmas” or whatever the conservative talk-show hosts call it.  While I am sick and tired of all the whining and complaining about different expressions of holiday spirit, that is not the subject of this rant. 

This is about my on-going frustration with lawsuits used as an extortionist tactic.  This just happens to be the latest example.  The problem is that, while there are some legitimately-filed lawsuits in the world, there seem to be far more frivolous ones that are allowed to wend their way through the legal system.  One of my biggest beefs is with lawsuits filed under the false auspices of a particular piece of legislation.  People tend to blame the legislation.  But that is the wrong way to look at it.  For example, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Endangered Species Act are good pieces of legislation that have been hijacked by fat people and greedy landowners, respectively.  Sorry, but it’s true.  This leads to calls to rescind these pieces of legislations from Congressmen and women who support fat people and greedy landowners over the truly disabled and the truly endangered.  And that is the wrong target.  We should be angry over frivolous lawsuits, not all the laws themselves.

The rabbi may have been sincere in a desire to be allowed to simply display a menorah.  And I would admit there are even cases where a lawsuit can be genuine and can lead to positive changes.  But don’t complain that, instead of granting your request or fighting you in court, the threatened party just packed up their marbles and left the playground.  What did you expect? Maybe next time you can make your case more persuasively with a letter to the editor or an Op Ed piece in the newspaper.  And those are even free!

I’m reading this week’s (December 4) issue of Time magazine, and cleaning up K Street in Washington.  There’s been a lot of talk by politicians about the need for lobbying reforms in Washington D.C.  It must be quite a conundrum for all politicians who receive hefty amounts of money donations from lobbyists and their associates.  How do you rein in potential favors-for-money transactions without jeopardizing your own future war chests?

I’ll leave it to the folks in Congress, both new and old, to see if they can really create any reform in the system.  My hope is that people understand why such reform is needed. 

We all know (right?) that while the United States of America is a democratic country, our government is not run as a pure direct democracy.  We are, instead, a constitutional republic.  National law and national policy is not decided directly by the voters, but by our representatives.  That’s the way our government works.  Ideally, voters have done their research on candidates and candidates have represented themselves honestly, and we stand in our voting booths and vote for a representative that we feel will best speak for us in Congress.  That’s what we get.  We get one vote for each person, and then we get to sit back and hope they represent us well.

What happens when a Congressperson gets one vote from me, but then also gets $10,000 from another guy?  $10,000 can pay for a lot of campaign material come the next election.  Maybe someone could win 10 votes if they had $10,000 to spend on a commercial, or colorful flyers.  And maybe, just maybe, someone could win 100 votes if they used their position in Congress to spend $100,000 in their jurisdiction in such a way that would benefit a specific group of people.  If that person who hands my Congressperson $10,000 says “Do something for me when you win, and I’ll deliver more money and maybe a good block of votes.” 

Hey then.  What happened to *my* one vote?  What happened to my opinion on issues in my congressional district?  It’s probably not as important as the interests of the lobbyist in Washington D.C. who has the direct ear of my Congressperson.  A lobbyist who, by the way, may not even *live* in my congressional district.  Suddenly, while I and my neighbors are sitting around and talking about how we would like to see money for our public schools, a decent public transportation system, and  clean water, our Congressperson is slipping high-dollar “earmarks” into the legislation they are passing in Washington.  In case you didn’t click on that link above, this is what happens with earmarks:

In the United States legislative budget process, Congess has the power to earmark (designate) funds it appropriates (revenue) to be spent on specific named projects. This differs from the normal practice where Congress grants a lump sum to an agency to allocate entirely at its discretion, according to the agency's internal budgeting process. Earmarks tie the hands of agency bureaucrats, obliging them to spend a portion of the budget on special projects chosen by politicians.

So, my local transportation agency may have a long list of priorities to fix existing roads with big potholes and build a new light-rail system.  If they were given federal money to do their jobs, they chould choose which projects to spend the money on.  But with earmarks, our Congressperson designates very specific projects, and the federal money goes to that project. 

With a fixed federal budget, what happens to lump sum budget allocations when there are a ton of earmarks?  They go down, I think.  And if you think that earmarks aren’t taking a lot of money away from our local agencies, total earmarks in 2005 were about 47 billion dollars.   That’s 47 billion dollars that were chosen for just 15,000 earmarks.  To me, that sounds like 15,000 projects at over $3,000,000 per project.  How many things could your State Department of Education do with $3,000,000?  Or your Transporatation Department?  Who knows, because they won’t get to use money at their own discretion. 

I know, most of you folks reading my blog probably already understand this. And I hope that our Congressfolks will take the recent voter discontent as a sign that there are several things that need to change in Washington.  They are being sent to Congress to represent a whole group of voters back home, not just a few people with a lot of money. 

If they spent more time listening to their constituents and doing things we need them to do, maybe they wouldn’t need a huge war chest to buy our votes in the next election.  Maybe they could earn our votes by representing our needs and serving us honestly.  Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change?

Well, I feel that I can now sympathize with the poor folks living in the Midwest and eastern states who are being pummeled by these freezing storms.  Today, it is cold here in Maui. 

How cold, you ask? 

Cold enough that I have to wear a T-shirt instead of my normal tank-top. 

Yowzaa!  It’s downright chilly!  

Brrrrr.......it appears that Winter does arrive in Hawaii.  Yesterday, the temperature at the house dropped to a brisk 74 degrees.  Can you believe that?  Plus, it has been raining all day and night.  My sweetie and I made our regular trek to the Bake Shop this morning.  As we sat at a table with our coffee and newspaper (and PC Magazine for him), the rain started pouring down in sheets.  There were two rivers of water on each side of the street.  It was taking everything in its path down the hill and out to sea.  They’ll be talking about this on the news tonight, you bet.

Why is it that, everywhere I live, the local news is obsessed with the weather?  In Sacramento during the summer, all they talk about is how hot it is.  Record heat wave, high temps, blah, blah.   In winter, each local station has a reporter up at Blue Canyon every night, shivering in the snow, telling the folks back home “It’s SNOWING up here!”  Not a fun gig.  Piss off the station manager and Whoops!, your next assignment is reporting on snow conditions up at Blue Canyon.

In Hawaii, it makes sense that weather conditions can be important.  We have surf advisories every night (usually for Oahu).  We have the Severe Weather Tracker.  We have the occasional vog alert.  Vog?  Is there really such a thing? 

Yes.  Vog is volcanic smog.  Another uniquely Hawaii phenomenon that I have learned about. 

So, for the weather-obsessed out there, it is currently raining and 75-degrees outside here in Maui.  Hope you are all staying warm and dry, wherever you are.     

....the things some people say and believe.

You know, I'm not really going to try and chime in on the particulars of the Jena 6 case. Truth is, I didn't know about the previous incidents before last week, so I don't know all the facts of the cases. I don't.

But I thought someone made a very telling statement to the news crews on the day of the protest march in Jena. On the news that night they interviewed people who had traveled in buses to attend the march. Then, they interviewed several people in town who were awaiting the arrival of marchers. One woman stated this:

"We live in the 21st century. They're not going to let people get rail-roaded!"

ummmm......

What planet of brotherly love do YOU live on? Pull the wool away from your eyes, dear. She didn't object to the marchers, but she seems to think there is no reason why any group of people would need to stand up and make a case for racial justice.

And that, my friends, is exactly why we still need these types of marches. Not to make a case for or against particular people. Not to be angry. But to say to folks in this country - there are a lot of places here where people of different races are not on a level playing field. And doesn't everyone deserve that?

I honestly don't think all the marches in the world will change the heart of racist people. These people are going to believe whatever they want to believe. Maybe because they are afraid. Maybe because they seek power. Maybe because they've been brainwashed. Who knows.

But I think people need to look around and realize that inequities still exist. Everywhere. I'm not singling out the southern portions of our Nation. Or the big cities. Or the impoverished. Many places will have problems. I spent about 10 years in a college town in California. Lots of ethnicities in town. And lots and lots of highly educated people. Lots. But they couldn't escape the brutality of race-related problems. Insulting graffiti on homes. Fights in the schools. Alleged racial profiling by the City's police department. I spent a lot of time talking to a friend of mine who knows the amount of times her two sons (she's white, her kids are black) were pulled over by police in town - for invisible infractions. For the sheer sport of it, it seemed. Years of this behavior, so that it got to the point that her law-abiding sons were afraid of the police. And finally moved out of town. She's been trying to complain to the police department for years. The community itself held a march in 2006 protesting alleged racial profiling by the police department. It may not be as bad as other parts of the country, but these problems still exist, from one end of the nation to the other.

Now, I'm not as sensitive to racism as my father used to be. Bless his heart, if someone seated us in a restaurant too close to either the front door - or to the kitchen - Dad would get this grumbly look in his eye like "We've been singled out!" And you couldn't win. If we went to a Chinese restaurant - we were singled out because my mom is Caucasian. If we went to any other restaurant - we were singled out because Dad is Asian. He never actually said it, but there are several restaurants dad would not let us return to after a perfectly good meal. But keep in mind - Dad grew up in the 1940s through 60s. He had seen his fair share of hardcore hatred and discrimination. That tends to wear on a human being.

So, I'm not that sensitive. And I think things have much improved since my father was a young man. But I don't believe we live in a lovely place where no one gets railroaded anymore. It's not an equal playing field by far. And people shouldn't live in oblivion.

Those of you who have known me for a long time know I am part wolf. As such, I've been interested in, a researcher of, a writer about, and a supporter of these animals for years. Many years. Way back to the point where you could not find so much as a wolf mug, let alone posters, statues, postcards, plush toys, magnets, cards, t-shirts, key chains, bags, blankets, etc. etc. etc. that are available today.

Given my long, long support of the wolf......I've been reading with interest some of the political fiascoes occurring to Senators in Washington D.C. this year. If I were a true believer of Karma, this news would come as no surprise. But then, as I am a true believer that you tell a lot about a person's character based on what he is willing to fight for.....or against......I have to say......this bad news comes as no surprise.

My lesson for the day? Don't mess with the wolves. They've been roaming this country a lot longer than most of us have. And their near disappearance from the lower 48 states was a direct result of human meddling. Or should I say human ferociousness?

Anyway, to those who mess with the wolves....

Alaska Senator Ted Stevens - Supporter of aerial shooting of wolves in his State of Alaska.

Under investigation by the IRS and FBI in an investigation of political corruption in the state. His home was raided in July 2007. Also: Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator in history, is under scrutiny from the Justice Department for his ties to an Alaska energy services company, Veco, whose chief executive pleaded guilty in early May to a bribery scheme involving state lawmakers.

Idaho Senator Larry Craig - described here as a prominent nemesis of wolf reintroduction.

Well, we all know now what he is in hot water for. After declaring he would resign at the end of September, he is now apparently rethinking that decision.

I am in no way making statements of guilt or innocence here. But, if you've followed the plight of the wolf in the United States for as long as I have, these names are not unfamiliar.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but we all know what happened to Rep. Helen Chenoweth - the anti-wolf Rep. who famously stated " A species goes out of existence every twenty seconds. Surely a new species must come into existence every twenty seconds.."

Well, yesterday's quiz may be a moot point (though I'm still interested in what people think).

The point was, if you have not heard, the Office of the Vice President declared they did not have to comply with an executive order and did not have to cooperate with the National Archives and Administration regarding how the VP's office handles government secrets. They said they didn't have to comply with the executive order signed by President Bush because the order applies to the executive branch. And, they declared, the VP is not a member of the executive branch. He is a member of the legislative branch.

Which really got me thinking because I never put much thought into it before. Where *does* he belong? He is elected, along with the President. He is second-in-line to the presidency. But he is also president of the Senate. Interesting question.

But here's the thing. It seems that the VP doesn't want to comply when it's not convenient to comply. Because his office handed over information in 2001 and 2002, same as Vice President Gore did while he was VP. But then, no compliance from Cheney. Which made me think "Well, was he a member of the executive branch in 2001 and 2002 and then suddenly decide he was a member of the legislative branch after that?" I think it doesn't matter what branch of the government he is in, he has no intention to comply and never will.

And today's story pretty much bore that out because hey, did you know, the President's office doesn't have to comply either!? And why not? Certainly not because he is not a member of the executive branch - can't use that argument with the Office of the President. No, he doesn't have to comply because, as his spokesperson said, President Bush never intended it to apply to his office when he signed the executive order. And because President Bush knows what his own intentions were when signing the order (which was actually written by Clinton and only updated by Bush), he cannot possibly go against the order. Period.

Logic 101 courtesy of the Bush administration.

So you see, it doesn't matter at all, really, what the heck branch the VP is in (today) because all that matters is what the President intends (tomorrow). Whether or not it complies with the law is irrelevant. Simply irrelevant. How dare you ask, you silly people.

Therefore Cheney's staff has not filed reports (as required) on their possession of classified data. And they blocked an inspection of their office. They can classify and declassify information at will, but do not have to explain their actions.

Why should we care? Because there are laws in place to protect the rights of the individual citizens of this country. And if we don't know how our government may be circumventing those laws, we don't really know if the rest of the laws of our country are being upheld. One executive order is probably just the tip of the iceberg.

And if you're thinking "Well, it's probably just terrorists whose rights are being trampled on", think again. Circumnavigating the law can include, (as reported in the Washington Post) a "senior Bush political appointee at the Interior Department" repeatedly altering "scientific field reports to minimize protections for imperiled species and disclosing confidential information to private groups [say oil producers and private landowners, for example] seeking to affect policy decision." Did you hear about that? Read it HERE.

Circumnavigating the law can mean firing US attorneys who don't toe the line and replacing them with attorneys who can severely limit every person's civil liberties.

And since the current congressional Democrats are too spineless to do anything about anything, whatever secrets this administration has about what they are doing to this country will probably die with them.

Makes you feel all warm and protected at night, don't it?

I was driving back from the grocery store the other day. I ended up behind a truck with a bumper sticker that I see every so often here in Maui. It said "Slow down. You're not on the mainland anymore."

Which just kind of makes me laugh.

I think that people who live in Hawai'i can justifiably gripe about several things. I think tourists do create more traffic on the streets here. I think that people who move over and buy up houses cause the slow sprawl that seems to be taking place. I think that people who move over and buy up expensive houses drive up the price of property on the island, making it harder for the average person to buy over here.

But I really don't think the locals can complain about mainlanders driving too fast on the island. Because, from my experience, it's the locals, not the tourists who drive crazy over here. When I see these bumper stickers, I want to ask:

"What do you say to the locals who screech past my house every Friday and Saturday night like NASCAR Cup chasers?" We don't live in a touristy area and the crashes (five of them so far) and gunning engines are common. Mostly at night. More so on the weekends. I don't think these are mainlanders.

"What do you say to the locals who tailgate everyone?" I get tailgated on the way to the grocery store by delivery fans and other cars going to the grocery store. These are NOT mainlanders behind me.

"What do you say to the locals who get impatient and speed past everyone while driving, legally or illegally?" I know for a fact the guy who hit us head-on on our drive back from Hana last year was NOT a mainlander. He was a local who was pissed off at a slow tourist and tried to pass another car over a double-yellow line, going around a curve.

Serious advice to travelers on the road to Hana (and elsewhere on Maui). Unless you are one of the speed demons these bumper stickers are addressing, let locals pass you on the roads. When we drive to Hana and back, we always pull over when it's safe to let people pass us. We like to take the drive slowly, but we don't want to piss other folks off. When you see space to pull over, just let people pass. It makes for a much more pleasant trip (if you don't get hit).

Anyway, like I said - there are some legitimate gripes about mainlanders. But, having experienced the driving behavior of Maui inhabitants, I always laugh a little when I see this bumper sticker. Do these folks *really* not know who the speeders on Maui are?

As I mentioned in a previous post, I was doing some personal research on the Federal Budget. Why? That's me.

OK, let's start off with a few budget numbers. Let's look at the proposed Federal Budget of the United States for 2007. The 2007 budget covers the time from October 1, 2007 to September 31, 2008. So you know I am not making these up, these numbers can be found at the Federal Office of Management and Budget located here:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2007/budget.html

It's an interesting read, the rest of the report. I encourage people to check it out. After I present some numbers, I am going to explain where I got those numbers from, so keep reading if you want the boring explanation.

How do these numbers possibly affect YOU?

Here's one possibility - Perhaps the federal budget allocations can affect how much tainted food ends up in local grocery stores across the nation.

How?

Well, who is in charge of food safety? A big part of that is the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (there are also groups within the Department of Agriculture that inspect food). The FDA is one agency in the U.S Department of Health and Human Services. The Health and Human Service's 2006 discretionary budget was 69.2 billion dollars. The requested 2007 discretionary budget is 67.6 billion dollars. That is a decrease of 2.3 percent. Think they had enough manpower last year to inspect food and food products coming in from foreign countries? No? Think it will get better this fiscal year? Not without more budget (or a lot of shuffling of money).

Worried about your kids' education? School districts rely on local, state, and federal money to help run schools. Money comes down from the U.S. Department of Education. Their 2006 discretionary budget was 56.5 billion dollars. The requested 2007 discretionary budget is 54.4 billion dollars. That is a decrease of 3.8 percent.

In fact, if you look at the requested federal budget amounts for the 15 cabinet departments of the United States (how many can you name?), most of them either go down (9 of them) or go up by less than one-half of one percent (2 of them).

The other four?

Those would be Veterans Affairs (up by 8 percent), Department of State (up by 12.2 percent), Homeland Security (up by 1.3 percent), and the Department of Defense (up by 6.9 percent).

How big is the federal budget allocation for the Department of Defense? In 2007, it is (requested) 439.3 billion dollars.

Or in other words, the Defense budget is 8.07 times larger than the Education budget.

The Defense budget is 6.50 times larger than the Health and Human Services budget.

The Defense budget is 43.50 times larger that the Department of the Interior budget.

The Defense budget is 60.18 times larger that the Environmental Protection Agency budget (a "cabinet-level" federal department).

For this post, I'm not going to add a lot of editorial. I speculated about how these numbers could affect everyday citizens. For now, I just want to throw those numbers out there. I'll be much more opinionated in follow-up posts.

Food for thought.

(now the boring stuff.........I used the budget amounts from the discretionary budget summary. If you look at each department, there is a budget summary at the end of every report. There are many items that make up the Discretionary Budget amount. Those totals match up with numbers in Table S-3. Then, there are more numbers. Some of them are supplements and some of them are mandatory outlays. These numbers are not included in the Table S-3 summary, and I am not including them here. I haven't done calculation on those totals yet because they are spread around, but they may show different results than I am relaying. So be warned. If you don't agree, DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH!)

Since I’m not really ready to comment on the current news cycle, I’ll go back a little and comment on something else.

The pet food recall. This recall keeps expanding, with latest news stating that even pet food that does not contain wheat gluten has tested positive for a potentially lethal chemical. From what I understand from previous news articles, the potentially lethal chemical may have been added deliberately to increase the protein value of pet food. Using this chemical was probably cheaper than adding edible sources of protein. And the greater the protein value in the food, the better the food. So it seems. The president of Natural Balance, a pet food provider, said “It was pretty shocking” when he found out that a rice protein made in Asia may have included this lethal protein. He said “I was livid.”

Really? Shocking, huh? Livid, huh? How livid were you when you probably approved the use of the rice protein from an Asian country? How shocked were you at the amount of money your company saved by using ingredients produced outside the U.S.? How livid were you (and every other pet food company) when you saw the low wages being paid to workers in a foreign country? Or did you notice? Ever heard of the old adage “You get what you pay for?”

Now, fair trade is not generally my issue, nor is outsourcing. But I have to wonder if other presidents and CFOs of companies will now think twice before trying to cut corners in food production. I’d be curious to know how much money these pet food companies saved by purchasing all or part of their ingredients from countries that are not held to the same strict standards as American companies. And I’d be curious to know how much money the companies have lost from this pet food recall. Both in terms of current sales, future sales, and potential loss from lawsuits if it turns out the lethal chemicals were added deliberately.

Was it worth it? Will it make other companies think twice about trying to circumnavigate American procedures and regulations? Maybe they now realize that the restrictions and procedures put in place by the federal government can be more of a benefit than a cost liability in the long run. Because the only way, it seems, to get companies to change their behavior is by appealing to their bottom line.

I think there is sometimes a fine line between just kidding around and a put-down.

That line is so very blurred because of the (sometimes) unknown intent of the speaker and the sensitivity level of the recipient. Some people take all stated jokes at face value and think nothing more of it. They are ducks, and kidding and constant ribbing is simply water off their slick ducky backs.

Some people are more sensitive to kidding around and sometimes perceive something more personal in the other person's words. They may see an insult. Or they may think that, really, the other person is not kidding, and his/her words are just a cruelish attempt to convey something he/she cannot outright say.

I hate to admit it, but I tend to fall in the second category. This is not a new thing. I've always been fairly sensitive. My dad was a constant source of kidding around when I was a kid, but I think he learned fairly early on that my sister was much better at "taking a joke" than I was. Of course, that didn't always stop him from trying to josh around with me. And sometimes, I could give back as well as I got. But sometimes, you say just the wrong thing to me at the wrong moment, and my mind engulfs all the bad connotations and runs away wildly like a spooked horse with no reins. I can't control the direction my mind goes. I can't make it stop on command. I simply have to try and ride it out and get to a point where I can either forget the whole thing, or arrive at a happier conclusion.

And what happens when some people make the same jokes over and over again? Yet, they are not really jokes - they are "kidding" insults directed at something you care about, just for the sake of kidding around. If I laugh at 20 such jokes, am I too sensitive of a person for feeling a little hurt by the 21st? Who knows. And if you spend all the time jokingly insulting something I care about, and then accidentally slight it, in word or deed, how am I supposed to take that? I suppose I should understand that it's an honest mistake with no real mean intent behind it. If I don't, I get accused of being too defensive, or too sensitive, or too unable to deal with a spontaneous change of plans (for the record, it was the first and the third points tonight). But maybe, the real answer is - I am too sensitive. And I interpreted a slight against the very thing that has been jokingly insulted for eons. But to admit that is to risk never being joked with again. And I somewhat enjoyed the first 20 jokes. But sometimes, it helps if the joker has something positive to say once in a while.

I guess that's my advice for people who jokingly insult something that they know another person cares about. If it's really, really, *just* a joke, why not expend some positive energy and say something nice sometimes? Because if not, and you really dislike the thing you insult, then it's not a joke. And it should not be represented as such.

This could also be a post about the power of negative thinking. Or conversely, the folly of positive thinking. But, I'm still trying to think more positively than negatively, so I need to go meditate or something. Folly? Perhaps.