From the newspaper the "Irish Independent": It was the most warmly welcomed initiative of the millennium celebrations -- a tree planted in the name of every family in the State.
But citizens who believe they own one of the famous "millennium trees", planted under the orders of the late minister Seamus Brennan in 2000, should make sure they have kept the paperwork detailing their ownership.
As concern grows that the Government is planning to sell off the "people's millennium trees'' as part of its privatisation strategy, Fianna Fail's marine and fisheries spokesperson John Browne has warned the Government, the ECB, the EU and the IMF troika to "keep their hands off'' the trees.
Outside of the free millennium candles, the most popular aspect of the celebrations was the assignation of 1.2 million trees, consisting of native oak, ash, birch, alder and Scots pine, to each Irish household as part of the People's Millennium Forests Project Household Tree scheme.
Households received an ownership certificate, with a covering letter from the minister for the environment detailing individual plot numbers where their tree had been planted. The letter noted: "It gives us great pleasure to enclose the certificate of authentication of your household's special tree for the millennium."
Mr Browne, however, believes that if Coillte assets are sold off then the "people's trees will be sold off to pay off the gambling debts of the Irish banks''.
More rhetoric. "When we said it was *yours* what we really meant was that it was *ours* to do with as we pleased, and most especially to sell for profit whenever we wanted and to hell with your children."
It's a grey day here, again, and I'm too easily depressed by news like this.
There are times when it seems to me that there is nothing politicians hold sacred. Not religion, not history, not heritage, not the people, not the language - nothing. They sit on their arses for years and pontificate at election times about the sacred oaths they swear and the responsibilities they take so seriously.
And then, when the elections are over, starts the back-room dealing all over again.
They lie and they lie and the press repeats the lies based on who they like the best or who has the biggest tits or the nicests suits, and in the end there's another two or four or six years gone by and another little bit of who we are gone forever.
I'm not a luddite. Not really. But why is it that this inevitable "change" we hear so much about always results in slightly higer taxes, slightly fewer jobs, slightly uglier cities and towns, and slightly fewer people who care?
Monday, June 4, 2012
Friday, June 1, 2012
Gay Marriage, Again
I had a heated discussion last night about gay marriage. I was rude from time to time, but I was frustrated by my own inability to form coherent sentences. This keyboard has a "backspace" key. I often wish my mouth did, too. Anyway, if I could have done so, I would have made the following cogent statements:
1. This may, in fact, be a Civil Rights issue or a Human Rights issue. If it is - and I'm not conceding that it is - then Congress has no authority to issue any laws restricting gay marriage. That argument hasn't yet been made before the United States Supreme Court - probably because the progressive left is afraid of being ruled against.
2. I am not homophobic. Well, maybe I am. It really all depends on how one defines the term. If I'm talking to a Cambridge liberal, I'm not just a homophobe I'm an especially intolerant and hateful NAZI homophobe. If I'm talking to a Virginia conservative, I'm a damned communist and a queer lover (quick, Clem, grab the hangin' rope).
So take your pick, but I don't think the label's very helpful.
I'm conservative. That means that I quite literally resist change. The bigger the proposed change, the more I resist it. As I said to someone not that long ago, if you told me 25 years ago that our president would be a black, coke-snorting, dope-smoking, socialist Harvard professor, and that he would be arguing in favor of letting two men get married, I'd have called you nuts.
So, yeah, gay marriage is a big proposed change and I am leery of it on principal. So are a lot of other folks. That doesn't make us evil. A bit slow, maybe, but not evil.
3. Western civilization's concept of marriage has at all times and in all places been understood to be a relationship between a man and a woman. There has been homosexuality, infidelity, bisexuality, polygamy, and divorce at various times in history, but gay marriage? Nope. Never happened. That was a crime in most societies, punishable by death. For progressives to argue - as they have been - that defining marriage as a heterosexual relationship is a novel and modern interpretation is stupid and disingenuous.
4. This whole situation has arisen because some gay couples want to be treated exactly the same as heterosexual couples. Exactly that same. No differences. Nothing less is acceptable. Nothing. Less. Ever. Anywhere.
Really? Really?? It's not enough to be married in Provincetown, Massachusetts, but you've just got to be able to be married in Columbus, Ohio as well? If that's how you feel, then that's how you feel, and I understand the point of view. I do. But REALLY??? You can't just leave it alone? I mean, it upsets me that I can't carry a pistol in New York City - second amendment and all - but I kind of live with that because I don't want to visit there let alone live there and I really think that maybe if you just kind of resigned yourself to not living in Madison, Wisconsin, we could focus a little more clearly on the economy.
Because if you had a really good job and could take a vacation in the Bahamas every February and if you could afford to live with your state-recognized spouse in a really nice New York brownstone, probably you'd worry about it less.
1. This may, in fact, be a Civil Rights issue or a Human Rights issue. If it is - and I'm not conceding that it is - then Congress has no authority to issue any laws restricting gay marriage. That argument hasn't yet been made before the United States Supreme Court - probably because the progressive left is afraid of being ruled against.
2. I am not homophobic. Well, maybe I am. It really all depends on how one defines the term. If I'm talking to a Cambridge liberal, I'm not just a homophobe I'm an especially intolerant and hateful NAZI homophobe. If I'm talking to a Virginia conservative, I'm a damned communist and a queer lover (quick, Clem, grab the hangin' rope).
So take your pick, but I don't think the label's very helpful.
I'm conservative. That means that I quite literally resist change. The bigger the proposed change, the more I resist it. As I said to someone not that long ago, if you told me 25 years ago that our president would be a black, coke-snorting, dope-smoking, socialist Harvard professor, and that he would be arguing in favor of letting two men get married, I'd have called you nuts.
So, yeah, gay marriage is a big proposed change and I am leery of it on principal. So are a lot of other folks. That doesn't make us evil. A bit slow, maybe, but not evil.
3. Western civilization's concept of marriage has at all times and in all places been understood to be a relationship between a man and a woman. There has been homosexuality, infidelity, bisexuality, polygamy, and divorce at various times in history, but gay marriage? Nope. Never happened. That was a crime in most societies, punishable by death. For progressives to argue - as they have been - that defining marriage as a heterosexual relationship is a novel and modern interpretation is stupid and disingenuous.
4. This whole situation has arisen because some gay couples want to be treated exactly the same as heterosexual couples. Exactly that same. No differences. Nothing less is acceptable. Nothing. Less. Ever. Anywhere.
Really? Really?? It's not enough to be married in Provincetown, Massachusetts, but you've just got to be able to be married in Columbus, Ohio as well? If that's how you feel, then that's how you feel, and I understand the point of view. I do. But REALLY??? You can't just leave it alone? I mean, it upsets me that I can't carry a pistol in New York City - second amendment and all - but I kind of live with that because I don't want to visit there let alone live there and I really think that maybe if you just kind of resigned yourself to not living in Madison, Wisconsin, we could focus a little more clearly on the economy.
Because if you had a really good job and could take a vacation in the Bahamas every February and if you could afford to live with your state-recognized spouse in a really nice New York brownstone, probably you'd worry about it less.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Not the Heroic Fallen
Today is Memorial Day in the United States. It is dedicated to those who died while serving in the armed forces.
Today, for an hour, or only a minute, we need to think about the dead. The ones who would be here today except for prideful politicians and a few genuinely evil dictators. Fathers and sons. They didn't "willingly sacrifice themselves on the altar of freedom" as we will hear so often today. We put them there. We decided that our nation, our way of doing things, was important enough to put those fathers and sons between our nation and those who would harm it. We asked, and for their own reasons, they answered.
We must dedicate ourselves to being worthy of what we asked. Study the issues. Vote. Despise and rebuke the corrupt. Get off the sidelines. Carry the ball one step for those who can't.
Have that barbecue today - the dead would, if they could. But tomorrow, in your heart, try to make it the day after Memorial Day, and not just Tuesday.
Today, for an hour, or only a minute, we need to think about the dead. The ones who would be here today except for prideful politicians and a few genuinely evil dictators. Fathers and sons. They didn't "willingly sacrifice themselves on the altar of freedom" as we will hear so often today. We put them there. We decided that our nation, our way of doing things, was important enough to put those fathers and sons between our nation and those who would harm it. We asked, and for their own reasons, they answered.
We must dedicate ourselves to being worthy of what we asked. Study the issues. Vote. Despise and rebuke the corrupt. Get off the sidelines. Carry the ball one step for those who can't.
Have that barbecue today - the dead would, if they could. But tomorrow, in your heart, try to make it the day after Memorial Day, and not just Tuesday.
Friday, May 25, 2012
Check My Math
I just filled the gas tank on my little Scion xD. It's a nice car; I've had some trouble with the passenger-side cup holder (it sticks) and the stock tires wore out completely in 35,000 miles, but it's reasonably stylish, reliable, and equipped.
Anyway, filling the gas tank: 9.707 gallons at $3.699 per gallon cost me $35.91. That's less than it cost me a few months ago, more than it cost me a few years ago. But what if I were in Ireland? What would it cost me to fill my little four-banger with enough gasoline to commute back and forth for a week?
Gasoline (petrol) costs an average of €1.659 per liter just now. The current exchange rate is 1.275 USD per euro; that is (I think) $2.11 per liter. You can cram 3.785 litres into each US gallon. That means gasoline costs $8.01 per gallon in Ireland.
Filling my little four-banger Scion xD would cost me just about $77.72. That's for the same gasoline that I buy here in Berlin, Massachusetts.
When I paid for my gasoline in Massachusetts, just about $2.28 out of the $35.91 went to taxes. That means (I think) that the real cost of the gasoline, including drilling, refining, and profits, came to $33.63. So, unless my math is wrong (and it sure could be), the Irish government and the EU are collecting $44.09 in taxes from their citizens (more or less) each time a citizen puts a tank of gasoline in their little european four-banger. For those on the other side of the pond keeping score, that's just about €35.11. Per tank. Every time.
Now, if I was Greek or German or Irish (wait - I am Irish), before anybody in government talked to me about raising taxes or implementing austerity measures, I'd want someone to, oh I don't know, audit the books, maybe?
Anyway, filling the gas tank: 9.707 gallons at $3.699 per gallon cost me $35.91. That's less than it cost me a few months ago, more than it cost me a few years ago. But what if I were in Ireland? What would it cost me to fill my little four-banger with enough gasoline to commute back and forth for a week?
Gasoline (petrol) costs an average of €1.659 per liter just now. The current exchange rate is 1.275 USD per euro; that is (I think) $2.11 per liter. You can cram 3.785 litres into each US gallon. That means gasoline costs $8.01 per gallon in Ireland.
Filling my little four-banger Scion xD would cost me just about $77.72. That's for the same gasoline that I buy here in Berlin, Massachusetts.
When I paid for my gasoline in Massachusetts, just about $2.28 out of the $35.91 went to taxes. That means (I think) that the real cost of the gasoline, including drilling, refining, and profits, came to $33.63. So, unless my math is wrong (and it sure could be), the Irish government and the EU are collecting $44.09 in taxes from their citizens (more or less) each time a citizen puts a tank of gasoline in their little european four-banger. For those on the other side of the pond keeping score, that's just about €35.11. Per tank. Every time.
Now, if I was Greek or German or Irish (wait - I am Irish), before anybody in government talked to me about raising taxes or implementing austerity measures, I'd want someone to, oh I don't know, audit the books, maybe?
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Nazis and Gay Marriage
I have spent a lot of time thinking about gay marriage over the past few days. Here, briefly, are my thoughts:
1. Hey, Barack - stop asking Michelle and the girls what they think about things, reach across the aisle, and help get folks back to work. Three-and-a-half years in it's probably too late, but at least folks would know your head was in the right place.
2. Anybody comparing gay marriage to slavery or conservatives to Nazis needs to read a book on slavery and then watch a documentary on the holocaust. Saying two guys can't get married may be intolerant, but it's not quite the same thing as if, say, the state of North Carolina used tax money to construct and operate a murder mill and crematoriaum where 3,000 people a day got converted to ashes. This may in fact be a civil rights issue, but let's keep this crap in perspective.
3. Anybody on either side of the issue suggesting that the Union be dissolved over gay marriage needs to read a book on the Civil War. One with pictures. For the most part, I'd rather talk all day than get shot. Or shoot someone.
So those are my thoughts. Read a couple of books, watch a movie, go to work, and don't shoot anybody. A philosophy for the ages.
1. Hey, Barack - stop asking Michelle and the girls what they think about things, reach across the aisle, and help get folks back to work. Three-and-a-half years in it's probably too late, but at least folks would know your head was in the right place.
2. Anybody comparing gay marriage to slavery or conservatives to Nazis needs to read a book on slavery and then watch a documentary on the holocaust. Saying two guys can't get married may be intolerant, but it's not quite the same thing as if, say, the state of North Carolina used tax money to construct and operate a murder mill and crematoriaum where 3,000 people a day got converted to ashes. This may in fact be a civil rights issue, but let's keep this crap in perspective.
3. Anybody on either side of the issue suggesting that the Union be dissolved over gay marriage needs to read a book on the Civil War. One with pictures. For the most part, I'd rather talk all day than get shot. Or shoot someone.
So those are my thoughts. Read a couple of books, watch a movie, go to work, and don't shoot anybody. A philosophy for the ages.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
No, You Can't
For reasons I have outlined often in Facebook, I see the marriage issue as being far more complex than people have been willing to admit. Obama does not have the authority - moral or legal - to change the law.
In the United States, the President (somewhat analogous to the Government or the cabinet in Ireland) may propose laws for the congress (similar to the oireachtas) and has the authority to unilaterally veto laws passed by congress (I don't think that Ireland has an indivdual with that authority).
The congress *can* pass a law that is vetoed by the President, but such an override requires a 2/3 majority vote in both houses (senead and dail).
The judicial branch (again, similar to but different from the Supreme Court in Ireland) rules whether laws are constitutional.
Obama's power in the matter of gay marrige is currently limited to proposing new laws or amendments to the US Constitution and keeping the issue in the national spotlight. If congress were to amend the consitution, or if the United States Supreme Court were to rule that gay marriage was a constitutionally-protected civil right, Obama would then have the authority to send in federal agents and would have the authority to deploy combat units of the National Guard to enforce the law.
US National Guard troops were deployed in the United States to enforce civil rights laws in the 1960's. Some states - like Utah, Michigan, Louisiana, Texas, Utah, and Virginia - might be willing to use their own National Guard troops to resist.
The idea of using F-15s and Abrams tanks on US citizens on US soil so that a couple of gay guys can walk hand-in-hand down the the Main Street of A$$hole, Nebraska, as well as the streets of Provincetown, Massachusetts, seems pretty stupid to me.
In the United States, the President (somewhat analogous to the Government or the cabinet in Ireland) may propose laws for the congress (similar to the oireachtas) and has the authority to unilaterally veto laws passed by congress (I don't think that Ireland has an indivdual with that authority).
The congress *can* pass a law that is vetoed by the President, but such an override requires a 2/3 majority vote in both houses (senead and dail).
The judicial branch (again, similar to but different from the Supreme Court in Ireland) rules whether laws are constitutional.
Obama's power in the matter of gay marrige is currently limited to proposing new laws or amendments to the US Constitution and keeping the issue in the national spotlight. If congress were to amend the consitution, or if the United States Supreme Court were to rule that gay marriage was a constitutionally-protected civil right, Obama would then have the authority to send in federal agents and would have the authority to deploy combat units of the National Guard to enforce the law.
US National Guard troops were deployed in the United States to enforce civil rights laws in the 1960's. Some states - like Utah, Michigan, Louisiana, Texas, Utah, and Virginia - might be willing to use their own National Guard troops to resist.
The idea of using F-15s and Abrams tanks on US citizens on US soil so that a couple of gay guys can walk hand-in-hand down the the Main Street of A$$hole, Nebraska, as well as the streets of Provincetown, Massachusetts, seems pretty stupid to me.
Wednesday, September 7, 2011
The Environment
Among those things I have listed in the past about which I am passionate, I included engineering and the environment.
So I'll talk about that for a minute.
I am reminded of the old George Carlin line about how everyone driving more slowly than you are is an "idiot" and how everybody driving faster than you is a "maniac". His point (of course) was that we always consider ourselves to be perectly normal. The standard by which others ought to be judged. It is, at best, a subjective standard.
When we seek to establish acceptable levels of contamination in the environment, we are - right off the bat - assuming that some level of contamination is either necessary or unavoidable. As for the term "acceptable", well, a 25-year-old organic gardener pursuing a vegan lifestyle in Arizona is going to have a different opinion regarding what is "acceptable" than a 57-year-old unmarried CEO living in Manhattan.
Maniacs and lunatics.
So what did we do? We tried to scientifically establish an objective one-in-a-million standard for each contaminant. So, if you're drinking that good old Framingham water, you can be comfortable in the knowledge that if there's any methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether in your glass, your increased chances of getting cancer from drinking that water are? That's right. One in a million. One additional case of cancer in every million citizens. That's not a one-in-a-million total, mind you. That's one more per million.
If we're talking about liver cancer, that would mean that for every million people, instead of sixteen cases of liver cancer, there would be seventeen.
Oh, wait. Those are 1975 statistics. Here we go - in 2005, for every million people, instead of forty-nine cases of liver cancer, there will be an even fifty cases.
And now we come to my real point. All the tongue-in-cheek stuff aside. We're killing ourselves. Mercury in our seafood. Gasoline constituents in our drinking water. Dry cleaning solvents in our homes. The viability of our economy is crucial: people have to work, people have to eat. But we mustn't allow inertia and simple bad science to keep us moving down the road to extinction. Reducing the presence of known carcinogens (like for instance mercury in swirly lightbulbs) and removing the carcinogens we've released already (like chlorinated solvents in our groundwater) must continue to be priorities. Not because we're such good global citizens, but because we don't want to die of liver cancer.
So I'll talk about that for a minute.
I am reminded of the old George Carlin line about how everyone driving more slowly than you are is an "idiot" and how everybody driving faster than you is a "maniac". His point (of course) was that we always consider ourselves to be perectly normal. The standard by which others ought to be judged. It is, at best, a subjective standard.
When we seek to establish acceptable levels of contamination in the environment, we are - right off the bat - assuming that some level of contamination is either necessary or unavoidable. As for the term "acceptable", well, a 25-year-old organic gardener pursuing a vegan lifestyle in Arizona is going to have a different opinion regarding what is "acceptable" than a 57-year-old unmarried CEO living in Manhattan.
Maniacs and lunatics.
So what did we do? We tried to scientifically establish an objective one-in-a-million standard for each contaminant. So, if you're drinking that good old Framingham water, you can be comfortable in the knowledge that if there's any methyl-tertiary-butyl-ether in your glass, your increased chances of getting cancer from drinking that water are? That's right. One in a million. One additional case of cancer in every million citizens. That's not a one-in-a-million total, mind you. That's one more per million.
If we're talking about liver cancer, that would mean that for every million people, instead of sixteen cases of liver cancer, there would be seventeen.
Oh, wait. Those are 1975 statistics. Here we go - in 2005, for every million people, instead of forty-nine cases of liver cancer, there will be an even fifty cases.
And now we come to my real point. All the tongue-in-cheek stuff aside. We're killing ourselves. Mercury in our seafood. Gasoline constituents in our drinking water. Dry cleaning solvents in our homes. The viability of our economy is crucial: people have to work, people have to eat. But we mustn't allow inertia and simple bad science to keep us moving down the road to extinction. Reducing the presence of known carcinogens (like for instance mercury in swirly lightbulbs) and removing the carcinogens we've released already (like chlorinated solvents in our groundwater) must continue to be priorities. Not because we're such good global citizens, but because we don't want to die of liver cancer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)