Dear Sen. Schumer,
Congratulations on the recent vote to debate health care reform in the U.S. Senate. It is historic on so many levels and I support your efforts with everything I am.
However, the Sunday morning after that vote, I watched you on one of the Sunday morning media shows plead with reform opponents to allow an "opt out" provision of some sort. You said something on the order of: "Just because you don't want the public option, don't make it impossible for me to get it."
This troubles me. If this "opt out" provision comes to pass, millions of Americans will be condemned to continued poor health care options. Those Americans who live in places like Texas and Alabama deserve good health care, too.
I'm a life-long Texan and, in so many ways, damned proud to be one. But I also know our state's miserable record where it comes to human services. I have no illusions, no reason to hope that our state's Republican leadership will embrace health care reform, particularly anything that smacks of a public option. After all, these are the same yahoos who rejected federal stimulus funds because it's not friendly to business and might force Texas to improve and modernize the way it handles unemployment.
Senator, I know who represents Texas in the United States Senate. You do, too. They do not represent me in this matter; nor do they represent the hundreds of thousands of Democrats and Independents in Texas who believe, as you and I do, that this nation cannot afford to continue to pay premium prices for third-rate health care outcomes.
If left up to these senators and political leaders from Texas, there will be no public option or health care reform at all, which will plunge citizens in the South even deeper into poverty.
Please, Senator. You, and other progressive senators, must not give up on a public option that is available to all Americans, and not just to a fortunate few.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Mercury rising: the USGS report tells only part of the story
A new report released last week by the U.S. Geological Survey measuring mercury levels in fish is not the first such warning we’ve had about this. In fact, the report probably understates the seriousness of mercury contamination in America, and certainly in this part of Texas.
According to the report, one of every four fish caught in U.S. rivers, streams and wetlands is contaminated by so much mercury, it is unsafe to eat. That’s sort of like playing Russian roulette with a rod and reel. I mean, given four fish, how do you know which three are safe to eat and which one could leave you with brain damage?
USGS researchers found traces of mercury — a heavy metal that causes brain damage and, when eaten by expectant mothers, birth defects and autism — in every fish it tested. In more than a quarter of those fish, the level of mercury contamination exceeded the levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency as being safe. The fish tested were taken from nearly 300 American rivers, streams and wetland areas.Around here, it’s a lot higher than that. The main source of mercury released into the environment comes from burning low-grade lignite to generate electricity. There have been several studies in the last few years that linked burning lignite coal to extremely high concentrations of mercury in Texas' lakes, streams and marshes.
In 2004, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund released its report, "Reel Danger: Mercury pollution and the fish we eat," which found that 57 percent of the fish sampled in Texas contained unsafe levels of mercury and that 83 percent of both predator and bottom feeding fish, like several varieties of catfish and bass, had unsafe levels of mercury.
Last year, a University of Pittsburgh research group found that fish caught downstream of coal fired electric plants have been contaminated by dangerous levels of mercury. These fish had up to 19 times more mercury than store-bought, farm-raised fish.
Also last year, the University of Texas Health Science Center found the risk of autism is greater for children living near Texas power plants and that the incidence of autism increases as power plants increase emissions of mercury.
This most recent report warning that our lakes and rivers are contaminated with dangerous levels of mercury really shouldn't surprise us. After all, we share our immediate environment with several coal-fired power plants that, in the past, have individually pumped out more than 180,000 tons of airborne solid waste each year.
The new Sandow plant in Rockdale is permitted to emit 300 pounds of mercury annually but the two lignite plants being built near Franklin in Robertson County will combine to generate nearly 1,600 pounds of mercury annually, once they’re on line. The Bremond generating plant is permitted for about 600 pounds annually.
So, we have (or will have) four lignite-burning power plants within about an hour’s drive combining to release more than a ton of mercury into the atmosphere each year — and our state government condones it through its permitting process.
And this doesn’t even count the Limestone plant up in Jewett — about 70 miles away — that has been called the dirtiest power plant in America. The Limestone plant releases 1,800 pounds of mercury each year, more than any other plant in the country. To our shame, Texas is home to five of the nation’s top 10 dirtiest power plants.
I’m not saying that you should never eat fish caught in the Little River, or Lake Sommerville, or Stillhouse Hollow, or Lake Limestone … but, I’d think long and hard before letting my pregnant daughter or granddaughter eat any fish caught in Texas.
According to the report, one of every four fish caught in U.S. rivers, streams and wetlands is contaminated by so much mercury, it is unsafe to eat. That’s sort of like playing Russian roulette with a rod and reel. I mean, given four fish, how do you know which three are safe to eat and which one could leave you with brain damage?
USGS researchers found traces of mercury — a heavy metal that causes brain damage and, when eaten by expectant mothers, birth defects and autism — in every fish it tested. In more than a quarter of those fish, the level of mercury contamination exceeded the levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency as being safe. The fish tested were taken from nearly 300 American rivers, streams and wetland areas.Around here, it’s a lot higher than that. The main source of mercury released into the environment comes from burning low-grade lignite to generate electricity. There have been several studies in the last few years that linked burning lignite coal to extremely high concentrations of mercury in Texas' lakes, streams and marshes.
In 2004, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group Education Fund released its report, "Reel Danger: Mercury pollution and the fish we eat," which found that 57 percent of the fish sampled in Texas contained unsafe levels of mercury and that 83 percent of both predator and bottom feeding fish, like several varieties of catfish and bass, had unsafe levels of mercury.
Last year, a University of Pittsburgh research group found that fish caught downstream of coal fired electric plants have been contaminated by dangerous levels of mercury. These fish had up to 19 times more mercury than store-bought, farm-raised fish.
Also last year, the University of Texas Health Science Center found the risk of autism is greater for children living near Texas power plants and that the incidence of autism increases as power plants increase emissions of mercury.
This most recent report warning that our lakes and rivers are contaminated with dangerous levels of mercury really shouldn't surprise us. After all, we share our immediate environment with several coal-fired power plants that, in the past, have individually pumped out more than 180,000 tons of airborne solid waste each year.
The new Sandow plant in Rockdale is permitted to emit 300 pounds of mercury annually but the two lignite plants being built near Franklin in Robertson County will combine to generate nearly 1,600 pounds of mercury annually, once they’re on line. The Bremond generating plant is permitted for about 600 pounds annually.
So, we have (or will have) four lignite-burning power plants within about an hour’s drive combining to release more than a ton of mercury into the atmosphere each year — and our state government condones it through its permitting process.
And this doesn’t even count the Limestone plant up in Jewett — about 70 miles away — that has been called the dirtiest power plant in America. The Limestone plant releases 1,800 pounds of mercury each year, more than any other plant in the country. To our shame, Texas is home to five of the nation’s top 10 dirtiest power plants.
I’m not saying that you should never eat fish caught in the Little River, or Lake Sommerville, or Stillhouse Hollow, or Lake Limestone … but, I’d think long and hard before letting my pregnant daughter or granddaughter eat any fish caught in Texas.
Sources on the Web …
The USGS report is here: http://www.doi.gov/news/09_News_Releases/081909.html
The “Reel Danger” report is here: http://agresearch.umd.edu/cfnap/realmercuryfacts/studies/reel.htm
A similar report from the Pew Trust is here: http://www.pewtrusts.org/our_work_report_detail.aspx?id=30683
The University of Pittsburgh report is here: http://www.upmc.com/MediaRelations/NewsReleases/2007/Pages/APHA2007VolzUpstream.aspx
The University of Texas Health Science Center report is here: http://www.uthscsa.edu/hscnews/singleformat.asp?newID=2732
Friday, August 7, 2009
On point
In fact, it's so on point, it's devastating. (Full disclosure: I stole the link from a friend's Facebook page ...)
Newspapers and thinking the unthinkablehttp://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/03/newspapers-and-thinking-the-unthinkable/
"Round and round this goes, with the people committed to saving newspapers demanding to know “If the old model is broken, what will work in its place?” To which the answer is: Nothing. Nothing will work. There is no general model for newspapers to replace the one the internet just broke."
Thursday, July 16, 2009
I get it. Why don't you?
So, let me get this straight ...
You like your health insurance company so much, you'd rather pay more than twice as much per person than any other industrialized country for system that routinely fails nearly half of all Americans (well, the half of those not already on some sort of subsidized health insurance program).
Is that right?
I get it, I get it. You like your doctor. You like your therapist. You abhor the thought that some bureaucrat in Washington might tell you that you can't get a certain prescription drug or medical procedure or that you can only consult certain doctors ... I get it.
But you don't get it because your insurance company does that now. Your insurance company routinely tells patients which procedures they can have and which ones they can't, which doctors they can consult and how often. Your insurance company routinely bases prescription drug coverage on which big pharma companies they have contracts with.
In fact, your health insurance company is in the business of denying your claim, in assuring you get the cheapest drugs rather than the drugs you need, and in making sure you stay away from expensive medical procedures, even when they could save your life. If you’ve never had this happen to you, you are either extremely fortunate, have a premium policy or you are much more well off than you realize.
In other words, we already put up with most of the things you say you don't like about health care reform.
Oh, I get it. You don't want to pay for "socialized medicine" or for all those poor people. But, you already do. Roughly 40 percent of Americans have some sort of government subsidized health insurance whether it's because they are government employees, on Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip or eligible for VA benefits. And, despite the occasional hiccup, most of those people seem to appreciate that coverage.
And, we subsidize the truly indigent because we won't turn them away from treatment of the last resort — the emergency room. (And, don't think for a minute they eventually pay for that treatment — taxpayers pay for it in the form of taxes to our cities and counties.)
In reality, we're not talking about making anyone change insurance companies (meaning you can avoid the dreaded government bureaucrat) or doctors (unless your current insurance company forces you to change) or limiting coverage (other than the limitations your insurance company already imposes).
In reality, this debate about the value of social medicine versus private insurance we're having is really about making sure everyone in this country has some way to afford needed health care.
In reality, our entire economy is hostage to the concept of employer-provided health insurance. It hamstrings entrepreneurship because people are locked into their jobs because that's the only way most of us can afford any health insurance whatsoever — good or bad.
It hampers small businesses because small companies can't afford to offer the same kinds of benefits (read: health insurance) as the mega-corporations and some mega-corporations (can you say: GM?) have experienced some rather catastrophic problems as a direct result of legacy health insurance costs.
In June, Pres. Obama asked why, if the free market was all that, insurance companies should fear the competition of a public option?
As long as insurance companies are for-profit, our health care delivery system will be no better than Cuba's (and you can make the argument that theirs actually provides for all their citizens). The bill the U.S. House passed last week is the best hope our country has ever had to ensure the vast majority of our citizens enjoy this particular liberty.
You like your health insurance company so much, you'd rather pay more than twice as much per person than any other industrialized country for system that routinely fails nearly half of all Americans (well, the half of those not already on some sort of subsidized health insurance program).
Is that right?
I get it, I get it. You like your doctor. You like your therapist. You abhor the thought that some bureaucrat in Washington might tell you that you can't get a certain prescription drug or medical procedure or that you can only consult certain doctors ... I get it.
But you don't get it because your insurance company does that now. Your insurance company routinely tells patients which procedures they can have and which ones they can't, which doctors they can consult and how often. Your insurance company routinely bases prescription drug coverage on which big pharma companies they have contracts with.
In fact, your health insurance company is in the business of denying your claim, in assuring you get the cheapest drugs rather than the drugs you need, and in making sure you stay away from expensive medical procedures, even when they could save your life. If you’ve never had this happen to you, you are either extremely fortunate, have a premium policy or you are much more well off than you realize.
In other words, we already put up with most of the things you say you don't like about health care reform.
Oh, I get it. You don't want to pay for "socialized medicine" or for all those poor people. But, you already do. Roughly 40 percent of Americans have some sort of government subsidized health insurance whether it's because they are government employees, on Medicare, Medicaid, S-Chip or eligible for VA benefits. And, despite the occasional hiccup, most of those people seem to appreciate that coverage.
And, we subsidize the truly indigent because we won't turn them away from treatment of the last resort — the emergency room. (And, don't think for a minute they eventually pay for that treatment — taxpayers pay for it in the form of taxes to our cities and counties.)
In reality, we're not talking about making anyone change insurance companies (meaning you can avoid the dreaded government bureaucrat) or doctors (unless your current insurance company forces you to change) or limiting coverage (other than the limitations your insurance company already imposes).
In reality, this debate about the value of social medicine versus private insurance we're having is really about making sure everyone in this country has some way to afford needed health care.
In reality, our entire economy is hostage to the concept of employer-provided health insurance. It hamstrings entrepreneurship because people are locked into their jobs because that's the only way most of us can afford any health insurance whatsoever — good or bad.
It hampers small businesses because small companies can't afford to offer the same kinds of benefits (read: health insurance) as the mega-corporations and some mega-corporations (can you say: GM?) have experienced some rather catastrophic problems as a direct result of legacy health insurance costs.
In June, Pres. Obama asked why, if the free market was all that, insurance companies should fear the competition of a public option?
As long as insurance companies are for-profit, our health care delivery system will be no better than Cuba's (and you can make the argument that theirs actually provides for all their citizens). The bill the U.S. House passed last week is the best hope our country has ever had to ensure the vast majority of our citizens enjoy this particular liberty.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Insurance: it's the wrong debate
It's clear the events of the last 18 months have thoroughly discredited the "small government" approach. I'll grant that there is something particularly Jeffersonian about the concept ("the government that governs best governs least") but the common good simply is not served.
It's true, government can't solve all our ills ... nor should it be expected to. However, it can (and should) be able to address those issues that serve the common good.
I have several conservative friends (yes, I do). They hold some pretty strong opinions on health care, opinions I absolutely do not share.
My opinions are pretty strong as well. There is nothing anyone can do or say that will change my belief that our health care system sucks. Excuse me, our health care DELIVERY SYSTEM sucks.
Cubans have better access to health care than the average American and certainly poor Cubans have better access to health care then poor or lower middle class Americans. My personal experiences will trump your Cato Institute anecdotal study ...
Further, the latest studies are clear that US mortality is among the worst of industrialized countries at a per-capita cost that is orders of magnitude greater. In other words, everyone else in the industrialized world has greater access to necessary health care at significantly lower personal cost than Americans do.
Let me put this another way: even accounting for the higher taxes socialized medicine requires, nearly every citizen of nearly every industrialized country on this planet has better access to better health care at a lower cost than Americans do.
As long as the "solution" includes insurance companies, we'll never fix it because profits will trump care every time. Health care costs will continue to eat up an increasingly catastrophic portion of our GDP.
In fact, as long as the debate is about health insurance, we're holding the wrong debate.
It wasn't only shoddy products that brought down GM ... it was the way this country deals with health care (blame the unions, if you want -- and they deserve some blame -- but the way this country approaches health care offers one helluva an example on how to keep the great unwashed in its collective place).
In other words, I don't think Obama will go far enough ...
Call is socialism, whatever. I think affordable health care (notice I didn't say "affordable health INSURANCE") is a basic human right.
Any other debate is the wrong debate.
It's true, government can't solve all our ills ... nor should it be expected to. However, it can (and should) be able to address those issues that serve the common good.
I have several conservative friends (yes, I do). They hold some pretty strong opinions on health care, opinions I absolutely do not share.
My opinions are pretty strong as well. There is nothing anyone can do or say that will change my belief that our health care system sucks. Excuse me, our health care DELIVERY SYSTEM sucks.
Cubans have better access to health care than the average American and certainly poor Cubans have better access to health care then poor or lower middle class Americans. My personal experiences will trump your Cato Institute anecdotal study ...
Further, the latest studies are clear that US mortality is among the worst of industrialized countries at a per-capita cost that is orders of magnitude greater. In other words, everyone else in the industrialized world has greater access to necessary health care at significantly lower personal cost than Americans do.
Let me put this another way: even accounting for the higher taxes socialized medicine requires, nearly every citizen of nearly every industrialized country on this planet has better access to better health care at a lower cost than Americans do.
As long as the "solution" includes insurance companies, we'll never fix it because profits will trump care every time. Health care costs will continue to eat up an increasingly catastrophic portion of our GDP.
In fact, as long as the debate is about health insurance, we're holding the wrong debate.
It wasn't only shoddy products that brought down GM ... it was the way this country deals with health care (blame the unions, if you want -- and they deserve some blame -- but the way this country approaches health care offers one helluva an example on how to keep the great unwashed in its collective place).
In other words, I don't think Obama will go far enough ...
Call is socialism, whatever. I think affordable health care (notice I didn't say "affordable health INSURANCE") is a basic human right.
Any other debate is the wrong debate.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Fly and bottom — toxic coal
For decades, manufacturing companies like Alcoa told us that their process was safe, that workers weren't at risk when they toiled on the potline or that the clothes they wore home -- laden with asbestos dust -- would not harm their families.
And, we trusted them. Right? Of course we did! This was the 1960s and we were urged to pursue plastics and better living through chemistry. Besides, companies like Alcoa virtually kept towns like Rockdale alive.
Later, we found out that, much like many other chemicals and compounds, asbestos was deadly, that the airborne fibers would work their way into our lungs where they would never go away and, in fact, would cause some of us to die particularly gruesome deaths.
Worse, the managers at these companies knew this. They were quite aware that exposure to asbestos (or other carcinogens) had the potential for nasty side effects but, instead of warning their work force or the people who lived around their smelters, they just kept on, hoping that no one would understand or care about the research being developed, research that confirmed just how deadly asbestos really was.
Today, they are telling us that the waste left from burning the coal to make the electricity to run the smelter to refine the aluminum is safe. The stuff is full of oddball contaminants and heavy metals like beryllium and chromium and mercury and lead and selenuium. There's nothing wrong with any of that stuff, right?
Over the decades, Alcoa and TXU dumped all the fly and bottom ash they couldn't sell back into the strip mines the coal originally came from. That's how they reclaimed the acreage, and back filling was accepted land management practice for years, never mind that it merely made it more likely all those heavy metals would seep into the groundwater.
TXU acknowledges it keeps 314,400 tons of coal waste at the Sandow power plant south of Rockdale. It's a toxic brew that includes about 500 tons of heavy metals. Indeed, the Sandow power plant in Rockdale was ranked #31 of the top 100 waste producer coal plants by the Natural Resources Defense Council in 2005.
Further, many researchers contend that the toxic waste from the typical coal-fired power plant is more radioactive than a typical nuclear plant because the toxins are so heavily concentrated and the waste is regarded as simple "solid waste" by regulatory agencies.
So, unlike the poor folks in Tennessee, those of us here in Milam County are not likely to experience rupturing holding ponds that might spew hundreds of thousands of gallons of stuff all over the country side. It's already in our groundwater!
But, no ... it's all perfectly safe. No reason to worry, no reason for more oversight, right?
And, we trusted them. Right? Of course we did! This was the 1960s and we were urged to pursue plastics and better living through chemistry. Besides, companies like Alcoa virtually kept towns like Rockdale alive.
Later, we found out that, much like many other chemicals and compounds, asbestos was deadly, that the airborne fibers would work their way into our lungs where they would never go away and, in fact, would cause some of us to die particularly gruesome deaths.
Worse, the managers at these companies knew this. They were quite aware that exposure to asbestos (or other carcinogens) had the potential for nasty side effects but, instead of warning their work force or the people who lived around their smelters, they just kept on, hoping that no one would understand or care about the research being developed, research that confirmed just how deadly asbestos really was.
Today, they are telling us that the waste left from burning the coal to make the electricity to run the smelter to refine the aluminum is safe. The stuff is full of oddball contaminants and heavy metals like beryllium and chromium and mercury and lead and selenuium. There's nothing wrong with any of that stuff, right?
Over the decades, Alcoa and TXU dumped all the fly and bottom ash they couldn't sell back into the strip mines the coal originally came from. That's how they reclaimed the acreage, and back filling was accepted land management practice for years, never mind that it merely made it more likely all those heavy metals would seep into the groundwater.
TXU acknowledges it keeps 314,400 tons of coal waste at the Sandow power plant south of Rockdale. It's a toxic brew that includes about 500 tons of heavy metals. Indeed, the Sandow power plant in Rockdale was ranked #31 of the top 100 waste producer coal plants by the Natural Resources Defense Council in 2005.
Further, many researchers contend that the toxic waste from the typical coal-fired power plant is more radioactive than a typical nuclear plant because the toxins are so heavily concentrated and the waste is regarded as simple "solid waste" by regulatory agencies.
So, unlike the poor folks in Tennessee, those of us here in Milam County are not likely to experience rupturing holding ponds that might spew hundreds of thousands of gallons of stuff all over the country side. It's already in our groundwater!
But, no ... it's all perfectly safe. No reason to worry, no reason for more oversight, right?
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Distance to dictatorship
The other night, my cousin and I talked about Tehran and Tiananmen and other instances of somewhat spontaneous displays of mass democratic thought. We talked about the governmental response.
Jon praised the Chinese for its patience ... I countered that one wishes the Chinese government had used water canon rather than the more destructive automatic weapons to put down the students ... he retorted that our government did the same thing, in Chicago, at Kent State ...
This morning, while sitting on my front porch, I read in the Week in Review section of my Sunday NYT this chilling composite....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/weekinreview/28savage.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=nixon%20tapes&st=cse
Nixon was a famous paranoid. Might he have been closer to suspending the Constitution than we ever suspected? How close to it might his protege, Dick Chenney, have come had our anti-Iraqi-war movement been more effective?
Jon praised the Chinese for its patience ... I countered that one wishes the Chinese government had used water canon rather than the more destructive automatic weapons to put down the students ... he retorted that our government did the same thing, in Chicago, at Kent State ...
This morning, while sitting on my front porch, I read in the Week in Review section of my Sunday NYT this chilling composite....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/weekinreview/28savage.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=nixon%20tapes&st=cse
Nixon was a famous paranoid. Might he have been closer to suspending the Constitution than we ever suspected? How close to it might his protege, Dick Chenney, have come had our anti-Iraqi-war movement been more effective?
Friday, June 26, 2009
Letter to the Editor
Our local daily paper published a letter to the editor in reaction to the outcome of a trial of a child molester.
The piece was a screed against defense attorneys, basically consigning the profession to Dante's 9th Circle (well, assuming the author understands the allusion). I had to respond ...
Our court system is designed to find justice. That search depends on the prosecution adhering to rules of evidence to make sure that the guilty are punished and the innocent are freed. It's the duty of the defense lawyer to make sure the prosecution -- the government -- follows the rules.
We don't live in some third-world country where summary judgment is delivered at the end of a noose simply because someone is accused of a heinous crime. Nor is this the dark ages when a despot ruler could imprison or execute someone for no reason. We live in a country of laws. Under our system of justice, everyone is entitled to a vigorous and competent defense. Everyone. How else can justice be served?
By all accounts, Mr. Jacobsen's defense attorney did exactly what he was supposed to do ... and Mr. Jacobsen got exactly what he deserved.
The piece was a screed against defense attorneys, basically consigning the profession to Dante's 9th Circle (well, assuming the author understands the allusion). I had to respond ...
Our court system is designed to find justice. That search depends on the prosecution adhering to rules of evidence to make sure that the guilty are punished and the innocent are freed. It's the duty of the defense lawyer to make sure the prosecution -- the government -- follows the rules.
We don't live in some third-world country where summary judgment is delivered at the end of a noose simply because someone is accused of a heinous crime. Nor is this the dark ages when a despot ruler could imprison or execute someone for no reason. We live in a country of laws. Under our system of justice, everyone is entitled to a vigorous and competent defense. Everyone. How else can justice be served?
By all accounts, Mr. Jacobsen's defense attorney did exactly what he was supposed to do ... and Mr. Jacobsen got exactly what he deserved.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
New Star Trek rocks
Okay, I gotta say this. Just for the record.
The new Star Trek film rocks. Absolutely.
I say this as a true fan. Fanboy. What. Ever. I'm such a true fan I spent the better part of the summer of 1970 with my ears taped into points. My daughter is even more of a Star Trek nerd than I am (if that's even possible), so much that she's maintained a crush on Jean Luc Picard for more than 20 years and still thinks he's the sexiest man alive.
We saw the new film together so as not to overwhelm our loved ones with our nitpicking.
Yes, Abrams & Co. took extreme liberties with canon, but so did the former caretakers. At least Abrams was reverential. Those other guys screwed it up simply because they could and for no other apparent reason.
Are there problems? Well, from a truefan's perspective, sure. It's not perfect. Plenty of nits to pick, if you've a mind to. However, it was the first time in a long, long time I've gone to a Star Trek film and didn't flinch several times throughout.
In fact, I haven't had so much fun watching a Star Trek film since "Wrath of Khan." Really.
Anyone who thinks that the film is unwatchable, for whatever reason, needs to get a life. Hell, Nimoy even blessed the thing ... what more do you want?!
Go boldly, my friend. Go boldly.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The decline of Chrysler and the GOP
My Dad drove a Chrysler whenever he could. He was also a Republican — and damned proud of it — back when it wasn't cool to be a Republican in Texas.
Those two character traits have left me with a certain cognitive dissonance. How would he have reacted to what's going on right now? Two of his life's most important — possibly even iconic — brands are on the brink of oblivion.
Dad didn't always drive a Chrysler product, and he wasn't a straight-ticket Republican, either. But he learned about Chryslers and Republicans at his parent's kitchen table. Chrysler New Yorkers and Pylmouth Furys (and, in later years, even the occasional Colt, Neon, or, in Dad's case, Sebrings) dominated the driveways of our family gatherings.
That's not to say there wasn't the occasional Ford or Chevy around — I drove Volkswagens of various stripes throughout most of my formative years — but, in my family, there was always something magical and desirable about Chryslers.
Maybe it was the pushbutton transmission, or the futuristic look, imbued with the promise of finned rocket ships and personal jet packs and blasters, only a 1950s Chrysler could attain.
If we thought about it at all (I can't speak for my cousins but, truthfully, my brothers and I didn't think about it, not very often) we all thought Chryslers were cool and all those other cars were what you drove if you couldn't drive a Chrysler.
No, Mr. Buick, we'd really rather drive a Chrysler, thank you very much.
Politically, well, Dad felt betrayed by Richard Nixon. He supported the man to the bitter end. I don't know how his brothers regarded Nixon but it would not surprise me if they were solid Nixon Republicans because, in 1969 — which is where my brain goes when I consider my Dad's politics — everyone over 30 supported Nixon, right? Right?
To be fair, I'm not precisely sure my Uncle David completely supported Nixon. His son, Jon, is decidedly left-of-center — you might even call him militantly liberal — and they say the acorn doesn't fall far from the tree. But the rest of the family ... well, they were, and still are, pretty conservative.
In fact, Dad's oldest brother's family attained the Bush campaign rank of Pioneer — or was it Ranger? Jon's sisters — two of 'em, anyway — tend to hold right-of-center opinions and my younger brother remains a proud ditto-head to this day. Staunchly conservative, all of 'em.
Dad was proud to be a Republican. He was as proud to represent Republicans from Bell County to the state convention, back when there were maybe 125 Republicans in Texas, as he was of his 1969 Plymouth Fury III powered by the fabled 457 Police Interceptor, the one my Mom called an old lady car because it was metallic blue and only old ladies drove cars that color.
Still, Ronald Reagan knocked the luster of the Republican shine for Dad when Reagan co-opted social conservatives in order to assure the defeat of Jimmy Carter. For the first time in his life, Dad broke with the Party. He couldn't bring himself to vote for a Democrat, despite the fact that he sorta liked Carter, a fellow preacher, so he voted for John Anderson.
Further, Dad was anything but sold on Bush II's so-called compassionate conservatism and preemptive war, though you will find few who hurt more for the victims of 9/11 or who was more of a patriot. Still, as a scholar of the Establishment Clause, Dad was quite disturbed when everyone sang patriotic songs in church the Sunday following 9/11. And he was the preacher; he selected those hymns.
That, combined with his up-close-and-personal experience with America's medical care delivery system, soured him on Republicans and prompted him to look hard at nationalized health care. In fact, before he died, Dad said if he had to be pigeon-holed, he would say he was a Conservative Socialist, whatever that is.
Today, only 21 percent of Americans describe themselves as Republicans and the venerable Chrysler Motor Company hangs by a slender, frayed thread. The car company might not last the summer and, unless some prophetic leader emerges soon to lead it from the wilderness, the GOP may disappear, at least as a national party, by the next presidential election.
I can't help but think that Dad would be very put out with the Republican's purge of political purity and profoundly disappointed with the implosion of a once-proud US manufacturer.
And, even though I never cared for Chryslers (ironically, I drive a Buick) and seldom ever vote Republican, I, too, am saddened.
(Cross-posted at http://open.salon.com/blog
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Republicans can't deliver the votes
... so why should we pay attention to them?
There has been a fairly steady drumbeat from the right asserting that the Democrats really aren't much interested in being bipartisan.
This is a problem, they say, because the health care debate is important and, at least, ought to represent all portions of the political spectrum.
I heard one of the chatterboxes make that claim the other morning on the television thingy and, frankly nearly spilled my coffee and here's why.
A couple of months ago, President Obama asked the Democrats to work with Congressional Republicans on the stimulus bill. Republicans insisted they could not vote for the bill if certain issues weren't addressed — specifically tax cuts (their answer for everything).
Well, tax cuts were added to the bill. In fact, one-third of the package consisted of tax cuts of one form or another. Tax cuts aren't "direct spending" so aren't as stimulative as, say, building another bridge or wifi tower but, okay ... if that's what it takes to win your vote, fine.
Not one Republican voted for the bill. Not one.
With that kind of track record, why should Democrats defer to Republicans on anything? If you're not going to vote for it, even after we change it up to answer your concerns, why should we pay attention to any of your concerns?
In general, I'm a middle-of-the-road kind of guy. I like consensus and try to avoid conflict, when I can. Pres. Obama made a big deal about his desire to cross party lines and get things done and I really liked that. I think most of this nation felt the same way.
But, if the last 100 days have shown anything, they've shown that Republicans don't really want to get anything done, not if that means Obama will get credit. And, with all the Party Purity Purges going on right now, I'm not sure Republicans can be a Loyal Opposition.
That being said, I was gratified to hear, from the NTY this weekend that the administration has pretty much given up on bipartisanship.
That's not true. It saddened me. I think healthy debate provides the creative friction that makes our democratic republic function. Without it, we are in danger.
Here's the deal: if Republicans — any Republicans — can deliver some votes on major, controversial legislation, we (meaning the rest of the country) should listen to them and grant them input into the process of rescuing this country.
That's what it is about: votes. Deliver the votes — any votes — or shut up.
Until then, until some conservative prophet appears to lead them out of the wilderness, we should pay them no more heed than we do any other extremist political fringe group.
(Cross-posted at http://open.salon.com/blog/richard2456)
There has been a fairly steady drumbeat from the right asserting that the Democrats really aren't much interested in being bipartisan.
This is a problem, they say, because the health care debate is important and, at least, ought to represent all portions of the political spectrum.
I heard one of the chatterboxes make that claim the other morning on the television thingy and, frankly nearly spilled my coffee and here's why.
A couple of months ago, President Obama asked the Democrats to work with Congressional Republicans on the stimulus bill. Republicans insisted they could not vote for the bill if certain issues weren't addressed — specifically tax cuts (their answer for everything).
Well, tax cuts were added to the bill. In fact, one-third of the package consisted of tax cuts of one form or another. Tax cuts aren't "direct spending" so aren't as stimulative as, say, building another bridge or wifi tower but, okay ... if that's what it takes to win your vote, fine.
Not one Republican voted for the bill. Not one.
With that kind of track record, why should Democrats defer to Republicans on anything? If you're not going to vote for it, even after we change it up to answer your concerns, why should we pay attention to any of your concerns?
In general, I'm a middle-of-the-road kind of guy. I like consensus and try to avoid conflict, when I can. Pres. Obama made a big deal about his desire to cross party lines and get things done and I really liked that. I think most of this nation felt the same way.
But, if the last 100 days have shown anything, they've shown that Republicans don't really want to get anything done, not if that means Obama will get credit. And, with all the Party Purity Purges going on right now, I'm not sure Republicans can be a Loyal Opposition.
That being said, I was gratified to hear, from the NTY this weekend that the administration has pretty much given up on bipartisanship.
That's not true. It saddened me. I think healthy debate provides the creative friction that makes our democratic republic function. Without it, we are in danger.
Here's the deal: if Republicans — any Republicans — can deliver some votes on major, controversial legislation, we (meaning the rest of the country) should listen to them and grant them input into the process of rescuing this country.
That's what it is about: votes. Deliver the votes — any votes — or shut up.
Until then, until some conservative prophet appears to lead them out of the wilderness, we should pay them no more heed than we do any other extremist political fringe group.
(Cross-posted at http://open.salon.com/blog/richard2456)
Monday, April 27, 2009
How we spent our summer vacation
Somehow, those Jeep commercials looked a lot easier on TV.... or, we'll be falling off the mountain when we come ...
I've been looking for a copy of this column for some time. I finally ran across a copy while researching something completely unrelated. I wrote, and originally published, it in the Taylor Daily Press September 1999. It won first place awards for commentary from the Texas Press Association and a slew of regional press groups. It's one of my all-time favorite efforts. I post it here as a way to preserve (and share) it.
Gently, very gingerly, I lifted my foot off the brake just enough to let Jeep bounce over another rock, then quickly re-applied the brake.
We rocked gently.
“Don’t look,” Tia said nervously as she stared over the tops of towering pine trees just outside the passenger window. She couldn’t see the middles or bottoms of the trees — in fact, she couldn’t see the bottom of the ravine at all.
“I won’t,” I replied, my sweaty hands gripping the steering wheel, eyes locked on anything but the plummeting, impossible descent falling away from my peripheral vision. The right tires of the Jeep were finely balanced on the keenly-sharpened edge of the trail sending little bits of gravel skittering off the edge and into the ravine. The left tires bounced on boulders, a full two feet higher than the right.
We went forward — and downward — another foot. Two. “Not far now,” Tia muttered.
Grimly, tersely I sucked on my teeth and answered, “Yeah.”
Our brief bursts of conversation were laced with stark, gibbering terror as we maneuvered around another washed-out switchback on the trail which winds down the tree-studded western slope of Red Top Mountain in the heart of the San Juan range of the Rockies.
Off in the distance, I could probably have made out California landmarks, had my attention span extended to unnecessary fripperies like the magnificent view or awesome mountain ranges just ahead.
I glanced up at the perpendicular, red-streaked cliff towering above then off the side and down, down, down to the shiny river shimmering through the trees, far, far below.
That’s when we saw another Jeep headed our way and my heart actually stopped for a couple of beats as I realized that there simply wasn’t enough room on that narrow rocky shelf for two mountain goats to pass, much less two full-sized Jeeps, unless I repeated our recently completed balancing act, this time in reverse.
I stopped, pulled the emergency brake, then just sat there, waiting for the slowly oncoming Jeep, wishing for a cigarette — or, a cup of coffee.
So, how did a couple of mild mannered newspaper people find themselves literally clinging to the side of a mountain only three days into their vacation? Well, it was supposed to have been the easy way out of the mountains, the compromise route that let us see the most of the mountains without getting stuck in the rough and rugged back country for two or three days.
Indeed, the map, which we had purchased from the Silverton Chamber of Commerce the day before, indicated that the road to Ouray was only about six miles away. What it didn’t say was that most of those six miles were straight down the side of a mountain.
The night before had been wonderful, if very c-c-cold. We had followed the Animus River up into the mountains from Silverton and stopped just below a ghost town called Animus Forks. In a previous existence the miserable collection of huts had been a mining town. Today, the town is deserted, possessed of a moaning-wind-through-the-timbers quality, little more than a few piles of shattered, marmot-infested lumber lumped around three or four rickety shacks.
The views were incredible, the air was electric, crisp and cool and filled with the scent of pine and the snap of snow-fed, white water roiling through the valleys. Delicate purple, white and yellow mountain flowers littered the fluorescent green tundra and brilliant snow clung to the shadowed sides of the mountain peaks.
We pitched our tent near the gurgling river just below the timberline and built a roaring fire in a ring of fire-blackened stones, placed there by some previous visitor to this alpine valley. As night fell, the mountains surrounding that little valley were limned with the light of a thumbnail moon reflected off the snow pack. The stars never came out with the forceful brilliance I anticipated yet there was an stunning serenity to the evening which stirred my soul.
In the morning, while striking camp, I tried to make coffee. Water does not boil at 12,000 feet the way it does at sea level. I should have noted the omen. No coffee.
Still, the trek up to the pass was a sight and we had a wonderful time playing in the snow. It wasn’t until we were committed to the descent that we realized our awful, terrifying mistake. Once on that path — a path that any sensible mountain goat would have avoided — we could not turn around, nor could we back track.
For the record:
• Tia never once commented on the poor mountain climbing decision while we were involved in negotiation boulders, switch-backs and vertical drops. Indeed, in our five years of marriage, I doubt she has ever been more supportive. I am very thankful that she waited until we got off that mountain before she found a handy pine pole and used it to beat merry hell outta me. Later she said that she held her tongue during that harrowing descent because she was afraid that I would have simply opened the door and let her slide right out and down the cliff face.
• Cathrin, our daughter, sat in the back seat and read books through the whole ordeal. Later, she was heard wondering what the fuss was all about.
• It took every bit of three hours to get down. At the bottom was the “Million Dollar Highway” which runs between Silverton and Ouray. It is a nasty, twisty strip of asphalt girding the mountain and has been known to strike terror into the hearts of grown men. Though my lungs sucked at the thin air in ragged gasps and my legs felt like Silly Putty, I glanced at that road and sneered. Piece of cake.
Once we got into Ouray, we stopped at the first coffee shop we found. And, no, I didn’t hunt up a cigarette (though I really, really wanted to).
I have been to the mountain — what’s more, I have come off the mountain and lived to tell about it. I’m here to tell you that 4-wheel drive vehicles are real cool and real fun and they can get you places where you otherwise could not go. But, that does not always mean that you should go there.
Cross-posted at http://open.salon.com/blog/richard2456
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Krugman's crystal clear vision
Paul Krugman continues to amaze me. His ability to focus on the core of the problems confronting us is, to me, incredible. Read this:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/opinion/24krugman.html?em
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/opinion/24krugman.html?em
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Torturous Logic, Part 2
Okay ... what I just said ...
Paul Krugman's blog:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/grand-unified-scandal/
Read the comments, too ...
Last night, on one of the talk shows, some congresscritter insisted that waterboarding isn't torture ... what was done in our name wasn't torture. I wonder if he would change his tune if he were waterboarded six times a day for a month ....
Paul Krugman's blog:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/grand-unified-scandal/
Read the comments, too ...
Last night, on one of the talk shows, some congresscritter insisted that waterboarding isn't torture ... what was done in our name wasn't torture. I wonder if he would change his tune if he were waterboarded six times a day for a month ....
Torturous Logic
So torture was effective.
That's what our former Veep says, and a host of high-ranking intelligence officials back him up.
What we don't know is if we could have gotten the same (or similar) information using less harsh techniques.
The beef, as I see it, is this: even if the methods we used were effective in gaining "high value" intelligence, at what cost?
I maintain that our standing in the world's community — my "good word" — is much more important than an immediate resort to torture (according to what we're learning, we didn't even try more conventional interrogation techniques).
It's not worth it.
That's what our former Veep says, and a host of high-ranking intelligence officials back him up.
What we don't know is if we could have gotten the same (or similar) information using less harsh techniques.
The beef, as I see it, is this: even if the methods we used were effective in gaining "high value" intelligence, at what cost?
I maintain that our standing in the world's community — my "good word" — is much more important than an immediate resort to torture (according to what we're learning, we didn't even try more conventional interrogation techniques).
It's not worth it.
Monday, April 20, 2009
Senate repudiates Perry
Tia Rae just reminded me that the Texas Senate voted last week to accept the half-billion stimulus dollars for unemployment insurance that Perry eschewed.
The measure must still face the Texas House and a potential veto — not that there is any certainty any of that will derail it — so I think my comments about Perry's stand on the state's unemployed remains.
Still, it's appropriate to point out that not all of our state's politicans are whack-jobs.
The measure must still face the Texas House and a potential veto — not that there is any certainty any of that will derail it — so I think my comments about Perry's stand on the state's unemployed remains.
Still, it's appropriate to point out that not all of our state's politicans are whack-jobs.
Who's there?
I went home for lunch the other day to find a barn owl had taken up residence on the one of the trees in our back yard behind the garage. Beautiful bird. He doesn't like cats, unless the cat is small enough to be a snack, and the cats return the affection in full measure.
Who's the traitor now?
For nearly six years, my friends and I were routinely denounced as unpatriotic because we disagreed with Pres. Bush over the conduct of war in Iraq.
We believed it was a mistake, that the idea of a pre-emptive invasion ran counter to the fundamental respect of national sovereignty and that no country can export democracy at the point of a gun.
We believed that the erosion of our civil liberties under the guise of fighting some never ending War on Terror made us neither safe nor free.
For expressing these beliefs, we were branded as unpatriotic and accused of hating our country.
So, why isn't the super-patriotic, Republican, America-love-it-or-leave-it crowd up in arms over Texas Governor Rick Perry's threat last week to have this state secede from the Union "... if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people ..."
I beg your pardon?
How patriotic is that? Isn't this traitorous talk, especially from a man who represents the political party that led us down the primrose path of unfettered free market capitalism then ginned up a foreign war so fat cats could pig out on no-bid contracts and the military industrial complex could sell us more expensive weapon systems?
If not traitorous, it's at the very least seditious, right? Right?
There was this fella from West Texas who lived in a compound with a handful of fellow travelers and who, back in 1997, stood off the Texas Rangers for several weeks. He claimed that Texas had the right — and duty — to secede from the Union because of high taxes. Then-Gov. Bush sent in the Rangers and had him quashed but what Perry said last week sounds an awful lot like the bile separatist Richard L. McLaren spouted. (Lest we forget, McLaren is now serving a life sentence in a Texas prison.)
Wasn't Perry the same man who let Tom DeLay (a Washington politician) dictate a purely partisan, controversial, incredibly divisive mid-decade redistricting policy designed to further his goals in Washington?
(Just in case you've forgotten, Mr. DeLay had to resign in disgrace from Congress for things related to that little stunt and four of the five Texas Democratic representatives to Congress who were targeted in those efforts are still in office. Oh, and prison isn’t completely out of the question for him, either.)
Perry doesn't speak for me, in this. He has violated one of the prime tenants Texans hold for our Governor: “Please Don’t Embarrass Us!” Come on ... this guy was re-elected with 39 percent of the vote and, quite likely, would have lost had there not been four people on the ballot.
Perry doesn't speak for the thousands of Texans whose unemployment will run out — or the small businesses in Texas who will soon have to pay higher unemployment taxes because the state is running out of money — because he thinks it is somehow un-Texan to have an effective, compassionate social safety net.
Perry — and the rest of the Republican right — is completely out of step. Neoconservative thought has been thoroughly discredited. Most Americans believe it was that unfettered, free market capitalism that got us into this economic mess. And, most Americans think maybe we ought to try some of that "European Socialism," especially if it comes with health care, a decent social safety net, good public transportation and a shot at a college education for our kids.
Perry is appealing to the worst of the Texas Republican Party ... and, it’s scary how many people actually seem to approve of what he’s said. Fortunately, that may be the only group paying attention to him.
If recent opinion polls are any gauge, most Texans — Republicans, Independents and Democrats — are tired of him, too.
Cross posted at Open Salon here http://open.salon.com/blog/richard2456
We believed it was a mistake, that the idea of a pre-emptive invasion ran counter to the fundamental respect of national sovereignty and that no country can export democracy at the point of a gun.
We believed that the erosion of our civil liberties under the guise of fighting some never ending War on Terror made us neither safe nor free.
For expressing these beliefs, we were branded as unpatriotic and accused of hating our country.
So, why isn't the super-patriotic, Republican, America-love-it-or-leave-it crowd up in arms over Texas Governor Rick Perry's threat last week to have this state secede from the Union "... if Washington continues to thumb their nose at the American people ..."
I beg your pardon?
How patriotic is that? Isn't this traitorous talk, especially from a man who represents the political party that led us down the primrose path of unfettered free market capitalism then ginned up a foreign war so fat cats could pig out on no-bid contracts and the military industrial complex could sell us more expensive weapon systems?
If not traitorous, it's at the very least seditious, right? Right?
There was this fella from West Texas who lived in a compound with a handful of fellow travelers and who, back in 1997, stood off the Texas Rangers for several weeks. He claimed that Texas had the right — and duty — to secede from the Union because of high taxes. Then-Gov. Bush sent in the Rangers and had him quashed but what Perry said last week sounds an awful lot like the bile separatist Richard L. McLaren spouted. (Lest we forget, McLaren is now serving a life sentence in a Texas prison.)
Wasn't Perry the same man who let Tom DeLay (a Washington politician) dictate a purely partisan, controversial, incredibly divisive mid-decade redistricting policy designed to further his goals in Washington?
(Just in case you've forgotten, Mr. DeLay had to resign in disgrace from Congress for things related to that little stunt and four of the five Texas Democratic representatives to Congress who were targeted in those efforts are still in office. Oh, and prison isn’t completely out of the question for him, either.)
Perry doesn't speak for me, in this. He has violated one of the prime tenants Texans hold for our Governor: “Please Don’t Embarrass Us!” Come on ... this guy was re-elected with 39 percent of the vote and, quite likely, would have lost had there not been four people on the ballot.
Perry doesn't speak for the thousands of Texans whose unemployment will run out — or the small businesses in Texas who will soon have to pay higher unemployment taxes because the state is running out of money — because he thinks it is somehow un-Texan to have an effective, compassionate social safety net.
Perry — and the rest of the Republican right — is completely out of step. Neoconservative thought has been thoroughly discredited. Most Americans believe it was that unfettered, free market capitalism that got us into this economic mess. And, most Americans think maybe we ought to try some of that "European Socialism," especially if it comes with health care, a decent social safety net, good public transportation and a shot at a college education for our kids.
Perry is appealing to the worst of the Texas Republican Party ... and, it’s scary how many people actually seem to approve of what he’s said. Fortunately, that may be the only group paying attention to him.
If recent opinion polls are any gauge, most Texans — Republicans, Independents and Democrats — are tired of him, too.
Cross posted at Open Salon here http://open.salon.com/blog/richard2456
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Clean coal? No, really?
Recent news out of China should make us here in the States sit up and pay attention.
According to this story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-china-birth-defects2-2009feb02,0,3417123.story) in the LA Times, government officials acknowledge birth defects among Chinese babies are increasing at an alarming rate and the culprit is the degradation of the environment.
The particular culprit leading to the nearly 40 percent increase in birth defects over a five year period is the fact that the Chinese get their electricity from burning coal. The increase is the highest near those coal-burning power plants.
These findings reinforce US research that links pollution to the incidence of birth defects.
Coal is one of the nastiest fuels out there. In fact, it's hard to find a fuel that is dirtier or causes more harm than coal, especially the coal burned in Texas.
In Texas -- as well as in much of the south -- power companies burn lignite. Lignite is a very soft coal and usually easy to mine. In fact, there is a seam of lignite that stretches from about Uvalde, near the Texas/Mexico border, through Central Texas and into the Appalachians.
Find a map showing the locations of coal-burning power plants and you'll see a correlation between electric power and that seam of lignite.
Here's the rub. Burning lignite to produce electricity also produces extremely high concentrations of pollution including heavy metals like mercury. Heavy concentrations of mercury are easy to find in stock ponds around Central Texas power plants. Mercury is highly toxic, so toxic that folks who live near those power plants are well advised to limit how often they eat the fish stocked in those ponds.
I bring this up because we're talking a lot these days about "clean coal technology." First of all, we have to acknowledge that this simply does not exist, yet. Secondly, we need to take a very hard look at the waste generated by our current coal technology ... and how "capturing" more of the pollutants from burning coal will increase the hazardous nature of that waste.
The mercury will still be there. So will the carbon and the rest of the toxic stew.
Indeed, a lot of that stuff is still around. There is over 314,000 tons of the stuff stored in Milam County, Texas ...
Is it really all that safe? "They" say it is but the people who say that are the same ones who, for nearly five decades, told us that asbestos was perfectly safe.
According to this story (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-china-birth-defects2-2009feb02,0,3417123.story) in the LA Times, government officials acknowledge birth defects among Chinese babies are increasing at an alarming rate and the culprit is the degradation of the environment.
The particular culprit leading to the nearly 40 percent increase in birth defects over a five year period is the fact that the Chinese get their electricity from burning coal. The increase is the highest near those coal-burning power plants.
These findings reinforce US research that links pollution to the incidence of birth defects.
Coal is one of the nastiest fuels out there. In fact, it's hard to find a fuel that is dirtier or causes more harm than coal, especially the coal burned in Texas.
In Texas -- as well as in much of the south -- power companies burn lignite. Lignite is a very soft coal and usually easy to mine. In fact, there is a seam of lignite that stretches from about Uvalde, near the Texas/Mexico border, through Central Texas and into the Appalachians.
Find a map showing the locations of coal-burning power plants and you'll see a correlation between electric power and that seam of lignite.
Here's the rub. Burning lignite to produce electricity also produces extremely high concentrations of pollution including heavy metals like mercury. Heavy concentrations of mercury are easy to find in stock ponds around Central Texas power plants. Mercury is highly toxic, so toxic that folks who live near those power plants are well advised to limit how often they eat the fish stocked in those ponds.
I bring this up because we're talking a lot these days about "clean coal technology." First of all, we have to acknowledge that this simply does not exist, yet. Secondly, we need to take a very hard look at the waste generated by our current coal technology ... and how "capturing" more of the pollutants from burning coal will increase the hazardous nature of that waste.
The mercury will still be there. So will the carbon and the rest of the toxic stew.
Indeed, a lot of that stuff is still around. There is over 314,000 tons of the stuff stored in Milam County, Texas ...
Is it really all that safe? "They" say it is but the people who say that are the same ones who, for nearly five decades, told us that asbestos was perfectly safe.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
For those who want a bigger piece o' the pie
"Some studies have shown that companies that increase their marketing budgets in a recession do much better in the long run. Businesses that advertised aggressively during the 1981-82 recession had sales twice as high from 1981 to 1985 as those that didn’t, according to a 1986 McGraw-Hill Research report."
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)