Is it fair?
One of the lager questions of life has to do with fairness. Is it fair? This is not the easiest question to answer, WJR Radio talk show host Frank Beckmann deals with this matter of fairness concerning the Detroit's City Council request for Gov. Jennifer Granholm to remove Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick from office and the good Democrats of the state to remove eight of the Republican judges from Michigan courts in the name of budget cutting.
It is a hard question; the Bible has two stories that deal with fairness, but it never answers the question of fairness. The story of Job in the Old Testament and the story of the boy born blind in the New Testament address the question, but just give formulas for knowing when something is fair.
Job is never told why he suffered so many great tragedies and the disciples are told that neither the boy nor his parents sinned so that he was born blind, just that God would have it that way for God's sake.
What is fair for the young man that was on top of the political world a few years ago as a 31-year-old black man in charge of a city set to rise from its ashes? Coleman Young held it from bankruptcy and kept everyone from leaving and turning of the lights. Dennis Archer made the city attractive again by saying to the people in the suburbs "come to Detroit do business; we will make our streets safe for your wives" and the people were returning to do business. All the great plans were in place and the wheels were turning. The world was watching as the Super Bowl and the Baseball All-Star games came to the "Murder capital of the world" with little or no trouble.
How much of the mess we are in is fair to blame on him? We elected and re-elected him. All the pressure of the office was on him and he needed a catharsis from time to time. And that 31-35-years-of-age catharsis was being surrounded by friends that knew him best and he could just be himself, not the mayor of the city, just Kwame.
Are we guilty of asking too much of a young man that could only be himself? Should we now put all of his private acts to a public test? Is it fair?
The people in power in the State legislature and Congress are always trying to empower the next generation by controlling the courts. We are a law-abiding people and we need to have the right people in the courts interpreting the law, but does that mean having people that we are sure will rule in a Democratic or Republican sway. Is it fair?
Fair, neither excellent nor poor, just fair.
Are we there yet?
The hearing on the hearing and the ruling on the ruling was the headline today and yesterday and the day before and tomorrow we will learn the results of the hearing on the hearing on filing the appeal.
By the time we get to a trial in the text message scandal, we will not know what the trial is all about. If it is the desire of the lawyers on the part of Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick to make the general public confused before picking a jury, they are doing a pretty good job.
There is the Ronald Giles 36th District Court and the William Giovan Wayne County Circuit Court and the court on the courts and the decision on the decision and the one we are waiting on and the one that is just being filed.
Will we be there when we get there?
Category: Election 2008
Posted by George Bullard on Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 12:55 AMHow about bringing back the draft?
Obama's call to public service reaches back to John F. Kennedy. Not a bad reach. Not much call to public service lately. A lot of government work has become a gravy train -- 20 and out, and then get rehired into another government job.
The senator should take it another step and call to restore the draft. Let citizens get really involved in what their government is doing.
If we had a draft, there probably would be no Iraq war because moms, dads and students would have paid closer attention and kept an eye on the pro-war folks like Bush and Hillary.
To have a two-front war with no draft says the country isn't all that serious about winning the war.
Click here for Kwame's logic problem.
Here for Obama.
Category: Energy
Posted by Mako Yamakura on Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 12:04 AMFresh Fish Oil Jackpots.
I deal in fish. Lots of it. I'm a member of the global market, buying eel from the South China Sea, salmon from the North Sea, tuna from the Pacific, and shrimp from the Gulf. Needless to say, I continually have to stay at the top of my game globally when it comes to getting the right price for a floppy fish. Beef n' Broccoli and Sesame Chicken cannot help me.
It's the same with oil. We have to increase supply every time the world decides to grow. And since oil is an arguably finite resource, we're getting to a point where supply isn't going to increase to a degree to lower prices per the GOP graph.
The main suppliers of oil are reaching peaks in their daily flow. Unrest, caused by just about everyone, is reducing supply and causing supply concerns across the board. Our oil prices have remained relatively consistent and high, no matter what the Saudis coddle us. And the reasons are pretty simple. Demand has outstripped supply to a point where we cannot sustain it.
Sure, drilling would have benefits, and oil shale is a viable concept, especially with the yield per acre of fuel. But our main problem still lies in the "home-run" of finds. Like a slot player down to his last 3 spins on a quarter machine, he becomes irrational. The value of economics teaches this addicted Japanese slot player to keep his $2.25, because the odds that he'll recoup it in 3 spins is slim at best. But yet, the human in him pops that button three more times, cause maybe (ha!) he'll hit the jackpot.
In the strict sense of economics and utility, he made a poor decision, yet he doesn't give it much thought other than a sigh, the economic theory of his decision (horrible).
To increase oil supply enough to provide price drops significant enough to feed our addiction, we'll require a reversal of supply finds that are literally the jackpot of oil finds.
The ANWR was touted as our saviour, yet even if we started the process in 1999, the demand would eventually outstrip the meager 1.1 million bbls a day for the region, and we'd still face a supply problem today, only less one more option.
Our growth, obviously, is dependent upon the supply of oil. Staving off our addiction (like the slot player who hits $50 bucks on the last spin in my anecdote) is in no way the good answer. I still blew the $50.
This is where oil shales come into play. Drilling has almost quintipled in cost, and in technical terms to meet your overhead, you'd have to increase prices to an unaffordable level (hence $146/barrel and rising). Oil shale provides a possible solution, and a stop-gap measure for developing alternative fuels that increase our rate of energy efficiency almost four-fold.
But the process of the GOP's attempt to fool us into drilling is misleading at worst. Like OPEC, this current situation has left us at a forced decision to stop using oil. The first thing we thought of was to hit that oil button one more time. How intelligent, economically, is that? Our paradigm shift is that business doesn't dictate economy. We can't brute-force a slot machine to give us money, and we can't brute-force oil supply, no matter our futile desperation.
Let's get hypothetical: Say we drill offshore, despite millions of acres of leased land that holds little promise of yield. We ruin coastal tourism, and maintain our economy for another decade. The environmental effect and the subsequent quality of life lost is far worse than getting a few more years of the good ol' days.
Oil shales is the lesser of the two evils, and only puts a hundred thousand out of work in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. The demand and panic of our need for oil (check the polls) will ruin lives. Sure, it's not yours or mine, but a heck of a lot of my friends will suffer as well. And maybe, with all the oil production, they can all get jobs selling nachos at the Monarch Ski Resort.
So personally, I'd like oil shales for the greater good, but am not going to enjoy it when I get the calls and emails from my peeps in Durango when their lakes are polluted to a horrible degree.
By my calculations, short-term increases in oil supply are beneficial, but only if we pursue decreased demand and alternative fuel resources. So let's drill, but don't come up with a McCainian excuse to advocate energy conservation while promoting the same vicious circle we're victim to.
Nuclear fuel is a viable option, except that the years of the Bush Administration failed to produce (even in mandate) a civilian nuclear processing facility.
Make no doubt, I'm a MOX pellet fan. Sure, the nukes are bad, but heck, we're stuck with tons upon tons of Yuccca stuff. Let's make lemonade.
The problem I have with the GOP is that they use common sense with fear.
McCain fights the good fight until it really becomes hard, and then he wusses out with his nonsensical drilling panic.
Honestly, to the benefit of Barack, McCain would win in a landslide thanks to the Democrats. It's the ECONOMY, stupid. Take a hard line on oil shales while developing alternative energy markets, and nationalize our oil with the flag soaked in it.
The only viable option for our oil economy is to keep our profits in-house.
The casinos learned it by reducing real odds table games and increasing horrible odds slot machines. They're the most efficent and profitable business, the purists of economics, human psychology, and capitalism. Oil prices won't go down in the near future, so if we're going to drill our brains out, let's keep the cash. Let's let capitalism benefit us in this global market, and take it to China and India in their ever-demanding growth.
Exxon Mobil sold all 2,200 odd of their gas stations to luckless entrepeneurs with deep foreign pockets. I'd take that as economic advice. Money is Green. Mako out.
The darkest days of Detroit
We are in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. The G.M. story is the most painful thing I have witnessed in my life about a great company. The G.M. executives ran the world I grew up in. The saying was "as G.M. goes, so goes the world." All the cabinet leaders in the White House were from G.M. or G.M. picks. Now, the stock is less then $10. Many retirements are being hurt and the mutual fund investors will all suffer from G.M.'s loses.
The housing market is the worst it has ever been and is beyond the imagination of most people. We never thought you could be upside down in a house. The house was the piggy bank. You were saving money when you brought a house and kept it up. Now, if you can keep your house, you owe more on it then it is worth.
The people of the nation are accepting the fact that gas is $4 a gallon or more, so it will be $5 a gallon soon. And the governor of Michigan is talking that 55 mph thing again about highways.
The world and country share these problems, but poor Detroit suffers from a city hall that make the people of the city look so bad. It is as if we do not have people we can vote into office that will just do the things that are right in the right way. We cannot vote into office people that will just be the officeholder they were elected to be and let that do.
The world needs somebody to make their problems in housing and gas prices seem small, so Detroit is making everybody, everywhere else look better when they compare themselves to what is going on in Detroit. And the next 100 days will not bring light, only more darkness.
The text message scandal and the city council investigation will keep Detroit in the world news in the darkest way for many days to come. Who is going to move to Detroit to do business or raise children in the dark?
Category: Energy
Posted by John R. LaPlante on Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 6:17 PMHappy to Pay More for Gasoline?
Are you happy to pay over $4 a gallon for gas? If so, keep voting for politicians who vote to lock up American oil reserves, thereby depressing the supply.
The congressional Republicans stumble across the truth once in a while. I'm not going to vouch for the veracity of each item in the image below.
The overall message is solid: decrease supply, increase prices. Increase supply, decrease prices.
(Of course not all Republicans get it. Apologies if someone has posted this already.)
Update: A reader asks "why are you bashing the Dems on this." Well, there's only so much that I can say in a blog post. It's a short article, not a book. But here I'll say it: Some Republicans--including John McCain--are part of the problem, too. (See this article from 2003). But it is also true that the sentiment against using our own resources is much more strongly present in the Democratic party.
Category: John McCain
Posted by Libby Spencer on Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 4:33 PMMcCain - experienced liar
In response to criticism that McCain can't even use a computer at a time when the world largely runs on internet connections, his spokesperson insisted that McCain is aware of the internet and has a great understanding of how it works. If that's true, one wonders why McCain feels free to boldly lie in the face of his recorded statements, all of which are widely available to wired in Americans.
In an interview with ABC from Cartagena, Colombia, McCain vehemently denied he ever stated that he doesn't understand economics well. Well the proof is on the internets and you can click on the links here to see that he has repeatedly admitted his knowledge of economics is lacking.
As to why he's even in Colombia in the first place, perhaps it's to reassure the government there that he fully supports American job-robbing free trade agreements or perhaps he's just checking up on his fundraiser's investments there. His pal, billionaire businessman Carl H. Lindner Jr., who recently hosted a top-dollar fundraiser for McCain, was found guilty of illegally donating millions to the Colombian paramilitary group AUC that has been designated as a terrorist organization by the US government and has been tied to many of the country's most vicious civilian massacres.
I suppose we might count these sort of connections as an example of McCain's experience in politics, but isn't this exactly the kind of status quo double-dealing of the the entrenched Beltway elites that we're trying to abolish with the next president? Somehow, I don't think that this is the kind of experience the country needs to secure our future.
Category: Iraq
Posted by Libby Spencer on Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:48 PMHappy 'Bring 'em on' anniversary
How the time flies. It was five years ago today that our cowboy president swaggered to the podium and issued his famous challenge to the terrorists, arrogantly daring them to "bring it on." At that point, only 186 Americans had lost their lives in Iraq. Since then over 4000 American military personnel, and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, have died and almost 30,000 Americans have been wounded. I don't believe that last count includes the addtional thousands of Iraq vets who are suffering from PTSD and suicide attempts that the Pentagon has been ignoring.
It was also at around that time that Bush declared it's just a matter of time before our troops would find the WMDs that we allegedly invaded Iraq to destroy. Funny you don't hear anybody talking about those anymore when they were the supposed 'smoking gun' we had to protect ourselves from.
In the five years since, the White House has proffered an everchanging kaleidoscope of justifications to remain in occupation of the country and offered dozens of 'signs of progress' but nothing has changed. There are still vast groups of people who want to kill us and our troops and the Iraqis are still dying every single day.
It's useful to reflect on this sad anniversary that we'll soon see the end of the Bush administration and its foolish notions, but McCain and his prime shoeshiner, Joe Lieberman are still pushing the same propaganda, saying everything is going great in Iraq and insist that we need to stay there pretty much indefinitely at a current cost of $12 billion a month.
Category: Guns
Posted by JD Andary on Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 3:35 PMGuns & Posers
Hooray for SCOTUS & the residents of Washington DC! Now the good guys can arm themselves in the luxury of their own home. I wasn't going to blog on Scalia & Co upholding the Second Amendment, until I noticed my co-bloggin', tax-immune minister, unearthing "a crime" with a handgun in Texas. [BTW, no need to go to Texas for one gun crime, when you can gaze at several outside any Detroit convenience store.]
Mitch Albom added his gun dribble in yesterday's Freep.
Give me a break. Washington DC is a cesspool and I'm not just talking about "When Harry(Reid) Met Nancy(Pelosi), the thugs that litter its urban core. That's what I'm talking about. And let's not forget the hooker-lov'n, crack-tok'n former mayor Marion Barry (who would later serve as a city council member). If there is ANY city in the United States that needs guns in the hand of its law-abiding citizenry it's Washington DC... and Detroit,... and Chicago... and Cleveland, ...and so on, and so on, and so on.
The libs make it sound like these city urban neighborhoods are a walk down Pleasantville Lane. If anything, now crime WILL go down. (Hmmmm can anyone cite the gun crime rate in DC prior to the SCOTUS decision?) Cause a thug will have to think twice when breaking into a home. Does Mr. Homedweller have a gun? Will he kill me when I take what is rightfully his and threaten his family? You betcha.
I remember when The Moled One and her cohorts were wailing against Michigan's Concealed Carry Law. All this blather about crime will increase, Wild West, yada, yada, yada. Guess what? None of that happened and it's been over seven years.
You see it's not the law-abiding folks who take NRA gun classes and partake in the shooting sports that are tapping on car windows and carjacking. It's the rapists, thieves, muggers and thugs that will ALWAYS get guns, drugs, cars and crackhouses ILLEGALLY.
Isn't it about time to level the playing field?
Do you want to wait 2.6 hours for a Detroit Police officer to wipe the powdered donut remnants off his burgeoning beltline and finally appear, dejected, at your front door?
The more this economy suffers, the more random crime will increase. Do you want to put you and your family's lives in the hands of a lackluster, non-timely police department? What has Washington DC's men in blue done up until this SCOTUS decision to bring down crime?
Exactly.
Nothing.
It's not about the Wild, Wild, Midwest. It's about protecting your life and your family. Nobody, and I mean nobody, will do that with the same fervor.
But to come to the defense of a scumbag with a $50 dollar handgun? The line starts behind (the public defender's office).
Category: Economy
Posted by John R. LaPlante on Wed, Jul 2, 2008 at 1:40 PMStarbucks versus Government
Earlier this year I noted that McDonalds wants to enter the market for expensive coffee.
Maybe they made a mistake. Starbucks is announcing that they will close down 600 of their stores.
This could mean that McDonalds is making inroads in their market. It could mean that public sentiment is favoring $4 a gallon gasoline rather than $4 a cup coffee.
In any case, that's bad news for shareholders of Starbucks--and if it's an industry trend, McDonalds as well.
But if Starbucks was a unit of government, you might hear a different piece of news: Income is down, expenses are up--and you will have to pay more in taxes to keep the baristas on the job.
Spartans Blog the Campaign: Michigan State students blog the campaign for The Detroit News with posts and videos featuring their unique perspectives as first-time voters
