PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES

The Average Man does not like Dr. Laura Schlessinger. I don't tend to use words such as hate or loath on this blog very often, but they certainly would not be inappropriate in this case. So far, I've kept my tongue in check regarding Dr. Laura, because others like Craig Smith and George have done an outstanding job of covering her antics. However, the local blogosphere was relatively silent regarding the recent announcement that she was taking a "break" from her column in the Santa Barbara News-Press. Therefore, I thought this would be a good time to get a few things off my chest.

At the expense of stating the obvious, let me start off by telling you what I don't like about Dr. Laura ... she is a hypocrite. "So, lots of people are hypocrites?," you might say. "What makes her so special?" That's a good point, but for me, Dr. Laura takes hypocrisy to a whole other level. You see, for Dr. Laura, it's all about judgement. She stands on her podium with her extra large loudspeaker and dictates to all the little people how to live their lives. YOU are a bad person. YOU don't know how to properly raise a family. YOU don't know how to keep a spouse. And is there any room for error or youthful indiscretion in Dr. Laura's eyes? Absolutely not. Wikipidea does a nice job of detailing all the things at which Dr. Laura likes to wag her finger ...

These include sex outside of marriage ... living together in uncommitted cohabitation before marriage ... intentional single parenthood, re-marrying while living with children from a first marriage, daycare in lieu of a parent staying home to raise their children, the viewing of pornography, the allowing of a schedule arrangement in which neither parent is home when children arrive home from school, marrying too quickly or out of desperation, permissive parenting ... easy or no-fault divorce, and same-sex marriage.

Wow, someone with this many dogmatic positions about YOU sure better have her own house in order. But wait, she doesn't. In fact, she has more skeletons in her closet than Pol Pot; my favorite being the famous incident in 1998 when nude photos of Dr. Laura were posted on the Internets. And what was her excuse upon being forced to accept this embarrassing situation? Oh, I was young and had "no moral authority" at the time. Huh? It gets better ... Soon after the nudey photos controversy "reports surfaced that Schlessinger cheated on her first husband, broke up the marriage of the man who became her second husband, lived with him while unmarried and intentionally bore a child with him out of wedlock." (also from the Wikipidea entry)

Now, does The Average Man judge Dr. Laura for these things? No, I could care less. But that's not the issue. The question is how would Dr. Laura judge Dr. Laura for these things? I suppose it depends on whether she was looking in the mirror or anonymously calling into her own radio show.

This leads us to the present. As it was recently reported in The Salt Lake Tribune, Dr. Laura's son -- currently serving in Afghanistan -- was allegedly caught posting items on his MySpace page that contained the following ...

... cartoon depictions of rape, murder, torture and child molestation; photographs of soldiers with guns in their mouths; a photograph of a bound and blindfolded detainee captioned "My Sweet Little Habib"; accounts of illicit drug use; and a blog entry headlined by a series of obscenities and racial epithets.

As if that wasn't bad enough, he also allegedly wrote the following on said blog ...

Yes . . . F---ING Yes!!! ... I LOVE MY JOB, it takes everything reckless and deviant and heathenistic and just overall bad about me and hyper focuses these traits into my job of running around this horrid place doing nasty things to people that deserve it . . . and some that don't.

Nice. So, what's my reaction? Well, these are clearly the rantings of a disturbed human being who needs some major help (from a real doctor of psychology). But again, that's neither here nor there. The point is what Dr. Laura would say to the mother of someone else's kid who said such things. Do you think she would hold out a sympathetic hand and offer words of comfort or encouragement? Or do you think she would harshly scold this person and blame their son's behaviour on bad parenting? I report. You decide.

So, I have a question for you, Dr. Laura ... why are you taking a break from the News-Press? Is it because you feel bad about preaching family values when your own family is in disarray. Or is it maybe because it seems a little silly defending the News-Press against Jerry Roberts in light of the content on your son's MySpace page? I, for one, was looking forward to some of those insightful News-Press columns where you would defend your son's actions and discuss the proper way to raise warriors ... right before telling us all the ills of daycare.

In the interest of full disclosure, Trekking Left is very close to someone who was fired from the News-Press because a columnist dared to say that Dr. Laura is intolerant. This statement is not entirely true, however. Dr. Laura is only intolerant to those who don't have the last name Schlessinger.

NOT SICK OF UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE

After Hillary Clinton's failed attempt at Universal Health Care back in the early nineties, it seemed that the issue would be forever off the table (kind of like impeachment). Things have certainly changed since then. The rising cost of health care, the number of uninsured in the U.S., and the resurgence of the DemoctratIC party have brought this important issue back to the forefront.

Of course, The Right hates this concept to their core, and they have wasted no time in extracting their false claims and misinformation to convince the public that this is a horrible idea. A couple months ago, I posted a blog entry about Rudy Giuliani's trip to Montecito where I pointed to the following comment made by the distinguished mayor:

Who has the best health care in the world? Who has a better health care system? Is there one we should borrow from somewhere else? Do you want the health care system they have in England? Or Germany, or Canada, or anyplace else?

Then a few weeks later, I had a less than civil debate on the Independent's web site with a right wing guy who goes by the name of "mcconfrontation." Amongst other ... um ... things, he said the following:

... and as for the UHC they propose.... my god. what is this Canada?

Poor Canada. How did they become the health care punching bag for conservatives? As I stated before, this just makes me laugh. There are never any facts to back up these kinds of statements, so instead, they just say it in such a way that you can't help but think it's true ... WHO WOULD WANT TO GO TO A DOCTOR IN CANADA!? OH, THE HORROR!

Now, let's talk truth. Last week, MSN had a great article on this subject with the title Report: U.S. health care expensive, inefficient. I would recommend that you read the whole thing, but if you don't, here's one of many good quotes:

Americans get the poorest health care and yet pay the most compared to five other rich countries, according to a report released on Tuesday.

Germany, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Canada all provide better care for less money, the Commonwealth Fund report found.

“The U.S. health care system ranks last compared with five other nations on measures of quality, access, efficiency, equity, and outcomes,” the non-profit group, which studies health care issues, said in a statement.

Interesting how three of those five countries made Giuliani's list, huh? The other interesting fact is that all five of them provide universal health care to their citizens. But that's not all the article points out:

The current system leaves about 45 million people with no insurance at all, according to U.S. government estimates from 2005, and many studies have shown most of these people do not receive preventive services that not only keep them healthier, but reduce long-term costs ...

... “It is pretty indisputable that we spend twice what other countries spend on average,” she said.

So, there you have it: we spend way more on health care but are way less healthy as a country. Period.

Now, I know what the Republicans are going to say: "But Trekking Left, we have the best hospitals and the best doctors in the world. When people are really sick, why do they come to the U.S. for treatment?" Good question. The answer is, yes, we do have great health care ... if you can afford it. And that's the problem. We are only providing that awesome health care to our wealthy citizenry. If we were giving it to everyone, then we surely wouldn't be last on that list. Plus, as the article intimated, we spend more on the uninsured anyway because we only treat them after they are really sick. Preventative care saves money!

The more I think about this, the more I wonder why anyone opposes it. Think about this: one of the reasons stated by GM that they are having such a difficult financial situation has to do with the amount of money they spend to insure their employees. What if GM didn't have to worry about that and, instead, could just focus on making cars? Seems to me like universal health care is a win-win for everybody.

So, in conclusion, I'd like to answer Giuliani's question ... "Do you want the health care system they have in England? Or Germany, or Canada, or anyplace else?"

Yes, please.

GEORGE TENET: HERO OR ENEMY?

The Average Man has a love/hate relationship with George Tenet. If you remember, he was the head of the CIA under Bush who made the famous "slam dunk" comment regarding Iraq's WMD's. At the time, I harbored only negative feelings towards Mr. Tenet. To me, he was simply part of the Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz axis of evil that lied our country into war, and I was all the more angry when he received the Presidential Medal of Freedom as a reward for all his failures. Tenet, Brownie, Chertoff ... they were all the same to me.

Having said that, I have to admit that my attitude has softened a bit towards our former CIA chief. You might think the reason for my change of heart has to do with his new book, “At the Center of the Storm," where he has some not so nice things to say about the Bush administration. Well, that's certainly part of it, but it's definitely not the whole story. No, for me, it started with a little PBS show called Frontline. If I could convince you to watch one thing this year, it would be the episode titled The Dark Side. It is hands down one of the most important documentaries about our current White House that you will ever see ... I promise. Now, for the record, I didn't come away from that show loving Tenet, but I did leave it thinking that the guy was more than competent. Amongst other things, I learned was the following:

1) Tenet and the CIA knew that 9/11 was coming. It was they who wrote the PDB stating "Bin Laden determined to strike in the United States." And it was Tenet who's "hair was on fire" in August of 2001 because something bad was on the horizon. He was not incompetent. He was ignored.

2) Immediately after 9/11, Rumsfeld wanted to go to Iraq ... badly. Again, it was Tenet and the CIA who said that there was no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. And Tenet made Rumsfeld look absolutely foolish due to the fact he and the CIA were ready for Afghanistan (they had been preparing years for this moment). Rumsfeld was forced by Bush -- if you can believe it -- to relinquish control to Tenet's plan as Rumsfeld simply didn't have one.

3) Tenet and the CIA were hot on the trail of Osama Bin Laden when their resources were taken away for Iraq. I think they would have captured him.

While those were all important facts revealed in the The Dark Side, there is one outstanding bit of information all Americans need to understand: Rumsfeld and Cheney hated the CIA. Why, you ask? Well, because the CIA wasn't giving them the information they wanted. So, what did they do? They ignored the CIA and made their own "intelligence gathering" organization within Pentagon, which -- no surprise -- gave them exactly the information they wanted to hear.

So, here's the thing ... I absolutely believe what Tenet says in his book: he is a scapegoat, and he got the intelligence right. We must stop saying that the CIA is broken and that 9/11 was a huge intelligence failure. Even the Democrats say this over and over. It's simply not true, and it's not fair. Let me say it again: THE CIA HAD IT RIGHT ALL ALONG! The only intelligence failure was made by those with no intelligence who didn't listen to the CIA.

It seems that most of those on the Left won't budge for Tenet. I've made this case to some friends, and their response is basically that he should have stood up and said something why he was there. And people like Arianna Huffington are saying that he should have just resigned if he truly felt this way. Making millions of dollars on a tell-all book long after you're fired -- they will say -- is not commendable behavior. You won't get an argument from me on those points. However, in a pond of moral depravity, he was far from the biggest fish. Mr. Tenet may not ultimately have had the courage to speak truth to power while running the CIA, but he is far from our enemy.

THE GOOD AND BAD OF ETHANOL

If you read this blog at all, you know that I spend way too much time thinking about global warming and what we can do to slow it down (much less stop it all together). As you can imagine, the subject of ethanol is frequently raised in these kinds of discussions, and there are no lack of opinions on this (bio) matter. If you didn't know, Santa Barbara County is actually considering the development of an ethanol plant in the Santa Maria area. A recent article from KCOY on the topic got me wondering if this is really a good idea. Here's what I think ...

PLUSES

Initially, I LOVED ethanol. There are many great ideas floating around out there for more fuel efficient vehicles, but in my humble opinion, it doesn't make sense to focus on things that are 10 to 20 years down the line. Hydrogen, for example, is a solid idea that can't be realized any time soon. I've always felt this way, and I was happy to hear on Tim Russert's CNBC show yesterday that Lee Iacocca agrees with me. Global warming needs big solutions that we can implement quickly, and it just seemed to me that ethanol was perfect:

- Firstly, it doesn't require a significant change to our infrastructure: many cars are already built to use E85, and those that aren't can be altered without much cost.

- Second, there are a number of E85 filling stations around the nation, so this isn't something we have to construct from scratch.

- Finally, we can boost the farming economy. This isn't my area of expertise, but don't we pay farmers not to grow things? Wouldn't this be a great way to get back all those small farms that have been forced out by big conglomerates? I was definitely liking the possibilities.

MINUSES

Now that I've sung the praises of ethanol, I have to come "clean" and admit that my mind is slowly being changed. Where I once saw a cure all, I now see a boatload of side effects:

1) Additional Pollution - It's been pointed out to me that the equipment we use to farm (like tractors for example) are very dirty. So, more farming obviously means more greenhouse gasses. Plus, there's clearly pollution produced by the ethanol conversion process itself. And if that's not bad enough, according to the KCOY article, existing "railroad tracks would be used to transport huge quantities of Midwestern corn that would be fermented to produce ethanol..." That can't be good for the cause. The Average Man wants to clean up the environment, but he wants solutions that work.

2) Corn - It's generally accepted that corn is not the most efficient way to produce ethanol: switch grass and sugar beets are better (just ask Brazil). Yet, the corn lobby has stepped in to make sure that corn is the primary source for ethanol in the US. This brings with it many negative issues. One such problem is the fact that using more corn for ethanol could mean less corn for food. That in turn, could mean that corn prices would go up. This could have a very bad snowball effect, because corn is a staple in much more of our food than you might think, and it is the primary way many farmers feed their livestock.

3) Land - There was a recent New York Times Editorial that pointed out another bad potential result from ethanol production: an increase in farming means an increase in land use. There are many areas of federally protected land that should remain that way. But the need for more ethanol could encourage politicians to open up that land for farming.

4) Not Enough - The general thinking is that, even if we were seriously committed to ethanol, we could only produce about 20% of our national energy needs this way.


Okay, so back to the original question ... Is an ethanol plant a good idea for Santa Barbara County? On the whole, I would give it a weak thumbs up. As Al Gore has stated, there is no silver bullet for this thing. Rather, there are many small fixes, and I think ethanol is one of them. Despite all the cons I've listed above, my gut feeling is that we need to urgently address the sheer volume of greenhouse gas producing vehicles on the road. This is more important than any other climate change issue, and adding ethanol into the mix -- as it were -- is a plus.

DEBATING IRAQ

George posted a recent blog entry regarding the decidedly right wing response to Wednesday's Independent story about the SB war protest. Being who I am, I immediately went over there to see what he was talking about. Again, being who I am, I couldn't help but jump into the middle of the debate. Big mistake? You decide ... by reading it here.

GONE TO THE DOGS

I recently watched a great PBS Nature documentary called Dogs That Changed The World. If you love dogs (or even like them a little), I highly recommend you check it out.

For you intelligent designers out there, here are a few interesting facts from the "dog show" ...

1) Dogs evolved from wolves to modern day canines in only 14,000 years.

2) Since the 18th century, the number of breeds has gone from 40 to about 400.

3) There is more genetic diversity between different breeds of dogs than there is between the members of any other animal on earth.

So, dogs are an evolutionary enigma. And we are witnesses to a phenomenon that usually takes millions of years. Fascinating!