A Disgruntled Republican

Whitland Avenue’s Old-Fashioned 4th of July

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 23:58:00 +0000

Today I attended the Whitland Avenue 4th of July Celebration and Picnic for probably my fifth or sixth time. This is the 34th year for this event. If you live in Nashville and have never attended, mark your calendar for next year. You don’t want to keep missing this event. I cannot imagine a better 4th of July event anywhere in America. This event evokes Norman Rockwell’s America. With a lot of people milling about and coming and going, it is hard to estimate the number of people who attend but it must be several thousand. Despite the large crowd, it is not one of those events that seems crowded or chaotic. Everything runs smoothly and appears effortless.

The celebration takes place on Whitland Avenue, a wide tree-lined shaded street with beautiful old homes and well-manicured and landscaped yards. Several blocks are blocked off to accommodate the party. Virtually every house is festooned with American flags and a large American and Tennessee flag hang suspended from wires across the street. The weather was perfect for today’s event. Sometimes July 4th can be miserably hot; today was a pleasant day in the low 80’s.

The event starts at 11:00 with a parade. This parade has no marching bands or military units, or majorettes or Shirner clowns but is a children’s parade. Children decorate their bicycles with red, white, and blue bunting or mount small flags from the handlebars and ride down the street. Other children are pulled in wagons decorated in patriotic themes and some parents push baby carriages and strollers and push their infants down the street. The children beam with pride as the people on the sidewalk cheer them. Some of them walk their dogs, decked out in red, white and blue bandannas.

About 11:30 the music starts. The program simply listed the band as “The Greatest Band in America,” I don’t know anything about them but they are probably a band put together for just this purpose. Nashville really is “music city” and we are blessed with great musicians and vocalist. With the music industry and several universities with music departments, every church in town of any size has wonderful music and any neighborhood festival will feature live music, and it is often great music. “Band” does not really describe the band; it is more like an orchestra with maybe 30 musicians. The band played Sousa marches and patriotic songs and some nostalgic popular songs. I don’t know who the vocalist was, but a female singer sang “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” and was fantastic.

Part of the joy of this event is seeing the people and interacting. It seems almost everyone is wearing a combination of red, white and blue and many wear hats or shirts decorated in patriotic motifs. Many people are carrying and waving their own American flags. I always run into people I know at this event and enjoy exchanging greetings and pleasant conversation. I had a pleasant chat with State Senator Douglas Henry, one of my favorite Democrats. I also had a nice chat with Kathleen Stranes, Chairman of the Davidson County Republican Party.

During the program, someone did a dramatic reading of The Declaration of Independence, while the band played Aaron Copeland’s Fanfare for the Common Man. It was moving. There is a reciting of the Pledge of Allegiance and singing of the National Anthem. There is always a patriotic speech given by someone of prominence. In previous years we have had Governors and Senators give speeches. The speech is always something appropriate, expressing love of country but avoiding current controversies and partisanship, as I think it well should for this event.

This year the speaker was Adolpho Augustus Birch Jr, former Chief Justice of the Tennessee Supreme Court. Judge Birch is an African American and in his career he has been the first African-American to hold several judicial positions and was the first African American Tennessee Supreme Court Chief Justice. He spoke on the Gettysburg address and how that speech reflected the spirit of America.

Following the speeches, as the band continues to play the picnic starts and then concludes the event. The food is served under a big tent and there are about ten serving lines. Despite the large number of people being served, the lines move fairly fast and there is not a long wait. Other than purchased boxes of fired chicken, the food is mostly homemade. There are some mighty fine cooks contributing hundreds of homemade dishes. Casseroles, vegetable dishes, fresh salads, and cakes and pies and abound. Lining the street are probably six to ten canoes filled with ice-covered bottles of water and soft drinks.

I don’t know how the people of Whitland do it. I know that several families contribute funds for the event and it seems the whole neighborhood brings food. I am sure it takes a lot of coordination and planning. While I hope everyone can attend, I hope that this event does not get so big that it has to be discontinued or moved to a different location or be changed in some way. I would hate for it to loose that small-town feel.

To the people of Whitland Avenue, Thank your for a wonderful 4th of July.

Happy 4th of July

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 14:56:00 +0000

Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and, when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them, and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining, in the mean time, exposed to all the dangers of invasions from without and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the military independent of, and superior to, the civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution and unacknowledged by our laws, giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us;

For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states;

For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world;

For imposing taxes on us without our consent;

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury;

For transporting us beyond seas, to be tried for pretended offenses;

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries, so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these colonies;

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments;

For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation, and tyranny already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow-citizens, taken captive on the high seas, to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrection among us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms; our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in our attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them, from time to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity; and we have conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, to disavow these usurpations which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too, have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity which denounces our separation, and hold them as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

[Signed by] JOHN HANCOCK [President]

New Hampshire
JOSIAH BARTLETT,
WM. WHIPPLE,
MATTHEW THORNTON.

Massachusetts Bay
SAML. ADAMS,
JOHN ADAMS,
ROBT. TREAT PAINE,
ELBRIDGE GERRY

Rhode Island
STEP. HOPKINS,
WILLIAM ELLERY.

Connecticut
ROGER SHERMAN,
SAM'EL HUNTINGTON,
WM. WILLIAMS,
OLIVER WOLCOTT.

New York
WM. FLOYD,
PHIL. LIVINGSTON,
FRANS. LEWIS,
LEWIS MORRIS.

New Jersey
RICHD. STOCKTON,
JNO. WITHERSPOON,
FRAS. HOPKINSON,
JOHN HART,
ABRA. CLARK.

Pennsylvania
ROBT. MORRIS
BENJAMIN RUSH,
BENJA. FRANKLIN,
JOHN MORTON,
GEO. CLYMER,
JAS. SMITH,
GEO. TAYLOR,
JAMES WILSON,
GEO. ROSS.

Delaware
CAESAR RODNEY,
GEO. READ,
THO. M'KEAN.

Maryland
SAMUEL CHASE,
WM. PACA,
THOS. STONE,
CHARLES CARROLL of Carrollton.

Virginia
GEORGE WYTHE,
RICHARD HENRY LEE,
TH. JEFFERSON,
BENJA. HARRISON,
THS. NELSON, JR.,
FRANCIS LIGHTFOOT LEE,
CARTER BRAXTON.

North Carolina
WM. HOOPER,
JOSEPH HEWES,
JOHN PENN.

South Carolina
EDWARD RUTLEDGE,
THOS. HAYWARD, JUNR.,
THOMAS LYNCH, JUNR.,
ARTHUR MIDDLETON.

Georgia
BUTTON GWINNETT,
LYMAN HALL,
GEO. WALTON.

Sarah Palin resigns!

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 22:35:00 +0000

What is going on? I just now read that Sarah Palin was resigning as Governor of Alaska. Why? She was not the target of any significant investigations. There was no hint of scandal. She had an enthusiastic loyal following. She could have been a major contender for the 2012 Republican Presidential nomination. I assume this ends her political career. She did not make it clear why she was taking this step.

I like Sarah Palin but quite frankly I had decided she did not have what it took to be President. I was thrilled when she was nominated as the VP candidate. I was infatuated. Since that time I have fallen out of love with her. I admit I have often been a fool for a beautiful women. I wanted to punch Charlie Gibson in the face when he ambushed her with his "got cha" questions. I hate to see a man pick on a women, especially a beautiful women. I was also really angered by David Letterman's disgraceful comments about her 14-year-old daughter. He caused me to rally behind her. Still, I did not think she was Presidential material. I do not think she could have been elected.

I would love to have had a romantic encounter with Sarah Palin, but I am not sure I would want her to be President. She did not inspire confidence. She could have gotten ready. She could have taken some crash courses in current events and surrounded herself with good advisers. I assume this takes a major front runner out of the race. Mitch Romney, nor Huckabee, nor Bobby Jendal excite me. I think the Republican Party has never been more ripe for a dark horse candidate out of no where to leap to the forefront. It is now an open field and that may not be a bad thing.

Cleaning up my blogroll

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 21:28:00 +0000

Soon, maybe this weekend, I will be working on my blogroll. I will be visiting every link, deleting any dead links as well as links to inactive blogs. I know some bloggers start blogging enthusiastically then loose interest. If I am linked to a blog that has not been updated in weeks, I am most likely deleting it. I will also be looking at links that should be reciprocal to insure that I am still listed in that blog’s blogroll.

In decided which blogs to link to, there are several factors I consider. One, I want to link to blogs that will reciprocate and that I think will drive traffic to my blog and will increase my ranking. Second, I link to some blogs because I feel the blogger is a kindred sprit and I want to support that blogger. I also am looking for well-written, insightful blogs. They have to interest me. I only link to blogs that I would want to read myself.

If you have looked at my blog links, you may have been surprised that I have a few links to liberal blogs. Linking to a blog does not imply that I support the editorial opinion of that blog, but that I thing it is interesting and worthy of being read. There are a few links to blogs that are not even political. I have interest other than politics and link to a few blogs just because they interest me.

Some blogs, even if they rank higher than I do and might increase my own ranking, I will not link to. I am not going to link to any how-to-get-rich-blogging blogs.
I am looking for new blogs to add to my blogroll. If you think your blog fits my criteria and especially if you would be interested in swapping links, let me know and I will get back with you.

Regarding Cap and Trade

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 06:06:00 +0000

I opposed the recent cap and trade bill passed by the US House of Representatives. I think it was a disaster. Should it become law, it will do little to control carbon emissions. It will put Congress in the position of picking winners and losers in the economy. It will destroy jobs and slow the recovery and will be a massive tax increase and a massive transfer of power to the Federal Government.

The bill will require an army of bureaucrats to insure compliance. It will provide lots of jobs for lawyers and lobbyist who will fight to get or keep an advantage. Should the bill become law, those who were awarded credits will fight like hell to keep them. Those who were given an advantage over their competitors by this bill will invest heavily in elections to keep their advantage. It will institutionalize political corruption. Cap and Trade in Europe has generally proven to be ineffective in reducing carbon emissions and our version is no better.

So, while I am disappointed that this bill passed, I nevertheless part company with many other opponents of the bill. I accept the majority scientific opinion that global warming is a reality. I am not comfortable in an alliance with those who simply deny the science of global warming and think we need to do nothing. I accept that we must try to reduce carbon emission. I accept that in theory a cap and trade bill could reduce American emission of CO2.

What could make a cap and trade bill workable is if all of the credits were sold instead of simply given away. Another provision that would make cap and trade more effective is if the role of nuclear energy was recognized as an alternative to carbon-based energy. If a utility closes a coal-fired plant and builds a nuclear plant, they should earn the credits for the carbon reduction.

In crafting this bill carbon credits were given away simply to fashion a bill that could win enough votes to pass. If cap and trade had sold all of the credits instead of given them away and if the money raised by selling of credits had been rebated to the American people in the form of income tax reductions and tax credits to pay for the higher energy cost that will result from this bill, that would have made the bill more palatable.

Even if the bill had been constructed as I suggest above, there would still be a major obstacle to making cap and trade work. Many manufacturing jobs would simply be shifted to India and China where companies do not have to pay a penalty for emitting carbon. While a good cap and trade bill might reduce carbon emissions in America that would have increased carbon emission in developing countries. A unit of carbon is just as damaging to the climate if it is produced in China as if it produced in America. That problem seems insurmountable. Unless the growing economies of China and India can be enticed to participate in carbon reduction, we are wasted our time. To ignore that reality is irresponsible. Nevertheless, we cannot continue to ignore the problem of looming climate change.

I would have much preferred a revenue-neutral direct carbon tax, rather than the smoke and mirrors of cap and trade. A carbon tax would be much more effective and simpler to administer. I would actually prefer to tax carbon than tax income. If there were a dollar-for-dollar offset, a switch to taxing carbon rather than income would not have to be detrimental to the economy. It is my hope that the Senate will kill this cap and trade bill and consider a revenue-neutral carbon tax bill. In the absence of that happening, I would hope that the Senate could drastically modify this bill so that it is workable and revenue-neutral.

There seems to be lot of people, among both those who favor cap and trade as well as those who oppose it, who have strong opinions about cap and trade yet know little about it. Unfortunately it seems congress did not know much about what they were voting on when they passed the 1200 page bill either.

One of the best analyses of cap and trade that I have come across is from Ryan Love, editor of The Bowater Republican. In these two articles linked here, The Cap and Trade Bill Explained and The Cap and Trade Addendum, Love summarizes the bill and explains the issues involved.

Love links to the full text of the bill so you may read the full 1200 pages should you actually want to do so and presents arguments from both sides. These two articles by Love are lengthy but very readable and well-documented. Some issues just can’t be explained in 400 words. I encourage you to read these linked post if you want a better understanding of the issues involved.

Helen Thomas Challenge Gibbs On "Controlled" Town Hall Meeting

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 21:12:00 +0000

Even the main-stream, Obama-adoring, liberal press looks like they are beginning to get tired of being nothing but props for the President. No one likes being taken for granted and I guess even prostitutes liked to be kissed every once in a while.

Obama's town hall meetings are scripted shams. The "press conferences" are not press conferences at all. Reporters are told in advance who will be called upon to ask a question and the President is told what questions will be asked.

It looks like Helen Thomas has got balls than anyone in the room. Chip Reid of CBS was outspoken about the Obama control of the press also and is to be commended. Following the testy exchange above, Thomas said that not even Richard Nixon tried to control the press the way Obama is trying to do so. “Nixon didn’t try to do that,” Thomas said. “They couldn’t control (the media). They didn’t try. “What the hell do they think we are, puppets?” (link)

Most members of the mainstream press have gladly carried water for the President and allowed themselves to be nothing more that props. The mainstream press has allowed itself to become the Obama Government's Department of Propaganda. They love him and will, for the most part, keep on prostituting themselves for the anointed one. I guess ideology trumps journalistic integrity most of the time. Helen Thomas is one tough old buzzard and it looks like she is tired of being used as a prop. Will the President continue to control the press are will other members get tired of the charade and get tired of being used and controlled? Will they continue to be cheerleaders or will they demand respect and stand up for freedom of the press.

July 2, 2009 Nashville Patriotic Revival

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 04:30:00 +0000

Time: July 2, 2009 from 6pm to 9pm
Location: Legislative Plaza
City/Town: Nashville
Event Type: rally
Organized By: Judson Phillips, Robert and Tami Kilmarx

Come kick off your July 4th weekend with a family friendly event in Downtown Nashville! We will have a pre-Tea Party mixer/meet and greet from 4 - 6 with music, at least 18 information booths and more. At 6 the Tea Party begins with Blue Collar Muse Ken Marrerro hosting, Ralph Bristol of Talk 99.7, Steve Gill of WLAC, Shaka L. A. Mitchell of TN Center for Policy Research, Laurie Cardozo Moore from Proclaiming Justice to the Nations and our Special Keynote Speaker, the Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson of Bond.org. Rev. Peterson is flying in from Los Angeles especially for this event and will speak to us about the dangers of Socialism in America. You won't want to miss this, so mark your calendars and bring your lawnchairs! This isn't just a tea party, this is a Tea Party Event and it is going to be BIG!!!!!

This sounds like fun. Come vent your frustration and connect with other activist.

Band-aid smells?

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 15:18:00 +0000

Frank Sutherland has topped himself again. In today's Tennessean "Wine in Nashville" Column, he described a 2004 Casas del Bosque Merlot this way:

Aroma: the aroma was strongly vegetal, with earth scents, Band-aid smells and lot
of alcohol.

Frank, that beats "Texas pink grapefruit" or "iodine" or "dusty tomato stems." Frank, you are speaking of the "band-aid" brand of adhesive bandage strips, right? Not some generic off-brand? I just wanted to be sure about that. Thanks for the review. Now I will know what to expect if I think about buying a bottle of 2004 Casas del Bosque Merlot.

Frank I have an idea for a future column. Why not contrast and compare all of the wines that have the aroma of band-aid smells? That would really be informative. I always enjoy your column.

The White House Press Corp (aka Department of Propaganda) Cartoons

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:17:00 +0000

Meet up: 1st Tuesday Group

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 01:11:00 +0000

1st Tuesday Group

Program: Tre Hargett, Sec. of State to Speak

When: Tuesday July 7th, 11:30 AM

Location: Waller Lansden, 511 Union St, floor 27 , Nashville, TN 37201

How to find us: Go to the 27th floor and you will see the crowd at the badge table.

Who’s coming?: 5 Yes / 1 Maybe (People tend to register late and not all register through the Meet up site.)
74 spots left — RSVP deadline: July 6, 2009 8:00 PM

Who's organizing?

Tim Skow

Cost: Members are $15 and Non-members are $20.

Come, enjoy lunch, great company and a chance to hear Tre Hargett, Sec. of State. Be prepared with questions on the election commissions.

This is a great event. I have been attending for about the last six to eight months. I have heard all four of the Republican candidates for governor; Jason Mumpower, the man who should have been Speaker of the House except for an underhanded politically savvy move by the Democrats and one turn-coat Republican; a debate on the English-only proposed charter Amendment; and other great speakers. The speaker starts promptly at noon and ends promptly at 1pm, so you can take a slightly longer lunch hour and break up the day with an interesting lunch and still not miss much work. The food is good and the view from the 27 floor is magnificent. For cheap parking you can park beneath the library and the first hour is free if you get your parking ticket validated. The library parking is only a block away from the meeting site. This is a great opportunity to get involved and network with like-minded people. This group has been meeting for about the last twenty years or so I have been told, but I only discovered it recently. Usually between 70 and 100 people attend. For more info, click this link. I hope to see you there.

We now have a socialist gangster goverment.

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 03:32:00 +0000

Comment: Probably every one of us has an automobile dealer friend or someone who works for an auto dealer affected by the U.S. government high-jacking of General Motors. I have not seen confirmation of it yet in the press, but I have been told that Jim Reed Chevrolet had been ordered closed. Jim Reed has been a Chevy dealer for almost a hundred years here in Nashville. I never thought I would see the day when this could happen in America. No one is secure. Your company or the company you work for could be next. We are watching our freedom slip away.

Meet up: Davidson County Republican Assembly

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 02:57:00 +0000

Your group has a Meetup Saturday, July 11, 2009 9:00 AM!
What
Davidson County Republican Assembly

When: Saturday, July 11, 2009 9:00 AM

Where : Coleman Park Community Center, 384 Thompson Lane, Nashville TN 37211
615-862-8445

RSVP Deadline: Your organizer has set an RSVP deadline for this event. You have until July 10, 2009 7:00 PM to RSVP.

Meetup Description : Raul Lopez or Juan Borges will be our guest speaker. Since I'll be out of town and Nick has to be out of town as well, Bob Richie has agreed to conduct our meeting.

Comment: If you live in the Nashville area and are a conservative Republican, this is a great group to join. Get involved and meet like-minded people. The usual attendance is about 12 to 15 people. Meetings feature speakers who are conservative activist, elected officials, or Republican leaders. Meetings usually last about an hour to an hour and a half. To learn more about the Republican Assembly, click the link above.

More Health Care 'toons

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 13:48:00 +0000

Samuelson: Obama's health care reform will not restain spending but increase it.

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:57:00 +0000

Wrong Way on Health 'Reform'

By Robert J. Samuelson Monday, June 15, 2009 , Washington Post

It's hard to know whether President Obama's health-care "reform" is naive, hypocritical or simply dishonest. Probably all three. The president keeps saying it's imperative to control runaway health spending. He's right. The trouble is that what's being promoted as health-care "reform" almost certainly won't suppress spending and, quite probably, will do the opposite.

A new report from Obama's own Council of Economic Advisers shows why controlling health costs is so important. Since 1975, annual health spending per person, adjusted for inflation, has grown 2.1 percentage points faster than overall economic growth per person. If this trend continues, the CEA projects that:
-- Health spending, which was 5 percent of the economy (gross domestic product) in 1960 and is reckoned at almost 18 percent today, would grow to 34 percent of GDP by 2040 -- a third of the economy. (link)

Comment: This article from America's premier economics journalist sheds light on the enormity of the problem of runaway health care cost and explains why President Obama's health care reform will actually make the problem worse.

Health Care Cartoons

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:24:00 +0000

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 16:06:00 +0000

TO: Rod Williams
FROM: Fred Thompson

I know it seems a long way away. And I know that most of us are only now getting over the hyper-intense election of 2008. But there are election campaigns working now that will have a dramatic impact on your life, the lives of your family, and the future of nation. I am writing to you about one of the most important contests in the country, the battle for the U.S. Senate seat in Connecticut. Chris Dodd, the ultra-liberal Senator, has been exposed. The voters are turning against his brand of “do as I say, not as I do” of politics.

And we are in luck. We have a solid candidate, former Congressman Rob Simmons. Rob is currently running ahead in the polls. But an ocean of money is flowing against him, Every radical, left wing group in America is coming in to defend Chris Dodd. The unions are all in. And, we have to expect that the Obama machine will be put into full force. All of that – as intimidating as it may appear – is not enough to overcome the clear disdain of the people for Dodd’s actions.

Rob Simmons is the exactly the man to win this seat and remove Chris Dodd from the Senate. But he can’t do it alone. He needs the active help and financial support of every single American who values freedom and wants to see a return to fundamental First Principles. That is why I am asking you to make a donation to Rob Simmons for Senate today. You can make a donation by going to https://www.icontribute.us/robsimmons/initiative/thompson.

I know times are tough and that money doesn’t grow on trees. But this is one of the most important investments you can make for the future of our nation.

The stakes are so very high, please click here https://www.icontribute.us/robsimmons/initiative/thompson and make the most generous contribution you can.

Comment

There may be a real chance to defeat Chis Dodd. I would love to see it. His roll in the housing crisis is reason enough for him to be defeated. He is not only extremely liberal but ethically challenged. I sent a modest contribution. This looks like a campaign worth supporting. Please contribute. If all you can send is $5 or $10 or $20, do it. A lot of times I think people don't contribute to campaigns because they cannot make a large contribution. A lot of little contributions add up. If you contribute and Dodd is defeated, you will feel great and know you played a part in it.

Media Kowtows to Supreme Leader

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 15:59:00 +0000

ABC Self-Nationalizes For Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:53:00 +0000

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted Friday, June 19, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Media Bias: As much of the U.S. private sector, including health care providers, resists government takeovers, what a sorry sight to see ABC News leap forward to make itself a propaganda arm of the government.

But that's the story as ABC crosses the line from journalism to advocacy in turning its coverage of health care over to the White House. (link)

The Biggest Problem with Health Care-- and How to fix it.

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:09:00 +0000

by Ken Dychtwald Ph.D

While most of the current healthcare debate has focused on how to cover the tens of millions of uninsured Americans and who should pay (granted, these are critically important issues), after thirty-five years working at the intersection of gerontology and healthcare, I'm convinced that we have the WRONG healthcare system for our aging nation.

If your train is headed in the wrong direction, it doesn't help to give everyone a seat. And, since the U.S. currently spends nearly twice as much per capita on healthcare as all the other modernized nations, while our national life expectancy ranks a humiliating 42nd worldwide, it's not that we throw too little money at the problem, but that we may not be spending it in the wisest ways. (link)

Comment

This is a thought-provoking article. The arthor argues that we are not prepared for the health care needs of the future and that Americans do not take enough responsbility for their own health.

He points out that Medicare spends approximately 28 percent of its total budget on patients in their last year of life and argues that prolonging the dying process may not be the best use of health care dollars. I do not want the government deciding when to pull the plug, however I agree that simply prolonging life with high-tech and expensive care may not be the best use of health care dollars. If we do not get Medicare spending under control, it can bankrupt our nation. How much to spend on Medicare is a public policy issue and there is a limit to how much the public can spend on prolonging life of those who are dying.

Many people end their life in poverty and impoverish their spouse and family due to extremely expensive care which extends the life of the patient by only months. Nursing home care can run to thousands of dollars a month. One does not get public-funded nursing home care until all of their own wealth is exhausted. Once the patient and his or her spouse have exhausted all of their wealth, the tax payers pick up the tab. Often the patient may have no hope of recovery and be in an almost vegetative state for months prior to dying. I know it is difficult to let a parent or spouse die, but I do not think simply prolonging life when their is no hope of recovery and the patient has no quality of life is preferable to letting the patient die with dignity. As health care advances, the ability to prolong the dying process continues to expand.

As a baby-boomer myself and someone who has a loved one afflicted with Alzheimer's, I think about these issues, as unpleasant as they are to contemplate.

How to Cure Health Care

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 01:44:00 +0000

By Milton Friedman

The United States spends a mind-boggling percentage of its GDP on a health care system that virtually everyone agrees is a disaster. Is there any way out of this mess? There is—and Hoover fellow Milton Friedman has found it. This article was written by the late Milton Friedman but is as relevant now as when it was originally publishing in 2001.

Rapid technological advances have occurred repeatedly since the Industrial Revolution—in agriculture, steam engines, railroads, telephones, electricity, automobiles, radio, television, and, most recently, computers and telecommunication. The other two features seem unique to medicine. It is true that spending initially increased after nonmedical technical advances, but the fraction of national income spent did not increase dramatically after the initial phase of widespread acceptance. On the contrary, technological development lowered cost, so that the fraction of national income spent on food, transportation, communication, and much more has gone down, releasing resources to produce new products or services. Similarly, there seems no counterpart in these other areas to the rising dissatisfaction with the delivery of medical care. (link)

Comment

In this article, Milton Friedman advocates reprivatizing medical care by eliminating most third-party payment, and restoring the role of insurance to providing protection against major medical catastrophes. He advocates repealing the tax exemption of employer-provided medical care among other changes. We have become so accustomed to employer-provided medical care that we regard it as part of the natural order, says Friedman. Yet, it is thoroughly illogical, he argues. Anyone who is interested in the health care debate should read and consider these arguments.

Do we have the best health care in the world?

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 01:47:00 +0000

You often hear critics of health care reform say that we have the best health care in the world and that the reformers are trying to destroy it. Is the true? Do we have the best health care in the world?

I guess it depends on what you mean by “best.” Certainly, many Canadian and others come to the US for medical procedures that they cannot get at home or for which they would have to wait a very long time. The royalty, celebrities and rich of the world often come to America to get treatment. The U.S. has more of the best medical centers, best-equipped hospitals and most highly specialized physicians in the world. Many of the world’s advances in curing and treating decease originate in America. In that sense we may fairly say we have the best health care in the world. We have the best health care that money can buy, if you have the money.

The best quality health care that can be purchased is only one measure of “best.” Most of us will never be treated by a world-renowned physician or have miracle surgery. “Best” has many measures. So while we may have the absolute “best” health care that is available, do we have the best health care for the average person?

Let us look at some measures of health care quality. Consider life expectancy at birth. We rank 50th, a little ahead of Cuba and Albania but way behind Japan, Singapore, France, Sweden, Norway and Spain. Many factors may enter into life expectancy other than the quality of health care. Homicide rates, suicide rates, and highway death tolls may work against us. In Highway Death Tolls, we lead the world at 15.5 per 100,000. That stat is obviously not a function of the quality of our health care. We have more cars and drive more miles than most nations. Lifestyle choices such as smoking, drug use, diet and sedentary lifestyle may also have more impact on longevity than medical intervention.

Let us look at another measure: infant mortality. In the United States infant mortality is 6.26 per 1000 live births, which barely beats Croatia at 6.37 but trails Cuba at 5.82 and Canada at 5.04. Our infant mortality rate is almost twice as high as that of Japan and Norway. Maybe again, there are social factors to blame. Maybe we have more crack addicted mothers giving birth and more young unwed mothers, but the statistics are, I think, a valid indication that we do not have the “best” health care in the world.

On some other measures of health, the United States also scores not quite so well. It you look at the “probability of not reaching sixty,” Americans have a 12.8% probability which beats Poland at 17.5% and Portugal at 13.1% but trails Denmark at 12%, France at 11.4%, Germany at 10.6%, Spain at 10.3%, and Canada at 9.5%.

On some measures of health, we score quite well. On the survival rate for cancer, we lead the world at 62.9% for women and 66.3% for men, followed by everyone else with Spain at 59% (women), England at only 52.7 (women) and 44.8% (men).

In 2000, The World Health Organization ranked the nations of the world as to the quality of health care for the first and only time. The U.S. ranked 37th out of 191 countries, trailing France, Italy, Spain, Greece, The UK, Canada and Costa Rico. We were immediately followed by Slovenia and Cuba. The methodology and weight given to various factors proved controversial, but nevertheless the poor showing by the United States should cast doubt on the claim of the best health care in the world.

Do we have the best health care in the world? I don’t think so.

Regarding Health Care Reform

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 22:54:00 +0000

(This essay on health care reform is a work in progress but these are my thoughts at this time. More documentation and more thoughts to follow.)

I don’t want more government; I want less. I wish government nowhere built sports stadiums or convention centers. I would even support privatization of some current government services such as our Interstate Highway System, TVA, and mail delivery, so I certainly do not advocate nationalizing health care. I don’t want socialized medicine. I don’t support “single payer.” However, I think we must do something about health care in America.

In a recent CNN poll, 80% of Americans said they were satisfied with their health care. That may be seen as an excuse to say, “Leave well enough alone.” We can’t. There is a crisis. We cannot continue along the current trajectory. What we have is not working very well. We have a problem. Just saying “no” and supporting the status quo is not a solution. We need to get all the smart people in a room and figure out what needs to be done. I hope there really is a debate about health care. I am not sure what reform, I can support at this time but as I think about the issue here are some “givens” on my part in this debate.

We need health care reform. I accept that what we currently have is flawed and needs improvement. It is not sustainable.

Health care costs are rising. Health care costs are rising considerable faster than increases in the general price index.

Rising health care cost will wreck the economy and bankrupt the government. (More to follow.)

We do not have the best health care in the world. “Best” is a subjective term, but by many measures we do not have the healthiest people on the planet. What we have may be the best that money can buy but unless you are extremely wealthy you can’t afford the best.

The you-want-be-able-to-choose-your-own-doctor argument is exaggerated. Until we see the particulars of a specific plan this argument is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate people into opposing any change. Most people do not now go through a methodical process to choose a doctor. How many doctors did you interview before you ending up with your current doctor? I belong to an HMO and can choose from quite a long list of doctors but they have to be on the list. Unless we end up with a very draconian, almost boot camp military-style health care system, you will probably have about as much choice in choosing a doctor as the choice you exercised in choosing your current doctor. In many cases your current ability to choose a doctor depends on what kind of insurance your employer provides you.

Employers should not provide health insurance. There is nothing natural or inherently rational about your employer providing you with health insurance. The practice of our employer providing our insurance really took off in World War II when the nation had wage and price controls. Employers could not offer higher wages to attract labor but they could offer better benefits. Unions also had a roll in pressuring employers to provide insurance. Your employer should no more provide your health insurance than they should your home insurance or auto insurance. How many people are working at a job they dislike, just for the health insurance benefits? We are like serfs on the manor. We are often tied to our desk by our insurance. Breaking this tie would be liberating. Divorcing insurance from employment would free labor to me more mobile. I suspect that if people were freed from a dependency on their employer for health care, we would see a growth in small business and more overall economic growth.

Taxing of health care benefits should not be taken off the table. I do not want the taxing of health care benefits to be used as simply a tactic for destroying consumer choice and forcing most people into a government insurance program, but the concept that health care benefits should be taxes seems rational. If you are receiving your health insurance from your employer that is the equivalent of additional income on which you are not paying taxes. If all other factors are equal and you earn $30,000 and get $3000 worth of insurance benefits and your neighbor earns $33,000 and no insurance, should he have to pay more in taxes than you do? I don’t think so. It is usually the lowest income earners without employer provided heath care benefits. I am generally opposed to increasing taxes, but part of health care reform should consider taxation of employer provided benefits.

There is not a functioning “market” in health care/the market does not work. There is really not a price for health care cost. For some services, such as an office visit there may be a set price, but it is very difficult to actually determine the cost of a medical procedure and a hospital stay. The price is a function of who is paying the bill. Different insurance companies have different reimbursement rates. Many times those without insurance are charged a much higher rate than those with insurance, yet in many cases they default on the bill and do not end up paying it. Those without insurance who are charged the ticket price often bankrupt on medical bills. The roll of price as a reflection of supply and demand for a service is simply not functioning in heath care.

When a third party pays for a service, demand and cost will rise. It really does not matter whether it is the insurance company or the government paying the bill, when a third party pays the bill, people do not consider what something cost. Also, when the patient is not the one paying the bill, service providers are not as mindful of the cost. Imagine you paid a set fee for groceries and then someone else paid your grocery bill, would you eat more steak and lobster? Would you care what something cost if someone else was picking up the tab? If someone else is paying the tab, that someone has to have a roll in restricting supply. Whether it is your insurance company or government; someone has to control cost when the consumer is not the one paying the bill.

The government is already involved in health care. Many opponents of health care reform argue they do not want the government involved in health care. The government is already involved. Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program), and Veterans hospitals already account for over 50% of American health care spending. On top of that, each of the fifty states has massive bureaucracies to regulate health insurance and often dictate what insurance must cover and what they can and cannot do. Also, many cities support charity hospitals and public health clinics. Most cities and states have a Department of Public Health. A lot of medical research is paid for by government grants.

Too much is spent on health care administration. With a variety of complicated health care plans and a different set of government rules in each of the fifty states, we have too much of our health care dollars spent on paperwork, bureaucracy, and administration. Surely there is a way to reduce the overhead.

Too many people are without health care. 46 million Americans do not have health insurance and the number without health care is rising. A third of the companies in America do not offer their employees insurance. Many individuals are uninsurable. This of course does not mean all of these people are totally without health care. Hospital emergency rooms are required to serve anyone with an emergency. So, without regular health care, many people depend on the emergency room for all of their health care. Who pays? We do. Free services given away by hospitals are covered by increasing the cost to the paying customers. When this happens, your health insurance cost increases. Also depending on the emergency room care for health care means many people do not get preventive care or get diagnosed for an illness until it is advanced.

Not all of those without health care are unable to get it. There are some people (we don’t know how many but maybe up to half of those without insurance) who are now now covered by insurance who could now get insurance if they wanted it. Some of those without insurance are young adults who think they are invincible and prefer fancy cell phones and electronic gadgets, eating out and going to concerts over having health care. They are people who could afford insurance; it is simply not a priority. There are other people who qualify for Medicaid or some other existing program but are too ignorant or trifling to enroll.

Mandatory Health Insurance should not be taken off the table. I don’t like the concept of mandating that one purchase health insurance, but we should not out right dismiss making people at least carry catastrophic health insurance. Most states require people who own a car to have auto liability insurance. I am not so sure that mandating health insurance is any more odious than mandating that one pay taxes or be subject to a military draft. Another person’s failure to have insurance does impact my financial standing, because we all pay higher prices for our insurance to care for those without insurance. There should perhaps be creative opt-out provisions for those who will bear the full cost of their own care, but the idea of requiring one to have some sort of responsibility for their own health care, even if it means mandatory health insurance coverage should not be summarily dismissed.

Prejean says her beliefs got her fired

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:47:00 +0000

Posted on Jun 11, 2009 by Staff, Baptist Press

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (BP)--One month after being allowed to keep her crown, Carrie Prejean was fired Wednesday by the Miss California USA pageant, with both sides in the dispute disagreeing over the reasons.[full article]

Comment

I support Ms Prejean. I applaud her for standing up for traditional marriage. It was refreshing to see someone speak her mind instead of bowing to politically correctness. It is refreshing to see a God-fearing young woman stand up for traditional moral values. It is just wrong that she was stripped of her crown. (Did I say "stripped"?) I feel sorry for her. I would like to put my arm around her and comfort her for the cruel way she has been mistreated.

Since this controversy erupted she has become a Christian celebrity appeared on Focus on the Family and appearing at the Gospel Music Association Dove Awards here in Nashville where she got a standing ovation and she has made appearances at other pro-family and Christian events. She has been praised in the religious press. She is the kind of poster child the religious right needs.

I can’t help but be amused by the whole thing. I love to see puritanical prudish Baptist defending a pin-up babe. Politics makes strange bedfellows. (Did I say "bedfellows"?)

Top Ten Reasons David Letterman .....

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 02:44:00 +0000

Maybe I don't have a sense of humor, but I don't find jokes about raping 14 year old girls very funny.

Rush Limbaugh once made some unflattering remarks about Chelsey Clinton's appearance when she was about 14 years old, and the news media crucified him.

Don Imas made a comment about a Black women’s basketball team calling them “nappy-headed hoes” and was kicked off the air.

Letterman should go. I don’t expect it to happen. There is obviously a double standard. Letterman would not dare make a joke about the children of President Obama. Political correctness is a one-way street. Indignation is very selective. Feminist don’t care for women, only liberal women. Apparently it is OK to make jokes about the statutory rape of a 14-year-old girl by a 34-year-old male if that girl is white and the mother is a Republican.

Here are the top ten reasons David Letterman should be retired
From hillbuzz

(10) He is a demented, 62-year old pervert who thinks it’s funny to joke about a 14 year old being raped and forcibly impregnated.

(9) His show stopped being funny at least 15 years ago.

(8) He’s a pig who wears diapers.

(7) Living in a glass house where he refused to marry his girlfriend of many years despite fathering a son, Harry, with her, making the little boy a bastard for nearly 7 years, means this particular hypocrite shouldn’t throw stones at ANY family, for ANY reason, lest stones be deservedly thrown back at him.

(6) Where are the jokes about Sasha and Malia being raped by baseball players? Where are the jokes about dirty watermelon pickers and greasy chicken fryers instead of “slutty flight attendants”? If vulgar, sick racial jokes are never allowed, why are vulgar, sick misogynist ones? If the First Daughters of the United States are clearly off limits, why isn’t a First Daughter of the State of Alaska? Answer us that, Leftists.

(5) Would Letterman think it was funny if Conan O’Brien or some other Late Night jester joked about Letterman’s son Harry being raped at Little League? Where does Letterman draw the line, exactly, on whose children it’s funny to joke about being raped.

(4) What would CBS do if a rival network DARED air something as vulgar as (5) or (6) above?

(3) Calling him a pig who wears diapers is an insult to pigs, diapers, and pigs who wear diapers.

(2) How phallic is it that Letterman obsesses not just over rape, but of rape specifically by a large man with a giant bat? That pervert has serious Freudian, Oedipal, anger, bad hair, gruesome teeth, you name it issues.

(1) David Letterman has a teeny wiener.

Top Ten Reasons David Letterman should apologize
From Copacetic City

10. He's jealous because Arod didn't knock him up.

9. He confused being a jerk with being a clown.

8. Alzheimer's made him say it.

7. To keep from losing his fan.

6. Set an example for his great-grandson-I mean son.

5. He's giving gap-toothed, misogynistic pedophiles a bad name.

4. He's scaring little girls.

3. Was smoked up on crack when he said it.

2. He stole the joke from his brother, Satan.

1. It's the right thing to do.

Top 10 Reasons to Snub David Letterman
By Jack Engelhard

10. He’s not funny.

9. His jokes are written by 20 frat boys who have an IQ of 180 – combined.

8. His audience gets in for free – and even that’s paying too much.

7. On his best day he’s no Johnny Carson. Carson would never stoop for a laugh.

6. Letterman’s reference to Sarah Palin as “slutty” was an insult to all women.

5. Letterman’s routine on Monday took up the Palin family’s visit to New York, which included a trip to the ball park. Here’s Letterman in his own words: “During the seventh inning, her [Palin’s] daughter was knocked-up by Alex Rodriguez.” Todd Palin, the father, responded like this: “Any jokes about raping my 14-year-old daughter are despicable.”

4. A perverted crack like that, by Letterman, got on national TV. (Try that on Obama’s daughters, Dave, and see how quickly you get booted.)

3. But a quip like that against a 14-year-old girl would most likely require registration as a sex offender in my neighborhood.

2. Letterman and his staff of writers misunderstand the phrase – “Women and children first.”

1. On the pretense of contrition, Letterman denied that he was a “celebrity.” Now we know what he isn’t – and we know what he is.

Top 10 Reasons to Take Letterman Off the Air
By Twopolitics.com

10. He gives gapped-tooth people a bad name.

9. Main stream media will have to report on actual news instead of reporting on a Letterman monologue the next day.

8. He can concentrate on giving Barack Obama ad lib lessons without a teleprompter.

7. His writers can take a well needed hiatus to recover from obvious writers block.

6. The Ed Sullivan Theater will regain some dignity.

5. The audience will be spared the stooge test in order to be admitted to a show.

4. He can write new gaffes for Joe Biden.

3. He’ll have plenty of time to develop material for the next Democratic National Convention.

2. He’s just too old to be up that late at night.

1. Guests would rather be on Conan O’Brien

Mayor “Green” Dean wants you to pledge to turn off the water when you brush your teeth.

noreply@blogger.com (Rod Williams) — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 18:14:00 +0000

The mayor wants us to get serious about saving the planet. This was in the newspaper today:

Dean calls for pledge to conserve

Mayor Karl Dean is asking Nashville residents to take a five-step pledge to help the environment by saving electricity and water and cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions.

The mayor is asking people to use at least four compact fluorescent light bulbs; turn off the water while brushing their teeth; take the bus, walk, ride a bike or carpool at least once a week instead of driving; plant a tree; and use reusable shopping bags. [Full Article]

I think Mayor Karl Dean is a pretty good mayor. He did not ask for a tax increase this year and he balanced the budget. He seems serious about improving Nashville’s embarrassingly terrible public school system. In general he has been a dignified, practical, business-like mayor. We have had no city scandals. That is about all I expect from a mayor. I think I voted for him. This latest from the Mayor, however, strikes me as silly green symbolism.

They are going to kick off this environmental pledge campaign tonight before the Nashville Sounds baseball game. Steve Gild, an environmental health and safety officer at Vanderbilt University, his wife and three sons are going to be the first to take the pledge in a ceremony prior to the game. I don’t know if they will raise their right hand and place their left on a Bible and solemnly swear an oath or if they will just nod their head yes when asked if they will do these five things. I wonder if they will get a copy of a certificate confirming their pledge?

This is just the kick off to the pledge campaign. I don’t know how much effort is going into this campaign. Will there be pledge commercials and billboards and peer pressure and school children indoctrination? If they are giving certificates suitable for framing I would like one. Let me see if I could meet the pledge requirements.

1. Use at least four fluorescent light bulbs. Easy, I already to that. I think I was conned however in buying florescent. I thought they were supposed to last six years. The first one I ever used, I put on my front porch. To change that light bulb I have to get a latter from the basement and climb a latter to change it. I did not want to have to change that bulb very often. I was sold on the fact they are supposed to be long lasting. After putting in the first one, I swear it was out in about six weeks. I don't think in general use they last any longer than a incandescent. There is one burning in the basement that stays on all the time. I never turn it off and it has lasted a long time. They do save energy, which saves money, and I am really into saving money. So, I am assuming the upfront cost pays for itself in electric savings. I counted at least four of them in use in my house, so I can check off item number one.

2. Turn off the water while brushing your teeth. Can we negotiate on this one? I like to leave the water running while brushing my teeth. My water bill never runs over $9.61 a month which means I am not exceeding the minimum charge, so I am using very little water. What if instead of turning off the water while bushing my teeth I agree to only shower 6 days a week instead of seven. Some days when I go from my air conditioned home to my air conditioned office in my air conditioned car and then back, and I don’t do my exercise or go out anywhere, I don’t think it would hurt to skip a shower. If on those days when I don’t sweat, if I skip a shower can I still leave the water on while brushing my teeth?

What about this: If me and my wife shower together, instead of separately, could that take the place of turning the water off while teeth brushing? Or this: I only wash my car about once every three months. I take it to the Hot Springs place and get the deluxe. When I get back in it, it feels like I am in a new car. Now, some people I know wash their car much more often. It does not seem fair that I can’t substitute forgoing a car wash for turning the water off while brushing my teeth. I bet that in a lifetime of turning the water off while brushing my teeth, I would not use as much water as one car wash.

3. Take the bus, walk, ride a bike or carpool at least once a week. I can’t do that. I have to come home for lunch. I won’t go into why, but I just have to. In the past I use to occasionally ride my bike to work on Friday’s. That was when I had a different work schedule and only had to work half a day on Friday. I could still occasionally do it if some scumbag had not stolen my bike off my front porch last fall. I only live about three miles from work. Could we talk about this requirement? This is going to be very hard for most people to do. Some people caught up in the spirit of “green” may take the pledge then not follow through. Car pooling is inconvenient. Most people do not have the same destination or schedule as their neighbors. Good luck on getting very many people to seriously follow through on this pledge. I just don't think they will do it.

Anyway, I would like to be except from this part of the pledge and still get my green credentials. Let me tell you my logic: I don’t drive a lot. I live three miles from my work, three miles from the heart of downtown, two miles from one sister and not too far from other family. I seldom drive very far. I don't drive out to the malls except about once a year. I only use about a tank of gas a month. Now, it does not seem fair that someone who lives in Mt. Juliet and drives to town everyday should get the benefit of being a pledge, when even if they do carpool once a week, they are still doing a lot more damage to the environment then I. I choose to live where I do. I could have chosen to move to the suburbs. So, shouldn’t living close to town and work and thereby not driving much anyway earn me more green points than giving up a vehicle one day a week but living far away?

4. Plant a tree. Mayor, where do you want me to plant this tree? My yard is so shady, I can’t grow any flowers now. I will do this however. I have all kinds of trees coming up in my yard and I just hate to cut them down. I have some maple samplings about three feet tall. I will dig one of them up and plant it on the public space adjoining Wedgewood Ave, behind my house. I hope public works doesn't cut it down. I am not going to get a permit or ask, I am just going to do it. Actually I have already planted a couple trees on that bank. I will plant one more. One of the maples is now a pretty good size tree. I planted it the first year I moved here.

5. Use renewable shopping bags. This I am not going to do. I would forget them. This is a hassle. Can I substitute something else? Instead, if I will not buy new clothes but will buy my clothes at goodwill, can I get green points for doing that? I have seen some of the people at Traders Joe's with their reusable bags and they then go get in their SUV with Williamson County licence plates. I bet I am greener than they.

Mayor Dean, I agree to two of the five and I think have made a pretty good argument about why I should be able to substitute or be exempt from the other three. Can I still have my green credentials? Anyway, why these five? I could have come up with five "greener" things than that and qualified. I live a pretty frugal life style. I usually shop at Good Will except for shoes. I live in a modest two-bedroom, one-bath house. I almost never buy anything new. I don’t drink bottled water. I drive a modest mid size car instead of an SUV. I don’t have a swimming pool. I don’t go on trips very often. I bet I am a lot greener than a lot of the people who will take your green pledge. Unless we can negotiate some of your pledge items, I guess I will just not get my green certificate, but it doesn’t seem fair.

I do have a suggestion for you. The story in the paper said that the Sounds were hosting this event and calling it the “Go Green Night” and everyone was being encouraged to wear green. This is the second year they have hosted such an event. Why not in the future make the “Go Green” night on St Patrick’s Day and then we could kill two birds with one stone? (Not that I kill birds.) I think drinking green beer is a good way to show you support the environment. I could do that.