Some of the news that is fit to print

Poor Dick

So everybody is reporting that Dick Clark is ready to be back at his perch for New Year's Eve this year after suffering a stroke last December, but they have put out this publicity photo and... um, he doesn't look good! I don't know who is pushing whom, but... we'll all turn it on to see what he looks like, right? Or if he is even on live TV. Maybe he'll just be on the recorded parts.

And as I'm searching, I find out that the photo is fixed!

Dick Clark and ABC are claiming that it is the 34th consecutive year of the celebration on ABC -- I'm not exactly sure how they can say that given that he wasn't there last year, but whatever. This year, they are starting the show at 10p and it goes until 2:05a. Three hours?

Happy, er... well, happy everything

Happy Christmas... or whatever you may be celebrating!

The Economist gets it right

The Economist magazine's cover, which hits the streets officially tomorrow, is on oil... and it gets it right. "The oiloholics"

And how tasty is this.

America and China, in their different ways, are drunk on oil consumption. The longer they put off taking the steps needed to curb their habit, the worse the headache will be. George Bush once learned that lesson about alcohol. It is time for him to wean America off oiloholism too.

The NYT today also had an interesting item about the Bush administration's new mileage regulations.

Market Place: Fuel Economy Plan Bypasses California to Help Out Detroit [NYT, 8.25.2005]

Most of the media is going on about gas prices, but it seems to me that the real story is about consumption.

Oil crisis redux

Just let me note that I'm an environment freak, so I was very interested to read the article in the NYT Magazine on Sunday about oil (linked below).

The Breaking Point [NYT Magazine, 8.28.2005]
The United States and China are counting on the Saudis to satisfy our growing thirst for oil. The Saudis say they can supply all our needs. Critics say that that is becoming impossible. They just might turn out to be right.

I have always found the U.S. arguments on oil to be specious. Americans seems to have a feeling that they deserve to be able to drive whatever kind of car they want whenever they want to. And I have been shocked that conservatives -- where oh where have the conservatives gone? -- have not been pushing this country to become energy independent. The best way to institute regime change in the Middle East is to stop buying their oil.

From the American standpoint, one argument in favor of conservation and a switch to alternative fuels is that by limiting oil imports, the United States and its Western allies would reduce their dependence on a potentially unstable region. (In fact, in an effort to offset the risks of relying on the Saudis, America's top oil suppliers are Canada and Mexico.) In addition, sending less money to Saudi Arabia would mean less money in the hands of a regime that has spent the past few decades doling out huge amounts of its oil revenue to mosques, madrassas and other institutions that have fanned the fires of Islamic radicalism. The oil money has been dispensed not just by the Saudi royal family but by private individuals who benefited from the oil boom -- like Osama bin Laden, whose ample funds, probably eroded now, came from his father, a construction magnate. Without its oil windfall, Saudi Arabia would have had a hard time financing radical Islamists across the globe.

For the Saudis, the political ramifications of reduced demand for its oil would not be negligible. The royal family has amassed vast personal wealth from the country's oil revenues. If, suddenly, Saudis became aware that the royal family had also failed to protect the value of the country's treasured resource, the response could be severe. The mere admission that Saudi reserves are not as impressively inexhaustible as the royal family has claimed could lead to hard questions about why the country, and the world, had been misled. With the death earlier this month of the long-ailing King Fahd, the royal family is undergoing another period of scrutiny; the new king, Abdullah, is in his 80's, and the crown prince, his half-brother Sultan, is in his 70's, so the issue of generational change remains to be settled. As long as the country is swimming in petro-dollars -- even as it is paying off debt accrued during its lean years -- everyone is relatively happy, but that can change. One diplomat I spoke to recalled a comment from Sheik Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the larger-than-life Saudi oil minister during the 1970's: ''The Stone Age didn't end for lack of stone, and the oil age will end long before the world runs out of oil.''

The article notes that today, demand is catching up with the supply -- and that the end of the oil era does not necessarily mean that there is no more oil.

NYT columnist Thomas Friedman has chided the Bush administration for not using the political capital it gained as a result of the September 11, 2001, to launch a campaign to become energy sufficient. That would mean reducing imports, tapping home grown reserves, and reducing consumption. To be honest, if we had a plan to dramatically reduce consumption, I would not oppose dilling in Alaska, but without such acknowledgment that we are using more than we should, tapping those reserves is just wrong.

I am repeatedly shocked at the people who drive Hummers or huge SUVs professing to love America. But it seems to me that by living beyond our means actually show disdain for this country -- not only environmentally but also socially and and politically. Our gluttonous consumption of oil funds corrupt regimes, allowing them to continue in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world.

Furthermore, cheap oil has altered our perceptions of what is right or feasible. It has disseminated our downtown and cities and caused the horrible sprawl, which further destroys our environment. And it has prevented us from making even basic alternative plans. Here in the Washington region, there are numerous examples. Ty sons Corner, it is a picture of failed planning. Pedestrians take their lives into their own hands when then try to walk through the area. And the new Wilson Bridge will not have a way to walk or bike across the bridge.  And it is shocking to me that we cannot demand even modest increases in average care mileage requirements.

As you can tell, I would highly recommend the story.

Why am I a recovering Catholic?

Even beyond the fact that I am gay and the Pope ain't to fond of The Gay... there was this story:

Pope Criticizes Harry Potter [London Times, 7.13.2005]
Pope Benedict XVI has condemned the Harry Potter books as "subtle seductions," capable of corrupting young Christians, in two letters which have now been published online.

And apparently the Church isn't a big fan of the DaVinci Code either.

All of this, of course, comes after the church is reexaming its postion on evolution, of all things.

Somehow I'm become more and more anti-religion these days, and the amazing thing is that it isn't my fault!

Sorry... we need your house for a Wal-Mart

From the 'what in the hell where they thinking' department comes today's U.S. Supreme Court decision [.pdf] that says that local governments can seize an individuals' businesses and homes to promote economic development. Yes, it was a spit decision, but...

The case came from New London, Conn. residents who challenged the government's use of eminent domain to take and pay for private property and use it for private economic development. Homeowners sued the city, which wanted their land for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for a 5-4 majority, said local officials know better than federal judges whether a private development would benefit the community. States, though, can pass laws restricting cities' rights to condemn private property, the court ruled.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor strongly disagreed, writing that the decision allows the powerful and well-heeled to benefit at the expense of others.

Please don't retire, Justice O'Connor! (See, Ronald Regan did give us sometime worthwhile!) And how is this for just shocking -- I'm in agreement with the right side on this issue. This from Slate.com's Today's Papers:

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, writing the dissent, wasn't exactly mollified: "The specter of condemnation [now] hangs over all property. Nothing is to prevent the state from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory." Joining O'Connor in the dissent were Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justices Scalia and Thomas.

Still to come before the Court adjourns for the year is the much anticipated decision about whether Internet file-sharing services are liable for their users' illegal downloads of movies and music. Dum-da-dum dum daaaaa!

Anti-gay (marriage?)...

The NYT Magazine Sunday featured a cover story on... well, not gay marriage, exactly... more about gayness itself.

What's Their Real Problem With Gay Marriage? (It's the Gay Part) [NYT Magazine, 6.19.2005, registration require]
Maryland's anti-gay-marriage crusaders share this with organizers nationwide: They say they are fighting a disease.

The story is depressing beyond the fact that these are people who can see me... or my friends... as morally repugnant. To be honest, I don't have a problem with that. But what truly scares me is that they aren't comfortable having their own views. They need to impose their views on others. And because their views are ordained by God, there is no room for discussion or debate. Their arguments are, of course, intellectually empty because it largely rests on the blind belief that the Bible says homosexuality is immoral therefore it is wrong. And because being gay is wrong, it can't be associated with racism or other cases of discrimination.

What I find truly curious is that we are stuck in the Middle East as part of an effort to bring about a democracy and free people from dictators and radical religious fanatics. Yet at home, we are turning our country over to religious fanatics. A case in point: Terri Schiavo.

It is curious that these people think that their beliefs are under attack. In fact, this quote just cracked me up:

Bryan Simonaire added: ''We have to recognize that they have a strategy to propagate their lifestyle. Think back 10 or 20 years ago, when you had the first openly homosexual person on TV. It was shocking to a lot of people. Now it's the norm on television, so you don't have the shock factor. Then they had two men with a passionate kiss on TV. That's the road they're heading down. They have a strategy.''

It is out there more because we are not staying in the closet any more. Many of us are proud of our lives. Are we perfect? Of course not. But is any group? Is anybody?

''My concern is the health issue,'' said Evalena Gray, an activist in southern Maryland. ''I want to get these people away from AIDS, out of that unhealthy lifestyle.''

Unfortunately I feel sorry for her kids because she is raising them in a culture of hatred.

I don't care about anybodies beliefs. People can believe whatever they want as long as they don't impose their beliefs on me. And I'm sorry but if find Will & Grace or Queer As Folk repugnant, don't watch! I don't have a problem with that. But about 10 million people watch Will & Grace. (I'm not one of them because I found the stories getting tedious and boring.)

Unfortunately I'm not sure how we live in a free and open democracy if there are all sorts of issues where a large group of people merely opt out and feel it is within reason to obliterate others rights.

Anti-gays argue that it is not nature, but it is a 'lifestyle.'

Indeed, a constant refrain among the anti-gay-marriage forces is that they are motivated not by hate but by love. Most of the activists I spoke with say that they know gay people -- several said they have relatives who are gay -- and that they have approached them, with love, to try to get them to change. Rick Bowers, a pastor of a nondenominational church in Columbia, Md., is the head of Defend Maryland Marriage, another activist group, which works with Focus on the Family. ''There are those extremists who say that if a gay person were on fire you would burn in hell if you spit on them to put out the fire,'' he told me. ''But we're not like that. We love the human being. It's the lifestyle we disagree with.''

''Lifestyle'' is a buzzword in conservative Christian circles. It's a signal of the belief, and the policy position, that homosexuality is not an innate condition but a hedonistic way of living, one devoted to partying, drugs and wanton sex that ends, often, in illness and early death. In 2004 the Family Research Council put out a book called ''Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows About Homosexuality,'' which purports to explode the myth that homosexuality is natural or genetic and puts forth an alternative theory that it springs from childhood abuse or other developmental factors. Chapter 4, ''Is Homosexuality a Health Risk?'' lines up studies and statistics to link homosexuality with cancer, alcoholism, mental illness, suicide and reduced life span, in addition to H.I.V./AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases. The activists opposing gay marriage echo these points. ''My concern is the health issue,'' said Evalena Gray, an activist in southern Maryland. ''I want to get these people away from AIDS, out of that unhealthy lifestyle.''

I have argued with gay friends that being gay is -- or can be -- a choice. I lived a 'straight' life for a long time. After all, I didn't come out until I was in my mid-20s. But I was miserable and it had long-term ramifications on my life that I'm still dealing with these days.

Nature or nurture -- who cares? So you don't agree with the 'lifestyle.' So... don't get into a gay relationship. Don't watch television shows. Even don't associate with gay people, if you want. But why is there the need to impose your views on others? And we aren't talking about sex with children... and we aren't talking about sex with animals... We are talking about two people who have entered into a mutual relationship with one another... and I'm not sure why these folks care what I do with my life. They are afraid of what it will do to the institution of marriage? Well, straight people have made a pretty good mess of it on their own, thank you very much.

DMV and I are going to have a commitment ceremony next year and it is not meant to be a political statement, but one person noted that merely by its nature, it is making a political statement. DMV and I love one another and we are inviting our friends to support our commitment to one another -- through thick and thin, richer and poorer, sickness and in health. And we all know that kind of commitment isn't always easy, but I truly believe that love breads more love.

A long post, but this is an issue that touches on so many issues.

I'm sure I'll return to it. Meanwhile, I'm off to dinner.

Will Terri EVER RIP?

As a small-c conservative -- I actually believe that the government should not play a role in most people's lives -- the entire Terri Schiavo case just sickened me. The Republicans were nothing short of disgusting... and the Democrats are such cowards, they never said a thing. It is a sad, sad story that pols only made worse.

And then a Bush -- in this case, a government rather than a president -- finds a way to make it worse!

Gov. Bush Seeks Another Inquiry in Schiavo Case
[NYT, 6.18.2005] Gov. Jeb Bush said a new autopsy report revealed a possible gap between when Terri Schiavo fell unconscious and when her husband called paramedics.

This is nothing short of repulsive. She fell 10-years ago and suddenly a sleazy politician -- not the authorities anywhere, but a politician -- thinks he can make some hay off of it.
Can anybody justify the handling of this case?

Life and death issues are complex, but in most cases, they are intensely personal... abortion, euthanasia... they a decisions that should left to citizens in conjunction with their doctors. And we ought to stop letting the extremes define these issues. There are few abortions going on in the third trimester. There are few people out there killing the infirm against their wills. Yet these cases define the debate? Stop the madness!

Why judge battle matters...

Most people out there in the world are baffled by the fight over judges that has been going on in the Senate. But it does matter.

Last week, the Senate confirmed former Alabama Attorney General William H. Pryor to the U.S. Appeals Court. This guy is just repulsive.
I don't believe in extremes on either side, but the liberal group People for the American Way notes:

Pryor believes that it is constitutional to imprison gay men and lesbians for having sex in the privacy of their own homes, and has filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to uphold Texas’ “Homosexual Conduct law,” which criminalizes such conduct. Pryor believes that singling out gay men and lesbians in this manner does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the same brief, Pryor equated for purposes of legal analysis sex between two adults of the same gender with “activities like prostitution, adultery, necrophilia, bestiality, possession of child pornography, and even incest and pedophilia…”

And have him for life!

Don't mince words...

My early journalism career was on New Hampshire's Seacoast working for Foster's Daily Democrat, a then 30,000 circulation newspaper -- which made it the second largest newspaper in the state, by the way. Initially I covered Hampton, N.H., a beach town that grows during the summer to a small city with the summer visitors. I then moved further north to Portsmouth, N.H. to cover the redevelopment of the former Pease Air Force Base, which the state was redeveloping into the Pease International Tradeport. (PIT? Hmmm)

Well, last week, the region got slammed with news that the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard was on the Defense Department's base closure list.

Most lawmakers made statements speaking about the importance of their local facility. Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), a moderate, seemed to take the proposed closure of a Maine shipyard personally in the LAT, calling it "nothing short of stunning, devastating, and above all, outrageous. … It is a travesty and a strategic blunder of epic proportions."

Don't mince words, Olympia... What do you really think? She must have stumbled into the no-spin zone.

Photo is from Rich Beauchesne, a friend from New Hampshire who is a photojournalist at the Portsmouth Herald newspaper.And one aside: The paper doesn't use portsmouthherald.com, although they own it and you can eventually get to its main news site that way. Instead, the main news page is the horrible www.seacoastonline.com/news/. What do I know!?