The kiss-and-makeup racial misunderstanding “mini-mee[ting]” between Sgt. Crowley and Professor Henry Louis Gates jr. seemed more like a Mexican Standoff than anything else. It doesn’t appear that any substantiate issues on race relations were discussed or resolved and neither Mr. Gates nor Sergeant Crowley offered an apology for their respective behaviors that gained national attention nearly two weeks ago; so what was the point of them coming together except as a photo opportunity to take some of the political heat off the president. It was truly damage control for the Imbiber-in-Chief who inadvertently was drawn into this local Cambridge Massachusetts police matter by a reporter’s surprise question. The President had a COORS LITE, Sgt. Crowley a BLUE MOON, and Professor Gates had SAM ADAMS. Vice-President Joe Biden was there and had something non-alcoholic for his “Non-Role” in the matter.
After the meeting, Sgt. Crowley said that although he may respect Mr. Gates but they will just have to “agree to disagree;” which means that things didn’t go over so well and both of them are still deeply entrenched in their belief of the rightness and legal standing of their actions. Perhaps the problem is that President Obama didn’t know the right kind of drink to serve his guests because if everybody had downed a 40 ounce (“OLDE ENGLISH 100”), then the conversation would have gotten a lot livelier but then again on the other hand, Gates and Crowley would have started brawlin’ afterwards for real. So, after another Presidential Stimulus Plan offered by President Obama, “beer” in this case, the lasting result of this allocated resource helped two people get their ‘buzz’ on for about an hour but nothing productive or lasting has come out of it nor has anything changed; and for a presidential Candidate who ran on a platform that was all about “CHANGE,” it may very well be that the American people may come to find out in the final analysis that they have been SHORTCHANGED instead.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 31, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
The honeymoon with President Barack Obama is likely over
Well, it has taken a little over six months for the love affair between the American people and President Barack Obama to finally “hit the rocks.” According to the latest MSNBC opinion poll, the president’s approval rating has dropped to around
40%; so what is the cause? Is it because of the high unemployment rate, slumping housing market, the “War on Terror,” Immigration, Global Warming, the National Debt, or how the Federal Stimulus money is being spent? Perhaps it has more to do with the question posed by reporter Lynn Sweet of the Chicago-Sun Times newspaper during President Obama’s July 22, 2009, Press Conference on Healthcare reform, when unexpectedly she asked regarding the arrest of Henry Louis Gates jr., "What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?" That poignantly explosive question as well as the response to it had ramifications which still reverberate since then and continue to be an issue of conversation at the office water cooler.
Is this a watershed moment when people get a dose of ‘reality’ and finally start to “smell the coffee?” President Obama did not volunteer the information and would not have weighed into the matter at all but like those great moments of historic irony; one simple, seemingly innocent, harmless or awkward moment can change everything. It seems that way too much has been made out of the President’s spontaneous and unscripted comment, but what of the reporter? Why did she ask this question and frame it in the particular way that she did; what was her purpose and motivation? In some way all of us got ‘punkd,’ because as a result of this mess, the contentious issue of “racial polarization,” not so much racial ‘profiling’ is front and center in American political and civic discourse. One can only wonder if this is the effect that Ms. Sweet wanted to achieve because like it or not it is here to stay and it isn’t going to go away that easily. Thanks a lot for bursting our bubble.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 30, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
40%; so what is the cause? Is it because of the high unemployment rate, slumping housing market, the “War on Terror,” Immigration, Global Warming, the National Debt, or how the Federal Stimulus money is being spent? Perhaps it has more to do with the question posed by reporter Lynn Sweet of the Chicago-Sun Times newspaper during President Obama’s July 22, 2009, Press Conference on Healthcare reform, when unexpectedly she asked regarding the arrest of Henry Louis Gates jr., "What does that incident say to you? And what does it say about race relations in America?" That poignantly explosive question as well as the response to it had ramifications which still reverberate since then and continue to be an issue of conversation at the office water cooler.
Is this a watershed moment when people get a dose of ‘reality’ and finally start to “smell the coffee?” President Obama did not volunteer the information and would not have weighed into the matter at all but like those great moments of historic irony; one simple, seemingly innocent, harmless or awkward moment can change everything. It seems that way too much has been made out of the President’s spontaneous and unscripted comment, but what of the reporter? Why did she ask this question and frame it in the particular way that she did; what was her purpose and motivation? In some way all of us got ‘punkd,’ because as a result of this mess, the contentious issue of “racial polarization,” not so much racial ‘profiling’ is front and center in American political and civic discourse. One can only wonder if this is the effect that Ms. Sweet wanted to achieve because like it or not it is here to stay and it isn’t going to go away that easily. Thanks a lot for bursting our bubble.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 30, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Was Henry Louis Gates jr. “Disorderly Conduct” Arrest Legal?
This matter has gone on far too long and it seems that Mr. Gates and Sgt. Crowley have decided to take President Obama up on his offer to have a few cold ones at the White House on his dime; or rather, on the tax payers. Be that as it may, there are quite a few detractors of Professor Gates who feel that he should have been more respectful, deferential, and cooperative with the Cambridge Police; especially to racial profiling expert, Sgt. James Crowley. It just goes to prove that textbook scenarios and real-life situations and interventions are not the same. Outside of the obvious racial implications, very little has been mentioned about the all-important “FIRST AMENDMENT” right of ‘Free Speech’ Constitutional Protections against the abuse of power by the State or Federal Government toward private citizens and their habitations; there should be a great outcry about this more than anything else. Even far back into English Common Law, a person’s domicile, house, residence, or castle was considered almost ‘sacred’ and any violation against this most precious [‘Divine’??] right was deemed as tantamount to sacrilege. Below is an excerpt by Massachusetts Attorney Michael Sullivan of the very Model Penal Code and Appellate Court decision that the Cambridge Police as supposed to be familiar with and uphold.
MASSACHUSETTS APELLATE COURT
"Disorderly conduct" is an offense against the public peace, and it is difficult to fathom how it ever properly could be charged for one's behavior in one's own home.
In my decades of practice as a state prosecutor, I have never seen "disorderly conduct" charged for acts which did not originate and occur in a public setting. I cannot conceive of a case in which a prosecutor would pursue a charge of "disorderly conduct" occasioned by tone or speech in one's own home. Nor have I seen tone or content of speech as a basis for charging disorderly conduct even in a public place. At the risk of restating the obvious, "disorderly conduct" aims to penalize what it says: conduct. Disorderly conduct is something more than "disorderly speech." In my opinion, the criminal prohibition would be fatally and unconstitutionally overbroad were it to be deemed to apply to pure speech. What citizen then meaningfully would be on notice to what speech would be viewed as "disorderly" and risk criminal prosecution and penalties?
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has stressed the public disruption element of "disorderly conduct" as ordinarily charged: the classic formulation of the offense and its enabling statute is found in its decision in Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287, 303-304 (1967)(emphasis supplied), quoting from Model Penal Code § 250.2 (Proposed Official Draft 1962): "It is our opinion that "disorderly" sets forth an offence. . . designat[ing] behavior such as that singled out in Section 250.2 of the Model Penal Code (Proposed Official Draft): 'A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause "public" inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or (b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present; or (c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. `Public' means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.'. . . .[T]he statute. . . aims at activities which intentionally tend to disturb the public tranquility," and penalizes one who "with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, . . . creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor."
So, if Mr. Gates was a little perturbed and belligerent with the Police coming to his front door on a legitimate investigative complaint by an observant neighbor, he is still entitled to be so under the Constitution; as long as his behavior does not pose a threat or risk to the officers and where the intent does not tend towards inducing or producing threat, harm, danger or a public disturbance etc. The statement that Sgt. Crowley made that he was “provoked” is not substantiated by the facts as they are known and is quite surprising from someone allegedly trained in de-escalation techniques, and who should have been able to take control of the situation where it should have resulted in a different outcome. Even so, the charges against Professor “Skip” Gates were summarily dismissed; as they should have been because they were without merit. Hopefully now, everyone can take a deep breath, ‘chill out,’ and focus on more important matters. The Washington Post had an amusing cartoon along with Columnist Gene Robinson’s article on Tuesday, July, 28, 2009. It showed President Obama, Henry Louis Gates jr., and Sgt. James Crowley sitting at the bar with beer mugs and the President sitting apart by himself while Mr. Gates and Sgt. Crowley argued over whether their respective beer was “LESS FILLING or TASTES GREAT.”
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 28, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
MASSACHUSETTS APELLATE COURT
"Disorderly conduct" is an offense against the public peace, and it is difficult to fathom how it ever properly could be charged for one's behavior in one's own home.
In my decades of practice as a state prosecutor, I have never seen "disorderly conduct" charged for acts which did not originate and occur in a public setting. I cannot conceive of a case in which a prosecutor would pursue a charge of "disorderly conduct" occasioned by tone or speech in one's own home. Nor have I seen tone or content of speech as a basis for charging disorderly conduct even in a public place. At the risk of restating the obvious, "disorderly conduct" aims to penalize what it says: conduct. Disorderly conduct is something more than "disorderly speech." In my opinion, the criminal prohibition would be fatally and unconstitutionally overbroad were it to be deemed to apply to pure speech. What citizen then meaningfully would be on notice to what speech would be viewed as "disorderly" and risk criminal prosecution and penalties?
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has stressed the public disruption element of "disorderly conduct" as ordinarily charged: the classic formulation of the offense and its enabling statute is found in its decision in Alegata v. Commonwealth, 353 Mass. 287, 303-304 (1967)(emphasis supplied), quoting from Model Penal Code § 250.2 (Proposed Official Draft 1962): "It is our opinion that "disorderly" sets forth an offence. . . designat[ing] behavior such as that singled out in Section 250.2 of the Model Penal Code (Proposed Official Draft): 'A person is guilty of disorderly conduct if, with purpose to cause "public" inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, he: (a) engages in fighting or threatening, or in violent or tumultuous behavior; or (b) makes unreasonable noise or offensively coarse utterance, gesture or display, or addresses abusive language to any person present; or (c) creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor. `Public' means affecting or likely to affect persons in a place to which the public or a substantial group has access.'. . . .[T]he statute. . . aims at activities which intentionally tend to disturb the public tranquility," and penalizes one who "with purpose to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof, . . . creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose of the actor."
So, if Mr. Gates was a little perturbed and belligerent with the Police coming to his front door on a legitimate investigative complaint by an observant neighbor, he is still entitled to be so under the Constitution; as long as his behavior does not pose a threat or risk to the officers and where the intent does not tend towards inducing or producing threat, harm, danger or a public disturbance etc. The statement that Sgt. Crowley made that he was “provoked” is not substantiated by the facts as they are known and is quite surprising from someone allegedly trained in de-escalation techniques, and who should have been able to take control of the situation where it should have resulted in a different outcome. Even so, the charges against Professor “Skip” Gates were summarily dismissed; as they should have been because they were without merit. Hopefully now, everyone can take a deep breath, ‘chill out,’ and focus on more important matters. The Washington Post had an amusing cartoon along with Columnist Gene Robinson’s article on Tuesday, July, 28, 2009. It showed President Obama, Henry Louis Gates jr., and Sgt. James Crowley sitting at the bar with beer mugs and the President sitting apart by himself while Mr. Gates and Sgt. Crowley argued over whether their respective beer was “LESS FILLING or TASTES GREAT.”
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 28, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
Friday, July 24, 2009
President Obama’s apology to Cambridge Police is no big surprise
Bowing to mounting pressure from the media and criticism from American citizens [apparently, mostly White], advisors of the President convinced him to schedule a hastily arranged meeting with the Presidential Press corps to quell this firestorm before it severely distracts from his effectiveness to govern. An off-hand remark roughly 72 hours ago about the arrest of his friend Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates jr. (“Skip”) by Cambridge police which he called “stupid” had begun to undermine his domestic agenda and threatens to polarize the country on the issue of “race” relations. According to the latest MSNBC opinion and other online polls as well as Internet chat rooms, nearly three-fourths of respondents disagreed with President Obama’s characterization of the police officers and feel that he should apologize to them and the arresting officer, Sgt. James Crowley.
The apology is a no-brainer because President Obama had no choice in this matter because irrespective of being the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief of the Military, he is still in the final analysis, just a “Black” man in America; in spite of his bi-racial roots. This is a ‘reality’ check for Barack Obama and America as well because throughout the Presidential Campaign there has been a careful attempt to avoid seeing Barack Obama as the "Black" President because of all the emphasis on his White heritage (mother, maternal grandparents, uncle, etc.). Even his unforgettable discussion on “race” after former pastor Jeremiah Wright’s inflammatory rhetoric has not healed the deep wounds that still exist in America regarding its history of chattel slavery, Jim Crow segregation, miscegenation, Civil Rights, lynching, voter disenfranchisement, housing and employment discrimination, gentrification, redistricting and racial hatred. Indeed, it must be remembered that it is the “power” of the Oval Office and ‘NOT’ necessarily the person who occupies it that matters; and it seems that Barack Obama has found this out very early in his presidency.
The misconduct of police towards racial minorities is nothing new because it happens all over the place, in cities too numerous to mention; especially those of large urban areas or in a few infamous towns or cities in the Southern United States. This incident with Professor Gates happened in the most liberal States and home Harvard, of one of the most prestigious colleges in the country and the alma mater of the President himself. So, as President Obama called this incident a “teachable” moment, it seems that he is the one who has been ‘schooled,’ and although he invited Sgt. Crowley and “Skip” Gates to come and join him for a ‘brewski’ at the White House, no one has sent their RSVP back as of yet.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 24, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
The apology is a no-brainer because President Obama had no choice in this matter because irrespective of being the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief of the Military, he is still in the final analysis, just a “Black” man in America; in spite of his bi-racial roots. This is a ‘reality’ check for Barack Obama and America as well because throughout the Presidential Campaign there has been a careful attempt to avoid seeing Barack Obama as the "Black" President because of all the emphasis on his White heritage (mother, maternal grandparents, uncle, etc.). Even his unforgettable discussion on “race” after former pastor Jeremiah Wright’s inflammatory rhetoric has not healed the deep wounds that still exist in America regarding its history of chattel slavery, Jim Crow segregation, miscegenation, Civil Rights, lynching, voter disenfranchisement, housing and employment discrimination, gentrification, redistricting and racial hatred. Indeed, it must be remembered that it is the “power” of the Oval Office and ‘NOT’ necessarily the person who occupies it that matters; and it seems that Barack Obama has found this out very early in his presidency.
The misconduct of police towards racial minorities is nothing new because it happens all over the place, in cities too numerous to mention; especially those of large urban areas or in a few infamous towns or cities in the Southern United States. This incident with Professor Gates happened in the most liberal States and home Harvard, of one of the most prestigious colleges in the country and the alma mater of the President himself. So, as President Obama called this incident a “teachable” moment, it seems that he is the one who has been ‘schooled,’ and although he invited Sgt. Crowley and “Skip” Gates to come and join him for a ‘brewski’ at the White House, no one has sent their RSVP back as of yet.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 24, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Should Michael Vick be reinstated back into the NFL?
The name of the game is "MO MONEY" and if Vick is still quick and got the skillz to pay the billz, the NFL and the possible Dallas Cowboys will be thinking "KA-CHING," no matter what is thought about him personally. According to the latest FOXSports.com opinion poll, 49% of respondents voted in favor of Michael Vick playing for an NFL team this season. Stop and think about it for a minute! How many NFL players as well as MLB and the NBA don't have some kind of criminal or thuggish behavior that is just swept under the rug because the person is a franchise or marquee player and all the physical contact and clowning satiates the appetites of us modern-day Romans; just like our ancestors sitting in the stands at the coliseum watching the entertainment of the day, and instead of the old thumbs down, it is thumbs up all the way to the bank.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 21, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 21, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Is the Government really serious about eliminating automobile pollution?
It is interesting to hear the bemoaned wails from executives of the “Big 3” automakers seeking federal ‘Bailout’ money to keep their companies from going bankrupt, thereby severely impacting the already battered economy; not to mention the impact on the families of thousands of workers losing their jobs. The real story is more than slumping car sales, declining market share, and global competition. In the study of Economics there is the “Supply and Demand” rule where you either build a product and create the ‘demand;’ or, you wait for the public to demand something, or create a need and then ‘supply’ it to the consumer. There is way too much “double-talk” by the government concerning the reduction of ‘greenhouse’ gases by making a more fuel-efficient automobile; such as an electric hybrid, hydrogen-powered, and bio-diesel fueled vehicles.
In June 9, 2006, “NOW” by PBS had a program titled, Timeline: Life and Death of the Electric Car and on November 14, 2006 was a documentary titled, “Who Killed the Electric Car?” by Sony on DVD. These two accounts show that as far back as the early 1920’s or so, technology existed for a viable, commercially-available automobile that was not dependent on fossil fuels; so the obvious question is, what happened? In 1912, Charles Kettering invented the “electric starter,” making the cumbersome hand-cranked starter on the electric models obsolete, and of course, the availability of gasoline; doubtless supplied in abundance by “STANDARD OIL” and its subsidiaries or spin-off companies. Now, with the convenience of an automatic starter and the availability of gasoline stations throughout the United States providing unlimited mileage instead of the limited mileage and lack of power from driving the electric car, the addiction was on; not just domestic oil but it seems, to petroleum reserves in the Middle East as well. Although Victor Wonk built the first full-sized hybrid automobile in the United States, ironically a Buick Skylark supplied by G.M. in 1970, as part of the Federal Clean Car Incentive program, the EPA kills the program in 1976; why?
In 1988, Roger Smith, CEO at G.M. agrees to team up with AeroVironment of California to build a practical consumer car called the “EV1” (Electronic Vehicle). Between the years 1996-2000, a few thousand all-electric cars were manufactured by automakers, such as: Honda EV Plus; G.M. EV1; Ford Ranger pickup EV; Nissan Altra EV; Chevy S-10 EV; and Toyota RAV4 EV. There was just one little catch, though; none of the vehicles were for purchase, just for lease. By the early 2000’s “all” the major automakers production of all-electric cars were discontinued; why? G.M. announces that it will not renew leases on the EV1 models, saying, it can no longer supply the parts to repair the vehicles” and it plans to reclaim all the cars by the end of 2004. There are still a few pure electric cars and plug-in hybrids, such as the Toyota Prius, which was first manufactured in Japan in 1997; where it sold 18,000 cars in the first year in that country.
One of the criticisms of using plug-in hybrids is that to recharge the battery won’t solve the issue of reducing pollution because 55% of America’s electrical grid comes from coal production; and coal accounts for 83% of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) pollution in the United States. The thing is, most smog in the cities is not derived from coal-fired plants and utilities, but from automobile exhaust. Not only that, but G.M., Ford, and Daimler-Chrysler account for nearly 75% of all (CO2) emission in the U.S. On-road and off-road vehicles comprise 49% of Nitrous Oxide (NO2) emissions; Utilities 27% (NO2) emissions; and industrial, commercial, residential centers combined contribute 24% (NO2) emissions. So, the argument against electric cars is not only untenable, it is irrational as well. What Congress needs to do, if this country is serious about beating this addiction to gasoline is amend the Clean Air Act where within ten years, there will be a zero tolerance level of emissions from motor vehicles (autos, trucks, motorcycles, etc). There doesn’t need to be another moratorium, select Congressional committee, or summit meeting with political leaders and industry executives to study the problem; all it takes is the “will” to see it happen and not more impassioned and articulate rhetoric.
The so-called “Stimulus” money that was given to the U.S. automakers by President Obama and the Congress should have been on the condition that they use all their technological know-how to remanufacture affordable, commercially-viable, non-polluting electric cars; not merge with another automaker or eliminate some of the less popular gasoline or diesel-powered models. It should not be to burden the auto industry with more regulation or become a major stockholder but rather with funding and guidelines to let these companies do what they do best; and that is, given the right tools and support, the engineers, front-line managers, supervisors, and workers can make the best, most fuel-efficient cars in the world. It isn’t about improved mileage that should be the concern, but rather the significant reduction of pollution resulting from all the vehicles used in transportation, whether military or civilian, being powered by a non-polluting, electrical system than by a polluting hydrocarbon. Even now, research is being done to improve the performance of electric cars by using “lithium-battery” technology by ‘TESLA’ motors in Silicon Valley, CA; so if a small, independent entrepreneur can do this on his own, then what excuse does the federal government and the “Big Three” have?
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
July 9, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
In June 9, 2006, “NOW” by PBS had a program titled, Timeline: Life and Death of the Electric Car and on November 14, 2006 was a documentary titled, “Who Killed the Electric Car?” by Sony on DVD. These two accounts show that as far back as the early 1920’s or so, technology existed for a viable, commercially-available automobile that was not dependent on fossil fuels; so the obvious question is, what happened? In 1912, Charles Kettering invented the “electric starter,” making the cumbersome hand-cranked starter on the electric models obsolete, and of course, the availability of gasoline; doubtless supplied in abundance by “STANDARD OIL” and its subsidiaries or spin-off companies. Now, with the convenience of an automatic starter and the availability of gasoline stations throughout the United States providing unlimited mileage instead of the limited mileage and lack of power from driving the electric car, the addiction was on; not just domestic oil but it seems, to petroleum reserves in the Middle East as well. Although Victor Wonk built the first full-sized hybrid automobile in the United States, ironically a Buick Skylark supplied by G.M. in 1970, as part of the Federal Clean Car Incentive program, the EPA kills the program in 1976; why?
In 1988, Roger Smith, CEO at G.M. agrees to team up with AeroVironment of California to build a practical consumer car called the “EV1” (Electronic Vehicle). Between the years 1996-2000, a few thousand all-electric cars were manufactured by automakers, such as: Honda EV Plus; G.M. EV1; Ford Ranger pickup EV; Nissan Altra EV; Chevy S-10 EV; and Toyota RAV4 EV. There was just one little catch, though; none of the vehicles were for purchase, just for lease. By the early 2000’s “all” the major automakers production of all-electric cars were discontinued; why? G.M. announces that it will not renew leases on the EV1 models, saying, it can no longer supply the parts to repair the vehicles” and it plans to reclaim all the cars by the end of 2004. There are still a few pure electric cars and plug-in hybrids, such as the Toyota Prius, which was first manufactured in Japan in 1997; where it sold 18,000 cars in the first year in that country.
One of the criticisms of using plug-in hybrids is that to recharge the battery won’t solve the issue of reducing pollution because 55% of America’s electrical grid comes from coal production; and coal accounts for 83% of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) pollution in the United States. The thing is, most smog in the cities is not derived from coal-fired plants and utilities, but from automobile exhaust. Not only that, but G.M., Ford, and Daimler-Chrysler account for nearly 75% of all (CO2) emission in the U.S. On-road and off-road vehicles comprise 49% of Nitrous Oxide (NO2) emissions; Utilities 27% (NO2) emissions; and industrial, commercial, residential centers combined contribute 24% (NO2) emissions. So, the argument against electric cars is not only untenable, it is irrational as well. What Congress needs to do, if this country is serious about beating this addiction to gasoline is amend the Clean Air Act where within ten years, there will be a zero tolerance level of emissions from motor vehicles (autos, trucks, motorcycles, etc). There doesn’t need to be another moratorium, select Congressional committee, or summit meeting with political leaders and industry executives to study the problem; all it takes is the “will” to see it happen and not more impassioned and articulate rhetoric.
The so-called “Stimulus” money that was given to the U.S. automakers by President Obama and the Congress should have been on the condition that they use all their technological know-how to remanufacture affordable, commercially-viable, non-polluting electric cars; not merge with another automaker or eliminate some of the less popular gasoline or diesel-powered models. It should not be to burden the auto industry with more regulation or become a major stockholder but rather with funding and guidelines to let these companies do what they do best; and that is, given the right tools and support, the engineers, front-line managers, supervisors, and workers can make the best, most fuel-efficient cars in the world. It isn’t about improved mileage that should be the concern, but rather the significant reduction of pollution resulting from all the vehicles used in transportation, whether military or civilian, being powered by a non-polluting, electrical system than by a polluting hydrocarbon. Even now, research is being done to improve the performance of electric cars by using “lithium-battery” technology by ‘TESLA’ motors in Silicon Valley, CA; so if a small, independent entrepreneur can do this on his own, then what excuse does the federal government and the “Big Three” have?
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
July 9, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Society needs to take tougher stance on "Cheating" spouses
Mr. Pitts:
I think you have a good point about the excuses, or is it justifications that some prominent males in the news recently (mostly White) regarding cheating on their wives. Come to think of it, when was the last time that a Legislator's wife admitted to having an affair? I suppose such thoughts do cross some women's minds considering the popularity of such shows as “DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES;" to name a few. And of course, there are those female teachers who have sex with their underage male students; Washington's own Mary K. Letourneau started something like a virus [bi-polar disorder??] that has been spreading like contagion ever since. So, outside of the few exceptions, men overwhelming cheat, and the reasons may be simpler than you think. Although I am not an expert, but Sociology seems to point to stratification in society when there was a division of labor, men controlled the factors of production, and determined what the most valued things were. Men rose to power and subordinated and subjugated women to roles of lesser importance than themselves.
Men therefore, due to the differentiation of gender roles and social scripts take advantage of their inherited stats to violate "norms" as former President Bill Clinton said as a guest on OPRAH, when asked about the affair with Monica Lewinsky, "I did it because I knew I could." It isn't because of 'Testosterone' or because a man "just can't help it," but rather that as men in a patriarchal social system where the rules are favorable and excusable to certain rules of conduct and proclivities, a man can do just as 'Slick Willy' boasted. This double-standard exists despite the gains that women have achieved because a young girl is still raised to be, at least in theory, a sweet, chaste, virginal princess looking to fall in love and marry her handsome Prince Charming. Interestingly though, very few men if any are raised to be that 'Prince Charming,' and consequently, a female is chasing for something that doesn't exist, but is drawn to the illusion and fantasy; like in a Harlequin romance novel or fairy tale. Since a male has no requirement to be chivalrous, kind, respectful and noble, he can be any way he wants. A man can have several lovers or relationships because that is just being a "man" but a female doing the same thing is considered a "slut" or "ho;" even by other women. The difficulty with addressing this behavior is putting it in the right context.
To correct this convenient marital opt-out clause, the first thing needs to be done are to get away from using words or phrases such as: indiscretion, "my bad," moral turpitude, indecent liaison, mistake, weakness, illicit affair, tryst, seduction, moral lapse, etc; although no one has ever said, "the devil made me do it;" at least, so far. Even the word "adultery" doesn't carry the stigma and pariah status that it once used to, so then, what is the answer you may ask? When a man is abusive to a girlfriend or wife, it is considered "criminal" and punishable by Law, so why isn't it so in this case when someone is 'abused' after the marital vows are broken?
It is the same thing as “Domestic Violence” because in 9 out of 10 times, the aggrieved or abused person will forgive their abusive partner and take them back [try to work things out]. Law Enforcement statistics indicate that the abuse only escalates, rarely does it diminish, and if someone is socially prominent or affluent, the abuse can take on other forms such as neglect, ridicule, control, or abandonment [preoccupation with other things]. There is a name for this mistreatment, and it is called the "Battered Woman Syndrome" and surely the harm inflicted can be of no lesser degree in these instances of marital alienation than a physical beating. One other point; especially for those who may seek an answer that is higher than any secular or civil authority. Remember the Patriarch Joseph who, after resisting the seductive allure and attempts from the wife of his employer, Potiphar, said in Genesis 39: 9b, "How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?" This in the heart of the matter because "all" sin is against the Creator and Lord God of heaven and earth. It is a serious matter and should not be taken so lightly because although society's Laws change, the Word of God does not.
Psalms 119: 89
Forever, O Lord, Your Word is settled in heaven.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 7, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
I think you have a good point about the excuses, or is it justifications that some prominent males in the news recently (mostly White) regarding cheating on their wives. Come to think of it, when was the last time that a Legislator's wife admitted to having an affair? I suppose such thoughts do cross some women's minds considering the popularity of such shows as “DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES;" to name a few. And of course, there are those female teachers who have sex with their underage male students; Washington's own Mary K. Letourneau started something like a virus [bi-polar disorder??] that has been spreading like contagion ever since. So, outside of the few exceptions, men overwhelming cheat, and the reasons may be simpler than you think. Although I am not an expert, but Sociology seems to point to stratification in society when there was a division of labor, men controlled the factors of production, and determined what the most valued things were. Men rose to power and subordinated and subjugated women to roles of lesser importance than themselves.
Men therefore, due to the differentiation of gender roles and social scripts take advantage of their inherited stats to violate "norms" as former President Bill Clinton said as a guest on OPRAH, when asked about the affair with Monica Lewinsky, "I did it because I knew I could." It isn't because of 'Testosterone' or because a man "just can't help it," but rather that as men in a patriarchal social system where the rules are favorable and excusable to certain rules of conduct and proclivities, a man can do just as 'Slick Willy' boasted. This double-standard exists despite the gains that women have achieved because a young girl is still raised to be, at least in theory, a sweet, chaste, virginal princess looking to fall in love and marry her handsome Prince Charming. Interestingly though, very few men if any are raised to be that 'Prince Charming,' and consequently, a female is chasing for something that doesn't exist, but is drawn to the illusion and fantasy; like in a Harlequin romance novel or fairy tale. Since a male has no requirement to be chivalrous, kind, respectful and noble, he can be any way he wants. A man can have several lovers or relationships because that is just being a "man" but a female doing the same thing is considered a "slut" or "ho;" even by other women. The difficulty with addressing this behavior is putting it in the right context.
To correct this convenient marital opt-out clause, the first thing needs to be done are to get away from using words or phrases such as: indiscretion, "my bad," moral turpitude, indecent liaison, mistake, weakness, illicit affair, tryst, seduction, moral lapse, etc; although no one has ever said, "the devil made me do it;" at least, so far. Even the word "adultery" doesn't carry the stigma and pariah status that it once used to, so then, what is the answer you may ask? When a man is abusive to a girlfriend or wife, it is considered "criminal" and punishable by Law, so why isn't it so in this case when someone is 'abused' after the marital vows are broken?
It is the same thing as “Domestic Violence” because in 9 out of 10 times, the aggrieved or abused person will forgive their abusive partner and take them back [try to work things out]. Law Enforcement statistics indicate that the abuse only escalates, rarely does it diminish, and if someone is socially prominent or affluent, the abuse can take on other forms such as neglect, ridicule, control, or abandonment [preoccupation with other things]. There is a name for this mistreatment, and it is called the "Battered Woman Syndrome" and surely the harm inflicted can be of no lesser degree in these instances of marital alienation than a physical beating. One other point; especially for those who may seek an answer that is higher than any secular or civil authority. Remember the Patriarch Joseph who, after resisting the seductive allure and attempts from the wife of his employer, Potiphar, said in Genesis 39: 9b, "How can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?" This in the heart of the matter because "all" sin is against the Creator and Lord God of heaven and earth. It is a serious matter and should not be taken so lightly because although society's Laws change, the Word of God does not.
Psalms 119: 89
Forever, O Lord, Your Word is settled in heaven.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 7, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
Monday, July 6, 2009
President Barack Obama: Negotiate with Israel to release the "Gaza-21"
How ironic is it that as America celebrated its 233rd Anniversary of Independence and Freedom on this past July 4th, four U.S. citizens, including Cynthia McKinney, former House of Representatives member from Georgia, along with others called the “Gaza-21” are being held illegally in an Israeli prison. Ms. McKinney was part of a human rights delegation delivering much needed humanitarian aide to Palestinians living in the war- torn and occupied territories of the Gaza Strip. The boat she was on was seized by the Israeli Navy while in International Waters; much like tankers, cargo and passenger ships are seized in open waters by marauding bands of Somali pirates.
So far, the Obama Administration and the State Department under Hilary Rodham Clinton have been silent on this clear act that is in violation of International and Maritime laws. President Barack Obama’s eloquent speech from Cairo, Egypt about a month ago must not have gotten through to the people of Israel; or at least to the military and political leadership. It will be interesting to see what action the United Nations will take on the matter, and although President Obama hasn’t gotten that phone call at 3AM yet, he had better learn to be a “light” sleeper because it is getting close to 2AM, and the clock is still ticking.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 6, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
So far, the Obama Administration and the State Department under Hilary Rodham Clinton have been silent on this clear act that is in violation of International and Maritime laws. President Barack Obama’s eloquent speech from Cairo, Egypt about a month ago must not have gotten through to the people of Israel; or at least to the military and political leadership. It will be interesting to see what action the United Nations will take on the matter, and although President Obama hasn’t gotten that phone call at 3AM yet, he had better learn to be a “light” sleeper because it is getting close to 2AM, and the clock is still ticking.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
July 6, 2009
pbks@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)