hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
Gallery of Plants
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Mailing Lists
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
New Trillium species discovered

Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

RSS story archive

Re: election - delete if not interested - For Joe H.

Hi Jim,
I apologize in advance for the length, but these ARE important issues, aren't they.
RE:>>Would you please name the countries that have since the impeachment
hearing passed us in technology, and the technologies?  Of course, the
Chinese did make a 25 year leap in their missile technology!

Well, for starters, the Germans at BMW seem to think alternative fuel sources utilized in an automobile is a good idea.  I didn't hear the whole story, but on NPR last evening I couldn't believe me ears--the BMW engineers have taken this Hydrogen powered automobile vision of Jules Verne (offered first in 1871?) and turned it into reality.  Apparently, they have a hydrogen powered car, with 12 cylinders, that is being driven by foreign dignitaries and being readied for production.  It's "toxic" exhaust?  Good old H2O.  As I said, however, I didn't get to hear the whole story so more research is in order.  While we're busy trying to figure out how to pump more fuel from Alaska, the genious's of the world are busy learning how to implement or create better technology.  We can't sit around and contemplate our navals.  

Or how about the French?  This GMO/BioTech grain deal.  The Europeans have elected to disallow some of the use of BioTech grain in foods.  One of their companies (A French based company--Aventis?) makes a product, (Starlink) that is BioTech engineered to resist insect damage.  They decide that they don't want to use it because some radicals (that barely can tell you the chemical composition of water, let alone understanding plant genomes), decide that food grown from this seed might give people the Mad Cow disease. 

It's not "Round up" ready, mind you, so our USDA folks fall asleep at the wheel and let it be sold in this country.  (The European's of course, won't buy any of it back but they can sell it to us...What's wrong with that equation?)  Well, that's fine with me and gazillons of other people, but apparently, it's not fine with some of the people some of the time, and bingo--instance new flash; somebody let this grain be manufactured into Tacos, and some people that don't have the brains God gave a monkey, start lapping this stuff up.  Dan Rather is on the tube every night for a week forecasting   the potential demise of the human race!  Instead of taking to time to educate people, and to do the research that needs to be done, we're sitting around contemplating our navals and letting the French stop the distribution of corn out of our fields!  Did it have to become front page news before our Congress starts paying attention?  No, and here is an example of part of what happened.

My Representive in the House for our District is Dr. Greg Ganske(R).  You might have heard of him because he was the first one to call for the President to step down.  He's a doctor--he could have been paying attention to this BioTech grain issue that has caused turmoil in the grain markets in Iowa (the state he is representing), leaving lots of grain people in a big financial bind, but instead he's focused on his naval!

These are but two examples, Joe.  (I could add Japan with their new Honda that gets 70 miles/gallon of fuel that is half petro/half electric, but I've got to leave something for others). Maybe Kate Klass who hates to see so many of our manufacturing plants moving to Mexico could provide some examples. 

RE:>>Why do you say it is unfortunate that the House was unproductive
during the impeachment debate?  The way I see it, the best Congress we
can have is an unproductive one!

This I definitely do not believe.  I am aware that business moves slowly through these bureaucracies--much too slowly, but when they finally do make decisions, they can have dramatic impact and they change the world.  We're not talking about some start up country in South Africa here--We're talking about the largest economic, and military power in the world.  But, unfortunately when we're napping, other countries are taking advantage of us.

We're being beat up by the Japanese, the Europeans, and soon the Chinese (and I'm not talking about the military, though that is certainly of concern.   For some reason, however, we're gotten this idea in our head that killing people 17 times instead of just 3 is what is required to dominate the world with power--three is enough!)

Have you noticed where most of your goods that cost under $5.00 are coming from?  Small appliances? Computers?  TV's?  Radios?  Clothes?  It's seldom from the US.  Do we know WHY no one wants to work for minimum wage?  Because many of the lower wage jobs, that offered some dignity--often manufacturing jobs that required little skill--have moved to Mexico or overseas.  We need to keep Congress focused on issues that matter, not bogging them down with six months of reading transcripts to see whether Monica looks pretty when she's naked.  It's hard enough to keep them focused but let them have an excuse not to work on important stuff--well they might as well have been on recess.

RE:>>Lying under oath is a crime!  There is a BIG difference between personal misbehavior and criminal behavior!

You're right.  But entrapping the person to get them to lie is an even bigger offense, IMO.  We didn't like this kind of tactic when employed by Castro, or Hitler, or any other oppressive ruler, and we don't like to see it used today.

Kenneth Starr sent Linda Tripp out with a tape recorder to try and get details from Monica Lewinsky from what was thought to be a private conversation.  The taping was done illegally and few contest that.  I believe many conservatives see that type of Gestapo tactic as being what is required to implement a moral control agenda.  Many more liberal (translation--in touch with the Constitution and not big fans of totalitarianism?) people see this as a major loss of inalienable rights that are in the Constitution, than the white lie told by the President under oath.  This was a victimless crime.  In fact, it wasn't even a crime!  The right to privacy is a tenant that many nations with Dictators like to scrap.  That is how they perpetrate their regime--suppressing any dissenters by removing the right of privacy.  I don't want to become a nation where we have to hide Jews, Moslems, or dissenters in our closets.  We seem to be more obsessed with keeping handguns in the closet than keeping people out of them.

The actions of the Kenneth Starr team, and the 16(?) angry men in the House of Representatives were the closest thing to removing this inalienable right since the Constitution was written--all undertaken under the guise of "exercising the rule of law".  Whose law?  Which law was broken?  That white lie about whether he was having sex with "that woman, Miss Lewinsky?".  What court has the right to pry into that matter, unless they are claiming that the deed itself was illegal, which it was not.  

Are we really ready to give up these rights?  Is the moral majority suggesting that this "right to privacy" should not stand, instead being replaced by vigilante police who could invade your home, or your life, simply because they don't agree with your morals?

I don't believe what President Clinton did was right, but I believe what Kenneth Starr and the vigilante vice squad was even more threatening.  Which part about this attack on our Constitutional "inalienable rights" don't conservatives understand?  Are such far-right tactics being undertaken to protect us from ourselves?  No, it is a purposeful attempt to forcibly, through the "rule of law", prohibit engaging in any activity which some do not believe to be "morally correct".  Would they prohibit another right as well--would freedom of religion be the next target?  

Andrew Lietzow (smiling and like Chic, I'll stop when you will.. Hehehe!)

 © 1995-2017 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index