Got Success? Roll it Back!
Over some years now Steven Hayward has been accumulating environmental indices. His purpose is to enable objective assessments of the effectiveness of environmental policy. It’s hard to dispute that this is a good thing. In every sphere of management, including management of the public interest, it is now an accepted best practice to employ objective performance metrics wherever possible. It’s done as follows. When establishing a new program in business or government, you first identify the measurable events that will be impacted by the program, taking a “baseline” set of measurements before the program is actually implemented. Later measurements provide an objective basis for assessing the program versus the baseline, recognizing that external factors can also impact results. So what has Hayward’s performance indices shown? The bottom line is that they show excellent progress on many fronts. These kinds of results in the world of business would get you a promotion, and if you were a CEO you’d be getting a zillion stock options (but of course you’d be getting those anyway!) The improvements started 1976, and by 2002 Ozone was down 31%, Sulfur Dioxide down 70%, Carbon Monoxide down 75%, and Lead was down 98%. While this would seem to be good news, environmentalists are cool to Hayward’s indices, despite their apparent validity. And they’re clearly wise to be wary. Why? Because Bush and the rest of his right wing operatives see these gains as an opportunity to 1) declare victory and 2) initiate rollbacks. That the right wing behaves this way isn’t a “theory” (as the right wing is fond of describing evolution). This is exactly what happened when the US started running a small fiscal surplus during the Clinton years. Bush declared victory, began big tax rollbacks, and here we are trillions more in the hole. In contrast, my take on Hayward’s numbers is that when you find a strategy that works, you do it more, not less! Here’s an analogy. If working harder gains you a promotion (or a zillion stock options), do you cut back and become a couch potato, or do you go out and try to do even better? You would think that wanting to build on success would show good right wing values!
04.23.05 @ 07:53 PM EDT [link]

Guestbook
Reader comments are welcome. Some previous comments can be seem by clicking this entry's link (just below). Comment #1 is the consolidation of prior guestbook comments. The main comment repository is Guestbook. See Contact Sher for instructions on sending a comment.
04.23.05 @ 08:04 AM EDT [link]

Feature of the Week
This week’s new feature is in honor of Earth Day. Informed by Jared Diamond’s Collapse and inspired by Rush’s environmental demagoguery, this winter’s journal entry on the marriage of Thorstein Olafsson and Sigrid Bjornsdottir is now a permanent fixture in the Environment topic arc.Runes.
04.23.05 @ 12:30 AM EDT [link]

House Republicans Celebrate Earth Day
One thing you can say about GOP Congressmen is that they’re consistent. It’s almost endearing. They love acting in prepositional phrases, like over the top, in your face, and (my favorite) out to lunch. Indeed, entire words describing GOP Congressmen started as prepositional phrases. Consider “overreach,” the word that generally describes the GOP and reaches its quintessence in the right wing of the House Chambers. This word likely started as the phrase “over the reach.” As a certified sailor, it’s reasonable to believe that “reach” is used in the nautical sense. A reach is a tack, and overreaching is going so far off on a tack (say, a right or starboard tack) that you end up somewhere completely different from where your passengers wanted to go. Anyway, in their typical over the top, in your face, and out to lunch fashion, the House GOP passed an overreach energy bill. Its main purpose is to address their terror that folks at home will wonder why gas prices have gone exponential since their party (headed by oilmen) took over. They figure that taking action, ANY action, is their only hope for another term. The two most significant GOP actions leading up to the bill were to 1) defeat the Democratic attempt to take out the drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR), and 2) defeat Democratic attempts to raise automobile fuel efficiency standards. Of course, nothing they’re doing in this bill will have any impact whatsoever on gas prices anytime soon, despite Congressman Joe Barton’s explanation for why he voted for the bill: “I want to pay less for gasoline in Texas.” He’s from Texas, by the way (why isn’t that a surprise?!) Joe has apparently missed the irony of his role in defeating the Democratic initiatives. First, we can essentially guarantee that, as oil is depleted in the upcoming decades, the price of gasoline won’t be going down. The irony part comes from Joe being a Texan who is looking to oil from above the Arctic Circle to lower his pump prices. It’s ironic because Texas was once the cheapest place to buy gas in the country. Why isn’t it anymore? Because they sucked it all out of the ground, and in a remarkably short period of time! So let’s say that we explore for oil in ANWR and actually find some. Because Joe’s priority is keeping gas cheap (for “Jobs” and “Energy Independence”) it will presumably get sucked up just as handily. And since we’re not doing anything about fuel efficiency standards, consumption rates won’t be going down from their current rate: FAST. Then consider that China and India’s billions are just coming online for bigtime consumption. The bottom line is that by working themselves up into a sucking frenzy for the last remaining American oil, Joe and his cronies are ensuring that someday Americans will be 1) totally dependent on foreign countries for this essential substance, and 2) unable to buy gas at any price, let alone “cheaper.” You can be sure that cars will be getting MUCH better gas mileage – if they’re moving at all.
04.23.05 @ 12:24 AM EDT [link]

Frist’s War on Power-Blocking Infidels
The root of the issue with Frist’s War on Infidels is that activist judges see a duty to interpret the Constitution so as to block the endowing of particular scriptural interpretations with the force of law. In addition, Liberal Senators want to block nominees seeking to effect this endowment. Anyone supporting that point of view is clearly an impediment to the Church (specifically, the small but nonetheless Elect subset of believers that adheres to True Practice based on correct interpretations of scripture, the same interpretations that Dr. Sen. Frist happens to hold). Frist’s True Church is impeded because these activist judges and Liberal Senators stand in the way of harnessing the mighty power of earth’s sole superpower to the propagation of the Faith (but just to be clear, Frist’s Faith, not the mistaken beliefs of those calling themselves Christian but who support the heathen Liberal agenda). Impeding the propagation of Frist’s True Faith clearly violates the spirit and letter of the Bible. For example, Jesus was offered power over all the world’s Kingdoms link. So what if the offer was made by Satan and Jesus refused it?! The fact the offer was made at all showed that He was a “player.” If someone offers you a high-paying job, getting that offer means that you are qualified for an equivalent job, even if you turned down the offer. And since when is turning down an offer forever? Also, Satan said this power had been given to him and that he had the power to do with it as he wanted. Isn’t it better off in the hands of observant men like Frist than the Prince of Darkness? Frist and the nominees he and Bush seek to have installed in the judiciary are just seeking to get His Church the political power He deserved, better late than never. I’m sure they see it as a nice surprise for Him when he returns.
Note to Readers: Dropping out of parody, let me say that Frist’s behavior in this instance, specifically his bald assertion that Bush’s fringe re-nominees are under fire due to their Christian belief, is the single most outrageous, infuriating allegation I’ve witnessed in all the years that I’ve followed their shenanigans. To call it McCarthyesque would be to impugn McCarthyism. At least McCarty wasn’t sanctimonious, an obnoxious behavior that Christians – except for smug right wing modern-day Pharisees - universally deplore. One of my colleagues holds that he’s just pandering to the so-called “Christian Right,” shoring up support in advance of a Presidential run. While that’s likely, it’s absolutely no excuse for playing the “Jesus loves only us” card in such an irresponsible, cynical fashion. The icing on the cake is his comparing the use of the filibuster against Bush’s re-nominees to earlier extreme right wing filibusters against desegregation. (I’m sure they’re reveling in the delicious irony of the payback they’ve doubtless been planning since the ‘60s). Just to set the record straight – it’s the nominees’ views on politics that’s at issue, not their views on religion. If they believe that their religious views should be the law of the land, that’s a political position, not a religious one. My advice to them is that they don’t like that the Constitution bans a state religion, they should go start their own country. In other words, love it or leave it (a phrase I’ve wanted to direct back to them since the ‘60’s). Oh the delicious irony!
04.20.05 @ 08:12 PM EDT [link]

Frist’s War on Fiscal Infidels
A key battle in the liberal assault on Christianity is happening in the ledgers of government. Liberal obstructionists, by demanding that changes to fiscal inflows be matched by equal changes to outflows (as Democratic Senators recently unanimously voted,) seek to wreck the entire edifice of Good Works being pursued by Republicans of faith. They are worthily opposed by Dr. Sen. Frist and his Holy Select, who recognize the importance of faith-based accounting towards achieving important societal goals. Happily, they handily (and almost unanimously) rebuffed Liberal obstructionism in this case. Republicans recognize the critical importance of increased funding for faith-based social services, as well as helping the military in its new role of spreading Christian values throughout the Middle East (the area we called the Holy Land the last time we needed to do this). At the same time, Republicans recognize the sinfulness of taxation. For example, consider the scriptural references to the hatred that people held towards tax collectors like Matthew. Here is a Pharisee’s prayer in Luke 18:11 “I thank you that I am not like that tax collector over there.” Then the tax collector confirmed this characterization with his own prayer: 13 “But the tax collector stood at a distance and would not even raise his face to heaven, but beat on his breast and said, ‘God, have pity on me, a sinner!’” This clearly shows that tax collectors (and by extension, all taxation) need to be scorned and rejected in the proper Christian manner. Liberals snicker at the fiscal result of increasing expenditures while reducing revenues, as if debt were some kind of a problem. What could possibly be wrong with starving the Beast by motivating future generations to cut government spending (since they’ll need that money to make interest payments)? After all, God give humanity dominion over Beasts. And our children should be happy to have us transferring their wealth to us, even if we’ll be dead when it comes time to repay. Two scriptures are particularly relevant. First is Luke 7:41-42. “There were two men who owed money to a moneylender,” Jesus began. “One owed him five hundred silver coins, and the other owed him fifty. 42 Neither of them could pay him back, so he cancelled the debts of both.” The meaning is clear: if you’re running up a debt, make it a BIG debt! You can tell that George W. was awake in bible study that day. Then consider Luke 6:34-35. “And if you lend only to those from whom you hope to get it back, why should you receive a blessing? 35 No! Lend and expect nothing back. You will then have a great reward, and you will be children of the Most High God.” What better reward can we give to posterity than to make them children of the Most High God?
04.19.05 @ 08:38 PM EDT [link]

Frist’s War in Environmental Infidels
One of the reasons that Liberal Atheists (LAs) seek to block the re-nominations of previously rejected Bush judicial candidates is that these candidates have bravely spoken out against the sin of environmentalism. Taking leadership in this crusade against godless environmental regulation are those nominees who, like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, belong to the “Constitution in Exile” movement. It seeks a return to the heady days of the 1930s before New Deal destroyed the dream that any Horatio Alger, regardless of his particular Ivy League university, could aspire to be a robber baron. These nominees recognize that government regulation is not only unconstitutional but anti-Christian, and they know it is their religious rather than political convictions that inappropriately disqualify them in the eyes of the LAs. Environmental regulation is unconstitutional because it can reduce the economic value of a man’s property. It’s also unholy. Every True Believer (as opposed to self-deluded Liberals who call themselves Christians) understands the emphasis the Bible places on the sanctity of one’s valuables. Doesn’t the Bible talk about how “thieves can break in and steal,” implying that one’s earthly treasures need to be carefully safeguarded? How can a regulation that reduces the economic value of a “treasure” not be sinful? For example, let’s say a man chooses to make a contract offering his property as a repository for the solid, liquid, or gaseous by-products of industrial production. How can a property owner in the complete meaning of that title not have full use of his land, the water running through it, and the air above? The nominees correctly hold that so-called environmental regulations unconstitutionally interfere with his freedom to make whatever contract concerning his property that he chooses. His neighbors always have the option of making him a better offer, so why does the government need to get involved? Isn’t paying for something to go away the American Way? A number of scriptural passages support this position. The clearest example is the turning of water into wine at the Cana wedding feast. Were that to happen today the LAs would immediately go to the EPA, the FDA, and the BATF to their activist judges to slap on an injunction for an unlicensed manufacturing process creating an alcoholic beverage in an untested way for which Federal revenues were not properly collected! There is a clear lesson for the entire chemical industry here - if one without sin can effect a chemical transformation without licensing, oversight, or taxation, how can it be improper for anyone else to do so?
04.18.05 @ 08:09 PM EDT [link]

Frist’s War on Infidels
News item: “Senator Bill Frist, the Majority Leader, has agreed to join a handful of prominent Christian conservatives in a telecast portraying Democrats as ‘against people of faith’ for blocking President Bush’s nominees.” The flyer for the telecast shows a young man with the words “public service,” “faith in Christ,” and “he should not have to choose.” Perhaps readers of SherWright.com find this poster and Dr. Sen. Frist’s involvement with this event confusing, since it implies that Senate Democrats have established atheism as a litmus test of nominees. It’s confusing because 85% of Americans call themselves Christian and polls consistently show the US as one of the most religious nations on earth. It would seem to be an odd political strategy for elected representatives to boycott judicial candidates based of characteristics they have in common with the overwhelming majority of voters and presumably the Democratic senators themselves! Thus, as a public service, SherWright will devote several of this journal’s entries to defending the logic behind Dr. Sen. Frists’s latest crusade, for how else are we to call his brave defense of Christian belief? Let’s start by noting that 19% of Christians feel that theirs is the one true religion. Then let’s observe that Christian belief stems from interpretations of scripture. Thus, the clear reason that Frist the politician is enlisted in this crusade is that 1) he is one of the lucky few who has ended up with the only true faith and 2) this faith is based on the one true set of interpretations of scripture. Makes sense so far? The then let’s consider that politics of the extreme right wing come straight from the Bible, but the Bible was written before there were Republicans and Democrats. You thus have to look at how the policies of a particular party are supported by correct interpretations of scripture in order to determine that party’s godliness. The extreme right wing feels that they have a lock on political godliness, but hasn’t really spelled out why. This is thus an area that SherWright.com can add value, by providing the specific scriptural justifications for the Truth of the extreme right wing’s political platform. Here’s the first of the examples we’ll be exploring over the next several days, the political strategy specifically mentioned in Frist’s telecast: the threatened use by Democrats of the filibuster against the 10 out of 204 nominees previously rejected and that the Bush Administration has now re-nominated. That is clearly sinful, based on the scriptures “thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people” and particularly “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Now doesn’t that clear things up?
04.17.05 @ 09:07 PM EDT [link]