REAP WHAT YOU SOW

There was once a farmer who decided he would save money, so instead of buying the full sack of seed corn, he bought only 2/3 of the amount he had purchased the year before. After sowing the seeds on his field, he eventually harvested the crop. To his great surprise, the crop had only yielded 2/3 of the bounty of the season before.

The farmer is much like some of our elected leaders who will express shock, surprise and dismay at the recent reports that 9th grade test results show that only 34% of our statewide 9th graders can demonstrate proficiency in writing. Even worse, only 41% of our 9th graders are proficient in English. Why should we be surprised? Our state legislature, under statewide leadership, has caused layoffs of over 15,000 teachers in the state, mandated larger classes, and ended many programs that were calculated to enhance learning.

Classroom size does, in fact, make a difference. [Read summary discussions of class size research here and here.] Despite a bogus study or two touted by Mitt Romney, the multitude of other experts have demonstrated time and time again, by monitored results, that class size of 15:1 in the lower 3 grades can produce spectacular results. 

Eliminating over 15,000 teaching spots is not calculated to lure the best and brightest to the teaching profession, and comes at a time when teachers are so critically needed for America to compete in the worldwide arena.

The first retort of conservatives to information such as enumerated above is that, “You can’t throw money at education and fix it.”  I certainly agree. The flip side of that coin, however, is you can’t fix and create a wonderful system of education without spending an adequate amount money.

The State of Texas could better spend its time in the Legislature and the State Board of Education by concentrating on evaluation of the efficiency of school districts–perhaps to determine whether or not they are top heavy in administration with overblown and overpaid superintendents and assistant superintendents and their fellow travelers. An audit of charter schools funded by tax money should inquire intently on whether or not taxpayers are getting their money’s worth in improved education in these facilities, or whether they are simply gold mines for those who create these private entities.

Far-right wingers who express such great concern for having English only in the State of Texas would be far better off, as would the State, if they were more concerned about whether or not their own children and the children of Texas parents are proficient in our predominant language–English. 

While I suspect the electronic age of texting and twittering is somewhat responsible for our young Texans lagging in communication skills in writing and using English, it still needs to be addressed through our school system. 

A proposed solution to the nation's deficit

Of late, I have been giving serious thought to simply giving up. It occurs to me that I could be wrong about my philosophy of life and economic policy of the United States. I’ve always thought that if you infused enough money into the lower end of the economic spectrum, rich folks would figure out a way to end up with most of it. Alas, perhaps there is some chance that the Koch brothers, right-wing nuts and other Republicans are right. Maybe, if we take care of the very, very rich, the multibillionaires, they will somehow allow enough to trickle down to take care of all the poor folks in the country.

Further, adopting the thinking of the current Republican establishment, including the nation’s Supreme Court, I’ve thought of an idea that would allow us to be more realistic in the current Supreme Court approach to politics and at the same time eliminate the nation’s deficit.

First of all we would need to create a new agency of government called the USA National Lottery Commission--not for having anything like a state lottery, but in order to create a draft similar to the nation’s NFL, NBA or baseball. The lottery would gather all who had wealth enough to participate in the new system and allow them to draft particular players based on a drawing which would assign each billionaire a standing by chance. Each billionaire would then have the right to purchase an office holder outright. The money would be used to defray the national debt, and billionaires could, upfront, own a politician. This would at least do away with the current myth that politicians who accept millions from billionaires are still their own man or woman, as the case may be.

Instead of wasting money on TV ads, newsprint, robo-calls and such, these billionaires would own the politician outright, and the money would go directly into the treasury to pay off our national debt. I would think United States Senators would be worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $2-3 million dollars each; U.S. Representatives, at least $1 million; state senators, somewhere in the neighborhood of $600-700,000, and state reps would be evaluated based on the size of the budget they help control in their particular states. New York, California and Texas state reps, for example, should be worth at least half a million. Montana? may be only $100,000.

Aside from helping the national debt, this would completely remove hypocrisy from the current system in which our nation’s Supreme Court has declared that corporations are people and that spending money in elections is the same thing as free speech.

I recognize the danger in offering such an innovative program, and there are people who will ridicule the idea or even think I am serious. This brings to mind the words of Bob Eckhardt to me when, once, while serving in the Texas House, I defeated an idiotic bill by the use of satire. The senator from El Paso had actually passed a bill through the Senate making it a crime to show or display the U.N. flag anywhere in, on or around a public building and accompanied the prohibition with a mandatory $50 fine. I laid one amendment on the speaker’s desk and the House sponsors then fled from sponsoring the measure. My amendment simply provided that instead of a $50 fine it carried a mandatory death sentence. My thought was that if flying a U.N. flag was considered treasonous to the United States, the punishment should be appropriate to accompany the crime. State Representative Eckhardt, later to become congressman, warned me that he was certain that in the time of Jonathan Swift, who wrote Gulliver’s Travels, some people took Swift seriously when he suggested that in order to alleviate the famine in Ireland Irish babies should be served up for dinner. 

 

With that in mind, hopefully, this scenario will be food for thought–at least for thinking people.

The Right to Free Speech: Citizens United

One of the worst decisions ever made by the Supreme Court of the United States was the case of Citizens United decided by a 5/4 vote, mainly among partisan lines. Republican members of the Supreme Court--appointed by Republicans who have decried for years activist judges who choose to legislate from the bench--are responsible not only for this bad decision, but also for the decision taking away the electoral process from the State of Florida and installing George W. Bush as president.

Citizens United, in case you live under a rock somewhere and never watch the evening news, is the case which declared that laws prohibiting rich corporations from spending corporate money on elections were an unreasonable restraint on freedom of speech. Advocates of this horrible decision, such as former Governor Romney, declare that corporations are ''people'' and as such should enjoy the same right of free speech as any American citizen.

Corporations can’t be sentenced to jail. They cannot be drafted into military service. And yet they can be citizens concurrently of multiple countries. Corporations are not democratic organizations having the benefit of one-man-one-vote but are controlled by the vote of shareholders whose voting strength is strictly determined by the amount of money put into the corporation by the would-be voters. Instead, corporate decisions are made by a board of directors. And now, because of the Citizens United ruling, these boards can spend other people’s money for political candidates without the vote of the persons who furnished the money.

Interestingly, there has been a prohibition for years and years applied to unions disallowing unions from doing that very thing. It was felt unions should not be able to spend the dues of their members to elect candidates that some of the dues-paying members did not necessarily favor. Citizens United has stood this concept on its head.

Thus, we are seeing the results of allowing unlimited corporate investment in political elections, most recently in the Republican primary. Super-pacs furnished over $300 million alone in the intramural fight between Republican candidates for presidents. The $300 million spent in the primary election, in my opinion, is only a small preview of the spending orgy to come in the general election for the leader of this nation.

Americans value the right of free speech so much that America generally has bought into the concept promoted by the news media that the people have a right to know and that this right should be exercised without restraint. Court decisions regularly allow the slander of persons having any public notoriety whatsoever on the theory that to do otherwise would have a chilling effect on the media’s efforts to keep the public informed.

I have long taken a somewhat different view in that I have trouble finding anywhere in the Constitution of the United States or of the state of Texas that declares the people have the right to know anything. I firmly believe that the people have a need to know. Certainly, people need to know essential facts about what’s going on in government. I also believe we should be zealous in protecting free speech, but I strongly disagree that any great effort should be made to constitutionally protect lies.

What Citizens United has done is grant to the very rich, such as the Koch brothers, the ability to promote millions of dollars of slander almost, if not completely, anonymously. Recently, over $59-million spent on elections has been traced to a remote post office box in Arizona. It is highly suspected that it is funded by the Koch brothers who are estimated to be worth $50-billion. There are countless documented instances of phony 501-C3's--so-called non-profit organizations--which are mysteriously funded, and those participating in these so-called non-profits deny knowledge of where the money comes from.

If you believe elections cannot be bought, you obviously did not follow the recent election between James White and Tuffy Hamilton in the Southeast Texas area. Tuffy Hamilton was a longtime member of the Legislature--a committee chair with a record of achievement to point to. James White was a freshman whose record was virtually devoid of any major accomplishments as a member of the Texas House of Representatives. Tuffy was swamped with TV ads to the extent they were almost nauseating. TV ads are expensive, and yet James White’s campaign would run sometimes 3 expensive TV ads back to back, one after the other, in prime time in the evenings. The results were devastating for the voters of Southeast Texas as well as for Tuffy Hamilton.

Texas has a fairly decent system of accountability in funding elections–at least for the candidates themselves. A candidate is obligated to register campaign contributions, both received and spent, with the Ethics Commission. Citizens, as a result, have the opportunity, as well as the right, to check and see from whence the money came to promote a particular candidate. Unfortunately, with Citizens United, it is no longer possible to hold a candidate accountable for massive amounts of money pumped in from even outside one’s district in an election.

While I would prefer adoption of a constitutional amendment which would put us back to square one and prohibit unlimited corporate or union contributions, it would be a great improvement in the meantime if we would simply require that corporations give money to the candidate. Then require the candidate to report it so the voting public could have a better idea of who owns each candidate or to whom each candidate indebted for the price of his or her campaign.

As it is, it is difficult, if not impossible, for discerning voters to make an intelligent choice between candidates not knowing which candidate might have received a couple of million dollars from a special interest whose interest is contrary to the average voter.

Sex Offenders Registry

Perhaps second only to mass murderers, the most repugnant criminals in our society are offenders who have victimized children. All too often, we must read in the paper about a small child being kidnapped, abused and even murdered by a person with a long history of pedophilia. This type criminal is not only abhorred by people in polite society, but is even shunned and isolated among his fellow inmates of murderers, robbers, con-artists and just thieves. Sexual offenders are generally severely punished, and should be. 

Unfortunately, in our lawmakers’ zeal to be the toughest on crime and to assure that our youngsters in Texas are not victimized by sexual predators, we have taken a shortsighted approach to dealing with sexual offenders.

I, and those dear to me, certainly care about the welfare of our families and take the trouble to review the registry. While keeping track of sexual offenders in most respects is a good idea, the problem with the registry in Texas is that it contains 70,000 registrants. The Texas definition of sexual offenses is so broad one cannot review the registry and determine whether the person so registered is a raving pedophile maniac who is subject to attacking small children found alone on the street, or whether the person could have been a 19-year-old who had a love affair with his 16-year-old girlfriend and was convicted of what most of us know as the offense of statutory rape.  

I submit it is important for those of us who care about protecting our children and grandchildren to know the difference. It is also in the interest of justice that the latter category above described is not lumped with the former.

Tales of injustice of such a system which paints all with a broad brush, effectively sentencing them to a life sentence, recalls ancient times when part of the punishment of certain criminals was to be branded on the forehead, sometimes for minor violations.

A recent edition of The Texas Observer chronicled the plight of a young man sentenced as a sexual offender at the age of 12 basically for engaging in curiosity--acting out--with a sibling. The article pointed out that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of so-called sexual offenders on the registry who were basically sentenced as children. And there are hundreds of other registrants branded as lifetime sexual offenders who are now married to the alleged victim. The 19-year-old who had the love affair with his 16-year-old girlfriend--and who is now married to his longtime sweetheart and raising a family--has no business on the sexual registry. 

Sociological studies have clearly established the vast majority of children branded as sexual offenders, and those described herein as those slightly over the edge--having had affairs with their teenage sweethearts, are imminently unlikely to be repeat offenders. Some system should be devised either to remove this type offender from the registry or to create a categorized system of registration so that those concerned about protection of our loved ones could review the registry and determine the type of person who might be residing within the geographical area of our concern.

I would suggest two possible solutions to the overuse of sexual offense registration. The preferable method would be for the Legislature to simply comb through the categories currently designated as sexual offenses and provide that, if convicted of the lesser type offenses, the registration be shortened to a reasonable term of years after whatever sentence they receive for the offense. This would allow parole officers or probation officers to determine whether or not the person has exhibited any propensity to continue or repeat as sex offenders.   

The other solution would be to create a subsection of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles--staffed by professionals such as counselors, psychologists and psychiatrists--and allow persons required to register to apply to be freed from the onus of registration and be evaluated by a team of experts to determine the likelihood of their being repeat offenders and the degree of risk that each person might be to his or her community in which they reside. 

Until such reforms are adopted by the Legislature, those of use who care will continue to be unable to tell the bad guys from the really bad guys.

VOTING GUIDE

One of the things I’ve learned over many years as a candidate for office and an observer of politics is that sometimes people choose how to vote for the weirdest reasons. I recall one of my colleagues in the House of Representative once telling me he was amazed at some of the reasons people gave him for their support. One, he said, voted for him because he had been her paperboy when he was 12 years old. Sounds a little weak, but I’ve found that it’s maybe a better reason than many people have given over the years. 

It is my belief there are at least four critical factors to be considered when choosing to bestow your vote on a candidate for public office. 

The four reasons, in my opinion, are:

1. The history of the candidate or the party to whose philosophy he/she ascribes.  

2. What are the things that are important to you as major issues of concern that affect your personal life? Do you and the candidate share goals or other things in common?

3. If the candidate has a history of voting, or belongs to a group publicly announcing goals in an area of interest, what things appear to be the most important to the candidate or the candidate’s party?

4. The basic honesty of the candidate and the candidate’s public pronouncements, or those statements contained in the candidate’s promotional material.

Keeping in mind the above criteria, it boggles my mind to see everyday working folks, folks who live payday to payday, supporting Republicans at any level. People living on less than $200,000 a year should find it easy to see that the Republican philosophy, political history and honesty in campaign statements fail all four tests.

The Republican Party has little, if any, of their own political history which they put forward in campaigns. On the contrary, about the only name Republicans dare to mention of their past presidents is Ronald Reagan. He is about all they have. I’ve yet to see a Republican run for office wanting to associate themselves with Herbert Hoover, author of the Great Depression; Richard Nixon, or his vice-president, Spiro Agnew; or even George W. Bush.  Republicans even ignore Dwight Eisenhower who warned America to be wary of the military-industrial complex.

Rick Perry gave us his take on what was important during the last legislative session. It wasn’t improving education, or making higher education more accessible to young Texans. In fact, the items Perry listed as the most important issues of our time for Texas were voter identification, forced sonograms for women, and outlawing so-called sanctuary cities.

According to recent reports, billionaires such as the Koch brothers (net worth: $50 billion) have provided approximately $300 million to Republican candidates. Similarly, other millionaires and billionaires–a home builder in Texas, the owner of a hospital chain, and several oil and gas billionaires–have contributed multiples of millions to support candidates of their choice–almost always Republicans–even down to the level of school board and state representative elections.  

Ask yourself how much you have in common with Harold Simmons of Dallas, who has spent over $10 million to elect candidates of his choice. He is a billionaire at least ten times over and makes a large part of his money by importing radioactive waste into Texas for storage.

The final factor is whether or not the promises or statements contained in election material are fair and honest.  Particularly at the national level, the Republican strategy and campaign rhetoric is replete with pure hypocrisy, if not out-and-out lies.  Republicans nationally accused our president of job killing strategies, yet these particular strategies happen to come primarily from the national effort to protect our environment for future generations. 

And Republicans like to point to the slow growth of the number of jobs since our president took office in the United States. Again, the fact of the matter is we lost jobs the last year of George W. Bush’s administration at the rate of 7,000 per month. But, every month Obama has been president we have gained jobs, although not as many as George Bush was losing each month.  

Republicans insist on accusing Democrats of being “job killers.”  But nobody seems to dwell on the fact that, in Texas alone, the policies of the Republican Legislature that shortchanged our children $4 billion in public education have caused the layoff of over 100,000 people–and that's just in the field of education! To me, that fact states very clearly who the real job killers are in today’s economy, and where their priorities lie.

Today's Republicans appear to wring their hands over spiraling national debt, but they uttered not a word when George W. plunged us into two needless wars.  They issued no protest when the Iraq War was done off the books, on credit, and millions were wasted on Vice-President Cheney’s company.  Where was the Republican outcry then?  Clearly, Republican administrations have a history of phoniness and hypocrisy.  

Consider the important factors of voting selection and vote based your own interests–not based on the million-dollar TV ads produced by professional hucksters.

My Way or the Highway

The Queen had only one way of settling all difficulties, great or small--'Off with their heads!'

Imagine for a moment that parties engaged to be married were discussing their future. One party issued an ultimatum to the other: “During our marriage you will be required to do exactly as I say...without discussion or compromise.” Given such a requirement for marriage, few couples would ever tie the knot.  

Unfortunately, this appears to be the attitude, at least at the congressional level of our government, which is engendered by members of the Tea Party. Such an attitude was clearly expressed by Mr. Murdock, the Tea Party candidate who recently defeated Republican Senator Luger in the primary election in their state.  When asked about his attitude about bi-partisanship approaches to legislation, Mr. Murdock said his position on bi-partisanship was that the Democrats should simply come and agree with everything the Republicans wanted.

Such a posture is very unlikely to change the deadlock which has paralyzed the U.S. Congress for far too long.  The rhetoric of campaign extremes, particularly on the conservative side, seems to attempt to make “compromise” or “moderate” a dirty word. Candidates in the Republican primary appeared to want to out-conservative one another, while unfortunately failing to advise the electorate of what they might or might not do about jobs, the economy, flagging education and increasing attacks on the environment.   

Unfortunately, too many right-wingers who carry little copies of the United States Constitution in their pockets have forgotten the lessons of our forefathers. These ideologues should revisit the book detailing how our constitution was born.  It is entitled The Miracle at Philadelphia. [Here is one helpful summary of historical findings in Catherine Drinker Bowen's book.] Had our forefathers carried forward the attitude of today’s politicians, the wonderful instrument known as the United States Constitution would never have been given birth. The history of the writing of the basic instrument of our laws is a history of compromise among people with strongly held views. As Bowen states it: "...one sees here a group of reasonable men, strong enough to yield." They produced a foundation instrument for government which has endured longer than almost any other document known to man with the possible exception of the Ten Commandments.

The issue of the federal deficit is a good example of why an unyielding attitude and the mantra of “no compromise” does not work. Politicians often compare government to a family and rant about the fact that families must live within their means. Any family who found themselves deeply in debt but with the opportunity to both increase their income and reduce their expenditures would most certainly adopt an approach including both. Unfortunately, Republicans choose to follow their written pledges given to no-tax gurus without regard to what the future may hold or what may be the critical needs of this country. 

In my opinion, the future of America is certainly not just “my way” but certainly should be “our way.”

Election Bullies

If you have a television set, you could not have missed the almost non-stop commercials attacking Mike “Tuffy” Hamilton. What’s happening to Tuffy is an example of legislative/lobbyist bullying.

Tuffy is an affable, East Texas boy with seniority in the Texas House of Representatives, respected by his peers and chair of one of the major committees. He is being attacked mainly by special interests for the sin of standing by his constituents.

In short, what this campaign is about is money and power. The Texans for Lawsuit Reform, (TLR) who have dropped millions in numerous races around the state, want to make an example of Tuffy for not having marched to the beat of their drummer. The critical vote in this case was the vote on whether to protect insurance companies or Tuffy’s constituents.

The Texas Windstorm Pool (TWIA) is an agency created to allow insurance carriers who offer homeowner insurance to escape the threat or risk of insuring homes against storm losses. Prior to the recent session of the Legislature, an investigation revealed the corruption and incompetence of the Texas Windstorm Pool. There were payoffs to adjusters, hiring of incompetents, ignoring of pleas from homeowners desperate to have their homes repaired from storm damage, and almost every abuse an insurance adjuster is capable of. Under the leadership of such lobby groups as TLR, instead of holding the managers of Texas Windstorm Pool responsible --and instead of taking insurance companies which fund this association to task-- the Legislature decided to simply insulate this insurer of last resort and reduce their liability while making it harder for homeowners, particularly those in Southeast Texas, to recover from storm damage.

Given a choice, Tuffy had the courage to stand up to this special interest and vote with his constituents. Unfortunately, Tuffy is paying the price of a tough campaign. Because the pro-insurance, anti-lawsuit lobby is so stout in Austin, many of our statewide leaders are afraid to cross them or stand up to them. This is evidenced by the fact that upon their urging, Governor Perry and other statewide elected officials have seen fit to attempt to tell Southeast Texans whom they should vote for in a state representative’s race. This makes the issue crystal clear. Either the people of Southeast Texas in Mike “Tuffy” Hamilton’s district will own a state representative; or the special interest lobby will own one.

To be kind, Mr. White, Tuffy’s opponent, made it extremely clear early after his election that he did not know his way around Austin. Rumor has it Representative White was shocked to learn the salary of a state representative was not the same as a United States congressman. And, his approach to politics appears to be to throw as much mud at Tuffy Hamilton as possible without offering one single solution to the multiple problems faced by the Texas Legislature. We have not heard from Mr. White on how he proposes to adequately fund education, colleges, provide money for new roads and highways in Texas, or deal with the medical needs of older Texans. 

Hopefully, folks here in Southeast Texas will have the sense to not be blinded by non-stop, negative television ads, and will instead consider the merits and reject the lobby idea of the Golden Rule–that is, “He who has the gold will rule.”

Uninformed People Make Uninformed Decisions

Who in their right mind would really want a convicted criminal who falsely claimed to have a college education, lied about his parents, and made up a resume that included hundreds of false claims such as excelling in sports and being an American hero? Even worse, if you could vote for such a person knowing the above bad traits, would you still consider voting for him when you learned he was in prison for threatening his fellow citizens? As I say, I doubt anyone in their right mind would seriously consider having such a person as the leader of the free world and commander-in-chief of our nation’s military.

Recently, the news media made a big to-do over the fact that Russell Judd, a federal inmate, polled 41% in the Democratic primary of West Virginia. The story seemed to imply such a result in that primary was a reflection on President Obama. Unfortunately, it says more about the voters in West Virginia than it does the President.

The lesson to be learned here is that when voters do not pay attention and vote without being well informed, it is possible to make extremely bad choices. I will concede that usually the choices are not bad enough to elect the sort of fellow who ran against Obama in West Virginia, but there are cases where a result almost as bad has occurred. Here in Texas, for example, the electorate selected a person for the Texas Supreme Court who had been involved in a murder plot and who was later discovered to have been nothing more than a criminal.

Unfortunately, the sin of voting while not well informed and failure to pay attention is not limited to the average voter. Members of our own Texas Legislature can, and have, been guilty of equal gullibility or worse. I recall in the 60's a legislative upset which gained quite a bit of publicity throughout the media.

It has always been customary--ever since there has been a state legislature--for members of the House and Senate to pass congratulatory resolutions as a matter of everyday business. This process allows the Legislature to commend or recognize citizens who generally have done good things. Unfortunately, the practice is so common as a part of the daily routine of the Legislature that little attention is paid to the substance of the text and approval is given generally without debate or serious inquiry as to the content of each resolution. In the early 60's, in order to bring focus to the procedure, a legislator from Waco, who was a former district attorney from McLennan County, introduced a resolution commending a gentleman for his efforts at population control. After the resolution had been passed unanimously, signed by the speaker and clerk of the House, it was then revealed to the public that the person being congratulated for his efforts at population control by the House of Representatives of Texas was none other than the Boston Strangler.

The lesson to be learned is almost as simple as legal advice given by lawyers every day to clients who enter into contracts to purchase insurance or who deal with titles to property: Read what you sign. Read what you subscribe to as a part of your belief or statement of fact. The advice is valid, certainly for the voting public.

It takes more than watching the evening news one or two evenings a week. It takes even more than reading regular periodicals such as national magazines or the daily newspaper. To be a good citizen and cast a meaningful vote, one needs to study the day-to-day activities of our government, and to understand the rules of the process and how government works at every level, and then do a close examination of what can be learned of each candidate in order to determine whether or not that candidate is qualified to serve in the office. But more importantly, you need to know whether or not that candidate, if elected, has interests aligned with your own.

All of this is said to make the point that if you wouldn’t vote for a phony, or a criminal convict, then why would you vote for a person who shared little in common with you? or catered to billionaires? or marched to the drum beat of the well-monied special interests?  

IS CLIMATE CHANGE A HOT TOPIC?

Conservative Republicans have been accused of being anti-science. The Texas state education board resists the theory of evolution and insists on equal space in textbooks for religious based theories of the creation of the earth. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has taken the state’s fight against pollution controls calculated to protect the ozone layer and guard against global warming to the federal court system. The lawsuit claims that there is not adequate science to prove global warming and that the EPA has no authority to regulate emissions of CO2.

While on the presidential campaign trail, Governor Perry, when asked about global warming, said there are opposing views in the scientific community concerning climate change, and he further indicated he was very skeptical about whether or not global warming really existed as a result of pollutants in the air.

Frankly, I believe the reason for such conservative opposition to well-established scientific fact lies not so much in disrespect for science, but simply is a money issue. Industry has hired multiple millions of dollars worth of lobbyists. They have recruited some scientists on their payroll to raise serious doubts about climate change or global warming being related to industrial pollution.

One only has to hark back to the nationwide issue related to smoking which went on for several generations. For years the tobacco industry produced scientists to testify solemnly that tobacco smoke was not the cause of medical ailments such as cancer, emphysema and other heart problems. It is almost indisputable today that these protestations from cigarette manufacturers were phony arguments to simply delay the inevitable attack on a very profitable industry.

It seems the same is true with the issue concerning global warming. As long as there is non-acceptance of scientific facts--about increased hurricanes for example, or the risks of doing nothing--as announced by the vast majority of worldwide scientists concerning this issue, there is a political basis for opposing stringent pollution controls on industry. Pollution controls cost industry money, and in turn lessen profits. Unfortunately, the lack of adequate pollution control causes sickness, disease and even death among Americans exposed to such pollutants that fill the air as a result of many industrial endeavors.

I submit the cost of cleaning up industrial emissions pales in comparison to the cost of human misery that uncontrolled emissions bring to us.

It’s time for Americans to wake up to scientific fact and quit buying into conservative politicians’ who are disparaging of citizens concerned with the environment as a bunch of nutty tree huggers.

The New Golden Rule

The United States Supreme Court has endorsed the “new golden rule” of politics. It is “Them 'what has the gold, rules.” Unfortunately, there is a significant number of billionaires in the United States who truly believe, down deep in their hearts, that those with millions of dollars should have a greater say in how this country is run than others.

Multimillionaires like the Koch brothers, Dr. James Leininger of San Antonio, and Bob Perry of Bob Perry Homes in Houston began a few years ago relentlessly to attack anyone who might stand in the way of their greed and to direct legislation enhancing their advantage. Unfortunately, they are, it seems, winning too many of the battles. These folks have already spent over $150 million sorting out the Republican candidate to oppose Barack Obama. You can rest assured that, with the super PACS already being formed by the likes of Karl Rove--Bush’s political guru--and others, over a billion dollars will be spent in an effort to buy the presidency of the United States. 

Millions and millions of dollars have already been spent to intimidate state legislatures and the Congress of the United States to avoid control of corporate pollution which causes cancer and other health problems, to keep the price of pharmaceutical drugs higher in the United States than in any other nation in the world, and to make sure injured people do not have the right that is guaranteed them, by the Constitution of the United States, to a jury trial by their peers.

If you believe money does not make a difference in politics, I would like to sell you some submerged land out South of Chambers County.

One only has to look back to the election between John Kerry and George Bush for proof of what money can do. Eighty-year old Harold Simmons of Dallas boasts of having spent $2.8 million to help finance the “Swift Boat” attack on John Kerry. If you will recall, it was a remorseless attack by a small group of people that managed to convince too many Americans that John Kerry’s military record was a fabrication. A look backward to the real facts of the situation now reveals most of the doubts cast on John Kerry’s military record were phony. Made up. A deliberate sham.

On the other hand, George Bush’s history of avoiding the draft in order to stay away from Vietnam was largely ignored. Not only does it appear George Bush used his father’s political influence to get into the Texas National Guard, but he even dodged his commitment to fly the military jets that were part of his home service defending Texas and Alabama.

If you really stop to think about it, how ridiculous is it that a real, honest-to-God hero--who actually got shot at in combat—was somehow deprecated as less than the military man he was, serving during a war in defense of his country, while a privileged high-ranking politician’s son with a disgraceful record became revered and elected as commander-in-chief of our nation’s military. 

 

Such a thing could not have happened without Harold Simmons’ $2.8 million and the large contributions of other fat cats interested in buying the presidency.

Harold Simmons has only been encouraged by past success. He now boasts that he is willing to spend what it will take to defeat President Obama in the coming election…and he has already given $15 million to try and do just that.