Bush's Energy Policy

February 1st. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

In his State of the Union Address President Bush made an eloquent but incomplete plea for reform in our energy policy (New York Times, February 1st, 2006; page A1.
The question is whether we can believe him.
In his Jackson Square speech of September 15th 2005, President Bush said: "there's also some deep, persistent poverty in this region, as well. That poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action. So let us restore all that we have cherished from yesterday, and let us rise above the legacy of inequality."
What in the intervening four months has the Bush administration done to relieve poverty in New Orleans or elsewhere (except among the hyper-rich)?
Is it that Mr. Bush is merely a man of fine words, or is he unable to bring the Congress along with him?
In either case, I remain skeptical that there will be any change in our disastrous energy policy.

January 23rd. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

I hope that Professor Laurence Tribe invented the anecdote reported in today's column by Bob Herbert in the New York Times (Page A23):
Laurence Tribe said: "I recently got a series of e-mails from someone, quite without invitation, that got rather scary in the sense that they started saying positive things about Osama Ben Laden. I asked the person in reply to stop e-mailing me, and I got an e-mail today saying 'Your request is permanently granted.'  But in the meantime, granted or not granted, that could easily put me on some kind of targeting list."
If the anecdote is true then I am appalled that someone of Professor Tribe's stature, University Professor of Law at Harvard, would be cowed by the fear of being on an Administration watch list. The correct response surely is: "Bring 'em on!"
Surely an Administration that is so inept as to target Professor Tribe has completely lost touch with reality. But we really must resist, not succumb to the Administration's unconstitutional activities. We must remember Martin Niemöller's lament (in my updated form):

• First they came for the enemy combatants, and I did not speak out -- because I was neither an enemy nor a combatant; 
• Then they came for those seeking or providing abortions, and I did not speak out -- because I neither sought nor provided abortions; 
• Then they came for the Muslims, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Muslim; 
• Then they came for the gays and lesbians, and I did not speak out -- because I was neither a gay nor a lesbian; 
• Then they came for the buyers and borrowers of books, and I did not speak out - because I neither bought nor borrowed a book; 
• Then they came for the e-mailers and bloggers, and I did not speak out -- because I was neither an e-mailer nor a blogger
• Then they came for the remaining non-Christians; and I did not speak out because I was not a non-Christian; 
• Then they came for the non-Evangelicals, and I did not speak out -- because I was not a non-Evangelical; 
• Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak out for me.

I hope this e-mail letter does not increase the New York Times' risk of being on a watch list.
Full Disclosure: In fact, I am a borrower and buyer of books, I am a blogger and an e-mailer, and I am a non-Evangelical Christian

Questions for Judge Alito

January 11th. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

Judge Alito, you said that your comment that the "constitution does not protect the right to an abortion" was made in the context of seeking a political job in the Reagan administration. With the implication that you were saying what your potential employer wanted to hear. You are now applying for a different job. Are you saying what you think we want to hear rather than what you believe?

Machete Budget

January 2nd. 2006
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

In his Jackson Square speech of September 115th 2005, President Bush said: "there's also some deep, persistent poverty in this region, as well. That poverty has roots in a history of racial discrimination, which cut off generations from the opportunity of America. We have a duty to confront this poverty with bold action. So let us restore all that we have cherished from yesterday, and let us rise above the legacy of inequality."
Just exactly how do the Budget proposals of the House and Senate (Bob Herbert, The Machete Budget, January 2nd 2006, A17) help us to rise above that legacy of inequality? The Budget goes in the opposite direction with its cuts in Medicare, Student Assistance, Support for Families, and delays in Social Security Assistance.
The President, if he is a man of his word rather than a man who merely says fine words, will veto any Budget that does not lead in the direction of poverty reduction.

Healthcare meltdown

John McDonough (Globe, December 27th, 2005. page A 15) does not really offer any alternatives to the current system except to say that people favor a "shared solution involving government, individuals and employers."

Why should employers be involved? Why shouldn't decent health care be an entitlement for every person in Massachusetts (and even America)?



The solution should lie with government and with individuals through the tax system. The income tax should be increased from 5.3% of income to 20.3% of income with the extra 15% being used to buy health insurance for every resident of Massachusetts, employed and unemployed, income tax payer and those too poor to pay income tax. That should be revenue neutral because current insurance fees, as Mr McDonough correctly pointed out, cover the costs of providing health care for the uninsured as well as for the insured.



The burden of health insurance will be taken away from the responsible employers and they will enjoy a level playing field with their less responsible competitors. And that has to be good for the Massachusetts economy

Impeach the President

December 20th. 2005
Sent to but not published in the Boston Herald

The President has violated the law. The President has made a large number of disastrous decisions. The only way to prevent future problems is to impeach the President.

Do it now.

Rationale for War

December 19th. 2005
Sent to but not published in the New York Times

The President in his recent speech claimed that Iraq was a threat to America prior to the invasion even if there were no weapons of mass destruction and even if there was no link between Iraq and the terrorists..



I don't understand. There were no weapons of mass destruction. There was no link to the terrorists. So where was the threat? Will someone please explain.