Retrofitting

A recent project of the Clinton Foundation has been facilitating the Retrofitting of the Empire State Building. For those unfamiliar, retrofitting is the process used to make buildings built generations ago far more energy efficient. The environmental benefits, such as lower greenhouse gases, make this worthwhile. Buildings use most energy in cities, where most people live. 

In addition to the benefits environmentally, the financial aspects make a strong case for this to happen more often. Initially, there are the jobs created to actually make the renovations. This is short term work, but will create a small stimulus and put some people to work. The retrofit of the Empire State Building is an estimated $20 million job that will give a savings of $4.4 million dollars per year once completed. These savings can allow the occupants of the building to invest their energy savings in new employees, creating jobs. Retrofitting is a genuine stimulus plan. It creates jobs that will funnel money into the economy. 

The Obama administration has proposed using stimulus money to retrofit buildings, a project worth consideration. While some of the jobs created by these efforts will be short term positions, they create opportunities for some to work, an opportunity many are desperate for these days.

What if?

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has found herself in the midst of some controversy in recent weeks for what appears to be a pretty clear case of dishonesty. She took to the podium with cameras on last week and accused the CIA of misleading her about their intention to waterboard suspected terrorists in 2002. She suggests that she did not know and was never informed of the interrogation tactics that were used and approved by the Bush administration. 

It's curious to me that she makes these statements in light of comments made by Porter Goss (CIA chief after George Tenet) and Leon Panetta (strong Democrat and current head of the CIA) that indicate that not only did Pelosi know about interrogation techniques, she did not raise objections when they were presented. 

Nancy Pelosi has gone so far as to suggest those who conducted these interrogations, which they were ordered to do, be prosecuted for their actions. Such a move would jeopardize so many who risk their lives to collect the intelligence our nation needs to fight terrorism. This move is a breach of our national security interest. 

Blatant dishonesty, coupled with such suggestions as prosecution are not appropriate for someone who plays such a significant role in governance of the United States. Nancy Pelosi has made significant errors in the past week. Could it be that she agreed with President Bush in 2002? 

I cannot help but wonder, would the media be in more of an uproar if Sarah Palin were dishonest? I cannot count myself among the fans of Governor Palin, yet, I cannot help but think of the media coverage of her daughter's relationship or her pending book deal. If the Governor of Alaska was found to be dishonest, would the media call for her resignation? Fill the airwaves with more bad press? 

It looks like a double standard to me...........

A reversal of positions

Friday afternoon, the Obama administration announced they would restart military tribunals for the detainees from Guantanamo Bay. This is a move away from earlier rhetoric by the President, and may extend the time the prison remains open. He has made a change, these trials will not include anything that was obtained while inmates were under duress. Yet, the fact remains that military tribunals, once shunned by the administration, will go on for 13 suspected terrorists, and it is very likely Guantanamo Bay will continue to be open after January 1. 

241 detainees will be released, tried in US courts, set to other nations (France has agreed to take 1), or held indefinitely as prisoners of war. 

There are quite a few questions that arise from these developments:

- What nations are going to take some of the 241 detainees? While the French have agreed to take 1, other nations seemed to walk away from the idea recently. 

- If we try some in US courts, and they are found guilty, where do they go? If they are found not guilty because of the new evidence rules (I'm assuming they will be put in place with the military tribunals as well as American courts) are they going to be released in the United States? Sent back to their homelands?

- Where are those who end up being held indefinitely going to actually be held? 

- While the evidence rules have changed, how different is this policy from what we saw under the Bush administration? 

The question of what to do with over 250 detainees who have expressed hatred of America and stated their desire to hurt citizens is no easy one to answer. This is not a case that has a quick fix. The President, who the media told us transcended politics, must make tough decisions on the matter. We must hope he makes the correct choices.

This is not the time to be swayed by polls, supporters, or media reports that have sensationalized some of the details of Guantanamo Bay. This situation is too important to consider anything above the safety and security of the United States, and the impact this decision will have on future cases of suspected terrorists. 

Sports on a Thursday

A simple question today - what's more exciting that Game 7 of a very good playoff series? 

As I type, watching the Wings and Ducks, I cannot imagine anything in sports that is more exciting that seeing two teams, regardless of which sport they happen to play, perform at a high level with an entire season on the line.

A Pet Peeve

Stepping away from current events for a personal rant this evening.

I don't think anything bothers me more than the use of cell phones at inappropriate times. While the rise of the cell phone has plenty of positives, such as use in emergencies or connecting people in ways that were once unheard of, there are too many instances of people using them at inopportune times. 

The other day I stood behind someone in line at the gas station. As the person paid for their fuel and bought a soda, he continued a conversation on his cell phone. The only time he broke the exchange with whoever was on the other end of the phone was to order the young lady working behind the counter to grab a pack of cigarettes for him. Such behavior, in my view, diminishes the person standing before the man enraptured in his cell phone discussion. Was the person on the other end of the line so much more important than the one standing before him? He could not have called back from outside? Without so much as a smile or a thank you, he turned, walked from the gas station without so much as an acknowledgement of the people around him. 

This is not the first time I've seen such conduct. It happens everywhere you look these days. Humans disregarding one another to continue conversations with someone miles away. Couples ignore one another in cars, even people sitting at the same lunch table cannot seem to interrupt their calls. 

Technology advances our society - that said, I cannot help but worry that the increased communication with those who we enjoy speaking to robs us of chances to meet new people and does nothing but dehumanize others when we cannot pull ourselves away. 

It's election day, where are the voters?

"No taxation without representation!" 

This call, familiar to anyone who has studied the American Revolution, characterized the stance the colonists took against the British monarchy in 1775 as fighting broke out in Lexington and Concord. Farmers, artisans, blacksmiths, and many others banded together to fight for a voice in government. Literally, men and women gave up their lives to win a right so many take for granted today. 

Just as critical to the world we live in today is the struggle of women, through the suffrage movement, to gain their right to vote. Women were imprisoned, attacked, and even killed to gain the opportunity to have their voices heard on election day. The right to vote for women came in 1920 - less than 100 years ago. 

Each of us, as citizens, has the opportunity to vote to elect our leaders. This action, especially in local elections, takes no more than a few minutes and requires very little effort when you consider media coverage of candidates. These facts make news today quite disheartening.

After a year of scandal, voters in Detroit have the chance to elect a new mayor and move their city to a new beginning. It's hard to fathom that headlines this morning indicate that voter turnout will be a new all-time low. The winner of the race between Dave Bing and Ken Cockrel will have the opportunity to work on securing a new deal for Cobo, improving the image of a city that has been tarnished, and working to repair a budget that has spun out of control. As polling places remain open, I cannot help but wonder why more people do not take advantage of the right won so many years ago by so many brave men and women. While the election between Cockrel and Bing will only appoint someone for the short-term, it will make a difference. 

Elections are what make us a republic. It's a shame more people don't value the opportunity.