Posted last Saturday on Hugh Hewitt's blog:

****************************
Hugh,

This will prove to be an interesting look at a very complicated topic - again, you jump to the head of the pack in using new media to illuminate the world around us.

However - several questions come to mind as you begin this process....

I am a dyed in the wool Republican, conservative, pro-business person. Philosophically, I do believe in the rights of individual property owners to manage their land. I do believe that small government is generally better than big government. I do also believe that legislatures like big government more than they like small government, for a whole variety of reasons. And - I believe gov't regulations in general can have the effect of adding significantly to the cost of finished products and services (SOX being an excellent example).

I will also stipulate that conservatives in general are more likely to hold Christian beliefs, or be more likely to adhere to what would be considered "traditional" Christian values.

Having said all of that - I find it curious that whenever land preservation/endangered species/no-growth topics come onto the table, there is almost a complete and utter lack of interest in discussing the concept of what I will call "good stewardship."

In my view, as Christians, we are responsible for being "good stewards" of what God has given us - whether it is the land we own, the food we eat, the activities we enjoy, the animals we share the planet with, etc.

A central argument (as best I can tell, not being a lawyer) in these endangered species cases is that private landowners are in a better position to manage their lands than the government.

I would disagree - private landowners will do what is in 'their' best interests (again, completely in line with the "original sin" concept of humanity's selfishness), regardless of whether it constitutes "good stewardship." In many cases, this is fine - farmers understand the need to keep the land productive, for example.

However, I would also stipulate that the short term dramatically outweighs the long term for these folks. Using fertilizer on farm fields is a great idea...more corn, etc. However, when nitrates from years of fertilizer usage start showing up in the ground water that supplies the farm's wells...the short term has just come back to haunt the family that has to drink that water in the long term (or spend the money necessary to remove the nitrates).

Not all land needs to be developed, not all ski resorts "must" be built, not all condo complexes are entitled to be established in the middle of a pristine wilderness. (I know we are not speaking of an actual resort, but I'm using that as an example).

Hip, hip, hooray for all of our modern conveniences - hot showers, speedy cars, wireless internet connections, foamy lattes, fresh food, etc. I enjoy all of them and more.

But - we can't ignore the fact that all of these conveniences do require an incredible amount of infrastructure to support. And, yes, hooray for humanity's ingenuity to create and maintain that infrastructure - and for our ability to lower the footprint of that infrastructure over time (i.e., manufacturing process today vs. 100 years ago). But, still - 300 million people take (literally) ton of hot showers and produce tons of garbage. It all had to be dealt with somehow.

Since reducing the amount of garbage my family puts into a landfill is an act of good stewardship, I recycle. It also reduces the amount of infrastructure (albeit by a tiny, tiny amount) we use. Now that "green" products are rising in popularity, recycling is becoming more economical - and is becoming a money-making proposition in some industries. Groovy. Go forth and recycle those PC's for money...but don't forget that it's also good stewardship to not throw them away in a landfill. (And yes, I know that some companies are shipping those products to be recycled overseas with all of the attendant dangers to the local populace).

When we are financially able to buy a new car, I want to find one that is a year or two old, which gets much better gas millage than we get now - also an act of good stewardship (as well as a tiny impact of reducing our dependence on foreign oil).

So, help me understand why the wolverine has to be sacrificed so some clueless millionaire can build his condo/ski complex in the heart of a pristine wilderness in Northern California? I've missed how that is an act of good stewardship....

Aside from the wolverine as a species, and value of undeveloped wilderness in and of itself (a concept increasingly marginalized by our urban populace), the new infrastructure demands needed by this imagined resort would be enormous. It's not easy removing waste from a mountainous region, nor is it easy to get utilities up there. The use of gas to get users up there (cars and planes), the need to truck in food, the energy to run the place...etc.

All this is OK, just because the private property owner wants it?

Frankly, the endangered species act, the clean water acts, and the clean air acts have made our country a much cleaner, healther, and pleasant place to live - yes, with all of the attendant costs associated with their implementation.

My father worked for a utility company, so I can tell you all about the associated costs with attempting to reduce acid rain, use clean burning coal from Wyoming (we lived in IL), etc. I get that.

But - the fact of the matter remains that it is far better to have the clean water that we enjoy, the cleaner air we breathe (and reduced health care costs) and the bald eagles soaring along the rivers here in Minnesota (thanks to the gov't banning DDT years ago)....all due to government intervention.

Private land and business owners would NEVER have implemented those measures voluntarily. Never.

Look at the Amazon rain forest - small, private landowners are cutting the forest to clear it for fields/farming/cattle grazing...and yet aside from the enormous impact the rain forest has on our climate (you don't have to believe in man-made global warming to appreciate the impact large swaths of the earth's surfaces have on our climate) it's clear that the Amazon contains vast potential to help humanity develop new drugs and treatments for disease. Not to mention the possibilities provided by eco-tourism, rather than farming, for communities to sustain themselves. Again, short term vs. long term benefits. The individual cattle rancher is happy, but the cancer patients around the world that could benefit from the drugs hiding there are just s.o.l., eh?

So, Hugh, I look forward to your tale. But, I'd love to hear more intelligent discussion of this issue of "good stewardship" along with all the typical, tedious gov't bashing that is sure to occur.

I just posted a comment over at Hugh Hewitt's blog about the John Kerry gaffe - think it's worth reposting over here....



"Is that a plank in your eye my friends?"

No plank here - just watching the fireworks. I still find it so hard to believe that almost 50% of our country's citizens thought John Kerry had any sort of qualification to be President of the United States of America. How breathtakingly lucky we were to elect George Bush.

I served in the Air Force for 8 years as an intelligence officer - and I assure you that the men and women I had working for me were some of the most intelligent and capable people I've EVER worked with ...even though I started serving in the military over 20 years ago (gad, that's hard to believe!).

I had no particular opinion about John Kerry until he ran for president - but when the Swifties made their claims, I sat up and took notice. Thank God for the Internet. I dug into their claims, read Kerry's officer evaluation reports (which his campaign itself posted on their web site, and with the ability to read between the lines as you do with all officer evaluation reports), and basically came to the conclusion that Kerry was a pathetic excuse for an officer.

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter if your enlisted troops think you walk on water - the opinions that count are those of your fellow officers, and most especially your superior officers. Those are the people that determine if you get promoted - and if they think you're a poor excuse for an officer...guess what...you're a poor excuse of an officer.

Enlisted people, particularly at lower levels, are not always in a position to know how well an officer has followed the orders of those above - or know why a particular order was given. So, telling me his enlisted troops didn't have a negative view of him is not particularly enlightening.

But as the poster above noted, it takes quite a bit of work to make your fellow OFFICERS despise you. And for the anger to burn white hot after 30 years...yowser! The guy was more than just a screw up - he did things that made people put their names and reputations on the line over a quarter century later.

That was enough for me - the 1971 testimony, his characterizations of soldiers before Congress...it was all just icing on the cake.

At NO point in the subsequent 30 years has Kerry EVER demonstrated that he learned from his experiences, regretted anything he said...at no point has he demonstrated that he has grown as a human being. That's the scary part.

He has NOTHING to show for his tenure in congress, no job or career accomplishments, a troubled family life...a rather sad little man in reality - deeply embittered by the country's refusal to grant him the one job he desperately believes should be his by fiat.

He views the world through the lens of a liberal anti-war crusader - not quite able to believe that there are large numbers of people who despise him (read: Islamic fundamentalists, not Republicans) and who won't join his "can't we all just get along" internal chant.

And the the psychological projection is quite amazing.

He might have MEANT to disparage President Bush, but instead sticks his foot in his mouth about the United States military - who are engaged in a battle of literally good vs. evil, fighting to protect the Senator's right to be both stupid AND incompetent.

While he might not have MEANT to insult the troops - he most surely did. Good. It shows more of his character (or lack thereof) that the mainstream media has tried so desperately to cover up.

(I guess to know what he really meant, you need to know what the meaning of is, is.)

AND - it speaks volumes that one of the two major parties in this country thought that he was fit to be the Commander in Chief of this country - or that he could possibly be a viable candidate in the future. It's quite literally unbelievable.

Pass the popcorn. I think we'll see a second act before this is all over.

MJ: I find I have a (very) small bone to pick with the BlogFather...

It is a good think Rep. Foley resigned, but I will not feel better if his actions turn out to involve 18 year-olds, versus 16 year-olds.

I am so very tired of reading about people's sex lives - virtual or real. I am tired of hearing it presented as fabulous, or glamorous, or even interesting. Am I the only one to think that the increasingly public nature of human sexuality is fueling the need for people to find more and more deviant images or experiences to supposedly satisfy themselves?

I have been physically ill reading the details of the Amish murderer's intent - please stop already! Why did the Fox news reporters on last night have to keep telling us what he brought with him and what he planned to do with those items? Stomach-turning.

It will be a blessing if none of the Amish families read the newspapers or watch TV...they will be spared the daily assault of details.

The paper this morning had a half-page article full of Instant Message details between Foley and his apparent targets. Disgusting. The targets of Foley's messages, whether 16 or 18 might be young, but they didn't sound naive. They sounded hesitant, but not horrified. They clearly wanted to keep their parents from knowing what was up. Doesn't that sadden anyone else but me?

And what, it's shocking if a 16 year old participates in one of these online chats, but as a parent you would welcome the news that your 25 year old was involved? Where's the line between "consenting adults" and "jail bait?" Come on.

And what's with the left's hypocrisy on this - isn't it clear from the IM messages that these are just young gay men "finding themselves?" Would it be less shocking if the IM's were from a 30 year old to a 25 year old? Not to me - the content would be gross no matter what the ages of the people involved.

This is what people want to do with their Internet freedoms? Ick. If I never read another blog post, web site or news story about people's sexual proclivities it would be fabulous. Unfortunately, the stories do act like car crashes...you are drawn to watch because you don't see twisted metal and broken glass every day. At least I don't.

I've seen snippets of what's out there on the Internet. I know people's sex lives make for fabulous Internet revenue, etc., etc, etc. But what I've seen is comparable to a Playboy magazine - bad enough, but not really disgusting. I know there's worse out there and I don't want the details.

But I think yesterday's article on Pennsylvania might have been the one that inoculates against further exposure. For the rest of the day I deliberately avoided any stories that mentioned what happened, and I turned the channel when the news was on.

Is this what the majority of my fellow Americans are doing when they're home at night? For this you need broadband?

It will be difficult to both avoid and keep up with the story (help me fellow bloggers), but I am waiting to see if it turns out that the Pennsylvania murderer was an Internet devotee. I've become convinced in the last few years that one reason we've seen an increase in violence and depraved behavior is because on the Internet you can find any group of people to support and encourage you in any type of sickness you can imagine.

Hugh, to answer your question from the other day on the show...that's one of the reasons he did what he did. He could. He was supported in "creating his own reality" and all that rot. Even if he never accessed a pedofiliac-supporting web site or chat room...it's all around, it's in the air.

And, certain political groups seen quite confused when it comes to sexuality.  It's good to let it all hang out, get rid of your outdated beliefs, do your own thing....oh wait...not with the minors around. Huh?

The left dominates the media, the music industry, publishing - the major organs of popular culture. Target carries clothes that make 8 year olds look like hookers...the MTV has music videos on that would make a sailor blush...popular music is full of references to 'ho's'...all of these are tools to reach minors and sexualize their lives and the world they live in. Who is surprised when some people try to act out what they have seen or heard virtually. It's infuriating whether it's targeting a 10 year old, a 20 year old, a 30 year old...or older.

Foley is just the latest example of a person using sexuality to attempt to fill some deep-seated emptiness inside. What he did was disgusting and I'm glad he's gone. I'd prefer it if he just barricaded himself in a rock cave for the rest of his life and never saw the light of day. But, I give it 3 months tops and he'll be the latest Oprah guest moaning and whining about his "addiction", or his "confusion" or his "history."

Stuff it already. If I never have to hear his name again it will be too soon. Those of you who will go from reading this to surfing racy web sites - just stop it. Quit. Walk away and go find some reality worth experiencing. If you have to use the Internet to jump-start your life...you need help. Search for "mental health services" and make the call.

The rest of you who feel compelled to keep waving your enlightenment in our faces - stick it back inside already. Enough is enough.

UPDATE: Townhall doesn't seem very link/trackback-friendly if I try to link to Hugh's post. I'll keep working on it - if anyone has a better tech solution, let me know....

Not that it will do any good what so ever...but I couldn't help posting the following on the Minneapolis Star Tribune's blog in response to Eric Black's request for feedback on his lame Wetterling/ad story this morning:

I’m sorry Eric, I must have you confused with a journalist. A journalist would work a lot harder than you’ve done to dig into the story, and present the “facts” in as unbiased a way as possible. Since you work for the Star Tribune it’s clear that neither you nor they take “journalism” seriously.

The “facts” of the Foley situation contine to be unclear - but as of today, there is no indication that Foley molested one child, much less “children”. As noted above, he’s a disgusting person - but so far there is no clear evidence of either molestation or a cover up.

I’ve always felt sorry for Patty Wetterling and what her family experienced at the lose of her son. No mother, no family should ever have to experience such pain. She most certainly has the right to run for office - as does any American citizen.

But the fact that she has suffered such a loss, and that fact that she is running as a Democrat is no excuse for such pathetic reporting.

She now has 2 ads running that contain demonstrable falsehoods (the Foley ad and the ad claiming Bachman wants a 20-something tax increase)…and yet your paper sees nothing wrong with this. At least not wrong enough to say anything. What’s up with that? As a journalist, aren’t you ashamed of your low standards? Or is being part of the ‘home team’ for the DFL enough to make up for it?

If the facts come out that support the supposition that the GOP house leadership did in fact “cover up” what happened, then off with their heads politically.

But we’re not at that point right now. Finger-pointing and press conferences do not in and of themselves constitue “facts.”

If Wetterling herself thought of or encouraged these messages it would indicate a serious lack of character and judgement - which we don’t need more of in Congress.

If her staff or media consultants pushed her into approving the ads (which is my guess) it indicates another kind of weakness which also does not bode well for a member of Congress.

Say anything as long as you say it loud enough and no one questions you. Hummm…tell me again what the role of the Star Triune is in this campaign season?

MJ: If gas prices over $3.00 a gallon are George Bush's fault (an eeeevil Rovian plot, of course)...then what does gas under $2.50 a gallon mean?

What's that you say? It's the President reining in the greedy oil companies?

Uh no.

Some type of jamming device used between the White House command post and individual gs stations?

Sorry - (it does sound ridiculous, doesn't it?)

Ed at Captain's Quarters has a great post regarding *gasp* the economic forces that govern the price of commodoties. Yes Virginia, oil is a commodity responding to the law of supply and demand. How disappointing it can't be blamed on certain individuals in key White House positions.

MJ:  Watched most of the first part of the Path to 9/11 on ABC last night (I was playing hockey and missed the first hour). The part that I did see was very well done - and I found myself making some observations:

 
I thought seeing the Islamic terrorists/fundamentalists/fascists (take your pick) was chilling. The terrorist camps, the rugged landscape – even the Toyota trucks and SUVs…I thought it was gripping television. I particularly noticed a scene at one of the terrorist camps, which flashed by briefly. In the midst of this barbaric environment the camera passes by a table of computers. The contrast between the primitive environment and the sophistication required to use the Internet and a computer was rather stunning.

 The production values were excellent, and created a mood of serious contemplation. It was clear that the network spent serious money on a serious program – which was refreshing.

 Despite all of the controversy surrounding what was left in the program...and what was removed…it was a powerful indictment of government inaction. I didn’t see tonight’s program, so maybe the Bush administration came in for the same type or amount of criticism – which wouldn’t bother me.

As to the charge that the Clintonistas screamed and moaned to get the attention of the Bush administration as to the seriousness of terrorism - uh, yea. I guess that was part of all those "welcome" parties they threw for the Bushies.

For another thing - the government of the United States is one big, hulking monster. To imply that a new department secretary or undersecretary could grap hold of a department of tens of thousands of people,  crack the whip and get all the people running in the same direction (think: the chariot scene in Ben Hur) in days or weeks...well, you clearly haven't been part of any organization larger than a coffee shop (and just think how tough it is to change lemon bar providers in that outfit, eh?).

It would have taken months to figure out where the spare pens were stored, much less totally refocus all of the department's employees on this specific issue.

Quite frankly, with the exception of selected government, military and intelligence members (as profiled in the program last night)…NOBODY CARED! Threats were always overseas –happening to people not like us – in places we don’t know (or care) much about – not here in the United States. I remember my husband calling me 5 years ago with news of what happened. Like so many others, my first thought was ‘small plane’. But, once I turned on the TV and saw both towers burning – no way. It was immediately obvious that we had been attacked. My first thought was “OK, here we go. Wonder if we’re ready?”

 I can see how many in the Clinton administration would be upset at the portrayal – it does not paint them in a very good light. However, I think it’s also realistic they were concerned with reactions on Capitol Hill. 20/20 hindsight is always a gift. Congressional members on both sides of the aisle waste no time in strutting for the microphone or camera when the mood strikes.

 The best line of the movie was of course “are there no men in Washington? Or are they all cowards?” It’s clear what the answer was during the Clinton administration. Leadership often means taking unpopular or difficult positions – which they were consistently unable to do. And Capitol Hill bears part of the blame.

 However, it isn’t fair to blame all of this on the Clinton administration. When Reagan cut and ran from Lebanon after the bombing of the marine barracks – notice was carefully taken. No administration fully grasped the nature of the threat - perhaps because we as citizens lacked the ability to grapple with what we were facing. Those administrations simply reflected what we ourselves failed to grasp.

 With so many others, I am thankful that it is George Bush at the helm of our country during this difficult time. Whatever mistakes have been made, at least they are taking the ball and running down the field. Movement and action, versus uncertainty and fear, is the way to go against these terrorists. God bless our president and the people who work with him.

MJ:  Here's a good dinner table conversation starter -

For those people who were not opposed to going into Iraq - why are you now so frustrated that our soldiers have been there for more than 6 months? Why does it bother you that it's been 4 years? Do you have some mental timetable that's been exceeded, and if so...where did that timetable come from?

Why do you think it's supposed to be "easy" or "complete" by now?

Conversations around the dinner table are more fun when there's more than one person at the table! My sister and I have great chats over the cell phones and in person...when we can be in town together. Online might be a little more of a challenge...but we're going to do our best.  Maybe we'll even include a recipe or two as a break in the conversation.  Besides, it woudn't be a dinner table without food!  

To keep our voices straight, we will post under two different tags, MJ for sister Jane and ushr435 for sister Kate.  Feel free to join in on the converstion if, and whenever you would like.  Or, if you would like to sit for a spell at our table, that's just fine. 

My brother, sister and I grew up with many a family dinner held at our dining room table, seasoned with wonderful conversations. Our parents, and particularly our father, helped us learn to think more deeply about issues...practice good conversation skills...and learn patience with the other diners around the table.

We explored politics, religion, education, careers and culture...along with events of the day and a wide range of interesting topics. If the Internet had been around in the 70's, I'm sure it would have provided fertile ground for our conversations, but we managed to do just fine with television and the newspaper...not to mention our own experiences...as the jumping off points.