drtennis’s whereIstand Blog

There is a vast amount of oil underneath this refuge. Why haven’t we drilled there up until now?

It appears that the major objection has come from environmentalists. Politicians have been unwilling to risk the wrath of this pressure group, by even having an honest and open dialogue.

Here are the facts as I understand them. The pool of oil is vast, yet it underlies only a small portion of ANWR. Today,s state of the art drilling techniques, would enable the extraction from miles around by disturbing only a fraction of the surface with drilling rigs. Kind of like arthoscopic surgery on people. The radical environmentalists claim that even this slight damage to the land, could be harmful to wildlife. I am reminded of the much more disruptive building of the Alaska pipeline. Dire warnings were issued about the adverse effects on animals. The later photos of caribou nestling comfortably against the warm pipeline, completely dispelled these doomsday predictions.

Our economy need more oil at reasonable prices. Any steps that we can take to help loosen the grip of mid-east sheiks and tyrants on our wallets, should be pursued with vigor. 

                                 Dick Brooks

Although the question states U.S., it will be private companies, not the government, that will do the drilling. In this geographic area, the oil company would likely be Chevron. This is the company that found the most recent location of oil deposirs. Drilling is not easy and is expensive at the depth where discovered. We are talking nearly a mile and a half down! However, at the current price level of oil, the cost is feasible profit-wise.

We need to keep in mind that, if we don’t expand drilling in the Gulf, other countries are going to be drawn to the potential.

Critics say that the U.S. needs to focus on developing sources of energy other than fossil fuels. This is a poor argument since the options are not mutually exclusive. We need both. We also need action, rather than the rhetoric we have been getting from politicians for several decades. The politicians also need to have the guts to stand up to environmental extremists, who have no concern for the health of our economy.

It is reasonable to assume that the increase in revenues, both profits and taxes, from an expanding economy, will be used, in part, to help fund research into alternative energy.

                                        Dick Brooks

I do not believe that it is appropriate, to have specific courses on the Bible, in public schools. It is not because I fear violation of the constitutional clause, concerning establishment of religion, but rather that I do not believe that school teachers are equipped  to handle this area of instruction. Nor should they be, since this is the domain of the local church.

Having said that, in my opinion, the Bible should be covered in the public schools because it has such a great impact on human life. Not to mention the Bible would be almost censorship of a vital aspect of the human condition.

The Bible would have a logical place in the teaching of such subjects as history, anthropology, philosophy, and literature. In each of these disciplines, the context would be in comparison with other views, cultures, and ways of thinking. For example, many segments of the Bible are examples of beautiful literature standing alone.

If we accept the premise that ours is a theistic nation, then the morality of the Bible can be discussed without denominational bias. The Founding Fathers conceived our nation to be under the hand of God. Our founding document, The Declaration of Independence is replete with words such as Nature’s God, Creator, Supreme Judge of the world, and divine Providence. The point is that the great moral truths of the Bible should not be banished from the classroom. Fr example, the Decalogue, addressed to Jews and Christians, contains principles for living the good life, that even non-believers acknowledge.

The answer to the issue question is yes, but not as separate courses, per se.

This is a reasonable question, since the present policy induces good teachers to leave the system for more rewarding jobs elsewhere. At the same time, it motivates mediocre teachers to continue where they are. Surely our children deserve the best teachers available.

There are a number of objections raised to the idea of merit pay. How can we fairly determine which teachers perform the best? Do we use tests, evaluations by superiors, degrees achieved, grades of students, etc.? Admittedly, each of the above has weaknesses. But good teachers stand out in a way that is apparent to the students themselves. Business firms have no difficulty in recognizing achievment.

Another objection is, who makes the decision, and how do we eliminate bias and favoritism?  This is a legitimate concern, but again, how do corporations surmount these problems in granting merit increases and bonuses

There are other objections, but most of them seem to be straw men. The underlying major objection, in my opinion, is that it undercuts the power of the teachers unions. When we realize this fact, the opposition to many educational advances, including merit pay, becomes clear. The question may fairly be raised, are the techers unions primarily interested in improving the quality of education, or in self-aggrandizement?

Teachers should be rewarded on merit, just like any group of professionals.

                               Dick Brooks

There are at least five areas in which government policy has a definite effect on the US stock market? While the stock market, when it operates honestly, can be said to be a free market, based on supply and demand, it is only free within the investment environment influenced greatly by Washington.

First, stock prices are influenced by the bank rate established at periodic meetings of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. In a nutshell, businesses find it less expensive to borrow, or raise capital, for growth, when interest rates are low. This translates into higher profits.

Second, tax rates are a major factor. The capital gains tax rate directly affects business profits, and concommitant stock prices. Tax rates on individuals affect their ability to purchase goods and services from business firms.

Third, regulations are perceived as a drag on business, resulting in lower profits and stock prices.

Fourth, federal electiions impact the market to the extent of the perceived effect of probable new government policies.

Finally, if the government is at an impasse or impotent, uncertainty occurs. The stock market hates uncertainty, which makes it exceedingly difficult for investment analysts to predict future trends. This is reflected in the volatility of stock prices.

With the big government impacting so many aspects of our lives, it is not surprising that it has a major impact on the stock market.

                                     Dick Brooks

Depends on the meaning of the word, should. If it means permitted to be published, the answer is an uneqivocal,  yes. Censorship should not even be considered, boycott, on an individual basis, possibly.

I would hope that no respectable publisher would consider a book like this. However, as I’ve said so many times, follow the money trail. If a money-grubbing publisher thinks the book would be profitable, that clinches it, regardless of how tasteless the whole deal may be.

People, when interviewed, invariably say they would never buy the book. But can we believe them? When we consider the amount of voyeurism, prurient interest, gossip, celebrity worship and frivolous pursuits in the country, I am skeptical that people would not grab the book.

If should means proper, appropriate or the right thing to do, then emphatically this garbage does not deserve to be published. What value would it have? Absolutely none. It sheds no light on the case, other than to confirm the depravity of the perpetrator. Any revenue from such a book, I would hope would go to the Goldmans. The Goldman family, and the Browns, have suffered enough. A book like this just rubs salt in their wounds

At first blush, the answer would seem to be definitely , yes. However, there are problems in blanket application of such a policy.

First, how would an employer know that an employee or an applicant was not heterosexual?  The answer might be because of flaunting the orientation or overt sexual gestures, speech or actions. The point is that these same things in a heterosexual person, would be equally disruptive in the workplace. If an employer were to discipline or fire a homosexual for inappropriate activity, how does the employer protect against charges of discrimination?

Further, there are workplaces where homosexuals would not be appropriate. One would be in churches and other religious organizations, where the practice of homosexuality is considered immoral. Another would be in childrens’ organizations, like the Boy Scouts. Rightly or wrongly, there is the lurking fear of child molestation.

It is unfortunate that such discrimination exists. In fact, homosexuals, as a group, are generally brighter and more productive than mainstream people. Again, it is a matter of keeping sexual orientation private.

I fear the heavy handed regulation of government, yet am very sensitive to the unfair treatment of homosexuals.

                                            Dick Brooks 

Is there too much violence on television? Absolutely! Is there too much violence in real life? Unfortunately, yes! That i s the defense that TV producers offer, that that their art is just mirroring life. If we ask for regulation, are we not asking for censorship?

If the government were to regulate violence, what criteria would they use? Even the childrens’ cartoons are violent. The government, as we realize, is subject to the pressures of special interest groups. The regulators would be subjected to this, and might well bend their standards of judging violence.

As with so many issues, we need to follow the money trail. If the public likes violent TV, those kinds of programs will have good ratings, will draw sponsors, and will make money. How would regulators compromise their standards in the face of commercial pressure?

Finally, there are two types of violence. One is necessary to carry the story line. The other is gratuitous, just added to attract the attention of thrill seekers. The first kind is found in all kinds of stories, from the Bible to cinema. Consider how regulators might evaluate the extreme violence, in the first 20 minutes of  “Saving Private Ryan” , or the unremitting brutality of  ” The Passion of the Christ”. Would the bureaucratic viewpoint eliminate master works like these from television?

My answer is no. Let’s keep the government out of this area.

                                                                  Dick Brooks

The issue question may imply two sub-questions. Shouldn’t the news media concentrate on more substantive matters? Don’t celebrities have a right to their privacy?

News media is a business. Journalists often say they would like to produce work free of the taint of profit. But they can’t. The companies they work for, live or die based on readership and viewers. This leads to the inescapable fact that the media must cater to the wishes of its customers.

I hate to say this, but inexorably, because of the bottom line, the media must appeal to the lowest common denominator. H.L.Mencken cynically said, “no one ever went broke by under-estimating the intelligence of the American public. The American public is fascinated by the antics of celebrities. Covering the personal lives of these creatures has a strong impact on ratings. So in addition to celebrity magazines at check-out counters, we will also learn about the personal antics of these people, in so-called serious journalistic media.

Celebrities have no right to expect privacy in their personal lives. The term celebrity, connotes that the adoring public will be privy to all aspects of their professional, as well as, personal lives. Celebrities make  money from their status. Their personal life is fair game, the juicier the better. Ugh!

The issue question might be answered by saying the media have no real choice in appealing to a dumbed-down, sound bite loving, thrill obsessed, and mindless audience.

                                                   Dick Brooks

First, we are all biased, for many reasons. Being objective, is just not a natural human quality. Yet, good professional journalists try hard to keep their pre-conceived ideas out of the body of their work.

In my opinion, the political bias toward the left, of the mainstream media, is irrefutable. I define mainstream media as the large metropolitan newspapers, the news magazines, the broadcast TV networks, and the entertainment industry. Until recent decades, they had a near monopoly on the dissemination of news and ideas. Then, cable networks and talk radio came on the scene. These media generally provide a balance since they tend to swing toward the right.

How did the leftward slant in the mainstream media come about? It is interesting, that many well known journalists, such as Cronkite, Rather and Brokaw grew up in the conservative heartland. Yet when they moved to New York and Washington, it seemd that their opinions shifted to the left. These metropolitan areas definitely have an impact on the mindset of the people who live there. There is also the question of acceptance. Journalists, whose views do not conform with the primarily leftist atmosphere, are not as likely to be invited to the fashionable clubs, organizations, and parties, as those with liberal credentials.

It is the responsibility of each individual to examine the news skeptically, and try to determine if it has been slanted.

                                                          Dick Brooks