Chalk up another public official in California we need to get rid of. Attorney General Bill Lockyer either has no common sense or is courting leftist votes for a run at governor a few year after Arnold defeats his incompetent Democratic challenger Angelides. Lockyer has filed a suit against the largest automobile manufacturers seeking money for environmental damage caused by tailpipe emissions. I think the only people who agree that this lawsuit has merit are the extreme environmentalists and the trial lawyers. I do believe that fossil fuels is a major cause of environmental damage. But to blame the automakers is like blaming McDonalds for causing you to get fat. Obviously, there are people who are actually suing McDonalds also. It is another example of people won't take responsibilities for their own actions but blame others. Nobody forces you to eat a hamburger and the automakers are not forcing anyone to buy a car. Certainly the popularity of gas guzzlers like suvs are what is driving Detroit to produce poor mileage autos. If we actully demand cars that get high mileage, those cars will be produced.

Automakers only produce the cars. If nobody drives them, the cars don't pollute. So it is not the automakers who foul up the environment but each 0f us. I think Lockyer does drive a car himself so he is also responsible for fouling the environment. It would make more sense to penalize the actual polluters, which is all of us, by increasing the taxes of gasoline as I have suggested before. (See blog dated 4/26/06) Of course that would be immensely unpopular and Lockyer would not be elected to office again. By trying to stick it to companies with deep pocket, Lockyer thinks that he will increase his popularity. Ultimately, it is us who pay for this foolishness. The state has already lost a nuisance suit against electric power plant operators but is appealing. All these nuisance lawsuits cause the taxpayers money and will result in no benefit to us. It will cause the automakers money to defend the suits and the expenses will be passed to consumers in higher prices for cars. If this lawsuit is somehow successful, I am going to sue the government for buying buses and actually run them.

Watched the show "Path to 9/11" on ABC last week. I guess a lot more people preferred to watch football instead of learning from the lessons of 9/11. The rating was way low compared to Sunday and Monday night football games. The show generated a lot of controversy because the Democrats felt that it was biased against them. Among the criticism was that it showed Sandy Berger and Madeline Albright making decisions that prevented the capture or killing of bin Laden before the Bush administration took over. I am maybe biased because I am a friend of the writer of the show but I thought it was fair for the most part. Whether Berger or Albright were the ones that made the mistakes or not, there is no question that mistakes were made during the Clinton administration. The film also showed people in the Bush administration in poor lights, including Condi Rice. If less mistakes were made by the Bush administration in this film, it was only because they were in power less time before 9/11 occurred. I don't think the film changed anyone's mind. As an independent I thought both administrations made mistakes that led to this tragedy. The film did not change my mind.

There are several lessons one can learn from this film:

1. It is not easy to play defense. You have to be right all the time while the terrorists only have to be right or lucky one time.

2. Fortunatly it is not that easy for the bad guys to pull off a big one. While they can commit a crime easy enough, to do something that will get world wide attention successfully is difficult. That is one reason there was 8 years between the 2 attacks on the WTC. The larger the project the more people are involved and the easier it is to be detected.

3. Of course while the bad guys are making mistakes we have to catch their mistakes. This was the main theme in the film. There were many times the terrorists left clues that should have been picked up. The most galling thing to me was that our law enforcement agencies would not pass information to each other and thus connecting the dots. The alarming thing is that even though this was stressed in the 9/11 commission report, a followup review at end of last year gave the government a D mark in fixing this area. This is incredible to me!

4. The film also showed the conditions of some third world country. The poverty of places like Pakistan, Yemen and Africa are breeding grounds for religious extremists and terrorism. It is a monumental if not impossible job but decreasing poverty will decrease terrorism.

5. The best defense against terrorism is not high technology or force. Terrorists were stopped by ordinary policeman or border agents because these heroes and heroines were alert and took their jobs seriously. The bomb maker Ramsi Yousef was captured because a courageous man in Pakistan, who despite hating the policies of the U.S., decided to come forward because he did not want innocent people die. So there are people out there who are willing to do the right thing but we must do our part and be sure our policies are fair and right.

These are some of the intersting points I got from the film. While one can argue that the film is biased against the Democrats, I don't think it portrayed the Democrats as badly as Michael Moore's film portrayed the Republicans. In any case, I don't think if the two administrations were reversed in order of controlling the White House, the result of 9/11 would have been much different. This is a wake up call to all of America, not just to any one party. I would suggest that if you have not watch it to rent it when it comes out on DVD. It is not great entertainment but it is a lot more educational than Monday Night Football.

Been away for awhile and have not been keeping up with what is happening in current events. While looking through Sports illustrated recently I came across a columan by Rick Reilly which I find interesting. Reilly wrote about a boy who had survived cancer and was playing on a little league baseball team. They were in the championship game with the tying and winning run on base in the last inning and the best hitter on the boy's team was up. The cancer survivor was the worst hitter on the team and he was to follow the best hitter. The manager on the other team decided to walk the best hitter. The boy then struck out to end the game. Reilly thought that was a lousy thing for the manager to do and that a strategy that is normally used in higher level of baseball should not be used here. He asked what the readers think and that they can vote on his website. I looked it up and the majority agreed with him and that it was a lousy thing for the manager to "pick on the poor kid". I couldn't disagree more.

If this league was meant to be non-competitve then they should not keep scores. They certainly should not have a championship game. When you have an outcome of winners and losers, 50% of the kids are going to be disappointed. If the manager had pitched to the best hitter and he knocks in two run then the manager would have failed his team. During that game, I am sure, many kids struck out or made an error and felt bad. This is part of playing the game and learning from adversity. The cancer survivor did cry after the game but a few days later he said he would practice harder so that the next time they would walk him and pitch to someone else. This is the spirit that would make our society better. We should not protect our kids from failures even if they are handicapped. When the boy signed up to play little league he must have wanted to be treated like everyone else. I don't think he would have liked to get intentional walks just so that he won't strike out. Compare to cancer winning a baseball championship doesn't seem all that important. Having survived cancer, I don't think this kid needs to be protected by the politically correct squad.

I feel bad for the manager who was villified for giving the intentional walk. The other manager said that he would not do the same thing in the same situation. But I find it curious that he would put his worst hitter after his best hitter. Did he make out his lineup card randomly or did he feel the other team would be too embarrassed to walk his best hitter with the cancer survivor up next? Anyways, life is never going to be fair and our society is better off if our children are taught to try to overcome their disadvantages rather than given a free pass. What do you think? Please write in a comment if you have an opinion.