Sean's Blog

A Guide To Online
Opinion And Current Events

Saturday, September 07, 2002

I couldn't resist reading and linking to this piece by James Glassman in an Opinion Journal editorial. I think it's time that we start beating people over the head with certain facts that are contained in Glassman's piece and I think this is a good place to start. Are you ready? Here it goes. The US has one of the cleanest environments in the world along with Europe and Japan. The US environment has gotten better over the years, not worse. Thirteen of the worlds 15 worst polluted cities in the world are in developing Asia. Research shows that wealthy nations clean up their environment and poor nations don't because they have other priorities.

Jay Nordlinger featured a piece in his Impromptus column a few days ago that shows the extent of the enviromental misinformation that the left has been able to spread. Here's the specific paragraph:

"In his article for the forthcoming NR on the Jo-burg jamboree, Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute tells a story about Julian Simon, the late and great economist.

He was at some environmental forum, and he said, “How many people here believe that the earth is increasingly polluted and that our natural resources are being exhausted?” Naturally, every hand shot up. He said, “Is there any evidence that could dissuade you?” Nothing. Again: “Is there any evidence I could give you — anything at all — that would lead you to reconsider these assumptions?” Not a stir. Simon then said, “Well, excuse me, I’m not dressed for church.”

People have been told that our environment is in horrible shape for so long that it has become common wisdom, even though it is a lie. I remember an interview that John Stossel did with group of children that shows the depth of the brainwashing that has taken place by environmentalists. The segment didn't air, but the truth lies in what the children told Stossel:

"Many grade-school students are taught that tampering is evil, that humanity is destroying the Earth. This is even part of the curriculum in some schools.

One child said he learned: "President Bush is polluting the country so he can make millions for his friends."

The organizers call this education. What's more, they say it's "nonpartisan."

But our kids are thoroughly scared. They fear massive floods — "Alaska's melting!"— increased cancer and even "drowning in our own garbage!"

Why don't they know that over the past 30 years, the air has been getting cleaner? Nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead and every major pollutant the government measures is decreasing. Lakes and rivers are cleaner now, too."

Yes, why don't they know?

It's said that there is no such thing as bad publicity as long as they spell your name right. Well, I don't exactly know what to make of the mention that Ted Barlow gives me in his blog. He has the address right, but he calls me Steve Roper. It's Sean, Ted. Well, I appreciate the mention anyway.

There is a discussion in the blog world about Guilty Southern White Boys, for example, southern hyper-liberals like James Carville, Jimmy Carter and Bill Moyers. Here's an idea on the subject from one of Andrew Sullivan's readers:

"SOUTHERN HYPER-LIBS: Thanks for the input. How could we have forgotten Bill Moyers? Then there's Bill Kovach, Tom Wicker, and, of course, Dan Rather and James Carville. To be fair to them, they may be reacting in part to Northern prejudice. As one reader opined,
In any lefty circle, being a white Southerner is perceived as a huge character fault, regardless of that Southerner's ideologies. Lefties hear a Southern accent and cringe. So to earn points with colleagues in notoriously left-leaning newsrooms, Southerners overcompensate for the flaw of being Southern by abandoning all sense of reason and out-lefting anyone in sight. It's a phenomenon something along the lines of the fight for gender equality in the workplace – the old saying about women having to do twice the work of men for the same pay."

I think this is true to a certain extent, but I think that Rod Dreher has a better explanation for southern hyper-liberals:

"RE: GUILTY SOUTHERN WHITE BOYS: [Rod Dreher] I haven't yet seen that discussion on the blogs, but permit me a word, as someone who ran screaming into the arms of liberalism as a younger man. It's all about race, at least at first. When a conscientious white Southerner comes to understand what exactly was done to black people in his town, state and region, with the sanction of the law and well within living memory, he cannot believe it. Or more precisely, he believes it, and it makes him sick. He feels infested by it, and wants desperately to separate himself from it. The impulse, then, is to adopt a Manichaean view of Southern culture, and align oneself with liberals, who were correct on civil rights, and adopt their "progressive" program wholesale. This typically results in a shame-filled rejection of one's Southern culture and heritage, especially in front of the goyim (which is to say, educated Yankees). Never underestimate the Southern intellectual's insecurity around his non-Southern "betters." For many of us, getting older and wiser brings us to an appreciation of the complexities of human nature, and a more nuanced and benevolent view of the South and its heritage. But I would imagine for many of those men of Bill Moyers' generation, who grew up in a very different South than I did, it is impossible to separate their idea of the South, and its conservatism, from the racial cruelties they lived through, and saw firsthand. I find them often sanctimonious and off-putting, but I find it hard to judge these men, because I'm not sure I would have turned out much different if I had grown up seeing my people subjecting black folks to Jim Crow and much worse, and justifying it by sickening appeals to conservative faith in Tradition and the Bible."

The days of Jim Crow laws are a little before my time. I remember going to an all-white school early in life, but that changed very quickly. Dreher has made a deep impression on me. I understand and I agree that I might have been a southern liberal in another time. But I also understand that liberalism has been perverted. That's why I say it is inaccurate to call them liberals. They are not liberal because that would mean that they are tolerant. They have become decidedly intolerant

Yes, I would say that George Shultz has it exactly right in his editorial for The Washington Post. Shultz starts by explaining why we need to attack Iraq and not other rogue nations such as Iran or North Korea. Shultz also shows that all necessary UN resolutions for action against Iraq are still in place and were never terminated. Iraq has been in non-compliance for four years, but the UN has done nothing.

War with Iraq is inevitable and I reject any arguments that it would be wrong or unnecessary for us to take out Saddam. The case has been made time and again, and the facts are plain to see. History says that we must do this.

Okay. Here are my football picks. I have already lost the Thursday night game so I am off to a bad start. I hope I do better on Sunday. My picks are the ones in boldface.


Thursday September 5, 08:30 PM EDT

San Francisco at NY Giants

Sunday September 8, 01:00 PM EDT

NY Jets at Buffalo

Minnesota at Chicago

San Diego at Cincinnati

Kansas City at Cleveland

Atlanta at Green Bay

Philadelphia at Tennessee

Detroit at Miami

Arizona at Washington

Baltimore at Carolina

Indianapolis at Jacksonville

Sunday September 8, 04:15 PM EDT

New Orleans at Tampa Bay

Seattle at Oakland

St. Louis at Denver

Sunday September 8, 08:30 PM EDT

Dallas at Houston

Monday September 9, 09:00 PM EDT

Pittsburgh at New England

TIEBREAKER: total points scored in Monday Night game: 31

I have included a new section of recommended sites that I call, "Excellence Exemplified." I intend to make this a small and exclusive list with perhaps ten or so links. I believe I am off to a good start. Rebecca, Zachary, Ted, and Ram represent the standard. Well done guys.

Friday, September 06, 2002

One of the joys of following links is that you never know when you will stumble upon something interesting. I followed a link at Instapundit to read a piece by Christopher Hitchens and found a new online magazine that I had never heard of. The magazine is called The Age and I think it's an Australian magazine. Anyway, after I read the Hitchens piece I read another article which was titled Yes, The World Has Changed Profoundly. The very last paragraph says it all:

"But whatever the critics say, and whatever the risks to Washington's standing, the raw calculus more likely to govern superpower strategy in the months ahead is this: if America doesn't protect itself, who will?"

We have learned that we cannot depend on our "friends" because they seem more like enemies now. We are alone and that realization has been like a slap in the face. No one else can defend us and it now appears they wouldn't even if they could.

Victor Davis Hanson has a seemingly theoretical discussion between Europe and America at National Review. I say seemingly because I don't really know. His piece may have been inspired by a real exchange because he makes some valid points in Europe's favor.

I reached a visitor milestone today. I had my 100th visitor. I wonder how many repeat visitors I have had. That is the true measure. If I can get the same person to come back again and again I think that would be a better reason to be proud than to have sheer numbers, but that's not to say I don't appreciate the people who are just exploring. Thank you for visiting my site, but I especially appreciate the people who come back again and again. I appreciate that you take the time to visit my weblog.

I enjoy this very much and I intend to keep it up indefinitely. I love to read and to share the things I read with other people. That is the point of this weblog.

Thanks again for visiting. I hope you come back often.

100 hundred British and US jets attacked a radar installation in western Iraq a couple of days ago according to this story at the British paper, The Telegraph which I found via The Drudge Report. This report reinforces what Debkafile reported a couple of weeks ago. Asia Times also reported a similar story a day or two after Debkafile.

I believe it has already begun just the way Debkafile reported. We have been prepositioning men and material for months now and I think that action has already begun behind a haze of disinformation. Don't be surprised if it ends very quickly after the official start of the war. I have a suspicion that Iraq's military leaders will turn on Saddam in a typical Arab way. By that I mean, it's well known that Arab allegiances flow like the tide, one day they love you, the next they hate you. Iraq's military leaders are no different. Loyalty doesn't mean a whole lot in that region of the world. Arab military leaders want to side with a winner and they have to remember how the Gulf War turned out. I believe that Iraq's army will utterly collapse when they see that the US and British are serious about getting Saddam.

I pray that we do the right things in Iraq. I hope we don't squander this opportunity to improve our own security and to bring peace and prosperity to that region of the world.

Thursday, September 05, 2002

Ted Barlow has a well-maintained and designed weblog that I will be adding to my list of recommended sites.

I am beginning to think that I will only have ten or so sites on my list because there are thousands and thousands of blogs. I will probably have to be much more selective in the process of determining which ones to link to. There are so many brilliant people with great blogs that I have to cut them off somewhere, but since I have already told three people that I will be linking to them I have to include them no matter who else makes the cut. I will not be including any weblogs that are poorly designed or are not maintained, but I think I have to add other standards that merit consideration. The problem is that I am not sure what standards to apply. Leftwingers will probably not make it, but I should include some centrists. Right wing extremists won't be included either. People with very narrow subject focuses probably won't make the cut. Boring people will be cut (it's my list!). Let's see. Oh yea, people with stupid blog names, you're cut. (I am beginning to feel like Homer Simpson in the episode where he's a football coach, "Millhouse, you're cut.") And one last standard. If their blog takes me a couple of days to load, they are definitely cut. I don't need that annoying crap (I really need DSL). I might amend these later, but for now I guess that's it.

Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus is posted at National Review. Yet another excellent column with many salient points.

It appears that the link to my football picks isn't working. I will see what I can do later.

Common Dreams is a "progressive" website that features William Baldwin as it's most prominent member. I have seen Baldwin on the O'Reilly factor complaining that people (leftists) were not being allowed to speak out against the war because of the surge of patriotism that had gripped the country. Fair enough. He may have had a point. It may sicken me to hear people say that appeasement and pacifism is the proper approach to take and that war, all war, especially if the US is defending themselves, is wrong. I may want to wretch when I read something that Noam Chomsky says, but I agree that he has every right to say what he thinks. The problem with Mr. Baldwin's complaints is that he totally ignores the censorship taking place by the left. The left has been working vigorously to silence speech they disagree with for more than 30 years now. I have sent Common many examples of leftwing censorship. I really haven't expected them to do anything about it because I view most leftists as incapable of a decent act. They weren't always this way as their participation in the civil rights struggle shows. But no more. They are as incapable of a decent act as the very people they support. People like Castro, Hussein, and Mugabe.

Here is my latest letter to Common


I am back with yet another example of how the left censors free speech. I found this in a piece by Christina Hoff Sommers and it details yet another example of leftists denying free speech. Here's the quote from her piece:

"In November 1998, the president of Columbia University, George Rupp, forced the last minute cancellation of a conservative conference when a mob of 250 students threatened to disrupt it. As the invited speakers, John Leo and Dinesh D'Souza, made a hasty retreat to a nearby park, jeering protesters, exhilarated by their success in getting them evicted, brandished placards that said, "Access denied: We Win."

You leftists sicken me. You are opposed to real freedom of expression as you prove time and again. You shout down speakers that you disagree with, you keep conservative educators off college campuses, leftists like Jimmy Carter condemn the US but fawn over Fidel Castro, and you spread lies like the Jenin massacre, the Afghan casualty statistics, and you blame the US for the exaggerated number of children who die annually as a result of sanctions against Iraq even though Saddam Hussein accrues billions of dollars a year in oil revenue. If you people ever drew an honest and decent breath, I would be simply amazed. But it is apparent to most people that the left is horribly dishonest and hypocritical. You preach about loss of freedoms in the wake of September 11th, but your very followers practice the worst sort of censorship and have been doing so for more than 30 years. Hypocrites! Liars and hypocrites all of you.

Sean Roper

Here we go. Are you ready for some football....picks? I have just made my first picks at HBO. I don't know how I will do because I haven't been following the preseason games. I am a knowledgeable football fan so my picks aren't exactly blind throws at a dart board, but I wouldn't call myself an expert either. Here's the link to my picks.

Wednesday, September 04, 2002

I am doing a tour of weblogs that Glenn Reynolds has links to. Many of them are excellent. Here's two that I can recommend:

Zachary Barbera and Rebecca Blood. I can only hope that, in time, my blog measures up to these.

Well, so much for John Derbyshire's prediction that Tony Blair would weasel his way out of supporting the US. I thought Derbyshire might be right because of some of the things that was coming out of Britain, particularly the very low poll numbers in support of British acton against Iraq. But Tony Blair recently exhibited extraordinary leadership when he offered a spirited defense of America and George Bush. Mr. Blair did this extraordinary thing because he felt that support of America was the right thing to do even though his party is against it and the British people are against it. 38% of Britons polled said that Blair was Bush's poodle, and yet Mr. Blair still came out with his vigorous defense of America. That's a great man. That's a brave man.

How many democratically elected politicians would do the same thing given the strength of the opposition? Very few. It could be that his personal position is just so strong that he could afford to do the right thing. Perhaps, but I still think this is a extraordinary display of statesmanship. A display reminiscent of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan. I have to say this. I don't think Bill Clinton would have done the same thing given the very low poll numbers. That is the biggest flaw I saw in Clinton and I recognized it in 1992. He was not a principled leader. I had that confirmed when it was made public that Bill Clinton lived and died by poll numbers. But this isn't about Bill Clinton, it's about Tony Blair's leadership. I am honored that we have Mr. Blair's support. It would have been very easy and popular for him to do exactly as Mr. Derbyshire predicted, but he followed his conscience and made a heroic defense of America. That's leadership.

As far as I know, Michael Ledeen is the foremost authority on contemporary Iran. Ledeen has written several pieces in the past several months detailing the oppression of the people by the religious leaders. Ledeen has also written about the civil unrest in that country while no one else even seems to know that anything unusual is happening. As the paper of record, one would think that the New York Times would print something about the unrest, but so far they have not. I suspect that they do not want to give President Bush any help in his war on terror. When President Bush labeled Iran as one of the Axis of Evil, he virtually assured that leftwing media outlets would not do any story to support the accusation.

Enter Michael Ledeen. I am such a huge fan of Mr. Ledeen's because he is walking a very fine line. He is a brave man. He could have a death penalty imposed on him by the mullahs for writing some of the things he does. People have been killed for less. Mr. Ledeen has written a piece for National Review detailing The New York Times' apparent refusal to cover Iran, until last week. And when they did cover something, Ledeen says it was a "non-event." Meanwhile, things in Iran are getting worse and worse. I am so thankful for Michael Ledeen, because if not for him, I would know nothing about what is happening in Iran.

Tuesday, September 03, 2002

I saw a report on Matt Drudge's site, The Drudge Report that said that the new "Lord Of The Rings" movie was all ready available on the web. I didn't read the story because it seemed like, well, how much more did I really need to know? Now I find out from Music Pundit aka Aimee Deep via Instapundit that it was all a fake. Drudge was duped. Good job Aimee.

The powerful leftwing teachers union, the NEA (National Education Association) suggests that teachers ignore the facts of September 11th and to focus instead on how evil America is or has been. In his piece for The Dallas Morning News, Terry Eastland features suggestions by 23 academics compiled by Chester Finn on how teachers should address the subject of September 11th. The differences between the two approaches are striking. Finn's approach is to start with the facts and work from there. The NEA wants to ignore the facts and go straight to the America bashing. Next Finn suggests that an examination of the facts will lead to an inquiry of the motivations. But the NEA already knows the motivations: America is evil, has been evil for hundreds of years and will continue to be evil. The NEA doesn't believe a balanced historical view of America as a stabilizing force is possible because all the US has ever done is to commit crimes against humanity.

Of course I am exaggerating a little, but my assessment of the NEA's views are not far off the mark. The only difference is that they are more selective in the wording of their condemnation of America. The NEA is very much a part of leftwing politics and most leftists simply hate America. It is that simple.

Salman Rushdie makes some good points in his piece titled, Double Standards Make Enemies but I don't agree with him on everything he says.

Rushdie does make a good argument that the US government is allowing Hindu terrorists to continue to fundraise in the US which is a hypocritical way to fight worldwide terror. If we are going to fight terror, we should fight all terror whether that terror is Islamic, Irish, or Hindu. That's an excellent point and I agree, but Rushdie goes on to condemn the US for our support of Israel and for not forcing them to make a settlement with the Palestinians. That condemnation confuses me. Didn't Bill Clinton spend his entire presidency working to get an Israeli-Palestinian settlement? Didn't the Jews make concession after concession in agreement after agreement to get a land for peace treaty? And didn't the Palestinians get 95% of what they wanted only to have Yasser Arafat walk away from the deal at the very end? But Rushdie blames the US for not getting a deal done. Frankly, I just don't see what more we can do. We can't force the Palestinians to accept the best agreement they can ever hope to get. If the Bill Clinton can't broker a deal in eight years then I don't see that we can be held to blame.

One more area where I disagree with Rushdie is Iraq. He seems to think that an overthrow of Saddam Hussein would destabilize the mideast. But what did a stable mideast get us? 3,000 of our citizens are dead because we worked to maintain the status quo. If they are going to try to kill us all, then I think it's time to dump the status quo and try a new tack. That didn't work so maybe it's time to try something else.

Monday, September 02, 2002

I wasn't going to post anything else tonight, but I found something via Instapundit that I had to write about. I have been reading about the ethnic cleansing that has been going on in Zimbabwe courtesy of that countries despotic ruler, Robert Mugabe. Mugabe is currently forcing white farmers off their land with violence and intimidation and turning it over to blacks. This is causing a famine that threatens upwards of six million people with starvation. With that in mind, can you think of any reason why journalists at the Earth Summit would be applauding this man? According to this report by David Steven from the Earth Summit, journalists not only applauded the man, they were laughing with him when he said, "Blair, keep your England, but let us keep our Zimbabwe." According to Steven, Mugabe's remarks are the only ones to register any kind of response from the World Summit's press.

I'm pissed. This is outrageous. Those journalists have to be leftwing and suffering from unbelievable levels of white guilt to applaud this man and laugh at his remarks like he's some kind of humanitarian. I should not be surprised because leftwing journalists have been fawning over Fidel Castro for years, and it has been leftwing journalists who offer the most resistance to any idea of toppling Saddam Hussein. In fact, leftwing journalists seem to support most every tyrant as long as they are "people of color." Of course there are exceptions, but it was leftwing journalists that defended communism no matter how many people were slaughtered. It was the left that defended Stalin and Pol Pot.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why people are leftists. Considering all the things they support, from political correctness and the speech codes that go with them, to affirmative action which is legalized discrimination based on the color of a person's skin, to the willingness to destroy democracy and replace it with international law, to the belief that government knows what is best for people, to the zealous support they give to mass murderers in the name of social progress. I just don't understand it. It baffles me. Now I read that journalists are laughing with and applauding Robert Mugabe. Good grief, the left is simply despicable. I don't know of any other way to put it.

I found this article at Slate via one of my favorite sites, Arts and Letters Daily. The article is called "Right Wing Envy" and it's about how the left has become puritanical, dull, and pessimistic while the right has optimistic and upbeat writers that are having fun at everyone's expense. Here's an example:

"Of course, lefty journalism needn't turn right to improve itself. But Powers hints that the source of The Nation's illness is the Stalinist impulse to prescribe proper attitudes toward culture, art, and journalism. A Nation writer who, say, wants to use humor or wit to make his point mustn't abuse gays, blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Ralph Nader, foreigners, women, the infirm, working stiffs, Indians, Mohammed (but Jesus is fair game), whales, or any cultural stereotype. This leaves him just one angle from which to compose his point: Stupid White Men. Such is the state of left journalism that Michael Moore has made a career out of painting and repainting this mono-mural."

Sounds accurate to me.

Iain Murray of Tech Central Station breaks down the misleading statistics that the Justice Policy Institute released last week.

The most leading statistic that the Institute released said that black men were more likely to be incarcerated than in college. Murray shows that the real statistic that should have been used is the number of college age men in prison or school. Many young black men could have attended and graduated from college in the same time that a single black man was in prison. Murray provides other more encouraging statistics that the Justice Policy Institute ignored for, it appears to me, deceitful and cynical political reasons. This kind of dishonesty is not helpful to our public debate on issues.

I completely missed Jay Nordlinger's Impromptus column last Thursday. Nordlinger covers many different topics in this column which is perfect for the person with a short attention span. He makes his point very quickly and moves on to the next topic. This is becoming one of my favorite columns.

Andrew Sullivan is back with a piece on the New York Times' anti-war lurch to the far left. Sullivan details the leadership of Howell Raines since he took over as executive editor of "the paper of record."

To say that the New York Times is the most influential newspaper and media outlet in the world would not be a stretch. It is said that the same stories that the Times run in the morning are followed by CBS, ABC, and NBC in the evening. The Times has enormous resources and their stories are reprinted in newspapers all over the nation. So when this most influential paper suddenly lurches to an extreme, many people are going to notice. Sullivan provides many examples of the Times' exaggerations, and some would say, outright lies since Raines took control of the paper. It's good to have Sullivan back from his vacation, refreshed and ready to take a leadership role in the blogosphere.

Sunday, September 01, 2002

The British and Europeans have no idea of how to handle Robert Mugabe. Peter Osborne has the cover story in The British Paper, The Spectator about Zimbabwe and the timid British response to Mugabe's thuggery. Everytime the British complain about the situation in Zimbabwe, Mugabe accuses them of racism and the British shut up. This has worked time and again. Millions of people are going to starve and the British have no idea what to do. They are too weak militarily to be effective diplomatically. All they can really do is talk and implement sanctions.

Oh that wonderful leftwing idea....sanctions. Sanctions work all the time. If I had a nickel everytime sanctions have forced a dictator to stop slaughtering and imprisoning his own people.....well, I wouldn't actually have any nickels now would I? Six million people are going to starve and the only thing the British and Europeans can do is to implement sanctions. This is one of the results of being militarily impotent. When you have no other options, you talk. You flatter, you threaten, you plead, and you shame. But if there is one thing I have learned over the years, talk is cheap. It costs nothing and we get what we pay for, don't we? Here's a quote from Osborne's piece that shows an example of the sort of thing that the British said to Mugabe after he stole an election in 2000:

"In July, amid well-authenticated reports of violence, ballot-rigging and intimidation, Mugabe claimed his victory in the parliamentary elections. Robin Cook, flanked by a sick-looking Peter Hain, called an impromptu press conference to put the débâcle in the best possible light. He hailed ‘a triumph of the democratic spirit over the attempt to suppress it’. For good measure Cook vaingloriously added, ‘I have urged President Mugabe to respond positively to the opposition offer to work together and accept the mood for change."

This is sickening. They can do nothing but attempt to flatter the man into acting like a human being. Yea, that'll work. It has always worked, just like sanctions.

The Wall Street Journal's Opinion Journal has the results of a study in the American Enterprise magazine that shows that America's college campuses are anything but "diverse" which they say is their goal. An example:

"At Cornell, they found one English Department member in a party of the right as opposed to 35 registered on the left. In the History Department they found no one registered on the right, but 29 on the left.

At Harvard, the researchers found one member of the Political Science Department on the right versus 20 on the left. Roughly the same held true for Economics and Sociology. At the University of California at Santa Barbara, close to the Reagan ranch, the ratio across five departments was 72 to one. The nearest thing to a conservative bastion is the Stanford Economics Department, where seven of 28 members (25%!) belong to the right."

They found this on every campus they studied. Surveys, studys, and polls have shown the exact same political makeup on nearly every major college campus in the US. This is diversity? No, this is uniformity. This leads to indoctrination. When young kids are bombarded with the same messages day after day in classroom after classroom by leftist professors, the result should not be surprising. It's time for our colleges and unversities to implement that cherished "diversity" they are so vocal about.

As the Earth Summit continues in Johannesburg, I am encouraged to read in James Glassman's article for Tech Central Station that the US is once again taking a leadership role in the world. But more than that, we aren't taking crap from people anymore. We are aggressively making our arguments in regards to development of poorer nations economies. We have offered specific plans and money that we believe will help in a significant way. Here are some of the ideas according to Glassman's article:

An investment of $970 million by the U.S. Government, plus another $1.6 billion from the private sector, over three years, in the "Water for the Poor Initiative," to expand access to clean water and sanitation services.

Over $400 million from government and private sources in 2003 to provide "millions of people with new access to energy services and reduce respiratory illness associated with air pollution."

An "Initiative to Cut Hunger in Africa," which will spur technology in agriculture starting next year.

A "Congo Basin Forest Partnership" to support forest management and a network of national parks in central Africa. The U.S. Investment will be backed by contributions from the European Union, the private sector, environmental organizations and host governments.

A commitment to fight HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria in developing nations with $1.3 billion from the U.S. Government in 2003.

Also, a consensus seems to be forming that the best way to help the environment is to lift people out of poverty. The truth is that people do not worry about the environment when they are worrying about where their next meal is coming from. As a nation grows wealthier, it starts cleaning up it's environment. Even the radical Greens of Greenpeace seem to be accepting this idea:

"Steven Sawyer of Greenpeace, in an interview with Ron Bailey of Reason magazine, admitted, "The priority has to be getting energy access to poor people, no matter what the source."

I am encouraged by what is coming out of the Earth Summit.