Citizen Tom

Today, I got a bit of a surprise.  My little blog got a visit (see here) by a former candidate for office, the Honorable Bruce Roemmelt.  For some reason, my blog has received a lot of comments of late, and I have enjoyed it.  I was reminded of a poem,  The House by the Side of the Road. 

Here is the stanza that seems most relevant.

Let me live in a house by the side of the road,
Where the race of men go by;
The men who are good and the men who are bad,
As good and as bad as I.
I would not sit in the scorner’s seat,
Or hurl the cynic’s ban;
Let me live in a house by the side of the road
And be a friend to man.

Roemmelt has run for office, which is more than I have done.  And a lot of people took him seriously.  So I expect his opinions are heartfelt and well-reasoned.  Nevertheless, we do not agree, and I think my opinions — and Bob Marshall’s – are at least as well reasoned.

Roemmelt posted his comment in response to the previous comment asking about Bob Marshall’s endorsement by some green groups.  Rather than debate that issue, I think the best thing to do is to let Marshall speak for himself.  Fortunately, Marshall’s website for his senate campaign is still up.  Here is a link to the page he posted on Environmental Issues.  The entire page is well worth reading, but here is the most relevant part.

As a state delegate I received a “2007 Legislative Hero Award” from the Virginia League of Conservation Voters for my 100% voting record in environmental preservation.  I also received an endorsements from the Farm Bureau and Sierra Club, a rarity for a social conservative legislator.

In a post on his website (here), Roemmelt attacks the legislation that Marshall sponsored with respect to offshore oil drilling (see this post).  Since I am not authorized to speak for Marshall, I will let his words stand on their on.  I will just give my own opinion. 

There are no perfect solutions.  So long as we insist on living, we will eat and drink.  So long as we insist on living, we will urinate and defecate.  So long as we insist on living, we will pollute.   Just as we came up with toilets and sewage treatment plants to minimize the ill effects of human excrement, we have also come up with ways to minimize the ill effects of securing and using petroleum products.

Democrats, in the name of environmentalism, have prohibited offshore oil drilling.  However, the technology for drilling offshore is well developed.  We have been doing it a wide variety of places for years.  The most notorious offshore oil spills have come from oil tankers, not oil wells.  Shipping oil to America poses the greatest risk, not drilling for it off our shores.

In his post, Roemmelt references the Pickens Plan.  This is an interesting idea to build a bunch of windmills in the center of our country to generate electricity.  Supposedly, we could then use the methane we are using to generate electricity to power our autos.  While Picken’s idea may or may not be sound, it exists now merely as speculation.  What do we do if the environmentalists who think windmills are a environmental problem succeed in banning them?  Sounds stupid, but windmills kill birds (see here).  Rather than transport electricity from the Great Plains, some people want to site them in the breeze offshore.  These people are having the same sort of problem as the folks who want to drill for oil offshore.

There are already more than 20 offshore wind farms producing electricity in Europe but, in this country, such proposals have sparked opposition from the Great Lakes states to Long Island. Opponents, including seafront homeowners, say such installations would threaten avian and aquatic life and ruin scenic vistas. With such environmental concerns pitted against the demand for clean energy, there is not a single offshore turbine anywhere in the United States.  (from here)

Will windmills work?  I don’t know.  The current reality is that we are paying a lot of money to unfriendly nations for oil we could be taking out of wells just off our shores.  Why?  Some people don’t like the idea, and with all our lawyers and judges, we are doing a great job of tying up every new idea in knots.  Instead of spending so much money in court, why not come up with a system that estimates the damage done by polluters and tax them when they pollute?

Americans, not America’s government, fix problems.  When Americans pollute, the problem usually results from the fact that the Americans causing the pollution do not bear the direct costs of the pollution they produce. So they do not have an economic incentive to fix their problem.  Fortunately, there exists an effective way encourage Americans to fix their problem.  We can tax the problem.

You have heard of Western Europe’s Value Added Tax (VAT)?  America can scrap its income tax system and give our accountants some useful work. We can tax pollution with a Pollution Added Tax (PAT). The PAT would make clean energy sources far more competitive.

Consider our trash problem. When you go to the store, half of what you bring home is used to wrap the other half. Your mailbox is loaded with junk mail. That trash litters the environment and is costly to dispose. The people responsible should pay the cost.

We could apply the PAT to anything that results in litter or any other form of pollution. If somebody insists on making a mess, that somebody should pay for the privilege.  Then they will either stop polluting or their competitors will put them out of business.   Problem solved.

Stopping pollution.  Why don’t we make it a good business practice?

Roemmelt also complained that the Special Session did not accomplish anything.  I have already addressed that complaint in this post.

I posted 6000 Thousand Steps; A Chinese Love Story in March.  The post hardly got any hits at all.  Now it sometimes gets over a hundred hits a day.  The post links to a good story, but I am puzzled by the sudden popularity.  Anybody know the reason for the increase in interest?

Barack H. Obama Jr.

When we speak of the Information Age, we generally think of computers and the Internet.  We reflect on the amazing amount of data that can be moved and stored by modern high speed communications systems.  What we do not give much thought is the improved quality of our communications.  It is not just the amount of information that we have available, it is its quality (of the information) that has made a profound difference.  Unlike any era that preceded this one, the very best of those amongst us have the ability to display their communications skills.  Even the dead can now speak to us — whether they be a writer, an actor, a musician, or an orator. 

In practical terms, we seem to value oratorical skills above all others.  Because we demand that our leaders be great orators, it must be what we consider the highest calling.  So it is that Barack Obama rose to national prominence when he gave the keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.  Now, with just four years in the Senate, Obama is close to winning the White House.  What has this man to say that has made him such a powerful national figure? 

For the average citizen, the easiest way to find out what Obama has to say is to go to his website.  In part because Obama has been campaigning for months, his website shows the benefits of a lot of hard work.  There is more to it than that, however.  Obama knows how to use the Internet, and he is using it as an effective fundraising tool. As this article notes (here), the Obama campaign has raised tens of millions over the Internet in small donations.

Nonetheless, the Internet cut both ways.  Supposedly, for example, columnist Maureen Dowd wrote an article suggesting that much of Obama’s Internet money is coming from Chinese and Middle East sources.  That, however, appears to have been a hoax (see here and here). Instead of being an unscrupulous operation, Obama’s website is instead just highly effective. 

Whether you are for or against Obama, his fundraising success bodes well for the future of our democracy.  Used properly, the Internet gives the average citizen a greater say in who can run successfully for public office.   The Internet gives each us a device we can use to break the lock the major parties have on the system.  At the same, the silly story about a fictitious column demonstrates the power of the Internet to spread a false rumor.

So what about Obama’s website (see here)?  Right away Barack Obama greets us with a nice speech asking us to join a great cause.  Entering the website — skipping pass the offer to join — we find www.barackobama.com is not just about Obama; it is about CHANGE. 

What is CHANGE?  Anybody that says Obama does not have a plan and just makes flowery speeches has not visited his website.  The Issues page is long and detailed.  For example, his website includes a six page document describing his policies on Civil Rights (here).  Is the document somewhat vague?  What political policy document from a candidate is not at least somewhat vague?  Nonetheless, Obama states his intent and his focus.   If he states he wants a Hate Crimes statute, for example, don’t we know what that means?  You don’t?  Well, read this.

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes: Barack Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to reach violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation,gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, Obama passed tough legislation that made conspiracy to commit hate crimes against the law. As president, he will ensure that the Criminal Section of the Civil Rights Division makes hate crime a priority.  (from here)

What are hate crimes?  Obama’s support for hate crimes statutes are one of those things that should lead us to doubt that Obama is the great unifier he might otherwise seem to be.

Let’s back up a minute.  What is Obama’s appeal?  The man is attractive; he is relatively young, tall, and slim.  Obama is disciplined.  He speaks carefully and thoughtfully.  Rather than give offense, Obama tries to be nice to everybody except unnamed special interests.  Obama stays focused on his cause, CHANGE. 

What could be wrong with making government work for the benefit of all the little people?   Go through each of the issues on Obama’s website or just read
THE BLUEPRINT FOR CHANGE.  Then ask yourself the following question.  If you vote for an Obama presidency, will you be voting for Obama because you believe he seeks to empower individuals or save victims?   The first approach gives people the opportunity to help themselves.  The second makes the victims dependent upon the tender mercies of their empowered government.   

When government empowers people, it restrains monopolies (often itself) and allows the People to take control of the fruits of their own labor.  When the government saves victims, it become the monopoly.  

To justify becoming a government monopoly, government leaders must pit us against each other.  That, for example, is what Hate Crime Statutes are about.  Any crime is a hate crime — or worse, simple indifference for our fellows.  Hate crimes, however, elevate certain “victim” groups.  It gives certain groups a status that make crimes against these groups especially unlawful.  To commit a crime against a member of one of these groups becomes a political crime.  Instead of making justice blind to race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation,gender identity, or physical disability; we accomplish the exact opposite. 

Nonetheless, under the rule of Barack Obama, life would become simpler.  You would know he cares deeply.  He would find someone to blame.  Because you deserve it, he would find some way to give you what rightfully belongs to you.

What should Conservatives do about Barack Obama’s website?   First, we need to visit it.  Then we need to talk about Obama’s proposals and remind our fellow Americans about the difference between a republic and a democracy. 

Because democracies do not limit the power of the majority, democracies do not work.  When Obama tries to make Americans feel like they have been victimized so that he can tax the “rich” for their benefit, we need to remind our fellow Americans that this arrangement makes government — and therefore Barack Obama — the middleman.  Some how, some way, the middleman will take his cut.  

This is the third post in a series on the 2008 election candidates (from the perspective of Gainesville, Virginia).  Here are the earlier posts.

• DOES DISASTER LOOM BEFORE US?
• ELECTION 2008 CANDIDATE PROS AND CONS: CANDIDATE WEBSITES

Other Views

The right-wing liberal wonders about Obama’s consistency on Iraq (here).

QandO references and admires a post that reviews Obama’s political experience (here).  

Howling Latina is still campaigning for Hillary Clinton (here).

Caroline County records the episode of the backfiring magazine cover (here).

VB Demo provides a link to Obama’s latest speech on Iraq (here).   (Author’s Note:  Just before Obama visits Iraq, he gives his latest policy position?  Why?  John McCain observes how backwards that is here.)

 Here is Bob Marshall’s take on the Special Session of the General Assembly.

Special Transportation Session Wrap Up

Thankfully, there were no tax or service fee increases imposed on Virginians in the recent transportation session called by Governor Kaine.  However, House Republican leaders up until noon of the last day of the Special Session (July 9) were supporting HB 6055, which did contain increased fees and taxes for Hampton Roads and Northern Virginia similar to last year’s HB 3202.

Instead, HB 6055, was amended by Del. Oder to remove all fee and tax increases.  It set aside hundreds of millions for future transportation projects in Northern Virginia and Hampton Roads by designating a portion of future taxes generated by the growth in tax revenues in Northern Virginia from the two regional airports (Dulles International and Reagan Airports) and in Hampton Roads from container ships be set aside by the General Assembly for transportation projects in each region. 

This passed the House of Delegates on an almost straight party line vote, 51 to 45.  (See http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?083+vot+HV1862+HB6055)

I successfully amended HB 6055 to remove provisions which attempted to unconstitutionally bypass the legislature and give these funds, without the General Assembly appropriating them, to the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority and the Hampton Roads Metropolitan Planning Organization.  HB 6055 lost in the Senate Finance Committee. 

SB 6009, sponsored by Sen. Dick Saslaw (D-Fairfax), was considered by the House.  After a gas tax proposal was removed from the bill on a 95 to 1 vote, the bill, which authorized both regional and statewide tax increases on home sales and a general sales tax, failed on a vote of 39 yeas to 59 nays.  (See http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?083+sum+SB6009)

Most all other measures passed by the House to address transportation fixes, including new funding sources, never made it out of Democrat controlled Senate committees. These include:

• Transportation Lock Box Constitutional Amendment to prevent diversion of road/transit funds.  HJR 6001 (Oder)
• Management Audit of VDOT’s operation and program expenses HB 6046 (Lingamfelter)
• Tolls on Hampton Roads bridge tunnel projects which requires VDOT to issue contracts for toll projects or seek private toll proposals.  HB 6019 (Hamilton)

Revenues to Virginia from Off Shore Drilling if approved by Congress to be designated as follows: 40% for transportation, 40% for Chesapeake Bay Clean up, 10% for renewable electric energy, and 10% for renewable costal energy research.  HB 6006 (Saxman)

HB 6006 has been characterized as a vote in favor of, or in opposition to, off-shore drilling.  It is neither. HB 6006 is not a petition to Congress to approve off-shore drilling.  It is a request to Congress which has total control over drilling, that if off shore drilling is approved by Congress, the state of Virginia would hope to receive some of the royalties. 
I asked Delegate Saxman to add provisions to his bill to include requests for Congressional protection of the off shore environment and the economies of Virginia’s costal residents, which he did:

“Whereas, such drilling should be undertaken under the greatest protection that can be afforded to the environment; and Whereas, such drilling should be pursued to the extent that the economic viability of Virginia localities contiguous to the Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic Ocean are not negatively impacted;”  See HB 6006 as introduced, plus Marshall and Saxman Substitutes at http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?083+sum+HB6006.

I also asked Del. Saxman to amend his bill to reflect that an enhanced area for exploration as is provided for in other states should be the area identified as Virginia revenue producing waters, and not just a portion of it as is now designated by the US Interior Department’s Minerals Management Service.  He also included that provision in his amendments to HB 6006.

Virginia has no legal authority to compel Congress to provide such royalties, so this is a hat in hand request from Virginia based on previous Congressional discussions to provide all Atlantic Seaboard states with oil and gas royalties should drilling be authorized by Congress and prove successful.  HB 6006 was reported to the Senate floor 7-6 because Senator Chuck Colgan (D-Prince William) voted yes.  It lost 16 yeas to 18 nays on the Senate floor.

Marshall Measures Reported from Committee

I received a phone call on the morning of July, 9 telling me that three of my measures would be heard later that day by the House Rules Committee.  I was pleasantly surprised, especially with the committee response.  I want to thank voters who contacted committee members in support of these measures.   

While my bills (see below) were reported favorably by the Rules Committee, the ethanol proposal and the permanent cost-cutting bill were NOT placed on the calendar nor were they taken up by the House of Delegates.  The House of Delegates and Senate Adjourned the special session at 1:39 AM Thursday morning, July 10.  I intend to pursue these measures in the 2009 session. 

HB 6032:  Creates a permanent state oversight Commission, similar to the federal cost cutting BRAC Commission, to evaluate whether state holdings should be sold, identify duplicate programs, and cut unnecessary overhead while maintaining the same level of services.  The goal is to identify 3% in savings from our $76 Billion dollar budget which could then be used for roads and mass transit. 13 yeas, 2 nays.
(See http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?083+sum+HB6032)
 
HJR 6011: Requests a waiver from the federal ethanol mandate to stop burning food!  Ethanol results in fewer miles per gallon and higher food prices from diversion of food to fuel. 12 yeas, 3 nays.
(See http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?083+sum+HJ6011)

HJR 6008:  Assesses methane resources now being wasted in Virginia which could be converted to fuel for cars/trucks. This measure was referred to the Assembly’s Energy Commission for study.
(See http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?083+sum+HJ6008)

Thank you again for contacting your representatives to voice your concerns.

Sincerely,

Delegate Bob Marshall
http://delegatebob.com

Cross-posted here at Bloggers 4 Bob Marshall 4 Speaker.  Check out the other great posts.

This is the second in a series on the General Election scheduled for November 4, 2008. DOES DISASTER LOOM BEFORE US? began the series and listed the topics to be covered. However, DOES DISASTER LOOM BEFORE US? did not list the series in the order I will cover these topics.

The problem an election presents for the voter is not straight forward. To choose the candidate we think will best represent us, we need to know about the candidates. Unfortunately, every piece of information available about the candidates is either biased or incomplete. So we must take our time and sift through the information available calmly and methodically. Today we look at some of the information the candidates have made available about themselves.

Who Are The Candidates?

One thing that can be confusing is that America does have a multiparty system. Although only Democrats and Republicans generally ever get elected, that does not others from trying. Here is a list of abbreviations.

• (D) - Democratic Party
• (R) - Republican Party
• (L) - Libertarian Party
• (IG) - Independent Green Party
• (C) - Constitution Party
• (I) - Independent (no party affiliation)

The Virginia State Board of Elections determines who will be on the ballot. Since this is July and the election is not until November, the Virginia State Board of Elections still has work to do. Currently the Virginia State Board of Elections lists only candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives (here).

Senate

We have four candidates on the ballot for the U.S. Senate.

• (D) Mark R. Warner
• (R) James S. ”Jim” Gilmore III
• (IG) Glenda Gail Parker
• (L) William B. Redpath

House of Representatives (11th Congressional District)

• (D) Gerald E. ”Gerry” Connolly
• (R) Keith S. Fimian
• (IG) Joseph P. Oddo

President

Because the presidential candidates have not necessarily been formally nominated yet, the Virginia State Board of Elections does not list these candidates. So let’s use an unofficial source, Project Vote Smart. Project Vote Smart lists five major candidates (here).

• (C) Charles O. ‘Chuck’ Baldwin
• (D) Barack H. Obama Jr.
• (R) John Sidney McCain III
• (L) Bob Barr
• (I) Ralph Nader

Where Do We Start?

Okay! Now we have a mob of candidates, twelve, for three different offices. Is it worth investigating all twelve of them? Realistically, only the candidates from the two major political parties have a chance of winning — or do they? Well that is up to you? How unhappy are you with the two major political parties? For what it is worth, I have provided links to the websites of the third party candidates. Even if they do not vote Republican, I want people to participate in politics and find out what is going on. Even when we start off on the wrong track, the best education is experience.

Before the election, I will try to do a post in the Libertarian Party. However, because I am a Republican, I will post only on the Republican candidates and their primary competition, the Democrats.

Website Review

Just listing all the candidates and the parties they represent required a post.

So I plan doing four more posts reviewing the candidate websites, one for each of the presidential candidates and one apiece for the Senate (Virginia) and the House races (just the 11th Congressional District, of course).

How does America solve problems?  In America, does government solve problems or do Americans solve problems?  As an illustration, let us consider the transportation problem.  When we want to move people or their things, what does the government do?  The primary thing that government does is provide a right of way.  We buy our own cars and trucks.  Private companies buy and run airplanes, ships, and trains.  The government serves largely in a regulatory role.  Except in this regulatory role, the government has little to do with the development of the technology or its implementation.

Our transportation system needs improvements.  Our roads are congested, our vehicles pollute, and they use fuel from unfriendly, unreliable sources.  Should we expect government to solve any of these problems?  Not really.  To a large extent, government caused these problems.  Consider the issue of traffic congestion.   Is there a shortage of asphalt and cement pathways for our vehicles?  Not really.  The problem is that we tend to funnel huge amounts of traffic onto a few roadways.  That is simply bad design, and it should be no surprise.  What do politicians know about designing transportation infrastructure?

Let’s look at some of the parameters.

• We have an existing network of roads designed to carry heavy vehicles.  Much of our traffic, however, consists of one person in driving to and from work.  In other words we have roads designed for 80,000 pound trucks clogged with autos and SUVs each carrying one human being weighting about 180 pounds.  Building too many such roads is extravagantly wasteful.
• How and where we build roads are primarily political decisions.  The relationship between supply and demand is weak.  Politicians instead of citizens pay for roads.
• With the exception of taxis, public transportation consists almost wholly of mass transit schemes — light rail and buses.  These technologies require the presence of paid drivers.  Because paid drivers are required, a minimum passenger load is needed to break even on expenses.  The minimum passenger load requirement makes the system inflexible; it forces two outcomes:  large vehicles and a routing schedule.  To reach their intended destinations, passengers have to waste their time going places they do not want to go.  Moreover, the route structure of any mass transit system can only profitably serve high volume routes.  
• To avoid the inflexibility of public transportation, citizens buy their own personal vehicles.  Because they occasionally need their vehicles to transport freight, family, and friends, citizens buy larger vehicles than they usually need. 
• Compounding the waste, most personal vehicles sit parked doing nothing.  These vehicles sit and rust the vast majority of their useful lives.  This is no way to use expensive capital assets.

How can we solve these problems?  We must remind ourselves that all government can do is facilitate changes.  We must encourage private enterprise to look for opportunities. 

• When confronted with varying demands, private industry accommodates the needs of their customers. That is why we have a variety of different types of vehicles.  Government, however, controls the right-of-way.  Since we only have one type of right-of-way, a road surface, almost every right of way must accommodate 80,000 pound trucks.  This requirement tends to make highway construction expensive.  The lesson here is that local government should consider the possibility of providing a rights-of-way networks for light-weight traffic.
• Roads and other transportation should be paid for by user fees (i.e., tolls).   To increase revenue, even monopolies must respond to consumer demand.  In addition, tolls would discourage urban sprawl
• With proper system design, modern computer technology can replace drivers.  Thus modern computer technology obviates the need for expensive human drivers and the large vehicles we currently associate with public transportation.  With the use of computer technology, we can build fleets of small vehicles and serve the individual needs of passengers.   
• The prospect of individual service would provide a great incentive for people to use public transportation.  To increase this incentive, government should let private companies rent the services of their vehicles to the public.  Multiple companies would benefit citizens by providing competition for their dollars.  Competition would also limit waste.  To maximize vehicle usage and profits, private companies would adopt price schedules that would maximize the use of their vehicles. 
• We can also replace income taxes with taxes on petroleum.  If we want people to stop polluting, the easy thing to do is to make them pay for the privilege.  If we want to stop pollution, we should tax it. 

How would the system I envisage be built?  At this point, we only have ideas.  However, there are a variety of ideas, and little new technology is needed.  The predominant buzzword is Personal Rapid Transit (PRT).  Check out some of the websites below.  Or begin your own search (here).

• http://www.personalrapidtransit.com/
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_rapid_transit
• http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/PRT/

Many of the technologies that would make PRT practical have only come about recently.  For example, inexpensive, powerful, lightweight computers are a relatively recent innovation.  To retain its competitive edge, America must explore how we can use these techologies to our best advantage.

Good Fences Make Good Neighbors

In my last post on the immigration issue,  I pointed out how we could reach an agreement on what to do about illegal immigration.  Nonetheless, we still have millions of people in our country illegally.  Do we really want to send them ALL back to their home nations?  There are moral reasons not to force them to leave, and there are economic reasons not to force them to leave. 

There is also another issue.  How should we decide whether someone should be allow to come and stay in the USA?  One answer is that they have a job, but that really does not address whether an immigrant would make a good citizen.  What does?  Well, of course we do not want folks with a criminal record.  Is there anything else?  Yes, we want them to be able to talk to us. 

Because it is difficult to learn a second language, that is why it is better if immigrants learn English BEFORE they come here.

The English language problem also takes care of the amnesty issue.   For much for the same reasons Henryk A. Kowalczyk has given (here), I also do not have much use for quotas.  I do, however, think people ought to pass both oral and written English tests before they are allowed to get a job here.  If someone is going to come to our country with the intention of staying, why should we learn their language?

If an illegal immigrant has been in the USA for years, then they should know how to speak and write English.  If they cannot pass both oral and written tests appropriate for high school English class, is there any good reason why they should not be required to go back to their home country?  If they cannot speak English, where is the evidence that they came here to stay?

Should we require illegal immigrants to go back to their home country and apply for citizenship?  No.  That would be waste of money.   Should we be in a big hurry to give an English test every illegal immigrant.  No.  That just means the tests would not be administered properly.  However, getting serious about the English language requirement would provide the basis for a compromise that would make almost everybody happy.  Well…almost everybody.  A serious English language requirement may not make the employers who hire illegal immigrants to do jobs Americans will not do (i.e., slave labor) happy.

It is too easy to cheat and prove you have been in the USA for couple of years.  On the other hand, we ought to be able to verify whether or not someone can speak English.  If we combine a high school level English oral and written test with the plan below (from here), we can reach a national compromise.  Seriously!  It might even be possible with the leadership we have in Washington D.C. these days.

1. We need to do whatever it takes to secure the border.
2. We need to give everyone a tamper-proof ID. This ID should be required for employment.
3. We need to punish employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. Of course, we can fine and jail employers. However, the most effective trick would be not allowing employers to write off the wages they pay to illegal immigrants on their taxes. 

These days there is always a new blog.  Over the long haul, it appears that the more stable and informative blogs will be tend to be those associated with organizations.  Because the financial cost is low, individual bloggers will always crop up and write for awhile, but most fizzle.  Even if you have a talent for writing it takes a lot of time to keep your web site sufficiently active to maintain a cadre of interested readers. 

Nonetheless, that does not mean we will not have numerous blogs.  Blogs provide a new and easy way to reach local communities.  Here is the latest example, Your Piece of the Planet, brought to you by The Prince William Conservation Alliance.  This blog is written by a thoughtful and well organized group.  Unfortunately, like most thoughtful and well organized groups, they are also nosy people. 

In the email the The Prince William Conservation Alliance sent me to tell me about their new blog, they embedded a little trick to verify whether or not I visited their blog.  That is, the hyperlinks in their email did two things.  In addition to taking me to their blog, when I clicked on hyperlink referencing one of posts on their blog, that click also notified IContact that I had clicked on that hyperlink.

Why do I mention this?  My point is this.  Never assume anonymity on the web.  Do not even assume you have any right to be anonymous.  If you are dealing with an organized group, and they have any financial interest in gathering information about you and any way of legally getting that information, they will get it.

Other Views

For those who are interested, The Green Miles lists additional members of the “green” blogosphere (here).

Here is the The Prince William Conservation Alliance announcement of their blog on iContactCommunity.