Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less

As is frequently the case, I marvel at the simplicity and elegance of Newt Gingrich’s positions. If common sense had anything to do with being President of the United States, Newt would be the guy. But it does not seem to be a factor, so we have other choices.

The response to calls for exploration of our own oil resources by Senator Obama and the left is astounding to me. “We can’t drill our way out of our energy problem” – the American resources would be inconsequential – it would take too long. Horsepuckey !

I do not suggest that drilling a new well is the only step necessary to solve the problem. I have supported nuclear power for decades and have lived in the shadow of nuclear plants in Minnesota and South Florida for years. I favor development of alternative energy sources, particularly new vehicle technologies.

But the first and most important step is to be sure that we send the message to the oil markets that America is in the game and will utilize its own resources to partially fill our own demand for product.

Senator McCain, who has responded with his customary partial step needs to rethink his position on ANWR. It is NOT the case that protecting ANWR wildlife precludes energy exploration. ANWR is the size of Great Britain to include Scotland and Wales. The proposed drilling areas would impact an area the size of the Dallas/Ft Worth airport. Do not let political rhetoric get in the way of common sense.

Paul Driessen, writing for Townhall.com, has an excellent article yesterday which points out the President Clinton vetoed legislation authorizing drilling in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) in 1995. Paul’s statistics on production potential do not agree with the left’s claims that ANWR potential would be inconsequential to the problem. And he reminds us that utilizing our own resources has other favorable impacts on our economy in terms of wages, taxes and individual and corporate spending in the economy. < link to Paul’s Article >

I am not recklessly disregarding environmental concerns – but I have a slightly different set of priorities from Senator Obama. We have an energy problem and we have an economic problem – both of which require immediate and bold actions by our government. First, legal impediments to resource exploration within our own country and our coastal areas must be removed. Second, restrictions on environmental law suits must be placed so that this exploration which is in the national interest can move forward as quickly as possible.

Polling data is suggesting that Americans no longer believe that the oil crisis is cause by the oil companies as suggested by the left. Americans are realizing that the blame belongs where it usually belongs – with the politicians and the lawyers.

Wake up America ! and take what you know to be true to the voting both with you in less than 130 days. If your Senator or Representative doesn’t know where we are and what needs to be done to solve our problems – then find someone else to vote for.

You want the Truth ? You can't handle the Truth !

One of my constant conversational drumbeats is the search for creative thinkers like Newt Gingrich in the Congress. I am pleased to say, I may have found one. He does not seem to have the ability to speak like Newt, but he is the ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee and he has some answers that I have longed to hear about the need for dramatic change in our entitlement based government free-for-all.

38 year old Representative Paul Ryan from Southeast Wisconsin (R-1^st District) has authored an economic plan for the future of this country that is bold and comprehensive – and probably has no chance of being passed in Congress. UNLESS – the economic plan is picked up by Senator McCain and serves as McCain’s economic strategy for the campaign.

What a bold stroke. Will McCain see the potential ? The straight talk express of John McCain is the perfect platform for a program that recognizes the facts that our entitlement based nannystate is in trouble and will fall to internal economic pressures within 50 years. But the program proposed by Ryan offers solutions. And McCain is just the man to champion the plan – if he has the courage.

Robert Novak has suggested that Paul Ryan might make a good VP choice for Senator McCain. Novak writes in his column this morning about Ryan’s economic plan. < link here >

The legacy of Margaret Thatcher in Great Britain was the recognition that government spending was taking over the Gross Domestic Product and the taking of draconian measures to pull Britain back from the brink of economic collapse. To date, we have not had a politician in the US with the courage to match Prime Minister Thatcher – until now.

Congressman Ryan introduced his plan at a policy speech on May 21, 2008, which I am quoting below. Additional and detailed information can be found < link here > at americanroadmap.org.

There is some privatization of entitlement functions for workers under 55 years of age. There are adjustments to the tax code. But the point is that there is a recognition that our present system is broken – with specific proposals for solutions that stand up to Congressional Budget Office scrutiny.

Listen to the man – Ronald Reagan would have loved it. Your move, Senator McCain. You have offered only half way measures on every problem so far – can you get behind a serious proposal ?

My source: http://www.house.gov/ryan/speeches_and_editorials/2008speechesandeditorials/52108roadmap.htm

“A ROADMAP FOR AMERICA'S FUTURE”

Remarks from Congressman Paul Ryan

(May 21, 2008)

WASHINGTON – Wisconsin’s 1st District Congressman Paul Ryan unveiled his bold, comprehensive proposal to transform the Federal government. At today’s news conference, Ryan delivered the following remarks:

“Today I’m introducing comprehensive legislative to address what I believe is the greatest threat to our nation’s long-term prosperity: the looming entitlement crisis.

My plan is called A Roadmap for America’s Future, and I’d like to explain what it does, and why I’m doing it.

Right now, America has a choice between two futures. In one – the fiscal path we’re on now – we continue trying to meet the needs of a rapidly changing world with outdated programs that are growing themselves right into extinction. This will lead us down a fiscal path on which Americans’ health and retirement security programs collapse; we condemn future generations to a crushing burden of debt and taxes; and our economy is crippled and unable to compete with the rest of the world.

In fact, by the time my three kids are my age, they will have to pay twice the taxes we pay today – just to keep the government afloat. This will occur with no new programs, no new spending – double the taxes just to maintain the status quo.

And yet we do nothing about it. Year after year, we keep kicking the can down the road. Both parties share in the blame for this inaction. We don’t want to deal with this problem – or even talk about it – because it’s an election year, and it’s just too controversial to deal with such things. But it’s an election year every other year. If we continue to wait for the “right time” to reform – the politically “safe” time – we will never solve this problem.

Well, I didn’t come to Washington just to be a Congressman. I came here to do something. The people of Wisconsin sent me here to solve problems, not ignore them.

And when I see a government that makes promises it can’t possibly keep; a future where my kids will be worse off than I am; and an American economy that will struggle to compete – let alone lead – in an international economy – I see the need for a plan that sets a different course.

This is the future we face if we do nothing. I believe we can – and must – set a different course. If we begin to act immediately – there remains the opportunity for a dramatically better American future. But the time for talk has passed. We need a plan.

So over the past few years, I’ve solicited input from many people – from experts in DC to working people in Wisconsin.

From those discussions, I’ve developed this plan to transform the Federal government – to fix healthcare, Medicare, Social Security, our tax system, and our growing debt and to put it on a different path, a path illustrated by the second line on this chart.

My legislation, called – A Roadmap for America’s Future – will keep the size of government at a sustainable level and achieve the following three objectives:

* It Fulfills the Mission of Health and Retirement Security for all Americans;

* It Lifts the Burden of Debt from the Shoulders of Future Generations; and

* It Ensures American Jobs and Competitiveness in the 21st Century Economy.

And it’s a real plan, with real proposals, real numbers to back them up, and real legislation to implement it. As you can see, this is a pretty thick bill – it’s hundred of pages long – so I won’t go through all the details...

But here are a few key points:

Health Care.

* Ensures universal access to affordable health insurance by restructuring the tax code, allowing all Americans to secure an affordable health plan that best suits their needs.

* Shifts the ownership of health coverage away from the government and employers to individuals.

Medicare and Medicaid.

* Beneficiaries will be able to participate in the same personalized high quality care offered by market-based coverage and can choose the most affordable coverage to suit their needs.

* Preserves the current Medicare program for those 55 and older.

* Makes both Medicare and Medicaid permanently solvent.

Social Security.

* Offers workers under 55 the option of investing over one third of their current Social Security taxes into personal retirement accounts.

* Makes benefits the property of the individual so they can pass on wealth to their heirs.

* Guarantees that total benefits from the personal accounts will not be less than they would have been under the current system.

* Makes the program permanently solvent.

Tax Reform.

* Provides individual taxpayers with a choice: they can continue to pay taxes under the current system, or under a highly simplified code – with just two rates and virtually no special tax deductions, credits, or exclusions.

* Eliminates the AMT, taxes on capital gains and dividends, and gets rid of the death tax.

* Repeals the corporate income tax – currently the second highest in the industrialized world – and replaces it with a border-adjustable business consumption tax of 8.5% – a very competitive international rate.

In the end, what matters most is what all this means for Americans’ jobs and their standard of living. So, I asked CBO to analyze the economic impact of the budget path of my plan, compared to the status quo.

Here’s what CBO found – Under the Roadmap, GNP per person would be a full 85 percent higher than if we remain on the current course. Hence, this plan maintains the American legacy of leaving the next generation better off.

I recognize this is an ambitious proposal. Not everyone will agree with every aspect of it, and that’s fine. These problems are not Democratic problems or Republican problems, and neither are the solutions. We need to build bipartisan support for action in Congress. If nothing else, it is my sincere hope that it will spur Congress to move beyond simply rehashing the problem – to debating, and implementing actual solutions for the American people.

We must come together to set a better course for our nation’s future. If we don’t start tackling these problems – and soon – they’re going to tackle us. The entitlement crisis is real, it’s serious, it’s not going away, and it’s getting dramatically worse with every year we fail to act.

But – as demonstrated time and again in the past – when Americans put their ingenuity and resolve to work on a problem, they solve it. The 20th century was an extraordinary period of American achievement. And I believe that my plan – this Roadmap – will give Americans the means and tools to: solve the massive entitlement problem; make this century even better than the last; and continue our great legacy of leaving the next generation better off.”

The Gasman Cometh

It is, as the saying goes, time to pay the Piper.  Gas prices at three dollars per gallon didn’t even cause a bump in the road, but gas at four dollars per gallon (and rising) is causing a convulsive reaction on the part of the American public.  The cost of petroleum probably only effects you if you drive or ride on the roads (or fly) or if you eat practically anything.  So the rest of you can go listen to one of the “take a break” music clips I provide from time to time. 

But for the rest of us, it is time to take sides on the issue that may decide the Presidential elections this year.  The Democrats feel that the high prices are a good thing because they will cause us to drive less and force us to develop alternative energy sources.  Senator Obama has said so – and Senator Obama is an honorable man.

Senator McCain has called for an end to the federal ban on offshore energy exploration.  And since I am in Florida, I am pleased to see that Governor (and applicant for Vice President) Crist is in favor of such actions.  It is noted that this recommendation is a change of position for both Senator McCain and Governor Crist.  Well, we live in a changing world and the priorities of 20 years ago are not quite so appropriate for the 21^st Century.

It is imperative that we begin to increase our own production and refining of our own resources to reduce our dependence on hostile regimes around the world for our oil.

This does not mean I oppose alternate energy forms – I am just not willing to rely on bringing technologies on line when they haven’t been invented yet. 

Charles Krauthammer, writing for Townhall.com yesterday,  has covered most of the bases, as he usually does. Charles is also a Fox News contributor and his TV commentary provided some of the basis for my comments on Simon’s post early in the week.  So I am pleased he summarized his position in his Friday column for TownHall.com.

As we focus on the election and the differences between the candidates – which are many – we also need to remember that the biggest obstacle to energy exploration and independence in this country is the lawyers and the litigation system that has allowed a vocal segment of environmentalists to block construction of nuclear power plants and refineries in this country for generations.   There is a difference between the position that favors conservation and opposes pollution and the many groups that spill over the bounds of environmentalism and carry out a program of social engineering without regard for practical considerations. 

My source:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/06/20/critical_thinking_on_energy?page=full&comments=true

Friday, June 20, 2008
Critical Thinking on Energy
By Charles Krauthammer

WASHINGTON -- Gas is $4 a gallon. Oil is $135 a barrel and rising. We import two-thirds of our oil, sending hundreds of billions of dollars to the likes of Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. And yet we voluntarily prohibit ourselves from even exploring huge domestic reserves of petroleum and natural gas.

At a time when U.S. crude oil production has fallen 40 percent in the last 25 years, 75 billion barrels of oil have been declared off-limits, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That would be enough to replace every barrel of non-North American imports (oil trade with Canada and Mexico is a net economic and national security plus) for 22 years.

That's nearly a quarter-century of energy independence. The situation is absurd. To which John McCain is responding with a partial fix: Lift the federal ban on Outer Continental Shelf drilling, where a fifth of the off-limits stuff lies.

This is a change for McCain, but circumstances have changed. When the moratorium was imposed in 1982, gasoline was $1.20 and oil was $30 a barrel. Since the moratorium was instituted, we've had two wars in the Middle East, and in between a decade of garrisoning troops in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and the UAE to preserve the peace and keep untold oil riches out of the hands of the most malevolent of our enemies.

Technological conditions have changed as well. We now are able to drill with far more precision and environmental care than a quarter-century ago. We have thousands of rigs in the Gulf of Mexico, yet not even hurricanes Katrina and Rita resulted in spills of any significance.

McCain's problem is that he's only able to go halfway on energy production because he has locked himself into opposition to the other obvious source of domestic oil -- the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

His fastidiousness on this is inexplicable. "I believe that ANWR is a pristine area," he explains. Is it more pristine than the ocean, where he now wants to drill? More pristine than the Arabian Desert from which we daily beg the Saudi princes to pump more oil?

The entire Arctic refuge is one-third the size of the United Kingdom (which includes Scotland and Wales). The drilling site would be one-seventh the size of Manhattan Island. The footprint is tiny. Moreover, forbidding drilling there does not prevent despoliation. It merely exports it. The crude oil we're not getting from the Arctic we import instead from places like the Niger Delta, where millions live and where the resulting pollution and oil spillages poison the lives of many of the world's most wretchedly poor.

Our environmental imperialism does not just redistribute pollution to people who can least afford it. It generally increases the total overall damage because oil extraction in the wealthier and more technologically advanced U.S. is far more environmentally sensitive.

McCain's unwillingness to include ANWR lacks even political logic. His policy on offshore drilling is a flip-flop from his past positions. Perfectly justified, but a reconsideration nonetheless. If you are going to take the hit for flip-flopping and for offending environmentalists, why go halfway?

The oil crisis handed McCain an unexpected and singularly effective campaign issue. A majority of Americans now favor drilling in the Arctic and offshore. Democrats stand in the way of increased production just as they did 13 years ago when President Clinton vetoed drilling in ANWR. Domestic oil production would be about 20 percent higher today if the Republican Congress had been allowed to prevail.

As expected and right on cue, Barack Obama reflexively attacked McCain. "His decision to completely change his position" to one that would please the oil industry is "the same Washington politics that has prevented us from achieving energy independence for decades." One can only marvel at Obama's audacity in characterizing McCain's proposal to change our policy as "old politics," while the candidate of "change" adheres rigidly to the no-drilling status quo.

McCain is a lot of things, but the man who opposed ethanol in Iowa -- as Obama shamelessly endorsed the most abysmally stupid of our energy policies -- is no patsy of the energy producers. Americans know that increased production is needed to complement reduced consumption as the only way to get us out from oil shocks, high prices and national security blackmail.

Alas, McCain's proposed reform is only partial. Still better than Obama, however, who refuses to deviate from liberal orthodoxy. But that is the story of his campaign, is it not?

 

Take a Break - synchro-juggler

Beatles music provides the background for this juggling act.  Chris Bliss is a stand up comic who has been on Jay Leno and has opened for Michael Jackson. Chris is a serious comic (?), whose politics may be a bit left of center for me but with an abiding faith in the Bill of Rights.

But Chris may be remembered for his ability to amaze you and I in the finale to his act with a remarkable display of juggling to a musical beat.  This rather famous you-tube video has been viewed by more than 20 million folks.

He has better rhythm than the drummer.

Additional information at www.chrisbliss.com and www.mybillofrights.org.

Happy Monday

My source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8f8drk5Urw

The Supreme Court takes a Dive in uncharted Waters

The Supreme Court created new waves of controversy with its decision in Boumediene v Bush this week. The 5–4 decision permits Guantanamo detainees to challenge their detention in US civil courts.

The case is remarkable for several reasons and it shows something of the underbelly of the Court and our structure of government. It is important to understand that the US Supreme Court does not get to deal with the easy questions in our legal system or society.  They deal with the questions that the political branches have not been willing or able to answer or where the Court systems have not been able to agree on a unified answer around the country.  The Supreme Court is charged with finding the “right” answer where none exists and giving that decision legitimacy in our society. 

But “remarkable” is an understatement when the Court grants rights to non-citizens who are held outside the US for acts that were committed outside the US and who have no ties to the US.  One might very well ask how does our Constitution apply.

The war on terror is unlike any previous war in our existence and defies the normal definitions of war.  We are not locked in conflict with another nation state who is clearly identifiable.  We have certainly been attacked in New York and Washington DC on 9/11/01 and we certainly face hostile opponents in Afghanistan and Iraq.  While we are clearly in a state of national emergency, “war” may not accurately describe our situation. One of the significant differences between the Bush administration and the Clinton administration has been the decision to consider the problem of terrorism to be a military issue rather than a law enforcement issue. Clearly the attacks of 9/11, the destruction of billions of dollars of private property and the murder of more than three thousand innocent civilian citizens of several countries rises above our concepts of domestic crime. But how are these elements to be addressed in our neat and tidy system of laws ?

Our targets are individuals whose very existence on the field of battle is abhorrent to civilized society.  Their actions represent criminal behavior against the country they are in, against US military personnel and against US interests.  When captured, they fall outside of any legal structure (Geneva Conventions, for example).  And our legal system (or that of any other nation) is simply not equipped to deal with the questions raised.  While I would like to believe that the actions taken by the military and by the Administration are justified, necessary and correct to defend our citizens and our interests, we are in uncharted waters here.  And our government institutions are not designed to operate in a vacuum – particularly when there is so much political controversy surrounding events.  But also note that the activity in the courts concerning detainees has been ongoing for several years. 

We have made an effort to take the weapons out of the hands of these captured combatants and to warehouse them away from the theater of conflict until the show is over.  Seems reasonable.  But now we have detainees who have been incarcerated against their will in a foreign land for up to six years without any formal charges or adjudication by any authority and no defined understanding of the limits of their captivity.  We are certainly in a problem area here.  Although the Supreme Court has previously held that such detention was valid.  Policies that appeared to be expedient and appropriate are now viewed with suspicion on grounds of fundamental fairness and due process.  To further confuse the issue, there is evidence of detainees who have been released and returned home immediately resuming hostile activity and taking further American lives.  Further, the detainees have been a source of intelligence data which, one must assume, has assisted our forces in prosecuting the war effort.  Also, one must consider that the evidence necessary to present against a detainee in a hearing may be classified and could compromise personnel or operations ongoing in the field.

The Congress and the Administration have acted to define a system of military tribunals to consider the fate of the detainees with a structure of rights and safeguards to be applied to the detainees in our customary gesture toward fairness and due process.  But very few detainees have had the benefit of a hearing and they continue to remain in undefined custody for an apparently indefinite period of time.  While it is unusual for the Supreme Court to align itself against the other two co-equal branches of government – the fact is that the system put in place by Congress and the President has not solved the problem.  However Congress did act according to previous Supreme Court cases – and the Court now acts in advance of the detainees fully testing the provisions of the MCA (Military Commission Act), which, procedurally, is unusual. 

So the Supreme Court has stated in the current case that detainees have a right to challenge their detention and seek habeas corpus relief before a US civil court.  Currently the US District Court for the District of Columbia has approximately 200 petitions pending – which were being held in expectation of this Supreme Court Case.  No detainee has been released by this decision and the problem of determining the rights of the detainees and the rights of the government will be addressed at the District Court level.  So we are still at the beginning of the legal battle here – which may well return to the Supreme Court for further action. 

While I understand the problem that the Court is trying to address, I believe a bad precedent has been created here.  And I once again remind all of us that the Supreme Court is actively engaged in every part of our society and our individual lives.  The process of appointing Justices to the Supreme Court is, perhaps, the most important role of a President.  I urge all to remember this case and the importance of the Court when deciding on a Presidential candidate in November.  It is likely that two justices will retire in the next four years and the course of the Court will be influenced for a generation by the Justices who are to be appointed by the next President. 

A summary of the decision can be read at Law.com in an article by Tony Mauro < link here >

Commentary by Fred Thompson (you remember Fred Thompson, right?) can be found at Townhall.com in their news and opinion sections < link here >

The actual Supreme Court opinions, including dissents, (since the media never gets it right) can be found  < here >

 

Pragmatic Conservatives

An interesting article by Rick Martinez in the Raleigh, North Carolina,  News and Observer today revealed a simple truth that had become obscured.  I was not familiar with Rick – but upon reading several of his articles, I hope to pay more attention to him in the future. 

The truth is that “political parties are about acquiring and holding political power…”  You must look elsewhere for defenders of political ideals.  That is why the Conservatives may be the biggest losers in this election cycle – even if John McCain is successful. 

The truth is that the intellectual power of Conservative ideals of a William Buckley or Newt Gingrich must be applied through the political structure of parties in power as practiced by Newt and Ronald Reagan to produce pragmatic and practical solutions which can be understood by the voters. 

The process of rehabilitation of the Conservative Cause must start today.

My source: http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/martinez/story/1103579.html

Bring back pragmatic conservatives

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Rick Martinez, Correspondent

Regardless of who wins the White House five months from now, conservatives will end up the biggest losers in this political cycle. As the candidacies of Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama demonstrate, conservatives are finding fewer friends these days in the arenas of power.

If conservatives are as smart as they say they are, they'll start today on their political rehabilitation. Let me suggest a few tips to help them get started.

GET THEIR HANDS DIRTY AGAIN -- Conservatives have confused calling a talk show, reading a blog or attending a conference with old-fashioned grass-roots political field work. When conservatives complain about the lack of a like-minded presidential choice, I remind them of the candidacies of Sam Brownback of Kansas and Duncan Hunter of California and Tom Tancredo of Colorado. That these three were among the first to drop out of the presidential contest proves that conservatives have forgotten the cardinal rule of politics: Success depends on money, organization and Election Day mobilization. Simply voting isn't enough.

END THEIR BLIND DEVOTION TO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY -- Conservatives have forgotten that political parties are about acquiring and holding power, not upholding political ideals. I get a kick every time a conservative complains that minorities blindly vote Democratic without examining how that party's policies are detrimental over the long term to African- and Hispanic-Americans. That's a fair criticism. But it's a criticism conservatives fail to apply to themselves.

Limited government, sound fiscal and monetary policy and the protection of personal freedom are bedrock conservative principles. Yet government expansion, spending, deficits and the erosion of civil liberties (primarily under the Patriot Act) have exploded under Republican administrations. Republicans have reeled in conservatives by utilizing the argument that tax cuts lead to greater revenues. True, but the rest of the story is that under Republican governance, more revenue has led to even more deficit spending.

Republicans don't have a great domestic policy record, either. From 2001 until 2007 when they essentially controlled Congress and the White House, next to nothing was achieved on school choice, lasting tax reform or energy legislation leading to additional environmentally sensitive domestic production.

EMBRACE INTELLECTUAL LEADERS, NOT EXCORIATE THEM -- William F. Buckley Jr. transferred intellectual leadership of the conservative movement to Internet pundits and broadcast commentators. Their rhetoric increasingly centers on the premise that all Democrats and liberals are bad, while most, but not all, conservatives and Republicans are good. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is one Republican conservative intellectual who is enduring the wrath of the right, ostracized because he's urging conservatives to develop environmental policies beyond "just yell no"

In his book "Contract With the Earth" and in other forums, Gingrich argues that conservatives can convince the public that technology spurred by private and public sector innovation can produce better environmental and economic outcomes than old-school legislative limits and litigation. Yet many conservatives dismiss Gingrich, not because of his ideas but because he challenges them to engage ideas and people with whom they typically disagree.

BECOME PROBLEM-SOLVERS AGAIN, NOT JUST IDEOLOGUES -- Conservatives sanctify Ronald Reagan but don't practice the most important lesson he taught. Reagan was a practical problem-solver who wouldn't let ideological perfection get in the way of real but incremental progress. He often responded to critics who believed he conceded too much to congressional Democrats by saying that half a loaf was always better than none.

Right now the conservative Heritage Foundation is running a "What Would Reagan Do" campaign. Too bad it wasn't front and center last summer when immigration legislation was making its way through Congress. Reagan would have crafted meaningful reform as a first step to rebuilding and modernizing immigration policies. Instead, conservatives killed any chance of reform and preserved the lousy, porous immigration polices that led to 12 million people living here illegally. In other words, no loaf.

Unfortunately many conservatives view political rehabilitation as compromising conservatism's core. Hardly. It's learning to reapply principles in politically effective ways and keeping relevant the values that, as Reagan often recalled, made America a shining city upon a hill.

 

 

Candidates missing the Point

< sigh > Some days it just doesn’t help to get up and read the news.  We are now focusing on two candidates for President who will officially become the nominees of their party at the end of the summer and will campaign for the oval office in the fall.

Today it appears that neither candidate gets it.  Newt Gingrich gets it (no surprise there) with his  Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less initiative. 

Senator Obama continues to call for windfall profits taxes against oil companies – now there is an incentive to explore for more energy – while the Democrats push for cap & trade policies (voted down in the Senate last week, I understand).

Where is John McCain ? He supported cap & trade and still opposes exploration in ANWR.  Wake up. John ! There is political opportunity here.  Polls show the public doesn’t blame the oil companies any more – you are out in the open and exposed, along with the rest of Washington.  You are part of the solution or you are part of the problem.   

Senator Obama is openly planning to increase every tax in sight to pay for his social programs.  Our economy is in trouble and he wants to INCREASE taxes ? Now there is a winning message. 

But where is Senator McCain.  He is moving forward with a pro-growth plan with corporate tax reductions but the voters are worried about gas prices NOW – even more than sub-prime lending problems and foreclosures.  Senator McCain has an opportunity here to push for changes in energy policies as well as tax cuts.  The result can be more jobs, higher wages, lower gas prices and a Republican in the White House. 

Senator McCain must re-evaluate his views on global warming and avoid policies that will cost billions of dollars with no beneficial impact.  He needs to focus on the economic concerns of the individual voters and step forward now with effective solutions that utilize our national resources in the area of energy. 

Click < here > for Lawrence Kudlow’s excellent article this morning.

Communicate your thoughts to Senator McCain.  There is an opportunity for political capital, a real solution to pressing economic problems and the right guy in the White House.  But Senator McCain need to get off his gas.

 

The way we Were (told by the media of today)

Much of the controversy about the War on Terror in Iraq has been fueled by news coverage that has seemed to this observer to be biased and agenda-driven.  A steady drumbeat of casualty reports has obscured events which have occurred that need to be a part of the debate.  While every American casualty is important and serious, the objective for which they died and the progress toward that objective is also of importance. 

Before we make political decisions for the future – or in this case, before we elect the President and the Congress that will make those political decisions, we must all try to discover the facts of what has happened and evaluate the progress without the “get Bush” mentality that the Democrats seem to thrive on.  There is valid criticism of what has transpired in Iraq – but there is also success and progress that has not been talked about or reported. 

A group called the Combat Report has prepared a humorous (and disheartening) video of news coverage of the Normandy invasion more than 60 years ago as it would be reported by todays agenda-driven media.  The first segment of the clip is a spoof of D-Day coverage – had it been produced in today’s media environment, the end of the clip shows the true facts of what happened. 

Remember this clip when you watch the evening news for coverage of today’s conflicts.

My source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px_XBJHrs4I

 

Take a break - You are not going to believe this !

Many readers may be aware of this bit of music history but it was news to me. 

A finnish rock band called the Leningrad Cowboys was the fictional invention of a Finnish movie Director for the 1989 movie Leningrad Cowboys Go America.  The band in the movie was a real group (the Sleepy Sleepers) who knew a good thing when they saw (and heard) it.  They continued to play and tour as the Leningrad Cowboys – in several venues (including the MTV Music Awards show in 1994) appearing with 70 – 150 members of the Red Army Choir.  I am not making this up. There were several additional movies and many concerts until, twenty years later, they have made it to my desktop.

My featured clip, for your enjoyment, is “Sweet Home Alabama”  I am slow to the party, but I still remember a Lynyrd Skynyrd classic when I hear it – even when performed by the Soviet Red Army Choir – which still exists and performs, by the way – as we will see).

“Sweet Home Alabama” is performed by the Leningrad Cowboys (and several cowgirls, by the way) and the Red Army Choir (in force) in English (with a Russian Close)

Enjoy.  I can scarcely contain my excitement. But seriously - the music is good, the players are talented and the visual imagery is unusual.  Nice hair too.

My source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lNFRLrP014

And for those who can’t get enough excitement on a Monday morning, I will provide an additional link to the same group (again backed by the Russian Army) performing “Stairway to Heaven”.  Very acceptable guitar work and vocal.  The Choir kind of gets in the way on this one.

Detente was never like this.

 

Fasten your seat Belts - It's going to be a bumpy ride (again)

Those who choose to subject themselves to my opinions on a regular basis in these pages know that I am nearly apoplectic on the subject of global warming – real or imagined. I note in passing that Senator Obama stated in his victory ( ? ) speech last night that this was the moment that the sea level rise in the oceans would stop.  I am sure that we are so relieved that as we put our life jackets back in the closet, we will support an effort to name a book in the Bible after him… but I digress.

One of my concerns with the hype and bad science of global warming is that the politicians will divert billions of dollars from legitimate social or security needs to dumb (I know that word doesn’t have much literary flare, but it is accurate) projects to solve a crisis which doesn’t exist. (which is why Senator will be successful against sea level rise – kind of like a rooster taking credit for the dawn)

Senator Lieberman, in an effort to remind us that he really is a liberal at heart, has co-sponsored the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008.  Larry Thornberry, one of my favorite commentators contributing regularly to The American Spectator magazine, has called this Senate bill the “worst piece of legislation” introduced into the Senate in this century or the last.  Now that is an achievement of note.

Other commentators - to include Newt Gingrich – have voiced the opinion that this legislation and it’s Cap and Trade policy would lead to an spectacular increase in gas prices as well as the accompanying rise in prices for power, food  and other major items. 

Larry’s latest, from the American Spectator, is featured below.  I need to go lie down now.

My source: http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13309

Political Hay
Cap and Destroy
By Larry Thornberry
Published 6/3/2008 12:07:56 AM

Yesterday the U.S. Senate began what it insists on calling "debate" (more like serial dopey speeches designed for home consumption) on the worst piece of legislation introduced into that body in the new century. Perhaps worse than anything in the last century as well.

 

There's nothing good to be said about the disingenuously named Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2008. A better name would be the Let's Destroy the Economy by Turning it Over to Left-Geek Bureaucrats in 2008 Act.

 

The heart of Lieberman-Warner is a cap and trade system that would turn decisions on how much and what kind of energy to use in the private sector over to government. This is the approach, you'll recall, that worked so well in the Soviet Union that that dismal country's first five-year plan lasted 74 years before the whole sorry business caved-in on its own command and control butt. If adopted, this would be the most fundamental change in the nature of this country in the country's history.

 

Perhaps we could call this the New New Deal. The first New Deal, cooked up by a lot of smart but impractical professors and hack politicians in FDR's administration, succeeded in making the Great Depression deeper and longer than it otherwise would have been. The current plan, more ambitious than all of FDR's alphabet soup groups, could put paid to the entire economy, and thus to America as we've known it.

 

 

THE REASON A CAP and trade system is such a horrible idea, other than the fact that it would turn America's dynamic and complex economy over to the kind of folks who directed the Katrina relief effort, is that it sets very low levels of use of fossil fuels, the only relatively inexpensive, reliable, and available energy we have in large amounts. The boutique sources of energy like wind, solar, and biomass, the ones that excite environmentalists, just aren't available in more than trifling amounts. And aren't likely to be for years. Restricting the use of fossil fuels for energy would drive the price of everything -- not just gasoline or power to light homes, everything -- up dramatically.

 

We've already seen increases in the price of food thanks to our insane policy of trying to grow our fuel through ethanol and other bio-fuels. If we're daft enough to cap our use of fossil fuels, as environmentalists and their political enablers want us to, we'll first see increased prices, then severe shortages, and finally unavailability of everything else as well. Choking off the use of carbon-based fuels could and would make an utter dog's breakfast of the American economy, which has been the most powerful engine of wealth the world has ever seen. (To be sure, this legislation would solve our illegal immigration problem -- no one would want to come here anymore -- and, oh yeah, we could pretty much quit worrying about obesity too as the food supply dwindled.)

 

At least in the past when the Congress passed terrible legislation that made problems worse, there was actually an underlying problem. The Great Depression, for example, was quite real. In the current case, Congress is considering (just how seriously we've yet to learn) altering the essential nature of America, replacing the free decisions of the marketplace with Soviet-like energy commissars, in the name of saving us from something that almost certainly isn't even a problem at all. (And if it were a problem, it would be one that Man's puny efforts could do little or nothing about.)

 

We've allowed casuists, left politicians, gullible and sensationalist journalists, and a few dodgy, grant-hungry scientists to stampede us into hysteria about global warming, or in the new preferred phrase "climate change" (which is intellectually incoherent -- climate is always changing), on the basis of nothing more than wild speculation dreamed up by computer jockeys who couldn't tell us whether or not it will rain tomorrow if their lives depended on it. An increasing number of scientists are coming forward to pin the tail on the global warming donkeys, but no one much seems to be paying attention.

 

 

WE'VE REACHED the "Do something even if it's wrong" phase. The Senate is seriously considering (seriously as these things are measured in Washington) creating a Department of Not Using Energy and saddling a dynamic and remarkably clean economy with it. The only comfort we can take is that there is no companion bill to this Senate monstrosity in the House (though Michigan Democrat John Dingell's House Energy and Commerce Committee is thinking of cooking one up), and Dubya has promised to veto the legislation if it arrives on his desk in its current form.

 

But something is almost bound to get through at some point. John McCain and the two Democrat contenders all say they want cap and trade systems. The major business organizations have almost given up the fight against the global warming superstition. Bill Kovacs, VP for environment, technology, and regulatory affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told me his group is convinced that some kind of climate change legislation will be adopted. He just wants it to be the least harmful he can get.

 

"If you try to argue against global warming, you're just not part of the conversation," Kovacs said.

 

So we have yet another case where the truth doesn't matter, and no one much is pursuing it. No one on the side of the angels seems to believe victory is possible. We're following what could be described as a policy a detente with the hysterics. Maybe we should call Henry Kissinger out of retirement.

 

 

Now this should be Interesting

Ron Kessler in his column for Newsmax.com today talks about Peter Schweizer’s new book, “Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less . . . and Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals,” to be released this week.

Well, now that I gave you the title, it kind of takes away the surprise about what he is going to talk about.

See Ron’s article in full at:

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Peter_Schweizer/2008/06/02/100864.html

Peter’s book is available at Amazon.com

Wear Sunscreen (Take a Break)

A recent blog entry from a friend of mine (MinnesotaStan – quoted here often) provided the text of this video as advice to friends about to become newly-weds. 

I had previously heard the soundtrack of this video during the final credits of the movie “The Big Kahuna” with Kevin Spacey (an ensemble cast study of three corporate representatives at a Midwest trade show). 

As I researched Stan’s text, I found this, the original music video available on You-tube.com.

I delight to share it.  Enjoy. (video is 7 min)

my source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfq_A8nXMsQ&feature=related

 

The Lemmings of Fraggle Rock

I think the lemmings are having more fun than we are.

 

my source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TSDeoO-j3G0

New Web 2.0 application from Evernote

A number of mentions have been found in Active Rain of Evernote.  It is a free form notes application with the capability to select and save content from many different applications or cut and paste or direct enter information in different formats and recover them by intelligent searches at any time.  The application is somewhat similar to Microsoft OneNote.  Clip part of a web site or save the entire page to Evernote and be able to search for key words to find the document.  The system even recognizes words in graphics.  Evernote has now announced a web based application in beta form. 

Go to www.evernote.com for info.

The clips, lists, reminders or other data can be accessed from any web connected computer.  Just log into your account.  You can take a photo with your cell phone and email the image directly into your Evernote account.  An Evernote client application can be installed on your smart phone, as well.

Their video presentation talks of being able to publish certain docs to a notebook (Evernote files are called notebooks) which can be accessed by others so we may have a system which could share closing documents and contracts with parties and closing agents.

System is new and in beta form – but worth signing up (for free) so you will see where this technology goes.

Info at http://evernote.com

My source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i_ncr1Ee9e8