Thursday, August 14, 2008
Hello, Not Voting for Candidate A Is a Vote for Candidate B
This just boggles my mind, and it's true on both sides of the fence. Most recently it has come out McCain might choose a pro-abortion candidate. So, the answer? To not vote for McCain? And that means what? Obama, who is clearly much less conservative, wins? That would be the preferred outcome? And the Democrats are just as bad. Some HRC supporters, for example, will refuse to vote for Obama. So they would prefer that McCain would win, someone who would be much less representative of Democratic ideals? So some people would rather let someone who is less representative of their values win rather than vote for someone who doesn't exactly represent their values? Look people, the next president will either be Obama or McCain and not voting is not going to change that. So it would behoove you to vote for the candidate who more closely represents your values if for no other reason to keep out of office someone who would be even less representative of your values. If you withhold your vote because your party's candidate has offended you in some way, the only one you are hurting by not voting is yourself. If neither candidate is your ideal candidate that is irrelevant and pouting about it isn't going to change that. If you are smart you can suck it up and accept that your only options are McCain or Obama and vote for which ever is the next best thing and most closely represents your values (or against whichever is the next worst thing) or you can go off and pout and get what you get which might end up being the worse of the two for your values. To make the point, for those who oppose abortion rights, if McCain were to choose a pro-abortion VP, you would prefer to have a President AND a VP who stand for abortion rights than to vote for a ticket where only the VP is pro-abortion? And for HRC supporters, you would rather have McCain as president than vote for Obama? Yes, voting has consequences and so does not voting. Are you willing to accept the results and consequences of not voting? Remeber, what you choose to do, whether to vote or not, on November 2 this year has consequences for whether Obama or McCain is in the Whitehouse on January 20 of next year.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Yes, Russia, It Is You Who Is the Hypocrite, not the US
So Russia seeks to cast the US as hypocritical for expressing opposition to it's invasion of Georgia and has the audacity to raise the issue of Iraq? Well, let's put some things into perspective and just see who is the hypocrite.
If we look at crises that are actually analogous to the Georgia situation we see a completely different picture. In the Iraq war that actually is analogous to the current crisis in Georgia, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the US pushed Saddam out of Kuwait and back to his border. The US did not invade Iraq at that time. When Serbian troops were committing genocide against the Kosovo Albanians, NATO, led by the US, repulsed the Serbian troops only sufficiently to put a stop the genocide. And if you want to bring up the US invasion of Iraq, it took 12 years of as many UN resolutions that were obstructed, circumvented or simply ignored by Saddam before the US invaded. And even then the US attempted to gain the support of the international community. It didn't even take Russia 12 hours before they invaded Georgia.
Anytime the international community attempts to deal with crises around the world, Russia is always there acting to obstruct those attempts. Russia is always pushing for interminable talks, diplomacy, and negotiation. Even peaceful attempts with resolutions, sanctions, or peace keeping troops are obstructed by Russia. Russia states it's position as non-interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign states, even when those "internal affairs" include atrocities such as genocide. Now that there is a crisis in a sovereign nation they have an interest in, do they exercise the restraint and non-intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation that they impose on other nations by use of their veto power at the UN? No, they completely bypass all peaceful approaches such as the talks, diplomacy and negation they demand others utilize, they bypass the other peaceful approaches of resolutions and sanctions, and they even bypass a measured military action to repulse Georgian troops out of South Ossetia and go straight for the jugular with a full scale invasion of Geogia, a sovereign nation, with overwhelming military force. So why is it ok for Russia to immediately resort to extreme military force to "meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign state" whenever they choose yet they obstruct even peaceful attempts of other nations and the UN to resolve other crises? If Russia wants to see hypocracy in international affairs, it need only look in the mirror.
If we look at crises that are actually analogous to the Georgia situation we see a completely different picture. In the Iraq war that actually is analogous to the current crisis in Georgia, when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, the US pushed Saddam out of Kuwait and back to his border. The US did not invade Iraq at that time. When Serbian troops were committing genocide against the Kosovo Albanians, NATO, led by the US, repulsed the Serbian troops only sufficiently to put a stop the genocide. And if you want to bring up the US invasion of Iraq, it took 12 years of as many UN resolutions that were obstructed, circumvented or simply ignored by Saddam before the US invaded. And even then the US attempted to gain the support of the international community. It didn't even take Russia 12 hours before they invaded Georgia.
Anytime the international community attempts to deal with crises around the world, Russia is always there acting to obstruct those attempts. Russia is always pushing for interminable talks, diplomacy, and negotiation. Even peaceful attempts with resolutions, sanctions, or peace keeping troops are obstructed by Russia. Russia states it's position as non-interference in the internal affairs of other sovereign states, even when those "internal affairs" include atrocities such as genocide. Now that there is a crisis in a sovereign nation they have an interest in, do they exercise the restraint and non-intervention in the internal affairs of a sovereign nation that they impose on other nations by use of their veto power at the UN? No, they completely bypass all peaceful approaches such as the talks, diplomacy and negation they demand others utilize, they bypass the other peaceful approaches of resolutions and sanctions, and they even bypass a measured military action to repulse Georgian troops out of South Ossetia and go straight for the jugular with a full scale invasion of Geogia, a sovereign nation, with overwhelming military force. So why is it ok for Russia to immediately resort to extreme military force to "meddle in the internal affairs of a sovereign state" whenever they choose yet they obstruct even peaceful attempts of other nations and the UN to resolve other crises? If Russia wants to see hypocracy in international affairs, it need only look in the mirror.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Inflate Your Tires to Solve Our Energy Problems
Some people just don't get the point, even Obama. Obama seems to think that McCain was taking issue with whether or not inflating your tires saves gas, when in fact he was taking issue with whether or not telling people to inflate their tires is an energy policy or not. This from McCain pretty much sums it up: "That's not an energy plan, my friends -- that's a public service announcement." And if inflating your tires IS an energy policy, then at least McCain is doing something about it by handing out tire pressure gauges. I don't think either one has what I would consider a satisfactory energy policy but my point here is being honest about what was and was not said and what does and does not constitute an energy policy. But then again, at least Obama appears to be open, to some degree, to considering ideas to which he was previously opposed.
And as to being honest about what was and was not said, the recent tire flap harkens back to the flap over McCain's remark over troops in Iraq for 100 years. The point was an arrangement not unlike the fact that we, to this day, have troops in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Do people who have taken issue with McCain's comment think that these other troop deployments have been a bad thing? And if these have been a good thing then why wouldn't the exact same arrangement in Iraq not also be a good thing? The existing arrangements have been mutually beneficial for over 50 years and show no signs of major changes, so why would claims of 100 years of a similar arrangement in Iraq be unreasonable?
And as to being honest about what was and was not said, the recent tire flap harkens back to the flap over McCain's remark over troops in Iraq for 100 years. The point was an arrangement not unlike the fact that we, to this day, have troops in Germany, Japan, and South Korea. Do people who have taken issue with McCain's comment think that these other troop deployments have been a bad thing? And if these have been a good thing then why wouldn't the exact same arrangement in Iraq not also be a good thing? The existing arrangements have been mutually beneficial for over 50 years and show no signs of major changes, so why would claims of 100 years of a similar arrangement in Iraq be unreasonable?
Monday, August 4, 2008
Hyperventilating Over Oil
(This just in... Obama says he would discuss a pragmatic approach to offshore drilling as part of a pragmatic over-arching energy policy -
"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact.")
Why are people hyperventilating over broaching the topic of off shore drilling? The only thing that anyone has actually said is that if supply issues are contributing to the problem then let's talk about possibly increasing supply with exploitation in locations previously off limits. What's wrong with asking the question? It is a completely reasonable question to ask and Democrats and liberals are doing everything they can to stop people from trying to answer it in any pragmatic manner. If insufficient supply is part of the problem how does increasing supply not help? Will it solve all of our problems and make them all go away? Of course not. Only Democrats seem to think that this is the claim - or at least that since it won't solve everything we should not pursue it at all. But even if it is only 1 or 2 million barrels of additional oil, isn't that better than no additional barrels of oil? Does drilling for more oil preclude us from exploiting other solutions for our energy problems? No it doesn't. Except that Democrats seem to think it will. They say we should pursue conservation and alternate energy instead. Instead? Why not AND? And how is the fact that new drilling won't produce oil for many years an argument not to drill? Isn't that what investment is all about - expenditure today for future payoff? Democrats give any number of similar illogical arguments to not drill, which if true, then no wells would ever have been drilled in the first place. We would also never build bridges, or dams, or highways or any other large construction efforts as these don't show results until many years in the future. Yet, not surprisingly, many people actually understand that the reality is that quite often you must begin work today so that the benefit can be realized at a future date and that there is value to this. And that being the case, if it is indeed true that exploration and drilling today will not produce results for many years, isn't that in fact an argument to start now rather than delay and push realization of results even further into the future??? Oh yeah, Democrats don't seem to understand investing today for future payoff.
Some people have simply raised the question for discussion and Democrats have immediately started hyperventilating as if the drills had already started. The thing is some people want the debate in order to achieve rational, fully informed energy policy but Democrats are doing everything to prevent that. (hmm... wasn't it Democrats that were lambasting Republicans for having the audacity to quash debate on other topics? And now Democrats are doing exactly that which had them outraged at Republicans.) The same is true of nuclear energy. Let's start the justified discussion on merits. But instead Democrats immediately start hyperventilating as if atoms are already smashing. How dare anyone have the audacity to even broach the idea of nuclear energy. (Except that even uber-liberal France seems to grasp the pragmatism of nuclear energy. While hard to pin down it seems about 78% of electricity in France is nuclear generated). Ooh nuclear, evil bad, hiss - better we should all suffer carbon emissions and global warming than bury nuclear waste in some desolate uninhabited desert.
And as for the strategic reserve, the intent with that is for a rainy day when we have REAL problems. Oh yeah, that's right, Democrats don't believe in saving for a rainy day as the prospect of any future calamity is only hypothetical. If we tap our reserves today and then something happens like Israel strikes Iran, don't you think we'll then regret having tapped the reserves for something as frivolous as prices rather than keeping the strategic reserves for STRATEGIC purposes? Oh yeah, Democrats only live for today and tomorrow is only hypothetical and consequences tomorrow for actions today be damned. (In Democratically controlled California, we never seem to be able to save in times of plenty in order to have reserves in times of lean - no matter how much surplus revenue we ever have we always end up broke and unable to get a budget out on time. When our lakes and reservoirs are full that's always taken as green light to build more houses seemingly thinking that quantity of water will last forever and ignoring the fact that the lakes and reservoirs are not always full as is the case this year). And speaking of strategic issues, that drop of oil in the bucket from new drilling would take on a whole new degree of significance if something majorly unfortunate happened in the Middle East and our bucket got reduced to a tea cup.
And there are the claims that the proposed drilling would not be economically effective. Isn't that a decision or the oil companies? If they decide it doesn't make business sense they simply don't have to drill. This is like not asking the hot girl out because you decide she would not accept. Shouldn't it be her choice? It is a unilateral decision assuming a second party choice not necessarily in evidence. And like the hot girl, if she declines, then you know for certain one way or another and it's that much easier to move on. And if the outcome is ultimately that the oil companies decide it doesn't make business sense, then what is the harm in having the discussion and letting the oil companies decide for themselves rather than making that decision for them?
The problem is specious and nonsequitur "reasoning" for not drilling that are supposed to somehow be reasons to not even have honest discussion. No it doesn't solve the whole problem but that does not mean it is of no help or no use. No it won't provide oil today but maybe we should start now to make it available tomorrow. What we need is real debate based on real merit and not the false logic and hyperbole expressed by BOTH sides. If we really (and honestly) want more independence from foreign oil shouldn't we honestly be talking about ALL options including conservation and alternate energy AS WELL AS increased domestic oil supply and nuclear? None will single-handedly solve our problems - not even conservation or alternate energy - but they are ALL key components to a COMPLETE, rational, and pragmatic energy policy and none should be off limits to discussion simply because of ideology. Ideology and hyperbole is not the place to start to achieve such policy.
"Like all compromises, it also includes steps that I haven't always supported," Obama conceded. "I remain skeptical that new offshore drilling will bring down gas prices in the short-term or significantly reduce our oil dependence in the long-term, though I do welcome the establishment of a process that will allow us to make future drilling decisions based on science and fact.")
Why are people hyperventilating over broaching the topic of off shore drilling? The only thing that anyone has actually said is that if supply issues are contributing to the problem then let's talk about possibly increasing supply with exploitation in locations previously off limits. What's wrong with asking the question? It is a completely reasonable question to ask and Democrats and liberals are doing everything they can to stop people from trying to answer it in any pragmatic manner. If insufficient supply is part of the problem how does increasing supply not help? Will it solve all of our problems and make them all go away? Of course not. Only Democrats seem to think that this is the claim - or at least that since it won't solve everything we should not pursue it at all. But even if it is only 1 or 2 million barrels of additional oil, isn't that better than no additional barrels of oil? Does drilling for more oil preclude us from exploiting other solutions for our energy problems? No it doesn't. Except that Democrats seem to think it will. They say we should pursue conservation and alternate energy instead. Instead? Why not AND? And how is the fact that new drilling won't produce oil for many years an argument not to drill? Isn't that what investment is all about - expenditure today for future payoff? Democrats give any number of similar illogical arguments to not drill, which if true, then no wells would ever have been drilled in the first place. We would also never build bridges, or dams, or highways or any other large construction efforts as these don't show results until many years in the future. Yet, not surprisingly, many people actually understand that the reality is that quite often you must begin work today so that the benefit can be realized at a future date and that there is value to this. And that being the case, if it is indeed true that exploration and drilling today will not produce results for many years, isn't that in fact an argument to start now rather than delay and push realization of results even further into the future??? Oh yeah, Democrats don't seem to understand investing today for future payoff.
Some people have simply raised the question for discussion and Democrats have immediately started hyperventilating as if the drills had already started. The thing is some people want the debate in order to achieve rational, fully informed energy policy but Democrats are doing everything to prevent that. (hmm... wasn't it Democrats that were lambasting Republicans for having the audacity to quash debate on other topics? And now Democrats are doing exactly that which had them outraged at Republicans.) The same is true of nuclear energy. Let's start the justified discussion on merits. But instead Democrats immediately start hyperventilating as if atoms are already smashing. How dare anyone have the audacity to even broach the idea of nuclear energy. (Except that even uber-liberal France seems to grasp the pragmatism of nuclear energy. While hard to pin down it seems about 78% of electricity in France is nuclear generated). Ooh nuclear, evil bad, hiss - better we should all suffer carbon emissions and global warming than bury nuclear waste in some desolate uninhabited desert.
And as for the strategic reserve, the intent with that is for a rainy day when we have REAL problems. Oh yeah, that's right, Democrats don't believe in saving for a rainy day as the prospect of any future calamity is only hypothetical. If we tap our reserves today and then something happens like Israel strikes Iran, don't you think we'll then regret having tapped the reserves for something as frivolous as prices rather than keeping the strategic reserves for STRATEGIC purposes? Oh yeah, Democrats only live for today and tomorrow is only hypothetical and consequences tomorrow for actions today be damned. (In Democratically controlled California, we never seem to be able to save in times of plenty in order to have reserves in times of lean - no matter how much surplus revenue we ever have we always end up broke and unable to get a budget out on time. When our lakes and reservoirs are full that's always taken as green light to build more houses seemingly thinking that quantity of water will last forever and ignoring the fact that the lakes and reservoirs are not always full as is the case this year). And speaking of strategic issues, that drop of oil in the bucket from new drilling would take on a whole new degree of significance if something majorly unfortunate happened in the Middle East and our bucket got reduced to a tea cup.
And there are the claims that the proposed drilling would not be economically effective. Isn't that a decision or the oil companies? If they decide it doesn't make business sense they simply don't have to drill. This is like not asking the hot girl out because you decide she would not accept. Shouldn't it be her choice? It is a unilateral decision assuming a second party choice not necessarily in evidence. And like the hot girl, if she declines, then you know for certain one way or another and it's that much easier to move on. And if the outcome is ultimately that the oil companies decide it doesn't make business sense, then what is the harm in having the discussion and letting the oil companies decide for themselves rather than making that decision for them?
The problem is specious and nonsequitur "reasoning" for not drilling that are supposed to somehow be reasons to not even have honest discussion. No it doesn't solve the whole problem but that does not mean it is of no help or no use. No it won't provide oil today but maybe we should start now to make it available tomorrow. What we need is real debate based on real merit and not the false logic and hyperbole expressed by BOTH sides. If we really (and honestly) want more independence from foreign oil shouldn't we honestly be talking about ALL options including conservation and alternate energy AS WELL AS increased domestic oil supply and nuclear? None will single-handedly solve our problems - not even conservation or alternate energy - but they are ALL key components to a COMPLETE, rational, and pragmatic energy policy and none should be off limits to discussion simply because of ideology. Ideology and hyperbole is not the place to start to achieve such policy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)