The Ones Who Get Screwed

Here is my take on the whole gas problem.

First, OPEC and Saudi Arabia have us over a barrel (ha, pun intended) and they know it.  We buy oil from a lot of different countries but Saudi Arabia is one of the major suppliers.  Saudi Arabia is also quietly supporting terrorism.  Bin Laden is Saudi. His family money comes from there.  They know how tightly our economy is tied to oil and they can tighten the screws anytime they want to.

Second, China and India are increasing their demand for oil and, at least right now, their economy is better then ours and they can afford to pay more money.  That is not good.

There are lots of other factors but in my opinion those are the two biggest.  So what can be done about it.  I think it’s kind of simple.

There are wells in the Gulf of Mexico that are already drilled and could be producing oil in a year.  ANWR is a pretty remote area and drilling up there really wouldn’t have a negative impact on anything.  I’m pretty darn sure the technology has improved in the last 30 years and we could disturb the environment very little.  That would be the first step, start drilling.  I know all the arguments about how long it will take, etc.  The fact of the matter is we should have started this drilling 10-20 years ago.  The sooner we start the sooner we will have oil of our own.

We also need to seriously pursue alternative sources of energy.  All energy, not just gasoline.  We need to seriously consider nuclear energy, France has been using it for 30 years with no problems at all.  If they can do it I’m sure we can. If you think it’s going to take time to get oil out of the ground just think how long it’s going to take to build an infrastructure of an alternative energy.  Imagine how long it will take to build a network of hydrogen stations like we have gas stations now.  This is going to take time.  We need to seriously work on the alternatives and find one that is a viable alternative to gas for our cars.

We definitely need to think in terms of a variety of alternative sources, wind, solar, turbine, nuclear.  There is no one source that is going to replace gas but with a system of different energy sources for different applications it just might work.

But the really important point is that we, as a nation, have to get serious and start working on it now.  Holding Senate meetings and grilling the oil company executives is not going to help.  Blocking drilling is not going to help.  We need to have a multi-prong approach and we need to start now.  The politicians need to stop playing politics and start doing something to actually help the American people.  We are the ones in the trenches everyday. We are the ones paying the high gas prices to get through our day to day lives.  We are the ones who are getting screwed.

When I started this blog, actually when I started all my blogs, I had an idea of what they would be.  For this one I wanted it to be a running commentary of how politicians screw the little guy.  The politicians are all for helping the poor, the destitute, druggies, homeless folks, etc.   But if you’re a hard working, middle class American you pretty much get screwed in every instance.  You’re not eligible for most of the government programs because you make too much.  You can’t afford to really get ahead because you don’t make quite enough.  You pay more than your fair share in taxes and you don’t seem to get any of the benefit of those taxes.  It’s a lot worse for you if you don’t have children.  This blog was supposed to be a document of these things.

What has happened is I’ve gotten so completely and totally fed up with the presidential election that this blog has taken a decidedly negative twist.  The entries have been sporadic and pretty much just bashing something.  I’ve always felt that it’s counterproductive to bash something without offering a solution.  So starting today, things change.  I will begin doing what this blog was intended to do, document life as a middle class American and how you get screwed.

I’ve heard it said before but I guess I never really understood it until today.  Democrats rule with their heart, not their head.  There is definitely a time and a place to let your heart lead.  When I think of animals my heart is most definitely the one doing most of the thinking.  But the head is where intelligence and logic reside and where decisions should be made.

Today I heard Nancy Pelosi say that drilling in protected areas was a hoax.  Now hears the thing on drilling.  I am a big environmentalist and would much rather see the wilderness preserved than to see more buildings or freeways.  One of the reasons I dislike California so much, and I’m beginning to hate Oahu, is that expansion seems to be going on unchecked.  So I would rather drive a Prius than condone drilling, but I think it’s time to use our heads.  We are paying exorbitant amounts of money to Saudi Arabia to power our cars.  We are basically funding terrorism.  Drilling in Anwar and offshore would go a long way towards getting us away from buying oil from terrorists.  Why is that bad??  You can’t tell me that with all our technology and advancements we can’t drill in Anwar without destroying the environment.  I don’t believe it.

Listening to this is when it hit me, Democrats don’t use their heads. The average person, that they like to throw around so often, is really struggling with the gas prices as high as they are now. Yet they won’t take steps to provide real relief by allowing drilling here in our own country.  Drilling in our own country would put the control of the prices and supply in our hands, yet that’s not good enough.  Pelosi has taken a stance against drilling and will back it regardless of the reasons.  When gas was $1.50 a gallon, I could see not wanting to drill.  But with gas pushing $4/gal I think it’s time to rethink her position.  But again, she’d rather spend time knocking the Republicans and sticking to her guns, even if they are wrong.  It’s amazing.

The same is true of the entire Obama campaign. He doesn’t say anything.  His ideas and plans will cost us a ton of money.  Even low income people will end up paying under the things he’s proposing.  Yet people fall all over him.  Because he’s charismatic and a good speaker, people are willing to put their future in his hands.  It’s totally insane.  This is what happened with Bill Clinton and look where that got us.

Ah well, trying to get Democrats to think with their brains and not their hearts is like asking a teenager to turn off their horomones.

I really don’t.  Last night I heard Charles Barkley saying how he’s supporting Obama.  He was saying that Obama has a lot of experience and he’d be great for the job.  HUH???? I hate to say this, but I think Charles is playing the race card.  I really think he’s supporting Obama just because he’s black.  Obama doesn’t have any experience at all.  That in and of itself wouldn’t be bad except we are in a time of real crisis in this country.  The last time things were so tenious we put Jimmy Carter in office and we all saw how that worked out.  Maybe that’s the problem.  Many of today’s voters are too young to remember the ’70’s.  I was a teenager but I remember gas rationing and sitting in line at the gas station when it was your day.  I don’t want to have to do that again.

Also, Obama seems to be a very poor judge of character.  He had no idea that his pastor, Rev. Wright, was a white hating bigot.  He had no idea that his acquaintance and neighbor, William Ayers, was a bomb planting terrorist.  He had no idea that someone he had business dealings with,  Tony Rezko, was laundering money and making shady deals.  This really doesn’t look good for Obama.  If he knew about all these people and is lying to us, that’s bad.  If he really didn’t know about all these people.  If he was completely oblivious to the people he chose to associate with, that’s much worse.  Do we want someone leading this country who is so out of touch with his close associates???  I sure don’t.

So I just don’t get how people can over look all these weird coincidences and think he’s the second coming.  Of course, I don’t see how true Conservatives can support John McCain. But hey, that’s me.

That can be the only thing that can explain the last 2 days. First, they rule against the State of Louisiana and their right to kill child rapists. One of their reasons;

Execution statistics also confirm that there is a social consensus
against the death penalty for child rape.

So the Supreme Court is not basing their decision on the Constitution, which is what they are supposed to do, but on social consensus. They are basically deciding where this society is headed, or should be headed, and are making rulings based on this. Nice. Completely ignoring the will of the people of the State of Louisiana. I thought the Supreme Court was supposed to interpret the law not make it.

That decision is followed today by the Heller decision. Thankfully, the read the Constitution this time and ruled that Washington D.C. can not ban handguns. Whew!!  The Constitution still means something.

So one decision is based on social consensus and another based on the Constitution.  Bi-polar seems to be the only answer.

So the other day I print out this article from the NY Times.  The headline is “Rev. Al Soaks Up Boycott Bucks”  and it tells of how Rev. Al basically used threats and intimidation to get money for his foundation out of some pretty big companies.  PepsiCo, General Motors, Wal-Mart, FedEx, just to name a few.

According to General Motors, Rev. Al’s group asked for donations for years - unsuccessfully.  Finally, in December 2006 Al threatened to call a boycott and GM caved.  They gave some money and the threat went away. Hmmm…. I do believe when the mob did that they were arrested and put in jail.  Why is this freak allowed to get away with that???   Why doens’t someone stand up to this as*hole!! I get so angry at him and the things he does.  He plays the race card more than anyone and gets away with it!!  Everyone is too afraid to stand up to him and call him what he is, and extortionist!!!  He should be arrested and thrown in jail.  He’s holding an entire country hostage and everyone is letting him.

An interesting sidenote to this is that I went back today to try and find the story to link to and it’s gone.  Apparently the NY Times is afraid of Al Sharpton too.  Wussies!!!

Unfortunately, that’s what seems to be happening with this blog. Or politics in general. I’m so incredibly sick of hearing about how Obama is the second coming. He’s inexperienced and clearly not a very good judge of character and if he’s president I’m scared for the country.

On a very sad note, Tim Russert passed away. That is really sad. He was one of the few people on TV that I consider a journalist. He was clearly very liberal but he approached people from both sides of the aisle the same way. He did not let his views or beliefs get in the way of his job. That’s what a journalist is supposed to do, report the story- not give opinions or views on it. He really will be missed. There are very few journalists out there and it is sad when we lose one. Especially so young. He was only 58. Very sad.

The city of Washington DC has banned handguns. A group has taken them to court saying that is unconstitutional. The case is now in front of the US Supreme Court and a decision is expected in June. This case presents a lot of possibilities depending on how the Supreme Court rules.

If they say the gun ban is unconstitutional that’s the end of that. No city or state will be allowed to ever ban handguns. It’s over and our rights remain intact.

If they rule that’s it’s not unconstitutional and cities can ban guns, they have essentially voided an article of the constitution. They would literally take away one of the rights on which this country was founded. The right to bear arms was put in the constitution to allow us a way to defend ourselves against our government. One of the first things they did in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union was ban guns.

The third option is that they don’t really take a stand. They can hand down a decision that basically says ‘well, if a city wants to ban guns it’s different than in the country and they should be allowed to do it.’ This decision will begin the slow erosion of our rights, but it also opens a can of worms. If certain places are allowed to bend one article of the constitution what about others. If a city can decide to ban guns why can’t it also decide to ban income tax? What if a city decides that jury trials are too costly and decides to hold trials with only judges to save money?? You can not allow leniency on one without allowing leniency on all. This is a slippery slope!!!

Finally, if they support the ban in DC the State of Montana has the right to cancel their compact with the US. Turns out that Montana put some stipulations on becoming a state and if the US Supreme Court alters the constitution the State of Montana can cancel the compact and become their own country. This is awesome. I may have to consider moving to Montana.

For years I’ve been saying that I don’t want to hear politicians tell me what’s wrong with their opponent. I want to hear their plans.  In a fair amount of detail.   I would much rather hear Hillary or Obama say ‘here’s what I want to do about X and here’s how I plan to do it.  First, we will do Y.  Then, we will do Z.  We will follow that with A.  It will take B years and cost C dollars.’  I would actually listen to either of them if they gave a speech like that.  Instead all I hear is Hillary said this and here’s why that’s wrong.  Obama did this and let me tell you why you should be angry.  I am a thinking human being.  I know what I like and don’t like about your opponent.  I do not need to be told how and what to think.  Unfortunately, I think too many in America do need to be told.

I was listening to Oprah and Eckhart Tolle on his book, The New Earth.  He made a statement that brought all this stuff into very clear focus for me and highlight why the above kind of campaigning angers me so much.  He said that reacting to a situation, any situation, in negativity is not going to help find a solution.  By being negative you bring that negativity into the situation and it’s not going to get any better.  So when Hillary stands up there and shrieks about how bad the health care system in and how much better hers is, she’s starting off on a negative footing.  She is never going to find a real solution because she’s attracting all kinds of negative energy to the situation. The law of attraction.

I think that may be why Obama is so popular.  He presents a much more positive face.  He’s a freaking socialist who wants to tax us to death, but people don’t seem to hear that because he presents it in a positive, upbeat tone.  He really sounds like he may be able to change things.  I don’t believe it, I just think he has an excellent coach.

I don’t know when this type of campaigning started, or if it’s always been going on, but I seem to remember politics taking a decidedly negative turn when  Clinton was running.  I don’t know if that’s exactly true, but that’s the feeling I seem to remember.  It could be that prior to that I hadn’t paid enough attention, so it’s possible it’s just my perception.

Unfortunately, I don’t think the vast majority of the American people are thinking enough.  I think they are too busy with their lives to pay close attention to politics.  They see  Hillary shrieking something about how McCain lied about something and they take it as the truth.   They don’t have the time or the inclination to investigate and learn the truth.  It’s not that their stupid, it’s more that they’ve gotten fat and lazy.  Things have been pretty okay for so long they assume it will continue to be okay.  It’s going to be a very rude awakening when they realize they’ve elected a communist.

I am a big fan of Boston Legal. This season their show has taken a decidedly political turn and it doesn’t always please me. The reason I don’t like politics in a TV show is because a) just because the writer’s think this doesn’t mean I do. b) I feel like their view is being shoved down my throat. c) I watch TV to be entertained not preached at. I actually stopped watching ER when they got real political and anti-American. Boston Legal has gotten that way this season and they have an obvious leftist bent. I do have to give them credit for at least presenting bad points of both Hillary and Obama, although they are decidedly anti-Bush.

Last night on Boston Legal the town of Concord, MA wanted to secede from the union. Alan Shore (James Spader) took the case and argued to right to secede. In his argument he brought up patriotism. He said, in essence, how can we as a people support a government that condones torture, stripping citizens of their rights, invading other nations under false reasons, etc. These are the standard arguments that liberal types make against the government. As I listened to his argument I really got to thinking. What exactly is patriotism???

If you Google the definition of patriotism you will get definitions like;

love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it;

Patriotism denotes positive and supportive attitudes to a ‘fatherland’ (Latin patria < Greek patrida, πατρίδα), by individuals and groups. The ‘fatherland’ (or ‘motherland’) can be a region or a city, but patriotism usually applies to a nation and/or a nation-state. …;

devotion to a community as opposed to devotion to one’s individual interests without considering what is good for the community. It would be patriotic to walk, ride a bicycle or have a fuel efficient car to help keep the price of energy low. .;

strong feelings of love and devotion to one’s country and, if necessary, one will fight to defend it.;

you get the idea. In none of those definitions does it say unflagging support. Unquestioning faithfulness. Blind devotion. I think that questioning our leaders is inherent in the definition of patriotism. After all I can love this country but hate the current leaders and think they are doing the wrong thing. In which case it is imperative that I express my concerns frequently and loudly so that some action can be taken. That action being not reelecting these people. However, there is a caveat to that.

I think it is of primary importance that opinions and descension be based on the truth. I think it is imperative that you be aware of the truth before making any statement against the leaders of this country. While it is impossible to know the absolute truth about anything unless you were there, by reading many different accounts of something you can ferret out what you consider to be the truth. I believe that if you hear a statement and immediately accept it as the absolute gospel truth and then start calling the president a criminal, you are the most unpatriotic person alive. I have heard many things about what the administration does, many of which have pissed me off. I do not however, take anything I hear on the news or read on the internet at face value. If I find something that angers me, I will investigate it further and try to find the truth behind it. If my investigation reveals that it is most likely true I believe it is my duty as a citizen to make this known and to remove the person who is responsible from office. However, spreading a fact that is known to be a lie about this country or it’s leaders is a form of treason.

I think it is the height of unpatriotic attitude to immediately believe the worst in our leaders. Are some of them assholes? Oh god yes!!! Are some of them criminals? Oh god yes!!! But to immediately believe the worst of someone is not only unpatriotic but inhumane. As Anne Frank said;

I keep my ideals, because in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart.

So disagree with Congress, the President, the Governor, the Mayor, whoever. Keep a close eye on them all and call them on their actions. But be sure you know what you’re taking about. Be sure your case is solid and not based on emotion and gut reaction.