Intelligent Thoughts and Other Insightful Comments

Today in the Washington Post ran an editorial that asked,

"WHY NOT have a vote on offshore drilling? ... Instead of dealing with the issue on the merits, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a staunch opponent of offshore drilling, has simply decreed that she will not allow a drilling vote to take place on the House floor."

The obvious answer is Congress should not respond to the rabble raising bull-shit that is designed to relive political pressure that doesn't actually address the core problem. Congress should busy itself with how to address the long-term energy crisis that faces the United States rather than placating populist demands that we destroy our environment to create a few extra barrels of locally produced oil.

Even if this was just about Nancy Pelosi's hatred for offshore drilling would it really matter? Consider where her district is located. Pelosi represents San Francisco, a coastal city with a beautiful shoreline. If the Washington Post would have bothered to do a little more research they would have discovered that some of the proposed drilling would occur around Santa Barbara, California, which is a mere 350 miles or so from San Francisco.

Now for a little history quiz how far did the Exxon Mobil oil spill spread? The answer is 1200 miles. Maybe, just maybe Pelosi is using her power as Speaker of the House to look out for the interests of her district. Isn't that what all congressmen and women are supposed to do? Represent the interests of their constituents. Shocking concept.

I don't mind picking on Congress, actually I love it. For example: if con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress? In this case the might be because they have still failed to address the energy crisis that faces our country in a meaningful way.

As the American economy continues to tank, we the American public have heard the dreaded R word thrown around a little and the even worse D word (though that's mainly people like Abram). Politicians can't decide what the necessary course of action to fix the economy. The Republicans would like to give businesses and rich people more money to play with in hopes that will fix our economic woes. The Democrats would like to give the poor more money so that they can continue being parasites on the American economy even in tougher economic times.

Unfortunately neither solution will fix the real problem (which is not the federal reserve) it is actually the competitiveness of American business. Right now American businesses have too many overhead costs they pay higher salaries, they pay more due to government regulation, and higher energy costs. Frankly this can't continue for American business to remain competitive and allow America to reduce its dependence on the service industry.

First we need to get rid of minimum wage this way workers are only paid what the market will bear. (We would probably have to finish off unions as well.) This would reduce labor costs and make business more competitive. Next we need to deregulate everything so that businesses can operate uninhibited by government, which would allow them to run more efficiently. Who needs environmental, safety, or quality standards? Let the consumer decide the standards by enforcing them with their wallets.

The last thing to do would eliminate all corporate taxes because in the end those are really just passed on to the consumer, which makes it more like a tax on everyone regardless of income. (we want a progressive tax system in Rick's economic proposal) This will further reduce business overhead allowing for a cheaper, more competitive system that allows the consumer to set standards instead of stifling government regulation.

Can't you just see it? After a couple of years (it would take a little of adjusting) America would be happy, economically sound, and competitive with the third world again! Genius, unlike the current proposals for economic stimulus.

One of the burdens that comes with the profile of a major presidential candidate is that everyone over analyzes everything you do; the media, the other candidates, losers with too much time on their hands. One such example comes from on of my favorite topics as of recent: (not janitors) Barack Obama who will head to Europe soon.

For one of his speeches Obama wanted to speak in front of the Brandenburg Gate. I was recently in Germany and I saw the gate, it was neat, but not amazing and I read the informational placards that explained that it the gate had served as a testament to Prussian and later German military prowess. What a perfect backdrop for an American Presidential Candidate: German military might. And while realize that the gate has also served as a symbol of freedom (which I think is ironic since it was located in the eastern half of Berlin).

Last night I read an article that basically said that Barack had not earned the right to speak at the gate. Kennedy earned the right because he was willing to use nuclear weapons to protect the West, Reagan earned it because of his "relentless attack on communism." What has Barack done for you lately?

The trip abroad will also include a visit to Iraq (not my first choice of destinations). I have read multiple articles that describe the various political dangers of this trip. Obama has stated he will not change his position on troop withdrawals, which makes a fact finding trip kind of pointless and if he gets caught wearing military gear he could be turned into Michael Dukasis.

Other articles explain John McCain's frustration with not being able to attack Obama while he is abroad without seeming "prissy." While others still write that the trip could make Obama look like more of an elitist.

The endless media chatter over analyzes everything because they have this need to fill out 1000 word articles on a regular basis. What they forget is that Obama will begin reducing troops from Iraq and McCain will try and keep them there. What they further forget is that like any election during a recession is that it's "the economy stupid."

Even during good economic times Americans will vote based on their wallets. The Democrats used to represent union, the poor and the middle class. The Republicans used to represent business and the wealthy. The two parties engaged in an epic class war (okay maybe it wasn't epic) based around who deserves more money. It is still there, but abortion, gay rights, and gun contro have surfaced as the decisive issues that draw rabid supporters to candidates.

This incohesive piece of writing is another example of over analyzing politics instead of just telling you simple that foreign policy doesn't matter and Obama should stay home and ask voters in Ronald Reagan fashion "are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?" Because John McCain represents...

Recently we, Americans, have heard a lot about Barack Obama moving to the center or how John McCain has changed his positions to placate his conservative base. Then the media had the nerve to "call" them on it. Frankly I don't have a problem with the two changing their views a bit. It's what politicians do they flip-flop to get elected and honestly you would to based on what is at stake.

They have the chance to become the Most Powerful Man in the world, the President of the United States, and the Leader of Western Civilization. To be in a position to seriously run for president requires a lifetime of political maneuvering and preparation hence you better be highly ambitions and have a fairly large ego. If they didn't change their political positions at all I would be ashamed that they were the two candidates.

The media and public outcry over the flip-flopping of Obama and McCain is humorous at best. Objective media has become a relic of the past as the media becomes more concerned with selling its product than providing good political coverage. The American public doesn't bother to keep up with the news, which is why the media has been forced to dumb itself down, and shows like 60 Minutes or Meet the Press get pathetic ratings.

If you haven't noticed politicians change just as quickly as the American public does (i.e. look at the War in Iraq, which was popular when we were winning). Shouldn't politicians change to represent current views instead of unpopular old ones (like President Bush continues to do)? Just remember Flip-Floping it's what we all do.