There has been a lot of slander recently thrown out at us folks that participate in the tea parties. Those that are trying to petition their government through peaceful means to signal that we don't agree with the direction they are taking our country. There was an excellent letter a poster shared on the Big Journalism site today. It was in response to this article, written by Andrew Breitbart. For everyone out there no matter what side of the arguments we face we are on, please seriously think about what Christine here is saying. I also encourage everyone for the appropriate background to read Mr. Breitbart's article in its entirety.
************
Here is a letter I wrote to Congressman Lewis - I submitted it to "The Hill" but I don't think they will publish it.
Dear Congressman Lewis,
Let me start with a very serious question Congressman. In 1965, which offense could your soul and spirt accept less, the institutional effort to refuse you and other blacks the right to express your voice participating in the political process via the ballot box or the effort by GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS to physically beat you and other demonstrators in order to SILENCE your voices and serve as a warning to others to scare them into turning their heads to injustice?
Given that you and so many others bravely risked serious harm marching on Bloody Sunday, I assume that the fear of being beaten and possibly death was easier for you to accept then the continuation of being denied the basic right to participate in the political process with your vote - your voice.
While I could not attend the recent rally in Washington, I did attend 2 tea party rallies in the last year and have been proud to stand with my fellow citizens. I was very concerned to hear about charges that a group of tea party protesters shouted racial slurs over and over again - "a chorus" as the reports indicated. While I do not believe thousands and thousands of protesters should be smeared by the actions of a few, I was very curious and intent on looking into these reports myself because the people I had met would never utter such words nor allow a group of people to utter them in our presence without confronting them sternly and insisting they leave.
I read everything I could about the incident and have watched many videos trying to see and hear for myself. I have become convinced that Representative Andre Carson and Representative Emanuel Cleaver are not telling the truth. Racism is a very serious charge - It should not be made lightly.
You lent your name to this charge based on hearsay. There are now many videos posted that do not show what Representative Carson and Representative Cleaver asserted yet this charge continues to smear the thousands and thousands of your fellow citizens loud, but peaceful, protesting.
I say this with 100% of the courage of my convictions, I would rather have been beaten by you and the other members of your group and have the proof of those scars and the blood stains. My soul and spirit could endure that better than the malicious smears against us as racists which is nothing more than an effort by GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS to intimidate and silence LAW ABIDING, PEACEFUL, citizens trying to petition our government concerning a health-care bill and out-of-control spending that we do not like, think is hurtful to our families, to our country and ALL its citizens regardless of color.
Congressman Lewis, regardless of your position on health-care or your personal opinions on the tea party protests, please do not let this charge against me and our fellow brothers and sisters stand without investigating for yourself. Please speak to Rep Carson and Rep Cleaver and look them in the eyes.
If you determine that these charges are false or exaggerated and say nothing to correct the record you have become one of those men on the Edmund Pettus Bridge. Whether you can see it or not you have become a government official trying to silence me and scare others from speaking up and I grieve for your heart and soul and our county.
I have a clear conscience knowing that at every rally I attended I behaved respectively and so did every other person I observed, reports to the contrary are slander and those who level it should be ashamed.
It is time to apologize if you have the character that Dr. King dreamed we would all be judged by.
***********
I believe that all speaks for itself and how many of us feel.
Remember to keep yourself informed and don't be afraid to speak out.
Showing posts with label big journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label big journalism. Show all posts
Friday, April 2, 2010
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Entitle Me Bonanza
So I promised Mr. Harbin a post on why I think entitlements (all of them) are bad and why I think we should work to get rid of all of them.
First and foremost the US Constitution does not bestow the power upon the Federal Government to give entitlements or redistribute money. I know people like to quote the "General Welfare" clause. That however is in the Preamble to the Constitution. The powers laid out below that are what constitutes the powers given to the Federal Government. "The Preamble was never meant to be legally binding and never has been." James Madison had more to say on this subject below.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
Now if the State of Montana wants to give free vet care to cows, that is completely within their purview to do so.
Even outside of the Constitutional argument which really should settle it, there is another issue. When people start to get a benefit or as they say "somethin for nothin" it changes their outlook. I for one believe that if I work hard to improve my life and the lives of my family then I will be blessed with the fruits of that labor. Will I do better than somebody else? Not necessarily. We have all been blessed with varying amounts of talent and ability. Although I do believe in a fair and equal playing field, I don't believe there should be equal results.
Our nation’s founders declared the first object of government is to protect “the diversity of the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate.”
Now, I do recognize to get rid of every single entitlement out there at one time would cause a lot of pain. However, I believe a lot of them could be eliminated and I am all for losing any advantages I have been given due to these entitlements. You can eliminate a big chunk now and slowly bring down the others over time. You also need to inform the people that is what is going to happen and you are going to allow them the opportunity to make their own way and feel the sense of pride that comes in making their own way.
On a personal note, if a good chunk of entitlements were eliminated I would most likely lose my job. That is a price I am more than willing to pay if it means my boys have more freedom and a better shot at liberty than what I have had.
The 10th ammendment leaves all things not mentioned to the Federal Government in the Constitution to the "purview of the states." The Founders understood through long experience that unless government were closer to the people that it would just grow into something intolerable that the people could not exercise strong control over. They consented to be governed, and not to be ruled.
As a closing thought, consider the following statement from Benjamin Franklin.
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
Remember to keep yourself informed, and don't be afraid to speak out.
First and foremost the US Constitution does not bestow the power upon the Federal Government to give entitlements or redistribute money. I know people like to quote the "General Welfare" clause. That however is in the Preamble to the Constitution. The powers laid out below that are what constitutes the powers given to the Federal Government. "The Preamble was never meant to be legally binding and never has been." James Madison had more to say on this subject below.
"If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress…. Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America."
Now if the State of Montana wants to give free vet care to cows, that is completely within their purview to do so.
Even outside of the Constitutional argument which really should settle it, there is another issue. When people start to get a benefit or as they say "somethin for nothin" it changes their outlook. I for one believe that if I work hard to improve my life and the lives of my family then I will be blessed with the fruits of that labor. Will I do better than somebody else? Not necessarily. We have all been blessed with varying amounts of talent and ability. Although I do believe in a fair and equal playing field, I don't believe there should be equal results.
Our nation’s founders declared the first object of government is to protect “the diversity of the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate.”
Now, I do recognize to get rid of every single entitlement out there at one time would cause a lot of pain. However, I believe a lot of them could be eliminated and I am all for losing any advantages I have been given due to these entitlements. You can eliminate a big chunk now and slowly bring down the others over time. You also need to inform the people that is what is going to happen and you are going to allow them the opportunity to make their own way and feel the sense of pride that comes in making their own way.
On a personal note, if a good chunk of entitlements were eliminated I would most likely lose my job. That is a price I am more than willing to pay if it means my boys have more freedom and a better shot at liberty than what I have had.
The 10th ammendment leaves all things not mentioned to the Federal Government in the Constitution to the "purview of the states." The Founders understood through long experience that unless government were closer to the people that it would just grow into something intolerable that the people could not exercise strong control over. They consented to be governed, and not to be ruled.
As a closing thought, consider the following statement from Benjamin Franklin.
“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
Remember to keep yourself informed, and don't be afraid to speak out.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Energy Independance
It was interesting to hear somebody who has no plan to use great sources of clean energy, like nuclear, tout it in a speech which essentially was a bold faced lie. Yep, that is what you are getting out of the President and his progressive friends in Washington. More on that in a minute.
One of the biggest ongoing issues that creeps up now and then is energy independance. It seems the only time we pay attention to it is when oil prices go up. Then they have hearings on capitol hill, they grill the oil companies, and put on a big dog and pony show. To what end? All so they can look like they are doing something and keep the status quo. As soon as the energy prices naturally start to fall a bit, the public stops the complaining and moves on because they no longer see it as an issue.
The thing with energy is that it has to be addressed. Real solutions have to be implemented by people with the cajones to do it right. That is your standard issue with politicians, they don't want to stand up for anything unless it gets them immediate election returns.
So, how do we go about creating energy independence? Why do we need to do it?
How about we start with the why's first. We import a vast amount of our energy supplies. At least in the forms of oil and natural gas. This obviously adds to the cost of the end product. If we developed it ourselves it would be cheaper. Just a simple rule of economics. Many of the countries we get our oil from don't like us very much. Even if they feign affection. This presents national security implications. Besides, wouldn't it be better to keep all that cash in our own country? Our energy demands as a nation will continue to go up. That is just a natural consequence of an expanding people and a growing nation.
How do we create energy independence? It really is a two pronged approach. All you hear about in the media and the noisemakers is green energy. While I agree that we need to be responsible in our energy development and that fossil fuels won't last forever, I don't buy into the "climate change" hysteria. We have talked about it here before. All the brouhaha continues to be further and further discredited. That being said, we need to fast track and develop the natural resources we have right now and continue to explore and discover more. This will allow us an energy source that is homegrown while we work to develop economically viable energy alternatives. You cannot just cut off one and use government funds and mandates to develop the other. For a good example, look at Spain. For every green job their government funded, the economy lost 2.2 other jobs. That comes out to a net loss of 1.2 jobs.
There are several energy sources we can tap. We have great reserves of oil and natural gas in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. Don't be fooled by all the pictures of polar bears and elk prancing across grasslands. ANWR is like the deserts of Nevada with no plants or animals, just a bunch of ice and snow. It might make the snow fairies mad, but we need to develop it. Governor Palin showed a great use of tapping the resources in Alaska responsibly through the private sector. Not only have they expanded exploration and production for both oil and natural gas, they are in the midst of building a natural gas pipeline to bring all that energy to the rest of us. The environmentalists can complain all they want about pipeline projects decimating the ecology along their paths, but the facts show that life expanded along the current Alaska Oil Pipeline after it was built.
There are responsible ways to drill offshore. We are the best at environmentally safe ways of exploiting our natural resources. We need to free up the offshore areas so we can drill. If the state of California would learn from Alaska and allow more development off the coast, they would have a lot more money coming in instead of getting ready to file bankruptcy in April. You are not talking about rigs right on the beachline a mile off shore. You are talking about platforms several miles offshore. Hardly an eyesore. Plus, we are more responsible than any other country in the world when it comes to energy development. It would be safer for the trees and animals here than exploiting those resources in some third world country with no controls.
There are also great shale reserves in the mountain west. The technology has improved by leaps and bounds and continues to do so allowing us to extract this oil. It is reported that these shale reserves hold more oil than the fields in the middle east. They have also found vast reserves of oil in the upper midwest.
The great thing about tapping all of these sources is that it creates JOBS. It creates long term jobs for people in all sorts of fields. It also decreases the economic cost of energy. Of course, along with the increase in domestic production we also need to increase our refinery capacity so we can eliminate the costly bottle neck between the fields and the consumer.
As I mentioned, we all know that fossil fuels won't last forever. They may last us a couple hundred years or whatever, but we need to have a plan. One of the great sources of renewable and clean energy is nuclear. By ramping up our nuclear production it would once again create jobs, lower the cost of energy, and we would have a continuous supply. There was a great post about nuclear energy and the President's SOTU remarks posted today. It pretty much sums up that little topic mentioned at the beginning of this post. There was also this week some good discussion on Yucca Mountain.
While we wait for the cost of solar power to come down and finding the illusive spot on the earth where it is sunny 24/7 365, we need to use the resources we have been blessed with. They will tell you that it doesn't matter because those sources of energy won't be able to hit the market for like 10 years. That is one of the problems. Somebody needs to step up and say lets get going so we aren't having this same conversation 10 years from now. Also, the reason it takes so long is that the government creates too much red tape and beuacracy to get through, besides all the litigation from the environmentalists to do it. That is why it takes 10 years. For the companies that are just sitting on their leases. Tell them to start producing or you will revoke their lease and sell it to the highest bidder. They did that in Alaska and it worked wonders.
Car companies are working on viable alternatives to gasoline for vehicles. Some of the most promising work has been done with fuel cells. It would be a clean source of fuel. The biggest hurdle to overcome once they design a good cost efficient model, is the need for new types of stations to refuel your vehicle at.
Overall, the energy issue is something that can easily be solved by the free market. Companies are not going to push out a vehicle or product the people are going to hate. They will develop energy resources closer to their biggest consumers if given the opportunity. Other countries such as China seem to recognize this which is why their energy development is going full bore. They are even working with companies to drill oil in the Gulf of Mexico, our backyard.
Remember to keep yourself informed, and don't be afraid to speak out.
One of the biggest ongoing issues that creeps up now and then is energy independance. It seems the only time we pay attention to it is when oil prices go up. Then they have hearings on capitol hill, they grill the oil companies, and put on a big dog and pony show. To what end? All so they can look like they are doing something and keep the status quo. As soon as the energy prices naturally start to fall a bit, the public stops the complaining and moves on because they no longer see it as an issue.
The thing with energy is that it has to be addressed. Real solutions have to be implemented by people with the cajones to do it right. That is your standard issue with politicians, they don't want to stand up for anything unless it gets them immediate election returns.
So, how do we go about creating energy independence? Why do we need to do it?
How about we start with the why's first. We import a vast amount of our energy supplies. At least in the forms of oil and natural gas. This obviously adds to the cost of the end product. If we developed it ourselves it would be cheaper. Just a simple rule of economics. Many of the countries we get our oil from don't like us very much. Even if they feign affection. This presents national security implications. Besides, wouldn't it be better to keep all that cash in our own country? Our energy demands as a nation will continue to go up. That is just a natural consequence of an expanding people and a growing nation.
How do we create energy independence? It really is a two pronged approach. All you hear about in the media and the noisemakers is green energy. While I agree that we need to be responsible in our energy development and that fossil fuels won't last forever, I don't buy into the "climate change" hysteria. We have talked about it here before. All the brouhaha continues to be further and further discredited. That being said, we need to fast track and develop the natural resources we have right now and continue to explore and discover more. This will allow us an energy source that is homegrown while we work to develop economically viable energy alternatives. You cannot just cut off one and use government funds and mandates to develop the other. For a good example, look at Spain. For every green job their government funded, the economy lost 2.2 other jobs. That comes out to a net loss of 1.2 jobs.
There are several energy sources we can tap. We have great reserves of oil and natural gas in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge. Don't be fooled by all the pictures of polar bears and elk prancing across grasslands. ANWR is like the deserts of Nevada with no plants or animals, just a bunch of ice and snow. It might make the snow fairies mad, but we need to develop it. Governor Palin showed a great use of tapping the resources in Alaska responsibly through the private sector. Not only have they expanded exploration and production for both oil and natural gas, they are in the midst of building a natural gas pipeline to bring all that energy to the rest of us. The environmentalists can complain all they want about pipeline projects decimating the ecology along their paths, but the facts show that life expanded along the current Alaska Oil Pipeline after it was built.
There are responsible ways to drill offshore. We are the best at environmentally safe ways of exploiting our natural resources. We need to free up the offshore areas so we can drill. If the state of California would learn from Alaska and allow more development off the coast, they would have a lot more money coming in instead of getting ready to file bankruptcy in April. You are not talking about rigs right on the beachline a mile off shore. You are talking about platforms several miles offshore. Hardly an eyesore. Plus, we are more responsible than any other country in the world when it comes to energy development. It would be safer for the trees and animals here than exploiting those resources in some third world country with no controls.
There are also great shale reserves in the mountain west. The technology has improved by leaps and bounds and continues to do so allowing us to extract this oil. It is reported that these shale reserves hold more oil than the fields in the middle east. They have also found vast reserves of oil in the upper midwest.
The great thing about tapping all of these sources is that it creates JOBS. It creates long term jobs for people in all sorts of fields. It also decreases the economic cost of energy. Of course, along with the increase in domestic production we also need to increase our refinery capacity so we can eliminate the costly bottle neck between the fields and the consumer.
As I mentioned, we all know that fossil fuels won't last forever. They may last us a couple hundred years or whatever, but we need to have a plan. One of the great sources of renewable and clean energy is nuclear. By ramping up our nuclear production it would once again create jobs, lower the cost of energy, and we would have a continuous supply. There was a great post about nuclear energy and the President's SOTU remarks posted today. It pretty much sums up that little topic mentioned at the beginning of this post. There was also this week some good discussion on Yucca Mountain.
While we wait for the cost of solar power to come down and finding the illusive spot on the earth where it is sunny 24/7 365, we need to use the resources we have been blessed with. They will tell you that it doesn't matter because those sources of energy won't be able to hit the market for like 10 years. That is one of the problems. Somebody needs to step up and say lets get going so we aren't having this same conversation 10 years from now. Also, the reason it takes so long is that the government creates too much red tape and beuacracy to get through, besides all the litigation from the environmentalists to do it. That is why it takes 10 years. For the companies that are just sitting on their leases. Tell them to start producing or you will revoke their lease and sell it to the highest bidder. They did that in Alaska and it worked wonders.
Car companies are working on viable alternatives to gasoline for vehicles. Some of the most promising work has been done with fuel cells. It would be a clean source of fuel. The biggest hurdle to overcome once they design a good cost efficient model, is the need for new types of stations to refuel your vehicle at.
Overall, the energy issue is something that can easily be solved by the free market. Companies are not going to push out a vehicle or product the people are going to hate. They will develop energy resources closer to their biggest consumers if given the opportunity. Other countries such as China seem to recognize this which is why their energy development is going full bore. They are even working with companies to drill oil in the Gulf of Mexico, our backyard.
Remember to keep yourself informed, and don't be afraid to speak out.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Global Smarming
There is a phrase in dancing circles, particularly the swing dancing circles I have thoroughly enjoyed in the past, called "collecting the no's". It basically goes like this. A guy continually asks different girls to dance, being turned down in turn by each one. He keeps working his way around the room "collecting the no's." This is how I see the reaction of the "global warming" screamers and environmentalists in general. Every time one of their reasons, arguments, justifications that supposedly goes to point out "global warming" or "climate change" as they are now referring to it is confronted with facts that disproves their theory, they try to jump to something else with equal result. They just keep jumping from theory to theory that continually gets disproved by the scientific facts, just like the guy collecting the no's.
There have been a chorus of things that have been piling up against the alarmists recently. A lot of this has been coming on fast and as expected, ignored by the main stream media. The biggest one of course is "climategate." Tons and tons of emails leaked that the scientists were manipulating data, refusing to share the data, and pressuring peer review journals to not publish any research that could disprove their theories and models. I am currently taking a science class in school. A couple of the first things I learned that I felt are quite applicable. One, the debate in science is never over. Two, the law of falsifiability. It basically states that a theory has no chance of being true unless it is possible to disprove it. You also have to allow others that chance. It seems the things the "climategate" emails reveal is that the scientists weren't staying true to scientifice principles.
The most recent bubble the alarmists had pierced was this one. The UN IPCC and others had been stating that the glaciers in the Himalayas were receding at an astonishing rate. If we didn't do anything to address "man made global warming" the glaciers would all melt in 30 years. Last week the scientist who published the report admitted to not having any data that shows that. He said he just guessed at it because it sounded good. None of the data he did use had been peer reviewed and checked by the scientific community. Of course, now the alarmists at the UN have egg on their face. They are being called out on it. They knew the data was wrong on it but kept it hidden away. Why would they do that? Because they are bent on international economic control.
Here's the crux about all this "climate change" stuff. A UN official even inadvertantly admitted it. "Climate Change" legislation and measures are not about the environment. They are about economic redistribution on a global scale. By stating that industrialized nations have pillaged and damaged the earth, they can be guilted into taxing their own productivity and redistributing those funds to less industrialized nations. That is what the big meeting in Copen hoggen was about.
You have to ask yourself, why do these environmental alarmists practice their craft with almost religious zeal? Why do they keep "collecting the no's?" It really dawned on me today. It is part of a bigger battle they are waging. The redistribution of wealth is where it really started to click with me. They are progressives on a world wide scale attempting to exercise their control over everyone. These people hate capitalism and freedom. The freedom of people allows to much to be in control of the individual. "Climate Change" legislation would cripple the economy. It has done it to the countries that have implemented some of these schemes and changes being proposed. Just take a look at Spain and Germany. At least the Chinese are right about one thing. They aren't going to be stupid enough to cripple their economy with ridiculous rules that have shown that they can't even hit their "goals" of reducing Co2 emissions.
In the end, the alarmists will keep "collecting the no's". As the audience of people that believes them continues to dwindle downward, they will keep screaming from the mountain tops. Hopefully everyone will be paying enough attention to make sure they don't push their draconian changes through some back door alternative.
Remember to keep yourself informed, and don't be afraid to speak out.
There have been a chorus of things that have been piling up against the alarmists recently. A lot of this has been coming on fast and as expected, ignored by the main stream media. The biggest one of course is "climategate." Tons and tons of emails leaked that the scientists were manipulating data, refusing to share the data, and pressuring peer review journals to not publish any research that could disprove their theories and models. I am currently taking a science class in school. A couple of the first things I learned that I felt are quite applicable. One, the debate in science is never over. Two, the law of falsifiability. It basically states that a theory has no chance of being true unless it is possible to disprove it. You also have to allow others that chance. It seems the things the "climategate" emails reveal is that the scientists weren't staying true to scientifice principles.
The most recent bubble the alarmists had pierced was this one. The UN IPCC and others had been stating that the glaciers in the Himalayas were receding at an astonishing rate. If we didn't do anything to address "man made global warming" the glaciers would all melt in 30 years. Last week the scientist who published the report admitted to not having any data that shows that. He said he just guessed at it because it sounded good. None of the data he did use had been peer reviewed and checked by the scientific community. Of course, now the alarmists at the UN have egg on their face. They are being called out on it. They knew the data was wrong on it but kept it hidden away. Why would they do that? Because they are bent on international economic control.
Here's the crux about all this "climate change" stuff. A UN official even inadvertantly admitted it. "Climate Change" legislation and measures are not about the environment. They are about economic redistribution on a global scale. By stating that industrialized nations have pillaged and damaged the earth, they can be guilted into taxing their own productivity and redistributing those funds to less industrialized nations. That is what the big meeting in Copen hoggen was about.
You have to ask yourself, why do these environmental alarmists practice their craft with almost religious zeal? Why do they keep "collecting the no's?" It really dawned on me today. It is part of a bigger battle they are waging. The redistribution of wealth is where it really started to click with me. They are progressives on a world wide scale attempting to exercise their control over everyone. These people hate capitalism and freedom. The freedom of people allows to much to be in control of the individual. "Climate Change" legislation would cripple the economy. It has done it to the countries that have implemented some of these schemes and changes being proposed. Just take a look at Spain and Germany. At least the Chinese are right about one thing. They aren't going to be stupid enough to cripple their economy with ridiculous rules that have shown that they can't even hit their "goals" of reducing Co2 emissions.
In the end, the alarmists will keep "collecting the no's". As the audience of people that believes them continues to dwindle downward, they will keep screaming from the mountain tops. Hopefully everyone will be paying enough attention to make sure they don't push their draconian changes through some back door alternative.
Remember to keep yourself informed, and don't be afraid to speak out.
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Revolving Subjects
I have written a lot about various things the last several weeks. There has been of course some extensive stuff on Progressivism, which can go much deeper and get much more coverage as well, a little bit about various events that have been happening and their impact on our lives, and a little bit about some of my pet subjects, one of those being "climate change."
I would like to get some feedback from the few of you in cyberspace that read my blog. What kind of issues do you think are important to address? What are some things we need to be aware of to protect our future, the future of our children, and our nation?
I think for the next couple weeks I will write on "climate change" and energy independence. I believe at some level the two topics intertwine a little bit.
I have posted via Twitter and Facebook some articles on "climate change", in particular some information regarding the "climategate" scandal. There was a great three part series written on it. You can find them here, here, and here.
Energy independence is something that stretches into several different areas of concern. It not only has the obvious economic and environmental concerns, but national security concerns as well. In today's post i'll give a brief overview and in subsequent posts address each one individually. National Review did post a great article today concerning the national security implications of energy independence.
The most basic thing that people scream about is the cost of energy. Oil prices are high so gasoline and heating prices go up. There aren't enough resources for electricity production so the cost of electricity goes up. Those of us that live in desert areas know how that power bill just sky rockets in the summer months. People always spout off about the evil oil companies and their monopolistic hold on energy. When you look at the actual profit these companies make by percentages, they make far less profit then your local McDonald's. Its a simple function of math and economics that produces the high dollar amount listed as profit. They move a lot of product at a cost relatively higher than a Big Mac.
People in some circles complain about how dirty oil and coal are. They complain about how dirty fossil fuels are in general. Do you think you could keep the environmental impact down with production here where there are some protection laws and the companies work to do it in a clean manner, or in some third world country who could care less about how much waste or damage they cause pulling the resources? Keeping energy development here would better protect the environment.
I'll just touch briefly on the common sense national security argument. Do you think it would be harder for our potential enemies to get funds for their campaign if we weren't giving money to countries who don't necessarily like us?
There are several things that we can do to improve our energy independence that would create benefits in all three of these areas. First, economically we strengthen ourselves by creating new jobs to get the resources we have been blessed with. The money stays in our own country, and because we are producing it, the end cost for the consumer is less. Second, environmentally we safely take the resources ourselves which we can do better than anybody else while at the same time researching and investing in alternative energy resources. You can have a balance. You just can't wreck the entire economy by cutting off your current supply of energy. Even my three year old could explain that to you. I think the national security argument above can stand on its own today.
I believe we should go after the resources we have; oil, natural gas, coal, etc. Force the companies with leases to start pulling the resources, and open up more land and locations to do so. We need to build Nuclear Power Plants. It's the perfect and abundant energy source to take care of our electrical needs. France gets about 80% of their power from nuclear sources. They also lead the world in reprocessing and recycling the spent nuclear material. I think I am going to write my science paper for school on this very subject.
We can be an energy independent nation with some effort and a little bit of common sense.
Remember to keep yourself informed, and don't be afraid to speak out!
I would like to get some feedback from the few of you in cyberspace that read my blog. What kind of issues do you think are important to address? What are some things we need to be aware of to protect our future, the future of our children, and our nation?
I think for the next couple weeks I will write on "climate change" and energy independence. I believe at some level the two topics intertwine a little bit.
I have posted via Twitter and Facebook some articles on "climate change", in particular some information regarding the "climategate" scandal. There was a great three part series written on it. You can find them here, here, and here.
Energy independence is something that stretches into several different areas of concern. It not only has the obvious economic and environmental concerns, but national security concerns as well. In today's post i'll give a brief overview and in subsequent posts address each one individually. National Review did post a great article today concerning the national security implications of energy independence.
The most basic thing that people scream about is the cost of energy. Oil prices are high so gasoline and heating prices go up. There aren't enough resources for electricity production so the cost of electricity goes up. Those of us that live in desert areas know how that power bill just sky rockets in the summer months. People always spout off about the evil oil companies and their monopolistic hold on energy. When you look at the actual profit these companies make by percentages, they make far less profit then your local McDonald's. Its a simple function of math and economics that produces the high dollar amount listed as profit. They move a lot of product at a cost relatively higher than a Big Mac.
People in some circles complain about how dirty oil and coal are. They complain about how dirty fossil fuels are in general. Do you think you could keep the environmental impact down with production here where there are some protection laws and the companies work to do it in a clean manner, or in some third world country who could care less about how much waste or damage they cause pulling the resources? Keeping energy development here would better protect the environment.
I'll just touch briefly on the common sense national security argument. Do you think it would be harder for our potential enemies to get funds for their campaign if we weren't giving money to countries who don't necessarily like us?
There are several things that we can do to improve our energy independence that would create benefits in all three of these areas. First, economically we strengthen ourselves by creating new jobs to get the resources we have been blessed with. The money stays in our own country, and because we are producing it, the end cost for the consumer is less. Second, environmentally we safely take the resources ourselves which we can do better than anybody else while at the same time researching and investing in alternative energy resources. You can have a balance. You just can't wreck the entire economy by cutting off your current supply of energy. Even my three year old could explain that to you. I think the national security argument above can stand on its own today.
I believe we should go after the resources we have; oil, natural gas, coal, etc. Force the companies with leases to start pulling the resources, and open up more land and locations to do so. We need to build Nuclear Power Plants. It's the perfect and abundant energy source to take care of our electrical needs. France gets about 80% of their power from nuclear sources. They also lead the world in reprocessing and recycling the spent nuclear material. I think I am going to write my science paper for school on this very subject.
We can be an energy independent nation with some effort and a little bit of common sense.
Remember to keep yourself informed, and don't be afraid to speak out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
