Finally there is a glimmer of honesty coming from some politicians, though the polispeak rages on. Where might I have heard this? Was it Senator Obama admitting that, yes you, will have your taxes raised? Was it Senator Clinton admitting that universal healthcare will be worse than the current system? Was it Senator Dodd stating that he did get a special deal unavailable to average Americans? Was it Congressman Murtha apologizing to the 8 Marines, and the Armed Forces in general?

No it was not any of the above. Such honesty would likely stop the earth from spinning. No the glimmer came from Representative Maurice Hinchey (a Democrat, and sadly from my state, NY). He gave up the polispeak to state that he believes that the Government should nationalize oil refineries, if not the oil companies.



Now his views and those of Malia Lazu are stupid. Not that they are as individuals but their ideas about nationalization, or in other words moves to socialize the nation are.

Perhaps in an idealistic world nationalization is a great idea. But in such a dreamland, communism works to benefit everyone (unless you believe in any form of God). Then again, reality is the only state of existence human beings (that are not on mind altering drugs) live through.

Let me explain how stupid I feel these ideas are.

First, the Government is a failure at everything it runs. No surprise right? Only the Government employs people without qualifications (ie your local DMV or post office or former-FEMA head Michael Brown) and virtually guarantees their lifelong employment. Add to that the fact that the Government is inefficient. There is not a single department that uses less money to run than the year prior. Try to use a .25 cent stamp. Compare the budget of the FDA in 1970 to today (if you aren’t busy keeping your kids from playing with lead toys or eating E-coli laced food). And that is with the advent of computers and programs specifically designed to increase efficiency.

Second, the Government is schizophrenic. On a regular basis the Government fails to act or acts against itself. That’s because the various departments have policies or missions that overlap some other department or law or political group. Every election there is a sway of priorities and with it funding. Just look at the energy needs of America. We knew what our needs would be with high probability, yet from 1970 on we legislated (under Administrations of both Parties) fewer refineries, removed the ability to drill for domestic oil, and selected the worst options to pursue for energy alternatives.

What in the world makes anyone think that the Government can run a national healthcare program or oil companies? Let me correct that. Why do some think that the average American is so dumb as to believe that the lopsided, inefficient, debacle of Government organization is better than market and/or individual decision making?

I will accept that 80% of the oil in the world is owned by national companies. But none of those countries are as large, wealthy, diversified, successful, or free as America. Do we really want to compare Venezuela, Mexico, or Sweden to America? Seriously.

Malia Lazu does skip over the heart of American life.

“…the goal of corporations is to make as much as possible for their shareholders...”

That ideal built the nation. Microsoft made home computers, and therefore the internet, a reality. They did it because of the profit. The decades of computers and the internet being created and used by academia (1950 – 1980 at least) didn’t make it one penny more affordable or usable by the public. The same can be said of most ever industry in the nation.

“…if were going to start talking about crazy policies, like killing our environment…”

Please someone do tell me which politician or policy mentioned killing our environment? Not an interpretation that comes up with that statement, but an actual intent to kill our environment. Because you can interpret anything if you try.

But if you want to look at crazy policies try this – spend 25 years ignoring any energy alternative, then pick one alternative (that no other nation uses) without consideration of the consequences and pour billions into it. That is stupid and crazy.

And yes I mean corn ethanol. If you wonder why the portions of your food are smaller, or the same size and more expensive, just look at corn ethanol. And while you are at it ask an eco-freak why we use corn ethanol even though it is believed to be the singular cause of dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico. Directly killing every living thing in the Gulf, that is a crazy policy killing our environment. [For those that don’t know, every nation that is successfully using ethanol makes it from grass, not food.]

The Presidential election will decide the energy path of this nation for decades. That is if that future President has the balls to say ‘Making a single choice is the wrong choice. America is defined by picking the best out of a bunch; and we need a bunch of energy options.’

Any Presidential candidate that refuses to make that kind of statement should not discuss anything about energy. Because anything less is either a lie, or based in the stupid notion that the best answer for the future is known today.

As Neil Cavuto correctly states, energy policy in America over the last 30 years has been

“It’s your way, or my way, or the highway.”

That policy, followed with steadfast implacability by both Republicans and Democrats, has led to an increase in crude oil prices of 1566%. How much higher will that price go in 10 more years of the same policies?

How much higher will the price be, and the worse off citizens will live with, in a socialized oil industry?

Labels: Congressman Murtha, energy alternatives, Malia Lazu, Neil Cavuto, Polispeak, Representative Maurice Hinchey, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Dodd

Some may recall that I recently raised the question of what is happening with HR 180 IH. You may not recall the name it has in the House of Representatives, but it’s also known as Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007. This is one item of several that are sitting in Congress waiting for some action to be taken by the nation. Not everyoe is aware of this but at least one person had his YouTube question presented to the Democratic candidtates in their recent debate.

Only 4 of the Democratic hopefuls were given the chance to respond. They were Governor Richardson, Sen. Biden, Senator Clinton, and Former Senator Gravel. In my opinion none were satifactory answers, though they were decent soundbites.

Former Senator Gravel only blamed the foreign policy of the nation. How that helps or resolves anything I have no idea.

Governor Richardson suggested economic sanctions and political pressure from European nations and China. Which is something, though that is exactly what HR 180 IH suggests, and it has been sitting in the House without any action since it was created. How can we ask ANY nation to do what we will not?

Senator Biden took a different tack. He compared the situation to Bosnia, and suggested a no-fly zone in addition to 2,500 American troops on the ground. I will get to the comparison in a moment, and the no-fly zone, but I cannot believe that in an area where over 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million are refugees a mere 2,500 American forces can stop the bloodshed. That is unrealistic and stupid in my opinion. It will take more than that, that’s obvious.

As for Senator Clinton, she got a bit of all the best answers and combined them, mostly. She agreed on the need for sanctions. She agreed on a no-fly zone. But she would not agree to place ANY troops on the ground.

Senators Dodd and Obama (as well as Biden and Clinton) co-sponsored Senate Resolution 559 (introduced on Sept. 7, 2006), which encouraged President Bush to work with NATO and the UN in establishing a no-fly zone.

Ok, first off a no-fly zone just does not work. Not in England (Germans during WWII), Viet-Nam, Bosnia, Iraq nor Darfur. It may add some difficulty but OBVIOUSLY things happening on the ground cannot be stopped by planes in the sky. Any suggestion that states this is the main involvement of the United States is doomed to kill innocent civilians. Let’s remember, overwhelmingly most of those that have died in the last several years are civilians. Stopping a plane flying overhead does not stop AK-47 and machete wielding troops from killing people.

Economic and political pressure is one option, but like a no-fly zone it does not stop anything. Cuba, North Korea, and Iraq have all had (or have) sanctions for years if not decades. Yet North Korea has nuclear weapons, Cuba still is a Communist dictatorship and we attacked Iraq. [Iraq may not be the best example, yet they still had a large army – one of the strongest in the region- and the abuse of Kurds and others was not abated by prior political pressure].

Face it, it takes troops. Just like it did in Bosnia.

Continued in Part 2...


**I want to thank Mary-Lea Cox for her writing on the YouTube question from the Presidential candidate debate**

Labels: Bosnia, Darfur, HR 180 IH, political debate, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Dodd, Senator Hillary Clinton, YouTube