I’m Not an Oil Addict

Oil fuels better lives by Jeff Jacoby –Boston.com

AS THE DEEPWATER Horizon spill continues to foul the Gulf of Mexico, pundits and policymakers everywhere are once again reaching for the A-word. The BP disaster, proclaims Washington eminence David Gergen, is “a wake-up call to end our addiction to oil.’’ Without “a real climate bill,’’ warn the editors of the Washington Post, “America might be addicted to oil a lot longer than it needs to be.’’

We must “begin to wean ourselves from our addiction to oil,’’ intones Senator John Kerry on ABC, while syndicated columnist Thomas Friedman lambastes “the powerful lobbies and vested interests that want to keep us addicted to oil.’’

Americans consume oil not because they are “addicted’’ to it, but because it enriches their lives, making possible prosperity, comfort, and mobility that would have been all but unimaginable just a few generations ago. Almost by definition, an addiction is something one is healthier without. But oil-based energy improves human health and reduces poverty — it makes life longer, safer, and better. Addictions debase life. Oil improves and expands it.

Saying America is addicted to oil is idiotic. If America is addicted to oil, then why do we need to hire people to clean up the oil spill? If oil is as addictive as a drug, then carpet crawling would be replaced by beach crawling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Accusing America of oil addiction is offensive. The underlying sentiment implies anyone driving a car has the moral fortitude of a drug addict. I’ve never checked with the gas station attendant when they would be receiving their next shipment of Columbia made gasoline–because the best stuff comes from Columbia, you know.

pumpin it
What whoring for oil might look like

There are no oil-whores or gas-heads and I doubt Americans would ever break into their neighbors home or turn to prostitution in order to fund an oil habit. There is not and there is no need for oil rehab centers because using oil does not destroy one’s life.

The purpose of this ludicrous attack is solely political. People on the right use the addiction accusation, but throw in the word “foreign.” Foreign oil is undesirable as a national defense issue and adds to the trade deficit. If the imagined addiction was only to American oil, there would be no issue.

People on the left use the addiction attack in order to promote environmentalism. The hypocrisy of the left matches that of the right; if all cars ran on something environmentally friendly such as solar power, they would not be accusing Americans of having solar addiction.

It’s fine to be concerned about the environment and national security, but stop insinuating America has weak moral fiber because they’ve made the most of a very useful natural resource.

Share Button

I’m Not an Oil Addict

Oil fuels better lives by Jeff Jacoby –Boston.com

AS THE DEEPWATER Horizon spill continues to foul the Gulf of Mexico, pundits and policymakers everywhere are once again reaching for the A-word. The BP disaster, proclaims Washington eminence David Gergen, is “a wake-up call to end our addiction to oil.’’ Without “a real climate bill,’’ warn the editors of the Washington Post, “America might be addicted to oil a lot longer than it needs to be.’’

We must “begin to wean ourselves from our addiction to oil,’’ intones Senator John Kerry on ABC, while syndicated columnist Thomas Friedman lambastes “the powerful lobbies and vested interests that want to keep us addicted to oil.’’

Americans consume oil not because they are “addicted’’ to it, but because it enriches their lives, making possible prosperity, comfort, and mobility that would have been all but unimaginable just a few generations ago. Almost by definition, an addiction is something one is healthier without. But oil-based energy improves human health and reduces poverty — it makes life longer, safer, and better. Addictions debase life. Oil improves and expands it.

Saying America is addicted to oil is idiotic. If America is addicted to oil, then why do we need to hire people to clean up the oil spill? If oil is as addictive as a drug, then carpet crawling would be replaced by beach crawling in the Gulf of Mexico.

Accusing America of oil addiction is offensive. The underlying sentiment implies anyone driving a car has the moral fortitude of a drug addict. I’ve never checked with the gas station attendant when they would be receiving their next shipment of Columbia made gasoline–because the best stuff comes from Columbia, you know.

pumpin it
What whoring for oil might look like

There are no oil-whores or gas-heads and I doubt Americans would ever break into their neighbors home or turn to prostitution in order to fund an oil habit. There is not and there is no need for oil rehab centers because using oil does not destroy one’s life.

The purpose of this ludicrous attack is solely political. People on the right use the addiction accusation, but throw in the word “foreign.” Foreign oil is undesirable as a national defense issue and adds to the trade deficit. If the imagined addiction was only to American oil, there would be no issue.

People on the left use the addiction attack in order to promote environmentalism. The hypocrisy of the left matches that of the right; if all cars ran on something environmentally friendly such as solar power, they would not be accusing Americans of having solar addiction.

It’s fine to be concerned about the environment and national security, but stop insinuating America has weak moral fiber because they’ve made the most of a very useful natural resource.

Share Button

To Bill Maher: The President is the most heavily armed person on Earth.

Bill Maher Jokes About Obama Not Being a ‘Real Black President’ With A Gun In His Pants

The US Presidency is a dangerous occupation; four out of forty-four Presidents have been assassinated and fourteen have had assassination attempts and plots. It would make sense for the President to carry a gun for self protection.

If the President did carry a gun, there would be an outcry that it makes the US look uncivilized. The objection would be that a President carrying a gun sends the message the US prefers violence to negotiation.

When you are packing thousands of nuclear weapons, commander of the US military, and have the CIA, FBI, and IRS under your command, you are already the most heavily armed person on Earth and do not need to show a gun.

President Obama is not any different from previous US Presidents that threaten to use their arsenal of weapons to settle disputes, sometimes following through on that threat. When you have the power to destroy entire countries or a person’s livelihood, its unnecessary to wield a gun to make the point you don’t won’t to mess with the President.

To libertarians the only justification for violence is in response to violence. The irony is a real libertarian President probably would carry a gun–and be the least likely to use or threaten to use the violent forces of the government towards US citizens and other countries.

Share Button

To Bill Maher: The President is the most heavily armed person on Earth.

Bill Maher Jokes About Obama Not Being a ‘Real Black President’ With A Gun In His Pants

The US Presidency is a dangerous occupation; four out of forty-four Presidents have been assassinated and fourteen have had assassination attempts and plots. It would make sense for the President to carry a gun for self protection.

If the President did carry a gun, there would be an outcry that it makes the US look uncivilized. The objection would be that a President carrying a gun sends the message the US prefers violence to negotiation.

When you are packing thousands of nuclear weapons, commander of the US military, and have the CIA, FBI, and IRS under your command, you are already the most heavily armed person on Earth and do not need to show a gun.

President Obama is not any different from previous US Presidents that threaten to use their arsenal of weapons to settle disputes, sometimes following through on that threat. When you have the power to destroy entire countries or a person’s livelihood, its unnecessary to wield a gun to make the point you don’t won’t to mess with the President.

To libertarians the only justification for violence is in response to violence. The irony is a real libertarian President probably would carry a gun–and be the least likely to use or threaten to use the violent forces of the government towards US citizens and other countries.

Share Button

Does a gay bar owner have the right to say, “We won’t serve Fred Phelps?”

Rand Paul Defends His Views on Civil Rights

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI3c7Yj8lYg&playnext_from=TL&videos=KWPbcjnzJhQ

Transcript of Civil Rights Act (1964) SEC. 202. All persons shall be entitled to be free, at any establishment or place, from discrimination or segregation of any kind on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin, if such discrimination or segregation is or purports to be required by any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, rule, or order of a State or any agency or political subdivision thereof.

This issue is a real test to find out just how much someone believes in the principle of liberty. The reason this is a sensitive issue is because fortunately, the majority of those in the US find the idea of discrimination based upon race, color, religion, or national origin disgusting.

Legally permitting this type of discrimination as they do in Japan seems inherently un-American. When I mention to others that Japan has these signs the typical response is “What the Hell? That’s just wrong!” The existence of the signs gives the impression that the country of Japan as a whole is a racist nation, and Americans would not want this country to be perceived in the same light.

It’s still an important question to ask if the Civil Rights Act went too far by not allowing a privately owned business to ever discriminate based upon race, color, religion, or national origin. The flip-side of the argument is America the type of country that forces people to provide service for others they find morally repugnant? Is America they type of country that forces people to associate with other they believe are inherently evil?

Rachel Maddow’s asked Rand Paul the question “Do you think that a private business has the right to say we don’t serve black people?” Here is a likely hypothetical situation which reverses the roles of who the public sees as having the moral high ground in these debates.

Suppose Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church decide they aren’t getting enough publicity picketing funerals. They decide to branch out and adorn themselves with “God Hates Fags” or biblical quotes against homosexuality t-shirts and head down to the local gay bar.

The Westboro Baptist Church is protected by the Civil Rights Act from being denied service based their religious beliefs. The owner of the bar would be required to serve them, all while the Westboro groups blames the owner and patrons of the bar of all the problems of our nation.

If the owner chose not to serve Fred Phelps, they would be subjected to a lawsuit and would probably lose. The law clearly upholds the right of all persons without exception to service and has no place for any consideration of the owner of the establishment rights not to be subjected to the humiliation of being forced to serve someone they consider to be Satan incarnate.

With the roles reversed, it’s clear the owner of a public establishment civil rights are not protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Back to Rachel Maddow’s question: Do you think a gay bar owner has the right to say, “We won’t serve Fred Phelps?” They currently don’t have the right, but they should.

Share Button

Fear is getting too expensive

When Franklin D Roosevelt said, “The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself,” Roosevelt was referring to the depression and turning the U.S. economy around. The biggest reason to fear is fear; fear causes growth of government and fear is expensive.

Opinion news is loaded with stories of what we should fear and calls for the government to ‘do more’ to protect us. There are an endless amount of editorials about how ‘fill in the blank’ will destroy America, which elevate concerns to comic book level scenarios of doom and call upon government to protect us.

Here is a list of Super Villains the DC Hall of Justice is on the lookout for:

  • Terrorist – foreign and domestic
  • Climate Change
  • Illicit Drugs
  • Rogue States
  • Health Care costs
  • Recession or Depression
  • Excess body fat
  • Eco-Terrorism
  • Big Banks – foreign and domestic
  • Patriot Groups
  • Illegal Immigration and Arizonans

And that is the short list,–there are a host of other things we are supposed to be afraid of that, as George Carlin said, “could infect your mind, curve your spine and lose the war for the Allies.” In all the above, the underlying argument often used is leaving them unchecked will lead to the eventual destruction of America.

Its debatable if any of the above issues might actually lead to our demise, but its’ not debatable the price for all our fears is expensive because people look to government to calm their fears. As long as we’re cutting back on things in general, consider cutting back on fear and fear mongering.

It’s fine to express concern; but save the annihilation analogies only for things that actually cause total destruction, like a huge asteroid hitting earth. Lots of things could harm our country, but the list of things that could destroy the county is a lot less than we’ve been led to believe.

Share Button

Another Supreme Court Nominee, Another Political Spectrum Debate

With Elena Kagan’s nomination to the Supreme Court we have to live though a plethora of opinion pieces trying to define this nominee on the political spectrum. The same questions come up each time, are they liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, left or right.

MoneyAs a libertarian, I’m all too very familiar with the annoyance of having others summing up my views as either left or right. Watching Supreme Court nominees go through the process always brings out empathy for the nominee because labeling is something libertarians constantly deal with.

There is no absolute mutually agreed upon scale to sum up political views. Labeling the political philosophy of others is relative to the philosophy of the one offering the opinion.

Bill Ayers sees President Obama as a moderate and Ann Coulter sees John McCain as left-wing. Europeans see most of American politicians as being conservative and the reverse is true that Americans see European politicians as liberals.

Summing up all a person’s views as either being left or right isn’t very informative. From what’s floating around the blogs, Elena Kagan is not liberal enough for endorsing the Bush administration’s category of ‘enemy combatant’ and too liberal for kicking military recruiters off a college campus.

Not that my opinion of the next person on the Supreme Court matters, but instead of applying a label to their views, please list the view in question and then explain the view relative to well known politicians views and spare me the labels.

Share Button

News Journalist Grilling, Not Interviewing

Army Lt Col Birther Explains Why He Will Not Deploy (Spoiler Alert! It’s Obama’s Birth Certificate)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ujl-JjawWo&feature=player_embedded

Putting aside the subject matter and focusing on how an interview is conducted needs to be addressed. The aggressive style of interview towards people that represent unpopular views and brings higher ratings to the networks is annoying.

This is a difficult subject to write about because the people hardest to defend are the same ones most likely to get an on-air grilling. Pointing out the flaws in interviews often is misconstrued as endorsing the person or group being slammed.

There is an audience for giving those with unpopular beliefs an on-air grilling. The blogs show their support for this type of interview with comments along the lines of “Interviewer X slams the group I hate, so good job interviewer X! I’m surprised interviewer X did such a good job, because usually it’s just sucking up to that group.”

Included below are several other interviews which turn into debates and grilling of the guest. The last video on this list is an example of an interviewer keeping their cool while the person being interviewed is trying to stir a debate.

Regardless of the subject matter, I expect to be able to hear someone interviewed without interruptions, and not to hear a second question asked before the interviewee has finished answering. The point of doing an interview should be to gain insight into how the person being interviewed thinks, not solely how the interviewer thinks.

A test for any news journalist/television personality is doing an interview with someone who supports a view they personal find offensive. The test is to keep their cool, allow the person to answer and bring out the relevant facts.

Anderson Cooper failed the test and reminds me of a host of other bad interviews I’ve seen on cable news. Anderson Cooper has been added the list below in my mind.

Jeremy Glick vs Bill O’Reilly

Peter Schiff On The Ed Show

Shirley Phelps-Roper of Westboro Baptist Church on Fox News

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-STpW7jarrs

Ron Paul vs Bill O’Reilly

Wolf Blitzer keeps his cool and focus while interviewing David Duke. While no journalist/television personality is capable of doing an interview as well as Mr. Spock, Blitzer comes fairly close to that level and may just have some Vulcan blood in him.

Wolf Blitzer vs David Duke

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM9WBS1q6k8

Share Button

Birthers: Political Motivations vs. Legal Questions

Roland Martin on AC360: Birther Backers are Stupid

COOPER: Roland, let me just play devil’s advocate — advocate here. What’s wrong with the state of Arizona saying, you know what? A presidential candidate should produce a birth certificate, and — and we have the right to demand that?

ROLAND MARTIN: Because they’re stupid. They’re stupid. OK?

Anderson Cooper started out playing the devil’s advocate, but did not pursue it very far, and I can see why. This is one of those polarizing issues that tends to be loaded with emotional responses, a “you are either with us, or against us” controversy.

Pointing out facts supporting either side’s arguments is asking simply asking for an unsavory label. Since I’ve yet to hear or read devil’s advocate points aimed at both sides in this debate, I’ll give it a shot.

COOPER: No person — no person, except a naturalized born citizen shall be eligible to the office of president. That’s from Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution. Now, flash forward — forward to today, only 58 percent of Americans — 58 percent of Americans in a recent poll said they believe President Obama was born in America.

It does not matter what anyone believes or disbelieves as to where Obama was born. The birth certificate that has been shown would be considered proof of citizenship in any court in the land. The legal fact is, Obama is a natural born citizen of the US.

COOPER: John, do you agree this is all about politics?

JOHN AVLON: Yes. It has become all about politics.

Issues surrounding ballot access are always about politics. It was politics when McCain’s birthplace was questioned, and it was politics when Obama had other Democrats kicked off the ballot. Neither party can claim the moral high ground when it comes to ballot access politics.

ROLAND MARTIN: Then he kept talking about, to demonstrate that he’s qualified. Well, what does that mean? As you so put it, did any of the 43 previous white guys have to demonstrate that they were qualified to be president? These are the games they’re playing. And, so, this simply feeds into this continuing notion that he’s not legitimate.

Chester ArthurChester A. Arthur -21st president of the United States- had to defend himself from the same type of accusations of being born in a foreign country. Barry Goldwater faced the issue when he ran for President, he was born in the Arizona territory three years before it became a state.

COOPER: It’s one thing for — for people to understandably be confused about it or have — formed some opinion. But it’s another thing for legislators to actually act on it and — and use taxpayer time and money to — to focus on this kind of stuff.

MARTIN: Right. And that’s why — I know, John, I know we want to be nice about it, but I’m sorry. If we keep putting out fact after fact after fact, and people don’t believe the facts, they’re stupid, John. That’s what we call them in the real world. Maybe it’s not nice or P.C. to call them that on television, but this is ridiculous.

AVLON: It is.

MARTIN: Think about it. This is a state — a house of representatives in a state saying, forget another state. Forget a Republican governor. Forget the — the head of the health department. Forget all of them. They’re all wrong. We want to see it ourselves. This is crazy.

It might save time and money to have this law on the books. With a dozen or so lawsuits, the courts have already spent plenty of taxpayer time and money on this issue. The polling mentioned only 58 percent of Americans believe President Obama was born in America, so the trend of court cases is likely to continue.

The motivations are political, but that doesn’t invalidate legal questions over checking eligibility prior to being put on the ballot. One of the birth lawsuits had some merit in that it did not challenge Obama specifically, and instead challenged all the candidates because none had their eligibility to hold the office checked.

One of the candidates on the same ballot with McCain and Obama, was Socialist Workers Party candidate Roger Calero. Roger Calero has never hidden that he was born in Nicaragua.

The Arizona law won’t be a problem for President Obama, because the same birth certificate that was shown before will be shown again. What the law will prevent is someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger

Mirrorcle Worldor Paris Hilton getting on the ballot in 2012.

the schizophrenia of america AKA lolparis

Share Button

Federally Funded PBS: Why are Voters Upset how Taxes are Spent?

PBS Town Hall: role of government and how tax dollars are being spent

JUDY WOODRUFF: We came to Tampa, Florida, to throw a spotlight on what Americans think the role of government should be and how their tax dollars are being spent. To that end, we asked our local PBS affiliate, WEDU, to help us round up the people you see behind me, all residents of this area.

There is just so much wrong here, I’m not sure where to start. The painful irony of seeing tax dollars spent to air why the public is frustrated with how tax dollars are spent.

It should come as no surprise that in discussing how tax dollars are spent, PBS fails to mention the 430 million PBS takes from tax payers each year. There was no mention of conflict of interest from the federally funded broadcast network. Any other media organization would be chastised for failing to mention their connection to the organization they are covering.

What you won’t hear in this video: No mention of the original role of the federal government. Nothing about the amount of money spent on two wars. Nothing about federal spending in regards to subsidies, corporatism, or the war on drugs. Watching this PBS spotlight on voter frustrations on how tax dollars are spent is like watching the drunk looking for keys under the streetlight–because the light is better.

Share Button