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

Thoughtcrimes: Smoking and Abortion

State to force stores to post graphic signs vs. smoking (boston.com)

Massachusetts is poised to become the first state in the nation to force retailers to prominently display graphic warnings about the perils of smoking right where cigarettes are sold — at tobacco sales racks and next to cash registers.

Images of ominously darkened lungs, damaged brains, and diseased teeth could start appearing before the end of the year in more than 9,000 convenience stores, pharmacies, and gas stations, if a proposal by the state Department of Public Health is approved as expected. Other posters would direct smokers to where they can get help to stamp out their habit.

This story has been described on the blogs as another nanny-state proposal. The proposal does seek to control behavior through punishment, but that’s where the nanny analogy ends. In real life, eventually you outgrow a nanny, a nanny can be fired, or you can choose not to pay for an unwanted nanny.

car moneyNannies don’t try to prevent children from doing things they are allowed to do, and they don’t punish children following rules. Nannies can’t force you to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines for not complying with their wishes. Nannies can’t force businesses to post images in an effort to drive away customers.

“If somebody is trying to quit smoking and they go back to the store and they’re tempted — oh, just one pack — we hope this will help them make a different choice,’’ said Lois Keithly, director of the Massachusetts Tobacco Cessation and Prevention Program.

Thought police or thoughtcrime are more descriptive terms for what is taking place here. If you even think about smoking, you can be punished with unpleasant images or your crime. The “crime” being consideration of a legal action that is not governmentally approved.

George Orwell - 1984Massachusetts is not alone in forcing adults to think state-approved thoughts before performing a legal activity. Oklahoma passed a law that requires women seeking an abortion to see a vaginal ultrasound of the fetus and to hear a description of the fetus.

To those who endorse using the government to force others to think the thoughts you’ve chosen for them: How would you feel about an image of big brother right next to your own on your drivers license, or how about big brother posted right on your front door?

Share Button

Thoughtcrimes: Smoking and Abortion

State to force stores to post graphic signs vs. smoking (boston.com)

Massachusetts is poised to become the first state in the nation to force retailers to prominently display graphic warnings about the perils of smoking right where cigarettes are sold — at tobacco sales racks and next to cash registers.

Images of ominously darkened lungs, damaged brains, and diseased teeth could start appearing before the end of the year in more than 9,000 convenience stores, pharmacies, and gas stations, if a proposal by the state Department of Public Health is approved as expected. Other posters would direct smokers to where they can get help to stamp out their habit.

This story has been described on the blogs as another nanny-state proposal. The proposal does seek to control behavior through punishment, but that’s where the nanny analogy ends. In real life, eventually you outgrow a nanny, a nanny can be fired, or you can choose not to pay for an unwanted nanny.

car moneyNannies don’t try to prevent children from doing things they are allowed to do, and they don’t punish children following rules. Nannies can’t force you to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars in fines for not complying with their wishes. Nannies can’t force businesses to post images in an effort to drive away customers.

“If somebody is trying to quit smoking and they go back to the store and they’re tempted — oh, just one pack — we hope this will help them make a different choice,’’ said Lois Keithly, director of the Massachusetts Tobacco Cessation and Prevention Program.

Thought police or thoughtcrime are more descriptive terms for what is taking place here. If you even think about smoking, you can be punished with unpleasant images or your crime. The “crime” being consideration of a legal action that is not governmentally approved.

George Orwell - 1984Massachusetts is not alone in forcing adults to think state-approved thoughts before performing a legal activity. Oklahoma passed a law that requires women seeking an abortion to see a vaginal ultrasound of the fetus and to hear a description of the fetus.

To those who endorse using the government to force others to think the thoughts you’ve chosen for them: How would you feel about an image of big brother right next to your own on your drivers license, or how about big brother posted right on your front door?

Share Button

Zombie Awareness Month: Political Zombies

Undead Nazi Zombies @ SMack! Halloween Fetish Ball 2009
Since May is the official Zombie Awareness Month of the Zombie Research Society, I’d like to draw attention to political zombies. Political zombie is a description applied to quickly dismiss all opposing views.

The Zombie label is where the name of this website originates. I found it ironic that both Democrats and Republicans dismiss each other with the zombie label without any awareness they were each others’ mindless zombie.

Republicans accuse Democrats of being Obama Zombies-infected with the Obama Zombie Virus, while Democrats refer to Republicans as Zombie-Con’s who caught their infection from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck or Bill O’Reilly, as with these examples.

Now, f-off and leave us alone with your faux-news propaganda. there are critical thinking people here, not mindless zombies like your faux news viewers and Rush Limbaugh listeners.

I don’t even think the mindless zombies who watch Olbermann’s show are dumb enough to believe that Olbermann and Snow were pen pals.

Each of these statements implies they would not watch the network or shows in question. If only mindless zombies watch network X, then the person making that statement either does not watch that network or is calling themselves a mindless zombie.

The irony is that people that feel the most comfortable labeling others as mindless, uneducated, ignorant, robots, brainwashed, and indoctrinated, are the most likely to boycott opposing views and opinions. They are completely unaware of the self imposed ignorance caused by only listening to views they agree with.

The true mindlessness is believing other people have been brainwashed and that makes their views irrelevant. Being able to vote in the political process makes all views relevant. Even if you think your neighbor is a complete idiot, they still get to vote and that makes even an idiot’s view relevant.

The choices are taking other views seriously and debating them vs. dismissing them as mindless zombies. Dismissing through name-calling does not change anyone’s mind; it makes those with opposing views angry and reinforces opposition to your views.

Sexy Brain Eating Zombie NurseI prefer my Zombies Uncensored.

Share Button

Republican Does Not Equal Conservative

Southern Avenger Jack Hunter: Conservatism in Exile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uwotApGcrE

Simple explanation of why Republican does not equal conservative. Jack Hunter makes clear and concise points about the how the Republican establishment is not only similar to the Democratic party in terms of trending towards socialism, but in some ways worse.

If the goal is to reduce the size and scope of the government, voting Republican simply isn’t going to work.

Share Button

Republican Does Not Equal Conservative

Southern Avenger Jack Hunter: Conservatism in Exile

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uwotApGcrE

Simple explanation of why Republican does not equal conservative. Jack Hunter makes clear and concise points about the how the Republican establishment is not only similar to the Democratic party in terms of trending towards socialism, but in some ways worse.

If the goal is to reduce the size and scope of the government, voting Republican simply isn’t going to work.

Share Button

Democrats or Republicans: Who’s Pro-Freedom?

I stumbled across this article: Elect more nonconforming libertarian-Republicans while reading articles over at The Free Republic.

I Hate It When I Don't Listen To MyselfIt cracks me up to read the comments to these articles, where the subject of adopting some Libertarian ideas is introduced to either Democrats or Republicans. The comments often run along the lines of, “Well I agree Libertarians here and there, but I part ways when it comes to the authority I wish to maintain over other people.”

Here is an example of one what I mean; it’s from one of the comments left to the article on The Free Republic.

If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” — Ronald Reagan

Up to the point of the Constitution. Sometimes I’m not sure that some Libertarians cross that line. Otherwise, I’m pretty much in full agreement and let the states work out the details. Politically and financially, our country would be rich. Spiritually, its another story. Our country needs real help in that area.

And as usual, a comment about Libertarians being members of the enemy camp.

Sure. Fight conservatism, fight America, and help the left with their 1960s agenda to destroy American Christian culture and traditions, while somehow fantasizing that you can win those left wing compatriots to leave the conservative economic policies standing. Here is the leftists agenda hidden behind the Libertarian Party curtain. Libertarian Party Platform: Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.

For comparison,  here is an article from the Daily Kos, The Libertarian Dem. The thought process runs along the same lines when evaluating Libertarian principles. These comments are from the Democratic Underground about the Daily Kos article.

I’m for max individual freedom, but w/a social safety net I’m for rights of gun owners, gay folks to get married, whistleblowers not to get fired, speech, freedom from unlawful search (strenghten 4th amendment), internet privacy, credit info privacy, but I’m for pension protection, environmental legislation, worker rights, universal health care.

And also a comment about Libertarians being members of the enemy camp.

Dems don’t need libertarian contradictions Warpy echoed my thoughts: “There is an obvious need for big government to protect the powerless from the powerful, whether it’s natural disasters or cartels of obscenely rich men.” I wouldn’t depend on self-proclaimed libertarians, with their vague language and curious double standards, for those protections. “Our first proposed solution to a problem facing our nation shouldn’t be more regulation, more government programs, more bureaucracy”. That is pure Republican pro-business talk.

The Daily Kos article is from 2006, back when the Democrats didn’t control the house, senate, or the White House. The Democrats were searching for ways to get back into power and briefly considered adopting some liberty-minded principles. Just as the Democrats didn’t adopt any Libertarian values while out of power, I doubt the Republicans will seriously embrace any Libertarian ones.

3D Character and Question MarkAs Ron Paul is fond of saying,  “Freedom is popular,” and the majority of Americas are pro-freedom. If everyone is for freedom, what is left to distinguish one party from another? What distinguishes these parties is where they do NOT support freedom–they are special and unique via the avenues they limit freedom.

The areas where the Democratic and Republican parties differ from Libertarianism are the areas where they call for coercive government. The base of voters for both the Democratic and Republican parties are the ones who want limits to liberty; if either party were to truly commit to not running other peoples lives, they would loose their base and hence, their identity.

Both parties existence is due to a self-deception of being pro-freedom while simultaneously calling for restrictions to freedom. As seen in the comments above, the “I’m all for freedom, except where I’m not” perspective is how they choose their respective parties. The Authoritarian Party of Democrats and Republicans can never truly be for freedom, because they would cease to exist if they did.

Share Button

Wanted: Universal Translator for Political Speech

Young Turks: Glenn Beck’s view of FDR

This discussion of Glenn Beck from the Young Turks sums up so neatly the political divide between the left and right in America. It shows how the left and right have very different definitions of the following:

  • Rights
  • Where the middle ground is in America
  • History
  • Communism
  • Health Care
  • Facts
  • Oppression

Just as Americans and the British are separated by a common language, so are the left and right in America. If someone from the UK said “I like a fag when I’m pissed,” (i.e. “I like a cigarette when I’m drunk”), I wouldn’t assume they are crazy, because I know they have different meanings for the same words.

I’ve heard countless discussions just like this one, where one side refers to opposing views as making “no sense at all.”  When people start with completely different definitions and make no attempt to understand other side’s definitions, it should come as no surprise that the other side sounds crazy.

I wonder if the universal translator on Star Trek would work for political speech?

Share Button

Who wants to be pro-FED?

The hypocrisy of the American two-party system is so equally balanced, I wonder if they meet secretly to decided which party gets to champion the political issues of the day. If they do meet to debate who gets what, I imagine it goes something like this:

Each year the Democratic and Republican parties hold this secret meeting and divvy up political issues. The meeting is moderated by the wealthiest investors, financiers, speculators, and businessmen in America.

Chairman: From our pre-meeting polling it looks like we can keep this meeting fairly brief.

Chairman: The Republican party is content to keep hold of the following issues – the elderly, low taxes, Christianity, guns, heterosexuals, the rich, small government and the military-industrial complex.

Chairman: The Democratic party is content keeping the young, income taxes, everything but Christianity, the police, homosexuals, the poor, big government, and the anthropogenic global warming complex.

Chairman: The issues we have to divide up are the economy, jobs, terrorism, social security, education, Medicare, deficit reduction, and healthcare.

Chairman: From what I understand both sides have already discussed privately education and Medicare. Both sides have agreed that it makes senses for the Democratic Party to take education because they already have the young and for the Republican Party to have Medicare because they currently posses the elderly.

Chairman: That leaves us with the economy, jobs, terrorism, social security, deficit reduction, and healthcare. Neither party is willing to concede ownership, so the board has divided them as follows.

Chairman: To the Republican party – Economy, terrorism, and deficit reduction.

Chairman: To the Democratic party –  Jobs, social security, and healthcare.

Chairman: Objections?

Republican Party: It makes sense to put the economy and deficit reduction together because if the economy improves we can take credit for deficit reduction too. We should also get to be the champion for jobs because those are tied to the economy.

Democratic Party: Putting social security and healthcare with our party makes sense because both of those are designed to protect people, shouldn’t terrorism go to the us because terrorism is about protecting people too.

Chairman: Its been part of our bi-laws for decades, and once again I’m forced to remind all of you that its doesn’t matter if the issue grouping makes sense. The purpose of dividing the issues is so the American people are equally divided in their support of the parties. As long as the public is divided in support, both parties will remain in power.

Chairman: One last thing, the Federal Reserve. Who wants to be pro-FED? Anyone?

Share Button