Sunday, October 5, 2008
Friday, June 27, 2008
Saturday, June 21, 2008
Energy Answers
Since the mid-1970’s America has had an energy problem, primarily with automobiles. The main problem being that since that time our fuel costs have gone up, and in the last ten years they’ve skyrocketed. We have had six Presidents and hundreds of members of Congress and no one, at least no one important, had the foresight to figure out that our oil addiction would eventually regress into the sorry state that it is in today. This includes both parties. In short, Washington has failed us, but here are some things that they can do now to start to remedy this situation.
First, let’s examine why gas is so much in the first place. Unfortunately, it’s all too simple, supply vs. demand. Now usually through the 1970’s and 80’s, the United States was the leading consumer of oil in the world, so if our demand got to high, we would naturally fall back a little and the price would fall as well. However, with the dawn of the new millennium came more consumers, and pretty large ones, China and India. These two countries have one third of the world’s population within their borders and before the mid 90’s they were in relative poverty. Not a lot of cars were owned, or filed up. But as primarily China grew into an economic giant, their population began to gain enough money to buy cars. This grew to a smaller extent in India. As more and more cars were bought in China, the more fuel they required from the market. So the United States wasn’t the only customer anymore. We lost our individual power to control demand because now demand is based on the global marketplace.
Unfortunately no one in Washington saw this coming. Some still don’t see it. But most agree that since we can’t control demand anymore; let’s try to control the supply. Each party has go-to lines that they both use to answer a question about how to do this. The Republicans always say, drill for more oil in our country, so that we don’t depend on everyone else, but that’s where the plan ends. Democrats claim that “we can’t drill our way to energy independence,” and favor only searching for new alternatives. Personally, I feel that this should be a no-brainer for any well-thinking individual, why not do both.
Why not start drilling for oil off our coasts, under the shale in the Dakotas, and in ANWR. Most estimates say that there are billions, if not trillions of barrels of oil there, and right now it’s against the law for anyone to touch it. Beyond that, environmental groups block the building of new refineries to make the gasoline, even if we had the oil. If we were allowed to drill there and open refineries, it wouldn’t change the price over night, but with much of the prices based on speculators in the market, the drilling would be a jolt, a call of “help is on the way.” This should lower the price some, and after a few years and the oil is out and refined, the price should drop dramatically.
Next is where the Democrat’s plan comes in. While we bide time by drilling, we put this nation’s smartest minds to work on an Apollo-like project to find a new fuel source; hopefully it’s clean and renewable. This research could take decades, so that’s why the drilling is so important in the interim.
Now, I’d like to dispel some rumors about this problem that are totally idiotic and counter-productive. One is that we can’t drill in ANWR because it would ruin a pristine landscape. Some compare it to the Grand Canyon. Question: Has anyone reading this post been to ANWR? Have you planned a trip to ANWR? Do you plan on ever going? I would venture a guess that most of you would answer no on all three. Second, is the notion that the porcupine caribou will be disturbed by the drilling. Wrong again, because the places where the drilling would take place would be hundreds of miles from the nearest tree. It’s not like we’re putting an oil well inside the nest of these animals.
Myth number two is that we need a “windfall profits tax” on the oil companies. First, some background, out of every dollar that you spend at the pump, a whopping eight cents go to the evil Exon-Mobil CEO’s. That’s the profit margin of “big oil”. Now comes the really funny part. Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats say that these oil profits are “obscene”. Eight percent is obscene. Okay, but what about 18 percent profit margin. I assume Speaker Pelosi would think that was outrageous, right. I doubt it, because that’s the percent that the government rakes in from your wallet at the pump. Yes, the Federal Government gets more than double what the CEO’s get, and they are demonized for “obscene profits”. I’ve now revealed why after 30+ years Washington hasn’t done much about our energy problem, because their making the most money off of it! But another tax, beyond being a slight bit socialistic, is a dumb idea. The oil companies would simply adjust there price to get around the tax. In a nutshell, the government gets another tax (more of your money) and “big oil” still gets those “obscene, record profits”.
Overall, I believe this is one of those problems that requires a bipartisan solution. This is easier than you might think to achieve. Think back the last year’s immigration bill that failed due to the flooding of the Congressional phone lines by angered constituents. The swell was so large that it overloaded the phone system. We need to do this again. Call or email your representatives and outline this or any of the other fine proposals that have been offered up by Congress. Remember, they work for us, not the other way around.
Please comment and call or email your reps!!!
TTC
First, let’s examine why gas is so much in the first place. Unfortunately, it’s all too simple, supply vs. demand. Now usually through the 1970’s and 80’s, the United States was the leading consumer of oil in the world, so if our demand got to high, we would naturally fall back a little and the price would fall as well. However, with the dawn of the new millennium came more consumers, and pretty large ones, China and India. These two countries have one third of the world’s population within their borders and before the mid 90’s they were in relative poverty. Not a lot of cars were owned, or filed up. But as primarily China grew into an economic giant, their population began to gain enough money to buy cars. This grew to a smaller extent in India. As more and more cars were bought in China, the more fuel they required from the market. So the United States wasn’t the only customer anymore. We lost our individual power to control demand because now demand is based on the global marketplace.
Unfortunately no one in Washington saw this coming. Some still don’t see it. But most agree that since we can’t control demand anymore; let’s try to control the supply. Each party has go-to lines that they both use to answer a question about how to do this. The Republicans always say, drill for more oil in our country, so that we don’t depend on everyone else, but that’s where the plan ends. Democrats claim that “we can’t drill our way to energy independence,” and favor only searching for new alternatives. Personally, I feel that this should be a no-brainer for any well-thinking individual, why not do both.
Why not start drilling for oil off our coasts, under the shale in the Dakotas, and in ANWR. Most estimates say that there are billions, if not trillions of barrels of oil there, and right now it’s against the law for anyone to touch it. Beyond that, environmental groups block the building of new refineries to make the gasoline, even if we had the oil. If we were allowed to drill there and open refineries, it wouldn’t change the price over night, but with much of the prices based on speculators in the market, the drilling would be a jolt, a call of “help is on the way.” This should lower the price some, and after a few years and the oil is out and refined, the price should drop dramatically.
Next is where the Democrat’s plan comes in. While we bide time by drilling, we put this nation’s smartest minds to work on an Apollo-like project to find a new fuel source; hopefully it’s clean and renewable. This research could take decades, so that’s why the drilling is so important in the interim.
Now, I’d like to dispel some rumors about this problem that are totally idiotic and counter-productive. One is that we can’t drill in ANWR because it would ruin a pristine landscape. Some compare it to the Grand Canyon. Question: Has anyone reading this post been to ANWR? Have you planned a trip to ANWR? Do you plan on ever going? I would venture a guess that most of you would answer no on all three. Second, is the notion that the porcupine caribou will be disturbed by the drilling. Wrong again, because the places where the drilling would take place would be hundreds of miles from the nearest tree. It’s not like we’re putting an oil well inside the nest of these animals.
Myth number two is that we need a “windfall profits tax” on the oil companies. First, some background, out of every dollar that you spend at the pump, a whopping eight cents go to the evil Exon-Mobil CEO’s. That’s the profit margin of “big oil”. Now comes the really funny part. Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats say that these oil profits are “obscene”. Eight percent is obscene. Okay, but what about 18 percent profit margin. I assume Speaker Pelosi would think that was outrageous, right. I doubt it, because that’s the percent that the government rakes in from your wallet at the pump. Yes, the Federal Government gets more than double what the CEO’s get, and they are demonized for “obscene profits”. I’ve now revealed why after 30+ years Washington hasn’t done much about our energy problem, because their making the most money off of it! But another tax, beyond being a slight bit socialistic, is a dumb idea. The oil companies would simply adjust there price to get around the tax. In a nutshell, the government gets another tax (more of your money) and “big oil” still gets those “obscene, record profits”.
Overall, I believe this is one of those problems that requires a bipartisan solution. This is easier than you might think to achieve. Think back the last year’s immigration bill that failed due to the flooding of the Congressional phone lines by angered constituents. The swell was so large that it overloaded the phone system. We need to do this again. Call or email your representatives and outline this or any of the other fine proposals that have been offered up by Congress. Remember, they work for us, not the other way around.
Please comment and call or email your reps!!!
TTC
Sunday, June 15, 2008
New Youtube Channel and Election 2008 Videos
Check out the new Youtube channel with my 2008 Electoral College prediction. I'll make new one's about once a month.
http://www.youtube.com/user/theteenconservative
http://www.youtube.com/user/theteenconservative
Friday, May 30, 2008
The Perfect Day - Terrorism in America
This was a special, week-long series that aired on the Glenn Beck TV show. I wrote about it in my school newspaper back in September-October 2007 when Glenn aired it.
This is pretty scary stuff. Intelligence and experts in the field of anti-terrorism point to al-Qaeda plotting to assault American schools, take children hostage and murder and/or mutilate victims. This is similar to the Beslan massacre in Russia in 2004. The reason I'm bringing it up now is that I ran into the videos and thought it would be worth it for people to see it that haven't.
Here are the six parts...
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Barack Obama: Eloquent but Empty
I promised a large Obama post, and here it is...
(As published in my school newspaper for March, 2008)
Presidential candidate Barack Obama is bar-none the most likeable candidate left in the race for President, but behind his lofty rhetoric, is there any substance?
As many Americans know by now, Illinois Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and grew up in Indonesia. His father was from Kenya and his mother from Kansas. Later in life, he was a community organizer on the south side of Chicago. Then in 1997 he was elected to the Illinois State Senate. He served there until his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign. At that point, Obama was a little known figure but won the Democratic primary. His Republican challenger was thought to be Jack Ryan, who had a wide polling advantage. But in June of 2004, Ryan withdrew amid marital strife. This forced the Illinois GOP to replace Ryan in the middle of the election, fatally injuring the party’s chances in November.
Then, Obama delivered the Keynote address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. It was a powerful, bipartisan speech which catapulted him onto the national scene. Obama went on to a landslide victory in the fall election and very early in his Senate career, supporters began mulling a higher office for Obama. After serving only 18 months in the U.S. Senate, Obama launched his Presidential bid.
So now that you know Barack Obama’s past, I ask you, does being a U.S. Senator for a year and a half qualify you to be Commander in Chief?
But then comes the question of what Barack Obama has done in his time as a public servant. That question is interesting because many of Obama’s supporters can’t even come up with an answer. For example, on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Mathews, an Obama surrogate was asked if he could name an accomplishment of Obama’s, he couldn’t even name one. On national television a politician who has endorsed this man for President, can’t name one thing that his candidate has done. I guess Obama’s theme of “change we can believe in” requires a lot of believing, because there isn’t much behind it.
I notice here at our school there are many Barack Obama supporters. When I ask some of them why they are supporting Obama, the most frequent response is that he speaks amazingly well. Well that’s all fine and good, but does that mean he should lead our country?
Other students even cite Obama’s race as a factor in their vote. Now wait a minute, are we really going to choose the next leader of the free world based on his race?
But let’s take a look at Obama’s rhetoric, though. One of his tried and true applause lines is to “bring the country together”. Again that sounds nice, but the truth is that Obama votes with his party more than 90 percent of the time. And the National Journal rated him the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate.
Obama uses inspirational words to describe his campaign for the Presidency: “hope”, “change”, “turning the page”, “change we can believe in”. But it seems that behind his broad speeches, there are little or no real solutions to America’s many problems. I’m sure people can point toward his website and his well thought out positions on every issue, but what makes any of us believe that he will be different than any other Presidential hopeful. Many of America’s problems date back decades, and in those decades we’ve had Presidents that have had a lot more experience than Barack Obama. Obama’s powerful speeches promise to not only change the country, but to “change the world”. But he knows full well that he cannot deliver on all of those lofty promises, his record is as thin as it is partisan.
My point is this, let’s not get duped by a man promising the world in return for our votes. Let’s try to look beyond Barack Obama’s infectious style and bring him down to earth in our minds. Let us not forget the old adage to not to judge a book by its cover, even if that cover looks and sounds eloquent, because in the end, it may be empty.
(As published in my school newspaper for March, 2008)
Presidential candidate Barack Obama is bar-none the most likeable candidate left in the race for President, but behind his lofty rhetoric, is there any substance?
As many Americans know by now, Illinois Senator Barack Obama was born in Hawaii and grew up in Indonesia. His father was from Kenya and his mother from Kansas. Later in life, he was a community organizer on the south side of Chicago. Then in 1997 he was elected to the Illinois State Senate. He served there until his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign. At that point, Obama was a little known figure but won the Democratic primary. His Republican challenger was thought to be Jack Ryan, who had a wide polling advantage. But in June of 2004, Ryan withdrew amid marital strife. This forced the Illinois GOP to replace Ryan in the middle of the election, fatally injuring the party’s chances in November.
Then, Obama delivered the Keynote address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston. It was a powerful, bipartisan speech which catapulted him onto the national scene. Obama went on to a landslide victory in the fall election and very early in his Senate career, supporters began mulling a higher office for Obama. After serving only 18 months in the U.S. Senate, Obama launched his Presidential bid.
So now that you know Barack Obama’s past, I ask you, does being a U.S. Senator for a year and a half qualify you to be Commander in Chief?
But then comes the question of what Barack Obama has done in his time as a public servant. That question is interesting because many of Obama’s supporters can’t even come up with an answer. For example, on MSNBC’s Hardball with Chris Mathews, an Obama surrogate was asked if he could name an accomplishment of Obama’s, he couldn’t even name one. On national television a politician who has endorsed this man for President, can’t name one thing that his candidate has done. I guess Obama’s theme of “change we can believe in” requires a lot of believing, because there isn’t much behind it.
I notice here at our school there are many Barack Obama supporters. When I ask some of them why they are supporting Obama, the most frequent response is that he speaks amazingly well. Well that’s all fine and good, but does that mean he should lead our country?
Other students even cite Obama’s race as a factor in their vote. Now wait a minute, are we really going to choose the next leader of the free world based on his race?
But let’s take a look at Obama’s rhetoric, though. One of his tried and true applause lines is to “bring the country together”. Again that sounds nice, but the truth is that Obama votes with his party more than 90 percent of the time. And the National Journal rated him the most liberal Senator in the U.S. Senate.
Obama uses inspirational words to describe his campaign for the Presidency: “hope”, “change”, “turning the page”, “change we can believe in”. But it seems that behind his broad speeches, there are little or no real solutions to America’s many problems. I’m sure people can point toward his website and his well thought out positions on every issue, but what makes any of us believe that he will be different than any other Presidential hopeful. Many of America’s problems date back decades, and in those decades we’ve had Presidents that have had a lot more experience than Barack Obama. Obama’s powerful speeches promise to not only change the country, but to “change the world”. But he knows full well that he cannot deliver on all of those lofty promises, his record is as thin as it is partisan.
My point is this, let’s not get duped by a man promising the world in return for our votes. Let’s try to look beyond Barack Obama’s infectious style and bring him down to earth in our minds. Let us not forget the old adage to not to judge a book by its cover, even if that cover looks and sounds eloquent, because in the end, it may be empty.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Will I vote for John McCain?
Since Sen. John McCain is the presumptive nominee for the GOP, many conservatives have claimed that they will "protest" and vote for the Democrat or not vote at all.
Well, I'm going to be voting in my first Presidential Election in November and, even though I would have preferred Mitt Romney, I would be proud to cast my first vote for the true American hero, John McCain.
My prediction is that, like today, the left-leaning media will do it's best to help conservatives rally around McCain by coming out overwhelmingly for the socialist messiah, Barack Obama (BTW, I plan on a large post dedicated to Obama, seeing as he has the edge over Clinton).
My hope would be that Obama and Clinton fight it out and tear each other to shreds and create a repeat of the 1968 DNC in Chicago(That would be heaven on earth for every Republican in the country), although I highly doubt that will happen.
So, I'm a proud McCain man, and I encourage other conservatives to follow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
