Friday, August 29, 2008
Where are you going? The World.
So, in less than 36 hours I will begin my great adventure of the world. Honestly, I'm scared and I'm not so sure what I've gotten myself into. I've been saying good-bye to people over the past couple days, that has sucked. Right now I'm just telling myself I'll be home my Christmas because then I don't have to think about not being able to see everyone at that time. The worst part is having to sit and pack for five months, knowing that you have a 44 lbs. weight limit and everything you see before you is the only stuff you'll have to wear along the way. I was going to get another pair of jeans before I left. Oh well. I am very bad at packing for five months. But at least all the important things (passport, birth certificate, baby powder) are taken care of. If only I could eliminate another pair of shoes, but I really don't foresee that occurring...
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Here's How the IOC Can Really Get to the Bottom of this Gymnastic Scandal
Absolutely hilarious article by Jim Caple on ESPN.com today regarding the eligibility of they Chinese gymnasts:
BEIJING -- So, the International Olympic Committee wants the International Gymnastics Federation to investigate the ages of Chinese gymnasts to put the matter to rest once and for all.
I'm not sure what it hopes to find because the Chinese government assures us its gymnasts were all of qualifying age -- despite many documents to the contrary, plus the fact that one was seen competing with her umbilical cord still attached. And the Chinese government would never lie, would it? Just as our presidents never tell a fib.
The IOC can save a lot of time, effort and money by taking a far simpler, more conclusive and, quite frankly, obvious approach to this issue. If it wants to know whether an athlete is cheating, simply check the passports. If they say "U.S. citizen," then the athletes are above suspicion. If they say anything else, they are guilty. (Well, maybe not the Canadians, who aren't suspicious because they're not winning anything.)
Hasn't the IOC been paying attention to American Olympic coverage over the decades? Our Olympians are always clean. It's the other athletes who cheat like foreign accountants in offshore tax havens.
Those Chinese swimmers who medaled in the women's 200-meter butterfly? They clearly juiced because there is no way a relatively unknown team could medal and shave such time off previous world records. Only an American who has been on the cover of Time magazine, such as 41-year-old hero Dara Torres, could do that without raising suspicions. I mean, c'mon! Our success in the pool wasn't a surprise. Everyone expected our swimmers to win tons of medals, and they did, even though they had to overcome all the people who said they couldn't do it.
And those newfangled speedsuits had nothing to do with their world-record times, either, so you can just forget about that right now.
Which brings me to all those nations who keep stocking their teams with ringers. Becky Hammon competing for Russia even though she doesn't speak the language? Milorad Cavic swimming for Serbia even though he grew up in Anaheim (I didn't realize Disneyland had been part of the former Yugoslavia)? Appalling. America would never fast-track athletes for citizenship, unless perhaps they were from Africa and had awesome qualifying times.
These countries are merely trying to surpass our gold-medal total, which is foolhardy. The Chinese even regularly update their "Olympics-leading" gold tally on chalk and message boards throughout the city. That's just sad, and a terrible twisting of the true Olympic spirit.
The Olympics aren't about which country wins the most gold medals; they're about which country wins the most medals, period. And America holds a solid lead there. Besides, the "official" gold tally neglects all the multiple golds we've won on relay teams and in other team sports. This just isn't fair. How can you not count all gold medals that are handed out to an entire team? By the time you include all our gold medals -- eight for each men's swimming relay team because the athletes in the qualifying heats get them, as well -- I bet we'll have a commanding lead there.
But I do hope the IOC gets to the bottom of this age controversy because it is damaging the credibility of gymnastics, which is otherwise utterly beyond reproach and never subject to the manipulation of biased or petty judges. That, of course, is due to the straightforward and easily understood scoring system that is such a hit with viewers.
Something, after all, must be done to prevent immature, underage girls from being thrown into an intense, pressure-packed international competition they are far too young to handle emotionally. Forcing a young girl to compete like that would be like entering a 6-year-old in a beauty contest, or a fifth grader in a national spelling bee, or expecting an 11-year-old boy to compete in a worldwide baseball tournament on national TV. Americans just don't believe in placing that kind of pressure on children.
By the way, be sure to tune into the Little League World Series this weekend on ESPN. I just hope those foreign kids with the beards and mustaches are really 12.
BEIJING -- So, the International Olympic Committee wants the International Gymnastics Federation to investigate the ages of Chinese gymnasts to put the matter to rest once and for all.
I'm not sure what it hopes to find because the Chinese government assures us its gymnasts were all of qualifying age -- despite many documents to the contrary, plus the fact that one was seen competing with her umbilical cord still attached. And the Chinese government would never lie, would it? Just as our presidents never tell a fib.
The IOC can save a lot of time, effort and money by taking a far simpler, more conclusive and, quite frankly, obvious approach to this issue. If it wants to know whether an athlete is cheating, simply check the passports. If they say "U.S. citizen," then the athletes are above suspicion. If they say anything else, they are guilty. (Well, maybe not the Canadians, who aren't suspicious because they're not winning anything.)
Hasn't the IOC been paying attention to American Olympic coverage over the decades? Our Olympians are always clean. It's the other athletes who cheat like foreign accountants in offshore tax havens.
Those Chinese swimmers who medaled in the women's 200-meter butterfly? They clearly juiced because there is no way a relatively unknown team could medal and shave such time off previous world records. Only an American who has been on the cover of Time magazine, such as 41-year-old hero Dara Torres, could do that without raising suspicions. I mean, c'mon! Our success in the pool wasn't a surprise. Everyone expected our swimmers to win tons of medals, and they did, even though they had to overcome all the people who said they couldn't do it.
And those newfangled speedsuits had nothing to do with their world-record times, either, so you can just forget about that right now.
Which brings me to all those nations who keep stocking their teams with ringers. Becky Hammon competing for Russia even though she doesn't speak the language? Milorad Cavic swimming for Serbia even though he grew up in Anaheim (I didn't realize Disneyland had been part of the former Yugoslavia)? Appalling. America would never fast-track athletes for citizenship, unless perhaps they were from Africa and had awesome qualifying times.
These countries are merely trying to surpass our gold-medal total, which is foolhardy. The Chinese even regularly update their "Olympics-leading" gold tally on chalk and message boards throughout the city. That's just sad, and a terrible twisting of the true Olympic spirit.
The Olympics aren't about which country wins the most gold medals; they're about which country wins the most medals, period. And America holds a solid lead there. Besides, the "official" gold tally neglects all the multiple golds we've won on relay teams and in other team sports. This just isn't fair. How can you not count all gold medals that are handed out to an entire team? By the time you include all our gold medals -- eight for each men's swimming relay team because the athletes in the qualifying heats get them, as well -- I bet we'll have a commanding lead there.
But I do hope the IOC gets to the bottom of this age controversy because it is damaging the credibility of gymnastics, which is otherwise utterly beyond reproach and never subject to the manipulation of biased or petty judges. That, of course, is due to the straightforward and easily understood scoring system that is such a hit with viewers.
Something, after all, must be done to prevent immature, underage girls from being thrown into an intense, pressure-packed international competition they are far too young to handle emotionally. Forcing a young girl to compete like that would be like entering a 6-year-old in a beauty contest, or a fifth grader in a national spelling bee, or expecting an 11-year-old boy to compete in a worldwide baseball tournament on national TV. Americans just don't believe in placing that kind of pressure on children.
By the way, be sure to tune into the Little League World Series this weekend on ESPN. I just hope those foreign kids with the beards and mustaches are really 12.
Saturday, August 23, 2008
If You Have Nothing to Hide, Why Worry?
This is a great article in response to such a questions regarding The Patriot Act by Stewart N. Thorpe of Citizen Press Revolution:
This is a follow up on my Patriot Act – Details Inside. So, why should you care about the growing invasion of your privacy? If you don’t have anything to hide, why worry, right?
A "federal terrorist offense" is distinguished by "the intent to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct," explains Rep. Patsy Mink (D-Hawaii). "This broad, unclear definition may include groups such as Greenpeace, along with the terrorists." This category also includes People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which "could be investigated as a terrorist group because one of its members hits the secretary of agriculture with a pie," says Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington office.
In other words, protesting against government conduct could result in you being investigated by the federal government.
In the weeks after 9/11, student demonstrators, civil libertarians, global justice workers, and peace and animal rights activists had all been labeled as terrorist sympathizers. It has become an offense to have intent to influence the conduct of our government by intimidation, coercion, or retaliation, no matter how nonviolent it might be. It is not the duty of the public anymore, apparently, to attempt to influence the conduct of its government.
It is nothing new in our history to have our federal investigators targeting and harassing political dissidents. And McCarthyism is a prime example of what happens when a self-righteous moral ground against Evil itself (Communism) is used as justification. Now with the self-righteous justification and abuse of the 9/11 excuse, the government is acutely astute to target groups who raise a critical voice or protest against the actions of the government. President Bush has drastically cut and wants to cut more funding to public broadcasting programs, for instance. This is America, after all, dissent and freedom of speech are actions which sympathize with communism err, terrorism – and we all know that they hate us for our freedoms. If you think George Orwell’s 1984 doubletalk couldn’t happen in real life before, we now have more than ample proof today that it is happening and is happening more often.
Nowadays, if you question government policies, especially regarding the “war” on terrorism or the Iraq war and occupation, you are accused of being unpatriotic, soft against terrorism, or even to “hate America”.
We even have a case where fifteen-year-old West Virginia sophomore Katie Sierra was suspended from her high school for wearing a T-shirt that read, "When I saw the dead and dying Afghani children on TV, I felt a newly recovered sense of national security. God Bless America."
A rapist in Hamilton County, Ohio was sentenced for 15 years in prison after beating and raping a 57-year-old woman. A Californian environmental activist was sentenced for 22 years and 8 months after burning three SUVS at a car dealership where he also took precautions to ensure that no lives would be harmed. Our government is upping offenses with a political intent or intent to influence conduct of our government (including the free markets) and laying our heavy-laden punishments against what is otherwise known as civil disobedience, even nonviolent civil disobedience.
It goes more than just being investigated and being spied upon (that usually comes first). There was a group of prominent intellectuals, including Edward Said of Columbia University and philosopher Anatole Anton of San Francisco State University, who signed a letter stating that they had been threatened for criticizing U.S. foreign policy. Following up this letter, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a right-wing academic group founded by Lynne Cheney (yes, the Vice President’s wife), released a report accusing 40 college professors of not showing “enough patriotism” since Sept. 11. Patriotism nowadays no longer means exercising your freedom of speech and acting upon the spirit of democracy that drove the American revolutionaries to criticize and protest against King George. These are now symptoms of being “Anti-American” and even terrorist sympathizers.
In the words of the White House press secretary herself, Ari Fleisher:
"People have to watch what they say and what they do."
Welcome to King George W. Bush's America.
This is a follow up on my Patriot Act – Details Inside. So, why should you care about the growing invasion of your privacy? If you don’t have anything to hide, why worry, right?
A "federal terrorist offense" is distinguished by "the intent to influence or affect the conduct of government by intimidation or coercion, or to retaliate against government conduct," explains Rep. Patsy Mink (D-Hawaii). "This broad, unclear definition may include groups such as Greenpeace, along with the terrorists." This category also includes People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which "could be investigated as a terrorist group because one of its members hits the secretary of agriculture with a pie," says Laura W. Murphy, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington office.
In other words, protesting against government conduct could result in you being investigated by the federal government.
In the weeks after 9/11, student demonstrators, civil libertarians, global justice workers, and peace and animal rights activists had all been labeled as terrorist sympathizers. It has become an offense to have intent to influence the conduct of our government by intimidation, coercion, or retaliation, no matter how nonviolent it might be. It is not the duty of the public anymore, apparently, to attempt to influence the conduct of its government.
It is nothing new in our history to have our federal investigators targeting and harassing political dissidents. And McCarthyism is a prime example of what happens when a self-righteous moral ground against Evil itself (Communism) is used as justification. Now with the self-righteous justification and abuse of the 9/11 excuse, the government is acutely astute to target groups who raise a critical voice or protest against the actions of the government. President Bush has drastically cut and wants to cut more funding to public broadcasting programs, for instance. This is America, after all, dissent and freedom of speech are actions which sympathize with communism err, terrorism – and we all know that they hate us for our freedoms. If you think George Orwell’s 1984 doubletalk couldn’t happen in real life before, we now have more than ample proof today that it is happening and is happening more often.
Nowadays, if you question government policies, especially regarding the “war” on terrorism or the Iraq war and occupation, you are accused of being unpatriotic, soft against terrorism, or even to “hate America”.
We even have a case where fifteen-year-old West Virginia sophomore Katie Sierra was suspended from her high school for wearing a T-shirt that read, "When I saw the dead and dying Afghani children on TV, I felt a newly recovered sense of national security. God Bless America."
A rapist in Hamilton County, Ohio was sentenced for 15 years in prison after beating and raping a 57-year-old woman. A Californian environmental activist was sentenced for 22 years and 8 months after burning three SUVS at a car dealership where he also took precautions to ensure that no lives would be harmed. Our government is upping offenses with a political intent or intent to influence conduct of our government (including the free markets) and laying our heavy-laden punishments against what is otherwise known as civil disobedience, even nonviolent civil disobedience.
It goes more than just being investigated and being spied upon (that usually comes first). There was a group of prominent intellectuals, including Edward Said of Columbia University and philosopher Anatole Anton of San Francisco State University, who signed a letter stating that they had been threatened for criticizing U.S. foreign policy. Following up this letter, the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a right-wing academic group founded by Lynne Cheney (yes, the Vice President’s wife), released a report accusing 40 college professors of not showing “enough patriotism” since Sept. 11. Patriotism nowadays no longer means exercising your freedom of speech and acting upon the spirit of democracy that drove the American revolutionaries to criticize and protest against King George. These are now symptoms of being “Anti-American” and even terrorist sympathizers.
In the words of the White House press secretary herself, Ari Fleisher:
"People have to watch what they say and what they do."
Welcome to King George W. Bush's America.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
3 Facts That Could Change This Election
Stumbled across this today...so true, so true (especially #3 - God I've been saying this for years about Republicans and Democrats -- how is it possible that so many people are so ignorant to this fact?!?!)
Here are 3 Stunning facts that could not only change the outcome of this election, but with regard to the first two points, they could change the results of every election for years to come *if* we make enough people aware of them.
I want to keep this as simple and short as possible, so that the people who need to read this actually do. And again, I encourage you to share this information with as many people as you can, either by recommending and commenting on this thread, by emailing these points out and or by posting a link to this thread on the appropriate websites.
1)-Over 70% of our National Debt was created by just 3 Republican presidents.
Go ahead, get out your calculator and add up debt by president/party. Apparently the party that claims fiscally responsibility thinks it's ok to borrow massive amounts of money from foreign countries like China. Consider that we spend hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments on this debt each year. That means more and more of your hard earned money is going to make interest only payments on what is basically a Giant National Credit Card. Not to mention the fact our debt/deficits are largely behind the weakness of our dollar, which in turns makes gas more expensive and creates other serious problems.
If you want to learn more about the National Debt, check out these links:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock /
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
http://zfacts.com/p/447.html (A running clock with the cost of the war)
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/business...
2)-According to new research from Larry Bartels out of Princeton, real middle class wage growth is double when a Democrat is president compared to when a Republican is president.
"...Even more remarkable, the real incomes of working-poor families...grew six times as fast when Democrats held the White House. Only the incomes of affluent families were relatively impervious to partisan politics, growing robustly under Democrats and Republicans alike...": http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27wwln-ideal...
Here is a short summary of this research: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008...
And here is a good, short audio interview with Larry Bartels: http://youngturks.wmod.llnwd.net/a591/o1/4-25-08Bartels...
3)-90% of Americans would pay less taxes under Obama's proposed tax plan compared to McCain's.
This is according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Institute as reported by CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates...
People making under $112,000 a year in individual (not household) income would pay less taxes under Obama's plan.
By contrast, John McCain's tax cuts mostly benefit the top 10% of Americans. Under McCain's plan, people making over 2.9 million dollars in individual annual income would get almost a million dollar tax break.
Conclusion: Countless millions of Americans vote Republican because they believe they'll pay less taxes and that they'll have their money spent more responsibly. As you can see, those beliefs are directly contradicted by the facts. Of course we can choose to ignore the facts and instead focus on which candidate is wearing a flag pin (you ever notice that Hillary and McCain don't wear them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi5nbZvS9cg ) but I think we're a smarter country than that.
PS---If you're not sure how to respond to those laughably bad, factually inaccurate anti-Obama smear emails and or you want more information on John McCain, here is a nice resource guide of articles, videos and commentary: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
Here are 3 Stunning facts that could not only change the outcome of this election, but with regard to the first two points, they could change the results of every election for years to come *if* we make enough people aware of them.
I want to keep this as simple and short as possible, so that the people who need to read this actually do. And again, I encourage you to share this information with as many people as you can, either by recommending and commenting on this thread, by emailing these points out and or by posting a link to this thread on the appropriate websites.
1)-Over 70% of our National Debt was created by just 3 Republican presidents.
Go ahead, get out your calculator and add up debt by president/party. Apparently the party that claims fiscally responsibility thinks it's ok to borrow massive amounts of money from foreign countries like China. Consider that we spend hundreds of billions of dollars in interest payments on this debt each year. That means more and more of your hard earned money is going to make interest only payments on what is basically a Giant National Credit Card. Not to mention the fact our debt/deficits are largely behind the weakness of our dollar, which in turns makes gas more expensive and creates other serious problems.
If you want to learn more about the National Debt, check out these links:
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock /
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...
http://zfacts.com/p/447.html (A running clock with the cost of the war)
http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/business...
2)-According to new research from Larry Bartels out of Princeton, real middle class wage growth is double when a Democrat is president compared to when a Republican is president.
"...Even more remarkable, the real incomes of working-poor families...grew six times as fast when Democrats held the White House. Only the incomes of affluent families were relatively impervious to partisan politics, growing robustly under Democrats and Republicans alike...": http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/magazine/27wwln-ideal...
Here is a short summary of this research: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008...
And here is a good, short audio interview with Larry Bartels: http://youngturks.wmod.llnwd.net/a591/o1/4-25-08Bartels...
3)-90% of Americans would pay less taxes under Obama's proposed tax plan compared to McCain's.
This is according to the non-partisan Tax Policy Institute as reported by CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/11/news/economy/candidates...
People making under $112,000 a year in individual (not household) income would pay less taxes under Obama's plan.
By contrast, John McCain's tax cuts mostly benefit the top 10% of Americans. Under McCain's plan, people making over 2.9 million dollars in individual annual income would get almost a million dollar tax break.
Conclusion: Countless millions of Americans vote Republican because they believe they'll pay less taxes and that they'll have their money spent more responsibly. As you can see, those beliefs are directly contradicted by the facts. Of course we can choose to ignore the facts and instead focus on which candidate is wearing a flag pin (you ever notice that Hillary and McCain don't wear them? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vi5nbZvS9cg ) but I think we're a smarter country than that.
PS---If you're not sure how to respond to those laughably bad, factually inaccurate anti-Obama smear emails and or you want more information on John McCain, here is a nice resource guide of articles, videos and commentary: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
oh the memories...the good ole days.
Clinton announces record payment on national debt
By John King/CNN
May 1, 2000
Web posted at: 5:13 p.m. EDT (2113 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Bill Clinton said Monday that the United States would pay off $216 billion in debt this year, bringing to $355 billion the amount of the nation's debt paid down in the three years since the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses.
Clinton debt
In a written statement, Clinton said the $216 billion payment represented the largest debt paydown in American history, and he said that the federal government's long-term debt is now $2.4 trillion lower than projected to be when he first took office.
However, the U.S. government still has a long way to go before it pays down the entire national debt, which now stands at $5.7 trillion.
"We should take advantage of this historic opportunity to use the benefits of debt reduction to extend the life of Social Security and Medicare and pay off the entire national debt by 2013 for the first time since Andrew Jackson was president," Clinton said.
Clinton has asked Congress to dedicate the interest savings from paying down the national debt to the Social Security Trust Fund, which will add 54 years to its life, according to White House estimates.
Clinton also used the announcement to take issue with Republican tax cut plans, noting that "the debt quadrupled in the twelve years before I came into office," a reference to his Republican predecessors, Ronald Reagan and George Bush.
"We should not jeopardize the longest economic expansion in history with risky tax cuts that threaten our fiscal discipline," said Clinton, who credited his administration's 1993 and 1997 budgets as well "tough choices in each and every year" for the debt turnaround.
"As a result, interest rates are lower, leading to stronger investment and growth while saving money for American families," he said.
By John King/CNN
May 1, 2000
Web posted at: 5:13 p.m. EDT (2113 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) - President Bill Clinton said Monday that the United States would pay off $216 billion in debt this year, bringing to $355 billion the amount of the nation's debt paid down in the three years since the government balanced the budget and began running surpluses.
Clinton debt
In a written statement, Clinton said the $216 billion payment represented the largest debt paydown in American history, and he said that the federal government's long-term debt is now $2.4 trillion lower than projected to be when he first took office.
However, the U.S. government still has a long way to go before it pays down the entire national debt, which now stands at $5.7 trillion.
"We should take advantage of this historic opportunity to use the benefits of debt reduction to extend the life of Social Security and Medicare and pay off the entire national debt by 2013 for the first time since Andrew Jackson was president," Clinton said.
Clinton has asked Congress to dedicate the interest savings from paying down the national debt to the Social Security Trust Fund, which will add 54 years to its life, according to White House estimates.
Clinton also used the announcement to take issue with Republican tax cut plans, noting that "the debt quadrupled in the twelve years before I came into office," a reference to his Republican predecessors, Ronald Reagan and George Bush.
"We should not jeopardize the longest economic expansion in history with risky tax cuts that threaten our fiscal discipline," said Clinton, who credited his administration's 1993 and 1997 budgets as well "tough choices in each and every year" for the debt turnaround.
"As a result, interest rates are lower, leading to stronger investment and growth while saving money for American families," he said.
Friday, August 15, 2008
letter to my representatives in congress.
Today I sent a letter to both my senators (Klobuchar and Coleman for Minnesota) and representative (John Kline for the 2nd district) and asked them to commit to making America's energy 100% clean within ten years. Here is my letter -- I ask you to write your representatives as well!! Together, WE CAN SOLVE OUR ENERGY CRISIS!!!!
Senator _______ -
I would like you to commit to making our energy 100% clean within ten years. We cannot continue relying on oil as our main form of energy, and we cannot open ANWR or allow oil companies to drill off our shores, without drilling in the lands they already have leased to them. With our oil consumption expected to increase 140% by 2020, offshore drilling is not the answer. Furthermore, offshore drilling will not affect current gas prices because new rigs will not come online for at least 7 - 15 years. Even if we see a short term relief at the pump, this is in no way a long term answer to our problems and simply and band-aid solution. Instead of wasting money on something that will not help for a decade with only minimal positive impacts, we must invest NOW in a long term solution.
No, sir/ma’am - the answer is alternative energy. We need to invest more resources in technology so that processes such as the "Mcgyan Process" (invented at our own Augsburg) can continue to be invented right here in Minnesota and the United States. We also need to invest our resources in wind, solar, natural gas, and geothermal energy, in tar sands and shale oil and in technology for clean coal emissions. Moreover, a company called "Zap Inc." based in California ALREADY has developed the technology to engineer electric cars, but don't have a manufacturing in America and don't have enough money to build one. Technology for electric cars already exists! Now we just need to invest in it so we have the opportunity to mass produce them in the US.
In the race to the moon, President Kennedy said we choose to do it not because it is easy, but because it is hard. We need to renew that passion for innovation and technological growth in America that we enjoyed in the 1960s. We need to return America to its rightful place as a front runner in technology on the world stage - and not for a war.
To think that we are spending ten billion dollars a month on the Iraqi Conflict, instead of at home. People ask why are economy is doing so bad -- what a stupid question. I think it's quite obvious. We are not energy independent, and we are throwing away billions of dollars every month on a war that cannot be won, instead of investing it in the future of America.
This is why, Senator ________, I ask you to make a commitment to make America's energy 100% clean in ten years. Together, we can solve it!
Respectfully,
Chris Morgan
St. Olaf College
Senator _______ -
I would like you to commit to making our energy 100% clean within ten years. We cannot continue relying on oil as our main form of energy, and we cannot open ANWR or allow oil companies to drill off our shores, without drilling in the lands they already have leased to them. With our oil consumption expected to increase 140% by 2020, offshore drilling is not the answer. Furthermore, offshore drilling will not affect current gas prices because new rigs will not come online for at least 7 - 15 years. Even if we see a short term relief at the pump, this is in no way a long term answer to our problems and simply and band-aid solution. Instead of wasting money on something that will not help for a decade with only minimal positive impacts, we must invest NOW in a long term solution.
No, sir/ma’am - the answer is alternative energy. We need to invest more resources in technology so that processes such as the "Mcgyan Process" (invented at our own Augsburg) can continue to be invented right here in Minnesota and the United States. We also need to invest our resources in wind, solar, natural gas, and geothermal energy, in tar sands and shale oil and in technology for clean coal emissions. Moreover, a company called "Zap Inc." based in California ALREADY has developed the technology to engineer electric cars, but don't have a manufacturing in America and don't have enough money to build one. Technology for electric cars already exists! Now we just need to invest in it so we have the opportunity to mass produce them in the US.
In the race to the moon, President Kennedy said we choose to do it not because it is easy, but because it is hard. We need to renew that passion for innovation and technological growth in America that we enjoyed in the 1960s. We need to return America to its rightful place as a front runner in technology on the world stage - and not for a war.
To think that we are spending ten billion dollars a month on the Iraqi Conflict, instead of at home. People ask why are economy is doing so bad -- what a stupid question. I think it's quite obvious. We are not energy independent, and we are throwing away billions of dollars every month on a war that cannot be won, instead of investing it in the future of America.
This is why, Senator ________, I ask you to make a commitment to make America's energy 100% clean in ten years. Together, we can solve it!
Respectfully,
Chris Morgan
St. Olaf College
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Lou Dobbs
For those of you who don't know, Lou Dobbs is a host on CNN and has his own show. Everyday on his website he poses a question for people to poll on but it's always very one-sided and his word choice when he presents the question always influences the voters' opinion. Anyways, here's todays:
Do you believe President Bush has been given enough credit for the 23% decline in the price of oil since he lifted the executive order banning offshore drilling?
Yes 49% 1726
No 51% 1806
Total Votes: 3532
This is not a scientific poll
I just about shit a brick when I read this. I mean, are you FUCKING kidding me?!?! Bush's lifting of the executive order on banning offshore drilling has absolutely nothing to do with the price of oil going down. First off, all he did was lift his part of the ban - Congress still needs to lift their ban. In other words, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has changed in terms of how much oil the US can drill and where they are doing the drilling.
Oil prices rapidly decreased because of simple, basic supply and demand economics. It hit four dollars a gallon (or more) after steadily increasing and Americans said enough is enough and demand rapidly decreased, which increased supply, and drove down prices at the pump. Lou Dobbs is incredibly ignorant if he honestly believes that anything Bush did affected the drop in oil prices.
The only thing Bush has done in his two terms in office is raise gas prices from 1.50 a gallon to over $4 a gallon. You want to know why this country's economy is going down the shitters? It's because we are spending $10 billion EVERY MONTH on the Iraqi conflict. I don't care what your views are on this war, but just think about that for a moment. TEN BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH. I ask you to think for just 10 seconds on everything we could be spending ten billion dollars a month on right now (including, although I am extremely opposed to it, building more off shore oil rigs).
Think about it...
Do you believe President Bush has been given enough credit for the 23% decline in the price of oil since he lifted the executive order banning offshore drilling?
Yes 49% 1726
No 51% 1806
Total Votes: 3532
This is not a scientific poll
I just about shit a brick when I read this. I mean, are you FUCKING kidding me?!?! Bush's lifting of the executive order on banning offshore drilling has absolutely nothing to do with the price of oil going down. First off, all he did was lift his part of the ban - Congress still needs to lift their ban. In other words, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has changed in terms of how much oil the US can drill and where they are doing the drilling.
Oil prices rapidly decreased because of simple, basic supply and demand economics. It hit four dollars a gallon (or more) after steadily increasing and Americans said enough is enough and demand rapidly decreased, which increased supply, and drove down prices at the pump. Lou Dobbs is incredibly ignorant if he honestly believes that anything Bush did affected the drop in oil prices.
The only thing Bush has done in his two terms in office is raise gas prices from 1.50 a gallon to over $4 a gallon. You want to know why this country's economy is going down the shitters? It's because we are spending $10 billion EVERY MONTH on the Iraqi conflict. I don't care what your views are on this war, but just think about that for a moment. TEN BILLION DOLLARS A MONTH. I ask you to think for just 10 seconds on everything we could be spending ten billion dollars a month on right now (including, although I am extremely opposed to it, building more off shore oil rigs).
Think about it...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
