President Barack Obama has decided that offshore drilling is a good thing. Sort of. He's proposing that it be allowed off the coast of Virgina and in the eastern parts of the Gulf of Mexico. The point? To reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
This should probably count as one of the premier d'oh moments of his Administration. It is only common sense that if we get our own oil we won't need so much of anyone else's. But even at that, he's sending mixed signals by allowing some leases in Alaska to be canceled while scaling back plans elsewhere.
It's all ultimately about politics, of course. The president is trying to get his energy package through Congress and is hoping to get Republican support for it by appealing to a GOP issue. Plus, the new rigs are expected to produce jobs, and no liberal Democratic President is about to sacrifice jobs for environmental concerns no matter what rhetoric his party may employ at other times and places.
It may be too little and too late of an appeal to his opposition (both in the Congress and the nation at large) after He jammed health care reform down our throats but, again, politics is at work. If the economy begins to creep up noticeably and people start feeling good, none of that will matter either. Without a doubt, that is precisely what the Chief Executive is banking on in the months before November.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Earth Hour
Landmarks around the world, including the Forbidden City in Beijing and the Empire State Building in New York, turned off their lights yesterday for Earth Hour. It was supposed to serve as an environmental protest highlighting global warming concerns.
In most of the western world, it more likely represented corporate pandering. The big guns in industry or finance or even tourism (as the Eiffel Tower and Roman Colosseum also were darkened) simply are pandering to public opinion. If you really want to make a statement, how about killing the power at noon on a Tuesday instead of 8:30 on a Saturday evening when there's nothing much going on? Oh, because that would actually interfere with business, and they don't feel that deeply about saving the Earth.
As to Chinese participation, that surely is no more than a dictatorship attempting to influence world opinion of her, just as the 2008 Summer Olympics were. We cannot take Beijing's part in the lights out display seriously; manipulation from a totalitarian regime does not impress.
Regular folks were expected to kick in too, by turning off appliances and such during that hour. It would be interesting to see how many individuals missed their weekend movies, or how many bars shut down during the height of the weekend rush, to show their support. The best bet is, not many.
This type of grandstanding is really only fake concern. What is truly damaging about it is that it's for a fake problem. Next Earth Hour, let's all turn on every light in every room of our abodes, and every appliance too, to highlight our disgust with the whole thing.
In most of the western world, it more likely represented corporate pandering. The big guns in industry or finance or even tourism (as the Eiffel Tower and Roman Colosseum also were darkened) simply are pandering to public opinion. If you really want to make a statement, how about killing the power at noon on a Tuesday instead of 8:30 on a Saturday evening when there's nothing much going on? Oh, because that would actually interfere with business, and they don't feel that deeply about saving the Earth.
As to Chinese participation, that surely is no more than a dictatorship attempting to influence world opinion of her, just as the 2008 Summer Olympics were. We cannot take Beijing's part in the lights out display seriously; manipulation from a totalitarian regime does not impress.
Regular folks were expected to kick in too, by turning off appliances and such during that hour. It would be interesting to see how many individuals missed their weekend movies, or how many bars shut down during the height of the weekend rush, to show their support. The best bet is, not many.
This type of grandstanding is really only fake concern. What is truly damaging about it is that it's for a fake problem. Next Earth Hour, let's all turn on every light in every room of our abodes, and every appliance too, to highlight our disgust with the whole thing.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Charlie Daniels: Saying What We're Afraid to?
County star Charlie Daniels, of The Devil Went Down to Georgia fame, has said something which must be taken seriously. He has called the current government in Washington a dictatorship in light of its handling of the recent health care bill.
Hyperbole? Perhaps. Yet the way in which Barack Obama and his minions Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid forced the bill through Congress despite the overhwelming opposition of the American people surely is reminiscent of dictatorial rule. When the liberals have the polls on their side, conservatives are supposed to accept the will of the people. But polls be damned for them. They will do what they please.
To be fair, Mr. Daniels may be over-interpreting things. There's still time to fix this debacle, and that's called the next elections. But what the President and the Imperial Congress are surely relying on is that the voters will have short memories. By November of this year, when the sky has not fallen, they may not think things all that bad. The voting public may not take the time to consider that it may be years, decades, before the real weight of this massive government intrusion into our lives hits us. They tell us now that the bill is so that 5 year olds get cancer treatment. Wait until 65 year old can't get it simply because they've lived their lives and the money isn't in the budget.
In the meantime, we ought to heed the fiddler's words. We may not in fact have a dictatorship now. But as government power only grows, well, with this health care bill, we are surely on the path to one.
Hyperbole? Perhaps. Yet the way in which Barack Obama and his minions Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid forced the bill through Congress despite the overhwelming opposition of the American people surely is reminiscent of dictatorial rule. When the liberals have the polls on their side, conservatives are supposed to accept the will of the people. But polls be damned for them. They will do what they please.
To be fair, Mr. Daniels may be over-interpreting things. There's still time to fix this debacle, and that's called the next elections. But what the President and the Imperial Congress are surely relying on is that the voters will have short memories. By November of this year, when the sky has not fallen, they may not think things all that bad. The voting public may not take the time to consider that it may be years, decades, before the real weight of this massive government intrusion into our lives hits us. They tell us now that the bill is so that 5 year olds get cancer treatment. Wait until 65 year old can't get it simply because they've lived their lives and the money isn't in the budget.
In the meantime, we ought to heed the fiddler's words. We may not in fact have a dictatorship now. But as government power only grows, well, with this health care bill, we are surely on the path to one.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Who really has the hang up?
We are told that conservatives are hung up on issues of sexual morality. But isn't it the liberals who are in fact tied in knots over such questions?
The right wing, it is also said, is hung up on matters of sex because of religious qualms. Yet how many liberals would not steal, murder, or dishonor their parents? They agree with religious sentiment except when it comes to sex. So again, who is really all too concerned about the matter?
The left does not attack religion over ideals it believes in. Indeed, say the phrases 'social justice' or 'health care' and you will hear all sorts of appeals to religious sentiment. This is a rather convenient sense of justice, considering that the moral relativists of the left tend to be more (and more diversely) sexually active.
The question, then, is: do their actions follow their beliefs, or do their beliefs follow their actions? Do they act they way they do out of real and honest conviction, or because it is how they wish to act, and then attempt a justification for it?
Just asking.
The right wing, it is also said, is hung up on matters of sex because of religious qualms. Yet how many liberals would not steal, murder, or dishonor their parents? They agree with religious sentiment except when it comes to sex. So again, who is really all too concerned about the matter?
The left does not attack religion over ideals it believes in. Indeed, say the phrases 'social justice' or 'health care' and you will hear all sorts of appeals to religious sentiment. This is a rather convenient sense of justice, considering that the moral relativists of the left tend to be more (and more diversely) sexually active.
The question, then, is: do their actions follow their beliefs, or do their beliefs follow their actions? Do they act they way they do out of real and honest conviction, or because it is how they wish to act, and then attempt a justification for it?
Just asking.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Credit Where It's Due
Say what you will, and many people are doing just that, there is one thing which the Democrats have that conservatives don't. When they have the advantage, they push it.
The most recent example is of course the health care debate. No matter what the polls said, Barack Obama and his army forced the issue through. No matter what the tea partiers and protesters did, the President and Nancy Pelosi pressed on. No matter how often the liberals in the past have said that the then reigning GOP had to be open to all sides, they closed their ears to the Republicans and did what they wanted. In short, liberals know how to use raw political power, and will use it to suit their ends.
No big tent when they want what they want. No inclusiveness when their ideals are at stake. No regard for what the general populace wants when leftist oxen are threatened. They wield their power mercilessly and unilaterally. Yes, they're hypocrites. But they know how and when to press their advantage.
Remember that in the coming elections in 2010 and 2012, Republicans. You might forge yourselves a useful majority then.
The most recent example is of course the health care debate. No matter what the polls said, Barack Obama and his army forced the issue through. No matter what the tea partiers and protesters did, the President and Nancy Pelosi pressed on. No matter how often the liberals in the past have said that the then reigning GOP had to be open to all sides, they closed their ears to the Republicans and did what they wanted. In short, liberals know how to use raw political power, and will use it to suit their ends.
No big tent when they want what they want. No inclusiveness when their ideals are at stake. No regard for what the general populace wants when leftist oxen are threatened. They wield their power mercilessly and unilaterally. Yes, they're hypocrites. But they know how and when to press their advantage.
Remember that in the coming elections in 2010 and 2012, Republicans. You might forge yourselves a useful majority then.
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
We Need a Constitutional Crisis
With Obamacare now having passed the House, there seems little to do. The massive Federal establishment has reared its ugly head again, and now we're stuck.
Or are we? There are several states considering legislation to sue Washington over the health care mandates which are scheduled to be put in place soon. At least two, Virginia and Idaho, have actually passed such bills into law. That's good, because it may lead to what we really need in this country right now: a genuine Constitutional crisis.
We need, not only the people, but the States as political entities in their own right to stand up to the folks in D.C and tell them that enough is enough. Not only in health care, as that is actually only the most recent intrusion on the power of the states and the general citizenry. Washington must be told that education is a local matter, that we need no federal Department of Energy, that states, being closer to the problems they face, have a better chance of setting them right than vast and unilateral national actions might. We need to make certain changes in the Constitution itself to ensure that such encroachments wane.
With 36 or 37 states talking about standing up to the feds on health care, and with 38 states needed to amend the great document, it would seem that such cohesive action is surely possible. It is time to unite in way in which we rarely have since 1776. It is time to go back to our roots and replant the tree of liberty.
Or are we? There are several states considering legislation to sue Washington over the health care mandates which are scheduled to be put in place soon. At least two, Virginia and Idaho, have actually passed such bills into law. That's good, because it may lead to what we really need in this country right now: a genuine Constitutional crisis.
We need, not only the people, but the States as political entities in their own right to stand up to the folks in D.C and tell them that enough is enough. Not only in health care, as that is actually only the most recent intrusion on the power of the states and the general citizenry. Washington must be told that education is a local matter, that we need no federal Department of Energy, that states, being closer to the problems they face, have a better chance of setting them right than vast and unilateral national actions might. We need to make certain changes in the Constitution itself to ensure that such encroachments wane.
With 36 or 37 states talking about standing up to the feds on health care, and with 38 states needed to amend the great document, it would seem that such cohesive action is surely possible. It is time to unite in way in which we rarely have since 1776. It is time to go back to our roots and replant the tree of liberty.
Monday, March 22, 2010
More Evidence that Americans are Decadent
There is now a line of fresh food available for dogs. Yes, dogs. It is available in the refrigerated pet food section of our grocery stores (they have those?). A commercial which has been airing over the last few weeks, in the Detroit area anyway but presumably nationwide, advertises it. It shows a mother going to a cabinet, taking a bag of generic dry food from it, and pouring it into bowls for her children waiting at the dinner table. The voice over guy says something like, 'You wouldn't feed your kids this way. Why feed your dog like that?'
Um, because it's your dog. And it should be stressed, only your dog.
To be fair, if someone wants to spend money on deli fresh foods for their dog, there is certainly nothing intrinsically evil about it. Further, it must be allowed that there is no direct and immediate connection between the other troubles in the world and Americans feeding their dogs this way. Still, it's one of those things which reeks of a sublime yet profound arrogance. There are starving children in the world who might love a bit of kibbles and have nothing, yet we Americans can serve our pets fresh meat based products out of our refrigerators.
It might even be said that if you really want to feed your dog that way, then why not go ahead and feed them exactly what you feed the kids anyway. Burgers off the grill? Give one to Fido. Why on earth do we need processed food aimed at our pets, except that we're Americans, and we can afford it.
It becomes fair to ask why we should care so much for mere animals when there are so many other problems in the world. It isn't as though dogs won't eat the dry stuff, and with such appreciation as they can muster. They'll still be, relative to their nature, happy.
But we are encouraged to treat them, again, relative to their nature, like kings. That's decadence, plain and simple. It does open one's eyes to why much of the world think of us they way they do.
Um, because it's your dog. And it should be stressed, only your dog.
To be fair, if someone wants to spend money on deli fresh foods for their dog, there is certainly nothing intrinsically evil about it. Further, it must be allowed that there is no direct and immediate connection between the other troubles in the world and Americans feeding their dogs this way. Still, it's one of those things which reeks of a sublime yet profound arrogance. There are starving children in the world who might love a bit of kibbles and have nothing, yet we Americans can serve our pets fresh meat based products out of our refrigerators.
It might even be said that if you really want to feed your dog that way, then why not go ahead and feed them exactly what you feed the kids anyway. Burgers off the grill? Give one to Fido. Why on earth do we need processed food aimed at our pets, except that we're Americans, and we can afford it.
It becomes fair to ask why we should care so much for mere animals when there are so many other problems in the world. It isn't as though dogs won't eat the dry stuff, and with such appreciation as they can muster. They'll still be, relative to their nature, happy.
But we are encouraged to treat them, again, relative to their nature, like kings. That's decadence, plain and simple. It does open one's eyes to why much of the world think of us they way they do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
