Ask and ye shall receive. I wanted a Romney alternative and I got one in the form of Newt Gingrich. Newt's win in South Carolina is a blessing for America. While Romney still may be the Republican nominee, the longer the fight drags on, the more time Americans get to see Mitt and Newt up close and personal. Mitt and Newt aren't very nice up close and personal, so a long fight is good for Obama, and thus good for America.
I applaud the people of South Carolina for giving us more time to see the damaged goods and outdated ideology the Republican party is peddling to Americans. It's too bad since Governor Romney probably would have made a great president. Unfortunately candidate Romney is classless and unprincipled - a stark about face brought about by the far right wing to whom Romney is pandering. The funniest part about it is that the far right wing still rejected Romney for Newt Gingrich.
America needs and deserves a president who will tell us the truth about what needs to be done to put our country back on the right path. We need and deserve someone who is pragmatic and strong. President Obama is not perfect, but Romney and Gingrich make him look like the second coming of Lincoln. The idea of either of those men being president is a scary thought.
There are many battles ahead before the general election, but I hope the fight gets tougher for Gingrich and Romney. America deserves better, so the longer we get to watch them tango, the more willing we will be to reject them for someone with both ideas and integrity come November.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Friday, January 20, 2012
What the Frack?
Here's a secret, I'm big on alternative energy. I think it's a travesty that we count among our leaders quite a number of people who are willing to deny science for political gain, and whose refusal to acknowledge science leads to short-sighted thinking that is harmful to the environment and the economy.
But today I'm setting alternative energy aside to focus on one of those fossil fuels that, generally speaking, I'm opposed to - natural gas. Like oil and coal, natural gas is a dirty and finite resource. What makes natural gas a better alternative to oil and coal as an energy source is that is cleaner and that America possesses an abundance of it.
Problematically, natural gas is hard to reach - obtainable primarily through a process calls fracking that involves shooting high-powered jets of chemically-infused water into shale rock to break it up and reach the gas. Fracking, its critics say, is dirty and dangerous; specifically it has the potential to contaminate groundwater and aquifers used for drinking water. I like my water infused lemon, not chemicals.
The science behind the dangers of fracking is still inconclusive, but given the chemicals used in the process there is no doubt that a danger exists. I recently had the opportunity to speak with a young environmental lawyer who was very critical of the method. Still, as America and the rest of the world seeks to transition away from coal and oil towards sun and wind, natural gas is an appealing intermediary. I would rather frack in America than send vast sums of money - some of which inevitably ends up in the hands of those who would use it to kill Americans - overseas for oil. Can we frack responsibly?
I don't know, though I would like to think that the answer is yes. At the very least it is worth a shot. Strong environmental and health regulations would have to be in place; it makes no sense to destroy the environment through fracking in an attempt to save the planet from dirtier fossil fuels. But the environmental and economic benefits are too good to pass up, and as any good businessman will tell you, if there is no risk, there is no reward. American natural gas could be a huge economic boon. An explosion of the industry would create jobs in America, increase exports, and save the county money on foreign imports. Also, natural gas is cleaner. Risky? It seems so. Rewarding? Potentially very. I say we give it a shot.
Ultimately, natural gas is not the long-term answer to the country or the world's energy problems. We will have to transition to renewable energy sources whether on our on terms or if forced by mother nature. Nevertheless, in the absence of a day-after-tomorrow moment (it is 2012!) we cannot, will not and should not make an abrupt transition. Natural gas, American natural gas, is an attractive transitional alternative. It is even touted by T. Boone Pickens, whose energy plan I have touted multiple times in the past. There are reasons to be opposed to fracking, but they are outweighed by the arguments to at least give it a shot.
But today I'm setting alternative energy aside to focus on one of those fossil fuels that, generally speaking, I'm opposed to - natural gas. Like oil and coal, natural gas is a dirty and finite resource. What makes natural gas a better alternative to oil and coal as an energy source is that is cleaner and that America possesses an abundance of it.
Problematically, natural gas is hard to reach - obtainable primarily through a process calls fracking that involves shooting high-powered jets of chemically-infused water into shale rock to break it up and reach the gas. Fracking, its critics say, is dirty and dangerous; specifically it has the potential to contaminate groundwater and aquifers used for drinking water. I like my water infused lemon, not chemicals.
The science behind the dangers of fracking is still inconclusive, but given the chemicals used in the process there is no doubt that a danger exists. I recently had the opportunity to speak with a young environmental lawyer who was very critical of the method. Still, as America and the rest of the world seeks to transition away from coal and oil towards sun and wind, natural gas is an appealing intermediary. I would rather frack in America than send vast sums of money - some of which inevitably ends up in the hands of those who would use it to kill Americans - overseas for oil. Can we frack responsibly?
I don't know, though I would like to think that the answer is yes. At the very least it is worth a shot. Strong environmental and health regulations would have to be in place; it makes no sense to destroy the environment through fracking in an attempt to save the planet from dirtier fossil fuels. But the environmental and economic benefits are too good to pass up, and as any good businessman will tell you, if there is no risk, there is no reward. American natural gas could be a huge economic boon. An explosion of the industry would create jobs in America, increase exports, and save the county money on foreign imports. Also, natural gas is cleaner. Risky? It seems so. Rewarding? Potentially very. I say we give it a shot.
Ultimately, natural gas is not the long-term answer to the country or the world's energy problems. We will have to transition to renewable energy sources whether on our on terms or if forced by mother nature. Nevertheless, in the absence of a day-after-tomorrow moment (it is 2012!) we cannot, will not and should not make an abrupt transition. Natural gas, American natural gas, is an attractive transitional alternative. It is even touted by T. Boone Pickens, whose energy plan I have touted multiple times in the past. There are reasons to be opposed to fracking, but they are outweighed by the arguments to at least give it a shot.
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Shrink It
Ron Paul wants to eliminate five government agencies, Rick Perry wants to cut three although he isn't sure which ones. President Obama's ideas aren't quite as drastic; he only wants to merge six.
The President has once again proven that far from being a European Socialist - a truly meaningless political term that is thrown around without any thought for how misleading and insipid it is - he is a pragmatic, moderate leader. This is a good idea politically and practically.
Republican calls for wanton spending cuts are both hypocritical and poorly thought out, but there is no denying the fact that our government is a bloated bureaucracy in need of substantial reform. The fact that there exists six agencies that can be merged into one is pretty damning evidence of the inefficiencies prevalent in government.
I find encouraging that our anti-capitatlist, pro-communist President is consulting with business leaders as he seeks to revitalize the economy, shrink the government and the deficit, and reduce unemployment. Maybe he would be more successful if he could get some help from Congressional Republicans, who undoubtedly will find a way to resist this move even while their party's presidential candidates compete to see who can take the biggest axe to the federal government.
I applaud the President's decision to combine federal agencies, thereby reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and spending. He has proven that he is willing to take difficult yet important steps that are generally anathema to Democrats such as entitlement and government reform. Meanwhile, the intractable Republicans peddle their extreme ideology and refuse to make any sacrifices to their cause - sacrifices which would benefit the country immensely. I hope they are rewarded for their services in November.
The President has once again proven that far from being a European Socialist - a truly meaningless political term that is thrown around without any thought for how misleading and insipid it is - he is a pragmatic, moderate leader. This is a good idea politically and practically.
Republican calls for wanton spending cuts are both hypocritical and poorly thought out, but there is no denying the fact that our government is a bloated bureaucracy in need of substantial reform. The fact that there exists six agencies that can be merged into one is pretty damning evidence of the inefficiencies prevalent in government.
I find encouraging that our anti-capitatlist, pro-communist President is consulting with business leaders as he seeks to revitalize the economy, shrink the government and the deficit, and reduce unemployment. Maybe he would be more successful if he could get some help from Congressional Republicans, who undoubtedly will find a way to resist this move even while their party's presidential candidates compete to see who can take the biggest axe to the federal government.
I applaud the President's decision to combine federal agencies, thereby reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and spending. He has proven that he is willing to take difficult yet important steps that are generally anathema to Democrats such as entitlement and government reform. Meanwhile, the intractable Republicans peddle their extreme ideology and refuse to make any sacrifices to their cause - sacrifices which would benefit the country immensely. I hope they are rewarded for their services in November.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Best Case Scenario
Tonight we will get the results of the New Hampshire Primary. The outcome will probably be less riveting though just as inconsequential as the results of the Iowa Caucus. Unless...
The most likely victor in New Hampshire is Mitt Romney, whose astronomical lead in the polls a week ago has dwindled, but not enough for him to conceivably lose. This is fine; of all the "real" candidates - and make no mistake about it, there are only two: Hunstman and Romney - Romney would probably make the best president (I actually think Huntsman would be better, but who is Jon Huntsman!?). I've read quite a few articles recently about how his inability to determine what he believes in or what he stands for could appeal to independent voters who are looking for a middle path. I would advise those independent voters to look towards the President if they want a real moderate, but that's neither here nor there.
Though I think Romney would probably make the best president, I still don't think he would make a good one. While some journalists are able to compare the man to a chameleon, able to shift his views pragmatically, I see a man who does not believe in anything unless it behooves him. President Romney terrifies me not because I think he would be as disconnected from reality as some of his conservative peers, but because I can't trust someone whose opinion is shaped by his audience. Kudos to Newt Gingrich for calling it like it is - Mitt Romney is a liar. If you are someone who doesn't trust government, Mitt Romney is NOT your man.
But Mitt Romney probably will be the Republican's man regardless of what happens in New Hampshire, and since he is the only candidate that I believe can defeat Obama, I am adamantly opposed to Mitt Romney.
So the best case scenario is this: tonight and in every other Republican primary, someone, anyone goes 12 rounds toe-to-toe with Mitt in a knockdown, drag-out fight. If Mitt wins so be it, but make the man argue his position, eh, positions on everything and let the whole country see it. With any luck he will have scared away either the Republican base - because he's not a conservative - or the independents - because he's trying to be a conservative. If this happens, America wins.
So here's to a few months worth of fight from Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and the kitchen sink. Your country needs you now, but not in the way you think. Your presidential campaigns may be doomed, but you can still expose Mitt Romney for the man he is, or isn't...no one, including Mitt Romney, is sure.
The most likely victor in New Hampshire is Mitt Romney, whose astronomical lead in the polls a week ago has dwindled, but not enough for him to conceivably lose. This is fine; of all the "real" candidates - and make no mistake about it, there are only two: Hunstman and Romney - Romney would probably make the best president (I actually think Huntsman would be better, but who is Jon Huntsman!?). I've read quite a few articles recently about how his inability to determine what he believes in or what he stands for could appeal to independent voters who are looking for a middle path. I would advise those independent voters to look towards the President if they want a real moderate, but that's neither here nor there.
Though I think Romney would probably make the best president, I still don't think he would make a good one. While some journalists are able to compare the man to a chameleon, able to shift his views pragmatically, I see a man who does not believe in anything unless it behooves him. President Romney terrifies me not because I think he would be as disconnected from reality as some of his conservative peers, but because I can't trust someone whose opinion is shaped by his audience. Kudos to Newt Gingrich for calling it like it is - Mitt Romney is a liar. If you are someone who doesn't trust government, Mitt Romney is NOT your man.
But Mitt Romney probably will be the Republican's man regardless of what happens in New Hampshire, and since he is the only candidate that I believe can defeat Obama, I am adamantly opposed to Mitt Romney.
So the best case scenario is this: tonight and in every other Republican primary, someone, anyone goes 12 rounds toe-to-toe with Mitt in a knockdown, drag-out fight. If Mitt wins so be it, but make the man argue his position, eh, positions on everything and let the whole country see it. With any luck he will have scared away either the Republican base - because he's not a conservative - or the independents - because he's trying to be a conservative. If this happens, America wins.
So here's to a few months worth of fight from Rick Santorum, Ron Paul, Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich and the kitchen sink. Your country needs you now, but not in the way you think. Your presidential campaigns may be doomed, but you can still expose Mitt Romney for the man he is, or isn't...no one, including Mitt Romney, is sure.
Monday, January 9, 2012
The Growth of Government
Republicans hate big government, they hate it so much they want the government completely out of individual's lives - unless of course they are banning gay marriage, flag burning, or abortions. Big government stymies the private sector and encroaches on the freedoms of Americans, like for example the freedom to marry the person you love, burn a flag, or have an abortion.
Most importantly however, big government means fewer private sector jobs and anemic economic growth. If only we could get rid of big government - embodied of course by Obama - and free the American economy of the shackles that bind it to mediocrity.
That's the line Republicans feed us anyhow, but hold up. What about this report? Not only have government jobs DISAPPEARED under Obama, they have disappeared at a record-setting pace. Move over big government, Obama is here. Admittedly, most of the cuts happened at the state level and are due to loss of revenues from the recession rather than from federal policy. Still, if nothing else, the report is evidence that Republican claims and fears of a insatiable government beast are - like many things Republicans say - patently false.
Many of the Republican claims about the dangers of government intervention in the economy are true if exaggerated. Central economic planning does not work, and the private sector is much better than the public sector at producing efficiently. If America were actually in danger of booming a redistributive, centrally-planned economy, there would be reason for Americans to fear. Of course, America is not even close to being on the path to becoming said economy despite Republican claims about the President, who, if anything, is a moderate Republican himself.
Nonetheless, the myths socialism and the unprecedented and scary growth of government refuse to go away, and grow at a faster pace than the government itself. Needless to say, this report on the loss of government jobs will do nothing to assuage the fears of those who buy into the myth, nor will it do anything to halt the rants of those who perpetuate it. However, the factual observer will note that government expansion is not exactly through the roof.
This does not excuse the fact that there are still numerous aspects of the government that need reforming, and hopefully responsible Republicans (like the middle class, an endangered species) will spearhead the charge. But next time you are confronted with ominous predictions about how the rapid expansion of the federal leviathan under Obama is going to derail the country, you may want to remember the record-setting loss of government jobs that has occurred in the last three years.
Most importantly however, big government means fewer private sector jobs and anemic economic growth. If only we could get rid of big government - embodied of course by Obama - and free the American economy of the shackles that bind it to mediocrity.
That's the line Republicans feed us anyhow, but hold up. What about this report? Not only have government jobs DISAPPEARED under Obama, they have disappeared at a record-setting pace. Move over big government, Obama is here. Admittedly, most of the cuts happened at the state level and are due to loss of revenues from the recession rather than from federal policy. Still, if nothing else, the report is evidence that Republican claims and fears of a insatiable government beast are - like many things Republicans say - patently false.
Many of the Republican claims about the dangers of government intervention in the economy are true if exaggerated. Central economic planning does not work, and the private sector is much better than the public sector at producing efficiently. If America were actually in danger of booming a redistributive, centrally-planned economy, there would be reason for Americans to fear. Of course, America is not even close to being on the path to becoming said economy despite Republican claims about the President, who, if anything, is a moderate Republican himself.
Nonetheless, the myths socialism and the unprecedented and scary growth of government refuse to go away, and grow at a faster pace than the government itself. Needless to say, this report on the loss of government jobs will do nothing to assuage the fears of those who buy into the myth, nor will it do anything to halt the rants of those who perpetuate it. However, the factual observer will note that government expansion is not exactly through the roof.
This does not excuse the fact that there are still numerous aspects of the government that need reforming, and hopefully responsible Republicans (like the middle class, an endangered species) will spearhead the charge. But next time you are confronted with ominous predictions about how the rapid expansion of the federal leviathan under Obama is going to derail the country, you may want to remember the record-setting loss of government jobs that has occurred in the last three years.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
The Good, the Bad, and the Iowan
The Good: Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann, perhaps the two most vapid of the Republican candidates appear to be sunk. Bachmann officially dropped out and Perry is assessing his campaign in Texas. Two of the three most embarrassing candidates are gone, although Rick Santorum managed to finish only eight votes behind Romney in last night's Iowa Caucus.
The Bad: Mitt Romney squeaked into first place last night. Of all the Republican candidates, Romney and Jon Huntsman are the only two that are actually intelligent enough to be President though Newt Gingrich has moments of clarity and Ron Paul does have a well-developed worldview, well-developed and totally out of touch with reality. The problem with a Romney victory is that he is the only candidate who can challenge Obama. This wouldn't be a problem if Romney weren't the living, breathing manifestation of everything Americans should and do despise in a politician. Romney is smart, no doubt, but he probably cannot spell the word integrity; the man has never met a position he won't take. His principles are dictated by the audience in front of him. Sure, all politicians pander to the extremes during primaries and then settle comfortably towards the center in general elections, but Romney has pulled so many flip-flops he could be the lost and found on a spring break trip. Ron Paul might want to send American back to the Stone Age, but at least he's consistent about it. Mitt Romney isn't sure what he wants to do, YOU are sure what Mitt Romney wants to do, as long as he is standing in front of you.
The Iowan: I don't have anything bad to say about Iowa. I've never been there, but I know they have bunches of corn. Apparently evangelical Christians aren't in short supply either. I guess the Iowan part of the equation must be Rick Santorum's 2nd place showing. The man who came out of nowhere riding a wave of Christian support to lose Iowa by only eight votes. I don't like Santorum; he religious views lead him to positions that oppress women and make second class citizens out of gay people. Nevertheless I would have liked to have seen him - or Grandpa Ron for that matter - beat out Romney, the modern Talleyrand except not as successful.
On January 10th, Mitt Romney will probably win the New Hampshire primary as well, though here's to rooting for a strong showing by Jon Huntsman. Until then we'll have to be content with the hope that Rick Santorum can turn his strong showing in Iowa into a victory in South Carolina and ultimately a lopsided loss to President Obama in November. Until the Republican party proves that it can offer real candidates with real ideas, America's best hope is that the worst man wins. Which means I've resigned myself to Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Sigh...
Monday, January 2, 2012
What's the big Debt?
According to the overwhelming and scary Debt Clock the United States of America is over $15 trillion in debt. $15 trillion!! I'm five fingers short of being able to count all the zeros. Horrifying, scary and worst of all, RED!
America's massive debt IS a BIG problem, but no one really seems to understand that it is not a big problem RIGHT NOW.
America's massive debt was supposed to drive interest rates on American bonds through the roof. I guess we're still waiting for that to happen. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve's policy of quantitative easing was supposed send inflation soaring, but the commodities that do cost significantly more - food and gas - are global commodities; the price of gas is no longer dictated by the American market...it must not be the 1960's anymore.
Everyone agrees that we need to fix America's economy. After all, we're only four years away from being passed by China as the world's largest economy - by the way, the scariest and strangest part of that chart is that is that China grants more patents to residents than does the United States. But if we all agree that we need to fix the economy, why can we not take the obvious and necessary steps?
Those who understand know that what we need right now is more spending not less. Those who understand also know that we do need to take steps to reform entitlements and curb defense spending. If we can foster an economic recovery in the short-term and curb spending in the long-term, we can avoid the tax hikes on the richest Americans that are anathema to conservatives. In fact Republicans are so desperate to make the rich richer that they have been willfully fighting against policies that might lead to recovery. But hey, we all see how well austerity is working in Europe!
I sincerely hope that America's politicians (half of them) figure out that perhaps if we spent now we could avoid taxing later. The debt is big, and it's a potentially big problem. But it's not a problem now unless we keep trying to make it one.
America's massive debt IS a BIG problem, but no one really seems to understand that it is not a big problem RIGHT NOW.
America's massive debt was supposed to drive interest rates on American bonds through the roof. I guess we're still waiting for that to happen. Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve's policy of quantitative easing was supposed send inflation soaring, but the commodities that do cost significantly more - food and gas - are global commodities; the price of gas is no longer dictated by the American market...it must not be the 1960's anymore.
Everyone agrees that we need to fix America's economy. After all, we're only four years away from being passed by China as the world's largest economy - by the way, the scariest and strangest part of that chart is that is that China grants more patents to residents than does the United States. But if we all agree that we need to fix the economy, why can we not take the obvious and necessary steps?
Those who understand know that what we need right now is more spending not less. Those who understand also know that we do need to take steps to reform entitlements and curb defense spending. If we can foster an economic recovery in the short-term and curb spending in the long-term, we can avoid the tax hikes on the richest Americans that are anathema to conservatives. In fact Republicans are so desperate to make the rich richer that they have been willfully fighting against policies that might lead to recovery. But hey, we all see how well austerity is working in Europe!
I sincerely hope that America's politicians (half of them) figure out that perhaps if we spent now we could avoid taxing later. The debt is big, and it's a potentially big problem. But it's not a problem now unless we keep trying to make it one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)