http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,297681,00.html
Despite it's political popularity in Iowa and other farming states, it's becoming increasingly clear that biofuels are counterproductive. Not only would they fail in the market if it weren't for government subsidies, but they also defeat their entire green purpose.
Whether it's through carbon caps, gasoline taxes, or subsidized farmers, the government will not solve America's "global warming problem". Only the market can do it.
The government can create incentives for the market to work towards reducing carbon emissions, but that's all it can do. Luckily, global warming is only killing us 1 degree a century, so we've got some time to figure this all out. We don't need to rush out and elect leaders based solely on their promises to save us from the boogie man who is thawing inside the melting icebergs.
But that's how some people feel. The green-o's want us to sign the Kyoto treaty and destroy our economy in the name of a few polar bears.
You remember the Kyoto treaty, right? The one that lost in the Senate by over 90 votes?
Taking into consideration that the treaty wouldn't solve our global warming problems (not even by a long shot), shouldn't we be investing money in to preparing for climate change? Countless civilizations have dreamt they could change the weather, are we really naive to think that we can succeed?
We have a unique opportunity to use technology to adapt to global shifts in temperature, we shouldn't ignore it because of a movement of hippies turned political junkies.
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Wow Rudy. Wow.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0L63Ff_mGzs
It's powerful ads like this that honestly point out the reality of the war and this election.
It's powerful ads like this that honestly point out the reality of the war and this election.
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
9/11 Never Forget
With all of the politics going on at the Capital today with the General's testimony, lets' just stop to remember 9/11.
We were attacked by an enemy that paid no attention to our race, origin, political or religious beliefs. We were attacked as Americans.
After 9/11, we united as a country and performed miracles.
Today we are more divided than we were in 2001.
In Iraq and Afghanistan our troops fight and die in two wars they are unsure they have our full support on.
In Washington our political leaders debate what is the best way to fight this war.
In American homes, we are tired and frustrated of Iraq- despite Newt's correct assessment of a "phony war".
Here- lets pray for the 9/11 victims and those affected by the tragedy, our troops, both currently fighting and those who have fought, and their families. Pray for the reunification of our country. Pray that it can happen without another attack.
Pray that Dinesh D'Souza's words are eternally true.
"America is the greatest, freest and most decent society in existence. It is an oasis of goodness in a desert of cynicism and barbarism. This country, once an experiment unique in the world, is now the last best hope for the world." - Dinesh D'Souza
We were attacked by an enemy that paid no attention to our race, origin, political or religious beliefs. We were attacked as Americans.
After 9/11, we united as a country and performed miracles.
Today we are more divided than we were in 2001.
In Iraq and Afghanistan our troops fight and die in two wars they are unsure they have our full support on.
In Washington our political leaders debate what is the best way to fight this war.
In American homes, we are tired and frustrated of Iraq- despite Newt's correct assessment of a "phony war".
Here- lets pray for the 9/11 victims and those affected by the tragedy, our troops, both currently fighting and those who have fought, and their families. Pray for the reunification of our country. Pray that it can happen without another attack.
Pray that Dinesh D'Souza's words are eternally true.
"America is the greatest, freest and most decent society in existence. It is an oasis of goodness in a desert of cynicism and barbarism. This country, once an experiment unique in the world, is now the last best hope for the world." - Dinesh D'Souza
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Bomb Iran?
Recently a report was released that stated the Pentagon has developed a plan to wipe out the Iranian military in 3 days. Rather than looking to make "pinprick strikes", the director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center says “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military".
While I understand the general American public would not favor military action in another country, there are good reasons to consider it as a possible avenue:
- A message must be sent to Tehran that their behavior is unacceptable- It's possible that Iran has been funding and/or training the insurgents that have been killing Americans in Iraq. If this turns out to be the case, an ultimatum should be issued and if Iran does not comply, the message should be sent via bombing. We already have them breathing down our necks, promising to fill any "power vacuum" in Iraq if our plan fails there.
-Wiping out their military could help in nuclear discussions- It's a lot harder for the country to enrich uranium when their entire military is gone and they are faced with new financial challenges. The North Koreans may even be encouraged because they will see that the United States means business in regards to rogue states and WMD's. Recently the US and North Korea made some modest agreements about their nuclear program and they would see the benefits of compliance.
- The Iranian problem would become a main discussion topic in every American home- as it should be. It is clear that the Iranian President is completely nuts, and Americans are smart enough to recognize that. We are a nation that is frustrated in Iraq and a talk about Iran might sober us up to the reality of this long war against Islamic extremism.
- Any political fallout could be pinned on George W. Bush- Republicans worried about the election can simply oppose the action, and they wouldn't be hurt politically by it. Also, it might even help out Bush's approval ratings, as Presidents have always enjoyed high approval ratings during successful air bombings.
However, such an action faces obstacles:
-The bombing could unite Iranians behind a leader who otherwise could have been isolated- recent elections in the country show that the people dislike the direction he is taking them in. An American attack could provoke the country to unify under the leadership of their president. Not too many countries rejoice when they are bombed, no matter how few casualties there were.
- The international diplomacy progress we've made could be lost- We have the support of key countries, but the UN seems to be coming together to isolate Iran because of their nuclear ambitions. Such progress could be lost if we resort to a massive military strike. Conservatives do not think we should hold international opinion above national security, and we shouldn't, but it's possible that losing support may endanger us in the future.
- Resources would have to be diverted- The Air Force would have to devote men and women away from their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to execute this plan. While the military is stretched thin, I honestly don't know what effect it would have on the Air Force.
This is a tough decision that our Commander-in-Chief is going to have to make. No decision is without its consequences.
Does he adhere to his promise to "never relent in the War on Terror"? Or does he attempt to preserve what little legacy he may have and leave the problems that Iran poses for the next President?
While I understand the general American public would not favor military action in another country, there are good reasons to consider it as a possible avenue:
- A message must be sent to Tehran that their behavior is unacceptable- It's possible that Iran has been funding and/or training the insurgents that have been killing Americans in Iraq. If this turns out to be the case, an ultimatum should be issued and if Iran does not comply, the message should be sent via bombing. We already have them breathing down our necks, promising to fill any "power vacuum" in Iraq if our plan fails there.
-Wiping out their military could help in nuclear discussions- It's a lot harder for the country to enrich uranium when their entire military is gone and they are faced with new financial challenges. The North Koreans may even be encouraged because they will see that the United States means business in regards to rogue states and WMD's. Recently the US and North Korea made some modest agreements about their nuclear program and they would see the benefits of compliance.
- The Iranian problem would become a main discussion topic in every American home- as it should be. It is clear that the Iranian President is completely nuts, and Americans are smart enough to recognize that. We are a nation that is frustrated in Iraq and a talk about Iran might sober us up to the reality of this long war against Islamic extremism.
- Any political fallout could be pinned on George W. Bush- Republicans worried about the election can simply oppose the action, and they wouldn't be hurt politically by it. Also, it might even help out Bush's approval ratings, as Presidents have always enjoyed high approval ratings during successful air bombings.
However, such an action faces obstacles:
-The bombing could unite Iranians behind a leader who otherwise could have been isolated- recent elections in the country show that the people dislike the direction he is taking them in. An American attack could provoke the country to unify under the leadership of their president. Not too many countries rejoice when they are bombed, no matter how few casualties there were.
- The international diplomacy progress we've made could be lost- We have the support of key countries, but the UN seems to be coming together to isolate Iran because of their nuclear ambitions. Such progress could be lost if we resort to a massive military strike. Conservatives do not think we should hold international opinion above national security, and we shouldn't, but it's possible that losing support may endanger us in the future.
- Resources would have to be diverted- The Air Force would have to devote men and women away from their missions in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to execute this plan. While the military is stretched thin, I honestly don't know what effect it would have on the Air Force.
This is a tough decision that our Commander-in-Chief is going to have to make. No decision is without its consequences.
Does he adhere to his promise to "never relent in the War on Terror"? Or does he attempt to preserve what little legacy he may have and leave the problems that Iran poses for the next President?
Newt's not running- but he's influencing
Although the Fmr. Speaker Gingrich has not entered the race for President, he's doing exactly what most Americans can't. He's changing the debate and the discussions today's candidates are having.
When ever Newt is questioned about the race, he consistently says that he wants to push policy ideas to candidates of both parties in hope that they will adopt them. If they do, he says "I won't need to run".
Although he's received little recognition for these policy ideas in the media, Republicans (and even some Democrats) are starting to pick up on his language and ideas.
Romney stated today in New Hampshire that a federal ID card for legal workers should be put in place. While that's not a new statement for Mitt (he started pushing for it a few months after Newt went public about the federal gov't vs. the private sector), his following statement is almost word-for-word Newt genius. He admits the federal government likely couldn't enact such a policy, he believes it "should be outsourced to the people that do this for a living... companies like MasterCard or Visa".
In Iowa, straw poll attendees could see Rep. Duncan Hunter speak about the border with Newt Gingrich. Also, Huckabee's speech included Newt's talking point about how the federal government can't find 12 million illegals, but FedEx can track millions of packages across the country. The punch line is "so why don't we send every illegal a package?" and Huckabee delivered the message perfectly.
As stated earlier, Giuliani stated that America doesn't need liberal solutions or conservative solutions, but rather "American Solutions". Hillary nearly used that statement word-for-word in her speech today.
It's possible that after the American Solutions workshop is over, Newt's ideas will be so well adopted, that he will not need to run for President. He will have changed the country and the presidency, all without having to go through the gauntlet that we have for an election.
When ever Newt is questioned about the race, he consistently says that he wants to push policy ideas to candidates of both parties in hope that they will adopt them. If they do, he says "I won't need to run".
Although he's received little recognition for these policy ideas in the media, Republicans (and even some Democrats) are starting to pick up on his language and ideas.
Romney stated today in New Hampshire that a federal ID card for legal workers should be put in place. While that's not a new statement for Mitt (he started pushing for it a few months after Newt went public about the federal gov't vs. the private sector), his following statement is almost word-for-word Newt genius. He admits the federal government likely couldn't enact such a policy, he believes it "should be outsourced to the people that do this for a living... companies like MasterCard or Visa".
In Iowa, straw poll attendees could see Rep. Duncan Hunter speak about the border with Newt Gingrich. Also, Huckabee's speech included Newt's talking point about how the federal government can't find 12 million illegals, but FedEx can track millions of packages across the country. The punch line is "so why don't we send every illegal a package?" and Huckabee delivered the message perfectly.
As stated earlier, Giuliani stated that America doesn't need liberal solutions or conservative solutions, but rather "American Solutions". Hillary nearly used that statement word-for-word in her speech today.
It's possible that after the American Solutions workshop is over, Newt's ideas will be so well adopted, that he will not need to run for President. He will have changed the country and the presidency, all without having to go through the gauntlet that we have for an election.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Doubting Petraeus
When things go poorly in Iraq- it's clearly poor strategy on the Bush administration.
http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_6781479
When things go positively- it's deemed as mixed and inconclusive results.
Can anyone explain this?
Granted even the military is hesitant to do any "cartwheels", but they've had their fair share of pre-emptive success stories (Mission Accomplished, "last throes...", etc).
But with a new strategy and a new general, we should at least give him the benefit of the doubt that things are going better. Now is not the time to be back stabbing a brilliant general who may be turning the tide in Iraq.
Of course we must "trust, but verify" with Petraeus, but for now he at least deserves a pat on the back.
http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_6781479
When things go positively- it's deemed as mixed and inconclusive results.
Can anyone explain this?
Granted even the military is hesitant to do any "cartwheels", but they've had their fair share of pre-emptive success stories (Mission Accomplished, "last throes...", etc).
But with a new strategy and a new general, we should at least give him the benefit of the doubt that things are going better. Now is not the time to be back stabbing a brilliant general who may be turning the tide in Iraq.
Of course we must "trust, but verify" with Petraeus, but for now he at least deserves a pat on the back.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it
The Commerce department released a report recently stating that the US economy grew a solid four percent in the 2nd quarter, despite a few rough days on Wall Street.
Also, federal revenues continue to increase to higher amounts (and as percentages of the GDP) since the 2003 Bush tax-cuts.
All of this begs the question: If the tax-cuts are helping the economy boom and are increasing tax-revenues (especially corporate income tax revenues), why would any Presidential candidate, Senator or Representative want to undo all of that? What possible positive income could come from it?
Which provokes the title for this blog "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
A tax increase would be aimed at increasing tax revenues- but that's already happening with the tax cuts. It's possible a tax increase would temporarily bring in more money, but its harmful effects on the economy could drag us into a recession.
That could even decrease tax revenues- defeating the entire purpose of the tax increase.
Lack of knowledge in this area of taxes is all too common here in Minnesota, where just about anything can justify a tax increase- even when we just had a multi-billion dollar surplus.
Somehow, the right conversation is not taking place.
We should be discussing how to cut taxes further, knowing full well that revenues may still increase and Pawlenty may find new programs to start with the extra dough.
But, when revenues finally fall- then we know we have begun real progress towards limited government.
Also, federal revenues continue to increase to higher amounts (and as percentages of the GDP) since the 2003 Bush tax-cuts.
All of this begs the question: If the tax-cuts are helping the economy boom and are increasing tax-revenues (especially corporate income tax revenues), why would any Presidential candidate, Senator or Representative want to undo all of that? What possible positive income could come from it?
Which provokes the title for this blog "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
A tax increase would be aimed at increasing tax revenues- but that's already happening with the tax cuts. It's possible a tax increase would temporarily bring in more money, but its harmful effects on the economy could drag us into a recession.
That could even decrease tax revenues- defeating the entire purpose of the tax increase.
Lack of knowledge in this area of taxes is all too common here in Minnesota, where just about anything can justify a tax increase- even when we just had a multi-billion dollar surplus.
Somehow, the right conversation is not taking place.
We should be discussing how to cut taxes further, knowing full well that revenues may still increase and Pawlenty may find new programs to start with the extra dough.
But, when revenues finally fall- then we know we have begun real progress towards limited government.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)