Thinkin’bout Stuff

Today we play, what did he really say…

On invading Pakistan:

From AP August 1, 2007 (link dead, but I have some of the original text) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Wednesday that he would send troops into Pakistan to hunt down terrorists even without local permission if warranted — an attempt to show strength when his chief rival has described his foreign policy skills as naive.

The Illinois senator warned Pakistani President Gen. Pervez Musharraf that he must do more to shut down terrorist operations in his country and evict foreign fighters under an Obama presidency, or Pakistan will risk a U.S. troop invasion and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. military aid.

“Let me make this clear,” Obama said in a speech at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. “There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again. It was a terrible mistake to fail to act when we had a chance to take out an al-Qaida leadership meeting in 2005. If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”

Now, I won’t deny that a covert operation to take out Osama bin Ladan or other terrorists would be a good thing… but announcing intentions to do so is hardly covert and is irresponsible for someone who wants to be president. 

On meeting with the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Syria and North Korea.. in his own words:

And as an added bonus, I transcribed the question and the answer for you:

Question - In 1982 Anwar Sadat traveled to Israel, a trip that resulted in a peace agreement that has lasted ever since.  In the spirit of that type of bold leadership, would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?

Obama - I would! And the reason is this, that, the notion that somehow not talking to countries, ah, is punishment to them, ah, which has been the guiding, ah, diplomatic principle of this administration, is ridiculous.  Now Ronald Reagan, and Democratic presidents like JFK, constantly spoke to Soviet Union at a time when Ronald Reagan called them an evil …  evil empire.  And the reason is because they understood that we may not trust them, they may pose an extraordinary danger to this country.  Ah, but we have the obligation to find, ah, areas where we could potentially move forward.  And ah, and I think that it is, ah, a disgrace that we have not spoken to them.  We’ve been talking about Iraq, one of the first things that I would do in terms of, ah, moving a diplomatic effort in the region forward, ah, is to send a signal that we need to talk to Iran and Syria, because they’re gonna have responsibilities if Iraq collapses, they have been acting irresponsibly up until this point, but if we tell them that we are not gonna be a permanent occupying force, we are in a position to say that, ah, they are gonna have to carry some weight in terms of stabilizing the region.

What’s interesting here is agreeing to meet without precondition is only the tip of this iceberg:

• The foundation for Obama’s justification is flawed because this “ridiculous” principle is one that has been followed well before the Bush administration. Reagan never met with any leader of the Soviet Union without precondition and JFK’s meeting with Khrushchev was nearly disastrous and led us to the brink of nuclear war… yeah that worked out well.  We dealt from a position of weakness and lost.
  • In the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs, Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev saw JFK as a weak, inexperienced figure whom the U.S.S.R. could easily bully. In June of 1961, the two world leaders met at a summit in the Austrian capital of Vienna. The central issue for discussion was the fate of Berlin. At the end of World War II, the German capital had been divided, along with the nation itself, into two zones: Communist East Berlin and democratic West Berlin. Since the city as a whole lay in Communist East Germany (which was, in turn, under the thumb of the U.S.S.R.), the Communists were constantly threatening to cut off access to West Berlin, thus strangling the democratic half of the city. In Vienna, Khrushchev renewed this threat, suggesting that the Soviet Union might sign a treaty with East Germany that would cut off all access by western nations to West Berlin. JFK stood firm, and the promised blockade never materialized; but the East Germans did throw up an ugly concrete and barb-wired wall between East and West Berlin, to prevent their own people from leaving for the West. The Berlin Wall became a symbol of the Cold War, one that would endure until 1989.
    
    The true challenge for JFK, however, lay still ahead. Khrushchev, probing for weakness, authorized the construction of Soviet missile bases in Cuba, from which the entire United States could be threatened with nuclear attack. On October 16, 1962, JFK’s military advisers handed him aerial reconnaissance photographs showing these missile emplacements. Many of the president’s generals urged an immediate invasion of Cuba, but JFK held out hope for a peaceful settlement. On October 22, he announced that a United States naval and air quarantine would go into effect, preventing any further missile shipments from Russia to Cuba. He also demanded that the Soviets remove any and all nuclear weapons already in place.So began the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which the world teetered on the brink of nuclear war. As Russian ships steamed closer to the blockade cordon, a flurry of telegrams shot back and forth between Washington and Moscow. Khrushchev, alternately conciliatory and bellicose, claimed that he was only trying to protect Castro’s government from U.S. invasion, and then suggested that the missiles might be removed if the U.S. dismantled its own Jupiter missiles in Turkey, just across the Black Sea from the Soviet Union. On Wednesday, October 24, Russian ships steaming toward Cuba turned back, and by the end of the week an agreement had been struck: Khrushchev would remove the missiles from Cuba in return for JFK’s public pledge that the U.S. would cease trying to undermine Castro’s government, and his private pledge that the U.S. would dismantle the Jupiter missiles in Turkey.
• He believes it is a disgrace that President Bush has not spoken to the leaders of any of these countries face-to-face? I don’t think Iran, Syria and North Korea are brand new enemies… so I guess we have a history of disgraced presidents in Obama’s opinion.  They were all wrong, he’s right.  And why should we doubt him, after all, he has years of experience as a state senator.
• We have the obligation to find areas where we could potentially move forward?  If only we had chatted over tea and crumpets with Hitler, we could have avoided that whole Holocaust thing.. oh wait, what am I saying. We mustn’t upset Ahmadinejad by implying the Holocaust really happened.  So where is that area of common ground we so hope to find with Iran?  I can’t even imagine what would be acceptable to a leader who wants to vaporize Israel.. maybe he’ll give us time to evacuate the country.
• Iran and Syria have been acting irresponsibly?  Is that what we call killing US troops in Iraq these days?  Bad Iran!  Bad Syria!  Go to your rooms!
• Since Obama plans to not leave an occupying force (is that what our future president calls US troops that have liberated a country, an occupying force?  Nice…), we must make certain Syria and Iran will promise they will behave responsibly after we leave.  Maybe we can even get them to sign a piece of paper.  But who better to act as a stabilizing force in the region than the man who has vowed to vaporize Israel?  Is he really this naive?  Scary.

Please… listen to what he says before his handlers spin him back around in the right direction, because if he does get elected president, there are no Mulligans in the real world.

Barack Obama reminded the world today what he has been trying to tell us all along:  Iran is a serious threat to the world and can not be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon.

Everyone on the same page now?  We all clear here?

And he also outlined his policy, drawing from a growing list of cliche’s that make up most of what he knows about the real world:

AFP: Obama spoke of a series of “big sticks and big carrots” regarding the Iranian regime and repeated his openness to meeting with its representatives, if the conditions were appropriate.

If big sticks and big carrots are not effective, Obama doesn’t expect us to get wrapped around the axle over the situation in Iraq, he plans to float a trial balloon and run some ideas up the flagpole as a first step towards peeling back the onion to identify the net-net of the situation before meeting with representatives of Iran and forming subcommittees to flesh out a plan for a win-win proposal.

Oh… and all that talk about meeting unconditionally with Iran and the fact that they pose no real threat to the United States… let’s put that behind us and keep moving forward:

Originally published in 2006, republished in 2007.. and now here we are in 2008 and it still may not be too late, but it sure as heck would have been better if we had addressed this two years ago.  Reprinted here in it’s entirety:  How to Break the Oil Habit

_________________________________________________________

The following was originally posted July 2006. I decided to repost it (with some minor updates) because I believe we need to stop talking about freeing ourselves from our addiction to oil and start to actually do something about it. Also, since it was only the 3rd article I posted, odds are I’m the only one who read it

Although the price of oil has come down since this was written, the key points remain the same:

• We need to encourage research and development of alternative energy sources
• We need to encourage conservation of existing sources
• We need to do this in a way that limits the money funneled to terrorist backers like Iran
• We need to counter the money flowing out to terrorist nations with money flowing into our own government until we can break our addiction to oil

The bottom line for those not planning to read the entire article:

I propose that for the next five years, a new federal tax on gasoline (not diesel.. just gasoline) be phased in, increasing from 25 cents a gallon the first year to $1.25 in year five and continuing until the end of the war AND the identification of a viable alternative to oil for 50% - 75% of our energy needs. 

Painful… sure.  So is paying more for gasoline when OPEC raises the price of crude oil… but we get nothing out of it when they raise the price.  If we ever expect to kick the oil habit and fund the war on terror… we need to be willing to make some sacrifices. 

—— July 23, 2006 ——

How many of you believe the price of fuel is too high, probably going higher, will ultimately wreck our economy and we need prices lowered, stabilized and affordable? … Raise your hands.

How many of you believe oil is a limited resource, that we need to encourage conservation, we need to identify alternatives to our dependency on mid-east oil and until we find a way to break the shackles of oil dependency, our future will continue to be threatened by nut cases who line their pockets and grow their weapons stockpiles with buckets of money shipped overseas in empty crude oil containers courtesy of you and me?  Raise your hands.

Did you raise your hand both times?  I wonder how typical that is of Americans.  We want fuel to be cheap and “affordable” so we can use as much as we want, yet we know that we also need to conserve this limited resource and find alternatives.  Trouble is, as long as fuel is affordable, there is no incentive to conserve and little incentive to find alternatives.  As with any addict, we won’t stop consuming until the supply is gone or the cost is so high we can’t pay for the fix.

How much does a gallon of gasoline have to cost for us to change our driving habits.  Gas hits $5 a gallon, are you still driving down to the shore or out to the country every weekend? Would $8 a gallon convince you to walk to the corner store instead of drive?  $10 and maybe it’s not worth driving 15 miles to see if you can get this new lawn mower at another store for a few dollars less?

What about commuting?  There will always be jobs where commuting is required (hard to work construction from the comfort of your family room); but do we all have to commute, or do we all think we have to commute?  Until 6 years ago, I commuted to work, 100 miles round trip, every weekday.  That’s 500 miles/week; assuming four weeks for vacations, holidays, other days off, that’s 24,000 miles per year.  My car got 30 miles to the gallon, which is better than average, which means I was using about 800 gallons of gas a year just to drive to work!

Assuming there are just 1 million people in a similar situation who could be working from home.  (not out of the question considering our current population is about 300 million according to the US Census and 14 million of us commute 45 minutes or more one way to work), that would be a yearly reduction of 800 million gallons of gasoline!!!!

According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2004 47% of the cost of a gallon of gasoline was to pay for the crude oil.  Assuming a gallon of gas costs $3.00, those 800 million gallons means more than $1.1 BILLION dollars going to the crude oil producers like Iran!!  Every year.  From those 1 million of us who might want to consider not commuting and setting up a home office.

$1.1 Billion dollars that could be spent here in the USA instead of on rockets for Hezbollah who then fires them into Israel while trying to distract us from the nuclear games Iran is playing. 

So demand continues to rise, prices continue to rise, the amount of real dollars shipped overseas to crude oil producers continues to rise, and available supplies continue to drop.  Even if raising crude oil prices causes a drop in consumption, the profit margin for the producers likely offsets the decrease in volume since the bulk of the price hike goes into their pockets.  What we need to do is reduce demand by raising prices in such a way that the crude oil producers do not benefit.

I can’t believe I am saying this, because I am almost ALWAYS opposed to new or increased taxes, but….

1. We need to encourage research and development of alternative energy sources
2. We need to encourage conservation of existing sources
3. We need to do this in a way that limits the money funneled to terrorist backers like Iran
4. We need to counter the money flowing out to terrorist nations with money flowing into our own government until we can break our addiction to oil

We need a (hand shaking as I type) Homeland Security and Energy Evolution Tax.

Look, the price of gas is going to go up until the demand comes down, and a lot of the money will go to weapons for terrorists.  In simplistic terms, if raising prices reduces demand, and if demand outruns supply, the prices are going to go up until demand and supply meet a state of equilibrium, period.  Inserting a tax into the equation drives down demand without increasing the flow of money to the crude oil producers.

Demand goes down, less money flows to terrorist nations, and we perhaps buy some time to develop alternative energy sources.

So where does that revenue go?  Two places, and only two places.  First, 50% goes to sponsor research for domestic sources of energy that require no dependence on foreign resources.  The other 50%, directly to Homeland Security and Defense. 

Are we at war? Well duh! So why are you whining about a tax to support the war effort and to eliminate one potential cause (if not the root cause) of the war? (Come on, some of you are whining and you know it)  If we weren’t dependent on foreign oil maybe our decision making when attacked wouldn’t be so complicated… bad guys go boom!

I propose that for the next five years, a new federal tax on gasoline (not diesel.. just gasoline) be phased in, increasing from 25 cents a gallon the first year to $1.25 in year five and continuing until the end of the war AND the identification of a viable alternative to oil for 50% - 75% of our energy needs.

Painful… sure.  So is paying more for gasoline when OPEC raises the price of crude oil… but we get nothing out of it when they raise the price.  If we ever expect to kick the oil habit and fund the war on terror… we need to be willing to make some sacrifices.  This doesn’t even come close to what our country sacrificed in World War II.  Time to suck it up people!

Soccer season is over. Work is calming down a bit. I find myself Thinkin’bout Stuff again.

Interesting how little has changed since my last post. For example, I found this snippet that I never got around to completing and posting from May 2007:

Anyone else getting tired of the Democrats wasting time and money on this investigation into why federal prosecutors were fired? Besides a political witch hunt, what is the goal here? What critical national need are they filling? What major crises are they solving? Assuming Gonzales were forced to resign, how will that make life better for you and me? Who really cares why they were fired when they can be fired without a reason anyway.. just as has happened in every other administration prior to this one?

The focus of this session of Congress seems to be revenge for having lost past elections. It’s all about playing gotcha and gimmee. What have they accomplished beyond empty political statements, like sending bills to the president they know will be vetoed effectively delaying the funding of the troops so that they can make a point. Who cares about your damn point! Stop making points! We get your point! Now go do your damn job!

You want to fire someone? Fire Reid, Pelosi and all of these renegade committee chairs who believe it is the role of Congress to spend hours grilling administration officials even when the evidence clearly indicates no wrong doing; who believe that anyone who the president believes is qualified for any position in the administration is, by definition, not qualified, and that reading and passing legislation is more of a hobby to be done in whatever spare time that is available after the inquisitions have ended for the day.

You want to talk about “worst” lists… so far this Congress is on a path to be the worst in history.  Don’t agree? What have they accomplished? Any bills out there to reduce dependency of foreign oil? Anything to encourage an increase in refinery capacity? Any real legislation to secure our borders? Any action to protect the tax cuts that will expire so that the economy can continue to grow? Let’s make the question open ended… what have they accomplished?

That was May 2007…  

Well, since then, the approval rating for this Congress plunged to a tie for the all time low of 18% in August (compare that to 45% in February 2005) and currently polls in the low to mid 20’s.   Interesting side note… in an ABC News/Washington Post poll, the majority of those polled believe Congress has not accomplished anything and only 25% blame the Democrats…  they do realize the Dems control both Houses, right? (It has to be bugging Reid and Pelosi that President Bush has been polling better than the Dem controlled Congress).

So here we are, 6 months later and this Congress has still accomplished virtually nothing of note.  We are still having ridiculous hearings, arguing over whether the President has the right to fire federal prosecutors.  Congress is still crying that they aren’t being treated as the “co-equal” branch of the government that they are, simply because the President has exercised his veto authority.  And now they came this close ((  )) to blocking the confirmation of a new Attorney General who was hand picked for nomination by Senator Charles Schumer, who apparently has decided to hold his nose and vote for his own candidate for the job.

And why is there so much gnashing of teeth and wringing of hands in the hallowed halls of Congress these days? Nominee Mukasey has refused to declare waterboarding to be a form of torture without having the opportunity to review classified documentation that will not be available to him until he is confirmed. 

Leaky Leahy and Diver Dan Kennedy are incensed since they have already declared that waterboarding is torture and is illegal.  Unfortunately for them, the lawmaking body which views them as <cough> leaders and who actually could make waterboarding illegal, have politely declined to do so,  preferring to carp about Mukasey instead of acting upon there own supposed consciences.

But the fun continues.  Senator Obama chides Senator Clinton for backing a resolution labeling Iran’s Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, presumably opening the door for President Bush to attack Iran.  Senator Clinton fires back that the resolution does not give the president the authority to attack Iran and if Senator Obama felt this was so important, wonders why he didn’t bother to show up and vote against it.  Senator Obama counters with his own resolution to tell the President he can not attack Iran without going to Congress first (which, by the way, is not true), Senator Clinton says the resolution is a waste of time because the first resolution did not give the President authority to attack, but then sends a letter (with 28 other senators… drafted by Senator Pistol Packin’ Jim Webb) to the President to let him know he doesn’t have authority to attack, but Obama does not sign the letter….  following all of this?  I’m not…

If Iran is providing terrorists with weapons to attack our troops in Iraq, and if the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization, and if we are in a war against Islamic terrorism….  why would we not want to have the option to…  um…  I don’t know…  attack the terrorists?

Oh.. by the way.  None of these resolutions or letters does a damn thing, they are non-binding… kind of like a letter to the editor… gets them on the record, let’s them get it off their chest, but doesn’t really change anything.    And Congress still hasn’t approved any of the annual spending bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1, but they have time for all of this stuff.

Speaking of Senators Obama and Clinton, when last we left Senator Obama, he was considering the option of invading Pakistan.  Today we learned that, unlike the proposed resolution to our differences with Pakistan, Senator Obama would solve the minor differences we have with Iran by offering them membership in the WTO and by having direct one-on-one diplomatic negotiations with Adolf Ahmadinejad. On the other hand, we learned that Senator Clinton supports New York Governor Spitzer’s unilateral decision to provide drivers licenses to illegal aliens, unless of course she opposes the idea, but if given the option, she would pretty much just ask that we not ask such hard questions…. after all, it’s not nice to pick on girls.

I sincerely hope that, should the country go insane and elect HRC president, she not pull this weak everyone-is-picking-on-me crap when dealing with the leaders of other countries, friend and foe alike… they’ll eat her (and us) alive.

(Simon and Garfunkle’s tune “Mrs. Robinson” stuck in my head while I’m writing) Where have you gone, Joe McCarthy, a nation turned it’s back on you too soon… woo woo woo…

OK, maybe that’s a bit of an exaggeration, but an interesting post on Seaspook’s Rants over the weekend started me thinking down a path I hadn’t really explored before: Who’s side is Hollywood really on?

We’ve chatted about Rosie O’Donnell at length here, but there are plenty of other nuts out there sharing similar views… or are they really nuts after all. Maybe this is merely an expression of their hatred of our capitalist society; maybe this goes a lot deeper than it appears on the surface… then again, maybe they are just plain nuts.

From World Net Daily via  Seaspook’s Rants:

Would it surprise you to learn that one of those prominent Hollywood communist Jews who sided with Germany until the breaking of that Hitler-Stalin Pact was none other than Leo Penn, the late father of Sean Penn.

Now it’s Sean Penn’s turn to relive and recommit the sins of his father, who never repented of his Communist Party activities …

Penn spoke at a town hall meeting in Oakland last weekend. What he said about his country was shameful. What he said about our country’s enemies – and the enemies of freedom throughout the entire world – was even more despicable.

More info on Leo Penn at Wikipedia:

He was a strong political supporter of Joseph Stalin and advocated US neutrality in the war in Europe during the period of time where the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact created an alliance between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. The moment Hitler violated that pact Penn urged that America enter the war.

So.. the war was bad until Hitler violated the pact with the Soviet Union… then it was good.

So, what of young Mr. Penn? What has the little tike been saying that is causing such a stir?  Here’s what I think is the full text as posted on The Huffington Post (interrupted by a few of my own expressions of free speech):

Four and a half years ago, I addressed the issue of war in an open letter to our President. Today I would like to again speak to him and his, directly. Mr. President, Mr. Cheney, Ms. Rice et al: Indeed America has a rich history of greatness -indeed, America is still today a devastating military superpower.

And because, in the absence of a competent or brave Congress, of a mobilized citizenry, that level of power lies in your hands, it is you who have misused it to become our country’s and our constitution’s most devastating enemy. You have broken our country and our hearts. The needless blood on your hands, and therefore, on our own, is drowning the freedom, the security, and the dream that America might have been, once healed of and awakened by, the tragedy of September 11, 2001.

Fabulous bit of hyperbole, showing that dramatic flair that will convince people he actually said something here. However, when broken down to the basics, all he said is the president is Commander in Chief and it is Penn’s OPINION that the war against terrorism was not the correct path following the series of direct attacks on our country.  What he believes the correct path to be remains a mystery, probably even to himself.

But now, we are encouraged to self-censor any words that might be perceived as inflammatory - if our belief is that this war should stop today. We cower as you point fingers telling us to “support our troops.”

 Cower? Self-censor? You’re kidding, right?

Well, you and the smarmy pundits in your pocket, those who bathe in the moisture of your soiled and bloodstained underwear, can take that noise and shove it. We will be snowed no more.

Wonderful imagery. No substance, but interesting use of underwear to convey no message what-so-ever. Best guess interpretation: Penn believes that anyone who believes the president, is somehow on the take, and the rest of the country has been somehow blindly following the president… hey Sean… where have you been dude? There has been a healthy, relatively civil (in that no one has included imagery of bloody, soiled underwear before this point in time to my knowledge) debate going on for many, many months now.  Did you just wake up and happen to turn on Comedy Central to watch the “news”?

Let’s make this crystal clear. We do support our troops in our stand, while you exploit them and their families.

 And you are basing this on….?  Wonder if the troops feel supported by you and yours. (there must be a you and yours since he referred to a him and his). But really, come on, you can admit it. You don’t really like the troops at all. But these days it is “PC” to say you do.  If this were 40 years ago you would be pushing to the front of the line to spit on the troops as they returned home. 

The verdict is in. You lied, connived, and exploited your own countrymen and most of all, our troops.

Interesting verdict there Sean. Any evidence? I mean from the real world… no fair making stuff up.

You Misters Bush and Cheney; you Ms. Rice are villainously and criminally obscene people, obscene human beings, incompetent even to fulfill your own self-serving agenda, while tragically neglectful and destructive of ours and our country’s.

Misters? Is that a word? Anyway… instead of any discussion of issues or specific points to be addressed, Penn illustrates the common flaw that repeatedly surfaces during debates on various issues with the Hollywood left… they have no real understanding of the issues so they resort to personal attacks, as if by calling names they’ve proven their point.

And I got a question for your daughters Mr. Bush. They’re not children anymore. Do they support your policy in Iraq? If they do, how dare they not be in uniform, while the children of the poor; black, white, Asian, Hispanic, and all the other American working men and women are slaughtered, maimed and flown back into this country under cover of darkness.

And I got?  Mr. Penn!  “I have”.. not “And I got”.. please, if we are to have adult conversations we must use grown up words and sentence structure.  Now, as to your imagery here. First, let’s clarify something that you may not be aware of, having been living in Hollywood and far from the real world for some time now:  WE HAVE AN ALL VOLUNTEER MILITARY NOW!  That being said… can you share with us the break out of poor, middle class and affluent in the military? How about by race? Or are facts not really relevant when you are trying to prove yourself right. And are our American Service Men and Women flown back under the cover of darkness? Really? Come on… make your arguments using facts and stay with us in the real world for a moment or two… otherwise, just shut up please.

Now, because I’ve been on the streets of Baghdad during this occupational war, outside the Green Zone, without security, and you haven’t; I’ve met children there. In that country of 25 million, these children have now suffered minimally, a rainstorm of civilian death around and among them totaling the equivalent of two hundred September 11ths in just four years of war. Two hundred 9/11s. Two hundred 9/11s.

Were you walking around counting while you were there? Were you? Were you? Did you happen to ask them how many were killed by Americans and how many by terrorists? Did you? Did you? Will the killing stop when we leave? Will it? Will it? Does saying something three times make it true? By the way, you can walk around outside the Green Zone without the same level of security the president needs because, frankly, you are not a high value target.

You want to rattle sabers toward Iran now? Let me tell you something about Iran, because I’ve been there and you haven’t. Iran is a great country. A great country. Does it have its haters? You bet. Just like the United States has its haters. Does it have a corrupt regime? You bet. Just like the United States has a corrupt regime. Does it want a nuclear weapon? Maybe. Do we have one? You bet.

Are we threatening to blow up our neighbors with nuclear weapons? Is Iran? You bet. Interesting how you can visit all these countries in relative safety…  hmmmm.  By the way, we don’t have a “regime”… you may have slept through it, but we had an election. And if you are looking for corruption, look no further than your Dem friends in Congress.

But the people of Iran are great people. And if we give that corrupt leadership, (by attacking Iran militarily) the opportunity to unify that great country in hatred against us, we’ll have been giving up one of our most promising future allies in decades. If you really know anything about Iran, you know exactly what I’m referring to. Of course your administration belittles diplomatic potential there, as those options rely on a credibility and geopolitical influence that you have aggressively squandered worldwide.

 Hey! Who has been leaving Sean out of the loop on all the backdoor diplomacy that has been going on? The encouragement of factions sympathetic to the West? The offers of assistance if Iran gives up their plans to wipe Israel of the face of the Earth? I thought we all agreed to keep him in the loop.  Sorry about that Sean…

Speaking of squandering, how about the billion and a half dollars a day our Iraq-focused military is spending, where three weeks of that kind of spending, would pay the tab on a visionary levy-building project in New Orleans and relieve the entire continent of Africa from starvation and the spread of disease. Not to mention the continued funds now necessary, to not only rebuild our education and healthcare systems, but also, to give care and aid to the veterans of this war, both American and our Iraqi allies and friends who have lost everything.

Hey.. while we’re spending everyone’s money on projects we like.. how about sending a billion or two my way.  Oh wait.. that’s right… we kind of need that money to keep the terrorists busy over there so they won’t have time to come over here.. sorry, I forgot.

Not to get off topic… but the money that has been sent to New Orleans over the years to improve the levees has been reallocated to other projects by New Orleans. So instead of whining about not getting more funding from the rest of the country, how about an accounting of what you did with the money we already sent your way.  And how about some answers to some real tough questions? How much money do we spend to fight Mother Nature. Not just in New Orleans, but in any coastal or low lying area.  You want to live there? Great. But perhaps we should consider using the money allocated for rebuilding to rebuild elsewhere so we don’t have to spend it over and over again… like along the Jersey shore as an example. Sorry.. I digress…

You say we’ve kept the war on terror off our shores by responding to a criminal act of terror through state sponsored unilateral aggression in a country that took no part in that initial crime. That this war would be fought in Iraq or fought here. They are not our toilet. They are a country of human beings whose lives, while once oppressed by Saddam, are now lived in Dante’s inferno.

Sigh… refuting arguments that present opinions as fact and then build conclusions upon false foundations can wear you down.  It was not a criminal act of terror, it was an act of war.  These are not criminals, they are warriors.. just ask them. Do they believe they are committing a crime or fighting a war against the West? If they believe they are fighting a war, why can’t you believe it? Iraq, the nation, did not attack the United States. However, the world is a bit more complicated than in the days when your dad was arguing against US involvement in the war against Hitler until Hitler attacked his buddies in the USSR. This war has no borders. Saddam Hussein was a sponsor of terrorism, it is proven that he paid the families of suicide bombers as a reward for killing Jews, he harbored terrorists in his country, and even if 9/11 never happened, we already had cause for war because he kept shooting at our planes.  Do you really believe if we leave now the killings will stop. Are you really that stupid?

My 15-year-old daughter was working on a comparative essay this week (you can ask Condi what a comparative essay is, as academic exercises fit the limits of her political expertise.)

Condescension on academia would be more credible if you had gone beyond high school in your education. Nothing wrong with a high school education.. but I believe a Yale degree is a wee bit higher.

My daughter’s essay, which understood substance over theory, discusses the strengths of the Nuremberg trial justice beside the alternate strategy of truth and reconciliation in South Africa, and I quote: “When we observe distinctions between one power and another, one justice and another, we consider the divide between retribution and reconciliation, of closure and disclosure.” I can’t do her essay justice in this forum, but at its core, it asks how, when, and why we compromise toward peace, punish for war, or balance both for something more.

Sounds like your daughter is pretty smart. Maybe she should have written the letter.

This may focus another soft spot in the rhetoric of both sides. We’re told not to engage in the “politics of attack.” To “keep away from the negative”…Well, Mr. Bush, when speaking of your administration, that would leave us silent, and impotent indeed.

And that would be bad because….?

So, in conclusion, I address my remaining remarks to the choir: We all played nice recently at the sad passing of former President Ford. Pundits and players on all sides re-visited his pardoning of Richard Nixon with praise, stating that a divided nation found unity. But what of that precedent on deterrence now? Where is justice now? Let’s unite, not only in stopping this war, but holding this administration accountable as well. Without impeachment, justice cannot prevail. In our time, or our children’s. And let’s make it clear to democrats and republicans alike that we are not willing to wait on ‘08 to hear them say again: “If I’d known then, what I know now.”

Impeachment? Yet another man in need of a copy of the US Constitution. So.. which part of the war would you like to stop? The part where we are tying to protect Iraqi’s from terrorists, the part where we are trying to stop Afghanistan from becoming an al Qaeda base again, the part where we are trying to prevent another attack on American soil? Which part don’t you like and what is your alternative solution? Shall we invite them over for tea?

Even in a so-called victory, what we saw yesterday was a House of Representatives that couldn’t bring itself to represent either conscience or constituents. It’s a tragedy that the Democratic Party’s leadership in Congress refuses to allow the House to vote on Barbara Lee’s amendment for a fully funded, orderly withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq by the end of this year. Elites circled the war wagons against this proposal, and postponed the day of reckoning that must come as soon as possible - a complete pullout of U.S. military forces from Iraq.

So.. if they had voted on it and it went down in flames… you would still be whining. It is clear that the only legitimate view is your view. Otherwise, you would realize that the elected representatives are supporting their constituents and that the majority of the House and Senate, as well as the country, is not made up of left-wing loons such as yourself. In fact, the leadership of the House and Senate is far left of the mainstream of the House and Senate.. for now.

There are presidential candidates who understand this. We do have candidates of conscience. As things stand today, I will be voting for Dennis Kucinich, who has fought this war from the beginning. You might say Kucinich can’t win. Well, we have an opportunity to re-establish the credibility of democracy as viewed by the world at large.

Damn!  I  missed it.  When did democracy lose credibility? Was it back when Gore tried to disallow thousands of votes by military personnel to steal the election?  No.. that can’t be it, because he lost anyway. Was it when Gore took it to the Florida courts, only to ultimately lose in the US Supreme Court. No… that can’t be it since that worked out for the best as well. Oh.. and if it had somehow gone to Congress for a vote, Bush still would have been president.. won’t bore you with the details.. it’s all in the Constitution. Oh… and by all means vote for whoever you want for president… that’s part of living in a democracy.

We can fire our current president. We can choose the next president. You and me, the farmer in Wisconsin, the boys at Google, and Bill Gates.

We can? (thumbing through copy of US Constitution).. nope, nothing here about firing the president because Sean Penn doesn’t like his policies.

It’s up to us to choose. Why don’t we choose?!

Ummm.. I did? Hey wait… I thought this was an open letter to the president. When did it shift to an open letter to the American people, specifically the lunatics who would actually believe any of this tripe?

So, what will it take for this war against terror to be a good thing for Mr. Sean Penn, like the war against Nazism became a good thing for Leo Penn so many years ago?  Maybe Sean Penn can share his thoughts on when terrorists will have crossed that line in his next letter to the president.

Reading Wake Up America’s article on the evidence of Iranian weapons captured in Iraq, the thought occurred to me that we need to find a good way to dispose of those weapons.

But why should we take on that kind of responsibility? After all, those weapons were made by Iran, they should be returned to Iran and detonated so that they can never be sent back to Iraq to kill innocent Iraqi’s or US troops.

So, I think we should send them back to Iran via airmail, ensuring they are returned directly to Ahmadinejad. Seems only fair, and at least we can’t be accused of dropping American bombs on Iran… we’re just rendering unto Ahmadinejad the things which are Ahmadinejad’s.

The following was originally posted July 2006. I decided to repost it (with some minor updates) because I believe we need to stop talking about freeing ourselves from our addiction to oil and start to actually do something about it. Also, since it was only the 3rd article I posted, odds are I’m the only one who read it

Although the price of oil has come down since this was written, the key points remain the same:

• We need to encourage research and development of alternative energy sources
• We need to encourage conservation of existing sources
• We need to do this in a way that limits the money funneled to terrorist backers like Iran
• We need to counter the money flowing out to terrorist nations with money flowing into our own government until we can break our addiction to oil

The bottom line for those not planning to read the entire article:

I propose that for the next five years, a new federal tax on gasoline (not diesel.. just gasoline) be phased in, increasing from 25 cents a gallon the first year to $1.25 in year five and continuing until the end of the war AND the identification of a viable alternative to oil for 50% - 75% of our energy needs. 

Painful… sure.  So is paying more for gasoline when OPEC raises the price of crude oil… but we get nothing out of it when they raise the price.  If we ever expect to kick the oil habit and fund the war on terror… we need to be willing to make some sacrifices. 

—— July 23, 2006 ——

How many of you believe the price of fuel is too high, probably going higher, will ultimately wreck our economy and we need prices lowered, stabilized and affordable? … Raise your hands.

How many of you believe oil is a limited resource, that we need to encourage conservation, we need to identify alternatives to our dependency on mid-east oil and until we find a way to break the shackles of oil dependency, our future will continue to be threatened by nut cases who line their pockets and grow their weapons stockpiles with buckets of money shipped overseas in empty crude oil containers courtesy of you and me?  Raise your hands.

Did you raise your hand both times?  I wonder how typical that is of Americans.  We want fuel to be cheap and “affordable” so we can use as much as we want, yet we know that we also need to conserve this limited resource and find alternatives.  Trouble is, as long as fuel is affordable, there is no incentive to conserve and little incentive to find alternatives.  As with any addict, we won’t stop consuming until the supply is gone or the cost is so high we can’t pay for the fix.

How much does a gallon of gasoline have to cost for us to change our driving habits.  Gas hits $5 a gallon, are you still driving down to the shore or out to the country every weekend? Would $8 a gallon convince you to walk to the corner store instead of drive?  $10 and maybe it’s not worth driving 15 miles to see if you can get this new lawn mower at another store for a few dollars less?

What about commuting?  There will always be jobs where commuting is required (hard to work construction from the comfort of your family room); but do we all have to commute, or do we all think we have to commute?  Until 6 years ago, I commuted to work, 100 miles round trip, every weekday.  That’s 500 miles/week; assuming four weeks for vacations, holidays, other days off, that’s 24,000 miles per year.  My car got 30 miles to the gallon, which is better than average, which means I was using about 800 gallons of gas a year just to drive to work!

Assuming there are just 1 million people in a similar situation who could be working from home.  (not out of the question considering our current population is about 300 million according to the US Census and 14 million of us commute 45 minutes or more one way to work), that would be a yearly reduction of 800 million gallons of gasoline!!!!

According to the Energy Information Administration, in 2004 47% of the cost of a gallon of gasoline was to pay for the crude oil.  Assuming a gallon of gas costs $3.00, those 800 million gallons means more than $1.1 BILLION dollars going to the crude oil producers like Iran!!  Every year.  From those 1 million of us who might want to consider not commuting and setting up a home office.

$1.1 Billion dollars that could be spent here in the USA instead of on rockets for Hezbollah who then fires them into Israel while trying to distract us from the nuclear games Iran is playing. 

So demand continues to rise, prices continue to rise, the amount of real dollars shipped overseas to crude oil producers continues to rise, and available supplies continue to drop.  Even if raising crude oil prices causes a drop in consumption, the profit margin for the producers likely offsets the decrease in volume since the bulk of the price hike goes into their pockets.  What we need to do is reduce demand by raising prices in such a way that the crude oil producers do not benefit.

I can’t believe I am saying this, because I am almost ALWAYS opposed to new or increased taxes, but….

1. We need to encourage research and development of alternative energy sources
2. We need to encourage conservation of existing sources
3. We need to do this in a way that limits the money funneled to terrorist backers like Iran
4. We need to counter the money flowing out to terrorist nations with money flowing into our own government until we can break our addiction to oil

We need a (hand shaking as I type) Homeland Security and Energy Evolution Tax.

Look, the price of gas is going to go up until the demand comes down, and a lot of the money will go to weapons for terrorists.  In simplistic terms, if raising prices reduces demand, and if demand outruns supply, the prices are going to go up until demand and supply meet a state of equilibrium, period.  Inserting a tax into the equation drives down demand without increasing the flow of money to the crude oil producers.

Demand goes down, less money flows to terrorist nations, and we perhaps buy some time to develop alternative energy sources.

So where does that revenue go?  Two places, and only two places.  First, 50% goes to sponsor research for domestic sources of energy that require no dependence on foreign resources.  The other 50%, directly to Homeland Security and Defense. 

Are we at war? Well duh! So why are you whining about a tax to support the war effort and to eliminate one potential cause (if not the root cause) of the war? (Come on, some of you are whining and you know it)  If we weren’t dependent on foreign oil maybe our decision making when attacked wouldn’t be so complicated… bad guys go boom!

I propose that for the next five years, a new federal tax on gasoline (not diesel.. just gasoline) be phased in, increasing from 25 cents a gallon the first year to $1.25 in year five and continuing until the end of the war AND the identification of a viable alternative to oil for 50% - 75% of our energy needs.

Painful… sure.  So is paying more for gasoline when OPEC raises the price of crude oil… but we get nothing out of it when they raise the price.  If we ever expect to kick the oil habit and fund the war on terror… we need to be willing to make some sacrifices.  This doesn’t even come close to what our country sacrificed in World War II.  Time to suck it up people!