In a very rare occasion, I watched the Fox News channel today. While doing so, I caught the report of the California man who was arrested in February of last year for reading the Bible out loud in public. The arresting officer charged him, as well as two others, for preaching to a "captive audience" -- an audience who is, as they claim, forced to listen because the individuals cannot leave an area.
Robert Tyler, the lawyer defending the man and his church, claims this is absolutely ridiculous. He feels that if the use of the captive audience argument holds ground, who's to say that they won't restrict public reading of the Bible in parks? Also, he mentioned the man was cited for "impeding an open business". However, the DMV was not open at the time.
Mark Mackey, the defendant, is a member of the Calvary Chapel Hemet, a local "evangelical" church which practices the public testimonials and Scripture reading to spread the message of the Gospel.
The prosecuting attorney, Dan Conaway, says the doctrine of "captive audience" does apply because he was "creating an intimidating situation for people who simply want to get their drivers licenses renewed" (Kennedy, 2012). Mr. Conaway believes that it's okay to preach in public, but not when the listeners can't leave.
He commented further: “He does not have the right to intimidate others and force them to listen and impede their ability to do normal business activities such as going to the DMV" (Kennedy).
Tyler argues there is much more than simple intimidation to constitute using the captive audience argument. He says there must be a threat, which in this case, reading the Bible is not threatening.
OK. Now that we have the general summary of story, allow me to put my spin on it.
First off, arguing in favor of the state of California, many may complain that this was "religious bigotry". But let me ask you this. Would any of you be intimidated/uncomfortable if someone had starting reading the Qu'ran out loud and preaching Islam? How about Buddhism? Worse yet, how about Satanism? Would any of you honestly let this person preach their message to you?
OK. I finally have that off of my chest. Now, arguing in favor of Mr. Mackey and his church, he was not harming anyone, and since the DMV was not open and the listeners were most likely waiting OUTSIDE... they were allowed to leave. Mr. Mackey doesn't come across as someone who would hold a gun to your head forcing his religious beliefs down your throat. On the contrary, he was simply reading. No one was coerced to accept, let alone listen, to his message. If people really were offended, they would have kindly asked him to stop. I'm sure he would've been more than happy to oblige.
My final opinion is this: Mark Mackey should not be charged with any sort of a crime. He did nothing wrong. No lives were threatened. On the other hand, I would advise him and others for future reference to carefully choose their spots. Not everyone is going to be nice. Not everyone is going to be peaceful or respectful. It's very likely that violence could erupt. And if there's a possibility of violence, a state, if not the federal government, can make it illegal to read any religious scripture in public, therefore re-categorizing it as "disturbing the peace" rather than preaching to a "captive audience".
Overall, we must be wary of restricting speech. Although it's our right as citizens, we have to make sure that our message will not incite violence against us or others. Let's use our freedom of speech responsibly.
References:
Kennedy, Dougals. Taking liberties: Arrested for reading the Bible? March 29, 2012. Retrieved March 29, 2012 from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/03/29/taking-liberties-arrested-for-reading-bible/
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Doing what's right for Americans, or is there really a hidden agenda?
High prices at the gas pump has prompted President Obama to make a public speech about his plan for solving the United States' long-term energy needs. Knowing this issue is paramount to his re-election, he addressed the issue by putting pressure on Congress to either "stand with the big oil companies, or ... stand with American people" (Fox Business).
The President is urging Congress to end subsidies for oil companies because he claimed in his speech - aired on Fox News - that oil companies do well without them. "Exxon pockets nearly $4.7 million every hour" he said (Fox Business).
The reason for this push is an upcoming vote today on legislation that would end tax breaks for oil companies in the amount of $24 billion over the next decade, while extending tax breaks for green energy projects. Keep in mind this is a Democratic backed bill.
So, does the President really have a heartfelt compassion for American citizens, or is this merely a plea to remove the subsidies from one industry and give them to another? According to what I've gathered from several articles and the subtle hints contained in the language of his speech, the latter seems the most logical.
I am opposed to government subsidies for two reasons. One is it forces taxpayers to prop up industries they may not support. Second, it's simply government welfare for corporations, and it picks the winners and the losers of an economy. This contradicts my belief in the economic principle of free markets. A free market is driven by consumers on which an economy thrives. Without them, economies would be non-existent.
By shifting the subsidies from oil to clean energy, it doesn't make one difference. This is just smooth political talk in an attempt to woo voters from those "evil" oil companies taking advantage of the consumer while raking in record profits. Although I agree with the President that the subsidies need to be removed, I don't agree that we should now start subsidizing alternative energy programs. I will reiterate over and over again that the free market best allocates resources better than the government.
My solution is simple: remove the subsidies for the oil companies and don't subsidize clean energy. You saw what happened with big oil. Also, create the environment where energy companies can compete (both renewable and non-renewable) and let the free market (consumers) decide what works for them. Competition will bring down prices because Americans want the best quality for the cheapest price. In order to make a profit, energy companies would be wise to keep the consumer happy.
REFERENCES:
Fox Business. End tax breaks for oil companies. March 29, 2012. Retrieved March 29, 2012 from http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2012/03/29/obama-end-tax-breaks-for-oil-companies/
The President is urging Congress to end subsidies for oil companies because he claimed in his speech - aired on Fox News - that oil companies do well without them. "Exxon pockets nearly $4.7 million every hour" he said (Fox Business).
The reason for this push is an upcoming vote today on legislation that would end tax breaks for oil companies in the amount of $24 billion over the next decade, while extending tax breaks for green energy projects. Keep in mind this is a Democratic backed bill.
So, does the President really have a heartfelt compassion for American citizens, or is this merely a plea to remove the subsidies from one industry and give them to another? According to what I've gathered from several articles and the subtle hints contained in the language of his speech, the latter seems the most logical.
I am opposed to government subsidies for two reasons. One is it forces taxpayers to prop up industries they may not support. Second, it's simply government welfare for corporations, and it picks the winners and the losers of an economy. This contradicts my belief in the economic principle of free markets. A free market is driven by consumers on which an economy thrives. Without them, economies would be non-existent.
By shifting the subsidies from oil to clean energy, it doesn't make one difference. This is just smooth political talk in an attempt to woo voters from those "evil" oil companies taking advantage of the consumer while raking in record profits. Although I agree with the President that the subsidies need to be removed, I don't agree that we should now start subsidizing alternative energy programs. I will reiterate over and over again that the free market best allocates resources better than the government.
My solution is simple: remove the subsidies for the oil companies and don't subsidize clean energy. You saw what happened with big oil. Also, create the environment where energy companies can compete (both renewable and non-renewable) and let the free market (consumers) decide what works for them. Competition will bring down prices because Americans want the best quality for the cheapest price. In order to make a profit, energy companies would be wise to keep the consumer happy.
REFERENCES:
Fox Business. End tax breaks for oil companies. March 29, 2012. Retrieved March 29, 2012 from http://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/2012/03/29/obama-end-tax-breaks-for-oil-companies/
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
Obamacare...Romneycare...Who cares? Repeal it!
This week the Supreme Court is hearing the arguments regarding the Affordable Care Act, the health care law passed in 2010 by President Obama and his congressional majority of Democrats. Later, they will decide the constitutionality of this law. Regardless of whether or not its constitutional, I want to take my knowledge of the bill and determine if it really was a benefit to the American people.
To understand a bill, one has to figure out the reason for enacting into law. In the case of health care, the Affordable Care Act was intended to help the millions of uninsured American citizens gain access to health care without paying high costs or premiums. A noble idea, indeed. However, in order to ensure those without would purchase a health plan, an individual mandate was interjected into the language of the bill. The mandate required an individual to buy health coverage or take a public option. If one chose to take the public option, it would cost them in the form of a fine. Additionally, if one chose not to purchase a health plan or enroll themselves onto the public plan by 2014, they would face the same consequence.
Let's look at the logic of this for one moment. Let's say you have a family of three: husband, wife, and child. In order to cover everyone in your family, you must acquire a family health insurance policy. But it's much more expensive to insure a family. So, in accordance with the health care law, you decide to take the public option. BAM! Government fine!
Can someone please explain to me how fining someone who can't afford private insurance is a good thing? It contradicts the entire idea of providing "affordable" insurance. Therefore, the mandate in this case wouldn't work unless you remove the fine. If that happens, then the question becomes, "How do we pay for all the government-provided health care?" The answer is simple: raise your taxes!
To pay for it, Medicaid and Medicare taxes will increase, leaving you less in your paycheck. So how are you supposed to pay for private insurance now?
The second issue of concern for me is the requiring of insurance companies to accept individuals with pre-existing conditions. It would be great if everyone with a pre-existing condition was never denied, but this isn't reality. I can see many American citizens applauding this portion of the law, saying it promotes fairness. I understand this point of view.
However, each issue holds two sides to a story. A health insurance company's main responsibility, much like any other business, is to generate a profit. By doing so, they can pay their employees, but also pay their customer's medical bills or portions of it, depending on the policy. An individual with a pre-existing condition is more often than an individual without one to get insurance payments for frequent doctors visits and prescriptions. This is seen as a liability, which has potential to drain funds/profits from the company. Without the proper funds, insurance companies could be rendered ineffective, since the cost of health care is rising. Consequently, the health care law hurts the interests of the consumer because if health insurance companies are forced to accept people with pre-existing conditions and forced to pay the costs of their care, in response, the insurance agencies will raise their premiums accordingly. So, instead of making health care more affordable, in the long run, it makes it more expensive.
My solution to the problem is to repeal the health care law, regardless of its constitutionality or not, and start over. There needs to be more emphasis on providing cheap access to medical care through market means. Government only makes the situation worse, and history has shown time and time again that when government spends money in a certain industry, prices go up.
What would really help bring costs down is a sound monetary policy, but that's a discussion for another time.
To understand a bill, one has to figure out the reason for enacting into law. In the case of health care, the Affordable Care Act was intended to help the millions of uninsured American citizens gain access to health care without paying high costs or premiums. A noble idea, indeed. However, in order to ensure those without would purchase a health plan, an individual mandate was interjected into the language of the bill. The mandate required an individual to buy health coverage or take a public option. If one chose to take the public option, it would cost them in the form of a fine. Additionally, if one chose not to purchase a health plan or enroll themselves onto the public plan by 2014, they would face the same consequence.
Let's look at the logic of this for one moment. Let's say you have a family of three: husband, wife, and child. In order to cover everyone in your family, you must acquire a family health insurance policy. But it's much more expensive to insure a family. So, in accordance with the health care law, you decide to take the public option. BAM! Government fine!
Can someone please explain to me how fining someone who can't afford private insurance is a good thing? It contradicts the entire idea of providing "affordable" insurance. Therefore, the mandate in this case wouldn't work unless you remove the fine. If that happens, then the question becomes, "How do we pay for all the government-provided health care?" The answer is simple: raise your taxes!
The second issue of concern for me is the requiring of insurance companies to accept individuals with pre-existing conditions. It would be great if everyone with a pre-existing condition was never denied, but this isn't reality. I can see many American citizens applauding this portion of the law, saying it promotes fairness. I understand this point of view.
However, each issue holds two sides to a story. A health insurance company's main responsibility, much like any other business, is to generate a profit. By doing so, they can pay their employees, but also pay their customer's medical bills or portions of it, depending on the policy. An individual with a pre-existing condition is more often than an individual without one to get insurance payments for frequent doctors visits and prescriptions. This is seen as a liability, which has potential to drain funds/profits from the company. Without the proper funds, insurance companies could be rendered ineffective, since the cost of health care is rising. Consequently, the health care law hurts the interests of the consumer because if health insurance companies are forced to accept people with pre-existing conditions and forced to pay the costs of their care, in response, the insurance agencies will raise their premiums accordingly. So, instead of making health care more affordable, in the long run, it makes it more expensive.
My solution to the problem is to repeal the health care law, regardless of its constitutionality or not, and start over. There needs to be more emphasis on providing cheap access to medical care through market means. Government only makes the situation worse, and history has shown time and time again that when government spends money in a certain industry, prices go up.
What would really help bring costs down is a sound monetary policy, but that's a discussion for another time.
 |
| "No insurance? Looks like you're going to have to pay..." |
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Liberals and their illogical case against guns
But there are some out there who think the world would be a better place if instead of using guns to deter criminal activity, we use pixie dust.
There's a lot of talk going on right now in Michigan about a bill that would allow individuals to carry their concealed handgun into schools and sporting events. Notice the key word: C-O-N-C-E-A-L-E-D. No one knows you even have it. Yet for some reason, they think anyone carrying a handgun with them is going to snap and go on a shooting spree. It completely contradicts their philosophy that "All people are inherently good, and that society is what turns them bad". All people are good, unless they carry a gun. Then they are bad.
A good friend of mine made a good point while putting some brain-dead liberals in their place: If you don't like guns, don't buy them. It's the same argument the liberals use for abortion: If you don't like it, don't get one.
Another thing that pisses me off is how they cry about the need for tolerance.
That's why I believe liberalism is a mental disorder, not a philosophy. The arguments behind liberal philosophy is not based on fact, but almost primarily on emotion and fear. Because remember, everyone carrying a gun means the return of the Wild West.
That's the kind of logic that gets them killed.
***INSENSITIVITY ALERT***
I wonder if all the people who were brutally murdered in their homes were liberals because they didn't have anything to protect themselves. Wherever they are now, I bet you they're saying to themselves, "Damn! I wish I would've bought a gun." -- Hey, I warned you!
If you're reading this, and you're a liberal, and you're offended... well, I'm sorry you have no common sense. You can't wait for a tragedy to happen before acting. That's why I believe properly trained, qualified personnel (who are not police officers) should be allowed to carry a pistol into a school for the purpose of preventing school shootings. Just think, if guns had been allowed in schools, Colombine could've been prevented. Or at least the number of casualties.
A final point if I may. So you want to ban guns? OK. We will, as long as we ban knives, pens, pencils, baseball bats, bricks, screwdrivers, hammers, and any other items that could be used as a weapon. In fact, why not ban our hands? After all, some people's hands can be lethal weapons, especially if they have martial arts training.
No common sense.
So here's what I say to all the citizens living in the land of unicorns and pixies: KEEP YOUR HANDS OFF MY GUN, because if you try to take it, I might just have to protect myself...
Friday, March 16, 2012
I Rant, Therefore I Am
The people who know me well know I have one hell of a temper. Sometimes accompanying that temper is a verbal barrage of obscenities. You name it, I've probably said it.
You may be wondering where I'm going with this. Well, if you read my last blog about my confrontation with a pro-war capitalist (if there is such a thing) who adamantly and intelligently advocated his position, leaving me speechless and dumbfounded. I had no counter-argument, and that pissed me off! This guy threw everything but the kitchen sink at me. I brought a knife to a gun fight.
It wasn't my lack of debating skills that drew me to the boiling point, though. It was the fact that this jackass believed he was 100% right, and subtly worded his phrases to suggest I was a moron who didn't have a clue as to what I was arguing.
He pressed further though. He continued to imply that any veteran(s) who supported Ron Paul were invalid and didn't see the big picture of U.S. foreign policy. Temperature check: boiling!!!
Instead of responding in anger, I didn't respond at all. I figured I would be showing disrespect to a complete stranger by lashing out at him with obscene words and insults at the expense of my own feelings. Also, I've been advised that this could distort the message I'm trying to portray.
I've stewed about this all day. And it's due time for me to get something off of his chest. I don't care what people have to say; I don't care if you approve of my language or not. I want to express my feelings and I would appreciate your respect to my freedom of speech without getting overly offended at a few obscene words. Here it is:
First off, I would like to comment that I'm sick of all the bullshit terminology being used in regards to our service men and women deployed overseas. When I hear someone say that prayers our needed for the brave military defending our freedoms in Afghanistan, it makes me want to vomit. What freedoms are we defending? Weren't we free before committing troops into the region? Weren't we free when Clinton sent peacekeeping troops into Somalia? What about Bosnia? Weren't we free when the United States was involved in the quagmire known as the Vietnam War (which, by the way, was not a declared war)? What is this bullshit they are telling us? Freedoms? The only freedoms we are protecting is the corporations who make a profit from creating the weapons and equipment necessary to wage war. Nobody's freedom is being threatened from a country with no standing army. And don't for one second call the Taliban a standing army... that's horse shit.
Second off, why the fuck are a majority of Americans so stupid that they can't figure out what the hell is going on in our government? Recently, President Obama just signed into law a bill which makes protesting a felony. To be specific, it makes protesting in or near a building occupied by someone with secret-service protection a felony. Doesn't the First Amendment allow American citizens to petition its government for a redress of grievances? Doesn't it allow us to peaceably assemble? Yes, it does, but that right is now gone. Wake the fuck up, people!!! What are we doing? Do you think this is a game? The government is slowly stripping our rights, one amendment at a time, and there's not one single mention of this law in the mainstream media. None that I found at least.
Americans have become gullible idiots, buying into the fear that if we don't sacrifice our liberties another terrorist attack is going to happen. That's a lie. And if you're one of those morons that believe that, then I feel sorry that you can't think for yourself. I'm sorry that you drank the the toxic kool-aid.
Speaking of defending our liberties, this idea of "preventive war" or pre-emptive strikes is pushed heavily amongst conservatives. We're told it helps prevent another attack on American soil. So the American people buy it, and allow our military to invade and occupy a country which is a non-military threat. That includes Iraq. Can someone with half a brain please explain to me how one can prevent a war by starting one? Anyone?
We were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, yet none were found. But we went in anyways, much to the chagrin of our European allies. This all done in the name of "democracy". Now the story is that Iraq is a free society with free and fair elections. Yet on the final day of our withdrawal, the instability shows when a series of car bombings happen within the country. It's only a matter of time before things go back to what they used to be.
Afghanistan was not a military threat. No army, no air force, no navy. But we go in to hunt down and eradicate the enemy -- Al Qaeda. Ten years later, we're still there; still fighting. It would be highly inconvenient of me to forget to mention that within the past month or two, Korans were burned and a soldier snapped, walked into a village and murdered 16 innocent Afghan civilians. Ten years! No end in sight, and the only thing our military presence in the region has done is stir up a hornet's nest.
I'm sick of all the fucking war. I'm sick all the fucking spending. I'm sick of our government lying to us, and I'm sick of uninformed, ignorant American citizens who screw everybody else over because they're too fucking lazy to research something themselves. You people deserve everything you vote for! Poverty, war, a totalitarian government, a broken education system, welfare, racism, infanticide, inequality, etc.
Seriously, are people that stupid?
And whatever happened to religious freedom? That's why the pilgrims traveled thousands of miles on treacherous waters -- to escape religious persecution. Now this country is doing that by attempting to force Christian morality down everyone's throat. It makes me sick. What also disgusts me is that all Muslims are classified as extremists, hell bent on the destruction of America. The government claims that radical Islam is trying to destroy our way of life. But has anyone realized that Christianity is doing the same thing by interjecting itself into politics? By trying to pass morality through legislation? Allow me to break some wisdom: no law will change the morality of society. Only society can change its morality. That's why abortion will never be abolished. In order for that to happen, a truly moral society must exist, but we all know it won't.
You can't force morality through law, so there's no point in trying to. Conservatives believe that a philosophy of economic freedom, social conservatism, and an interventionist foreign policy is the proper course for the United States. They are wrong. Likewise, liberals believe that economic control and social progressivism is the only way to ensure equality. They are wrong, too. You can't have it both ways. You are either authoritarian or libertarian. You either want the government telling you what to do, or you want the government out of your lives.
This brings me to government spending and how it coincides with foreign policy. Currently, the United States spend a trillion dollars a year on military operations overseas. Don't get confused with defense spending. Defense does not constitute invasion. Defense does not mean going onto the offensive.
Anyways, conservatives bitch and moan about too much government spending. "Wahh! We need to stop or we'll go bankrupt." "Wahh! There's too much fiscal irresponsiblity in government!" Yet, when it comes to military spending, spending doesn't matter. It makes no sense. We could afford all the "entitlement" programs that are in danger of being insolvent if we simply cut the spending overseas! It's not that fucking hard.
Its blatant stupidity on the conservative side. Democrats can pretty much get Republicans to approve any budget by grabbing them by the nuts and threatening to cut military spending. Republicans give in, and nothing gets solved. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office came out today and stated that the President's budget will add $6.4 trillion to the national debt in a little over ten years. But the liberal outlet CNN said that this would be much less if certain Republican policies like the Bush tax cuts were extended. Is this supposed to make me feel better? Is it OK now since the Republicans would be more expensive? IT'S STILL $6.4 TRILLION!!! It shouldn't matter who's policies are cheaper... it adds to the debt!
But yet, come election time, American voters moronically pull the lever for the candidates who are least qualified to run this country. They say it's choosing between the better of two evils. That's an unfortunate truth. However, we do have third parties. No one said you have to vote for a Republican or Democrat. If you don't like those options, find something else. Never compromise your principles. If you don't like any option out there, then don't vote!!! You're just doing harm by voting for someone who will not serve this country's best interests.
Well... I think I'm done. I'm sure I missed some things I wanted to 'discuss', but there was so much running through my head that I couldn't possibly cover it all in one setting.
Please do not feel offended in any way if you are one of those individuals who actually takes the time to learn about the candidates and educate themselves on the issues that matter most to you. I just beg you to never compromise your principles and vote for a complete douche, like Romney.
You may be wondering where I'm going with this. Well, if you read my last blog about my confrontation with a pro-war capitalist (if there is such a thing) who adamantly and intelligently advocated his position, leaving me speechless and dumbfounded. I had no counter-argument, and that pissed me off! This guy threw everything but the kitchen sink at me. I brought a knife to a gun fight.
It wasn't my lack of debating skills that drew me to the boiling point, though. It was the fact that this jackass believed he was 100% right, and subtly worded his phrases to suggest I was a moron who didn't have a clue as to what I was arguing.
He pressed further though. He continued to imply that any veteran(s) who supported Ron Paul were invalid and didn't see the big picture of U.S. foreign policy. Temperature check: boiling!!!
Instead of responding in anger, I didn't respond at all. I figured I would be showing disrespect to a complete stranger by lashing out at him with obscene words and insults at the expense of my own feelings. Also, I've been advised that this could distort the message I'm trying to portray.
I've stewed about this all day. And it's due time for me to get something off of his chest. I don't care what people have to say; I don't care if you approve of my language or not. I want to express my feelings and I would appreciate your respect to my freedom of speech without getting overly offended at a few obscene words. Here it is:
First off, I would like to comment that I'm sick of all the bullshit terminology being used in regards to our service men and women deployed overseas. When I hear someone say that prayers our needed for the brave military defending our freedoms in Afghanistan, it makes me want to vomit. What freedoms are we defending? Weren't we free before committing troops into the region? Weren't we free when Clinton sent peacekeeping troops into Somalia? What about Bosnia? Weren't we free when the United States was involved in the quagmire known as the Vietnam War (which, by the way, was not a declared war)? What is this bullshit they are telling us? Freedoms? The only freedoms we are protecting is the corporations who make a profit from creating the weapons and equipment necessary to wage war. Nobody's freedom is being threatened from a country with no standing army. And don't for one second call the Taliban a standing army... that's horse shit.
Second off, why the fuck are a majority of Americans so stupid that they can't figure out what the hell is going on in our government? Recently, President Obama just signed into law a bill which makes protesting a felony. To be specific, it makes protesting in or near a building occupied by someone with secret-service protection a felony. Doesn't the First Amendment allow American citizens to petition its government for a redress of grievances? Doesn't it allow us to peaceably assemble? Yes, it does, but that right is now gone. Wake the fuck up, people!!! What are we doing? Do you think this is a game? The government is slowly stripping our rights, one amendment at a time, and there's not one single mention of this law in the mainstream media. None that I found at least.
Americans have become gullible idiots, buying into the fear that if we don't sacrifice our liberties another terrorist attack is going to happen. That's a lie. And if you're one of those morons that believe that, then I feel sorry that you can't think for yourself. I'm sorry that you drank the the toxic kool-aid.
Speaking of defending our liberties, this idea of "preventive war" or pre-emptive strikes is pushed heavily amongst conservatives. We're told it helps prevent another attack on American soil. So the American people buy it, and allow our military to invade and occupy a country which is a non-military threat. That includes Iraq. Can someone with half a brain please explain to me how one can prevent a war by starting one? Anyone?
We were told that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, yet none were found. But we went in anyways, much to the chagrin of our European allies. This all done in the name of "democracy". Now the story is that Iraq is a free society with free and fair elections. Yet on the final day of our withdrawal, the instability shows when a series of car bombings happen within the country. It's only a matter of time before things go back to what they used to be.
Afghanistan was not a military threat. No army, no air force, no navy. But we go in to hunt down and eradicate the enemy -- Al Qaeda. Ten years later, we're still there; still fighting. It would be highly inconvenient of me to forget to mention that within the past month or two, Korans were burned and a soldier snapped, walked into a village and murdered 16 innocent Afghan civilians. Ten years! No end in sight, and the only thing our military presence in the region has done is stir up a hornet's nest.
I'm sick of all the fucking war. I'm sick all the fucking spending. I'm sick of our government lying to us, and I'm sick of uninformed, ignorant American citizens who screw everybody else over because they're too fucking lazy to research something themselves. You people deserve everything you vote for! Poverty, war, a totalitarian government, a broken education system, welfare, racism, infanticide, inequality, etc.
Seriously, are people that stupid?
And whatever happened to religious freedom? That's why the pilgrims traveled thousands of miles on treacherous waters -- to escape religious persecution. Now this country is doing that by attempting to force Christian morality down everyone's throat. It makes me sick. What also disgusts me is that all Muslims are classified as extremists, hell bent on the destruction of America. The government claims that radical Islam is trying to destroy our way of life. But has anyone realized that Christianity is doing the same thing by interjecting itself into politics? By trying to pass morality through legislation? Allow me to break some wisdom: no law will change the morality of society. Only society can change its morality. That's why abortion will never be abolished. In order for that to happen, a truly moral society must exist, but we all know it won't.
You can't force morality through law, so there's no point in trying to. Conservatives believe that a philosophy of economic freedom, social conservatism, and an interventionist foreign policy is the proper course for the United States. They are wrong. Likewise, liberals believe that economic control and social progressivism is the only way to ensure equality. They are wrong, too. You can't have it both ways. You are either authoritarian or libertarian. You either want the government telling you what to do, or you want the government out of your lives.
This brings me to government spending and how it coincides with foreign policy. Currently, the United States spend a trillion dollars a year on military operations overseas. Don't get confused with defense spending. Defense does not constitute invasion. Defense does not mean going onto the offensive.
Anyways, conservatives bitch and moan about too much government spending. "Wahh! We need to stop or we'll go bankrupt." "Wahh! There's too much fiscal irresponsiblity in government!" Yet, when it comes to military spending, spending doesn't matter. It makes no sense. We could afford all the "entitlement" programs that are in danger of being insolvent if we simply cut the spending overseas! It's not that fucking hard.
Its blatant stupidity on the conservative side. Democrats can pretty much get Republicans to approve any budget by grabbing them by the nuts and threatening to cut military spending. Republicans give in, and nothing gets solved. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office came out today and stated that the President's budget will add $6.4 trillion to the national debt in a little over ten years. But the liberal outlet CNN said that this would be much less if certain Republican policies like the Bush tax cuts were extended. Is this supposed to make me feel better? Is it OK now since the Republicans would be more expensive? IT'S STILL $6.4 TRILLION!!! It shouldn't matter who's policies are cheaper... it adds to the debt!
But yet, come election time, American voters moronically pull the lever for the candidates who are least qualified to run this country. They say it's choosing between the better of two evils. That's an unfortunate truth. However, we do have third parties. No one said you have to vote for a Republican or Democrat. If you don't like those options, find something else. Never compromise your principles. If you don't like any option out there, then don't vote!!! You're just doing harm by voting for someone who will not serve this country's best interests.
Well... I think I'm done. I'm sure I missed some things I wanted to 'discuss', but there was so much running through my head that I couldn't possibly cover it all in one setting.
Please do not feel offended in any way if you are one of those individuals who actually takes the time to learn about the candidates and educate themselves on the issues that matter most to you. I just beg you to never compromise your principles and vote for a complete douche, like Romney.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Pro-War Capitalists? Believe It Or Not, They're Out There...
Debating someone over their illogical and blind support of war propaganda fires me up! It's even better when advocates of an interventionist foreign policy call themselves capitalists. It's a contradiction to everything capitalism stands for -- economic freedom; not just for the individual, but for the country adopting free market principles. So what does that mean?
For starters, it means government grants private property rights, an essential liberty required for capitalism to work. After all, capital is anything that can be used to make a profit, and that includes land.
Secondly, it means minimal government intervention in the economy. I say minimal because their should be specific regulations for corporations to prevent corruption and monopolies. Fundamental capitalism encourages competition.
Third, in addition to limited government, it means a low level of overall government spending and taxation. This includes military spending. I urge you not to get confused with defense spending, which is a necessary expense to protect the liberty of our citizens. However, when a country spends trillions of dollars to promote empire expansion across the globe, it does nothing to foster a positive economic environment. In fact, deficit spending in anything, not just military, threatens the very liberty we are told is being preserved by invading Afghanistan.
Allow me to post for you the discussion I had with a group called "American Capitalists" on Facebook. To my initial surprise, the founder of the page responded to my post. Here's the original post:
For starters, it means government grants private property rights, an essential liberty required for capitalism to work. After all, capital is anything that can be used to make a profit, and that includes land.
Secondly, it means minimal government intervention in the economy. I say minimal because their should be specific regulations for corporations to prevent corruption and monopolies. Fundamental capitalism encourages competition.
Third, in addition to limited government, it means a low level of overall government spending and taxation. This includes military spending. I urge you not to get confused with defense spending, which is a necessary expense to protect the liberty of our citizens. However, when a country spends trillions of dollars to promote empire expansion across the globe, it does nothing to foster a positive economic environment. In fact, deficit spending in anything, not just military, threatens the very liberty we are told is being preserved by invading Afghanistan.
Allow me to post for you the discussion I had with a group called "American Capitalists" on Facebook. To my initial surprise, the founder of the page responded to my post. Here's the original post:
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
What NOT to do when giving a speech...
I love watching CNN's political coverage because they have this knack of breaking down Barney-style the ins and outs of running a legitimate campaign. Nevermind that CNN is part of the gaggle of liberal media outlets who are in bed with the President. I just like their coverage.
What I was particulary fond of tonight was the analysis after Newt Gingrich's speech in his home state of Georgia, which he won decisively. The name of the analyst slips my mind, but he made a great observation. He said that Gingrich's speech was an example of what not to do when running a campaign. His mistake: portraying himself in a much more signficant light than the voters.
For example, Gingrich noted that he was Speaker of the House during his congressional career. He also noted a slew of other "accomplishments" but failed once to acknowledge the voter as valuable. It was about "I did this" and "I did that".
Barack Obama's campaign did the exact opposite. His message of "Yes We Can" and underlying rhetoric that "we are the change we've been waiting for" gained him the nomination and, eventually, the presidency. We - not I. It's that simple.
So what does this mean for Gingrich? I don't know. Whether it will have any affect on voters will remain to be seen. But it is a very interesting observation. I suppose that's why I so adamantly support Ron Paul. He's a guy that continues to remind me that the message of liberty cannot be spread without me; without others. He seems to truly value my vote and my support. He gives me a reason. A reason to be energized; to type this blog (despite lack of readers); to become enraged at the status quo; to scold American voters for settling for less when we can fight for more. At a time when America's future is threatened, we need a leader; not a puppet. We need a motivator; not a discourager. We need an innovator; not a stagnator. Finally, we need a president; not a clown.
Whoevers message it may be that gets your adrenaline pumping, go out in full force, ready and willing to kick down doors to persuade others about your support for candidate. Let your voice be heard.
What I was particulary fond of tonight was the analysis after Newt Gingrich's speech in his home state of Georgia, which he won decisively. The name of the analyst slips my mind, but he made a great observation. He said that Gingrich's speech was an example of what not to do when running a campaign. His mistake: portraying himself in a much more signficant light than the voters.
For example, Gingrich noted that he was Speaker of the House during his congressional career. He also noted a slew of other "accomplishments" but failed once to acknowledge the voter as valuable. It was about "I did this" and "I did that".
Barack Obama's campaign did the exact opposite. His message of "Yes We Can" and underlying rhetoric that "we are the change we've been waiting for" gained him the nomination and, eventually, the presidency. We - not I. It's that simple.
So what does this mean for Gingrich? I don't know. Whether it will have any affect on voters will remain to be seen. But it is a very interesting observation. I suppose that's why I so adamantly support Ron Paul. He's a guy that continues to remind me that the message of liberty cannot be spread without me; without others. He seems to truly value my vote and my support. He gives me a reason. A reason to be energized; to type this blog (despite lack of readers); to become enraged at the status quo; to scold American voters for settling for less when we can fight for more. At a time when America's future is threatened, we need a leader; not a puppet. We need a motivator; not a discourager. We need an innovator; not a stagnator. Finally, we need a president; not a clown.
Whoevers message it may be that gets your adrenaline pumping, go out in full force, ready and willing to kick down doors to persuade others about your support for candidate. Let your voice be heard.
Why the Republican Party may not win in November
I've heard it repeated over and over again, "Anyone but Obama!" We got that the first time, and by we I mean the intelligent voters who don't fall on deaf ears by hanging on to every single word the media tells them. Is it really possible that mainstream Republicans are as stupid as Democrats make them out to be? It seems so because the "anyone but Obama" platform isn't turning on many voters... at least the ones that matter.
Independents are going to play a key role in this election. One would think the Republicans are focused on getting their vote. However, the Republican Party really has no message that Americans can get behind. I understand the party is upset that Barack Obama is president and they want to defeat him. But isn't every party's objective to regain power? The goal of any party is to gain the power necessary to push your agenda. So the platform "anyone but Obama" doesn't work so well.
There is an inherent flaw by running on the notion of "anyone but Obama". It is the question of if the American people are willing to elect another inexperienced, unqualified candidate to the White House who could end up being much worse for the country. Republicans are, in essence, telling voters to look for the guy who can best beat Obama.
"Don't worry about moral character. Just put a Republican in the White House and we promise everything will get better".
But I ask: What happened to this country that we push character aside just to defeat a sitting president? What will become of this nation when promote electability over character and qualifications?
Let's face the facts, people. The Republican Party must change its message...quickly!!! The Democrats are sitting back and calculating their strategy; comparing the strength of their platform to the Republicans; laughing while doing so. This will be a cake walk for them, and a tragedy for the GOP.
So, I have proposed the following outline for the Republican Party. It doesn't go into great detail, but it shouldn't matter because I believe the talking points are pretty self-explanatory.
1) Energy independence
2) Cut government spending
3) Paying down the national debt
4) Cut taxes for low-income and middle class familes
5) Access to quality healthcare
6) Secure borders
7) Fight terrorism domestically, not abroad
8) End overseas combat operations
I could go on all night, but these are some things the party should highlight. Especially the energy situation. Rising gas prices are in the national spotlight. It's an opportunity for Republicans to highlight their plan for solving the energy 'crisis' while criticizing the Obama administration's attempt to aggressively force alternative energy down our throats. The GOP needs to separate themselves from the Democrats as much as possible. "Anyone but Obama" just doesn't do that.
This is a call to the Republican Party... wake up! If you're serious about winning this election, fine tune your message. Give voters a reason to vote. Not for the Democrats (which is what will happen if nothing is done), but for you! Rally your supporters... Beat the battle drums... If you want to take this country back, let the people use their voice!
Independents are going to play a key role in this election. One would think the Republicans are focused on getting their vote. However, the Republican Party really has no message that Americans can get behind. I understand the party is upset that Barack Obama is president and they want to defeat him. But isn't every party's objective to regain power? The goal of any party is to gain the power necessary to push your agenda. So the platform "anyone but Obama" doesn't work so well.
There is an inherent flaw by running on the notion of "anyone but Obama". It is the question of if the American people are willing to elect another inexperienced, unqualified candidate to the White House who could end up being much worse for the country. Republicans are, in essence, telling voters to look for the guy who can best beat Obama.
"Don't worry about moral character. Just put a Republican in the White House and we promise everything will get better".
But I ask: What happened to this country that we push character aside just to defeat a sitting president? What will become of this nation when promote electability over character and qualifications?
Let's face the facts, people. The Republican Party must change its message...quickly!!! The Democrats are sitting back and calculating their strategy; comparing the strength of their platform to the Republicans; laughing while doing so. This will be a cake walk for them, and a tragedy for the GOP.
So, I have proposed the following outline for the Republican Party. It doesn't go into great detail, but it shouldn't matter because I believe the talking points are pretty self-explanatory.
1) Energy independence
2) Cut government spending
3) Paying down the national debt
4) Cut taxes for low-income and middle class familes
5) Access to quality healthcare
6) Secure borders
7) Fight terrorism domestically, not abroad
8) End overseas combat operations
I could go on all night, but these are some things the party should highlight. Especially the energy situation. Rising gas prices are in the national spotlight. It's an opportunity for Republicans to highlight their plan for solving the energy 'crisis' while criticizing the Obama administration's attempt to aggressively force alternative energy down our throats. The GOP needs to separate themselves from the Democrats as much as possible. "Anyone but Obama" just doesn't do that.
This is a call to the Republican Party... wake up! If you're serious about winning this election, fine tune your message. Give voters a reason to vote. Not for the Democrats (which is what will happen if nothing is done), but for you! Rally your supporters... Beat the battle drums... If you want to take this country back, let the people use their voice!
Friday, March 2, 2012
Free Market and Regulation
"Stop the regulation!" That's what Huffington Post writer Mike Whalen writes in regards to President Obama's claim that he's "approved fewer regulations in the first three years of [his] presidency than [President Bush] did in his" (Whalen, 2012).
In fact, Whalen writes that the Competitive Enterprise Institute found that the president issued 953 regulations in his first three years compared to the previous administration, which only issued 30 (Whalen).
However, Whalen makes the comment that he is not anti-regulation. He says that he "absolutely recognizes its importance in preventing exploitative and dangerous activities..." (Whalen). I agree. The purpose of a regulation should be to prevent corruption, ensuring that businesses do not take advantage of the consumer. But when businesses are required to follow regulations that seem to make no sense, for instance, building and installing a handicap bathroom for disabled employees at a company where disabled workers are restricted from working, a company is coerced to allocate funds for dispensable purposes Also, the strict environmental regulations enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) puts the interests of the minority (environmentalists) ahead of the small business owner.
Don't get me wrong. It is important to protect our environment, especially here in the great state of Michigan, where the Great Lakes, forests, and state parks are a big priority. The problem that arises with regulation is that government tends to over reach its boundaries. Although the intentions may be noble, the results are not.
How can our government help small businesses AND protect the environment? For one, a carefully balanced ideology of economic and environmental policies must be emphasized. No economic policies should allow the willful and malicious destruction of our environment. Having said that, any environmental regulations should be measured by the potential strain they place on small businesses.
My explanation may come across as confusing, but it's really not. Simply, the government should not be involved with enforcing environmental regulations. That responsibility lies on the shoulders of private sector companies and organizations to find free-market solutions to any environmental problems. In accordance to this philosophy, the EPA should be eliminated.
As for economic regulations, the sole purpose of federal government interference in the free market is to prevent monopolies. Monopolies destroy the capitalist tradition of competition. Without it, consumers don't have a choice, and always get stuck paying high prices for common items. Competition works best because the market (consumers) will dictate which companies fail and which succeed.
Additionally, excessive regulation of the economy does not bode well for small businesses. Large corporations usually have the money to adhere to federal regulations, whereas small businesses don't. By enforcing redundant regulations, the government unconsciously creates monopolies. Also, when a smaller company cannot comply with certain regulations, penalties occur through fines, taxes, or both.
Since I'm on the topic of government involvement in the economy, there is another, much less publicized means of negatively affecting American industries. It's called a subsidy. A subsidy is a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like. Many of you may believe there generally is nothing wrong with subsidizing a hurting industry, say, the auto industry. But what many of you may fail to realize is a subsidy is, in essence, the government choosing a specific industry over another. Basically, picking winners and losers. That's why the term "too big to fail" gets tossed around quite a bit in the media. And that's exactly what happened with GM.
The auto bailout was probably one of the largest "subsidies", along with the Wall Street bailout, ever paid out by the government. Essentially, I see a subsidy as a bailout because an industry that needs government support to stay afloat deserves not to. Despite my adamant (un)support of Republican candidate Mitt Romney, he got it right when he said that GM should've gone through a "managed bankruptcy". The free market had spoken. However, the government undermined the market and decided to prop them up.
The reason why GM struggled is due to poor management. The company did nothing to adjust to global competition, continued to fold to UAW demands -- which required higher wages for its employees -- and subsequently, had inflated prices on their vehicles due to inflated wages within the company. I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay $30,000+ for a new truck, when I could get a Toyota for much cheaper. GM should've been allowed to fail, go through bankruptcy, and reorganize and come out stronger because of it.
The same goes for the Wall Street banks. But many argue that there wasn't enough regulation within the banking system causing the near collapse. Maybe so, but yet again, the government intervened and "subsidized" a failing industry. Would it have created an economic collapse? It's possible. But smaller, more viable banks would've picked up the slack, effectively replacing the fallen financial institutions.
Excessive, overbearing and extraneous regulations do nothing but hurt small businesses, while the larger multi-billion dollar corporations and their CEOs continue to rake in profits at their expense. The Congress and the Obama administration need to begin the process of rolling back the regulations that weigh down the American economy so we can start restoring the American dream. Unless we do so, the future prosperity of the United Sates is exceedingly threatened.
REFERENCES:
Whalen, Mike. Stop the Regulation! March 1, 2012. Retrieved Mar 2, 2012 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/job-creators-alliance/obama-regulations_b_1307849.html
In fact, Whalen writes that the Competitive Enterprise Institute found that the president issued 953 regulations in his first three years compared to the previous administration, which only issued 30 (Whalen).
However, Whalen makes the comment that he is not anti-regulation. He says that he "absolutely recognizes its importance in preventing exploitative and dangerous activities..." (Whalen). I agree. The purpose of a regulation should be to prevent corruption, ensuring that businesses do not take advantage of the consumer. But when businesses are required to follow regulations that seem to make no sense, for instance, building and installing a handicap bathroom for disabled employees at a company where disabled workers are restricted from working, a company is coerced to allocate funds for dispensable purposes Also, the strict environmental regulations enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) puts the interests of the minority (environmentalists) ahead of the small business owner.
Don't get me wrong. It is important to protect our environment, especially here in the great state of Michigan, where the Great Lakes, forests, and state parks are a big priority. The problem that arises with regulation is that government tends to over reach its boundaries. Although the intentions may be noble, the results are not.
How can our government help small businesses AND protect the environment? For one, a carefully balanced ideology of economic and environmental policies must be emphasized. No economic policies should allow the willful and malicious destruction of our environment. Having said that, any environmental regulations should be measured by the potential strain they place on small businesses.
As for economic regulations, the sole purpose of federal government interference in the free market is to prevent monopolies. Monopolies destroy the capitalist tradition of competition. Without it, consumers don't have a choice, and always get stuck paying high prices for common items. Competition works best because the market (consumers) will dictate which companies fail and which succeed.
Additionally, excessive regulation of the economy does not bode well for small businesses. Large corporations usually have the money to adhere to federal regulations, whereas small businesses don't. By enforcing redundant regulations, the government unconsciously creates monopolies. Also, when a smaller company cannot comply with certain regulations, penalties occur through fines, taxes, or both.
Since I'm on the topic of government involvement in the economy, there is another, much less publicized means of negatively affecting American industries. It's called a subsidy. A subsidy is a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organization, or the like. Many of you may believe there generally is nothing wrong with subsidizing a hurting industry, say, the auto industry. But what many of you may fail to realize is a subsidy is, in essence, the government choosing a specific industry over another. Basically, picking winners and losers. That's why the term "too big to fail" gets tossed around quite a bit in the media. And that's exactly what happened with GM.
The reason why GM struggled is due to poor management. The company did nothing to adjust to global competition, continued to fold to UAW demands -- which required higher wages for its employees -- and subsequently, had inflated prices on their vehicles due to inflated wages within the company. I don't know about you, but I don't want to pay $30,000+ for a new truck, when I could get a Toyota for much cheaper. GM should've been allowed to fail, go through bankruptcy, and reorganize and come out stronger because of it.
Excessive, overbearing and extraneous regulations do nothing but hurt small businesses, while the larger multi-billion dollar corporations and their CEOs continue to rake in profits at their expense. The Congress and the Obama administration need to begin the process of rolling back the regulations that weigh down the American economy so we can start restoring the American dream. Unless we do so, the future prosperity of the United Sates is exceedingly threatened.
REFERENCES:
Whalen, Mike. Stop the Regulation! March 1, 2012. Retrieved Mar 2, 2012 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/job-creators-alliance/obama-regulations_b_1307849.html
Solution to rising gas prices
So, gas prices are at $3.99/gallon -- at least here in Michigan. Woe is us. The question now is what do we (and by we I mean our 'leaders') about it? Does the government take control of the gas companies and force them to lower prices? Or do we allow them the freedom to manipulate the public?
Do we drill for more oil and use it domestically instead of selling it to China and India? Or do we restrict drilling and force Americans to pay higher prices at the pump in order to push alternative energy? Well, the Obama administration and the Department of Energy are doing exactly that.
The website Politico published an article stating the Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is not "working to lower gasoline prices directly", all in an effort to promote energy alternatives like bio fuels and electric cars (Guillen, 2012).
Overall, I have no problem with alternative energy. However, when a government institutes a policy of 'shut up and deal with it', I have something to fuss about.
Allowing gas prices to rise in an economic recession to promote an agenda is political suicide. I don't care what political beliefs you hold, no one wants to pay $5/gallon, which is what some experts say they could hit in the summer.
If you argue otherwise... well, I encourage you to ride your bike to work because you'll go broke driving.
In fact, rising gas prices will create a domino effect everywhere else. For example, delivery companies will need to raise shipping costs in order to make up for the losses paying for diesel. In turn, when retail stores pay more for shipping costs, they must raise prices to prevent a loss of profit. This is evident in rising food prices. Those who are hurt the most are not the businesses, although they will suffer as a result. Consumers, like me and you, suffer. When we suffer, businesses suffer. And when businesses suffer, the economy does.
It's like clockwork. Each gear sets in motion another, which then sets in motion another, and so forth. Gas prices are just the beginning. But we can alleviate the pressure if we as citizens petition our government and our elected officials to do the following:
1) Reduce restrictions on offshore drilling so as to become energy independent. No more foreign oil!
2) Government needs to provide incentives for oil companies to lower gas prices. This would work hand-in-hand if condition #1 is agreed to.
3) Stop the selling of domestic oil to foreign countries until our energy problem has been solved. We need all the oil we can get.
4) Finally, the government should create the environment where private companies can research alternative sources of energy, free from government control and manipulation. Green energy is fine, as long as the free market produces it.
These are just simple solutions to an ever-increasing problem. Something needs to be done immediately, and the list above is one place we can start.
REFERENCES:
Guillen, Alex. Chu: DOE working to wean U.S. off oil, not lower prices. February 28,2012. Retrieved March 2, 2012 from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73408.html
Do we drill for more oil and use it domestically instead of selling it to China and India? Or do we restrict drilling and force Americans to pay higher prices at the pump in order to push alternative energy? Well, the Obama administration and the Department of Energy are doing exactly that.
The website Politico published an article stating the Secretary of Energy Steven Chu is not "working to lower gasoline prices directly", all in an effort to promote energy alternatives like bio fuels and electric cars (Guillen, 2012).
Overall, I have no problem with alternative energy. However, when a government institutes a policy of 'shut up and deal with it', I have something to fuss about.
Allowing gas prices to rise in an economic recession to promote an agenda is political suicide. I don't care what political beliefs you hold, no one wants to pay $5/gallon, which is what some experts say they could hit in the summer.
If you argue otherwise... well, I encourage you to ride your bike to work because you'll go broke driving.
In fact, rising gas prices will create a domino effect everywhere else. For example, delivery companies will need to raise shipping costs in order to make up for the losses paying for diesel. In turn, when retail stores pay more for shipping costs, they must raise prices to prevent a loss of profit. This is evident in rising food prices. Those who are hurt the most are not the businesses, although they will suffer as a result. Consumers, like me and you, suffer. When we suffer, businesses suffer. And when businesses suffer, the economy does.
It's like clockwork. Each gear sets in motion another, which then sets in motion another, and so forth. Gas prices are just the beginning. But we can alleviate the pressure if we as citizens petition our government and our elected officials to do the following:
1) Reduce restrictions on offshore drilling so as to become energy independent. No more foreign oil!
2) Government needs to provide incentives for oil companies to lower gas prices. This would work hand-in-hand if condition #1 is agreed to.
3) Stop the selling of domestic oil to foreign countries until our energy problem has been solved. We need all the oil we can get.
4) Finally, the government should create the environment where private companies can research alternative sources of energy, free from government control and manipulation. Green energy is fine, as long as the free market produces it.
These are just simple solutions to an ever-increasing problem. Something needs to be done immediately, and the list above is one place we can start.
REFERENCES:
Guillen, Alex. Chu: DOE working to wean U.S. off oil, not lower prices. February 28,2012. Retrieved March 2, 2012 from http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/73408.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)