FedEx vs. Government Bureaucracy (By Dustin)

Thanks for this video Steve!  I think Newt makes a few funny yet poignant points about government's ability to manage its systems. Lets examine a few: Welfare...check; tax code (one of the most complicated in the world)...check; Katrina...check; CIA intelligence...check. Next up healthcare. 

Let Freedom Reign! (by Dustin)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling struck down the District of Columbia's ban on handguns.  For many this is a win; I'm not so sure.  I think it is a win from the stand point of upholding the constitution and allowing individuals the opportunity to protect themselves in their homes. Its scares me because of the potential abuses and violence that could arise (all though I did read something about gun violence going up after D.C. started the ban).  To be honest, I have not had time to research this ruling because of work but thought it would be fun to discuss.

What are your thoughts?  Is this ruling good or bad for America?

For your enjoyment:

Why I'd Vote for Obama (by Cody)

In one of the comments Jeff asked why I would vote for Obama; and so I will attempt to explain briefly . But first, I need to clarify something; I'm not an Obama fanatic. I don't put stickers on my car, wear a button on my shirt, go to rallies and scream like Justin Timberlake just took off his shirt. I would vote for him, not swoon for him. At this point in the general I'm still all ears. I want to hear what McCain has to say as much as Obama. I still have the lingering question for Obama- Will there be any substance? or merely great speeches?

I will point out three reasons why I like Obama:

1. The first reason is an ideological one. I believe Obama understands our pluralistic society and religions role in it. Or at least he understands it 'differently' than other politicians. For years the religious right hijacked the political sphere for evangelicals, I grew up thinking that to be Christian is to vote Republican. To me, Obama gets the fact that peoples faith is important but it has been used a tool of division in the past; and I would hope that he would be all ears to other faiths in our nation and not just create a religious left. In 2006 Obama gave a speech at the Call to Renewal conference. He said;


...Because when we ignore the debate about what it means to be a good Christian or Muslim or Jew; when we discuss religion only in the negative sense of where or how it should not be practiced, rather than in the positive sense of what it tells us about our obligations towards one another; when we shy away from religious venues and religious broadcasts because we assume that we will be unwelcome - others will fill the vacuum, those with the most insular views of faith, or those who cynically use religion to justify partisan ends. In other words, if we don't reach out to evangelical Christians and other religious Americans and tell them what we stand for, then the Jerry Falwells and Pat Robertsons and Alan Keyeses will continue to hold sway.

I agree with what he said about religion telling us what our obligations towards one another are. Our individualism has cause many horrors in our nation in regards to poverty and education. I think that good religion can show us that we are stronger together rather than apart. I think Obama get this.

Now, I'm not going to get into what Dobson said yesterday about this speech- another time. My only point with this first reason is to say that I think that Obama would see the value and the good taking place in the religious activity of our nation (Jew, Muslim, Christian...)


2. My second reason is because I believe Obama has the 'possibility' to bring some creativity to the White House. Again, I am still waiting to see what that creativity is going to look like and if his wonderful speeches are just that-wonderful speeches. There is an new kind of energy about Obama that hasnt been seen since Kennedy. The fact that he is running has already changed the conversation. The area that I'm hoping for the most creativity in is education. The goal of NCLB was a good one but no one paid for it. Schools were given expectations and then no money or resources came. I think that Obama could bring fresh ideas to the education of this country, rather than just coming up with new expectations and then throwing a standarized test at the schools.

3. Finally, I would vote for Obama because of a fundamental difference between him and McCain. The difference comes down to letting the Market solve the problem vs. a Government policy/program. Now dont get me wrong, the Market is good to solve many things (the housing crisis possibly?) but I'm not comfortable putting poverty and our energy crisis in the hands of the Market alone. Example: When the U.S. was attempting to be the first to the moon Kennedy didnt make an announcement and say; "300 million dollars to the first American on the moon". No, he put the full force of the government behind it and made it a reality. Now, I'm trying to get into the whole what use it NASA anyway debate. I think that when good government (I can see the cynics cringing) gets behind an issue, say poverty, I think that some good things can happen. My hope it that Obama can put some energy and traction behind allieviating poverty, education, the environment and so on.

I know that my more conservative friends will have much to say about all of this. This might actually be a good way to see who the best candidate would be; anyone up for writing someting on McCain?

Alternative Fuel and The Election

The New York Times has an article on Obama's ties to the Ethanol industry and for me its a disappointment. I like Obama and have supported him since the primaries but I cringe at his ties and stance to ethanol; to me its not a creative progressive stance on renewable energy.

According to the article it turns out that Obama's chief environmental/energy advisor is Jason Grumet. Grumet used to work for the agribusiness conglomerate Archer Daniels Midland. This business is like the Wal-Mart of farming business; they do not help local farming, they diminish it. If Obama is offering change in Washington, I'm missing where that change is going to take place. To me this is the same old buddy buddy between big business and the smiling politician. If this is who he chooses as a energy policy advisor I am terrified to think who he might choose for his foreign policy advisor; Eric Prince maybe? (President of Blackwater security)

Many economists and environmental groups have shown that ethanol is not as energy efficient as we have been led to believe. It produces less than two units of energy for every unit it takes to produce it (corn ethanol). Not only is it minimaly efficient it has driven the price of corn up, thus again diminishing local farming. Jason Furman, Obama's economic advisor said Mr. Obama’s stance on ethanol was based on its merits. “That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward,” Mr. Furman said. What merits? How is the 'common American' that he is supposedly representing benefiting from his affair with Agribusiness?

Brazil has been producing ethanol from sugar cane and it has been highly proficient. The Times says, Corn ethanol generates less than two units of energy for every unit of energy used to produce it, while the energy ratio for sugar cane is more than 8 to 1. With lower production costs and cheaper land prices in the tropical countries where it is grown, sugar cane is a more efficient source. We import some of Brazil's sugar based ethanol but there is a tariff on it. This tariff makes it expensive for the average consumer and thus impractical for wide spread use. Economist C. Ford Runge offers this solution;

“If you want to take some of the pressure off this market, the obvious thing to do is lower that tariff and let some Brazilian ethanol come in,” said C. Ford Runge, an economist specializing in commodities and trade policy at the Center for International Food and Agricultural Policy at the University of Minnesota. “But one of the fundamental reasons biofuels policy is so out of whack with markets and reality is that interest group politics have been so dominant in the construction of the subsidies that support it.”

So, there you have it, the general election has begun and we are in the same place we always are. I will say, McCain's Let's Make a Deal offer to the first one to find a good battery is more creative but COME ON! What's next, free subway for life for anyone who has a great solution for Iraq?

DRILL BABY, DRILL! (By Dustin)

I heard this interview on NPR this morning and found it very interesting.  I've been arguing for more oil production as a solution to high gas prices and assumed refineries were also needed.  Mr. Deffeyes makes a compelling argument for more oil production but NOT for building more refineries.  It's very interesting.

Would the construction of new refineries help to lower fuel prices?

"It won't do a thing," says geologist Ken Deffeyes, author ofBeyond Oil: The View from Hubbert's Peak. The problem, he says, is not a lack of refining capabilities but a shortage of crude oil to be refined.

"Building more refineries won't make crude oil appear at the entry side of the refinery," says Deffeyes.

Additionally, he notes that while the U.S. has not built a new refinery in decades, oil companies have added increased capabilities to existing refineries. "We haven't seen oil piling up on the dock waiting to go to the refineries," he notes.

The focus, he says, should be on the lack of crude oil, and he says that problem won't go away. "If world oil production is not increasing — and in fact seems to be in the process of decreasing — you need fewer refineries, not more refineries," he says.

Read or listen to the full article here: 

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91625440

Individual Freedom vs Propaganda (By Dustin)

As I plunge headlong at the disgrace of my wife and friend Cody, into my diatribe about U.S. seat belt enforcement and my disappointment in citizen response to this Gestapo-esque government agenda, I feel the need to explain my political perspective on this issue. I am a self-described political moderate / independent, with a bent for conservatism and libertarianism. Both bents are philosophically opposed to totalitarianism, which translates in American politics as large or "big" government. My short definition of conservatism and libertarianism is an extreme over simplification but frames the forthcoming points.

I can be very divisive when it comes to seatbelt enforcement.  I truly don't understand why this is an area the government needs to regulate. To me, seatbelt enforcement is a waste of tax payer money (or maybe it's a great local government money maker with revenues derived from tickets), a distraction for the police, and an over reach of government power. I know, I know, it's about "protecting" the citizens.  After all, Americans are too stupid to think for themselves.  If the government really wants to save lives why not focus on fast food? Last time I checked, cardiovascular disease was the top killer of U.S. citizens.  Yet, I have never seen an ad posed at regulating the consumption of fast food on a national level. And I certainly have not seen a government-funded campaign like that of seatbelt enforcement.  Has anyone received a ticket for eating fast food!

I have recently seen two ads on TV regarding this issue of seat belts. One is a general PA and the other is for enforcement awareness. The general PA is not government-funded but the enforcement ad is.  Take a look:

American "Gestapo" Ad: 

Seatbelt Promotional:

Bravo to the director of the seat belt promo ad; he or she should get an award.  And by the way, you'll get no argument from me that wearing a seat belt is smart and can save one's life.  In fact, I'll require my child to were a seat belt and will model this behavior myself.  But I'm not arguing seat belt safety or effectiveness.  I'm frustrated because "Big Brother" is wasting money forcing adult tax payers to wear them; regardless of their personal choice. I totally support mandated protect for children as baby's don't know any better.  But adults should have the right - in my view - to choose seat belt or no seat belt without government reprisal. 

Again, why is the government regulating this and where does it end? I love the liberals who fight for laws like seat belt enforcement.  They fight for the rights of one group, while critizing and removing the rights of another; all in the name of "protection".

Questions:

1 - What is the purpose / value from a government perspective to enforce seat belt use?

2- Why seat belts and not other "statistically" deadlier issues? 

3 - How is this NOT a "gateway" policy that could very easily lead to more individual-freedom-restricting laws?

And the Drama Continues. . .

If you have been keeping up with the current political news coverage and were witness to tonight's developments, I'd like to open the floor for a few questions that have been knocking around in my head, and I'm sure yours as well. I happened to be at the gym while all of this was going down and so had to constantly fight with the other "gym dudes" to change the channel to CNN (because, evidently, a bunch of guys with dead cowhides on their hands throwing dead cowhide balls around a fan-shaped field is extremely important to some people). I won in the end because I am taller. I can reach the TV controls. 

Anyway, I probably caught 80% of both Hillary's non-concession and Obama's, well, shall we say, non-substantive speech. Example:

       "John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe 

if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this 

economy—cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota—he'd understand the kind 

of change that people are looking for."

What?

I wish my professors allowed me to answer a question by talking in a completely different context. . . Anyway, if you can't tell, by now I'm not a fan of Obama. But that doesn't necessarily mean that I throw my support behind Hillary or McCain, for that matter. I won't have to make such a decision fully for at least another month. Until then, speculation is where the fun is. And, these, after I have drug all of you through the mud of my own opinion, are my questions:

1. Is an Obama-Hillary ticket, at this point, still a dream ticket?

For Obama, making such a move would illustrate a priority for party unity/victory over real change. And he would have to make Bill a part of his campaign, or at least tie him to the bumper of the car for the ride to the White House. Even then, would you, if you were Obama, want Bill lurking around the halls talking to reporters while you were in the oval office conducting change?

2. Will Obama's recent withdrawel from his church 

     enrage african-american voters?

From talking with friends, one of which is a school teacher in a predominately african-american school, my impression is that a good slice of the black community stands in solidarity with at least some (perhaps not all) of Rev. Wright's beliefs. And while Obama defended and then denounced (but stuck with) his church and his pastor, he would rally that core group of voters. But now, all of that has changed. Where does that leave this group of people?

3. McCain was standing in front of a backdrop that said, 

   "A leader we can believe in". . .is Obama on his staff??

It seems that McCain has adopted some of the rhetoric of change and belief that the Obama campaign has used to great effectiveness. My initial thought was, 'Wow. Way to be original, John.' But as I thought about it, I'm thinking it could be a stroke of genius. Your thoughts?

My apologies for not working in some angle about this effecting the enviroment, etc. For the moment, I'm rather caught up in the drama and clever strategy that is the American election process.