Greenfleece

GreenPeace is a backwards organization.

Like all backwards things (mirror images, cabooses, Democrats) GreenPeace does benefit the world in some ways. However, like some backwards things (Democrats), GreenPeace could be doing so much better.

Literally minutes ago, I spoke with the Boston City Coordinator for GreenPeace. I can't remember her name right now, but I will work on finding that.

I ran into her at Northeastern, where I go to school. I have also frequently run into GreenPeace volunteers at Porter Square in Cambridge as well as on Newbury Street. I worked near Porter Square for about six months and saw GreenPeace volunteers there at least five times. Yet, I have been living full-time in Jamaica Plain for over a year and have never seen a GreenPeace rep there. Not within five miles of my apartment. Not on Center Street, not near Jamaica Pond, not on Washington Street.

I will let you draw your own conclusions on that, but I will also draw for you the conclusions that were given to me by this young lady of whom I speak.

When I told her what I have just told you, she told me that she had just moved here from Iowa three months ago and didn't know the city and surrounding areas very well, so that was why she didn't have anybody posted in Jamaica Plain.

So I asked her why I had never seen GreenPeace volunteers in Jamaica Plain before she took charge three months ago. She told me that they have to place volunteers in places where they can interact with one person every thirty seconds, which is why they are most often found in popular places like Newbury Street, Northeastern, and Cambridge.

I informed her that both Centre Street and Washington Street are very busy during summers in Jamaica Plain.

"Well", she said, "GreenPeace has tried that before and they had some problems with that. So, unfortunately I just kind of have to go with what GreenPeace says. If I had more volunteers maybe I could put some in places like that."

Mhmm. Maybe.

By the way. Here is the qualification for being a GreenPeace city coordinator:

A minimum of 1-2 years of experience in face-to-face fundraising, direct marketing or customer service and a strong interest in environmental issues.
GreenPeace.org

What was that last thing? Strong interest in...huh?

GreenPeace is not interested in affecting social change. They are interested in getting your money, throwing it at things, and keeping some of it.

This lovely lady (who, admittedly, was very nice) talked to me about a campaign that GreenPeace is working on right now involving Kimberly Clark, the parent company of Kleenex.

GreenPeace Kimberly Clark campaign

This campaign is better than nothing, but it is backwards.

Rather than educating you about using less tissue (or conserving in general), GreenPeace simply asks you to sign up for their club, pay them monthly, and hope that they do things you think are good. This is why they don't volunteer in busy poor areas, only busy wealthy areas. Their main interest is money.

Instead, GreenPeace should focus on busy poor areas. Rather than collecting money, they should give out free handkercheifs. In case you are a GreenPeace member and don't know, a handkercheif can do the same things that those evil Kleenex things do, but they are washable and reusable. GreenPeace wouldn't even have to spend money on this! Don't you think there would be some company somewhere that would spend a couple million bucks if their logo was splattered all over everyone's handkercheifs??

But of course, GreenPeace is full of liberals. Liberals do not expect you to change and become better. They expect you to give them your money and hope they can solve your problem for you.

Doy!

Debate 1 Analysis

I just re-watched the debate on YouTube. While I watched, I kept tally scores on each candidate in several categories. Here are the results:

Mentioned George Bush:
Obama: 14
McCain: 2

Mentioned their own proposed policy:
Obama: 64
McCain: 70

Mentioned opponent's proposed policy:
Obama: 12
McCain: 21

Mentioned/alluded to their own record:
Obama: 20
McCain: 38

Mentioned/alluded to their opponent's record:
Obama: 23
McCain: 33

Mentioned a specific piece of legislation that they proposed:
Obama: 0
McCain: 2 (League of Democracies, 9/11 Commission)

Please note: These numbers are not intended to be exact. I watched the debate in real time and made tally marks along the way. These numbers do not represent exact statistics. However, I will maintain that they give a fair representation of what really happened in the debates. Each number is surely off by a few tallies, but no numbers are off by magnitudes and any mistakes towards one candidate were surely repeated against the other candidate equally.

Factual Generalizations

Whether or not my numbers are perfect, any count or re-count of the same statitics will reveal the following true generalizations:

• McCain and Obama both talked about their own proposed policy about equally.
  
  
• McCain talked about Obama's proposed policy about twice as much as Obama talked about McCain's proposed policy.
  
  
• McCain talked about his own record about twice as much as Obama talked about his own record.
  
  
• McCain talked about Obama's record more than Obama talked about McCain's record.
  
  
• McCain mentioned legislation that he proposed. Obama did not talk about legislation that he proposed.
  
  
• Obama mentioned George Bush seven times more than John McCain did.
  
  
• Obama mentioned George Bush's policy more than he mentioned John McCain's proposed policy.
  
  
• McCain talked more about his own record than he did Obama's record. Obama talked more about McCain's record than he did his own record.

The Conclusion

This debate turned out exactly the way that any reasonable person predicted. Obama talked more about nothing than John McCain. John McCain talked more about actual records more than Barack Obama. Barack Obama focused on Bush because he knows that John McCain is stronger and better than Bush. He knows John McCain is a maverick and he must hide that fact.

More notes

I counted George Bush references by making a tally every time a candidate mentioned Bush's administration directly and did not relate the actions of the Bush administration directly to their own actions (both candidates did this at least once). If I had counted the number of times a candidate referenced "the last eight years" or "the last four years", Barack Obama's score assuredly would have been over twenty and John McCain's would have remained the same.

I started out with also counting the number of praises and criticisms issued by each candidate. I stopped doing this when it became too difficult to keep track of. However, when I stopped (about midway) Obama and McCain had criticized each other equally. Obama had praised John McCain several times, and John McCain had praised Barack Obama zero times.

So, I'm making it up, right Sparky?

Ok. Go ahead and do it yourself. Produce your own numbers. I plan to do it again sometime soon and come up with a new set of numbers which will assuredly be different than these but will also assuredly produce the same patterns.

Great Video

Very good video from sixty minutes:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/28/60minutes/main4483612.shtml

The 60 minutes team stayed with Henry Paulson through the ongoing bailout negotiations. Fascinating!!

The most fascinating to me: Henry Paulson literally did get on one knee and ask Nancy Pelosy and the Democrats not to blow things up. Pelosy said, "It's not us, it's the Republicans." And he said, "I know, I know".

Just because I will most likely vote for one, doesn't mean I like 'em!!

Up next: Debate analysis.

Also, I will be going back (for the fifth time!!) to the economic crisis. A revealing debate with Sparky the other day as well as a few other things have brought me to the realization that I am definitely right about the economic crisis. Read on!!

And by the way, if you are new to my blog, read the post entitled "Please Please Me". It gives some good info.

I am not the only crazy one!

Regarding my theories on the economic crisis, Sparky told me yesterday that I was wrong because nobody else has the same idea. Housing post 1, Housing post 2, Housing post 3.

First of all, Sparky, we do not look to the news media for a fact-based, logical discussion of any issue or historical event. We wait until people with brains think about it and write about it in credible articles and books.

Second of all, I am not the only one! I just Googled Community Reinvestment Act, and I found a good editorial in the Boston Globe and a bad editorial in the National Review Online that both agree with me. The Community Reinvestment Act forced lending institutions to give loans to people they knew would default.

Boston Globe editorial
National review online editorial (this is junky...but mostly correct!!)

I might not be right, but I am certainly not crazy!!

...I am right, though.

Debate commentary coming next!!

Vexing Texting

Me: Hey do you know if the debate is on tonight?

Sparky: It is on but mccain aint going lol at 8pm

Me: Of course. Obama is at his best when He's unopposed

Sparky: Um im sry that obama stays 2 his word and doesnt pull out 2 days before

Me: In the midst of the largest crisis in years. Of course He's not really any help anyways i'm sure so he'd rather blab to himself for an hour

Still waiting on another response...

Yes, I am an instigator!! Sorry!

[CORRECTION: We were both wrong. As of two hours ago McCain is participating. And it's at 9PM. NYT]

Idiotic Republicans at it again

The Republicans are wrong, again.

The morning news indicates that Republicans in congress have proposed a new plan that wouldn't involve spending the $700 billion tax payer dollars.

New York Times link

I don't even have to explain the details of this plan for you to know it is wrong. For once (or for twice) George Bush is right. We need to bail these companies out to avoid a depression.

The Republicans have the right idea, in that they want to enact legislation that will not only stop the bleeding but also act preventatively. However, now is not the time for that. The time for that is a few weeks from now, when people aren't considering running the bank anymore.

John McCain was stupid to put himself in the same room as these people. Now he has an impossible choice. Should he support this silly legislation that is only causing trouble, or should he make the right choice and go with Bush? The only problem is that if he goes with Bush, the media will be all over it and it will fuel Barack Obama's silly anti-maverick ads. Just get outta there Johnny!

Why this is happening

No alliterations or puns today. I'm not in the mood.

Excessive use of credit is going to destroy this country.

Right now, the Bush administration and congress are rescuing us from Bill Clinton's mistakes. I just published a post full of facts on the economic crisis. In that post, I point out that George Bush and the Republicans have repeatedly tried to stop Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's bad practices in their tracks. They were thwarted by Democrats. I also pointed out that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created by the government. They never should have been. The government has no business giving people houses. I also pointed out that Bill Clinton forced banks (large and small) to give loans in poor communities to people who would never be able to afford to pay them back.

Liberals in government have gotten America addicted to credit.

I hope that every American understands what has happened here.

Tutorial: What the hell just happened

For a long time, the prices of homes continued to rise. Starting around 2005/2006, their prices stopped increasing and started to fall. This is known as a bubble. Popping.

This would have been fine, if the people in those houses actually owned them.

But most people don't own their homes. They have mortgages.

Consider this. A family lives in a home and is paying a $300,000 mortgage on it. Their payments are too high to afford, so they want to refinance. However, their home is now worth only $280,000, so there is no equity on which to refinance. Therefore the family can't pay the mortgage and they default.

Of course, this means that the lender loses money. They could kick the person out of their home and try to sell it, but now that the house is worth less than it was before they will still lose money even if they do manage to sell it.

Since the housing bubble had popped nationwide (in fact, worldwide), this exact process recently occurred thousands of times over, which meant that thousands of mortgages became worth negative money.

Mortgages have long been traded by companies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Now all the mortgages owned by companies like Fannie and Freddie are worth negative money, and unless someone helps these companies out they will be bankrupt.

Of course, that is what the government is doing as I type. They are giving these companies money so that the companies don't have negative money anymore.

This is necessary, because without companies like these the American way of life would abruptly halt and we would be in a depression.

In summary, the government (Clinton) forced banks to give loans out to people who could never pay them. Now, the people aren't paying the loans (duh) so the government is paying them instead. In effect, the government bought thousands of people their houses. Actually, I paid for their houses. We paid for their houses.

Stop Credit

Everyone on TV, the radio, in the White House, and on Capitol Hill are talking about "solving the root of the problem". The root of the problem is credit. It is evil.

Yes, it is unfortunate if a person cannot afford a house and has to live in a dingy apartment. However, those people should be encouraged to work hard, save, and buy a house with cash as I intend to do. They should not be given a house. If everyone in the country were given everything on a plate, everyone would stop working and we would all die.

Please, tell your government to stop encouraging credit. Tell Democrats to stop earning their votes by promising people free things. It doesn't work. It hurts us. It fails. It's bad. Why don't people get this?

My life is over

The debate scheduled for tomorrow has been canceled (postponed?). [CORRECTION on 9/26/08]: It appears the debate is ON! Although...McCain won't be there, so it will be Obama debating himself. NYT

Initially, Barack Obama was opposed to canceling the debate. John McCain offered the initial suggestion because he feels he can be of more help to Americans by returning to Washington and working on the economic rescue legislation. Democrats (including Obama) criticize McCain's move, calling it a "Hail Mary". “What, does McCain think the Senate will still be working at 9 p.m. Friday?”
New York Times article

That's disgusting. As always, the Democrats are trying to spin a good thing and make McCain look bad. The fact is that McCain obviously does want the congress to work past their bed time in an attempt to save the country from Bill Clinton's mistakes (more on that later). I guess if Barack Obama is elected president we can expect anarchy after 9PM, when he will be having his TV time.

Grow up!

Facts on the Economic Crisis

Before, I posted an editorial on the housing crisis. Now that the housing crisis has grown into an even larger problem, I will post again. This time, there will be no opinion. This is a factual post. Facts only.

Please note that I link to a few Wikipedia articles here. Although I do not believe Wikipedia is as reliable a source as newspapers and video, I do believe its articles can serve as a good overview of some issues as well as a place to find informative links. So, read the Wikipedia articles at your own discretion.


Facts about the housing crisis

In 2003, George Bush recognized a problem in the mortgage lending industry. In response, he proposed a plan that would have regulated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and determined whether the two mortgage lenders were properly managing the risk of their investments. The Bush administration also wanted to eliminate the power of the president to appoint the two companies' directors, since this practice can produce ineffective leadership in the companies.

For the most part, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac both endorsed Bush's plan. The industry encouraged congress to pass this legislation in a timely manner.

Democrats strongly apposed Bush's plan. Barney Frank said, "These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing."

New Agency Proposed to Oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, New York Times, September 11, 2003

Wikipedia explains Bush's proposed changes


In 1995, the Clinton administration enacted legislation that forced lending institutions to prove that they were lending to enough lower-income people. Under this legislation, the government limited the ability of financial institutions to grow if they did not give enough loans in poor communities.

As a compromise, the Republicans tried to reduce the extent to which small- and medium-sized banks were forced to make loans in poor communities. Democrats opposed their attempt.

1993 Clinton press conference

Republicans Seek a Cutback in Lending Rules for Banks, New York Times, March 31, 1995

Wikipedia explains Bill Clinton's changes


Fannie Mae was created by the government in 1938 as a part of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal.
Wikipedia explains about Fannie Mae


Freddie Mac was created by the government in 1970.
Wikipedia explains about Freddie Mac

Democrats against the environment

Saturday, the Boston Globe published an excellent editorial on leadership in environmentalism. Read it--really!
On climate, who will lead by example? Boston Globe

The editorial points out the shaky environmental leadership from John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts senators. Although both scored a 93% voting-record rating from the League of Conservation Voters, they are far from environmental role-models.

Kennedy has always opposed the first offshore wind farm in the United States.

Kerry refuses to take a stand on the first offshore wind farm in the United States.

Kerry and Kennedy supported paying $96,193,715 to General Electric for helicopter motors.

For decades, General Electric has resisted PCB cleanup projects for the rivers they pollute.

...and they still do.

GE is also an enthusiastic supporter of nuclear energy, since they stand to make millions from building nuclear power plants.

It's not surprising, though, that Kerry is a political supporter of GE. In 2006 alone he had over $3 million invested with them.

Speaking of investments, Nancy Pelosi, John Dingell, and James Oberstar also each have up to $100,000 invested in GE.

This Globe editorial is so spot-on, I won't continue to paraphrase it. Here is its conclusion:

Kerry also had investments totaling between $81,004 and $215,000 in ExxonMobil and BP. Jeff Bingaman, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has investments in ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips totaling between $66,003 and $168,000. The top congressional investor in ConocoPhillips, at $500,001 to $1 million, is Tom Harkin, chairman of the Senate Agriculture Committee and self-proclaimed "leading advocate of farm conservation programs."

The Center for Environment and Population report asked, "What are we willing to change, or give up? . . . Is it the world's climate, as we know it? Plentiful water supplies? Land? Species? Or do we have to make different policy, lifestyle, business, or industry choices?"

From the private choices of our eco-warriors, we might as well give up.

I am a liar and a loser

A few posts ago I said I was going to focus on Iraq soon. I lied. I'm a loser.

The truth is, I know so little about Iraq that anything I post on it will just be blathering.

I know I overuse certain words, including "blather". There are two reasons for this. For one, I have a limited vocabulary (it happens when half the books you read contain the word "programming" in their title). The second reason is that I come across blathering so often, it is hard not to mention it.

Blather (v.): to talk or utter foolishly; blither; babble: The poor thing blathered for hours about the intricacies of his psyche.

Exactly.

After reading a horrible editorial in The Huntington Ruse and then a few excellent editorials in the Boston Globe and Wall Street Journal, I decided I should raise my own editorial standard. And that means not writing about things I don't know a damn about and can't seem to really learn a damn about.

Instead of blogging on Iraq, I will leave you with one sentence about it. Everyone is right and everyone is wrong about Iraq. Think about it.

In the news: Universal health care troubles?

(Opinion)

There was an excellent article in The Boston Globe yesterday. The article explains that Governor Deval Patrick (Massachusetts) is seeking "widespread emergency cuts in the state budget" because tax collections "plummeted by $200 million in the first two weeks of September". Here is my favorite quote:

The state also faces rising costs associated with its universal healthcare law, which has led to higher-than-expected enrollment in state-funded insurance programs. Patrick proposed a plan to raise an additional $130 million from employers and insurers to help fund the new law.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2008/09/20/patrick_ponders_big_cuts_as_state_revenue_tumbles/
(unfortunately, The Boston Globe requires you to sign up for a free account in order to view the second page of this article)

I won't blather on about this because I know very little about it. I just wanted to note the simple logic which has been clearly proven here: when the government offers an easy way out, people take it. Universal health care seems to bring "higher-than-expected" everything.

Also, I like how they call it "a plan to raise an additional $130 million from employers and insurers to help fund the new law". Again, I do not know this, but I bet that means TAX!

From the other side of the issue, the fact that higher-than-expected numbers of people have enrolled in state-funded insurance is a good thing. I can buy into the claim that more people with health insurance is good, but I won't claim that more people on state-run health care is. First of all, this means that more taxpayer money is supporting these people's health care (as the article mentions). This is communist. Ideally, I should not be paying a dime for my neighbor's health care. Second, this is sure to encourage more interaction on the government's part in the medical field. And we all know that when the government gets involved, things get ugly.

A Huntington Ruse

The Huntington News, formerly known as the Northeastern News, published a falsity in their paper.

...abstinence became part of the national dialogue with the news that Sarah Palin's teenage daughter, Bristol, is pregnant. Palin is a supporter of abstinence-only sex education, but that doesn't seem to be working, even under Palin's own roof.

...Whether it's Bristol Palin getting pregnant or college students getting drunk, authority figures need to recognize that just saying "don't do it" doesn't do any good. Plenty of people will choose to abstain, but it's naive to think they will do it just because their RA or their governor mother says to.

-The Huntington News, 9/15/08

Although I do think the Huntington News should correct this and apologize for it, I do not blame them for publishing it. Most people believe the propaganda about Palin.

In fact, Sarah Palin supports education about contraception with an emphasis on abstinence.
LA Times link

Her daughter Bristol once attended Wasilla High School but now attends Anchorage West High School. A summary of West High School's sexual education policy can be found at the link below. It stresses abstinence, but also includes information about condoms and other contraception, masturbation, homosexuality, breast and testicular self-exams, and STDs. That doesn't sound like abstinence-only sex education to me.
Anchorage West High School Sexuality Education guidelines

As far as the sex education at Wasilla High School, it isn't abstinence-only either. They don't have the curriculum posted online, though. Their policy stresses abstinence, but also covers contraception.
Boston Herald link

So, to sum it up, here is how Wasilla High School, Anchorage West High School, Matt Collette of the Huntingon News, and I think that sex education ought to be taught:

Now Johnny, I want to talk to you about sex... I think you know that the only way to completely avoid getting genital herpes or knocking up your girlfriend is to abstain from sex. But if you do decide to visit Boom City, use a condom.

-Huntington News, 9/15/08

The most ironic thing, though, is not that the Huntington News made an error. I find it ironic that the very type of sex education that we are all recommending is actually the type that "doesn't seem to be working", not the abstinence-only type.

Of course, I don't believe that the sex education in Alaska "doesn't seem to be working" just because one girl got pregnant. She made a mistake. We don't condemn a mathematics curriculum just because a few students fail, so neither should we condemn a sex education curriculum just because a girl gets pregnant.

Of course, we could go on condemning parenting practices...but that is another story.

Watch the debates

Please watch the debates. They have been scheduled for the following dates:

Friday, September 26th, 9PM Eastern time
Tuesday, October 7th, 9PM Eastern time
Wednesday, October 15th, 9PM Eastern time

No person should decide which candidate to vote for before watching all three debates. The debates are a time when each candidate defends his policy in his own words with no media bias. It is an opportunity for candidates to change peoples' minds. I plan to open my mind to change should a particular candidate give a convincing argument.

That said, the debates are going to suck.

It is arguably true that the Republican and Democratic party have conspired to keep third-party candidates out of the debates, as is noted in a recent issue of The Liberator. The Liberator is run by my favorite party, the Libertarians.

Liberator online vol. 13 num. 15 (scroll down to where it says Phony Presidential "Debates")

This is outrageous. Although I am not idealistic enough to believe that a Libertarian like Bob Barr would win a presidential election, it is detrimental to the debates to eliminate input from third parties. During the 2008 Republican primaries, Ron Paul was not a choice candidate, but his input during debates gave a strong libertarian influence to the national discussion. In the same way, having only two candidates in the presidential debates will limit the scope of the national discussion to two points of view.

If both McCain and Obama disappoint in the upcoming debates, I will be voting for Bob Barr (just for fun).

Dear God

(Opinion alert)

Last post I said I was going to focus on issues again, but Sparky has been texting me avidly about some Sarah Palin quotes involving God. Since it does have to do with my next issue, Iraq, I'll post on it.

First, let me be clear. Sometimes I use poetic license when I describe conversations between Sparky and me. For example, I will say, "so Sparky called me up and started jabbering..." when what I really mean is, "In recent conversations when this subject has come up, Sparky started jabbering...".

However, this is not the case right now--no poetic license here. Sparky has literally been texting me one or two times a day giving me Palin quotes and telling me she is a religious wacko.

Religious wacko she may be, but I want to set the record straight on at least two Palin quotes that have been circulating and that I have recently stumbled upon.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H-btXPfhGs

...that our leaders, our national leaders are sending them out on a task that is from God. That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there's a plan and that that plan is God's plan. So, uh, bless them with your prayers, your prayers of protection over our soldiers, and speaking of...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q9MMJESywA&feature=related

I can do my part in doing things like working really, really hard to get a natural gas pipeline--about a thirty billion dollar project that's gonna create a lot of jobs for Alasksans and we'll have a lot of energy flowing through here. And pray about that also. I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that. I...

If you simply read the quotes and didn't watch the videos, I suggest you do so. To any reasonable person, it is painfully obvious why Sarah Palin brought up God in these two quotes. She is speaking at a church. She is trying to work God and prayer into everything she says, because that is supposed to be the focus when you are in a church. I'm no expert in linguistics or speech, but I don't have to be. This is truly, truly obvious.

Secondly, Sparky, Sarah Palin does not claim that the Iraq war is a "task from God" or that an Alaskan pipeline is "God's will". To a reasonable person, both of these quotes (when not taken out of context) are Sarah Palin telling the churchgoers to pray for good things. She tells them to pray that God watches over our soldiers. She tells them to pray that America will become unified over the cause of alternative energy. Yet, according to Sparky, this is wacky, insane, evil stuff.

Again, let me reiterate this point for the billionth time. We should not be talking about this. Sparky shouldn't be talking about Sarah Palin sound bytes. I shouldn't be talking about Barack Obama being out of touch. If Sparky would allow me to, I'd much rather debate with him on governmental policy.

Please, Sparky! Stop allowing me to prove that I am right when I say that all politicans are slimy and we should get over it! Please allow me to prove to you instead that Barack Obama's policies are worse than John McCain's!

And another note, Sparky. It would be very, very easy for me to respond to your Palin argument with a simple list of links. I could link to an out of context sound byte of Barack Obama calling Sarah Palin a pig with lipstick, to his former reverend of twenty years ranting about the white enemy, to video of Barack dancing in jubilation at one of these sermons, to pictures of Barack launching his campaign from the house of Bill Ayers the terrorist, or to a host of other fun-filled media clips that make the man look bad. But I won't. Because it doesn't matter how bad he is. He is a politician. We compare politicans by their policies, not by the dirt the media can dig up on them.

Again, Sparky, please stop. You are my best friend, but when you talk about this stuff you only make a fool of yourself.

Maverick Kadabra

(Opinion alert)

Before I get back to focusing on some issues, I'll post once more on some Obama propaganda. As always, I hope you know I don't think it matters. However, since my friend Sparky insists on using every Obama ad as fodder for his argument when we debate, I decided it would be appropriate to look at this voting-record conundrum.

In his latest smear ad, Obama claims that John McCain and Sarah Palin are "anything but mavericks" and are just "more of the same". Let's go over some of its key points.

Point: "Sarah Palin was for the bridge to nowhere before she was against it"

Counter 1: Remember when the outspoken political pundit Kanye West said that George Bush hates black people because he failed to respond to Hurricane Katrina? He was right about Bush's lackluster response, but maybe he should have said something about Barack Obama's, too. Barack Obama and Joe Biden were for the bridge to nowhere, always. Even when a Republican senator compromised by suggesting the funds be transferred to Katrina relief, Barack Obama said no. Voting records

Counter 2: Attacking Palin's position on this is the oldest political trick in the book, just more of the same. Rather than giving Sarah Palin credit for standing up to congress and stopping the project when it became too costly, Obama chooses to mudsling and attack her apparent "flip flop". More of the same, Mr. Obama? Look in the mirror.

Point: "Seven of his top campaign advisers are Washington lobbyists"

Counter 1: Seven? McCain has thirty-six advisers just on his economic team. He also appears to have about thirty-five foreign policy advisers as well as a slew of at least thirty more advisers in other miscellaneous categories. As Obama points out, seven out of more than a hundred happen to be lobbyists. Looks like Obama's advisers did a good job counting. After all, more than seven of them are media consultants (pollsters, campaigners, media managers).

Counter 2: One of Obama's key campaign points has been that McCain refuses to focus on the issues. Maybe Obama should practice what he preaches. Of course, if he did, he would realize that those policies that the evil McCain came up with beat the pants of his policies, some of which have been proven to fail.

Point: "He's no maverick when he votes with Bush 90% of the time"

Counter: Barack Obama is not fooling anybody when he cites that statistic. McCain has always stood for what he thinks is right. He voted against Bush on at least these teensy-tiny issues:

• McCain supported stem cell funding when Bush opposed it
• McCain voted against a constitutional ban on gay marriage when Bush supported it
• McCain voted against Bush's tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy (though he later admitted that they had worked the way Bush planned)
  
  NPR link

One time when McCain was famously in favor of Bush's policy was on the Iraq troop surge. Although it was a highly unpopular opinion, maverick McCain supported a surge he knew would work, and it has.

Anything but a maverick: Barack Obama

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, an independent organization, gave each member of congress a score as to how much they stand up against wasteful earmarks.

John McCain scored 100%. Barack Obama scored 10%. Joe Biden scored 0%. Sarah Palin is not a congresswoman, but I am sure such a score on her part would be neither as high as McCain's nor as low as Biden and Obama's.

CAGW Ratings (intro)
CAGW Ratings (listing)

So there you have it. John McCain, "anything but a maverick" according to Barack Obama. Barack Obama, the exact opposite of a maverick according to an independent study.

Notes on my blog

Note 1: Apologies if I ever appear to post about things before they happen. As soon as you create a post draft in Blogger, it assigns that time and date to the blog post. So if I create a draft on Monday but don't finish and publish until Friday, the post still gets marked as being posted on Monday. I can change that manually but sometimes I forget.

Note 2: For those of you who just tuned in, there may be a lot more blog posts than you think. On the right hand side, if you click the little arrow next to "August", it will show you all the posts I made in August. Unfortunately, I have no way of showing all the posts in one list, so you have to use the stupid arrow thingies.

Note 3: If you want to send a particular post to a friend, you can find the link to only that post by clicking on the title. For example, if you click on "Notes on my blog" above, you will be brought to a page that only contains (and always will contain) just this posting.

Note 4: Again, please leave comments. Below each post is a link that says "comments".

Note 5: In every blog post, the first time I mention Sparky's name I link to the post I made about him. It's always the same link, so you don't have to keep checking.

Up next: Iraq. How everyone is right and everyone is wrong.

Keep watching!

Please Please Me

I just wanted to make it official: I want reader feedback and corrections.

At the bottom of each post there is a link that says "comments". If you click that, you can leave me corrections.

My favorite corrections are spelling and grammar. I am horrible at both! Please leave them in the comments.

Also, if I say something is a fact but it isn't, let me know! I am not perfect, and neither are my sources. I don't want to be inaccurate. Of course, I do stretch the truth and exaggerate sometimes. However, I try to make it obvious when I am doing so, so I don't think it fools anyone. But go ahead and call me on that, too!

I love it when people disagree with me. It is the best way for me to get an opposing perspective and learn something.

And for you, Sparky, I have an invitation. If you want to, you can write an entire blog post right here on my blog. My only condition is that right at the top of the blog post will be a disclaimer saying it is not written by me and linking to my response post (which will follow yours). Otherwise, you can have the floor uncensored. I'll even let you post flat out lies if you want to! Just don't expect my response to be forgiving...

Reader note: I don't even think Sparky reads this blog, but I will be notifying him in person of this invitation.

Arousing Housing Carousing

(Opinion alert)

Given the recent government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I think it's finally time for me to blog on the housing crisis. I will be dispelling the myth that this crisis was created by Bush, or by any Republican.

In defense of those on the left

In the following paragraphs, I will explain to you why this housing crisis is the fault of liberals. I will use facts to prove it.

However, please take note: liberals are not evil. They accidentally caused this crisis, but they had the best intentions for America. The crisis they have now caused comes after years of good home-buying markets for millions of Americans, and we can thank the left for that.

That said, let's talk about how badly the left has screwed things up.

By now, everybody has heard that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, the nations two largest mortgage brokers, have been taken over by the government in order to avert a sudden, drastic economic depression. When this happened, Sparky called me up and shoved it in my face. "You see!", he said, "This is the perfect proof that capitalism is evil, Andrew! This is why we need someone like Barack Obama--someone who will take control and stop letting these companies ruin lives!".

Of course, Sparky is an ignoramus. Actually, this incident gives the perfect argument for capitalism. Here is why.

(Fact time)

The Bad Seeds

First of all, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were created by the government--Mae in 1938 (as part of the New Deal) and Mac in 1970 (in order to help break Mae's monopoly and liquidate markets). The idea behind these and other government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) is to increase credit availability in the economy. Their GSE status has always given them an implicit involvement with the government and a false sense that they couldn't go under.

The first problem: The two FMs were created to promote the use of credit, not responsible savings practices.

The second problem: The two FMs promise money that they do not have. They operate by selling bonds to investors. These bonds are guaranteed. The FMs pay for these bonds by buying thousands of mortgages, assuming the credit risk, and hoping that the profit made off interest will cover the bonds they have given out.

Obviously, these two companies were doomed to failure from the beginning. There is nothing the government could have done (except for not creating them in the first place) to get out of this mess. The republicans did try, though...

Barney and Friends

As Michael Graham points out in a recent blog post, it was the democrats who kept building up this avalanche.

A recent Wall Street Journal article points out that in 2000, Rich Baker (a Republican) proposed a bill which would regulate the FMs' oversight and stop bad lending practices. The bill was shot down by democrats.

In fact, the largest opponent of lending regulation has been democratic congressman Barney Frank. As early as 1992, he opposed lending regulation. He was the strongest opponent of the 2000 bill, and even said that there is "no federal liability there whatsoever". In 2002 he said, "I do not regard Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as problems". Well, they are a problem now. The federal government has now assumed their trillions of dollars of debt, $200 billion of which will be paid directly by the taxpayers. In the words of Mr. Frank, "good luck on that". Yeah.

Mr. Frank probably isn't worried. The two FMs have already been pouring $500 million per year into a trust fund that he set up, for use by politicians like him.

Wall Street Journal link
More WSJ Resources

Bill's Bills

In defense of Mr. Frank, Bill Clinton had a lot more to do with this crisis than he did.

There is little doubt amongst economists that two large factors contributing to today's subprime mortgage crisis were repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and enactment of the Community Reinvestment Act.

After lobbying with over $200 million, Citigroup and other financial leaders were able to motivate the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1998. In essence, this move reduced regulation of the trade of securities and debt. This repeal was signed by Bill Clinton.

Source: Editorial (1999-11-15), "Breaking Glass-Steagall", The Nation

The Community Reinvestment Act forced banks to give loans to those that they normally would not have. The idea was that this would boost housing sales. It did. And now those unworthy buyers are defaulting. Again, this act was signed by Bill Clinton.

White house link

Business Week link
Drexel University link

Learning from our mistakes

(Opinion alert)

• The new deal fixed lots of problems for a while, but it got America addicted to credit and eventually was one cause of today's housing crisis.
  
  
• The democrats gave in to lobbying and special interests and as a result, the crisis was not averted when it could have been.
  
  
• Bill Clinton chose to give credit to those who were not worthy of it, rather than forcing them to rightfully earn it.

From now on, let's keep the government small! Let's stop it from growing! Things like government-run health care will be great for a few years, but then in fifty more they will blow up just like these GSEs. Doy!

Makin' Stuff Up

NEWS FLASH! NEWS FLASH! Barack Obama has just uncovered countless Republican lies! Those republicans are "just making stuff up", according to Barack. Here are some of those made-up things:

"Maybe he's got Muslim connections"

His father and mother are Muslims.
New York Times link
Obama's Muslim faith (Oops!)


"He hangs out with radicals or he's not patriotic"

He launched his congressional campaign from the livingroom of Bill Ayers, an admitted terrorist.
Associated Press
New York Times (on Ayers)


"He's never gotten anything done"

He's voted 'present' almost 130 times in less than three years. He's never written any legislation. Oh, he has written two books, though, which make him $500,000 every year.
Obama 2006 tax return
Obama's legislation (no link, obviously)
Senate voting records (check for yourself!)


"He's going to take your guns away"

When surveyed, he supported banning hand guns.
Politico link (find at bottom)


"The guy hasn't been there that long in Washington"

Less than three years.


"He's got a funny name"

Barack Hussein Obama


Do I think any of these things matter or speak against Obama? Not really! Except that...remember that part when he said the Republicans just made stuff up? He was making that up.

Here is the audio link and the full text:

Audio link (Sorry, I am working on a better link than this. This radio host does play the whole clip eventually)

And that's what the Republicans--when they say this isn't about issues it's about personalities what they're really saying is we're going to try to scare people about Barack. So we're going to say that, you know, maybe he's got Muslim connections. Or we're going to say that you know he hangs out with radicals or he's not patriotic. Just making stuff up. Or that he's never gotten anything done. They'll make you, they're trying to make you unsure about me. Or he's going to take your guns away, that's a big one. Right? The temptation is to say you know what, I don't--the guy hasn't been there that long in Washington. He's got a funny name.
-Barack Obama

VP Heebee-Jeebees

Now that there are multiple readers of my blog (at least two), I have been asked my opinion on Sarah Palin. I think I've gone as long as I can without blogging this one up, so here it goes.

(Opinion alert)

My opinion: Sarah Palin will help John McCain win the presidency. As a vice president, she will work mainly on reform. If John McCain dies in office, she will sit on her hands and hope that we don't get attacked (or she will resign).

The experience question. I think the whole experience debate is ridiculous (in regards to both Sarah Palin and Barack Obama). I will blog on this later. And hey, if the New York Times is willing to admit that governer of Alaska is one of the toughest state-government jobs in the country, there's got to be some merit to her time served there.

McCain dying in office is not something I forecast. Look at his mother: she is 96! If the man can survive five years of torture I think he can handle some papers being thrown on his desk for four. And another thing: when your mother or grandmother turns 73, go ahead and tell her that you want to move into her nice house because she's bound to croak in four years anyways. Yeah, thought so.

Past policy. As far as I can tell, Palin has been a fairly good leader. She focuses on spending cuts and reform. Although her few falters from fiscal conservatism are disturbing, I ham it up to her being a rookie (or maybe making some comprimises?). Honestly, I need to look more deeply! That's what I like to do when I blog. Other than her terrible windfall profits tax I haven't examined her record at great length. Anyways, examining records isn't my favorite thing to do. I like to focus on the proposed platform, which is McCain's.

Last and least, the rumors. I just came upon a neat blog post which dispells most of the anti-Palin rumors. Although he doesn't list his sources for all of them, he does for many. It's an interesting read. Here are my favorite highlights:

• Palin never, ever supported Pat Buchanan. In fact, Buchanan now supports Obama*.
  
  
• No, she was never for Alaskan secession. Ever.
  
  
• No, she did not try to get books banned from a library. She got complaints from parents about some books, so she rhetorically asked the librarians what the policy was. They said they couldn't remove the books, so Palin said OK. Yes, Palin did try to fire the librarian a month later. No, she never did loose her job. (And no, it wasn't about the books, it was about administrative junk.) 1996 news source.
  
  
• No, she didn't cut funding for teenage mothers in need. She quadroupled it. No, she did not cut special needs funding. She trippled it.

Palin Rumors

*I really, really wish I could link to some proof of this one. I'll keep looking. In any case, there is proof that Palin never supported Buchanan. Buchanan claims she supported him, but at the time she was helping out Steve Forbes' campaign.

A note: I really, really don't feel like researching this for five hours and blogging on it, but many of these false rumors have been portrayed in The Boston Globe and on CNN as actual news(that's actual fact, not editorial). I'm sure of it myself because I remember reading/seeing some of them. I'll probably end up blogging it sometime anyways....even though it will probably kill me.

So, there you have it. I love her, I hate her. Sarah Palin.

(Final note. Hot librarian look: yes)

Taxin' Momma

I've been criticizing Barack Obama's proposed windfall profits tax. It is a horrible idea and only bad things could come from it. Now, I will criticize the windfall tax that was enacted in Alaska under governor Sarah Palin. It was a horrible idea and only bad things have come from it.

Seattle Times link

The above link explains it all. The tax had exactly the effect that I predicted it would even before learning of the failed 1970 windfall tax. History has proved it twice: windfall profits taxes are just a bad idea and that is that. Sarah Palin was wrong to enact it. I really, really hope there is some information out there which justifies her doing this stupid, stupid thing (but I won't keep my hopes up).

However, please note! Sarah Palin is not running for president. John McCain is. John McCain is sternly against the windfall profits tax!

Windfall Profits Tax

(Opinion alert)

This is a follow-up to my opinion-based post on Barack Obama's proposed Windfall Profits Tax entitled Commy Obammy. I brought up this proposed tax in a discussion forum and somebody mentioned the Windfall Profits Tax of the 1980's, which I hadn't heard about before. When I looked it up, I was horrified (yet not surprised) to find that the 1980 Windfall Profits Tax was a failure in exactly every single way I predict in my opinion post.

(Fact)

Jimmy Carter enacted the 1980 Windfall Profits Tax because he felt the oil companies made huge profits unfairly due to the OPEC oil embargo.

In 1988, Ronald Reagan repealed the tax. Here are some of the reasons why:

• The tax brought 80% less in taxes than was predicted. Almost $400 billion was predicted, but only about $80 million was taken in tax revenue.
  
  
• The tax reduced domestic oil production. Estimates are uncertain, but the amount of oil production lost because of the tax was between 1% and 5%.
  
  
• The tax increased America's dependence on foreign oil significantly. Estimates are uncertain, but oil imports increased by between 3% and 13% because of the tax.
  
  
• The tax caused incentive for the oil companies to focus less on research and more on reducing the cost of current practices.
  

Library of Congress Link

(Opinion alert)

This is simple logic! Obama supports a tax that is proven to fail!

See, Sparky? I told you! I am not (simply) a lunatic!

Jobs Slobs

(Opinion alert)

The media's coverage of the unemployment rate released this week has been sloppy. They mention that at 6.1% it is higher than it has been in five years. This is what they fail to mention:

(Facts)

• The yearly unemployment average during the Clinton years was 5.20%. The yearly unemployment average under Bush Jr. so far is 5.18%.
  
  
• The yearly unemployment average during the entire 90's was 5.75%. The yearly unemployment average so far in the new millennium is 5.03%.
  
  
• If you assume that the yearly unemployment average for 2008 is 6.1%, Bush's average still stands at only 5.30%, a mere 0.10% greater than Clinton's.

(Opinion alert)

Now, let's not pretend that George Bush is incredible when it comes to creating jobs. During the Clinton years, the rate fell and fell and fell steadily. Under Bush Jr. it has fluctuated tremendously.

I just thought that if we were going to blather about the numbers, we might as well blather about them all.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat1.pdf


Funny note: I brought this to Sparky's attention and he dismissed it, claiming that since that table was published by the government, the Bush administration had probably simply made up the numbers. Strong argument, Sparky!

Copyright-free photos

I just wanted to post this so that I could find it easily later. This is where virtually all of my blog photos come from:

http://www.dotgovwatch.com/?/archives/8-The-Best-Copyright-Free-Photo-Libraries.html

Any photo posted on a government web site is copyright-free by law :D

Peace on Politics

I've been blogging a lot, but sometimes I don't know if my driving principals are made clear. I have some beliefs and principals that I stubbornly hold to, unlike Sparky who just believes what he sees on TV. So, here I will try to list my principals in the order of their importance to me.

1. Debate in hyperbole, act on reason. When I debate I make it sound like me not getting my way would destroy the planet. However, I hold myself and those I debate with to always being reasonable in the end.
   
   
2. Discuss only policy and only issues at hand. I think it is mostly a waste of time to talk about the people behind the policy, including their past voting records. I realize that all politicians are scum and I choose to discuss the policy they wish to enact. The only time non-policy issues are fair game is if the other side brings it up and a response is needed.
   
   
3. Change sides when needed. If I am proven wrong, I will admit it. If I support the wrong side and realize it, I will change to the right one. Government is not about sides, it is about policy that works.
   
   
4. Prove, verify, support. The best thing I ever learned in high school was taught to me in junior year AP U.S. history class: when you make an assertion, back it up. A bunch. And another thing: distrust all media.
   
   
5. Don't be nasty. There is nothing I dislike more than people who take things too personally. My best friend Sparky and I disagree on everything, but we are never nasty to each other. He and I are a rare breed, though. (Internet/blogging/forum people are the worst with this).
   
   
6. Keep the government small. The government should protect the people, enforce their rights, and do things that capitalism could never do on its own, such as maintain conservation lands.
   
   
7. Let the states decide. Whenever there is a controversial issue, the states should decide on their own until the country is ready as a whole to choose a side.

Notice how my stance on conservative government is last. The reason for that is simple. If there comes a day when it is clear to me that big government is the best way, my first five principals will allow me to support that belief fully.

A note: If you read my blog a lot, you will think I am being a hypocrite. So far, I have made at least two posts which may seem to contradict my principal #2 (Obama out of touch, Obama debate challenge). I say these posts may seem like they contradict this principal, but they don't. I use this blog as a long, drawn-out response to my debates with my friend Sparky. Any time I attack Obama it is to prove to Sparky that Obama is just as scummy as McCain, and therefore Sparky should debate policy (which he refuses to do). Don't be fooled into thinking that these petty attacks matter! They don't!

Commy Obammy

(Opinion alert)

My assertion: Barack Obama's presidential agenda includes the redistribution of wealth in the form of his proposed Windfall Profits Tax. This is a communist idea, not a democratic one.

The zinger: No, I am not talking about Barack Obama's Global Poverty Act.

The fact: Barack Obama wants to take money directly from the oil companies and give $1000 to every American family.

The proof: Barack Obama's energy plan, Barack Obama's energy plan in detail (these link to his own web site).


In Defense of Mr. Obama

In this blog post I will speak out against Barack Obama's planned Windfall Profits Tax, and I will speak strongly. But know this: Barack Obama has the best intentions for America. I am willing to give Mr. Obama the benifit of the doubt (though in a way, I hope you won't). I do not think that this tax alone will destroy the country, turn us into a communist nation, or ruin our energy sector. However, pay attention to my argument. Just because this tax won't immediately destroy the country doesn't mean it isn't wrong. The Windfall Profits Tax is a stupid idea, and it won't do any good for this country. You're about to see why.

Details of the Windfall Profits Tax

Barack Obama will require oil companies to take a reasonable share of their record-breaking windfall profits and use it to provide direct relief worth $500 for an individual and $1,000 for a married couple.
-BarackObama.com

Analysis of the Windfall Profits Tax: Benefits

• Each American will have $500 towards energy costs.

Analysis of the Windfall Profits Tax: Detriments

• Oil companies are forced to either take less profit, raise prices, or reduce spending, some of which goes toward alternative energy research.
• By giving Americans an easy way out, the government discourages middle- and lower-class Americans from investing in cheaper, cleaner, more fuel-efficient technologies.
  
• By taking company profits, the government discourages success and innovation.
• The government sets a dangerous precident: the government knows best and it can take money from whomever it chooses and give it to whomever it chooses.

Benefit #1 in Depth

Free money. Big whoop! I can't speak for everyone, but $500 doesn't pay for very much of my energy costs. In fact, I'm sure that would be gone in less than two months in my own case. Perhaps I am overlooking the largest benefit of this tax: middle-class votes for Barack Obama.

Detriment #1 in Depth

Here is a fact for you: last year Exonn Mobil made $1,500 per second in profit. They paid about three times that in taxes, or about $4,000 per second. In expenses, they paid $15,000 per second. Let's really crank our noggins and think about this one as hard as we can. If oil companies are taxed more, will they take it directly out of their profit margin? Take a wild guess. One thing they are likely to do instead is raise prices. Well, that will help things! Of course, they could also cut into expenses. Which will they cut into first? Transportation? Drilling? Of course not. First will be alternative energy research. Doy! See, Barack?? Common sense can be fun!

Detriments #2 and #3 in Depth

A few months ago, I decided to go out and spend about $15 on a few flourescent lightbulbs. They use 50 to 75 percent less electricity than incandescent lightbulbs, so I figured they would help with my electric bill. Now, let's get those thinking caps back on again. Would I have been so inclined to go buy those light bulbs if I knew the government would foot my electric bill for me? No, I would not. Neither would one of my friends have been inclined to sell their gas-guzzling Mercedes for a tiny sedan. Neither would I be inclined to buy a Toyota Prius as my first car, as I plan to someday! Hey, free money is great. But it's stupid. It can only cause the public to forget about going green.

In the same way, this tax will kill motivation on the part of companies and individuals working for companies. If I am a bright mind working at an oil company, why would I stay if I knew my pay raises were being forced down by the government? I'd probably rather go work in a more profitable industry, like fertilizers or nuclear weapons research.

Detriment #4 in Depth

In this country we are all about precidents. If the government gets away with something once without causing a large uprising, they know it's safe to do it again. We do not want a new precident that says the government can force the wealthy to give away their profits.

But forget about precidents. There is already a precident in place which says that everything the government does is moronic. Why does Barack Obama want to give these morons more power? Why does Barack Obama think that the government is wiser than its people? Why does Barack Obama think that the government has the right to say who is allowed to keep their money and who is not? To be honest, I do not know why Barack Obama thinks his Windfall Profits Tax will help anything at all.

A Note on Windfall Profits

Wouldn't it be horrible if the oil companies broke into our houses and stole money from our pockets? Or if we had to pay income tax that went directly to oil companies? Or if oil companies put a gun to our heads and told us we had to drive SUV's and never take public transportation to work? Yeah, that'd be horrible!

The only problem is, none of those things have ever happened.

Oil companies make windfall profits because we buy their gas in windfall amounts. I don't know about you, but the car I drive runs on gas. I stand at the station and pump it into my car a few times a month. Then I pay for it. People like Barack Obama have turned "oil company" and "profit" into swear words. They want you to feel guilty for being successful and making money.

Are the record-breaking oil profits a problem? Yes, I think so. But I respond to that problem on my own.

I reduce my usage of electricity. I use fuel-efficient vehicles. I walk and take public transportation. And so does the rest of America. Sales of the Toyota Prius are booming right now, and not because of a government regulation. They are booming because Americans are moving themselves in the right direction. For the same reason, American car companies like Ford and Chevrolet are creating hybrid models of their most popular cars--without being told by the government to do so.

Well fancy that. Maybe we don't need the government to figure things out for us.

McCain's Energy Plan

McCain: The Lexington Project

• Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 66% by 2050
• Revolutionize the American transportation sector
• Focus on alternative, domestic energy

John McCain has a strong plan which will change the way Americans use energy. It will lower greenhouse gas emissions, it will transform transportation and create a strong green economy in America, and it will break America's dependence on foreign oil.

The enactment of John McCain's energy plan would represent the biggest change in American energy since the industrial revolution. The change would be drastic and it would be lasting. But at the same time, McCain's plan is built on strategies that are proven to work, including an aggressive cap and trade emissions system.

We need to support John McCain's energy plan. But before that, we need to take a good look at it and focus on its strengths--the ideas and plans that we can really look forward to.

Advanced Vehicles

John McCain plans to create a $300 million prize for the first individual or organization that comes up with a battery with the size, capacity, power, and a low enough price to make plugin hybrid or electric cars commercially feasable. The battery in question would have to be 70 percent cheaper than the current technology. This radical idea is based on simple logic: if companies are in competition, a better product will come faster. If the battery is available, unlimited numbers of new car technologies will be able to be developed around it and at a reasonable price to the average American. This plan will get hybrid or electric vehicles into the hands of average Americans.

Cap and Trade

Cap and trade systems are seen as one of the best solutions to lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Cap and trade worked for acid rain, and now McCain wants to make it work for energy. Under such a system, the government caps the amount that all companies collectively are allowed to emit. Then, each company is given a proportionate amount of credits. Companies can trade emission credits, so companies who are cleaner benefit because they can sell more of their emissions credits. This system is prooven, and it is exciting that McCain wants to implement it. This is how McCain plans to reduce emissions by 66% by 2050.

Domestic Oil, Natural Gas, and Alternative Energy

John McCain pledges that his administration would agressively pursue oil and natural gas drilling. John McCain believes in pursuing American oil as aggressively as possible so that we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil and our international trade deficit, 41% of which comes from oil. This oil plan includes offshore drilling and drilling in Alaska. He also believes in piplining natural gas across the country and making natural gas a greater part of America's energy profile. McCain's plan also includes aggressive tax cuts for companies who spend research and development money on alternative energy such as solar and wind.

Domestic Clean Coal

John McCain's plain includes $2 billion annually towards the research and advancement of clean coal technologies. Currently, scientists predict that clean coal technology is over 15 years away. McCain's plan focuses on fast-tracking this technology, since coal creates most of American energy. This will mean a drastic change in American emissions created during electricity production, and will give America a better option to make clean, domestic energy.

International Leadership

John McCain is committed to getting the global economy on track with clean, green energy. By fast-tracking green technology in America and then promoting the sale of those technologies to foreign nation, John McCain will turn America both into a global energy provider and a leader in climate reform. McCain stresses creating a healthy energy relationship with two of the world's fastest-growing economies: China and India. By cooperating on an global basis and promoting energy and climate reform internationally, John McCain's plan will set the stage for a new world of energy.