Obama can't even make a Pencil

An economics professor once told me you could understand everything there was to know about economics from the production process of a pencil. Somehow I wish HE were sitting there next to Barack Obama last night , as each candidate tried to out communist each other on the current fiscal crisis. We heard the same smooth talking rhetoric from Obama, followed by the not so smooth rhetoric of John McCain, as usual. Let’s just analyze one single sentence that Obama has stated over and over and over again, and apply it to something as seemingly simple as pencil production. “I will end tax cuts for companies shipping jobs overseas.” Obama says. What does that mean? Does he mean companies that buy components overseas, make whole products overseas, companies that just do the shipping, companies that provide services overseas, or hell even drive the boat over the sea? How will you manage this process of deciding whether a company ships jobs overseas? It’s impossible. The world market is so interconnected, it’s impossible for any one person or centralized authority to understand, let alone control. Let’s further look at pencils. I got this off of a US patent site for simply painting pencils.

"A system for automatically applying multiple coats of paint to pencils from a pencil production line comprises a plurality of paint stations arranged for sequentially applying respective coats of paint to the pencils. Each paint station includes a painting device, supply conveyor means for discharging pencils to that device and drying conveyor means for receiving pencils from the device. The first station in sequence receives pencils directly from the production line, and the conveyor means of consecutive stations are arranged so that the pencils are transported from one station to the next, all without manual intervention."

Never mind the lead, the eraser, the wood, and the overall production of the item. Imagine how complex that actually gets once you break it down. So what if a company sets up shops in the US, selling pencils. Let’s say the wood comes from Wisconsin, where it meets up with the lead in Long Beach, which was shipped from Uganda. They spin the pencil, then ship it to Mexico to put the erasers on, then back to Columbus for this new painting process. They sell them to a wholesaler in New York, who sells them in Canada, the US, and England. Does this company meet the requirement of shipping jobs overseas? They employee a lot of Americans, but in the process the rest of the world. And that’s just PENCILS!! Think of all the branches of the economy a pencil production process touches. What’s my point? Even your most egghead economist from Harvard can’t figure out how to control and manipulate this process in a way that benefits American workers, because it’s impossible to calculate the benefits of decision making processes of millions of people. Let’s just say all Obama had to do was keep Pencil production jobs inside the US. He couldn’t do it. He couldn’t do it even if it’s the only thing he had to do for four years. It would take too long. Doesn’t matter. Left wingers never even consider the process of HOW they are going to do things. The only thing that stands in their way of creating a perfect world, is the will to do so, and the evil republicans that hate children and puppies.

The idea of Politicians meddling in the economy is just stupid. The idea they can positively influence the economy by meddling with the tax code takes just the right combination of hubris and stupidity. It’s obvious that Obama couldn’t even control small portions of the pencil industry. Why are we trusting him, or John McCain for that matter, with purchasing stocks, and bank loans, or trying to manipulate money markets. No one person, or centralized government should ever even try. It’s no doubt the economy is headed for trouble, because of the government’s already over reaching hand into various markets it never had the business of being involved in. Obama made the case last night unbelievably, that it is lack of government intervention that has caused the problem. It’s truly astonishing that anyone of intelligence can come to that conclusion. McCain was no better. McCain doesn’t understand fiscal conservatives, because he isn’t one. His ideas were the same. It sounded like a Primary debate. More government intervention. 300 billion here, 300 billion there. These two clowns have NO idea what the hell they are saying. Playing around with the economy like your GI Joe men is not what the President’s job is. All out civil War is breaking out in Pakistan at the moment. This will be the primary focus of the next President. McCain needs to drive home America’s belief that he is a better choice as commander and chief of the Military, period, end of issue. Everything else is secondary. In today’s dangerous world, with the elusive enemies we face, it’s all the President should even make time for. We can handle the economy ourselves.

Hypocrisy, The Human Condition

In today’s political climate, pundits and politicians are constantly trying to catch public figures in the ultimate of modern sin : Hypocrisy. Whether it be Al Gore flying around on private jets emitting C02 or Larry Craig soliciting gay sex in a bathroom, hypocrisy is at the center of the most scandalous controversies of our time. Is it hypocrisy that we are out to uncover, or is it merely the revelation that public figures are human beings just like us? What passes the definition of hypocrisy in today’s culture, however, would better be described as simply not living up to one’s virtues, I.E. a human being. Just once, I’d like to see a bold politician admit, “YES, I’m a hypocrite, just like every other human being that has ever walked on Earth. What’s your point?” Human nature is really what the media are out to expose, not hypocrisy. A true definition of hypocrisy, would be a guy who opposed instant replay when it overturned a call against his team, but then supported it when it overturned a call in his team’s favor. THAT, would be hypocrisy. Al Gore isn’t a hypocrite for flying around on a private jet. He’s just a bad spokesperson for his cause. Me defending Al Gore for anything might constitute hypocrisy, but I digress. Point is, hypocrisy is a frivolously used word, beckoned to gain political advantage when it’s convenient. Hypocrisy in today’s culture just means you aren‘t perfect. Since no human being is perfect, it’s a fairly low hanging fruit to find examples of “hypocrisy” then point them out to everyone. There are some academic elites that try their entire lives to escape hypocrisy. They make the foolish mistake of trying to escape their humanity, which in it of itself is among man's greatest sin, and yes, that is a proper definition of Irony. They simply state that there is no wrong and right, so therefore its impossible to sin against one’s virtues, because, well, conveniently, there are no virtues! Such ideas should be passed off as rather moronic, but they unfortunately are passed off as high class intellectual philosophy. The stupidity comes from all sides. Leftists salivate from the idea that conservatives like to have sex, pointing to instant “hypocrisy.” Right wingers love to point out that Obama sends his kids to private school. Keep it in mind when heading out there to vote this November. Would you rather someone who is constantly trying to escape their own humanity, or someone in touch with it, who fought that battle a long time ago, and is ready to move on with the rest of his life. Is there anyone out there that even fits that description? It’s your job to figure that out.

Our version of Obama?I never asked to be excited...

I’ll admit, as a republican, it was difficult for me to watch the other side with such a charismatic and likable guy as their nominee. Say what you want about Obama, but he is a decent guy. My instincts are pretty good, and I believe he does want what’s best for our country. I think he’s dead wrong on every major issue, but holding that aside, I’m sure he’d be a great guy to catch nine holes and have a beer with.

I clearly made my decision though, that I’m not looking to like or “feel connected” to the person running for president. I don’t care if he’s funny, or even nice. Hell I don’t even care if he’s a down right prick. I vote on who will protect values that I hold to be the best direction for America. That’s my duty. That being said, can I really get “excited” about Sarah Palin, because she’s charismatic? I already went around making fun of the Obama maniacs for the past 6 months for liking a guy because he’s a good public speaker. That to me is all I see in Sarah Palin. She seems like a really nice lady. She has an almost Freudian appeal to her that I think a lot of people would care to not talk about. She speaks well, I guess, if you can call reading a speech you didn’t write all that impressive. She’s bright, articulate, and a pretty decent person it seems. So what? We hand the keys over to her?

Over the past year or so, I have been reading far more then ever, and I read book after book by people with vast labyrinths of knowledge that I could only hope to absorb 1% of. There are a lot of impressive Americans out there, with a lot of great ideas. How come none of these people are running to lead us? The answer is sad. The American people need to be entertained. Politics is like a circus. The clowns we have running never even dive into actual ideas. I have long felt that republicans get a bad rap for being the mud slingers of the two parties. The left is the one we always complain simply speaks in “platitudes.” The left just promises health care, and education for all, and money on trees. We Republicans, I thought, actually studied economics and analyzed what works best in numerous different types of scenarios. We backed our ideas up with facts, or so I thought. What I heard tonight, from the great hope of the Republican party, Sarah Palin, was all the same nonsense I’ve heard Obama running his mouth about for the past year. No great ideas were given. No real indication of policy making. No actual intellectual thought backed up with ideas. I haven’t heard a single republican actually tackle ideas yet. This is the one time we get a national stage, and we throw up politician after politician after politician, with no chance whatsoever of changing anyone’s mind on anything. All I heard were stupid jokes, which are just as stupid whether they a aimed at liberals or conservatives. Before Sarah Palin even uttered the words War, Economics, or Healthcare, we learned that her Husband is a Snow Mobile Champion. How was that relevant to anything? My dad has his own golf cart. Does that qualify me to be vice president?

In 1856, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas debated 7 times while running for the Illinois senate. The format was 1 guy for an hour, the next guy for an hour and half, then the first guy ½ hour to respond. Can you imagine such a thing today? They get 32 seconds, in which they try much harder “not” to say something stupid then they do to say something meaningful. Then we get 4 minutes of mindless commercials selling 80 year old men on the idea of having sex again, and some company claiming you’ll die of a heart attack pretty soon unless you start swallowing the insides of fish eggs encapsulated into a pill. Its really pathetic. I was not “charged up” by watching the speech. I had no right to be. I made fun of “charged up” for the past year. I will continue to make fun of it. This is about what’s right for the American people. It’s not a sporting event. Sarah Palin is nothing more then the right’s answer to Barack Obama. Neither one of them belongs anywhere near the nuclear launch codes. I think a case can be made that John McCain does. The man had his arms broken and teeth pulled out in Vietnam because he refused to simply go on TV and denounce America. He could have left his prison earlier if he had given in. He’s the closest thing to William Wallace we have. At the end of the day, I think Sarah Palin will be solely responsible for preventing socialism from taking siege in America, at least in this generation. That will be to her credit. However, no one will have defeated socialism in the war of ideas, which is where it should be defeated. Next generation, there might not be a “religious base” to charge up. They only vote on the basis of abortion or gay marriage, otherwise stay at home. I realize those issues are important to people. I respect that, however, I think if one is to vote for candidate A or B, one must at least acknowledge their arguments on other issues. I hear them say, “We don’t know much about the war, or the economy.” I don’t want their vote, even if it is in my direction. Sooner or later we will have to change people’s minds. Sooner or later we will have to inspire a generation that nearly a half million of them will have to die to protect the country, as did my grandparents' generation just 50 years ago. That’s not going to happen with this gang of circus clowns we’ve propped up as “leaders.”

The world is a bakery, not a pie

So much misunderstanding in politics and social policy can be attributed to one fundamental economic fallacy, which shapes the way far too many people think and vote. That is the misunderstanding of how wealth is created. The most important word in the last sentence is “created.” Wealth is not finite. Wealth is infinite. An unbelievable amount of the population believes in a “pie” vision of the world economy, where there is only so much wealth to go around, therefore leading them to the conclusion that people become rich by stealing or “getting to” wealth before the next man. They envision a world where if someone is rich, somewhere else in the world, an exponentially higher number of people were cheated out of their rightful share of wealth. This is a fundamentally false world view. If you want to get rich in this world, you don’t have to get your hands on “your slice” of the pie. You make your own damn pie.

Thomas Rustice, my econ teacher at George Mason, explained it very simply. If wealth was finite and not created, then where did all the wealth in the world come from? It wasn’t here when we got here. A student quickly burst out in class. Wealth comes from natural resources. Tom quickly responded by saying. “What good is a natural resource unless man develops a use for it? It is man that creates wealth in the resources by developing uses for things. Oil wouldn’t be a natural resource if not for the combustion engine. It would have no value if not for innovation. Besides some of the most vibrant economies in the world, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, have 0 natural resources.” The kid just stared at him in disbelief that his entire world view could be defeated and dismantled in just a view sentences. I had always suspected that I was a right winger in regards to economics, but here was the proof. I was hooked.

Understanding economics is all about understanding simple, tinker toy examples, then applying the principals to more complex topics. The best understanding of wealth creation can be understood by Henry Ford. The development of the assembly line is one of the most revolutionary ideas in American History, one that has shaped and possibly altered the course of history by bringing automobiles to the masses. Prior to this development, an automobile was only available to the super rich, being as that it took mechanics weeks and sometimes months to make only one car. Obviously this was very labor intensive and the few very skilled workers that made them had to be paid well. Henry Ford wanted to find a way to manufacture a car that was affordable to the average working man, and he did it with the introduction of the Model T in 1908. The model T wasn’t made in a garage with only highly skilled workers. The Model T was a car made in factories for the first time. The process employed thousands of workers, churning out cars by the boatload per day. This did several things. One, it employed thousands of regular people at good wages. Because the process was efficient, Henry Ford was able to offer the car at $825 in its first year. He sold ten thousand, a new automobile sales record. Five years later, the price of the car went down to $575, but wages in his factories nearly tripled. Why did he lower the price you ask? Because he could make “more” money by lowering the price reaching the masses of Americans. By 1927, Henry Ford sold 15 million Model T’s. This is an example of wealth creation. Henry Ford did not steal his slice of the pie, he made his own. He created the market for automobiles. All in a scheme to make a ton of money out of pure greed, Henry Ford tripled the wages of factory workers, made automobiles more affordable and eventually made housing more affordable because all the sudden the supply of land to live in and around US Cities was exponentially increased. You no longer had to live right down the street from work, because now you could drive your new affordable car there. All of this wealth creation came from one thing. The idea of the assembly line, and the ambition to implement it. Henry Ford didn’t receive government subsidies for new technology, or research grants. He did it with innovation. Workers were better off, Henry made a ton of money, and US cities began to thrive. Rising tides raise all ships. Henry Ford’s greed was good for everyone, not just himself. That is wealth creation, not “stealing your slice of the pie.” Granted competition came from Chrysler, and eventually the market became saturated, which was also good for American workers, and the American people in general. So next time you hear someone railing against your support for tax rate cuts, leading to investment and job creation, think of Henry Ford. Believing that cutting tax rates for the wealthy leads to innovation and job creation is not “Reaganomics.” It’s pure common sense.

The “pie” world view is one of the most destructive ideas in modern politics and even foreign policy. Once you understand the basic concepts of how wealth is created, none of the left’s common arguments make any sense. My econ class at George Mason provided me with a shield for all the crap that was to be thrown at me throughout college, especially at the University of Arizona. The students against sweatshops were my favorite foe. Truth is they were demonizing the wrong people. Nike is not the problem. Nike is part of the solution in much the way that Henry Ford was. People in foreign countries need to dig themselves out of poverty with ideas and wealth creation, not social protest demanding higher wages out of rights. They must do it the hard way, through industrial revolution. This is happening slowly. Singapore, Malaysia, Hong Kong all had sweatshops thirty years ago that are no longer. These are now factories with well paying jobs, chosen by the workers themselves. Technology has increased and productivity maximized, with new markets for goods emerging. The real enemies of most third world countries are the governments, who stunt growth of business by not protecting the property rights of citizens that do create wealth, and by not enforcing basic rule of law in their countries. Of course no one in the Students Against Sweatshops has the balls to put an M16 on his back and fight the enemies of democracy and human rights in the world, like our Armed Forces do. Neither do I for that matter but at least I realize who the real heroes are. I’m a wuss, but I’m not an unappreciative wuss. The Students against Sweatshops would rather refuse to by a Nike T shirt, in their pathetic attempt at fake heroism, depicting themselves as the saviors or human rights. It’s so pathetic there just aren’t words for it. I hate to use clechay phrases like “I digress” but sorry, it fits here. I digress.

The pie world view leads people to supporting ideals of welfare, staggered tax rates, rent control, minimum wage, etc. This world view leads to people constantly being worried about the growing gap between the rich and the poor, and the fact that the middle class is disappearing. Truth is, the middle class is disappearing in America. The middle class are becoming rich people. They are moving into higher income brackets. Although the “gap” is getting bigger, more and more people are finding themselves on the good side of that gap. When speaking about this “gap” for political gain, politicians never mention the growing number of people on the good side of the gap. They simply point to the gap itself as an injustice. There is no “proper” size to that gap. Not in a free economy. Most times in history where there was a ruling class of people that held all of the wealth, they did it by force. It was the state that took more and more of the citizen’s money, not savvy businessmen running international companies. Strangely enough, the left believes the answer to bridging the gap between rich and poor is to turn more of everyone’s’ money over to the government, and let them spend it as they see fit. This is precisely what “caused” the hands of few to control massive amounts of wealth in previous civilizations. Democrats today see themselves as modern day Robin Hoods, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Only that’s not what Robin Hood did. Robin Hood invaded castles and took money. Robin Hood stole from the “state” and gave the money that was taken from the citizens, back to the citizens. He was nothing but a rampant tax cutter.

American values are all grown out of this concept of personal wealth creation. The genius of America was that founders finally realized that the best system was no system at all. Just let the people loose, and see what they do. In less than 300 years, we have created more wealth and prosperity from that concept than any other civilization in the history of the world. When I hear people cheer for Barack Obama when he gives rafter roaring speeches about how the US Federal Government is going to feed you, pay for health care, pay for education, and provide everything for Americans that they can and should provide from themselves, I want hide my head in shame. This is not new. This is not change. This is going back to the same ideas that every other nation in the history of the world tried before America finally found the answer, and became the richest nation in the history of the world in less than 300 years. Just let the people go, and cut them loose, while of course defending them and their property rights. The change that Obama is talking about has brought tyranny, death, and destruction to many great nations before us, all in the name of good Intentions and “social justice” Let’s hope we are wise enough to avoid the same mistakes.

Obama's Middle Eastern Ignorance

If Obama wants to get away from petty politics and get down to substance, I say let’s get it on.

Tonight I nearly jumped out of my chair when I heard Obama giving a grand victory speech in North Carolina. He was on his usual tirade about pulling out of Iraq and focusing more energy on Al Qaeda’s leaders ( namely Bin Laden) in Afghanistan, where the "real war on terror is." Sounds like good rhetoric on the surface. I’m sure he thought so when he read it. This statement displays Obama’s complete and utter ignorance of the political situation in that region. This statement alone should disqualify him for president.

Leaving aside the fact that General Petreus has confirmed that we fighting the greater Al Qaeda organization in Iraq at this point, lets focus just on Afghanistan and Pakistan. First off, Al Qaeda leaders are not in Afghanistan. The region that Osama Bin Laden and Ayman Al Zawahiri ( Al Qaeda #2) are most likely in is referred to as the FATA region. (Federally Administered Tribal Areas). This is the rugged mountain terrain located between Pakistan and Afghanistan. This area is very limitedly represented by the Pakistani parliament, and for the most part is governed by local war lords and what was left of the Taliban after the US routed them in Afghanistan. It basically isn’t governed by anyone. What happens there is very crucial to Pakistani politics however, and a U.S invasion of the area in anyway could threaten President General Pervez Musharraf’s control over Pakistan, namely the 110-140 suspected nuclear war heads he is sitting on. Musharraf is by no means perfect, but at least he is supporting the US as much as he can, without appearing too friendly of course. Most importantly, he is keeping the lockdown on the nuclear arsenal. Al Qaeda has a lot of sympathizers in Pakistan, even very high up in command in General Musharraf's military. If he is seen as catering to the United States in anyway, or ignoring an invasion, it could throw Pakistan into chaos, leaving the most influential military general to take his place, possibly an Al Qaeda sympathizer. If we invade that area with Musharraf’s support, he is undermined. If we invade that area without his support, he is undermined. It is a very unstable and dangerous situation, but we must keep Musharraf in power to keep nuclear warheads out of the hands of Al Qaeda. Musharraf has a very difficult job of maintaining power in a country that somewhat sympathizes with organizations wishing to bring back the 8^th century caliphate, and a country that has promised the United States to be an ally in the war on terror. Osama Bin Laden’s head is not worth the trade for a Nuclear Armed Al Qaeda. If Osama is caught and executed, Ayman Al Zawahiri will take his place, and if he is caught, someone will take his place. It’s a frustrating situation, but unfortunately Bin Laden is not stupid, and has literally found the perfect place to hide. His being captured is really not that important to American security as it turns out anyway. Obviously it would be symbolic revenge for 9-11 but it wouldn’t make us any safer. Walid Phares, a scholar of Middle Eastern studies for over 30 years put it this way. “Osama Bin Laden did not create the radical Islamic movement, the movement created him.” He is a very different symbolic leader than a Hitler or Stalin. This is why George Bush has chosen not to go after Bin Laden, and rather invest our energy into revolutionizing the region and propping up democracies in the greater Arab world. I agree, it’s a long shot, but it is a very careful, conscious and well thought out long shot. I want to hang Osama Bin Laden from the Brooklyn Bridge as much as the next guy, but it is not worth the risk at this point. Funny how Obama and the left are constantly accusing George Bush of being reckless and too aggressive, and Obama portrays himself as the thoughtful diplomatic leader. I wonder if Obama has thought this through? Either he’s an ignorant fool, or he knows the truth and just figures that his audience of ignorant fools will cheer at the idea of doing anything different than George W. Bush. Personally I hope the latter is true. I hope he really isn’t that clueless. Or better yet, I honestly hope I’m completely wrong. I hope we can treat terrorists as regular criminals and defeat them this way. I hope this whole thing has been blown out of proportion just to “scare up my vote”. For the sake of America and the western world, I really hope that's the case.

Pakistan’s best hope for Democracy was destroyed last November with the death of Benazir Bhutto, the head the Pakistani People’s Party, and the best hope of a Stable and democratic Pakistan, in which political power were granted to her, dismantling the military dictatorship of Pervez Musharraf in a peaceful and democratic way. Bhutto had vowed to go after Al Qaeda in the FATA regions, and if she could have successfully lobbied the support democratically, she could have remained in power while apprehending Bin Laden. The US would of course back her play, and this was the best chance we had at Bin Laden, without leaving Pakistan in chaos and those precious nuclear weapons in the hands of extremist maniacs. Al Qaeda knew this, which is why they killed her. Bhutto had gained the love and support of millions of Pakistani people, mostly because she was the daughter of former president Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in the 1970’s. Her weight with the people would allow her much more leverage than Musharraf, which is why she could have gone after Al Qaeda in ways that Musharraf can’t. Some say Musharraf had a hand in Bhutto’s assassination , but the first attempt on her life had Al Qaeda’s name written all over it. When Bhutto returned to Pakistan for the first time earlier last year, the Streets were lined with supporters with the hope of peace and prosperity on the way back to Pakistan. She was told there would be an attempt on her life that day, but she thought it more important to make a stand and stand up for democracy in the region. Talk about some brass balls. (Figuratively speaking of course!). Hillary Clinton claims to be brave for advocating a windfall profits tax and "standing up" to oil companies. HA! This woman literally laughs in the face of death for the love of her own people. That’s courage. Many of her supporters stood around her car as a human shield against car bombs as well. Anyone who says there isn’t a desire for democracy in the Middle East ought to talk to these people. While driving along, a man was holding up a baby wearing a cute little outfit with the Pakistani People’s party colors. The man was holding the baby in the air indicating that Bhutto should hold the baby up in the air. Bhutto gave a head nod to agree to hold the baby, but as the man was approaching the van, one of Bhutto’s security guards told her not to go near it. Bhutto was confused, and kept reaching for the baby. The security guard stepped in and pushed away the man and the baby past the car keeping them away from Bhutto. The next thing anyone remembers is 143 people surrounding the car slaughtered to death as a bomb went off. Bhutto lived that day. It’s hard to say where the blast came from, however, reports are that they suspected the baby to be coated in plastic explosives. I can only think of one organization capable of such evil in this world today, and that is the radical Islamic organization of Al Qaeda. They are evil right down to the core. Bhutto was later shot in what I guess you would say a more tradition form of assassination, as sick as that sounds.

This is the enemy America and the western World faces in the 21^st century. It is not juvenile to think in terms of good and evil just because it’s more complicated then you thought it would be. America has killed innocents no doubt in our wars, but there is a moral gulf between accidently killing civilians while targeting legitimate military bases, and coating a cute little baby in plastic explosives intentionally aimed at killing as many innocent people as possible with the detonation of a soul less than a year old. Anyone that can’t see this is a blind, moral idiot. Evil like this cannot be talked to or reasoned with as Obama constantly states. This type of evil must be identified as such, and then destroyed. The Democratic party refuses to even identify the enemy. George Bush made a critical mistake by calling this the war on terror. This is the war on Radical Islam. In the past year, the words radical Islam have not crossed the lips of a single democratic candidate. Not ONCE. They are so politically correct that they can't even identify the enemy properly. They cannot be trusted with national security. John McCain was asked by CAIR (Council on American Islamic relations) last week to stop using the words Radical Islam, or Islamic fascism because it was hurting Muslim American’s feelings. John McCain told them to go play on the freeway. That is the man I want as my next president.

More Taxes to the Rescue???!!

Never heard the term Tax Gouging did you? I guarantee you will think about it after you read this article. I just finished reading an article from the associated press (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/ap_on_go_co/congress_oil ) in regards to rising gas prices by Josef Hebert. Quite simply, this article should be considered Journalistic malpractice. The exclusion of key facts omitted from the article are really quite astonishing, however, they are painfully typical is today’s landscape of political turmoil and journalistic bias. Not once in the article was it mentioned that Exxon Mobil’s profit margin lies at about 9.6%, well below the S&P average of about 12%. McDonald's operates at a 12.7% profit margin, which means you’re being “gouged” about 25% more out of a double cheeseburger than a gallon of gas. Coca Cola operates at nearly a 21% profit margin. This isn’t surprising considering what they charge for a bottle of Dasani Water. I saw some idiot the other day on the news, holding a 20 oz bottle of water in his hand, pumping gas, being interviewed by the local news about Gas Prices. “It’s not about supply and demand.” He says, “it’s about price gouging!!.” A 20oz bottle of water at a gas station costs about $1.49 in LA. Do the math. 128 oz in a gallon. Over 6, 20 oz bottles of Dasani make a gallon. That’s about $9.60 a gallon for water. This idiot screams “price gouging!!!!” for $4 a gallon in gas, but almost $10 a gallon for water, the most abundant natural resource on the planet, doesn’t even register into his conscience. Here are the facts. This is what Barclay’s capital reported just one year ago. “Forecasted demand for oil in 2007 is set to increase by 1.43 million barrels a day, while supply is only intended to increase by 1.18 million barrels.” Looks like demand is out pacing supply worldwide, and much to democrat’s amazement, the price went up. Someone please mail Ted Kennedy an econ 101 book for his birthday.

Here is what Nancy and the crew pulled the oil companies in for today according to AP. “Appearing before a House committee, the executives were pressed to explain why they should continue to get billions of dollars in tax breaks when they made $123 billion last year and motorists are paying record gasoline prices at the pump.” Billions of dollars in tax breaks????Honest to god, they didn’t really ask that question did they? Exxon Mobil alone pays nearly $ 30 billion dollars in tax revenue per year. The entire bottom 50% of all US tax payers paid just 27 billion in 2004 according to IRS records. The bottom 50% of US tax payers makes up 65 million people. So Exxon Mobile alone, paid more money in tax revenue’s than 65 million Americans. That’s just federal taxes too. There are some states that get nearly 50 cents on the gallon for gasoline, including my own here in California, which is about 15% of the cash you pay at the pump, assuming $3.50 per gallon. They sure as hell aren’t building roads with that money. I think anyone in Los Angeles here can agree that the demand for roads is outpacing the supply just a bit. So for every dollar you spend at the pump, Exxon mobile makes 9.6 cents, and the state of California gets 15 cents. Even knowing all that, Congress holds a meeting and demands that Exxon Mobile explain its “excessive profits” to congress for the 500^th time. Also, many of the high prices are function of all the additives added in gasoline now, for fewer emissions into the atmosphere. Once again I quote the great Tom Sowell from Stanford University. “Why didn't politicians stand up and say something like: "Folks, we take responsibility for the high prices and gasoline shortages because this is the price we are willing to pay for cleaner air"? Why not? Why don't whales fly? It is not in their nature.”

Environmental standards are the primary reason gasoline prices are high. To the article’s credit, they did mention that 85% coastal areas are off limits to oil drilling. That’s fine enough if we want a pretty coastal area, however, you can’t then demonize the oil companies for the rising prices after we cut off a large portion of their drilling possibilities to increase the supply.

Quite simply, far more of the money you pay at the pump is going to state and federal governments, not oil companies. I say we take congress to court and demand that they do something productive with our money, or else give it back to us. Anyone ever think about that? Instead we’ll have these ridiculous hearings on why gas prices are too high and the usual conclusions will be made about how there was “no conclusive evidence” of illegal activity. Congress will generally do this whenever its approval ratings turn south, to make it look like they are sticking up for the little guy. Congress and state legislators are the real crooks. Sooner or later, people will get it, and demand action. What am I saying? People will never get it. We will continue to invest money in “alternative fuels” all the while not realizing that your money is being stolen to invest in those fuels, while the very people that stole it demonize the people they stole it from. Up is down and left is right today. Welcome to the Bizarro world.

Economic Illiteracy We Can Believe In!!

Charley Gibson from ABC reached down into his pocket and actually asked a difficult question last night during the last remaining debate before the Pennsylvania Democratic Primary. The left is furious. Greg Mitchell from the huffington post says "perhaps the most embarrassing performance by the media in a major presidential debate in years." The Washington Post's TV critic says Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos "turned in shoddy, despicable performances." What was so despicable? Well Charley Gibson said this to Obama.

“You said you would raise the capital gains tax to 28%...Bill Clinton in 1997 signed legislation that lowered the capital gains tax to 20 %, and George Bush took it down to 15%, and in each instance, Tax revenues went up, and when the capital gains tax was raised to 28% in the 1980’s, tax revenues went down, so why raise the capital gains tax at all?”

Ohhhhhhhhh Nooooooo!!!????Not a real question. You mean Obama actually has to explain his economic policies in front of real people, and actually has to make sense with facts and stuff?Ohhhhh jeez, how unfair??!!!Those rightwing neocons are at it again.

What was Obama’s response? Here it goes…

Well Charley you see I said I would look at raising the capial gains tax for purposes or fairness. We saw that the top 50 hedge fund managers made 29 Billion dollars last year. Part of what has happened is those that are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes end up paying a lower tax rate then their secretaries. That’s not fair.

First off, life is not fair. Didn’t your supposedly racist grandma teach you that? It’s not fair that I can’t qualify for the Olympic Marathon. I train as hard as I can, but somehow I come up short. Am I trying to pass legislation to slow down Ryan Hall so that he and I are equals? Would it make me faster to slow him down? Obviously not. Slowing him down would make us both worse, being as that I would have no more excellence to strive for because I can count on the government to keep slowing him down if I get lazy. Same goes for the economy. It doesn’t do either party any good to put your focus on fairness.

Furthermore, let’s say Mr. Hedge Fund's secretary makes 75k a year, and pays a 28% tax rate on the top portion of that income, 25%, 15% then 10% on the bottom portion. That’s roughly 13.5 k in federal income taxes. Say the hedge fund manager that the secretary works for makes $450 Million in capital gains, which is taxed at 15%. The manager pays 67.5 Million dollars in federal income taxes. So the manager pays $67.5 million, and the secretary pays 13 thousand, and according to Barack Obama, that is not fair for the secretary, because she pays more than him. Bear in mind if the Hedge Fund manager didn’t exist, the secretary wouldn’t even have a job to begin with. Imagine this though. You’re the secretary. Your hedge fund manager( god it just sounds evil doesn’t it ) says he’s going to give you a raise and double your salary to 150,000 dollars a year. After all, McCain won the election, hired Tom Sowell as his economic advisor(wishful thinking), and lowered the Capital Gains tax to 5%. He says he doesn’t want to lose you to a better firm, so he’ll double your salary to assure you stay. Can you imagine the secretary saying, damnit, no. I don’t care about doubling my salary. I want the capital gains rate back at 28%, and my salary back at 75k so that it’s fair!! I’ll even take a pay cut if it means you pay more in taxes, because I know that Obama is going to buy me healthcare, and I’ll see more money in the future if I take a pay cut now, provided it raises your taxes!! Can you imagine anyone in their right mind saying such a thing? Barack Obama thinks you would. If you think for two seconds that’s exactly what he’s saying.

More economic illiteracy we can believe in. By the way I just finished this in Microsoft word, and when you do a spell check, it tries to change Obama to Osama.…Touchay Mr. Gates.

Kevin Durkin

The Banning of DDT, Environmentalists with blood on their hands

In 1995, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) began an all out international war on a product responsible for saving more lives than just about any chemical or drug in the 20^th century. That product is called DDT. DDT is used to spray on the inside walls of houses, greatly reducing the incidents of Malaria in given areas, by killing mosquitos and other carriers of the diease. The National Academy of Sciences estimates that DDT is responsible for the saving of nearly a half billion (yes billion with a B) lives since World War II. The United States banned DDT in 1972, but obviously, it was inconsequential to the health of Americans, being as though we don’t have many outbreaks of Malaria here in the United States, at least compared to the rest of the world. 90% of cases of Malaria are on the Continent of Africa. The mostly widely effected countries include Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, and South Africa, just to name a few. With the banning of DDT in the United States, groups such as the Environmental Defense fund began gaining popularity and started lobbying to defund all foreign aid programs that supported the use of DDT worldwide, namely Africa. The results are devastating. Since the efforts to ban DDT worldwide, by environmental groups such as Greenpeace, and many other environmental lobbying groups, nearly 2.7 million Africans a year have died from Malaria, mostly children under the age of 5. Certainly, not all incidents of Malaria could have been prevented from DDT, but a large amount of them were greatly being reduced by many African nations in the mid 90’s, until the UN began to support many groups calling for a worldwide ban on DDT.

What are the downsides of DDT? Surely there must be a legitimate reason for the banning of DDT put forth by the environmentalist lobby, you must be saying. Well, here are the top three reasons that I can find. First, it is a possible carcinogen, if the DDT leaks into the ground, then into the water, then into crops, potentially causing cancer. That’s a hell of a claim, but even if it’s true, I think one would choose dying of cancer at the age of 60, rather than dying from Malaria at the age of 4. Second, a lot of groups that support organically grown foods actually have the nerve to lobby that DDT is not used, because Uganda is a great source of organically grown food, without the use of pesticides or lands tainted from chemicals used in houses such as DDT. For instance here is a letter written by a Ugandan woman from Toronto, to the Ugandan president.

"Mr. President, Uganda retains relatively pristine lakes and rivers and beautiful landscapes that yield abundant food supplies for domestic consumption and export. Moreover, Uganda is currently a leader in organic farming of desirable products such as the succulent pineapples grown in Kangulaumira in Kayunga District, and the banana in Mukono district. By avoiding the use of pesticides and fertilizers, Uganda is poised to break into European and North American markets where organic food products fetch exorbitant prices."

I guess you could argue that the economic value of the land, as to help Ugandan farmers, and then improve the lives of Ugandans is important, however, there is just no comparison to the astounding mortality rates caused from Malaria, and the little economic value “untainted” crops have to paranoid urban hippies living in Toronto. I hear this consistantly from people even here in Los Angeles. I only eat Organic food, people say. What does that even mean? Doesn't all food come organisms? Oh nevermind. Maybe I just don't "get it." I live on fast food, doritos, and mountain dew. The third and most hilarious reason that I can find is that it gets into the water, and they have seen instances of DDT contributing to lower sperm counts. This comes from the same general group of people that are constantly pushing for widespread population control in those areas. You think they would love DDT, but I guess they didn’t think of that.

There are volumes of books written on this issue, and obviously I am giving you just a brief taste of the complete issue at hand. I encourage anyone to look into it further to get a better grasp of the facts. My primary point here is to create skepticism on the part of the public when presented with ideas and facts given to them by various environmentalist groups. Although very good hearted in their intentions, their irresponsibility to acknowledge the unintended side effects of their actions can, and does lead to devastation in the world. These are the same groups of people calling for massive action on a part by the United States and the world community to act on Climate Change, consequences of their actions be damned. Too many times I hear people saying; well we should take the necessary steps to reduce carbon emissions anyway, even if global warming isn’t true. The steps that will be taken to do that cost unbelievable amounts of money and resources that could otherwise be spent fighting problems that we know for a fact exist. These include the 2.7 million Africans dying every year from Malaria, the millions suffering from Aids, or the 4 million Africans from the Southern part of Sudan that have been slaughtered by Islamic fundamentalists. When you look at the consequences to these problems, versus even the worst case scenario laid out by Al Gore and his foot soldiers, how is there even a debate over which problems gain our priority? We have limited time and resources. We cannot and should not fight problems that might exist, while ignoring problems that we know do exist. To do so is not compassionate in any way shape or form.

Kevin Durkin

Oil Prices- How about a congressional hearing on "Tax Gouging"?

Never heard the term Tax Gouging did you? I guarantee you will think about it after you read this article. I just finished reading an article from the associated press (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080401/ap_on_go_co/congress_oil ) in regards to rising gas prices by Josef Hebert. Quite simply, this article should be considered Journalistic malpractice. The exclusion of key facts omitted from the article are really quite astonishing, however, they are painfully typical is today’s landscape of political turmoil and journalistic bias. Not once in the article was it mentioned that Exxon Mobil’s profit margin lies at about 9.6%, well below the S&P average of about 12%. McDonald's operates at a 12.7% profit margin, which means you’re being “gouged” about 25% more out of a double cheeseburger than a gallon of gas. Coca Cola operates at nearly a 21% profit margin. This isn’t surprising considering what they charge for a bottle of Dasani Water. I saw some idiot the other day on the news, holding a 20 oz bottle of water in his hand, pumping gas, being interviewed by the local news about Gas Prices. “It’s not about supply and demand.” He says, “it’s about price gouging!!.” A 20oz bottle of water at a gas station costs about $1.49 in LA. Do the math. 128 oz in a gallon. Over 6, 20 oz bottles of Dasani make a gallon. That’s about $9.60 a gallon for water. This idiot screams “price gouging!!!!” for $4 a gallon in gas, but almost $10 a gallon for water, the most abundant natural resource on the planet, doesn’t even register into his conscience. Here are the facts. This is what Barclay’s capital reported just one year ago. “Forecasted demand for oil in 2007 is set to increase by 1.43 million barrels a day, while supply is only intended to increase by 1.18 million barrels.” Looks like demand is out pacing supply worldwide, and much to democrat’s amazement, the price went up. Someone please mail Ted Kennedy an econ 101 book for his birthday.

Here is what Nancy and the crew pulled the oil companies in for today according to AP. “Appearing before a House committee, the executives were pressed to explain why they should continue to get billions of dollars in tax breaks when they made $123 billion last year and motorists are paying record gasoline prices at the pump.” Billions of dollars in tax breaks????Honest to god, they didn’t really ask that question did they? Exxon Mobil alone pays nearly $ 30 billion dollars in tax revenue per year. The entire bottom 50% of all US tax payers paid just 27 million in 2004 according to IRS records. The bottom 50% of US tax payers makes up 65 million people. So Exxon Mobile alone, paid more money in tax revenue’s than 65 million Americans. That’s just federal taxes too. There are some states that get nearly 50 cents on the gallon for gasoline, including my own here in California, which is about 15% of the cash you pay at the pump, assuming $3.50 per gallon. They sure as hell aren’t building roads with that money. I think anyone in Los Angeles here can agree that the demand for roads is outpacing the supply just a bit. So for every dollar you spend at the pump, Exxon mobile makes 9.6 cents, and the state of California gets 15 cents. Even knowing all that, Congress holds a meeting and demands that Exxon Mobile explain its “excessive profits” to congress for the 500^th time. Also, many of the high prices are function of all the additives added in gasoline now, for fewer emissions into the atmosphere. Once again I quote the great Tom Sowell from Stanford University. “Why didn't politicians stand up and say something like: "Folks, we take responsibility for the high prices and gasoline shortages because this is the price we are willing to pay for cleaner air"? Why not? Why don't whales fly? It is not in their nature.”

Environmental standards are the primary reason gasoline prices are high. To the article’s credit, they did mention that 85% coastal areas are off limits to oil drilling. That’s fine enough if we want a pretty coastal area, however, you can’t then demonize the oil companies for the rising prices after we cut off a large portion of their drilling possibilities to increase the supply.

Quite simply, far more of the money you pay at the pump is going to state and federal governments, not oil companies. I say we take congress to court and demand that they do something productive with our money, or else give it back to us. Anyone ever think about that? Instead we’ll have these ridiculous hearings on why gas prices are too high and the usual conclusions will be made about how there was “no conclusive evidence” of illegal activity. Congress will generally do this whenever its approval ratings turn south, to make it look like they are sticking up for the little guy. Congress and state legislators are the real crooks. Sooner or later, people will get it, and demand action. What am I saying? People will never get it. We will continue to invest money in “alternative fuels” all the while not realizing that your money is being stolen to invest in those fuels, while the very people that stole it demonize the people they stole it from. Up is down and left is right today. Welcome to the Bizarro world.

Evangelized by Fear

It’s relatively cold for an early spring night in Hermosa Beach, CA. I had a long day of work, and had planned upon driving home to relax and get to bed early. Something in me got an extra step, however, so I went out for a walk along the beach and took my book to read at the pier. Taking a forced break from distance running due to an injury I have sustained for over 4 months, this has become my new way of unwinding from the everyday nonsense that tends to stress me out. I usually took up riding a bike or going to the gym during injury periods, but this time something made me go in a different direction. I have really found a new passion in reading these past few months, especially with a beautiful ocean backdrop a block from my house here in Hermosa Beach. It may seem like an odd substitute, but both of these things give me the same feeling inside when finished. I never would have assumed that reading would make me feel good, but then again who would have thought I’d fall in love with something as mundane and running down the street and back, but I’ve been doing that now for 10 years now. Passions such as this seem to sneak up on us, almost blindside us. I believe they come from something divine, but it’s an unexplainable force that I wouldn’t ever try to even put into words. So on a night like this, in a mood like this, you think it would be impossible to bother me, especially in a spiritual way. Two guys, however, managed to do just that.

I am sitting on the pier, reading my book, actually on the ground up against the railing so I can use the pier lights to see what I’m reading. I am deeply entrenched in my book when two guys walk up to me, and say, hey, want a million dollar bill? I looked, skeptically, at the guy, but said nothing. Me, skeptical, I know it am hard to imagine. Anyways, he says, ok, now here’s the million dollar question, If you died tonight would you go to heaven or hell? I gave the only honest answer I could think of. “I don’t know” I said. He said what are you reading? I said “John Bolton, Surrender is not an Option” NICE!!He said. Glad to see I could please him politically, even if he did think I was going to hell. So he handed the million dollar bill to me and went on his way, looking for his next victim of evangelism. I haven’t actually been randomly evangelized since college. In those days and good old U of AZ I had my choice between economically illiterate fools that chained themselves to the administration building protesting our association with Nike, and some guy holding a bible in his hand yelling and screaming about the fact that we need to repent now or face God’s wrath. I railed against both of these groups of idiots, so basically everyone thought I was going to hell, from the left all the way over to the right. I guess not too much has changed. I’m reading a book by one of the most loathed members of the Bush Administration, and the evangelical Christians still think I’m going to hell. Oh well. I’m ironically reminded of one of my favorite bible quotes. “A curse on your house when all speak well of you.” Actually I never read the bible but my recovering catholic father says it’s in there somewhere, so I’ll take his word for it. Against my better judgment, giving into my masochistic side, I decided to read the message on the million dollar bill. It says, this exactly, on the back of this fake bill.

Will you go to heaven? Here’s a quick test. Have you ever told a lie, stolen anything, or used God’s name in vain. Jesus said.”Whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”Have you ever looked with lust? Will you be guilty on Judgment Day? If you have done those things, God sees you as a lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterer at heart. The Bible warns that if you are guilty you will end up in Hell. That’s not God’s will. He sent his son to suffer and die on the cross for you. Jesus took your punishment upon himself: God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have everlasting life. Then he rose from the dead and defeated death. Please, repent (Turn from sin) today and trust in Jesus, and God will grant you everlasting life. The read your bible daily and obey it.

I want to analyze this statement, in context of the way in was given to me, to point out the fundamental misunderstanding evangelical Christians have of their own religion. It breaks my heart to see men let their spiritual goals in life slip through the finger tips at the hands of selfish religious idealists, who use guilt as a path to God.

First and foremost, I find it intellectually insulting, at the age of 27, that someone thinks my spiritual journey to the greatest question in all of our lives could be ignited by giving me a fake million dollar bill at the Hermosa Beach pier. I’m sitting here reading a book intently on a Thursday night. Do I look like someone whose never considered my spiritual quest? Does it ever occur to these people that one might find that insulting? Next, if these people truly had faith in God, they would believe in his ability to reach us all in one way or another, without the need for the ridiculous tactics thought up by these two guys at the pier. I can’t imagine a guy saying, well, I would turn into a heroin addict and gotten aids from a prostitute, but these guys handed me some monopoly money at the pier one night and turned my life around. Before even considering the spiritual idiocy of the document, this is just bad salesmanship any way you slice it. It’s just bad form. Even if I were a Christian, which I’m not, these guys are really doing a disservice to their religion. These types of tactics make normal Christians look like coltish nut jobs. If these people want to attract people to their church, this is a bad way of doing it. I would specifically avoid a church like this now, and wouldn’t EVER want to be associated with these people because of these tactics. So count me as a negative. I wonder if these tactics are even a net positive. Fact of the matter is that I sadly don’t believe these guys give a damn one way or the other whether I’m going to heaven or hell. It makes them feel better about themselves to do this, as they think they are fulfilling some moral purpose in life by doing this. It gives me no pleasure to believe that. I think it is sad, however, I believe their purpose is deeply selfish. I believe their tactics of applying guilt to other people to make themselves feel better inside is infinitely more sinful than looking at a nice looking woman with lust. I do not wish to insult any evangelicals who may read this, however I do want them to firmly ask themselves. What tactics would better Serve their god? There is only so much time in the day. Might there be more urgent evil in the world to fight other me checking out the hot talent at the beach?

The first thing these guys go after is your intuitive sexual attraction to women. Now, keep in mind I’m at the Hermosa Beach pier on a Thursday night, where there are about 10 bars with gorgeous women walking all over the place. Do I look at them lustfully? Of course, you idiot. There is something seriously wrong with denying the obvious. The claim that these guys DON’T look at all those women with Lust, now they have found Jesus, is obviously dishonest, which violates the first sin listed on the bill. Have you ever told a lie? Oooops. Now, I don’t have a problem with people having value systems that they can’t totally live up to. Everyone does that; otherwise we wouldn’t have any values. However, giving others the perception that you have overcome the sin, when in many cases it consumes you worse than the person you are evangelizing, is dishonest. People are only served well with truth. Lying to them does no good. These guys seem oblivious to that sin, which I believe is worse then knowingly committing sin.

I do believe that these guys fundamentally misunderstand the Christian message. I believe the message is a beautiful one. Stop running from sin. Look it in the eye and be brave. Jesus said it’s on him, so stop running and just accept the fact that you are imperfect. Accepting imperfection is your only way of being perfect. Carl Jung said “All Opposites Meet in Heaven.” I believe there a tremendous amount of wisdom in that. Heaven to me however is not eternity. It can mean different things to different people, but there are glimpses of it in life if you look and search hard enough in your passions. I believe you can find it in a loved one, or a great passion. I find it in my family, running, music, and small but precious moments that are so short they are infinite. I believe these moments are not meant to be understood completely but simply felt with the heart. I love intellectual thought and perspective obviously, but at the end of the day, it will only take you so far. Do I believe in Heaven? Or God? There is no way to know, obviously. Obviously I believe in something otherwise I wouldn’t bother writing this. I would sum it up with this. I believe. I leave the end of the sentence blank. To associate words with the very brief instances I have felt the presence of something greater than humanity pulsing through me would be fundamentally dishonest, and I wouldn’t even begin to try and understand it intellectually. I do believe in this unknown feeling. Maybe someday it will make more sense to me but it is fundamentally a life long journey that requires hard work, thought, and love. It certainly does not find its way into people’s hearts via handing out fake money on the pier trying to real them in with guilt about sexual lust. Every ounce of my soul tells me that what these guys are doing is wrong. It’s further away from God than just about anything I can think of on this planet. I loathe these guys in much the way they probably loathe me. Ironically I pray that someday they find a God that gives them true peace, not one that compels them toward guilt oriented evangelism, all in the name of selfish gratification for the very same guilt they feel within themselves.

Kevin Durkin