Free Trade Video

Pretty interesting. Despite the lame music, I think this is very effective. Let Obama speak for himself.

Onward!

I can't say I didn't feel that Sen. Clinton was the better candidate and, if elected president, would be better for the country as a whole. Clearly I disagree with her on a lot of things, but she does have consistent logic about many things we disagree on that Sen. Obama lacks. Her experience, particularly with foreign policy, put her ahead for me. I do feel Obama is easier to beat in November.

Where McCain needs to go now is to prevent the nebulous change rhetoric from continuing ad nauseum.

1) Take on Obama's earmarks (specifically things like hundreds of thousands to buddy Pfleger, or $1 million to his wife's employer) Compare this to McCain's track record against pork and earmarks and how this stance differs from Bush and the republicans who have lost their seats because of their reckless spending. Think highway bill - fun fact, not a single democrat voted against that gem of spending.

2) McCain suggested the surge before the White House came around, he needs to continue to hit up how this was different from the Bush lack of plan and suggest how his direction is different than Bush's current plans. Obama is simply regurgitating the same argument since the beginning and not dealing with the realities on the ground. You break it, you buy it.

3) I'd love to see a good list of the billions of handouts Obama is using to buy votes. Sure, "free" college, "free" health care, $1000 tax cuts, "cheap" hybrid cars all sound wonderful... but a good job adding up those costs as well as other expansions of government (including 70k more troops) could do well to show the utopian pipe dream he has created.

4) McCain desperately needs to make his health care case more succinctly and in terms Americans can connect to. Mindless democrats will continue to suck up the feel goods by trying to do something for the little guy while ignoring facts and continuing to assume anything but throwing money at an issue is simply evil and greedy. Many will incorrectly assume that McCain wont do anything about health care, whereas Obama is making this a cornerstone of his campaign. McCain needs to do a better job of making it the cornerstone of his - it's in my opinion the issue this campaign and why I'm not considering a third party vote.

Here's hoping Clinton doesn't end up VP and the moderate end of their party has hope for some real change by voting McCain. I like listening to Obama speak about as much as I like listening to Bush speak if that says anything, so I hope McCain gets on the offensive so I can stop watching rewinds of Obama's same speech again and again.

Bob Barr, Libertarian?

There's a lot of talk now about Bob Barr as the presidential candidate for the libertarian party. Many articles in Google News indicate speculation that former Paulites will flock to Bob Barr as the "next Ron Paul." Being unfamiliar with Bob Barr I did a quick Wikipedia search and found the following tidbits:

• Strong supporter of the War on Drugs stating there is a "constitutional right and responsibility of Congress to pass laws protecting citizens from dangerous and addictive narcotic"
• Against gay marriage and author of the Defense of Marriage Act preventing the federal government from recognizing gay marriages
  
• Supported the Patriot Act because of its sunset causes, but now regrets that decision

Doesn't sound like a Libertarian to me. It will be interesting to hear more about his foreign policy ideas, ideas about the economy and size of federal government, and how he reconciles his past with any current changes in policy positions that would make him more likely to garner a Libertarian vote.

Farm Bill Vetoed

Good news: Bush vetoed the "irresponsible" farm bill. $300 billion not wasted so far, but I imagine with some tweaks they'll still end up signing something fairly hefty. To roundup nationally and locally:

• Obama supports
• Clinton supports
• McCain opposes

• Udall supports
• Pearce supports
• Wilson opposes

Why might you want to oppose? Some obvservations here or you can enjoy selected earmarks from Swine Line:

-$500 million for the Qualified Forestry Bonds Program. This program was added to the Farm Bill to benefit one company, the Plum Creek Timber Company.

-$170 million for distressed salmon fishermen in California, Oregon and Washington. Maybe they just need a good therapist.

-The Equine Equity Act. According to Sen. McConnell (R-Ky.), “My legislation will remove the unfair tax burden on horses that discourage investment in the horse industry.”

Fun stuff! Of course I'm not interested in subsidies that affect the market and in the end hurt everybody involved but the minority that are making money from the rest of our hard work. Even in cases where one might be absolutely needed, $750,000 is a bit much for us to consider needing a lot of help through subsidies. It also doesn't help when senators don't understand basic terms and cite those reasons for their vote.

Please Stop Name Dropping

There's two names I wish I could never hear again this election cycle: Bush and Reagan. Usage of either is a cop-out to avoid talking about real issues or specifics and an appeal to emotion that only distracts from the reality of a candidate.

Let's face it, if you're at a point where you adore Bush now, no appeal to how terrible he is will change your mind or change your vote. Unlike the previous election, Bush is not on the ticket. Despite what Sen. Obama would like you to think, Sen. McCain is not Bush. That doesn't mean he is a good candidate or a bad candidate, it just means more time should be spent talking about Obama and McCain. For all the calls of non-partisan politics, I hear Obama use Bush's name as much as any nebulous warm-fuzzy phrase.

All it does is appeal to the crowd that loathes Bush. While it probably gets them all excited to feel good about hating Bush, it doesn't gain Obama any votes and if this country really is going to move on, it needs to start focusing on these two candidates and not the past. Apparently "hope" spends a considerable amount of time dwelling on the past.

Reagan. You can't accuse me of not being an fan of him: of the two books by former elected officials I have sitting at my desk right now, one of them is Reagan's. He did a lot, both good and bad, for this country. None of that matters in this election. Just like Obama wants to appeal to my hatred for Bush falls flat, McCain's (and earlier all the republican candidates) appeal to my love of Reagan will fall flat. It wont get you any votes from Democrats, it wont convince Republicans that you're "conservative enough." It isn't 1980 and the issues we face are very different. Saying "I'm a Reagan Conservative" means nothing unless you qualify that with exactly how and wasting the breath on a sentence about Reagan doesn't help.

Senators, stop name dropping appeals to emotion and just get to the issues.

44.8 Million Uninsured

I checked census.gov about this number and came to the following conclusions about the number of individuals without insurance:

• 8.7 million - make more than $75,000
• 8.3 million - make between $50-75,000
• 9.3 million - not US citizens
• 8.5 million - between 18 & 24
• 10-14 million - eligible for Medicaid but do not apply

You'll notice there's some overlap there because the total is 48.8 million. Some of these large groups of people don't really deserve my pity when it comes to them choosing not to have insurance. There is on disturbing number: 8.3 million are under 18 years old and do not have insurance. That's one thing that my love for freedom, choice, and limited government begins to take issue with. Of course, the question is who is going to pay for these children to receive health care and how many of these children belong to parents in the above groups that are choosing not to have insurance. Of those 8.3 million children, another source puts 6 million eligible but not receiving government provided care making that number a bit lower.

Gas Price "Fixes"

I could go off a little bit more about it, but I think it's pretty clear to most people that gas tax holiday is a bad idea and wont fix anything. The media is hammering Sens. Clinton and McCain pretty well and I think most people can come to that conclusion after thinking on the matter a little bit or crunching some numbers for themselves.

I think most people can do the same when it comes to Sens. Obama and Clinton's windfall profit tax, though the media isn't spending as much time with that one. While it's popular to want to stick it to the corporation, I think some reason can figure out exactly what might happen if you try to do it too much to a corporation. I also challenge the spin with raw numbers - and not profit margins - that the oil companies are making so much money. Here's the real scoop:

On average, the profit margin of the oil industry is 8.3%. As a former retail employee in what feels like a past life, I can tell you that a profit margin that low is very atypical. Retailers such as Best Buy or Wal-Mart have massive profit margins on the goods they sell. For example, when working at Best Buy, I found that the cost of a simple printer cable was $1.21. We sold that same cable for $32 to the public, a 2,644% profit margin! Granted in dollars we are talking about profiting only $30 and some change off the cable. But, let’s put it into the proper perspective. With a barrel of oil teetering just over $100, and an average profit margin of 8.3%, the oil companies are making a whopping $8.30 off the barrel of oil! Hardly a wild profit to accuse an entire industry of price gouging over.

Oh, and about that price gouging...some info from FactCheck.org:But what Obama doesn't mention is that the FTC has conducted price-gouging investigations before, most notably in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The FTC found "no instances of illegal market manipulation" and concluded that the price increases "were approximately what would be predicted by the standard supply-and-demand model of a market performing competitively."

That's not to say that market manipulation (or price-gouging) is impossible. And the FTC, as well as state attorneys general, may well be conducting further probes even as we write this (they're generally supposed to be confidential until they're completed). But most economists say that gasoline prices have more to do with market forces than with oil company shenanigans.

But, let's get past that. Let's try and punish these oil companies because profit is evil and people are suffering. How do we stop their suffering? A windfall profit tax. We've done that before... how did it work that time?

Normally, when you tax something, you get less of it, but Mr. Obama seems to think he can repeal the laws of economics. We tried this windfall profits scheme in 1980. It backfired. The Congressional Research Service found in a 1990 analysis that the tax reduced domestic oil production by 3% to 6% and increased oil imports from OPEC by 8% to 16%. Mr. Obama nonetheless pledges to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, which he says "costs America $800 million a day." Someone should tell him that oil imports would soar if his tax plan becomes law. The biggest beneficiaries would be OPEC oil ministers.

Of course, just like the capital gains tax, Sen. Obama is okay with hurting people in the terms of the fairness of hurting the oil companies.

None of these plans actually solve what they say they'll and cause lower gas prices. All are pandering to a group of Americans who want the government to do something. I'm guessing that the government can't do anything to help these prices in the short run. There's drilling and all sorts of other ideas that I might agree to for reasons that have nothing to do with lowering gas prices in the short run and in a separate argument than this one. In an election year a cry for government to do something about something it can't really (and shouldn't really) affect in the short term ends up with government doing something terrible.

Edit: Justin Wolfers at the Freakonomics blog chimes in. Thanks to Brad for the link.

Food Aid: 770 million worth

Bush calls for approval of $770 million in food aid

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Bush urged Congress Thursday to approve $770 million to help alleviate dramatically escalating food prices that threaten widespread hunger and increasing social unrest around the world.

In a surprise midafternoon appearance at the White House, Bush announced he is asking lawmakers to approve the additional funds for global food aid and development programs. The money — to be directed primarily at needy African nations — is being included in a broader $70 billion Iraq war funding measure for 2009 that the White House sent to Capitol Hill on Thursday.

Yes, this is exactly what I want to be spending my tax dollars on right now. Don't get me wrong, I'm not pro-poverty, I'm not saying individuals shouldn't donate to charities to achieve this goal. I just think it's ridiculous that our federal government is in that business. Anybody disagree?

McCain's Health Care Plan Kicks Off

I really like the start McCain's health care plan so far based on two important pieces:

Mr. McCain’s health plan centers on eliminating the tax breaks for employers who provide health insurance for their workers — a marked departure from the current system — and giving $5,000 tax credits to families to buy their own insurance. His goal in shifting from employer-based coverage to having people buy their own policies is to encourage competition and choice, and to drive down the costs of health insurance.

The decision to put the choice of insurance with your employer is an extremely bad idea. It started as a result of wage freezes and employers looking for ways to attract workers through ways other than a direct wage. Company sponsored health care is born.

Never mind the fact that I can only choose from one provider. Or the fact that the two veterans that work for me receive a lower total value of their job than someone who is accepting the company insurance. Or those who work for me who are under 25 and still on their parents insurance also have a lower total value. Or the fact I could buy a "cheaper" plan elsewhere, but it would actually be more out of pocket to me. Apparently employee provided health care is good for Americans.

Shifting those same tax credits to individuals is a much better idea and would provide me with better choices for health care. Sure, I'd rather tax burden be lessened overall and credits like these eliminated altogether, but this is a start and I'll pick it over the other side's plans.

I do like that he does take a moment to pay attention to this fact:

Mr. McCain proposed that the federal government work with the states to cover those who cannot find insurance on the open market. With federal financial assistance, states would be encouraged to create high-risk pools that would contract with insurers to cover consumers who have been rejected on the open market.

He admits his plan isn't comprehensive yet and this is where he needs to do some more thinking. I appreciate the fact that the "I'll promise you" attitude he has about gas prices isn't here with health care. I'm torn on this issue, but I do understand that companies can't be held liable for individuals who choose not to get health care until they are sick. That's like me getting in a car accident and then complaining that State Farm wont fix my car because I didn't have insurance beforehand. If that is your primary goal with a health care plan, it only makes sense for Government to take over all insurance and make it mandatory for everyone. But I digress... some plans, especially local plans, to address this issue deserve discussion.

There's one more quote that I want to promise I'll get to in another post: "There are 47 million uninsured people in the United States, or 16 percent of the population." This number is misleading... I need to do a bit more research on the subject, though. (edit: and I did)

100 years in Iraq, continued...

Responding to comments from Dan about my comments on the DNC ad "McCain 100 years":

Instead, an interesting question to pursue is whether Iraq has a chance to make it to a situation similar the post-war Japan, Germany and Korea. If so, what is the potential cost?

I pointed out that McCain's understanding of foreign involvement was to engage and use our military alongside our diplomats in an array of uses that includes continued support in Iraq. I suggested the DNC strategy was essentially the same as McCain's but set Iraq aside for political reasons and that is inconsistent with the logic of a large international intervention policy. While I espouse non-intervention in foreign affairs except in the direst situations that affects the US, I failed to point out that having an foreign intervention policy also means making choices and assessing trade-offs of our interventions. I didn't make that point and I think made it seem like either we intervene and have troops everywhere or we simply keep our troops at home and have no foreign bases.

Dan is correct when he says, "'pulling out' or a large reduction in forces wouldn't impede us from striking strategically at al qaeda IF they set up Afghanistan-esque bases," if that is the goal of US foreign policy. That goal could also be achieved and is one I might agree with provided that we were okay with widespread violence in Iraq and it was coupled with withdrawal from other US foreign bases except a very few. If you consider hitting Al Qaeda bases with missiles, it would be done from a naval platform like Clinton did and bases in North Korea and Germany may no longer be of strategic importance.

But the key is assessing the goals of foreign intervention. If it is purely to protect direct and immediate US interests, the DNC falls short by also cherry picking when and where it wants to intervene due to political expediency. Dan continues:

Anyway, you're right. The argument by Dean is disingenuous - McCain, at the time, was not talking about staying 100 years in an Iraqi civil war that would cost thousands of more American (and 10,000s Iraqi lives). He was talking about an Iraq that exists only in the figment of his imagination - and he hasn't presented a plan for HOW he will realize this daydream.

This is where I also think Howard Dean has an opportunity to make everything line up but doesn't. He says that even if Iraq were post-war Germany or Japan he wouldn't stay because of the cost to the US taxpayer. That should be immediately followed with a statement that we should leave Korea, Germany, Iraq, and everywhere else that fits the test of being unuseful to immediate US interests.

Also, FactCheck.Org discusses DNC vs. McCain and looks at this ad and another earlier ad about the economy. If that blog isn't in your Reader, you're missing out.

100 years in Iraq

Check out this anti-McCain ad from the DNC:

Followed up by Howard Dean's comments

"What Senator McCain is saying doesn’t make any sense. We cannot be in Iraq for a hundred years. Those dollars belong in America. We’re in trouble in this–in, in America. And, frankly, the Bush-McCain economic program has put us in trouble in America. That money needs to be here in America.”

I would stand by Howard Dean and his comments if they were followed up by pulling out influence back from 130 countries or discussing the 450,000 troops stationed overseas other than Iraq. While he is trying to paint that 100 years as a terrible deep war situation, I do Sen. McCain is discussing a post-war Germany, Japan, or Korea situation. The inconsistency of thought makes the unfortunate truth apparent: the DNC sees Iraq as a means to an end when it comes to politics. Consistent logic is absent. That isn't to say that some, if not many, Republicans see it the same way.

That doesn't mean that they aren't right in isolation that we should leave Iraq - just that the DNC is wrong about global politics and would be willing to put the security and citizen's lives of one country - Iraq - on the back burner to politics when other situations, other countries, get preferential treatment because helping them it poltiically useful to the DNC.

In debates, Sen. McCain will be asked about these statements and he should. Hopefully he can point out the inconsistent logic of whatever candidate he is against and lay out his plan for what America's role should be in future conflicts. Maybe we'll get a real surprise and have Sen. Obama take on a smart foreign policy stance of non-intervention and free trade.

Running a Clean Campaign

I didn't run into this Slate article, Barack Track until today. I think it does a good job of pointing out the difference between Sen. Obama's words and actions about running a clean campaign.

As the senator's campaign train wound from one speech where he denounced tit-for-tat politics to the next speech where he denounced tit-for-tat politics, his campaign hosted a conference call to engage in the practice the candidate was busy denouncing.

I do agree with one thing he said:

"I'm not interested in having debates about flag pins...I'm interested in having debates about how we're going to send our kids to college and get our troops home from Iraq."

My first two serious discussions with fans of Sen. Obama resulted in utter frustration because neither were willing discuss issues. The foundation and walls of his campaign are all built on integrity, honesty, and a unifying nature-not issues. It then becomes difficult to engage him on the issues when he's using rhetoric more than facts and reason. If that's what he brings to the table, I think it is certainly fair game to question that.

He told at least two clear lies about "non-issues" in the last debate, but of course if you try to call him on it he'll accuse you of "playing politics." I would guess it would simply be easier to tell the truth on those issues and approach them head on. Instead we get lies and "...this wont matter to the American public on election day." Forgive me if I place the blame for some of these non-issues square in Sen. Obama's lap.

Free Trade: Colombia & Cuba

"Complete free trade is not politically feasible. Why? Because it's only in the general interest and in no one's special interest." -Milton Freidman

A quote from Sen. Obama I completely agree with:

"I think it's time for us to end the embargo with Cuba... It's time for us to acknowledge that that particular policy has failed." -Sen Obama

Keeping up an embargo wont help Cuba become democratic. I understand the initial reasonings, but what are you going to do. I'm skeptical on whether embargo or even sanctions are worth it. So, I'm glad we've got a candidate who seems to appreciate the importance of free trade.

And then...it goes out the window:

"I will oppose the Colombia Free Trade Agreement if President Bush insists on sending it to Congress because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements." -Sen. Obama

Ouch. So I guess Milton Friedman was right. Oh, and about that violent in Colombia? Thanks to the Washington Post for pointing out the facts on the matter:

Colombia is, indeed, violent -- though homicide has dramatically declined under Mr. Uribe. There were 17,198 murders in 2007. Of the dead, only 39 -- or 0.226 percent -- were even members of trade unions, let alone leaders or activists, according to the Colombian labor movement. (Union members make up just under 2 percent of the Colombian population.)

Catering to the special interests?

Obama: Debate Taxes

This is the moment of the debate (full transcript) I'm lingering on most this morning:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Would you take the same pledge? ["I am absolutely committed to not raising a single tax on middle- class Americans, people making less than $250,000 a year." -Sen. Clinton]

OBAMA: Well, I not only have pledged not to raise their taxes, I've been the first candidate in this race to specifically say I would cut their taxes.

...

GIBSON: Senator Obama, you both have now just taken this pledge on people under $250,000 -- and 200-and-what? $250,000?

OBAMA: Well, it depends on how you calculate it, but it would be between $200,000 and $250,000.

Okay... sounds like good news and a chance to solve the argument I've been having around the office about exactly what nebulous phrases like "I wont raise taxes on the middle class" actually means. Thanks, a hard number for me to consider before November. Oh... wait... Sen. Obama is talking about raising the capital gains tax. Oh, what's that, Charlie?

GIBSON: But, Senator, but that's a tax. That's a tax...

OBAMA: Well, no, no, look...

GIBSON: ... on people under $250,000.

OBAMA: Let me finish my point here, Charlie. Senator Clinton said she certainly wouldn't do this, this was a bad idea. In Iowa, when she was outside of camera range, said to an individual there she'd certainly consider the idea and then that was recorded. And she apparently wasn't aware that it was being recorded.

So this is an option that I would strongly consider, because the alternatives, like raising the retirement age or cutting benefits or raising the payroll tax on everybody, including people who make less than $97,000 a year...

GIBSON: But there's a heck of a lot of...

OBAMA: ... those are not good policy options.

GIBSON: There's a heck of a lot of people between $97,000 and $200,000 and $250,000. If you raise the payroll taxes...

OBAMA: And that's...

GIBSON: ... that's going to raise taxes on them.

OBAMA: And that's why I've said, Charlie, that I would look at potentially exempting those who are in between.

But the point is we're going to have to capture some revenue in order to stabilize the Social Security system. You can't get something for nothing. And if we care about Social Security, which I do, and if we are firm in our commitment to make sure that it's going to be there for the next generation, and not just for our generation, then we have an obligation to figure out how to stabilize the system.

And I think we should be honest in presenting our ideas in terms of how we're going to do that and not just say that we're going to form a commission and try to solve the problem some other way.

Emphasis my own. Ignoring whether one thinks the capital gains tax actually should be raised beyond that cap, I find it amazing that in the span of a few questions Sen. Obama is so quick to suggest raising taxes on the income level he just pledged not to raise taxes on. And the reasoning for doing so is solid and something I actually agree with: You can't get something for nothing. That includes (from Sen. Obama's website):

• He will provide at least $2 billion to expand services to Iraqi refugees in neighboring countries, and ensure that Iraqis inside their own country can find a safe-haven
• Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines.
• Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress.
• Obama believes that a critical step in restoring fiscal discipline is enforcing pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budgeting rules which require new spending commitments or tax changes to be paid for by cuts to other programs or new revenue.

I guess that "you can't get something for nothing" + programs = higher taxes for people he pledged to lower taxes for.

Then and Now: Unemployment and Inflation

A post over at The Corner compares 1996 and 2008 in terms of economics indicators. I absolutely agree with him that the daily headlines calling gloom and doom about unemployment rates being high are misplaced. I do think these headlines should be ditched in favor of inflation rate headlines that actually make some interesting comparisons:

1996
Unemployment Rate: 5.5%
Inflation Rate: 2.93%

2008
Unemployment Rate (Mar): 5.1%
Inflation Rate (Feb): 4.03%

That second number worries me a whole lot more and when I see the Fed lowering interest rates, Presidential candidates wanting to bailout people and banks that made poor decisions, and a weakening Dollar I get even more worried.

Colder Winter Hurts Maple Industry

This is a great example from Climate Skeptic about why when you only look at "why is warming bad for humans" you often forget that cooling can cause problems, too. If you stick to "warming is bad!" you may as well ignore any data about change in the other direction, and those total costs should be weighed when considering legislation to alter climate.

A year ago, stopglobalwarming.org was concerned that warmer springs would kill the maple syrup industry:

...the way I feel, we get too much warm. How many winters are we going to go with Decembers turning into short-sleeve weather, before the maple trees say, "I don't like it here any more?" ...

"It appears to be a rather dire situation for the maple industry in the Northeast if conditions continue to go toward the predictions that have been made for global warming," said Tim Perkins, director of the Proctor Maple Research Center at the University of Vermont.

But as Climate Skeptic points out, colder than normal winter has hurt the maple industry:

Moore said that at least 75 percent of his 5,000 trees are unreachable this week, still buried in snow. "I have trees that still have 3 feet of snow around them," he said. "It’s not looking good right now. "Eric Ellis of Maine Maple Products of Madison, a company run by the Lariviere brothers that taps 50,000 trees in northern Somerset County, said the season in the north country hasn’t even begun. "It’s a week to 10 days late." Ellis, like Moore, is concerned that it may get too warm too quickly.

Of course the argument is going to be that human CO2 causes larger and more pronounced climate variation which could potentially be proven. To do that, climate scientists would have to take a break from changing temperature records and focusing on warming to do the research.

Obama, Petraeus and Iraq

The Washington Post has the full text of Senator Obama's exchange with General Petreaus. There's some interesting comments here but I think ultimately they agreed on the following:

OBAMA:

If, on the other hand, our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo but there's not, you know, huge outbreaks of violence, there's still corruption, but the country is struggling along, but it's not a threat to its neighbors and it's not an Al Qaida base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable timeframe, and that, I think, is what everybody here on this committee has been trying to drive at, and we haven't been able to get as clear of an answer as we would like.

CROCKER: ...

I think that when Iraq gets to the point that it can carry forward its further development without a major commitment of U.S. forces, with still a lot of problems out there but where they and we would have a fair certitude that, again, they can drive it forward themselves without significant danger of having the whole thing slip away from them again, then, clearly, our profile, our presence diminishes markedly.

But that's not where we are now.

That seems like they agree on the ultimate conditions and the ultimate goal but phrase it slightly differently. The key to Sen. Obama's difference in opinion is as follows, "I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind -- and this is where we disagree -- includes a timetable for withdrawal." I'll take that to mean a hard date for withdrawal. This presents to me two possible endpoints for the solution:

1) We're in it to stay until Iraq is secure enough to manage itself.
2) It is too costly in both dollars and lives to remain there beyond a particular date despite what the condition is.

Sen. Obama is taking the middle ground between these two points and it doesn't quite add up. He was quick to point out in the questioning that he felt "the original decision to go into Iraq was a massive strategic blunder" and that seems to play into this dual endgame - wanting to finish the job but leave at a predefined date regardless of the condition on the ground.
I'd like a clearer answer as to what he feels considering the two positions. Honestly, if he went all in on one answer or the other I'd have a lot more respect for him. I feel Sen. McCain has embraced the first view wholeheartedly and Rep. Paul has embraced the second and both men I can understand their decisions and reasoning behind it. I'd love to hear some more discussion on this topic from Sen. Obama or members of his camp that are willing to provide me with links.

Questions About Global Warming

I've never run into a subject that accepts more things as a given before jumping into solving a problem. I always consider discussions on Global Warming to have a specific attempt at answering one of the several questions in the following chain. The key is understanding that each question depends on the answer before it and many people are arguing so far down the list without the foundation that arguments often collapse.

1) What is the expected climate variation and how is the current trend "unexpected"?
2) Which direction is the trend moving and how strong is that direction?
3) What is causing the unexpected variance in climate trending?

Then we move onto the areas that begin to have less to do with science and more to do with values:

4) Is this trending good or bad for humanity?
5) If the trend is bad, what could we do to stop it? (hint: how good is your answer to question 3?) 6) What is the best course of action given we believe the trend is bad, we know what is causing it, we know what factors go into stopping it, and we understand net effect has to be positive for humanity.

Right now the discussion is in your legislators hands at basically question 5. Unfortunately almost everything before it is almost ignored or taken as a given and new research isn't really important unless it clearly agrees with the given that the climate is warming and it is bad for humans. In addition, the clarity about what is actually causing it makes for potentially wasteful legislation. For example, should we really be targeting CO2 or should we be looking at something else even if you accept climate change is happening and warming is bad for humans.

Government of course doesn't usually consider the last question in almost any attempt to provide a solution. The very specific goal is set, the litmus test of whether that specific goal would be reached is voted on, and the result steams forward. In this case, the specific goal is lowering CO2 and I have faith some kind of legislation could very well do that. Would it actually work? Would it have a net good for humanity? Because nobody is considering the full line of reasoning my guess would be the answer to both of those questions is no.

I certainly could come to accept Global Warming given the data, research, logic, and reason pointing us in that direction. I'm just waiting for someone to see that happen and the more I see scientists and the media approach it as a given the less I am prone to have faith.

The Thing About Global Warming...

I’m not sure what to think about global warming. I’m not sure what source to trust. The general media is useless if you want to find out un-biased reliable data, especially about global warming. The internet is great, but sometimes I’m not familiar with a source and I can’t really trust that they are telling the truth or how they got their data. That being said, I’m going to try and keep an open mind about this subject until I see some good info on both sides.

NASA published something that said “The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II." Another source says that 98% of Antarctica has cooled over the last decades and has built up ice pack -- 2% has warmed (in the Antarctic Peninsula).

I don’t think this closes the book on the subject, but even if we are going through global warming I’ve seen no data to convinced me that climate change is being caused by man.

If it is being caused my man made pollution in the form of CO2, I still don’t believe it is a problem on the scale that Gore claims it to be. That is to say, I don’t think we are going to die if we don’t take great steps to change our consumption of natural gas and oil. I don’t think our crops will fail, that CA & FL will be underwater, and that we face other forms of Doom.

So for now I remain a skeptic of global warming and that affects how I view policy in this country. I don’t believe that we should be avoiding oil and natural gas to save our planet. If we want to spend money investing in other sources of energy because oil is so damn expensive or that other forms of energy are cleaner in general, then that is a different subject. I don’t think we should be putting taxes on gas to try and make people drive less and I don’t think we should hinder our businesses either if the reason is they are added to global climate change.
I’m not completely against the global warming eco-friendly movement. It has gotten more people to recycle and be less wasteful and if people or businesses want to do their part on their own to be “more green”, good for them. Also, our country has a role in protecting our eco-system, national forests, and to control pollution in general but most of the global warming laws that keep trying to make their way on the books seem foolish to me.