Armenian Genocide versus Iraq - Dirty Politics?

Can America stay in Iraq without Turkey?

In the early 1900's, some of Turkey's mullahs essentially ordered the genocide of more than 1,000,000 Armenians. Today, more than 100 years later, there is a movement in Congress to ratify a resolution acknowledging this genocide.

What would such a resolution accomplish, aside from $100.00+ barrels of oil, for example?

Might the resolution also push the Turkish government to disallow the U.S. to utilize its airports, airspace and land to supply the effort in Iraq? Since 70 percent of U.S. supplies move through Turkey, can the U.S. continue the War in Iraq without Turkey's help?

Are Democrats using the Armenian Resolution to covertly force a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq? If so, is such a move a good idea, or dirty politics?

2008: The Vote Against Incumbents Campaign

Could a fresh start be any worse?

Partisanship. Is there a better word to describe Congress? Unfortunately, it isn't just Congress, it's the radical left and right of the citizenry as well.

It's either their way or no way, yet neither the far left nor the far right represent the views of the MAJORITY of Americans. These two groups of extremists, however, are the most vocal, organized and funded, so they significantly shape the voice of their respective parties because the majority stays silent.

I say screw both Republicans and Democrats. America is neither 100 percent Republican, nor 100 percent Democrat and it never will be! In fact, if all the non-Voters voted as a bloc for an Independent Presidential candidate, he or she WOULD win.

Sure, politicians do need to stand for their Party sometimes, but politicians are supposed to represent the People, not the Party. Today, however, the Party is more important than the people.

Most Americans Do Not, on a daily basis, think of themselves as Democrats or Republicans. We think of ourselves as AMERICANS just trying to survive from paycheck to paycheck as our tax dollars pay for ever more earmarks and pork-barrel projects. Democrats and Republicans, unfortunately, could seem to care less about AMERICANS that do not think exactly as they do. Shame on you.

WE, The People, however, don't stop and ask to which Party someone belongs when help is needed.

Screw Democrats. Screw Republicans. And, especially, screw the incumbents. Seriously, how much worse could our political monopoly become?

Gallup: America thinks both parties suck

Congress can't get no respect

"The honeymoon phase is over for the new Congress, as the public's ratings of Congress are down again this month. The latest congressional job approval rating (24%) is the lowest for the institution since Democrats took control of both houses in January, and is far below the 37% registered in February. The decline has been most evident among Democrats, whose ratings of Congress now match those of Republicans."

CAFE: Proof of the dysfunctional-ity of Congress?

Expect a weak, pork-filled bill?

If new CAFE legislation coming out of Washington proves one thing, it's the dysfunctional-ity of Congress.

Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., said he strongly opposed the committee's draft, calling it "deeply flawed""It doesn't step up to the urgent challenge. It blinks and then steps back," he said. Waxman also quoted New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman who said "you could drive a Hummer through the gap between our words and deeds."

Yet, the committee's draft has essentially been crafted by Waxman's fellow Democrats. Not that Republicans should rejoice in the hypocrisy of the Democrat Party - at least the Democrats are doing something. Unfortunately, despite the strong rhetoric coming out of Democrats on issues, such as global warming, little action is actually taking place.

What CAFE really proves - a fact most Americans recognize according to most polls - is that Congress has become just shy of useless - at least for the people. Fortunately for Congress, we the people, are too lazy and complacent to do anything about it.

Hard on Iraq, soft on foreign oil dependency?

Likes to slam war in Iraq, yet soft on foreign oil dependency?

I think today's two party political system is just short of becoming a complete joke. I'm an issue orientated guy, yet issues seem to matter little in Washington.

Self-proclaimed national-security-protecting Republicans couldn't seem to care less about the most important national security facing America: foreign oil dependency. On the other hand, Democrats criticize the Iraq War and big oil companies, yet protect Detroit's gas-guzzling-creating culture.

Anyway, two of Michigan's leading Democrats have proposed a new CAFE plan, according to the DetroitNews, that insulates Detroit's most fuel-efficient vehicles, light trucks and SUVs, from any real increase. The plan does, however, at least include money to develop plug-in hybrid vehicles.

Are Michigan Democrats really Democrats?

Is Nancy Pelosi's biggest problem her own party?

Do Democrats really care about global warming and foreign oil dependency? While the answer to that question seems like a resounding yes, why is it that some Democrats are the BIGGEST laggards regarding real CAFE increases and real action on global warming? Isn't that supposed to be the domain of Big Oil-influenced Republicans?

At some point Democrats might have to ask, "Are Michigan Democrats really Democrats."

John Dingell (D) of Michigan is one of the biggest forces preventing a serious increase in CAFE, even though hybrid cars demonstrate that the CAFE requirements proposed for 2020 are essentially achievable today. Yet, Dingell has ripped....(Finish: CAFE: Can Democrats put Michigan in check?)

Bush more popular than Congress?!?!

Bush testing out a plug-in hybrid vehicle

George Bush is unpopular. That's no secret. According to the most recent Gallup Poll, Bush's approval rating is holding steady at about 33 percent. This low approval rating led many to believe that the unpopular President helped lead to a Democrat-controlled Congress.

But is that the real story?

According to the same Gallup poll, Congress has an approval rating of just 29 percent. Congress is even less popular than the President?

I think Democrats better wake up, as better Republicans. Ultimately, Democrats probably won control of Congress simply because they weren't Republicans - that's it. It was a vote for change that gave Democrats control of Congress.

Yet, has anything really changed? Certainly, the gross, unproductive partisanship of Congress has not changed, and nothing is being accomplished. Even worse, it is possible that essentially nothing will be accomplished until early 2008 - at best.

Perhaps in 2008, when America again votes for change, it shouldn't be limited to replacing Democrats with Republicans or vice versa. Instead, perhaps EVERY incumbent should be replaced?! Perhaps EVERY incumbent should be replaced with an Independent candidate?

Now that would be a change. Seriously, could it get any worse? When the best that is accomplished is, well, nothing, can it really get any worse?

Register to vote. Take a stand for change in 2008.

How can Democrats justify gas-gouging talk?

Hillary would like to tax oil company profits

A number of Democrats have loudly attacked Big Oil - probably because many Americans buy into the Republican - Big oil connection, and Americans love cheap gas. Thus, many Democrats have continually raised the issue of gas-gouging and gas-gouging legislation. Yet, the Democratic party is the largest supporter of global warming legislation and action.

Isn't that too ironic?

What if Democrats can make gasoline cheaper through windfall taxes, gouging legislation, etc.? Wouldn't Americans just increase their gasoline consumption, thereby increasing both foreign oil dependency and global warming emissions?

Ultimately and unfortunately, aren't high gas prices a good thing for those whom believe in global warming? Not only can increased gas prices reduce global warming-causing gasoline consumption, but higher prices can make alternative fuels more competitive, while also increasing the cost-effectiveness of clean technologies, such as hybrid cars?

Isn't that a good thing?

Obviously, Republicans didn't achieve any effective legislation towards fighting global warming, or even foreign oil dependency (if you don't believe in global warming) - something which is supposed to be a core Republican value. Sadly, I don't think Democrats can achieve much either if they keep engaging in double-speak.

Politics as usual? Are we, the people, simply incapable of accepting the truth, so we are habitually lied to by politicians whom just tell us what we want to hear? Are the people just too selfish and apathetic to even care about the truth?

(Originally published on Hybridcarsblog.com)

Hybrid tax credits: Now Barack, not later

Time to give Toyota some credit!

Congress sucks. Numerous Democrats and Republicans have been speaking about foreign oil dependency and global warming for at least a couple of years now, yet they've done little, despite the fact that a majority agree action is necessary.

O.K. Forget the past.

Barack Obama has now claimed that if he becomes President, he's going to push and to help U.S. automakers to develop hybrid cars. In addition, he also wants to change the tax credit for hybrid vehicles so that there is no cap by manufacturer - something Obama has also proposed as a legislator.

So, what are we waiting for? Foreign oil dependency and global warming are important, but not important enough .......(more).

Hillary or Obama: A vote for change?

Either a woman or a black man is a big change

There's an interesting article in the TimesOnline about Republicans that are converting to Democrats to support Barack Obama's run for President. Why? Because these converts believe Obama could unite the country.

“I think we should design campaigns that appeal, not to 51% of the people, but bring the country together as a whole,” said Matthew Dowd, President Bush's Chief Campaign Strategist in 2004. And, apparently, Dowd believes Obama has the best chance of achieving that end.

Could a politician actually unite the country these days, especially one coming from one of the major parties - both of which seem to relish campaign-funding partisanship? I hope so.

Even better, I hope these different candidates (not rich white males) can get more Americans to register to vote and, more important, to vote.

And if you don't like either of these candidates, then get out and vote for your candidate. And, if you don't like any of the candidates, then vote for a third party candidate - that's a better vote for change than not voting at all.

So, register to vote. If the far majority of eligible voters start voting and keep voting, then politicians will have to listen to the people, rather than the lobbyist controlled two party political system.

Hybrid vehicles and bio-fuels: Congress sucks!

Does it really matter which Party is in control?

If you ask me, competition works better than politicians. I'm not saying competition works perfectly, but it works better than a bunch of rich, special interest-funded partisan politicians.

Consequently, I've been very bothered that Congress has not extended Toyota's hybrid tax credits - something both Republicans and Democrats have ignored. Yet, in the last couple of years, both parties have talked considerably about energy dependence, especially foreign oil dependence and/or global warming. Yet, very little has been accomplished to alleviate these problems.

Obviously, the task is not simple. Still, it seems to me that the quickest way to make automakers deal with fuel efficiency is simple competition. Force them to act or risk losing customers.

Thus, the more success Toyota has selling hybrid vehicles, the more pressure there is.....Finish Hybrids and Biofuels: Forget the Politicians.

Democrats prove Congressional waste is non-partisan

While Democrats won over Congress by simply not being Republicans, they are acting just like Republicans now that they are in power. Apparently, America's danger spots, in terms of National Security, are now places like Belgium and the Caribbean.

Rep. Bennie Thompson of Mississippi said he toured the Caribbean because he now chairs the Homeland Security Committee and wanted to see vacation hot spots to “examine border security and port security.” Boy, isn't that convenient?

Isn't it time for Americans to accept the fact that both Republicans and Democrats suck?

Voting out Republicans was O.K., but the focus should have been to vote out ALL incumbents. Party politics don't help the people, just the parties.

(Source: Examiner)

Huh???? Most independents favor Democrats?

According to the Washington Post, independent voters favor Democrats over Republicans by 2 to 1.

Hmmm. I always thought Independents were against the two party system and, therefore, against both Republicans and Democrats.

(Full Story)

Billions spent on Midterm elections - Worth it?

I think most politicians suck. I say career politicians are largely worthless.

After having witnessed both Democrats and Republicans run the country, I can honestly say that neither party really changed my life. For decades, regardless of which party ruled, the divide between the rich and poor has increased and the Middle Class has all but disappeared.

When midterm elections require $2.6 billion, it becomes obvious that American politics can only be controlled by one thing, money. When money rules politics it also rules politicians.

(Full Story)

Politics: Does the whole system suck?

"This is not about one party or another. This is about how the whole system sucks," Robin Williams told reporters when talking about his new movie, Man of the Year.
According to reporters, Williams, "criticized the influence of special interest groups, the millions of dollars needed to campaign for office and the negative advertisements candidates use to hurt their rivals." (more)

Just check out the latest news. John Hopkins University researchers put out a study about Iraq deaths, intentionally meant to influence voting. One analyst stated, "This is not analysis, this is politics."

I always thought objectivity was required for scholarly work?

On the other side, David Zucker, a long time Democrat-turned-Republican has created a campaign ad that is even too negative for Republican strategists, the negative campaign experts.

What's going on?

Isn't consensus the point of multiple parties, multiple voices? Isn't the essence of America that consensus enables the best solutions that best match everyone's opinions, rather than just one opinion?

Yet, politicians are focused on party domination, not the type of consensus required to achieve much needed legislation. Too many politicians intentionally avoid consensus so they can blame the other side for legislative inaction, and on-and-on we go. Today it's Democrats, tomorrow it's Republicans, etc.

I agree, Mr. Williams, politics in America do suck.

If you hate Democrats, Read This!!!!!

So, you don't care about half the voters in America? You don't care about another 40 - 50% of Americans that don't even vote?

You only care about those people that think just like you? Everyone else is the enemy?

Is that the best Democracy has to offer?

If we can't understand those in America that disagree with us, how are we going to understand those throughout the world that disagree with us?

Is the Republican Party more important than the people?

If Democracy is nothing more than partisanship in the name of power, then I say _uck Democracy.

Nothing is more important than the people, the people ARE the democracy. Anybody whom believes in Democracy should be focused on one thing and one thing only, getting at least 90 percent of the people to vote - anything less ISN'T Democracy.

Like it or not, the people ARE more important than the party.

How can a democracy exist when non-voters represent the majority?

_UCK BOTH PARTIES!

Rate the stupidity of liberal leaders: Just how stupid are they?

I just read a refreshing article in the Los Angeles Times, Head-in-the-Sand Liberals, which I'm happy to report is one of the most talked about articles printed by the Los Angeles Times. Finally, someone - in a very nice fashion - is challenging the idiotic leadership of the liberal party.

I realized how much I hated liberals one day before the Iraq War. I was walking down Lake St. in Pasadena to go grab some lunch, and protestors were waving "No Blood for oil" signs up and down the street. I thought, well, what you should be saying is, "No blood for gas guzzlers".

Of course, these liberals couldn't say that when many of them drive gas-guzzlers.

Later that day I was driving home and I drove through South Pasadena, a very rich community in the Los Angeles area, and in front of me a brand new Jaguar sported the bumper sticker, "Jesus was a liberal."

I was so angry I wanted to ram into that Jaguar.

Yeah, Jesus would have been a Jaguar-driving liberal living in a multi-million dollar home in South Pasadena. Are liberals really that idiotic, I wondered?

Well, yes they are according to this excellent article by Sam Harris - a self-proclaimed liberal.

"I don't know how many more engineers and architects need to blow themselves up, fly planes into buildings or saw the heads off of journalists before this fantasy will dissipate. The truth is that there is every reason to believe that a terrifying number of the world's Muslims now view all political and moral questions in terms of their affiliation with Islam. This leads them to rally to the cause of other Muslims no matter how sociopathic their behavior. This benighted religious solidarity may be the greatest problem facing civilization and yet it is regularly misconstrued, ignored or obfuscated by liberals."

For example, Muslims are now calling for the death of the Pope and have almost assuredly killed an innocent nun who spent her life helping poor people.

"you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword." (more)

I think Bush has been a terrible leader, yet I think his boldest and greatest move was attacking Afghanistan and Iraq. We DID take this Jihad back to the Middle East. Yet, Bush has handled Iraq horribly in terms of any sort of long term planning.

Yet the liberal stance is, the war was wrong. America IS evil, and Democrats will fix the problem.

Oh yeah? OK. So now even the Pope is a puppet of Bush, now the Pope and all non-Islamic religions are also puppets of the Bush administration?

Liberals are right in complaining about the Bush handling of Iraq, of 9/11, but they are far more wrong in their beliefs about the state of the world, terrorism, and Islam.

Islamic extremists believe it is O.K. to kill non-Muslims and to die killing non-Muslims. These people are so much better than the Pope, than Tony Blair, than George Bush?

Don't liberals believe in freedom of and FROM religion - even Islam? That's what I believe and sadly I feel more aligned with conservative, red neck, ignorant Republicans than I do with Democrats.

Either Democrats need to wake up and get the neo-facist liberal extremists out of their party leadership, or more Democrats need to vote against both parties.

Many Democrats are right and in claiming Republicans are hurting America, unfortunately, many Democrats are causing just as much or more hurt than the Republican Party.

Is America the evil empire?

On the anniversary of 9/11, I cannot help but wonder, "Is America the worst country in the world?" People around the world blame America for almost every problem in the world - it seems. Even many Americans blame those rednecks, those liberals, or those immigrants for all the world's problems.
Is the U.S. really the evil empire?

I say the U.S. sucks at many levels. Money, money, money rules every element of our lives.

Yet most Americans get screwed by this country's economy. Most Americans, I believe, don't really buy into the American capitalistic culture, but we have little power to do anything about it.

Still, I'm not ready to write America off just yet.

What do you think? Does America just suck? Is America unfairly criticized? What would make America better?

Please don't tell me Democrats, either. Give me more. What would Democrats do? I say America has been going down hill for decades, maybe almost since the Revolution, so don't tell me Democrats.

Rate America - the good, bad and ugly.

(More from Rateyours.com)

Are you an angry voter? Planning to vote against incumbents?

A new poll suggests that the majority of Americans are angry about how the country is being run and they plan to vote against incumbents (more).

Are you an angry voter? Why?

I'm an angry voter. Of course, since both sides of the aisle have decided to make partisanship their main platform, is it really surprising that nothing good is coming out of Congress?

While I'm totally for voting against incumbents, I do believe that little will change without a higher American voter turnout. Moreover, I think we shouldn't just vote against incumbents, we should vote for outsiders.

I say forget the career politicians. I say forget the die-hard Republicans AND Democrats.

A vote for change requires real change - a completely new voice, a completely new platform.

Rate your incumbent anger!

Cindy Sheehan versus Jacob's Light Foundation

Why does Cindy Sheehan receive so much more attention than Jacob's Light Foundation?

Dorine Fletcher, like Cindy Sheehan, lost a child in Iraq. Yet, one tries to help people, the other seems to be on a huge publicity campaign.

Mrs. Fletcher sends out tens of thousands of care packages to U.S. soldiers through the Jacob's Light Foundation, Cindy just complains and complains. You can be against the war and still help people in need, such as people similar to your dead son.

Lately, liberal Americans have claimed - contrary to conservative Americans - that the press is controlled by conservatives. If so, why do we always hear about Cindy Sheehan, but never hear about the Jacob's Light Foundation?

Some Americans, including this writer, believe that Iraq was about far more than WMDs. It was about Middle East stability, such as in stabilizing Iran. Even favorite Democrats, such as Hillary Clinton, agree that Iran is a very serious issue, perhaps even much more serious than Saddam and WMDs.

Ironically, few countries in the Middle East are more open to Democracy than Iran - at least as far as the people are concerned. Unfortunately, however, the power structures in Iran are absolutely opposed to Democracy. Yet, a military invasion of Iran would be far more dangerous than an invasion of Iraq. Still, a successful Democracy in Iraq would lead to political instability in Iran - at least for the fundamentalists.

Might that not be the best way to deal with Iran?

So, maybe Iraq makes a little more sense than liberals want to believe, and it was not just about WMDs.

More important, shouldn't organizations like Jacob's Light receive a little more attention, considering the attention that Mrs. Sheehan receives?

Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House: Let's hope not

If Democrats take back control of Congress, then Nancy Pelosi will probably be the Speaker of the House. Will that be good for America?

Before we answer that question, let's discuss two issues.

First, what is the essence of Democracy? Is it one person one vote? If so, why does that mean anything? Isn't it really that Democracy, at its best, leads to consensus? That's why one person, one vote is so important, because consensus makes it hard for one person, one party, one way of thinking to dominate all aspects of American political life?

Let's face it, very rarely, if ever, does one person, one way of thinking, offer the answers to everything.

Second, so social security is in PERFECT shape? Every single person alive today has NOTHING to worry about when it comes to social security? When we all retire, we will all EASILY be able to live off of social security, right?

I ask the second question, because that is what Nancy Pelosi forced all Democrats to agree upon when George Bush said social security was flawed.

So, why do you then have a pension plan, a 401k plan? Why do Democrat-controlled Unions demand such great health care and pension plans for members if social security is so PERFECT?

In reality, relying on social security in retirement will lead to only one thing for most Americans: the poor house.

The truth is, social security is VERY flawed. Those of us in our 20s, 30s and 40s will almost certainly face serious shortages when it comes to social security. Yet, Nancy tells us there is NO problem.

Why?

Because George Bush, vis-a-vis Republicans, must fail at everything so that Democrats can control America's Democracy. Partisanship, not consensus, rules the world of Nancy Pelosi and the leaders of the Democrat Party. Unfortunately, partisanship also rules the world of the Republican Party.

Both parties are far more focused on raising money and on fighting the other side, than on consensus - the essence of Democracy.

Of course, multi-millionaires, such as Mrs. Pelosi and many other members of Congress, don't have to worry about social security - EVER.

Instead, they worry about POWER and the CONTROL of America's Democracy.

George Bush has not been a great President, but Congress - on both sides of the aisle - has been just as bad, if not worse.

America is a divided country. We speak different languages, we practice different forms of religion or no religion, and we have different political views on many different issues. This isn't bad, this is good. The opposite is the Taliban, it's facist Germany.

Why can't Mrs. Pelosi and the leaders of both parties respect these differing views? Why do they act more like facists than leaders of Democracy?

What happens if Mrs. Pelosi wins the role of Speaker, but accomplishes nothing because of extreme partisanship? Sure there is room for the likes of Mrs. Pelosi and Mr. Tom Delay in politics, but on the fringes of the party, not in a leadership role.

Ultimately, in order for a divided America to achieve great things, concensus will be required.

Could Independents hand the election to Democrats

Yesterday there was one important election in California between a Democrat and a Republican. While Republicans won the race, the vote was very close - even though it was Republican territory. It seems a good number of Republicans voted either Democrat or for an Independent candidate. Will this carry over to the general election and cause a change in leadership in the House, Senate or even both?

Why I didn't vote in today's primary and why I will vote in the real election.

Did you vote in today's primary? I didn't. Wanna know why?

I'm a registered Independent, so there wasn't too much for me to vote on in this primary. Still, the Democrat Party would have allowed me to vote, but I didn't take them up on the offer.

Why?

My wife is a registered Democrat and my phone has been ringing off the hook all day and every day trying to tell me for whom to vote. Every day my mailbox is full of ads for Democratic candidates trying to fight each other for a place on the ballot. In fact, yesterday, I received 11 different full color glossy ads from the SAME candidate.

While this might be worthwhile if it were two different parties competing against each other, these people are from the same party. Yet the candidate with the most advertising - the most money - is almost certain to win. Is this expense justified?

Still, I know almost nothing about any of these candidates, and what I have learned isn't always great, such as a candidate moving into my neighborhood just in time to run for election. How can you know my issues if you haven't lived here? Yet the party bigwigs can still support such a candidate.

How much money is being spent by Democrats to fight other Democrats? Who funds these battles within the party? How much money is spent?

And this isn't just Democrats, it is Republicans as well.

Suddenly it seems just a tiny percentage of Americans are determining the candidates for the entire political system.

That's why I'll be voting Independent, or for a third party, for every candidate. No I don't think that my candidate will win, but I don't believe in the American political system - a system completely determined by money - and voting Independent is a vote for change.

Blame both political parties for high gas prices

O.K., so Republicans have ties to big oil, that's obvious. But can you really blame high oil prices completely on Republicans, especially when the price of oil is decided in the open markets by traders trading future shares of oil every single second of the business day? How do you manipulate that? Still, Republicans deserve criticism for their close oil ties.

In addition to oil, Democrats ridicule the President's minor CAFE updates, and they are minor. In fact, they are essentially worthless. Yet, less than a year ago, when Congress had a chance to significantly update CAFE, did Democrats make a stand? Heck no. How would Democrats funded by the labor unions that 'protect' autoworkers explain this to the Union leadership, to the workers that would lose their jobs - and to a huge endorsement and source of campaign money?

In reality, when it comes to high gasoline prices, Democrats are very dirty.

That's what makes the new Harbour Report North America 2006 so darn interesting. The Harbour report studies the efficiency of automobile production in the U.S. Surprise, surprise Japanese automakers, even those in America with American autoworkers, are more efficient than American automakers.

While Detroit is closing the gap, this gap still exists and has existed for decades. Today it takes the most efficient Japanese automaker 7.33 hours less per vehicle in labor hours compared to the least efficient American automaker. Less than 10 years, in 1998, the number was 16.56 hours.

What does this number mean? Ultimately, if you spend less time per vehicle, it is because you have less problems, or better quality. Thus, American workers working for American automakers have been spending far more hours producing vehicles of far less quality than American workers working for Japanese automakers.

Again, this has been going on for DECADES. Is there really any wonder why Detroit has faltered over the years?

Detroits problems are far larger than just currency, or benefits, such as skyrocketing health care costs. For decades American automakers have been producing inferior products while spending a lot more time - thus money - doing it, and labor unions have been a huge part of that problem.

Sure labor unions have helped provide good wages and benefits for American autoworkers, but they have also contributed to creating an uncompetitive, inefficient American auto industry.

According to the Detroit News much of the recent gain in American automaker efficiency has "come as a result of progressive operating agreements the company has negotiated with the United Auto Workers union. The deals limit job classifications and rely on a team-based approach to manufacturing."

Shouldn't this have been handled a decade or two ago?

Consequently, for decades, Democrats have significantly contributed to the trend of gas-guzzling in the USA. Despite their rhetoric, and perhaps unintentionally, Democrats are probably more responsible for the SUV craze in America than Republicans. While American automakers do produce fuel efficient vehicles, most of them are produced outside of the United States. U.S. automakers largely produce ONLY foreign oil gas-guzzling vehicles in the States, and to a large extent, Detroit has had no choice. Only gas-guzzling SUVs provide enough profit to keep the Unions happy and the company afloat.

When it comes to America's foreign oil, gas-guzzling culture, there is plenty of blame to go around.

Even worse, as we head into 2008, little seems likely to change. Recently Hillary Clinton sided herself with Detroit and has skewed her focus more towards oil companies and their lack of E85, rather than the monstrous gas-guzzlers coming out of Detroit.

Ironically, even oil man, President Bush, has told Detroit to build more "relevant" vehicles, such as hybrid cars. Without more fuel efficient vehicles, E85 will be a program that America spends billions of tax payer dollars on, yet it will result in little change.

Well, I guess that sounds about right for big party American politics.

A call to those that don't vote

So you don't think your vote will count? Or, maybe you don't think there is really any difference between Republicans and Democrats - both are just controlled by well-funded lobbyists? Well, that is no excuse not to vote. If you fit either one of these categories, get out and vote, dammit. Vote for a third party candidate. Even if you have to vote for a Democrat or Republican, then vote against the incumbent. Vote for someone new. If millions of us vote third party and/or against incumbents we could make it much harder for lobbyists and special interest groups to control the outcome of elections. So register to vote. You can make a difference!

E85 and Hybrid Cars: Hollywood, Democrats and Republicans

I just finished replying to a CNN Commentary by Robert Redford on Kicking the Oil Habit. Lately, the idea of kicking the oil habit has become a hot topic, but there is growing partisan spin using this platform for political gain. I find this unacceptable. Ultimately, both parties have enabled America's oil addiction, and most Americans have happily helped. Lately the favorite buzzword of many politicians has become E85 or ethanol. Yet, far too many scientists note that ethanol will never end America's oil addiction, nor even foreign oil dependency, if we don't move towards significantly more fuel efficient vehicles, such as hybrid cars. Yet, it seems that not only are politicians misguided, but even cultural leaders, such as Robert Redford, whom are too focused on partisanship, rather than real leadership and solutions for such a serious issue. (Full Story)

Peggy Noonan's Third Time: Ready for a New Political Party?

When those not voting outnumber the voters of either Democrats or Republicans, you know there is a problem. Add in 90%+ incumbency and you know it's time for a change. So, can a new political party be the answer? Perhaps according to a new article from Peggy Noonan, "Something's happening. I have a feeling we're at some new beginning, that a big breakup's coming, and that though it isn't and will not be immediately apparent, we'll someday look back on this era as the time when a shift began," she states regarding a Third Party. Still, my favorite quote is, "The problem is that the parties in Washington, and the people on the ground in America, are polarized. There is an increasing and profound distance between the rulers of both parties and the people--between the elites and the grunts, between those in power and those who put them there."

If we can't have a new party, I say vote against ALL incumbents. The few good politicians we lose are worth the gain of cleaning our political house!

Re: Report Rebuts Bush on Spying

I read the article, Report Rebuts Bush on Spying in the Washington Post, and I didn't think much of it. While I'm not opposed to an investigation into the issue, how can any judgement be made without knowing all the facts? Since much of the program is top secret, then the Congressional Research Service really can't fully study the spying program in full detail, correct?

Nonetheless, American privacy is an important issue, and an unbiased investigation might be worthwhile. Unfortunately, Washington isn't capable of an unbiased investigation.

After reading the story, I checked out some blogs and found myself at fatcat politics. Fatcat isn't really about fatcat politics, it is about slandering Republicans.

O.K., that is fine. Many Republicans are funded by fatcat corporations and lobbyists, but so too are many Democrats.

Man, I really tire of elitist Democrats. While I probably agree more with Democrats on many issues, I actually trust Republicans more. While I rarely, if ever, vote for Republicans - I would vote for McCain - they seem to at least stand for consistency. Too often Dems. just seem to stand against things, not for things. I say either lead, follow, or get the F _ CK out of the way.

While I wasn't a big fan of Hillary when Bill took office, you have to give the Clintons credit, they tried to lead and I sometimes think Hillary might prove to be much more of President than her husband - she won't be chasing young interns. (I'm an independant, dammit, how can I be plugging Hillary?)They tried to take on health care, much the same way Bush tried to take on Social Security. That's leadership.

That's why I was annoyed by an image on fatcat linking corporations, Republicans and the Iraq War. Let's face it, corporate money dominates all politicians in one way or another. Anyway, below is what I wrote:

____________________________________________________________

Wow, the Iron Triangle?

So the Iron Triangle doesn't include both Dems and Repubs? Democrats don't have any corporate ties?

Anyway, it seems to me we went to war in Iraq in an attempt to stabilize the Middle East, and WMD was a piece of evidence - now proven largely incorrect - as to why the area needed to be stabilized in the war against terrorism, but it was by no means THE reason.

Now you can argue that Iraq wasn't a good method for stabilizing the Middle East or for fighting terrorism, but that doesn't seem to be what you are doing.

You just want to slander Republicans. Fine, I don't really care because I see both parties as the problem.

Still, in reality almost every smoking gun against Bush and going to Iraq used by Democrats now, was available to Democrats before the war, yet they went along.

It's sort of ironic that you think Iraq was about WMD and Zarqawi sees Iraq as a battle between Islam and Democracy, which seems to give some credence to the Bush belief.

You obviously hate Bush and have always hated Bush, so your glasses are only focused on proving your point that Bush sucks, rather than focusing on the real problems of the Iron Triangle and the real problems of fatcat politics.

Please understand I am not defending Bush, but the Iron Triangle and 'fatcat' politics have run both parties since both parties were founded. Let's be fair if we really want this to change.

In reality being a Democrat isn't NEARLY enough. In fact, it might not be helpful at all.

If that isn't true why is incumbency, in both parties, just a few percent under 100%? Why did Carville say the last election would be determined by just 3% of voting Americans? Why do average members - regardless of party - leave Congress much richer than when they started?

Groups like the UAW, for example, inevitably, collude with GM at times. That's why a number of Dems voted against increased fuel efficiency standards this last fall, when they had the numbers to make it happen. Instead, they wanted their piece of the corporate pie - the same corporate money they use to fund the Democratic party.

Do the ends always justify the means?

Pretending like this is just a Republican issue will only guarantee that very little will change. So congratulations, perhaps you will impeach Bush, but you'll still accomplish nothing regarding fat cat politics.

Thus, is this really a 'fatcat politics' site, or just a 'I hate Republicans site'?

_____________________________________________________

Anyway, to me, this is just more reason to register to vote. Again, if you don't believe in either party, you still need to vote. Vote for a third party if you don't want to vote for either major party, but PLEASE vote.

What caused the 9/11 terrorist attacks?

So Moveon.org is launching an anti-war vigil across the U.S.

What a joke.

First, who is Moveon.org going to endorse in 2008? Every major Democratic candidate does not advocate immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Second, almost everyone with a brain - even if against the war - realizes that an abrupt withdrawal would most certainly cause more deaths in Iraq and result in greater harm to the free world.

I guess it's sort of like Clinton's stance on Rwanda. Doing nothing is safer and cleaner for America, even if it means millions of Africans die.

Moveon.org seems to believe that all the world's problems are the result of George Bush. Fine. So how did Bush cause 9/11?

Let's not forget, the World Trade Centers were first attacked during the Clinton administration. Had the first attack succeeded, the death toll would have been far greater than the second attack. Afterwards, Bin Laden launched several attacks against U.S. interests and forces while planning the second World Trade Center attack - all on Clinton's watch. Did the seers in the Islamic revolution know George Bush was about to become President years before he was elected?

What caused 9/11?

Cindy Sheehan, the Crawford protestor has called Bush the greatest terrorist in the World and demanded that Israel withdraw from Palestine. What made this idiot a world affairs expert? Many Muslims - not just Islamic terrorists - hate Israel and do not want two independent states, they want the end of Israel, PERIOD. How does Sheehan plan to deal with this, like Rwanda? More important, Bill Clinton has stated that, in hindsight, his lack of success in dealing with the Israeli - Palestinian situation was his greatest failure.

Again, what caused 9/11?

I say it's oil and I wonder how many anti-war advocates drive SUVs, BMWs, and other foreign-oil guzzling vehicles. To those protestors, I say shut the F_ _ _ up! If you want to do something, start with your own actions. To those protestors that don't gas-guzzle and are part of the vigil, I respect you, but I wonder if you really believe that an immediate withdrawal will really result in a better world?

If you are a protestor that is also against gas-guzzling, remember one thing. Detroit and American automaker inefficiency are protected by Democrats and Republicans. Since 9/11 Democrats, as a party, could have made foreign oil dependency the American, the anti-war, issue. THEY DID NOT! Nor did Moveon.org. They don't want to deal with the real issues, just the issues that make money.

Unfortunately, too many Democrats, like the majority of Republicans, choose special interests, rather than the people's interests. Don't believe the Moveon.org hype. Moveon.org doesn't care about half the country's citizens - they - maybe you - are the enemy. The Democratic party is not the answer, nor is the Repulican party, it's up to us, the people. In reality, those that seek to divide us, rather than unite us, are the real enemy.

Rainbow Coalition Marches in Atlanta

When I was a college student at the University of Wisconsin - Madison, Jesse Jackson gave a speech in our fieldhouse to several thousand people. It was quite emotional and I found myself getting caught in Mr. Jackson's rhythm, but I found the frenzy annoying.

So, I sat down for a few moments and realized that Mr. Jackson really wasn't saying much. Even more interesting, Jesse would stop mid-sentence and the crowd would roar. They too were simply caught in the rhythm of his speech.

A few months later, I saw Mr. Jackson on Saturday Night Live read Green Eggs and Ham as if it were a political speech and was astounded at the similarity to my own experience in our fieldhouse.

Today, Jesse Jackson is marching in Atlanta to protect voting rights. Is this just more green eggs and ham?

Almost 50% of eligible voters don't even vote. Shouldn't voter turnout be the ultimate issue?

I'm not trying to diminish the importance of civil rights and the right to vote, but the right to vote doesn't mean much if it isn't utilized.

More important, is Mr. Jackson really for voting rights, or just the rights of Democratic voters?

Typically, always voting for a party, either party, leads to incumbency, and incumbency leads to pork-barrel legislation. The crappy energy bill or transportation bill were nothing but pork, but Republicans alone couldn't make either happen, Democrats helped.

Yes, Mr. Jackson, voting rights are important, but if all registered voters simply voted, everything might change. However, if all registered voters, not only voted, but voted against incumbency, everything WOULD change.

The politics of gas prices and the importance of hybrid cars

This morning oil prices went higher and should push beyond $60.00 per barrel sometime this week. So what should America do? Well, if you are a California Democrat, such as Fabian Nunez, we should lower gas taxes and raise the sale's tax on everything else (more).

Suddenly, Democrats are starting to sound an awful lot like oil-controlled Republicans. The conservationist, environmentalist, anti-war party wants to increase foreign oil dependency so as not to offend consumers at the pump? Pure hypocrisy.

Unfortunately, it isn't just California Democrats, but many Union-controlled Democrats as well. Case in point, raising fuel economy standards in the U.S. While the majority of Republicans are against raising such standards - surprise, surprise - enough voted for change that Democrats could have made it happen, but they didn't.

Instead, Democrats, such as Nancy Pelosi, ridicule and blame the Republican party for every oil ill, when in reality, the Democratic party has conspired with the Republican party to maintain the status quo. The phrase think globally act locally could well be utilized by Democrats. Rather than blaming Republicans, change the turncoats in the Democratic party and make something happen.

Until then, BOTH sides of the aisle stink.

Obviously, Democrats, just as Republicans, care more about re-election than actually standing for something. The Union edict of Buy American or Eat your Import doesn't apply to America's foreign oil dependency - the main driver of pollution, global warming, terrorism, and two wars in Iraq. Isn't that convenient?

Hybrid cars might not be the perfect solution to foreign-oil dependency, but they are a huge step in the right direction. Unfortunately, selfish and ego-centric Americans appear unwilling to change their driving habits towards smaller vehicles, regardless of the costs. Thus, emerging hybrid technology can help create a bridge between larger vehicles and fuel economy.

The United States is a country that has succeeded via technology, and hybrid technology can help begin solving foreign oil dependency today. Instead, American politicians are going to promote cheaper foreign oil dependency. Brilliant!

Gas prices, the Energy Bill, and Congress

Since the Energy Bill passed the House of Representatives, I have scanned the media for a positive assessment of the Energy Bill.

I have been unable to find one.

A majority of Americans, ones that live near the poverty line - the ones you never hear about on the O.C. or on reruns of Beverly Hills 90210 - are coming up shorter and shorter each month because of gas prices. But, who cares about a bunch of hillbilly, disenfranchised Americans that don't vote anyway?

Definitely not Congress. Gas prices are skyrocketing and the blame falls on both Democrats and Republicans alike. The last President to really push fuel efficiency was Jimmy Carter, according to USAToday.

While it seems obvious that Republicans have oil-lined pockets, Democrats are not nearly as innocent as outspoken Nancy Pelosi-(D)California, would have us believe. Instead of blaming Republicans, perhaps she should start by questioning the UAW-controlled-Democrats that are just as complicit in protecting the status quo of the automotive industry.

Even China is raising fuel efficiency standards. Not because scientific evidence suggests a global warming connection, but because pollution is ALREADY affecting their lives and China isn't very interested in America's decades old, inefficient automotive technology.

Save that for the Americans too stupid to value substance over image.

But I don't blame those Americans because we haven't had much choice, thanks to Congress. Experts, including those from the government, tell us this is an issue of National Security, yet neither corporate America, nor Congress, is taking responsible action.

Instead, billions of tax-payer dollars are being given to rich-in-profit energy corporations to 'save' America from the problems the same corporations created.

So, when you are at the pump this summer, pumping $3.00 gallons of gasoline into your vehicle, remember to thank your well-paid Congress-person.

And, if you are interested in buying a new car, don't forget hybrid cars! Send a message to the automotive industry that you want change.

Politics: Money is the Name of the Game

The Democrats have already raised $13,000,000.00 for the next election, according to reports released today.

Democrats also announced having raised at least $400 million in the 2003-04 election cycle.

The Republicans haven't provided their final numbers yet, but most expect final numbers to be in the same range as the Democrats.

That's right, folks, almost a 1,000,000,000.00. Nine zeros, baby, a billion dollars.

A billion dollars to elect someone whom doesn't even represent the majority of Americans.

Think this is ridiculous? Do something about it!

Register to vote! Don't like either party? Register Independent, just register.

Click here to register to vote!

Why the 90 percent mass is better than the 30 percent herd.

I read an interesting piece in Scientific American, called Common Sense, by Michael Shermer. The piece essentially claims that for a group to be smart it should be "autonomous, decentralized and cognitively diverse."

Massive amounts of data, according to Shermer, show that "For solving a surprisingly large and varied number of problems, crowds are smarter than individuals."

Of course crowds and the herd mentality can also be a problem "when the members of a group think uniformly in the wrong direction."

It is almost impossible not to think of Republicans and Democrats as herds. Essentially, only a tiny percent of people decide the entire agenda of a whole herd of people.

Both major parties are the antithesis of "autonomous, decentralized and cognitively diverse".

Even worse, neither party tries to mobilize 'the people' only people that think similarly. Neither party; therefore, will make America stronger.

Only a majority of eligible voters voting can help America achieve the potential of democracy. Yet, both major parties focus on control of democracy, rather than actually achieving democracy.

Register to Vote. Register Independent.

Dem Leaders Question Kerry's $15 million nest egg

According to a CNN article, "Democrats are questioning why he sat on so much money that could have helped him defeat George Bush or helped down-ballot races, many of which could have gone our way with a few more million dollars," said Donna Brazile, campaign manager for Al Gore's 2000 presidential race.

While Kerry is yet to respond, the move is almost certain to impact the 2008 election.

Additionally, Kerry has another $7 million "on hand in a legal and accounting compliance fund that he could use for legal expenses in a 2008 campaign."

Just a little a pocket change to the Two-Party System.

For the complete article, click here.

Click here to register to vote.