US debt becoming national security threat

Worried about our trillion dollar deficit

Ouch. Hillary Clinton slammed ex-Treasury Secretary Allan Greenspan for "outrageous" policies during his tenure that have resulted in a skyrocketing national deficit and become a national security risk.

So why not some out of-the-box actions, Mrs Clinton? For instance, let's stop importing so much foreign oil into the US. In fact, let's declare war on foreign oil dependence.

While I'm not a big fan of oil drilling in the US - it seems a step backward to me - I'd be willing to compromise if such an energy bill included new tax credits for hybrid cars, clean diesel vehicles, etc.

Moreover, lets attack our natural gas supplies immediately and aggressively. Its cleaner than gasoline and its right here in America. Furthermore, it sends the message that a new world order is coming in energy, and America WILL be energy independent by 2030.

Seriously, foreign oil dependence is already a significant threat to national security, adding our national debt atop this threat only adds insult to injury.

Jobs. Cheaper and cleaner energy. Less Debt. Safer country. Natural gas might not be perfect and its only a piece of the larger solution, but it can be a hugely important piece, especially in the interim, as we develop more long term solutions.

And, frankly, any politician against such change shouldn't be in office. In fact, the fact that there isn't such a movement storming through Congress already makes me think most politicians in Congress right now don't belong. Just another reason to vote against the incumbents.

So, c'mon Madam Secretary, outside of the President no one is in a better position to lead the charge against foreign oil dependence. Besides it'd sure look pretty Presidential.

Hillary's Detroit play - Will taxpayers win?

Who pays?

"Hillary Rodham Clinton on Saturday offered a double-barreled campaign message for the struggling U.S. auto industry: accept tougher fuel economy standards in exchange for federal help with the costly burden of retiree health care."

"Clinton said negotiating health care should not be the UAW's responsibility, saying she favored steps that would "lift some legacy costs from the auto industry."

According to the article, Clinton didn't offer any details on the plan.

So, the taxpayers would pay for it?

Foreign oil dependency: Hillary versus Obama

Winning is the only thing that matters?

According to the DetroitNews, Hillary Clinton is going to try very hard to distance herself from Barack Obama and his stance on Detroit and U.S. automakers. Mr.Obama wants to see significant increases in U.S. fuel economy and a move towards hybrid vehicles due to the dangers of foreign oil dependency and global warming.

Hillary, on the other hand, doesn't want to risk any votes by speaking the truth. Well, sometimes the truth hurts, and the truth is that U.S. automakers need to become as aggressive as possible regarding foreign oil dependency. There's no way to candy-coat that reality.

On that issue Barack Obama is dead-on.

I guess since Hillary saved the health care system, she probably has the perfect plan to save U.S. automakers as well.

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)

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.

Rage's Bush Rant: Typical Hollywood hypocrisy?

Rage Against the Machine making money for the 'machine'

I love the music of Rage Against the Machine. To be honest, most of the time, I don't really care about the lyrics - it's the vibe, the rhythm, the beat. Still, I've always found that name 'Rage Against the Machine' to be a little hypocritical. How can you really rage against the machine when you are part of the machine? Let's face it, Rage has made millions for capitalistic record companies, etc.

But, whatever. It's just rock and roll, right?

Consequently, I wasn't surprised to hear that Rage called for President Bush to be "hung, tried and shot" at a recent concert in Southern California. That's to be expected at such an event. Nonetheless, I'm really tired of so many Americans using Bush as scapegoat for their own inaction.

Was Bush wrong about Iraq? Did he lie? Was he duped by oil men? Maybe.

Still, when Bin Laden attacked the U.S. he explicitly stated that the American people were not innocent. Ultimately, OUR oil greed and OUR gross energy consumption and waste has helped corrupt the Middle East at the expense of many in the region - and this policy has been well executed by both parties and cheaply sold to most Americans.

And it's not as if Americans haven't been warned. It shouldn't have taken global warming to make America realize that change was required, or 9/11, or Iraq - and we STILL haven't changed much. Even before the first Iraq War there were gas lines and the Iranian hostage crisis. Yet, America still didn't act. And it isn't purely oil-influenced Republicans. During the Clinton/Gore years, for example, foreign oil dependency grew at an astounding pace.

Ultimately, both parties and the American people have failed, and ignorance is no excuse.

Want to blame Bush for Iraq? Fine. But don't forget to also blame everyone that you know that drives, or has driven, a large SUV or truck. Anyone that you know whom has driven a luxury car. Anyone that you know that drives a gas-guzzling sports car. Anyone that's been flying private jets.

In reality politicians and Hollywood - including rock stars - have been some of the grossest gas-guzzlers and polluters, the worst offenders. Just because Hollywood has recently bought into hybrid cars doesn't absolve them of their sordid past.

In reality, most of us helped pave the way to Iraq.

Sadly, even when today's Presidential candidates - of both parties - travel to discuss issues like foreign oil dependency, they fly private jets and drive large guzzlers. Not one major candidate has taken a real stand against foreign oil dependency or global warming.

Not one major candidate - of either party - has decided to "Be the Change you want to see in the world" as Gandhi would say, and neither have most American people. But I guess it's far easier to blame someone else, rather than take any real responsibility and action. It appears to be the American way.

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?

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.

If we think so many politicians are corrupt, why do we keep voting for them?

According to a CNN poll, over half the people believe that the majority of those in Congress are corrupt.

This isn't a new trend in politics. The belief that Congress is corrupt has been an ever-growing sentiment, and a sentiment that Bill Clinton successfully utilized to become President.

Yet, if so many believe that those in Congress are so corrupt, why is the rate of incumbency so high? Are 'the people' so disgusted they just choose not to vote?

GET REGISTERED TO VOTE. Don't just complain. Vote. If you don't think your vote counts, then vote Independent or for the Green Party. Who cares if they don't win, your vote can still send a message, even if your candidate doesn't win.

If you think those in Congress are corrupt and you aren't even registered to vote, then I think your more stupid than they are corrupt. So elevate your intelligence and register to 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.

Al Gore, the bore, at it again.

According to a developing Drudg Report Story, Al Gore in a speech on Thursday, "will also urge the broadcast media to further resist Administration efforts to manipulate and intimidate them, to fearlessly report the fact that there is no Al Qaeda/Saddam collaborative relationship, as the 9/11 Commission staff report has concluded."

What? Intelligence during his own tenure as VP, officially documented, claims otherwise. There is absolute proof that Al Qaeda, even Bin Laden himself, met with the Iraqi diplomats. Al Qaeda exists only as terrorist organization, if they weren't discussing terrorism, what were the discussing? The fact is we just don't know, but it seems pretty obvious they weren't discussing humanitarianism.

Additionally, George Bush didn't create 911, and the current Iraq war wouldn't exist without 911. The 911 plan was in place and moving forward during the reign of Al Gore's boss. These terrorists declared war on the U.S. long before the Bush Administration. Further, during the Clinton/Gore years what was done to make the Middle East better? What was done to prevent the kinds of anger and hate that caused the planning and execution of 911?

Clinton and Gore ruled during the Internet boom, a time of great domestic stability and wealth, yet in the Middle East we were hated more and more. Where was the diplomacy then? The Art of War is preventing War, and the Clinton/Gore Administration failed, horribly.

When it comes to Iraq and terrorism, the Democrats have no more moral authority than Republicans. During one of the biggest economic booms in U.S. history, what was ultimately accomplished by the Clinton/Gore Administration? Did the world become a better place,did the US become a safer place? No, Al Qaeda and Middle East frustration regarding the U.S. position on Palestine resulted in 911.

Of course, in hindsight how could Clinton/Gore know what was coming? It's obvious that the Intelligence community wasn't very intelligent, just as we are finding out in Iraq. If Iraq is a political issue, it's an issue that demonstrates the current ineffectiveness of the current American political system. Both parties have lost moral authority not only with the world, but with 50% of the American population.

The blame game is the losers game. This country needs leaders, not finger-pointers. In reality only about 20% of the American population truly endorses either party. Neither party speaks for the people, only for themselves.

The only thing that is going to change this is citizen participation. Only significantly increased voter participation can put a kink in the political machine. So, get out and vote. If your excuse is I don't like Bush or Kerry, or either party, then vote for Nader, or write somebody in. Just prove you care and that you are watching.