opinions
opinions
Things I don't understand and other miscellaneous wanderings
08_12_2009
The cash for clunkers program enacted by President Obama and his political machine makes very little sense. It gives those who nearly have the money to buy new cars the ability to buy one sooner... those that are fairly well off in the first place.
And it does this to the detriment of those that are not well off enough to buy a new car.
And it does something else. It dictates the destruction of vehicles that would have appeared on the second hand market. In many cases the cars that are being destroyed are far better than the many cars driven by those who cannot afford new ones.
So... people who can almost afford to buy new cars are given money (that was taken from the citizens of these USA without their consent) so that they can buy new cars and the cars that the rest of us would buy on the second hand market are destroyed.
Instead, why didn't the wise folks in Washington DC dictate a system where those who own cars that are still being driven and in even worse shape than the traded-in-and-destroyed clunkers be traded for those better clunkers? The result would be cleaner air and safer highways for everyone... and at ZERO cost?
Why do we (the USA) allow people to simply walk into our country?
If we are going to do this and turn our backs on the practice then why do we have borders?
If you or I were not doing well financially and not living in the USA why wouldn't we walk in? Aside from a long tough walk is there a downside? It's bad enough that the USA gives "tax rebates" to those who made so little money that they payed no taxes. now the USA is considering giving "economic stimulus" checks to people who are here and not even citizens. This provides an incentive far beyond the simple chance to make it financially by working... this provides an incentive to come here to collect your checks from the government.
02_14_2009
So it seems we are going to burn oil in our vehicles for some time to come. We want to burn less so that we create less pollution which is not a problem. But here's the rub:
Why are we so determined to burn someone else's oil? Oil that we have to buy, sending money to people who may not have our best interests in mind. We get a good deal of oil from Canada's oil sand fields and I'm not so concerned about sending money to them. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Russians however, may not have our best interests in mind.
Seems to me that access to our own source of oil, even if it is more expensive (which it isn't) is an issue of national security. Cut off our oil supply and the we are in serious trouble... almost immediately.
Originally I was in favor of keeping oil drilling out of Anwar. The first time you hear about the idea of drilling for oil in Anwar it brings to your mind the destruction of those magnificent mountain ranges so often seen in documentaries. But here's the truth about Anwar. Anwar has a tiny portion of not so lovely area, in fact a small portion of Anwar, if viewed by the layman would appear to be a vast wasteland. Flat and frozen. The good news is that the oil that everyone is talking about is in this less than desirable section. One comparison I have heard is that if Anwar were an American football field, the portion that has oil under it, the portion that would have to be developed, is less than one square yard and even then one square yard of the not so desirable portion of the field.
SOOOoooooo...
Why not drill this, extract the oil from Anwar and reduce our vulnerability to outside forces? We would have oil, be less vulnerable and still have the beautiful mountain ranges of Anwar that everyone thinks when someone says "Anwar."
02_14_2009
We could further reduce our vulnerability, provide numerous internal jobs and build our economy (rather than deplete our money supply) by drilling the oil that is found here in the USA.
Anwar is not the only place where we have oil to access. Consider off the coast of Florida.
There is oil that we can safely drill, out of site of land, in the gulf of Mexico. One thing rarely mentioned about oil rigs in the gulf is that they are very attractive to sea life, providing structure that attracting and promoting reproduction.
The interesting and pressing issue is that us not drilling for the oil does not reduce the possibility of oil spills and ecological damage because these gulf oil fields are being drilled by others, like China. If we don't drill, we will still have all of the risk and none of the rewards because others are drilling and removing it.
To me, it's a no-brainer... which makes it something I just don't understand.
05_12_2009
I just saw another one of those "gun crime" ads on television. Vignettes of young mothers crying while their young children disappear. The voice over warns against committing a "gun crime" because it will add 5 years to your sentence and 5 years is a long time to be away from family.
Never mind the simple fact that guns don't commit crimes... how about spending the time warning against a "gun crime" to warn against committing a crime in the first place? It's almost like this "well, everybody commits crimes these days so it's not even worth talking about that so let's invent something else to talk about."
Grade inflation in our schools is bad enough... but now we have crime inflation.
While we are talking about guns... Have you ever noticed that ALL of the multiple killings carried out by one perpetrator occur in "gun free zones?" These damaged people are killers but they are not stupid. They are lazy and they are far from brave. They pick a place where the chance of resistance will be the least. "Let's see... HMMMMMmmmmmm... where would that be? UH... WELL... how about a gun free zone?
This brings to mind one other thing... only mildly related. Schools that have signs announcing the school is a "Drug Free Zone." Doesn't that imply that if a school doesn't have that sign then drugs are allowed?
HMMMMmmmmmm...