As a matter of principle and practice, I believe in Win-Win solutions whenever possible, and that life presents us with a virtually unlimited number of opportunities to break out of “zero-sum” assumptions to create abundance. In fact, this is the magic of American-style capitalism. The economic decisions of millions of individuals throughout our society have for generations created sufficient wealth to ensure an American standard of living that has been the envy of the world. To be sure, oil is not yet a scarce resource, but is becoming more costly to produce, and the politics of petroleum in the world today threatens the very foundation of our national wealth.
Petroleum is a commodity, in fact, a market basket of commodities that has over the years been priced roughly in relation to the cost of production. The reality of petroleum supply is that it is becoming increasingly costly to produce. Although oil is not yet in scarce supply, low cost, domestic sources have in recent decades been replaced by increasingly costly “tertiary recovery methods”, and risky domestic off-shore drilling.
Now let’s look at how much oil we are importing, and from where. The top ten oil producers in 2008 were, in order: Saudi Arabia, Russia, United States, Iran, China, Canada, Mexico, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Venezuela. Several of these source countries are less than reliable, subject to political instability, and/or capable of using oil as a political weapon. Two-thirds of oil imported into the United States comes from five countries (in order of most oil imported): Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria. Although from among the world’s top producers this list represents slightly more friendly and reliable sources of imported oil for the United States, we should not allow this to give us a false sense of security.
A protracted war in the Middle East, for example, could create scarcity and have a significant and direct impact on oil supplies and oil prices in the United States, and ultimately on the American economy. Adding to the direct impact, countries such as Japan, Germany, South Korea, France, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands import more than 90 percent of their oil. And nations like China and India, as well as much of the developing world, are consuming more oil every year. Interruptions in supply from Middle East oil producers could send the global economy into economic free fall. Our Strategic Petroleum Reserve provides little more than short-term protection from interruptions in petroleum supplies, as it amounts to only about 37 days of United States oil consumption, and only 75 -85 days worth of imports.
There is also the unstated cost that the United States has been incurring to secure Middle East oil, namely, the cost of the umbrella of military protection we have been providing to the ruling elites in the Middle East. Our military supports unstable governments such as Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, and Kuwait – all of which would likely fall into the hands of extremists in the absence of support from the United States.
Our economic security and political independence are increasingly at risk. Who will lead us to the energy solutions we need to secure our freedom here in the United States for generations to come?
By: Jonathan Cykman
About the Author:
true politics, thoughtful commentary on American Politics
http://politics.cykman.com
http://cykman.blogspot.com
Filed under News And Society by on Jul 28th, 2010. 
World politics is dominated by self-serving people. They promise change, but in reality they offer nothing more than “same procedure as last year.” What is wrong with the political thinking of today? Why do people who continue to serve their own interests higher than the people they were supposed to serve, keep get re-elected?
It has often been said that we have the politicians we deserve. In many ways that is true. When we don’t require more of our politicians we do end up with a sad bunch of people who chose politics as a way to earn money through board seats and many lobbyist-related “gifts” that truly affect the credibility of the politicians themselves.
A Historic Perspective
When we take into consideration how democracy came about it is very sad to behold. We have fought to gain the rights we have today, and yet democracy is one of the most overlooked rights by a lot of people. Apparently, they don’t appreciate the value of being able to elect your own leaders.
Consequently, many nations see a very low level of interaction at elections. In some countries only 60-70% vote. That leaves it up to the politicians themselves to decide what the agenda is going to contain. With participation so low you can almost expect the same results from each election, and the few shake-ups that happen are few and far between.
When people disregard history, they end up repeating it. What was previously totally unacceptable becomes the norm of the day when you lose all historic references. We have seen that in many nations with xenophobic parties rising in a mood where we begin once again to blame specific groups for unemployment and social unrest. Suddenly, all sense of decency is lost because of a perceived problem that isn’t even clealy defined, but mostly based upon feelings, beliefs and pre-conceived ideas.
Truly tragic when seen in a historic perspective.
What Does the Future Hold for Politicians?
The future is bleak for politicians without any real convictions. When nations get shaken up by natural disasters and people who suddenly discover that they were kept in the dark, things can get very ugly. We have seen civil wars in both Europe and Africa in recent years, and yet many don’t understand what is happening.
Politicians will have to be faithful to the ideals of bringing about change if they want to keep a democracy in nations that claim to be civilized. Otherwise, people suddenly create new systems based upon anarchy and civil unrest, and that can be avoided if only politicians would take charge of scandals and weed out the elements that destroy the basis of democracy.
By: Henrik V Blunck
About the Author:
Filed under News And Society by on Jul 28th, 2010.
I’ve been following the presidential campaigns as well as our state campaigns for the U.S. Congress and I am sad to say that the faces change but the rhetoric stays the same. I was once married to a U.S. Congressman so I have a bit of experience in this “campaign stuff.”
Last week McCain said he didn’t know how many houses he owned and this week Obama didn’t know what town he was in. Both have made major gaffs that give the other side ammunition for derogatory comments and negative campaign ads. Each is bashing the other, each is reaching for anything that helps them win. They’re tired, they’re overbooked and they’re human. While they say a lot of words, neither candidate offers any hard specifics about what they’ll do once in office. Each offers a lot of generalities. Actually, they can’t do much more than that because, thank God, they are not a one man show once they get elected. They have a Legislative and Judicial branch they have to work with and getting that many “important” people to work together is like herding cats. The also have to cut through all the lobbyists and that is an even bigger challenge.
Last night I watched the opening of the Democrat Convention and felt like I was at a pep rally. Little of substance was said. Michele Obama gave the keynote address and I found myself feeling a bit distressed. She wore a beautiful designer dress, was coiffed and impeccable in her appearance and tried to convince the conventioneers that she was “middle class” just like them. (Actually, she has her own dress designer, Maria Pinto, whom she has used “for a long time.” I don’t know many middle class women who have their own dress designer, do you?) She gave a speech that was full of words but short on both feeling and substance. I wasn’t convinced. She kept trying to persuade the “congregation” that she and her candidate-husband are middle class – just like them. She painfully recited all the problems encountered by herself and Barack in their early years growing up in middle class neighborhoods. She failed to mention that she graduated from both Princeton and Harvard. I felt she “protesteth too much.” I came away from it wanting to know who the “real” Michele Obama is.
The children were beautiful.
The commentators afterward lined up on both sides, of course. Some seemed to think the speech was on target, wonderful, portraying a true picture of a middle class family that is headed for the White House. Others saw them portrayed as Bevear-Cleaver-family-wanna-be types in an effort to get votes. There was little middle ground with the news media.
On a state level it’s much worse. We have a number of candidates in the race for a congressional seat in my district in Arizona. All talk about “clean campaigns” and the mud is flying faster than I’ve ever seen political mud fly. I get 3 or 4 pre-recorded phone messages a day from these candidates, each bashing the others and asking for my vote – and my money. It will be a matter of picking the “lesser of the evils” on election day. That is very sad.
Where are the statesmen? Who has a passion for this country strong enough to put all the personal aggrandizement aside? Don’t tell me what you think I want to hear. Don’t read the polls in the morning paper and stand for the ” issues of the day.” What are your stands on the issues? What do you want to accomplish? That’s what I want to know – consistently and unembellished.
Senators McCain and Obama, don’t think I’ll vote for you just because you’re a war hero or a black man, a Democrat or a Republican, a liberal or a conservative or because you’re the “media darling.” I’m not voting for your wife or your children or
Filed under News And Society by on Jul 28th, 2010.
The Republican Party became popular due to its view on the way conservative America thinks so the country goes republican.
If the democrats say the things that mainstream America wants to hear everyone does a turn around and goes democratic.
It’s like being a baseball or football fan, who really is nothing more than a fair weather friend.
How many years the Yankees did well, when they started to do bad where you still a Yankee fan?
How many years the Mets did poorly, where you still a Mets fan?
Talk about being fickle.
Politics goes through trends and if it is trendy to be a republican be one, if it is trendy to be a democrat be one.
There is Rush, Hannity, and any number of other talk radio hosts that did a wonderful job during the campaign to make sure the average American heard all of it. But did the average American hear it?
How often our system takes the form of it is popular to be that way so we will.
How often do you vote by name recognition?
Do you explain the system to your children?
Are you a democrat because you really are? Are you a Republican because you really are?
What do you see and how do you see it?
What do you hear and how do you hear it?
Mom said she was a democrat so I was years and years passed and I was. I’m a Republican now but I do look for the right issue to follow I look at both sides to choose.
I do not follow blindly and yet many people do. Why? Because that is the easy way. Because then you can say that you didn’t have an opinion on what happened or didn’t realize how it would affect our country.
Lily Livered, Many Americans are Lily Livered.
Land of the Free and pray that it stays that way. But remember it is okay not to pray. Get some guts and stand up for what you believe is right. We can all agree to disagree and still be great Americans as we do it. Debate made this country great.
Gutless politicians put us in the position of being looked at as overly passive about much of what has happened in the world.
It is time for all Americans to realize that being gutless is not what made our country so great. Being gutless did not bring so many wonderful people into a country that progressed so fast at one point in time that I grew up thinking life would be easy some day.
We were all gutless as we allowed others to harm ours to take the blessings bestowed on this great country for granted.
There is the wonder of it all and how to make it be seen by not only a few but by all.
It should not take decades to become involved in the building of and the voice of America. Our freedom, our liberty should not be taught to our children as only a right but as a blessing to be carefully taken care of.
Please let them our children be good Republicans. Please let them our children be good Democrats. Please let them stand up for what they believe is right. Our future may depend on it.
Teach them not to be gutless or lily livered but to have the strength to stand alone among many.
By: Julie Pierce
About the Author:
Filed under News And Society by on Jul 28th, 2010.
The state of the world as it is right now is very confusing to most. The average person doesn’t understand why the world is the way it is, and unless one is extremely familiar with the exact politics of each individual country and state, it can be very difficult to understand what’s going on in current world politics.
This is unfortunate, because it’s extremely important to stay informed of what’s going on in the world. Even situations half-way around the world from where you are, are important- it truly could affect you. It’s important that you understand what’s going on and HOW you could be affected.
The best way to keep yourself informed is to make sure and watch the news or read the newspaper every day. It doesn’t matter which news channel you watch, or which newspaper you read, as long as you view the news in some form or another.
While some news channels are going to be more biased than others, all of them will be about the same in informing you of the basics of what is going on around the world. Newspapers are the same way, they are going to be biased in some ways, but are still good for getting the basics. As long as you keep yourself informed of the basics of current world politics, then you can form your own opinions once you have the basic facts.
Another excellent way to stay informed is to view the news online. The internet has become a wonderful resource for keeping up with the news, finding out information about politics, and even helping those who are unsure or confused, to form their own opinions. There are several un-biased news sites out there, and these will help those who aren’t sure or are new to what’s going on, form their OWN opinions.
Avoid websites which promote extremism, if it sounds extreme or sounds “crazed” or someone’s getting “rabid,” then that isn’t a good news site to get news from. With the world the way it is, current world politics are dividing people like never before. It’s best to find out where you stand on issues without interference of those with “extreme” ideas.
The main thing to remember about keeping up with the world news and about forming your own opinions is to make sure that your opinions are your own, fully formed while you are informed- don’t be ashamed to stick up for what you believe or to express your views- but make sure that when you express opinions or thoughts, you allow for another person to have their own thoughts and opinions.
Any thought process or belief system that doesn’t allow for another person to have their own thoughts, opinions or beliefs is an extremist system- Simply staying informed and forming your own opinions isn’t extremism, it’s an individual right. That’s what keeping up with current world politics is all about, to make sure that everyone knows what’s going on- ignorance isn’t bliss.
By: Wendy Pan
About the Author:
Read more on Staying Informed of Current World Politics – Know What’s Happening Around the World…
Filed under News And Society by on Jul 23rd, 2010.
The system of government of Australia has been rooted in the liberal democratic tradition based on the freedom of speech, values of religious tolerance and the rule of law. Basically, the institutions and government practices in Australia reflect those of North American and British models, however, unique in its own Australian way.
The Commonwealth of Australian, or also known as the Parliament of Australia, is the oldest continuous democracy in the world today which was founded in 1901. It happened when the Six States, then known as the British colonies, agreed to federate. It was also during that time that Australia adopted its first federal government shaped by democratic principles and practices such “one man, one vote.”
Years passed after the federation was founded that Australia adopted the Britain’s electoral tradition including the limited franchise, plural and public voting. However, electoral changes were imposed due to intimidation of voters as well as bribery which caused too much trouble to the people. Such practices led Australia to be the pioneering country to have electoral reforms which are followed and became the basis of today’s democracy practices.
The government of Australia has been founded and based on elected parliament which consists of two chambers: the Senate and the House of Representatives. Both chambers will have to elect Ministers who will serve and conduct executive government; all the policies and decisions are made and decided only during Cabinet meetings. These decisions are not disclosed except for the ones which are needed to be announced publicly. Additionally, the principle of Cabinet solidarity closely mirrors the model of British Cabinet government which is responsible to parliament.
Australia is an independent nation, however, Queen Elizabeth II (Queen of Great Britain) is also the Queen of Australia who will be responsible in appointing a Governor-General to represent her in front of Australian people. Although the Governor-General has wide powers over the nation, he is subject to the advices of the ministers.
On August 21, 2010, the Australian Federal Election will take place to elect new members of the Parliament of Australia wherein the incumbent Labor Party Prime Minister Julia Gillard will be challenged by Liberal/National Coalition Leader Tony Abbott. The winner will be determined by the people who have the right to vote who they think would be the person worthy to be the next Prime Minister of Australia.
As mentioned in the constitution, a person in Australia is entitled to one vote only. Thus, it would be wise enough to choose the one who is willing to help the people.
By: Leie Gabrielle G. Hisona
About the Author:
Read more on Facts You Should Know About the Australian System of Government and Politics…
Filed under News And Society by on Jul 23rd, 2010.
Bilingual Politics would create mass confusion among any nation that uses the voting system to select members of office. The United States of America is an English speaking country since it’s very beginning. Any person entering the United States of America whether it is on a Work Visa Permit or illegally should never be able to vote unless they have become a U.S. citizen. If a person has dual citizenship with another country, such as Mexico, they need to specify which country will be their primary country before they are allowed to vote.
By allowing Bilingual Politics gives people the impression that we as a nation will allow illegal immigrants the right to vote in any and all elections. What about new laws. By allowing illegal immigrants the right to vote, our state and federal laws could very well change to reflect special privileges to illegals. If immigrants enter the United States of America, they should be required to speak English or be given a time span of three to six months to learn English as a second language.
Any nation should set a language as their primary language. That required language should be the only language taught in any school. All other languages would be classified as foreign languages. All foreign languages should only be taught as elective classes and not as a required classes in order to graduate from high school.
In Bilingual Politics the question arises “Would we have Spanish, Italian, Iranian, Japanese, Chinese, or German senators or representatives in our Senate and Congress? God forbid!!! One nation and one language. The word K.I.S.S. which means KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID is never more true than in politics and dealing with immigrants. Or the phrase “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, which means if our system electing political men and women into our government and our system of voting laws into office is working, why change it? Never add confusion into the system. If you think the United State of America is in serious shape, allow illegal aliens to vote, then see what happens. Japan or China allow illegals into their countries and permitted voting and state or federal aid to those illegals and add in their economic crisis on top of that
They would be in the same shape as the United States if not worse. You will never find any country outside of the United States of America that allows illegal aliens like we do. There is the unmentioned “open door” for anyone who wants to come here, can, no matter what their nationality is or even their religious beliefs and practices. It is enough to make a grown person weep. This is my opinion and mine alone, and please accept my apologies if I have offended anyone. But I have very strong opinions in all these situations.
By: Wendy Pan
About the Author:
Read more on Bilingual Politics – Should Immigrants Be Allowed to Vote?…
Filed under News And Society by on Jul 23rd, 2010.
When George Washington crossed the Delaware, according to the famous painting, he was showing a body language stance of confidence. He did this by standing erect with his hands on his hips. There is evidence of the same stance by Woodrow Wilson during a time when he was lecturing at a university and by Walter Mondale during his presidential campaign.
Many presidents and presidential hopefuls have shown body language signs of confidence and dominance. In the 1992 presidential debates, much of this was going on. Former President Bill Clinton, Ross Perot, and former President George Bush were all showing a palms down gesture that symbolized their belief in their superiority.
Another nonverbal cue of body language is a way you tilt your head back and hold it there. This has shown up in speeches by Mussolini, Roosevelt, George Wallace, and even Al Gore. It symbolizes a feeling of being disdainful, arrogant, and superior.
Sometimes, body language shows how uncomfortable a politician is. In 1988, former Vice President Dan Quayle was speaking in a televised debate. His opponent came out with a rather cutting remark, and Quayle’s response was an immediate “Adam’s apple jump.” This is a classic sign of nervousness.
The angle that you put yourself in relationship to others is a part of body language. Former President Richard Nixon was known for being uncomfortable around people. This was shown in the way he set himself at a ninety degree angle to others he was dealing with.
Much has been made of a 1988 Time magazine cover photo. It shows Jesse Jackson, who was making a run for president at the time. He is standing with his arms crossed in front of his chest. Some say this is a classic defensive pose. This may or may not be a correct interpretation of his body language.
A tense, pouting mouth can show uncertainty, frustration, and sadness. Photos were taken of former President Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky ordeal. In them he is often displaying such a form of body language.
Former President Ronald Reagan and the Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev had important matters to discuss at summit. There were times when they did not agree. However, when they did agree, their body language showed it. At such times, they would face each other. They would also sit in similar postures.
A Republican pollster, R. Teeter, did an experiment about body language in politics. He showed people visual footage of politicians campaigning. They were doing their usual speech-making, hand shaking, and the rest. There was no sound, only video.
As it turned out, those who had only the body language of the candidates to read rated them the same way as those who knew their politics and views. It was shown that a lot is determined about choice of candidate by body language alone.
By: Esmarelda Du Plessis
About the Author:
Filed under News And Society by on Jul 22nd, 2010.
Not long ago, one Washington politician looked at another Washington politician and called him a liar. Why is that news to me? Weren’t their lips moving? As the saying goes, it takes one to know one. Yes, it was rude to interrupt the man’s speech, but an apology was made and accepted. Politicians referring to each other as other liars is hardly a phenomenon. For instance, finish this sentence: Bush lied, people _ _ _ _. Remember that one?
Personally, I prefer that politicians express anger with one another. When our political heroes from the two major parties are going at each others’ throats, I know that they are currently too distracted to be stealing from me. When we see them posing for pictures smiling, holding hands and slapping each other on the back, what do you think just happened? And who do you think will be paying for it? As I explained in my book “7 Life Lessons You Should Know,” professional politicians are not in the problem-solving business.
And while we are on the subject of political parties, I don’t particularly care for the animals that have been chosen to represent the major parties. Here is a brief run-down of the history of these two symbols:
The Democratic donkey was first associated with Democrat Andrew Jackson’s 1828 presidential campaign. His opponents referred to him as a derogatory slang expression for a donkey and Jackson defiantly chose to use the image of the strong-willed animal on his campaign posters. The image of the donkey was later used in newspaper cartoons by Thomas Nast and the symbol became famous.
Nast was also responsible for inventing another famous political symbol – the Republican elephant. In 1874, Nast drew a donkey clothed in a lion’s skin, scaring away all the animals at the zoo. One of those animals, the elephant, was labeled “The Republican Vote.” From that point on the elephant became associated with the Republican Party. Democrats say the donkey is smart and brave while Republicans suggest that the elephant is strong and dignified.
A donkey and an elephant. The entire political process has been turned into a zoo. We have entered the new millennium and I think it is time for an update. The two major political parties have gone through numerous changes since those symbols were introduced in the 19th century so perhaps now is the time for them to be revised as well. I would prefer to see a mongoose and a cobra replace the old world trademarks. It doesn’t really matter which party gets what symbol. A snake and a weasel seem to be much more appropriate for today’s political environment. Throw a hundred of those into the senate chamber and stand back. Now that’s politics that can keep my interest.
Civility in politics. Who needs it?
By: Todd Lester
About the Author:
Filed under News And Society by on Jul 22nd, 2010.
George Washington said it so well, “Few men have the virtue to withstand the highest bidder.” Exactly what effect does money have on politics, at what point does money corrupt elections, and when will the monetary cost of winning elections stop escalating?
These are critical questions if the “people” are to elect politicians instead of organizations and their lobbyists.
So how does money get into the political system?
Hard Money versus Soft Money
“Hard money” is money contributed directly to a candidate or to a political party. It is regulated in both source and amount, and monitored by the Federal Election Commission.
“Soft money” is money contributed to organizations and committees rather than to candidates and parties. It is “soft” money is not reported to or monitored by the Federal Election Commission, making it harder to trace its origins.
Soft money originated in the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Buckley v. Valeo 1976. This case ruled that limitations on donations to candidates were constitutional; however, it created a loophole in which organizations could spend unregulated money for “issue advertising;” any advertising that was not expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.
Soft money can be used for:
o Support for the party rather than the party’s candidate
o Advertising support for political issues (especially those tied to your candidate)
o Registering voters (especially those you think will vote for your candidate)
o Hiring people for voter canvassing in neighborhoods
o Getting people to the polls on election day
o Campaign administrative costs
Since soft money comes from outside the candidate’s election organization, it can be used to attack the opposition, while claiming to come from a neutral source; in effect, negative campaigning by proxy.
Such organizations became called “political action committees” or PACs. Approximately 90% of PAC money goes to incumbents, making it a tool to keep incumbents in office.
Matching Funds
Matching funds are subsidies limited to presidential candidates. They affect both the primary and general election. Candidates qualify by privately raising $5,000 each in at least 20 states.
Once qualified, the government provides a dollar for dollar “match” for each contribution to the campaign, up to a limit of $250 per contribution. In return, the candidate agrees to limit their spending according to a statutory formula.
From 1976 through 1992, almost all candidates who qualified, accepted matching funds in the primary. That changed from 1996 thru 2006 when Steve Forbes, George W. Bush, John Kerry, and Howard Dean opted out of the program because they could raise more funds on their own. In 2008, rejection of matching funds took a big step up with Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul deciding not to take matching funds. Once these candidates refused matching funds, they were free to spend as much money as they wanted.
Beyond primary matching funds, the federal government subsidizes the general election. No major party turned down government funds for the general election since the program was launched in 1976, until Barack Obama did so in 2008.
The presidential public financing system is funded by a $3 tax check-off on individual tax returns (the check off does not increase the filer’s taxes, but merely directs $3 to the presidential fund). However, the number of taxpayers who use the check off has fallen steadily since the early 1980s, and in 2006 fewer than 8 percent of taxpayers were directing money to the fund.
Fund Raising on the Internet
In the 2004 presidential election, Senator Kerry broke the internet record by raising $3 million through the internet in a single day. By the end of June 2004, Kerry had raised $44 million through mail and phone solicitations and more than $56 million over the Internet. The 2008 presidential election took another major jump when Barack Obama raised $650 million for his election, more than twice as much as any other candidate in U.S. history, and much of that money came through the internet.
Internet fundraising offers several important advantages. First, it is the cheapest method of raising money. Second, the average contribution on the internet is far less than the $2,000 legal limit per individual, so the campaign can continue to solicit contributions from the same donor throughout the election.
On November 20, 2008, the Washington Post stated the following incredible statistic: “Barack Obama raised half a billion dollars online in his 21-month campaign for the White House, dramatically ushering in a new digital era in presidential fundraising.”
What Does it All Mean?
The ever expanding costs to get elected raise a number of troubling issues and problems:
o The rise in costs to elect candidates to federal positions has been staggering since the 1990’s. Without spending limits, candidates have a rising minimum spending floor to win the election. They likely have to spend more money than it took to elect the last candidate to run for that office.
o Politicians need donations from all sources to accumulate the amount of money necessary to win office. Once elected, politicians need to assure the donors that their money was well placed, or they will not get donations for re-election. Plainly stated, donations buy access to politicians.
The end result is, there are two kinds of politicians with enough money win election:
o Politicians that are wealthy individuals, or
o Politicians that raise the most cash through contributions.
Do we really want only the wealthy running our country? No. So we are left with politicians bought and paid for by campaign contributors.
By: Rick Lawrence
About the Author:
Ricklawrence13@live.com
http://www.DemosResPublica.com
Filed under News And Society by on Jul 22nd, 2010.