American Daughter - Multimedia journalism with articles,pictures and graphics, podcast audio and video,slide presentations, live-blogging of events, and webcasting
California Chronicle - Published daily The California Chronicle brings you the top news and commentary of the day throughout the Central Coast, the State and the Nation.
Real Clear Politics - One of America’s premier independent political web sites. Updated every morning and throughout the day, RCP culls and publishes the best commentary, news, polling data, and links to important resources from all points of the political compass and coveri
TownHall - Townhall.com is designed to amplify conservative voices in America’s political debates just as the 2006 and 2008 election cycles begin to heat up.
Working Senior - The National Association of Working Seniors
Political promises are generally empty, meaningless gestures made by candidates when they are trolling for votes. “I will listen to all the people,” they say. Or, “I will protect the interests of all ‘the people’ when I am in office.”
Do you believe statements like these when politicians make them? Or, do you shrug them off with the thought in the back of your mind that it’s just more of the political hype that goes with running for office, not really expecting anything except more self-serving actions once candidates are in office?
Thirty years ago California state Senator H.L. (Bill) Richardson wrote an interesting and insightful book with the intriguing title, “What makes you think we read the bills?” - in which he offers a penetrating analysis of the fact that the so-called majority does not really elect public officials and making the point that politicians are actually obligated to a very small percentage of the voters, and it is this minority they listen to.
Using the example of a district with a population of 525,000, he shows how the candidate who won was elected with a plurality of just 16,000 voters.
Senator Richardson’s observation is something I believe most people instinctively know: that once elected, notwithstanding all their talk about “listening to the people,” politicians do what they want, not what their so-called constituents, “the people,” may say. Politicians generally don’t really listen to anyone except the limited number of supporters who are directly involved in helping them get elected or who help them stay in office.
Some selected quotes from Senator Richardson’s book outline his conclusions:
“In a democracy we ‘know’ the majority elects. Right? Wrong! Majorities rarely, if ever, elect.” (pg. 112)
“In a democracy, most politicians are inevitably influenced by public opinion. Right? Wrong again.” (pg. 112) Note: We have seen some notable exceptions to this rule in recent years, specifically when large numbers of savvy Internet users overwhelm legislators with faxes, email messages and telephone calls about certain hot button issues, such as immigration, which can bring sufficient pressure to bear on office holders to induce them to change a particular position. The Internet, of course, was not available at the time Senator Richardson was in office or wrote his book.
“…if we waited for majorities to elect, most of our legislative chambers would be empty. Obviously, only those who register can vote (or so we are told). This eliminates a sizable portion of the eligible voters at the very start. In fact, the very term ‘eligible’ voter tells us that there are those who are ineligible to vote.” (pg.112)
“Since the contest almost inevitably comes down to Democrat versus Republican, those who register as ‘independent’ or who ‘decline to state’ have little nothing to say in the primary elections. To have a meaningful voice, these independent and uncommitted voters must then choose between the two candidates fielded by the very political parties they have chosen not to join.” (pg.113)
Commenting on the fact that less than fifty percent of the registered voters often turn out in a primary election Senator Richardson notes, “A vote delivers the power of the state into the hands of the elected official. A non vote simply transfers the decision as to who shall hold this power into the hands of those who do vote…At this point, another factor comes into play – gerrymandering. Most political district lines are established by the party in power…A candidate with little chance of victory has even a smaller chance of attracting the necessary financial support. Money creates winners and winners attract money.” (pg.113)
“Since the majority-party primary is usually crowded with a number of hopefuls, the primary winner is quite often nominated with a plurality of twenty-five percent, or even less. I know of one district that had a population of 525,000 persons. About 400,000 could have qualified to vote, but only 225,000 bothered to register. In the primary slightly more than fifty percent of those registered turned out at the polls to vote – about 120,000 people altogether. The minority party garnered 50,000 votes of that total, split between two lackluster candidates. The majority party had eight candidates, of whom five were strong contenders. The remaining 70,000 votes were split among these eight candidates, and the victor won with 16,000. In the general election this candidate easily defeated the minority-party nominee.” (pg.114)
Senator Richardson’s book is still available - at Amazon.com. It’s an interesting and entertaining insight into the political process and confirms the fact that things really haven’t changed all that much in the 30 years since he was in office.
One of the key questions about Barack Obama’s candidacy for the presidency is whether Americans are willing to elect a black man (or woman) to the highest office in the land. The issue is racism and just how deep and wide it runs through the nation’s electorate. Is it so widespread that no African-American can be elected, ever, or have Americans progressed to the point that the majority of voters would vote for a black candidate.
“A recent Gallup poll reveals that Americans are much more likely to elect a black man or a woman president than a Mormon or an old man.” The poll found that 94% of the voters surveyed would vote for a black candidate and 88% said they would vote for a woman. (outsidethebeltway.com, February 20, 2007). The question is, how reliable is such a survey? Most observers speculate that many people do not answer truthfully when they are asked if they would vote for a black candidate because they don’t want to be seen as prejudiced.
Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson both ran for president, and although they were probably motivated by reasons other than an expectation that they could win, they at least showed that it is possible for an African-American to seek the office. As distasteful and these two may be to many people, my sense is that Barrack Obama is benefiting from their trailblazing efforts, whatever their motivations.
I’m also reminded of the overwhelming support for Colin Powell as a potential Republican candidate to run against Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential election. Powell’s highly successful leadership of coalition forces during the Gulf War paved the way for him to run for president if he chose to do so. Although he declined, I am firmly convinced he could have won.
The flip side of the white vote is black solidarity at the polls. Although blacks are only about 13% of the U.S. population, they often vote as a block, which enables them to influence the outcome of certain elections, in spite of their minority status, especially in regional or local political contests. Ralph Brauer, author of “The Strange Death of Liberal America,” notes: “The African American candidates who have attained higher office all follow a similar pattern – they come from states that have significant numbers of African Americans, mostly in large cities such as Chicago or Boston, Illinois accounts for 40% of our African-American Senators and two-thirds since Reconstruction.”
Richard Thompson Ford, Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, recently observed, “Defeatists insist Obama cannot win because the average American will never be able to let go of racial prejudice. Yet he somehow speaks to overflowing houses, packed with enthusiastic voters from the American heartland.”
I don’t agree that the average American voter is as prejudiced as the “defeatists” claim, that they will be unable to “let go of racial prejudice” in the voting booth. Thomas Sowell, a highly regarded economist and senior fellow at the Hoover Institute, who also happens to be African-American, commented: “No doubt it is only a matter of time before there is a black president…The issue is whether we want to reach that landmark so badly that we are willing to overlook how questionably that landmark is reached.”
If Barack Obama doesn’t win the general election, it won’t be because of white prejudice, it will be because of his qualifications, or lack thereof, and his policies. The nation is ready for a black president. It just may not be this candidate.
In the never ending American political circus, the clowns on the Senate Judiciary Committee recently held yet another hearing at which they attempted to showcase their zeal for helping the public by putting oil industry executives on the defensive. Unfortunately, the news coverage and commentaries by political pundits did not emphasize the fact that, at least this time, the politicians failed, and why.
They were outgunned by a lineup of high powered oil company executives representing five major U.S. firms: BP America, Inc., Shell Oil Company, Chevron Corporation, Conoco Philips Company and Exxon Mobile Corporation, who came well prepared.
The hearings produced some important information about the oil market that should be receiving widespread distribution (Source: www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/2008/05/020571.php):
Collectively, American oil companies account for a very small percentage of the world oil market. The American oil industry is able to compete for only 7% of the world’s known reserves, about 75% of which is controlled by national oil companies that are supported by their respective governments.
In spite of the fact that Exxon Mobile is the largest U.S. oil and gas company, they are a relatively small player on the global stage. The company accounts for only 2% of the world’s energy production, just 3% of world oil production, 6% of the world’s refining capacity, and only 1% of the world’s petroleum reserves.
In order for American companies to compete successfully in the world’s oil market, they must be financially strong enough to carry out huge, complex energy projects that require enormous long-term investments. For example, Exxon Mobile spends around $1 billion a day just for day-to-day operations and to make the necessary capital investments that are required to stay in business.
”Because foreign oil companies and governments control the overwhelming majority of the world’s oil, most of the price you pay at the pump is the cost paid by the American oil company to acquire crude oil from someone else.”
IBDeditorials.com also noted (May 22, 2008):
”…since 2002 the U.S. oil and natural gas industry has earned about 8.1 cents per dollar of sales – exactly the same as all U.S. manufacturing, excluding autos. Not much of a windfall.”
”…the Department of the Interior notes that most of the oil and 40% of the natural gas under public lands is off-limits to drilling. That’s about 19 billion barrels of oil and trillions of cubic feet of natural gas.”
One wonders what the people who want to prevent us from developing our own energy resources are trying to accomplish. My guess is that, like so many other matters that are critical to the economic well being of our nation, such decisions are made on the basis of politics, rather than what’s right or is best for all Americans.
Blaming the oil industry for secretly manipulating the price of oil is just another in a long history of conspiracy theories that pop up whenever something happens that people don’t understand. It has been going on for a very long time, hundreds of years. Some interesting examples are discussed in a book that was first published in 1841 by Charles Mackay, titled, “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and The Madness of Crowds.”
To me, it stretches credibility to claim that the U.S. oil industry is engaging in some gigantic price fixing scheme. How on earth could they accomplish that? Do they meet in secret somewhere? Is it done over the phone? Wouldn’t the corporate leaders have to give instructions to certain people within their respective organizations to carry out the actions that would be necessary to adjust the price? Surely, somewhere in the process of producing and marketing their products, “fixing” the price, which fluctuates at the pump from day to day, sometimes from hour to hour, would require the involvement of other people. How does that work? Who else would have to know?
It strikes me that if our government can infiltrate other societies with spies, it should be relatively easy for the FBI to plant investigators inside the oil companies to spy on their operations and executives. Or, how about some enterprising investigative reporter? Surely, if it’s possible to penetrate the inner sanctums of the White House and various government agencies, including even the CIA, by now someone surely would have found a “deep throat” in the oil industry who would reveal how the oil companies are getting around the law.
Finally, if the oil companies can “fix” prices, how is it that there have been periods when they lost money?
Stamping our feet and crying foul may help vent some frustration, but it sure doesn’t prove that the price of oil is fixed and, if it is, how. It’s not enough to make the claim, it should also be necessary to prove it before the executives of major corporations are called before Congress to receive a public tongue lashing for more political theater.
I’m usually not given to conspiracy theories, but I am beginning to wonder a bit about the oil crisis. The fact that the shortage of oil and gas in this country has been self-induced by our feckless political class in concert with environmentalists tends to support speculation that opposition to our developing any sort of energy resource is being secretly funded by our “friends,” the Arabs. The theory holds that the goal of preventing the U.S. from achieving energy independence is behind the steep rise in oil prices.
Congressman Steve King recently observed that The Heritage Foundation has convincing empirical data “that the people that are advancing this cap and trade want to slow our economy down, want to reverse our economy, and they know that if they shut down energy, they back the economy off and they are doing it all because they worship mother nature.” (Glenn Beck: “Anwr or Bust!”, May 21, 2008)
According to the California Energy Commission, “One barrel contains 42 gallons of crude oil. The total volume of products made from crude oil based origins is 48.43 gallons on average – 6.43 gallons greater than the original 42 gallons of crude oil…due to the additional other petroleum products…that are added to the refining process to create the final products:”
Finished Motor Gasoline, 51.4% = 24.89 gallons
Distillate Fuel Oil, 15.3% = 7.41 gallons
Jet Fuel, 12.3% = 5.96 gallons
Still Gas, 5.4% = 2.62 gallons
Marketable Coke, 5.0% = 2.42 gallons
Residual Fuel Oil, 3.3% = 1.60 gallons
Liquefied Refiner Gas, 2.8% = 1.36 gallons
Asphalt and Road Oil, 1.7% = 0.82 gallons
Other Refined Products, 1.5% = 0.73 gallons
Lubricants, 0.9% = 0.43 gallons
“Additionally, California gasoline contains approximately 5.7% by volume of ethanol…that brings the total processing gain to 7.59 gallons…”
From another perspective, the price of gas is comprised of the following: Crude oil, 72.7%; 11.5%; Refining, 10%; Distribution, 5.8% and Taxes, 11.5%. (“Paying Through The Hose, Santa Barbara News Press, page B4, May 27, 2008).
Since the price of crude oil accounts for over 70% of the price of gasoline, and given the fact that world-wide demand is currently around 87 million barrels a day vs peak oil production of 85 million barrels, it appears that relatively little that can be done to reduce the cost at the pump without increasing supply.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that the total U.S. petroleum consumption of liquid fuels and other petroleum products averaged 20.7 million barrels per day in 2007 - about 25% of total world production. (Short-Term Energy Outlook, May 6, 2008).
Oil billionaire, T. Boone Pickens, recently predicted that the price of oil would reach $150 per barrel by the end of this year. Other experts believe it may reach $200 a barrel. (Glenn Beck: Anwr or Bust!, May 21, 2008)
The list of U.S. energy resources that are currently being blocked includes:
>ANWR (the proposed drilling area is only 2,000 acres out of a total of 19 million acres, which is “equivalent to one large farm in a state about the size of South Carolina.” (Congress Raises More Obstructions To Oil Availability, By E. Ralph Hostetter, GOPUSA, May 23, 2008).
Development of nuclear facilities.
Deep sea drilling within 100 miles of the Florida and California coasts.
New 100-year leases to drill in the Gulf, although China, Cuba and Venezuela are proceeding to drill in these areas.
Development of shale oil fields in western states.
Development of dams and hydroelectric projects.
Development of new oil refineries (for over 30 years) and cutting the number of operational oil refineries in half since 1982.
In addition, development of natural gas resources is being limited (potentially enough to heat every home in the U.S. for the next 150 years) and oil fields in California have been shut down.
In 1973 we imported 34.8% of our oil, today we import 60.3%.
Since 1977, with the exception of three years, the federal and state governments have collected more in taxes every year from the sale and import of oil than the oil industry earned in profits.
Congress has approved trade legislation that the EPA says will increase the price of gas by $1.50 a gallon. They have also approved lawsuits against the oil companies for the “possible future destruction of an Alaskan Eskimo village,” but perhaps the most absurd action taken by our legislators was authorizing a lawsuit against OPEC. (Glenn Beck: Anwr or Bust!, May 21, 2008)
With political leaders like these, who needs enemies?
The torrent of information and knowledge that’s beamed at us by the media and over the Internet has also brought with it the curse of overload and misinformation.
Commercials that push cleaning agents imply that we are all at risk of being infected by some awful disease if we don’t use their products. But, if that were true, how is it that man has survived all these years without them? Can it be that we really don’t need the cleansers that kill 98.5% of all the germs on the surfaces which they are used to clean?
Pharmaceutical manufacturers push prescription drugs as if they are selling health foods. Buy their products and avoid the terrible consequences of just about every disease or ailment known to man, most of which we never knew existed.
If taxing the rich is the way to provide benefits for the poor and low income workers, why don’t we simply confiscate the assets of the wealthiest among us, say just the billionaires. After all, they really don’t need to live such opulent lifestyles, with private jets, mansions, yachts, etc. If you think that’s a good idea, consider this: According to Forbes magazine, the 400 richest Americans have a combined net worth of around $1.25 trillion. So, how effective would it be if their “excess” net worth were taken for the good of society? A little simple math gives us a clue:
The proposed U.S. federal budget for the 2009 fiscal year is about $3.1 trillion. If we were to confiscate the entire wealth of America’s 400 richest citizens (278 of whom are billionaires), it would pay the cost of operating national the government for only about 147 days.
Extending the analysis a bit further, if the entire net worth of the two richest Americans, Bill Gates at $48 billion and Warren Buffett at $41 billion, were confiscated, it would only pay the cost of running the government for a little over 10 days.
The proposed 2009 federal budget is projected to have a deficit of $407 billion. If we expropriate just enough money from the 400 richest Americans to cover the shortfall, it would be about one-third of their combined net worth.
Instead of confiscating the net worth of America’s richest citizens, how about taking the earnings of some of the nation’s most profitable companies to fund the government or to cover the budget deficit? The Fortune 500 list of the most profitable businesses noted that the top 20 companies had combined net earnings (after taxes) of $266.21 billion However, that’s only enough to run the federal government for about 26 days. Even if we confiscated their total combined earnings, it would still only fund a little over 55% of the projected 2009 budget deficit.
Why is it that since President Lyndon Johnson declared War on Poverty in 1964, the federal government has spent between eight and ten trillion dollars on the effort to eradicate poverty, but the number of Americans who are considered poor is still approximately the same as it was over 40 years ago?
Has the War on Drugs been successful? The Drug War Clock (www.drugsense.org) offers the following information (as of May 18, 2008):
Money Spent on the War on Drugs this year: Federal, $7.685 billion; State, $11.797 billion; Total, $19.483 billion. “The U.S. federal government spent $19 billion dollars in 2003 on the War on Drugs, at a rate of about $600 per second.”
“Arrests for drug law violations in 2008 are expected to exceed the 1,889,810 arrests of 2006…Someone is arrested for violating a drug law every 17 seconds.”
“Police arrested an estimated 829,625 persons for cannabis violations in 2006, the highest annual total ever recorded in the United States, according to statistics compiled by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”
Since December 31, 1995, the U.S. prison population has grown an average of 43,266 inmates per year. About 25 percent are sentenced for drug law violations.”
Why do we continue this War? There must be a better way.
The California Supreme Court recently ruled that same sex marriage is a constitutionally protected right in the state. Does that mean polygamy is or should also be a right? Commenting in the Sacramento Bee, columnist Dan Walters noted, “…declaring that one is free to marry whomever one chooses makes it at least conceivable that plural marriages – polygamy – could be equally valid.”
If McCain is elected President, Susan Sarandon says she is moving to Canada,
or Italy, as if anyone cares. Susan is quick to add she has faith in the
American people (to vote in Obama) so she isn’t making any specific moving
plans.
Logic is a foreign concept to many people in Hollywood, but here goes
anyway. The mantra from the Left these days is: Bush is McCain, McCain is
Bush, Bush is McCain—Ohum.
If the American people voted Bush into the White House twice, why does Susan
have faith they will vote against McCain?
Perhaps she thinks people are sick of Bush and will be sick of McCain.
Maybe she thinks most people are so stupid they’ll not differentiate between
Bush and McCain. ‘I have faith the American people are sick and stupid.’
It could be Susan thinks the majority of Americans no longer care about
sovereignty and security and freedom and capitalism, that they’ve become,
overnight, amoral socialist hammerheads, like her.
‘I have faith the American people are sick, stupid, apathetic hammerheads.’
Maybe Susan has faith in the rest of us because she thinks we’ve come to
believe Bush stole both the 2000 and 2004 elections and it’s Republican
payback time.
(You know, for such a dumb guy, Bush was clever enough to beat legions of
Democrats to the punch, over and over, year and year.)
Perhaps Susan thinks Obama is such an obvious preference, even the moronic
masses will perceive and vote accordingly.
We sincerely hope Susan’s illogical faith somehow keeps her residing here in
the good ol’ USA, because if Obama is elected, and the Dems dominate the
Congress, we will demand tax increases on the rich, and most certainly, the
Dems will oblige, and Susan needs to be here to pay more than her fair
share. (You know, and we all know, Tim will squirrel away sufficient funds
offshore, far from the prying eyes of the IRS. They can then make the
sacrifice without sacrificing a thing!)
What is it about Hollywood people?
Do they take themselves so seriously they really believe the rest of us care
what they think, where they live, what they’ll do next week?
Are Hollywood folk so self-absorbed and out of touch they really think other
people lend them credence? Yup.
Remember in years gone by the likes of Smart-Alec Baldwin, Blah-Blah
Streisand, Robert Ego-Altman, Cher No Underwear, and Pierre Salinger all
promising an exit stage Left if Bush got elected.
Only Salinger kept his promise.
These people can’t even keep one promise, yet they insist they’re morally,
intellectually, politically and socially superior than all those bone-headed
fans who made them rich and famous in the first place.
If the American people do vote for McCain, what will we hear from Susan?
“Let the sick, stupid, lazy, malcontents eat cake!” (Nothing personal.)
usa online gambling? Play Online Blackjack For Money Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Australia Gambling online blackjack in usa
play online casino!
usa online gambling? Roulette Software Usa online casinos accepting mastercard usa e wallet express casinos 25.
online spades gambling Gambling In Michigan online blackjack in usa
play online casino! Playtech Bingo
