Re: Save America - she needs all the help

I wonder who you are going to vote for? If things are so terrible in this country, my only question is why are we having to put up walls to keep people out? The people you are hoping to fix all these problems are the ones you call egotistical politicians. I wonder how this country managed to be so great with all the problems you speak of. I agree that things are not perfect, but I can think of no other place that I would want to live. If John McCain wins this election, perhaps you and Susan Sarandon could find that perfect country to move to.

Fairness Doctrine

It seems that we are well on our way to not only national health care, increased taxes, and isolationism, but also having Uncle Sam decide what we are to listen to. It seems that conservative radio is much more successful than NPR, Air America, etc. Therefore, Nancy Pelosi has decided to dictate what we are allowed to listen to. Does 1984 and George Orwell ring a bell?

 I am not asking that anyone believe as I believe. I am only asking that we be allowed to at least determine what we listen to. What should be determined to be fair next-- television, network news, or national publications? Sometimes I think that the fairness doctrine has already been applied to these outlets. Maybe it is just me, but I do not feel that this falls within the realms of the dictate of our elected officials. The founders of this country were attempting to establish a place where we could live united in our freedom, but free of government constraints. The first amendment gave us freedom of speech. It did not make us have to listen to everything others say.

 The free market place determines whether or not a program is viable. If enough people want to listen to another's thoughts or programs, the advertisers will be there in mass.  Obviously this was not the case with Air America. However, in this law, all stations will have to make equal time slots for all views. I guess this is why public television is such a big success. 

Response to "Shame on Us"

This must be the first draft of the platform for this year’s Democratic Party-- that everything that this Republican administration has done has been horrible. Need I remind you, that the Declaration of War against Iraq was signed by the vast majority of both houses of Congress. Also, let me remind you that the whole country was up in arms about how we should have known about the 9-11 attack before. At that time, we wanted to insure that this would never happen to us again.

As for the events at Abu Ghraib, they were as a result of a very few army reserves. They were not a reflection from the men and women of our armed services. As for the right to habeas corpus, we have never given these rights to any prisoners in armed combat. Our Constitution we have is for the United States of America and not for all the citizens of the world.

Though I think that many of the statements in your article have validity to them, to voice them verbatim without personal reflection, somewhat frightens me. Never once in this commentary is there any acknowledgement of the great job our men and women in the armed services have done to protect us. To follow this line of thought the world and the Iraqi people would be better off with Saddam Hussein still in control. I ask only that the author voice solutions not just criticisms.

To Drill or not to Drill

The continuing debate of whether to allow oil companies to drill in Anwar and off-shore is likely to come to a head soon. Republicans say this is the best solution to our situation. The Democrats say that this will not help us in the short term, and that the oil companies are not drilling on the 65 million acres of federal land that they already have leases to. Non-partisan experts say that this is not the case. Oil companies take 5 to 10 years to develop a lease. The testing that must take place and the environmental impact studies--the local, state, and federal regulations that have to be passed-- make this process laborious. They also say that 60 percent of the holes that have been drilled on federal land in the last 10 years were dry holes. They also think it would be ludicrous for oil companies not to try to pump all the oil they can at today's prices, 136 dollars a barrel.

I think that if they had allowed drilling 5-10 years ago when this was first brought up, these rigs would be coming online today, and we would not be in the situation we are now. American companies have the cleanest drilling technology in the world, and the chances of an environmental impact are minuscule. Cuba today is selling leases to China off our Florida coast. Are we to think their technology is superior to ours? I am not against new technology, but I am a realist when it comes to our situation today. I believe that if we were to open these areas for drilling, it would have an immediate impact on oil prices. Then in the next 10 years, we can develop alternatives and perhaps not be held hostage to OPEC in the meantime.

The Sky is Falling

I may be wrong, but there seems to be an abundance of quotations chicken little in many of the articles and programs at our purview. An example is Scientists from Around the Globe join ABC News in a Forum on Surviving the Century by Sarah Namias from ABC News. The problem with many of these articles and programs are you never hear any dissenting opinions-- they are simply stated as fact, and you are insane if you disagree with any of their projections. 

From the things I have read there are as many or more scientists that disagree with these perceptions. For instance, the creator of The Weather Channel argues where are the facts about global warming. He says that global warming is just one big fraud. He argues, "There is no significant man made global warming." He said he has done all the research and all global warming happens to be is an increase in Carbon Dioxide in our atmosphere. Another thing he says, " The climate of the earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind's activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces." I completely agree with him that global warming is just a manmade worry that a few people created.

Any clear thinking individual has to agree that our resources are dwindling as the population increases. However, as a country we have always been able to supplement and increase our resources through ingenuity and change.  It seems to me that much of our ingenuity and quest for additional resources are stifled at every turn. The examples being drilling in Anwar, oil shale, deep water drilling of our coasts, and nuclear energy. We are derided for pursuing or even thinking of these options. What we can do without being chided is to continue to be dependent on Middle/Eastern oil and decreasing our food supplies and increasing their cost by converting them to ethanol.

 The answer to me seems to be no matter what the cost our perceived injury to our substantial infrastructure, we must at all costs become independent for our energy needs. Then and only then will we not run the risk of being held hostage to any other nation. We must also demand that we govern from knowledge and not theory. The danger in a democracy is when majority is ill-informed.

Will Barack Obama continue his run of luck?

Barack Obama seems to have had either tremendous insight or good fortune, possibly both, with concerning events in this year's election cycle. However, Bill O'Reilly, a strong conservative commenter writing for a conservative audience, predicts in War and Obama, it may be possible that some of Mr. Obama's positions will impact him negatively in the general election, and I agree. 

O'Reilly states that the reasons Obama defeated Clinton were that he was more eloquent than rehearsed as she was and his direct opposition to the Iraq war from the beginning. Bill says that Barack automatically claimed the far-left Americans, whereas Clinton slowly gained the moderate-- meaning when it comes to the general election he is going to have some problems getting the vote of the "middle-of-the-roaders". 

His statement for being against the war from the onset has given him great traction in the liberal and mainstream camps, but it could be detrimental if the news continues to become more favorable about the war--as shown by the fact that in May, the casualties of Americans were the lowest since the Iraq war began in 2003, and that the oil production in Iraq has now reached its highest since Saddam fell. Stability in Iraq and a decrease in posturing by Iran would not be good for Barack's candidacy.  At some point the media will be forced to admit these circumstances, not matter how reluctant they are. In my opinion, throughout the situation in Iraq we have learned too quickly of our failures and too slowly or not at all of our successes. 

In numerous interviews given last year, Democratic candidate, Obama, stated that the surge would not help the situation in Iraq and probably would make it worse. This is obviously not true. These statements do not seem to be brought up in any of the discussions lately. My observation in this is that it has to be an odd situation that Mr. Obama finds himself in--being more concerned with being right than he is about a possible good outcome of a difficult war. 

Already for the upcoming general election, Senator John McCain "is painting Obama as a terror appeaser who would snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in Iraq," as O'Reilly puts it. If John McCain is able to voice these conflicts to the American people it could prove costly to Senator Obama.

Our Presidential Election Process

In the never ending presidential primary election of 2008, we seem to be seeing the final chapter played out. McCain's Republican  primary victory seemed short and decisive compared to the Democratic primary. However in the article The End, despite winning many of the last primaries, including Puerto Rico today and proclaiming to have won the majority of the popular vote, Hillary Clinton's fate seems sealed. The only remaining question is whether Mrs. Clinton will bow out gracefully to the winner Barack Obama, or will she carry it to a floor fight at the Democratic party's convention this summer.  We should have the answer by the end of this week, stay tuned.