How Low Will They Go

I read and printed out three days ago a New York Times Obed piece on the fall of gas prices and that it was putting Big Oil projects in jeopardy: "From the plains of North Dakota to the deep waters of Brazil, dozens of major oil and gas projects have been suspended or canceled in recent weeks as companies scramble to adjust to the collapse in energy markets."

When we were called a nation of whiners by the current administration I thought they meant the little guys but it seems those that whine the most are the big CEO's and corporations all rushing to the bailout trough with the rest of the political pigs. What did Big Oil do with all those quarter after quarter record profits? Give them as bonuses to their CEO's? I suppose it is only a matter of time before Exxon execs fly into Washington in their corporate private jets and beg for funds to continue their plans for new refineries in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and India.

Help me here - didn't they just claim the reason gas prices were so high a few months ago was because they had built no new refineries? And now they are suspending their plans to build at least three? And they wanted the right to be able to drill where they had never drilled before like the Alaskan wilderness. Now they are daily shutting down wells across the United States.

Not to mention they are now saying that this fall in demand for their fuel supplies (yes, there is a glut being stored in tankers because they ran out of storage space) globally could curb investment and research alternative clean energy resources. Doesn't that seem rather short sighted? I suppose the Big Three Auto makers will now argue that they do not need to produce more energy efficient cars since there is ample energy just sitting around waiting to be burned.

If Big Oil cuts back dramatically on investments as they seem to be doing we could end up in a situation where supply growth goes flat when the economy starts to recover. Said on analyst: "The steeper the decline, the steeper the response."

It would seem that Big Oil (not unlike investment firms and the auto companies) look only toward the next quarter's profits. They do not take the long term five and ten year plan approach that would make for more stable markets and supplies. And yet Bush and other Republicans stay committed to the free market approach. And yet deregulation has worked so well as the current economic situation proves. We clearly cannot expect capitalists to look beyond immediate profits and bonuses and the annual corporate meeting at a five star hotel in Hawaii.

Obama is promising regulation of the banking and investment industry. I think we need regulation of Big Oil and the Big Three and all imports from China (just thought I would throw them in since they are now poisoning dog treats). I think they have all proven there is no limit to how low they will go to insure record profits at the expense of the economy and the American people.

My Dream Ticket

The Governor of the state of New Mexico (my state, ergo my governor) endorsed Barack Obama for President. I was thrilled. Quite frankly from the moment he dropped out of the race for Democratic candidate for President I have been pairing him up as Vice President. Or putting him in the position of Secretary of State.

I have known Gov. Richardson since he was my United States Representative. He used to hold these town hall meetings throughout his congressional district and not talk to the people but listen to their concerns. At one of these I attended the mayor of my town passed out and fell out of his chair. Wherein all the attendees of the meeting proceeded to ignore what had just taken place. The man was an alcoholic and cocaine addict and clearly had not obtained the right balance for the day. It was nothing new.

Bill coolly, and non-verbally signaled one of his own aides, and the Mayor of Questa was expedited out of the room. Bill did not even pause in his answering of questions. Impressed I requested of his staff to be given time with the man his next visit to address the alcohol problem in Northern New Mexico. And got it. A fifteen minute meeting turned out to be 45 for me and a few professionals in the alcohol and drug abuse area. Congressman Richardson listened and asked questions and listened some more. Since becoming governor he has attempted to address New Mexico's horrendous DWI problem with not just legislation but an understanding of the underlying issues of alcoholism and its effects on the family and community.

In short, it is my considered opinion that the man listens. That really sounds to me like something we could use in the White House or the administration of our next President. And Obama speaks well. Something else we could also use in our government at the highest levels. Bill not only listens but he has this ability to negotiate. Now there is a word we have not heard for seven years. Obama not only speaks well but he inspires with his words. Been a while since we have had an inspiring leader, heh? Bill has also run a state, and despite what his critics say, run it well. We don't have a huge deficit like the United States so he has the experience some say Obama lacks.

We need to inspire and negotiate in the future. No more cowboy diplomacy as has been practiced by the current embarrassment in the White House. No more going to war with everyone that disagrees with you.

Richardson has been wooed by both the Clintons and Obama. He worked with President Clinton in various capacities and of late watched the Super Bowl with him. The Clinton people, Richardson said, called him daily. Obama was calling him personally. Not even a go between secretary. Mano y mano. The United States needs to do some of that with a few leaders of troubled nations. Instead of just declaring a whole population of people part of the axis of evil and walking off.

This primary season is once again looking promising. Just when I was toying with voting McCain if Hillary got the nod.

And the Winner is

The United States has the longest selection process for its president of any country in the world. And probably the most expensive. And yet picking our leader is not much different than picking our laundry detergents. Except if we don't like the brand of detergent we are not stuck with it for four years.

The most expensive part of any political campaign is the media buys. Giuliani just asked his head campaign workers to work for free for a month or to so he can buy more commercial time in Florida. Bit odds are that these expensive ads will not educate us about why he will be a better president but why his competition won't be.

The negativity of campaign advertising sets us up for voting for the last of two evils because we know only the most negative things about the candidates due to the competing commercials.

This presidential election we have had the opportunity to view all the primary candidates in a variety of debate formats and ergo get to know how well they have memorized the answers and the phrasing of those answers as determined by their speech writers. All we can truly say about them is they are well rehearsed and well made up. Since the debates between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy no campaign is unaware of the importance of image on the little screen. I frankly would love to see one of them wearing a green or purple tie. I am rather tired of red or blue. But just like some marketing company figured out the color for Tide's packaging they figured out the correct color for the tie.

In the final days we will be bombarded with television commercials and not all of them complied by the candidate and his campaign. Some of the most negative will be by PAC's or political action committees wanting to get their candidate elected so they can continue to have tax breaks, price supports or favorable legislation in the future. Because of the high price of media campaigns most candidates and their political positions are bought and paid for before they take office.

What if we made it illegal for them to run television ads. Or any political committee to run commercials for them or against their opposition? All exposure to the candidate would have to be through interviews, debates, personal appearances and positive (not negative) newspaper ads.

Campaigns would be cheaper. We would actually have an opportunity to really get to know the candidates. Abraham Lincoln won his support for president with a whistle stop campaign waged from the back of a train. With today's political situation he could not get by the primary: not enough money, sloppy dresser, and definitely not a good looker. Sad commentary. Instead we get a George W. Bush - nicely packaged up by an advertising company to look like what it wasn't.

The President of the United States brought to you by those wonderful men of Madison Avenue. The same one that brought you feminine deodorant and the New Coke. Real winners.

You Would Think Men Could Learn

Talk of going to war with Iran. If the war with Iraq was any example we could say that George W is on a roll up to invade Iran without provocation. Or that provocation he mentions being manufactured like the WMD excuse in Iraq.

I cannot figure out what he is thinking. Every single military leader has talked about how totally stressed the military is, how much longer this level of troops (it has gone up even after the surge) can be maintained, the lack of available quality recruits (now the army is taking high school drop outs and felons), and the need to let the National Guard go back home before they are all bankrupt because of the lower wages of the military.

We are so extended in Iraq that the war in Afghanistan is suffering and we cannot send aid to places in this world suffering from ethnic cleansing. The United States was once the force to be counted upon to right the wrongs of the world. Now we are the wrong. We invaded a country on trumped up evidence by a mega-maniacal idiot and have occupied it even though the majority of the population has asked us to leave.

What about war have we not learned? Men have been doing it since before the beginning of recorded history. And all that seems to changed is the weapons and styles in armor. Hell, we are still mounting crusades to the holy land. All these years of civilization and we have not learned tolerance, diplomacy, tact, and the ability to talk to each other (not at each other which is the Bush style) and come to compromises.

I thought that a woman president might give us hope of ending this vicious cycle and yet it would seem that Hilary is going to be as much a sword rattler as the men she is running against. She even voted for a bill that would give the president tacit approval to invade Iran.

This silliness has got to stop. It kills people, causes shortages of materials (including people), and poisons the plant we live on.

The Illustration used is from Drawing Swords.

What we need is a new political party

And why do they call them parties? They aren't any fun. Political parties that is. I have been a registered Democrat since returning to the state of New Mexico. I did that because frankly that is the only way to have a choice during the primaries.

But I once worked for a Republican Senator. Senator Charles Goodall of New York. He and Senator Jacob Javits had sponsored the amendment to end the war in Vietnam. And the last election I voted for Democrats in hopes that it would get us closer to getting out of Iraq. So I was wrong. This election we are moving toward I rather like the Republican stance on illegal immigration (less the President's desires).

I am for the rule of law, against the illegal invasion of another country, for the environment, against "free" trade because it costs us too much, against the North American Union unless it is just Canada and the USA, against teaching for the test, for universal health care . . .

I could go on but basically I find myself split between two parties and not happy with either. I am considering changing my voter registration to independent but that opts me out of voting in the primary in this state. And besides there is no viable third party in this country.

I occurs to me that perhaps we have grown out of the need for parties. They only increase the graft and corruption. And maybe there ought to be a third option on every slate of candidates: None of the above. If someone does not get enough votes than obviously the public does not want them at all. And maybe the things congress does not pass within a set limit of time ought to be remanded to a public referendum. About the only way we will get campaign reform done and reduce the power of big lobbies. And I frankly like the parliamentary option of being able to call an election when the public has lost confidence in their leader. Bush would have been gone years ago.

Maybe it is not time for a new party but time for no parties. Let's get down to serious business and reform our democracy before it is completely stolen from us