Light and Transient Causes

'Newsweak' poll suggests some pollsters are racist.

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:17:00 +0000

I found a new poll today published by “Newsweak” , well it didn't really publish the poll- it published a short analysis of the poll along with some short interviews. The poll they reference is more an aggregate of many polls and it suggests that the people who wrote the poll questions think minorities should be coddled like children who need taken care of because they can’t do anything on their own. Well, if you disagree with Newsweek and the pollsters, then you must be a racist. Newsweek and the pollsters exercised some English acrobats in the questions so that anyone who doesn’t attempt to read between the lines or people who don’t believe in the same narrative- offends everyone who makes a living off of the assumed narrative. Unlike Newsweek, I won’t hide the actual poll questions I am going to talk about behind a link. (I'll embed the full pdf page at the end of the post). The context of the questions are from the point of view of people who buy into the idea that history is something you carry in your DNA and that behavior isn't something you learn but something you inherent. The questions are from the humanitarian progressive view point. Unlike Margret Sanger, the humanitarian progressive believes society should be changed so as to compensate for the inherent disabilities for non-whites. The Tea Party rejects the idea of inherent disabilities based on ethnicity or race- disabilities and talents are individual traits. The people polled agreed to take part in the poll- and so they answered the questions as presented. If you've ever been polled by phone you know that you can't change the questions to fit your answers.

Questions:	True Believers of Tea Party
Question 1: Irish, Italians, Jewish, and many other minorities overcame prejudice and worked their way up. Blacks should do the same without special favors.	88%
Generations of slavery and discrimination have created conditions that make it difficult for blacks to work their way out of the lower class. (Disagree)	72%
Over the past few years blacks have gotten less than they deserve. (Disagree)	83%
It’s really a matter of some people not trying hard enough; if blacks would only try harder they could be just as well off as whites. (Agree)	73%

I suppose the pollsters and Newsweek believe people should get special favors because of their ethnicity. Isn’t that what the civil rights movement was about? When Martin Luther King said men should be judged by the content of their character- he didn’t have a footnote and he didn’t digress to try to qualify his statement. His point of reference was equality.

America has evolved as a nation. The Tea Party sees the basic unit of society as the individual. The creator of the poll sees the basic unit of society as the ethnic group. The struggle for individual success is a solitary action- no one can be given success. Success is something you earn through your own individual struggle- the rewards you receive are from your individual work- and the individual doesn't have a right to the rewards of another individual. I don't have a right to the success of Jerry West. I am a horrible basketball player- my individual struggle to become an NBA Hall of Famer is irrelevant- I don't have the talent. Jerry West did not oppress me- he didn't pool all the talent for himself like water. Talent isn't a resource that can be distributed- it doesn't fall like rain and you can't dig it out of the ground. You can be born with some talent- what you do with that talent is up to you- you can develop it to make yourself more talented- or you can ignore it and allow your environment to determine your actions. Man as a species can not expect to succeed if he relies only on his environment to survive- man must develop himself and change his environment. No group really has an inherent talent or an inherent disability and so no group should expect the rest of society to give them 'special favors' or pay a 'talent tax'. Talent and disability are descriptions of the properties of individuals.

Two questions in the poll discuss immigration. The first question doesn't surprise me as much as how many people didn't give a common sense answer- though the Tea Party has a much higher percentage of people who gave a common sense answer. If you don't think recent immigration levels will take jobs away from people already here I think you may have issues beyond answering poll questions.

How likely is it that recent immigration levels will take jobs away from people already here? (Likely)	56%
The number of immigrants from foreign countries should be…(Decreased)***	54%

Over half of the Tea Party People Polled think that the number of immigrants from foreign countries should be decreased. Well all countries that are not the United States are foreign countries to US citizens- it's a reciprocal relationship. To the citizens of Lesotho all countries that are not Lesotho are foreign countries-so I'm not sure why they worded the question in that way. Do the pollsters think some countries are not foreign countries? Maybe I'm over thinking it. The basics of logistics would dictate that when you have limited resources the units of resources per person will be determined by how many people you have- the more people you have, the smaller the portion each person would receive. So again common sense would dictate that we lower the number of immigrants coming into the country so as to not stress the resource pool further.

The next few questions were not addressed in the 'Newsweak' article. I think it's because it contradicts the humanitarian progressive narrative.

Favor/Oppose laws to protect homosexuals against job discrimination? (Favor)	62%
Homosexuals should be allowed to serve in the United States Armed forces? (Strongly Agree)	69%
Gay or lesbian couples should be allowed to legally adopt children? (Yes)	36%

The Tea Party is pretty Libertarian in nature and although it may be from an older demographic who doesn't necessarily agree with the novel idea of homosexuals adopting children- they still believe homosexuals should have what ever place in society they have earned individually.

The second set of poll questions really makes me want to see the sample polls used to construct the survey. I think that with both surveys the sources are probably slanted in the first place and so the bell curve would simply illustrate that bias.

Here is an interview with the pollster.

Here is the organizations analysis of the polls which contains links to the following pdfs.

Arizona law filling a power vacuum.

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Wed, 28 Apr 2010 10:28:00 +0000

The Arizona state law is only evidence of a Federal failure. The Federal government has allowed a power vacuum to happen on the border so the state governments who are 1) closer to the problem and 2)more responsive to their constituency- have filled the vacuum. The state governments are being forced to action.

The responsibility of the Federal government as outlined in the Constitution is to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity". When the Federal government decided to ignore the problem it shifted the responsibility to the next logical level of responsibility. Our porous southern border has been a problem since at least the Eisenhower administration.

A news conference with Eisenhower from July 21, 1954:

Q. John Herling, Editors Syndicate: Mr. President, the wetback legislation prepared by Attorney General Brownell is sort of bogged down in the Congress, and at the time it was introduced there was great urgency about it, and it seems to continue to be that. Do you plan to give the idea an additional push?

THE PRESIDENT. Well, wherever I see an opportunity, yes, I will.

This is part of a general program that the Attorney General has to make it possible for him to enforce the laws as written. We want to make sure there is no disposition here in any of these laws to interfere with the transient workers who come in by legal means. They want them, they want to come; it is all on the up and up. The only difficulty is these that come across illegally; it is difficult to control unless he gets these additional measures. I believe there are two of them on that particular subject that should be enacted.

Americans who believe in what America is believe in the same things expressed by President Eisenhower. We don’t want to interfere with people here legally and at the same time we don’t want people to come here illegally.

If the federal government is interested in preserving our nation- then it must act soon to reform immigration policy. Under the law those who have entered illegally must pay a price of some kind. It wouldn’t be fair to those who have chosen to be a part of the American dream if they didn’t. I work with many legal immigrants- they have worked for years in the United States. They have paid taxes, many have become citizens, some have children serving our country in the armed forces, and they deserve to be treated fairly. These legal immigrants are jumping through the hoops and unraveling the red-tape that is legal immigration. How would allowing those who ignore our laws and minimize the struggle of legal immigrants be construed as an establishment of justice?

Here is where many would begin to indict the state government of Arizona- but I am going to point my finger at the federal government. Through the non-action of the federal government to defend the border states from an invasion it has forced Arizona to effect as much change as it can with its limited resources. This has caused a reaction in the legal and illegal immigrant community. No legal immigrant wants to see relatives here illegally, harassed or deported- be it by a government agent or a private citizen. Does the vacuum the federal government has created on the border promote domestic tranquility?

Traffickers affiliated with the Juárez Cartel supply illicit drugs, including cocaine and marijuana, to various street gangs for distribution in urban, suburban, and rural communities throughout the Southwest, Midwest, Great Lakes, and Mid-Atlantic Regions. Our southern border is so porous that we not only have problems in Arizona- we have problems all over the United States- because the federal government has allowed a power vacuum to exist on the border. People are in actual danger- Americans are being killed in their own back yards. What will move the federal government to actually provide for the common defense?

What is one of the first arguments you see from people who want to encourage illegal immigration? “They do jobs Americans won’t do.” Well why won’t Americans do those jobs? Could it be because of poor conditions and low pay? If an illegal immigrant is willing to do a job at a fraction of the wage an American would expect- what is to stop companies looking for cheap non-demanding labor from hiring illegal immigrants? “Without illegal immigration food costs (etc.) would increase.” That is the same exact argument northern supporters of slavery would use before the civil war. The producer wants the most affordable raw materials and be it the connoisseurs of “3000 mile salads” of today or the consumers of cotton textiles from 1860- they will do and say anything to have it. “Illegal immigrants are better off in America- Mexico is such a terrible place now- we have to help these poor souls.” Here is where we come to the old-deep south argument for slavery. Some slave owners would argue that the human beings they own would not be able to take care of themselves- and that they are in fact serving a humanitarian cause. So I would say that essentially people who want to promote illegal immigration are in fact using the same arguments slavers would use before the civil war. How can anyone argue that fighting for illegal immigration is promotion of the general welfare?

How can “reasonable suspicion” be attained with out immediately asking someone for their papers upon seeing that they may not be an American citizen. Reasonable suspicion doesn’t sound like a very high hurtle for a peace officer to jump over. If we want a limited government- every agent of the government must have a respect not only for the law but for the principles behind the law. Asking brown people for their papers upon “reasonable suspicion” is only going to hurt any kind of reform efforts. It will only reinforce the progressive policy of the past 20 years toward illegal immigration. The law will provide cover for the federal government to enforce the constitution selectively. It will be difficult for a peace officer to prove probable cause upon arrest if he has a “reasonable suspicion” of immigration status. Probable cause is the precedent for a lawful search or detention- mere suspicion isn’t a cause. Is reasonable suspicion securing the blessings of liberty?

The federal government is failing. If the federal government acts with purpose and common sense then states like Arizona won't be forced into filling the power vacuum with horrible laws.

Charles Town WV Tea Party

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Thu, 15 Apr 2010 22:14:00 +0000

So, the day has arrived. Reports of 2 million people have showed up to Tea Parties in towns and cities across the country. I attended my local tea party this year and took a few pictures. The weather was beautiful, the sun was out and for a small town lots of people showed up. I just can't understand how anyone can call these people hateful or bigoted. These were just honest folks standing up for what they believe in. Tax Day is a work day for many people, this year it was during a day off for me.

Support Your Local Tea Party: The Siren Song of the State

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Sat, 03 Apr 2010 15:54:00 +0000

Agitprop: Ronald David Jackson

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 18:49:00 +0000

Some critics of the Tea Party movement focus exclusively on the fringe in order to distract from the core values of the movement. They will take signs and label them racist- sometimes when they actually are but only by accident because they label all signs and in fact all protest at the Tea Parties as 'racism'. Despite the blaring fact that people of all races and colors not only attend the Tea Parties they also participate on stage and in it's organization. Some lesser know public figures and artists attempt to propagate the MSNBC myth that no black people are at the Tea Parties- some do this through art such as author, artist and agent of agitprop Ronald David Jackson. Call me an odd egg but I don't think the Tea Party movement should cower from the accusation- I think the movement should stand up to such libelous and heinous accusations. We not only believe but we know "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." It isn't some slogan we label ourselves with to attract followers, this is something we truly believe. It doesn't roll off the tongue like "yes we can" but it certainly has an actual message and an actual meaning. But, it isn't popular to actually quote the founding documents and point to them as something to live up to- it just isn't very cool or hip. You often hear the critics ask "Where were you when Bush was destroying the country?"- well I can only answer with questions, "Where are you now? If you didn't agree with the creeping fascism then why do you defend it so vociferously right now?"

Time to Strike

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 17:39:00 +0000

"...a history of repeated injuries and usurpations"

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 03:29:00 +0000

People no longer look at the relationship with the government as an adversarial relationship. The people have lost all jealousy they see no need to provide for their own ends. They now see they can take what they want via the brute force and passion of democracy while ignoring the finesse and wisdom of republican principles. The American people now feign disappointment and indignation toward the words of a few low brow neanderthals hurled recklessly at a group while at the same time ignoring the rights and wishes of the smallest minority, that being the individual. We've taken the final steps toward the homogenization of our political culture, homogenization toward the unrelenting arc of history dominated by the rulers of humanity forever stamping that humanity into the ground. We are now leaving nothing to our posterity and in fact they will have less than nothing, those not yet born will have the debt of the nation teeming in it's cage financially in the form of un-payable debts and physically in the form of our creditors. Those who have claimed over and over the victory of breaking the heathen chains of hate are now slipping the chains of the collective upon the homunculus masses once called America.

GRANDMA IS A RADICAL

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:49:00 +0000

The dirt bags on TV call her a teabagger.

Yes, we can (Reagan Remix) v2.0

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 07:50:00 +0000

Rape and Taxes.

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 09:20:00 +0000

Corporatism.

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 07:25:00 +0000

Great leap forward.

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 08:30:00 +0000

"There is a serious tendency toward capitalism among the well-to-do peasants."Mao Tse-Tung

Freedom.

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Sat, 23 Jan 2010 01:47:00 +0000

The Government Propaganda Resistance Welcome to VisionVictoryManifesto.com Unemployment Report

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Sat, 09 Jan 2010 01:12:00 +0000

MOVE YOUR MONEY

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Sat, 02 Jan 2010 17:49:00 +0000

Long time no see.

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Thu, 16 Apr 2009 06:06:00 +0000

The tea party was fun. I think I coined a new term. "Calling in Galt." Many people where at Lafayette park today that did just that I would imagine.

with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our FORTUNES, and our sacred Honor

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Wed, 01 Oct 2008 23:33:00 +0000

They are telling us we may not get our next paycheck. They are telling us we may not be able to get a loan. We hear them- they've repeated it on television and on the radio and in the papers and online. They are telling us a depression is possible. They are threatening us with short term promises. I may not get my paycheck next week or ever- but will I have my liberty. I will take my liberty over any paycheck. The American people have heard all of the talking heads on television we have seen a battered President beg on television. This problem in gangrenous it is beyond saving- the $700,000,000,000 is no more than a band-aid that we will have to pay for with our own labor- and if the problem is a far reaching as they say it is would not likely solve the problem. This is no the fault of the free market or of under-regulation. The problem is because of using regulation to social engineer- which is anti-free market and over regulation. I chose poverty over subjection before- I rejected the cyclical anti- liberty welfare state and went to college. I will chose it again.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 02:02:00 +0000

Today in the House of Representatives (the voice of the people) voted down a bailout (or buyin) bill that would have placed the risk of toxic debt upon the shoulders of the American people. The people have been brow beaten and declared 'idiots unable to understand what is happening'. I don't know how many real people I have talked to that have said 'let it collapse' they've seen on live TV and read online and in the newspapers that this could cause a crunch in credit and possibly a depression. The president came on TV and said that this could cause a 'deep recession'. We saw it they told us it was going to happen and the people said so be it. The people have chosen freedom over bread.

I think we are being given a false choice.

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 23:53:00 +0000

The giant trillion dollar plan being discussed in Washington this very moment is supposed to be a plan to save us from ourselves yet again. We are being given a false choice we are faced with either a)collapse b)bi-partisan approved fascism. We aren’t being given any other choices. I’m not talking about jack boot minority killing fascism I am talking about the Il Duce keeping the trains on time fascism. The fascism America has been dabbling since the FDR administration. Now I don’t expect uneducated people to understand what I mean- I know it sounds horrid but its true. Since WWII the profit has been private but the risk has been made public many times and this time it is just extremely apparent. The United States economy is about to take a hefty toke off of the big tax funded dooby. Sure it will give it a buzz but after a while the problems will be back and a bigger and more expensive drug will be needed. No I’m not a Ron Paul voter and I’m going to vote for McCain because the Republican party is by far the least fascist (though more militant). What in the fuck can we do about this should we just take the hit and live and learn or should we pull yet another load onto the already over loaded ship of state? Will we chose to lose that last load so we can correct our course or are we going to risk sinking in the long run.

To those who say people who are anti-Obama are racists.

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:07:00 +0000

Categorizing people by the color of their skin is an attempt to create divides between human beings. Certainly it may protect some but increasingly during this century it is used to quell the speech of some who do not judge on the color of someone's skin but on the content of character. If we are truly free we would be able judge people based on what they say and what they believe regardless of the color of their skin. If some choose to divide themselves into opposing camps based on skin color let them do it- it is a free country. But for those who believe that thought is the most important measure of someone- we will continue to oppose those who would enslave our minds and our will because of a crime we did not commit.

Obama's speech in Berlin.

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 18:22:00 +0000

Obama is an inspirational speaker no one can deny that. He does tap into the very basic feelings of what it means to be American- We are the good guys- We are the last best hope for man on earth etc. He is vested in the idea of American exceptionalism. But the objectivist in me forces me to use the more logical side of my judgement. He is not running for president of the world though I am sure many would vote for him- he is in fact running for the presidency of the United States. The first duty of the president of the United States is to make decisions based on what is in the best interest of the United States. That is not what his speech is about no matter how inspiring it may be.

The world has no right to vote in our election- hence it has no say in who we pick as our president. Though many want to say we are Pax Americana- something we are not. Until 'the world' pays taxes to the United States government it has no right to impose upon us their laws, leaders, or even ideas. Collectivism is not a new idea its an old and failed idea- it is not in our self interest as Americans to buy into such a con. We should continue to look out for our own interest first and foremost in every situation. Collectivism is riding on the coat tails of ever increasing individualism and taking credit where it doesn't deserve it- Obama is merely catching the ride.

To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:53:00 +0000

If you have read my previous blogs you know that I believe we are heading in to a dangerous time. I may even seem alarmist or even reactionary. I am not crazy I assure you though some may not weigh education heavily in their opinions of others opinions I am a college graduate (class of December 2006) and I have a BA in history from Fairmont State University in Fairmont, WV. I am not one to get alarmed by seeing something posted anonymously on the internet I generally track things down if I have a question to reliable sources and then make my own conclusions.

The issue of Peak Oil is often referred to as a conspiracy theory or something of the like. Peak oil as defined by Robert L. Hirsh – “means that the rate of world oil production cannot increase; it also means that production will thereafter decrease with time.” [i] World peak oil refers to an aggregate of all oil fields in the world- where as individual oil fields have a point at which they cannot increase production past a certain maximum this point may plateau and the field will continue producing that amount for some time but its production will eventually begin a terminal decline. That is a matter of physical fact for each oil field and in aggregate world oil production the only theory involved is when the peak will be reached. The world peak can be pushed forward in time as we find more oil reserves. But we have no guarantees that we will be able to expand our reserves at the same rate of demand or the same rate of decline.

The peak of world production will not necessarily be known until we actually pass the world peak of production- in other words we may only be able to know it has peaked in hindsight. The peak oil crisis itself may not begin at peak- it may happen sooner- as production becomes harder to increase in response to the increased pressure of demand. Some oil experts such as T. Boone Pickens believes “that oil has peaked at 85 million barrels in the world” and “We've got to other forms of energy.” The beginnings of the crisis may also be seen with the increasing cost to increase production because of the difficulty in finding oil and also the decreasing overall quality of the oil we refine. “Large producers, like Russia and Iraq, do not have Saudi Aramco's huge reserves or excess oil capacity to export, and promising new fields elsewhere are not expected to deliver enough oil to make up the difference”, according Jeff Gerth quoting oil experts on the July 18th 2008 New York Times online edition.

According to the Department of Energy, “non‐OPEC production fell far short of both expectations and consumption growth. Faster declines in older fields and delays in expansion projects have limited supply growth.”[ii], and for OPEC, “At these production levels, available surplus production capacity during the third quarter would be only1.2 million bbl/d, marking the third consecutive quarter that surplus capacity stood at or below 1.5 million bbl/d. All of this capacity is held by Saudi Arabia.”[iii] Even some who do not buy into the “peak oil theory” say that, “the aggregate global decline rate is 4.5 percent.” Their argument is that we will be able to make up for that decline with new fields coming into production. But according to Matthew Simmons, “Climbing to 75 – 77 MMB/D quickly becoming far-fetched dream.”[iv] World oil production reached 73.27 MMB/D in 2007.

This is not some crazy conspiracy theory- no black helicopters are involved and the megacorp fascists aren’t coming to get you. This is a real demonstratable issue.

[i] PEAKING OF WORLD OIL PRODUCTION: IMPACTS, MITIGATION, & RISK MANAGEMENT, Robert L. Hirsch, SAIC, Project Leader Roger Bezdek, MISI Robert Wendling, MISI February 2005.

[ii] Short‐Term Energy Outlook July 8, 2008 Release.

[iii] Ibid

[iv] THE PEAK OIL DEBATE: As The EIA Turns 30, EIA 2008 Energy Conference, Washington, DC, April 7, 2008, By: Matthew R. Simmons, Chairman Simmons & Company International EIA 2008 Energy Conference, Washington, DC April 7, 2008

Mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves.

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 17:37:00 +0000

I’m not a global warming advocate at least I don’t believe man is causing a significant amount of climate change. I do however believe that the climate is changing in the same way it has been changing since the earth itself has had an atmosphere. Do I believe we should have clean air and skies- yes absolutely. But I don’t believe we should put birds, whales, turtles, and fish before human beings in our priorities.

That being said I see no real reason to block ways to help maintain our way of life. Surely we will have to scale down how we live with less use of energy overall. But, we shouldn’t simply throw our arms up in disgust and resign ourselves to a 19th century lifestyle. We should do everything we can to maintain our life and liberty. By allowing a few people to dictate and narrow our sight on the horizon we are allowing ourselves to be herded into a cattle car. If we don’t exploit every option we have with energy we will reach the energy bottleneck sooner rather than later. If we reach it soon we will be completely unprepared and our infrastructure will not hold and we will be forced to commandeer energy supplies.

When the state is forced to enact a naked policy of resource war- the public reaction would be extreme distaste and rousing cheers. This is not a place we want to find ourselves in. The extreme distaste would come from our own visceral repulsion to referring to our nation as Pax Americana. The rousing cheers would come from those with no gas, no job, no home and no food. A supposed end to our misery would be the birth of an old world style empire- that is if we won. We would certainly be facing off against other nations with similar problems

Where is the hope? One thing we could do would be to open up every option we have available to us- our national interest is not a suitable forum for partisanship. Though Senators such as Barbara Boxer (D-Ca) refer to off shore drilling as “our ethanol” which I suppose means that she thinks it is worth while to spend political capital on manipulating America’s need for energy for political ends. We need more energy and the congress reacts to this need by standing steadfastly in the way of progress. We should develop every bit of domestic energy we have including off shore oil, oil shale, coal, solar, wind and nuclear- we need all of it because as oil becomes more scarce either because of a physical shortfall or because of increasing demand the cost to function for We the People will increase.

When in the course of human events...

noreply@blogger.com (Shankapolitico) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 15:44:00 +0000

Industrial civilization is a grand time for the human race. During this time we have grown from a mostly agrarian society running on 1 or 2 horsepower to an integrated cyber society running on billions of horsepower. Putting man into space is nearly a private venture- human flight is an everyday occurrence- instant communication is expected- we can travel anywhere in the world within days- and with all of our pride and reliance on ancient sunshine we could lose it all.

We have choices to make and the longer we wait the fewer our choices will become. The choices we have available now are few still. The first thing we need is for the government to lead, follow or get out of the way. We need to set free the wild horse that is American innovation, ingenuity and profit motive. What we don’t need is to nationalize our efforts to pursue the energy we need. A vulnerable populace is a populace that is likely to ask for help from the ever present monolith of the state. The state as I will discuss later is the last and most dire choice we may be forced to make.

The airplane was not invented by the state, the automobile was not invented by the state, the internet was not created by an act of Congress nor was the power of the atom declared by the findings of the Supreme Court. Citizens who recognized an obstacle and overcame it- these are the people who brought us our modern world. That is our best last hope- that we the people of the United States of America will be able to use the tools and opportunities we have been afforded either by blood sweat and tears or divine providence to yet again change the world.

How can the government lead? The first thing it could do is to focus our efforts toward a series of achievable goals and then do everything in its power to remove the obstacles it may have placed in the way. Though energy independence is the ultimate goal and an excellent sound bite it is nothing without intermediate goals. If it must tax and it must spend our money (a subject deserving of its own derision) then it must focus our money into the research and development of energy technologies. Not just the most popular politically or even the most environmentally friendly- but where we can get the most effective use of our money. In other words they should focus our dollars on the technologies that get the best dollar to energy unit ratio achievable.

How can the government follow? They should be responsive to their constituents. Instead of adhering to some suicidal ideological mind set they should realize that we the people gave them their job. The people are demanding more energy and they should follow our demands. Clear the way and let us work in our own self interests.

How can the government get out of the way? The government can immediately remove the obstacles preventing the development of oil sands, oil drilling and nuclear power. We the people do not care about your partisan view of reality. Though some with vested interest in the power of the state would like to continue and expand the power of the state- the rest of us rather enjoy our freedom. When the government removes the possibility of progress and development it is in effect causing us injury.

If through willing ignorance and rancorous partisanship the government is unwilling to follow the will of the American people and we are unable to develop our way out of this current situation- we have only one choice. We would be forced to take what is needed through the use of military force- if the situation is allowed to deteriorate. No doubt at that point America would not be the only player on the field. We would be taking the field against Russia and China as well. This would be the last and most desperate bid- as well as the most undesirable and perhaps in the opinions of some the most despicable.