Everglades drilling and abolishing the EPA

http://www.kait8.com/story/15348721/bachmann-says-shed-consider-everglades-drilling

I just finished reading this article (see above) involving republican presidential hopeful Michele Bachmann and her speeches she has been giving.  Now, we all know that if Pres. Obama takes another run at office, I'm not inclined to vote for him, but here's to hoping that Bachmann won't be the one running against him. 

Don't get me wrong, she's giving the "only if it can be done responsibly" tag to her statements on drilling in the everglades, but she's saying job creation (thinking shortsightedly) is more important that the long term effects.  "If experts say it can be done safely" is another way of saying "I will find/pay off an expert to agree with me".  The sad fact is that money talks and experts often disagree with each other.  It's not too hard to find one so-called expert to support any given opinion.  But the EPA still would stand in her way, right?  Keep reading the article and you'll come to my favorite section - Let's abolish the EPA and leave everything up to the states.  Why should the federal government care about the environment anyway?  Maybe because states can be short sighted?  Maybe because environmental areas cross our state boundaries and what is done on one end of an ecosystem has an effect on the whole ecosystem? 

The EPA is not "job-minded".  Dang straight they aren't.  They are environmentally minded.  That's why they are the Environmental Protection Agency, not the job creation committee.  What we destroy in our environment takes a very long time to recover, if it can at all.  Destroy it later and there may be no going back.  Now, I understand that job creation is more than a little important, I'm a victim of unemployment too, but that's just an excuse to destroy and agency that has crossed the Republican party too many times.  There are a multitude of other ways to create jobs that those that represent us have fought over and have been rejected by one side or the other.  You think abolishing the EPA would be any less fought over?

I realize that most likely this is yet another empty campaign promise that she wouldn't have the ability to back up once it comes time to get it thru congress, but the shear short-sightedness of it is irritating.  I'm very frustrated by politicians inability  to listen to expert scientist if they don't agree with the politician's need to say what they think the people want to hear.  Pay attention to cause and affect!

Betrayal and a bid for the CIA

I don't know how many of you out in ciberspace were paying attention to the General McCrystal episodes in 2009/2010.  Here's the recap.  In 2009, General Stanley McCrystal, then top commander of US forces in Afghanistan asked Pres. Obama for a troop increase.  When Obama put him off, it was leaked to the press, forcing Obama's hand and making him make a very public decision that cost him a bit of approval rating (essentially pissing him off).  Fast forward to 2010.  McCrystal did an interview with Rolling Stones Magazine critisizing the president (can you get any more public).  Of course, Obama's ego couldn't handle this and he asked for McCrystal's resignation from his post and retirement.  Now, my personal theory in this is that between the troop increase debatical and the Rolling Stones interview, General McCrystal put in his retirement paperwork.  Here's the thing about being a general in the Army; you can ask to retire, but the Army/Commander in Chief (President) is not required to grant that if they feel you are still needed.  So, here you have McCrystal tired of soldier's lives being lost due to the president's unwillingness to follow the recomendations of the person most likely to know what is needed (after all, that's what he was put there for.  Obama just gets updates, he isn't there).  So, McCrystal asks to be done with it and Obama says no.  What to do?  How about an interview guaranteed to make sure Obama has little choice but to replace him?  Go McCrystal.

So what does this have to do with the CIA?  Well, during these going-ons with McCrystal, his supervisor was General David Patraeus.  When McCrystal was asked for his resignation, General Patraeus backed up the president and willingly stepped down a slot to take over his posistion.  Now, why would he want a demotion?  Obviously, Obama wanted him there because Patraeus knows how to keep his mouth shut and do what he is told.  Patraeus, in return, is now, in 2011 making a bid to be head of the CIA.  As of the end of June, he cleared the senate 94-0.  I'm not saying that he doesn't have the experience.  I'm not saying that he isn't good at his job.  I am, however, concerned that Patraeus has shown himself to be a yes-man instead of speaking up for those below him. 

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you want, but I'm noticing a trend here.  President Obama is the first American President to have spent so much time in congresses business.  Remember, our goverenment was set up so that Congress, the President, and the Judicial branch are seperate.  Checks and balances here.  What keeps happening is the President weighing in on every bit of business congress has.  The president's job is not to write bills, that's congress.  But he is.  The president shouldn't be weighing in on Judicial rulings, but he often has.  "Well, my opinion is...."  When the president runs everything he isn't a president, he's a dictator.  So now you have what looks like will soon be the head of the CIA, Patraeus, who has shown himself to be another Obama yes man.  Anyone else getting worried?

Campaign funding and compromise

After watching this whole budget mess play out, I see the proof that campain funding is now a problem.  Here's the deal, people/companies with their own best interests pay large amounts of money to get congressmen and presidents elected.  Of course, they expect a return on their investment.  So now you have the people making the decisions (in this case Obama and Bohner) needing to serve the interest of those that paid to get them in office.  Problem: Those paying to get each of them in office have opposing needs.  This wasn't a case of Republicans and Democrats.  This was the case of two men trying to get their financers what they want.  It had nothing to do with the people who voted to put them in office, or even the parties that back them.  When did the best interest of our elected officials become more importaint than those they represent?

Here's the issue.  It costs amazingly large amounts of money to get into the public eye enough to be elected to any political seat.  The average at this last election for the House seats was over $290,000, and the senate topped $2,000,000 according to the NY Times.  Obama in his presidential bid spent $740.6 MILLION.  And how can an average, non-corrupt person who just wants to make things better without being indebted to people with their own interests run for office?  This has really gotten out of hand.  There really needs to be a cap on how much a canidate is allowed to spend.  A reasonable campaign cap is needed, and this would need to include this whole, I'm paying for an ad for this person thing that tends to happen.  Heck, perhaps to save us all the annoyance that comes around election time, ads should be banned and individuals should be held to televised debates only.  That would be one way to cut the crap and save everyone from the annoying mudslinging television bombardment.  Win-win.

Tax money and Election time

Does it seem wrong to anyone else out there that the current president is allowed to use US tax money to support the democrat's cause this coming election?  You can't tell me that his new plan is anything more than trying to convince the voting public that Democrats are trying to help with this economic mess.  For the last almost two years, Mr. Obama has pushed his own agenda and the Democrats have just gone along (how weak of them) but now that it's election time and the public has been in an uproar because nothing has been done (at least not anything remotely successful) to fix the problem and help people get back to work and stable, Obama wants to throw out a bunch more money in what is little more than election campaign spending.  I say his 'big plan' is yet another ploy.  Wasn't it bad enough he started parading his children around as soon as his approval rating dropped?  Now he's going to spend billions in taxpayer dollars to try and get the Democrats reelected because he's alienated the Republicans so much there's no way his personal agenda can get by them.  Really, why do the American people allow this?  How much further can he sink with us just standing by?

Commentary on the Ground Zero Mosque

I, like many people out there feel the need to add my two cents about the Mosque that may or may not be built on Ground Zero.  Here's the thing, I'm a very huge advocate of Freedom of Religion, there's a very good reason it's part of the first amendment.  Our Founding Fathers knew what an issue religious persecution was.  (Get me on my soapbox about the whole, well they were Christian so our constitution is of Christian values argument sometime).  The question isn't (or at least shouldn't be) whether they are within their legal, constitutional rights to build on that property they own.  They are.  If they want to hold a service right there in the open area of Ground Zero, they're still within their rights.   This comes down more to an issue of healing a wound.  According to the leaders of said Mosque, that is their goal.  To contribute to the healing of a very nasty wound.  The intent is a honorable one.  I believe they mean well, but the problem is in the execution.  They are creating more of a rift, and pouring salt into the wounds left behind on that day.  Most people are aware (I would hope) that Fundamentalist Muslims ((ie, the terrorist bastards) are not the same as most Muslim.  Islam really is a peaceful religion.  But knowing that doesn't make many feel better.  If they want to help heal this wound, don't alienate people.  Why don't they donate the land to become something like a city youth center?  Or a multi-religion facility towards the betterment of mankind?  These things would help, they would show the intent to help heal the wounds.  They would not create this amazing feeling of animosity that their current plans are engendering.  They would not be seen as a "trophy".  It isn't fair to the Muslims that they are being viewed this way, but the reality is, they aren't winning themselves any supporters or causing understanding and kindness toward their religion by ignoring those upsets and protests.  The world is what it is, and sometimes you have to alter your plans around what you've been given.