Saturday, April 19, 2008


While each candidate agrees that the United States depends far too much on imported oil and gas, opinion varies on how to lessen the burden and how to promote research and development of other energy sources.

The Republican Party
Proposes a national energy strategy that will rely on the technological prowess of American industry and science. Would not support subsidizing every alternative or tariffs that restrict the competition that stimulates innovation and l
ower cost. Believes barriers to nuclear energy are political not technological. Would provide for safe storage of spent nuclear fuel and give host states or localities a proprietary interest so when advanced recycling technologies turn used fuel into a valuable commodity, the public will share in its economic benefits. Proposed a bipartisan plan to address the problem of climate change and stimulate the development and use of advanced technologies. It is a market-based approach that would set reasonable caps on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions, and provide industries with tradable credits.

The Democratic Party Proposes reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent by 2050 by using a market-based cap-and-trade system. Would invest $150 billion over 10 years in clean energy. Supports next generation biofuels. Proposes increasing fuel economy standards and would require that 25 percent of electricity consumed in the U.S. is derived from clean, sustainable energy sources by 2025. Would create a Global Energy Forum and re-engage with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Which Party really has the upper hand in this issue? Which one is going to work better?Is this a very important topic for the American Public?

Superdelegates Influences

Yet despite Hilary trying to attack Mr. Obama all debate long the super delegates and party leaders showed that none had been persuaded much by her attacks on Mr. Obama’s strength as a potential Democratic nominee, his recent gaffes and his relationships with his former pastor and with a onetime member of the Weather Underground.

In fact, the Obama campaign announced endorsements from two more super delegates on Thursday, after rolling out three on Wednesday and two others since late last week in what appeared to be a carefully orchestrated show of strength before Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary. Obama advisers said that one of the pickups on Thursday, Councilman Harry Thomas Jr. of the District of Columbia, had initially favored Mrs. Clinton, but Clinton advisers denied that, and a Thomas aide said he had been neutral before Thursday. Is the race for the democratic tilting quite aways from Hilary? Are her chances diminishing as of late? Should the super delegates be the deciding factor for the Democratic nominee?

Laws on Abuse

Cardinal William Levada, a high-ranking Vatican official whom Pope Benedict XVI hand-picked to succeed him in his old job as head of the Vatican's office, offered early signs on Friday that the Vatican will change its internal, or canon, laws concerning the church's response to sexual abuse allegations; a matter that has become the main topic of the Pope's American visit. The changes would follow adjustments made some time ago involving the church's statute of limitations with regard to some particularly offenses. The Cardinal suggested that laws meriting amendment may involve statutes of limitations regarding abuse cases. This seems to be the first step in trying to actually clean up the problems in the church. Many times priest that had been caught for sexual abuse where just given a warning and preceded with their job as nothing bad happened. Why has it taken so long for people to realize that this is a serious problem? Do you think that all of the priests that sexually abused other members are finally going to be punished? Or is this all talk and we are not going to see any improvement in our churches?

Friday, April 18, 2008

Can McCain be Taken Seriously

John McCain at times seems as though his old age has got the best of him while speaking to the media. "Grandpa McCain" as I call him, made a mistake recently about not knowing the difference between Sunnis and Shiites. McCain claims to be the best candidate for the Presidency and for foreign affairs but that seems to be the case. McCain also made the mistake of calling some people of Iran Al Queda when there wasn't any there. I can see why there is not much media covering McCain because of the tight Democratic nominee race but that shouldn't be a reason to dismiss McCain's faults so quickly. He is going to be running for President. Is McCain's old age a factor going into the Presidential election? Can McCain be trusted as President even with the mistakes being made in his so called "best field" of foreign affairs?

Bill Clinton Starting to Bring Down Hilary Campaign

Recently Bill Clinton has been coming to his wife's defence in attempt to help her image stay clean and fresh. He also has run his mouth off about the Obama campaign. But its not working, its hurting Hilary. Bill Clinton came to his wife's defence about the sniper fire in Bosnia but got all the facts wrong. This made both Clinton's look like liars. I may sound bias but the media agrees. Bill Clinton could have just shut his mouth and let the story pass but he had to make it worse. He later called the Obama campaign a fairy tale and has been trying to tarnish Obama's image for some time. This is unusual because Bill Clinton was, in the public majorities eyes, was a good president. Should Bill just chill and stay out of his wife's campaign? Should Bill really say anything to the media considering he is in the most bias position possible? I think if your not going to stay objective then you should just stay out of it let the advisors handle it.

Debate Disgrace

With the Democratic nominee at stake I wanted the Pennsylvania debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would be an exciting spectacle. The debate was full dumb questions asked by former Bill Clinton advisor, George Stephanopoulos, about why Mr. Obama did not wear an American flag pin on his suit. We know where Stephanopoulos's bias was. Obama's association with a minister, who was critical of American policies, was also a big concern. The interesting parts of debates are usually the exchange of numerous ideas that provide the American public about which candidate believes what, not whether or not they are unpatriotic because they wont wear a pin. Also the moderators got to the "most important questions of the general public" by like question 16. Should questions for debates be screened prior to airing on national television? Should Barack Obama be criticized for little "unpatriotic details" or should the media be shamed and called disgusting Obama attackers?

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Why I Love the Internet part MCCXIII


Lethal Injection

The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the most common method of lethal injection used to execute condemned prisoners is constitutional, a decision sure to restart the nation's dormant death chambers. But the court's splintered reasoning seems likely to result in more challenges to the way capital punishment is administered in the United States. In a 7 to 2 vote, the justices said the three-drug combination used by Kentucky, similar to that used by the federal government and 34 other states, does not carry a risk of substantial pain so great as to violate the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. I know we probably already covered this topic but what are people's thoughts about capital punishment. Also, do you think that lethal injection is inhumane due to the time it takes to pass through the body causing a "substantial risk of serious harm," or should we continue to use this way of executing. If people have such a problem with lethal injection, why don't we just stick to another method? I think we should just go old school and use the guillotine.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Climate Change

President Bush proposed a new target Wednesday for stopping the growth of the nation's greenhouse gas emissions by 2025. The president also called for putting the brakes on greenhouse gas emissions from electric power plants within 10 to 15 years. Bush's goal is to reduce emission levels in the power sector well below where they were projected to be when he first announced his climate strategy in 2002. Also, the president the president remains opposed to a Senate bill that would require mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions, calling that proposal unrealistic and economically harmful. However, maybe mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions would be more beneficial than Bush's proposal. Why is Bush's new target the year 2025 for stopping greenhouse emissions? Can't he propose a new plan that can take affect in a couple years? And do you think we will ever solve the problem of global warming?

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Gun Control

State lawmakers across the country are ramping up efforts to pass new restrictions on guns, following nearly a decade in which state legislative efforts have been dominated by gun advocates. Much of the proposed legislation — some 38 states are considering gun-related bills — focuses on cutting off gun access to convicted criminals and the mentally ill and on improving methods to trace guns used in crimes. Hopefully states are going to be able to enforce gun related laws which would make it harder for many citizens to buy a gun. What I want to know is how come we keep waiting so long to propose bills to control who buys guns? Wouldn't this stop random gun shootings at schools or other places? If these bills are not passed are we ever going to see strict regulations of gun control?

Monday, April 14, 2008


Here are some political cartoons from msnbc to sum up the week:

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Obama's Response

I thought it would be interesting to post Obama's Response to the criticism he has received for the comments that he made, as mentioned in Matt's post.

The NY Times has an article with Obama explaining that he "didn’t say it as well as [he] should have.” I think that he truly did simply choose the wrong words, but still believes in what he was originally saying. He is afraid that people are voting out of emotion because of their economic problems rather than what they actually felt.

It is not yet clear what effect his remarks will have on voters, but with the primary in Pennsylvania is approaching on the 22nd the candidates need to be aware of their choice of words. Obama hopefuls need to prey that his explanation will please those who were offended by his comments. It, however, should be noted that he has not yet apologized for what he said. He simply has stated that he could have said it more eloquently. I think that he might need to make a formal apology if he hopes to not be labeled as an elitist.


This week, Obama made the following comment:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Clinton seized the chance to criticize him for patronizing the rural areas of America, focusing especially on the word "bitter". Now people think it's going to cost Obama working class voters just because he had a poor choice of words.

Do you think it's a good strategy for Clinton to attack Obama for making some offhand comments? After all, everyone makes mistakes, but as we've seen, people in the political world don't seem to care. And ultimately, will Obama's comment really make him lose voters?