En - Ike's Blog - TheJHub.com http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike en-us The Blogger's World http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/693 http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/693 I really enjoy the Jhub.&nbsp; <br /> <br /> Most of the people (all six of us) around here are intelligent, respectful, and capable of&nbsp; promoting ideas to further discussion and debate.&nbsp; Sure I wish there were more people actively involved in talking about politics, but all in all, it's a nice place to &quot;hang out.&quot;<br /> <br /> Step on over to the ISJ's main website, and bloggers go crazy.&nbsp; Sure there's a lot more participation, but there is also so much more vile, self-righteous vitriol, where bloggers rant hateful mantras that do absolutely nothing in trying to move us all proactively in a positive direction.&nbsp; One particular blogger relishes in calling McCain a &quot;hatemonger&quot; in one breath, and then give his running mate several explicitive titles in the next breath.&nbsp; Check it out;&nbsp; he calls himself &quot;Constitutionalist&quot;.&nbsp; Fighting hate with more hate.&nbsp; That doesn't quite sound like a good idea.&nbsp; <br /> <br /> On the other hand, we have people like M. Strickland who also doesn't seem to support McCain, but manages to do so with a good sense of articulated intelligence that isn't hidden behind agendas or ideologies.&nbsp; Not only does this give a feeling of real character, but people like Strickland are much more capable of converting people to their line of thinking.<br /> <br /> There's nothing wrong with having strong opinions.&nbsp; I strongly disagree with Strickland about his pick for Obama.&nbsp; But regardless of who wins, I hope that cool heads will prevail and that we can rise above our pettiness towards a better tomorrow.&nbsp; After all, aren't we all on the same team? Joe's Oil http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/680 http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/680 Today in the ISJ, Joe Evans (I like the name Evans, I think) wrote a featured article defending the Democrats legislation on off-shore drilling.&nbsp; The focus of his article was that drilling is not the solution to our energy problems.&nbsp; He's right on that mark, but he's wrong on defending the legislation:&nbsp; it is indeed a total sham.<br /> <br /> He states the argument for why Republicans call it a sham, and then crushes that same argument with the rest of his column.&nbsp; Unfortunately, he's only stating one point of the whole argument.&nbsp; So let's talk about the WHOLE issue behind the legislation, and why it's pathetic and utterly worthless.<br /> <br /> 1)&nbsp; Under the legislation, drilling can only take place outside of fifty miles off of our coastlines.&nbsp; Not only are we missing out on the most of the oil that is actually out there (as Mr. Evans gives credit for) but the oil within the 50 mile perimeter is a lot easier to get at.&nbsp; Most of the oil within that buffer zone can be accessed much more quickly, possibly as quick as 1-2 years from now - not the 10+ years we all hear about.&nbsp; Under this legislation, we are only allowing the time consuming, hard-to-reach, and expensive oil to be tapped.<br /> <br /> 2)&nbsp; Under the legislation, the states must give permission before any drilling can take place.&nbsp; On the face of it, this is a perfectly good clause within the legislation, giving rights to the states to use their property as they see fit.&nbsp; Unfortunately, states are not allowed to pull in any revenues from the exploited resources.&nbsp; In other words, why would ANY state allow drilling to take place if they can't tax the outgoing oil resources?&nbsp; Naturally coastal states would have a problem giving permission to access these resources when it benefits them in no way.<br /> <br /> Ultimately, if this legislation was to be passed, little to no new oil would be pumped from domestic reserves.&nbsp; Why would the congress pass such a bill if it has virtually no effect?&nbsp; It's simple.&nbsp; The congressional leaders don't want to go back to their districts and tell their constituents that they failed to do ANYTHING about solving our energy crisis.<br /> <br /> That's nothing more than the politics of <em>feeling good</em>. Editorial Cartoons http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/652 http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/652 I contacted ISJ Managing Editor Ian Fennell with the offer to occasionally post cartoons in the paper on the opinion page -- I use to draw editorial cartoons all the time, and had them submitted to various papers when I was younger.&nbsp; He expressed some interest in it, but has since not gotten back to me.&nbsp; I suspect this is his polite way of saying: NO!&nbsp; So with that, I will attack this from a different direction by posting it on the Jhub.&nbsp; My hope is to find local issues and local politicians and discuss it with a satirical yet pensive point of view.<br /> <br /> Hopefully this will help the discussion of what is happening locally.


Title: gun cartoon.JPG
Caption:
Credit: Ike


Title: gun cartoon.JPG
Caption:
Credit: Ike

 gun cartoon.JPG Ike Rants of the Play by Play http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/630 http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/630 Here we are in this election season stuck to our TVs with dramatic anticipation of the strategies and campaigns put forth by our two leading candidates Barrack Obama and John McCain.&nbsp; The rhetoric is loud and abound to a deafening pitch as the candidates, their surrogates, news commentators, 527's, and - yours truly - Internet bloggers shout their all important opinions to the world in some hope to sway a portion of the electorate in any given direction.&nbsp; We watch the battle unfold with a play-by-play anticipation that leaves Super Bowl junkies jealous.<br /> <br /> In the end of it all, this is really nothing we haven't seen before, and the hype is nothing more than superficial muck.&nbsp; The Super Bowl is so much funner to watch because not only does it take less time, but it also comes with better commercials in between plays.<br /> <br /> But the battle rages on.&nbsp; &quot;Gotcha!&quot; schemes are constantly in play as candidates are quick to take advantage of anything the other says.&nbsp; New videos or pictures pop up from years past catching one of our beloved candidates in an embarrassing moment giving fodder to our press corp to over analyze on national TV.&nbsp; The issues themselves are beaten to a pulp as surrogates from the opposite sides repeat their mantras hidden behind political agendas.<br /> <br /> Why does it always have to be about the strategy?&nbsp; Why does it have to be about who is raising however much money?&nbsp; Why does it have to be about campaigns designed to drum up the zealots that even the more flamboyant religions couldn't match?&nbsp; Why is it that &quot;my guy&quot; is our nation's savior, and &quot;your guy&quot; will lead us to disaster?&nbsp; Why is it always about our differences, as if we share nothing in common?&nbsp; And finally, why oh why can't we at least get better commercials in between plays? Oil and the Economy http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/619 http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/619 The debate over whether or not to allow domestic exploration and drilling of petroleum fuels has largely focused on what kind of effects it will have at the gas pump.&nbsp; Detractors claim that at best we will see a paltry ten cent reduction in gas prices, while proponents say it will cut the price in half.&nbsp; Certainly we will run circles around ourselves as both sides point to studies and empirical research that supports their argument.<br /> <br /> Although this is a valid concern, other aspects of this whole issue seem to be ignored.&nbsp; In terms of simple economics, it makes complete sense to expand domestic exploration and drilling, even if it fails to drop the price of gas so much as a single penny.&nbsp; How so?&nbsp; Easy.&nbsp; <br /> <br /> We buy the oil from ourselves instead of other countries - many of whom act as our enemies and deny basic rites and rights of democracy to their own citizens.&nbsp; By buying more oil from ourselves, we are creating American jobs supported by American companies who are owned by American stock holders (aka the middle class).&nbsp; Or we can create Iranian jobs supported by Iranian companies which are controlled by a dangerous regime that openly talks about wiping Israel off the map.<br /> <br /> Surely this is a no-brainer.&nbsp; Tell me how I'm wrong. The New Iraq Policy http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/596 http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/596 <p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 5pt; FONT-FAMILY: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><font size="2">In the past:<o:p></o:p></font></span></p> <p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 5pt; FONT-FAMILY: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><font size="2">In the mid 1800's, the British and Russian governments were making sweeping advancements in Asia.&nbsp; It didn't take long for the two European powers to get in each other's way, and subsequent conflicts broke out between the super powers.&nbsp; This quasi-war became known as &quot;the Great Game&quot;,&nbsp;focused on&nbsp;where the British held (of all places) Afghanistan as a buffer zone for India.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>Holding onto this area became very unpopular with the British people as serious fighting broke out between the British army and the Afghani locals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>Therefore, the Liberal Party (today called the Labour Party) swept into parliament with the campaign pledge to move out of Afghanistan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>Upon taking power, however, they saw that removing troops would give the Russians an advantage, and therefore decided to go back on their promise for the good of the country.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>The British stayed in Afghanistan for several years later in efforts to provide a counterbalance against the Russians, while holding onto their own ambitions.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p> <p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 5pt; FONT-FAMILY: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><font size="2">Today:<o:p></o:p></font></span></p> <p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 5pt; FONT-FAMILY: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><font size="2">The Democrats swept into congress two years ago riding on the assurance to end this war in Iraq.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>However, Pelosi with the majority of other Democrats, have just voted for funding of this war for another full year (yet again).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>Obama, campaigning to his base, has said that he would remove all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months of his administration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>Now that we are onto the general election, he has shifted his focus onto &ldquo;listening to my generals&rdquo; when he gets elected, and &ldquo;refining my policy&rdquo; after he visits the area here shortly.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>This is not a flip-flop, but an obvious shift in focus that sparks serious thought.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p> <p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 5pt; FONT-FAMILY: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><font size="2">In the future: (a prediction)<o:p></o:p></font></span></p> <p><span style="FONT-SIZE: 5pt; FONT-FAMILY: &quot;Arial&quot;,&quot;sans-serif&quot;"><font size="2">After defeating McCain, President Obama will not remove all combat troops within the 16 month deadline.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>With the several successes that have come about with the surge, undermining this would be disastrous to his administration and assure his defeat at being reelected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>He realizes this, and continues to fight this out - to the utter consternation of the Moveon.org crowd.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>Ultimately, pundits openly wonder if there was really any difference between McCain or Obama in terms of what either would have done in Iraq.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes">&nbsp; </span>After all is said and done with all the campaigning and rhetoric, the President takes the responsible course of action, for the good of the country.<o:p></o:p></font></span></p> The Iraqi Standoff http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/575 http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/575 <p>Debating the war in Iraq leads us to three fundamental questions that need to be addressed.&nbsp; They are as follows:</p> <p>1)&nbsp; What is victory?</p> <p>2) Is victory worth the cost?</p> <p>3) What are the repurcussions for failure?</p> <p>Let's get into each of these.&nbsp; I would greatly enjoy&nbsp;anybody's input on the matter.&nbsp; Tell me why I'm wrong.</p> <p>1)&nbsp; Victory is defined (in my estimation) as establishing a stable, liberal democracy in Iraq that is capable of acting autonimously and as an ally to the war on terror.&nbsp; Why is&nbsp;defining this so difficult?&nbsp;</p> <p>2)&nbsp; With the drastic amount spent in terms of dollars and blood, it is entirely understandable why people are so impatient with our situation.&nbsp; It is also understandable for people to be frustrated over the decision to invade to begin with.&nbsp; Nevertheless, a historical perspective must be made here.&nbsp; In WWII, (according to Robert Samuelson of Newsweek) the US spent a massive 38% of the gross domestic product.&nbsp;Well over 400,000 American troops killed in action, with&nbsp;millions of Germans and Japanese also killed (many of whom were civilians) at the blunt end of the American war machine.&nbsp; Nobody ever debates whether or not it was worth the cost.&nbsp; Compared&nbsp;with today, we are spending 1% of the GDP.&nbsp;&nbsp;Over 4000 Americans&nbsp;and tens of thousands of Iraqis dead (mostly by other Iraqis/Iranians).&nbsp; We citizens of today's generation have no idea what sacrifice really is.&nbsp; If our children go without their video games for a whole day, some special interest group may sue for cruel and unusual punishment.&nbsp; I say this as I have personally lost buddies of mine in my battalion during my deployment in OIF III.</p> <p>3)&nbsp; Senator Clinton once asked General Pretraus to define failure in Iraq (since it seems nobody wants to define victory).&nbsp; I don't remember his response, but in my opinion I can simply define failure as thus:&nbsp; when we give up.&nbsp; In the Revolutionary War, it is a mistake to assume that we kicked some British butt.&nbsp; We didn't.&nbsp; We lost an overwhelming majority of the major battles fought.&nbsp; Washington himself fought in 9, and only won 3.&nbsp; But we didn't give up,&nbsp;while the British finally did.&nbsp; Hence our nation was born.&nbsp; If we simply give up now because of lack of patience, and fail to achieve the aformentioned victory conditions, the consequences will be severe.&nbsp; We can expect hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people slaughtered in all out chaos.&nbsp; We can expect Iran to dominate the remants of any existing government in Baghdad, and further ambitions against both Isreal and the United States.&nbsp; We can expect oil prices to go much much higher, greatly hindering the world economy.&nbsp; We can expect al'Queda to gain safe haven in Iraq and flourish (last I checked, al'Queda is still in Iraq, but currently on the run).&nbsp; We can expect a much worse situation that will require another deployment of troops later on down the road, ultimately getting us nowhere.</p> <p>We are coming to a major crossroads at this point.&nbsp; New successes are coming about in this struggle, but the situation is far from ideal - only 19 troops were killed in the month of May.&nbsp; The difference between the major political presidential candidates is clear, while both feel that they are acting in our nation's best interests.&nbsp; I pray that whoever wins the upcoming election will be the one with the right plan.&nbsp; I make no bones about my current support for McCain as I feel he has the right idea; but if Obama wins and it turns out he&nbsp;was right&nbsp;on how to deal with this situation, then I'll be happy with that no matter what else will be the outcome of his administration.</p> Farm Bill http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/552 http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/552 As reported in the ISJ, congress has just spent a super-massive 290 billion clams on a new farm/nutrition/bioenergy bill.&nbsp; This really shows our government operating at its worst in modern times.&nbsp; The bill is so fiscally irresponsible, so full of pork, so full of bail-outs and entitlements, so full of anti-competition, so full of waste, so full of business-as-usual-spend-like-there's-no-tomorrow antics.&nbsp; This bill is really really bad, and the president is powerless to stop it, despite a vow to veto.&nbsp; <br /> <br /> This is proof that almost nobody is really serious about fiscal responsibility.&nbsp; Larry Craig, Mike Crapo, Mike Simpson, and Bill Sali, who all act as Idaho's representation in congress, all voted for this bill.&nbsp; I can't think of anybody who gets on his soap box more than Craig when it comes to preaching about balancing the budget.<br /> <br /> All the major presidential candidates failed to vote at all on this legislation; how convenient.&nbsp; Ron Paul, to his credit, actually voted against the bill.<br /> <br /> Republicans accuse democrats of being spend happy.&nbsp; Democrats accuse Republicans of being spend happy.&nbsp; They're both correct about the other, and the hypocrisy runs deep.<br /> Idaho's Nuclear Future http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/546 http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/546 <p>I read with terrific delight in the ISJ that Areva has formal plans to build a new $2 billion uranium enrichment facility here in SE Idaho.&nbsp; This only makes sense because we also so happen to have the world's premier nuclear research facility here&nbsp;at the INL.&nbsp; This is&nbsp;big step forward in securing a future in nuclear power.</p> <p>I&nbsp;hope that we can work diligently to educate people about the potential behind this technology.&nbsp; Going nuclear is the single most proactive step we can take towards combating global warming and making America energy independent.&nbsp; It's a technology that has proven itself for decades now, and it's time we&nbsp;take advantage of&nbsp;what has been staring us in the face for far too long.</p> Retreat http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/505 http://www.thejhub.com/home/Blog/Ike/505 <p>Both Clinton and Obama have clearly vocalized a desire to remove troops from Iraq, and that a withdrawal of troops from Iraq IS NOT defeat - and therefore, I guess, a means to victory.</p> <p>Could somebody explain this logic to me?</p> <p>I phrase this in a sincere desire to understand, and not in a manner that mocks the two Democratic rivals.&nbsp; Nevertheless, I have to say that this strikes me as counter-intuitive.&nbsp; Since when has ANY war been won by a permenant retreat?</p>