GOP Primaries

Recently I've been checking in on the ongoing statistics and results from the GOP primaries. It goes without saying that checking in on the democratic primaries is something that is not even necessary since Obama will be running for re-election. As usual the news and papers, websites, and tweets are all a buzz regarding who seems to be the current potential candidate for the 2012 election. Mitt Romney is of course the logical choice as many news sources put it, while Santorum is the moral favorite. I would really like to understand just WHY Santorum is the moral favorite. Better yet, I would like to know why exactly an individual's personal beliefs carry any weight whatsoever when it comes to a presidential candidacy. It really makes no sense whatsoever to put any weight on personal beliefs when choosing a candidate. The presidency is simply a job; granted a very important job with global impacts, but ultimately it is just a job. When considering any individual for any job, most employees want to see their employment history to determine whether or not this individual is reliable, on-time, and overall shows the potential to be a good employee. An employer will also look at the individual's education and work experience to determine if they are qualified for the job, and to help determine their ability to excel at the tasks that will be given to them. Similarly, it would be illegal for an employer to deny employment to any individual on the basis of their gender, race, or religion. This same approach should be used to determine the value of a presidential candidate. We need to analyze each candidate on an employment basis. Does the candidate have previous leadership experience and how did they perform while in that role? Does the candidate follow through with their plans and projects or do their waiver and falter (this should not be confused with the necessity of playing politics and making concessions and compromises)? Does the candidate possess education and work experience relevant to their proposed position as president? These should be the factors we analyze. Yet for some reason or another people will choose a candidate based on their perceived ability to share a beer with the individual, or the individual's religion and personal code of ethics. Person ethics should have virtually no bearing on decision making on a national scale. What right does ANYONE have to push their personal ethics on an entire nation by means of laws and legislation? They have the DUTY to make services and choices available to their citizens enabling them to live their lives according their their own personal code of ethics and beliefs. They should pass legislation that enables each citizen to attend whatever religious services they desire, to have, or not have procedures done in accordance with their own views. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness: these are the three things that the laws and legislation set forth by our government should enable. Not the pursuit of happiness according to the elected official's (or official's party's) beliefs and ethics. The elected candidate should be capable of performing these duties and ensuring these rights for citizens. Yet here we have a soon to be presidential candidate, running in the primaries, who has publicly stated that the separation of church and state disgusts him. The last time I checked that is a personal belief, one that goes against the founding principles of this country, and should damn near exclude any individual who believes that from holding ANY public office in this country. If you ran a slaughterhouse would you want to hire someone who publicly states that meat is murder? If you ran an environmental group would you want to hire an individual who publicly states that global warming is a myth and alternative energy is pointless? I highly doubt it. How these extremist   hack jobs ever get elected to any office and begin to progress through our political system is a testament to the education and critical thinking ability of the average American and the average American in the states that support them. Is Mitt Romney the right choice then? I'm not sure, I would have to analyze his experience further. Is Obama? Again, I would have to compare Obama and Romney and see who is the better qualified candidate and who would maximize every individual's ability to live according to their own beliefs and not get forced one way or another due to bias legislation. Is Santorum? No. If anything he would be a wonderful candidate for a conservative PTA organization, or even a pastor or Christian youth group. However a man like Santorum should NEVER be allowed into any office while his beliefs continue to go against our founding father's basic principles that were devised in an attempt to escape persecution from the British government. Unless of course we want the United States to become an increasingly hostile and bias place to live, and show the world yet again that our principles can be bent or outright ignored at anytime that we feel it is necessary.

Read More

Post-It Notes On Gas Pumps

No doubt, if you've been on any social networking site or have looked through a few various web sites you've come across an image of a post-it note on a gas pump. It says something along the lines of gas prices being high is a direct reflection of our current administration, and that everyone who had voted for "hope" and "change" and every other single word advert that came out in 2008. Of course there have been some pro-democrat and pro-Obama responses to this, but both sides have the entire picture horribly wrong. When I say wrong, I don't just mean incorrect, but also jaded and horribly ill-informed and under educated. I was a biology major. My training and education in economics begins with my own personal budget making and ends with principles of macroeconomics from my freshman year of under grad. I know that I do not have the background in local, national, and international economics to make an accurate assessment of the underlying causes for increasing or decreasing gas prices. I know there are directly proportional to the prices of crude oil, and that those prices fluctuate not only with political climates, but also consumer demand and manufacturer supply. That being said, I could not be more amazed at the stupidity of these individuals attempting to cry foul and rally the troops in support or opposition of our current administration. When Clinton was in office, gas was well under $2.00 a gallon in the Bay Area of California, and it remained that way into my high school years when Bush Jr. took office in 2000. Under Clinton's administration various international and political events occurred, as they did under the administration of Bush Jr. Yes, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars started during Bush Jr.'s administration, and one would obviously conclude that the strain that both of those events put on international relations and the global economy, gas prices went up. But also, despite every political climate and international event, time went on as well, and economies improved and worsened, and inflation occurred as it always does. Inflation increased the price of gas as well, and then we add some corporate greed into the mix, and various increases and decreases in consumer demand, and we see even more how volatile the price of gas is. Then for some reason (note my lack of economic knowledge here), following Obama's inauguration in 2008, gas prices dropped down by quite a bit. The factors that contributed to this sudden decline are as numerous as the factors that contributed to its sudden increase at various times from 2000-2008. Then the US suffered a recession, and many other nations suffered hard economic times as well (we still are suffering, this isn't a past event quite yet). I do remember from my econ class however that when an economy takes a nose dive, its currency can devalue. That combined with normal inflation can make things quite more expensive. As a result, and as a result from many other factors, gas has crept back up again and is now nearing $3.70 a gallon in the Midwest. However, I also don't recall a gallon of milk being almost $4.00 as well back in 2008, or 2004, or 1999 for that matter. I also remember at the end of the 90's when I could get a value meal at a fast food joint for about $5. Can you see what I'm saying here? Ragging on one administration or another for increasing gas prices is like blaming the current administration for traffic on your morning commute. Because everyone knows, if the economy wasn't recovering there would be fewer people with jobs, and then there would be fewer people commuting to work, and I wouldn't be stuck behind this damn Honda right now. Damn administration and their traffic supporting policies. So the next time you decide to start making A relate to B when there are 1,000 other contributing variables, think twice. It only makes you seem less intelligent. As for the people who jump onto the bandwagon because of these battle cries....if person A is an idiot, and person B follows them blindly, I think that makes person B even less intelligent, if not a lobotomized lemming.

Read More