Off Shore Oil Drilling and the Arnold card

Bush has a brilliant new solution to the oil crisis and the rising gas prices. Drill for oil offshore. According to the New York Times, this lifts nearly two decades of executive orders banning the practice. Reading the article a bit further, it is hard not to laugh though. Here is the paragraph: "The lifting of the moratorium — first announced by Mr. Bush’s father, President George Bush, in 1990 and extended by President Bill Clinton — will have no real impact because a Congressional moratorium on drilling enacted in 1981 and renewed annually remains in force. And there appeared to be no consensus for lifting it in tandem with Mr. Bush’s action." So basically, this means that Bush's action is meaningless.

Another interesting development in the political race is the recent suggestion that Arnold Schwarzenegger may be taking a position as an environmental czar - under Obama! Obama has praised Schwarzenegger's efforts against climate change and mentioned his name as a possible cabinet officer, which in interviews, Schwarzenegger has said he would consider accepting.

This means that even though McCain has Schwarzenegger's endorsement, Obama may actually hold the Arnold card when it comes to the election.

To torture...or not to torture, that seems to be the question

I recently watch the BBC show Newsnight with Jeremy Paxman, where they had a segment with a reporter for Vanity Fair magazine, who had decided to investigate waterboarding by going through the experience himself. He had his head covered with a bag bag, a towel placed over his face, and a jug of water was poured onto his mouth and nose. He was given two safety measures. The first was a code word, "red," and the second was two metal objects for him to hold in his hands that he could drop as soon as he felt like he couldn't take it anymore. He did it twice, dropping the metal thing after about 12 seconds, and the second time after about 19 seconds. It didn't look fun. In his comments to Mr. Paxman on the practice, he said it wasn't really so much simulating being drowned, as actually being drowned. His comments would lead most people to come to the conclusion that waterboarding is a form of torture.

Now, moving on the the presidential election, and the candidates, we come to John McCain, himself a victim of torture (as we all know, because no one will let us forget it), declaring that he is against torture, but he supports waterboarding because it is not torture. As someone who has been tortured, this seems hypocritical.

But then, as I see it, if a behavior or practice causes one to question whether or not it is torture, it is best to assume it is not a morally acceptable action in cases such as those involving the government, not that they would listen to my opinion.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has decided that those detained in Guantanamo Bay will now have access to legal representation being derided by many leading republicans just astounds me, especially the harsh language they used to deride the decision. Surely all this will do is release people that are wrongly being held. Those that are guilty of whatever it is that warrants the punishment of being detained in Guantanamo Bay, whatever that is (it never seems to be made clear) will remain there. This seems more in line with the ideals of the US and the Constitution then holding people for indetermined amounts of time on no particular charge without letting them notify their families, things that human rights groups such as Amnesty International have reported as occurring.

Airline Companies...

I have a question for all the airline companies that are complaining about cost because the price of oil is risen. Airline companies in Europe have been paying more for fuel forever, and still are paying more than their US counterparts, so why is it that those companies are not having so many financial problems? Virgin, in fact, is expanding, adding new stops to the Virgin America routes.

Could it be, more than anything, bad business management, combined with the fact that the airlines overcharge, and have been ripping off customers because they can? If you have to go from Los Angeles to New York, there aren't a lot of alternative ways to get there, and the ones that do exist (bus, train) take a lot more time.

The fact the government is helping to bail these companies out is also questionable. If that is occurring, why do so many US airlines feel they need to drop cities from their itineraries as well as charge passengers for everything they touch. Charging for luggage is ridiculous. It isn't even the amount of the charge that annoys most people, but the fact that it exists. It's bad enough they were charging for bad food and giving you a seat so close to the person in front of you that when your flight ends, you are cranky and suffer back and leg pain. Now you are also broke.