The T-Files

Written by Tony Sarrecchia, Columnist
Originally published in the Sentinel
Tuesday, 07 October 2008

With less than a month to go before the most egregious presidential election in my lifetime is over (horrific because you know that either Obama or McCain will win), I am beginning to feel the Third Party Dilemma.

Since the last Bill Clinton term and the Republican insistence on spending $40 million to investigate the little Willy’s penchant for tarty interns, I have been happily voting for the only party that embodies the type of freedom the founders spilled blood to defend: the Libertarians.

This year, however, the more I read and hear about Senator Barack Obama’s financial plans, the more the Third Party Dilemma pokes its razor-like finger in my frontal lobes. The Dilemma goes like this: a vote for a third party helps the team who represents the antithesis to your beliefs. Therefore, in theory, my vote would go to a Republican; but if I vote for Bob Barr, I actually help the Democrats—who are far too Marxist for my wallet. The same is true with the Greens—a vote for a Green candidate helps the Republicans and hurts the more philosophically similar Democrats.

For the past two presidential cycles I gave the dilemma as much consideration as my congressional representative gave my input on the bailout—none. I didn’t like George W. I still don’t, but I think he stood up quite well to the challenges of his reign, and his approval rating is still higher than the Democratic Congress (26 to 17 percent favorable). I didn’t care if either Gore or Kerry won. Ironically, this year I am even less enthusiastic for the Republicans: I think John McCain treats compromise as if it were a good thing rather than a rejection of principle; and while Sarah Palin is certainly as qualified as anyone on the other team, she portrays herself as a little too average. Frankly, I do not want another C-student in the White House; we have had a C-student in the White House for the last eight years and the results have been decidedly underwhelming.

Then I look at the Obama economic plan and I listen to his economic philosophy. I read things like “We’ve got to make sure that people who have more money help the people who have less money.” That’s just Karl Marx’s “from each according to his ability; to each according to his need, ” with, dare I say, lipstick. Additionally, despite Obama’s apparent love for the middle class and promises to not raise income taxes on them, he has already voted for the 2009 Democratic Budget that increases taxes on individuals earning more than $32,000 and couples earning more than $64,000. If he is breaking his promise while he is still courting us, what will happen once we are married?

Under an Obama reign, every tax would increase, some to as high as 62 percent. Middle-income earners, those in the top 50 percent of all wage earners (adjusted income above $32,000) already shoulder 97 percent of the tax burden. Those making less pay only 3 percent of the tax burden. Obama’s plan would take money from the top 50 percent and hand it to the bottom 50 percent in the form of tax rebates. This is an unacceptable redistribution of wealth from the people who have more money to the people who have less. Remember, Obama did not say the rich, just those who have more.

As a libertarian, I find this type of Marxism as repulsive as being told by Joe Biden that it’s patriotic to pay more taxes. Yet casting a vote for John McCain is still difficult. McCain showed us that, by voting for the $800 billion handout, his support for the free-market is about as stable as a jelly-doughnut. I will pay close attention to the remaining debates and continue my independent research of the candidates. As of now, Bob Barr and the Libertarians still have my vote, but I just cannot shake this troublesome feeling.

Tony Sarrecchia

Much as been said about carbon footprints, credits, and offsets. But what, if anything, does it all mean? Well, your carbon footprint is what your existence on the planet contributes to the CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere and therefore ‘global warming’. The theory goes like this: If you live the life of a contributing member of society, your existence is more of a blight on the planet than that of your Neanderthal ancestor. Your odds of being eaten by a Pterodactyl are considerably lower than your Neanderthal past–a reasonable trade off most thinking people would agree. Of course, by thinking people, I don’t mean the Enviro-Nazis granola eaters who believe humans are a pox upon the planet. Since most of us are not willing to leave the planet, or move from our homes to a cave, the Enviro-Nazis and their Gulfstream jet owning guru have developed carbon offset schemes to enrich themselves while lightening our wallets.

The basic premise of the carbon offset scheme is much like the cuss jar concept. My friend, who used to smoke like the Marlboro Man and swear like the old man on A Christmas Story, had a baby. Suddenly, she felt as if the world should be nicer just because her little nipper had arrived. She decided that there wouldn’t be any smoking or cussing in her house. To enforce her new found righteousness, she put out a swear jar: each cuss word cost 50 cent. Supposedly she would save the money for her little spawn’s college fund. On my first visit I tossed a twenty dollar bill into the jar and said I was fudging covered for the week (”only I didn’t say fudge,I said the word, the big one…”). Now, grant it, my behavior was boorish, but at least the $20 was going to a good cause; and, since I paid for it, I felt free to let loose with the f-bomb as often as possible. Carbon offsets work the same way: They allow corporations and individuals to continue to emit carbon at any rate they choose because they can always buy more credits.

As an observation, care to guess who benefits from the carbon offset schemes? Ten carbon credits for you if you guessed Al Gore. That’s right, the Enviro-guru who flies around the country in his Gulfstream jet, and wants you to live the life of the Amish, sits on the board of a carbon offset company. When Gore buys his carbon credits, he buys them from himself.

The reality of it is that much like the cuss jar didn’t reduce the amount of cussing in the house, carbon offsets don’t reduce the carbons in the air. Offsets do, however, make people feel like they are ‘do something’ and that’s what is really important right? Feeling like you are solving the problem is more important that understanding if there is a problem. The theory is that the money collected by the offset organizations is reinvested or redistributed to fund renewable energy projects. However, due to a lack of auditing methods and oversight, actually tracing where the funds are going is difficult.

Why would individuals play along in this modern day ‘indulgence’ scheme? Mostly guilt. There is also confusion between the affect humans have on green house gasses and global warming, versus the natural evolution of the planet.
Frankly, the evidence that humans are causing global warming just isn’t that strong. What would make me speak such a heresy? Well, there are a number of scientific studies that support the heresy. Additionally; there is a $500,000 unclaimed prize waiting for “the first person to prove, in a scientific manner, that humans are causing harmful global warming” at http://www.junkscience.com.

Surely if there were scientifically verifiable evidence about global warming someone would have claimed the prize and donated the money to some environmental cause.
Am I denying global warming? No. Globes warm. They also cool. That’s what globes do–it’s a cyclical process that no amount of indulgences or cuss jars can affect.

A shameful self promotion: Like what you’ve been reading here? Hate it? Do you just want to give me an earful about how I don’t know anything? Starting next Tuesday night, you can join me at www.ksuradio.com from 8:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. I’ll be hosting The T-Files, a call-in show where we can talk about this column, politics, liberty, or current events.
# # #

Talking on Anderson Cooper 360 the other night, Obama said the following:

“My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We’ve got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,” (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/09/01/obama-defends-natural-disaster-experience/).

Except Sarah Palin is a governor, not a mayor. So let’s run those numbers again:

Obama’s monthly budget is closer to $22 million. The budget of Alaska, about $1 billion a month. Total number of employees on Obama’s team? 2500. Total number of Alaska state employees? 15 thousand.
(http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/whose-budget-is-bigger/?ref=opinion)
You might want to reframe that argument, Senator.

Personally, I would suggest that Obama stop comparing himself to the other team’s sidekick; it makes him look petty. Leave Palin to Biden and stay focused on McCain.

Barack Obama’s quote about Sarah Palin shows he is a classy guy (From Time):

“I have heard some of the news on this and so let me be as clear as possible. I have said before and I will repeat again, I think people’s families are off limits, and people’s children are especially off limits. This shouldn’t be part of our politics, it has no relevance to governor Palin’s performance as a governor or her potential performance as a vice president. And so I would strongly urge people to back off these kinds of stories. You know my mother had me when she was 18. And how family deals with issues and teenage children that shouldn’t be the topic of our politics and I hope that anybody who is supporting me understands that is off limits.”

Tony Sarrecchia

First off, congratulations to me: As subscribers to my blog (http://www.currentevents1.today.com) know, I selected Sarah Palin to be John McCain’s running mate on Tuesday, 3 days before the announcement. While the other pundits weretouting Mitt Romney, Tom Ridge and Joe Lieberman (?)—Drudge didn’t even include her name in his on-line poll–some of us were thinking more strategically. I imagine I will soon be rolling in consulting and advising offers.

Secondly, congratulations to Senator McCain for his wise and bold choice. Sarah Palin is a potent compliment to McCain: She has experience, personality, and youth. Palin has the Chief Executive experience that Senator Obama does not; she is a Washington outsider, which Joe Biden is not; and she has never plagiarized, which Biden has (twice, actually) (“Biden Withdraws Bid for President In Wake of Furor”). What does it say about someone who picks a known intellectual thief to be his second in command? Weren’t there any other qualified Democrats who didn’t try to crib their life story from a British Labor Leader? (Biden’s Debate Finale: An Echo From Abroad)

Sarah Palin is no Hillary Clinton—which is a good thing. In a Newsweek interview, Palin said that Hillary’s ‘whining’ about the treatment she (Clinton) received during the Democratic Primaries does not help women in politics. Palin also does not carry any of the Clinton baggage—specifically, the old steamer trunk named Bill; neither does she share Clinton’s love for larger and invasive government. Since becoming Governor, Palin has cut pork barrel spending by her fellow Alaskan Republicans, including the funding for the “Bridge to Nowhere”– a $398 million bridge to connect one of Alaska’s outer islands. “”We will continue to look for options (…) to allow better access to the island,”…”The concentration is not going to be on a $400 million bridge.”” (‘Bridge to nowhere’ abandoned ).

Palin also supports drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge as a solution to our current dependency on foreign oil. She told Weekly Standard writer Stephen F. Hayes (To Drill, or Not to Drill) ““One of the pieces of a solution is allowing exploration on that little 2,000 acre plot of land out of the 20 million acres up there in the coastal plain.” The 2,000 acres that Palin refers to is the area that a drilling site would require–”smaller than the size of LAX,” as she puts it. “With new technology and directional drilling and other measures that can be taken today to minimize even that footprint. We know that this can be done safely and this can be managed well.””

However, Sarah Palin is hardly in the pockets of Big Oil. Less than a year after taking office, Palin told the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission that the petroleum profits tax wasn’t ‘working as promised’ (Palin oil tax gets cold shoulder), and levied higher taxes on the industry. The result? This year every resident of Alaska will receive a $1200 check from the oil industry.

How did Team Obama welcome Palin into the race? The first Obama campaign statement: “Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency.” Pot meet kettle. As far as I can tell, Obama lacks any foreign policy unless we count his recent rock-star like world tour (t-shirts soon to be available). Hillary Clinton said Obama’s foreign policy experience was a little more than a speech he gave. Joe Biden said, in reference to Obama’s experience “I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training.” (Biden on Obama)

Palin is Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard. Obama is an absentee senator. Palin led an ethics committee and forced members of her own party to resign. Obama sat on a board with his friend and known terrorist William Ayers. When Palin was mayor, she reduced her salary and cut resident property taxes by 60 percent. Obama was never a mayor, but he did buy a house next to major campaign donor and indicted slum lord Tony Rezko (8 things you need to know about Obama and Rezko.)

The ironic thing about that statement is that neither Obama or Biden have any Chief Executive experience at any level of government. I know some Obama fans will say, that the statement came from Obama’s campaign, not the Senator. Obama and Biden did make a very gracious statement to Palin a couple of hours later. Of course, the implication then is that either Obama cannot control his team or Obama does not know what his team is doing. Either way, it brings Obama’s leadership skills into question.

As I said in my prophetic blog post: “Conservatives [will] love her because she attends church regularly, is pro-life, and is a lifetime member of the NRA. Centrist Republicans and Democrats will appreciate that, while she doesn’t support same-sex marriage, she is concerned with gay and lesbian discrimination and signed a same-sex benefits act into law (something the previous administration refused to do). Women who feel jilted by the Democrat party, and Obama’s [business as usual] VP choice, should see her as the Republican answer to Hillary: a tough-minded woman ready to lead.” (McCain-Palin, A Winning Ticket)

I am still not sold on McCain as president; his selection of Palin for veep makes this election not only historic, but the most exciting elections in my lifetime.

Now that Obama has brought balance to his ticket—an older white guy with some 35 years of actual government work history; it is time for John McCain to bring balance to his side. Sarah Palin would be a strategically winning choice for McCain’s VP on a number of levels. This isn’t an endorsement of John McCain—I’ll probably still be pulling the Libertarian Lever in November, but if I were coaching McCain, Palin is whom I would tell him to pick.

First off, the obvious: she is a woman, she is young, and she is photogenic. It is a sad statement, but in our American-Idol-celebrity-worshiping-culture; youth and attractiveness often count more than experience and substance. Palin has experience: She has been governor of Alaska since 2006. That is two solid years of experience as Chief Executive; Obama has barely 2 years as Senator. Conservatives would love her because she attends church regularly, is pro-life, and is a lifetime member of the NRA. Centrist Republicans and Democrats will appreciate that, while she doesn’t support same-sex marriage, she is concerned with gay and lesbian discrimination and signed a same-sex benefits act into law (something the previous administration refused to do). Women who feel jilted by the Democrat party, and Obama’s VP choice, would see her as the Republican answer to Hillary: a tough-minded woman ready to lead.

In a move designed to make up for Celine Dion and Avril Levine, Canada deported the first of 200 deserters from the U.S. Military back to the U.S.

One particular deserter, Robin Long, fled to Nelson, British Columbia just as the men in his tank unit were deploying to Iraq. Long whined—I mean complained—that he would “suffer irreparable harm if he returned to the United States,” according to alertnet.org.

The Victoria Times Colonist said, “U.S. deserters who are returned to their military base can face penalties including criminal charges, being required to complete their military contract or being given an undesirable administrative discharge from army service.”

Canada took in over 50,000 deserters during the Vietnam war; they are not as accommodating this time. One of the reasons for Canada’s inhospitality to deserters might be that the U.S. hasn’t drafted anyone into the military–todays’ members are volunteers, not conscripts. The majority of these volunteers understood they may be called upon to make the ultimate sacrifice in service to their country—except for the 200 deserters still cowering in Canada. Well, 199 now that Long is on his way back to his old unit.

Alertnet.org stated, “Long and others have argued it was only after they had joined the military that they decided the U.S. government had lied to the public about the reasons for the Iraq War, and they were refusing to fight in an illegal conflict.”

Shall we parse Long’s argument? Somehow, after Long and the other deserters joined the military, they were enlightened to information that the rest of the country, including the president, Congress, and the secretary of defense did not have. Either that, or he decided better to dodge his commitment to his country than to dodge IED. Remember, the US hasn’t had a draft since the 1970s—Long willingly volunteered to “..support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic….bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and …obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over [me], according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

Never mind that someone else would be going in his place. Long, and those like him, who voluntarily join the US military and then cower from from their duties and responsibilities are defrauders of the highest level and deserve the most severe punishment that their crime allows. On the plus side, it is better that deserters show their dishonor before the battlefield rather than put their entire squads at risk.

I firmly believe in a person’s right to disagree with Bush’s policies. Quit your job and become a professional protester like Cindy Sheehan; slather yourself in the sweat of Al Gore while flying in a Gulfstream jet and complain about carbon poisoning, but don’t join the military for the benefits Uncle Sam offers and dishonor yourself and your country by running to Canada like a French solider in front of the German army when asked to perform your duties.

According to the Department of Defense Web site, the penalties for deserters ranges from retention and rehabilitation to dishonorable discharge and five years confinement. During wartime, the deserter could be sentenced to death. The US executed deserters during both the civil war and World War II.

Commentary by Tony Sarrecchia The T-Files

President Bush lifted the Executive ban on off shore drilling last week. The lifting of the ban was purely symbolic, but future prices on oil dropped about nine dollars a barrel while the ink was still drying on the document. Imagine that. Just the thought of the US drilling for its own oil lowered the price per barrel. What would happen if we actually started drilling?

We may never know.

Socialist, sorry, I mean Progressive Democrat and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi refuses to allow a debate to expand offshore drilling to come up on the house floor. Pelosi and her equally partisan troll Harry Ried, (Democratic U.S. Senate Majority Leader) are ignoring the will of their party members (somewhat surprising), the Republican party (no surprise there) and the American people (again, no surprise there). Pelosi and Ried, would rather you and I continue to pay back breaking prices for fuel rather than reach across the aisle and work with the Republicans. She and Ried are invoking parliamentary procedures to avoid the discussion—much like spoilt birthday childen screaming ‘it’s our party and you have to do as we say’.

Pelosi is not thinking about you or your burden; she is thinking about partisan politics and saving face. According to an article in the International Herald Tribune, Pelosi is more concerned with how she is perceived than the will of the American people. (“Pelosi Stands Firm Against Offshore Drilling”, Carl Hulse, July 17, 2008 http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/07/17/america/pelosi.php): “In a private meeting last week, according to some in attendance, Pelosi told members of her leadership team that a decision to relent on the coastal [oil drilling] ban would amount to capitulation to Republicans and the White House.” Better you and I should pay four, five, ten dollars a gallon for fuel rather than the evil countess concede that the Republicans are correct. Peolsi needs to be reminded that she serves by the will of the people, not her obstinate desires.

Within the Democratic party, there is a group of reality based Democrats, The Blue Dog Coalition (http://www.house.gov/ross/BlueDogs/), who support fiscal responsibility and “mainstream” American values. The Blue Dogs are informally working with Republicans to “try to come up with a bipartisan response to soaring oil prices; [and] opening up new areas to drilling is part of the mix. Leaders of the Blue Dog coalition are openly pressing for drilling in the Arctic refuge and elsewhere.” Of course, the reality challenged Pelosi would rather listen to the Flying Monkey Brigade that is the rest of the Democratic party than appear to be agreeing Republicans. That the country suffers because of her partisan motivations and irrational persistence to an old-hippie ideal is of little consequence to her.

On Tuesday, July 29, American Solutions (www.AmericanSolutions.com) presented Congress with a petition of 1.3 million names in favor of the “Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less” movement. This group of concerned Americans knows that the time for action is now. The Sioux City Journal reports that, because of rising food costs, “Meals on Wheels” in Iowa may be forced to reduce their trips to once a week rather than every day; and 75% of New Yorkers say the cost of fuel is having a serious impact on their financial situation. And yet, Pelosi lives in a world where her reputation is more important than silly things like feeding shut-ins or the financial health of citizens.

Pelosi needs to join us here in the real world. If you think it’s time to open ANWR or drill on the coasts, call her office (202-225-4965) and let her know.

###

Who who who who…sorry-showing my age. I like to know about the people I read so I suppose it’s only fair I tell you about me. I know, this should have been a first post, but it wasn’t—deal with it.

I have an eclectic background; I’ve been (in no particular order) a disc jockey (both on the air and club), bouncer, sales trainer, telemarketer, electronic warfare technician, production coordinator, client services representative, technical writer, copywriter, web site developer/designer, and animator. I’ve even been know to shout out “that’s me on guitar” during the solo of any AC/DC song.

On the political compass I’m a libertarian-right (Economic 7.0, Libertian 3.9). Now, I don’t usually put much stock in on-line quizzes or tests—I think the tests in Cosmo magazine have ruined far more relationships than they’ve helped, but this one was so dead on in its results that I highly recommend it. After I took the test and clicked on the recommended reading, I almost fell out of my chair. The two books it recommended have always held a place of honor on my bookshelf . That’s one scary accurate test.

I find humor in most things, but especially: socialists who don’t know they’re socialists, myopic bible thumpers, politicians of all flavors, the nanny culture, cell phone haters, SUV drivers, the religious right, the atheist left, people who call creationism a science, folks who are offended by Christmas–the list can go on, but you get the idea.

Here is what some folks have said about me:

“Tony Sarrecchia is a stinging puncher from the left and the right, who will chew off your ear and have you smiling about it…” Jim Cohn, author of The Take.

“…a columnist on the Libertarian-right, tackles politics, society, injustice and other timely topics with wit and uncommon good sense.” Doctor Bob Rich, author.

So….who are you? Feel free to discuss in the comments section.

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse. According to a story on NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92529379&ft=1&f=1001), the cost of a bag of movie theater popcorn (pre-consumer) has increased by 50%. The reason? Rising fertilizer costs (the actual stuff, not what you see on the screen) and rising ethanol costs. A fifty pound bag of popcorn has gone from $12 at the start of the year to $18 today. AMC theaters in the US have already raised the price of their popcorn and other companies will likely follow suit. Before you start feeling too much sympathy for the poor, beleaguered, theater owner keep this fact in mind: According to the Nebraska Corn Board, an average $5.00 bucket ‘o popcorn contains around 3 cents of popcorn. Kinda makes the $4.00 cup of Starbucks coffee look like a bargain.