Does Palin have it right??? Drill, baby, drill…

Does Palin have it right???  Drill, baby, drill…

With gas prices on the rise again, talk of tapping the US oil reserve has been mentioned as a possibility to help curb increasing prices.  However that is treating the symptoms not the illness itself. The White House has not, to date, openly discussed allowing an expansion of oil drilling. This decision could led to serious problems for America especially with the recent unrest in the Middle East.  Because of the amount of oil we import from the Middle East our gas prices are directly affected by events occurring overseas,  it is mainly this reason that Republican leadership and others have consistently lobbied for the expansion of domestic oil production.  Any time the US is dependant on another country for resources that are vital to our way of life it places America in a jeopardized position.  Politicians reference this topic whenever they discuss our “national security” in reference to oil production. 

Now environmentalist and its lobbies have a laundry list of reasons why an expansion of oil production will or could have detrimental effects on the environment; some of which are completely legitimate concerns.  (I have decided to speak in broader strokes for this post, so I will not list specifically pro or cons).  However many of those concerns are future environmental issues which MAY arise based on current data in a projected simulation, and while those issues for tomorrow are serious, there are issues today which warrant action.  Many politically moderate “green” organizations are seeking increased safety regulations and oversight for oil companies and their drill platforms in the wake of the BP oil spill in the Gulf.  Crude oil may not be the fuel of tomorrow, but it is the fuel of TODAY. Renewable fuels are simply not prepared to take on America’s massive energy needs.  However investment in renewable fuels is critically important both for the increase of efficiency and the possibilities of their applications.

This desire for increased domestic oil production and safety regulation, from the respective sides, creates the perfect climate for compromise.  Why not quid pro quo, allow the expansion of domestic oil production for increased safety regulation.  Job creation, increased domestic oil production, less foreign oil, more energy independence, lower gas prices… the benefits from expanded oil production tempered with the safety and oversight needed to ensure it’s done securely without traumatic environmental consequences.   Maybe there is something I am missing but it sounds like everyone wins here in the end…….Safely DRILL, baby, Safely DRILL.

UPDATE 3/31/2011: President Obama's Energy Plan (Full Speech)

Please read this article on Factcheck.org. http://factcheck.org/2011/03/is-obama-to-blame-for-4-gasoline/
Here are just some of the points that stood out to me:

· Assessing the numbers in a variety of ways, the US imports LESS foreign oil today than it did it 2008! Yes LESS foreign oil!

Top Republicans blame President Obama’s moratorium on deepwater drilling for rising gasoline prices. The moratorium delayed drilling of some new wells, but did not affect the output of wells already in production. A projected drop in total domestic oil production this year should amount to six-tenths of 1 percent of all U.S. consumption of liquid fuels. A Wall Street oil analyst told us the moratorium has had "zero" effect on prices.

Sarah Palin said Obama is "allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports" from unstable countries. But there has been a decline — not an increase — in total oil imports from Middle Eastern and African countries, as well as countries identified by the State Department as "dangerous or unstable," since Obama took office.

Obama said domestic oil production last year was its highest since 2003. That’s true — but U.S. oil production is projected to drop this year.

On imports, Palin claimed in that same March 15 Facebook post that the administration’s inaction on drilling permits is "allowing America to remain increasingly dependent on imports from foreign regimes in dangerously unstable parts of the world." There is no question that the U.S. for a long time has relied on importing oil from dangerously unstable parts of the world. But has Obama allowed us to become "increasingly dependent"? No.

In Policy Shift, Obama Orders Halt to Legal Defense of Marriage Act

Civil Unions adopted by Illinois as of 6-1-11

Perhaps one of the most controversial and difficult issues today is gay marriage.  The years of debate, countless bills, propositions and court challenges continue in America and have strong and entrenched advocates on both sides.  Many Christians are strongly against gay marriage stating homosexuality is a sin and should not be promoted in any way. However this topic should be much more complex for people, Christian or not. 

Marriage is a Christian institution, the blueprint for marriage has been laid out through scripture.  Dating back to the middle ages, as early as the 1400’s, marriage licenses were sought by many, some wishing to marry quickly, marry away from their home church, or since even then marriage licenses cost money some wanted it as a status symbol showing that they could afford it.  However the most important point regarding this history is the party issuing the licenses was the church leadership.  Bishops, Archbishops, or Archdeacons were responsible for these items; no government was involved in the process.  Those wishing to be married would seek, through the church, an avenue to do so.  This is significant because it shows a direct relationship between marriage and God/religion.   However it has not remained that way, government involvement in issuance of “marriage licenses”which were granted by the state courts started here in colonial America around the turn of the 17^th century, with the intent of placing restrictions or requirements on the type of marriages that would be “permitted.”  At the time, multicultural marriages were the target for exclusion by racist and it continued to be practiced that way through the early 20^th century in some parts of the United States. To provide a tiny glimpse at the extent to which racism impacted legal marriages at that time I provided below a quote from a trail judge who initially sentenced  two individuals in 1958 for an illegal marriage before it was eventually appealed.  U.S. Supreme Court Case:  Loving v. Virginia (1967).

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

However progress was eventually made and racist views regarding marriage have since been placed in the rear view mirror. Thankfully America has made great strides in overcoming such bigotry and discrimination over the last 50 + year. I provide this history as an example of the continuing struggle for America to reevaluate its law and commitment to equality. 

Now for many religious people and groups marriage will always be a sacred commitment before God acknowledging a union of body and spirit.  However, in more recent history, marriages have been moving away from a biblical blueprint and marriages are becoming increasingly secular.  A lot of Christians would argue that allowing homosexually marriage would erode the “moral fabric” of marriage in our country. I feel that heterosexual marriages are eroding that “moral fabric” all by itself; Marriages for legal status, marriages with prearranged marriage separation settlements, and rising divorce rates, increasing acceptance of infidelity, drunken middle of the night shotgun weddings in Vegas are just a few examples of how God/religion are being slowly removed from the picture in American marriages.  In a country that holds the principle of separation of church and state, if marriage is not going to be by definition a religious institution in America but rather a legal status that provides tax credits, allows property sharing, visitation rights etc, there is no basis for denying marriage rights to homosexual couples who desire those same legal benefits. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate what standards we as Americans not Christians apply to marriage.    Perhaps no “marriage certificates” should be issued by the state, and everyone gay or straight should receive civil union paperwork; however no matter what the resolution, if America is truly going to promote equality it must be equal for all, even those who lifestyles we may not agree with.


UPDATED 5-10-11
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_localchi/20110509/ts_yblog_localchi/30-couples-to-be-joined-in-civil-unions-in-millennium-park?bouchon=602,il

"Gov. Pat Quinn and Cook County Clerk David Orr will be among those in attendance for a historic ceremony next month, in which 30 gay and lesbian couples will be joined in civil unions in Millennium Park."

UPDATED 6-1-11

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_localchi/20110601/ts_yblog_localchi/same-sex-couples-line-up-for-civil-union-licenses?bouchon=602,il

As of 6-1-11 Civil Unions are being issued to gay couples, civil unions give same sex and opposite sex couples the same rights as married couples when it comes to parenting, hospital rights, inheritances and more. But lawmakers have pointed out that legalizing civil unions does not change the legal definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman, which currently is spelled out in Illinois state law.