More stupidity from the GOP

More stupidity from Texas conservatives.  From page 12 of the Texas GOP's own platform document, section about eduction.

Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behaviour modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority.

So basically the GOP oppose any education that might change what some ones parents want them to believe.
Stuff like :

• Evolution If the parents don't believe it then the kids shouldn't be taught about, not only, the evidence that makes the modern theory of evolution a "scientific theory", but what makes evolution "a fact".   Further more don't teach the kids what those 2 terms actually mean and not what creationist try to distort those terms to mean. Because if they do get taught that then it will be harder for the parents to answer everything with "God did it!"
• Climate change Controversial for many that think that releasing carbon, that was captured over billions of years, in less then 2 centuries is some how not a problem for the entire ecosystem of our Earth.  That's ok because many of those people don't believe the Earth has been around more then 6,000 years and some of those still deny the Earth orbits the sun and it isn't flat.
• Interracial marriage. Still a hot button issue it seems.  46% of Mississippi Republicans think it should be illegal. This is pretty bad you might think but then say, with your critical thinking skills, that about 54% are in support of it.  But unless you want to stay ignorant you have to know that only 40% support it and that 14% are undecided or wouldn't respond.  Are you a racial bigot?  Do you think that if your kids see that a white can love and marry a non white and live very happy that the world will come to an end?
• Equal rights Parents that don't like gay, lesbians, bisexual, or as Santorum labels them "pansexuals", and trans-gender? Don't let the kids discuss if and why they should have equal rights!  Hell, forget sexual preferences and identification.  What about just straight gender? The GOP think that new laws that stop employers  from paying women less then men for the same exact job shouldn't be passed.  Not only that, they are trying, and succeeding, in repealing existing legislation that guarantees equal pay.  Same goes for pay differences based on racial differences.

The GOP have already hit history books.  Removing the word "Slavery" and replacing it with "Atlantic triangular trade" because they believe it puts "America" in a bad light.  Some how they believe it is better to pretend that slavery was a bad thing.  Probably makes it easier for them to justify other bigoted views.

If you are a conservative fine...but if you think that keeping children ignorant of the truth to keep them in line is a good thing then your a fuck tart!.

I enjoy people that have different views then mine.  Tell me about your opinions and why you have them. But if you can't think for yourself then its a waste to even talk to you.  Again you can think what you like but you have to be able to justify why you think the way you do in the light of all the information not just a narrow band of cherry picked information by others that want you to remain ignorant. At the end of the day I might call you a bigot because you think "whites" are better then other races or women should know their place and not think for themselves but at least I won't call you a ignorant bigot.

Many years ago in a office conversation we where talking about religion.  At the time Josh, my son, was religious.  A few of the guys in the office couldn't understand how I could let him be like that if I wasn't religious myself.  My answer was simple.  "Josh isn't me, he doesn't have to believe what I believe.  He is his own person and he make his own decisions based on what he knows."  My job isn't to make Josh believe what I believe.  My job, as a father, is to expose Josh to as much of the world as I can and talk to him about things and let him make up his own mind.  Some times that involves pointing out faulty logic and sometimes he points out faulty logic of mine.  I'm proud that my son can have different views then me.  I'm even more proud that he can show me that what I believe is wrong and why.  Something he wouldn't be able to do if he didn't have critical thinking skills and something he wouldn't be able to do if I could never admit that my beliefs could be wrong.

I hate my love life!

It's crazy I know what I want but can't seem to find it.  Looking for love some say is like a roller coaster.  Well if it is then for me its just been a long dive down a twisting and turning track.  I'm waiting for the up swing but it doesn't seem to be coming.  I never expected the journey to be easy but I wish it didn't have to be so tedious.  I'm not still single because I'm not putting myself out there.  I meet lots of women but finding one where there is a mutual interest is elusive.  It seems as I get older I'm getting more and more picky...no that isn't correct.  I'm finding it harder and harder to find women that I find both interesting and I feel a bit of chemistry with.

Ah, what is this chemistry I'm looking for?  I wish I could define it.  Part of it is just shallow physical attraction but it so much more then that.  I've got female friends I think are very attractive and I think are interesting yet no chemistry.  With other women even if I think there is chemistry on my side it doesn't mean that there is any chemistry on the woman's side.  I don't have a problem with that.  I don't expect most women out there to feel the chemistry with me just as I don't feel any romantic chemistry with most of the women out there.  I'm me and I'm comfortable with who I am.  Sometimes I think it would be easier if I wasn't but really...what does that even mean?

It would be pretty arrogant of me to think that I tick off all the check boxes women have simply because different women have different check boxes.  The issue to date is when there is mutual chemistry I find that my judgement has been flawed some how and I end up thinking "Who is this crazy woman?".  I like a little bit of crazy.  I'll admit that but I don't need to be putting myself into relationships where I'm thinking to myself "Should I start giving the individual personalities of this woman I'm seeing different names?".  So I watch myself more carefully when I say to myself "Hey, she's a bit alright!" and go through a check list to see if she is "crazy fun" or just "crazy crazy".

The next problem I see I'm having is my female friends.  No one will admit to agreeing with this yet but I think I have an issue where my closest friends are women and this isn't serving me well in finding a partner.  I'm not going to get rid of my female friends but I need to find a way to counter act some of the side effects.  You might be thinking "What the $&#^ is Wayne on about right now?!?!?"  So hear me out.

I've always have had a plethora of respect for women and I think most will agree this is a good thing.  I owe thanks for my female friends for this trait.  I constantly think about respect with women I meet.  I don't want them to be thinking "I'm not interested in this guy! Why is he coming on to me?" and that sounds reasonable at first.  But here is where it goes awry.  These days I'm more worried about not wanting to step beyond a boundary of a woman I'm interested in.  Instead of in times past testing the boundary I'm staying clear of the fence waiting for an explicit invitation before proceeding.  Now this is more of an issue at the start of something then it is when you've gotten past the barrier of "Is she interested in me?".  At that point I'm good.  I test the waters and respect the boundaries that get defined and for the most part this has worked fine in the past.  Good communications let you know when to proceed and when to slow down but it is always a bit of a march forward.  But before you know there is an interest this seems to be a problem.  Even if I tell a woman I'm interested, I mean actually saying "I find you very attractive." it seems to have a big difference from actually making physical advances.  Most women say they want a man who can communicate and they might think they want more words from men but in over 25 years of dating and relationships women don't want words about relationships.  I'm not talking about the woman you are in a relationship with.  I'm talking about a woman that you are wanting a relationship with.  You would think at first that exchanging words to confirm interest by both individuals would be a good thing but not true.  We seem, well most people seem, to like the anonymity that comes from not vocalising a desire and often vocalising a desire makes us weary of that desire.  Being the geek I am I now remember reading a psychology paper on this topic.  In new relationships some things are better left unsaid.  Even if you know I like you and I know you like me there seems to be a bonus freedom that comes from not vocalising this to early.  To me it is stupid in one way but I need to learn to accept the fact that I'm probably better off not telling a woman I'm interested in her and just making it clear with a proper kiss.  Historically speaking I can tell you that it is a much better tactic because, as of yet, telling a woman that I'm interested before making a physical like a proper "dating kiss" has not worked.  I can see in the looks I get back the interest they had seem to wash away.  It's like asking them to sign a contract for something much more then I'm asking for.

So what do you think?  Honestly what do you women think?  Would you rather a guy go for a proper kiss or have them say "I'm attracted to you. Are you interested in me?".  The studies say most women would rather the former rather then the latter.  It seems women want more communication but only with a partner they've been with for a while.  Talking seems to be a good way to kill any romantic interest that may be about to come a light.

So to this end ... from this day forward ... until I'm told otherwise I vow to revert to my youth.  To flirt and make the flirting count.  If a woman is not interested then her body language can speak to tell me to stop advancing my flirting.  As long as I'm not ignoring her reactions verbalisation of rejection will never be needed and the woman who is interested never needs to feel exposed by verbally expressing interest even though her physical actions say that she is interested.  Now I only have to hope I don't meet women that are confused about where their boundaries are and keep moving them back and forth like a 50 move stalemate in chess.  I don't mind boundaries.  I'd rather just stay outside until you are sure you want to invite me in but I've dated more then one woman that seems a bit bipolar about where her romantic boundaries are and that is not a head game I can deal with so I'm better off just walking away.

Religion and Atheism on ABC Q&A: Part 1

Dawkins & Pell on ABC's Q&A

Richard Dawkins vs
Cardinal George Pell 

ABC's Q&A : Religion and Atheism  

This will be a multi part blog as if I do all of it at once it will take days.

This was a very interesting talk found here.  I heard a talk between Dawkins and Krauss about this talk before I heard the Dawkins/Pell talk.  I have to say I think Dawkins and Krauss are overly critical of Cardinal Pell.  It is understandable as they are often faced with people who distort the facts or don't understand the science all the time but I think Cardinal Pell was much better then the average individuals that engage in these types of talks.  But then he should be.  He is a highly educated person.

Let me start off by saying I'm agnostic at best, from the view point of those that are religious, and atheistic in practice.  My beliefs are my own.  I have justifications for my beliefs but I do not care if others have differing views from mine as long as they don't feel the need to force their beliefs on others.  This doesn't mean I won't defend my beliefs if challenged but you should never hear me say someone is wrong for their spiritual beliefs unless those beliefs contradict reality.  But the existance of God is not contradictory to reality while something like the denile of evolution, no rainbows before 'Noah's Flood' or any global flood a few thousand years ago are contradictions of reality.

It isn't easy being an atheist.  A study preformed in Canada showed that religious believers distrusted atheist more then any other groups and on par with rapists.  This is a totally undeserved reaction by the many of various religious persuasion.   People have preconceptions about atheists that are often blatantly wrong like "atheist have no sense of morals" or "atheist hate Christians" or "atheist don't know anything about [insert religion here]".  While you'll be able to find individual atheists that one or more of those statements apply as as demographic those statements, and many more like them, are demonstrably false.  So keep in mind that while you may not have negative preconceptions about atheist, studies show that most people do and that can and does effect how many atheist may respond to certain situations.  The old verbiage 'If it walks like a duck..." may seem like an unreasonable prejudging of peoples motives but if you walk past 9 people and they all punch you is it really unreasonable to think that the 10th person is going to punch you too so it is ok to flinch even if offends that 10th person.

Back to the Dawkins/Pell talk.

Dawkins was on the defencive from the start.  He, wrongly, assumed the audience was very biased against him but watching the whole show it was clear that the mix of people there seemed very supportive of both views.  I think it was just the first few questions where targeted against Athiesm where many of the final questions where targeted or "loaded" questions against thiesm.

For those that don't know Dawkins he can come across very rough at times.  He's a hard core atheist but in this talk he was actually holding back a fair bit from his normal deminer. Over all, if you listen to the words and meanings, he is very clear about his beliefs and atheism in general.

I'll critique the questions and responses as I see them then put in my 2 cents worth.

Question #1: At Easter Australia's religious leaders invoke the name of God in order to preach peace, tolerance, political integrity, social and moral fortitude, all obviously positive and worthwhile values. My question is: in what way is the practice of these values dependent on an existing God? Is it possible for an atheist to be a peace loving socially responsible person?

Dawkins: He articulates the fact that you can, and most people do, have these values regardless of their beliefs and that it makes sense that Christianity would adopt the values and "they don't belong to Christianity".  But then he steps beyond the question and points out why defining the bible as your source of morality is a philosophically bad idea.

Cardinal Pell: Pell goes on the defensive right away and says this "First of all our tradition goes back about 4,000 years so whatever these values are that we’ve taken over, we’ve got to go back a little bit of a distance".  Seems a bit of a non argument if you are paying attention.  First Christianity is only half that age which shows that Dawkins statement is correct in that Christianity can't claim to be the source of these values.  To boot humans have been around for about 196,000 years longer then the people Cardinal Pell speaks of.   Pell then goes on to try to claim Christianity was responsible for women's rights, a bit ironic when you consider what is going on in the USA right now forget 2,000 years ago, and infanticide.  At this point he was pointed out that he wasn't answering the question asked.   Then quickly agrees that atheist can be good people but throws a spin that it helps to believe in God and it is to easy to be bad if you don't.



Me: These values are values of society and not the purview of any one group of people regardless of religious beliefs or lack their off.  They, values, evolve with society.  What people consider tolerant is based on the time.  Right now we are tackling the issue of tolerance toward the LGBT community.  We are still battling with tolerance toward various racial and (non)religious groups.  50 years ago interracial marriage was taboo and as  George Takei says "Growing up in California, it was illegal for Asians to marry whites. How times have changed. I married a white DUDE. And an adorable one, too!". Even so many in California would, and have, tried to not only deny him that right but actively seek to undo his marriage.  While I concede that the belief in god(s) doesn't necessarily itself hurt these values I point out that the doctrines and interpretations of many religions do.  Especially when it comes to tolerance of others.   To the second part it is out right a ridiculous question in one aspect and very sensible in another.  Since many people have a preconception that atheist can't be this I guess it needs to be answered.

Question #2: Religion is precisely often blamed for being the root of war and conflict but what about all the good it has done for society. God-centred religion has been the birth place of schools, universities, hospitals and countless developments in science. Richard, if you believe the human drive to seek the truth and to constantly improve ourselves is merely a mechanism for survival, then what’s the point and why should I bother?

Dawkins: He again puts it in great terms.  Pointing out that Cardinal Pell tries to claim things like women's rights as a result of Christianity in stalk contrast to the reality that women's writes were gained from society in general and with little help from Christianity.  Atheist are willing to stand up and face the issues of society head on and in reality are more altruistic because what they do will always have a more limited benefit for them then those that believe that they'll be rewarded in the afterlife for 'good' deeds.

Me: The question is a bit misinformed.  Public schools came from ancient Greece.  The were a result of part of society having enough resources where it could spare the time to educate some of the population.  This is generally true of all societies.  When societies thrive you see a blossoming of culture.  Ancient Egypt had public medicine.  For me religion is not the root of war.  Humans seeking more power is the root of war.  These people may try to justify their grabs for power in the name of religion.  Hitler and Luther try to use religion as a justification for hatred against the Jews but it is simply a power issue where they viewed a different group of people doing well and wanted what they had and thought they should just be able to take it from them. Note: if you think Hitler was an atheist then you really need to learn the history better.

Question #3:  Okay, my question for you today is: without religion, where is the basis of our values and in time, will we perhaps revert back to Darwin's idea of survival of the fittest?

Dawkins: Points out that values come from within ourselves and our interaction with our society.  That he hopes we don't fall into some social Darwinism because, while survival of the fittest is part of the explanation of evolution and for the diversity of life, it is a very bad social model.

Cardinal Pell: Tries to twist, knowingly or unknowingly, Dawkins words by using the various definitions of "Why" and never really answers the question.

Me: Science can answer "why" we are here in that the "why" is the processes and mechanisms that led us to where we are today both physically, biologically and psychologically.  Every day we learn more and more, through science, about the universe and objects within it, including ourselves.  We learn more and more about psychology, culture, emotions, and the development of these areas.  We can give people a scientific reason for near death experiences.  We can give people scientific reasons for the tendency for religious beliefs.  We can give people scientific reasons why humans and chimpanzees, or humans and mushrooms for that matter, share common ancestors.  The Cardinal tries to flip the meaning of "Why" to a purpose, I.E. The question 'Why am I here? How does evolution explain the progression of life one cell creatures over 3 billion years ago to every living creature we see today?' verse 'Why am I here? What is my purpose in life?'  The former question is scientific.  The latter is philosophical and by its nature outside of the realm of science.  In my view  using a bait and switch tactic like this is the same as trying to get those ignorant of the scientific definition of "theory: a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence"  to think scientists are using the layman's definition of "I've got this idea" that often doesn't have any evidence.  The Cardinal at one point says "science tells us nothing about why there was the big bang".  This was caught by Dawkins and is a bad "god of the gaps" approach.  First because it is a "god of the gaps" claim and even worse it really isn't a gap.  Science is making good progress on why there was a big bang and the Cardinal should know this because he read Krauss's new book which provides some explanations.  Now the science of why there was a big bang is a very different question then "what is the purpose of the universe".  Science doesn't need a purpose to the universe just like science doesn't need a philosophical reason for gravity.

To be continued...

Until then I encourage you to watch the entire show yourself.

1. ABC Q&A : Religion and Atheism

Why use facts when lieing to the public works so much better?

Politicians are getting pretty good at making up shit these days.  It might be just because the nominations are going on within the GOP that we see most of it happening by Republicans.  Regardless of the reason, the rate at which republicans are lieing is getting ridiculous.  But before I get into those lies I know about by republicans I'll go on a hunt for lies by democrats.
Ah here is one source.


"Top 5 Democrat Lies – Economic Collapse By Design"

In brief they are complaining that Social Security was supposed to be voluntary.  That it was only supposed to be a max of $14. That that it was supposed to be tax free.  That it was supposed to be in a 'trust fund' and finally that the card was not supposed to be used for identification purposes.

So let me tackle the most stupid "lie" first.  The card being used for identification.  All this really did was legitimise the use that the card was being used for anyway.  I don't know about you but I learnt what my SS number was about the same time I learnt my home phone number as a child.  I can still ramble both off at the drop off a hat.

Next, that SS was supposed to be tax free.  Well lets combine this with "It was supposed to be voluntary" because when it ended up being a tax it stopped being tax free.  If you want to complain about this then you'll have to ask for very complicated tax laws because, for the most part, all taxes are pre tax.  If you have a complaint about this then complain that you pay taxes on the money you pay the state and federal government or that if you pay sales tax you've already paid tax on that money.  The list is endless.
The move from a 'trust fund' was part of a consolidation of government debt because and the program it was included in ended up reducing the number of Americans living below the poverty line from 22.2% to 12.6%.
Finally lets tackle the last figure of 1% of the first $1,400.  Honestly who thinks $14 a year is would cut it for social security?  Grandma can find more change left behind the cushions by the kids coming over then that.

Lets got to another article that deals with something more recent.

"The Only Reason Democrats Win Elections Is Because They Lie"

"How many times have we been shoveled the same old tired line that the $787 billion stimulus “saved or created” 3 million jobs? It’s been over a year now and the only thing everyone can agree on is there is no such thing as a “saved or created” job."
Hmmm lets look at the chart for job growth.

When Obama came into office the job market was hemeraging.  Over 2 million jobs where being lost in just the previous 4 months and yes it took 14 months to get job growth back into the positive numbers.  But even by the time that article was written job growth was not only clearly digging out of the hole from the previous administration but was there was about 100,000 more jobs being created a month then being lost.  In all at that point over 5 million jobs where created or saved.  Clearly if you think unemployment is still doing what it did at the end of the Bush administration then you need you pull your head out of 2009 and join the rest of us in 2012.

The article goes on and its crazy.  The author's source for information is "FOX NEWS" which is so good at getting the facts straight and presenting a "fair and balanced" reporting if by "fair and balanced" you mean being idiots.

"Obama’s Social Security Fear Mongering Exposes Democrat Lies About The Solvency Of The Program"

The author clearly doesn't understand the social security program because the problem is we are paying out more then SS is taking and there hasn't been a "trust fund" since the late 60's so there is no way in hell any democrat should say there is 2.3 trillion dollars in such a fund.  What is the truth is that the social security funds are in securities that are guaranteed by the federal government.  What this means is that the government uses the money and promises to give it back when needed.  So those securities are counted at debt and if the government runs out of money social security goes tits up because the government can't pay those securities when required.

So here is a lie that isn't a lie just a idiot not understanding the topic he is trying to write about.
OK, I've read through a heap of articles that all amounted to hand waving, most calling some democrat a liar without actually showing where they've actually said something that was a lie.
Now lets look at some Republicans.

Rick Santorum. 

Here is what he says.
" In the Netherlands people wear a different bracelet if you're elderly and the bracelet is 'do not euthanize me.' Because they have voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, but half the people who are euthanized every year, and it's 10 percent of all deaths for the Netherlands, half of those people are euthanized involuntarily at hospitals because they are older and sick. And so elderly people in the Netherlands don't go to the hospital, they go to another country, because they are afraid, because of budget purposes, that they will not come out of that hospital if they go in with sickness."

First they are no such bracelets.  There are "do not resuscitate" items that some people wear maybe he's just confused there.

Second it isn't 10% of deaths that are via euthanasia it is about 2.1% or specifically 3,136 cases out of about 146,000 cases.  Just a factor of 5 he's off by there.

He says that half are involuntary where as the records show that there where only 9 cases that didn't follow protocol.  Not that they where involuntary just that all the rules had not been met.  But lets say those 9 wanted to live to help old Ricky boy.  9 cases out of 3,136 is .3% so the claim that 50% is off by at least 150 times.  In reality the protocol is very strict and if not followed can result in a charges being brought against the physician.
If you are wondering what the protocols are here they are

• The patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement 
• The patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs) 
• The patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
• There must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
• The death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present
• The patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)

He also told people in Puerto Rico that they could not become a state because there is a federal law mandating the use of English and even if there were, which there isn't, English is an official language of Puerto Rico and Required to be used in places like the Federal courts.

Rick claims children under the new health care changes will not be treated...Here is his exact quote
"It’s all about the usefulness of the person to society, instead of the dignity of every human life and the opportunity for people who love and care for people to give them the best possibility to have the best possible life."

Where he pulls this from only he and his 'God' knows.  The fact is that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act makes sure that children, not only the children of the rich, have access to health care.  No one forces him or anyone else to use the benefits put in place.  It is there to make sure that people don't get dumped by their health insurance providers when they get need it the most.  Santorum and other Republicans want you to believe that it is bad for America.  To me the fact that millions of kids that were not covered before are now is a good thing.

I could go on but bringing up the "Death panels"  and other crap is just beating on a dead horse at this point.

Slander is ok but facts are not?

Apparently its ok to call Sandra Fluke a slut on national radio but to point out Newt's wife is white is "racist".

Back on March 4th Newt Gingriche said this in response to Rush Limbaugh comments about Sandra Fluke.

FMR. REP. GINGRICH: You know, David, I am astonished at the desperation of the elite media to avoid rising gas prices, to avoid the president's apology to religious fanatics in Afghanistan, to avoid a trillion dollar deficit, to avoid the longest period of unemployment since the Great Depression and to suddenly decide that Rush Limbaugh is the great national crisis of this week.

Yet today, the 22nd of March, just 3 weeks later he thinks that Robert De Niro's following comment
Robert De Niro: Callista Gingrich, Karen Santorum, Ann Romney. Now do you really think our country is ready for a white first lady? Too soon, right?
warrants the President of the United States to apologise on De Niro's behalf.

Really?  A joke pointing out that the GOP candidates' wives are white is racist and warrants the president stepping in?

Lets see..rising gas prices....not the Obama administration's fault.  It is a globally regulated market and he is trying to put policies in place that will minimise the effect of gas prices on the average American.

The deficit due to Obama stopped us from the stupid downward spiralling unemployment rate he inherited from the Bush administration which brings us to unemployment which again wasn't Obama's fault in the first place.  Forget the fact that the Obama administration has almost got us dug out of that hole the Bush administration threw us into.

Get a grip.

The president can't lower the price of gas at the pump! What can he do though?

The president can't lower the price of gas at the pump! What can he do though?

Paying to much at the pump?

First lets clear something up.  The price of gas at the pump is set by a globally regulated market. Local conditions have little to do with the price of petrol. The oil companies scared the people in California into thinking that placing a tax on oil removed from the ground in California would raise the price of petrol at the pump and this is just an out right lie.  What would have happen in that situation would have been, at worst, that the companies would have been paying a fee for removing a limited natural resource to the Californian citizens and the price of petrol would go up by a hair.  That money could then be used to provide more services to the people of California.  Note that "fee/tax" which is paid by the oil companies in every other state and nation.  California just lets the oil companies rape their limited natural resources for free.  Most likely that tax would be absorbed by the global market anyway.  So if the price does goes up it is hedged over the entire world.  IE you might pay 1¢ more at the pump but the oil being removed might be taxed at a rate where the citizens of California would benefit by double digits.  Its kind of like paying an extra 35 cents at the pump to get a few dollars worth of benefits and services in other areas and the rest of the world makes up the difference.  That is the worst case scenario.  Most likely you'd not notice an increase directly due to that tax.

The same process also means that increasing oil production in the USA doesn't lower the price at the pump.  What it does do is provide more money to US citizens employed by the industry.  It can build up our reserves so that if there is a drastic change that OPEC causes we can buffer that a bit but that isn't a sustainable solution at this point and is more a buffer against some situation where supplies are limited.  Prices would still go up but there might not necessarily a limitation to supply.

So you might ask "How does the 'all of the above' policy does help me?"  As you reduce your dependence on petroleum based products you reduce the impact of the price rises of petroleum.  Let me demonstrate this with a simple thought experiment.

Say your electricity is produced 75% petroleum based and 25% based off of renewable energy, that aren't put on a global market like oil is, that if the price of oil goes up by 50% that you don't get slugged with a 50% increase because only 75% of the cost is effected by the price of petroleum based products.  So instead of a change of 50% you only get slugged for 37.5% increase.

Say your car is a ford focus.  You drive an average of 15,000 miles in a year mix of city and highway driving you would use about 500 gallons of petrol say at a cost of $4 a gallon your up for $2000.  Now if petrol jumps to $5 a gallon then your annual fuel cost jumps by $500 or ~$10 a week.  Not really rocket science here.  So what can you do?  Well go for the hybrid ford focus and your buffered.  Your bill is over 25% less to begin with so instead of $2,000 a year you are only talking about $1,500 a year, $500 cheaper.  But that increase of petrol from $4/gal to $5/gal means you only pay $375 more a year.  At the end of the day the you're still spending less at the pump after the increase in price then you where before the increase with the non hybrid version of the car.  You can go one step further and get a full electric version of the car.  Then your cost go from $2,000 or $1,500 a year to about $600 a year and get this...no emissions.  You will pay a bit more for it at the dealership but after government rebate you are talking 4-5 years of fuel savings if prices don't climb, less time if they do.

Now you might say "Why should I spend more upfront?"  Well you are insulating yourself from the changes for 1.  Second there is no emissions.  Third they are putting all the bells and whistles on this car so many of the options on a normal focus like the sat nav, dual-zone climate control, parking sensors and others come standard.  If that is still not good enough there are other similar cars you can get for less money to include the volt, Nissan LEAF and the Mitsubishi i-MiEV.  The Mitsubishi costing less then a non hybrid focus after the government rebate but its honestly a bit to "European" for most Americans I think.  Baby steps.  Go for a car that looks like it isn't a small European car.

Remember too that this technology is still pretty new and as the market gets a bit more mature technological advancement will bring the cost down even further.

I'll end it on home efficiency.  If you are still using incandescent light bulbs get off them.  If you leave your lights and tv's on...turn them off.  If you can ... get solar panels.  I've read papers on people who have gone effectively off the grid by a combination of solar panels and relatively simple changes to their power usage.  One professor at Berkeley paid for the whole conversion of his house by adding it to his mortgage.  You might think "The last thing I need to do is add to my mortgage." but think about this.  The amount of money he now saves from the conversion is more then the increase to his mortgage.  Another big difference is one day he'll pay off his house but if he didn't convert he'd still be paying his ever increasing power bills for the rest of his life.

If, after reading all this, you say to yourself "But it is all to hard!" or make up some other excuse then do me a favour.  Don't blame the President of the USA when you are at the pump and don't whine about your power bills at home.  You choose to drive a gas guzzling people mover and complain about gas prices then  STFU about the price of petrol.

You should know who the major supporters of your candidate are!

One of the biggest problems with a super pac is that it allows millions upon millions of dollars to be funnelled into the political process, which is bad enough on it's own, without a requirement of identifying where that money comes from.  This means a candidate can have "supporters" that have a HUGE amount of financial influence on the candidate and the American public will have no idea what type of people are influencing a candidates position.

It doesn't matter if you are pro-life or pro-choice, anti-gay or a LGBT supporter, pro-big business or pro-middle America, a corporation or a real life flesh and blood person.  If a candidate has supporters donating millions upon millions of dollars to a candidate or a super pac supporting that candidate then you have a right to know about that support because you would have to have a hole in the head the size of a base ball to think that those people don't have a unbelievably large amount of influence over the candidate's political stance.  If you are against gay marriage I'm sure you'd want to know if your "family values candidate" received large amounts of money from prominent gay activists.  If you say to yourself "No, I don't need to know about that because it won't influence my candidates position!" then please immediately proceed to a mirror and check your forehead for that hole right now.

Obama has led the way.  Picking what I would call the lesser of 2 evils which is accepting fund from super pac but requiring them to reveal their major donors.  In effect the super pac becomes less of a super pac and more of a normal political fund raising tool.  Obama gets funding to compete with the hundreds of millions of dollars being spent by the top 1% for the GOP candidates and still the American people get to see what type of "company" the candidate, running for the top political position of the USA, keeps.

It amazes me that right wing media like Fox News will use Obama accepting super pac donations as a negative position but have no problem with all of the GOP candidates using funds from super pacs.  It is just one more, in a long line of, tools that apparently the GOP candidates are allowed to use freely but if Obama uses them then it is some how Un-American.

I'm always torn because I want both parties to put forth a candidate that, at the end of the day, I could accept as president.  This time I'm really torn because, while I like some of the things that done under Mitt Romney's term as governor of MA, his stance on corporations and capital gains disgusts me along with his seeming disconnect from the average American.  He seems to be a stereo typical politician that will say anything, no matter how stupid, and isn't afraid to repeat said stupid comments.  How he can pander to the people of Michigan about how he loves American cars while he still defends his "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" stance is beyond me.

What is even more disturbing to me is how one of Mitt's major supporters is so actively, and successfully, killing people freedom of speech via use of a almost bottomless pit of money used to threaten people with legal action over legitimate free speech issues.

It disturbs me that many American's, and honestly many people's around the world, don't really know what "Freedom of Speech" actually means.  It doesn't mean that I can say something about my neighbour like "Joe bloggs likes to perform sexual acts with goats!" when there is no evidence to that fact.  But if you are a public figure the bar is a bit lower.  Not to say I can say things like "Richard Gere likes to use gerbils for personal pleasure".  But if a person makes a public stance against the LGBT community by putting up billboards all over the state it is not defamation to point out that that person is against LGBT rights.

Read a short article here on Frank VanderSloot  or a very good long article here and see how he repeatedly uses very questionable tactics to suppress other peoples 1st Amendment rights and understand that Mitt Romney is VERY close to this man.  I'm not part of the "liberal media". I'll let someone be a bigot if they are one but if you put yourself out there and become a public figure then try to suppress my 1st amendment rights to point out to the world your bigoted views that you've already made known in the public domain then you can take your billions of dollars and see if it gives you pleasure to use in a way that some people say Richard Gere uses gerbils.

Contact your politicians and let them know you support the Disclose Act and over turn the "Citizens United" which should have been named "Corporations United".  Corporations might be considered people but they don't have the rights of a full Citizen yet....tho I'd argue they have stronger rights then real people like you and me.