What's the difference?

Tradition dictates that when we vote between presidential candidates, we are voting for polar opposites. Our statements are usually along the lines of "So and so will protect children and so and so will support a woman's right to privacy." However, this has become less true in recent elections. Now I am convinced that in 2008, though the two candidates appear to be quite different, there are few distinguishing characteristics in their policies. Lets explore a few statements.

Note: Since Obama has all but locked up the nomination, we will compare Obama and McCain.

False: John McCain will win the war. Obama will get our troops home.

McCain believes that going into Iraq was the right thing to do. Obama believes that we should have stayed out of Iraq in the first place. However, that is all past now.

McCain said in a speech about his first term, that his goal is that, "By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. ... The United States maintains a military presence there, but a much smaller one, and it does not play a direct combat role."

Obama was also asked if we could reasonably expect to have troops out of Iraq by 2013. His response was, "I think it’s hard to project four years from now and I think it would be irresponsible. We do not know what contingency will be out there. … I don’t want to make promises, not knowing what the situation‘s going to be three or four years out"

True: Neither candidate has major plans to get the troops out of Iraq within their first term.

---

False: McCain will protect the unborn. Obama supports a woman's right to control her own body.

The latter statement is certainly true. Obama is rated 100% by Planned Parenthood and always supports pro-choice measures. However, McCain is not so consistent on the right-to-life.

McCain supports embryonic stem cell research, alongside Obama. He also would allow a woman to abort a child conceived in rape without require that such a claim be tested. McCain is rated at 75% by the National Right to Life Council, which means he is more pro-life than Obama, but not all the way. He find abortion to be necessary and needs to be available for certain occasions.

True: McCain is not pro-choice, but not entirely pro-life

---

False: McCain supports warrantless wiretapping, "detaining" possible terrorists, and other Bush war-related policies. Obama would protect civil liberties and end all of these policies.

This is wrong on both ends of the spectrum. Both McCain and Obama supported the Patriot Act, which allows the executive branch more options in the pursuit of terrorism. However, both candidates are actively opposed to warrantless wiretapping, torture (including "waterboarding"), and the detaining of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay (violating habeus corpus). While both are adamant about our national security, neither want to see the violation of (too many) individual rights to achieve that security.

True: Both support the Patriot Act. Both also want to protect basic human rights.

---

False: John McCain will protect our borders. Obama will protect illegal immigrants already in the country.

This is yet another issue that both find agreement on. Both support a border fence with Mexico to prevent further illegal immigration. However, both have voted for plans that would allow illegal immigrants to become citizens without first achieving legal status. Both support a physical barrier to illegal immigration, but they will not support additional legal consequences for those who have violated the law in this way.

True: Both candidates will vote for a fence yet not provide additional deterrents to immigration.

---

False: McCain could get us into a war with Iran. Obama wants our troops out of the region entirely.

In fact, both candidates say that military conflict with Iran is a an option, especially if they attack Israel. McCain would also be likely to confront the nation if they obtained nuclear weapons, and he would not support negotiations with the country.

True: Neither candidate has spoken of completely removing our troops from the region, ever.

---

Conclusions

There are some significant differences between the two candidates, but not as many as one would expect. Really the only issue upon which they differ significantly is heathcare.

If you're happy with their agreements, then you win either way. If these positions frustrate you, maybe you should consider other options, like this guy.

Also, please see this post for their beliefs on gas/oil prices.


Sources: The New American
New York Times
Barack Obama On the Issues
John McCain On the Issues

Refineries

One issue often brought up in conservative circles regarding the price of gasoline is the lack of refineries in the United States. If this is a new or unfamiliar issue to you, allow me to inform.

You don't put crude oil in your car. Well, at least you don't do that then drive it away, 'cause it won't work. The oil must be refined into its component parts--one of which is gasoline. Though we are not presently running out of gasoline, an increase in the supply of gasoline would drop the price just as an increase in M&M's would cause each bag to become cheaper. Presently our refineries are running around 85%-90% of their full capacity.

One complaint is that there have been no new oil refineries build in the U.S. since 1976. Why is this the case? Primarily, a refinery could take up to 10 years to build including 5 years to get a permit. Also, it is a huge investment for an oil company, especially if they can survive without building a new one. Therefore, if the present refineries are generating enough money for the company, then there's no need for a new one.

...And they certainly are. In an economy going through a "difficult stretch", oil companies are posting record profits quarter after quarter. Supply and demand prevail again. Why produce more oil and sell it cheaper, when you can sell less for a higher price?

So how do we deal with this? There are basically two major solutions on the table. 1) Tax the living daylights out of the oil companies to pay for alternative energy research. All three leading presidential candidates support this option. 2) Give additional tax credits to oil companies who increase their supply of oil, whether by finding new sources or increasing production. Ron Paul might like this a bit.

Sources:
CNN Money
Williston Herald

Mothers in the Bible

When we think about Biblical mothers, we all know about Eve, the mother of us all, and Mary, the mother of Christ. However, we don't often think about the many other mothers that influenced the stories of God's people.

Jochebed
The Hebrew slaves had become quite numerous in the land of Egypt, and Pharoah gave the command, "Throw every newborn Hebrew boy into the Nile River. But you may let the girls live." Jochebed was a Hebrew woman and became pregnant during this time. She did throw her baby into the Nile but took some extra precautions first. "She saw that he was a special baby and kept him hidden for three months. But when she could no longer hide him, she got a basket made of papyrus reeds and waterproofed it with tar and pitch. She put the baby in the basket and laid it among the reeds along the bank of the Nile River."

God honored the actions that Jochebed took and protected her baby in a most ironic way. "The baby’s sister then stood at a distance, watching to see what would happen to him. Soon Pharaoh’s daughter came down to bathe in the river, and her attendants walked along the riverbank. When the princess saw the basket among the reeds, she sent her maid to get it for her. When the princess opened it, she saw the baby. The little boy was crying, and she felt sorry for him. 'This must be one of the Hebrew children,' she said."

The woman was not ignorant of the baby's origin but cared for him anyway. This baby boy who was passed from one mother to another was Moses, the future liberator of the slaves.


Hannah
There was a man from the hill country with two wives; one wife bore him children, and the other wife Hannah was not able to. Rather than belittle her like many men would have, he tried his best to encourage her. " 'Why are you crying, Hannah?' Elkanah would ask. 'Why aren’t you eating? Why be downhearted just because you have no children? You have me—isn’t that better than having ten sons?' "

Apparently it wasn't. She sought God for a son and said, "O Lord of Heaven’s Armies, if you will look upon my sorrow and answer my prayer and give me a son, then I will give him back to you. He will be yours for his entire lifetime..."

God answered her prayer and she gave birth, naming the son Samuel. She and her husband agreed that they would dedicate the child after he had been weaned, and they held to that promise.

She showed her amazing dedication to the Lord with the phrase, "Now I am giving him to the Lord, and he will belong to the Lord his whole life."

Elizabeth
Elizabeth's story is a strong New Testament parallel to Hannah's, she too was without a child. An angel appeared to her husband and said that their prayers would come true, and that their son "will be a man with the spirit and power of Elijah. He will prepare the people for the coming of the Lord. He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and he will cause those who are rebellious to accept the wisdom of the godly."

What an amazing promise! Elizabeth is six months pregnant when she learns that her cousin Mary (yes, that Mary) was also pregnant. Elizabeth's son, John the Baptist (a descendant of Jochebed), later paved the way for the ministry of Mary's son, Jesus. Elizabeth's faith and encouragement had a strong impact on the life of Mary and of her son John.

Eunice
Finally, the story of Eunice is very short, but is a often-cited example of a mother training her son well. Paul wrote a letter to his friend Timothy saying, "I remember your genuine faith, for you share the faith that first filled your grandmother Lois and your mother, Eunice. And I know that same faith continues strong in you." Lois and Eunice must have done something right, as Timothy was a very effective minister in one of the most central cultural centers of the Roman Empire. If it wasn't for Eunice's training, the church would have been without a central figure in its historical development.

These mothers are not well-known at all. However their dedication to and faith in God lead to the development of great, godly children. Take the time to thank your mothers for their training, and pray that you will be as effective as these women were.

(All biblical quotes in this post are from the New Living translation by Tyndale House Publishers.)

Domestic vs. Foreign Oil

As you can tell by now, the primary point of this series is for us to understand the present oil and gasoline situation, so that we can better know what to do about it. Though demand is slightly dropping, prices are climbing dramatically. Barring any government interference (which is a post for a later time), the only remaining culprit is a dwindling supply.

We have all heard political talk about reducing our dependence on foreign oil, but what exactly does that entail? Presently 34% of the U.S. oil supply is from within. That means 66% is imported from other countries. Also, contrary to popular belief, only 21% of that amount comes from the Persian Gulf region. To remove our dependence on foreign oil entirely, we would have to eliminate 2/3 of what we presently use! That means, from here on out, every American drives only 2 days per week, all truckers need to carry the same amount of material but drive 2/3 less miles, and any other use of oil you can think of also needs to be reduced by the same amount.

As you can see, eliminating foreign oil supplies is an impossible task with our present level of demand. However, many are trying to tackle the problem from the other end by increasing domestic supplies, so that foreign nations do not have as much influence on our situation. One of the more popular proposals is drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. A similar effort in Prudhoe Bay (just to the west of ANWR) was quite successful; however, both pose significant environmental concerns. In fact it is this very struggle that has lead to a stagnation in domestic oil supplies. While further drilling might put a dent in prices, all proposed locations raise some environmental concerns. Therefore, our desire to be "green" has left less "green" in our pockets.

So, which issue is more important? Your price at the pump, or the protection of Alaskan Wildlife? This is just one of the questions we must deal with if we are to change our domestic oil situation.

The Demand of Supply

So, why are gas prices so high? Well understanding this means we must understand how the price develops. The economic laws of supply and demand tell us that price raises for 2 reasons: low supply and high demand. Anyone who's seen the news recently knows that these things describe our present situation pretty well.

Demand is normally easy to deal with. The U.S. has used more gasoline year-over-year every year since 1991 . . . until now. According to the Kansas City Star, U.S. gasoline consumption is, so far, down 0.2% compared to this point last year. The big tell will be at the end of May; Memorial Day weekend is the single biggest gasoline consumption weekend of the year, and incidentally, the highest priced point of the year (look at 3 of the 4 peaks on this chart). Prices will certainly continue to rise through the end of May, but one would expect that this decrease in demand would have some kind of effect on future prices. However, is it enough yet to curtail the effect that low supply will have? Only time will tell.

Now the supply end of this beast is the really complicated one. Supply involves the overall availability of crude oil, how much the U.S. can produce or buy, the rate at which it is refined, and how much the gas stations believe they need to charge. Which of these parts is responsible for the problem? All of them.

Next time we'll tackle the problem at the source, domestic and foreign oil supplies.

How bad is it really?

When people are asked how they think the economy is doing, it seems the first thing they refer to are gas prices. Of course, this is only one small part of the whole picture, much like the price of M&Ms, (which has also increased, to my dismay!) The first struggle in understanding the price at the pump is viewing the problem in the context of the rest of the economy.

First of all, the unleaded gasoline that goes in our vehicles is only one of the several products derived from crude oil. Others include diesel, kerosene, and Vaseline (not even kidding). When the price of crude oil goes up, the prices of all of these other things go up. (Likewise, when the price of wheat goes up, so does the price of Wheaties). One thing that is amazing is that though the price of crude oil has risen 28% per year in the last 2 years, the average price of gas has only risen 12% per year. If gas had also risen at 28%, the average price today would be $4.62/gallon instead of the $3.50 we are presently experiencing.



Once you go beyond oil prices, you'll see that gasoline is not alone in this price climb. According to the Consumer Price Index, which is the somewhat "official" place to go for inflation data (a.k.a. why things cost more), the average price increase in all goods in the U.S. is about 3% per year. Compare that to the oil and gas price increases in the same time period (28% and 12% respectively). No wonder it seems like these things are skyrocketing in comparison to everything else--they are! (Some of you are trying to do math in your head right now. Stop it. Just trust me.)

Why does it seem like gas is so expensive? Because, if it had been following the rest of the economy, the gasoline that was $1.35/gal. in 2002 would only be $1.60/gal. today. So in other words, in comparison to oil prices, gas isn't that bad right now. However, in comparison to the rest of the economy, gas prices are horrible!

So why is it so stinking expensive! Tomorrow, my friend.

Who's got gas?

The struggle over gas prices is no new battle. For decades, and even a century now, oil has become a vital commodity that has driven societies. This leads to some very confusing and frustrating situations as the oil gets from deep in the earth into our vehicles. Most of us don't care too much about this process, until it affects how much we pay at the pump and in the store. But why are gas prices so high? Why does it seem like everything else is getting more expensive? Why doesn't the president do anything about it?

One day, a man walked into the video store I worked at, and I was making suggestions of movies for him to get. He stumbled across a Michael Moore film and said, "All I know is that since Bush has been in office, gas prices have gone up. That's all I know."

I thought, "Really? That's it? And this guy's vote counts as much as mine?" This is the problem I want to avoid.

So, for the next few days (or as long as it takes) I would like to take you through all the variables of the gas price struggle. We'll look at how bad it really is, why it is that bad, and what in the world we can do about it. So as not to bore you in one sitting, the next installment is still to come.

Who's in charge here?

I found a video that shines some light on the curious imbalance in media coverage among the presidential candidates.




I also have done some research of my own, and you may find these interesting:

Ron Paul vs other 3 "front-runners"
Republican Candidates

What's the message he supports? Read it here:

Ron Paul on the Issues,

Quizzage

I was sucked in by another one of these silly things.

My Conservative Identity:

You are an Anti-government Gunslinger, also known as a libertarian conservative. You believe in smaller government, states’ rights, gun rights, and that, as Reagan once said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”

Take the quiz at www.FightLiberals.com

Pretty much right. I'm impressed!

Wasted Words

God has been pretty clear on an issue that I have missed entirely until this week.

But I tell you that men will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned. (Matthew 12:26-27)

Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. (Ephesians 4:29)

You shall not misuse the name of the LORD your God, for the LORD will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name. (Exodus 20:7)

God is pretty clear, that it is much more than insults that bother him, but wasted speech. The passage from Matthew indicates that we will be judged by much more than how many times we skipped church. We will have to give account for every careless word? But I never cussed in front of my parents! Doesn't that count for something?

In fact, we aren't even to say something unless it is "helpful for building others up". We spend so much effort trying to avoid the bad words, that the wasted words don't seem so bad. However, if we focused more on using beneficial speech, we would cut down on our waste and hopefully eliminate the bad altogether.

Of course, if wasted speech is worthy of judgment, then using God's name (i.e. reputation, status) in a meaningless or misused manner is an especially high offense--worthy of being the third of ten commandments. Some traditions are even afraid to write his name out in case they have to erase it later. What incredible honor is implied by such a practice!

What would happen if we focused on beneficial speech instead of avoiding a list of 20ish offensive words?

What would happen if we only used God's name when the highest reverence was applied?