Drill baby Drill

On one had the Republicans are proposing a primary focus and large investment in the construction and operation of new off shore drilling stations while new technologies are developed in the pursuit of our nations energy independence and to bridge the gap until that independence is a reality. The Democrats on the other hand don't feel the primary financial investment should be directed towards the development of off shore drilling. Why? Because the increase in domestic off shore drilling and subsequently any increase in oil production won't be realized until a time so far off in the future that we as a nation should already be on our way to energy independence. The republicans are calling for a bridge to be built to cross a gap that won't be completed until after we are already across it. Had the republicans or democrats proposed this bridge building 10 years ago, then it would have been a useful strategy to assist the nation in its move towards E-independence. But as it stands today, it is simply an act of futility that only stands to delay our inevitable transformation as a nation. Why? Because if large international oil company's invest billions of dollars to develop these off shore drilling stations you can be sure they will do all they can to realize a financial profit from these stations when they are finally complete. And they will do so by slowing down the transformation to green energy. In effect, by investing in this 'bridge' we are systematically widening the time gap that we need to pass, all in the name of oil corporate profits. McCain has repeated over and over that Obama is naïve in his approach to E-independence and that by focusing primarily on alternative processes and secondarily on more drilling that he is leaving America out to dry in the meantime. Yet I am not exactly sure how introducing a plan to develop off shore stations that won't be producing any oil for years will help in the meantime either.

The truth is alternative means of energy will require a significant financial investment and take a significant amount of time to develop. The development of off shore drilling will take equally as long and require an equally as large financial investment. There really is nothing we can do in the meantime except suffer though it. I just hope that once we find ourselves on the other side we aren't tied to outdated forms of energy in the name of supposed free markets and the interests of Big Oil.

You win some you lose some

It has also been repeated by the republicans that leaving Iraq before the 'job is done' will mean coming home in defeat. First things first, in terms of why we invaded Iraq to begin with we have been defeated. We went there to find and disarm WMD's. That mission has not happened and is now so far removed from the American conscious that it barely registers as the initial reason for the war. McCain likes to repeat over and over that coming home means defeat. When in reality Obama's plan to place Iraq's future in the hands of the Iraqis (sp?) is exactly the victory we are looking for. The transition out of Iraq is bound to be a difficult one but that is not akin to defeat. It is akin to reality. And delaying reality to minimize the difficulties of transition for window dressing purposes only serves to strengthen other hostilities in the region in the meantime.

And one last thing

This last topic has nothing to do with politics but I can't seem to escape it. Why don't NFL fans understand the difference between the end-around, the reverse and the double reverse? Every time an end-around is run fans scream "REVERSE, REVERSE!" But saying so doesn't make it so. It only makes you sound stupid.

In the NFL, the end-around is a handoff from the quarterback directly to a wide receiver that at the snap began to cross the back field towards the opposite end of the line. THIS IS NOT A REVERSE! Had the quarterback initially handed off to a running back that ran towards the approaching receiver and then handed off to him then you could call it a reverse because the initial direction of the play has been reversed. In the end-around there is no reversal of the initial direction of the play. If during an end-around the WR subsequently hands the ball off to another player running in the opposite direction then that would be a reverse, NOT A DOUBLE REVERSE! Please, NFL fans and even some announcers, read up on the difference between the end-around, the reverse and the double reverse. But I think what I would really like to know is how this case of mistaken identity came to pass.

In classifying this little entry you should correctly refer to it as a reverse. I started in one direction, politics and reversed field and ended with another topic, sports. You would never call it a double reverse, unless you count this last little paragraph as yet another change in direction called 'self reflection'. But I'd like to think of it as me placing the ball in your hands. In that vein it's kind of like a reverse with a half back pass. Don't drop the ball.