…the end of man is to know

While Americans were busy not paying attention, most of the free world (and some of the less-than-free world) had its eyes trained on Euro Cup 2008. In yesterday’s final, the Spaniards defeated the vaunted German side, 1-0. The game was highly entertaining, even to this admitted nationalist who focuses on American sports. After Spain’s victory, there were massive impromptu celebrations throughout Barcelona, Madrid, and a host of urban areas.

So many Europeans fully invest themselves, and their sense of national dignity, in how well their soccer team performs. Soccer-mania extends beyond Europe, as the African nation of Senegal virtually shut down after a stunning upset in 2002 over soccer goliath, and colonial master, France. Political leaders attend key matches, legitimizing the games as more than just sport. Foreign policy blunders, economic woes, and political scandals are temporarily forgiven in exchange for a victory.

On this side of the Atlantic, most people don’t even know how America performs in international competition. There is minimal enthusiasm, or news coverage, over whether or not America’s men’s basketball team can reclaim Olympic Gold in Beijing. In fact, I’m curious to know how many of my countrymen even know when (or if!) the Olympics will begin.

Despite not taking a single Sociology course, I have a few hunches as to why America seems wholly indifferent to our ability to move an object in a certain direction using certain body parts/accessories:

1. Dude, we’re awesome:

There’s a golden rule of social groups: those at the top don’t like change. Likewise, the United States should avoid national prestige being left up to athletic feats. Instead, let’s stick to what we’re good at: cultural diffusion, economic size, and the ability to destroy the planet in 6.4 seconds. Once we invest ourselves and risk our title as greatest, best country god has ever given man on the face of the Earth we actually might lose it. So pretending that international athletic events are completely irrelevant prevents us from losing anything.

2. 4, 6,8: USA does not preach hate:

Can anyone tell me who the United States’ greatest rival is? The Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore. The Japanese are now a key trading partner. The Germans are a strong ally. The British haven’t fought with us (tea v. coffee, notwithstanding) since the War of 1812. The Mexicans and Canadians are humorously non-threatening. There simply is no country to root against. Our “rivals” have always been countries which we have tried to destroy. Our geographic and social isolation also means that we don’t have friendly rivalries. The United States is in a category by itself. Without any peers, Americans traditionally don’t favor one country over another.

3. Football, not futbol!

For the past century, America has been a baseball-football-basketball country. NASCAR, golf, tennis, and hockey are on the periphery. Cricket and soccer (for those over the age of ten) are unheard of. The problem is that most countries are die-hard soccer fans and South Asia looooooves its cricket. Baseball and basketball are globalizing very slowly, but are still very much American. If the world cared about its football teams, then maybe Americans can rally behind NFL stars in international tournaments. In the interim, there are no international football competitions. Our national sports are simply ignored by the rest of the globe.

It is quite odd, and disappointing, that in a country which has accomplished so much thanks to competition and rivalry, the public routinely forgoes opportunities to improve nationalism and patriotism.

This summer, prove me wrong. Paint your entire body red, white, and blue. Wrap yourself in the American flag. Actually commit the national anthem to memory. You can only gain bragging rights if you are willing to lose them.

And if the USA doesn’t win, just tell your non-American enemies that your country can destroy theirs before they can say “gold medal”.

I’m going to put this out there: I DON’T WORSHIP JARED FOGLE. The “Subway Guy” became a superstar because he dropped 185 pounds eating low-fat subs? That’s a claim to fame? He was made into a national hero not because he lost a ton of weight, but because he did so at a restaurant which sells to million of customers.

He has more talent than some celebrities, I guess.

Chris Coleson is taking a page out of the How to (NOT) be a Celebrity playbook and announced that he lost 80 pounds eating nearly all of his meals at McDonald’s.

Coleson ate salads, wraps, and apple dippers without the accompanying caramel sauce. Before we get carried away into thinking that you can drop 8 dress sizes eating 3 Big Macs a day, remember that what Coleson ate was not unique McDonald’s fare. You can get fruits, veggies, and wraps at your local grocery store with fresh ingredients at a lower price. The drawback is that you get neither the fanfare nor the crappy toy.

As much I applaud Fogle and Coleson for their will power and successes, let’s not get out the anointing oil. They both dropped a great deal of weight eating in a healthy manner and excercising. Is any of this news? Of course not.

The reason that it is news is because they both used mainstream eateries in their diet plans. Those who want to lose weight quickly will now race to Subway and then complain that eating a foot-long Meatball Marinara with a bag of Frito’s didn’t get the job done. Then they’ll be outraged that eating a caesar salad with all the dressing and fried chicken mixed in didn’t help them fit into their “skinny jeans”.

“It’s a salad! How could it not work?” (Because it has 1,410 calories, nearly a day’s worth. That’s why!)

The only proven way to lose weight (aside from a hardcore drug addiction) is to eat less, eat healthier, and exercise more. Showcasing where they ate only confuses and blurs the issue. If you eat only McDonald’s salads and Subway Turkey subs (hold the mayo), then you will be doing yourself a favor. But the media, and certainly fast food giants, don’t turn a profit elucidating the unpopular specifics. Subway boosted sales 16% the year after the Jared ads started and another 11% the year after that. Call me cynical, but I have a sneaking suspicion Subway’s sales increases weren’t solely due to Veggie subs.

If you want to lose some extra pounds, I sincerely wish you the best of luck. Follow through knowing that the only way to succeed is through hard work and not cutting corners.

Eating Big Macs AND losing weight? No. ‘Effing. Way.

Besides, it just isn’t pragmatic.

I get it: Bob Barr is everybody’s homeboy. The Libertarian Party’s presidential nominee is the first 3rd party candidate from the right to have solid political footing since Ross Perot. He is relatively mainstream and is an outlet for disenchanted Republicans who aren’t Obamaniacs. Fellow blogivist, and baller, Nicky Cheese constantly throws up some love to his homeboy (I have now reached my “link to my blog” quota for the week).

While I personally do not agree with Barr on a host of issues, I do see his allure. Barack Obama is selling us on change, but it’s the wrong kind of change. McCain is offering minimal change. Barr represents the potential for monumental shifts in domestic and foreign policy:

1. non-interventionist foreign policy

2. massive tax cuts, and accompanying slashing of government programs

3. drastically increased individual liberties

Even if you completely support Barr’s platform, it is essential that you NOT vote for him. Without further ado, three reasons why Bob Barr does not and should not receive your help at the ballot box.

1. The Nader Effect

For a group which prides itself on rationality, libertarians still think it’s a good idea to NOT vote for a major party candidate?

In 2000, Bush beat Gore in Florida by 537 votes. Green Party candidate Ralph Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida. Nader also got more votes than the winning margin in New Hampshire. For those leftists who voted for Nader, they certainly wanted Gore more than Bush. They wanted their voice heard and shunned the pragmatic option of voting Gore. If less than 1% of Nader’s Floridian supporters checked their egos at the voting booth, Al Gore would have been elected President…now THAT is An Inconvenient Truth!

A similar situation can be traced back to 1992, when Bill Clinton beat George HW Bush thanks to Ross Perot. Clinton won a large electoral victory despite receiving only 43% of the vote. Though I don’t know what new NCLB requirements demand of our youngsters, most 10 year olds can tell you that in a 2-candidate race, 43% never wins.

For Barr supporters, don’t think that this can’t happen again in 2008. The latest poll from Georgia, Barr’s home state, gives McCain a lead of under 2 percent! Barr is polling at 5.6%, roughly three times the gap between the major candidates. To make this truly scary, the poll shows that of the undecided voters, there are 14 times more registered Democrats than Republicans!!! So if you extrapolate the undecideds to vote along traditional party lines, this poll actually projects an Obama victory. EVEN IF Barr’s support doesn’t prevent McCain from winning a must-win state, he might force McCain to spend money he doesn’t have and time he can’t afford to lose campaigning in Georgia. Whether during the campaign or on election night, Barr has the chance to fatally wound McCain’s electoral chances.

Since voting Barr may put the less-desirable Barack Obama, instead of McCain, in office, libertarians should stay away.

2. The Ralph Nader Effect

Most supporters of Bob Barr aren’t actually supporting Bob Barr. They are supporting his platform. This is an absolutely crucial distinction in tracking public opinion. The Libertarian Party is small enough that a single person can completely embody the party. To illustrate my point, most think of Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, Ralph Nader, and even Strom Thurmond before they can name the Independent, Reform, Green, and Dixiecrat Parties.

The point is that if Barr gains a significant portion of the national vote (let’s say 5%), then the electoral credit goes to Bob Barr more than it goes to the Libertarian Party. Barr’s ability to build up a 3rd party would, in the eyes of the public and Barr himself, supersede the Libertarian Party’s ability to reach the mainstream politically. Having an empowered Barr would allow him to control the LP’s message and use it for his own personal gains a la Ralph Nader.

If truly liberty-minded individuals wanted to spread the MESSAGE instead of the MESSENGER, rallying behind a MAN (not an idea) is not a fruitful endeavor.

3. The Jerry Falwell Effect

If Bob Barr directly or indirectly takes the election away from John McCain, then it will create an irrevocable chasm on the political right. GOP loyalists will find it difficult to reach out to a group which shunned them. The party will be further forced to abandon a “big-tent” strategy.

The party will be further driven into the arms of Evangelicals, who are the only demographic big enough and unified enough to deliver elections. Any attempts to convert the Republican Party into a more libertarian group will be completely undermined.

It is crucial for libertarians and Libertarians to accept that we live in a 2-party system. The electoral college’s winner-take-all format means that there are no partial victories. If you can’t get at least 43% of the vote (Clinton’s ‘92 total), don’t bother trying. The best answer for free-marketeers is take the Republican Party back! Join the party, mend fences, and become a more valuable asset than Evangelicals. If the libertarian message resonates with the masses and can paint an electoral map red, then the party will start to nominate, and elect, libertarians.

Since libertarians, and definitely Libertarians, need a larger political infrastructure to truly put one of their own in the White House, Bob Barr CANNOT get your vote this November.

Besides, do you really want to help elect a guy who will be confused with a cartoon character by most Americans?

How fitting that Babar is, of all animals, an ELEPHANT (the physical representation of the Republican Party)! Coincidence? I’d like to think not. Bob Barr and Babar both call on everyone to the political right to elect John McCain.

Remember: discretion is the better part of valor. And pragmatism. Pragmatism, too.

Ever since I heard the do da doo doo song (Semi-Charmed Life for the well-informed), I’ve been hooked on Third Eye Blind. There were at their peak, in terms of popularity and music quality, during my most formative years. Yet, despite years of trying, I was never able to see them in concert. They haven’t released a CD since 2003, and didn’t tour much. When I found out that they were playing at Loyola University in Chicago, a mere 30 minute El ride from Northwestern, I was pumped. I gladly dropped my $10 for a ticket and packed into a gym that couldn’t have been much larger than my high school’s. It probably was the best concert I have ever been to. The playlist was perfect and the crowd was buzzing.

And then, for me, it all came crashing down.

In the middle of the set, lead singer Stephen Jenkins stops to address the audience. I won’t pretend that Jenkins isn’t a weird guy. After all, the band’s name is not a reference to genitalia (minds out of the gutter!), but to a mind’s eye. If I had paid attention in my high school AP English class, I probably could understand and analyze it better. Anyway, this is what I remember of Jenkin’s conversation with the masses:

“Let’s be one tonight, okay? You and me. Let’s be one. We feed off of the energy and you fuel us. You have fueled us to make a new album and we are way excited about it…

I love being in Chicago (crowd cheers)

Chicago is home to great fans (cheering)

Chicago is home to great music (cheering)

Chicago is home to the next president (crowd goes INSANE with cheering)”

Alright, so Jenkins is an Obama supporter. That’s cool…I guess. Do I think he should have used his fame to publicize his views? Not really. If there was any ambiguity about how we felt about politics, he removed it with a song from the new album, Non-Dairy Creamer.

Some of the highlights from the lyrics, in case you couldn’t pick them up:

“Young Republicans” and “Mission Accomplished” are repeated over and over again.

“…And the pastor in the pulpit is a bigot and a liar” may be my favorite line. I really hope he understands that this lyric fits Rev. Jeremiah Wright as well as any religious in the free world, Joel Osteen included.

Jeremiah Wright: bigot AND a liar Joel Osteen: only a bigot

Alright, so here’s my problem: why does Jenkins need to be political? Why is it important for him to bash the hell out of everyone to the right of Barack Obama? Is this necessary? Does the band not accept that it is one of the most famous 90s alt rock bands because of its ability to generate catchy tunes and stadium anthems?

More generally, I take issue with those who use their fame as a political pulpit. Jenkins is certainly not the only one. Eminem’s “Mosh” launched arrows on the Bush administration. Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, Leo DiCaprio, and countless other stars have made highly political remarks at movie premieres/awards shows/other non-political venues. Marshall Mathers is not a multi-millionaire because of his keen understanding of the (in)feasibility of neoconservatism. Jenkins does not have platinum-albums because people really want to know how he interprets the success of foreign policy objectives.

I rationalize my right to spread my political views here because I have defined this site as a political one. It would be inappropriate for me to showcase my singing skills, or lack thereof, here. I may be old-school, but I think that people should stick to what they know and not overextend themselves. Jenkins’ ability to intelligently debate the Bush tax cuts is presumably more pathetic, and ridiculous, than Michael Jordan’s foray into baseball.

I am not, and will not, prevent free speech. If stars want to spread their views, that is their choice. At the end of the day, I just think it’s pointless and manipulative. The sad truth is that people will vote for Obama because some rock star said to (think: groupies, with less sexual misconduct). I’m not sure what I’m more disappointed in: Jenkins’ arrogance or his fans’ ignorance.

I was sent this link last night. For those too lazy click, snopes.com references e-mails which urge Americans to by Citgo gasoline. Traditionally, chain e-mails are sent with the intent of discouraging buying oil at a certain time, from a certain company, on a certain day of the week, or in some less-than-certain fashion. This one is unique in that it actually suggests we buy gasoline, even at $4/gallon. The justification? Citgo is owned by Venezuela, a government which has not sponsored global terrorism or has mass murdered political dissidents.

Yet, to paint Venezuela as a political ally and beacon of democracy is far from accurate. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is staunchly opposed to “American Imperialism” and has come up with less-than-flattering monikers for President Bush. He has presided over quasi-democratic elections and recently failed in his attempt to enhance his powers to dictator-like levels.

If not for oil exports, Venezuela would be seen as a political enemy which seeks to destabilize and anti-Americanize the Latin world. Chavez routinely funds opposition groups in pro-American countries and uses oil revenues to prop up anti-American leaders. His brand of socialist populism is toxic to democratization, but not nearly the menace that fundamentalist, Muslim theocracies are. Chavez does not endorse, formally or informally, killing innocent civilians. It is because Chavez is a “peaceful” man, that he seems to be the best despot we can support when we fill up our tanks.

It is unfortunate that we have to face a decision between supporting Chavez , Vladimir Putin, or Nigerian violence when we buy gasoline. We have a veritable bevy of unsavory options. But we have to make a choice. My suggestion: be less aware of the political ramifications of our choices. Former New York Times Bureau Chief and Northwestern professor Stephen Kinzer argues that it is impossible to understand the long-term geopolitical ramifications of anything. If we all bought from Hugo, then he might grow his power to such an extent that he could afford to stop oil exports to the US and kill our economy. Maybe buying from Russia would allow a middle-class to grow to the point that the public will finally bring democracy to its country.

The point is that we don’t know. Punishing Germany after WWI with severe financial penalties seemed appropriate…at the time. Supporting Osama bin Laden against the Soviets seemed to be an excellent decision…at the time. Arming Saddam Hussein to fight Iranian Ayatollahs also was the wise choice…at the time. Pushing for freer elections in Palestine was both moral and prudent…until voters put Hamas in power. The list of failed successes goes on and on. No matter how positive and convinced we are, we still could be wrong.

I’m not saying that we should never pay attention to who we are supporting. If you think McCain is the best candidate this November, don’t vote for Barack Obama just because there is a chance McCain will be awful. You don’t need to donate thousands of dollars to al-Qaeda or murder civilians to prove the randomness and unpredictability of politics.

Make rational decisions, but don’t be crippled by the decision-making process. Being pragmatic is good, but being sane is far more important than the destination of your all-powerful $100 gas receipt.

I recently saw Jesus Camp, Heidi Ewing & Rachel Grady’s 2006 documentary, which features Pastor Becky Fischer’s Kids on Fire Summer Camp. This look at an intense “camp” which indoctrinates children with evangelical ideology is deeply disturbing. Children as young as 7 are encouraged to pray in tongues, to ward off the devil’s influence. Fischer tells her campers that Muslims train their children to die for their god, so she needs Christian soldiers for their own crusade. What exactly being a “Christian soldier” entails is a bit unclear, but I doubt it involves solely following the Ten Commandments and respecting those who disagree.

I won’t proclaim to know the extent, form, or existence of god. There is a distinct possibility that I will burn in eternal hellfire for not spreading the word of god in the name of Jesus. I’m willing to take that risk, but it is my risk to take. Robbing children of their own theological and intellectual journeys is unforgivable.

Parents are responsible to raise their children to be moral, but also to be intellectually independent. Presumably, these kids’ “training” is so deep and so intense that it is irreparable. What a great tragedy that thousands of children are simply being swallowed up by a socio-religious movement without any chance to escape.

This documentary highlights the great social chasm in this country. The division is not as simple as red states and blue states. Instead, there are those who use empirical data and rational thought facing those who look towards irrefutable universal ideals or beings. In the end, there is no way to disprove an ideology which does not tangibly exist. Such is the problem with religious zealots and religious zeal. Sound familiar?

Edit: While Pascal’s Wager suggests I follow god literally and figuratively to the gates of hell, I am still sticking with my own rationality as a guiding light. Pascal failed to recognize that his wager of god or not-god is horribly simplistic. Evangelicals, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Scientologists all have different views and codes of ethics. Choosing god is not an option, choosing a particular interpretation of god is. Since I can’t be a pious Muslim, Jew, and Christian, I simply am going to live my life according to my own rationality and code of ethics.

Every Friday morning, I’ll provide the news that is almost too ridiculous to even blog about. I will carefully tread the line thought-provoking and mind-numbing, insightful and incoherent, awesome and awful.

This week’s proof that human evolution is taking one step forward, two steps backward: teenagers near Boston made a pregnancy pact. An estimated eight girls, all under the age of 17, made a pact to each have a child and raise them together. At present, I am unsure how to even begin to unravel this situation, but here it goes:

First, should we be investigating the fathers for statutory rape charges? According to Massachusetts state law, anyone under 16 cannot legally consent to sex. (Thankfully, I’m not based in Massachusetts, because I don’t know how I’d feel about friends and co-workers seeing “Massachusetts age of consent” in my google search history). The punishment is up to 3 years in prison. If the government is going to be legislating sexual behavior, and I doubt the constitutionality of doing so, then we should be investigating this situation. The NYT article suggests that at least some of the girls had sex with men in their 20s.

This should keep her on the air for a few more weeks

Second, what the hell are these kids thinking? Communal baby-raising? Did they take Hillary’s “village to raise a child” message about 345 steps too far? What is the over-under on them putting the babies up for adoption/asking mommy (aka the baby’s grandmother) to just take over childrearing responsibilities/accidentally kill they after they starts teething/drop them after trying to chat on the cell phone and breastfeed? Two weeks? Three?

Third, the community leaders’ responses have ranged from moronic to pathetic:

“We found out one of the fathers is a 24-year-old homeless guy,” the principal says, shaking his head says the school’s principal.

The mayor weighed in with:

“This is a city in transition going through a hard economic time,” Ms. Kirk said. “There are cuts in economic programs, cuts in services, cuts in after-school programs, and they’re all impacting the social climate. We really let these kids down.”

“It’s the social environment these girls are coming from,” she added. “They think that a baby can give them love or give them status or fill an empty space in their life, and these girls are very, very young. And I think if you talk to any teenage mother who is caring for an infant, the road is not easy.”

So the community is blaming itself for 16 year old pregnancy pacts? And this incident will be used to justify more social spending on incoherent government education programs? Regrettably, I see no irony in the fact that the same citizens who will have eight new bundles of joy in their town elected this laughing-stock of a mayor. If you ever wanted a reason to endorse limited-government, here it is: an idiot politician uses a teenage pregnancy pact to justify more social spending. Someone call the Democratic Party, I found its keynote speaker at this summer’s DNC, Mayor Carolyn Kirk.

Whatever happened to traditional responsibility? Where are the parents? Why was no one paying attention to this? Surely this reflects poorly on the girls and their families, but even worse on us as a society. Somewhere we have gotten so entangled in our own social bureaucracy that these sort of events are even possible. This isn’t society’s fault, but we as individuals can act to promote at least a mildly intelligent worldview.

With the presidential race in full gear, pollsters are dying to find out who voters will choose. The real question regards why people hit the polls and vote the way they do. If either party can truly understand the motivations for voting, it can frame its message in a way to virtually guarantee victory. By the same token, a candidate who misreads his voting base, opposition, and undecideds can completely undermine himself (or herself…lest we forget, Hillary is waiting for Obama to be assassinated).

Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas is one of the most influential works on the subject. Frank argues that working-class whites in America’s “Heartland” have shifted from the Democratic Party to the Republican Party because they are voting on social issues, not economic ones. The drive to vote against abortion is overpowering the drive to vote against tax cuts for low-income social conservatives.

While Frank’s thesis makes sense, it isn’t wholly accurate. Princeton professor Larry Bartels rips into Frank’s contention. Bartels uses statistical data, in lieu of Frank’s “scholarly” decision to use anecdotal evidence in his pseudo autobiography. Bartels finds first that the switch from the Democratic to Republican Party has been an exclusively southern phenomenon. The trend can largely be attributed to the gulf of civil rights stemming from the 1964 Presidential Election between LBJ and Barry Goldwater.

1960 Presidential Electoral Map. What’s more surprising: the changing party bases or the fact that US Senator and former Klansman Robert Byrd was a viable candidate?

Further, Bartels finds that Frank’s argument isn’t geographically inaccurate, it is just not true. His studies note that college-educated white voters are more likely to vote on social issues than non-college-educated white voters. If anything, Democrats are winning the elite on social issues more than Republicans are winning the poor.

The final part of Bartels’ critique shows that non-college-educated whites tend to agree more with the Democrats than the Republicans on social issues, but let economic issues take primacy. So what are we left with? A group of low-income white voters with relatively little education who joined the Republican Party in the south, are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. If Bartels’ representation is accurate, it certainly fits into a political narrative. Libertarianism is one of the most socially convenient ideologies because it endorses freedom. Even the most hardcore on both sides of the political aisle endorse freedom, right?

After a game like this, what ISN’T the matter with Kansas?

So if we truly have unpacked what and how a large portion of the electorate votes, the rest should be easy. McCain needs to tout his pro-liberty values and Obama, who replaces freedom with bureaucracy and rhetoric, needs to suppress the vote.

TheSilentMajority crystallizes this point in his latest post. He finds that the Republican Party has switched the message of freedom from 1994 to the message of social conservatism. Not surprisingly, the Republican Party has floundered as it has both lost its congressional majority, is completely outnumbered in the upcoming Presidential Election, and has accomplished very little (if you consider our budget deficit and the War in Iraq to be “small”). If McCain is to pull this one out, he will need to switch the Republican Party back to what it once was.

It’s the pragmatic thing to do.

After getting zero traction on his Gas Tax Holiday Plan, Mac is Back (what a great chant…) this morning as he announced his opposition to the federal ban on offshore oil drilling. If demand is going to remain high in the face of record prices, boosting supply does seem to be a logical solution.

Big Mac is back on the attack. But he’s catching some flak.

Environmentalists are up in arms talking about….okay, I don’t know what they’re talking about, but as long as I can get cheap gas and my local sushi restaurant still serves me my Spicy Tuna Hand Roll without extra oil slick, I don’t particularly care. We have the EPA for a reason, and we should put at least some stock into the ability of oil extraction firms to keep their brand positively regarded and regulatory agencies to limit dangerous negligence.

The most important thing is that ending the ban be seen as a stop-gap measure, not as a solution. As China, India and other developing economies continue to up their oil consumption, the gas crisis is not going away anytime soon. America has already reached Hubbert’s Peak, the point at which tapping oilfields greatly decreases efficiency. Short version: global oil consumption is increasing while supply is, or will be, decreasing. Like all other oil supplies, the ocean bottom will eventually be tapped out. At that point we are back where we started, with less Spicy Tuna Hand Roll.

We have a pressing need for “alternative energies”. Wind, solar, and biofuels are all long-term options, but short-term nightmares. Windmills are expensive and are most profitable in low-population areas. Solar power is currently inefficient in transforming heat to electricity. Most biofuels currently take more energy to create and transport than is intrinsic to the product. Hear that, Prius drivers? ETHANOL USES MORE OIL THAN OIL! I’m not saying we should give up on any of these projects, but we are a few years away from making them better.

Big Ideas for a Small Planet had an episode which focused on these three solutions. It’s a great watch, giving an optimistic look at the future. In the meantime, we have to deal with the present. And at present, we are facing an oil shortage which is eating up disposable income, suppressing economic growth, relinquishing our national sovereignty to Petrostates, and spurring global climate change.

The last thing I want is to be able to buy less Spicy Tuna Hand Roll, have fewer producers of it, have to eat it only if Iran lets me, and deal with changing migratory patterns of tuna result in a less delicious treat.

The American Interest’s cover story focuses on the national debt. Not necessarily the over 9 trillion dollar national deficit (Go check out the National Debt Counter for live updates…it’s like New Year’s Eve, with bigger numbers and less champagne), but the individual debts that millions of Americans owe. Far too many of us live in homes, drive cars, and wear clothes that we cannot afford.

While it would be politically convenient for leftists to blame a consumer society, millions of citizens have been able to stem the tide and lead fiscally responsible lives. In The American Interest, Barbara Dafoe Whitehead divides America into two groups: the investor-class and the lottery-class. The investor class is composed the mysteriously dangerous wealthy and educated elite. They take advantage of 401k plans, tax shelters, and build large retirement plans for their own fiscal solvency. The lottery class represents those with less money and even less financial education. By buying lottery tickets, one of the most regressive government programs, their attempts at improving their situation are not just irrational, they are counterproductive. According to Whitehead, of America’s 153 million wage-earners, 70 million do not have retirement plans. As nearly half of the country’s workforce leaves their future up to scratch-offs, government hand-outs, and luck, the rest of us have to pay for it.

When FDR enacted the Social Security program, it was supposed to be a *drumroll* SOCIAL plan to promote SECURITY. It was not, and is not, called the Spend All Your Salary, Government Always Bails you Out Program, and not just because SAYS GABO is a weird acronym. The idea was to supplement Seniors so they can survive in the event that they lost their savings in an economic crash. Ah yes, losing your savings. The good news is 70 million Americans are guaranteed to not lose their retirement plans. The bad news is 70 million Americans don’t have retirement plans.

Social Security: Keeping seniors from eating cat food since 1935!

So how do we stop a generation where more than half of final-year college students of four or more credit cards? WE don’t because WE can’t. The best we can do is try and educate the materialistic masses. At the end of the pay cycle, debt doesn’t pay. Payday lenders stay in business charging interest rates at 400% annually because there is a market for it. Go out and tell people to actually read the terms of their loans. Have friends and family check out what the interest rate on credit cards are AFTER the low introductory rate expires. There is a market for lenders who aren’t loan sharks (think loan goldfish). We can only open and grow that market when the sharks are starved (because sharks don’t eat goldfish…or so my metaphor goes).

We have an opportunity to grow our economy, build fiscal stability, and reduce reliance on the government. We don’t need regulations, improved productivity, or new innovations. All we need is a better understanding of our own financial limitations, a little bit of moderation, and a tad of common sense. And pragmatism. Don’t forget about pragmatism.