Thomas Sowell in his classic work on economics described the naive people who fail to do "Second Stage Thinking". What this means is that decisions that are intended to change people’s behaviors inevitably cause unintentioned changes in behavior as well as the intended changes. That is because the intended changes bring about a new reality to which people make further adjustments.

For instance, raising taxes on profits may be intended to increase the amount of money received by the government. But a secondary response to higher taxes is that people abandon investment plans in businesses and industry which chances of being profitable were low in the first place. If increased taxes makes the cost greater, and therefore further decreases the chance of making a profit, the would be investors decide not to talk the risk, or to start the new business somewhere else where the taxes will be less. So, employees that would have been hired for the new business are not hired, they are not paid wages, they do not spend their wages, other businesses do not receive the revenue that their spending would have created, and the overall economy grows less than it would have with the new startups. Consequently, less taxes (rather than more) flow into the government coffers.

This lack of second stage thinking is the reason for the cost of oil and the resulting rising cost for gasoline and everything else that is transported with or made from oil products. Radical environmentalists (anti-capitalistic Marxists in green drag) have control of congress, who stops oil exploration, drilling, and refining for 30 years in order to "save the environment". That is the first stage goal.

But an unintended consequence of this behavior is that the supply is decreased, thus increasing the cost, and also that control of the oil supply is granted to 3^{rd world nations, many of whom are our enemies, placing our security at risk. And beyond these devastating consequences, the 2nd stage furthermore actually undermines the alleged first stage goal of helping the environment by granting oil production and refining to third world nations whose dictatorial leaders don’t care a wit about the environment and absolutely do not have the protections of the environment built into their collection and refining processes.}

And who created this debacle as has been predicted for years as being inevitable given our limits on drilling and production for the last 30 years? Congress . . . and the radical leftist environmentalists to whom the Democrats in Congress have sold their souls and the nation.

Tired of paying more at the pump? Want it to stop? Attack the congressmen in the House and Senate who stop oil drilling and production for their naive, myopic, first stage thinking that cannot see past the money the enviro-Marxists are stuffing into their pockets.

Some of you are offended that I would even spell out the "name that shall never be spoken"! It is truly amazing that political correctness has gotten to the point that saying a person’s name (not a disparaging nickname) is evidence of dirty politics to say the least, and possibly of overt racism. This is just too stupid to listen to.

If Barak Hussein Obama finds his name insulting or belittling, then he should change his name. It’s not hard to do, and he is a lawyer and Senator. One would think he could figure it out. I worked for Family Protective Services, and I encountered children being saddled with names that were disgusting and humiliating—names for various body parts, personal human activities, products not discussed in public, and references to random objects (like "Blue Bird". "Sail Boat", "Barbie Que", etc.). I considered this to be a from of child abuse that is not recognized by the law. A child should not be persecuted with a name for which his or her parents are responsible.

However, once one is an adult, he can change his name, and then can legitimately insist that using his "given" name is insensitive and intentionally disrespectful. If Obama is embarrassed by his name being used, then he should change it. Until he does so, it is fair for others to assume he has some affection for the name, and certainly it is absurd to say that anyone using the name of a prominent public figure is somehow an intentional insult that reveals anything about the one using the name other than respect for the person who wears the name.

I could not disagree with Ted Kennedy much more than I do—well, except unless he became Barak Hussein Obama (if the "Hussein" offends you, check out my next blog entry that I will make). I can’t think of one position of his that I do not believe is harmful to America and to the world.

Still, I pray for him, for his healing, and for comfort for his heart and body and for his family as he goes through trying ordeals and fears in the coming months. I wish him nothing but wellness of spirit and body. My disagreements or any disgust with him do not need to be expressed outside of a political battle, and certainly not when he is in a battle to survive and to overcome disablement and an agonizing treatment regimen. And, thankfully, that seems to be the approach of all the conservative and Republican politicians that have spoken out about his health crisis: to respond with decency and respect at this time of trial for Senator Kennedy.

However, contrast this with the left’s disparaging humor, cartoons, SNL skits, et. al., parodying the late President Reagan and his battle with Alzheimer’s, as well as outright attacks charging that his courageous political positions were confusion-based decisions that resulted from the loss of brain cells.

And all this from the "compassionate and loving left". Yeah. Little surprise that Barak Hussein Obama has painfully experienced the "non-racism" of the liberal left comprised primarily of liberal elitists who believe that middle America is too stupid to be allowed to govern itself.