So I was discussing the gas prices with a friend today, and I said in passing "And now Congress is trying to pass a bill that will make gas even more expensive." Friend: "How?" Me: "Well, somehow, by charging a company more money, they will charge the consumer less." I don't understand this at all. This isn't logic; it's madness! Who comes up with this stuff?

Capitalism is incredibly simple. Anyone with a brainstem and a basic high school education of the economy should be able to get it: supply and demand. If something is needed, demand, then it is produced by someone, supply. The supply is priced by the amount a consumer is willing to pay for the good. In today's global economy, the price of oil is not quite as simple, but still remains within this basic framework. The difference is that "futures," a tool used to predict a commodity's worth in the future, allows speculators to basically bet on how much oil will be worth. This is currently causing prices to rise.

But futures are not a cause of prices, they are an indicator. While they can temporarily inflate prices, the market (and the supply/demand system) cannot support skyrocketing prices based purely on speculation. The reason oil is over $130/barrel is because people will pay that much for it. I realize gas is ludicrously expensive here, at $4.25 down the street in upstate New York, but I haven't noticed any less volume on the streets. People are still going to work; people are still going to sporting events and fairs; people are still going to see Indiana Jones, Sex and the City, and Ironman. Sure, everyone is making adjustments, but the market can support these high prices. Where will people stop driving altogether? My guess is when gas ends up costing more than people can afford with a paycheck. Then people will stop buying gas, and companies will stop buying oil. Prices will drop.

But how do we make prices drop now, for our convenience? Capitalism tells us to increase supply. And how can this be done? Easily. In fact, writing a simple piece of legislation would do the trick: Allow us to drill on American soil NOW! It is absolutely ridiculous that we cannot drill our own oil for our own people. There are no adverse consequences to be concerned about. Clinton/Gore said that drilling in ANWR back in the 90s wouldn't do any good, because it would take ten years to get into circulation. Well it's been ten years, and look at where we are! Maybe it will take ten years from now, but who's to say gas won't be $6, $7, or $10 per gallon by then?

If we drill here in the U.S., gas could (gradually) drop in price to mayabe under $3, or even (gasp!) $2 per gallon. It is such a simple solution. It will not ravage our landscape or destroy our planet. Oil is the only viable energy source we have right now, so let the companies drill it on their own dime and get it to us! It's a win-win-win-win.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wants to go after the oil futures, as I described above. But this will drive them to unregulated markets like Dubai, which is catching up to New York very quickly (due in no small part to its lack of rules). This would put crucial futures (vis a vis, oil) in the hands of a competitive Middle Eastern economy, one that Schumer himself claimed is a threat to the New York Stock Exchange.

The liberal solutions to the energy crisis are so complex and high-minded so as to confuse you into believing them. It isn't about fancy words like "commodity futures" or "windfall profits taxes," it's about supply and demand. Increase supply to match an increasing demand. That is a real solution to a very real problem. Liberals aren't about solving this energy crisis, they just want to scare you into more government dependence. And they want to use the political capital from this to force oil companies either out of business or into government dependence as well. That's what every liberal policy results in: more government in your pocket and your lives!

Vote conservative. Vote for real change. And vote for domestic drilling now!

This week I got a chance to see Michael Moore's latest award-less documentary, SiCKO. It details the plight of American healthcare, calling for universal, government-paid healthcare for everyone. He spends the first half of his movie discussing the way insurance companies screw most of their applicants out of coverage, then the second half exploring foreign universal systems in Canada, Great Britain, France, and Cuba.

Of course, it is the Republican Party's fault for this disaster: Richard Nixon's administration started the HMO system in which companies have a financial incentive not to insure people; George W. Bush signed a prescription drug bill that resulted in costlier pills.

I'm not going to argue that our healthcare system is fine. It is a mess. No hospital should have to turn away a patient with a sawed-off finger or a tumor just because they don't have coverage. But in today's system, they have to, because there is no way to be sure they will be able to pay for their treatments. But I do not believe a universal system is a viable answer in American society.

I admit, universal healthcare systems are amazing. I like them. I wish we had one. Just imagine, walking into a hospital for anything for free at any time of day. But the thing is, we can't afford it in this country.

In Europe, people get taxed obscene amounts of their salary, rarely blow 50% and usually around 60-70%. Furthermore, their populations are a fraction of the U.S.'s, so to guarantee their people healthcare is much easier. If America taxed that much, our healthcare system would be absolutely incredible. But I do not want the government taking that much money, and most Americans agree with me. No one will get elected if they campaign on raising the taxes enough to pay for a universal healthcare system.

I believe the solution, as it always has been in the U.S., is capitalism. Look at dentists. Dentists are not in the HMO world. Granted, they don't deal with life-threatening diagnoses or treatments, but it is an interesting case study. Dentists are free to set whatever price they feel is fair and charge it. You give them your credit card and you pay. It's like buying anything else. (Insurance will cover dentistry in some cases, but they simply sign a check; you are free to choose any dentist.) Dentists have to compete for customers, and therefore price accordingly.

Doctors do not have this luxury. They are told which patients they will get by insurance companies, and to go to a specialist requires time-consuming referrals and other paperwork. Care is costly and inefficient. I see no reason why we can't have a free enterprise system in healthcare like we do in all of our other industries.

When you are only taxing the public between 20-30% of over 300 million people, there is no way to afford a healthcare system that will be on par with private doctors as far as care quality. I see nothing wrong with a healthcare system for people who can't afford care, much like a type of welfare, but to guarantee free healthcare for everyone is just impractical.

I also do not understand this conclusion that the government must guarantee healthcare. What makes it different from other necessities? The government doesn't guarantee housing or food for every American. These are just as essential to life in this country. The idea that this is necessary I believe is just wrong.

Liberals know they cannot set up a healthcare system right now with the tax dollars coming in. The goal is not decent care, it's more control. Call me a selfish jerk, but I do not want my tax money paying for some idiot who skateboards off the side of a building. Would I want my tax money paying for a hard working American family father who has a tumor? Probably. But it's not the government's place to tell me that I have to. And believe you me, once universal healthcare is created, the road will begin toward the elimination of free enterprise and, as the goal always is with liberal government, higher taxes.

As far as prescription drugs go, I think it's troubling when drugs here are hundreds of dollars for 30 pills, but any quantity of any pill is £6.65 in the U.K. Yes, I believe in competition, but pharmaceutical companies don't compete. They race to find a drug first, then sell it for as much as they can. This is not fair, and it is not competition. I believe drug patents should be dropped to 1-2 years, so that they have that much time to be rewarded for the invention of a drug. After that, all companies should have access to the formula, be able to produce it, and compete for the lowest cost. Seems like a reasonable solution to me, and gasp! It means changing an existing law rather than adding ten new ones.

The system sucks. There is a problem. But universal healthcare is not the answer. In the end, Moore's film isn't about healthcare, it's about government control. It's about how America sucks. And his anti-Americanism makes me sick. Our country has problems, but they can all be solved with less government rather than more.

Let's sit down and make some common-sense solutions with the money we have, rather than try to expand the government so much that it collapses upon itself and becomes the failures of Medicaid and Medical in New York and California, which have forced both states into billions of dollars in debt.

Let's put real competition back into the healthcare system.

I took a little walk earlier this week to clear my head about some things, and as always, my brain took me to politics. When confused about something abstract, like a relationship or emotions, the mind will almost invariably settle on something that, to you, makes perfect sense. For me, that is politics; it gave me something concrete to hold on to in the middle of some confusion.

As I was walking around the campus at night, I noticed all of the orange lights they have lighting the paths. The new area, however, has white lights. Personally, I think white lights look a lot better than orange ones, but orange ones are far more common. I was thinking to myself, why? They may be cheaper, use less energy, something like that, but I jokingly thought, "It's probably just another liberal conspiracy."

But as I thought this, I began to explore this sentiment a bit more seriously. Obviously, the orange lights themselves (I don't think) are a liberal conspiracy, but how many things have liberals forced us out of or into using?

Liberals are the ones telling us what light bulbs we can use; what cars to drive; what to set our thermostat at; what pesticides we can use (DDT was banned, resulting in the deaths of millions around the world); how to dry our hands in the bathroom (I don't know one person who enjoys using an air drier); what textbooks to use; where we can or cannot smoke; what pictures we can have in our lockers; how much money you're allowed to make; what healthcare provider you're allowed to have; what type of gun you can own, and where you can own it; what size toilets we need to have; how much you should pay your employees; the necessity to wear a seat belt in your own car; how a town can punish its criminals. I am all for sensible regulation: I agree with speed limits (or at least their concept, they are too low because of liberals who wanted to limit gas usage during the oil crisis 30 years ago), prevention of monopolies, and monitoring of the workplace. But liberals have forced so much upon us, and wish to force more.

Being (I hope) a well-rounded political analyst, I of course turned to the conservative side. When have we ever tried to force things upon the American public? I can think of two things: making abortion illegal and preventing gay marriage. I can also think of a liberal citing the Iraq War, which I'll discuss momentarily. As far as abortion and gay marriage, these are specifically defined by our Constitution and law as wrong. The Constitution guarantees life to every citizen; by condoning abortion, the government violates this most important right given from God. Marriage is also defined as a union between a man and a woman by the Defense of Marriage Act, passed with bipartisan (shudder) support in the 1990s (this isn't some "archaic" concept from hundreds of years ago that needs to adapt, it is a modern perspective).

As far as the Iraq War, the idea that liberating 40 million people from the grip of a power-hungry dictator is "force" is just wrong. "Forcing democracy" is an oxymoron: people naturally want to be free and govern themselves. By giving them democracy, we are giving them the ability to be self-sustaining. It was Saddam Hussein torturing dissidents, his brothers torturing the Olympic teams for losing; we're building them a Parliament building so that they can express their views and govern together! If that's not freedom, and if that's force, the world really doesn't make sense to me anymore. (Why we chose Iraq over other nations is another argument for another day.)

So what's my point? Liberalism is about force. It is about knowing what's better for you, and therefore making you do it. If you think about it, it is elitist in nature. By banning smoking in entire cities, they are saying they know what's better for you. They are trying to ban it in your house to protect your children: We know how to raise your children better than you. They know how much a worker deserves to be paid, and can judge that better than you. They know you'll be better off with your seatbelt on, so they pass a law saying what you must do inside your own car. (Many might point and shout at me, "But you are!" Yes, maybe so. But it's not your job to tell me that. I can decide for myself.) If you're rich, you should either give your money to charity or the government, because making hundreds of millions a year is just "unfair." If you're poor, you shouldn't have to work, the government will take care of you. Liberals know what's better for the planet, and are saying that all car companies in the U.S. should have average fuel economies above 30 mpg in the next five to ten years (INSANITY!). In related news, trust us, CFL's are better than incandescents, we're going to make them illegal.

Conservatism is about freedom. We don't pretend to know what's better for you. The reason we want to "force" the banning of abortion and gay marriage is because these are things deemed completely illegal and just wrong by U.S. law and the morals we were founded on. (As a federalist, however, I believe it is up to the individual states to decide these issues via public referendum.) What you want to do in your own house or car is your business: as conservatives, we trust American individuals as good people that will make the smart choice. Of course, not everyone will, and once harm is inflicted on another it is the duty of the government to intervene. But every individual deserves that chance. Regulation is one thing; stepping in and forcing someone's hand is another. Conservatives seek to elevate the individual at the bottom, not take down the individual at the top. By cutting taxes on the wealthy, a stronger economy will present more opportunities for those below. We give the people more freedom, less government.

America was founded on conservatism. The entire purpose of creating our nation was to rid ourselves of a tyrranous, liberal government. Liberalism, to a certain degree, is un-American in that it seeks to use the government to control multiple aspects of people's lives. That is why I'm a conservative, and that is why I believe conservatism will always prevail in this country. All it takes is a good leader and speaker to state the obvious: America is the greatest country in the world, and I want to continue the tradition of greatness. People like John Kerry can't beat people like George Bush by insulting America; the same goes for Barack Obama. None of the current candidates are saying that, and it's a problem that people like me have to deal with. Hopefully soon another man like Ronald Reagan or even George W. Bush will return and say, America is great. America is conservative. And only then, will America be truly free.

As the national average of gasoline soars yet again, approaching new records over $3.20, the complaining also ensues to new heights. Every time you turn on the news, they are discussing the high gas prices and the murder at the pump. Some say they are being robbed, and blame can be laid on pretty much anyone.

But I am sick of hearing Democrats complain about high gas prices. In fact, I am implementing a new rule: Democrats, you are not allowed to whine and moan about high gas prices ever again, at least until you get your fuel policies in order.

There are a handful of reasons for this rule, and I am using only the things Democrats claim about themselves:

1. Democrats are the party of progress, and energy is one area that they believe needs more progress than other, less important issues (like better armor for our troops, for example). Clinton, Obama, and even McCain (he's an honorary Democrat) have pledged investing in the research for renewable resources. Don't high gas prices create an even greater incentive to do this? Won't it influence public opinion to push toward other sources of energy? They should be enjoying the high gas prices. It will simply limit the amount people drive, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It works in Europe, why not try it here? In all honesty, that is a legitimate argument if you really want to get people to stop driving. So go ahead, argue tha we're going to tax the hell out of gas just to get you on the subway. But do NOT claim that a) companies are stealing honest Americans' money and b) that gas prices are too high.

2. Representative John Dingle (D-no idea), chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, has proposed a 50-cent tax on every gallon of gas in the country. This brings us to the whole tax issue. Democrats like to blame all the high gas prices on the big companies like Chevron or Exxon. They claim that they are stealing our money and must be broken up. But in reality, these companies never make more than a nickel in net profit from each gallon. (The reason their profits are so high each year is because that is a TON of nickels.) In fact, Gannett Publishing, parent company of USA Today (which, ironically, voices concerns about high gas prices), has a profit margin roughly ten times that of Exxon Mobil. Why isn't the government stepping in to lower the cost of their papers? Taxes account for 30-40 cents of each gallon, depending on which state you live in; that translates into roughly ten times the amount the oil companies make. It's the government robbing you at the pump, not the corporation. Because Democrats favor higher taxes, and most of these taxes were introduced and passed by them, they caused these high prices and should therefore not complain. Unless, of course, they want to repent.

3. Democrats have prevented the construction of a new refinery in this country for decades. The most modern one was constructed in 1972. They are inefficient and dirty. But because of their opposition to common sense, Democrats won't allow new, more efficient ones to be built due to environmental and progressive energy reasons. Per gallon of gas, over $1.25 goes to the refining process. This could be reduced drastically by building new and better refineries.

4. Democrats oppose the drilling for oil in the Alaskan Natural Wildlife Refuge (pictured). There is no logical reason for this. ANWR is not the Yosemite Park they make it out to be; it resembles the surface of the moon. There are centuries of oil supply underneath this one spot, but they'd prefer to allow a couple blades of grass live undisturbed than to facilitate lower gas prices to aid hard-working Americans. Not only do they oppose this drilling, but they also clamor for our independence from foreign oil. MAKE UP YOUR MIND!! Or just shut up and let the adults work in peace.

Several studies have conclued that there are over 5000 years of oil left on this planet, even if we account for the exponential increase in consumption we are seeing. The "years left" figure is only based on known reserves, which is constantly growing as we discover new sources. It has fluctuated between 30 and 60 years left ever since oil became such a huge commodity.

So Democrats, or any Republicans who agree with them for that matter, you are not allowed to complain about high gas prices anymore. If you agree that a) companies are stealing your money at the pump; b) global warming is being caused by our cars; or c) that higher taxes are a good thing, then you are responsible for those high taxes and therefore should be celebrating. Thank you.

Change we can believe in!

Yes we can!

Hope!

The chorus of support for Barack Obama, becoming more and more ridiculous and widespread over the past few weeks, sounds great. Who isn't against any of the 3 slogans above? But before Americans choose someone they want to be the leader of the free world, we must ask ourselves: what does he really mean?

I believe the support for Barack Obama is a religious, faith-based delusion. Somehow, a junior senator from Illinois is going to magically fix every problem this country has. Somehow, his mere presence will cause terrorists and foreign dictators to bow down to us and apologize, offering olive branches instead of bullets.

The problem with support for Obama is that it is not based in any logical thought process. When asked to name a legislative achievement by Barack by Chris Matthews, one of his campaign staffers couldn't! If a staffer can't, how can the millions who shout "yes we can" more fervently than terrorists shout "Allahu akbar"?

I was recently discussing this with a friend who supports Obama, and I expressed my doubts of his electability when I explained that liberalism is very unpopular in America. He says to me, "Liberalism isn't running though. Change is." So I asked him to define that change. He begins rattling off the typical clauses of universal health care, ending the war, re-initiating "diplomacy", and expanding social security/welfare. Then I proceeded to ask, "how is that not liberalism again?" Barack has voted with his party on 97% of votes in the Senate. That is higher than most of the Senate Democrats. The idea that he has (or will) "reach across the aisle" is unfounded. If you want someone who will work both parties, vote for John McCain, who has actually written major legislation with ranking Democrats such as Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy.

Obama supporters can't be turned from him through logical argument because there is no logical explanation for their support. Somehow, Barack found himself on the crest of a movement, and his campaign has wisely decided to play along. He has no legislative success or any experience whatsoever to speak of. He is a liberal, but is very well-spoken and articulate and careful to avoid this. (In fact, he stated his opposition to being termed a "liberal" recently.) It is because he knows that through his words, he can fool voters into thinking he is a man of the people, when he really is just another liberal Democrat politician trying to install socialism on this country.

Will Barack win? I cannot say. He may still not even get the nomination. But his entire campaign and candidacy are completely delusional, and so are the majority of his supporters. Hope and change are not reasons to elect someone; issues are. And when it comes down to the general election, hopefully McCain can expose Obama for the uber-liberal and socialist he truly is. It will not be easy to overcome the image, but it can be done.

The invasion of the compact fluorescent continues, along with the absolute madness of trying to remove the incandescent bulb from circulation. Liberal state governments are now proving their commitment to invading your own privacy over your health.

Several states have banned or are beginning to ban the traditional disposal of these compact fluorescent bulbs. It is now illegal in Vermont, Minnesota, California, and soon Massachusetts to throw them in the garbage, even if they are intact, due to environmental impact. These bulbs contain mercury, an element when in gaseous form is very dangerous.

Granted, the mercury levels are so small that even if one breaks in your house, you are probably not in any real danger. But I find it unbelievable that states and nations are beginning to mandate the use of these bulbs over incandescents.

These bulbs save, at the highest estimate, $30 a year on energy costs. When a woman broke one in her house last year and in fear for her children called her local EPA administration, she had to pay $4000 out of pocket to have her house decontaminated by a HAZMAT team. It would take her over 130 years to pay back that in energy savings.

Illinois and the U.K. are beginning to make it illegal to use incandescent bulbs, and the U.S. Congress are pushing a similar initiative. So let me get this straight. The government is forcing us to use a light bulb that they have deemed too dangerous to throw away? "It's fine to use in your house, as long as it doesn't make it to a garbage dump and kill some grass!"

Compact fluorescents have been proven to cause migraines and epileptic seizures, not to mention the dangers of tubes of vaporized mercury hanging throughout your house.

These bulbs will also be difficult to implement everywhere. Theaters and studios will never use fluorescent bulbs. Vanities and greenrooms won't use them either. Oh yeah, I forgot, Hollywood gets a pass as long as they say they "care."

I'll replace my bulbs with compact fluorescents the day late-night studios, Broadway theaters, and gaffers (film light designers) replace all of theirs, let alone the residences of every actor.

Will the craziness stop? It's invasive (and scientifically worthless) laws like this, the gas mileage cap, and others that will end up destroying this nation's and this world's economy. Instead of wasting money and jobs on punishing good services that may (or may not!) be contributing to environmental dangers, we should use this money far more wisely on preparing parts of the world without infrastructure for the changes (not all bad, by the way) to come.

Get real, politicians.

"Put that shotgun away, this is a gun-free zone!"

Something tells me that shouting these words at a crazed lunatic pointing a firearm at your face would not be very effective. But unfortunately, this is really the only defense teachers and students have against any armed offender on most college campuses.

After a sexual assault of a SLU student, I wrote an article in our University News making the case for concealed-carry on campus. It received mixed results: people I barely knew bothered to look me up on Facebook and send me messages of approval, while some friends came to think of me as a psycho advocate of violence. One of the arguments against my case is that our Department of Public Safety (basically campus security) should be the only individuals allowed to carry guns on campus because of their "experience" and training. Since then, there was an armed robbery literally in the parking lot of an on-campus apartment building and a mugging; the bank in the middle of our crowded student center was robbed as well.

DPS does not have the presence to protect students at all times. It simply does not have an adequate force. SLU is a university of over 10,000 students; hundreds of classes are going on all day. Unsecured buildings with thousands of individuals all within a few blocks of each other, and everyone knows not ONE of them has a way to protect themselves: sounds like a good target for a psychopath to me.

These college shootings are an incredible tragedy, but the real tragedy is that they could be so easily prevented. If one in ten students here at SLU legally owned a handgun (which is legal under state law at age 21) and had the proper training to use it, no one would have anything to fear of a shootout like this. These shooters have time to reload their weapons! They just stand in one place and pull the trigger; the only thing the victims can do is run or hide.

I get so angry and frustrated when this happens, because it is so easily prevented. It is such a cliche that is made fun of all the time, but it is most certainly true: guns do not kill people. People do. And guns are one of the most effective tools we have to protect ourselves. This "feel-good" policy of banning every gun from campus is unrealistic, absurd, illegal, but most importantly, dangerous.

The day every gun is removed from the evil people in our society that wish to do us harm, then I'll consider supporting gun control. But that is not the reality: putting guns in the hands of law-abiding students will only make campuses safer.

Being a very opinionated and proud conservative (as you all know and love me), I like to post certain examples of conservative writing (by both myself and authors far greater than I) on my door. Like the point of this blog, it is to simply get my points out there; if one person reads it and even has a spark of new thought, I think it's worth it.

But coming back from class today, I was greeted by my articles torn and crumpled on the floor in the hallway around my door. And it was that moment that I truly experienced the essence of a liberal.

I often read articles by uber-conservatives, more for fun than anything else, like Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck. Oftentimes, these articles are high on exaggeration and low on fact (although, of course, not always). One of Coulter's fortes is to generalize liberals into a bunch of scheming, idiotic little brats that will silence intelligent debate at any opportunity. Of course, this is far from accurate, but today I found it to be much closer than previously thought.

When minutemen (vigilante border patrolmen) from Arizona were speaking at Columbia University, they were shouted off the stage in the middle of the speech by the liberal student crowd. In Arizona, Ann Coulter had a pie thrown at her by a student (whom, she fondly remembers, threw like a girl). In the days preceding the Republican National Convention in 2004, a high-ranking official in New York City government encouraged New Yorkers to participate in (and forewarned convention-goers of) misleading directions, verbal abuse, and even "garbage thrown in their direction".

I realize that this is hardly indicative of all liberals. I have a great friend, just as educated in general and in politics as I am, with very liberal viewpoints. But he is exactly like me in that his debates or coherent, calm, intelligent, and well-thought-out. It is not liberals like him tearing articles off of doors.

But as my experiences grow beyond my little wealthy suburban/private school sphere, I find that the majority of liberals are this way. It is a shame, ruining the credibility of both their own views and the intelligent people that defend them.

I have not decided if I should continue posting articles or if I should post a sign, or leave it blank altogether. Why waste paper when my mouth, the University News, and this very site are all ample opportunities for me to get my points out there?

Long live free speech, and long live conservatism.