I was thinking about our energy situation the other day, and how Republicans seem to be the only ones that are for any solution at all. Let’s review what the Democrats have been against as far as energy solutions, even though they claim to be the party of alternative energy.

1) Wind. Granted, there are definitely some Democrats in favor of wind power. There are also many environmentalists (beholden to the Democrat party) that oppose expansion of wind energy. Most cite interference with bird migration patterns and bird deaths. Robert Kennedy, Jr., and John Kerry both killed a proposal to build a wind farm off the coast in Nantucket Sound that would have supplied a ton of clean, renewable energy to Massachusetts. Windmills must be too unsightly for them when they’re cruising around on their yachts?

2) Hydroelectric. Dams are one of the better and more reliable sources of renewable energy. Not only that, but they also create reservoirs which can help the local economy with fishing and recreational activities. Democrats also block these opportunities, such as a recent case in California. Democrats in the state Legislature cited that there are other ways to meet California’s water and electricity needs … such as conservation. In a state with that many people, I hardly think that shutting the water off when Californians brush their teeth and keeping plasma TV watching time to one hour each day will solve their energy/water needs.

3) Solar. This is probably my favorite example. We have the massive desert region known as the Mojave Desert, which consists of vast expanses of land in California, Utah, Nevada and Arizona. Several solar energy companies have been working to turn a 500,000 acre expanse of the desert into a huge solar farm that would supply millions with clean, renewable energy. Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California opposes this and has proposed legislation to make the whole desert a national monument, rendering it untouchable by solar energy companies. They cite concerns over tortoise populations. If we can’t build a solar farm in a DESERT, then where else in the country could we expect to do so?

4) Nuclear. Many people get nervous when it comes to nuclear energy, and visions like the Chernobyl incident in the Ukraine flash into people’s minds. The reality is that nuclear technology has progressed a lot since that time, and we use much safer methods. Chernobyl enriched their uranium to a more explosive and dangerous level (around 14 percent, if I remember correctly from chemistry). Nuclear plants now enrich to a much safer level, around three to five percent, according to the United States Regulatory Commission. Democrats oppose nuclear energy at almost every turn.

5) Clean Coal. Democrats themselves can’t agree on clean coal, mainly because it stems from a fossil fuel. Clean coal technology drastically reduces the so-called “greenhouse gases” emitted by coal plants that produce electricity, which should alleviate some environmental concerns Democrats have…yet they still can’t fully support use of any source of energy that involves fossil fuels.

All this opposition, when coupled with opposition to increased oil drilling, carbon taxes on citizens (the cap-and-trade program, which will increase energy costs by an estimated 43 percent!) and opposition to increased domestic refining capacity leads me to this one question: what are Democrats suggesting we use for energy? There are not many other options left once we take all those options off the table, and other solutions are not very feasible everywhere in the country.

So unless we’re all going to ride our unicorns to work under the rainbows-and-butterflies-approach to energy the Democrats have, perhaps we need to look at some of the solutions Republicans have been proposing and take all the environmental alarmist talk with a few grains of salt.

Personal responsibility. I’m not sure anybody knows what that means anymore. Placing blame on others when bad things happen seems to be the norm. We see it every day on TV: when something happens, everyone freaks out, looking for someone to blame, regardless if someone is at fault or not. Lawsuits are a multi-billion dollar industry in our country, and it gets worse every day. Each time a suit is settled, precedent is set that creates fodder for lawyers to make even more ridiculous arguments in the future, which prompts organizations, individuals, companies, etc., to conjure up liability forms. These liability forms essentially boil down to “Hey, if you hurt yourself, it’s your fault, not ours.”

The promise of a monetary settlement is very tempting for some people when in reality no one can really be blamed but the person filing the suit. We’ve all heard the story of the woman who dropped hot coffee on her lap at McDonald’s. Whose fault is that? It’s common sense that coffee is hot, so be careful! It’s not McDonald’s fault, but because of the suit, now companies everywhere put disclaimers on everything, letting us know that the hot coffee is HOT.

Here are some other examples:

- A lady in Detroit sued her employer because her coworker’s perfume was too overpowering. A federal judge allowed this suit to go forward. Where’s the personal responsibility? Take the initiative and talk with the person whose perfume is bothering you. How is that the employer’s fault?

- When you throw your Wii remote into your new plasma TV, ask yourself: is this Nintendo’s fault or should I just be more careful next time? Nintendo was sued by a few people who felt it was Nintendo’s fault and did not take personal responsibility for their actions.

- A kid sued his teacher for waking him up in class, citing “hearing problems” due to the noise that woke him up.

As crazy as some of these lawsuits are, the mere fact that some of them were allowed in court gives organizations pause, as the possibility of going to court for something stupid is still a court appearance and will cost money, so organizations have to take steps to protect themselves from these things. Some activities may not even take place because they are deemed too much of a liability risk, eliminating the possibility of participating in fun things that we were once able to.

The worst cases are those that emerge from a situation where no one is at fault. For example, look at the U.S. Airways flight that went down in the Hudson River. The pilot performed magnificently: he successfully landed the plane in the water and everyone survived. All this was the fault of some geese that flew into both engines, something that was out of everyone’s control. Already there are some lawsuits against U.S. Airways, citing emotional damages and nervousness during flying after the accident. The plane going down was no fault of U.S. Airways. In fact, if they hadn’t trained their pilots so well and communicated with the harbor rescue perfectly, most likely everyone on that flight would have died in a crash or of hypothermia in the river.

Suing should be reserved for when someone has truly wronged you, not serve as compensation for something that is either someone’s own personal fault or the result of something out of everyone’s control. Accidents happen; that’s just a reality of life, and closure should not come about through use of a lawsuit against someone who is not truly at fault.

You want to talk about change? Let’s reform our legal system so that it punishes legitimate wrongdoers rather than creating a society of victimization and blame for monetary gain.

Freedom. Such a simple word, yet one that has had such a resounding impact on the world. Wars have been fought over that word, and many men and women have died in the name of freedom. A simple word, yet near impossible to define.

How would you define freedom? Does it mean doing whatever you please without anyone stopping you? Does it mean being free to choose your own destiny for yourself? Being able to decide the fate of your pregnancy? Protecting an unborn child’s chance for a free life of its own? Perhaps having the freedom to make something of yourself by starting a small business free from mounds of paperwork and government interference?

Whatever your definition of freedom, a small government-as opposed to our newly elected administration and Congress-is a government that will maximize your freedoms. Sure the power shift in our country offers extended abortion freedoms, gay marriage freedoms, possibly some legalized drug freedoms ? but say those of you who champion those issues get your way, then what? Aside from freedom in social issues, there is very little promise of additional freedoms ? only more regulations, stipulations, lack of choice in medical care, reduced gun rights/self protection rights, more loopholes for lawyers to take advantage of and create more of the asinine lawsuits we hear about all the time, more tax burdens reducing personal economic freedom, etc.

Our new administration promises to better all our lives and improve the human condition for all of us. Sounds great, but there are few actions of government that can pull us out of all our individual problems ? only you can do that, and you should be free to do so! Government exists to protect us from each other and to help those who cannot help themselves. An increase in the ability of government to do things for you (through increased taxes, regulations) equals a decrease in your ability to do things for yourself and choose your own path (less freedom for you).

With a small and open government, it’s easier to trust government to do the right thing with the power they have, while at the same time maximizing our freedoms in most other aspects of our lives. Big government fears the people, because the more you tell people what to do, the more disgruntled individuals there will be. Small government is more responsible to you and me, because maximizing our individual freedoms with a small government leaves us free to keep watch over the government and call them out when they do not carry out properly or ethically the few responsibilities that we have entrusted to them.

There’s a famous quote: “The government big enough to give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you have.” Keep that in mind, otherwise you may find yourself sacrificing your personal freedoms to a government that may or may not provide you with an acceptable equivalent.

Feel free to contact the author at bwlindstrom@jacks.sdstate.edu.

I think there are some serious misconceptions out there about the Republican Party and conservatism. One of the worst misinterpretations of conservative tenants is the perception that we could care less about the poor. Conventional wisdom out there in liberal land tells you that Republicans love stomping on the poor with the proverbial boot of big businesses. Nothing could be further from the truth, but our methodology is not as obvious as getting a check in the mail.

First, Republicans are pro-business for a reason: successful businesses help everyone out, including the poor. We have an economic system where all the businesses are fighting to give you what you want, when you want it, and at the lowest possible cost so more people buy their stuff over the competitor’s. Having the necessities of life at a minimal price helps the poor greatly. If you’re poor, Wal-Mart is your best friend. Dollars saved here and there add up quickly.

Second, companies provide tons of jobs for everyone to help poverty and unemployment at a minimum. I know many of you work at Daktronics. Having that big company right here in tiny Brookings is a great source of jobs for the poor (a.k.a. college students) to help them make ends meet. Liberals would have you think Daktronics is rich and evil and that they need to be taxed as much as possible. The corporate tax rate in the United States is 39 percent. Just think how many more jobs Daktronics could afford and provide if they could make 39 percent more? Companies expand and reap greater profits through hiring additional people to get more things done. Also, look what companies have been able to do for us. Through their millions of investors and customers, they have been able to accomplish unimaginable things for the benefit of all.

Take Verizon Wireless, for example. Last year they spent over a billion dollars on network improvements alone (or 14 dollars for each of their 70.8 million customers), allowing people to communicate from almost anywhere in America. If you get caught in a blizzard and call 911, your phone will communicate with a satellite in outer space, which can then tell dispatchers where you are within one foot. All that at the lowest possible cost to all of us. Taxing companies more hinders the ability for them to provide services like that and provide work for Americans.

Probably the most important way that conservatives care for the poor is how we choose to help them out. We actually like handouts to the needy just like our liberal friends; the difference is that we believe it’s our responsibility as individuals to help our neighbors out. Sure it’s easy to just raise taxes on the rich to help the poor, where we give the government ten dollars for one dollar worth of benefit. Let me keep that ten dollars and I’ll go over and drop it in the Children’s Miracle Network box in The Union. We know our neighbors and friends way better than any government entity, so who is best suited to help them out – the government or us? When I’m having a tough time, I talk to my friends and family instead of calling congressmen. If you’re hit with hard times, what’s going to give you a better, more positive outlook on life: a big check in the mail or a big spaghetti fundraiser with all of your friends and family there to help you pay for your chemotherapy? We need to help each other out, not look to a bloated, inefficient government to do it for us.

Contact the writer at bwlindstrom@jacks.sdstate.edu.

Change: We’ve heard that word so many times this election we’re ready to puke. Obviously, we need something different from what we currently have, what with a presidential approval in the low 30s and a Congress with an absolutely dismal approval rating of nine percent. But in these rough times, I would ask you to think very carefully about what kind of change you want. There’s a difference between radical change and real change. I think most of America’s frustrations stem from the fact that the people we send to Washington to run our country don’t reflect what we believe. Let me throw some numbers at you:

-57 percent of the country would prefer less government services and lower taxes.

-72 percent of Americans think that people moving to this country should adopt our culture.

-69 percent of Americans feel the income tax system is unfair in that it taxes earnings rather than spending.

-62 percent of Americans feel the country is fair and decent compared to 27 percent feeling it is unfair and discriminatory.

Looking at these polls (all done by Rasmussen), I don’t see anything in Barack Obama’s liberal agenda that falls in with what mainstream America believes. Conservatives and Republicans stand with the country on those issues. Here are some areas where we Republicans and conservatives feel change is desperately needed.

Some high schools will spend a week teaching you how to put a condom on (the directions are on the wrapper), but will barely give two weeks to fiscal responsibility-God forbid an entire YEAR-teaching students incredibly important real-world things like how to do your taxes, manage a personal budget and use credit responsibly. And everyone wonders why we have a 10 trillion dollar national debt and we’re in the middle of a financial crisis. Nobody knows how to manage money responsibly! I guess that English class semester on Greek mythology was more important. Speaking of fiscal responsibility, maybe we should send our bills to Washington D.C.? Ridiculous suggestion, but where do we draw the line on bailouts? Oh wait; there shouldn’t be a line, because there’s no place in the constitution that says it is government’s responsibility to give money to companies when they’re having trouble. That would be liberal, activist lawyers/judges who have milked the “general welfare” clause of the constitution for all it’s worth.

Why is a picture of Jesus in a flask of urine (“P*ss Christ” by Andres Serrano) award-winning art, yet a political cartoon of Muhammad with a bomb for a turban is completely taboo? Both are figureheads of widely followed religions, but with the liberal agenda, Jesus degradation equals free speech. Muhammad degradation equals offensive and divisive.

Education is key in our country. America spends the most money in the world on education but with mediocre results. Why? I’ve had some incredible professors, and I want their pay to reflect that. Keeping lax educators in the system (thanks to Obama-supporting teachers’ unions) just drags down pay and incentives for quality educators and robs students of the best instructors they could possibly get. When did teachers’ job security and tenure become more important than student success and quality education?

I agree, this country does need change, but I believe us conservatives reflect the attitudes of the country as a whole and offer real solutions and the right change to get this country heading the right way.

As a senator representing the College of Arts and Science, I want to bring to your attention a policy that Sen. Ryan Stee and I have been pursuing here at SDSU. Last spring, we presented and passed a Students’ Association Senate resolution in support of establishing a Good Samaritan Alcohol Policy (GSAP) on SDSU’s campus.

What exactly is a GSAP, you ask? Put simply, a GSAP encourages students to notify emergency officials about a friend who is dangerously intoxicated by exempting those students from judicial action because they themselves were involved in alcohol policy violations. Alcohol poisoning is a serious problem, and students who are not 21 might choose to let their friend “sleep it off” rather than call an ambulance or the University Police Department, when in reality their friend has a good chance of never waking up.

Some say that UPD already basically follows this policy, but having the policy codified in the student handbook is the only way to be sure students know exactly what to expect and remove self-incrimination fears from their minds. I want to stress that this is not in any way a “get of jail free” card. Students found to be in an illegal situation would, per state law, need to have some action taken. A GSAP would keep these actions as minimal and confidential as possible and not have any bearing on acceptance into professional programs at SDSU. Some alcohol classes or counseling may be examples of action that can be taken.

Several colleges have established GSAPs, including Cornell University and the University of Northern Iowa. Cornell gives a great example of the effectiveness of GSAP. Since GSAP’s inception, Cornell has seen a twofold increase in alcohol-related 911 calls, but rates of alcohol abuse remained steady, showing that a GSAP really encourages students to make the call, but at the same time, does not foster additional alcohol abuse.

A Good Samaritan Alcohol policy is both a reactive and proactive approach towards fighting alcohol poisoning. Not only does it help guarantee assistance for students that truly need it, GSAP also works to fight long-term abuse. Even if a student wasn’t in grave danger, the simple fact that his or her friends were that concerned about them to call for help might make students who drink to excess seriously reconsider their habits before things go even farther the next time.

Coupled with readily available information on alcohol and other proactive solutions, a Good Samaritan Alcohol Policy will help curb the problem of alcohol poisoning, maximize safety for SDSU students and keep SDSU students out of the obituary column because of an alcohol-related death that could have been prevented by taking them to the hospital rather than their dorm room.

Contact the author at bwlindstrom@jacks.sdstate.edu.

Who would have thought that a former mayor of a town smaller than Brookings could be on a presidential ticket? John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin of Alaska surprised everyone, including Palin’s family. She fishes, snowmobiles, has a pilot’s license and hunts. As Sen. Fred Thompson put it at the GOP convention, “She is the only nominee in the history of either party who knows how to properly field dress a moose . . .” Palin was mayor of Wasilla for six years and governor of Alaska for two, so why do I think she’s actually qualified to be on this presidential ticket? I’m not saying that she has tons of experience, but neither does Barack Obama. His experience amounts to maneuvering his way to success in the very corrupt Chicago political system, being a state legislator and Illinois senator for two years and announcing his candidacy for president after 143 days in the Senate. And remember: he’s running for the top dog position.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, has more executive experience than all of the rest of the tickets combined. It’s easy for Obama, McCain and Biden to sit and debate legislation and cast their vote, passing laws and resolutions. Well, someone has to make those things happen, and that person is Sarah Palin. That’s what executive experience is: execution of laws and orders. Talking big is easy, but actually making things happen is a great deal more difficult.

Not only does Palin have more executive experience, but the McCain/Palin ticket truly represents the ticket of change and Washington shakeup. Look at Obama/Biden. Sure, Obama would be the first African American, which is definitely change, but he proposes a return to ’70s style nanny-state government that no amount of rich people can be taxed to pay for. Obama never breaks party line in his votes, which doesn’t show me that he’s “tired of same-old partisan politics.” Not to mention he became top dog in a very corrupt Chicago political arena, rampant with back door deals and bribes. Obama went on to pick a conventional running mate: Biden, a career politician who also rarely breaks party lines. The Obamas are quite rich, whereas Palin had to elope with her husband because they couldn’t afford a wedding.

The McCain/Palin ticket offers much more reform. It’s led by an experienced political maverick who does what he feels is right, regardless of party lines. And backup president to the most experienced person in the campaign is Sarah Palin, a woman who isn’t afraid to give the finger to her own party when they act stupid and corrupt. Just ask Ted Stevens (R-AK), whose $350 million bridge-to-nowhere earmark was vetoed in Alaska by none other than Palin, which is just one example of Palin’s corruption purging. She’s gone up against corruption in both parties and won. Some may criticize the fact that she was a former sportscaster, but let’s not forget the last Republican sportscaster/actor that ran for President: Ronald Reagan.

E-mail author at bwlindstrom@jacks.sdstate.edu