James mentioned the nation "not forgetting $3.60 a gallon"...
Ryan mentioned the fact that oil is a commodity, and is traded as such. It is the commodity market price that is driving the cost of gas so high, not availability or the lack there of... as I know we all understand.
Something to ponder, though...
Let's say that the price spikes as high as $150/barrel this summer, then the market adjusts and it calms back down to as low as $80/barrel by the fall. This is easily something we could see... these numbers aren't in anyway outrageous in their scope.
The above example shows a swing of $70 dollars a barrel from its highest spike to lowest median price over... say 4 months. With me so far?
If we go back only ten years to the month, we find the price of a barrel of crude oil at $11.91. Yes, you read it right... less than $12 a barrel in April of 1998. What that means now is that the imaginary swing I wrote of above... just the swing between high spike and median price... is 6 times greater than the 10 year average increase in price per barrel of crude oil... and that swing is only over a 4 month period of time.
NOW imagine that by the dead of winter, '08/'09... the NEXT spike in the crude oil price takes us to $200/barrel, and the market only adjusts down to $150/barrel 3 months later.
See the pattern?
Then imagine a shooting war in Iran... even if there are no Americans involved. THEN imagine Chavez actually gaining control of Columbia, thanks to Bush's refusal to "get tough" over the recent border incident between the two. THEN imagine Putin Jr. (I can't recall his name) deciding to play hard-ball over Arctic "land" rights, or something just as meaningless and cutting off the tap to all but the EU and China (his biggest buyers now, anyway).
Any ONE of these things could DOUBLE the price of a barrel of crude... what would all three do?
What would then happen to the US economy?
How long do we last as a viable force in the world's economic machinations when oil is going for $300 a barrel?
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Two steps back, please...
I just want to make sure I'm not reading something into Ryan's last that wasn't there...
Surely, I'm not hearing you suggest, or (God forbid) defend, a Presidential policy of ignoring such a massive national security issue as America's dependence on foreign oil simply to provide security to quasi-despotic theocratic oligarchies like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?
Every single aspect of the society and nation that is the United States of America gains in a world where we, as a nation, no longer have to look ANYWHERE else for fuel or energy. Our economy booms, our security grows, our military is that much more mobile and ready to defend the public, and we can then work that much harder to EXPORT the freedom and liberty that Bush so desperately seems to want to promote abroad.
As for the view of the Middle East in a world were OIL isn't the single most important commodity on the market? Jambo is right... unless something like "cold fussion" is discovered, and dirt-cheap, zero-emission energy is made universally available... someone will need the oil, if for no other reason than it is still the basis for 90% of all the plastics and makes up 25% of the components of all the fertilizer on the planet.
That's not to say that states like Saudi Arabia and Iran wouldn't suffer a serious set-back in their global bargaining ability, though. More importantly for us would be the nearly certain fact that the aggressive actions of those same "bin Laden" types that Ryan commented on would be focusing their hatred on the Saudi and Kuwaiti regimes... not the US and UK. After raping the world for 40 to 50 years over oil, if they haven't made any preperations for the day the oil dries up... they deserve to burn in the fires that will undoubtedly be lit for them.
Surely, I'm not hearing you suggest, or (God forbid) defend, a Presidential policy of ignoring such a massive national security issue as America's dependence on foreign oil simply to provide security to quasi-despotic theocratic oligarchies like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia?
Every single aspect of the society and nation that is the United States of America gains in a world where we, as a nation, no longer have to look ANYWHERE else for fuel or energy. Our economy booms, our security grows, our military is that much more mobile and ready to defend the public, and we can then work that much harder to EXPORT the freedom and liberty that Bush so desperately seems to want to promote abroad.
As for the view of the Middle East in a world were OIL isn't the single most important commodity on the market? Jambo is right... unless something like "cold fussion" is discovered, and dirt-cheap, zero-emission energy is made universally available... someone will need the oil, if for no other reason than it is still the basis for 90% of all the plastics and makes up 25% of the components of all the fertilizer on the planet.
That's not to say that states like Saudi Arabia and Iran wouldn't suffer a serious set-back in their global bargaining ability, though. More importantly for us would be the nearly certain fact that the aggressive actions of those same "bin Laden" types that Ryan commented on would be focusing their hatred on the Saudi and Kuwaiti regimes... not the US and UK. After raping the world for 40 to 50 years over oil, if they haven't made any preperations for the day the oil dries up... they deserve to burn in the fires that will undoubtedly be lit for them.
Titus' Answer
The question is how much government involvement should be in the works?
Various government incentives could be used to start the ball rolling, but here's a better way of doing this. As one of, if not the largest consumer of gasoline, (think of the domestic military, federal agencies, postal vehicles, you get it) using money budgeted for fueling these vehicles, or better yet money SAVED fueling these vehicles by using domestically produced coal gasoline or ethanol is a big government step.
By creating an agency or redirecting an existing agency for the production of sugar beet ethanol or whatever, (I'm talking creating the physical plants, refineries and distilleries so to speak) the feds take a front row seat just as they did during the Depression with the TVA and the BLM. (As we've stated numerous times, Hoover Dam has paid itself off how many times over?) With the feds buying crops and not paying subsidies, all of a sudden it pays for people to farm beets, corn, soy, you name it. Joint government/private sector action and nothing even close to "socialism" or the like.
This sounds familiar to me... Wasn't this like four or five of the planks taken from my 2008 New Deal? I hate being right.
Does this answer the shift question enough? Because I can go on like this for hours. Or pages.
Various government incentives could be used to start the ball rolling, but here's a better way of doing this. As one of, if not the largest consumer of gasoline, (think of the domestic military, federal agencies, postal vehicles, you get it) using money budgeted for fueling these vehicles, or better yet money SAVED fueling these vehicles by using domestically produced coal gasoline or ethanol is a big government step.
By creating an agency or redirecting an existing agency for the production of sugar beet ethanol or whatever, (I'm talking creating the physical plants, refineries and distilleries so to speak) the feds take a front row seat just as they did during the Depression with the TVA and the BLM. (As we've stated numerous times, Hoover Dam has paid itself off how many times over?) With the feds buying crops and not paying subsidies, all of a sudden it pays for people to farm beets, corn, soy, you name it. Joint government/private sector action and nothing even close to "socialism" or the like.
This sounds familiar to me... Wasn't this like four or five of the planks taken from my 2008 New Deal? I hate being right.
Does this answer the shift question enough? Because I can go on like this for hours. Or pages.
An answer.
What would the Middle East be like seven years after the implementation of this plan? Good question.
Last I checked, Japan, China, India, and a host of other developing nations require this oil. There is no way world dependence on petroleum disappears with an American energy plan. What these developing nations do not have, however, are multinational oil companies based in their home territories like Exxon, Mobile, and so on gouging American customers for world record profits.
And like it or not, within our lifetimes the oil boom is going to end. Even if someone trips on another huge oil reserve, enough to keep the world in oil for another hundred years, people won't forget $3.60 a gallon. In the seventies it wasn't so much the price as an actual shortage, as in rationing. Now it's crippling prices. So what happens to the Middle East is going to happen one way or another. The ruling families of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have been buying the stability of their population for three generations now. Their fault for not planning for this moment. And that moment isn't all that close because China doesn't appear to be jumping on the ecological bandwagon.
And even more importantly, poor disenfranchised Arabs is EXACTLY what fundamental Islam wants to remove the Satanic stain of western influence. The oil bust is their wet dream. In terms of creating an environment for 500 million new terrorists, I don't know because it's going to happen anyway. And absolutely most important, it doesn't matter because it's not our strategic headache anymore. Let China and India keep their oil wells stable.
Wouldn't that be a refreshing change of world view pace?
Last I checked, Japan, China, India, and a host of other developing nations require this oil. There is no way world dependence on petroleum disappears with an American energy plan. What these developing nations do not have, however, are multinational oil companies based in their home territories like Exxon, Mobile, and so on gouging American customers for world record profits.
And like it or not, within our lifetimes the oil boom is going to end. Even if someone trips on another huge oil reserve, enough to keep the world in oil for another hundred years, people won't forget $3.60 a gallon. In the seventies it wasn't so much the price as an actual shortage, as in rationing. Now it's crippling prices. So what happens to the Middle East is going to happen one way or another. The ruling families of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia have been buying the stability of their population for three generations now. Their fault for not planning for this moment. And that moment isn't all that close because China doesn't appear to be jumping on the ecological bandwagon.
And even more importantly, poor disenfranchised Arabs is EXACTLY what fundamental Islam wants to remove the Satanic stain of western influence. The oil bust is their wet dream. In terms of creating an environment for 500 million new terrorists, I don't know because it's going to happen anyway. And absolutely most important, it doesn't matter because it's not our strategic headache anymore. Let China and India keep their oil wells stable.
Wouldn't that be a refreshing change of world view pace?
A parallel question ...
Just to follow up ...
There's no question that if it were the goal of the administration to ween us off oil, or even put us into 1 of the 50 comprehensive energy plans we've discussed, that on the rubble at ground zero was the time to do it. He could of gotten anything through congress with those 90%+ ratings. However, that being said I have to ask this ... what does the Middle East look like in 2008 if over the last 7 years their main export goes from vital to unnecessary?
In other words, it is my contention that Bush & co went into Iraq to spread democracy as a vaccine to radical Islam (and he as much as said so in that news conference the other day, "The next president has to understand that the only way to combat our enemies is through liberty") Is is possible as he met with Saudis post 9/11 that they described a Middle East without a world-wide vital export? That what little economic vitality they had for infrastructure, schools, roads, jobs is derived from oil and although far too many oil wealthy Arabs (minusing Iran, they're Persian) help fund terrorism that without that vital resource as a revenue source, THE revenue source, that the the Mid East would descend back into tribes fighting one another over land and the poverty would create another 500 million recruits for a Bin Laden type?
I'm just asking, what does the Middle East look like without the cash cow of oil? This of course assumes that whatever oil "replacement" we came up with is duplicated by all oil consuming countries. And believe me, I am all for saying to the Mid East, "too bad", we have to look out for American interests and that means energy independence, but I think the consideration of what the Middle East will look like if in a single generation their only export ceases to be vital, should be taken into consideration so that we don't get blindsided one morning & wake up to a Middle East that Radical Islam has swept through on a 90% rate due to young men being ripe to recruit from a lack of jobs, schools, infrastructure, and consumer buying power that oil (however inadequately or perverted) provides now.
Just a thought ...
There's no question that if it were the goal of the administration to ween us off oil, or even put us into 1 of the 50 comprehensive energy plans we've discussed, that on the rubble at ground zero was the time to do it. He could of gotten anything through congress with those 90%+ ratings. However, that being said I have to ask this ... what does the Middle East look like in 2008 if over the last 7 years their main export goes from vital to unnecessary?
In other words, it is my contention that Bush & co went into Iraq to spread democracy as a vaccine to radical Islam (and he as much as said so in that news conference the other day, "The next president has to understand that the only way to combat our enemies is through liberty") Is is possible as he met with Saudis post 9/11 that they described a Middle East without a world-wide vital export? That what little economic vitality they had for infrastructure, schools, roads, jobs is derived from oil and although far too many oil wealthy Arabs (minusing Iran, they're Persian) help fund terrorism that without that vital resource as a revenue source, THE revenue source, that the the Mid East would descend back into tribes fighting one another over land and the poverty would create another 500 million recruits for a Bin Laden type?
I'm just asking, what does the Middle East look like without the cash cow of oil? This of course assumes that whatever oil "replacement" we came up with is duplicated by all oil consuming countries. And believe me, I am all for saying to the Mid East, "too bad", we have to look out for American interests and that means energy independence, but I think the consideration of what the Middle East will look like if in a single generation their only export ceases to be vital, should be taken into consideration so that we don't get blindsided one morning & wake up to a Middle East that Radical Islam has swept through on a 90% rate due to young men being ripe to recruit from a lack of jobs, schools, infrastructure, and consumer buying power that oil (however inadequately or perverted) provides now.
Just a thought ...
Question...
So, we all agree on the symptoms of the problem (outrageous fuel prices inflating the costs associated with a consumer-driven economy) and we all agree that functional, applicable solutions exist to solve the problem (massive action in research and development of alternative means of fuel production). We can even find common ground in knowing that BOTH sides of the political aisle have failed to address the problem in any measurable manner.
My question now is: How do we change the paradigm in this country to SOLVE the actual problem?
I know the conservative voices out there want the problem to come from market-driven effort within the private sector. No Federal dollars should be spent to solve this issue, because it isn’t a problem the government has any control over in the first place. Can anyone voicing or sharing that opinion give me even ONE successful historical example of this kind of solution, at any point and concerning any issue in America’s past? Because I simply can’t think of even one.
I know the liberal voices out there are calling for direct and complete Federal oversight and/or control of the process by which the US will eventually free itself of its oil addiction. Every Federal dollar available (and many that probably aren’t available) should be spent to solve this problem, while at the same time guarantying that no risk to the environment or cost to existing Federal services be allowed. Can anyone voicing or sharing this opinion give me even ONE successful historical example of this kind of solution, at any point and concerning any issue in America’s past? I can’t think of any success stories… but the Government’s record of failed efforts is long and impressive in this arena, and anyone that doubts me should look up the history of the National Parks Service, the US Forestry Service, the National Recovery Administration, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Bureau of Land Management… just to begin.
I am convinced that a more moderate approach is the only solution. To wait for reform to come from a free-market economic system (to be implemented by consumer demand, in other words) is to resign ourselves to disaster. How many people would have been consigned to death by food poisoning before the meat industry policed itself had Sinclair NOT blown the whistle by writing “The Jungle”? Would they have changed anything anyway, if the Feds hadn’t FORCED them to because of the book?
To expect fast, efficient results from a Federal program or agency is just as silly, though. The one and only example of success here that comes to mind is the Manhattan Project… the equivalent of $24 billion dollars spent over 4 years and requiring 130,000 people to accomplish its goals. Outside of actual, combat operations, I doubt there was a project or agency with higher priority in the entire national structure, though… can we expect THAT kind of action and dedication from what would (by necessity) be multiple Administrations? FDR was the ONLY CIC to serve more than two terms, and no other can now do it… the longest any one PARTY has held the White House since has been Reagan-Bush at 12 years.
How much Government intervention will it take to get the job done? Not enough, and I feel it simply WON’T get done. Too much, and it will get bogged down and bloated to a point where it can’t achieve it’s goals.
My question now is: How do we change the paradigm in this country to SOLVE the actual problem?
I know the conservative voices out there want the problem to come from market-driven effort within the private sector. No Federal dollars should be spent to solve this issue, because it isn’t a problem the government has any control over in the first place. Can anyone voicing or sharing that opinion give me even ONE successful historical example of this kind of solution, at any point and concerning any issue in America’s past? Because I simply can’t think of even one.
I know the liberal voices out there are calling for direct and complete Federal oversight and/or control of the process by which the US will eventually free itself of its oil addiction. Every Federal dollar available (and many that probably aren’t available) should be spent to solve this problem, while at the same time guarantying that no risk to the environment or cost to existing Federal services be allowed. Can anyone voicing or sharing this opinion give me even ONE successful historical example of this kind of solution, at any point and concerning any issue in America’s past? I can’t think of any success stories… but the Government’s record of failed efforts is long and impressive in this arena, and anyone that doubts me should look up the history of the National Parks Service, the US Forestry Service, the National Recovery Administration, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Bureau of Land Management… just to begin.
I am convinced that a more moderate approach is the only solution. To wait for reform to come from a free-market economic system (to be implemented by consumer demand, in other words) is to resign ourselves to disaster. How many people would have been consigned to death by food poisoning before the meat industry policed itself had Sinclair NOT blown the whistle by writing “The Jungle”? Would they have changed anything anyway, if the Feds hadn’t FORCED them to because of the book?
To expect fast, efficient results from a Federal program or agency is just as silly, though. The one and only example of success here that comes to mind is the Manhattan Project… the equivalent of $24 billion dollars spent over 4 years and requiring 130,000 people to accomplish its goals. Outside of actual, combat operations, I doubt there was a project or agency with higher priority in the entire national structure, though… can we expect THAT kind of action and dedication from what would (by necessity) be multiple Administrations? FDR was the ONLY CIC to serve more than two terms, and no other can now do it… the longest any one PARTY has held the White House since has been Reagan-Bush at 12 years.
How much Government intervention will it take to get the job done? Not enough, and I feel it simply WON’T get done. Too much, and it will get bogged down and bloated to a point where it can’t achieve it’s goals.
That being said, it's not ENTIRELY accurate.
Although I agree completely that as a party, the Democrats' lack of a vision or goal has been the dead albatross around their neck since 1994, to say that our current situation is a result of opposition politics is, well, not a holistic view of the situation.
For seven years come this September, the cornerstone of our foreign policy has been the war on terror. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the majority of funding of these rogue terrorist organizations comes from oil rich countries and families. Removing this source of income from the world goes a hell of a long way to removing the teeth from the majority of international terror organizations. Even more so than various invasions and military actions. If in October of 2001 G.W. would have stood on the rubble of Ground Zero and said, "Hey, there's a better way of doing this," who wouldn't have agreed? If by the end of 2001 someone in that administration could have pasted together some kind of plan, including drilling in ANWAR and a massive federal commitment for domestic production of non-petroleum fuels and domestic petroleum fuels, what Congress could have stopped it? At the time the Administration had a 90%+ approval rating. And following Ryan's comments about futures, oil would be twenty bucks a barrel right now.
This is a lot of spilled milk crying, I understand. Opposition politics has been the 800 pound gorilla at the DNC for a better part of a decade, I get that too. But even more than a Democratic legislature, it's our current Administration that we can thank for this current mess. A cohesive plan, (and seriously. How hard is it? We've shit out like fifty different comprehensive plans, any of which could have been submitted to any House or Senate committee for debate at any time from 2002 to today, and who the hell are we?) implemented in 2002 about the same time as hostilities in Afghanistan, would have had a better, more productive effect on some rag head suicide bomber than any Democrat initiative starting sometime post 2006.
For seven years come this September, the cornerstone of our foreign policy has been the war on terror. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that the majority of funding of these rogue terrorist organizations comes from oil rich countries and families. Removing this source of income from the world goes a hell of a long way to removing the teeth from the majority of international terror organizations. Even more so than various invasions and military actions. If in October of 2001 G.W. would have stood on the rubble of Ground Zero and said, "Hey, there's a better way of doing this," who wouldn't have agreed? If by the end of 2001 someone in that administration could have pasted together some kind of plan, including drilling in ANWAR and a massive federal commitment for domestic production of non-petroleum fuels and domestic petroleum fuels, what Congress could have stopped it? At the time the Administration had a 90%+ approval rating. And following Ryan's comments about futures, oil would be twenty bucks a barrel right now.
This is a lot of spilled milk crying, I understand. Opposition politics has been the 800 pound gorilla at the DNC for a better part of a decade, I get that too. But even more than a Democratic legislature, it's our current Administration that we can thank for this current mess. A cohesive plan, (and seriously. How hard is it? We've shit out like fifty different comprehensive plans, any of which could have been submitted to any House or Senate committee for debate at any time from 2002 to today, and who the hell are we?) implemented in 2002 about the same time as hostilities in Afghanistan, would have had a better, more productive effect on some rag head suicide bomber than any Democrat initiative starting sometime post 2006.
The cost of opposition politics ...
I just filled up at $3.60 a gallon ... brutal.
In 2006 the Democrat party promised a new, comprehensive energy policy if they were given control of Congress. Well, they own both houses ... where is it? I think we are all on board with the energy policy I layed down in broad strokes yesterday: domestic drilling, Russian crude, new refineries, nuclear plants, and a moon shot alternative "fuel race" (versus a space race). And no, the president hasn't got much done on energy either. However, he has put forth plans, especially in the domestic drilling arena, that got shot down by the congress, with no alternative plan from those same shooters ... opposition politics.
Bush again takes the lead and holds a press conference (rare for this president) yesterday in which he lays down energy initiatives he would like to see action on in congress. Chuck Schumer (D) NY holds a press conference within 5 minutes after Bush's to oppose Bush's comments and rips him on ANWAR, with no alternative other then Americans should conserve. It's Carter's plan of "wearing a sweater indoors" all over again ... opposition politics.
Doesn't anyone in D.C. witha "D" after his or her name realize that the cost of a barrel of oil is driven by futures. Speculators gauge what it will be worth tomorrow, and that sets the price for today. It is my contention that were the world's remaining superpower to come out with a detailed, comprehensive energy plan - 2/3rds of which involve energy from sources other then oil, that the future's markets would begin to drive down the price of crude the very next day. So even though these plans will take years to actually be online, the proactive action of just initiating the plan will drive down the cost of fuel today. And what's standing in the way? ... yep, the opposition politics.
This thing is going to hit 5 or 6 bucks a gallon sooner or later, and that 6/10 of 1% growth we had for the last quarter (in #'s released today), will seem like the gilded age in comparison.
In 2006 the Democrat party promised a new, comprehensive energy policy if they were given control of Congress. Well, they own both houses ... where is it? I think we are all on board with the energy policy I layed down in broad strokes yesterday: domestic drilling, Russian crude, new refineries, nuclear plants, and a moon shot alternative "fuel race" (versus a space race). And no, the president hasn't got much done on energy either. However, he has put forth plans, especially in the domestic drilling arena, that got shot down by the congress, with no alternative plan from those same shooters ... opposition politics.
Bush again takes the lead and holds a press conference (rare for this president) yesterday in which he lays down energy initiatives he would like to see action on in congress. Chuck Schumer (D) NY holds a press conference within 5 minutes after Bush's to oppose Bush's comments and rips him on ANWAR, with no alternative other then Americans should conserve. It's Carter's plan of "wearing a sweater indoors" all over again ... opposition politics.
Doesn't anyone in D.C. witha "D" after his or her name realize that the cost of a barrel of oil is driven by futures. Speculators gauge what it will be worth tomorrow, and that sets the price for today. It is my contention that were the world's remaining superpower to come out with a detailed, comprehensive energy plan - 2/3rds of which involve energy from sources other then oil, that the future's markets would begin to drive down the price of crude the very next day. So even though these plans will take years to actually be online, the proactive action of just initiating the plan will drive down the cost of fuel today. And what's standing in the way? ... yep, the opposition politics.
This thing is going to hit 5 or 6 bucks a gallon sooner or later, and that 6/10 of 1% growth we had for the last quarter (in #'s released today), will seem like the gilded age in comparison.
Wright is wrong ...
So I'm watching FOX and the Obama "denunciation" of his pastor (former or otherwise) was on every single show in the prime time line up, even the "law" program of Greta's. "Outrageous", "disrespectful", "shocking", is what he called Wright's comments at the National Press Club. Consider this - has any presidential candidate EVER had to go on radio or TV or in print and denounce his church leader before? So, I watched the National Press Club interaction on You Tube (of course), and ooohh my gooooodnesss ... this "Reverend" is in every sense of the word a radical. US Marines are tantamount to Roman Imperial soldiers; we are an imperial nation seeking to take over the world; AIDS was developed by the government to destroy it (black) people. And on top of all the loony (no other word suffices) theories and propoganda, his demeanor and behavior can not be described as anything other then thuggish. He demeaned the white woman whom was the host. He mimicked her words with his mouth behind her back as she spoke into the michrophone. He dismissed her legitimate press pooled questions out of hand. He kind of popped around on stage like he had too much coffee. It was juvenile, classless and simply thuggish. I've never seen such a performance. And to top it off his theme was that any critic of him personally is in actuality attacking the black church as an institution. Obama's press conference made much more sense after having watched Wright's.
But here is the million dollar question - Obama's entire candidacy, in order to combat the "experience" question posed by Hillary and soon by McCain, is that "judgment" is more important then experience. That is his entire message in answering the question is he ready to be the CIC. Well cheetoh, you're telling me this is the first you've heard of your own pastor's looney theories and message? This "black liberation theology", Wright's version of Christianity, is wrought with political demands of reparations and downright radicalized socialism. And Wright himself said yesterday that he personally told Barak in 2007, "If you become president I'm coming after you on January 21st because you will be the head of a government that grinds up and mistreats the poor." This is how Wright views America - as an unholy experiment.
Even more damaging is the "friends" of Wright (mostly pastors of other Churches on TV subsequent to the speech) saying this is exactly how Wright has preached for decades. I'm telling you, this is going to get down to asking what days Obama was in attendance, then reviewing the DVD of that Sunday's sermon (they sell all the sermons in the Church lobby). "What did he know and when did he know it?" It's going to come down to that, and soon. Keep in mind that the man he is denouncing prayed with him in the basement, with his wife, minutes before he announced his candidacy to the press, and 8 months later it's persona non grata having just now got to know the "real" Wright. I ain't buying it ... he knew of Wright's radical ideology, apparently embraced it through attendance and financial contributions, and it has come back to haunt him. I never thought I would utter these words, but I agree with Hillary - she told Bill Richardson in a private phone call Richardson later revealed on CNN, "Bill, he's just not electable."
She's right.
But here is the million dollar question - Obama's entire candidacy, in order to combat the "experience" question posed by Hillary and soon by McCain, is that "judgment" is more important then experience. That is his entire message in answering the question is he ready to be the CIC. Well cheetoh, you're telling me this is the first you've heard of your own pastor's looney theories and message? This "black liberation theology", Wright's version of Christianity, is wrought with political demands of reparations and downright radicalized socialism. And Wright himself said yesterday that he personally told Barak in 2007, "If you become president I'm coming after you on January 21st because you will be the head of a government that grinds up and mistreats the poor." This is how Wright views America - as an unholy experiment.
Even more damaging is the "friends" of Wright (mostly pastors of other Churches on TV subsequent to the speech) saying this is exactly how Wright has preached for decades. I'm telling you, this is going to get down to asking what days Obama was in attendance, then reviewing the DVD of that Sunday's sermon (they sell all the sermons in the Church lobby). "What did he know and when did he know it?" It's going to come down to that, and soon. Keep in mind that the man he is denouncing prayed with him in the basement, with his wife, minutes before he announced his candidacy to the press, and 8 months later it's persona non grata having just now got to know the "real" Wright. I ain't buying it ... he knew of Wright's radical ideology, apparently embraced it through attendance and financial contributions, and it has come back to haunt him. I never thought I would utter these words, but I agree with Hillary - she told Bill Richardson in a private phone call Richardson later revealed on CNN, "Bill, he's just not electable."
She's right.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Free advice:
"whit?"
That advice: you really shouldn't show up for a battle of WITS unarmed.
By the way, I can demonstrate I'm not a woman in a rather dramatic, and impressive fashion .... but you'll always be gay. And I'm not riding around in your truck if it still has the "ROCK OUT WITH YOUR C*CK OUT" bumper sticker on it ... even if it was a gift from Llamar.
Rainbows suck ...... later.
That advice: you really shouldn't show up for a battle of WITS unarmed.
By the way, I can demonstrate I'm not a woman in a rather dramatic, and impressive fashion .... but you'll always be gay. And I'm not riding around in your truck if it still has the "ROCK OUT WITH YOUR C*CK OUT" bumper sticker on it ... even if it was a gift from Llamar.
Rainbows suck ...... later.
Man, you got soft in Vegas...
Wow... you've simply stopped being a narcissistic prude.
Now you're just a woman... flat-out, no question. You are a girl.
There... THAT is being unproductive. The rest was called sarcasm and whit.
Lighten up... no one is being abused here, although I'm probably pretty close, right?
Now you're just a woman... flat-out, no question. You are a girl.
There... THAT is being unproductive. The rest was called sarcasm and whit.
Lighten up... no one is being abused here, although I'm probably pretty close, right?
I'm sitting here, having a nice conversation with you ...
... and then you go and revert to being a pampas dumb ass, saying things like this:
Look, we can talk about this for days, and it won't make a bit of difference with Ryan. He is simply convinced that no good can come from a pro-environmental position in the Federal government.
And then you proceeded to do a complete character assassination of me regarding my opinion on this issue, rhetorically lecturing me in a dismissive tone as if I'm some school child talking out of turn during one of your lesson plans....SCREW OFF. Find the passage in which I made this declaration, please, show it to me. How do such unsupportable, far reaching generalizations and stereotypes of conservatives further our discussion on a US energy policy?
I mean I JUST got done writing that "environmentalism" is as traditional as apple pie, used Roosevelt (Teddy) as a GOP example, said "good environmental stewardship" is something I support, declared that no sane person opposes cracking down on 1:1 polluters of bodies of water or land, and asked you to please define "simple environmentalism" for me before you summarily declare me as opposed to it (which you are yet to do even as I write this). I clearly separated "Algorian" alarmism (defined by me as one leading to an industry killing treaty like Kyoto) as the focus of my opposition ... I JUST WROTE ALL OF THAT! Do you read the Cilff Note version of my posts or what? Look, it's not my fault that your repressed homoerotic urges are obscuring your ability to focus on my writing, so enough already. Next time we are having a fruitful discussion, and I am being careful to separate fact, my opinion, and my interpretation of your approach, please don't go and flush it down the bowl by summarily assigning a conservative stereotype to me and assuming I am one in need of your condescending lectures on what America takes seriously ... it serves no purpose other then taking up my valuable time having to respond with posts like this one..... jackass.
****
As far the PA GOP voters go, it sounds to me (admittedly on the other side of the nation) that they pine nostalgically for the 1994 congress, the "Gingrich Revolution", more then Slick Will & Big Al.
Look, we can talk about this for days, and it won't make a bit of difference with Ryan. He is simply convinced that no good can come from a pro-environmental position in the Federal government.
And then you proceeded to do a complete character assassination of me regarding my opinion on this issue, rhetorically lecturing me in a dismissive tone as if I'm some school child talking out of turn during one of your lesson plans....SCREW OFF. Find the passage in which I made this declaration, please, show it to me. How do such unsupportable, far reaching generalizations and stereotypes of conservatives further our discussion on a US energy policy?
I mean I JUST got done writing that "environmentalism" is as traditional as apple pie, used Roosevelt (Teddy) as a GOP example, said "good environmental stewardship" is something I support, declared that no sane person opposes cracking down on 1:1 polluters of bodies of water or land, and asked you to please define "simple environmentalism" for me before you summarily declare me as opposed to it (which you are yet to do even as I write this). I clearly separated "Algorian" alarmism (defined by me as one leading to an industry killing treaty like Kyoto) as the focus of my opposition ... I JUST WROTE ALL OF THAT! Do you read the Cilff Note version of my posts or what? Look, it's not my fault that your repressed homoerotic urges are obscuring your ability to focus on my writing, so enough already. Next time we are having a fruitful discussion, and I am being careful to separate fact, my opinion, and my interpretation of your approach, please don't go and flush it down the bowl by summarily assigning a conservative stereotype to me and assuming I am one in need of your condescending lectures on what America takes seriously ... it serves no purpose other then taking up my valuable time having to respond with posts like this one..... jackass.
****
As far the PA GOP voters go, it sounds to me (admittedly on the other side of the nation) that they pine nostalgically for the 1994 congress, the "Gingrich Revolution", more then Slick Will & Big Al.
On rose-tinted glasses...
"wearing a Vader helmet"... hehe, that's funny!
Please, keep in mind that I wasn't waxing poetic for the lost years myself... I was simply saying that the argument can be made. I make the argument because here in PA, I listen to (literally) dozens of co-workers that were raised staunch Republicans now "fondly" remembering the days of Bill and Al. Economy raging, jobs a-plenty, relatively cheap gas, and our biggest concern globally was whether Saddam was going to lose more SAM batteries because he'd target Coalition aircraft in the No Fly Zones.
Of course, I know he dropped the ball on terror... I shouldn't be tongue-in-cheek with that topic. None the less, Bill's mistakes haven't protracted a theater-wide land war by four or five years, either. I admit, his policies reflected a tried and true tradition among Democrats of "containment" rather than "confrontation"... and I am willing to give Bush the credit for following Reagan at least that far in his foreign policy in general, and his Middle East policy specifically. I no longer question his motivation... but I still question his methodology.
I think a lot of these PA GOP-supporters (the ones that keep electing Specter to the Senate) long for the days of PAYGO again. Say what you will, the deficit is nothing to shrug your shoulders at... even for a war-time Administration. To continue to watch the bills pile up seems to me to do NOTHING at all to help the confidence level of this country. The "Moral Majority" didn't do enough, and Bill and Al stole a lot of thunder from their efforts... and then to have Bush promise so much and deliver next to nothing after 8 years, who wouldn't be disappointed?
Please, keep in mind that I wasn't waxing poetic for the lost years myself... I was simply saying that the argument can be made. I make the argument because here in PA, I listen to (literally) dozens of co-workers that were raised staunch Republicans now "fondly" remembering the days of Bill and Al. Economy raging, jobs a-plenty, relatively cheap gas, and our biggest concern globally was whether Saddam was going to lose more SAM batteries because he'd target Coalition aircraft in the No Fly Zones.
Of course, I know he dropped the ball on terror... I shouldn't be tongue-in-cheek with that topic. None the less, Bill's mistakes haven't protracted a theater-wide land war by four or five years, either. I admit, his policies reflected a tried and true tradition among Democrats of "containment" rather than "confrontation"... and I am willing to give Bush the credit for following Reagan at least that far in his foreign policy in general, and his Middle East policy specifically. I no longer question his motivation... but I still question his methodology.
I think a lot of these PA GOP-supporters (the ones that keep electing Specter to the Senate) long for the days of PAYGO again. Say what you will, the deficit is nothing to shrug your shoulders at... even for a war-time Administration. To continue to watch the bills pile up seems to me to do NOTHING at all to help the confidence level of this country. The "Moral Majority" didn't do enough, and Bill and Al stole a lot of thunder from their efforts... and then to have Bush promise so much and deliver next to nothing after 8 years, who wouldn't be disappointed?
On the environment...
Look, we can talk about this for days, and it won't make a bit of difference with Ryan. He is simply convinced that no good can come from a pro-environmental position in the Federal government.
Forget the fact that the Hoover Dam and the TVA have both been turning a profit for the Feds since they first went online... and that is going back nearly 75 years. While neither of these projects were developed BECAUSE they were "green", the fact that they are, and have turned millions of dollars of profits back to the Federal coffers, should not be considered because Al Gore might feel justified in his Nobel Prize and his Oscar nomination.
We could discuss the fact (FACT) that there is already a CO2-to-algae system in place in NM that takes 100% of the carbon emissions of a coal electrical plant and grows algae with it, which is then used to distill ethanol that is sold as a pharmaceutical product (for a profit), and the algae is then dried and compressed into bricks, which are then used to supplement the coal used in the very same power plant that started the whole process. Coal consumption at this plant is reduced by as much as 15%, carbon emissions are eliminated, and the profits from the alcohol and fuel by-products increase the return to the power company and allow for greater flexibility in pricing. This kind of waste-conversion process takes about 2 years to implement and 9 years to pay for... but it would legitimize the Algorian "carbon"-phobia that so many on the left are indulging in on a daily basis, so no Federal incentives or efforts in this realm of environmentalism is worth discussing, either.
We could discuss the simple FACT that there are more trees on the North American continent right NOW than there was when the Founding Fathers penned the Constitution, but then we'd have to discuss the fact that it was mainly because of "environmental" measures like the efforts of the Civilian Conservation Corps (founded in 1933 by FDR to put 250,000 young men to work) planting trees and forests and building river levies and dikes. These efforts ended the threat of "dust bowls", rampant annual river flooding along the Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio rivers, and erosion of arable soil due to rain and drought, while putting one quarter of a million young Americans to work, providing health and housing incentives, and teaching them how to remain productive citizens after the program ended... but to discuss the applicability of such benefits today might lend credence to liberal causes.
We could discuss these, and many more fine examples of the profitability of environmental causes within the government... but then we'd have to discuss the failings of such administrations as Ron Reagan's when it came to just such issues, and the legacy of Cabinet members like James Watt. No one recalls the names of the men who replaced Watt... or that the second one, Hodel, was quoted as saying "...that America could have both an improving environment and an adequate energy supply. We did not and do not have to choose between them, as some have contended. . . ." What American remembers is the disaster that was Watt's reign as Secretary of the Interior.
Conservatives would have to face the reality that the environment is a real issue with the voting public in America, and they will listen when it is brought up. The US has seen the effects of Chernobyl, they recall the black skies over Iraq in '91, they have lived the smog emergencies of Los Angeles and Denver, and they have witnessed Lake Erie actually burn. They have also seen many of these domestic and foreign disasters cleaned up... there are no more lakes of oil in Iraq. Lake Erie doesn't cover the beaches with foam that can be ignited with a match. There are no more needles and diapers washing ashore in New Jersey from the dumping of NYC trash into the Atlantic Ocean. You can't even see any oil on the rocky shores of Valdez Bay in Alaska anymore.
Not that Ryan would remember this ad, but there was a commercial on TV in the late 70's where an American Indian stood looking over an Interstate highway, surrounded by the trash and refuse that was choking the dried grass along the highway... and crying. That commercial was one of the most successful advertisements in US television history. Why? Because the US is a bleeding-heart, tree-hugging nation of bird-watching saps?
We take our heritage and our resources seriously here. From the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, this nation has recognized its richest asset as the vast and (still largely) untapped resources of our land. Water, oil, coal, mineral, precious metals, vast forests (larger now than ever), productive farms that are capable of feeding 350 million Americans and as many as 200 million other people EACH YEAR... these are what American are thinking about when they think of preserving the environment.
Yes, there are very vocal wackos out there that want to regulate every single aspect of stewardship that the country might think to take on... but you will always have wackos. Just like there will always be people like James Watt, who couldn't care less about stewardship and want only to make it possible to turn a buck at every venture available.
Is there no common ground?
Forget the fact that the Hoover Dam and the TVA have both been turning a profit for the Feds since they first went online... and that is going back nearly 75 years. While neither of these projects were developed BECAUSE they were "green", the fact that they are, and have turned millions of dollars of profits back to the Federal coffers, should not be considered because Al Gore might feel justified in his Nobel Prize and his Oscar nomination.
We could discuss the fact (FACT) that there is already a CO2-to-algae system in place in NM that takes 100% of the carbon emissions of a coal electrical plant and grows algae with it, which is then used to distill ethanol that is sold as a pharmaceutical product (for a profit), and the algae is then dried and compressed into bricks, which are then used to supplement the coal used in the very same power plant that started the whole process. Coal consumption at this plant is reduced by as much as 15%, carbon emissions are eliminated, and the profits from the alcohol and fuel by-products increase the return to the power company and allow for greater flexibility in pricing. This kind of waste-conversion process takes about 2 years to implement and 9 years to pay for... but it would legitimize the Algorian "carbon"-phobia that so many on the left are indulging in on a daily basis, so no Federal incentives or efforts in this realm of environmentalism is worth discussing, either.
We could discuss the simple FACT that there are more trees on the North American continent right NOW than there was when the Founding Fathers penned the Constitution, but then we'd have to discuss the fact that it was mainly because of "environmental" measures like the efforts of the Civilian Conservation Corps (founded in 1933 by FDR to put 250,000 young men to work) planting trees and forests and building river levies and dikes. These efforts ended the threat of "dust bowls", rampant annual river flooding along the Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio rivers, and erosion of arable soil due to rain and drought, while putting one quarter of a million young Americans to work, providing health and housing incentives, and teaching them how to remain productive citizens after the program ended... but to discuss the applicability of such benefits today might lend credence to liberal causes.
We could discuss these, and many more fine examples of the profitability of environmental causes within the government... but then we'd have to discuss the failings of such administrations as Ron Reagan's when it came to just such issues, and the legacy of Cabinet members like James Watt. No one recalls the names of the men who replaced Watt... or that the second one, Hodel, was quoted as saying "...that America could have both an improving environment and an adequate energy supply. We did not and do not have to choose between them, as some have contended. . . ." What American remembers is the disaster that was Watt's reign as Secretary of the Interior.
Conservatives would have to face the reality that the environment is a real issue with the voting public in America, and they will listen when it is brought up. The US has seen the effects of Chernobyl, they recall the black skies over Iraq in '91, they have lived the smog emergencies of Los Angeles and Denver, and they have witnessed Lake Erie actually burn. They have also seen many of these domestic and foreign disasters cleaned up... there are no more lakes of oil in Iraq. Lake Erie doesn't cover the beaches with foam that can be ignited with a match. There are no more needles and diapers washing ashore in New Jersey from the dumping of NYC trash into the Atlantic Ocean. You can't even see any oil on the rocky shores of Valdez Bay in Alaska anymore.
Not that Ryan would remember this ad, but there was a commercial on TV in the late 70's where an American Indian stood looking over an Interstate highway, surrounded by the trash and refuse that was choking the dried grass along the highway... and crying. That commercial was one of the most successful advertisements in US television history. Why? Because the US is a bleeding-heart, tree-hugging nation of bird-watching saps?
We take our heritage and our resources seriously here. From the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, this nation has recognized its richest asset as the vast and (still largely) untapped resources of our land. Water, oil, coal, mineral, precious metals, vast forests (larger now than ever), productive farms that are capable of feeding 350 million Americans and as many as 200 million other people EACH YEAR... these are what American are thinking about when they think of preserving the environment.
Yes, there are very vocal wackos out there that want to regulate every single aspect of stewardship that the country might think to take on... but you will always have wackos. Just like there will always be people like James Watt, who couldn't care less about stewardship and want only to make it possible to turn a buck at every venture available.
Is there no common ground?
Rose tinted glasses ay?
Well, if I (and by extension the GOP) are looking back at Ronnie with those glasses, then I have to say, if you think people are looking back at the Clinton years with fondness then you're wearing a Vader helmet ... and my evidence is quite clear cut - Hillary is losing her own party's nomination. Everyone knows Bill is part of the "deal" if she wins and he will be back in the West Wing. Hillary uses her first lady credentials as her mantle of experience, puts forth what they did in the 90's, etc, and the "people", in her own party no less, are rejecting her. If the general population looks back on the Clinton Administration with such fondness then why is the second most famous face from that administration losing to a radical city councilman who came out of nowhere? (I know he' s Senator).
I think at this point in American history, coming off a president that clearly couldn't tell us the truth if his life depended on it in the 90's, followed by one that couldn't clearly tell us his own name if his life depended on it to this day, that people are pining for a "straight talker", and that's why McCain won the nomination and is leading in national polls against Barak. Like him or hate him he says what he thinks.
I could further go into Bill's many failing as CIC (North Korea, Bin Laden, lack of integrity, etc), but I think Hillary's struggles, even as Bill campaigns for her, speaks loudest, so I'll leave it at that. If those years are looked back on so fondly as you suggest, and are preferable to Bush's term, then Hillary would be the nominee, and someone like McCain (who is simpatico on Bush's biggest policy, Iraq) wouldn't have a chance. In other words, you're wrong about Slick Willy's nostalgic appeal.
I think at this point in American history, coming off a president that clearly couldn't tell us the truth if his life depended on it in the 90's, followed by one that couldn't clearly tell us his own name if his life depended on it to this day, that people are pining for a "straight talker", and that's why McCain won the nomination and is leading in national polls against Barak. Like him or hate him he says what he thinks.
I could further go into Bill's many failing as CIC (North Korea, Bin Laden, lack of integrity, etc), but I think Hillary's struggles, even as Bill campaigns for her, speaks loudest, so I'll leave it at that. If those years are looked back on so fondly as you suggest, and are preferable to Bush's term, then Hillary would be the nominee, and someone like McCain (who is simpatico on Bush's biggest policy, Iraq) wouldn't have a chance. In other words, you're wrong about Slick Willy's nostalgic appeal.
What, is he kidding?
First, yes I like Mac's healthcare/tax idea.
Second - I just watched the Obama explanation in full. My question is this - is anyone buying this? NOW he is outraged and offended, NOW? He expects me to believe that for 20 years as a member he never came to this conclusion, but in 8 mos of campaigning he has come to know who Wright "really is." Is he serious? This stretches the boundaries of credibility to unbelievable limits. Or let me state it more simply - he is lying. He "ran" with this guy as an up & coming Illinois politician in order to get "street cred" for being "down with the struggle" in his Chicago district, and did so knowing the extremely controversial aspects to Wright's character and message. And now wants the folks to believe that just now, in these 8 mos of campaigning he has uncovered a disturbing message coming from Wright that he (Obama) never picked up on in the 20 years prior. Give me a break! Add this to the refusal to wear a flag on his lapel, his wealth redistribution schemes, socialized medicine, and no foreign policy credentials to speak of outside of "talking" to Iran and we are looking at the most radical mainstream candidate this nation has seen in the era of modern politics.
Hey, Barak, the name McGovern mean anything to you??????
Second - I just watched the Obama explanation in full. My question is this - is anyone buying this? NOW he is outraged and offended, NOW? He expects me to believe that for 20 years as a member he never came to this conclusion, but in 8 mos of campaigning he has come to know who Wright "really is." Is he serious? This stretches the boundaries of credibility to unbelievable limits. Or let me state it more simply - he is lying. He "ran" with this guy as an up & coming Illinois politician in order to get "street cred" for being "down with the struggle" in his Chicago district, and did so knowing the extremely controversial aspects to Wright's character and message. And now wants the folks to believe that just now, in these 8 mos of campaigning he has uncovered a disturbing message coming from Wright that he (Obama) never picked up on in the 20 years prior. Give me a break! Add this to the refusal to wear a flag on his lapel, his wealth redistribution schemes, socialized medicine, and no foreign policy credentials to speak of outside of "talking" to Iran and we are looking at the most radical mainstream candidate this nation has seen in the era of modern politics.
Hey, Barak, the name McGovern mean anything to you??????
On the GOP...
Well, we hear from both Jambo and Ryan on the same day... nearly unprecedented.
Like I said, I understand the frustration the neo-cons in America must be feeling right now... mainly because I don't feel I have been adequately represented by my party in decades. Zel Miller was the last solid Democrat executive I could back... and he's been gone since '05. I certainly have never felt comfortable with any of the Presidential prospects the party has thrown up since 1984, either...
So, my words to Ryan and the rest of the Right?
Welcome to my world.
I stand by what I said, though... you want to blame someone for this mess? Don't blame McCain. There were plenty of "more conservative" candidates early on... they just didn't carry the base. If the majority of voting Republicans in this nation were as conservative as Ryan, Limbaugh, Hannity and Wilkow seem to think, then why didn't Romney or Huckabee win the nomination? Or Ron Paul? How much more conservative can you get than Ron Paul? Low taxes, smaller government, constitutional agendas... the only thing that I know freaks out people like Ryan is his insistence that the US stop any and all "nation-building" efforts at once and completely.
So, who's to blame? The biased media? The Democrats?
I blame George W. Bush. His "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" attitude towards his foreign policy agenda is going to haunt the GOP and the conservative movement in America for decades... mark my words.
His inability to articulate and promote his vision of policy in America has made the GOP seem, more than ever, like they couldn't care less about the concerns and questions of the general public, and it has given the far-left of the Democratic wing all the ammunition they need to compete in the '08... and probably the '12... elections. His abject failure in appointing functional and accountable people to key Cabinet positions will give history an entire decade of examples of how NOT to run a White House. The irony of that is the fact that his legacy follows right on the tail of "Slick Willie" and the era of stained dresses and phone recordings... but you'd be hard pressed to find many moderates that aren't looking back on the Clinton years with a large degree of fondness.
I'm not being facetious here, either. Granted, America has a terrible and very skewed grasp of history... but I think I am right in saying that the public, right now, would say that the Clinton years were better years than the Bush years... even if you took Iraq out of the question all together. My frustration with Bush is far different than Ryan's... but it is still very real, and I can't blame McCain for wanting to avoid any association with it.
McCain isn't Ronald Reagan... but I still think that most conservatives are looking at Ronnie through some seriously rose-tinted glasses, anyway, so maybe McCain is just what the country needs, as opposed to just what Ryan and the GOP wants.
Like I said, I understand the frustration the neo-cons in America must be feeling right now... mainly because I don't feel I have been adequately represented by my party in decades. Zel Miller was the last solid Democrat executive I could back... and he's been gone since '05. I certainly have never felt comfortable with any of the Presidential prospects the party has thrown up since 1984, either...
So, my words to Ryan and the rest of the Right?
Welcome to my world.
I stand by what I said, though... you want to blame someone for this mess? Don't blame McCain. There were plenty of "more conservative" candidates early on... they just didn't carry the base. If the majority of voting Republicans in this nation were as conservative as Ryan, Limbaugh, Hannity and Wilkow seem to think, then why didn't Romney or Huckabee win the nomination? Or Ron Paul? How much more conservative can you get than Ron Paul? Low taxes, smaller government, constitutional agendas... the only thing that I know freaks out people like Ryan is his insistence that the US stop any and all "nation-building" efforts at once and completely.
So, who's to blame? The biased media? The Democrats?
I blame George W. Bush. His "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" attitude towards his foreign policy agenda is going to haunt the GOP and the conservative movement in America for decades... mark my words.
His inability to articulate and promote his vision of policy in America has made the GOP seem, more than ever, like they couldn't care less about the concerns and questions of the general public, and it has given the far-left of the Democratic wing all the ammunition they need to compete in the '08... and probably the '12... elections. His abject failure in appointing functional and accountable people to key Cabinet positions will give history an entire decade of examples of how NOT to run a White House. The irony of that is the fact that his legacy follows right on the tail of "Slick Willie" and the era of stained dresses and phone recordings... but you'd be hard pressed to find many moderates that aren't looking back on the Clinton years with a large degree of fondness.
I'm not being facetious here, either. Granted, America has a terrible and very skewed grasp of history... but I think I am right in saying that the public, right now, would say that the Clinton years were better years than the Bush years... even if you took Iraq out of the question all together. My frustration with Bush is far different than Ryan's... but it is still very real, and I can't blame McCain for wanting to avoid any association with it.
McCain isn't Ronald Reagan... but I still think that most conservatives are looking at Ronnie through some seriously rose-tinted glasses, anyway, so maybe McCain is just what the country needs, as opposed to just what Ryan and the GOP wants.
While I'm on a roll...
Did anyone see McCain's tax break for health care idea?
Looks like someone has been reading the Bund.
He proposes a $5000 tax credit so families can shop (or stay with their employee benefits) for health care. Promotes competition. Sounds a lot like Titus' idea, except for the deduction thing.
Slap the deduction idea, co-pays and out of pocket expenses on health care and prescription drugs becoming 100% tax deductible, and we've got a huge dent in health care issues.
Don't you think?
Looks like someone has been reading the Bund.
He proposes a $5000 tax credit so families can shop (or stay with their employee benefits) for health care. Promotes competition. Sounds a lot like Titus' idea, except for the deduction thing.
Slap the deduction idea, co-pays and out of pocket expenses on health care and prescription drugs becoming 100% tax deductible, and we've got a huge dent in health care issues.
Don't you think?
Environmentalism is not a four letter word...
... as long as the rationale behind it is sound.
Saw this thing on HGTV, Ed Bagley Jr. does this show. He's been green as newborn poop for decades and he does this show about homes that are all green and everything. various Hollywood types, you get the picture. What the show breaks down to is millionaire mansions with solar panels, wind generators, electric cars and minimal carbon footprints, all done on a budget any of us would need to work five years to achieve. Overall, a useless show, but it got me thinking.
To make 100 gallons of ethanol from corn, it takes 129 gallons of fossil fuel. Corn in and of itself is not a very efficient crop to make ethanol. Take something else that grows in the same climate, with the same general soil needs, etc, like sugar beets, and all of a sudden you have something far far more tailored for ethanol production. 50% of this nation's sugar, the kind you put in your coffee or on your cereal or watch your kids spill from the bowl, comes from beets, not cane. So looking at Brazil as an example, just by removing the "subsidized" corn and replacing it with beets, we could be swimming in inexpensive ethanol inside five years. Doable for any first term president.
But a total aside from that is this: Now that gas is cripplingly expensive, Mom Necessity is knocking. Where are the fuel efficient cars? Where are the hybrids? Oil just topped $120 a barrel and it is not coming down anytime soon. Does the technology exist for coal to gasoline? I know the technology exists for natural gas to gasoline. It's just that natural gas is used for too many other things to convert. And diesel is $4.20 a gallon. Someone isn't coming up with bio-fuel to help out? Someone like Wal-Mart, who holds more trucks than anyone else nationwide?
THIS is the key to the economy. Break this stranglehold oil, and not just imported but all kinds, has on our economy and every single sector I've mentioned flourishes. Food prices drop. Farmers win. Domestic production and distillation of ethanol wins. We still drill and refine domestic oil. gas prices drop and everyone has more disposable income. Prosperity.
Saw this thing on HGTV, Ed Bagley Jr. does this show. He's been green as newborn poop for decades and he does this show about homes that are all green and everything. various Hollywood types, you get the picture. What the show breaks down to is millionaire mansions with solar panels, wind generators, electric cars and minimal carbon footprints, all done on a budget any of us would need to work five years to achieve. Overall, a useless show, but it got me thinking.
To make 100 gallons of ethanol from corn, it takes 129 gallons of fossil fuel. Corn in and of itself is not a very efficient crop to make ethanol. Take something else that grows in the same climate, with the same general soil needs, etc, like sugar beets, and all of a sudden you have something far far more tailored for ethanol production. 50% of this nation's sugar, the kind you put in your coffee or on your cereal or watch your kids spill from the bowl, comes from beets, not cane. So looking at Brazil as an example, just by removing the "subsidized" corn and replacing it with beets, we could be swimming in inexpensive ethanol inside five years. Doable for any first term president.
But a total aside from that is this: Now that gas is cripplingly expensive, Mom Necessity is knocking. Where are the fuel efficient cars? Where are the hybrids? Oil just topped $120 a barrel and it is not coming down anytime soon. Does the technology exist for coal to gasoline? I know the technology exists for natural gas to gasoline. It's just that natural gas is used for too many other things to convert. And diesel is $4.20 a gallon. Someone isn't coming up with bio-fuel to help out? Someone like Wal-Mart, who holds more trucks than anyone else nationwide?
THIS is the key to the economy. Break this stranglehold oil, and not just imported but all kinds, has on our economy and every single sector I've mentioned flourishes. Food prices drop. Farmers win. Domestic production and distillation of ethanol wins. We still drill and refine domestic oil. gas prices drop and everyone has more disposable income. Prosperity.
That was scary ...
You started out with complimenting me in your last rather then grabbing an anvil and searching for the nearest window ... I think I like it.
****
What I still find distressing, though, is your continued disdain for simple environmentalism because you feel it ALL equates to "Algorian" panic-mongering (I like that phrase... Algorian). Why shouldn't McCain attempt to appeal to moderates like those that support Arnold in CA?
I'd need an explanation of what you consider "simple environmentalism" before I (let a lone you) could state whether I am for or against it. But you have to admit, the "environmentalism" preached and talked about in the media today is in fact of the Algorian brand. That's where the debate is, whether laws need to be enacted to combat man's affect on the planet's climate. At present, because the Gore crowd has waged such an effective PR campaign, the word "environmentalism" is synonymous with what he is advocating, thus the term itself would cause conservatives to recoil. In other words it's what environmentalism has come to mean politically (as defined by Gore et al) rather then its technical definition that I oppose.
In terms of the second half of the above, my response to it is really more of a commentary on where "conservatives" within the GOP find themselves in regards to McCain's candidacy. You're right, he either has to win with "moderates" or the Republican base ... conservatives like me. And it just rankles me that he is going out of his way to reach out to the moderates/blue dog Dems while making NO overtures to repair his relationship with the party base. And going on Hannitty and calling himself a "conservative" doesn't cut it, for me anyway. He repeatedly referred to himself as a conservative when the GOP primary was still being contested, and said it again during the FOX interview I just referenced, a few weeks ago with Hannitty. So I would like to see his "conservative leadership initiative" via policy put forth when it comes to energy, illegal immigration, etc, rather then doing what I regard as a PR stunt - touring a solar plant in a state he'll never win. He calls himself a conservative, well, where's the beef? And that brings us back to what his inner circle has undoubtedly already decided will happen - the base (conservatives) top issue is the war above all else, and he is clearly the ONLY choice when it come to that. He knows it, I know it, Limbaugh knows it - we WILL pull the lever for Mac in the voting booth and over that one issue. So quite frankly, he doesn't have to "reach out" to us because he knows ultimately there is no alternative to him on the war. And that just rankles me to no end to be honest. And not out of personal sophistry or any other political narcissism which says, "see, he needs people like me."It's because all of these other important issues - energy, illegals, taxes (he voted against the last extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2006), judges, on all of these the Democrat Party has made itself vulnerable because their leadership has opted for a hard left path and subsequently has no plan on any major issue. They have descended into a purely opposition party (as was noted by Jambo) and that is a grand opportunity for the Grand Ol' Party to push these bold "conservative" oriented agendas concerning the issues of the day right down their throats. But instead, because he is the only choice concerning the war, conservatives have to bite the bullet, roll the dice, and HOPE that he will act properly (according to the likes of me anyway) on these other issues. That's what pisses me off. Right now, while Hillary and Obama are throwing hammers at 5 paces he could be putting forth conservative solutions (and he says that's what he is, a Reagan conservative), and say, "HERE, here is what I would do, here is why it would work, now choke on it Democrat leadership, at least I have a plan." But instead he's out getting Arnold's autograph ....
****
Oh, and you are correct about the "type" of Democrats that were elected to the newly gained seats last cycle - they are center left, not whack jobs like a Reid or Pelosi. That's encouraging but these blue-dog Dems are not penetrating the upper ranks (egad, the word "penetrate" right after writing the name Pelsoi just made me throw up in my mouth a little), thus they will have no say in setting the national party's platform nor agenda - their nominee will do that and in a Mac presidential win it will fall back to the leaders in Congress. Either way the hard left liberal opposition path they've chosen has no end in sight.
****
Obama - goodness gracious. Now he and Wright are having dueling press conferences! Unfortunately for Ol' Hill it's about 10 states too late. Obama will get the nomination. And the 527's, (created by McCain-Feingold ironically enough) will keep Wright's words in the national political dialogue all the way to November no matter how much Mac requests they pull the ads (as he did with the NC state GOP regarding their recent "Wright ad"). This is a lose-lose for Obama. If he gives the mafia style "you're dead to me" backhand to Wright then he will tick off some of his black support whom will see it as Obama throwing a fellow African American under the bus. If he doesn't then the white-blue collar moderate Democrats will head straight for McCain. And we haven't even gotten to the specifics of his overtly socialist health care and tax plans. Talk about limping across the finish line...
****
What I still find distressing, though, is your continued disdain for simple environmentalism because you feel it ALL equates to "Algorian" panic-mongering (I like that phrase... Algorian). Why shouldn't McCain attempt to appeal to moderates like those that support Arnold in CA?
I'd need an explanation of what you consider "simple environmentalism" before I (let a lone you) could state whether I am for or against it. But you have to admit, the "environmentalism" preached and talked about in the media today is in fact of the Algorian brand. That's where the debate is, whether laws need to be enacted to combat man's affect on the planet's climate. At present, because the Gore crowd has waged such an effective PR campaign, the word "environmentalism" is synonymous with what he is advocating, thus the term itself would cause conservatives to recoil. In other words it's what environmentalism has come to mean politically (as defined by Gore et al) rather then its technical definition that I oppose.
In terms of the second half of the above, my response to it is really more of a commentary on where "conservatives" within the GOP find themselves in regards to McCain's candidacy. You're right, he either has to win with "moderates" or the Republican base ... conservatives like me. And it just rankles me that he is going out of his way to reach out to the moderates/blue dog Dems while making NO overtures to repair his relationship with the party base. And going on Hannitty and calling himself a "conservative" doesn't cut it, for me anyway. He repeatedly referred to himself as a conservative when the GOP primary was still being contested, and said it again during the FOX interview I just referenced, a few weeks ago with Hannitty. So I would like to see his "conservative leadership initiative" via policy put forth when it comes to energy, illegal immigration, etc, rather then doing what I regard as a PR stunt - touring a solar plant in a state he'll never win. He calls himself a conservative, well, where's the beef? And that brings us back to what his inner circle has undoubtedly already decided will happen - the base (conservatives) top issue is the war above all else, and he is clearly the ONLY choice when it come to that. He knows it, I know it, Limbaugh knows it - we WILL pull the lever for Mac in the voting booth and over that one issue. So quite frankly, he doesn't have to "reach out" to us because he knows ultimately there is no alternative to him on the war. And that just rankles me to no end to be honest. And not out of personal sophistry or any other political narcissism which says, "see, he needs people like me."It's because all of these other important issues - energy, illegals, taxes (he voted against the last extension of the Bush tax cuts in 2006), judges, on all of these the Democrat Party has made itself vulnerable because their leadership has opted for a hard left path and subsequently has no plan on any major issue. They have descended into a purely opposition party (as was noted by Jambo) and that is a grand opportunity for the Grand Ol' Party to push these bold "conservative" oriented agendas concerning the issues of the day right down their throats. But instead, because he is the only choice concerning the war, conservatives have to bite the bullet, roll the dice, and HOPE that he will act properly (according to the likes of me anyway) on these other issues. That's what pisses me off. Right now, while Hillary and Obama are throwing hammers at 5 paces he could be putting forth conservative solutions (and he says that's what he is, a Reagan conservative), and say, "HERE, here is what I would do, here is why it would work, now choke on it Democrat leadership, at least I have a plan." But instead he's out getting Arnold's autograph ....
****
Oh, and you are correct about the "type" of Democrats that were elected to the newly gained seats last cycle - they are center left, not whack jobs like a Reid or Pelosi. That's encouraging but these blue-dog Dems are not penetrating the upper ranks (egad, the word "penetrate" right after writing the name Pelsoi just made me throw up in my mouth a little), thus they will have no say in setting the national party's platform nor agenda - their nominee will do that and in a Mac presidential win it will fall back to the leaders in Congress. Either way the hard left liberal opposition path they've chosen has no end in sight.
****
Obama - goodness gracious. Now he and Wright are having dueling press conferences! Unfortunately for Ol' Hill it's about 10 states too late. Obama will get the nomination. And the 527's, (created by McCain-Feingold ironically enough) will keep Wright's words in the national political dialogue all the way to November no matter how much Mac requests they pull the ads (as he did with the NC state GOP regarding their recent "Wright ad"). This is a lose-lose for Obama. If he gives the mafia style "you're dead to me" backhand to Wright then he will tick off some of his black support whom will see it as Obama throwing a fellow African American under the bus. If he doesn't then the white-blue collar moderate Democrats will head straight for McCain. And we haven't even gotten to the specifics of his overtly socialist health care and tax plans. Talk about limping across the finish line...
Okay, I'll buy that...
This was a good response. You explained your position very clearly, without declaring mine to be worthless, "Chicken Little" dribble, which you have done in the past.
I have no issues with your "comprehensive plan" at all, and would applaud any candidate that chose to show the khutspah to implement it. This INCLUDES drilling in ANWAR and off the Pacific Coast... and frankly anywhere in the US that we can find viable alternative sources of crude oil and natural gas.
My questions about drilling in ANWAR have always been that, even if we started punching holes tomorrow, we would not see a measurable amount of crude hitting our existing refineries for at least 5 years, and it would be 8 to 10 years before it was flowing at capacity. That is NOT a solution that is going to change the paradigm of American crude oil consumption in and of itself... but it is part of a broader solution.
What I still find distressing, though, is your continued disdain for simple environmentalism because you feel it ALL equates to "Algorian" panic-mongering (I like that phrase... Algorian). Why shouldn't McCain attempt to appeal to moderates like those that support Arnold in CA? He has ZERO chance of winning CA in the general election, but everything he does will be carried nation-wide to every TV and media outlet that moderates everywhere will see... and it WILL make a difference in states like SD, NE, WY, TN, maybe even FL, OH and PA... which are big states.
In an ideal world, McCain should be able to DEPEND on the GOP base vote simply because of the alternative candidate (whichever one wins the Convention)... but you have too many pundits like Limbaugh and Hannity bitching about the "three Democratic candidates" for President. How is that going to help keep even a moderate GOP agenda in the White House? Which is more damaging to the future of this country... a "green-friendly" Republican or the winner of the Obama/Hillary conflict? ANY Republican that had chosen to run on a strictly "neo-conservative" platform would have been seen as simply four more years of Bush by the general population, and Bush's name is anathema to the GOP right now... period.
I am right next to you in singing the laments about the "liberal" gains in the Congress over the last four years... but this is the impression I get: It isn't the "liberals" that are winning seats right now... it is moderates. I don't have all the numbers in front of me, but I'd be willing to bet that most of the newly-elected Representatives in the House (Dems, anyway) are like Carney and Casey (yes, I know he's a Senator) and are far more pro-life and pro-military than actual liberals like Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, or Dean. The last "class" of Congressman sworn in had the largest number of combat veterans since 1956... surely THAT must tell us something about the kind of people we have running for office, even if they are Democrats.
Okay, I got on a bit of a ramble here, so let me reel it in...
I understand the "conservative's" fear of watering-down the agenda of the Right simply to gain another four years in the White House... but that might very well be the path the conservatives HAVE to follow. Unpalatable or otherwise, this is the price that will have to be paid for 8 years of bad press and bad policy via the Bush Administration. Bush made decisions and followed policy that alienated vast segments of the society... and did next to nothing to correct the problem. His failures in foreign policy alienated BOTH sides of the aisle, as much as his domestic habits alienated GOP voters and his national security actions alienated the far-left.
My point? If McCain can't count on the GOP base, then he can't win. If he can count on the GOP base, then he needs to court the moderate center of of the Democratic party that is leery of the very liberal agendas of both Obama and Clinton... and that segment of the party is far bigger than most of the Democratic leadership is willing to admit. Why would environmental concern equate to weakness, given the scenario I have laid out here? Why would a focus on alternative resource development, in the face of the failures of the status quo, be seen as "pandering"? Arnold may not be a conservative... but he is a Republican. He supports 80% of the party line, and the 20% he fights doesn't effect issues like national security or defense or the war on terror.
You can't fight and win a bloody, expensive and protracted war abroad and expect NO domestic impact at home... but that was what Bush and Co. promised. As the nation watched them fail to deliver on that promise, the voices of the Deans, Pelosis and Gores of the nation got louder and louder, to the point where Cindy Sheehan is now seen as a viable candidate for public office in Pelosi's district simply because of her anti-Bush position... not because of her stated political goals and ambitions. THIS is the climate that Bush has created for the GOP to campaign in.
Anyone else that claims this country needs hard-corps "classical liberalism" in a candidate needs to write-in Ron Paul's name on the ballot and quit bitching.
I have no issues with your "comprehensive plan" at all, and would applaud any candidate that chose to show the khutspah to implement it. This INCLUDES drilling in ANWAR and off the Pacific Coast... and frankly anywhere in the US that we can find viable alternative sources of crude oil and natural gas.
My questions about drilling in ANWAR have always been that, even if we started punching holes tomorrow, we would not see a measurable amount of crude hitting our existing refineries for at least 5 years, and it would be 8 to 10 years before it was flowing at capacity. That is NOT a solution that is going to change the paradigm of American crude oil consumption in and of itself... but it is part of a broader solution.
What I still find distressing, though, is your continued disdain for simple environmentalism because you feel it ALL equates to "Algorian" panic-mongering (I like that phrase... Algorian). Why shouldn't McCain attempt to appeal to moderates like those that support Arnold in CA? He has ZERO chance of winning CA in the general election, but everything he does will be carried nation-wide to every TV and media outlet that moderates everywhere will see... and it WILL make a difference in states like SD, NE, WY, TN, maybe even FL, OH and PA... which are big states.
In an ideal world, McCain should be able to DEPEND on the GOP base vote simply because of the alternative candidate (whichever one wins the Convention)... but you have too many pundits like Limbaugh and Hannity bitching about the "three Democratic candidates" for President. How is that going to help keep even a moderate GOP agenda in the White House? Which is more damaging to the future of this country... a "green-friendly" Republican or the winner of the Obama/Hillary conflict? ANY Republican that had chosen to run on a strictly "neo-conservative" platform would have been seen as simply four more years of Bush by the general population, and Bush's name is anathema to the GOP right now... period.
I am right next to you in singing the laments about the "liberal" gains in the Congress over the last four years... but this is the impression I get: It isn't the "liberals" that are winning seats right now... it is moderates. I don't have all the numbers in front of me, but I'd be willing to bet that most of the newly-elected Representatives in the House (Dems, anyway) are like Carney and Casey (yes, I know he's a Senator) and are far more pro-life and pro-military than actual liberals like Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, or Dean. The last "class" of Congressman sworn in had the largest number of combat veterans since 1956... surely THAT must tell us something about the kind of people we have running for office, even if they are Democrats.
Okay, I got on a bit of a ramble here, so let me reel it in...
I understand the "conservative's" fear of watering-down the agenda of the Right simply to gain another four years in the White House... but that might very well be the path the conservatives HAVE to follow. Unpalatable or otherwise, this is the price that will have to be paid for 8 years of bad press and bad policy via the Bush Administration. Bush made decisions and followed policy that alienated vast segments of the society... and did next to nothing to correct the problem. His failures in foreign policy alienated BOTH sides of the aisle, as much as his domestic habits alienated GOP voters and his national security actions alienated the far-left.
My point? If McCain can't count on the GOP base, then he can't win. If he can count on the GOP base, then he needs to court the moderate center of of the Democratic party that is leery of the very liberal agendas of both Obama and Clinton... and that segment of the party is far bigger than most of the Democratic leadership is willing to admit. Why would environmental concern equate to weakness, given the scenario I have laid out here? Why would a focus on alternative resource development, in the face of the failures of the status quo, be seen as "pandering"? Arnold may not be a conservative... but he is a Republican. He supports 80% of the party line, and the 20% he fights doesn't effect issues like national security or defense or the war on terror.
You can't fight and win a bloody, expensive and protracted war abroad and expect NO domestic impact at home... but that was what Bush and Co. promised. As the nation watched them fail to deliver on that promise, the voices of the Deans, Pelosis and Gores of the nation got louder and louder, to the point where Cindy Sheehan is now seen as a viable candidate for public office in Pelosi's district simply because of her anti-Bush position... not because of her stated political goals and ambitions. THIS is the climate that Bush has created for the GOP to campaign in.
Anyone else that claims this country needs hard-corps "classical liberalism" in a candidate needs to write-in Ron Paul's name on the ballot and quit bitching.
Monday, April 28, 2008
I brought it up ...
.... because there will be NO CANDIDATE which addresses this issue outside of an alarmist's or "PC green" approach this presidential race - and I include McCain in that summation. AND it will be a part of the broader conversation regarding energy policy as diesel climbs to over $4 a gallon, rising the cost of nearly all goods. We must come forward with a bold energy initiative that INCLUDES domestic drilling (and don't give me this horse manure that there isn't much here - the Gulf, the Pacific coast & yes, ANWAR have WIDE varying estimates on what's there, from a 1 year supply to 100 years). More importantly you combine that with new, more efficient refineries (we haven't built one in 30 years, and no one is telling me the technology hasn't improved), nuclear power, a moon shot alternative, and making Russia your best friend in terms of a trade deal involving Siberian crude, and NOW you got yourself an energy policy. McCain should be putting a bold leadership plan like this together and meeting with Putin's soon to be successor rather then touring solar panel plants with Swarzcheneger.... sheeeesh that makes me cringe. Its "moderate" PR, not an energy plan.
I STILL think, as I thought back then, that it is the height of human hubris to believe that mankind can affect climate, not 1:1 pollution mind you, but affect the climate of a planet. We simply don't have the power, period. Smog, chemical dumps contaminating bodies of water, etc, yes, we can and have done that - but planetary CLIMATE ... please. And the descriptions I have read about this documentary is not that it denied humans can effect the environment, but that they haven't the power to change CLIMATE, and again that is what I argued on that back porch and stand by to this day.
The problem with Algorian (and I use him not because I think you advocate his approach, you are much closer to my view then his, I understand that) approaches is that it can not pass a 7th grade science question - what caused the previous ice ages to come and go? The obvious answer is that the planet is on a cycle no man has yet been able to interfere with (muck like a female "cycle"...he,he).
On the dvd's availability - you can order it from the UK using that site. Just opt for the US in the UK column is all ... mate. That site allows you to purchase it right now, so I have no idea why you had trouble with it.
And no, you're not a tree hugger; and environmentalism, as defined by being a good steward of the environment you inherit, is as traditional in the US as apple pie - from Teddy Roosevelt to the Boy Scouts. I have no problem with "good stewardship." I DO have a problem with advocates whom ask me to "believe" in science, such as the alarmists. "Scientific fact" can be proven empirically, anything short of that is theory. In other words photosynthesis is NOT a theory, it can be demonstrated. And while I don't think you are a "tree hugger" or that you buy into Gore's alarmism, I do believe that you are too hostile to certain aspects of my comprehensive plan above, i.e. domestic drilling. But even minus that you have to agree that the rest of my plan is at least a bold initiative with real hopes of energy independence and in the mean time economically proficient ... its leadership on the issue, and its what is lacking in all three candidates right now.... in the mean time everyone from truckers to soccer Moms are feeling the pinch with no real relief in sight ...... and that is why I brought it up. In order to properly deal with energy independence and its immediate foreign supply we must first, in my opinion, dispell with the concept that mankind can alter planetary climate. And the more people see dvd's like this one, the more likely it this will happen.
I STILL think, as I thought back then, that it is the height of human hubris to believe that mankind can affect climate, not 1:1 pollution mind you, but affect the climate of a planet. We simply don't have the power, period. Smog, chemical dumps contaminating bodies of water, etc, yes, we can and have done that - but planetary CLIMATE ... please. And the descriptions I have read about this documentary is not that it denied humans can effect the environment, but that they haven't the power to change CLIMATE, and again that is what I argued on that back porch and stand by to this day.
The problem with Algorian (and I use him not because I think you advocate his approach, you are much closer to my view then his, I understand that) approaches is that it can not pass a 7th grade science question - what caused the previous ice ages to come and go? The obvious answer is that the planet is on a cycle no man has yet been able to interfere with (muck like a female "cycle"...he,he).
On the dvd's availability - you can order it from the UK using that site. Just opt for the US in the UK column is all ... mate. That site allows you to purchase it right now, so I have no idea why you had trouble with it.
And no, you're not a tree hugger; and environmentalism, as defined by being a good steward of the environment you inherit, is as traditional in the US as apple pie - from Teddy Roosevelt to the Boy Scouts. I have no problem with "good stewardship." I DO have a problem with advocates whom ask me to "believe" in science, such as the alarmists. "Scientific fact" can be proven empirically, anything short of that is theory. In other words photosynthesis is NOT a theory, it can be demonstrated. And while I don't think you are a "tree hugger" or that you buy into Gore's alarmism, I do believe that you are too hostile to certain aspects of my comprehensive plan above, i.e. domestic drilling. But even minus that you have to agree that the rest of my plan is at least a bold initiative with real hopes of energy independence and in the mean time economically proficient ... its leadership on the issue, and its what is lacking in all three candidates right now.... in the mean time everyone from truckers to soccer Moms are feeling the pinch with no real relief in sight ...... and that is why I brought it up. In order to properly deal with energy independence and its immediate foreign supply we must first, in my opinion, dispell with the concept that mankind can alter planetary climate. And the more people see dvd's like this one, the more likely it this will happen.
"Moore-esque"...
That's funny.
Granted, Mr. Moore is the bottom of the barrel in terms of pure left-wing propaganda, and I understand the difference between propaganda and biased media. I am simply amazed that YOU see the difference.
I followed the link you provided, and was unable to find a vendor here in the US that had the film, or the trilogy of films, in stock... not even Amazon has it. So my ability to view the program is held up till it is more readily available in the US.
However, there are LOTS of sites dedicated to the piece... and while most of them are calling for a plague of biting flies to descend on the genitalia of the makers of this film, there are some that maintain a rather objective view of the production.
It would seem the greatest strength of the film is that it restates most of MY arguments concerning global warming. Not whether or not it is happening, but what is the cause. The film does not argue the point that man can, and does, effect the environment... even on a global scale... but the effect cannot be measured against such far greater effects happening in the natural world.
Variable cycles with the sun, tiny fluctuations in the orbit of the earth around the sun, geologic events such as volcanoes and changing ocean temperatures all effect the global climate far more than man has, is or will effect the global climate. Even the amount of annual snowfall at the poles can EFFECT the climate as much as BE AN EFFECT of the climate... less fresh snow at the poles means less radiant light (and heat) reflected back into space.
I'm just wondering WHY this has been brought up again? Who in this forum is advocating the advancement of the pseudo-science of "global warming"? Who here is a fan of Gore's "Srgt. Pompous and the Hippy Club Band" movie? I haven't even seen "Inconvenient Truth"... so I can't even say it sucked first hand... I'm certainly not going to defend its position on the climate.
As I said on your patio all those years ago... what got my "goat" was the constant dribble from the ultra-right about how it was "impossible" for human beings to impact the environment... and YOU going so far as to say it was the height of arrogance and conceit to even suggest it. That was simply FALSE, and basing a counter-argument to something as problematic as global warming on a falsehood seemed rather obtuse to me... even coming from a very young and energetic Ryan.
I would simply remind you that I was under the impression that we ALL agreed to recognize the difference (at least within this forum) between "environmentalism" as governmental policy and the global-warming panic mongers that are striving to make governmental policy. The latter is BAD, but the former can be GOOD... even profitable, to those that recognize the need early enough to cash in on the process. Look at Waste Management, Inc. They just posted record earnings for the 11th straight year in a row, and hold more patents on recycling technology than any other company on the planet. THIS company isn't your typical garbage or land-fill pick up group... this is a forward-thinking corporation that sees the need for clean, safe and alternative solutions to environmental concerns... and they are cashing in the GREEN.
The technology to "clean up" our domestic industrial and commercial enterprises exists RIGHT NOW... all I have advocated from the government is an incentive (tax-based or otherwise) to encourage the development and implementation of this technology to hasten its application into society in a cost-effective manner.
Is that so wrong? Does that make me a "tree hugger"?
Granted, Mr. Moore is the bottom of the barrel in terms of pure left-wing propaganda, and I understand the difference between propaganda and biased media. I am simply amazed that YOU see the difference.
I followed the link you provided, and was unable to find a vendor here in the US that had the film, or the trilogy of films, in stock... not even Amazon has it. So my ability to view the program is held up till it is more readily available in the US.
However, there are LOTS of sites dedicated to the piece... and while most of them are calling for a plague of biting flies to descend on the genitalia of the makers of this film, there are some that maintain a rather objective view of the production.
It would seem the greatest strength of the film is that it restates most of MY arguments concerning global warming. Not whether or not it is happening, but what is the cause. The film does not argue the point that man can, and does, effect the environment... even on a global scale... but the effect cannot be measured against such far greater effects happening in the natural world.
Variable cycles with the sun, tiny fluctuations in the orbit of the earth around the sun, geologic events such as volcanoes and changing ocean temperatures all effect the global climate far more than man has, is or will effect the global climate. Even the amount of annual snowfall at the poles can EFFECT the climate as much as BE AN EFFECT of the climate... less fresh snow at the poles means less radiant light (and heat) reflected back into space.
I'm just wondering WHY this has been brought up again? Who in this forum is advocating the advancement of the pseudo-science of "global warming"? Who here is a fan of Gore's "Srgt. Pompous and the Hippy Club Band" movie? I haven't even seen "Inconvenient Truth"... so I can't even say it sucked first hand... I'm certainly not going to defend its position on the climate.
As I said on your patio all those years ago... what got my "goat" was the constant dribble from the ultra-right about how it was "impossible" for human beings to impact the environment... and YOU going so far as to say it was the height of arrogance and conceit to even suggest it. That was simply FALSE, and basing a counter-argument to something as problematic as global warming on a falsehood seemed rather obtuse to me... even coming from a very young and energetic Ryan.
I would simply remind you that I was under the impression that we ALL agreed to recognize the difference (at least within this forum) between "environmentalism" as governmental policy and the global-warming panic mongers that are striving to make governmental policy. The latter is BAD, but the former can be GOOD... even profitable, to those that recognize the need early enough to cash in on the process. Look at Waste Management, Inc. They just posted record earnings for the 11th straight year in a row, and hold more patents on recycling technology than any other company on the planet. THIS company isn't your typical garbage or land-fill pick up group... this is a forward-thinking corporation that sees the need for clean, safe and alternative solutions to environmental concerns... and they are cashing in the GREEN.
The technology to "clean up" our domestic industrial and commercial enterprises exists RIGHT NOW... all I have advocated from the government is an incentive (tax-based or otherwise) to encourage the development and implementation of this technology to hasten its application into society in a cost-effective manner.
Is that so wrong? Does that make me a "tree hugger"?
"Going to the Chapel..."
One month and counting ....
Look, I didn't proclaim this upcoming book as "gospel." I simply said that despite the biases in the Frontline piece, we still made good use of it - primarily because of the detailed research and "inside ball" mosaic they were able to paint (accessible after the proper BS removal hose was applied of course). I think this book will do the same - give us details that were previously accessible only to the principles involved, only it will clearly be an "advocacy" piece, rather then one of "hostile suspicion" as was presented by PBS. The difference is he is not reporting from the outside, he was there - it doesn't mean his analysis and recounting of events will be flawless, but it does mean that it is at least as worthy of our attention, if not more so, as the PBS special.
And while we're on the subject of biases, we all (and I am guilty of this in my initial reaction to Bush's War) should refrain from describing any "documentary", (be it electronic or written) as "Micheal Moore-esque", unless it is clearly full of flat out untruths, cutting and pasting of newspaper headlines or conspiracy driven theories not based in reality ... as is the Fahrenheit garbage, or Gore's "Inconvenient" snake oil cure.
And on that topic I have come across a DVD set , I'm going to the site in a moment for its purchase and I urge you both to do the same. You refused to watch Moore's sleeze without its counter, "Farenhype", well do the same with An Inconvenient Truth and ... The Great Global Warming Swindle. This documentary first appeared in the UK on BBC, and the expanded 158 minute version is now available on dvd at https://www.wagtv.com/product/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle-322.html . Lets see if Gore can stand the heat ... if you'll excuse the pun.
Later .......
Look, I didn't proclaim this upcoming book as "gospel." I simply said that despite the biases in the Frontline piece, we still made good use of it - primarily because of the detailed research and "inside ball" mosaic they were able to paint (accessible after the proper BS removal hose was applied of course). I think this book will do the same - give us details that were previously accessible only to the principles involved, only it will clearly be an "advocacy" piece, rather then one of "hostile suspicion" as was presented by PBS. The difference is he is not reporting from the outside, he was there - it doesn't mean his analysis and recounting of events will be flawless, but it does mean that it is at least as worthy of our attention, if not more so, as the PBS special.
And while we're on the subject of biases, we all (and I am guilty of this in my initial reaction to Bush's War) should refrain from describing any "documentary", (be it electronic or written) as "Micheal Moore-esque", unless it is clearly full of flat out untruths, cutting and pasting of newspaper headlines or conspiracy driven theories not based in reality ... as is the Fahrenheit garbage, or Gore's "Inconvenient" snake oil cure.
And on that topic I have come across a DVD set , I'm going to the site in a moment for its purchase and I urge you both to do the same. You refused to watch Moore's sleeze without its counter, "Farenhype", well do the same with An Inconvenient Truth and ... The Great Global Warming Swindle. This documentary first appeared in the UK on BBC, and the expanded 158 minute version is now available on dvd at https://www.wagtv.com/product/The-Great-Global-Warming-Swindle-322.html . Lets see if Gore can stand the heat ... if you'll excuse the pun.
Later .......
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Two points...
... then I'll drop it.
I will watch for the book, and I will read it as soon as I can. I am forced to ask, though, why this man's views on the happenings between 9/11 and the publication date of his book are any more "objective" than anything else that is likely to be printed on the issue?
As a co-author and proponent of the policies and actions of an Administration that ALL of us have been critical of in one way or another, how much insight and objectivity can we really expect from this book? Why wouldn't we look at this book in the same light (but with a 180 degree opposite slant) that we would view something Michael Moore would create?
Granted, Moore is far more likely to use fiction... so he isn't a good example, but I think it makes my point, flawed analogy though it is.
The Frontline authors that made "Bush's War" may have had an agenda behind its production, but no more so (do I feel) that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld had in using flawed intelligence to present their case to the American public, and (as far as I have been able to tell) their sources and facts are all irrefutable. I'm sure Mr. Feith's will be too... he a very smart, very educated man, and won't make the same mistake twice.
I haven't read the book... but I know that this guy has pissed off some of the biggest names in the Cabinet right from the start, and that was a BIG lead up to his very early retirement from his DoD position. These names include Gen. Tommy Franks, NSA Rice, SoS Powell, and BOTH CIA Directors, Hayden and Tenant, who have ALL referred to him in unflattering terms, including "psycophant", "idiot", "lacky" and "fucking pain in the ass" (Gen. Tommy Franks, Amercan Soldier, page 362).
Don't worry, I'll read the book... but YOU should read American Soldier and tell me that Franks' doesn't have some pretty good insight into what worked and what didn't.
My other point was simply that the kids removed from the FLDS compound in TX were taken by the authority of the State of Texas... and not the Federal government. They may not have done everyting just right, but nothing that happened was "wrong" either... at least not legally wrong. As a rather strong supporter of State-rights, I am far less inclined to critique State-level law enforcement practices than I am Federal. They are doing the best they can, and the attention that the media puts on this kind of action makes actual "law" enforcement nearly impossible.
I will watch for the book, and I will read it as soon as I can. I am forced to ask, though, why this man's views on the happenings between 9/11 and the publication date of his book are any more "objective" than anything else that is likely to be printed on the issue?
As a co-author and proponent of the policies and actions of an Administration that ALL of us have been critical of in one way or another, how much insight and objectivity can we really expect from this book? Why wouldn't we look at this book in the same light (but with a 180 degree opposite slant) that we would view something Michael Moore would create?
Granted, Moore is far more likely to use fiction... so he isn't a good example, but I think it makes my point, flawed analogy though it is.
The Frontline authors that made "Bush's War" may have had an agenda behind its production, but no more so (do I feel) that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld had in using flawed intelligence to present their case to the American public, and (as far as I have been able to tell) their sources and facts are all irrefutable. I'm sure Mr. Feith's will be too... he a very smart, very educated man, and won't make the same mistake twice.
I haven't read the book... but I know that this guy has pissed off some of the biggest names in the Cabinet right from the start, and that was a BIG lead up to his very early retirement from his DoD position. These names include Gen. Tommy Franks, NSA Rice, SoS Powell, and BOTH CIA Directors, Hayden and Tenant, who have ALL referred to him in unflattering terms, including "psycophant", "idiot", "lacky" and "fucking pain in the ass" (Gen. Tommy Franks, Amercan Soldier, page 362).
Don't worry, I'll read the book... but YOU should read American Soldier and tell me that Franks' doesn't have some pretty good insight into what worked and what didn't.
My other point was simply that the kids removed from the FLDS compound in TX were taken by the authority of the State of Texas... and not the Federal government. They may not have done everyting just right, but nothing that happened was "wrong" either... at least not legally wrong. As a rather strong supporter of State-rights, I am far less inclined to critique State-level law enforcement practices than I am Federal. They are doing the best they can, and the attention that the media puts on this kind of action makes actual "law" enforcement nearly impossible.
Friday, April 25, 2008
Since we all found "Bush's War" useful to discussion and reflection ...
I thought I'd recommend a new book I'm going to purchase on my next day off (& hopefully read before the trip, he), and I thought I'd recommend it to you. We viewed Bush's War because it took us behind the scenes so to speak, and was ultimately useful in its detail of information despite bias ... this book fits that very description ... from Amazon:
"Of all the players in the planning and evolution of the Bush Administration's war on terrorism, few were more integral - or more controversial - than Douglas Feith, the chief strategist on Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon policy team. A highly influential international policy analyst for more than a quarter century before joining the Bush Administration in 2001, Feith worked closely with Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Cheney, and President Bush in defining the U.S. response to the attacks of 9/11 - from the successful war on Afghanistan to the more challenging invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.
Now, in this candid and revealing memoir, Feith - a founding member of the "neoconservative" movement and an architect of the administration's preventive strategy in the war on terrorism - offers the most in-depth and authoritative account yet of the Pentagon's evolving stance during one of the most controversial eras of American history
"Drawing upon a unique trove of documents and records, this extraordinary chronicle will put the reader in the room for scores of previously unreported senior-level meetings, showing how hundreds of critical decisions were made in defense of American interests during and after the crisis of 9/11 - decisions both successful and controversial. "
It is entitled:
War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism by Douglas Feith, none other then 3rd (under Rummy & Wolfiwitz) in the line of succession in the DoD. And he is the most senior level Bush administration member of the DoD to write of Iraq and the aftermath of 9/11 to date.
Should be interesting .....
"Of all the players in the planning and evolution of the Bush Administration's war on terrorism, few were more integral - or more controversial - than Douglas Feith, the chief strategist on Donald Rumsfeld's Pentagon policy team. A highly influential international policy analyst for more than a quarter century before joining the Bush Administration in 2001, Feith worked closely with Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Vice President Cheney, and President Bush in defining the U.S. response to the attacks of 9/11 - from the successful war on Afghanistan to the more challenging invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.
Now, in this candid and revealing memoir, Feith - a founding member of the "neoconservative" movement and an architect of the administration's preventive strategy in the war on terrorism - offers the most in-depth and authoritative account yet of the Pentagon's evolving stance during one of the most controversial eras of American history
"Drawing upon a unique trove of documents and records, this extraordinary chronicle will put the reader in the room for scores of previously unreported senior-level meetings, showing how hundreds of critical decisions were made in defense of American interests during and after the crisis of 9/11 - decisions both successful and controversial. "
It is entitled:
War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism by Douglas Feith, none other then 3rd (under Rummy & Wolfiwitz) in the line of succession in the DoD. And he is the most senior level Bush administration member of the DoD to write of Iraq and the aftermath of 9/11 to date.
Should be interesting .....
I should have been clearer ...
I wrote that post with just 10 minutes to spare as I jolted out the door for work - my time honored tradition of swiping through the time clock in a count down fashion worthy of Jack Bauer dismantling a bomb with only seconds pending till doom ...
First, I know Jeffs is a whacko of monumental proportions (he was caught here in Vegas - a (false) prophet caught in Sin City no less, he,he.). But it is precisely because their religion is so foreign to me as Mormon that I feel comfortable criticizing the police. In other words were I to "identify" with them in any way I would be sure to "put distance" between myself and they. But precisely because I see no correlation to what they've practiced for the 78 years since they broke away, I fear none in my comments regarding them.
What got my dander up was watching those kids be herded, pillows & blankets in hand like a sad Linus characterature, knowing there was really no reason (that I could come up with) for spiriting them away from their Mothers (who are victims themselves if what is reported is true), in complete foster-care isolation (from biological care givers). They could interview them in isolated rooms and return them to their mothers afterwards - but 500 miles away from the mothers (whom aren't under suspicion of direct abuse of any kind) in Houston, as a parent I view that as cruel and unusual.
It was that and the incessant pouring over (by GMA et al) of how these women dressed and acted .... where is that line of questioning for those in San Fransisco whom wish the Gay Pride Parade to pass by a Cathedral, ON SUNDAY during Mass, just so they can behave in sexually vile ways as they go by? It seems that if your perversion is in the name of the Lord, then it gets special scrutiny by the media and attention from law enforcement.
And on that point - I agree that marriage is defined (by law and my sense of morals) as between ONE man and ONE woman, so my follow up question is if the violation of that law (marriage) is the circumstances under which they proceeded with arrests, then WHY hasn't Gavine Nuesome, the mayor of San Fran, been arrested in CA for violating marriage laws when he unlawfully wed same sex couples in City Hall ???
And those two issues is what I wrote about (however unclearly) in haste this morning. If they are guilty of crimes of Polygamy, fine convict them - but I find an unequal treatment in place if married same sex couples are breaking the law yet walking free; and it is certainly no cause to take 5 year olds and infants away from their mothers.
****
On a different note ... not so "Reverend", Wright, will have his first "post-scandal" interview air tomorrow on PBS w/ Bill Moyers (I guess Jews are good enough to interview him, just not have their own state). I saw a snippet on FOX in which he says that Obama distanced himself "because he's a politician", rather then that he disagrees with him .... ummmmm ... where exactly is the Obama aide with the 8 month cruise tickets to Alaska for this guy?? This is the first of three stops. I'm starting a pool on how many times he'll accuse the US of planting AIDS in the black community ... who wants 11?
First, I know Jeffs is a whacko of monumental proportions (he was caught here in Vegas - a (false) prophet caught in Sin City no less, he,he.). But it is precisely because their religion is so foreign to me as Mormon that I feel comfortable criticizing the police. In other words were I to "identify" with them in any way I would be sure to "put distance" between myself and they. But precisely because I see no correlation to what they've practiced for the 78 years since they broke away, I fear none in my comments regarding them.
What got my dander up was watching those kids be herded, pillows & blankets in hand like a sad Linus characterature, knowing there was really no reason (that I could come up with) for spiriting them away from their Mothers (who are victims themselves if what is reported is true), in complete foster-care isolation (from biological care givers). They could interview them in isolated rooms and return them to their mothers afterwards - but 500 miles away from the mothers (whom aren't under suspicion of direct abuse of any kind) in Houston, as a parent I view that as cruel and unusual.
It was that and the incessant pouring over (by GMA et al) of how these women dressed and acted .... where is that line of questioning for those in San Fransisco whom wish the Gay Pride Parade to pass by a Cathedral, ON SUNDAY during Mass, just so they can behave in sexually vile ways as they go by? It seems that if your perversion is in the name of the Lord, then it gets special scrutiny by the media and attention from law enforcement.
And on that point - I agree that marriage is defined (by law and my sense of morals) as between ONE man and ONE woman, so my follow up question is if the violation of that law (marriage) is the circumstances under which they proceeded with arrests, then WHY hasn't Gavine Nuesome, the mayor of San Fran, been arrested in CA for violating marriage laws when he unlawfully wed same sex couples in City Hall ???
And those two issues is what I wrote about (however unclearly) in haste this morning. If they are guilty of crimes of Polygamy, fine convict them - but I find an unequal treatment in place if married same sex couples are breaking the law yet walking free; and it is certainly no cause to take 5 year olds and infants away from their mothers.
****
On a different note ... not so "Reverend", Wright, will have his first "post-scandal" interview air tomorrow on PBS w/ Bill Moyers (I guess Jews are good enough to interview him, just not have their own state). I saw a snippet on FOX in which he says that Obama distanced himself "because he's a politician", rather then that he disagrees with him .... ummmmm ... where exactly is the Obama aide with the 8 month cruise tickets to Alaska for this guy?? This is the first of three stops. I'm starting a pool on how many times he'll accuse the US of planting AIDS in the black community ... who wants 11?
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Whoa, Chief...
You want me to slow down?
I am just as ready to question the policies and procedures behind the Texas authorities' raid on the FLDS "temple" as I am the Reno's "Branch Davidians" disaster in 1993... but let's be honest, okay?
These are not just a bunch of excentric, God-fearing Christians here.
One of the former "prophets" of this particular branch of LDS faith is known to have had at least 60 children with no fewer than 22 wives... eleven of which were his own first cousins. Of his 60 "confirmed" children, 21 suffered from genetic fumarase defeciancy which causes severe retardation in children and is due exclusively to incestuous inbreeding.
The current "prophet" of the FLDS (Warren Jeffs) is currently serving a "10 year to life" term in a Federal prison for two counts of aggrevated rape. This conviction came after landing his face on the nation's "10 Most Wanted" list for nearly 18 months.
This particular branch of the LDS faith has been raided or sued by various agencies and indivduals since it was founded in 1930, for such varied and seemingly henious crimes as child abuse, neglect, rape, kidnapping, insurrection, and even hate crimes. Mr. Jeffs, the "prophet" has stated very clearly that "the black race is the people through which the devil has always been able to bring evil unto the earth" and that the only means to address this "evil" is blood attonement... in other words, the sacrifice of those guilty of bringing the evil into the world.
Then, of course, we come to the simple fact that "plural marriages" or polygamy is ILLEGAL in the United States of America. It is illegal to practice a polygamist lifestyle (common-law relationships without actual marriage licenses) in every single state that the FLDS maintains a presense in... AZ, UT and TX. This means that more than 6,000 people associated with this branch of the LDS faith are openly breaking the law. What happened to "enforcement first"?
I'd think you'd want as much distance between these people and the world "legitimate" as you could find, seeing as how they are simply making it more difficult for "law-abiding" Mormons like you and Mitt Romney to function legitimately in society.
Kind of how the 79,000 priests of the Roman Catholic faith that HAVEN'T abused children must feel about the 4,392 priests that did commit the crime since 1950.
I am just as ready to question the policies and procedures behind the Texas authorities' raid on the FLDS "temple" as I am the Reno's "Branch Davidians" disaster in 1993... but let's be honest, okay?
These are not just a bunch of excentric, God-fearing Christians here.
One of the former "prophets" of this particular branch of LDS faith is known to have had at least 60 children with no fewer than 22 wives... eleven of which were his own first cousins. Of his 60 "confirmed" children, 21 suffered from genetic fumarase defeciancy which causes severe retardation in children and is due exclusively to incestuous inbreeding.
The current "prophet" of the FLDS (Warren Jeffs) is currently serving a "10 year to life" term in a Federal prison for two counts of aggrevated rape. This conviction came after landing his face on the nation's "10 Most Wanted" list for nearly 18 months.
This particular branch of the LDS faith has been raided or sued by various agencies and indivduals since it was founded in 1930, for such varied and seemingly henious crimes as child abuse, neglect, rape, kidnapping, insurrection, and even hate crimes. Mr. Jeffs, the "prophet" has stated very clearly that "the black race is the people through which the devil has always been able to bring evil unto the earth" and that the only means to address this "evil" is blood attonement... in other words, the sacrifice of those guilty of bringing the evil into the world.
Then, of course, we come to the simple fact that "plural marriages" or polygamy is ILLEGAL in the United States of America. It is illegal to practice a polygamist lifestyle (common-law relationships without actual marriage licenses) in every single state that the FLDS maintains a presense in... AZ, UT and TX. This means that more than 6,000 people associated with this branch of the LDS faith are openly breaking the law. What happened to "enforcement first"?
I'd think you'd want as much distance between these people and the world "legitimate" as you could find, seeing as how they are simply making it more difficult for "law-abiding" Mormons like you and Mitt Romney to function legitimately in society.
Kind of how the 79,000 priests of the Roman Catholic faith that HAVEN'T abused children must feel about the 4,392 priests that did commit the crime since 1950.
Slow Down Cheetoh ...
2 things regarding your last ...
There's a reason you thought it was Gingrich ... regardless of whom originally "inked" the deal on pay-as-you-go, it was the Gingrich 1994, Contract With America congress that brought its full potential into realization. It was he that made the idea our government's practice on any real level, so it is deservingly referred to as "his baby."
Two, wherever the inception there is no question that from 1994 to 1996 Clinton was forced into signing GOP initiated legislation. Dick Morris, whom was his Karl Rhove from 93 thru the middle of the 96' campaign (when he was caught with a prostitute) will tell you to this day that he told Clinton to "sign everything Gingrich sends us", in order to deprive the GOP of each and every legislative issue that ushered them into office in 94', for the 96' presidential campaign.
****
Authorities are confirming that the 911 call from the 16 year old member of the FDLS "cult" was a hoax. The abuse, rape, pregnancies of underage girls was made up. This will probably even deprive the authorities of a legitimate claim to probable cause. Why? Why do they now believe it to be a hoax? Because no underage pregnant girls were found in the compound. But of course they do dress funny, they don't watch TV, and leta not forget they're devout Christians, so it makes sense that even absent any evidence of a crime that they send the children 500 miles away from their mothers and force DNA blood tests on the men, doesn't it? What a disgusting abuse of government power. Where's the ACLU on this one? Forgot ... they break crosses, not defend people who wear them. Hey Texas police, I know of some people that dress funny and have questionable adult sexual relationships - it's called the San Fransisco Gay Pride Parade ... go arrest them... they'll love your uniforms.
****
The UN chief is calling it a "an act of genocide." Third world democracies are making bold public statements of starvation. It's being rationed in countless nations and the price of it is gone up 100% here. What you ask? Corn & rice due to the ethanol subsidies. From every ideological news source accros the spectrum, News Week to the NY Times to FOX & Limbaugh, it is being reported that this "well intentioned" ethanol fuel subsidy mandated by the government may be "saving the planet", but it's starving its inhabitants. Gore cast the tie breaking vote for this mandate in 1994 (just before the midterms). I'm sure those children in Sub Saharan Africa are wildly happy about his Nobel Prize .....
There's a reason you thought it was Gingrich ... regardless of whom originally "inked" the deal on pay-as-you-go, it was the Gingrich 1994, Contract With America congress that brought its full potential into realization. It was he that made the idea our government's practice on any real level, so it is deservingly referred to as "his baby."
Two, wherever the inception there is no question that from 1994 to 1996 Clinton was forced into signing GOP initiated legislation. Dick Morris, whom was his Karl Rhove from 93 thru the middle of the 96' campaign (when he was caught with a prostitute) will tell you to this day that he told Clinton to "sign everything Gingrich sends us", in order to deprive the GOP of each and every legislative issue that ushered them into office in 94', for the 96' presidential campaign.
****
Authorities are confirming that the 911 call from the 16 year old member of the FDLS "cult" was a hoax. The abuse, rape, pregnancies of underage girls was made up. This will probably even deprive the authorities of a legitimate claim to probable cause. Why? Why do they now believe it to be a hoax? Because no underage pregnant girls were found in the compound. But of course they do dress funny, they don't watch TV, and leta not forget they're devout Christians, so it makes sense that even absent any evidence of a crime that they send the children 500 miles away from their mothers and force DNA blood tests on the men, doesn't it? What a disgusting abuse of government power. Where's the ACLU on this one? Forgot ... they break crosses, not defend people who wear them. Hey Texas police, I know of some people that dress funny and have questionable adult sexual relationships - it's called the San Fransisco Gay Pride Parade ... go arrest them... they'll love your uniforms.
****
The UN chief is calling it a "an act of genocide." Third world democracies are making bold public statements of starvation. It's being rationed in countless nations and the price of it is gone up 100% here. What you ask? Corn & rice due to the ethanol subsidies. From every ideological news source accros the spectrum, News Week to the NY Times to FOX & Limbaugh, it is being reported that this "well intentioned" ethanol fuel subsidy mandated by the government may be "saving the planet", but it's starving its inhabitants. Gore cast the tie breaking vote for this mandate in 1994 (just before the midterms). I'm sure those children in Sub Saharan Africa are wildly happy about his Nobel Prize .....
The probem with having an historical perspective...
Ryan loves hearing me say the words "I was wrong". I am the first to admit that I am wrong, quite often, and I don't think I am often remiss in admitting it. That is the reason for this post.
Since about 2002, I have often sided with Ryan in regards to the question of "fiscal responsibility" that was such a campaign issue in both the '96 and '00 Presidential races. Even Kerry made a stink about it in '04, but his voting record made it a non-issue very quickly. The root of the debate in regards to the Bund was always the perceived success of the PAYGO Act (Pay-as-you-go Act) that not only balanced our Federal budget for the first time in more than 25 years, but gave the Feds a surplus for the first time since 1969.
I had understood the Act to have been the brain-child of the "Conservative Revolution" of 1994, when Newt and the Boys swept into the majorities of both Houses of Congress, and that all of the Clinton Administration's claims of fiscal responsibility were, in fact, simply Bill and Al taking credit for a GOP legislation.
I was very wrong.
The PAYGO Plan had its roots... its inception, if you will... in the Democratic Congress of 1990 with the Budget Enforcement Act, which President G.H.W. Bush signed into law that same year (thus breaking his 1988 vow of "No New Taxes"... can't you read lips?). From 1990 and the passing of the Omnibus Budget Act to 2000, the Federal deficit fell from a nearly 5% of GDP short coming to a 2.7% surplus. The Bush Administration, upon moving into the White House, immediately began reversing the PAYGO system... and to the discredit of the Dems in Congress, they allowed it to happen. In six years, the Federal Government has gone from a 2.7% GDP surplus to a 4% GDP deficit... and the deficit is growing at a rate of .5 to .7% GDP annually (Sources HERE).
Now, I am the first to admit that the benefits realized by the Clinton White House didn't feel the effect of a two-front war raging on the far side of the planet and eating resources and manpower at a rate of $11 billion a month. However, I fail to see why non-defense or security spending is being allowed to work outside of the PAYGO system. I'm not against deficit spending to win a war (I don't think one CAN win without it), but if there are education laws, transportation acts, bills for Medicare and Medicaid reform... why are these NOT required to follow the PAYGO formula?
What's my point?
As near as I can tell, McCain has always supported the PAYGO plan. With the example of Obama's Capital Gains faux pas a couple of weeks ago, and Clinton's inability to explain how she is going to fund all of her proposed reforms, one of the GOP's biggest guns in the upcoming run to the general election SHOULD be government finances. Obama and Clinton can SAY they support a fiscally responsible budget based solely on their party affiliation, but won't be able to "balance" that against their promised reforms. McCain, on the other hand, can say that he, even as a Republican, has not only supported responsible spending, but has acted on it the entire time he has held office since the PAYGO plan went into effect in 1990.
For example, both Obama and Clinton promise massive government support of national health care reform... Obama even going so far as to promise UNIVERSAL health care (something I am diametrically opposed to, even as a Democrat). McCain has promised to make it the law of the land to enable taxpayers to deduct ALL health care expenses (even preventative expenses like the cost of insurance and deductibles) from you Federal tax bill... thus eliminating the chance of government growth and waste by placing the savings in the hands of the taxpayer, rather than the government itself.
Pay-as-you-go simply WORKED. It was common-sense financing that curbed the growth of government and reduced deficit spending in a very short amount of time... regardless of which Party-card the authors and supporters had in their wallets. This is EXACTLY the kind of ammunition that can make the Democratic candidate (whichever one wins the primary) look rather foolish rather fast... simply by shining a very bright light into the murky darkness that is the "thinking" behind these DNC promises.
Since about 2002, I have often sided with Ryan in regards to the question of "fiscal responsibility" that was such a campaign issue in both the '96 and '00 Presidential races. Even Kerry made a stink about it in '04, but his voting record made it a non-issue very quickly. The root of the debate in regards to the Bund was always the perceived success of the PAYGO Act (Pay-as-you-go Act) that not only balanced our Federal budget for the first time in more than 25 years, but gave the Feds a surplus for the first time since 1969.
I had understood the Act to have been the brain-child of the "Conservative Revolution" of 1994, when Newt and the Boys swept into the majorities of both Houses of Congress, and that all of the Clinton Administration's claims of fiscal responsibility were, in fact, simply Bill and Al taking credit for a GOP legislation.
I was very wrong.
The PAYGO Plan had its roots... its inception, if you will... in the Democratic Congress of 1990 with the Budget Enforcement Act, which President G.H.W. Bush signed into law that same year (thus breaking his 1988 vow of "No New Taxes"... can't you read lips?). From 1990 and the passing of the Omnibus Budget Act to 2000, the Federal deficit fell from a nearly 5% of GDP short coming to a 2.7% surplus. The Bush Administration, upon moving into the White House, immediately began reversing the PAYGO system... and to the discredit of the Dems in Congress, they allowed it to happen. In six years, the Federal Government has gone from a 2.7% GDP surplus to a 4% GDP deficit... and the deficit is growing at a rate of .5 to .7% GDP annually (Sources HERE).
Now, I am the first to admit that the benefits realized by the Clinton White House didn't feel the effect of a two-front war raging on the far side of the planet and eating resources and manpower at a rate of $11 billion a month. However, I fail to see why non-defense or security spending is being allowed to work outside of the PAYGO system. I'm not against deficit spending to win a war (I don't think one CAN win without it), but if there are education laws, transportation acts, bills for Medicare and Medicaid reform... why are these NOT required to follow the PAYGO formula?
What's my point?
As near as I can tell, McCain has always supported the PAYGO plan. With the example of Obama's Capital Gains faux pas a couple of weeks ago, and Clinton's inability to explain how she is going to fund all of her proposed reforms, one of the GOP's biggest guns in the upcoming run to the general election SHOULD be government finances. Obama and Clinton can SAY they support a fiscally responsible budget based solely on their party affiliation, but won't be able to "balance" that against their promised reforms. McCain, on the other hand, can say that he, even as a Republican, has not only supported responsible spending, but has acted on it the entire time he has held office since the PAYGO plan went into effect in 1990.
For example, both Obama and Clinton promise massive government support of national health care reform... Obama even going so far as to promise UNIVERSAL health care (something I am diametrically opposed to, even as a Democrat). McCain has promised to make it the law of the land to enable taxpayers to deduct ALL health care expenses (even preventative expenses like the cost of insurance and deductibles) from you Federal tax bill... thus eliminating the chance of government growth and waste by placing the savings in the hands of the taxpayer, rather than the government itself.
Pay-as-you-go simply WORKED. It was common-sense financing that curbed the growth of government and reduced deficit spending in a very short amount of time... regardless of which Party-card the authors and supporters had in their wallets. This is EXACTLY the kind of ammunition that can make the Democratic candidate (whichever one wins the primary) look rather foolish rather fast... simply by shining a very bright light into the murky darkness that is the "thinking" behind these DNC promises.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Hmmm...
Look at the county-by-county returns, and Clinton runs away with the rural votes in PA... Obama only does well in the big city vote. You can't say it is a poverty vote, because some of these rural counties here in PA are dirt poor, and still ran with Clinton. I'd say it is far more likely to be a vote of frustration at the urban level... an indicator of just how screwed up cities like Philly really are.
Say what you will, though... PA is a HUGE 2nd Amendment state. The HIGHEST per capita NRA membership in the nation, and that includes MS, AL, NV AND TX. Neither of these two will win the general here, though... not without a miracle.
I'm waiting for the final numbers, though... when I was at the polls, they were saying that this primary had beaten all other primary turn-outs in the first two hours of voting (at least in my precinct). That's a lot of interest in this primary, if you ask me. John might not have an easy run of this....
Say what you will, though... PA is a HUGE 2nd Amendment state. The HIGHEST per capita NRA membership in the nation, and that includes MS, AL, NV AND TX. Neither of these two will win the general here, though... not without a miracle.
I'm waiting for the final numbers, though... when I was at the polls, they were saying that this primary had beaten all other primary turn-outs in the first two hours of voting (at least in my precinct). That's a lot of interest in this primary, if you ask me. John might not have an easy run of this....
Voted...
Yes, I made my stop at the township hall to cast my vote.
I voted Clinton, but mostly was focused on the more local and state races... they matter to me more than this primary race.
I'm on quota-time tonight, so I'll have to finish this later...
I voted Clinton, but mostly was focused on the more local and state races... they matter to me more than this primary race.
I'm on quota-time tonight, so I'll have to finish this later...
Voting in the big PA...
Well, at least the commercials will be over after today Titus ... I was curious as to if you voted in the primary. I realize that due to cultural, defense, and even economic reasons you are once again voting Republican in the general but I assume you have maintained your DNC registration in the hopes of being able to one day again admit to it without embarrassment (caused by the party, not yourself of course).
So, this means you may very well go and cast your vote today. In that vein let me offer this advice, and believe me, I never thought I'd write these words. I'd prefer (however unlikely this is rapidly becoming) a Clinton win - for the nomination, not just PA. And for this reason: Although I believe that Mac will give a good ol' Navy squadron back hand to whomever the Dems throw up (dual meanings there I assure you), there is at least a "chance" the Democrat nominee will win the presidency. Were that to occur I would rather a scheming, political, word parsing, legacy seeking, Boss Tweed channeling, children devouring Hillary in office then a true believer like Obama. At least I can count on the "Clinton-eogne" mafia to do what will make them popular/what polls indicate people want (i.e. Bill signing welfare reform), & I trust the American people to make the right thing "popular" when polled. Whereas Obama has a grand remaking of America into his preferred image in mind - and that ain't a pretty image. Not to mention in terms of foreign policy at the very least Hillary hasn't pledged to "talk" to Ahmedadenajd, the Taliban, Satan, etc as Obama has. And its likely (if history is to guide us) that the Dems will pick up 5 or so more seats in the Senate and maintain control of the House, and not one of them (& some Republicans I can think of) will have the "PC guts" to deny "Barry" his desired legislation. So vote Hillary (also words I thought would never be uttered by me)....
****
Israel? I had to do a literal double take. Israel? This ought to get the whack-job conspiracy sites going (and certain Churches on the West side of Chicago ... ahem) who think "the Jews" were behind 9/11 and all the evils of the world. One Mr. Kadish, whom you can read about here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24256527/ , a US and Israeli citizen employed by a military facility in New Jersey for over 20 years is the first American charged with espionage on behalf of Israel in 16 years (the last was a Navy man named Polland who worked at the Pentegon). Allegedly between 1979 and 1985 he slipped an Israeli contact at the consulate (the SAME contact that is suspected to have handled Polland no less) classified documents on nuclear weapons and the Patriot missile system. Now, it gets even more interesting ... in looking for this story on the web I stumbled onto a FOX NEWS four part report on Israeli spies within the US from December, 2001 (the report that is), which included inferences that these spies, whose duties include spying on Arab terrorists within the US, knew of the plot for 9/11 and that Mossad even warned our government of an impending attack (days before) but in vauge ways so as not to risk revealing their "in-house" sources, thus rendering the warning inactionable for us. This is something I'd expect to see on Maher, or read on some Move-on blog (or perhaps from the mouth of a certain drunken movie star once pulled over), but it is a report by Brit Hume (& Tony Snow lastly) featuring Carl Cameron and one which I NEVER heard before. You have GOT to read this... the video is no longer up (that's the reference about it no longer being displayed by FOX), but the transcript is there at the bottom, just click on the subsequent 3 parts near the top of the page.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
Now, I've never heard of this web site. I did note that they source cited FOX NEWS and noted their copyright, etc. I assume it's a legit story, although at the bottom of page four there is evidence this site is wacky, but just because they profile it doesn't mean this story isn't accurate... in fact I just further researched it and have found the same story from numerous more well known sites, although curiously enough many of them describe it as a "banned FOX NEWS story", in that FOX itself took it off the air, did zero follow ups, and in fact the FOX website will take you to the stories page if you Google it, but the page says "THIS STORY IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE." You can view part 1 on You Tube, but I didn't find the other 3 video segments there, maybe you can.
Now, my point in all of this is "ally spying." How much of it occurs, how much do we do, our allies do etc. Now I know we can't fully answer that here, but I always assumed that the "spying" was more like tab-keeping on our allies for information that might be useful in combating actual enemies or for the simpler reason so that the CIC isn't publicly politically blindsided by a foreign ally's unexpected move. And because "being in the know" of our allies activities, is by definition a function of our Intel services.
As to this story, you'll find no bigger fan of Israel then me - in fact it was one of Titus's and my first arguments at the end of pit 4 - the Irael/Palestinian debate (although in retrospect I suspect he was in agreeance with me even during the argument but wanted to test me in order to determine if I was operating on a level worth his time - this being 7 years later I clearly "passed"). And in fact I would AGREE that the circumstances which have defined the experience of the Israeli State justifiably compels it to seek out the most advanced weaponry and Intel, that's what happens when you're surrounded by a billion people who'd like to push you into the Red Sea ... HOWEVER, compromises in our communication system, especially high priority systems such as the DEA, FBI, CIA, NSA etc, can not be tolerated, even if it's by our greatest ally.
So, this means you may very well go and cast your vote today. In that vein let me offer this advice, and believe me, I never thought I'd write these words. I'd prefer (however unlikely this is rapidly becoming) a Clinton win - for the nomination, not just PA. And for this reason: Although I believe that Mac will give a good ol' Navy squadron back hand to whomever the Dems throw up (dual meanings there I assure you), there is at least a "chance" the Democrat nominee will win the presidency. Were that to occur I would rather a scheming, political, word parsing, legacy seeking, Boss Tweed channeling, children devouring Hillary in office then a true believer like Obama. At least I can count on the "Clinton-eogne" mafia to do what will make them popular/what polls indicate people want (i.e. Bill signing welfare reform), & I trust the American people to make the right thing "popular" when polled. Whereas Obama has a grand remaking of America into his preferred image in mind - and that ain't a pretty image. Not to mention in terms of foreign policy at the very least Hillary hasn't pledged to "talk" to Ahmedadenajd, the Taliban, Satan, etc as Obama has. And its likely (if history is to guide us) that the Dems will pick up 5 or so more seats in the Senate and maintain control of the House, and not one of them (& some Republicans I can think of) will have the "PC guts" to deny "Barry" his desired legislation. So vote Hillary (also words I thought would never be uttered by me)....
****
Israel? I had to do a literal double take. Israel? This ought to get the whack-job conspiracy sites going (and certain Churches on the West side of Chicago ... ahem) who think "the Jews" were behind 9/11 and all the evils of the world. One Mr. Kadish, whom you can read about here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24256527/ , a US and Israeli citizen employed by a military facility in New Jersey for over 20 years is the first American charged with espionage on behalf of Israel in 16 years (the last was a Navy man named Polland who worked at the Pentegon). Allegedly between 1979 and 1985 he slipped an Israeli contact at the consulate (the SAME contact that is suspected to have handled Polland no less) classified documents on nuclear weapons and the Patriot missile system. Now, it gets even more interesting ... in looking for this story on the web I stumbled onto a FOX NEWS four part report on Israeli spies within the US from December, 2001 (the report that is), which included inferences that these spies, whose duties include spying on Arab terrorists within the US, knew of the plot for 9/11 and that Mossad even warned our government of an impending attack (days before) but in vauge ways so as not to risk revealing their "in-house" sources, thus rendering the warning inactionable for us. This is something I'd expect to see on Maher, or read on some Move-on blog (or perhaps from the mouth of a certain drunken movie star once pulled over), but it is a report by Brit Hume (& Tony Snow lastly) featuring Carl Cameron and one which I NEVER heard before. You have GOT to read this... the video is no longer up (that's the reference about it no longer being displayed by FOX), but the transcript is there at the bottom, just click on the subsequent 3 parts near the top of the page.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
Now, I've never heard of this web site. I did note that they source cited FOX NEWS and noted their copyright, etc. I assume it's a legit story, although at the bottom of page four there is evidence this site is wacky, but just because they profile it doesn't mean this story isn't accurate... in fact I just further researched it and have found the same story from numerous more well known sites, although curiously enough many of them describe it as a "banned FOX NEWS story", in that FOX itself took it off the air, did zero follow ups, and in fact the FOX website will take you to the stories page if you Google it, but the page says "THIS STORY IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE." You can view part 1 on You Tube, but I didn't find the other 3 video segments there, maybe you can.
Now, my point in all of this is "ally spying." How much of it occurs, how much do we do, our allies do etc. Now I know we can't fully answer that here, but I always assumed that the "spying" was more like tab-keeping on our allies for information that might be useful in combating actual enemies or for the simpler reason so that the CIC isn't publicly politically blindsided by a foreign ally's unexpected move. And because "being in the know" of our allies activities, is by definition a function of our Intel services.
As to this story, you'll find no bigger fan of Israel then me - in fact it was one of Titus's and my first arguments at the end of pit 4 - the Irael/Palestinian debate (although in retrospect I suspect he was in agreeance with me even during the argument but wanted to test me in order to determine if I was operating on a level worth his time - this being 7 years later I clearly "passed"). And in fact I would AGREE that the circumstances which have defined the experience of the Israeli State justifiably compels it to seek out the most advanced weaponry and Intel, that's what happens when you're surrounded by a billion people who'd like to push you into the Red Sea ... HOWEVER, compromises in our communication system, especially high priority systems such as the DEA, FBI, CIA, NSA etc, can not be tolerated, even if it's by our greatest ally.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Pat down the hackles... please...
Okay... understood. Nothing you said in your last conflicts with my points, and anything I may have assumed was done so because I wasn't privy to all the facts concerning your specific case.
All I would ask further is, Who is the PRIMARY educator for your sons? The answer is obviously YOU and your wife. Who is the primary disciplinarian of your sons? Same answer. The role of the district is to ensure fair, uniform and safe enviroments for the classroom learning that the law requires. There is nothing in the school district program that you can't add to or correct with the right tools in your own home, if you should feel the need. And, of course, there is always home-schooling if you simply want to wash your hands of the entire public school experience.
Obviously, 5 students taking up 50% of the discipline is a bad thing, and something the principal will have to address. I meant no offense, and am not suggesting that the entire grade or school suffer so that the "system" can pander to one or two problem children. What I am asking (still, because it wasn't answered) is what YOU would do differently, given the opportunities that the principal has now.
All I would ask further is, Who is the PRIMARY educator for your sons? The answer is obviously YOU and your wife. Who is the primary disciplinarian of your sons? Same answer. The role of the district is to ensure fair, uniform and safe enviroments for the classroom learning that the law requires. There is nothing in the school district program that you can't add to or correct with the right tools in your own home, if you should feel the need. And, of course, there is always home-schooling if you simply want to wash your hands of the entire public school experience.
Obviously, 5 students taking up 50% of the discipline is a bad thing, and something the principal will have to address. I meant no offense, and am not suggesting that the entire grade or school suffer so that the "system" can pander to one or two problem children. What I am asking (still, because it wasn't answered) is what YOU would do differently, given the opportunities that the principal has now.
Smokin' in the boys room ...
First, this child has been on "counseling suspension" for up to two weeks before. This is an excused absence allowed on the condition that the parents seek behavioral counseling, and document it, for their child. This latest incident is his proverbial "last strike", and by no means an overreaction... nor was he abandoned over a single event.
Furthermore the Principal informed me that out of 864 students in that student body about 5 take up 50% of his disciplinary time. Is it fair that the other 859 suffer from class disruptions throughout the school year? I think not, thus three to four incidents for elementary students (5 for Jr. high & high schoolers) in our county of Nevada constitutes a "Habitual Disciplinary Status." These "incidents" must be on the level of completely disrupting the education process, i.e. class. And those arriving at that status are deemed eligible for expulsion. Whether it be for that, or weapons (which is automatic, no incident record or status needed), etc, certain criteria must be in place that state "here and no further." And I find that the only reasonable approach to take for several reasons:
One, it's the reality of life - there ARE unreachable kids, whether nurtured to be that way or nature - "born bad." There are going to be a certain percentage that can not adapt to the social norms of a class room setting and there MUST be triggers in place that deal with them, and one of those MUST be the option of expulsion.
Also ... you wrote ... It may not be the PRIMARY role of the school district to discipline our children, but it is their primary role to assist the parents of these children in raising happy, healthy, well-adjusted citizens.
I disagree. Their function is not one of rearing or raising or happiness quotients. It is education. Proper education does indeed entail a certain level of discipline in order to facilitate the educating of young minds, but their primary role is to impart information in a healthy environment - PERIOD. I will do the raising, moral teaching, happiness, etc. I want them to teach, and refrain those student who interfere in that - PERIOD.
You also mentioned my concern (or lack thereof) for that child and the plight that he will just become somebody else's problem - you may not know how correct you are. On the middle and high school level out here there exists "alternative schools" with instructors that specialize in anti-social children. This is where the expelled students go. And this difference is critical - they are expelled from that specific school, not the school system. Thus they are not abandoned to roam the streets, they are simply "reassigned." However, on the grades 1-6 level there is no alternative education facility. The expelled student is simply placed in a different "normal" public school within the school's district. An imperfect system to say the least. My point here is two fold. 1.) The child is not "abandoned", he still receives an education. 2.) Harsh as as is to say, my responsibility is to MY CHILD. My duty is to make sure he is not in a classroom nor school for which that child attends. The offending child and the new classmates he may put in danger in another school are not my immediate duty. It may sound harsh but it is the reality of parenting. Needles to say I am not a fan of "it takes a village."
Now, the inevitable question arises, what if you have a particularly bad child and he goes through all the elementary schools in the district, what then? Restart at the top of the batting order? Well clearly an alternative school, where specialists in juvenile anti-social behavior, as exists on the upper school levels, is needed. Short of that a behavioral specialist/educator, as exists for children with "special needs" needs to be assigned to each elementary, or even half would cover it if the ratio on average is 5 out of 800. In the same way they march the elementary age mentally handicapped students into my son's school each day, after the rest are in their class,with specialist instructors directing and teaching them, they need one for the anti-social among them. A more isolated, controlled environment with special precautions taken for safety (bag checks, no sharp art instruments etc).
Clearly this county has not addressed this situation on the elementary level. Their answer is to simply ship the offending student from school to school until he reaches middle school and can be sent to a designated alternative school, with everyone hoping he doesn't slit a throat with a box cutter in the mean time. I would address it (as a superintendent or governor, mayors are really out of the loop on this policy) in the way I described above. There is already a highly functioning special needs program within the elementary school system, add an "anti-social behaviorists education professional" to that roster, and give him or her a room. In lieu of those educators and politicians becoming a smart as I, I have to take the only options available to me taking into consideration my first responsibility - protect my offspring ... and unfortunately for that student (and the classmates of his next school) that means expelling him.
Furthermore the Principal informed me that out of 864 students in that student body about 5 take up 50% of his disciplinary time. Is it fair that the other 859 suffer from class disruptions throughout the school year? I think not, thus three to four incidents for elementary students (5 for Jr. high & high schoolers) in our county of Nevada constitutes a "Habitual Disciplinary Status." These "incidents" must be on the level of completely disrupting the education process, i.e. class. And those arriving at that status are deemed eligible for expulsion. Whether it be for that, or weapons (which is automatic, no incident record or status needed), etc, certain criteria must be in place that state "here and no further." And I find that the only reasonable approach to take for several reasons:
One, it's the reality of life - there ARE unreachable kids, whether nurtured to be that way or nature - "born bad." There are going to be a certain percentage that can not adapt to the social norms of a class room setting and there MUST be triggers in place that deal with them, and one of those MUST be the option of expulsion.
Also ... you wrote ... It may not be the PRIMARY role of the school district to discipline our children, but it is their primary role to assist the parents of these children in raising happy, healthy, well-adjusted citizens.
I disagree. Their function is not one of rearing or raising or happiness quotients. It is education. Proper education does indeed entail a certain level of discipline in order to facilitate the educating of young minds, but their primary role is to impart information in a healthy environment - PERIOD. I will do the raising, moral teaching, happiness, etc. I want them to teach, and refrain those student who interfere in that - PERIOD.
You also mentioned my concern (or lack thereof) for that child and the plight that he will just become somebody else's problem - you may not know how correct you are. On the middle and high school level out here there exists "alternative schools" with instructors that specialize in anti-social children. This is where the expelled students go. And this difference is critical - they are expelled from that specific school, not the school system. Thus they are not abandoned to roam the streets, they are simply "reassigned." However, on the grades 1-6 level there is no alternative education facility. The expelled student is simply placed in a different "normal" public school within the school's district. An imperfect system to say the least. My point here is two fold. 1.) The child is not "abandoned", he still receives an education. 2.) Harsh as as is to say, my responsibility is to MY CHILD. My duty is to make sure he is not in a classroom nor school for which that child attends. The offending child and the new classmates he may put in danger in another school are not my immediate duty. It may sound harsh but it is the reality of parenting. Needles to say I am not a fan of "it takes a village."
Now, the inevitable question arises, what if you have a particularly bad child and he goes through all the elementary schools in the district, what then? Restart at the top of the batting order? Well clearly an alternative school, where specialists in juvenile anti-social behavior, as exists on the upper school levels, is needed. Short of that a behavioral specialist/educator, as exists for children with "special needs" needs to be assigned to each elementary, or even half would cover it if the ratio on average is 5 out of 800. In the same way they march the elementary age mentally handicapped students into my son's school each day, after the rest are in their class,with specialist instructors directing and teaching them, they need one for the anti-social among them. A more isolated, controlled environment with special precautions taken for safety (bag checks, no sharp art instruments etc).
Clearly this county has not addressed this situation on the elementary level. Their answer is to simply ship the offending student from school to school until he reaches middle school and can be sent to a designated alternative school, with everyone hoping he doesn't slit a throat with a box cutter in the mean time. I would address it (as a superintendent or governor, mayors are really out of the loop on this policy) in the way I described above. There is already a highly functioning special needs program within the elementary school system, add an "anti-social behaviorists education professional" to that roster, and give him or her a room. In lieu of those educators and politicians becoming a smart as I, I have to take the only options available to me taking into consideration my first responsibility - protect my offspring ... and unfortunately for that student (and the classmates of his next school) that means expelling him.
Expulsion
I completely understand your concerns, I do. My biggest issue here in NEPA is with the "No Child Left Behind" Act, which seems to be slowly but surely destroying the education system of this nation by forcing districts to teach to one, standardized test, rather than to a curriculum.
However, I would ask this one question of you:
Not knowing the laws of the State of Nevada, what would YOU do if it was your child that was facing the prospect of expulsion? I'm not defending the behavior you described from the offending child, but there is the possibility that the child was acting in a singular, not general, pattern. Is it fair that the child be expelled from the general education system of your district because of this? Could it be that the principal and vice principal might have been able to provide some kind of professional help for the child, or perhaps a specialized education plan that is better equipped to assist a child showing singular pattern aberrant behavior?
I am quite serious here, and would love to discuss how this could be addressed. Think of it as a "plank" in your future Presidential platform. How will candidate Moore address issues of education to the American public? In a society where Wii and Cartoon Network fill the roll of the more dated and traditional "nanny" in so many homes, is it not surprising that socially acceptable behavior is harder and harder to find?
I, too, find myself in a tough spot. My future son has just completed an "in-school" suspension for referring to a fellow classmate of Hispanic origins in a very un-flattering term. This, obviously, led to several conferences with his guidance councilors and a vice principal... all of which stated very clearly that WE (meaning the parents and the student) were in violation of the District's policies concerning discrimination. What if this behavior had led to the prospect of expulsion? The boy didn't even know what the words meant, he only knew they were nasty and he wanted to say something mean. Should he be expelled for that? Removed from the classmates and atmosphere that he has been surrounded by since kindergarten?
It may not be the PRIMARY role of the school district to discipline our children, but it is their primary role to assist the parents of these children in raising happy, healthy, well-adjusted citizens. Is this role best filled by simply expelling those that don't comply? That don't conform to the national yardstick?
The child in your son's class... the 9-year-old. As bad as the behavior was... do you really think that the 9 year old in question is beyond help? Three, perhaps four, incidents of bad behavior from a fourth grader constitutes "public enemy number one"? My point is simply that expulsion as a blanket answer to every single episode of aberrant behavior does nothing to address to problem, it only spreads the symptoms of the problem over a wider portion of the school district. While this may solve YOUR problem in the short term, does it make you feel any better about the values and moral judgement of the people educating your sons?
However, I would ask this one question of you:
Not knowing the laws of the State of Nevada, what would YOU do if it was your child that was facing the prospect of expulsion? I'm not defending the behavior you described from the offending child, but there is the possibility that the child was acting in a singular, not general, pattern. Is it fair that the child be expelled from the general education system of your district because of this? Could it be that the principal and vice principal might have been able to provide some kind of professional help for the child, or perhaps a specialized education plan that is better equipped to assist a child showing singular pattern aberrant behavior?
I am quite serious here, and would love to discuss how this could be addressed. Think of it as a "plank" in your future Presidential platform. How will candidate Moore address issues of education to the American public? In a society where Wii and Cartoon Network fill the roll of the more dated and traditional "nanny" in so many homes, is it not surprising that socially acceptable behavior is harder and harder to find?
I, too, find myself in a tough spot. My future son has just completed an "in-school" suspension for referring to a fellow classmate of Hispanic origins in a very un-flattering term. This, obviously, led to several conferences with his guidance councilors and a vice principal... all of which stated very clearly that WE (meaning the parents and the student) were in violation of the District's policies concerning discrimination. What if this behavior had led to the prospect of expulsion? The boy didn't even know what the words meant, he only knew they were nasty and he wanted to say something mean. Should he be expelled for that? Removed from the classmates and atmosphere that he has been surrounded by since kindergarten?
It may not be the PRIMARY role of the school district to discipline our children, but it is their primary role to assist the parents of these children in raising happy, healthy, well-adjusted citizens. Is this role best filled by simply expelling those that don't comply? That don't conform to the national yardstick?
The child in your son's class... the 9-year-old. As bad as the behavior was... do you really think that the 9 year old in question is beyond help? Three, perhaps four, incidents of bad behavior from a fourth grader constitutes "public enemy number one"? My point is simply that expulsion as a blanket answer to every single episode of aberrant behavior does nothing to address to problem, it only spreads the symptoms of the problem over a wider portion of the school district. While this may solve YOUR problem in the short term, does it make you feel any better about the values and moral judgement of the people educating your sons?
Hi class, my name is Mr. Ryan, and I'm a Mormon ...
"Hi Ryan", the class would reply ... it would almost sound as if I'm admitting to alcoholism, he,he.
Well, I can't tell you how flattered I am that you would entrust your class to me Jambo ... to impart on them the lesson plan you had in mind. I assume you'd give me a moment or two to look over it myself prior to Sunday ...he,he. It would be nice if the Bund was less scattered, no question there ... perhaps one of us will get a job in the future ... in D,C. perhaps ... that requires a well paid staff, hmmmm ... then perhaps we will arrange for a more congenial geographical disbursement of the Bund.
****
There is no greater evidence that the far-left of the liberal movement is absolutely as bereft of brains as they are bereft of morals than Bill Maher.
Well, I can't tell you how flattered I am that you would entrust your class to me Jambo ... to impart on them the lesson plan you had in mind. I assume you'd give me a moment or two to look over it myself prior to Sunday ...he,he. It would be nice if the Bund was less scattered, no question there ... perhaps one of us will get a job in the future ... in D,C. perhaps ... that requires a well paid staff, hmmmm ... then perhaps we will arrange for a more congenial geographical disbursement of the Bund.
****
There is no greater evidence that the far-left of the liberal movement is absolutely as bereft of brains as they are bereft of morals than Bill Maher.
Of that there is no question. I am continually shocked at just how seething with hatred the Maher's of the world are for anything that represents "traditionalism." You can literaly hear it in their voice, see it on their face ... the only thing which gives me comfort is that SURELY these individuals are in the minority. For a fact I know that his ratings for an entire week are less then O'Reilly gets in a single night. And like or dislike the Limbaugh's, O'Reilly's, Hannity's etc (of which the last two are Catholics), they do defend a morally healthy, traditional ideology. The Maher's or Oberhmans seem to worship at the alter of bizzaro morals - up is down, day is night, Christians are evil and porn stars are role models.
That last bit was a reference to that train wreck of programming they call "The View." Unfortunately Ang has a sleeping habit of leaving the television on ABC. To change the volume or channel will break the hypnotic spell the orb box provides, thus awakening her. So, the practical affect is that I am subjected to - in a clear abridgment of my constitutional right not to be punished in cruel and unusual ways - The View as I get ready for work in the morning. One of the "gals", Joy Beyard (sp?) went on her own rant during the Pope's visit exclaiming how un-evolved the Church is (she claims she's a Catholic) when dealing with the Church abuse scandal - she wants female priests, she wants them to allow marriage for priests, etc. She also of course condemned the Pope for what she considered a "look the other way mentality." Now, in this SAME program they had a "profile in female courage" (my description). Their largest segment was dedicated to their female guest who was lauded with praise and support for having overcome depression, disease and divorce, and for holding her family (the children) together even as a working Mom. "Working" is the operative word there, for she was none other then Jenna Jameson the adult film mega star. That's right, in the same 60 minutes the panel bashed a sitting Pope and praised a "sitting" porn star ... like I said, up is down, day is night. And food for thought - did she ever consider that her marriage may have fell apart because, oh, I don't know - she's getting pounded by three guys and a monkey every day at work???! Sheeesh.
****
So, I live in a descent neighborhood, nice little gated community, nice, new school ... and Friday my son comes home with a printed "memo" to the parents of all in his individual class. Apparently a child sitting next to mine (whom has had anti-social leanings in the past), brandished a box cutter in class (9 years old mind you). The teacher was rapidly made aware of this and she demanded it from the child. He then - and they wrote exactly this in the note home - went to the front of the class, raised the blade from the handle and exclaimed, "Now I have something to kill someone with!" He then handed it over to the teacher. Class was suspended, statements were taken, the police called, the whole 9. So, the note didn't "note" on whether this student was expelled - obviously I didn't want him back in my son's class. So I walked into the school office this very morning and demand an immediate meeting with the principal. They note his busy schedule to which I responded - my child had to give a statement as a witness to a crime .. a STATEMENT ... I want to talk to the principal NOW. So 30 seconds later I find myself in a conference room with the principal and the vice principal. The Principal by the way is a PhD in education, and I found myself making certain unreassuring assumptions about his life philosophy regarding crime and punishment ... at any rate I cut right to the chase and explain that the minute that child is allowed to walk back into that class is the minute my son will walk out. By the way, this was not the offending child's first incident; the antisocial leanings I spoke of include throwing a chair in class at a little girl and throwing books and bottles of water at the teacher. At least 3 times he has disrupted the class this year and I was fed up as you might imagine - I mean these are the "warning signs" the news media speaks of officials having missed, after a student is killed of course. So I was conducting this meeting to be sure the staff concurred that a line had indeed been crossed and under the "zero tolerance" provision, the child had now been referred to the superintendent for expulsion.
Well, they assured me that they understood my concern, that they were taking the matter seriously, etc but only divulged that the child was currently "under suspension." I noted that this, by law, required expulsion - weapons fall under the zero tolerance provision as a Nevada state statute. He then explained that the responding officer didn't consider the box cutter a "weapon." I grew somewhat enraged and pointed out that there are families of 3,000 dead people in New York who would disagree!!! So I knew at that point the Principal thought the officers comments gave him proper cover to not request an expulsion. Unfortunately for them they were dealing with no average citizen. Rather "super citizen", printer of state statutes. I had with me two copies of the county's school district policies and procedures, pulled off their own website no less, which explained in great detail that not only does bringing the weapon on campus (weapon being "without limitation any type of knife or cutting device") give the Principal the right to request expulsion, but it COMPELS him to .. he has no option, no discretion in the matter. I pointed to the highlighted section on what I noted was henceforth his copy to keep, and explained that as we sit here now, he is in violation of NRS 392.466, not to mention his own school districts policies on reporting it to the superintendent. And, I noted, that no where in the document does it explain the criteria as one requiring a police officer to define the object as a weapon as a condition for the expulsion request! They looked at each other then the Principal looked back at me and said, "I'll file the request by the end of the day." And he gave me his direct line to follow up in the morning.
Amateurs ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
