"MAKING BITTER AND CLINGY SEXY AGAIN"

That's my caption for the picture to the right ... Obama was describing PA after all.

Well, well, well ... my name hasn't been shouted out this many times since me' lady's last night off. Let me see ... ah yes, badboy wrote:
"Hell I have been known to change my point of view on occasion based on information presented. Once again in my opinion Ryan is incapable of that.

I have to give him his props though, that has to be his shortest post ever. He went from long winded and monotonous to incapable of forming his own words in less than 24 hours."

Oooooh ... I love it when you talk dirty to me big boy.

Look, this isn't fair to you because you've not been present the numerous times I've conceded a point to either Titus or Jambo, and vice versa, dating years back, but I'm proceeding anyway.

The tenor of your recent posts reminds me of someone, about 7 years ago - me. And if that sentence makes you smile, don't, its not a compliment (as Titus and Jambo can attest to). I'm not talking down to you here, I'm not being shitty, its just you trying to lecture me on debate and proper political speak would be like me attempting to lecture you on virtually anything hands on military. Let me put it this way - when I met "the brothers" I was full of piss and vinegar, sure that I could argue any subject (politically speaking) to such a degree that the opposing side would yield unconditionally. Then a funny thing happened - Titus wouldn't yield. This frustrated me to no end, especially when we went from arguing dock side on the Grand's aft porch, to email threads. I wanted to snap the key board in half and fill my screen with explicits so as to relay to him what I thought of his opinion. And sometimes I did (the explicits that is, no key boards were harmed in the making of this friendship). Jambo too, although he was a little less confrontational. I soon realized that simply describing them and or their position with colorful adjectives accomplished nothing - and I didn't feel any better (intellectually) for having done it. HOWEVER, researching my position, evaluating it, spending time in front of the screen thinking how best I would understand it were someone arguing my point to me, didn't just cause me to win more arguments, it allowed me to start having real ones. And I developed the habit of asking myself a question each time either of them proposed an idea I was inclined to disagree with. "Okay, he's a smart guy. There has to be a reason he's saying this. Find out what that reason is, research it, think about it, and work backwards from where he finished so as to demonstrate why your position is closer to the truth" (assuming it was after all that).

Two quick examples. One was the question over what ended the Great Depression. Titus and I went round and round on that for probably two years. It was a catastrophe at first. We finally settled it, and I learned a valuable lesson. Learning why he thought what he did, asking him questions without rebuttal, but with further questions, then proposing an alternative answer as to why he had certain impressions, only then followed by my position, aided me greatly when it came to the next biggie - illegal immigration. First explaining his position back to him for clarity without being shitty, and then my own - rather then calling him a name - allowed us to actually get somewhere. Even Jambo conferred on me the rank of Jedi Master after that one, for I had to resist his misstep of calling me ethnocentristic, nativist and even a down right "hispanic-phobe" during his frustration (and note no one here is above making your mistake at times), and cut through to just why he disliked the entire premise of enforcing the border on a misplaced, yet authentic and admirable sense of fairness for the downtrodden. Another one occurred regarding the offensiveness (or lack there of) of the cycle and hammer versus the swastika. He was hell bent on convincing me the former was less offensive. He eventually conceded that one too - not because I called him a commie loving pinko, but because I willingly acknowledged his healthy fascination with Russia and asked if that might be clouding his judgment, of course followed by a recitation of the carnage left by the USSR. Now, I've conceded my fair share too (they'd argue more then they probably), so don't get me wrong, I'm by no means claiming a perfect record. The point is that making the opposition defend their position while establishing your own, rather then shout out your gut, visceral reaction, is much more enjoyable by conversation's end. And you learn a lot in the proccess about the given subject.

I'm sure you've seen Saving Private Ryan. There's a few lines of dialogue that always make me grin. One of Hank's men is complaining that this mission to collect Ryan is "FUBAR." Then the sharp shooter of the outfit chirps in exclaiming "Sir you put me and this here rifle anywhere inside up to a 1000 yards of one Adolf Hitler, and this war is over boys." And Hanks responds, "listen up, this is how you complain." That's what Jambo did with his last. He didn't attack my position, he made me defend it by offering a further explanation of his own.

The point I'm trying to make is if you properly argue that your position is closer to the "truth" then your opponents, then you won't need to call him "narrow minded" or "short sided".... he will confess to it himself.

****

Now to that subject, energy. Jambo, you and New Deal politics ... I know some love affairs never die, you randy rascal you. You guys and FDR are like us and Reagan. How is the effort to rename earth the "Roosevelt blue ball memorial" going anyway? He,he. Look, I'm not contending that the solar/wind homeowner use has zero merit. It was my impression that you were proposing it be the sole, or center piece of a national energy policy, and that's what bothers me. We are hard wired into fossil fuels, that's the reality. And to a lesser degree nuclear. As a number 4 or 5 on a priorities list (subsequent to domestic drilling, nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, refinery construction), I have no problem with your solar plan, on that level, and have stated so previously - but it doesn't seem like a practical single solution to overall US energy needs. In fact I would contend that if you want to see a successful transition to an all renewable energy nation, we need to build a bridge from what I contend is a priority as described above to those renewable energy sources you tout. I will give you that its an innovative approach to home energy costs, no question, and I applaud your lateral thinking. However, in my opinion it is subordinate to what will be the answer to our over all energy needs.

Furthermore, the current energy problem isn't a lack of government action - its their "over actions" or more appropriately over regulation that has contributed to this current state of affairs. But when we are arguing whether or not government should or shouldn't be the "middle man" for your turbines and solar panels, we aren't really arguing energy, are we? We are discussing ideology, notions of principle - what is the proper role of government in solving the problems of her people? I contend that given government's record (outside of war making and admittedly other successes) I would prefer that it enable problem solving activity rather then engage in that activity itself. So, slash and burn all the red tape for drilling, refineries, clean coal, etc, including your solar panels, and incentivize the tax code for rapid development and then "the people" in the form of energy companies and the homeowner will remedy this crisis their selves. And as I have stated, the "list" Titus and I seem to agree on simply must include the fossil and nuclear, not to the exclusivity of your solar ideas, but certainly as the primary focus of government's deregulation efforts. Forgive me, but your idea, while not without merit, doesn't rank any higher then a distant tertiary (my opinion) in terms of a realistic comprehensive answer to our most pressing national energy needs.

But that's just my "monotonous, self-absorbed, narrow minded, blinders on" opinion ......