Saturday, October 13, 2007

A Trip To The Alternate Universe

Trying to force anything but name calling and snark out of so called adults is awfully hard to do these days. Thank Rush Limbaugh for turning this into what passes for serious debate these days. There may be no better issue to illustrate this than the global warming debate and resultant Al Gore debate. When framed outside of the right wing talking points few would take the challenge. Those that did still tried to fit it into their party approved talking points rather than expanding their frame of vision. Welcome to black and white...and on we traipse to the land of good and evil.......

Ron: I have a very basic question for the rightists. One I would guess they can't answer. What scares you about accepting global warming? Yes, I believe in reality and I would hope through it all we could find the truth. The question remains what would happen that would be so negative if we took action to fight global warming? I am amazed that this is never a part of the debate. What are you scared would happen? I don't get it. I'm willing to bet you on the right don't either. You knee jerked and you jumped on the bandwagon with your cut and paste facts and never looked back.

Rightist: What would happen? How about higher taxes, more government regulation and control. How about a really bad economy with lower productivity and higher prices.
Oh, I forgot, that would be a socialist paradice!! Never mind, that's what you are trying to achieve, isn't it?

Ron: And how do you come to these conclusions mark? I can theorize on your taxes and regulation remark. That is a point we could discuss later. I have no idea what you are talking about when you speak of bad economy, lower productivity and higher prices. As a matter of fact on these issues I see exactly the opposite. What picture do you see that makes these things likely?

Rightist: That is basically what will happen as a result of trying to regulate things which emit CO2. I for one don't trust the federal government with even half the power it has now. They horribly mismanage most of the things they do and are corrupted at every possible opportunity. I can see restrictions on CO2 emitters being strict and limiting for the average person and then totally disregarded fro groups like power companies, manufacturers, and automakers who are rich enough to buy political clout. It seems like a generally crippling and draining situation for the average person.

Another Rightist: If companies are forced by the government to cut back on "greenhouse gases" and pay higher taxes, it WILL cut productivity and raise prices. Companies always pass on taxes to the consumer. It's built into the price of everything we buy. Higher taxes on oil companies and gasoline will also slow the economy with higher prices.
Higher taxes always slow the economy. More revenue has come into the federal government since the Bush tax cuts than ever before. The real problem is trying to get these politicians from both parties to stop spending like drunken liberals.

Ron: Ok, but you say government horribly mismanages things. Do corporations do it any better? As a matter of fact aren't a lot of people in big business government people and aren't a lot of political people eventually CEOs, board of directors etc? Yes, some businesses are good and operate efficiently. Some suck and are run by idiots. Most are average. I feel less safe leaving everything to people I have no,even potential, control of. Pure lazzie-faire capitalism is as flawed as total government control. If we are forced to come up with things that emit less CO2 then people will have to be hired to do it. Yes that will cost business but it will also put money in peoples pockets. It will take money from wall street and give it to main street. You do want to reward work, right? Beyond that it is a salable product so it is not like it is a total loss to those that would employ themselves in this endeavor.As far as uneven applications of the law. That's certainly a problem that is likely and one we must continue to address as we go down the road.

New really wingnutty Rightist:
Accepting that the planet is getting warmer is easy. The Poles have been melting for SIX THOUSAND YEARS. We're better off that we were at this climate then, say, 200yrs. ago. There's more food now, less famine, because there's more sunlight.
The most ridiculous thing is trying to convince people that "Man" is causing this nice warming period. especially since all the other planets in the solar system are getting warmer at the same rate as Earth.
The bottom line? The Left rails against "Man-made" global warming why?
...& all that the word "POWER" implies.
If ELF=Terrorist, Environmentalist=FascistThe Environmental Elite=The Enemy of the poor.
In all seriousness, RONSPRI, I'd invite you to read Michael Crichton's STATE OF FEAR.
I'd also invite you to read the daily editorials from INVESTORS BUSINESS DAILY
Go here, too
You're seeing only one side of the argument. The Right sees all sides.
Watch all 11 parts of THE LITTLE ICE AGE from The History Channel on YouTube, then tell me we aren't a lot better off then we were just a few years ago.
"man-made" global warming is the biggest bunch of bullcrap that the counter-culture has ever tried to get over on the consumer.
(Great question -- Thanks for asking.)

Ron: So basically you are fighting the idea of global warming and the things we would do as a result because you think it would lead to inordinate power to be invested in some group you don't like or trust? OK.................Do you think we might get to a little deeper discussion. I see all sides and the point, please don't condescend. The point for me is not which scientist is right. The point, to me, is that we need new technologies and new industries of the future to even compete. We need alternative energy and we could find it very lucrative. Why not do this stuff? Cuz it would give some magical power to somebody you have been taught to hate and distrust? Maybe if we would all start acting like citizens of the same country we could use people power to make this a country that forces the government to be the commonwealth of the people instead of some outside irresistible force.
Update: John Edwards and John McCain have won a couple of environmental endorsements. Edwards from the Friends Of The Earth and McCain from Republicans for Environmental Protection.
Ya, I didn't know there were any either.
Here's what they had to say:
In Concord, the president of Republicans for Environmental Protection toured the New Hampshire Audubon Society with McCain before announcing the endorsement. Martha Marks said the Arizona senator was the only Republican candidate who understands the connection between conservative values and environmental stewardship.
"Senator McCain knows reducing our carbon pollution will improve our security, create jobs in profitable new industries, help farmers and clean up the air in our cities," she said. "More than any other Republican candidate, Senator McCain knows that the fight against climate change is a conservative cause."
McCain said he was honored to receive the endorsement and that he aspires to be as great a conservationist as his role model and fellow Republican, Theodore Roosevelt.
"We Republicans have to restore that reputation of being the lead party in conservation and preservation of our great national treasures," he said.
He said he has seen the effects of global warming firsthand in his travels to the Arctic circle and elsewhere.
"There's no doubt in my mind of the urgency of the issue of climate change," said McCain, who also supports a cap and trade system to lower emissions.
I have studied Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt is a hero of mine and John you are no Teddy Roosevelt.
That said, I have thought since the second debate or so if one of these guys have to win I would rather it be McCain. I still think he is the best possible among those that I wouldn't even think of voting for. Of course I must admit I thought the same thing about Bush. Giuliani and Thompson would be a continuation of our authoritarian nightmare. Romney is not a leader he is a sycophant or at best the dreaded wishy washy politician. Ron Paul is absolutely right on about half of it and absolutely wrong on the other half. Huckabee is a Christiban and doesn't even seem to believe in science. The rest are also rans.
At least the republicans offering the endorsement realise that we can all profit from progress.

Wednesday, October 10, 2007

The Dumbing Down Of America

Here's a good look at the level of our discourse in the United States. Personal attacks are bad unless it's the right doing the personal attacking. Then it's investgative journalism. Maybe we should be debating the merits or faults of government vs private healthcare. Somehow we never seem to get to the real issues though. Lots of character examination of any and all people involved but no discussion of the real questions. Strawmen everywhere. I am pretty tired of being patient with personality politics. There is a far more important debate about the values and morals of the various methods of healthcare. Nope we will just talk about this guy and that gal and Joe Wilson and George Soros and Move on and Media Matters and on and on. Ok they all suck now can we talk about the pluses and minuses of various healthcare plans? No wonder this country is falling so far behind on damned near everything. It's time to quit acting stupid people.

I see I am not the only one feeling like this. Here is somebody noting pretty much the same thing.

Sunday, October 07, 2007

Support The Troops

Here is more proof that corporate interests are running our country instead of the people. You would expect this from an uncaring, totally profit driven corporation. Would you expect it from the people of the United States? Who is running the country?

When they came home from Iraq, 2,600 members of the Minnesota National Guard had been deployed longer than any other ground combat unit. The tour lasted 22 months and had been extended as part of President Bush's surge. Anderson's orders, and the orders of 1,161 other Minnesota guard members, were written for 729 days.
Had they been written for 730 days, just one day more, the soldiers would receive those benefits to pay for school.
"Which would be allowing the soldiers an extra $500 to $800 a month," Anderson said.
That money would help him pay for his master's degree in public administration. It would help Anderson's fellow platoon leader, John Hobot, pay for a degree in law enforcement. Both Hobot and Anderson believe the Pentagon deliberately wrote orders for 729 days instead of 730.

These are the gung-ho people that support the troops? These are the people that take such exception to any criticism of our war effort? Let's see, how could we support the troops beyond boisterously proclaiming it and putting a magnetic sticker made in China on our vehicle?