Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Climate Change
Recently I saw a letter to the editor poo pooing global warming based on the writers perception of current weather. I'd like to introduce that writer to these indicators.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Change and Wisdom
I read an article which led me to the School of Wisdom . I offer this without prejudice - I find it interesting, perhaps you will too.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Energy
You know those times when you hear someone say something, or read something, and you say to youself - "that's just wrong"? Well, just a few days ago I heard something like that and it's been bugging me ever since, so I decided to put my thought here. Yes, just one thought. Sorry.
The comment that I heard was something to the effect "...the world's economy is based on oil ...". And I'm sure to many that is just taken for granted. But for some reason, this time I heard it and said "that's just wrong". It's another case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
In this case it is really simple. The trees represent oil, while the forest we should be concerned about is energy. The world's economy may seem to be based on oil, but that is only because oil is where we get our energy.
For me that speaks volumes. You can draw any conclusions you want - there's no other punchline in this message.
John Lennon wrote 'Imagine' - which suggested alternate realities. He didn't mention energy independence, but can you imagine what that would mean? It can and will change the world, if only we can make it happen. And I don't mean just for the USA, I mean for the world. It would certainly be one step in the direction of 'the best of all possible worlds'.
The comment that I heard was something to the effect "...the world's economy is based on oil ...". And I'm sure to many that is just taken for granted. But for some reason, this time I heard it and said "that's just wrong". It's another case of not seeing the forest for the trees.
In this case it is really simple. The trees represent oil, while the forest we should be concerned about is energy. The world's economy may seem to be based on oil, but that is only because oil is where we get our energy.
For me that speaks volumes. You can draw any conclusions you want - there's no other punchline in this message.
John Lennon wrote 'Imagine' - which suggested alternate realities. He didn't mention energy independence, but can you imagine what that would mean? It can and will change the world, if only we can make it happen. And I don't mean just for the USA, I mean for the world. It would certainly be one step in the direction of 'the best of all possible worlds'.
Friday, December 5, 2008
Whew!
First hurdle cleared. What a relief! I believe the country is in good hands. I believe a clear course correction has begun. Now we all get to 'see what happens' - not suggesting sitting on the sidelines, not at all. Stay active. Stay informed. Speak out. Do all the things we couldn't seem to do for eight long years. Voice your approval. Voice your disapproval. Speak your opinion (without fear!).
This blog is not finished - not even close. Only the first chapter is written. Future chapters are a work in progress, including: Economy, War, Terrorism, Immigration, Foreign Policy, Education, Health Care - just to name a few. And there will be, of course, the totally unexpected crisis(es).
So welcome back to the USA! Let's get together and fix this mess (we made).
This blog is not finished - not even close. Only the first chapter is written. Future chapters are a work in progress, including: Economy, War, Terrorism, Immigration, Foreign Policy, Education, Health Care - just to name a few. And there will be, of course, the totally unexpected crisis(es).
So welcome back to the USA! Let's get together and fix this mess (we made).
Thursday, October 30, 2008
How can this election be close?
Upfront: I'm biased - no question.
But really, aren't there just a few basic reasons to wonder how in the world the vote can be as close as it is? Why do I have to hold my breath until (at least) November 5?
Without delving into detail, here are some thoughts.
Positive reasons to vote for Obama:
A complete overhaul of the White House
Level headed, intelligent, in-tune-with-the-times leadership
Strong renewable energy plan
Universal health care plan
Jobs - based on current needs like energy, environment, infrastructure
Will reestablish our credibility in the world, just by being elected
Will justify our position in the world community through dialog and action
Negative reasons to vote for Obama:
The thought of Sarah Palin as president
No change in the crew that have been screwing everything for eight years
McCain foreign policy (what is it, what is it?)
McCain economic policy - does Exxon really need tax incentives? Has trickle down worked?
Both lists could go on and on, as they do, but this is enough for me.
Eight years is enough for me - more than enough. If you're happy with the last eight years, you're sick (or you're in the upper 1% of wealth). Electing a Republican president (any Republican) will continue a losing tradition. We must change direction. We must.
But really, aren't there just a few basic reasons to wonder how in the world the vote can be as close as it is? Why do I have to hold my breath until (at least) November 5?
Without delving into detail, here are some thoughts.
Positive reasons to vote for Obama:
A complete overhaul of the White House
Level headed, intelligent, in-tune-with-the-times leadership
Strong renewable energy plan
Universal health care plan
Jobs - based on current needs like energy, environment, infrastructure
Will reestablish our credibility in the world, just by being elected
Will justify our position in the world community through dialog and action
Negative reasons to vote for Obama:
The thought of Sarah Palin as president
No change in the crew that have been screwing everything for eight years
McCain foreign policy (what is it, what is it?)
McCain economic policy - does Exxon really need tax incentives? Has trickle down worked?
Both lists could go on and on, as they do, but this is enough for me.
Eight years is enough for me - more than enough. If you're happy with the last eight years, you're sick (or you're in the upper 1% of wealth). Electing a Republican president (any Republican) will continue a losing tradition. We must change direction. We must.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
5 Videos exposing John McCain
I just received these - they are all good - nothing really new, but some interesting contrasts and contradictory messages from Senator McCain.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
General Thoughts
I'm a year older now, and much much wiser.
I'm not celebrating until the election is over. But I'm more hopeful than ever.
I've voted.
I wonder if the Republicans will ever throw off the shackles of the religious right. There are other ways to get votes, such as reasonable policies.
I wear my Obama t-shirt in public often, and the response - even here in Arizona - is fantastic. It's unlikely, but I'd like to see Obama win Arizona.
I could expand each of these statement into long chapters - but for now, just let your mind wander free(ly).
I'm not celebrating until the election is over. But I'm more hopeful than ever.
I've voted.
I wonder if the Republicans will ever throw off the shackles of the religious right. There are other ways to get votes, such as reasonable policies.
I wear my Obama t-shirt in public often, and the response - even here in Arizona - is fantastic. It's unlikely, but I'd like to see Obama win Arizona.
I could expand each of these statement into long chapters - but for now, just let your mind wander free(ly).
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Letter from Illinois - Fini
From Joes' Letter:
Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, 'Enough.' It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why.
There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.
I want a President who's qualified to lead.
From me:
Joe, if you use the 'friends' line one more time, I'll puke.
Let me say this about your statement above. I agree with every word - even the ones I don't quite understand. Does that surprise you? The only difference is that for me, the answer is Barack Obama, clearly and unequivocally.
What do you mean "...before any foreign country."? Where did that thought come from? I didn't realize John or Barack had any interest in any other country. What country would that be? And what kind of interest?
Joe, I know your mind cannot be changed, and I'm not trying to change it. You've tried hard in your letter to hide your bias, but in the end it all comes out, doesn't it. At the end of the next 8 years, when the ship is righted, when the results of the Bush 8 years have been reversed (if that is even possible), you still won't acknowledge the accomplishment. You didn't for President Clinton, who left office with the country on pretty firm ground, and you won't for President Obama, who will very likely do the same thing. I'll be interested to know what you do in 2012 when the Republicans put up a black man to oppose him!
We live in interesting times. Before I go I hope and expect to see a woman as president. (not Sarah Palin) I can't wait to see what we can do in the next eight years! I know what we are capable of, and it's exciting.
For instance, I've been waiting 50 years for us to do something about renewable energy. Now we will. I'm confident that with Obama in office we will pursue this with all the urgency it deserves. And whether you believe it or not, energy is the most important problem to solve. The other problems cannot be ignored, of course, but energy must be resolved. I have no confidence that John McCain will even try - he has been good bedfellows with the existing group for too long. But I digress into real issues. Sorry. Let's keep it simple, with inuendo and vague accusations.
Okay, I'll stop now. Unless Bush declares martial law, unless Obama supporters don't show up at the polls because they think it's a done deal, unless voters are disenfranchised through unethical or illegal means on voting day, unless something unthinkable happens in the next 21 days - Obama will be elected and we can all move forward while we and the world breath a sigh of relief.
Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to say, 'Enough.' It is time for people of all parties to stop following the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why.
There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts my family's interests before any foreign country.
I want a President who's qualified to lead.
From me:
Joe, if you use the 'friends' line one more time, I'll puke.
Let me say this about your statement above. I agree with every word - even the ones I don't quite understand. Does that surprise you? The only difference is that for me, the answer is Barack Obama, clearly and unequivocally.
What do you mean "...before any foreign country."? Where did that thought come from? I didn't realize John or Barack had any interest in any other country. What country would that be? And what kind of interest?
Joe, I know your mind cannot be changed, and I'm not trying to change it. You've tried hard in your letter to hide your bias, but in the end it all comes out, doesn't it. At the end of the next 8 years, when the ship is righted, when the results of the Bush 8 years have been reversed (if that is even possible), you still won't acknowledge the accomplishment. You didn't for President Clinton, who left office with the country on pretty firm ground, and you won't for President Obama, who will very likely do the same thing. I'll be interested to know what you do in 2012 when the Republicans put up a black man to oppose him!
We live in interesting times. Before I go I hope and expect to see a woman as president. (not Sarah Palin) I can't wait to see what we can do in the next eight years! I know what we are capable of, and it's exciting.
For instance, I've been waiting 50 years for us to do something about renewable energy. Now we will. I'm confident that with Obama in office we will pursue this with all the urgency it deserves. And whether you believe it or not, energy is the most important problem to solve. The other problems cannot be ignored, of course, but energy must be resolved. I have no confidence that John McCain will even try - he has been good bedfellows with the existing group for too long. But I digress into real issues. Sorry. Let's keep it simple, with inuendo and vague accusations.
Okay, I'll stop now. Unless Bush declares martial law, unless Obama supporters don't show up at the polls because they think it's a done deal, unless voters are disenfranchised through unethical or illegal means on voting day, unless something unthinkable happens in the next 21 days - Obama will be elected and we can all move forward while we and the world breath a sigh of relief.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Letter from Illinois - Part 8
From Joes' Letter:
I don't agree with John McCain on everything -
but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America , and there's a huge difference. Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in1981 and elected to the Senate in1982.
Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe 'likeability' is a higher priority for them than 'trust'. Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.
From me:
I don't agree with John McCain on much of anything. While he talks change, his policies are Bush policies, Republican policies, and look where that has brought us!
John McCain is qualified to be president. I trust that he will do what he believes is best for our country, but I know that I will not agree with what he does.
And just in case you really believe what you said, we are voting between two (or four) people who 1) want to be president AND 2) fully believe they are the right person to lead America.
Factually? Really. Well, I'll agree it is difficult to compare these two. But not for the nebulous (or is that nefarious?) reasons you mention. I'm not sure who "...questionable background and motives who prattles ... " might refer to, but it certainly doesn't describe Barack Obama.
And no, it's not a stance between old and new. Not for any one of us. It's a stance for this country to right the ship. It's a stance based on one candidate who at least says the right things. Likeability and Trustability are even in this game, as far as I'm concerned. It's policy, position, direction, attitude and a ton of other things.
Again you mention demonstrated leadership, and again, just one example - just one.
I don't agree with John McCain on everything -
but I am utterly convinced that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind. He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America , and there's a huge difference. Factually, there is simply no comparison between the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on about change can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in1981 and elected to the Senate in1982.
Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe 'likeability' is a higher priority for them than 'trust'. Being a prisoner of war is not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America - but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.
From me:
I don't agree with John McCain on much of anything. While he talks change, his policies are Bush policies, Republican policies, and look where that has brought us!
John McCain is qualified to be president. I trust that he will do what he believes is best for our country, but I know that I will not agree with what he does.
And just in case you really believe what you said, we are voting between two (or four) people who 1) want to be president AND 2) fully believe they are the right person to lead America.
Factually? Really. Well, I'll agree it is difficult to compare these two. But not for the nebulous (or is that nefarious?) reasons you mention. I'm not sure who "...questionable background and motives who prattles ... " might refer to, but it certainly doesn't describe Barack Obama.
And no, it's not a stance between old and new. Not for any one of us. It's a stance for this country to right the ship. It's a stance based on one candidate who at least says the right things. Likeability and Trustability are even in this game, as far as I'm concerned. It's policy, position, direction, attitude and a ton of other things.
Again you mention demonstrated leadership, and again, just one example - just one.
Letter from Illionis - Part 7
From Joes' Letter:
Here's a question - 'Where were you five and a half years ago? Around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6, 000 meals, give or take.'
John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.
When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began.
Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.
Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq . Barack Obama is fond of saying We honor John McCain's service...BUT...', which to me is
condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, 'Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change.'
From me:
John McCain is a war hero. He is an American hero. What he endured in Vietnam is incredible. I salute him, and I will always respect him for his quality of character.
Furthermore he is a nice guy.
About "proven leadership abilities" - name one thing he has led. Just one.
Being a war hero is one thing. Being president is something else again. I don't believe the two are related in any way.
And what you hear seems to be what you want to hear.
Here's a question - 'Where were you five and a half years ago? Around Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6, 000 meals, give or take.'
John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese prisoner-of-war camp.
When offered early release, he refused it. He considered this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and torture began.
Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this singular act defines John McCain.
Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis, during his Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in Iraq . Barack Obama is fond of saying We honor John McCain's service...BUT...', which to me is
condescending and offensive - because what I hear is, 'Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change.'
From me:
John McCain is a war hero. He is an American hero. What he endured in Vietnam is incredible. I salute him, and I will always respect him for his quality of character.
Furthermore he is a nice guy.
About "proven leadership abilities" - name one thing he has led. Just one.
Being a war hero is one thing. Being president is something else again. I don't believe the two are related in any way.
And what you hear seems to be what you want to hear.
Letter from Illinois - Part 6
From Joes' Letter:
Friends, I'll be forthright with you - I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton , look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.
For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading
applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.
From me:
Joe, if your reason for using "Friends" in a sentence was to send folks like me up the wall, you have succeeded. If there is any reason not to elect John McCain it would be so that we would never have to hear him say "My friends" again. Jesh.
I'm an American voter who is supporting Barack Obama, and I have a clue what I'm doing. Per your request, I've supplied some of Obama's qualifications.
It's impressive that you have such knowledge of the 'most liberal media' that you know they cannot explain why he should be elected. I'll bet you're wrong on this one. I'll bet you that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow can talk you down on that one.
As for your evaluations of Political experience, foreign relations and achievements, well we'll just leave that very long discussion for another day.
For me the choice is equally clear. I've looked closely at the applicants, and I've voted.
Friends, I'll be forthright with you - I believe the American voters who are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible. Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his wife's thesis from Princeton , look it up on the web. This is who's lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.
For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading
applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.
From me:
Joe, if your reason for using "Friends" in a sentence was to send folks like me up the wall, you have succeeded. If there is any reason not to elect John McCain it would be so that we would never have to hear him say "My friends" again. Jesh.
I'm an American voter who is supporting Barack Obama, and I have a clue what I'm doing. Per your request, I've supplied some of Obama's qualifications.
It's impressive that you have such knowledge of the 'most liberal media' that you know they cannot explain why he should be elected. I'll bet you're wrong on this one. I'll bet you that Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow can talk you down on that one.
As for your evaluations of Political experience, foreign relations and achievements, well we'll just leave that very long discussion for another day.
For me the choice is equally clear. I've looked closely at the applicants, and I've voted.
Letter from Illinois - Part 5
From Joes' Letter:
We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, 'What qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?'
CHANGE WHAT?
From me:
I discussed the qualifications and what change means in Part 4, so I won't repeat that here. But I must respond to these other false allegations.
Joe, I'm disappointed in you. Obama's life story is an open book available for anyone to read. We know his genealogy, and it is just fine, thank you very much.
What is it about his upbringing that doesn't suit you?
Does it bother you at all that he has no Muslim background? Not even a little bit. How much would it bother you if he really did have a Muslim background?!?
And good grief Charlie Brown - in the recent past church affiliations have been a job requirement for presidents - now being affiliated with a church is a liability?
All of this is just sewer talk, maintained in the cesspool that is talk radio. It has all been debunked - it's all unsubstantiated and unwarranted. That you or anyone else believes any of this junk is beyond comprehension.
We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, 'What qualifies this man to be my president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?'
CHANGE WHAT?
From me:
I discussed the qualifications and what change means in Part 4, so I won't repeat that here. But I must respond to these other false allegations.
Joe, I'm disappointed in you. Obama's life story is an open book available for anyone to read. We know his genealogy, and it is just fine, thank you very much.
What is it about his upbringing that doesn't suit you?
Does it bother you at all that he has no Muslim background? Not even a little bit. How much would it bother you if he really did have a Muslim background?!?
And good grief Charlie Brown - in the recent past church affiliations have been a job requirement for presidents - now being affiliated with a church is a liability?
All of this is just sewer talk, maintained in the cesspool that is talk radio. It has all been debunked - it's all unsubstantiated and unwarranted. That you or anyone else believes any of this junk is beyond comprehension.
Letter from Illinois - Part 4
From Joes' Letter:
I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it 'change'.
'Change what?', I ask.
'Well, we're going to change America ', they say.
'In what way?', I query.
'We want someone new and fresh in the White House', they exclaim.
'So, someone who's not a politician?', I say.
'Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama', they state.
'So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news and win his party's nomination for the White House - that system's all wrong?'
'No, no, that part of the system's okay - we just need a lot of change.'
And so it goes. 'Change we can believe in.'
Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois , so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why - only that he's going to change a lot of stuff. 'Change, change, change.' I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth - other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change.
From me:
Joe. You just shifted from what seemed to be a fairly even-handed discussion about your concern for the future of the country - to a direct head on attack on first the people who support Barack Obama and finally on Barack Obama himself. So I'm guessing this is a very biased attack on those folks.
The good news is you stuck pretty much to one subject - Change. You created a sample dialog to explain your frustration. It's cute, but I find it hard to believe that you have had this or any other dialog with anyone who supports either candidate. You see, both candidates are touting change. It's the word of the day. And both candidates have good reason to tout change. You ask "Change what?". If you really have to ask then you have been asleep for at least eight years! The only question is where to start the list - economic policy, foreign policy, domestic policy - you name it - both John McCain and Barack Obama are going to CHANGE it! At least that's what they say. The conversation you concocted sounds like a couple of two year olds. Yes, Obama used the "Change" catchword long before McCain thought to, but that's where they both are now. So if you're going to attack based on change, better check both sides - see if the McCain supporters understand what John is going to change any better than the Obama supporters you've questioned.
At the end you finally get to the meat - you want to know why this man (Obama) is qualified to be President.... here's a short list:
1. he was selected by his party as their best candidate. This involved, just as with the Republicans, a serious vetting process which few could withstand.
2. he has the complete support of his party. As you know, when you select a president you are really selecting the Executive Branch of the government - a fairly large team. Most, but not all, presidents rely on their team, make sure it is composed of the best and brightest, etc., etc.
3. he has a cool head. Based on everything we have seen for the last two years, and based on what we know about the 14 years before that, he will not make decisions based on knee-jerk reaction or idiology, but will give full comtemplation and consideration and consultation with his team on each decision.
4. he understands and can connect with ordinary Americans, because he is one.
5. he has picked a VP who is qualified to be president.
That's a short list, just off the top of my head, and while you can argue with each and every one of these, they are some of my reasons to select Barack Obama as President. And I'll bet there are more than a few folks in Illinois who could answer this question for you as well.
I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and calling it 'change'.
'Change what?', I ask.
'Well, we're going to change America ', they say.
'In what way?', I query.
'We want someone new and fresh in the White House', they exclaim.
'So, someone who's not a politician?', I say.
'Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for Obama', they state.
'So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible amounts of money and dominate the news and win his party's nomination for the White House - that system's all wrong?'
'No, no, that part of the system's okay - we just need a lot of change.'
And so it goes. 'Change we can believe in.'
Quite frankly, I don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how they're voting. I live in Illinois , so most folks tell me they're voting for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why - only that he's going to change a lot of stuff. 'Change, change, change.' I have yet to find one single person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth - other than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change.
From me:
Joe. You just shifted from what seemed to be a fairly even-handed discussion about your concern for the future of the country - to a direct head on attack on first the people who support Barack Obama and finally on Barack Obama himself. So I'm guessing this is a very biased attack on those folks.
The good news is you stuck pretty much to one subject - Change. You created a sample dialog to explain your frustration. It's cute, but I find it hard to believe that you have had this or any other dialog with anyone who supports either candidate. You see, both candidates are touting change. It's the word of the day. And both candidates have good reason to tout change. You ask "Change what?". If you really have to ask then you have been asleep for at least eight years! The only question is where to start the list - economic policy, foreign policy, domestic policy - you name it - both John McCain and Barack Obama are going to CHANGE it! At least that's what they say. The conversation you concocted sounds like a couple of two year olds. Yes, Obama used the "Change" catchword long before McCain thought to, but that's where they both are now. So if you're going to attack based on change, better check both sides - see if the McCain supporters understand what John is going to change any better than the Obama supporters you've questioned.
At the end you finally get to the meat - you want to know why this man (Obama) is qualified to be President.... here's a short list:
1. he was selected by his party as their best candidate. This involved, just as with the Republicans, a serious vetting process which few could withstand.
2. he has the complete support of his party. As you know, when you select a president you are really selecting the Executive Branch of the government - a fairly large team. Most, but not all, presidents rely on their team, make sure it is composed of the best and brightest, etc., etc.
3. he has a cool head. Based on everything we have seen for the last two years, and based on what we know about the 14 years before that, he will not make decisions based on knee-jerk reaction or idiology, but will give full comtemplation and consideration and consultation with his team on each decision.
4. he understands and can connect with ordinary Americans, because he is one.
5. he has picked a VP who is qualified to be president.
That's a short list, just off the top of my head, and while you can argue with each and every one of these, they are some of my reasons to select Barack Obama as President. And I'll bet there are more than a few folks in Illinois who could answer this question for you as well.
Letter from Illinois - Part 3
From Joes' Letter:
We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?
From me:
Joe, there is nothing unique involved here. We hold elections all the time. Many other countries do also. While it is great that we do hold elections to select our leaders, it is not unique. And in this country it is a right. Now I don't want to argue about privileges and rights and responsibilities, but I think you might agree now that you've thought about it. Not a big deal.
And you're right on about agreeing with anyone 100% of the time - hey, even 50% of the time would be pretty good!
We agree on just about everything here. I've hired a lot of people too, and that is what we're doing in an election. As I mentioned before, though, we are not just hiring a person - that would be too easy. We're hiring a person with a lot of baggage, a whole party worth of baggage. So much baggage that it cannot be ignored. It has to be considered in the selection process. This is clearly different than hiring for the business - in fact, you cannot use political, religious, race, age etc., filters in making the decision for your business. But in an election all of those things are not only fair game, they are important! In business you would usually be forced to consider education as a hiring factor - in politics, apparently not so important! So I guess the bottom line is, while it is similar to hiring a worker, it isn't the same at all. The groundrules are all different.
We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders. It's a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth, I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman who is best qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the job right?
From me:
Joe, there is nothing unique involved here. We hold elections all the time. Many other countries do also. While it is great that we do hold elections to select our leaders, it is not unique. And in this country it is a right. Now I don't want to argue about privileges and rights and responsibilities, but I think you might agree now that you've thought about it. Not a big deal.
And you're right on about agreeing with anyone 100% of the time - hey, even 50% of the time would be pretty good!
We agree on just about everything here. I've hired a lot of people too, and that is what we're doing in an election. As I mentioned before, though, we are not just hiring a person - that would be too easy. We're hiring a person with a lot of baggage, a whole party worth of baggage. So much baggage that it cannot be ignored. It has to be considered in the selection process. This is clearly different than hiring for the business - in fact, you cannot use political, religious, race, age etc., filters in making the decision for your business. But in an election all of those things are not only fair game, they are important! In business you would usually be forced to consider education as a hiring factor - in politics, apparently not so important! So I guess the bottom line is, while it is similar to hiring a worker, it isn't the same at all. The groundrules are all different.
A letter from Illinois - Part 2
From Joes' letter:
The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at
the political pundits and so-called 'news', thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government programs.
From me:
Joe, so many thoughts! At the risk of sounding critical ... never mind, I'll just try to address each one.
Concerned about the future of this great nation
Me too. I think most people are. If they aren't, they just aren't listening.
Passive for too long
That could be. Certainly can't argue with it. But you know what? You can lead a person to the polls, but you can't make'em vote!
Not involved in politics
Now we're getting somewhere! Could this be the source of the problem? Do you think your responsibility to the country ends at the ballot box? Do you think your responsibility to the country ends when you pay your taxes? Well I say, if you do, then think again.
Yes, you are allowed to make this choice, to ignore politics, but if you do you forfeit any credibility when you complain.
Maintain the good life
Paying the bills is good. Raising the kids is good. As for the 'good life', that's a very subjective subjective thing - but I'm thinking it's all good.
Voting - a sacred trust
It is.
Pundits and spin
We probably agree here more than we disagree. But here there is a solution, but it's not for the lazy. Use your head. Think. Listen to both sides. Think. It requires work and time and effort. Think. Read. Analyze. Figure it out yourself. Use your head. You know, if you do this you can watch the 'news' and laugh. You can listen to the speeches and laugh. You can discuss things with friends. You can debate things with those who see thing differently than you. Be curious. Think.
Pork
Can't understand how this happens? Have you ever turned any down? Do you know what 'pork barrel spending' is? Do you know how much of the budget is considered pork? (note - it's not as much as you might think) The term is misused so much that perhaps we should define it. But I'm not going any further with this. We agree that some government spending is wasteful, even though we don't know how much that is. I have to say this - if "pork barrel spending" is anything it is a hotbutton used in political elections. By all sides.
Handouts
Of course the honest, hard-working tax payers don't want handouts. Not for themselves. But many of them understand the need for charity, the need to help other folks who need help, and they don't begrudge this use of their tax dollars. There's a deep well here that we could fall in, but let's not right now. We agreed earlier that one role of government was to help people who needed help - let's leave it at that for now.
Protection
Yep, not question about that one, one of the primary roles of government is to protect the people. On many different levels - make the streets safe, enforce the border, defend from terrorists, defend from agressive nations, financial security, health security - the list just goes on and on.
Raise taxes for more government programs
The last point in this paragraph - finally! Do you see what I meant about so many thoughts? Hey, every one of them is good and important, and they are loosely connected in a way.
As a general statement this one is true - no one wants more taxes, although believe it or not, there are those who believe it just might be worth it in many cases, and who believe they have a responsibility not only to pay their taxes but to understand just how they are being spent and to speak out when they agree as strongly as they do when they disagree.
And hey, 'more government programs' is just too broad. If there is an axe to grind about specific government programs, bring it on, but just grouping all government programs into the 'bad' basket is a cop-out.
The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working, tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust. They shake their heads at
the political pundits and so-called 'news', thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public trust with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government programs.
From me:
Joe, so many thoughts! At the risk of sounding critical ... never mind, I'll just try to address each one.
Concerned about the future of this great nation
Me too. I think most people are. If they aren't, they just aren't listening.
Passive for too long
That could be. Certainly can't argue with it. But you know what? You can lead a person to the polls, but you can't make'em vote!
Not involved in politics
Now we're getting somewhere! Could this be the source of the problem? Do you think your responsibility to the country ends at the ballot box? Do you think your responsibility to the country ends when you pay your taxes? Well I say, if you do, then think again.
Yes, you are allowed to make this choice, to ignore politics, but if you do you forfeit any credibility when you complain.
Maintain the good life
Paying the bills is good. Raising the kids is good. As for the 'good life', that's a very subjective subjective thing - but I'm thinking it's all good.
Voting - a sacred trust
It is.
Pundits and spin
We probably agree here more than we disagree. But here there is a solution, but it's not for the lazy. Use your head. Think. Listen to both sides. Think. It requires work and time and effort. Think. Read. Analyze. Figure it out yourself. Use your head. You know, if you do this you can watch the 'news' and laugh. You can listen to the speeches and laugh. You can discuss things with friends. You can debate things with those who see thing differently than you. Be curious. Think.
Pork
Can't understand how this happens? Have you ever turned any down? Do you know what 'pork barrel spending' is? Do you know how much of the budget is considered pork? (note - it's not as much as you might think) The term is misused so much that perhaps we should define it. But I'm not going any further with this. We agree that some government spending is wasteful, even though we don't know how much that is. I have to say this - if "pork barrel spending" is anything it is a hotbutton used in political elections. By all sides.
Handouts
Of course the honest, hard-working tax payers don't want handouts. Not for themselves. But many of them understand the need for charity, the need to help other folks who need help, and they don't begrudge this use of their tax dollars. There's a deep well here that we could fall in, but let's not right now. We agreed earlier that one role of government was to help people who needed help - let's leave it at that for now.
Protection
Yep, not question about that one, one of the primary roles of government is to protect the people. On many different levels - make the streets safe, enforce the border, defend from terrorists, defend from agressive nations, financial security, health security - the list just goes on and on.
Raise taxes for more government programs
The last point in this paragraph - finally! Do you see what I meant about so many thoughts? Hey, every one of them is good and important, and they are loosely connected in a way.
As a general statement this one is true - no one wants more taxes, although believe it or not, there are those who believe it just might be worth it in many cases, and who believe they have a responsibility not only to pay their taxes but to understand just how they are being spent and to speak out when they agree as strongly as they do when they disagree.
And hey, 'more government programs' is just too broad. If there is an axe to grind about specific government programs, bring it on, but just grouping all government programs into the 'bad' basket is a cop-out.
A letter from Illinois - Part 1
Hi. I've been 'holding my tongue' for awhile. I've voted. But the battle is not over. Today I received an email forwarded from a friend. My friend suggests that this email asks questions "...that many of us would if we wanted to make our position public...". I replied, asking my friend if he wanted answers - I haven't heard back yet. But I'm going to tackle it anyway, just because. I'll do it in parts, first quoting the 'letter', then supplying my reaction. Here goes part 1.
From the letter:
My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign , Illinois . I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are 'two Americas ' - but that every person in this country can be whomever and what ever they want to be if they'll just work to get there - and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.
From me:
Hi Joe. This is a fine statement of who you are and what you believe. I'll refer back to it in future parts of this response. I like everything I see here. My bio is somewhat different in spots, but you sound like a person I can talk with and I think we can find points of agreement in many areas. Let's see.
I live in Scottsdale, Arizona. I'm 67 years old, not affiliated with any religion, a husband, a father, a retired engineer, a veteran, and a homeowner. I'm sure I am considered a liberal, but I am neither Republican or Democrat. When I vote I consider the person first, but I cannot ignore the organization being represented.
I don't know exactly what the 'two Americas' concept is. I believe America is multi-faceted, and that in many cases that is a good thing but there are cases where it is not a good thing. More on that later.
America is a country of fantastic opportunity - possibly more so than any other country. You and I both want it to be true that "...every person in this country can be whomever and what ever they want to be if they'll just work to get there...". I believed that for a long time, because it was my personal experience, and obviously yours as well. We have done a fine job of taking responsibility for our own lives and our families. We've probably helped others as well - I know I've tried. In my opinion the 'land of opportunity' has been opened up to more and more people over my lifetime, and that's a very good thing. But again, in my opinion, we're not done yet by any means. I want opportunity available for every person, I believe that this is one of the ultimate goals of this country, and I support any and all attempts to make it so.
I wish you had left 'legitimately' out of the last sentence, and I find it strange that you combine 'helping the downtrodden' and 'interests of America first' into one sentence. If you could explain this sentence it would help, but since it's a good bet that we'll never actually meet, I'll do my best with it as it is. There are two thoughts here, I think, and both are so correct as to defy rebuttal. I mean, who would argue that our government should NOT always put the interests of America first? Who would argue that our government should not help the downtrodden? Certainly not me. How these are related I'm not sure, and I won't speculate, but I certainly agree with each thought.
Now, about that concept of 'two Americas'. What does that mean? There are certainly many ways to interpret this - white/other, rich/poor, Republican/Democrat, straight/gay, religious/not, rural/metro - and on and on. In this paragraph and the next you seem to concentrate on responsible people versus those seeking handouts or illegitimately downtrodden. Are these the two Americas you don't believe exist? I'm confused, as usual, but perhaps it will all become clear as I continue through your letter.
From the letter:
My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign , Illinois . I'm 46 years old, a born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran, and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat. I don't believe there are 'two Americas ' - but that every person in this country can be whomever and what ever they want to be if they'll just work to get there - and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and should always put the interests of America first.
From me:
Hi Joe. This is a fine statement of who you are and what you believe. I'll refer back to it in future parts of this response. I like everything I see here. My bio is somewhat different in spots, but you sound like a person I can talk with and I think we can find points of agreement in many areas. Let's see.
I live in Scottsdale, Arizona. I'm 67 years old, not affiliated with any religion, a husband, a father, a retired engineer, a veteran, and a homeowner. I'm sure I am considered a liberal, but I am neither Republican or Democrat. When I vote I consider the person first, but I cannot ignore the organization being represented.
I don't know exactly what the 'two Americas' concept is. I believe America is multi-faceted, and that in many cases that is a good thing but there are cases where it is not a good thing. More on that later.
America is a country of fantastic opportunity - possibly more so than any other country. You and I both want it to be true that "...every person in this country can be whomever and what ever they want to be if they'll just work to get there...". I believed that for a long time, because it was my personal experience, and obviously yours as well. We have done a fine job of taking responsibility for our own lives and our families. We've probably helped others as well - I know I've tried. In my opinion the 'land of opportunity' has been opened up to more and more people over my lifetime, and that's a very good thing. But again, in my opinion, we're not done yet by any means. I want opportunity available for every person, I believe that this is one of the ultimate goals of this country, and I support any and all attempts to make it so.
I wish you had left 'legitimately' out of the last sentence, and I find it strange that you combine 'helping the downtrodden' and 'interests of America first' into one sentence. If you could explain this sentence it would help, but since it's a good bet that we'll never actually meet, I'll do my best with it as it is. There are two thoughts here, I think, and both are so correct as to defy rebuttal. I mean, who would argue that our government should NOT always put the interests of America first? Who would argue that our government should not help the downtrodden? Certainly not me. How these are related I'm not sure, and I won't speculate, but I certainly agree with each thought.
Now, about that concept of 'two Americas'. What does that mean? There are certainly many ways to interpret this - white/other, rich/poor, Republican/Democrat, straight/gay, religious/not, rural/metro - and on and on. In this paragraph and the next you seem to concentrate on responsible people versus those seeking handouts or illegitimately downtrodden. Are these the two Americas you don't believe exist? I'm confused, as usual, but perhaps it will all become clear as I continue through your letter.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Pendulum
The way I see it is certainly oversimplified, but it goes like this. In the 1930's there was financial chaos. We (the people and the government) learned some lessons. Safeguards (regulations) were put in place to make sure those problems could never happen again. Then, over the next 70 years, (actually beginning about 30 years ago) we forgot those lessons - a form of Alzheimers I suppose - and those safeguards were removed - one by one or two by two. Times were good. The effect of removing the safeguards seemed positive. Apparently no one remembered the old lessons. A few, actually, screamed into the deaf void that the long term result could be catastrophic, but no one heard. No one wanted to hear. So here we are again. Those who forget history are surely condemned to repeat it.
I'm tempted to digress into the engineering analogy to the operation of a closed system, but I won't. I will say this along those lines - in order for a system to remain stable there must be feedback (we call it negative feedback, but that's a good thing). Simply put, if the system runs too fast, slow it down. And vice versa. Works that way everywhere. If you don't have negative feedback your system is unstable - it will eventually either stop or go into wild oscillation. Enough engineering analogy already.
I'd be remiss if I left out this little tidbit. The above argument also applies to our activities, all of them, on this planet. I believe that, for the mostpart, we are running open-loop - no feedback. Why? Probably because it is easier and cheaper. But the result will eventually be an unstable system, in this case Earth, and it will not be pretty. The question is, will the intelligent species realize it BEFORE there are terrible lessons to be learned? There may not be a second chance to get it right.
I'm done. I could expand this into a book, but I'm sure someone already has. I hope it gets read!
I'm tempted to digress into the engineering analogy to the operation of a closed system, but I won't. I will say this along those lines - in order for a system to remain stable there must be feedback (we call it negative feedback, but that's a good thing). Simply put, if the system runs too fast, slow it down. And vice versa. Works that way everywhere. If you don't have negative feedback your system is unstable - it will eventually either stop or go into wild oscillation. Enough engineering analogy already.
I'd be remiss if I left out this little tidbit. The above argument also applies to our activities, all of them, on this planet. I believe that, for the mostpart, we are running open-loop - no feedback. Why? Probably because it is easier and cheaper. But the result will eventually be an unstable system, in this case Earth, and it will not be pretty. The question is, will the intelligent species realize it BEFORE there are terrible lessons to be learned? There may not be a second chance to get it right.
I'm done. I could expand this into a book, but I'm sure someone already has. I hope it gets read!
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Just Thoughts
A few days ago I made a list. Lists are good. My list was issues that I intend to write about. Then I wrote about Energy, one of the items on my list. I guess no one is listening, which doesn't surprise me. I write for my own enjoyment. And I'll probably keep writing, whether anyone reads or not.
In a way, this situation is a lot like the runup to the election. Few are listening. Few are paying attention. There are a million reasons why people don't pay attention. One reason might be simply that when you DO pay attention it will drive you absolutely nuts. Claims, counter claims, outright lies, half truths, mostly trues. I had a thought (unusual nowdays) - wouldn't it be nice if every broadcast and live personal appearance included a truthometer? Right on your TV screen, a gauge to indicate just how much truth is contained in the current statement. Actually there could be two gauges, one for the current statement, and one that averages the truth over all the statements made so far. Conceptually it's an interesting concept. But truth is relative, especially in politics, so it probably wouldn't work.
Still, isn't that part of the role of the 'newscasters' when they conduct interviews? If the person being interviewed makes a statement that is clearly a lie, should not the interviewer call the interviewee on it? Right then and there?! I remember a time when I thought that is what we did. I've always thought the British did it, even to excess.
Much of the time it is easy to determine the FOS quotient (you figure it out. First word is 'Full'). If you just listen. You could take the position that since this person is a politician I will assume every statement is a lie and only change that decision when it is very obvious to me that the statement is true. Actually, I think that is the position those who listen at all take when listening to the 'other side'.
But when listening to the side you like, you take the opposite attitude, don't you? Assume everything is true unless proven otherwise. So I suggest figuring it out - is it innocent until proven guilty, or vice-versa? Then apply the same techinque to both candidates and their spokespersons.
The Obama campaign asked me for advice. I said something like "tell the truth, don't lie - you've been doing a good job, keep it up. Don't get dragged into the gutter". In my opinion, that meter that averages the truth of all statements over time swings heavily in favor of Obama. I hope it stays there. I wish both meters would read very high, but I see no indication that that can happen.
When I started this entry I had no idea where it was headed. I guess I wanted to talk about true lies, or something like that.
In a way, this situation is a lot like the runup to the election. Few are listening. Few are paying attention. There are a million reasons why people don't pay attention. One reason might be simply that when you DO pay attention it will drive you absolutely nuts. Claims, counter claims, outright lies, half truths, mostly trues. I had a thought (unusual nowdays) - wouldn't it be nice if every broadcast and live personal appearance included a truthometer? Right on your TV screen, a gauge to indicate just how much truth is contained in the current statement. Actually there could be two gauges, one for the current statement, and one that averages the truth over all the statements made so far. Conceptually it's an interesting concept. But truth is relative, especially in politics, so it probably wouldn't work.
Still, isn't that part of the role of the 'newscasters' when they conduct interviews? If the person being interviewed makes a statement that is clearly a lie, should not the interviewer call the interviewee on it? Right then and there?! I remember a time when I thought that is what we did. I've always thought the British did it, even to excess.
Much of the time it is easy to determine the FOS quotient (you figure it out. First word is 'Full'). If you just listen. You could take the position that since this person is a politician I will assume every statement is a lie and only change that decision when it is very obvious to me that the statement is true. Actually, I think that is the position those who listen at all take when listening to the 'other side'.
But when listening to the side you like, you take the opposite attitude, don't you? Assume everything is true unless proven otherwise. So I suggest figuring it out - is it innocent until proven guilty, or vice-versa? Then apply the same techinque to both candidates and their spokespersons.
The Obama campaign asked me for advice. I said something like "tell the truth, don't lie - you've been doing a good job, keep it up. Don't get dragged into the gutter". In my opinion, that meter that averages the truth of all statements over time swings heavily in favor of Obama. I hope it stays there. I wish both meters would read very high, but I see no indication that that can happen.
When I started this entry I had no idea where it was headed. I guess I wanted to talk about true lies, or something like that.
Monday, September 15, 2008
McCains Science answers - Finally!
John McCain has answered the 14 science questions. You can see the answers side by side at http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=42.
Speaking for myself, I'd like to see each of these questions debated between John and Barack.
Speaking for myself, I'd like to see each of these questions debated between John and Barack.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Energy
There are at least three primary concerns about energy: 1) running out (renewable); 2) independence (create our own); and 3) clean (no pollution – no greenhouse gasses, no particulates, no residue). We must solve all three. There are also economic issues to consider, and I’m sure there are other issues to include – but I think the three listed are primary in this discussion.
Renewable - When I was in high school, and that was a long time ago, they taught me that based on the then current projections the world would run out of oil around 2050. Although there seem to be continuing arguments about this ‘fact’, ranging from ‘never run out’ to ‘very soon’, to me it seem obvious that at some point we will have pumped the last drop. Oil is not a renewable energy source – it took millions of years to create what we have today. I don’t have much patience with anyone who refuses to acknowledge that we will run out if we don’t change our ways. And, by the way, it will happen in this century – again, if we don’t change our ways. We must develop other sources – it is as simple as that. Drill, baby, drill is not a solution to anything.
Independence – “The largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world”! That’s what the present situation has been called. There are so many things wrong with the present situation – being dependent on other countries, many of which are not exactly our friends being the most obvious problem – that again, it just seems like a no-brainer to be able to create our own energy. We have the technology. It’s cost effective, and getting more cost effective all the time. Why haven’t we done more? Big energy lobbies would be my guess. We could be way down the road to being independent of foreign oil. If only ….
Clean – Whatever our sources of energy, they must be clean. They cannot increase greenhouse gasses, or put any potentially harmful gasses into the atmosphere. The must not pollute the air – no particulates. And they must not create waste products that cannot be disposed of (spent fuel rods, anyone).
There are other things, of course. For instance, if fuel made from corn (or other plants) is part of the solution, then we must solve the problem of balance between raising crops for fuel and raising corps for fuel.
In this election, it seems to me that one side is giving lip service to this subject while the other is offering an approach to solving the problem. One side is infiltrated with energy company lobbyist, the other side does not seem to have any obligations to big money.
What do you think?
Renewable - When I was in high school, and that was a long time ago, they taught me that based on the then current projections the world would run out of oil around 2050. Although there seem to be continuing arguments about this ‘fact’, ranging from ‘never run out’ to ‘very soon’, to me it seem obvious that at some point we will have pumped the last drop. Oil is not a renewable energy source – it took millions of years to create what we have today. I don’t have much patience with anyone who refuses to acknowledge that we will run out if we don’t change our ways. And, by the way, it will happen in this century – again, if we don’t change our ways. We must develop other sources – it is as simple as that. Drill, baby, drill is not a solution to anything.
Independence – “The largest transfer of wealth in the history of the world”! That’s what the present situation has been called. There are so many things wrong with the present situation – being dependent on other countries, many of which are not exactly our friends being the most obvious problem – that again, it just seems like a no-brainer to be able to create our own energy. We have the technology. It’s cost effective, and getting more cost effective all the time. Why haven’t we done more? Big energy lobbies would be my guess. We could be way down the road to being independent of foreign oil. If only ….
Clean – Whatever our sources of energy, they must be clean. They cannot increase greenhouse gasses, or put any potentially harmful gasses into the atmosphere. The must not pollute the air – no particulates. And they must not create waste products that cannot be disposed of (spent fuel rods, anyone).
There are other things, of course. For instance, if fuel made from corn (or other plants) is part of the solution, then we must solve the problem of balance between raising crops for fuel and raising corps for fuel.
In this election, it seems to me that one side is giving lip service to this subject while the other is offering an approach to solving the problem. One side is infiltrated with energy company lobbyist, the other side does not seem to have any obligations to big money.
What do you think?
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Debt, National
It's the economy, voter.
Once upon a time I was good with numbers. Not so much anymore. But there are a few concepts I think I understand when it comes to money.
The next president and congress is going to inherit an economy that is, to put it mildly, in terrible condition. Frankly I do not know how the ship can be righted. But I do know this: One side is talking about it, and one side is trying to avoid talking about it. And neither side has a solution - but that would be asking way too much - if it were easy, well, it might be on the road to recovery right now.
There's a chart I find interesting, as well as a ton of apparently unbiased information (all positions see to be recognized and discussed) at http://www.federalbudget.com/.
Here is what I find most interesting. Look at the chart - this year we are spending $580B on Defense, $675B on Health and Human Services and $490B on Tresury (debt). The candidates and the congress spend oodles of time debating whether or not to spend 2 or 3 billion dollars on, say, education. That's a good debate, but in the overall scheme of things wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on the really high dollar areas? It's not unlike a homeowner agonizing over whether or not to spend $10 on a magazine subscription, while ignoring the fact that the mortgage could be refinanced and payments reduced by $500 a month!
Well, there, I've exhausted my knowledge of finance. Look at the website. Oh, one other thing. The Republicans claim the Democrats are 'tax and spend'. According to all of the unbiased information I have seen, the proposals on the table have 1) less tax for most Americans by the Democratic plan, and 2) less spending for programs by the Democratic plan! Go figure.
Once upon a time I was good with numbers. Not so much anymore. But there are a few concepts I think I understand when it comes to money.
The next president and congress is going to inherit an economy that is, to put it mildly, in terrible condition. Frankly I do not know how the ship can be righted. But I do know this: One side is talking about it, and one side is trying to avoid talking about it. And neither side has a solution - but that would be asking way too much - if it were easy, well, it might be on the road to recovery right now.
There's a chart I find interesting, as well as a ton of apparently unbiased information (all positions see to be recognized and discussed) at http://www.federalbudget.com/.
Here is what I find most interesting. Look at the chart - this year we are spending $580B on Defense, $675B on Health and Human Services and $490B on Tresury (debt). The candidates and the congress spend oodles of time debating whether or not to spend 2 or 3 billion dollars on, say, education. That's a good debate, but in the overall scheme of things wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate on the really high dollar areas? It's not unlike a homeowner agonizing over whether or not to spend $10 on a magazine subscription, while ignoring the fact that the mortgage could be refinanced and payments reduced by $500 a month!
Well, there, I've exhausted my knowledge of finance. Look at the website. Oh, one other thing. The Republicans claim the Democrats are 'tax and spend'. According to all of the unbiased information I have seen, the proposals on the table have 1) less tax for most Americans by the Democratic plan, and 2) less spending for programs by the Democratic plan! Go figure.
Which One Has the Crisis ?! |
Friday, September 12, 2008
Check the facts
If you haven't discovered it already, this organization is perhaps the best information source to use in this election. FactCheck.Org.
Here is their analysis of the latest McCain Ad. They are equally diligent about both sides.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/belittling_palin.html
Here is their analysis of the latest McCain Ad. They are equally diligent about both sides.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/belittling_palin.html
Nice Break!
Wasn't it nice to have a day without a lot of politics!?! Did you watch John and Barack at the ServiceNation Presidential Forum? I thought that was good and relatively non political, as intended.
But now it is back to business - here are the two newest ads from Obama. Yes, I know, I'm not writing my own feelings here - but these two ads represent some of my feelings. I will write more later today.
But now it is back to business - here are the two newest ads from Obama. Yes, I know, I'm not writing my own feelings here - but these two ads represent some of my feelings. I will write more later today.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Obama Phoenix Office
Today the Phoenix office for Obama had an opening ceremony. I went. It was hot. I'm guessing about 1000 folks showed up. Terry Goddard (attorney general) and Janet Napolitano (governor) were there to speak. It was good - short and to the point. I'm on a list to volunteer for something - just waiting for the call!
It's interesting, sort of, that as one drives around Phoenix one would not know there is a presidential election going on. No signs, no bumper stickers (I have bumper stickers, but I haven't seen any others), nothing - for either candidate. In a town where folks still display Bush '00 and Bush '04 bumper stickers (don't see many of those anymore either), it's almost strange. I'm sure it will change.
It's interesting, sort of, that as one drives around Phoenix one would not know there is a presidential election going on. No signs, no bumper stickers (I have bumper stickers, but I haven't seen any others), nothing - for either candidate. In a town where folks still display Bush '00 and Bush '04 bumper stickers (don't see many of those anymore either), it's almost strange. I'm sure it will change.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The 'debates'
What do you think about the debates? I know, they haven't started yet, but let's talk about the debates.
From Webster - debate: a contention by words or arguments: as a: the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides
I'll start. So far, over the last several elections, the word 'debate' has apparently taken a new meaning. I though a debate was the interactive discussion of a subject by persons or groups that had differing views on that subject. Perhaps the 'interactive' aspect is what I am wrong about. But I would really like to see a debate.
What I don't want to see is what we have been subjected to for the last several elections - timed speeches, and the same speeches that have been used on the campaign trail ad nauseam. Moderator name a subject, 2 minute speech, 2 minute response, 1 minute rebuttal, 1 minute rebuttal, next subject. That's not a debate, it's a sound byte photo op.
Not only that, but I want the moderators to remind the participants what the question is/was when they stray off of the subject, which they always will. It's like each candidate has prepared 30 or so answers, and they will use these answers regardless of what the question is. With luck they may have an answer to the question/issue in their quiver, and they may be smart/quick enough to pick the answer they should use.
I guess I want a regulated discussion, and I guess I don't feel like that is what we are presented with.
What do you think?
From Webster - debate: a contention by words or arguments: as a: the formal discussion of a motion before a deliberative body according to the rules of parliamentary procedure b: a regulated discussion of a proposition between two matched sides
I'll start. So far, over the last several elections, the word 'debate' has apparently taken a new meaning. I though a debate was the interactive discussion of a subject by persons or groups that had differing views on that subject. Perhaps the 'interactive' aspect is what I am wrong about. But I would really like to see a debate.
What I don't want to see is what we have been subjected to for the last several elections - timed speeches, and the same speeches that have been used on the campaign trail ad nauseam. Moderator name a subject, 2 minute speech, 2 minute response, 1 minute rebuttal, 1 minute rebuttal, next subject. That's not a debate, it's a sound byte photo op.
Not only that, but I want the moderators to remind the participants what the question is/was when they stray off of the subject, which they always will. It's like each candidate has prepared 30 or so answers, and they will use these answers regardless of what the question is. With luck they may have an answer to the question/issue in their quiver, and they may be smart/quick enough to pick the answer they should use.
I guess I want a regulated discussion, and I guess I don't feel like that is what we are presented with.
What do you think?
Monday, September 8, 2008
Just some lies
I'm very tired of the outright lies. Half truths I can deal with. Repeating a lie over and over and over again may actually work with some voters, and that bothers me. Here's an answer to some of the crap (aka message) McCain has approved.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/liesadresponse
I'm also a little tired, so this is it for today.
PS: Tuesday morning Seth posted this story on his blog:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/liesadresponse
I'm also a little tired, so this is it for today.
PS: Tuesday morning Seth posted this story on his blog:
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Issue - Right to Life vs. Right to Choose
This is probably the most clearly defined issue in this election. For many people this issue alone defines the election and decides who they will vote for. That's just sick and wrong, of course, but the issue of abortion seems to be more polarizing than just about any other issue. I would argue that - on the grand scheme of things - there are issues which should be more important - energy for instance, or perhaps the economy. Water and food for the world - how many die daily from lack of water or food? How many are miserable? This list of important issues could go on forever, but by now you either understand my point or you never will.
On abortion we may never agree. My position is this:
1) Any view on abortion is based on belief;
2) I believe 'life' begins at birth, not at conception - abortion does not violate the commandment 'thou shall not kill';
3) I could modify the above (birth) to include not just natural birth, but beginning when the child can be removed from the womb and be reasonably expected to be a normal, healthy human. This point in fetus development is extremely difficult to define;
4) I do not enjoy the concept of abortion; (does this surprise you?)
5) I believe the mother and the father should have a choice;
6) Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion, or even slow the number of abortions;
7) If abortion is made illegal, it will return to the squalid conditions of the early 1900's, where coathangers were the tools, and no doctor was in sight. Not only will the potential new life be erased, the mother has a less than 50% chance of survival as well, and if she does survive, may never be able to conceive again;
There may be more to my view, but this is what I can think of just off the top of my head for now.
However, there are a few other things concerning this issue of abortion that make me go 'hmmmmm?'. For this I'm going to, fairly or not, put all "right to life'ers" in one bucket. Let's talk about death. Because that's what it's all about, right?
To me it seems that the "right to life'ers" put abortion at the top of their list of things they want to put a stop to, and they trace their strong feelings directly back to that commandment in the bible, 'thou shall not kill'. There is a lot of killing going on in this world - how, in their mind, does abortion rate the number one position in the list of 'killing to oppose'? How about some of these?
1) Vehicular;
2) War;
3) Genocide, Ethnic cleansing;
4) Disease;
5) Crime.
The list is really quite long. I want to include long term killing as well - things that could eventually kill millions, like poisoning rivers, which creates huge dead zones in the oceans and seas, and could eventually lead to the complete destruction of life in the ocean - which would in turn probably result in termination of life on earth; or deforestation and destruction of habitat for the diverse species needed to sustain a balanced ecology, again possibly resulting in the planet no longer being capable of sustaining life.
Yes, these are all subjects of other essays, but they are related to abortion. They are related in this way. The same group that professes to oppose abortion, the Republicans, do not recognize these things as a problem, and therefore have no plan to address them. To me that seems like such a total contradiction within their own philosophy that I don't see how they can remain sane! Okay, that's a little extreme, perhaps, but really, it boils down to 'acceptable killing' and 'unacceptable killing'.
If you don't like abortion, don't do it. That's simple minded, I agree, but that is, to me, what it boils down to. Practice your beliefs. Don't impose your beliefs on me. Please.
On abortion we may never agree. My position is this:
1) Any view on abortion is based on belief;
2) I believe 'life' begins at birth, not at conception - abortion does not violate the commandment 'thou shall not kill';
3) I could modify the above (birth) to include not just natural birth, but beginning when the child can be removed from the womb and be reasonably expected to be a normal, healthy human. This point in fetus development is extremely difficult to define;
4) I do not enjoy the concept of abortion; (does this surprise you?)
5) I believe the mother and the father should have a choice;
6) Outlawing abortion will not stop abortion, or even slow the number of abortions;
7) If abortion is made illegal, it will return to the squalid conditions of the early 1900's, where coathangers were the tools, and no doctor was in sight. Not only will the potential new life be erased, the mother has a less than 50% chance of survival as well, and if she does survive, may never be able to conceive again;
There may be more to my view, but this is what I can think of just off the top of my head for now.
However, there are a few other things concerning this issue of abortion that make me go 'hmmmmm?'. For this I'm going to, fairly or not, put all "right to life'ers" in one bucket. Let's talk about death. Because that's what it's all about, right?
To me it seems that the "right to life'ers" put abortion at the top of their list of things they want to put a stop to, and they trace their strong feelings directly back to that commandment in the bible, 'thou shall not kill'. There is a lot of killing going on in this world - how, in their mind, does abortion rate the number one position in the list of 'killing to oppose'? How about some of these?
1) Vehicular;
2) War;
3) Genocide, Ethnic cleansing;
4) Disease;
5) Crime.
The list is really quite long. I want to include long term killing as well - things that could eventually kill millions, like poisoning rivers, which creates huge dead zones in the oceans and seas, and could eventually lead to the complete destruction of life in the ocean - which would in turn probably result in termination of life on earth; or deforestation and destruction of habitat for the diverse species needed to sustain a balanced ecology, again possibly resulting in the planet no longer being capable of sustaining life.
Yes, these are all subjects of other essays, but they are related to abortion. They are related in this way. The same group that professes to oppose abortion, the Republicans, do not recognize these things as a problem, and therefore have no plan to address them. To me that seems like such a total contradiction within their own philosophy that I don't see how they can remain sane! Okay, that's a little extreme, perhaps, but really, it boils down to 'acceptable killing' and 'unacceptable killing'.
If you don't like abortion, don't do it. That's simple minded, I agree, but that is, to me, what it boils down to. Practice your beliefs. Don't impose your beliefs on me. Please.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
From Jon Stewart
The Daily Show was exceptional Friday after the Republican convention was over.
Watch this video - especially from 4:50 - 5:50 - it says it all.
And what that video doesn't say, this one does - in spades! especially from 3:30 on.
Watch this video - especially from 4:50 - 5:50 - it says it all.
And what that video doesn't say, this one does - in spades! especially from 3:30 on.
Friday, September 5, 2008
The conventions are over
Hi.
Both parties have had their parties. Quite something, were they not?
Our road trip is over and a lot of things are 'back to normal' here at home.
I'm going to try to say something in this blog every day until the election. Let me know what you think (I know you will).
Today, while I was cutting the grass, here is what I was thinking. You have to think about something while cutting grass - usually I'm remembering parts of my childhood, most specifically my Mother chiding me for the patterns I cut in the grass. Before you go down the wrong path, the patterns she saw were what to me were the natural curvatures and boundaries within the yard - a bank here, a tree there. I wasn't doing graffiti, or anything obscene.
I respect and admire John McCain. I'm not just saying that, I sincerely mean it. I don't agree with him on many things. He has my respect and admiration because of his military performance - he is truly a hero. And he truly loves America, as do we all.
It is possible, as has been proven many times, for a well respected person to lose that respect, usually by doing something heinous - breaking the law, lying about getting a blow job, whatever. There is a very real danger that John McCain could lose at least some of the respect and admiration he enjoys in this country. That danger is this: going too far negative and far too negative in the remaining campaign. By attacking people instead of issues. By total misrepresentation (lying?) about the position/plan of the other guy.
This has been, historically, a big part of the Republican way of doing things, and it apparently works. It certainly did work in the two previous elections. The Democrats are not above this either, but in my opinion they either are not as good at doing it or they can't stomach the concept of lying to win. They tend to just put their position on the table and expect the American people to recognize 1) what the truth is, and 2) which plan is better, more to their liking. The problem is that with the absolute ocean of information and misinformation it isn't possible for the average Jill or Jack to weed through it all - and by the way, that certainly includes me.
We all can recognize a positive campaign and a negative campaign. Ask yourself, which do you appreciate and believe? I can only answer for my self - I want a positive campaign. I want a campaign where the candidates push their own programs, their own plans, their platform. And I want the candidates to be able to compare their plans with the plan of their opponent. I want (I want, I want.....) discussions to stay on point.
Here's a simple example of what I mean by that. When discussing plans for education, stick to plans for education. Debate the merits of the voucher program for instance. Debate what our educational priorities should be. Debate the concepts. Debate the details. Debate the cost. Debate the return. But don't transition the debate to taxes (HOW are you going to pay for it?). When this happens, all of the important (red meat) of the discussion is lost. Taxes are a separate issue, to be debated at length. Paying for a program is certainly a part of the discussion of that program, government income and outgo (budget, balanced?) is a big enough subject in itself.
So stay on point.
I haven't done a good job of saying on point in this blog. Perhaps that's why I'm not a candidate?!
Both parties have had their parties. Quite something, were they not?
Our road trip is over and a lot of things are 'back to normal' here at home.
I'm going to try to say something in this blog every day until the election. Let me know what you think (I know you will).
Today, while I was cutting the grass, here is what I was thinking. You have to think about something while cutting grass - usually I'm remembering parts of my childhood, most specifically my Mother chiding me for the patterns I cut in the grass. Before you go down the wrong path, the patterns she saw were what to me were the natural curvatures and boundaries within the yard - a bank here, a tree there. I wasn't doing graffiti, or anything obscene.
I respect and admire John McCain. I'm not just saying that, I sincerely mean it. I don't agree with him on many things. He has my respect and admiration because of his military performance - he is truly a hero. And he truly loves America, as do we all.
It is possible, as has been proven many times, for a well respected person to lose that respect, usually by doing something heinous - breaking the law, lying about getting a blow job, whatever. There is a very real danger that John McCain could lose at least some of the respect and admiration he enjoys in this country. That danger is this: going too far negative and far too negative in the remaining campaign. By attacking people instead of issues. By total misrepresentation (lying?) about the position/plan of the other guy.
This has been, historically, a big part of the Republican way of doing things, and it apparently works. It certainly did work in the two previous elections. The Democrats are not above this either, but in my opinion they either are not as good at doing it or they can't stomach the concept of lying to win. They tend to just put their position on the table and expect the American people to recognize 1) what the truth is, and 2) which plan is better, more to their liking. The problem is that with the absolute ocean of information and misinformation it isn't possible for the average Jill or Jack to weed through it all - and by the way, that certainly includes me.
We all can recognize a positive campaign and a negative campaign. Ask yourself, which do you appreciate and believe? I can only answer for my self - I want a positive campaign. I want a campaign where the candidates push their own programs, their own plans, their platform. And I want the candidates to be able to compare their plans with the plan of their opponent. I want (I want, I want.....) discussions to stay on point.
Here's a simple example of what I mean by that. When discussing plans for education, stick to plans for education. Debate the merits of the voucher program for instance. Debate what our educational priorities should be. Debate the concepts. Debate the details. Debate the cost. Debate the return. But don't transition the debate to taxes (HOW are you going to pay for it?). When this happens, all of the important (red meat) of the discussion is lost. Taxes are a separate issue, to be debated at length. Paying for a program is certainly a part of the discussion of that program, government income and outgo (budget, balanced?) is a big enough subject in itself.
So stay on point.
I haven't done a good job of saying on point in this blog. Perhaps that's why I'm not a candidate?!
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
Science
Please check out http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=40. You'll find a fairly comprehensive plan and policy that Barack Obama has established. Warning! It is not sound bytes, and will take some time to read.
I feel that this demonstrates the positive and eliminates the negative. It is what he will do. There are only two negative references to the Bush administration.
There is certainly a lot of room for discussion, but this is a clear starting point, and it is a starting point I can accept and embrace. I just wish I could help, and be a part of it. Maybe I can.
I feel that this demonstrates the positive and eliminates the negative. It is what he will do. There are only two negative references to the Bush administration.
There is certainly a lot of room for discussion, but this is a clear starting point, and it is a starting point I can accept and embrace. I just wish I could help, and be a part of it. Maybe I can.
Friday, August 29, 2008
The Essence
A [Republican] friend of mine (I have a bunch of those!) recently sent me an email stating his thoughts on some of the things Obama covered in his acceptance speech. When I read the email - which was not one of those widely circulated piles of shit, but was my friends true feelings - and though about it a bit, I realized something. It is not profound, but it is important to me. Here is what I replied:
"Once I get home I'll try to write my opinion on each of your points below. For now, I'll just say that I believe a new course is desperately needed, and I believe Obama will try to establish one. I am sure McCain will not. All other considerations aside, that is my bottom line."
And it is the bottom line for me in this election. I can easily ignore the specifics of any position on any individual issue. I don't, but I could. My country (yes, John, it is my country too, and it does come first) has been redirected over the last eight years onto a course that is totally unacceptable. John McCain has been on-board with over 90% of the redirection, and there is plenty of reason to expect that, if he were to be elected, the country would continue on the current path. I cannot accept that.
"Once I get home I'll try to write my opinion on each of your points below. For now, I'll just say that I believe a new course is desperately needed, and I believe Obama will try to establish one. I am sure McCain will not. All other considerations aside, that is my bottom line."
And it is the bottom line for me in this election. I can easily ignore the specifics of any position on any individual issue. I don't, but I could. My country (yes, John, it is my country too, and it does come first) has been redirected over the last eight years onto a course that is totally unacceptable. John McCain has been on-board with over 90% of the redirection, and there is plenty of reason to expect that, if he were to be elected, the country would continue on the current path. I cannot accept that.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Message from McCain (MacBush)
I recently received this email from John McCain. I consider each and every point total crap. Who writes this shit?
August 11, 2008
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the high price of gasoline and our nation's oil reserves. I understand and share your concerns about the hardships that increasing energy costs are placing on consumers and all sectors of the economy.
Given the multiple factors contributing to high gasoline prices, I do not believe that there is a "quick fix" to effectively reverse the current trend. The key determinants of gasoline price are crude oil price, supply availability, refining capacity, and demand. Increasing supply or reducing demand are the only means of reducing crude oil prices over the long-term.
However, to provide even a small amount of relief during the summer months, I proposed suspending the federal gas tax from Memorial Day until Labor Day. This gas tax "holiday" would have reduced prices for unleaded gas by 18 cents a gallon and 24 cents for a gallon of diesel fuel over the summer months when gas prices are historically at their highest. Unfortunately, the majority party was not willing to allow this proposal to receive a vote, despite the fact that gas prices continue to climb.
For the immediate future, we must break with the energy policies of the past and assure affordable fuel for America. This will require more domestic production, especially in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). As you may know, a board federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production of another 18 billion barrels of oil from the OCS. It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and put more of our own reserves to use, provided that such development is supported by local stakeholders and costal state governments and adhere to sensible standards of environmental protection.
Some believe that the U.S. should also pursue drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), a controversial approach that's promoted as a means of increasing supply and reducing our demand for foreign oil. There are several reasons that cause me to oppose ANWR development at this time. First, even the most reliable estimates conclude that the refuge could only meet about 2 to 5 percent of the nation's oil needs at best. Additionally, most scientific analyses conclude that ANWR's land and wildlife, which support approximately 270 different types of mammals, birds, and fresh water fish, would be impacted adversely by development.
Finally, reform of the oil futures market is necessary. We must purge the market of the reckless speculation, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce that has inflated the price of gasoline -- at the expense of working men and women across our country. With new regulations, we can better ensure integrity in oil-futures trading and protect the public interest.
Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future on issues of concern
Sincerely,
John McCain
United States Senator
JM/dnm
Please Do Not Reply to this Message
August 11, 2008
Dear Mr. Lloyd:
Thank you for contacting me regarding the high price of gasoline and our nation's oil reserves. I understand and share your concerns about the hardships that increasing energy costs are placing on consumers and all sectors of the economy.
Given the multiple factors contributing to high gasoline prices, I do not believe that there is a "quick fix" to effectively reverse the current trend. The key determinants of gasoline price are crude oil price, supply availability, refining capacity, and demand. Increasing supply or reducing demand are the only means of reducing crude oil prices over the long-term.
However, to provide even a small amount of relief during the summer months, I proposed suspending the federal gas tax from Memorial Day until Labor Day. This gas tax "holiday" would have reduced prices for unleaded gas by 18 cents a gallon and 24 cents for a gallon of diesel fuel over the summer months when gas prices are historically at their highest. Unfortunately, the majority party was not willing to allow this proposal to receive a vote, despite the fact that gas prices continue to climb.
For the immediate future, we must break with the energy policies of the past and assure affordable fuel for America. This will require more domestic production, especially in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). As you may know, a board federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production of another 18 billion barrels of oil from the OCS. It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions and put more of our own reserves to use, provided that such development is supported by local stakeholders and costal state governments and adhere to sensible standards of environmental protection.
Some believe that the U.S. should also pursue drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), a controversial approach that's promoted as a means of increasing supply and reducing our demand for foreign oil. There are several reasons that cause me to oppose ANWR development at this time. First, even the most reliable estimates conclude that the refuge could only meet about 2 to 5 percent of the nation's oil needs at best. Additionally, most scientific analyses conclude that ANWR's land and wildlife, which support approximately 270 different types of mammals, birds, and fresh water fish, would be impacted adversely by development.
Finally, reform of the oil futures market is necessary. We must purge the market of the reckless speculation, unrelated to any kind of productive commerce that has inflated the price of gasoline -- at the expense of working men and women across our country. With new regulations, we can better ensure integrity in oil-futures trading and protect the public interest.
Again, thank you for sharing your views with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future on issues of concern
Sincerely,
John McCain
United States Senator
JM/dnm
Please Do Not Reply to this Message
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
On Vacation
I have been in Canada for only 18 days. I have intentionally not brought up politics in any conversation - only a few emails with friends. But people (foreigners!) have brought it up, and the one consistant theme is simply thank goodness you are going to elect a president who will at least try to get America back on track. Most people I've talked with think George has screwed up the world, not just the USA. They bring it up, not me, and all I can do is shake my head and agree, because I do agree.
It's not just Canadians - it is more continental here than that - it's people from several different countries, all with similar views. Perhaps I have a sign on my back saying what I feel about the last 8 years - perhaps the Bush supporters here (I assume there are some) are not interested in confronting anyone (that's an interesting proposition, non-confrontational Bush supporters!).
Only about 90 days to go. Please America, chose change.
It's not just Canadians - it is more continental here than that - it's people from several different countries, all with similar views. Perhaps I have a sign on my back saying what I feel about the last 8 years - perhaps the Bush supporters here (I assume there are some) are not interested in confronting anyone (that's an interesting proposition, non-confrontational Bush supporters!).
Only about 90 days to go. Please America, chose change.
Friday, July 4, 2008
The end of the innocence - July 4, 2008
Wendy sent me this link. If this doesn't say most of it, and say it very well, I don't know what does. I strongly recommend that you read this.
Happy Birthday USA! My wishes for you are for continued prosperity, peace, world leadership.
Happy Birthday USA! My wishes for you are for continued prosperity, peace, world leadership.
Monday, June 16, 2008
This is the 'loyal opposition'?
The following quote is from an email dialog between two acquaintances. I'm posting this, unedited, for what reason exactly I really don't know. You tell me. I have also posted the response that was made to the writer as a comment. Please feel free to comment also.
No Bruce, what this guy is talking about is the constituency of the Democratic party. Take a close look at the red/blue map at this site… http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm …and look at the areas of blue. Please look at the map before you read my commentary.
Now, after having studied the map, start in LA and go around the country with me.
In California the blues are counties in which the ultra Hollywood crybaby liberals live, then move up to the Bay Area with its bands of queers, and then north of there are the crazy tree huggers along the coast all the way up to Washington. Coming east, see Clark County, Nevada….that’s all the unions in Las Vegas. Just about all the blue areas in Arizona, New Mexico and Colorado are Indian reservations and Mexicans. Big blue splotch on the Texas border is just about all Mexican.
Up and down the Mississippi delta are the indigenous blacks left over from slavery days………just about all of whom are on the dole. They love the Democrats who give them more welfare. Northern Illinois, Wisconsin and Michigan have blue pockets in areas where unions influence people’s minds.
And then we have the misguided souls in New England who’ve been shamefully influenced by the Kennedy’s, the Kerry’s and their ilk for so many years. In the New York City area is the overwhelming Jewish base hanging onto the Democrats because they know that’s who will give the greater portion of our tax dollars to Israel. Their retired tribe members all live in the blue areas of Dade and Broward counties in Florida.
I could go on but I’m sure you get the idea now. As well traveled as you are, I’m sure you knew all this already but it does help to focus on it looking at this map.
So now it’s show and tell time Bruce……..are you a Hollywood crybaby, queer, tree hugger, Indian, Mexican, black, welfare dependent, union sympathizer, Jew, or under the spell of Kennedy and Kerry? If you’re not, what in the world is a sensible bidness minded, free thinking, interesting and fun guy doing being associated with such?
Please enlighten me!
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Discussion with Ralph, part 10
I own a business. the last thing I need is "government help". The other thing I dn't want is to be included in the "Rich folks who don't pay their fair share of taxes". That is another liberal line.
If someone works their way into ridiculous wealth (ain't me) I say more power to him/her. Unfortunately we now look upon success as something to be scorned...and taxed.
If someone works their way into ridiculous wealth (ain't me) I say more power to him/her. Unfortunately we now look upon success as something to be scorned...and taxed.
Discussion with Ralph, part 9
Do Democrats really believe that labor unions vote as their leadership directs?
Discussion with Ralph, part 8
Democrats pander to the labor unions in a idiculous way and they still buy the same crap.
Mitt Romney told a group of auto workers from Michigan that they should not expect a return to the job security of the fifties. "The auto market will not be the same again", he warned.
The following day a Democratic candidate claimed that Romney's was a message of despair "we must have hope that auto manufacture will return to the glory of yesterday". Bull $hit !! and it goes on ad nauseum.
Mitt Romney told a group of auto workers from Michigan that they should not expect a return to the job security of the fifties. "The auto market will not be the same again", he warned.
The following day a Democratic candidate claimed that Romney's was a message of despair "we must have hope that auto manufacture will return to the glory of yesterday". Bull $hit !! and it goes on ad nauseum.
Discussion with Ralph, part 7
I saw the Democratic candidates playing their same theme song over again. They pander to the minorities who buy the B.S. hook line and sinker but suffer the same indignities as they have been suffering for centuries. No one has the Gonads to tell minorities that we do not "owe them a good life" they have to earn a good life. Stop having six babies by five men and settle down to solid family life.
Discussion with Ralph, part 6
The American press corps is like a pack of sharks waiting to taste the slightest hint of blood so that they may splash it over the headlines the next day. Huntley, Brinkley and others are rolling over in their graves at what has become of american journalism. Republicans will claim the press has a liberal bias...I believe it does. Democrats point at Fox news and claim
that they are bending the truth to satisfy a narrow audience...they do.
Wake up and read the Wall street Journal or something with objective journalism.
that they are bending the truth to satisfy a narrow audience...they do.
Wake up and read the Wall street Journal or something with objective journalism.
Discussion with Ralph, part 5
We need a "Kick Ass and Take Names" leader.. Personally, I don't see anyone who is capable AND is crazy enough to spend millions of dollars to obtain an office that will age and expend a man, in exchange for historical significance.
Discussion with Ralph, part 3
For the past six months I have witnessed the charade that passes as our Presidential Primary process. It looks more like "star search" or "American Idol". it bears little resemblance to the careful selection of a true "Leader".
That is what we are after, is it not? We seek a true leader with experience, intelligence and the strength of character to face the difficulties that are before our weakened nation today.
What the political process presented us with was;
On the Republican side, a former minister/governor who had good character but little else. We also had a former governor/businessman/multi millionaire who was not trusted because of his religious background.
The Republicans also offered Ron Paul, a wing nut with great ideas but no sense of reality.
We ended up with a septegenarian war hero who isn't trusted by his own party and who is a very poor debater.
The conservatives don't trust him, the Veterans don't like him and ....he has ailienated the Christian right who claim to have put "W" in office.
On the Democratic side we had a former first lady who thought she was going to a coronation, not a primary.
They also gave us a former VP candidate with a $1,000 haircut. He "looked Mahvelous" but was another talking head.
Your favorite now is Mr Obama. As I see it, he doesn't know what to tell you but he will say nothing in such an eloquent way that you will swoon over his charm. The Chinese can't be charmed and neither can the Iranians. But he promises to try....just for a change.
That is what we are after, is it not? We seek a true leader with experience, intelligence and the strength of character to face the difficulties that are before our weakened nation today.
What the political process presented us with was;
On the Republican side, a former minister/governor who had good character but little else. We also had a former governor/businessman/multi millionaire who was not trusted because of his religious background.
The Republicans also offered Ron Paul, a wing nut with great ideas but no sense of reality.
We ended up with a septegenarian war hero who isn't trusted by his own party and who is a very poor debater.
The conservatives don't trust him, the Veterans don't like him and ....he has ailienated the Christian right who claim to have put "W" in office.
On the Democratic side we had a former first lady who thought she was going to a coronation, not a primary.
They also gave us a former VP candidate with a $1,000 haircut. He "looked Mahvelous" but was another talking head.
Your favorite now is Mr Obama. As I see it, he doesn't know what to tell you but he will say nothing in such an eloquent way that you will swoon over his charm. The Chinese can't be charmed and neither can the Iranians. But he promises to try....just for a change.
Discussion with Ralph, Part 2
The congress is full of lawyers. They don't want change they just want to keep their seats. If they really wanted health care reform then they should first give us Tort reform so that the doctors don't have to worry about patients suing for every hangnail they suffer. That has driven healthcare to the point it is today, not the doctors or the pharmaceutical developers.
A discussion with Ralph, part 1
I recently receive an email from a close friend. In it my friend brings up a number of interesting discussion points. I'm posting my friends thoughts in a series of posts, and I'm commenting to each post. Please feel free to add your comments as well.
Part 1 - On the Executive and Legislative branches
Doug,
I am wrapping up my chores early tonight and, after one glass of Chardonnay, I have screwed up the courage to write tou you about politics. After eight years of "Dubya" it is obvious that you and everyone else wants "Change". My concern is the quality and strength of change. For years we have been puzzled about the leadership in the White House and in Congress. The present occupant of theWhite House is the easy target so we all take shots at "The Bush Administration" as if the executive branch of our government is the only hand on the rudder of our ship of state.
Everyone will be sorely dissapointed when "Dubya" is out of office and we are still in a quagmire militarily, fiscally and
politically.
Yes we need change but it does not all hinge on the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania avenue. The spineless US congress must make a few about face turns ..if they have the guts and the presence of mind to really understand the situation.
Part 1 - On the Executive and Legislative branches
Doug,
I am wrapping up my chores early tonight and, after one glass of Chardonnay, I have screwed up the courage to write tou you about politics. After eight years of "Dubya" it is obvious that you and everyone else wants "Change". My concern is the quality and strength of change. For years we have been puzzled about the leadership in the White House and in Congress. The present occupant of theWhite House is the easy target so we all take shots at "The Bush Administration" as if the executive branch of our government is the only hand on the rudder of our ship of state.
Everyone will be sorely dissapointed when "Dubya" is out of office and we are still in a quagmire militarily, fiscally and
politically.
Yes we need change but it does not all hinge on the occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania avenue. The spineless US congress must make a few about face turns ..if they have the guts and the presence of mind to really understand the situation.
Friday, June 13, 2008
That's not what's important....
I watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC regularly. I'll miss it when we're on vacation. If you haven't picked up on it, it's the anti-FOX (along with Hardball, Morning Joe and Verdict). Olbermann periodically, when warranted, 'rants'. This is one of his rants, from last night. No matter which way you lean, watch this. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25126582/
Here is part of what it says to me. It's not ALL about issues. It's not ALL about taxes. It's not ALL about spending. Etc. Of course it includes all of these things. But there's something perhaps more subtle, just beneath the surface. I call it attitude. And it becomes exposed in the most casual ways, as in this case. No matter how much McCain chattered after saying it, it's impossible to ignore. Watch Keith Olbermann. He does it so much better than I ever could.
Here is part of what it says to me. It's not ALL about issues. It's not ALL about taxes. It's not ALL about spending. Etc. Of course it includes all of these things. But there's something perhaps more subtle, just beneath the surface. I call it attitude. And it becomes exposed in the most casual ways, as in this case. No matter how much McCain chattered after saying it, it's impossible to ignore. Watch Keith Olbermann. He does it so much better than I ever could.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Talk or war?
Which do you prefer, talk or war? Isn't it really that simple? It seems so to me. If the United States of America were not a superpower (the only one currently)perhaps talk would be a more interesting and viable approach.
Is there anyone out there who feels that war is anything other than the absolute last option?
Is there any rational reason to refuse to talk with any country?
It is really hard to contain my thoughts on this and maintain a focus on just this one issue. So many other closely related thoughts flood in and demand attention. Perhaps I can address those in subsequent postings, things like "who can threaten us?", "the success or failure of past wars", "preemptive wars", "what war are we fighting".
According to the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html) there are 266 nations, dependent areas, and other entities in the world. 192 nations are members of the United Nations (http://www.un.org/english/). The US State Department (http://www.usembassy.gov/) lists 201 countries, but I can't be sure if we have embassies in each. Where am I going with this? Simply this - all of these entities must talk with each other. When talking stops, physical fighting often starts, so it is imperative to keep talking.
The USA does this to a large degree. We maintain diplomatic relationships with most countries and participate actively in the United Nations. This is the name of the game - diplomacy (talk).
Talk can never hurt. Talk won't kill anyone. War does hurt. And war does kill.
So the answer for me is quite simple. Keep talking. Start talking. It is the preferred method by far.
Listen (that's the other side of talk, by the way). Listen to your friends. Listen to your enemies. Consider. Evaluate. Postulate alternatives.
There are other options, ways to help others see your point, such as all kinds of economic pressures. Use talk to persuade other nations to apply pressure, to join the cause, whatever it is.
In the end, realize that there is always a negotiation involved, and that as sound and firm as your position is, it may not be possible to have it all.
Keep talking. Listen. Save the last alternative until there is absolutely no other option. [by the way, I thought this was US policy until just recently.....]
Oh, I almost forgot. As I understand it, Barack Obama has stated that he will talk to the heads of state of our enemies as well as our friends, and John McCain has chided Obama for suggesting that. According to the John McCain website (http://johnmccain.com/), "While he (John) supports robust diplomacy with our allies and adversaries, he would not rush to bestow the prestige of unconditional presidential meetings on the world’s worst dictators." and "Senator Obama proposes to conduct presidential summit meetings with the world’s worst dictators."
As I read the above from John McCain, I note the following: John supports diplomacy with our adversaries (including presumably the 'world's worst dictators", but would not rush into it. From Obama's website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/)"He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead." I don't see the "rush" mentioned on the McCain website.
My opinion (this is an opinion piece) is that John McCain will not use diplomacy with our adversaries, but would follow the course followed for the last eight years. I believe Barack Obama will pursue diplomacy.
The last time war accomplished anything was, in my opinion, WWII, when Hitler was stopped. What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!
Is there anyone out there who feels that war is anything other than the absolute last option?
Is there any rational reason to refuse to talk with any country?
It is really hard to contain my thoughts on this and maintain a focus on just this one issue. So many other closely related thoughts flood in and demand attention. Perhaps I can address those in subsequent postings, things like "who can threaten us?", "the success or failure of past wars", "preemptive wars", "what war are we fighting".
According to the CIA World Factbook (https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html) there are 266 nations, dependent areas, and other entities in the world. 192 nations are members of the United Nations (http://www.un.org/english/). The US State Department (http://www.usembassy.gov/) lists 201 countries, but I can't be sure if we have embassies in each. Where am I going with this? Simply this - all of these entities must talk with each other. When talking stops, physical fighting often starts, so it is imperative to keep talking.
The USA does this to a large degree. We maintain diplomatic relationships with most countries and participate actively in the United Nations. This is the name of the game - diplomacy (talk).
Talk can never hurt. Talk won't kill anyone. War does hurt. And war does kill.
So the answer for me is quite simple. Keep talking. Start talking. It is the preferred method by far.
Listen (that's the other side of talk, by the way). Listen to your friends. Listen to your enemies. Consider. Evaluate. Postulate alternatives.
There are other options, ways to help others see your point, such as all kinds of economic pressures. Use talk to persuade other nations to apply pressure, to join the cause, whatever it is.
In the end, realize that there is always a negotiation involved, and that as sound and firm as your position is, it may not be possible to have it all.
Keep talking. Listen. Save the last alternative until there is absolutely no other option. [by the way, I thought this was US policy until just recently.....]
Oh, I almost forgot. As I understand it, Barack Obama has stated that he will talk to the heads of state of our enemies as well as our friends, and John McCain has chided Obama for suggesting that. According to the John McCain website (http://johnmccain.com/), "While he (John) supports robust diplomacy with our allies and adversaries, he would not rush to bestow the prestige of unconditional presidential meetings on the world’s worst dictators." and "Senator Obama proposes to conduct presidential summit meetings with the world’s worst dictators."
As I read the above from John McCain, I note the following: John supports diplomacy with our adversaries (including presumably the 'world's worst dictators", but would not rush into it. From Obama's website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/)"He will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead." I don't see the "rush" mentioned on the McCain website.
My opinion (this is an opinion piece) is that John McCain will not use diplomacy with our adversaries, but would follow the course followed for the last eight years. I believe Barack Obama will pursue diplomacy.
The last time war accomplished anything was, in my opinion, WWII, when Hitler was stopped. What is it good for? Absolutely Nothing!
Friday, June 6, 2008
A better way
At first I created an email distribution list. I wanted to tell all my friends about interesting facts and issues in the presidential race between John McCain and Barack Obama. I offer the option to opt off of the list.
Happily, I received many replies, mostly favorable. Then it occurred to me that I could make it even easier for folks to ignore my ravings. Just create a blog, and rant all I want. If anyone cares to listen they can subscribe, otherwise they won't even know it exists. Good idea, eh?
So, since you have subscribed, I hope I don't bore you too much. I promise to stick to issues and not get down into mudslinging. Both candidates have promised the same, and I certainly hope they stay that course!
As you know, I'm firmly in the Obama camp. John McCain is a fine man and I respect him. But the Republican party has, for eight years, 1) spent us into new debt territory, 2) initiated a war that was totally unnecessary and unjustified, 3) weakened our military, and demonstrated that weakness to the world, 4) done everything they could for corporations and 5) done literally nothing for the 'common man'. And that's just the overview. I believe we need a change, and I am sure we will not get change from any Republican president.
I'm rambling now, so I will stop for now. Future posts will be directed at specific issues, trying to compare the candidates views on each issue.
Oh - please feel free to post comments at any time. Thanks.
Happily, I received many replies, mostly favorable. Then it occurred to me that I could make it even easier for folks to ignore my ravings. Just create a blog, and rant all I want. If anyone cares to listen they can subscribe, otherwise they won't even know it exists. Good idea, eh?
So, since you have subscribed, I hope I don't bore you too much. I promise to stick to issues and not get down into mudslinging. Both candidates have promised the same, and I certainly hope they stay that course!
As you know, I'm firmly in the Obama camp. John McCain is a fine man and I respect him. But the Republican party has, for eight years, 1) spent us into new debt territory, 2) initiated a war that was totally unnecessary and unjustified, 3) weakened our military, and demonstrated that weakness to the world, 4) done everything they could for corporations and 5) done literally nothing for the 'common man'. And that's just the overview. I believe we need a change, and I am sure we will not get change from any Republican president.
I'm rambling now, so I will stop for now. Future posts will be directed at specific issues, trying to compare the candidates views on each issue.
Oh - please feel free to post comments at any time. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)