Mar 26 2008
With every speech Bill Clinton and Hillary count their wins and in that count is Michigan and Florida. Is it not a bit delusional to count those contests? And of course the Clinton campaign wants it to appear that the DNC is screwing the people of those states out of their votes. But wait! Is not one of the tenets of politics is that the we take responsibility for out actions? If so then these states have NO ONE to blame but their own state apparatus. They tried to call the “bluff” of the DNC and they will lose.
When will the Clintonistas gonna realize that Bill is a blow hard (no pun intended) and a con artist. He was as prez and he is still that con artist. The voter needs to place the blame where it belongs, with their state DNC. Clintons are desperate at this point and will try any tactic, and I mean ANY tactic to try and close the gap on Obama.
Bill is trying tho foment rebellion within the party by saying such delusional crap as “the Party is dumping on the Florida voter”. Sorry people their state reps dumped on them, please place the blame where it is deserved. Bill keeps shouting his arrogance at the people that it will be their fault if Hil loses. That they HAVE to win. Or anything similar. It is him saying that it is their birthright to be in the WH.
I will wait and see if the American people are as gullible as I hope they are not.
Mar 24 2008
I realize that this type of story has been reviewed endlessly, but I still think that it cannot be opposed too often. This is not the answer.
Ethanol! Ethanol! Rah! Rah! Rah!
The cheers go up we can finally end our dependence on foreign oil. Now that is a one pound bag of manure, which they are selling to the people. Guess what!? They are buying this crap (pun intended). As long as we allow the oil companies to make obscene profits, you will NEVER be weaned from foreign oil. Why is that? Ethanol cannot be transported through pipelines, for it will pick up impurities like water. So, the only way to transport it is in trucks. Now guess what? Trucks use diesel and that is another pollutant. Ethanol IS NOT the answer, sports fans.
Let us talk about how environmentally friendly ethanol is, NOT! A Stanford study showed that ethanol is at least as polluting as gasoline and could be more so. The burning of ethanol produces more lung damaging ozone than the burning of gasoline. Another polluting factor of ethanol is that farmers will use a nitrogen based fertilizer which will enter into the water supply, killing marine life and such. This alone should make it unwise to push the use of corn as an alternative. But who cares, it is all about who makes the profits, not what it will do to the environment.
Now let us talk about corn prices. Ethanol refiners use huge amounts of corn and with that food prices will go up and up. Corn is used in food production from feed for the cattle that make our steaks to the syrup for our soft drinks. As the demand for ethanol rise, so will the price of our food. The more corn that is planted the less other crops are raised and this will also add to the price of food. Nothing about ethanol is a good.
Corn is not even the best source of ethanol. Sugar cane is and it produces 8 times more energy than it uses to make. Corn, however, the ratio is 1.3 to 1. This basically means that corn produces a little more energy than it consumes in the refining process. Not an efficient product.
The US is importing foreign oil so that ethanol can be produced and distributed. The only thing that is being accomplished by the production of ethanol is we are putting the grocery store in competition with the gas station for the use of the corn.
Ethanol is nothing new! It was used in Ford’s original Model T and it was considered in the 1970’s during the oil embargo. If ethanol is inefficient and costly why is it even being considered? That is the easiest question to answer-PROFITS! No one in the oil business wants to eliminate out dependence on foreign oil. Why would they shoot themselves in the ass? Answer-they will not cut off their supply of profit.
This is not an answer to dependency, it is however an answer to oil companies retaining their profit margin, for an additive will still need a supply of the original product and that translates into continued exploitation by the oil companies.
Mar 22 2008
I am an old fart so I remember the racial divide of the 50 & 60’s, not a good time to be an American. I also remember how close the races were becoming in the 70’s, which was the closest the two had become in many years. Then as quickly as it had began it started deteriorating in th Me generation of the 80’s.
Once again I see the races are close to a unity that has been missing and at the same time they are being pushed to segregate themselves along color lines. The media is doing all possible to widen the expanse—politics of the Dems are also helping—and then there is the American people, they are also helping separate the electorate along racial and gender lines.
it is just flipping SAD! There is a chance for the American people to face the question head on and find common ground but they will not at this point. White blue collars workers in the northeast are holding blacks responsible for their lack of work, when it is a non-caring government and administration that should be the bad guy.
The Dems, some of them, want this new race battle with the attempt to marginalize a message of hope. And thanks to their efforts the Dems are losing ground to the Repubs. And there is a possiblity that this divide will help defeat the Dems in November–yet again.
The outcome is becoming predictable–They will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory–yet again. Well done. at least they are consistent.
Mar 21 2008
I can see that pointing out stuff about religion is about as interesting as watching grass grow or flies mate. I will avoid that at all cost.
I have been accused of being an Obama supporter—WRONG! I have not endorsed anyone at this point. I do defend him on some issues and have been critical on others. As I have with other candidates. I do, however, see Obama as an important person that could possibly unify a party that is divided.
I cannot support Clinton. Why? her pro-business platform and her leadership position within the DLC. Most of her platform is start out of the playbook of the DLC. IMO, this organization is trying hard to purge all “true” progressives from the party.
McCain? He was looking pretty good until he flip=flopped on torture, tax cuts, and other issues. Because of this reversal of stands, just to win the suppoort of hard core conservs will forever eliminate him from my consideration.
All that said, the media has chosen who they want to be the two candidates and that choice is McCain and Clinton. Just watch MSM and you will concur with my findings. I love the pundits that disguise their obvious dislike for Obama as fair and balanced report–IT IS NEITHER!
I fear that the MSM will be successful in their pushing of the two candidates and if they are, we will have 4 more years of Bush policies. no matter which one is elected.
Mar 20 2008
I will make this short and sweet, since I do not do much posting about religion unless I see something that I feel needs attention.
Do you know your 7 deadly sins? Pride, envy, gluttony, greed, lust, wrath and sloth; there is so much I could write about each one of those, but why?
Recently in the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, has listed addition to the age old list of sins. These are polluting, genetic engineering, being obscenely wealthy, taking drugs, abortion, pedophilia and generally causing social injustice. The Catholic Church has violated at least two of the new sins. Just my opinion.
If you live by the old list ans now you must live by the new additions. I want to see how this works out for the church. There are a few in the church that as of this writing are violating many of the taboos.
Just thought I would see if there are any thoughts on this. Personally, I do not care! I am a Gnostic. Your thoughts.
Mar 19 2008
Ever hear of Saul Alinsky? He was the writer and teacher of “pragmatic radicals”. His book, Rules for Radicals, is excellent reading if one wants to be any good at organizing. As a matter of fact it is a book that Obama has said made a difference in his life and in his activism. As an old hippie, pinko, commie from my days of protests in the 70’s, his book was an excellent resource for action and planning.
I think that maybe Obama should have kept his admiration for Alinsky to himself. Just as in the Vietnam War, Giap’s book, People’s Army, People’s War, was required reading for the special operations guys doing the crappy work in the country. I do believe that Clinton’s campaign has done the same thing with Obama.
I will bet that one is asking what the hell I am talking about. Answer: Alinsky had 3 tactics to use. They were, 1–The real action is the enemy’s reaction, 2–The enemy properly goaded and guided in his action will be your major strength, 3–Tactics, like organization, like life, require that you move with the action. So far both candidates have had to deal with these three tactics.
My advice would be, if you are using a game plan from a certain source, then you might want to keep it under lock and key, so that your opponent does not use it to bite you in the ass. Just a thought.
Mar 17 2008
I realize that the there is a lot of passion in this election cycle. Democrats are chomping at the bit to elect one of their own to replace Bush and his band of cronies. IMO, it is a noble and necessary cause, for we must get the neocons out of Washington. That conservative mindset has harmed the average American voter beyond reasonable repair.
The two candidates have their passionate supporters. Sometimes to the point of exaggeration and down right lies. However the Democratic Party used to be the party of the people, but in recent years that has slid into a centrist, pro-business position. The Party use to stand for principles and diversity, but that has been replaced with less progressive ideals, solely for the acquisition of power. It has become more important to beat the Repubs than to improve the quality of life of Americans.
If one is voting Democratic, that is great! But if you are voting just to beat a Repub then I question your motivation. What are you really voting for in this election? A return of the Clinton years or the possibility of real change in the white house? But please keep in mind that the promise does not necessarily make it so. Voting for the most popular candidate accomplishes nothing. We might as well hold the election on “American Idol”.
Just voting is not enough! Participation after the fact is necessary and is the key to a GOOD government. The insistence that the winner keeps his/her promises is a must. Make whoever the winner is being answerable for their actions or their inactions. Vote from knowledge not from anger and hatred or you will most likely not be pleased with the choice you made. The winner of the general election in November has got to be held accountable. If not then you have pissed away your vote–YET AGAIN!
Mar 16 2008
One of the most pressing issues facing the candidates is global warming or climate change, whichever you prefer. I want to talk about ways to stop or at least slow down the effects of said issue, at least from the Dem perspective. I have listened to the candidates and their positions on helping the planet. So far I am not too impressed with many of their views. To me they are given too much time for the elimination of the harmful emissions. IMO, the popular cap and trade that is being proposed by most candidates will not do the trick.
The leading candidates have the same plan, only with slightly different end goals. That is a cap and trade system. That is efforts to curtail emissions through fuel economy standards, biofuel mandates, or appliance standards may be well-meaning, but in my opinion, this is not the answer. Clinton wants to cut oil consumption in half by 2025; Obama wants to a two-thirds reduction by 2050 and then there is Edawrds who wants an 80% reduction of greenhouse gases by 2050. All these are cap and trade approaches.
The program that I feel would be better in the control of the situation is an emissions tax. But it is a TAX! Yes it is and taxation seems to be an ugly word these days, but if taxation discourages consumption; for example, taxing carbon emissions discourages carbon consumption, why would this be a bad idea? The less carbon emissions released into the atmosphere the better and more healthy the planet will be.
There are five reasons why the emissions fee or carbon tax is better than the popular cap and trade. These are the reasons put foward by carbontax.org
* Carbon taxes will lend predictability to energy prices, whereas cap-and-trade systems will do little to mitigate the price volatility that historically has discouraged investments in less carbon-intensive electricity generation, carbon-reducing energy efficiency and carbon-replacing renewable energy.
* Carbon taxes can be implemented much sooner than complex cap-and-trade systems. Because of the urgency of the climate crisis, we do not have the luxury of waiting while the myriad details of a cap-and-trade system are resolved through lengthy negotiations.
* Carbon taxes are transparent and easily understandable, making them more likely to elicit the necessary public support than an opaque and difficult to understand cap-and-trade system.
* Carbon taxes can be implemented with far less opportunity for manipulation by special interests, while a cap-and-trade system’s complexity opens it to exploitation by special interests and perverse incentives that can undermine public confidence and undercut its effectiveness.
* Carbon tax revenues can be rebated to the public through dividends or tax-shifting, while the costs of cap-and-trade systems are likely to become a hidden tax as dollars flow to market participants, lawyers and consultants.
The costs passed on to each consumer might be noticeable, but need not excessive. An emission fee of $15/ton or a permit price of $15/ton would increase gasoline prices about 15 cents per gallon and residential electricity prices about ¾ of a cent per kilowatt-hour, according to Joe Aldy of the Progressive Policy Institute.
The proposals of the “Big 3” take too long to achieve the goal of cutting emissions and saving the planet for future generations. Personally, since we all are contributors to the problem then we all should be part of the solution and the best solution is the emissions fee.
IMO, a much better idea than the “cap and trade” proposals being offered by the two candidates.