Thursday, August 7, 2008
Issues Issues Issues; ok, let's get some opinions
The best way to tell where a man stands is not what he says about "issues" during election season, but what he's been in his history. Most will say anything to get elected. Some people actually have the integrity to do what they say. Just because a man sounds pretty when he talks doesn't mean he'll do what he says. McCain has 26 years of integrity. This doesn't mean McCain is correct, or that he will not change his mind - we all change, and we are sometimes wrong. But the character of man is proven how he make these changes - from integrity, or from political pressure, or selling out.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
I believe you’re wrong about John McCain having 26 years of integrity.
I believe the good in men and women until I’m proven wrong. Whether they are running a business or running for a political office. Your past is what people judge you on, and the situations that you’ve dealt with and how you’ve handled them. That being said, I believe Obama and McCain are both men of character. There is no question of McCain’s character, honesty, principles, loyalty, or hope of the future for our country, and I’ve not heard anyone question that. McCain’s service record and years as a Senator has proven that. I believe that Obama has similar values, sans military service and as many years as a Senator.
If service to country were the barometer for integrity, Ben would have more integrity than Peter, but that cannot be the only basis on which to judge integrity. Then what does it come down to? In this case, for me, the issues that they have stood behind and voted for, or against while in Congress, and the vision through the issues they present that they have for leading the country.
You’re right about if “a man sounds pretty when he talks doesn't mean he'll do what he says.” But, I don’t know if I’d characterize speeches as being “pretty” though. Persuasive, well-delivered, passionate, yes, “pretty,” I don’t think so. Hitler was a persuasive speaker, and what he said convinced people of what he would do, was not a good thing, but unfortunately he tried to carry it out. Reading the text of a speech, is for me, a much better way of judging the content of what was said.
I believe all Congressmen change their position from all three of your examples; integrity, political pressure, and selling out. There are compromises made in the political arena as well as the marital arena. Does a contractor lose their integrity by lowering their price to get a job? Does this constitute ‘selling out?’ Our good governor, Arnie, said no new taxes too, but now to help solve California’s budget problem he wants to implement an additional 1% on the existing sales tax. I hope he can push it through. I’m all for a use tax. I feel it’s the only equitable way to collect taxes.
At this point, based on the issues that I deem important, I will vote for Obama, and it would be the first time I’ve ever voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate.
By the way, John McCain has 71 years of integrity (soon to be 72 at the end of August), because that’s how I believe his parents raised him. The service record and time as a Senator is simply a place to prove it in the public eye.
Jim
Well though out and written. We're up to four cents, anybody else want to put their two cents in? Talking about politics, we're treading on thin ice here, so let's be respectful of others differences.
Issue: off shore drilling. Personally, I hate the idea. However, Dems seems to want to starve the nation of oil, to force us away from it's use. Like cold turkey! Here's the problem, the US uses 25 percent of the WORLDS oil. Just the city of Beijing adds 7000 cars to it's roads a week! All these need gas! We owe a huge part of our national dept to China; that makes the yen strong, the dollar weak. So if the dollar is only worth 85cents, our money isn't worth as much to Arab oil exporters. Since the yen is strong, and they have plenty of (our) money, they can afford it at the higher rates. These dynamics will not change until the US depends less on Arab oil. Seems to me, offshore drilling is essential for a temporary bandaid until the knuckleheads in Detroit start developing electric plug-in vehicles. What I know is not the solution, to tax the US economy to raise the prices of oil, that's like squirting gas on a fire.
Peter,
Yes, we need to be forced away from a commodity that we cannot control. As is, it controls us. It's time for the US to take the lead in new technology. We are not controlling the price of oil, you're right, it's dictated by the world market. We can't control what China does unless we boycott what they produce. We can control what we do. We can support alternate technologies.
To exploit whatever fossil fuels may be off our coastline cannot possibly affect current gas prices and is inherently risky to our environment and the economy it supports, and shows a lack of concern for our coastal ecosystems. It’s like playing a 2 in Poker and hope that it wins the hand.
Any hope to boost domestic supply from offshore sources is more than a decade away. And even if the U.S. energy picture looks the same 10 years from now, chances are we will not get much relief from these domestic sources. The estimated oil and gas offshore reserves could meet our current needs for only a matter of months.
Offshore drilling is a danger to inshore and offshore fishing areas. The record of the danger of drilling offshore and transportation is dismal for the oil industry. Our seaside towns are too dependent on a healthy ecosystem and cannot afford another accident like the Exxon Valdez and are in a very tenious position already.
Just last month, ExxonMobil went to the Supreme Court to wriggle out of compensating victims of the Exxon Valdez spill of almost two decades ago. Match that against promises that oil and gas exploration and transport are so much safer today. If so, why are they not taking responsibility for their actions? As the Valdez case illustrates, accidents and negligence (not to mention storms) happen. And it only takes one to cause devastating and irreversible damage to our coastal economy and environment.
There is no guarantee that oil from domestic sources will stay in the United States. Currently, oil from Alaska's North Slope is sold in Asia.
Rather than responding to the pain at the pump by rushing to drill in some of our most fragile environments, we must send a message to the car companies that we are wanting viable cars and energy sources where we are not dependent on the spikes and world demand of oil.
The oil companies already have leases that they’ve not developed yet.
I believe that conservation can have more effect than drilling for more oil. Drive slower, drive less, consolidate trips, maintenance on vehicles, yes, proper tire inflation, and support new technology.
I think that for at least the immediate future, electricity is the fuel of the future. Everything is already in place: production, grids, governmental regulation as to costs, and availability. There are a number of possible alternate energy sources, but I believe that electricity is the alternate fuel of the present. That is not to say that there will be not be another energy source that will be better in the near future. In the short term, with electricity to power our transportation, our world can tap into renewable resources like hydroelectric, solar, wind, or geothermal power; resources that reduce our environmental footprint. Furthermore, studies show that millions of electric vehicles can recharge at night using existing surplus electrical generation; a vast, virtually untapped resource.
Gasoline is a precious natural resource and vital to the world economy. Electrical vehicles use no gasoline and require no oil changes. Also, since there have less moving parts, I have to think that there will be less maintenance issues to deal with. Using less fossil fuel can help relieve our current energy shortages while ensuring that future generations can rely on the same inexpensive, useful, petroleum products that we all take for granted.
Gas keeps getting more expensive. The typical electric car costs 3 cents per mile versus 30 cents per mile with gas. Electric motors have fewer moving parts, meaning fewer trips to the mechanic. But, that cost does not factor in the cost of replacing of the batteries now in use in electrical vehicles. Battery technology is expensive, but developing. Lithium-ion is in use, but expensive.
Today, the majority of USA's foreign trade deficit is attributed to imported oil. Using an electric vehicle will reduce our reliance on foreign oil. Furthermore, by investing in advanced transportation technologies, the USA can take the technological lead in offering energy efficient products that emerging economies around the world can use to build their own transportation infrastructures.
Evidence is mounting that carbon emissions are contributing to ozone depletion, climate change, and global warming. Electric vehicles can reduce CO2 emissions by more than 90 percent compared to internal combustion vehicles, even counting the emissions from fossil fueled power plants. The USA constitutes less than 10 percent of the world's population, but is responsible for almost 30 percent of the world's CO2 emissions.
Reducing fossil fuel consumption relieves pressure on our natural resources. It eliminates the need to explore for oil in environmentally sensitive habitats like coast regions and ANWR. Less automotive emissions means less toxic pollutants in our air, water, and soil. Less oil consumption reduces the risk of oil spills which can safeguard sensitive coastal regions and wildlife for future generations to enjoy.
By using an alternative energy vehicle, I make a statement about my values and show my own social responsibility. All too often I feel helpless, feeling the world's problems are too big for just one person to solve on my own. However, as a consumer, I have the ultimate power in the products I purchase and in the vehicles I drive.
What will happen if the world continues in this same direction? No one really knows. Of course, none of us may be around when or if the world runs out of oil, the polar icecaps melt, or the world is covered in another ice age. Perhaps it will be a technological paradise like many of us hope, but how can we control what sort of world our children and our grandchildren will inherit? It is up to me in a small measure.
I believe that I must be open to a new paradigm in my perceptions of the future. Americans are tied to oversize cars that are sold to us by the car manufacuteres as these are the cars that we need. Of course to power these cars with all the embelishments there is a trade-off in reduced efficiency.
Trade-offs, that is what life and choices are all about. The question is for me, “What am I willing to give up in exchange for my social conscious be salved.” Or, am I content with the idea that, “I have mine, but you can’t have the opportunity to have yours.” I am more interested in the function of my transportation rather than any identity that I would try to convey with the image of whatever vehicle that I wrap around myself. After all, aren’t vehicles an alter ego of what I want to have others perceive of me? In effect, form over function.
Certainly this does not negate the need for vehicles to go on longer trips, or to carry or pull heavier loads, but it does create an answer for 90% of our driving needs. Commuting.
So, again, I am on the same side as Obama. He is willing to agree to adopt the idea of offshore drilling but only to the point of getting an energy bill passed.
Jim
Me, I like Pickett and what he is saying. Although he made his money on oil, he wants to change and revisit the new/old concept of using natural resources. Wind and water use as energy is as old as it is old. We need to use the new technology to refine and administer the development of these powers.
As for "off shore" drilling, why is it we seem to be the only ones that can't do it properly? From what I read, other countries can do it and their shores aren't saturated with raw minerals. That still doesn't mean it is correct. I do believe, we can develop more a more efficient system with what nature gives us. Even to focus on one way, and not look at one way for all power would be a major step.
As a sample, solar use for buildings alone would, I think, be a major savings for our countries energy costs.
T. Boone Pickens, of course, I was going to address him so I'm glad you brought him up. He's a really forward thinking guy rather than downward thinking.
Here's more technology that is interesting: I'd even trade in my ZAP for one of these.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/08/08/air.car/index.html
Jim
As for Calif. taxes, we already pay taxes for roads and the fuels, all they do is take tax from one area and use it for other areas, and vice/verse. Again, being cost aware and not wasting is what should be done. Why leave all the lights on in a building when one room is in use only. Most state workers working in a state building don't worry about everything being left on and they forget they are paying for the costs via their state taxes. I use to get chewed out by my bosses because I would turn the lights off when I left a room. They would get mad because they had to flip a switch and turn a light on. Look at how many big companies will leave the lights on in a building all night, yet no one is working, another waste. Use of energy, waste of energy.
T. Boone Pickens, yes, Pickett was an old school friend name, sorry.
"Rather than responding to the pain at the pump by rushing to drill in some of our most fragile environments, we must send a message to the car companies that we are wanting viable cars"
I don't disagree with any of what your writing. But as the paragraph above demonstrates, the point is somewhat missed. "pain at the pump" is not really a problem, its the realities of what our economy can tolerate. Dems would have us sacrifice our republic for the sake of their views on global warming, when GW hasn't been absolutely proven. Check out the latest stats on earths warming in last ten years - very small. Anyway, if the world IS actually coming to an end because of GB soon, Ok, I'll sacrifice the our country and everyone else's, but people are not ready for such draconian actions on trendy, political correct science. Regardless, electric is just smart, we should do it. But it aint smart to put masses of people out of work for ideology sake. Let's throw the slow poke politicians out and elect people who will do something (without selecting baby killing supreme court justices by the way)
Hey Ben, I tend to like Pickens too; call me scitzo, I just don't trust that he's spending all this money on ads cause he wants to go to green heaven. I need to watch him a bit more to swallow what he says.
Amen, to your quote. And too, it’s not just what our economy can tolerate; it’s what the individual can tolerate. The economy is a simply an after-the-fact point of view of what economists can observe about the plight of what individuals and families can afford.
To my satisfaction, global warming has been proven, with ice core samples. Yes, I do have to take the scientists’ word for it (that’s why I want to come back as a scientist next time just to learn that stuff, as I do find it fascinating……or maybe a doctor). But, I do believe that the Earth has gone through many of these natural occurring heating and cooling trends. We are simply living through this one. You’re right also on the last 10 years of earth’s warming. Miniscule, but only in the geologic time of Earth. Not even the blink of an eye. Oh, oh, now we’re getting into God and creation. I don’t know if I want to open that can of worms. Suffice it to say that I believe that Earth is a testing ground for the big picture.
I don’t think that the Earth will be coming to an end soon regardless of what we do. Earth will go on, you won’t be here, I won’t be here, but the Earth will go on. It will be those that can least afford the changes that will be affected first. Third world countries are now being effected, and those that cannot afford what is needed to carry on their current standard of living. Who is affected most now by the current increase in gas costs? Those that can least afford it. Notice how many more people are riding bikes, for whatever reason?
Peter, by making the statement, “Let's throw the slow poke politicians out and elect people who will do something (without selecting baby killing supreme court justices by the way)” you’re going into the compromise realm. Those are two entirely different issues and while a politician may believe in Global Warming and want to do something about it, they may not feel the same way as you do on abortion. Do I hear ‘issues’ blowing in the wind?
We can be part of not putting people out of work by adopting and supporting new technologies. Will all of them work? No, but it demonstrates and supports the idea of a forward-thinking populace rather than living in the past.
T. Boone Pickens has already said that he’s promoting self-sustainable wind power for the money. It’s ‘bidness.’ He may be a closet environmentalist, but he’s a businessman first.
Jim
Peter, masses of people are put away all the time because they don't do the "norm" thing. Selling weed, making drugs, stealing from others to sell and make money. As you know, the prisons are swelling with them. If it is dangerous, maybe it should be stopped and the workers transferred to a new market with retraining if it needs to be done. (Mainly the scientists) The other workers are just the ants. You still need deliveries and such.
When we take fluid out of the earth, it seems to me it is like taking lubricants from a knee that can't be replaced. Instead of being "nice" isn't it about time we took off our "rose colored glasses" and really see what is happening going down the old road we have been on ?! Even like our own lives, each of us had to look, evaluate and change many things in our lives to survive. To me, this is no different. Even in politics, when I vote, I vote for the lesser of two evils. No politician, or any person for that matter, can ever be correct all the time.
Like most of the time, we agree on more than we disagree, but it's fun hashing out the fraction where we don't.
Recently I was thinking, 'what if all the nations were stripped of all artificially powered technology?'
Mankind could start anew and maybe we could do it right this time. Problem is, there are no easy answers. There are diseases with "natural" bacteria. We want to develop vaccines, so we experiment on animals- there we go again, end of perfect world. Multiply that by a million times, you have real life. We till the garden, we kill field mice; we walk we step on bugs.
So, what do we do? We do our best. But man should be very careful what he'll sacrifice for himself; and his comfort and conveniences. Biblically, it seems we can sacrifice cows for our meals and so on. But we can't harvest and eat humans! There is a line that is drawn. Sometimes it's an easy broad line, sometimes it's a fine line. When it is broad and obvious it makes me wonder about the politician who apparently can't see it.
No, I don't seperate Abortion from other issues. Simple reason-if a man can justify killing babies, what is driving his thought processes? I don't think it's wisdom, but popular opinion. And, that's what got Hitler into office. But what's worse, that's what turned entire societies against those who didn't fit their popular view, ethnicity, religious or political correctness.
There you go, thinking again.
Jim
Ok you guys, if your serious about saving the planet, follow these instructions (copy and paste): http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7551125.stm
Post a Comment