online dating service
REGISTER | MAIL/PROFILE | HELP | NOW ONLINE | SEARCH | RATING | FORUMS | SUCCESS STORIES

 

     
Posted In Forum:
Home   login   MyForums  
Show ALL Forums  
 
 Author Thread: Next Election and Obama
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 116 (view)
 
Next Election and Obama
Posted: 11/21/2009 10:42:30 PM
In my view, any presidential election these days has a lot less to do with the candidates running than the fickle nature of those few who vote. Maybe I'm naive, but I'm under the impression that there was a time when voters decided on a candidate based on more than a single issue or two.

Regardless of which end of the political spectrum any of us hail from, I'll bet all of us can name Presidents elected in the past couple of decades that we think were absolute disasters, and others who were pretty decent, but hampered by their detractors. Of course we'd put different names on our respective lists, but my point is that we're a deeply divided country prone to either not bother to vote at all, vote AGAINST the one we disagree with most, or pick a single issue to base our vote on.

Here in WV our five electoral votes consistently go to whoever the NRA supports. Nothing else matters. Quite a few others make abortion, the economy, the environment, war stance, or some other issue their sole voting issue.

And don't underestimate the strength of slogans or other PR stunts. Those few who vote but aren't already on track to vote red or blue seem easily swayed by a clever phrase or single stumble on the long campaign trail. Just look at dramatic poll swings during past campaigns.

I've always tried to make my decision based less on a candidate's stance on any single issue and more on how they seem to think, what their decision process might be like - in other words, how they're likely to respond to the issues we don't yet know about that they'll be facing in the course of their administration.

But I'll confess that there have been multiple times when I've voted against someone who was on my disaster list more than for the alternative.

But as long as we remain deeply split between three camps: one fourth liberal/progressive, one fourth conservative, and half too indifferent to bother to vote, the outcome of any future election will likely hang on something trivial, not actual performance or platform.

That's just my take,

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 163 (view)
 
MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 11/3/2009 10:26:21 PM

Since the wind does not blow constantly, a full capacity fuel based generator network needs to be maintained with an expanded transmission grid to collect power from the disperse turbines.


This caught my eye, as I recently learned of an effort to resolve this issue through a new form of large scale, high capacity battery:

http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=09-P13-00044&segmentID=2


I have to admit I voted against him and certainly did not favor his deficit spending but he did end the morass of the Carter years and ended the cold war. This ended new production of nuclear weapons, freed Eastern Europe and started a long economic growth period in the US and the world. I agree, there was way too much conspicuous consumption. The current president, like Reagan, was elected for his charisma but is clearly bringing back the morass of the Carter years and makes Reagan deficit spending appear paltry. His total lack of resolve in dealing with the world’s bad boys appears to be leading to a new nuclear arms race among terrorist states. I don’t recall Reagan’s cabinet being full of tax cheats. I hope Obama doesn’t bring back disco.


Without dragging us too far off topic too long, I'll just say that there is evidence the Soviet Union would have collapsed on its own regardless of anything Reagan did, and he empowered some of the bad boys we've had to deal with since. The two issues I most hold against him, though, were his total scorn of renewable energy research and leading the Republican Party away from its traditional position of fiscal restraint. Ever since, the closest we've come to a fiscally conservative President was Clinton, and that's more of a "least worst" situation than any real movement toward responsible budget management.

I don't honestly recall cheating on taxes as the most prominent sin of Reagan cabinet members either, but do distinctly recall providing arms to terrorists. I think I'd prefer a tax cheat.

And I agree, I hope disco is forever gone.

Back on topic, I'm heartened to see at least some more serious discussion of the science behind climate change theory here, with a correspondingly smaller quantity of name calling, although once again, that's like comparing deficit budgets of recent decades.

As long time readers of the forums here know, I choose to believe the collective wisdom of the peer reviewed science supporting the human role in a warming planet. Like most citizens, I don't have the scientific background to do my own data collection and analysis, so I track the topic by looking at both reports published in respected journals and the reactions to those reports by those who do have sufficient credentials to back up their analyses.

I recognize that there are those who are inclined NOT to believe any government funded scientist, or for some other reason are convinced there is no basis to believe human activity could have any significant impact on climate. I honestly don't expect to change those folks' minds, just as they aren't likely to change mine, at least not until they publish their own theory and we can all see how it stands up to scientific scrutiny rather than the jury of public opinion.

It seems a certain number of us are predisposed one way or the other on this issue. I'll admit that as much as I try to focus on the results of the scientific method, it's also true that on a gut level I have always been sensitive to the impacts we all create as the result of our actions, on each other AND on the environment. We'll never completely eliminate those impacts, but we certainly can harm less and be more of a benefit to society and the planet. That's about as close as I come to meriting the "religious" accusations sometimes thrown my way. I do believe as sentient beings with the capacity to understand the consequences of our actions, we all have a moral imperative to do more good than harm in the course of our lives.

And just as I admit my own predisposition, I recognize there are others who harbor an innate distrust of ANY movement that could in any way limit what they perceive to be their basic right to do whatever they please. Whether the issue is gun control, seat belt laws, gay marriage, smoking bans, school prayer or greenhouse gas controls, the same folks can often be heard bemoaning 'yet another' attempt by 'them' to force them to support a cause they don't believe in, and thus something is being 'taken' from them.

So while I may be convinced that my perspective is more worthy than that of those who cherry pick interpretations of the Constitution and/or Bible to justify more self centered philosophies, I'd be willing to let both groups cancel each other out IF we could all agree to focus on actual science to determine policy. Not one theory by one scientist, but science the way science should be done, through replication, scrutiny, experiments, and repeated analysis from every angle.

Anyone else with me?

The other Dave.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 135 (view)
 
MIGHT solarcycle24 dispel manmade global warming?
Posted: 10/31/2009 9:20:19 PM
Wow, Dave, I found a lot to agree with in your post. Especially this part:


Instead of pursuing solutions, we turn to a president with absolutely no substance but great image and charisma and a cabinet of tax cheats who promises to punish those who can deliver solutions.


I absolutely agree that Ronald Reagan marked a significant turning point to the worse in the U.S. Were it not for him we'd be global leaders in alternative energy, rather than buying our windmill parts from overseas.

Hey, if y'all wanna skip the climate change debate and go straight to sustainable living practices, I'm all for it! Good thing we finally have a president who is setting that as a priority.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 27 (view)
 
If science carries on moulding our lives, what do you imagine the future will look like?
Posted: 10/23/2009 3:29:39 PM
Wow, lots of doom and gloom here. Let's look at it another way.

Sure, before technology, we pretty much had to be fit. It was our muscles that did the work to allow us to survive.

But.....

Life expectancy was far shorter. Slavery, racism, sexism, dictatorships(kingdoms) were the norm. Survival was all most could think about.

I think a strong argument could be made that technology freed us to advance socially and politically, to exercise our brains more, if our bodies less.

Yes, there is much wrong with the world today, and if you want to predict a dismal future, there's ample justification. I'm quite sure that the next few decades will bring far more change than the last few did. There are too many potential tipping points looming in the near future.

But I'm not convinced we won't come out of it better off than we are now. We have that capacity. And as overpopulation, climate change, water and fossil fuel shortages become more pressing, we COULD use all that technological know how combined with our analytical and moral abilities to craft a more sustainable future for all of us.

I have no doubt there are crises looming. But we're a species that has developed to this point as much as anything due to our ability to creatively adapt to new challenges. That's what gave us the science we have today, and if we play our cards right, we'll use that science to our benefit in the years to come.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Signing forum posts....
Posted: 9/8/2009 6:08:21 AM
I do it so anyone who might be interested can know my real name.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Urban Warfare
Posted: 7/14/2009 8:52:15 AM
When dearly departed dog Lucy ruled the domain, raccoons were not a problem. She made short work of any that dared challenge her. Same with woodchucks and to both of our regret, skunks.

But I've had to resort to other defenses since Lucy moved on to the spirit world. Once when I was gone for an extended period, they ravaged the house, opening cupboards and even the fridge freezer to get at anything resembling food. Plates were tossed off shelves and broken. I resolved that by making the house impenetrable, but then Junior the cat came into my life, so his cat door makes the current challenge more complicated.

At the moment I seem to be winning. The opening foray of this latest territory dispute took quite a while to resolve, though. It started when I came home after a six day absence to discover the cat feeder empty and knocked over and six chocolate wrappers laying on the floor below the counter where I had my stash of chocolates. That night I watched through a crack in the door as he came in, carefully selected a single chocolate that he unwrapped and ate, then moved on to the cat food.

I got a live trap and set it next to the cat food with a piece of chicken for bait. Come night I watched him start with his chocolate appetizer, then go straight to the trap. But rather than enter it, he reached carefully through the mesh side, snagged the chicken, and threw it out the entrance. So I blocked off the sides of the trap but kept waking up to a sprung trap, sans bait, but no coon. Somehow he was getting at the bait and holding the trap door open to make good his escape.

I decided to escalate the terms of engagement, set the cat door to only allow entrance but not exit, and went to bed with my gun handy. I woke to a commotion in the kitchen, and crept out to discover Rocky holding the cat door open with one paw while he threw selected pieces of trash from the upturned can outside. The moment he saw me he ducked out the way he came in.

With a 9 day trip imminent, I tried one last thing. I taped a brick to the trap door the night before my departure, but that night he stayed away. I declared a temporary truce, sealed the house, and left an opened economy sized bag of catfood on the porch to feed Rocky and Junior both while I was gone.

I returned to a hungry cat and an empty food bag, and Rocky inside both the house AND the trap! I had realized after I left that I had neglected to spring the trap, but with the house closed didn't worry too much about it. Rocky was still full of vim and vinegar, so he couldn't have been in the trap long. My best guess is that he had enjoyed the free feast as long as it lasted, then shortly before my return pried open the screen door to get to the cat door, and finally been foiled by my modified trap.

Respecting his creative skills, I spared his life and released him miles from home. But as I feared, he apparently had invited at least one friend to join in the banquet while I was gone, and a new raccoon soon ventured into the house who had different markings. He was not Rocky's caliber, though. The first night I set the live trap on the porch I got him.

All has been calm of late, but I'm sure it's just a matter of time before the next skirmish. At least I'm battle tested with several tools in my arsenel. Pics available upon request,

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 37 (view)
 
Reagans Death Cost US hundreds of millions
Posted: 7/12/2009 8:34:39 PM
Yes, as a former president, Reagan was deserving of a state funeral. Now, someone remind me of ANY other president who had as much pomp and expense associated with their death.

Here's what I remember Reagan for:

He funneled arms to terrorists.

He turned the Republican party away from their traditional role of fiscal conservancy and not trying to impose social morals on individuals, so that today the primary fiscal difference between the two parties is that one taxes and spends, the other borrows and spends. And anyone who claims to be a Republican but doesn't advocate banning abortion, prayer in schools, banning gay marriage, and countless other personal choice restrictions is shunned from the party.

He halted the steps we were taking to develop renewable energy, so today we buy our windmills and much of our solar components from other countries, and we're facing a very rough energy future as we find ourselves unprepared to transition away from fossil fuels.

He took credit for a Soviet collapse that was imminent regardless.

He inspired the neo-con movement that has led the Republican party to it's current sorry state.

On the plus side.....

I'll have to get back to you on that one. Nothing comes to mind. He did pass control on to Bush Sr., who wasn't as bad as he was. That's about the best I can come up with.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Coming to a Ballot near you.... Define person
Posted: 7/8/2009 4:06:15 PM
Ya know, if only all these pro-life fanatics truly were pro-life, as in opposed to any military action anywhere, the death penalty, and maybe even against eating anything that ever lived, I just might be able to muster up some respect for their point of view.

As it is......

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 102 (view)
 
Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/8/2009 12:24:26 AM

You fail to realize that your state has the right to regulate. If your state has never legally regulated the environment then who's fault it is? It's not mine. And it's certainly not the fault of the rest of the country.


I recognize that right quite well. (you appear to have some difficulty recognizing what I recognize) Just as my neighbors have the right not to straight pipe their sewage into the creek, and a coal company has the right not to leave a barren landscape behind after blowing off mountain tops. What I recognize most is that there are issues that transcend state boundaries, and the acid emissions from power plants in my state killed fish in neighboring states, just as my neighbor's sewage would flow onto my property. Without effective regulation both would still take place, in one case state regulation, the other federal.

I've worked with my state legislature pretty extensively. I know quite well how often sporadic jobs and uncertain dollars trump long lasting environmental concerns. It's cold comfort to switch to a system that would pin the blame locally but result in environmental degradation.


Our federal government spending money on education does not necessarily produce results. Just look at No Child Left Behind as the ultimate example and at the state level look at California, who spends nearly 70% of their budget on education and healthcare, and they are among the bottom of all states in education, while going bankrupt.

There are plenty of ways our government can help students make it through college without throwing tax payer dollars at them.


Money poorly spent does not mean money shouldn't be spent. I agree that No Child Left Behind is a failure. I've also taught in schools that had classes too large and resources too scant. Living in a poor community shouldn't condemn children to a poor education.

I'd be interested in all those ways government could help college students without spending money.


I consider myself a progressive


In my opinion a much worse label then liberal or left winger.


Yes, I've noted that making progress as a society is not a focus of yours. Feel free to call me a progressive. That way you can think you're being insulting and I can feel complimented and we'll both be happy.


appears you do support some sort of uniform safety regulation for vehicles? Is that specifically mentioned in the constitution somewhere, or you starting to accept there might be a role for federal government NOT explicitly stated there?


The states can regulate this.


Did you fail to recognize the economic quagmire I suggested in my last post if automakers had to tailor their manufacturing to 50 different sets of regulations?


If only Herbert Hoover had practiced non intervention and small government, maybe there never would have been a Depression.


Without accepting or challenging this interpretation, are you suggesting that small government would mean we would never again suffer large scale economic hardship? There will never be individuals in need that charities can't care for? No one will ever reach retirement age without having saved enough to get by on? No one will ever need medical care without the means to pay for it?

Or is all that just their own fault and to hell with them. You tend to call such claims ridiculous, but explain to me how you are not advocating that the less fortunate among us should just suffer and die off so you can avoid ever having to respect a government regulation or pay for a program you don't personally benefit directly from. Tell me how what you propose will benefit anyone but you and those like you in your current circumstances.


Just look at the states that have the biggest budgets. They are in serious financial trouble. Money given to elected politicians is never spent as well as money you, yourself earned and want to spend.

That's something that perhaps we'll never agree on. But at least my political philosophy suggests that you and I are free to choose our own lives, while yours suggests I should be forced to participate in government programs I disagree with.


Exactly how might I as an individual have curbed acid rain, built the interstate highway system, cleaned up Lake Erie, and a host of other efforts benefiting both the collective good and me personally.

I do choose my own life. Just as you do. I participate in government programs, some of which I agree with, some I don't, yet knowing I always have the choice to not participate and face the consequences or move somewhere with different programs. You don't have to pay taxes. Some people don't and get away with it. You could choose to work under the table and just pocket the cash.

Is there a model country somewhere with a system of government you admire? If so, that's always an option for you. If not, why do you think that is?

I prefer to work within our system in the name of...progress, that word you find so distasteful. You feel your philosophy will result in more freedom. I'd like to be free to live in a healthy, safe country that I know is governed with the best interests of all its citizens in mind, not just those most able to fend for themselves.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 100 (view)
 
Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 9:48:36 PM

I want to congratulate wvwaterfall, for just posting the most uninformed babbling post I've ever seen on a message board.


My goal was to call you on blanket statements along the lines that government is responsible for most of our problems, illustrate some of the problems we'd face without government, and engage you on some specifics. Looks like it worked pretty well. Thanks for the congrats.


All of those issues (with civil rights being the only exception) are all issues that each state should deal with. Every state in America has their own programs to deal with these issues.


Uh. Huh. My state has a law that prohibits any state environmental regulation being enacted that is stricter than minimum federal mandates. Hardly any states had water, air, or mining regulations prior to the cited federal acts. Take away those and a race to the bottom would ensue as states compete for power plants, manufacturing facilities, and the like.


And while we're at it, let's toss the minimum wage


This is a brilliant idea. I fully agree.


Yup, let's let those coal companies go back to 'paying' in company scrip, only redeemable at the company store at company prices. Your state did the same, I might add.


Why do schools and universities need to be closed? These are in state functions and legal.


Remove all federal funding and see what quality we have left in our schools. Or how many students can afford college without federally supported grants and loans.


No form of government controls the internet in America. However if you take a look at who wants to control or regulate it, it's not Republicans.


The internet engineering task force develops and promotes internet standards, and is currently funded by the national security agency. The US government continues to have the primary role in approving changes to the root zone file that lies at the heart of the domain name system.

Perhaps some other government or entity would step in should the U.S. government drop these roles. Perhaps not.


I would reduce government involvement in banks as much as possible. There needs to be some regulation in place, but we should not be controlling or overregulating banks.


Not sure how reduced you'd like that role to be, but I take some comfort in knowing that my deposits are federally guaranteed. I expect we'd already be seeing a lot of runs on our banks without that under our current economic situation.


Eliminate social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment compensation.


This is the most brilliant thing you've ever said. Do you know that people are less likely to give to charity if they think they are already paying into it? Everything you mention is unconstitutional and not a federal government issue.


Sure it is based on your determination that you know more about the constitution than the Supreme Court does. Who granted you that authority? Why don't we compare what life was like for those in need of those programs back before they existed, when, by your reasoning, everyone was taking such good care of them through charitable giving.


Bye bye CAFE standards

State function again. You sure are confused about the role of our federal government and the Constitution! But then again, you are a left winger, so I've come to understand your misunderstanding.


I consider myself a progressive. You're adamant about others not labeling you. Please extend the same courtesy to the rest of us.

Automakers would just love every state setting separate vehicle standards. You've made it clear that your Constitution interpretation differs from all those tasked by their Constitutionally mandate roles in all three branches of government. Get enough votes and maybe you can get an amendment added that interprets it the way you like to. Until then, I'll join the rest of us in more conventional interpretations.


I agree with not forcing people to wear seat belts. To say there should be no regulation on vehicles for safety is a stretch though.


Wearing seat belts is one thing. Not having the option because they're not in the cars is another. And it appears you do support some sort of uniform safety regulation for vehicles? Is that specifically mentioned in the constitution somewhere, or you starting to accept there might be a role for federal government NOT explicitly stated there? Do tell.


Our Constitution authorizes our federal government to defend the nation. This does not apply. Once again you don't know what you are talking about.


I dunno, we existed as a country before any of the programs I cited existed. Every time one was added, government got bigger, and I'm sure someone, somewhere, was complaining like you at the growth.


imagine how cheap those vehicles would be when made by slave labor.


This comes out of the mouth of a leftist who stands up for the rights of illegal immigrants to come here and work for slave wages.


Please show me where I have ever said such a thing. I support the right of immigrants to come here, just as your and my ancestors did, and work for the prevailing wage, which should be well above slave status. Remember my support of minimum wage law?


Maybe if our federal government hadn't cracked down and told the airliners how to run their businesses and that they were not allowed to protect their own planes, maybe 9-11 WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED THE WAY IT DID.


So air traffic controllers facilitated 9-11? Care to elaborate? Where we actually might agree is that maybe if our government hadn't utilized such flawed foreign policy, particularly under but not limited to Republican administrations, maybe the motivation for 9-11 wouldn't have been there.


Let monopolies rule whatever economic system might emerge with no common currency, lynch mobs handle any transgressions like being the wrong gender or skin color or looking cross eyed at someone


This is the most ridiculous, pathetic thing you have said.


Oh? Where in the Constitution are monopolies prohibited? If our court system was limited to strictly local control, what would prevent the lynch mob mentality that once was not too rare of an event? Was it not bigger government involvement that moved us beyond that era?


With federal highways being the exception, these are all state issues. We are talking about the US Constitution and federal government here. Please do not stray.


So what about those federal highways? And all the federal money states get to maintain them?


I never said government should go away. I said our federal government only needs to exist to defend civil liberties, defend our nation, and operate the three branches of government. If you want your state to do something special for you and the taxpayers in your state then ask your governor to help you out.

But this notion that our federal government can do anything right for the entire country by cracking down and controlling things more then they already do, is fantasy land psychobabble.


That would be your interpretation. Mine differs. I remember when the Cuyahoga River caught fire. I remember when I was chased from my local fishing hole as the river I was fishing on became covered by noxious foam from the paper mill upstream. I'm on the board of an organization focused on bringing life back to hundreds of miles of streams that run orange, acid, and lifeless to this day from the impacts of mining before federal regulation.

My grandparents suffered through a Depression without the protections that keep me from having to endure the same horrors today. I believe that the mark of an advanced society is not how easy we make it for the rich to get richer, but how well we care for the least fortunate among us, and how well we protect future generations from short sighted practices of today. That takes an engaged federal government, one that lives by the principles of the constitution but treats it as a living document, not one that limits us to the circumstances of over two centuries ago.

I agree that there is much room for improvement in how our government functions. I disagree that the answer is to revert back to little more than loosely connected independent states.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 3 (view)
 
Question About 420
Posted: 7/7/2009 7:30:54 PM
Actually, it's an old one.

I'm sure someone can fill in the details, but my understanding is that at some university back in the 70's 4:20 was what time a group of people got together to smoke pot. So 420 became code for marijuana there, and somehow it spread into common usage in the subculture around the country.

So anyone who makes a 420 reference is trying to let others in the know that they like to indulge.

Since this has been around in certain circles for decades, it may NOT be in common usage with your daughter's generation. You might find it interesting to ask her and find out.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 22 (view)
 
women and police officers
Posted: 7/7/2009 7:15:23 PM
As a male, my best recourse is to always be friendly and courteous any time I get pulled over, and would guess I've only been ticketed maybe one in four times. I figure there are factors I can't control and those I can, and do the best to maximize my odds that the officer will decide a friendly warning is all that is needed.

Once I was riding with a female friend when she got pulled over. She just turned to me and said "watch this". As the officer approached, she burst into tears and launched into a long sobbing story about just finding out her mother was dying. No ticket.

I assume that sometimes there may have been recent traffic problems in the area or the officer has been told to toughen up and then there's nothing I can do. I once got a ticket for going one mile over the limit. Another time I got a ticket because I saw the 55 speed limit sign as I was leaving town, started to speed up before I passed the sign, and got nailed for going 50 in a 45.

But another time I was driving a couple of hundred miles from the river I'd been raft guiding on to another river, was going at least twenty over the limit, and when I told the officer what I did and where I was going he said "you know, some of those people you take down the river I don't have much respect for." and after a hard day with a difficult crew I replied "you know, some of them I don't respect much either". We spent some time swapping stories about unruly tourists and then he said "just slow down, please" and sent me on my way.

So you just never know. I'd expect any officer to use good judgment. That last tale I was on a deserted straight stretch of road, going fast, but not posing a risk to other drivers. I'm sure that was a factor. A DUI I'd expect to be hauled in, I hope. A rolling stop or a couple miles over or tailight out I'd expect more flexibility on.

Some women getting a pass on some things just happens sometimes, and I don't get worked up about it.

dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 97 (view)
 
Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 4:13:27 PM
I will spend my entire life trying to awaken people to the concept of liberty and more freedom from big government. Big government has caused nearly every major problem we face in America today. With more freedom to choose our own lives, everything would be much better. Government never takes care of anything as well as an individual can take care of for themself.


Sarcasm On...

So I take it in the name of abolishing 'Big Government' we should also abolish the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act, Civils Rights Act, etc... all administered by government to make our collective lives better.

And while we're at it, let's toss the minimum wage, give all road and utility right of ways to adjacent land owners for them to maintain and charge tolls for use of, with no regulation for how well they are built or maintained. Dismantle all public bridges.

Close all public university and schools. Shut down the internet. Remove protection from bank failures. Eliminate social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment compensation.

Bye bye CAFE standards, or for that matter seat belts, airbags, or any other vehicle safety requirements. And imagine how cheap those vehicles would be when made by slave labor. No need for air traffic controllers. Let the pilots find their own way, using whatever technology they are inclined to include on their aircraft. No need to make sure they can communicate with anyone else. Maybe they can borrow a gun from a passenger and fire warning shots when they're coming in for a landing.

No more border patrol, coast guard, satellites or radar to provide any protection from whoever might want to wander our way to do as they please. Let monopolies rule whatever economic system might emerge with no common currency, lynch mobs handle any transgressions like being the wrong gender or skin color or looking cross eyed at someone.

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure there are many, many more benefits we'd all enjoy with our new found freedom and liberty if that pesky government would just go away. No other species on the planet needs government. ****oaches seem to be thriving. Why shouldn't we deserve the same freedom?

Sarcasm off.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 87 (view)
 
Sarah Palin Stepping Down As Alaska Gov. Running for Pres. 2012?
Posted: 7/7/2009 11:42:21 AM

It's not a coincidence that every state going bankrupt also has a state income tax.


Only two states, Montana and North Dakota, have budget surpluses for fiscal 2010. They have state income taxes. Every other state either has had to or will have to make significant cuts in order to meet their budgets, including my own state of WV, which had a surplus until this year, and has an income tax. Care to reconsider that particular line of logic?

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 44 (view)
 
While you were sleeping, our government...
Posted: 7/2/2009 2:12:48 PM

I think you misunderstand what I'm saying. It is well documented that climate has changed on this planet, and it will continue to do so, possibly in both directions.

The question is whether or not human beings are causing it. There is no evidence suggesting that human beings are the cause of anything going on with the global temperature or climate.


I understand quite well what you are saying. What you don't appear to understand is the scientific method that has given us the ability to create all the wonderful technology we enjoy today, including the ability to have this discussion on this forum. Do a little research on the scientific method, then look at your skeptic sources and see how well they have adhered to that method.

Scientists don't deal in opinions. That's for forums like these. Scientists work with observations, data, hypotheses, experiments, and theory. The link between human activity and a warming planet are well established by climate scientists who have applied the scientific method, including peer review, to their efforts.

Reject those conclusions if you choose, but know that by doing so you're rejecting the scientific method that has led every national science organization with any connection to the climate to issue statements supporting the concept of anthropogenic (human induced) climate change.


I can link multiple sources that disagree with you on global warming. Scientists, experts, etc.


Scientists, yes. Experts in climate change, no. Not who have published a peer reviewed paper in a currently accredited science journal asserting that human activity has no impact on the climate.


The problem is that you cannot look at trends for the last fifty years or so and say that it offers final evidence. Our planet is billions of years old. It's likely to have gone through several changes both up and down. Essentially you are putting your faith into a system that explains nothing. It just records current temperatures and compares them to a hundred years ago.


This shows your lack of understanding of the climate change issue. Scientists look back hundreds of thousands of years to interpret what is happening today. They look at far more than just the temperature record. Read the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Go to Realclimate.org. Educate yourself.

You accuse me of being set in my perspective. It's true that I'm a devout believer in the value of the scientific method. But I was NOT convinced of of the extent of the climate change problem nor the important role human activity plays in it until I researched the science that had reached that conclusion. I went into that study with an open mind. I hope you can do the same.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 42 (view)
 
While you were sleeping, our government...
Posted: 7/2/2009 6:07:54 AM

When someone has an opinion like this, there is really no point in bothering discussing the matter any further. I do have a few things to say.



The most aggravating thing about global warming or climate change, is how our federal government could possibly pass a cap and trade bill, and NOT ALLOW A SINGLE SCIENTIST OR EXPERT with a dissenting opinion to testify.


You illustrate what I'm finding to be a really fascinating dilemma. As I may have mentioned, I've been tracking this issue closely for over 15 years, and one of the most interesting sideshows has been the increasing level of sophistication of skeptic proponents.

What they have done is capitalize on the general public's inability to discern good science from junk, resistance to change, lack of concern for anything that doesn't impact them directly here and now, and a proclivity to believe that any potential inconvenience is actually an intentional effort by some vast conspiracy to personally make their life difficult.

It's worked like a charm.

Over on the science and philosophy forum is a thread where a handful of deluded folks try to insist that the lunar landings were faked. Their arguments show a complete lack of understanding of science and history, prompting ridicule and anger from those who know better, best epitomized by a link to a video showing Buzz Aldrin actually punching out a young man who confronts him and calls him a liar for claiming he landed on the moon.

Likewise, the bona fide climate science community scoffs at their skeptics who trot out long discredited claims 'refuting' their hard work and strict adherence to the scientific method. Understandably, they resent any suggestion that they be asked to legitimize those skeptics by meeting them on some sort of equal turf to debate the conclusions of their research. "Have them publish peer-reviewed papers, and then we'll talk" is a common refrain, as, much like Aldrin, they angrily reject anyone who doesn't understand how science works or intentionally distorts science to promote a non-scientific agenda.

The problem is, unlike the lunar landing conspiracy whackos, global warming denialists have actually gained credibility with large segments of the American public and media. When I participated in a climate change debate five years ago it was easy to trace all skeptic claims to one of seven scientists who had been unable to get their fringe concepts past the peer-review process of the legitimate climate science community, so had instead turned to the general public as their forum. Today there is a much larger list of people with some sort of degree after their name supporting denialist points of view, but NOT actual climate scientists actually DOING climate science.

Citing a TV weather mogul as a credible source is much like taking your temperature and expecting the thermometer reading to tell you whether your arteries are clogging and how soon you may have a heart attack, or whether you blood sugar is low or have cancer. It's certainly a health related tool, but not one appropriate for those diagnoses.

I don't know what the answer is. While fortunately decision makers have for the most part not been fooled by all the misinformation to be found on the net, the rising public outcry means that some how or another the climate science community is going to have to quit scoffing and taking offense and find a way to explain very complicated science in an understandable way to those who vote for those decision makers.

No, I'm not likely to declare decades of diligent scientific research a hoax because a handful of skeptics present unsupportable arguments to counter it, no more than I'm inclined to declare a hoax those who agree the world is round, not flat, we DID land on the moon, and Holocaust actually happened.

I will continue to track the issue as the science continues to develop, and hope some means can be found to allow less focused folks to better understand how to interpret all that they hear on the street on the issue.

If anyone would like a glimpse at how frustrating this is for scientists, take a peek at this link, making sure to read many of the blog posts below:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/06/bubkes/

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 87 (view)
 
No abortion! No Adoption!
Posted: 7/1/2009 4:36:05 PM

I am willing to bet YOU would be surprised how a kind word, a gesture that gave a child hope very well made the difference of having no belief in themselves or life, and fighting just a little harder... It is a reward you just don't always get to see...


Oh, not surprised at all. Not only did I too have teachers who made a huge impact in my life with what I'm sure to them was a minor gesture, I still every now and then meet a former student who recites verbatim something I once said and have long forgotten that they've never let go.

And it isn't just children. I hope we're all still capable of being touched in a special way when we need it most.

Thanks for being so gracious.

As you were, everyone....

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 24 (view)
 
Is this true, or political hype????
Posted: 7/1/2009 2:56:39 PM

Umm, no...I believe when we're talking about the scope of this Bill and its potential cost to the American taxpayer solely in implementing it (see snippets below), the Republicans are more interested in protecting the taxpayers if, after it's enacted as law, that it has a severely adverse effect (i.e. exorbitant and skyrocketing energy costs), that there are some protections for the taxpayers.


Uh huh. So...let's turn it around then. If this bill does not pass, and we continue to depend on fossil fuel energy with little effort to develop renewables, encourage energy efficiency, raise CAFE standards, etc... If we were to do that, and the price of our energy still went up due to peak oil, no more easily accessed coal reserves, having to drill much deeper for natural gas, or simply lack of competition from alternative energy providers, would you be just as prepared to do an emergency IMPLEMENTATION of all these programs designed to transition us to a cleaner, more efficient, energy future? Not a phase in, because you will have already given up that opportunity, but slam us all at once with emergency measures. How does that sound?

I'm sure you understand where I was coming from. I understand wanting to protect consumers from skyrocketing energy costs. But energy costs are not independent variables. They can be manipulated any number of ways. Proposals such as the Republicans offered would certainly tempt an oil company, for example, who had already seen gas prices crest four dollars, to make any number of defensible decisions whose effect would be to bump those prices up another dollar, thus relieving them of the burden of competing against those pesky alternative fuel folks.

That's not the kind of incentives I could support.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 38 (view)
 
While you were sleeping, our government...
Posted: 7/1/2009 2:23:52 PM
Wow, lots to respond to here. One at a time....


<div class="quote"> Do you honestly believe that big business (lobbyists) is going to be curbed by this bill?

Not at all. Just like they weren't curbed by forty hour work weeks, worker safety legislation, minimum wage, airbags in cars, the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act, among others, all of which we were told would bring an insufferable burden down on we the consumers.

Time after time, industry lobbyists try to instill fear with inflated costs for implementation of needed changes. Then they proceed to demonstrate what makes markets work so well - competition inspired innovation. That's exactly what cap and trade is all about, creating competition to innovate a cleaner way to produce energy.


<div class="quote"> How many jobs do you think a windmill farm creates pal?

Some. A lot more if they were made here in the U.S., as they would have been if we had continued on the renewable energy path we started down until Reagan got elected. But a whole host of jobs will be created throughout the energy sector as emerging businesses develop creative ways to not only create clean energy but use that energy much more efficiently.

Tesla is building a new plant to make all electric cars. GM may well do the same. New battery plants are in the works. New ways to apply LED lighting have been developed right here in WV that will create new manufacturing opportunities. Those are just a few examples.

Transitioning to renewable energy creates entire new markets and opportunities.

Meanwhile, I have friends in both the mining and oil and gas industries who are working a bit, getting laid off for a bit, never knowing from one week to the next if they'll have a paycheck. This state used to employ 200,000 miners to extract less coal than under 20,000 miners get out today. I didn't hear those howls about job losses when we took away their picks and shovels and put them behind bulldozers and massive scoops.


<div class="quote"> Hey Dave, is there a point in your life where you would look back and realize that global warming was a hoax?

I doubt I would ever think of it as hoax, because too many good scientists have worked too hard to reach the conclusions I currently follow.

But if rigorous application of the scientific method should some day steer us to a different conclusion than that same method has today, I'd pay heed.

I've followed the issue closely for over fifteen years. I've seen the science develop, refine, and the scary part is, keep producing more evidence that prospects are more dire than we might have thought a few years ago.

I've also seen the skeptic community become more and more sophisticated in their tactics. Not by actually doing science, mind you, but by marketing their distortions in a way that makes it very difficult for the uninformed to tell good science from junk. Spend some time with google and it seems like there are thousands of scientists refuting climate change theory, when actually there are very, very few, and virtually none who pass peer-review muster. The peer review process is a core part of the scientific method.


<div class="quote"> Not to be picky AL, but the cooling trend has actually been the last 11 years.

True enough. And the warming trend has been for the last 12 years. How can that be? Because we've been on a high temperature plateau so far this century, kicked off by 1998, which was by far the hottest year on record. Each of those past 11 years has been among the 15 hottest on record, but not as hot as '98.

So it's perfectly accurate to say that since '98 we've cooled. And perfectly accurate to say this has been the hottest decade on record. Take a look at a temperature graph for the past century and it all makes sense.

Bottom line, we're hot, and the oceans, migration patterns, ice sheets and ecosystems reflect it. But all evidence indicates that we'll get hotter yet sooner than later.


At least the global warming pundits have changed their rhetoric to "Climate Change".


This is straight out of the skeptic playbook. Both terms are still in common usage. Warming is what the globe is doing overall. Change is what the climate is doing in any one location. A few places are cooling, most warming, some staying the same. Both terms are accurate and appropriate to use, depending on which effect you're referring to.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 83 (view)
 
No abortion! No Adoption!
Posted: 7/1/2009 1:37:20 PM

YES, what you said DID offend,


My apologies for any offense. You clearly are an exception to my perhaps too broad generalization.


It's easy to say people shouldn't be parents,


That's not my position. I only say that women should have the choice whether to carry a pregnancy to term. I'd no sooner force a woman NOT to be a parent than I would TO be a parent. Inept as my analogy may have been, I was simply trying to illustrate that there are circumstances where a prospective mother may well feel that the best choice to make is to not introduce a child into an untenable situation, and I respect her right to make that choice.

Once again, I apologize for offending you. Congratulations on making so much of a life that started with so many challenges.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Is this true, or political hype????
Posted: 7/1/2009 1:16:33 PM

The Republicans offered three proposals


Let me get this straight. Republicans offered three proposals that created incentives for polluting industries to raise their prices so they could be allowed to pollute more.

I can't imagine why they were defeated.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 20 (view)
 
Is this true, or political hype????
Posted: 7/1/2009 1:12:44 PM

As for ethanol - you still have carbon emissions. It will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions. Plus, what do you think it will do to food prices if we switch from petroleum to corn but still consume at the same rate? Chickens, pigs, and cattle are all fed on corn plus don't forget all that corn syrup in our food. Think about this.


Yeah, ask those same scientists about ethanol from corn. Not a good feedstock, not least because corn has so many other beneficial applications. But there are plenty of other potential sources, with a much higher energy return per energy invested. As for the carbon, the difference is that carbon from live sources keeps that carbon in the loop when it is released.

Until we started burning fossil fuel, CO2 levels in our atmosphere were quite stable throughout human history. Plants grow, consuming CO2. They die and rot or are burned or consumed and CO2 is released, only to be re-absorbed as the cycle continues. The problem comes when we add carbon to the atmosphere that has not been in the carbon loop for many millions of years. So while one CO2 molecule is pretty much the same as the next, CO2 released from combustion of fuel refined from living sources does not add any new CO2 to the carbon loop. CO2 from fossil fuels does.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 34 (view)
 
While you were sleeping, our government...
Posted: 7/1/2009 11:37:29 AM

AND NOW THAT THEY HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY IN THE SENATE THEY CAN PASS THIS WHEN THEY WANT TO


Not so fast. Just as in the house, senators are unlikely to make this a straight party line vote. Both WV senators are democrats. Both issued statements yesterday to the effect that they have serious concerns with this bill. Coal is king here, and just as both of our democratic congressmen jumped ship and voted no, so too likely will our senators.

This is one of the reasons I haven't dug too deeply into the bill yet, because I'm sure it will undergo significant changes in the Senate. It's too early to celebrate for those of us rooting for long overdue climate change action, too early to toss in the towel for those opposed.

Dave

ps - would you mind not shouting when you post? Printing in all caps shows extremely poor netiquette.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Is this true, or political hype????
Posted: 7/1/2009 9:08:44 AM

We could clone dinosaurs and, sure it would take a while, but those few million years are going to pass anyway...so we might as well plan ahead.


No need for dinosaurs. Modern day flora and fauna will do.

Here's an ironic scenario. Turns out most of the worlds oil was created by two rapid global warming events, 90 and 150 million years ago. A whole lot of plant matter mixed in with whatever creatures were to be had essentially collapsed in a pile, got covered with sand, and over the millenia transitioned into oil.

So while most climate experts predict a gradual but steady increase in temperatures due to increased greenhouse gasses, a few caution that we could see another very rapid spike with calamitous results. In which case, 90 million years from now, version 2.0 of homo sapiens could be debating the need to transition away from an energy source that consists of....all of us POF fishies!

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 7 (view)
 
Is this true, or political hype????
Posted: 6/30/2009 8:25:24 PM
In answer to your question, it's political hype.

This bill has become a lightning rod for pretty much everyone. Global warming proponents and deniers, Obama and "big government" haters, environmentalists and fossil fuel proponents: seems like everyone has an axe to grind related to this one. Here's my take, admittedly without taking the time to go looking for any data I don't already know:


* It will raise your household electricity rates by 90 percent, gasoline by 74 percent, and residential natural gas prices by 55 percent by 2035, after adjusting for inflation.


Without contesting or verifying any of these numbers, it's worth noting that NOT taking the actions laid out in this bill is likely to have an even more dramatic effect on the above. We're not making more fossil fuel. Anyone here think the price of gas won't rise more than 74 percent by then anyway(adjusted for inflation), if there's even any gas left to be had 25 years from now? We've already mined all the easy to get coal, extracted the easily found natural gas. The prices for oil, coal and gas will continue to rise regardless, quicker if we don't start to replace their applications from renewable sources.

We've spent the last century or so happily drawing on the planet's energy savings account. Now we're screaming like spoiled trust fund babies that we'll actually have to start paying as we go.


* It imposes an annual burden of $144.8 billion per year on U.S. households, and it will reduce household earnings by a projected $37.8 billion.


This strikes me as VERY selective cherry picking of data. Let's see - we're going to finally take action to address a climate change problem we should have started working on twenty years ago, start transitioning to cleaner energy sources with essentially a limitless supply of raw energy to draw upon, accelerate adoption of more efficient means to use that energy, and we're all going to suffer as a result?


* It will further cut U.S. employment levels by 965,000 jobs by reducing economic output by $136 billion per year-this translates to a $1,145 increase in energy costs per American household.


I suspect this figure is based on lost fossil fuel jobs without accounting for any new job creation from new energy development. Has anyone factored in that the reason coal is so cheap is in large part because we use ten percent of the miners to extract it than we did fifty years ago? Here in West Virginia we once employed 200,000 miners to extract LESS coal than we now get with less than 20,000 miners who blast away mountain tops and bury streams with the spoil to get at it. The lowest quality of life indicators (life span, income, cancer rates, education, etc...) in a state already low on those lists are found in our coal field regions.

Did the introduction of electricity hurt employment? It did if you were a whaler. The automobile? Sure, if you were a blacksmith.

There will be new opportunities for employment. Just as there always have been as society advances. Exactly how many jobs will be lost and gained where is impossible to accurately predict, but opportunities will be there for those ready to go after them.


* It will force low-income households to disproportionately bear the across-the-board energy cost increase, as a larger percentage of the poor’s income goes toward energy costs, as opposed to wealthier households.


The poor always bear a disproportionate burden of any change. That doesn't mean we should ignore them. I'm pretty sure this bill includes provisions to assist homeowners to make their homes more energy efficient, through better insulation, lighting, and appliances. Improvements in efficiency will help households use a LOWER percentage of their income for energy costs. Remember, energy costs will go up even if we tried to maintain the status quo.


* It sets the stage to effectively kill the coal industry as it will be taxed so heavily, it will not be able to sustain itself.


Actually, one of the reasons many environmentalists are upset with this bill is that it has so many provisions to protect the coal industry by subsidizing clean coal technologies and delaying carbon restrictions on coal plants.

Coal is the dirtiest of the fossil fuels, but the most plentiful in the US. Modern coal mining techniques are incredibly destructive, and the associated jobs not at all dependable, with or without this legislation. It's a boom and bust industry. Today's economic downturn has left huge coal stockpiles and many laid off miners. Where once a single mine could employ a miner for generations, today's mines are generally mined out after five years or so, creating a migrant miner scenario with little job security.

The clean coal concept involves much more expensive power plants requiring much more coal to produce the same amount of energy. NOT employing clean coal technologies means releasing more CO2 per energy unit than any other fossil fuel.

Sooner or later, we'll have to transition to renewable energy. Once we do, the benefits will be many. WHILE we do, we'll need to make some adjustments, and we're a species that both resists change and finds it impossible to resist.

Keeps life interesting, doesn't it?

dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 70 (view)
 
No abortion! No Adoption!
Posted: 6/30/2009 5:45:40 PM

men should donate to a sperm bank and have a vasectomy. Only then can men fully control their own reproductive choices.


When I was contemplating my vasectomy while still in my twenties, I offered this very thought to my doctor, and he responded that due to the uncertainties of artificial insemination or vasectomy reversal, I should only proceed with the vasectomy if I was prepared to give up the idea of being a natural father. I pondered that for a few months, went back, and had the procedure because I didn't want to find myself in the situation of creating an accidental pregnancy. I decided that should I ever choose to be a father, I'd go the adoption route.

I don't know if the numbers have changed any since then, but at the time the odds of success were greater for a vasectomy reversal than from insemination from a sperm bank.

I have always accepted that it was a woman's choice how to manage her pregnancy. Were I the father, I would want to be involved in the thought process, but would still respect that at the end of the day it was her choice to make. That's why I had the vasectomy, so I wouldn't find myself in the position of being forced into a decision I didn't support. More than thirty years later, I've never regretted that decision.

The whole concept of "no abortion, no adoption" sounds to me like an even more extreme variation on those who already try to unjustly insert themselves into an already difficult decision making process any prospective mother has to make.

We as a society trust people to make decisions that affect the lives of others every day, whether it be a President initiating a military action, a judge or jury sentencing a criminal, a police officer deciding whether to engage in a high speed chase, a board of education deciding on school policy, a legislature deciding on social programs, a parent deciding what activities their child can and cannot engage in, etc...

We trust those decision makers to weigh risks and benefits and make the best decision for the people involved and society as a whole. There are situations where introducing a new baby may entail more harm then good, more risk than benefit for all involved. No one of us who is in that exact situation is better poised than the prospective mother to make that decision.

As a former teacher, I've been exposed to children born into horrible situations who honestly may not have known a day of joy in their lives, and after knowing nothing but misery during their formative years, are unlikely to ever be a benefit to themselves or others. Sure we can judge that people likely to introduce a child into such circumstances shouldn't have sex, but is there anyone who actually thinks there is a way to assure that nobody ever will? I hear the same people asserting that the poor shouldn't be poor, the sick shouldn't be sick, as if it's their own fault if they can't find a way to elevate their circumstances.

Individual choice and responsibility is something we cherish in modern society. To take that option away from a prospective mother to me is a huge step backwards. Yes, sometimes bad choices will be made, and every effort should be made to provide them with all the information they need to make good choices. A friend of mine has a bumper sticker that I think says it best:

"If you can't trust me with a choice, how can you trust me with a baby?"
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 28 (view)
 
While you were sleeping, our government...
Posted: 6/30/2009 7:03:29 AM

The sad thing about this "global warming" bullcrap debate...is that no one on the left realizes what it's really about. They think they are saving the planet, but they do not realize that it's really about raising taxes, giving government more control, and taking away power from the people.


Huh. I didn't know you were the conspiracy type.

Of course it isn't about saving the planet. The planet will be here, hot, cold, or in between. It's about being responsible stewards of the only planet we have to call home, helping it to maintain the delicate balance that allows us to live comfortably on it.

It's kind of like a human relationship. You get back what you give, and if all you give is abuse, you can't expect a very healthy relationship to result.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 24 (view)
 
While you were sleeping, our government...
Posted: 6/29/2009 9:34:32 PM

The last thing GM and Chrysler need now is something like cap and trade.


Absolutely right on that one. They certainly don't need it now. They needed it twenty years ago, when congress was first apprised of this important issue. Had we raised CAFE standards then Detroit automakers might today be competitive and not need bailouts.

But nature has a funny way of ignoring human timetables.

This may well not be the best bill to take on the challenge. It probably isn't. Odds are it won't pass the Senate. WV's two Democratic members of Congress voted against it. I wouldn't be surprise if our two Dem. Senators do too.

I too actually favor a Carbon Tax over Cap and Trade, as it has less administrative requirements and provides income that can and should be used for targeted retraining and economic development initiatives in fossil fuel extraction intensive sectors and regions.

But the most important thing is that we pull our collective heads out of the sand and start dealing with climate change, so it deals with us less harshly.


At any rate, is it me, or would so many of these environmental problems be at least somewhat assuaged if we got over our fear of nuclear power...


I haven't decided yet what my position is on this. Long term, I can't see nukes as the answer, but we may indeed need to build some more plants to get us over this difficult transition period away from fossil fuels. If so, the French model might be a good one to copy, both in terms of permitting processes and reactor type.

I still can't seem to get a straight answer on just how nasty the waste is, say, a thousand years from now. If for whatever reason our containment system is breached, how widespread would be how severe of an environmental and health risk? If we're talking a couple of football fields considered a dangerous hot zone, I can accept that risk. If we're talking a half a state, I'm not so sure.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 22 (view)
 
While you were sleeping, our government...
Posted: 6/29/2009 9:09:50 PM

The stimulus package was like that as well...


I confess I don't begin to understand how the whole stimulus process is designed to work. We do seem to agree that massive bills are not a good idea.


Government makes business more difficult for the energy companies and they raise taxes on them. Then those costs get passed off to everyone else through rates being raised.


Hmm...as I understand it, should this bill pass, I'll be paying more for coal fired electricity, less for wind or solar, and may have added incentives to take myself either off the grid or partake of a net metering scheme. Seems like I'll only have to pay more if I insist and my utility insists on continuing to release more greenhouse gasses than their cap provides for. That's not what I think of as a tax.


Spain tried the exact same thing over the last decade. They now have nearly a twenty percent unemployment rate, and for every green job they created they lost 2.2 real jobs...costing around $800,000 each.


Spain had a 1200 page bill too? We just copied ours from theirs? In that case Congress has had ten years to read it, so they must be pretty well versed.

A cap and trade program dramatically reduced acid rain without tanking our economy. Another dramatically reduced ozone problems, again with little fanfare. So what makes this program exactly like Spains and not at all like those?


The concept is only sound if you believe the world is ending from global warming, which 30,000 scientists recently signed a petition questioning it.


Yeah, you don't want to go there. You could have signed that petition. Maybe you did. I could have. I didn't. That petition has been thoroughly debunked by all but the hard core skeptic community.

I'll grant that it's difficult for the layman to discern sound science from bunk on this issue. Try to do a google search or two and there are plenty of credible sounding sources poking what appear to be big holes in climate change theory.

But they don't pass peer review muster, and in many cases, upon closer inspection, don't even pass the giggle test.

I'm not going to get dragged into a competing citation battle on this. The archives here include plenty of those, including lengthy debates I've participated in countering a complete spectrum of skeptic claims.

Every national science organization with any connection to the climate endorses the concept of anthropogenic climate change. The peer reviewed journals are overwhelmingly full of papers supporting those positions. Every free government in the world recognizes the need to take action, and many not-so-free governments, including China, which in many ways is ahead of us on this issue, like pretty much everyone else.

And as one who has tracked the issue closely for over 15 years, what strikes me is that every adjustment in projections skews toward what just a few years before were the worst case scenarios. 1998 really scared folks because it was by far the hottest year yet, with every year since not as hot but still in the top ten percent in recorded history. So these days you hear claims that we're 'cooling' because we're not as hot as '98, although quite a bit hotter than '97, so it all depends on your reference point. Check out a long term graph and the trend is clear.

But believe who you like. From experience, I expect a goodly number of Obama detractors here to also scoff at climate science. Seems to come with the territory. And there are certainly bona fide scientists who would back you up, just no more than a handful of bona fide climate scientists.


So it goes back to the Dems playing the fear card.


Actually, both sides are. Skeptics play the high tax, lost jobs, high energy costs fear card. I hear a lot more of that than I do any inflated climate change concerns. I'd gladly take a wager that should this or some other climate change initiative NOT pass, twenty years from now the observed climate impacts will be worse than the latest IOGCC projections call for, while if it DOES pass the economic impacts will be less less than naysayers claim.

Any takers?

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 41 (view)
 
What do you think?
Posted: 6/29/2009 8:09:03 PM

well if he wasn't born here (and i'm thinking that he was), where was he born? any ideas??


I believe the tin foil hat types have him born in a muslim country and inserted here after being indoctrinated in how to destroy the U.S.A., or something like that.

This is clearly a very important issue, on a par with whether the lunar landing was faked, Elvis ever died, and whether the Holocaust ever happened. Far more important than the economy, environment, international relations, immigration, health care, education, or any of those other trivial matters the mainstream media tries to distract us with as they join the the vast conspiracy to destroy our country as we know it.

I think I got that right.

Never mind that McCain and Obama's respective legal teams spent considerable time before the election hashing out this issue to the other side's satisfaction for both candidates, never mind the actions of the Supreme Court and a Federal Judge. Those folks are quite obviously part of the whole conspiracy.

So good to see that this is finally getting some attention here. I'm sure in time the POF forums will be seen as a critical part of bringing this vital issue to light.

Carry on,

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Climate bill showdown: Obama, Dems pressing hard
Posted: 6/29/2009 3:44:55 PM
The main reason we're looking at a cap and trade system, besides its proven success addressing acid rain and NOx reductions, is because a straight carbon tax would be politically unacceptable to all those who equate "tax" with "evil".

So since everyone seems so determined to declare a cap and trade system a "tax" even though no technologically savvy energy provider would pay any penalty at all, and indeed would reap benefits, why not scrap this plan and just institute a true carbon tax?

Put a tax on every emission of carbon dioxide or any other greenhouse gas in CO2 equivalent units. Then use that tax income to provide targeted economic development opportunities to the sectors and regions most negatively impacted by such a tax. Use that money for green energy development while paying displaced fossil fuel workers to retrain and transition to the new economy.

That would be simple, effective, and could be drawn up in a lot less than 1200 pages.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 16 (view)
 
While you were sleeping, our government...
Posted: 6/29/2009 3:27:25 PM
I agree there are many flaws in the ways laws are passed, and while I may not believe in simple answers to complex issues, I can't imagine any effective legislation requiring 1200 pages.

But I fail to see how this is the biggest tax increase in our history, or even that it's a tax at all. Every time anything like this has been proposed in the past, industry has screamed how much it will cost us, then once it passed any way, promptly found far more cost efficient ways to implement it than even our low ball estimates anticipated.

A cap and trade system incentivizes industry to innovate cleaner, more efficient ways to get us our energy, including getting us more efficient vehicles, lights, heating and cooling systems so we won't need as much of it.

The basic concept is sound. How well this particular bill applies that concept I'm not so sure.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 14 (view)
 
While you were sleeping, our government...
Posted: 6/29/2009 1:34:54 PM

I'm not going to argue. This is a simple issue to debate.


I'm always leery of simple answers to complex problems.

Excerpted from "The Economic Impact of Environmental Regulation
by
Stephen M. Meyer"

http://web.mit.edu/polisci/mpepp/Reports/eier.pdf


Regardless of political happenings today, over the longer term both public
demand and economic competitiveness will push business and industry to
internalize environmental costs. Environmental regulations simply force
environmental impacts into the competitiveness equation, thereby producing a
form of environmental-economic Darwinism. Regulatory incentives to avoid the
expected high costs of waste disposal and pollution abatement can fuel process
and product innovation that improve productivity, increase input-output
efficiencies, and provide substantial cost savings. This has been the experience
of such prominent firms as the 3M Corporation, Dupont, and Raytheon. New
businesses are created to satisfy new demands for environmental services and
products.
Of course not all firms and industries learn, and even among those that
try some will undoubtedly lack the resources to adapt or reengineer – especially
small businesses. Indeed large corporations such as Dow, 3M, and Chevron
dominate the anecdotal evidence on the positive economic effects of
environmental regulation. In contrast, small businesses with low capitalization,
and firms already teetering at the margin of profitability may fold, unable to
maintain production and comply with envrionmental restrictions. Firms that
cannot compete without dumping some of their costs on the environment (and
thereby compel the public to subsidize their operation) never were really
competitive in the true sense of the term. But the loss of such companies is
ultimately compensated for by new start up companies that use more innovate
technologies.
The all out assault on federal and state environmental statutes now
underway is unwarranted and unwise. There is no environment-economy crisis –
real environmental gains will be lost without accruing any enduring economic
benefits. The valid concerns of business and industry will not be addressed in a
meat-ax approach to reforming environmental policies. Gutting environmental
statutes merely prolongs pubic subsidization of inefficient uncompetitive
businesses.


Elsewhere in this detailed analysis statistics demonstrate that strong environmental regulations actually have a slight positive economic impact, contrary to popular belief.

During the six years I worked on state environmental policy, business leaders emphasized over and over that it wasn't the degree of regulation that mattered as much as the consistency of those regulations with minimal administrative hassles. Nobody wants to pollute.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Why do females shun rural areas?
Posted: 6/29/2009 12:45:15 PM
First off, a satellite internet connection is available pretty much anywhere, so that solves that problem.

This issue is of special interest to me since I'm fresh out of seven month long distance relationship with a woman who loved to visit here on the homestead, but couldn't picture herself actually living here or anywhere else quite this far "out there". There were other reasons we parted ways as well, but since moving to my 100 acre slice of 'almost heaven' seven years ago dating has certainly been a challenge.

When I first read the OP, my immediate reaction was that way back when men were the hunters out in the boonies much of the time while women created the sense of community back at the cave or village, and we might still retain some of those primal values. Reading the responses here, I can see where the modern day economic realities also play an important part.

Whatever the reasons, the city life will never be for me, however attractive the dating pool. I know I need regular doses of the natural world. I can only hope to eventually find a woman who savors the same.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 12 (view)
 
While you were sleeping, our government...
Posted: 6/29/2009 10:53:25 AM
Cap and Trade as a tool has a strong track record with acid rain and NOx reductions. It uses existing and understandable systems to encourage businesses to make decisions that will positively impact both the environment and their bottom line.

As to this particular progam's potential, an argument can be made that a straight carbon tax could actually cause less economic distress and more environmental benefit, but the word "tax" is such political poison in this country that it's unlikely we'll ever see something so directly beneficial.

Hence the efforts to re-label cap and trade as a tax by detractors. I could just as logically argue that continued fossil fuel use is a tax on my health and future.

Responsible strategies to address climate change should have as their ultimate goal maintaining and improving quality of life for all of us. I'm one who thinks the science is strong that without significant changes in activities that impact the climate, we'll suffer severe economic and quality of life consequences in the not too distant future. But I also think any strategy with the potential to put laborers in the fossil fuel industry out of work needs to include provisions to provide those workers with a smooth transition into other means to make a living.

Coal is the dirtiest of our fossil fuels. Here in WV coal mining is a major economic force. Yes, alternative energy production will ultimately offer numerous employment opportunities, but that's scant comfort to a coal miner who neither sees those opportunities now nor has any reason to believe they'll be available here in WV.

What needs to be coupled to any climate change legislation is a plan to retrain displaced workers and stimulate job creation in the same region to apply those new skills, ideally including a plan to keep those who have been working hard to provide us cheap energy solvent until they can complete their transition to their new career.

I've seen the numbers to indicate that a straight carbon tax could be a net economic benefit if it used the proceeds of that tax to pay a salary and training expenses to displaced fossil fuel workers. If we're going to use cap and trade instead, we need to include a similar provision.

Just my two cents,

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Rules of deletion
Posted: 6/29/2009 10:27:12 AM
Well....much as we might like to think that the site reflects and responds to the interests of those of us active on the forums, this is not a place where democratic, or consensus building, or any other group principles apply. The site is owned by a single individual who sets it up as he sees fit.

Based on the popularity of POF, for the most part he's made good decisions. And many of us enjoy the forum feature to the extent that posting here may be a higher priority to us than finding a mate or date.

One of the biggest factors in the popularity of POF is that it is free. That means keeping costs low has to be a prime consideration for the Big Fish. Popular as the forums are for those of us who use them, the last time I saw figures only a very small percentage of POF members utilize the forums. They add a little something extra to the site, but by no means are essential to its success.

I don't know the exact formula for who does and doesn't get to use the delete function. Sometimes I get the option, sometimes I don't, even with brand new threads. I doubt anyone is actually putting much thought into my particular votes to delete or not delete a thread. More likely if you vote to delete a certain number of times without offsetting those votes with some votes to not delete, you lose the privilege for a set period of time, or some other formula designed to prevent abuse.

As to why enough people vote to delete a thread that the OP thinks is pertinent? Heck, based on many of the posts here, I often find myself wondering how some people can develop values and thought patterns I find incomprehensible. We're a diverse bunch, and that's a good thing, and for the most part once this system has been set up we're left on our own with minimal moderation. Sometimes we may not feel like we're getting completely fair treatment, but in the big picture hopefully a lost thread or two won't be too big of a factor in our lives.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to interact with y'all, however perfect or imperfect the medium might be.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 98 (view)
 
And Health Care For All
Posted: 6/26/2009 5:06:46 PM

Can you grasp how much of a step forward it would be to drastically reduce the size of our government? (This includes our foreign interests. We occupy 130 of 160 countries worldwide)


On reducing our military presence worldwide you and I can agree, which I assume is where you got your number from. I wouldn't be closing any embassies, though. There are certainly areas I would consider progressive in terms of reduction of government, but I'm not sure how much overlap my reductions would have with yours. We certainly don't agree on how much intrusion government should have in a woman's right to choose. We may agree on reducing military expenditures. To go much further in the discussion deserves another thread.



Democrats opposed each of the mentioned, and overwhelmingly, Republicans supported each.


Party support had nothing to do with my point. Progressives historically have presented themselves from both parties. Lincoln was progressive. So was FDR, and Eisenhower, Clinton and now Obama. One might make a case for Reagan, and I'm sure many would, but I would place him in the severely regressive category, or simply a loose cannon able to smooth talk others into agreeing.



It's abusive for you or any left winger to force me into participating in government programs I disagree with.


I can't force you into anything, nor, actually, can the government, short of arresting you. We all have choices. We can refuse to pay our taxes. We can leave. We can lobby. We can protest. We can run for office. We can donate to or volunteer for causes we believe in. And we can hash out our differences online.

My point was that whenever I encounter someone vehemently opposed to something I support, I think to myself that at least they're past the ridicule stage, which must mean they take the issue seriously. Once enough people take an issue seriously enough, change happens, more often than not for the better. It's apathy and complacency that are our true enemies. We've got far more people on this forum fretting over their response to Michael Jackson's death, what to wear on a date, and whether facial hair is attractive or not than weighing in on issues that might actually matter. I know it's a dating site, but I don't think the posts here are all that far off from how most people think.

So while I may differ strongly with you on some issues, I'm grateful there are those like you and others who at least think these topics are worth discussing, whether we ever find more common ground or not.

There's my olive branch for the evening. Now I'm off for a weekend of whitewater. Carry on!

dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 117 (view)
 
breaking news!!....michael Jackson haas died!
Posted: 6/26/2009 3:57:59 PM

I am so sick of people who hero worship people like Michael Jackson or O. J. Simpson, etc., because they had a talent.


You'll find no hero worship here. My only heroes are people I know personally. Likewise I strive not to pass judgment on anyone, particularly someone I don't know. I wasn't particularly a fan of MJ. I did admire the way OJ could run a football, but that's about it. I'm just one of those folks who believes all people have goodness in their hearts, but some people do bad things. I could twist what I've read about MJ into either good or bad, but I choose not to.

I only weighed in here in reaction to those who seem so positive what kind of man he was. I really don't think any of us can know that, but I'll bow out now.

dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 114 (view)
 
breaking news!!....michael jackson haas died!
Posted: 6/26/2009 3:05:19 PM
Insurance companies settle based on the bottom line...........

Not about right or wrong............


Exactly. I've been directly involved in cases where we knew we were right and were confident we would win a court case and ready to go to court, but our insurance company insisted on settling. As to a frivolous litigant being forced to pay all court costs, that's up to a judge or jury to decide, and by no means a sure thing. And they might not have the ability to pay. Insurance companies crunch their numbers and make what they deem to be the most cost effective decision. I've often not agreed, but it hasn't been my call to make.

The analogy with celebrity cases is closer than you might think. Celebrities depend on publicity. It makes perfect sense to me that a wealthy celebrity might choose to spend money to avoid negative publicity rather than engage in a lengthy court battle, especially if the "evidence" consisted of mostly he said/she said, or if there were evidence that might actually have no direct bearing on the charge, but might appear to be incriminating.

I don't know what MJ did or didn't do. Nor does anyone here. We've read accusations and seen snippets of evidence. Some think that's enough to pass judgment. I don't.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 94 (view)
 
And Health Care For All
Posted: 6/26/2009 2:39:27 PM
And progressives have done so much for America haven't they?


Yup, they have, starting with founding the country in the first place. Let's see, what would the opposite of progressive be, regressive? I'm sure there may be examples I'm not thinking of, but every major step forward we've taken as a country that I can think of was deemed radical and fought by those defending the status quo at its outset. The term 'progressive' may or may not have been applied, but it's in that same spirit that today's progressives work to improve our collective quality of life.

I've heard it said that all truth goes through three stages: ridicule, vehement opposition, and obvious acceptance. That certainly was the case when the country was founded, when we abolished slavery, gave women the vote, introduced civil rights, and on many other fronts. Since your degree of use of ridicule only peppers your consistent vehemence, I'd say we're making steady progress with you on this issue! Obvious acceptance will probably have to wait for you to experience the benefits of universal health care, I imagine.

Dave



 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Low in Self Control
Posted: 6/26/2009 2:24:51 PM

These tests are on this site, as a way to get people interested in the site, not specifically a person.


Just for the record, adventurelion, on THIS issue I agree with you completely!
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 111 (view)
 
breaking news!!....michael jackson haas died!
Posted: 6/26/2009 2:21:15 PM

well in my eyes most innocent pay dont pay hush money, maybe iam wrong but it just seems odd to pay someone for something u didnt do!!


Happens all the time. Insurance companies routinely settle lawsuits they feel would cost more to take to court than to settle. Working in the whitewater rafting industry, I've been directly involved in several cases like this. Unfortunately quite the cottage industry has evolved among those who figure who to sue for what in order to extort money.

Likewise, if you're a celebrity accused of something you know you didn't do, you might still decide it will cost you less money and/or money earning potential due to loss of reputation to quietly settle out of court rather than keep your name on the negative side of the news cycle for an extended period of time.

All any of us can judge MJ or any other accused celebrity on is what we hear through the media, and celebrity media is not known for objectivity. We have a court system precisely to avoid the sort of lynch mob mentality too many on this thread have expressed. I may raise an eyebrow when I hear something bad about someone I don't actually know, but I don't pass judgment without all the facts, and none of us have access to those in this case.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 455 (view)
 
Late Term Abortion Doctor Killed...
Posted: 6/26/2009 2:10:56 PM

I believe that, to put such laws on the books, it should only apply to cases where 1) The mother has survived, and 2) She has a known interest in having a child (ie: discussions with her doctor, etc) and, obviously 3) She knows she's pregnant.


I can go along with part of this. I agree that there's a logical disconnect between granting a woman the right to choose and then defining her murder if she's pregnant as a double murder.

I think the only reasonable way to resolve it is to establish a special category in such cases. Something like "assault and battery resulting in the loss of a fetus". Perhaps someone else could coin a better term.

We certainly have ample laws putting special emphasis on using a gun as part of a crime, selling drugs near a school, killing a police officer, etc... so if a legislature is inclined to add weight to the penalty for a crime of this sort I have no problem with it. I don't think she should be required to prove she intended to have a baby. I'm sure she didn't intend to be attacked. Whether she knew she was pregnant or not matters I'd leave up to the legislature to decide.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 10 (view)
 
Climate bill showdown: Obama, Dems pressing hard
Posted: 6/26/2009 1:52:49 PM
Just out of curiosity, who here that disagree with climate bills of this sort actually believe that climate change is a preventable problem, or even a problem at all?


Aw geez, I was trying not to go there. Climate change debates do go on forever, don't they? It's honestly difficult for the layman to discern good science from bad based on all the disinformation floating around the net.

But for the record, based on my research and experience, I do believe it's a serious problem, don't believe it's preventable at this stage due to waiting too long to address it, but do believe investing in minimizing the disruption and direct harm is very much needed and ultimately will save us money, lives, and more.

Dave

addendum: I just reread your question and realize it was not directed to me, because although I do think this bill has deficiencies, I fall into the category of endorsing the general concept of climate change legislation.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 90 (view)
 
And Health Care For All
Posted: 6/26/2009 12:39:18 PM

The government researched the internet for military purposes, for self defense. They are not controlling the internet as it is used by you and I through regulation. That's what we were talking about. You are trying to change the subject.


We started on this topic when you expressed disapproval of expanded government. You've since narrowed your interpretation to mean only expanded government regulation, so I'll assume you have no problem with all other government programs and initiatives, and let this particular point rest, if you will stay strictly within regulatory aspects yourself.


Why do liberals do this? They bring something like this up and they have no idea what they are talking about.

Schools, police, highways, and fire departments are all IN STATE functions, in most places they are in city functions. (See the tenth amendment) I have absolutely no problem with an individual state doing whatever they want with healthcare, as long as they vote on the issue.

I'm talking about the federal government and our US Constitution. You REALLY NEED TO READ it some time. More importantly, understand it.


Highways are very much federal. That's why one out of every four or five miles of them has to be straight so they can be used as landing strips for military planes as needed. They were initiated by and are paid for by federal funds. Substantial federal funds also are applied to schools, police, and fire departments, or with held if states do not maintain federal standards. You may not approve of that practice, but that's the status quo.

You also kicked all this off by the general term "government". You now appear not to care at all how big or regulatory state governments are, simply federal. That certainly narrows the discussion.

I've read the constitution, and apparently interpret it more closely with the Supreme Court than you do. Differences in opinion on the precise meaning of the Constitution emerged before the ink was dry, and have raged ever since. I'm content to agree to disagree on your and my interpretation, but not content to grant your arguments more constitutional validity than mine. If you persist, please cite Supreme Court decisions supporting your interpretation.


At the federal level, please read the tenth amendment. There are arguments for what will help our health care system. It just depends on whether you think more or less government would be better. It's truly a matter of opinion, and your opinion says that I have to pay into a system I do not believe in. Mine says you are free to choose for yourself.


I'm willing to bet that both you and I pay into aspects of the federal government that we don't believe in. I don't believe in paying more for our military than the rest of the world combined, for example, but I still pay my taxes.


This is not true. America is an unhealthy nation, and that is why we are 37th. There's a McDonalds on every corner of every street, and fat people line up to eat like crazy. That's the price of freedom. Enjoy it, or get out. But if you think you can just break the law of the land and Constitution just to save some people who are too lazy to work for healthcare, then you are sorely mistaken.

Welfare and the retired are already covered. They say there are 47 million uncovered, but a great amount of those people can afford healthcare, they just do not buy it.


And you appear content for us to stay an unhealthy nation. I'm not. Maybe as long as you're healthy, all is right with the world. I believe a responsible government has an obligation to strive to maintain and improve the quality of life for its citizens. Once again, you appear content to just let everyone fend for themselves, regardless their circumstances, all in the name of freedom.

I might also note that all the federal programs and regulations we currently have are ALSO the price of freedom, if you define the U.S. as a free country. If you don't define the U.S. that way or aren't willing to pay that price, you're as free as I am to get out.

Nobody is talking about breaking any laws here, or defying the constitution, other than you who feel you can interpret the constitution better than all three branches of the government can. Once again, like me, you're perfectly free to move on to another country with a constitution you feel is written and applied better than ours.


Doesn't it just suck having to pay for a service? Lazy liberals kill me.


Perhaps you missed this from another post:


* The nation spends $65 to $130 billon a year in lost resources because of diminished health and premature deaths relating to uninsured Americans


You and I will help pay that tab whether we want to or not. Just as we're all forced to pay for military actions we may or may not believe in, the health and environmental costs of fossil fuel energy extraction and use, supporting unwanted babies, and a host of other social ills an actively engaged government has the ability to alleviate.

We can let our quality of life decline in the name of freedom, or we can collectively strive to improve, as humans and this country have done from the beginning.

It's up to us.
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 81 (view)
 
And Health Care For All
Posted: 6/26/2009 8:32:21 AM
You have a lot of gall making a statement like this, while advocating abortion.


Not at all. I don't want to take us off topic by belaboring this, but simply put, you and I differ on whether an embryo that could not survive without the woman's body who is carrying it has more rights than that woman to pursue life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

On topic, though, you appear to advocate denying prenatal care to an indigent woman with no health care who does carry her pregnancy to term, whether by choice or the elimination of that choice due to your proposed government imposed mandate against abortion.

I have to say for a man who abhors government intervention, it seems inconsistent to me to keep government out of the business of providing basic health care yet in the business of dictating health related decisions by women.


No it's not. The internet is practically not regulated, and is provided by free market private companies, not the government.

Telephones are not controlled by the government either. That's a communcation tool just like the internet, and our government has no business regulating or controlling it. But they sure love taxing it.


Without that overly ambitious government you abhor, the internet would not exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet


The origins of the Internet reach back to the 1960s when the United States funded research projects of its military agencies to build robust, fault-tolerant and distributed computer networks. This research and a period of civilian funding of a new U.S. backbone by the National Science Foundation spawned worldwide participation in the development of new networking technologies and led to the commercialization of an international network in the mid 1990s, and resulted in the following popularization of countless applications in virtually every aspect of modern human life.


If you read the full text of that link, you'll find that providing internet access to all was a government initiative. So the government made it possible for us to debate the merits of universal health care in an open forum that knows no borders. Kind of hypocritical to use that forum to seek to deny the government that made it possible for you to express yourself so widely the ability to keep us all healthy enough to continue to use it.


It's not a legal right, and a healthcare plan is something you should have to work for. As I stated already, you can walk into any emergency room in America and they HAVE to treat you, even if you have no insurance and even if you are not a citizen. So medical treatment is available to everyone in America already, whether you work or not.


So...I'm assuming you want government out of all the other programs it provides that have already been listed here yet are not explicitly endorsed by the Constitution? Schools, police, highways, fire departments, disaster relief, etc...? Where do you find in the constitution the precedent for assuring that our health needs are less well met yet at a greater cost than over thirty other nations in the world?

I know, we have a fine tradition in this country of promoting individual rights coupled with responsibilities. That has both an upside and a downside. For too many of us that downside includes such a rejection of government that the attitude seems to be "if you can't afford to live, you don't deserve to live, at least not in any decent state of health".

I'm all for holding government accountable for providing cost effective, well run programs. I'm not at all for going back in time to an anarchy existence that leaves each one of us on our own to cope as best we can, regardless the circumstances. Effective government is a reflection of an ever more civilized society. I'd rather work to make government more effective than work to dismantle it.

As for our ability to get health care at the emergency room, that's a sorry substitute for basic health care, and it means that emergency rooms get overburdened with cases that could have been better handled by regular medical care, thus diminishing our ability to treat actual emergencies.

A friend of mine recently went to the emergency room complaining of severe back pain, where he was diagnosed with inoperable prostate cancer that had spread to his spine. Odds are, he'll die soon, and be in great pain up until then. Had he had access to regular medical treatment without great personal expense, he likely would have been diagnosed much sooner and potentially added decades to his ability to lead a productive life.

It's been a long time since I was in an emergency room, but the last time I was there I was handed a bill, a bill I was expected to pay. I assume the same is true today. We may not be denied treatment if we don't pay the bill, but we still incur a debt never the less. Not paying that debt has serious ramifications unless we already have nothing left to lose. Should I have to risk losing my house if I seek emergency care without insurance? So far as I know medical debts carry the same burden of responsibility as any other.


Catching up to the standards of other countries? You make it sound like America is a miserable place to live. It's so miserable we currently have 12-20 million illegal immigrants here. People all over the world come here to make a better life for themselves.

Our system of government was designed as a Republic, ruled by law. Our Constitution is the ultimate law of the land. The founders set the Constitution up so that we can change it if we feel it is not right. We should not just overlook the Constitution. It was written to RESTRAIN government.


America, or more accurately the U.S., is indeed a miserable place to live for far too great of a percentage of our population. No, not compared to third world countries, but yes, compared to other developed nations, if you don't have an employer who provides health insurance or sufficient income to pay through the nose for it yourself.

Yes, people come here from all over the world to make a better world for themselves. Why should we deny them that opportunity by not offering basic health care? If I go to any other civilized country in the world and find myself in need of health care, I get it without incurring any significant debt. For us to do the same, we will indeed need to catch up.

As noted above, I find nothing in the constitution that would discourage government from providing universal health care. If you can point out the text that does that, please pass it along. What the constitution did do was provide a developing country the ability to adhere to its principles while sorting out the details to match emerging needs and opportunities. In that sense, I feel the constitution very much supports the concept of basic health care for all, but perhaps you're more of a constitutional expert than I. If so, please enlighten us with specific constitutional references, including any supreme court precedents you can cite, since they're the ultimate authority on constitutional interpretation.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 78 (view)
 
And Health Care For All
Posted: 6/26/2009 12:19:06 AM

There is no constitutional authority for this.


Oh, I dunno, I consider health pretty integrally connected to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And I see no mention of the internet in the constitution, so you'd best get off this forum if you're going to practice what you preach. Especially since the internet is the product of that expanded government you're so concerned about.

Like others here, I think it's appalling that a country that holds itself up to be a model for the rest of the world doesn't think basic health care for all of its citizens is as important as it is in every other free society on the planet.

Our system of government being what it is, I think it will be quite a while before we approach catching up to the standards of other countries, but it sure is worth getting started sooner than later.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Climate bill showdown: Obama, Dems pressing hard
Posted: 6/25/2009 10:17:58 PM
The "new jobs" issue is especially acute here in WV, where coal mining is our dominant industry, and with coal emitting the most carbon per energy unit of all the fossil fuels, there's a big bull's eye on coal fired power plants.

A few years back I held an environmental policy job with the state. In that capacity I attended a climate change think tank presentation in DC, where among other things we were presented a detailed employment and economic projection under various climate change policy scenarios.

The take home message was that overall, aggressively addressing climate change through either a cap and trade or carbon tax approach would have a net zero effect on the national economy and employment figures, with gains focused in some areas, losses in others. The most acute losses would be in places like WV, due to displaced coal miners and lost coal severance taxes.

What's been missing from the climate change proposals to date have been strategies to target those heavy negative impact areas with economic development strategies. It's great to see new jobs created focused on solar energy in Arizona or New Mexico, but unrealistic to expect a mass exodus from coal states to sun states without a lot of pain for those involved. And the environmental destruction left behind in coal communities won't just go away with the coal jobs.

Just this week there were massive protests at one of our largest mines by environmentalists and concerned citizens, with even more coal miners and their families taunting the protesters. Fortunately there was only one relatively minor act of violence when a miner slapped a local citizen group leader and promptly got arrested. Then thirty or so protesters were arrested when they sat down in the middle of the road in front of the mine entrance, including Darryl Hannah and NASA's Dr. James Hansen, a leading climate change researcher who has decided to step up his activism on the issue.

Taking action on climate change is over due, and I'm glad to see Obama pushing hard on the issue. Like him or not, you do have to admit the man is working hard to promote what he thinks is best. I fear, though, that once again we'll be a forgotten victim of progress. During World War II we dramatically ramped up coal production to support the war effort, killing thousands of miles of streams with acid mine drainage so toxic not even insects can survive in the bright orange, acidic and metal laden waters. Most of those streams still run orange today, with scant funding available to bring them back to life.

Today entire mountain tops are blasted away to get at the thin seams of high btu coal below, leaving lunar landscapes where lush forested peaks once were, and once again thousands of miles of streams destroyed by valley fills where the rock and soil overburden from the mines are dumped. Cancer, infant mortality, and premature death rates in those areas far exceed national norms. Flash flooding is common whenever thunderstorms roll through.

We can't move beyond coal soon enough, in my view, but we also can't just abandon the land and the people who scrape out a living there. Much of the nation and world has benefited from the cheap, high quality coal extracted from our state. Attention needs to be paid to a reasonable exit strategy as that industry fades away here.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 59 (view)
 
Has anyone seen S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford? Hes gone Missing
Posted: 6/25/2009 12:20:08 PM
I agree that his absence is a concern, especially the way he handled it, without leaving a clear chain of command. If he had announced that he was taking a week to deal with a personal issue, and left his Lt. Governor in charge, it would have been handled much better. That's a judgment call I think he should be held accountable for.

And despite my emphasis on separating job related duties from personal issues, I also note that Sanford's history of making statements including suggesting Clinton should resign after his affair don't reflect well on him, but I think that matter should be left for voters to weigh should he run for office again.

Dave
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 57 (view)
 
Has anyone seen S.C. Gov. Mark Sanford? Hes gone Missing
Posted: 6/25/2009 12:00:04 PM

Poor judgement is poor judgement. All politicians DO is apply their judgement, so comparing a politician to a musician is a moot argument. And yet when the politician shows poor judgement, you give him a pass (because men just cannot POSSIBLY be expected to remain faithful? You know that's bollocks) and say it has nothing to do with politics. BS! It IS politics! He's using his power to score poontang. You think he's going to exercise good judgement and NOT abuse his power in other arenas? I find that naive.


So if a politician invested in a stock that plunged, should he resign? Obama's march madness bracket didn't reflect reality, so should he step down? If a financial manager for a corporation runs up a personal credit card debt or defaults on a mortgage, yet does a fine job managing the company's finances, should he be fired?

Nobody here has said that men cannot possibly be expected to be faithful. And so far as we know, the vast majority of politicians are faithful. It's just the storm of publicity the occasional affair generates that makes it seem like more cheat than we actually have evidence of.

If a leader does not perform their duties of office responsibly, we should hold them accountable. I've yet to hear a swearing in ceremony that includes language saying they'll maintain matrimonial harmony. Until that day comes, I suggest we focus on the duties we elect them to do.

Dave
 
Show ALL Forums