What does being a "Liberal" mean? (US)
I remember what it was like. I was young and full of ideas--I knew the right answer for everything. There were policies that I believed would be best for the country, and for the human race. Many people didn't agree with these ideas, but that was because, you see, they were stupid. You know, studid, racist, Bible-thumpers.
And if they didn't want to go along with the progress of humanity, they would have to be dragged along kicking and screaming. And once all the obsolete oldtimers passed away, the rest of us could really get on with it. It was importnat to stand for things that needed to change. Old-fashioned ideas that weren't needed anymore.
I believed, at that time (although I never would have admitted to it in these terms, but the concept is unavoidable), that a legitimate use of the government would be to impose ideas on some people "for their own good" simply because the rest of us were so convinced that we had all the answers.
I don't believe that anymore.
I believed, at that time (although I never would have admitted to it in these terms, but the concept is unavoidable), that a legitimate use of the government would be to impose ideas on some people "for their own good" simply because the rest of us were so convinced that we had all the answers.
I don't believe that anymore.
I still believe it in some circumstances. And I think you do too.
Lookout gave the example of government tax breaks to promote home ownership. I think most people support that, and I think it's a correct use of the government.
But you can use even simpler and less controversial examples. The government wants citizens to not kill each other. So it will throw you in jail if you do.
Of course, you are thinking of people being forced to use compact fluorescent light bulbs, or something like that. You'll be able to come up with examples where the government maybe goes too far. It won't be hard.
Without a doubt, there is a whole, huge chunk of good things that have improved society through government intervention and regulation. We wouldn't even recognize our modern lifestyle without such concepts as, the meat you eat isn't rotten, that aspirin doesn't have poison in it, the shampoo isn't going to blind you, you have a 40-hour week with weekends off, etc. --all "progressive ideas" implemented for the good of the common man, and against the resistance of the forces of industry.
There is absolutely a point where our society updates its predominant concepts. We would be stuck in the stone ages otherwise!
I also think that these changes should have the blessing of the will of the people.
How do you feel about mandatory seat belt and helmet laws?
I'm personally against the laws, but wear the seat belt and helmet anyway (though there's no helmet law for motorcycles in Montana).
Maybe, when you can endanger others with your own stupidity, you shouldn't be allowed to? I think this falls under the expectation of relative safety that will exist when we step outside our front door.
Of course, you've easliy been able to position me into saying that smarter people should impose good ideas on stupider people.
Sometimes, yes. This is mostly gray areas, with very little that is well-defined.
I wouldnt define either liberalism or conservatism by their most extreme elements but rather by the broader consensus within their respective constituencies.
As to having the blessings of the will of the people (the majority), that should be balanced with protecting the rights of the minority.
As to having the blessings of the will of the people (the majority), that should be balanced with protecting the rights of the minority.
Oh, excellent point. Very important to have that idea in there--that is fundamental to some of the expectations we have of our society.
Maybe I'm splitting hairs, but IDEAS don't get imposed on people, LAWS do. For example, a born-again Christian (who will soon disappear with the others in the rapture, thank god) has the idea that there should be a nativity scene in front of the courthouse, but the law prevents such displays. The born-again's idea remains unchanged, however.
I was a liberal until I turned into a cynic, now I just don't give a damn.
I was a liberal until I turned into a cynic, now I just don't give a damn.
I know the feeling.
Liberal and Conservative are just tags people throw on themselves and others so that it is easier to categorize and dismiss the thoughts and ideas of others.
I believe the US government should act with fiscal responsibility. To do that they must not spend more than they take in and they must become debt free.
Does that make me a liberal or a conservative?
I believe the government should operate with the least possible interference with the daily lives of the citizens.
Does that make me a liberal or a conservative?
I believe personal responsibility for one's actions and the consequences should be the bedrock for a sound society.
Does that make me a liberal or a conservative?
Each of those statements can and should prompt several different responses. Those responses will be informed by what the individual believes is important and their interpretation of what the gray area in those statements should mean. Tags like liberal and conservative are just convenient ways to divide us so we don't take the time to realize we have more in common with our hardcore opposite than we do with those we've sent to Washington.
Now who has a vested interest in doing that?
Let me see if I can help you decide whether I'm liberal or conservative by adding a couple thoughts.
I believe the US government should act with fiscal responsibility. To do that they must not spend more than they take in and they must become debt free.
I think this needs to be accomplished by significantly cutting spending through a carefully calculated but painful process of eliminating government fraud, waste, and abuse. That will include elimination in every single government agency including the military. That will cost jobs. That will include elimination of programs that are no longer relevent, redundant, or simply a result of government sprawl.
I think this needs to be accomplished by increasing revenue to the treasury. I do not believe this can be accomplished by raising the marginal tax rate on any particular category because any category that has enough money to target also has enough money to manipulate the design, implementation, and enforcement of the tax system. A simple one page form with an easy to understand calculation should suffice for every individual, business, and church in America.
Now am I liberal or conservative?
I believe the government should operate with the least possible interference with the daily lives of the citizens.
I believe the government should only be involved in areas where they must.
I am free to be a complete moron so long as it does not endanger another. That means I have the freedom to not wear a seat belt because I have no expectation you will pay my medical bills.
I am free to wear a big ass .45 on my hip as I walk down the street (or carry it concealed) because that does not affect you. I am not free to withdraw that firearm from my holster in anything but a clear cut case of self defense without facing severe legal sanction because that does potentially endanger you.
I am free to put my penis in any consenting adult of legal age or any contraption rigged for my enjoyment regardless of what my neighbors might think because it doesn't affect them. I am not free to wave my willy at the neighbors, put it in their cat, or fornicate on a busstop bench because that affects others.
I am free to marry any consenting adult in a church wedding if the church is willing to perform and recognize the marriage. If I want that partnership to be recognized by the state I must fill out appropriate paperwork to complete my civil partnership, no church wedding required. I don't want the church involved in my government or my government involved in my church.
Now am I liberal or conservative?
I believe personal responsibility for one's actions and the consequences should be the bedrock for a sound society.
I am free to pursue a life as a rock musician even though I'm really bad at it. I am not free to expect a subsidy because of my stupid decision.
I am free to pop out 0,2, or 22 children. I am not free to expect a subsidy for that.
I am free to be a poor employee, disrespect my boss, and take long lunch breaks. I am not free to expect I'll keep my job or to ask the government to help pay my bills when I lose it.
I am free to live anywhere I want even if I know there is no hope of employment. I am free to complain about my lack of opportunity. I am not free to expect you to do something about it.
Now am I liberal or conservative?
I think we need a new category to describe you Lookout. Something like Commie loving libertarian new new dealer? It's hard to say, not having all the facts, just yet.
As for point one, what is your position of Government subsidies and bailouts to "corporations too big to fail" vs the same for individuals "too small to matter"?
I would like to see the gifts (or lack thereof) applied equally.
And definitely no banging at the bus stop.
Im not sure he's a new dealer though.
but maybe a new new deal?
...oh. You mean the new-fangled now newish type of new.
I am free to marry any consenting adult in a church wedding if the church is willing to perform and recognize the marriage. If I want that partnership to be recognized by the state I must fill out appropriate paperwork to complete my civil partnership, no church wedding required. I don't want the church involved in my government or my government involved in my church.
Once you have all the other things on your list (which I agree to, to a significant extent), the whole reason for marriage, I think, ceases to exist.
I'm a hypocrite in that category F3. Corporations too big to fail is a blatant falsehood. "corporations big enough to hire lobbiests", "corporations too crap to survive", "corporations i want to work at after i leave gov't" would be more accurate. Bad decisions have consequences. Strings of bad decisions have worse consequences. decades of... you get the point.
GM should have folded. If they needed a government bail out then they should have filed bankruptcy and let the chips fall where the may. It would have been painful and bloodier but for a shorter period of time. More importantly the market would have been reset at that point. The market moves based on the hope for gain and fear of loss. Now we have created a situation where the fear of loss is no longer in the equation if you are big enough. That is not healthy for the future of our economy.
As far as individuals go, I believe we should have a safety net. I don't want someone having a heart attack turned away from the ER. I also don't want them going to the ER for a cold if they aren't paying for it.
I don't know what the "right" system would look like in detail. Honestly it will never happen so I've never put serious thought into it. I believe a genuine safety net is short term, covers only the basics, and by design forces participants back into self sufficiency. Nothing should be free though. If you are on the government dole then you must not be working. If you aren't working then you must have time to go to a job training program, volunteer somewhere useful, or sweep the streets to make the community better.
Once you have all the other things on your list (which I agree to, to a significant extent), the whole reason for marriage, I think, ceases to exist.
Not for everyone. I love my wife and that crazy bible thing I read says I'm supposed to become one with her in marriage. the mormons, muslims, and jews probably have something along those lines too.
However, if you don't want to be married, no problem.
Strong supporter of mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws. My perspective being from the fire/EMS public safety side of things. There is a whole snowball chain of consequences most people don't grasp when you choose not to wear your belt/helmet and are in a serious accident.
It puts my life and limb at much greater risk because you will have greater injuries. My response method will be code 3 lights and sirens instead of just code 2 urgent, my time on scene will be much longer since I will have to use additional equipment and procedures to stabilize, and we will not be able to stick around to help others injured since you are now a life/limb priority and have to be moved immediately. This then requires additional resources to be brought on scene from our own department or neighboring departments, placing further strain on their ability to respond to incidents in their own areas since they're having to come out here as a mutual aid. Most line of duty deaths and injuries for my profession occur while responding to or from a call code 3.
You wearing your seatbelt/helmet greatly reduces the chances of your injuries being as serious, therefore scaling back the amount of response required for your care. Reduces my chances of getting hurt/killed on the job, and costs your local departments, and thus the taxpayers, less money. Your own medical bills are just the tip of the iceberg.
:2cents:
To bad we just can't tell them, hey you didn't wear your belt, so I'm not rushing off to get your dying ass to the hospital.
Interesting perspective. How far should we take that though?
A law banning fast food and junkfood would certainly have a knock on affect as well.
How about a ban on alcohol?
How about unprotocted sex?
Use of firearms by anyone not currently serving in a warzone?
Rear wheel drive vs front wheel drive in snow?
Driving a car rather than a covered wagon?
Getting out of bed for longer than your government mandated exercise period?
Getting out of bed for longer than your government mandated exercise period?
Is that in the Mrs. Obama plan for America? :p: wouldn't surprise me.
I'm a hypocrite in that category F3. Corporations too big to fail is a blatant falsehood. "corporations big enough to hire lobbiests", "corporations too crap to survive", "corporations i want to work at after i leave gov't" would be more accurate. Bad decisions have consequences. Strings of bad decisions have worse consequences. decades of... you get the point.
Agreed. It is 1984 newspeak and it is doubleplusgood. I see that as being a trademark of the republican party. The obvious examples are things with catchy names that misdirect, e.g. Patriot Act, No Child Left Behind, to name two. While the Dems are no better, this isn't one of their tactics, I fault the dems for being too "Marquis of Queensbury" in a street fight. The Republicans I admire for their guerrilla tactics, the ends justify the means so they don't feel the need to fight honorably, since the outcome is believed to be in the best interest of the country, even those to whom the best trickles down. The Dems would rather lose everything than their sense of playing by the rules. (not saying they actually always do play by the rules, but for the most part, they seem wedded to the rule book and calling FOUL every chance they get.)
GM should have folded. If they needed a government bail out then they should have filed bankruptcy and let the chips fall where the may. It would have been painful and bloodier but for a shorter period of time. More importantly the market would have been reset at that point. The market moves based on the hope for gain and fear of loss. Now we have created a situation where the fear of loss is no longer in the equation if you are big enough. That is not healthy for the future of our economy.
True, all businesses and entrepeneurs should be accountable for their business decisions and while the personal protection afforded by a corporation has its foundation in a good place that has been abused too often (e.g. Enron) In addition to the market being reset, most importantly what would be taught to the entire nation and world at large would be accountability and moral and ethical values, answering to a higher calling than one's financial self interest. Just as crummy parents will model crummy parenting skills to their kids, our countries leaders (as in LEADERS) are whooly responsible for setting the tone of moral and ethical behavior. Just as lack of fear of loss no longer being in the equation is bad for the economy, so is a lack of personal integrity. If the wealth is going to trickle down, I'm sure the moral bankruptcy will follow along.
As far as individuals go, I believe we should have a safety net. I don't want someone having a heart attack turned away from the ER. I also don't want them going to the ER for a cold if they aren't paying for it.
This somewhat follows with the previous point, re: people who feel they live in a world of integrity are more likely to behave as their role models do and will not likely run to the ER for the sniffles. There is another component to this aspect which involves improving primary care and follow up care. My BIL was working on a study that showed dramatic cost savings and reduction in unnecessary hospital visits resulting from minor improvements to primary care. (I posted a link to the video last year)
Another aspect of this relates to what Andrew Carnegie believed about the greater value to all of society by building schools, hospitals, and museums. His feeling was that if you paid a man a few dollars more he would just spend it on meat and beer, but if you withheld those dollars from everyone and used the accumulated money to build a school or museum, the entire community would be uplifted rather than each bloke having a bit more meat that week. Sadly, it seems that someone along the line decided, "Fuck the schools and museums, I can get even richer if I just pocket the money." Sure, you can do that, but at what greater long term cost? Not intangible costs, but indirect costs. I feel that the erosion of integrity by the LEADERS BY EXAMPLE may serve that one person but at a greater cost to society.
I don't know what the "right" system would look like in detail. Honestly it will never happen so I've never put serious thought into it. I believe a genuine safety net is short term, covers only the basics, and by design forces participants back into self sufficiency. Nothing should be free though. If you are on the government dole then you must not be working. If you aren't working then you must have time to go to a job training program, volunteer somewhere useful, or sweep the streets to make the community better.
Well, I think the right system will develop organically as people change themselves inside. All of the rules and government are creaeted one step at a time. At a certain point someone decided it was OK to lie, then from that decision new options are available that weren't before. Choices are made and still more options are opened. What it will take is people adopting a code of ethics and conduct. For example, To me it is obvious that allowing lobbying is very dangerous to integrity and the first politician who allowed it to be sugar coated was the pioneer blazing the trail of what is now a six lane highway.
When I lived at the monastery, the roshi was fond of saying that one of the things that set Buddhism apart from other religions was that it wasn't Atheistic, it wasn't Agnostic, it was Non-theistic. It does not see the existence of God as relevant to living a moral and ethical life. 2500 years ago Buddha put forth the following:
In the Kutadanta Sutta, the Buddha suggested economic development instead of force to reduce crime. The government should use the country's resources to improve the economic conditions of the country. It could embark on agricultural and rural development, provide financial support to entrepreneurs and business, provide adequate wages for workers to maintain a decent life with human dignity.
In the Jataka, the Buddha had given to rules for Good Government, known as 'Dasa Raja Dharma'. These ten rules can be applied even today by any government which wishes to rule the country peacefully. The rules are as follows:
1) be liberal and avoid selfishness,
2) maintain a high moral character,
3) be prepared to sacrifice one's own pleasure for the well-being of the subjects,
4) be honest and maintain absolute integrity,
5) be kind and gentle,
6) lead a simple life for the subjects to emulate,
7) be free from hatred of any kind,
8) exercise non-violence,
9) practise patience, and
10) respect public opinion to promote peace and harmony.
Regarding the behavior of rulers, He further advised:
- A good ruler should act impartially and should not be biased and discriminate between one particular group of subjects against another.
- A good ruler should not harbor any form of hatred against any of his subjects.
- A good ruler should show no fear whatsoever in the enforcement of the law, if it is justifiable.
- A good ruler must possess a clear understanding of the law to be enforced. It should not be enforced just because the ruler has the authority to enforce the law. It must be done in a reasonable manner and with common sense. -- (Cakkavatti Sihananda Sutta)
Strong supporter of mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws. My perspective being from the fire/EMS public safety side of things. There is a whole snowball chain of consequences most people don't grasp when you choose not to wear your belt/helmet and are in a serious accident.
It puts my life and limb at much greater risk because you will have greater injuries. My response method will be code 3 lights and sirens instead of just code 2 urgent, my time on scene will be much longer since I will have to use additional equipment and procedures to stabilize, and we will not be able to stick around to help others injured since you are now a life/limb priority and have to be moved immediately. This then requires additional resources to be brought on scene from our own department or neighboring departments, placing further strain on their ability to respond to incidents in their own areas since they're having to come out here as a mutual aid. Most line of duty deaths and injuries for my profession occur while responding to or from a call code 3.
You wearing your seatbelt/helmet greatly reduces the chances of your injuries being as serious, therefore scaling back the amount of response required for your care. Reduces my chances of getting hurt/killed on the job, and costs your local departments, and thus the taxpayers, less money. Your own medical bills are just the tip of the iceberg.
:2cents:
I first cottoned on to that while working on a video at a hospital ER. Every time there was a car crash and they heard "unrestrained" the intensity amped up tremendously. It was a much bigger deal at the hospital too.
Bullitt, my post was [COLOR="White"]*edit, cuz i'm stupid*[[/COLOR]
NOT not, i really meant NOT meant as screw you, but more of a where does it stop? Personally I feel those are all controls the federal government shouldn't be involved with. If the states want to do so and they can convince their voters to go for it, then more power to them. I seriously have a problem with the federal government expanding to control more and more of our lives.
Well, I think the right system will develop organically as people change themselves inside. All of the rules and government are creaeted one step at a time.
F3, I had no idea you were such an optimist. I see a nation on the decline, not one still developing. I personally think we've gone past the tipping point of "the greater good" and we'll just keep sliding through "i gotta get mine".
Lookout, I'm no optimist. I was speaking merely theoretically.
Im not sure he's a new dealer though.
Well how long has he been dealing?
For example, a born-again Christian (who will soon disappear with the others in the rapture, thank god) .
:lol2:
...btw this has been an interesting discussion for one who is still unsure about all these labels, thanks :)
With that platform Lookout could be a good president. He'd have to ice about a million parasites that lurk around Washington to make it work, but that would be regarded as one of his greatest achievements.
I think a progressive tax is better. I think the socially provided safety net should include education, medical care and financial support for those unable to work through age or illness, plus some kind of paid keep-you-busy work for the capable unemployed. Putting medical care in the safety net makes it appropriate to require people to take certain precautions, like seat belts.
The only thing I can see no reason for is your bigotry against bestiality. Suppose I have some chickens in the back yard. I am allowed to kill them and eat them, but I'm not allowed to stick my wang in them, not even in private. Can you tell me why not?
He'd have to ice about a million parasites that lurk around Washington to make it work,
I would support the use of a few well placed tactical nukes.
Well how long has he been dealing?
Oh, its been on the sly for quite a while now..
The only thing I can see no reason for is your bigotry against bestiality. Suppose I have some chickens in the back yard. I am allowed to kill them and eat them, but I'm not allowed to stick my wang in them, not even in private. Can you tell me why not?
Don't play with your food?
With that platform Lookout could be a good president. He'd have to ice about a million parasites that lurk around Washington to make it work, but that would be regarded as one of his greatest achievements.
I think a progressive tax is better. I think the socially provided safety net should include education, medical care and financial support for those unable to work through age or illness, plus some kind of paid keep-you-busy work for the capable unemployed. Putting medical care in the safety net makes it appropriate to require people to take certain precautions, like seat belts.
The only thing I can see no reason for is your bigotry against bestiality. Suppose I have some chickens in the back yard. I am allowed to kill them and eat them, but I'm not allowed to stick my wang in them, not even in private. Can you tell me why not?
1) Kill all the lawyers. Severely beat all remaining lobbiests.
2) I support all of those ideas on a state level. If you are using the safety net you should have to see the people paying for it.
3) I said no wangs in the neighbor's cat. Yours is yours.
I shalt not covet my neighbour's pussy.
Bullitt, my post was [COLOR="White"]*edit, cuz i'm stupid*[[/COLOR]NOT not, i really meant NOT meant as screw you, but more of a where does it stop? Personally I feel those are all controls the federal government shouldn't be involved with. If the states want to do so and they can convince their voters to go for it, then more power to them. I seriously have a problem with the federal government expanding to control more and more of our lives.
No worries I didn't take it as such. I agree it does have to stop somewhere because I too feel that government control over our lives should be as limited as possible, while still looking out for the greater good. Seatbelt/helmet is just an area I think government mandated usage is ok. In many other areas I would rather people left to make their own decisions.
1) Kill all the lawyers. Severely beat all remaining lobbiests.
2) I support all of those ideas on a state level. If you are using the safety net you should have to see the people paying for it.
3) I said no wangs in the neighbor's cat. Yours is yours.
Oooh! Pick me as your running mate.
I'd also like to ad a ban on "American" corporations that have their offices in the Bahamas and their manufacturing in any place other than the 50 states. No weasely loopholes.
I would support the use of a few well placed tactical nukes.
Neutron bombs and I'd be ok with it. Why leave a mess and destroy innocent buildings?
No worries I didn't take it as such. I agree it does have to stop somewhere because I too feel that government control over our lives should be as limited as possible, while still looking out for the greater good. Seatbelt/helmet is just an area I think government mandated usage is ok. In many other areas I would rather people left to make their own decisions.
But this is part of the problem. Everyone wants some special exemption or exception and we end up back where we started.
Which is why we have "Scofflaws"
I think you are confusing liberal and conservative with libertarian and authoritarian.
In my opinion, both liberals and conservatives have espoused authoritarian ideas. The concept of gay marriage is one example. The argument being that if gay couples are allowed to marry, it will 'spoil' marriage for some heterosexuals.
That's sort of like passing a law that only people who have more than $1 million dollars can own a Mercedes because otherwise millionaires will stop buying them.
Looking at the number of restrictive amendments to the Constitution proposed by 'conservatives', I can only wonder about the cries of 'states rights!' that went up during the Civil War and the Civil Rights era.
My political compass profile lists me as a libertarian leftist. In my opinion that means that as long as my neighbor doesn't engage in behavior that threatens me and adheres to some basic zoning concepts, I'm ok. Gay wedding in his backyard? I'll send a fruit basket;). Wild drug fueled screaming orgy in his pool? I'll buy earmuffs.
It's when he or she stockpiles a ton of explosives or wants to open a toxic waste site that I believe that I have the right to point to the zoning laws and/or basic rules on public safety.
The concept of gay marriage is one example. The argument being that if gay couples are allowed to marry, it will 'spoil' marriage for some heterosexuals.
That's sort of like passing a law that only people who have more than $1 million dollars can own a Mercedes because otherwise millionaires will stop buying them.
Actually, it's more like passing a law that only people who have more than $1 million dollars can own a Mercedes because otherwise baby Jesus would cry.
It's an understandable mistake Rich.
I think you are confusing liberal and conservative with libertarian and authoritarian.
In my opinion, both liberals and conservatives have espoused authoritarian ideas. The concept of gay marriage is one example. The argument being that if gay couples are allowed to marry, it will 'spoil' marriage for some heterosexuals.
That's sort of like passing a law that only people who have more than $1 million dollars can own a Mercedes because otherwise millionaires will stop buying them.
Looking at the number of restrictive amendments to the Constitution proposed by 'conservatives', I can only wonder about the cries of 'states rights!' that went up during the Civil War and the Civil Rights era.
My political compass profile lists me as a libertarian leftist. In my opinion that means that as long as my neighbor doesn't engage in behavior that threatens me and adheres to some basic zoning concepts, I'm ok. Gay wedding in his backyard? I'll send a fruit basket;). Wild drug fueled screaming orgy in his pool? I'll buy earmuffs.
It's when he or she stockpiles a ton of explosives or wants to open a toxic waste site that I believe that I have the right to point to the zoning laws and/or basic rules on public safety.
so much this.
its too late (well, early, at this point) for me to formulate a full response. but, this is a broad-strokes explanation of my own vision of libertarian liberalism/ libertarian-socialism. I believe that the role of government in telling people what they CAN'T do should be limited, but the role of government in telling people what economic/potentially-harmful-to-others rules they can enforce, especially when it comes to helping the poor and the sick and the otherwise needful, should be strong and positive.
Liberal means something different here than it does in my country, I think.
In my country, it means one who encourages more individual liberty, more education, and the idea that economy is best served by encouraging growth from the bottom up, not the top down, by which I mean free enterprise at the individual level, rather than that of huge corporations that do not need any help.
In this, I am definitely a liberal.
Oh it pretty much means the same thing here (or did when I was growing up) it's just that those values are heinous and unethical (as taught by our corporately funded popular culture propaganda machine.)
Oh it pretty much means the same thing here (or did when I was growing up) it's just that those values are heinous and unethical (as taught by our corporately funded popular culture propaganda machine.)
Yes, I am very puzzled by this "tea party". It is fascinating to watch people form crowds to yell for what's directly against their own best interests.
It is fascinating to watch people form crowds to yell for what's directly against their own best interests.
The tea party wants to cut X, Y, & Z. But when you ask them how much of Y should we cut, these same tea partiers say that don't want to cut Y. They just want to cut spending. But have no idea what really must be cut.
Simplest and most obvious cut: eliminate the paper dollar bill. That would save $1billion annually. But their political extremist handlers did not discuss that. So they have no idea that paper $1 bills should be or could be eliminated. They only know what their handlers (ie Limbaugh) have told them to believe. Including "we want Obama to fail".
When the tea party had their first 'convention', who were the most popular in polls? Gingrich? Bush? Palin? Cheney? Paul? Nope. Beck and Limbaugh scored the highest popularity numbers. After all, those who tell them how to think will always be most popular.
I can tell you what a liberal is not.
And that is someone who wants to amend the Constitution to take away rights or deny rights to citizens, as is currently high on the list of priorities for many conservatives and something that has only been done once in 200+ years (prohibition).
I shalt not covet my neighbour's pussy.
Yes you shall! I mean if she is hot....:D
I think we need to define the terms "neighbor" and "pussy" for starters [/bill clinton]
More on what a liberal is not.
A liberal is not one who believes that the phantom menace of sharia law is a threat to American society.
As potential GOP candidates jockey to distinguish themselves heading into primary season, there seems to be at least one issue on which they widely agree: Sharia law is a continuing threat to the United States.
Invoking Sharia and casting it as a growing danger at odds with American principles has become a rallying cry for conservatives. It’s also quickly becoming an unlikely pet issue among 2012 presidential contenders: Potential candidates have almost unilaterally assailed the Islamic code, making it as much a staple of the campaign stump speech as economic reform, job creation and rising gas prices.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/54605.html
Religious fear mongering is much more a conservative ideal.
found this online...
“This study represents a timely contribution to the debate developing around the country: To what extent is the Islamic politico-military-legal doctrine of Shariah being insinuated into the United States? The analysis complements and powerfully reinforces the warnings contained in the Center’s bestselling 2010 “Team B II” Report, Shariah: The Threat to America. It confirms that Shariah’s adherents are making a concerted effort to bring their anti-constitutional code to this country.
“Together with follow-on analyses now in preparation, we hope to equip those who share the Center’s commitment to the Constitution of the United States, to the liberties it guarantees and to the democratic government it mandates to thwart those like the Muslim Brotherhood who would supplant freedom with Shariah law. Clearly, we must work to keep America Shariah-free, or risk inexorably losing the country we love.”
Shariah Law and American State Courts: An Assessment of State Appellate Court Cases
On the releasing the study, the Center for Security Policy’s President, Frank J. Gaffney, Jr., observed: The facts are the facts: some judges are making decisions deferring to Shariah law even when those decisions conflict with constitutional protections. Others have asserted with certainty that state court judges will always reject any foreign law, including Shariah law, when it conflicts with the Constitution or state public policy. The Center’s analysis, however, found 15 trial court cases, and 12 appellate court cases, where Shariah was found to be applicable in these particular cases. put it that, “…There is scant evidence that American judges are resolving cases on the basis of shariah.” To the contrary, our study identified 50 significant cases just from the small sample of appellate court published cases. Some commentators have tried to minimize this problem, claiming, as an editorial in yesterday’s . The study evaluates 50 appellate court cases from 23 states that involve conflicts between Shariah (Islamic law) and American state law. The analysis finds that Shariah has been applied or formally recognized in state court decisions, in conflict with the Constitution and state public policy. - The Center for Security Policy today released an in-depth study--
cannot link though -
found this online...
cannot link though -
Frank Gafney is one of those conservatives who claim the Obama administration has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood
And, as in the case above, never provides documentation --> fear mongering.
phantom menace of sharia law is a threat to American society.
Out of curiosity, have you seen some of the info out of France regarding this?
never provides documentation --> fear mongering.
I hope you are not directing that at me, but rather the author...
It was a facebook link to an article. I was gonna look for the original, but I'm lazy. Figured someone else here might have seen/read ... whatever.
I don't think its that big of an issue, but I haven't researched much and that which I have seen is from the polar extremes.
Out of curiosity, have you seen some of the info out of France regarding this?
French leaders of the IMF pose a greater threat to American society that Sharia law.
I hope you are not directing that at me, but rather the author...
It was a facebook link to an article. I was gonna look for the original, but I'm lazy. Figured someone else here might have seen/read ... whatever.
I don't think its that big of an issue, but I haven't researched much and that which I have seen is from the polar extremes.
Directed at Gaffney, who also suggests that the Obama administration manipulated the redesign of the Missile Defense Agency to look like his campaign logo and then that the new logo incorporates the Islamic crescent as well.
What could be code-breaking evidence of the latter explanation is to be found in the newly-disclosed redesign of the Missile Defense Agency logo (above). As Logan helpfully shows, the new MDA shield appears ominously to reflect a morphing of the Islamic crescent and star with the Obama campaign logo. (For a comparison, the previous logo is below.)
http://biggovernment.com/fgaffney/2010/02/24/can-this-possibly-be-true-new-obama-missile-defense-logo-includes-a-crescent/
The fact remains that most of the current Republican candidates are playing to the fear of Sharia coming to America. Some are more extreme that others but all all fear mongering.
I was referring to Sharia law and its effect in France.
Sheesh, could you get off the talking points and have a conversation?
If not, just say that you're not interested in a dialogue.
I dont think a discussion of France is relevant to US liberalism or conservatism.
So, no. I am not interested in discussing France as a means of avoiding the fear mongering by conservatives in the US.
I am much concernced about the intolerance of Republican presidential candiates, some conservative talking heads and pseudo-media types who spread misinformation and fear based on inuendo and dubious if not downright ludicrious accusations that unfortunately some people believe.
I raised what I think is a legitimate and serious issue of most (not all) of the conservative Republican candidates for president and some (not all) American conservative "thinkers" playing to the anti-Muslim fears of some (not all) American conservative voters through unsubstantiated allegations, inuendo and guilty by association and you want to shift the discussion to Sharia law in France? WTF?
Why not just post one of your tasteless anti-Muslim jokes. :rolleyes:
(note the smiley)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fair&Balanced
phantom menace of sharia law is a threat to American society.
Originally Posted by Classicman
Out of curiosity, have you seen some of the info out of France regarding this?
I took Classic's post as a legitimate question. Your position appears to be that sharia law is no threat to American society. He asked if you had seen some of the repurcussions of the issue in France.
While I may be wrong about his intent, you have to admit that sometimes a question is just a question.
More legitimate than if you and I were having a discussion of liberal v conservative positions on the Second Amendment and I raised the issue of gun control in France and the EU?
More:
Here's another example. It is illegal for the media in France to publish pictures of "perp walks" with persons in handcuffs, until they are found guilty.
The point is the two systems of justice are different in many respects.
IMO, it was a convenient way to dodge the issue of the level of intolerance among the religious social conservatives in the US.
The same ones who want to amend the Constitution to deny rights to selected citizens.A liberal is not one who believes that the phantom menace of sharia law is a threat to American society. Religious fear mongering is much more a conservative ideal.
You brought it up initially.
Out of curiosity, have you seen some of the info out of France regarding this?
Question related to post...
French leaders of the IMF pose a greater threat to American society that Sharia law.
snark... back on talking point
The fact remains that most of the current Republican candidates are playing to the fear of Sharia coming to America. Some are more extreme that others but all all fear mongering.
more snark...
I was referring to Sharia law and its effect in France.
Sheesh, could you get off the talking points and have a conversation?
If not, just say that you're not interested in a dialogue.
2nd attempt ...
I don't think a discussion of France is relevant to US liberalism or conservatism.
So, no. I am not interested in discussing France as a means of avoiding the fear mongering by conservatives in the US.
So the reality is that you brought up a subject and when a legitimate question (related to the topic you brought up) was raised, you didn't actually want to discuss it.
and you say "WTF" :rolleyes:
And I pointed out why I thought it was illegitimate, irrelevant and a dodge, given the significant differences in the systems of justice.
So we disagree on legitimacy and I guess that makes me like UG? :rolleyes:
I took Classic's post as a legitimate question. Your position appears to be that sharia law is no threat to American society. He asked if you had seen some of the repurcussions of the issue in France.
While I may be wrong about his intent, you have to admit that sometimes a question is just a question.
As a liberal, I can find common ground for discussions with most fiscal conservatives. You and I demonstrated how that is possible.
When it comes to social issues, I find it much more difficult, particularly when the issue is deflected (to circumstances in a different country with different laws) by the other side rather than be addressed head on. IMO, that deflection is a common theme among religious social conservatives (not suggesting that Classicman fits that characterization, but simply that his deflection was characteristic).
The UG comment was a joke (see smilie).
There was no dodge. Just another post of yours bashing the "other team."
And yes, we disagree on the relevance.
The UG comment was a joke (see smilie).
There was no dodge. Just another post of yours bashing the "other team."
And yes, we disagree on the relevance.
So because we disagree and I explained why, I am "bashing" the other team?:rolleyes:
The problem with looking to France for the impact of sharia on their society is that there is just as much, probably more in fact, fearmongering about it there as F&B is suggesting for the States.
Much of the negative impact is actually to do with the protest/counter protest dynamic, rather than the effects of sharia itself. The stuff about the veil ban is a typical example. Whatever one's opinion on the veil, it seems overkill to legislate against an item of clothing which is/was only actually worn by a few thousand women (around 4000 I think) in the entire country.
Lot of histrionics about threats to native culture and enforced integration, which was only engaged in for electoral purposes. Being 'strong' on Islam is a little like being 'tough on crime'. All the politicians are vying against each other to be the toughest. Any politician who dares suggest that the situation should be looked at with a clearer head and maybe points out the smallscale of the 'problem' gets shouted down as 'soft' on Islamic fundamentalism.
Add to that the historic problem of fraught relations between white and arabic communities in France (legacy of their colonial era), and it is easy to see how such fearmongering finds a very easy audience.
We have a similar issue in the Uk but focussed on the Pakistani community rather than Arabic.
Seriously. Do not be looking across to Europe for a reasonable attitude to Islam and muslims.
So because we disagree and I explained why, I am "bashing" the other team?:rolleyes:
now now ... no need to get defensive.
I don't really see why you two are arguing. You seem to be at cross purposes rather than actually disagreeing as such.
Seriously. Do not be looking across to Europe for a reasonable attitude to Islam and muslims.
If the only place to find a reasonable attitude toward a group is within that group itself, then maybe there is a reason for that.
You know the old saw: "If someone tells you you are a horse, laugh at them. If two people tell you you are a horse, look in the mirror. If three people tell you you are a horse, then you'd better saddle up."
now now ... no need to get defensive.
I've tried to avoid any direct personal snipes.
But this, coming from one who appears to whine anytime someone might even raise a question about the intent or meaning of your posts? :rolleyes:
I'll save the discussion of what I believe is a level of intolerance among the religious social conservatives in the US for someone on the right more interested in an honest discussion of the issue.
You know the old saw: "If someone tells you you are a horse, laugh at them. If two people tell you you are a horse, look in the mirror. If three people tell you you are a horse, then you'd better saddle up."
How very intolerant.
[youtube imam]
You cannot get away with comparing the religion of peace to a horse! Where do you live? I need your address so I know where to send the death threats. [/youtube imam]
Except it isn't 'a group'.
There are lots of ways of being a muslim. There are lots of ways to enact sharia.
But if the politicians are to be believed then there's just the desert-dwellers and the woman-stoners to choose from.
well the squeaky wheel gets the grease.
How very intolerant.
[youtube imam]You cannot get away with comparing the religion of peace to a horse! Where do you live? I need your address so I know where to send the death threats. [/youtube imam]
Marvin Gardens...
I'll save the discussion of what I believe is a level of intolerance among the religious social conservatives in the US for someone on the right more interested in an honest discussion of the issue.
Perhaps that's your problem. you have me confused with someone on the right.
You posted:
More on what a liberal is not.
A liberal is not one who believes that the phantom menace of sharia law is a threat to American society.
Religious fear mongering is much more a conservative ideal.
You are the one who posted this in a thread - What does being a "Liberal" mean?" Not what a liberal
is not.
To me it was a cheap shot at a perspective you disagree with. Thats fine and dandy, just admit it. That is all I am saying.
well the squeaky wheel gets greased.
fixed:shotgun:
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. = PNAC so we may want to center the discussion on somebody credible...
That said, I'm not too big on misogynistic insular communities whether they vote Republican or not.
... and the woman-stoners...
Takes one to know one.
I wouldnt define either liberalism or conservatism by their most extreme elements...
Which, of course, I'm not, as I've stated I am relating my personal experiences.
...but rather by the broader consensus within their respective constituencies.
That sounds like a good idea. I would be very interested to see what you think that might look like.
fixed:shotgun:
Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. = PNAC so we may want to center the discussion on somebody credible...
That said, I'm not too big on misogynistic insular communities whether they vote Republican or not.
I get what you're saying, but the Republican party and by extension, conservatives in the US (as opposed to libertarians) is defined to a large extent by the religious social conservatives who IMO, include a vocal anti-Muslim voice, along with intolerance of gay rights, women's reproductive rights, etc.
Perhaps that's your problem. you have me confused with someone on the right.
You posted:
You are the one who posted this in a thread - What does being a "Liberal" mean?" Not what a liberal is not.
To me it was a cheap shot at a perspective you disagree with. Thats fine and dandy, just admit it. That is all I am saying.
And I am saying that you are the most defensive and patronizing person I have encountered here with your "now now" and other childish shots.
I apologized to you once for your overreaction to a post of mine in another discussion when I didnt feel it was necessary.
Dana had to placate your defensive overly sensitive reaction to her first response to your anti-Muslim joke in the tasteless jokes thread.
And again, I had to respond to your defensiveness earlier in this discussion when I clearly was referring to an article about fear mongering.
You wont get another apology from me. Grow up.
Dana? really? You are gonna drag her into this? She's further left than you.
Didn't ask for you to apologize - just to admit the truth. Why is that so hard.
Which, of course, I'm not, as I've stated I am relating my personal experiences.
That sounds like a good idea. I would be very interested to see what you think that might look like.
I dont think I ever said you were an extremist. In fact, I said we had an interesting discussion at one time just as I have with Lookout.
Defining liberalism by the broader consensus (and comparing it to consensus conservatism as I see it), I mean:
* supporting individual rights of minorities and women rather than denying their rights through constitutional amendments.
* supporting strong environmental, public health, workplace safety and consumer regulations as opposed to weak (or cosmetic) regulations and a reliance on voluntary industry compliance.
* supporting short term social safety net programs and not treating those who need temporary assistance as though they are responsible for that need; it could happen to any of us.
I could go on.
What I find humorous is the characterization by many conservatives of Obama as a left wing radical, bordering on socialism, when he is more of a centrist/moderate consensus liberal in many respects than Clinton was.
My misunderstanding, I had thought you were replying directly to me.
Interesting observation, each one of your items in the vanilla description of what it means to be a Liberal is stated in the terms of how Liberals differ from [strike]Conservatives[/strike] some "other" position. I wonder if its even possible, these days, to describe a position without employing this device. I've been remarking for years that people vote "against" rather than "for" candidates. Similar thing here? Thoughts?
* supporting individual rights of minorities and women rather than denying their rights through constitutional amendments.
* supporting strong environmental, public health, workplace safety and consumer regulations as opposed to weak (or cosmetic) regulations and a reliance on voluntary industry compliance.
* supporting short term social safety net programs and not treating those who need temporary assistance as though they are responsible for that need; it could happen to any of us.
My misunderstanding, I had thought you were replying directly to me.
Interesting observation, each one of your items in the vanilla description of what it means to be a Liberal is stated in the terms of how Liberals differ from [strike]Conservatives[/strike] some "other" position. I wonder if its even possible, these days, to describe a position without employing this device. I've been remarking for years that people vote "against" rather than "for" candidates. Similar thing here? Thoughts?
The comparisons weren't necessary but I thought brought an added perspective.
Just as I think it is more interesting for discussion purposes to define consensus liberalism and conservatives in how they are reflected in real programs and real policies as opposed to a more academic description.
IMO, consensus liberalism in those terms is not as extreme as consensus conservatism in current American politics
Using the examples from above and current public policy issues:
Consensus liberals dont want to force people to accept gay marriages in their churches, they just want gay couples to have equal marital rights under law. Or to promote abortions or force people to accept abortions, but simply to allow a woman's right to choose. The other side is much more extreme with policy positions to amend the Constitution to deny these rights.
Consensus liberals dont want strong environmental regulations because they are tree huggers or want to protect some endangered species no one every heard of, but because clean air and clean water is beneficial to the quality of life or our species. As opposed to trusting industry to voluntarily meet comparable guidelines.
Consensus liberals want more investment in clean energy, not to save the world from global warming, but because it makes both economic and environmental sense as opposed to "drill baby drill" and $billions in subsidies and tax breaks for five big oil companies making $hundreds of billions in profit.
Consensus liberals recognize the need to compromise on government spending but think a small tax increase on the top bracket should be part of the solution to reducing the debt as opposed to the consensus conservative position that tax increases on the top bracket is non-negotiable.
The Affordable Care Act with its public/private partnership is consensus liberalism as opposed to a more extreme government single payer system, yet the ACA is demonized by conservatives as socialism and government takeover of health care.
You may not agree, but I think current policies and programs of the two major parties defined by their liberal and conservative members reflect the above.
added:
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being extreme conservatism, 5 being moderate and 10 being extreme liberalism, I would put consensus conservatism in current American politics at a 2 and consensus liberalism at a 7. That is, consensus liberalism is closer to the center, if only marginally and consensus conservatism more extreme.
Hmmm...
Interesting that you state your points and they seem to make sense. Lookout states his points and they also seem to make sense.
I want to put your two summaries in a spreadsheet and determine if you actually disagree about anything, or are touching on completely different "hot spot" issues.
This reminds me of how my wife tells me that such-and-such a person "agrees with her" on a particular issue. My response is, of course they agree with her--she has certainly told them things that are almost impossible to disagree with! But, does that relate to reality? No, it doesn't. That is just being a clever, persuasive speaker.
The ideas/ideals are hard to argue. The conflict comes when you try to figure out how to achieve that particular goal, especially when you consider the unintended consequences.
If someone really is a "consensus" liberal or conservative they are ending up in the same place out of necessity. To claim that one's own position is more centrist is natural and wrong-headed. It means we're pretending the other side is all extremists therefor we don't have to reach consensus with them. It also means we probably don't spend much time listening to the other parties moderates about what their values are.
Well, I'm a conservative so my values are hate and intolerance. or so I've been told.
If someone really is a "consensus" liberal or conservative they are ending up in the same place out of necessity. To claim that one's own position is more centrist is natural and wrong-headed. It means we're pretending the other side is all extremists therefor we don't have to reach consensus with them. It also means we probably don't spend much time listening to the other parties moderates about what their values are.
I disagree
Consensus means commonly held. I base it on public opinion, widely accepted policies and practices, etc.
There is a commonly held position, i.e. consensus, that a woman should have the right to chose, with limited exceptions. An extreme position is to deny those rights under any circumstances. Or, the current Republican candidates' focus on Sharia law as a threat to the US is not based on any evidence that such a threat exists.
A system of progressive taxation is the consensus system because it has been widely accepted as the "fairest" system since the income tax was first introduced 75+ years ago and is widely accepted in every industrial nation in the world. A flat tax system is extreme.
But, I dont characterize the two extremes in the same manner. The first is extremely intolerant of the rights of others. The second is just an extreme departure from current policies and practices.
Well, I'm a conservative so my values are hate and intolerance. or so I've been told.
If you dont want your church to conduct gay marriages, that is between you and your church and not intolerant. If you want the government to prohibit the right of a gay couple to marry or have the same rights as married couples, that is imposing your religious values on the broader society; values that dont have consensus support, and IMO, intolerant.
The same does not apply to supporting a flat tax. Different issues and different meaning of extreme.
added:
I think the intolerance shows up in the social issues where, more often than not, they are defined by religious doctrine. But then again, I think most organized religions are intolerant to some degree.
Fiscal issues (tax policy, regulatory policy, etc) are defined more by political ideology rather than religious doctrine.
We happen to agree on these issues as framed, but a generation of voters has to die off before complete gay rights are the consensus. You appear to be basing your belief of what constitutes consensus on agreement with yourself and like-minded people. I forget whose sock puppet I'm addressing, (if you are a one label poster I apologize) but I'm going to guess that you are middle-aged urbanite, since your "consensus" ideas reflect that background. Where I live, the consensus positions are gun rights, low tax rates, and individual responsibility. If I only talked to locals I'd never suspect that 1/2 the country doesn't buy it.
We happen to agree on these issues as framed, but a generation of voters has to die off before complete gay rights are the consensus. You appear to be basing your belief of what constitutes consensus on agreement with yourself and like-minded people. I forget whose sock puppet I'm addressing, (if you are a one label poster I apologize) but I'm going to guess that you are middle-aged urbanite, since your "consensus" ideas reflect that background. Where I live, the consensus positions are gun rights, low tax rates, and individual responsibility. If I only talked to locals I'd never suspect that 1/2 the country doesn't buy it.
No, I am not basing consensus on myself and like-minded people. I thought I was clear that I am basing it on broad national public opinion (not any one selected community) and/or widely held and long-term policies and practices.
I dont see a need to address the sock pocket comment.
I dont see a need to address the sock pocket comment.
I must be crankier today than I thought.
What percentage would you put on consensus? I'd say it has to be broad enough to encompass about 68% of the population so you can drop the nutters off each end of the bell curve.
I must be crankier today than I thought.
What percentage would you put on consensus? I'd say it has to be broad enough to encompass about 68% of the population so you can drop the nutters off each end of the bell curve.
I would put the percentage as somewhere between one half and two thirds.
But, I'll use your nutters on the end of the bell curve as an example.
You posted earlier that Frank Gafney is an extremist and I agree. But I would suggest that when the conservative Republican presidential candidates espouse his position that Sharia law threatens the American lifestyle because they believe such a position will help raise their credibility with conservative voters, then the nutter end of the bell curve on the conservative side is wider than just the most extreme nutters.
On the issues of abortion and gay marriage, I would never suggest that opposing those issues is extremist, given that nearly half the country probably hold that view. Counseling young women against abortions is not extreme unless it crosses over to intimidation and spreading misinformation. And I said earlier that if one does not want to have his church sanction gay marriage, I dont think that is extreme or intolerant.
The extremism is the idea of legislating that moral position through a Constitutional amendment denying rights to a segment of society. This has significantly less support, yet is the official platform of the Republican party. Again, that extreme end of the bell curve on the conservative side is wider than just the nutters.
On the issue of lower taxes that you raised, particularly for the middle class, who doesnt support that?
But when all of the Republican candidates support a flat tax or flatter tax (like lookout's), they are not support lower taxes. They are support equalizing the tax rates (or coming closer) among all taxpayers in the form of tax simplification. As I pointed out in another thread, the flatter tax would raise taxes on those current paying no tax by 10% (lookout's proposal) and raise taxes on the middle class (who currently benefit from lots of deductions) by 15%. The only taxpayers not paying significantly more under his proposal are the wealthy.
IMO a tax policy that is so drastically altered, not to lower taxes, but to make the working poor and middle class pay a higher percentage or a "fairer" share, not to mention the adverse affect it would have on the economy (middle class paying 15% more are not likely to have much more disposal income to spend), that is extreme.
You are right on the structure of taxes. The GOP candidates are being deceptive about the level of taxation people would face and the nature of the cuts in services they'd need to balance a budget. I don't want to see the top tax rate go much over 1/3 because I think that does have the effect of suppressing economic activity. That said, we have to end all those deductions out there so people do pay their share. We do face what is essentially a national debt emergency so a temporary higher rate may be necessary.
I think tax simplification is a longer term issue than the immediate need to address the debt.
In terms of temporary higher rates, keep in mind that the 01 and 03 tax cuts were intended to be temporary and to have expired last year. They did little to stimulate the economy and in fact, the cuts to the top bracket were probably the single most significant factor, in terms of lost revenue, in contributing to the debt over the last 5-8 years. A return to the Clinton marginal rate of 39% (as opposed to the current 36%) still keeps the effective rate below your 33% ceiling and the wealthiest taxpayers would still be paying at or near their lowest taxes in 50 years.
In terms of "paying a fair share," that depends on how we define fair. IMO, tax rate equalization is not fair and places a far greater tax burden on those with far less disposal income.
I find the term "zero liability voter" thats been tossed around here (not by you) to be offensive. Anyone who works hard, pays other taxes (payroll, sales, etc) is contributing to the best of their financial ability.
I got thinking about this thread when I found out the only serious opposition to the Patriot Act continuance was Rand Paul. Right or wrong there should have been some serious public discourse on this one. Did Obama put out a justification statement? I'm assuming the GOP candidate will support this, but for now it looks like a strike against the "liberal".
Rand Paul wasnt the only one to vote against this Patriot Act extension.
The vote was 72-23 in the Senate, with Rand being the only Republican to vote NO. The others were all liberal democrats.
And, IMO, having voted for it in the Senate and now signing the latest extension. this is another reason that I would suggest the Obama is not as liberal as some suggest. There was no justification statement, just
a one sentence press statement.Obama is not as liberal as some suggest.
Very much yes. He has let down the liberal wing of the party over and over. He has made definitely positive liberal/progressive strides, but he has also taken downright conservative stances on many issues, especially on national security and civil liberties.
IOW he has represented the majority of the people of the nation, and well done he will be reëlected.
I agree. I think he's done a great job as president - but it could have been better, from my point of view. President Obama is actually MORE, not LESS, moderate than Candidate Obama.
Agreed.
On the
surveillance state front.
Mr. Crow seems alternately astonished, angered and flattered by the government’s attention. “I’ve had times of intense paranoia,” he said, especially when he discovered that some trusted allies were actually spies. I agree. I think he's done a great job as president - but it could have been better, from my point of view. President Obama is actually MORE, not LESS, moderate than Candidate Obama.
That is what usually happens. During the election, candidates will try to appeal to their specific party base. Once they get elected, they will need to deal with members of the other party and interests that cross party lines.
snip--
F3, I had no idea you were such an optimist. I see a nation on the decline, not one still developing. I personally think we've gone past the tipping point of "the greater good" and we'll just keep sliding through "i gotta get mine".
Lookout, I'm no optimist. I was speaking merely theoretically.
Perhaps you two are not optimists. Perhaps you once were, I don't know. Clearly you both recognize that state of mind. I consider you a couple of the most rational, articulate, intelligent people I know (who are only coincidentally fellow dwellars). You are not optimists--ok. But I have a question for you.
What are you teaching your children? What do you tell them with your words and what do you show them with your actions? Defensive cynicism? Acquisitive greed? To move up by pushing others down?
Something else? I have paid attention to you over the years and I don't find these sentiments consistent with what I have seen you share about your parenting journey. Maybe you're not optimists, but I see hope in the next generation. This is what makes *me* an optimist--Dads like you.
That sounds an awful lot like thinking would be involved in answering that question. So it may be a day or two for me to really come up with something sincere as opposed to snappy.
Go grab a few beverages and pull up a chair while I dust off the ol' brain cell and see if I can get it to spark.
Today's episode of The Sean Hannity Show has been brought to you by the letter "L." The L stands for "liberal," boys and girls, which is what Sesame Street is trying to turn tykes into with its secret anti-family agenda.
[INDENT][YOUTUBE]3Ypsojc5vFg[/YOUTUBE][/INDENT]
Teaching diversity, resolving personal conflicts peacefully instead of fighting, encouraging gay boys to be prom queens (I missed this episode)....
I laughed out loud to watch Mr Hannity walk right over the woman's line at 4:00.
She says, "the secular humanist liberals believe that human nature is good, and conservatives do not".
Well, dear conservatives, is this really true, you believe human nature is not good?
That sounds an awful lot like thinking would be involved in answering that question. So it may be a day or two for me to really come up with something sincere as opposed to snappy.
Go grab a few beverages and pull up a chair while I dust off the ol' brain cell and see if I can get it to spark.
I love to hear you think, so take your time. I've already made note of what I seen that you've done. I am interested to hear what your "sincere" response will be and how much distance there will be between those words and your actions to this point.
For the record, when I have to choose between believing one's actions *or* believing one's words, I almost always choose actions.
Here's what's funny: I'm watching this crap on my phone...they're going for farce, right? But on my tv is Ferris Bueller's Day Off. Reason always wins, eventually. Don't blink, you might miss it.
I agree. I think he's done a great job as president - but it could have been better, from my point of view. President Obama is actually MORE, not LESS, moderate than Candidate Obama.
I'm thankful for that... the further my President is from either extreme, the better I like it.
Today's episode of The Sean Hannity Show has been brought to you by the letter "L." The L stands for "liberal," boys and girls, which is what Sesame Street is trying to turn tykes into with its secret anti-family agenda.
[INDENT][youtube]3Ypsojc5vFg[/youtube][/INDENT]Teaching diversity, resolving personal conflicts peacefully instead of fighting, encouraging gay boys to be prom queens (I missed this episode)....
"Yeah, I kind of want to take them out back and cap em". Even though this guy is talking about puppets, I kind of found it disturbing that no one called him on that statement.
I wonder what this guy thought of
Davey and Goliath, I just find it funny that when a church espouses kindness, understanding, love, etc, conservatives don't say a word. If any kind of secular group says the same think, suddenly it's a 'liberal agenda'.
I'm thankful for that... the further my President is from either extreme, the better I like it.
:beer:
"Yeah, I kind of want to take them out back and cap em". Even though this guy is talking about puppets, I kind of found it disturbing that no one called him on that statement.
I wonder what this guy thought of Davey and Goliath, I just find it funny that when a church espouses kindness, understanding, love, etc, conservatives don't say a word. If any kind of secular group says the same think, suddenly it's a 'liberal agenda'.
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
Perhaps you two are not optimists. Perhaps you once were, I don't know. Clearly you both recognize that state of mind. I consider you a couple of the most rational, articulate, intelligent people I know (who are only coincidentally fellow dwellars). You are not optimists--ok. But I have a question for you.
What are you teaching your children? What do you tell them with your words and what do you show them with your actions? Defensive cynicism? Acquisitive greed? To move up by pushing others down?
Something else? I have paid attention to you over the years and I don't find these sentiments consistent with what I have seen you share about your parenting journey. Maybe you're not optimists, but I see hope in the next generation. This is what makes *me* an optimist--Dads like you.
I don't consider myself an optimist in any way shape or form. I think I'm a realist with a healthy dose of jaded cynicism.
What I try to teach my kids is as follows:
-Your life is your own, so make one you can be proud of
-Don't expect an organization to help you, that's what family and friends are for
-Help those around you as much as you can when they need it, part of real help is showing them how to do it themselves next time
-Shiny badges, nice suits, and perfect smiles aren't equivalent to good. Dirty clothes, surly attitudes, and obvious flaws aren't equivalent to bad.
-Don't ever live in fear, you can only die once and that is inevitable anyway so take appropriate risks while you can and live life to the full
Perhaps you two are not optimists. Perhaps you once were, I don't know. Clearly you both recognize that state of mind. I consider you a couple of the most rational, articulate, intelligent people I know (who are only coincidentally fellow dwellars). You are not optimists--ok. But I have a question for you.
What are you teaching your children? What do you tell them with your words and what do you show them with your actions? Defensive cynicism? Acquisitive greed? To move up by pushing others down?
Something else? I have paid attention to you over the years and I don't find these sentiments consistent with what I have seen you share about your parenting journey. Maybe you're not optimists, but I see hope in the next generation. This is what makes *me* an optimist--Dads like you.
I love to hear you think, so take your time. I've already made note of what I seen that you've done. I am interested to hear what your "sincere" response will be and how much distance there will be between those words and your actions to this point.
For the record, when I have to choose between believing one's actions *or* believing one's words, I almost always choose actions.
I don't consider myself an optimist in any way shape or form. I think I'm a realist with a healthy dose of jaded cynicism.
What I try to teach my kids is as follows:
-Your life is your own, so make one you can be proud of
-Don't expect an organization to help you, that's what family and friends are for
-Help those around you as much as you can when they need it, part of real help is showing them how to do it themselves next time
-Shiny badges, nice suits, and perfect smiles aren't equivalent to good. Dirty clothes, surly attitudes, and obvious flaws aren't equivalent to bad.
-Don't ever live in fear, you can only die once and that is inevitable anyway so take appropriate risks while you can and live life to the full
I often quote the following ( I don't know who said it but no one would dispute you if you blamed Mark Twain or Oscar Wilde, though it sounds more like Ambrose Bierce)
"An Optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds, and the Pessimist thinks the Optimist is right."
That sums it up nicely for me, and I don't feel I fit in either camp but sympathize more closely with the pessimist.
I try to show my kids there is no Hope. Hope is profoundly passive and encourages thinking of oneself as a victim or powerless at best. There is only what you do and what you put effort into.
[YOUTUBE]94d4mUMIN3c&start=155s[/YOUTUBE]
You can hope into one hand and shit into the other and see which one fills up first.
I try to show them that good manners never go out of style
I try to show them how to establish personal boundaries and to stick together with family and friends.
I try to show them how to think and use reason to solve problems, to be forthcoming and honest when they make mistakes or break things, etc. And to own up to their actions even when they might rather blame someone else.
In short, they'll make sucky politicians, lawyers, or wall street tycoons. But they will be people who you would want to have over for dinner or have in your corner in a fight.
In short, they'll make sucky politicians, lawyers, or wall street tycoons. But they will be people who you would want to have over for dinner or have in your corner in a fight.
It sounds like you are raising them just fine. They'll be quite alright when we are all hiding in the mountains from the politicians, lawyers, and wall street tycoons. (listing all 3 seems redundant)
I dont recall any liberal claiming that he/she is running for president because it is a calling from God, unlike the current crop of conservative Republicans.
Herman Cain: "God said, 'Not yet. I've got something else for you to do.' And it might be to become the president of the United States of America."
Michelle Bachman: "If I felt that's what the Lord was calling me to do, I would do it....When I have sensed that the Lord is calling me to do something, I've said yes to it....If I am called to serve in that realm I would serve"
Rick Santorum: "It really boils down to God's will. What is it that God wants? ... We have prayed a lot about this decision, and we believe with all our hearts that this is what God wants."
So if God telling them all to run, which one is He endorsing?
Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
The crazy train is up an running.
Marvin Gardens...
There's a Marvin Gardens downtown.
I'll get a picture tomorrow.
I dont recall any liberal claiming that he/she is running for president because it is a calling from God, unlike the current crop of conservative Republicans.
Herman Cain: "God said, 'Not yet. I've got something else for you to do.' And it might be to become the president of the United States of America."
Michelle Bachman: "If I felt that's what the Lord was calling me to do, I would do it....When I have sensed that the Lord is calling me to do something, I've said yes to it....If I am called to serve in that realm I would serve"
Rick Santorum: "It really boils down to God's will. What is it that God wants? ... We have prayed a lot about this decision, and we believe with all our hearts that this is what God wants."
So if God telling them all to run, which one is He endorsing?
" But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter,
they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Obama
mercy, you're elusive because you just don't stay on topic. you don't have any compunctions against conflating the most disparate and irrelevant statements. you do this all the time. I want to keep up, but you don't talk in a straight line, with contiguous thoughts. It's frustrating because I bet you have some good ideas, not all the good ideas of course, but the ones you probably have are practically impossible to discern. If I thought you were just being deliberately difficult or nuts, I'd ignore you--I don't think those things.
So, for example, how would you reply to F+B's question? I read your post, it's practically a non-sequitor.
mercy, you're elusive because you just don't stay on topic. you don't have any compunctions against conflating the most disparate and irrelevant statements. you do this all the time. I want to keep up, but you don't talk in a straight line, with contiguous thoughts. It's frustrating because I bet you have some good ideas, not all the good ideas of course, but the ones you probably have are practically impossible to discern. If I thought you were just being deliberately difficult or nuts, I'd ignore you--I don't think those things.
So, for example, how would you reply to F+B's question? I read your post, it's practically a non-sequitor.
This is the main problem I have with arguing with Merc. It's like trying to plait fog.
It's like trying to plait fog.
I love that turn of phrase.
You sound better, Dana. I'm glad.
Considerably so, thanks Pete :)
Some characteristics of a modern American liberal:
- a willingness to compromise.
- a willingness to increase taxes on themselves.
mercy, you're elusive because you just don't stay on topic. you don't have any compunctions against conflating the most disparate and irrelevant statements. you do this all the time. I want to keep up, but you don't talk in a straight line, with contiguous thoughts. It's frustrating because I bet you have some good ideas, not all the good ideas of course, but the ones you probably have are practically impossible to discern. If I thought you were just being deliberately difficult or nuts, I'd ignore you--I don't think those things.
No, what you and others want to do is place me and what I think into some nice little box you recognize and understand as a familiar thing. You will never be able to do that. :D
So, for example, how would you reply to F+B's question? I read your post, it's practically a non-sequitor.
My response is exactly how he responded, but it didn't come from an list of quotes from Herman Cain and other Republickin presidential want-to-bes and a discussion of God, it came from Obama and his attacks on rural people who believe in God and guns and all those other evil things that are tearing this country apart. Rigggghhttt...:rolleyes:
(And no, I don't even go to church.:p:)
It is an in-kind response.
Some characteristics of a modern American liberal:
- environmentally friendly gas-guzzlers
- sustainably harvested ammunition
- organic bibles
I remember what it was like. I was young and full of ideas--I knew the right answer for everything. There were policies that I believed would be best for the country, and for the human race. Many people didn't agree with these ideas, but that was because, you see, they were stupid. You know, studid, racist, Bible-thumpers.
And if they didn't want to go along with the progress of humanity, they would have to be dragged along kicking and screaming. And once all the obsolete oldtimers passed away, the rest of us could really get on with it. It was importnat to stand for things that needed to change. Old-fashioned ideas that weren't needed anymore.
I believed, at that time (although I never would have admitted to it in these terms, but the concept is unavoidable), that a legitimate use of the government would be to impose ideas on some people "for their own good" simply because the rest of us were so convinced that we had all the answers.
I don't believe that anymore.
I'm still a believer... and much of what you said above is true in PDX.
We are still dragging them kicking and screaming....
Portland Enacts Plastic Bag Ban
By Sophia Bennett
August 24, 2011
Portland is the most recent city to ban plastic bags from many retail stores.
On July 28, 2011, the Portland City Council passed a resolution stating that,
as of October 15, 2011, large grocery stores and various big-box stores cannot
distribute plastic carryout bags to their customers.
“We really wanted to try to reach the biggest generators of plastic bags first,”
says Lisa Libby, Planning and Sustainability Director for Portland Mayor Sam Adams.
That’s why the City Council targeted the stores where people make the most frequent trips.
<snip>
Senate Bill 536 would have banned single-use plastic bags “except in certain cases,”
such as seafood retailers that pack fish on ice.
The bill was approved by the [Oregon] Senate, but ultimately did not pass in the House.
With the failure of SB 536, Portland quickly went back to work finding its own solution.
Libby is still optimistic that a statewide law on plastic bags will pass at some point.
“We hope that resolutions from jurisdictions will move us toward a more comprehensive state policy,” she says.
To help local residents prepare for the bag ban, city officials have been handing out reusable shopping bags for years.
We did that a few years back. The sky did not fall, life goes on, and my green hippy bags sit in the car.
Great, so now we use paper bags and kill more trees. Deforestation here we come!
Contrariwise; the bags are made from durable cloth and are reusable indefinitely.
Except I saw some idiot TV news-type show warning us about the dangers of getting our reusable bags dirty, then carrying food products in them. Nitwit reporter ends by recommending that we can wash them regularly, or "throw them out and get new ones". :smack: :facepalm:
DC started taxing the plastic bags. It's basically a commuter tax. It has worked. When I go into the shops around here to pick up one or two items, I just hold them or put them in my pockets now.
I believed, at that time (although I never would have admitted to it in these terms, but the concept is unavoidable), that a legitimate use of the government would be to impose ideas on some people "for their own good" simply because the rest of us were so convinced that we had all the answers.
I don't believe that anymore.
I'm still a believer...
Myth: Paper bags are a better environmental choice than plastic bags.
Fact: Paper takes more water and energy to produce than plastic and since paper is heaver, the environmental impact is greater to truck paper bags from the manufacturing facility to a warehouse and then to a store. Whatever your choice, paper or plastic, be sure to reuse or recycle them or use a reusable bag.
Believe on, you hippies. It will make you FEEL like you've done something, which is important to you.
Your choice of bag has less impact than the fuel used to start your car to go to the market, and plastic bags are just as easy to recycle as paper, and it takes a ton more manufacturing to make "reusable" bags, and to wash them properly requires hot water and detergent. So the question remains which is actually better... but whatever!
This is like the TSA, where the important thing is for people to FEEL safe, not for people to BE safe. You need to FEEL like you've done something, even if you haven't.
Now this is subtle: while Portland was burning calories telling people which bag to use, how many more meaningful, more important questions were left hanging?
DC started taxing the plastic bags. It's basically a commuter tax. It has worked. When I go into the shops around here to pick up one or two items, I just hold them or put them in my pockets now.
Is that a loaf of bread in your pocket...?
Great, so now we use paper bags and kill more trees. Deforestation here we come!
Cotton: It's what's for dinner, or something...
Is that a loaf of bread in your pocket...?
No, actually. But it sure is nice to see you.
DC started taxing the plastic bags. It's basically a commuter tax. It has worked. When I go into the shops around here to pick up one or two items, I just hold them or put them in my pockets now.
Witness unintended consequences: no bag means more trips, means more energy used.
Thing about plastic bags is that some people don't recycle or throw them away properly. They end up on the ground, and then get washed into the gutter and down the storm drain and into the local river, where they get tangled up on the shore and look like crap and also might kill some wildlife. If that happens with a paper bag, when it rains, it just gets all mushy and disintegrates in a few weeks.
Witness unintended consequences: no bag means more trips, means more energy used.
You need more pockets.
For me, it makes no real difference. I'm always on foot when I'm shopping in DC, so I'm only ever buying an item or two. A greeting card, or a book, or a toner cartridge, etc. I would always just take the bag because it was too much effort to talk to the clerk and tell them I didn't want one, and I really didn't care either way. But now that each bag costs 10 cents, or something like that, they always ask, and I always say no.
Witness unintended consequences: no bag means more trips, means more energy used.
Aldis charges for their bags and I have noticed that a lot of shoppers there are starting to bring their own. If other stores did the same because of a tax, that would end up being the
intended consequence.
Believe on, you hippies. It will make you FEEL like you've done something, which is important to you.
<snip>
Now this is subtle: while Portland was burning calories telling people which bag to use,
how many more meaningful, more important questions were left hanging?
Such as ? Let us know and we'll get right them.
.
.
.
Your choice of bag has less impact than the fuel used to start your car to go to the market, and plastic bags are just as easy to recycle as paper, and it takes a ton more manufacturing to make "reusable" bags, and to wash them properly requires hot water and detergent.
Wash them properly?
Watchoo talkin bout Willis? I only wash them if something spills, and even then I just toss them in the next load I'm doing anyway.
As for the disposable bags, when I run low on them I pay the 5 cents to DC, and use plastic ones as garbage can liners, and paper ones ('cause they stand up on their own) to store and transport my recycling.
But now that each bag costs 10 cents, or something like that, they always ask, and I always say no.
5 cents tax, plus some stores (even beforehand) would give a 5 cent rebate for bringing a bag. So bringing a bag can save you 10 cents.
Not using a bag at all only saves you the five, though.
Wash them properly?
Watchoo talkin bout Willis? I only wash them if something spills, and even then I just toss them in the next load I'm doing anyway.
Your bag is now contaminated with everything that can contaminate fruits and vegetables, which is more than we suspect. So, if you would wash that
cantaloupe this afternoon, wash your bag more often, would be my advice.
Deforestation will always continue, but there are things you can do to help the environment.
Always remember the three "R"s:
Reduce the amount of plastic and waste products you have to use.
Reuse things like water bottles, foam trays, and plastic shopping bags as much as you can.
Recycle bottles, cans, newspaper, cardboard and other recyclables.
70% of Earth’s land animals and plants live in forests, and many cannot survive the deforestation that destroys their homes.
Forest soil is generally moist, but can quickly dry out without the protection of a forest canopy.This can also majorly effect the animals living in that particular climate.
Fewer forests means larger amounts of greenhouse gases entering the atmosphere.
Deforestation is an important worldwide problem, but there is a reason that map stops at 1920: after that, the US was the model of RE-forestation, and today it would look more like 1850 than 1920.
For the 300 years following the arrival of Europeans, land was cleared, mostly for agriculture, at a rate that matched the rate of population growth. For every person added to the population, one to two hectares of land was cultivated. This trend continued until the 1920s when the amount of crop land stabilized in spite of continued population growth. As abandoned farm land reverted to forest the amount of forest land increased from 1952 reaching a peak in 1963 of 3,080,000 km² (762 million acres). Since 1963 there has been a steady decrease of forest area with the exception of some gains from 1997. Gains in forest land have resulted from conversions from crop land and pastures at a higher rate than loss of forest to development. Because urban development is expected to continue, an estimated 93,000 km² (23 million acres) of forest land is projected be lost by 2050, a 3% reduction from 1997.
thanks UT. I didn't know that.
Yeah I was first amazed by a pamphlet on New Hampshire forests, which said that NH was something like 98% forest in 1700, 20% forest 100 years ago, and 95% forest today. I can't remember the exact figures but it was on that level, enough to be sort of shocking.
(Someone tell the local food movement that they are encouraging American deforestation!)
In doing a little reading on this. (I'm avoiding sanding the drywall)
I found
this site. Some good points. I have no idea how valid they are though.
For those who don't go to links ...
Where it comes from: Paper.
Paper comes from trees, and the pulpwood tree industry is large. It begins with logging, where select trees are found, marked, and felled. After they're cut, roads are built into the forest on which the large machinery, used to load and transport the timber, can be moved. This process creates a tremendous scar in the forests natural habitat(s), for both plant and animal. It can take over a century for nature to recover from even a small logging operation. Addedly, if the small operation clears only 10 acres, many hundreds of acres surrounding are affected due to the extreme interplay/interdependency in nature.
Let it be added further that a large amount of heavy machinery is used, all having its own story on how it came to be, all needing its own upkeep, and all needing its own fossil fuel, to operate. On top of this, there is the human element. Logging is dangerous. Extreme fatigue, long term physical handicaps, and numerous accidents plague the less-than-wealthy loggers.
Logs are moved from the forest to a mill. Whence they reach a mill, there is a three year wait before they can be used, allowing proper drying. When the time comes, the logs are stripped of bark, and chipped into inch-wide squares. They are stored until needed, and then cooked with tremendous heat and pressure. After this, they are are "digested" with a limestone and sulphurous acid for eight hours. The steam and moisture is vented into the outside atmosphere, and the original wood becomes pulp. For every ton of pulp made it takes over three tons of wood, initally.
The pulp is washed and bleached, both stages requiring thousands of gallons of clean water. After this, coloring is added to more water, and is then combined in a ratio of 1 part pulp to 400 parts water to finally make paper. The pulp/water "brew" is dumped onto a web of bronze wires, the water showers through, leaving the pulp, which, in turn, is rolled into finished paper.
It must be noted that this is the paper making process. All cutting, printing, packaging, and shipping, requires additional time, labor, and energy, on top of the already exorbant amounts of capital, electricity, chemicals, and fossil fuels used.
Where it comes from: Plastic.
Plastic comes from oil, and the oil industry is no small operation. In many places around the world, and in the U.S., sites exist where the geologic conditions are such that a gas and oil concentration has been trapped. Upon location of these traps, a hole is drilled and a pipe rammed into the oil deposit. The oil is pushed to the surface due to pressure in its chamber, and also from the weight of earth above. The oil drilling operation, itself, has become a rather small and sterile undertaking. An oil drilling/pumping rig is roughly the size of a house, and very little oil is spilled, anymore. Literally, you could 'mine' oil in your backyard.
At the drilling site, a storage drum is filled, and, when full, the content oil is loaded into trucks, but sometimes piped, to a refining facility. This is where plastic is made.
Plastic comes as a by-product of oil refining, and uses only 4% of the total worlds oil production. It is a 'biogeochemical' manipulation of certain properties of oil, into polymers, that behave 'plastically.' Plastic polymers are manufactured into 5 main types, of which, plastic bags are made of the type known as Polyethylene. Raw Polyethylene comes from oil refineries as resin pellets, usually 3-5 mm diameter, by 2-3 mm tall. The raw material, as it is called, since it is plastic, can be manipulated into any shape, form, size, or color. It is water tight, and can be made UV resistant. Anything can be printed on it, and it can be reused.
Since plastic is so maliable, there are numerous process used to turn plastic into finished goods. To make bags, a machine heats the Polyethylene to about 340 F and extrudes, or pulls out from it, a long, very thin, tube of cooling plastic. This tube has a hot bar dropped on it at intervals however long the desired bag is to be, melting a line . Each melt line becomes the bottom of one bag, and the top of another. The sections, then, are mearely cut out, and a hole that is to be used as the bags' handle is stamped in each piece. Further finishing may be done such as, screen printing, however, for the majority of bags, it's off to the stores, etc., where they will be used.
With the exception of large, fuel burning, heavy machinery, used in the aquisition of oil, the entire plastic bag making process uses only electricity. The electricity used from start to resin/raw material is mostly nuclear. The power used in the bag manufacturing, for the most part, comes from coal fire power plants. One interesting note is that approximately 50% of the electricity generated from coal burning power plants is not from coal at all, it is, in fact, wrought from the burning of old tires, they being made of rubber, which is plastic.
couple more ...
Impact: Paper.
The recycling of paper is essential in cutting down on landfills: each day, enough paper is recycled to fill a fifteen-mile long train of boxcars. When this statistic was taken in 1993, only 40 percent of paper used was being recycled. That left a lot that was thrown into landfills. By the year 2000, it is estimated that 78 percent of all paper used in the United States will be recycled, as well as 15 percent of all paper overseas.
Buying recycled paper is usually more expensive than buying virgin paper products, but the government, in an attempt to encourage recycling, presented purchasing mandates that can allow a 10 to 15 percent price premium so that it can compete with other cheaper paper products.
Another factor to consider is water pollution. The making of paper, whether virgin or recycled, uses many thousands of gallons of clean water that can soon become polluted in the papermaking process. Virgin paper creates 35 percent more water pollution than recycled paper. Recycled paper also creates 74 percent less air pollution than virgin paper. However, both types of paper can contribute to contaminating area waters. Scientific evidence shows that fish can experience adverse effects through chemicals that reside in sediment. It can more than three years for any level of toxicity to lower.
Impact: Plastic.
Plastic impacts in two ways: First, it hits the environment in its use of electricity when being manufactured. More than half of the power needed to make plastic bags is generated by nuclear fission. While controversial, it is argued that nuclear power puts no direct harm or detriment into the environment. The only drawback to nuclear power is the radioactive waste, which is, so far, being safely diposed of in deep underground caves. And, in deep sea trenches where the nuclear waste is subducted into earths mantle and incinerated.
Pertaining to the rest of the electricity needed to make plastic bags, coal fire does pollute. But, plastic can be burned. In fact, the burning of plastic will yield from 10,000 to 20,000 btu per pound, of which 60% can be recovered. As stated above, plastic is burned to create electriciy, hence, we could use plastic to make plastic, and reduce sulphur emissions from coal.
There is the question, though, of recovery of energy by burning plastic. This, too, causes controversy but only because of mental block. If 93% of all oil is burned straight away, why can't the 4% used as plastic have a second life as energy? The burning of plastics isn't without its drawbacks. Inks and additives to some plastics can create dioxins, and emit heavy metals when burned. Also, after being burned, the toxic ash still needs to be disposed of in toxic wase dumps. Another problem with the incineration of plastic is the arguement that the energy produced by the process doesn't justify the misuse of a limited natural resource. The plastics already produced are better utilized by making new plastic materials by recycling.
The second way plastic impacts is through landfills. Plastic will never break down; It will never disappear. Biodegradeable plastic is a misnomer because wood fiber has been mixed with the plastic so when buried, the wood dissolves leaving a million tiny pieces of plastic, instead of one bag. As stated, plastics make up 18% of waste by volume, and 7% by weight. If plastic were to be replaced in its uses by other materials, rubbish weight would increase by 150%, packaging would weigh 300% more, and energy consumed by the industry would increase by 100%. It has been found that the reduced weight of plastic has spillover benefits, elsewhere. Reduction of weight in aircraft saves an average of 10,000 gallons of fuel per plane, per annum, world over. In automobiles, it is directly responsible for doubling the fuel efficiency since the 1970's. Applied to plastic bags, they reduce weight in landfills; They take up less space. This being in light of the discovery that most landfills are air tight, not allowing decomposition, leaving readable newspapers and chicken bones with meat still on them.
Conclusion
The making of paper can waste many thousands of gallons of water, as can the recycling of paper. The human and mechanical efforts and costs are very high, not forgetting the physical cost to loggers and those who work around the numerous chemicals. Plastic is, by comparison, efficient and low energy to produce, and, easily and efficiently recycled. Plastic reduces, recycles marvelously, and in that, is reused. After contrasting the efforts behind the making of paper and plastic, it is our unbiased opinion that plastic is indeed more beneficial to the environment, in that it is less harmful. The next time you are asked the dreaded question, "Paper or plastic?", you can answer knowing that you are making the informed choice.
My concern is less about paper or plastic, but more about reuseable vs disposable. If we used more products that could be used over and over and less that got thrown out after a single use, we could help the environment. I use more metal, glass, and fabric as containers than trash bags, zip loc baggies, saran wrap, or plastic store carry bags. I'm trying to eliminate them altogether, but it's a slow process.
That site is obviously highly skewed toward plastic. Look at these words:
Paper -
All cutting, printing, packaging, and shipping, requires additional time, labor, and energy, on top of the already exorbant amounts of capital, electricity, chemicals, and fossil fuels used.
Vs.
Plastic -
The oil drilling operation, itself, has become a rather small and sterile undertaking.
and
Plastic is, by comparison, efficient and low energy to produce, and, easily and efficiently recycled. Plastic reduces, recycles marvelously, and in that, is reused.
and
Plastic comes as a by-product of oil refining, and uses only 4% of the total worlds oil production.
And I don't know where they come up with this:
The electricity used from start to resin/raw material is mostly nuclear.
I highly doubt this is true, though I don't have time to research it right now, but I strongly question most of the statements and conclusions in this article.
The power used in the bag manufacturing, for the most part, comes from coal fire power plants. One interesting note is that approximately 50% of the electricity generated from coal burning power plants is not from coal at all, it is, in fact, wrought from the burning of old tires, they being made of rubber, which is plastic.
It's one of those issues where fighting about it is more important than determining truth.
I did learn that most plastic bags in this country are made from natural gas.
I noticed that too HLJ... Thats partly why I prefaced the post.
Personally, I use whats there if I don't have my own there. My biggest issue is two things. 1) I forget to put them in the trunk after unloading the groceries and 2) I forget them IN the trunk when I go to the store.
Its easy to forget until it starts costing you when you do.
Yeah I was first amazed by a pamphlet on New Hampshire forests, which said that NH was something like 98% forest in 1700, 20% forest 100 years ago, and 95% forest today. I can't remember the exact figures but it was on that level, enough to be sort of shocking.
I took an ecology course in college and one of the books we read was
Changes in the Land. I loved that book, it spends a lot of time talking about just this. There was a series of photographs in there taken from a hillside in Connecticut, I believe. It showed a forested valley, and then rolling farmland and fields, and then a forested valley again. Anyone who has hiked through the woods and seen stone walls should hopefully be aware at how much the land has changed.
Then there's how they'll accost you and demand your receipt as you leave the store because, being unofficial bags, you could very well have stuffed stuff in one of them as you were shopping and gone through the "cashier yourself" lane and be all like 'oh I didn't use that one' or 'oh that's my purse' when all they believe is that you sure look like the kind of person who would steal the latest Adam Sandler vehicle along with a DVD of some fat 'professional' wrestler's many antics.
@Pico - nah - I usually run out and get them at the end. Or I send son2 back for them.
Anyone who has hiked through the woods and seen stone walls should hopefully be aware at how much the land has changed.
There is a lot of that around here as well.
The stone wall obviously means that there used to be open fields there before. Another lesser know sign is when you look at the trees and you see trees with branches reaching out to the sides. In old forests, the trees are all tall with branches that point up reaching for the light through the canopy. In younger forests, where trees started growing in abandoned farmlands, the branches reach out to the sides because the light was all around. When you start to look for it, you can see it easily in different forests. Many forests now are a mixture, where you have older mature trees that are all branched out, and younger trees that are all skinny trying to get to the available light up high.
Wow, some thoughtful discussion here.
Reforestation is good, but is it a natural mix of many different species, or a huge monoculture of one or two profitable species?
The forestry companies here are very happy to announce how they replant with "native species", but they certainly didn't leave things how they found them.
...
The forestry companies here are very happy to announce how they replant with "native species", but they certainly didn't leave things how they found them.
Well, how could they?
Mixed plantings. Mix shrubs and ground cover and open spaces, endemic trees. "Native" does not mean the same species that was there before.
They could, but I'm not saying they should. Just noting that "reforestation" comes in different kinds. A timber plantation is unlikely to have rich biodiversity, but does make for more efficient timber production. That is okay by me, but they shouldn't try and spin it as eco-heroism.
Then there's how they'll accost you and demand your receipt as you leave the store because, being unofficial bags, you could very well have stuffed stuff in one of them as you were shopping and gone through the "cashier yourself" lane and be all like 'oh I didn't use that one' or 'oh that's my purse' when all they believe is that you sure look like the kind of person who would steal the latest Adam Sandler vehicle along with a DVD of some fat 'professional' wrestler's many antics.
[YOUTUBE]6RzcvFLPg1A[/YOUTUBE]
Today was Veterans Day in the US, and similarly celebrated elsewhere.
It is a day to remember the men and women who have served in the military,
and to realize the situations of families who have lost members in times of war.
It's also a time when generations misunderstand one another
because they do not have the same shared experiences.
World War II vets had a view of what life should be,
and molded the US government to fit that view.
To them, the government was not the beast-to-be-starved.
Agencies were created to meet the needs of private citizens.
Unions formed and the seeds of racial tolerance were embedded.
Political parties had their differences, but as viewed today they were definitely "moderate".
Twenty years later, the Viet Nam War drove a wedge between
young men and those WWII vets, who had become "the establishment".
Young men faced decisions about whether to serve in a so-called "immoral war".
Love It or Leave It - Draft Dodgers - Peaceniks - Long Haired Hippies
During all this, the boots-on-the-ground military changed complexion.
The Black and Hispanic communities were enlisted far beyond their numbers,
while college deferments and Canada were ways out for those who rejected military service.
So a military draft was established ---
But when the numbers of dead and wounded hit the middle class,
the anti-war revolt began in earnest.
Thirty-five mostly peaceful years later, the generations are missing one another again.
Support for the military actions in the middle east is flagging.
Military families, and especially the National Guard and Reserve, are stretched to breaking.
This "volunteer army" has almost borne the weight of this war alone,
while other citizens went about their private lives without being affected.
Today, there has been many talking heads on TV, and these issues are being discussed.
Some have said there is a need to involve the entire nation in this war on terrorism.
Involvement seems to mean "skin in the game" and there was discussion of calling for a draft.
But strangely enough, the soldiers of the Viet Nam era are now the officer corps,
and they speak highly of the quality of the current "volunteer" military.
As a liberal, it is hard for me to view the idea of a draft with equanimity.
My own young adult phase came during that Viet Nam era,
and those ideas are the ones that mean the most to me.
If it were a perfect world, a draft could be a way to "distribute the pain"
and to give more citizens a "stake" in the outcomes of political decisions.
But it's not a perfect world.
The "have's" will always find their way out of the "bad",
and the "have-not's" will end up carrying the loads.
.