recent headlines have riled me up, so here's a quick gripe about something that has been bothering me for a while...
spin. perception vs. reality.
big current example? the artfully (if completely inappropriately) named "patriot act." if you don't give up basic american freedoms, you're unpatriotic!
politicians are masters of using words to hide or deflect unpleasant truths. sometimes, the new semantics are used to justify illegal actions. here is my "top ten" list of current favorites, and their appalling true meanings:
10- national security letter = subpoena for personal records (bank, email, phone, medical, whatever) with no judicial oversight
9- terrorism threat advisory scale = convenient distraction from government actions at key moments
8- coalition of the willing = co-conspirators
7- liberation force = invading army
6- detainee = prisoner of war
5- combatant status review = deny "detainees" right to trial, allows them to be held without charges
4- military tribunal act = geneva convention rights don't apply to "detainees"
3- black sites = secret cia prisons in countries where human rights are not guaranteed by law
2- enhanced interrogation methods = torture
1- economic stimulus = election year bribe
don't get me wrong. i am very patriotic. i love this country, and feel that it is a choice and rare land of freedoms. my fear is that it can't remain so if we continue to permit a corrupt government to repeal freedoms, commit war crimes, and bankrupt the economy for their own profit.
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
america will reduce its dependence on foreign oil!
we don't have a choice! when the oil is gone, so will our dependence!
last night on pbs there was an interesting aha moment. you know the little spots they run for corporations who helped sponsor the program you just watched? this one was from exxon/mobile. or as most people think, the richest incarnation of satan yet.
the whole thing was one employee saying the most exciting project of his whole career is his current one. developing new lithium ion battery technology. to most people, this would seem to be nothing more than a pr stunt. you know, like big tobacco ad's for their quit smoking website, or any oil company showing their commitment to wind or solar. this one struck me different.
having just read some finance articles online about exxon/mobile's investments. the article mentioned how even with people crying for blood in the wake of record high gas prices and record high oil company profits, they aren't putting capital into increased oil production or refining capacities. they're not funding exploration to find new oil deposits. they're investing in a broad and diverse stock portfolio. why? so they can continue to fleece the public? no. they diversify for the same reason they are researching battery technology.
there is no more oil to be found. at least nothing worth the cost of finding and extracting. they are investing in their future. they are finding a way to exist when the oil runs dry! impossible, you say? if you haven't heard of "peak oil," you will. google it. it is scary, and it will so drastically change our society, and our lives, that our grandkids will marvel at our stories of gasoline engines the way we marveled at how grandpa rode a horse to school!
in a nutshell, "peak oil" means that global production of oil (extraction and delivery to market) has peaked, or will peak within 10 years. that means, the number of barrels produced each day will never be higher, and will likely begin to decline. the big catch is, global demand is increasing more and more each year. as china fights to follow the development of korea and japan, an entirely new demand for oil will raise that global demand even faster!
don't believe it? think it's bunk? remember the mid 70's when there was a gas shortage to the extent that there were long lines at the pumps, and many places were forced to ration it? most any site you find by googling "peak oil" will have a graph showing that that is when u.s. oil production peaked. the national demand continued to grow, even while production fell. so why do we still drive gas powered cars with mileage not much better than the 70's? we began to import more oil than we produced. the gap has steadily widened ever since.
gas prices jump almost daily. the only defense is "supply and demand." why doesn't opec increase production? just because they like the prices high? come on! they know the higher the price, the more people will scream for alternatives. the more people will resent and try to free themselves from oil dependency. a billion $140 barrels is $140 billion. 1.5 billion $100 barrels is $150 billion. if they can make as much by increasing production as they can by increasing price, why opt for the high price that puts them in risk of losing their customers?
they can't increase production. or at the very least, the can't sustain it. the higher their production, the faster they run dry and lose all the wealth and power they have accumulated!
how big a deal is it? how high can gas prices really go? gas prices could easily top $10/gallon by 2020. it's a big deal, because gas prices are only the most obvious indicator of the problem. is the economy really hurting that bad because the national average is now over $4/gal? no. it's that, combined with inflation like no one has seen in decades. everything costs more. everything. higher fuel costs mean higher transportation costs. as people shift from oil to natural gas or electricity, those costs go up, so our utilities go up, while production costs on most everything we buy goes up.
unfortunately, that's only one side of it. apart from energy, we are only now starting to hear about how much oil we use without realizing it. plastic. plastic is made from petroleum. think about how much plastic you see around you. that includes a lot of the synthetic fibers in our clothing. (polyester) don't just think of the plastic products, think of all the plastic packaging. think about styrofoam. think of all the "disposable" plastic items. remember that empty water bottle, or plastic fork, or grocery bag it just oil that we throw in the garbage!
and of course the news lately if full of riots and panic as food prices begin to rise dramatically. apart from the oil used to power the tractors and equipment, most of the fertilizers and pesticides are made from petroleum! who knew? i know i was surprised by that one. food, is also one area, where part of the oil "cure" is actually killing us! e85 ethanol. it takes almost as much energy to produce as we get out of it. (think petroleum fertilizer, and machinery). plus, it's not only corn we can't eat, but it's farmland that used to grow wheat! (think sky-high wheat prices).
the real problem is, we started late. we let rich, powerful oil companies and automakers dig us into a hole, when we should have been finding alternative solutions 30 years ago! hybrids are a bandaid. electric vehicles need electricity that has to come from somewhere. hydrogen can't be purchased at the local 7-11. all of the most promising solutions, are suffering from lack of infrastructure. vital infrastructure that will take decades to put in place. decades that will cost us dearly!
last night on pbs there was an interesting aha moment. you know the little spots they run for corporations who helped sponsor the program you just watched? this one was from exxon/mobile. or as most people think, the richest incarnation of satan yet.
the whole thing was one employee saying the most exciting project of his whole career is his current one. developing new lithium ion battery technology. to most people, this would seem to be nothing more than a pr stunt. you know, like big tobacco ad's for their quit smoking website, or any oil company showing their commitment to wind or solar. this one struck me different.
having just read some finance articles online about exxon/mobile's investments. the article mentioned how even with people crying for blood in the wake of record high gas prices and record high oil company profits, they aren't putting capital into increased oil production or refining capacities. they're not funding exploration to find new oil deposits. they're investing in a broad and diverse stock portfolio. why? so they can continue to fleece the public? no. they diversify for the same reason they are researching battery technology.
there is no more oil to be found. at least nothing worth the cost of finding and extracting. they are investing in their future. they are finding a way to exist when the oil runs dry! impossible, you say? if you haven't heard of "peak oil," you will. google it. it is scary, and it will so drastically change our society, and our lives, that our grandkids will marvel at our stories of gasoline engines the way we marveled at how grandpa rode a horse to school!
in a nutshell, "peak oil" means that global production of oil (extraction and delivery to market) has peaked, or will peak within 10 years. that means, the number of barrels produced each day will never be higher, and will likely begin to decline. the big catch is, global demand is increasing more and more each year. as china fights to follow the development of korea and japan, an entirely new demand for oil will raise that global demand even faster!
don't believe it? think it's bunk? remember the mid 70's when there was a gas shortage to the extent that there were long lines at the pumps, and many places were forced to ration it? most any site you find by googling "peak oil" will have a graph showing that that is when u.s. oil production peaked. the national demand continued to grow, even while production fell. so why do we still drive gas powered cars with mileage not much better than the 70's? we began to import more oil than we produced. the gap has steadily widened ever since.
gas prices jump almost daily. the only defense is "supply and demand." why doesn't opec increase production? just because they like the prices high? come on! they know the higher the price, the more people will scream for alternatives. the more people will resent and try to free themselves from oil dependency. a billion $140 barrels is $140 billion. 1.5 billion $100 barrels is $150 billion. if they can make as much by increasing production as they can by increasing price, why opt for the high price that puts them in risk of losing their customers?
they can't increase production. or at the very least, the can't sustain it. the higher their production, the faster they run dry and lose all the wealth and power they have accumulated!
how big a deal is it? how high can gas prices really go? gas prices could easily top $10/gallon by 2020. it's a big deal, because gas prices are only the most obvious indicator of the problem. is the economy really hurting that bad because the national average is now over $4/gal? no. it's that, combined with inflation like no one has seen in decades. everything costs more. everything. higher fuel costs mean higher transportation costs. as people shift from oil to natural gas or electricity, those costs go up, so our utilities go up, while production costs on most everything we buy goes up.
unfortunately, that's only one side of it. apart from energy, we are only now starting to hear about how much oil we use without realizing it. plastic. plastic is made from petroleum. think about how much plastic you see around you. that includes a lot of the synthetic fibers in our clothing. (polyester) don't just think of the plastic products, think of all the plastic packaging. think about styrofoam. think of all the "disposable" plastic items. remember that empty water bottle, or plastic fork, or grocery bag it just oil that we throw in the garbage!
and of course the news lately if full of riots and panic as food prices begin to rise dramatically. apart from the oil used to power the tractors and equipment, most of the fertilizers and pesticides are made from petroleum! who knew? i know i was surprised by that one. food, is also one area, where part of the oil "cure" is actually killing us! e85 ethanol. it takes almost as much energy to produce as we get out of it. (think petroleum fertilizer, and machinery). plus, it's not only corn we can't eat, but it's farmland that used to grow wheat! (think sky-high wheat prices).
the real problem is, we started late. we let rich, powerful oil companies and automakers dig us into a hole, when we should have been finding alternative solutions 30 years ago! hybrids are a bandaid. electric vehicles need electricity that has to come from somewhere. hydrogen can't be purchased at the local 7-11. all of the most promising solutions, are suffering from lack of infrastructure. vital infrastructure that will take decades to put in place. decades that will cost us dearly!
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
how do you choose a candidate?
what kind of citizen are you? are you too lazy and/or apathetic to vote? (thanks for nothing! show up, or shut up!) if you do vote, what influences you the most?
do you choose the candidate who best:
• represents your social concerns?
• shares your core values?
• exemplifies leadership?
• protects you financially?
• keeps our country safe?
• maintains our individual freedoms?
• cares for the environment?
• helps minorities?
• deals with our global position and perception?
• meets several of the above?
be honest. do you research your choice? and no, campaign ads don't count. (really, you shouldn't count tv news channels either.) are you actively involved, or are you more passive?
do you choose the candidate who:
• is the most attractive?
• speaks the most eloquently?
• is more entertaining?
• is your gender/race/religion?
• has the best tv ads?
• is from your state?
• cheers for your sports team?
don't laugh! you know there are people who would never admit it, but if they looked hard, would find only one (or more) of these "reasons" behind their choice. but that's not the worst! the scary fact is, many, many people vote based on something far less substantial:
do you vote for the candidate who:
• represents your political party?
if this is you, your only excuse is if you are neither republican nor democrat. if you vote for any of the "third party" candidates, i'm letting you off the hook. (though i hope at least some of the reasons from my first list apply!) likewise, if you vote for a democrat or a republican because of anything on the first list, you're forgiven. otherwise, what's the point?
you're perpetuating one of the biggest problems in our nation. the "two-party" system. you've joined the gang warfare mentality. you happily vote for who "they" tell you to. way to be free!
and don't give me the "the party represents me" crap! they don't represent you. they use you! the only thing they want from you (aside from you money) is your vote, and the only thing they'll ever give you is a victory or a list of reasons to hate/fear the other party.
you know how they choose their candidates right? the person who best represents the party platform. right. in your dreams! they choose the person who has the best chance of beating the other party. period. if you were guaranteed to beat the other party's candidate, you would absolutely get the nomination. ok, nothing's guaranteed. they may not choose you if: you're a gay, environmental, abortion doctor (republican) or the outspoken evangelical ceo of a giant corporation (democrat)
to wrap up, let me plead with you to seriously consider all the candidates, not just two. chances are, you'll find a third party candidate who fits your "list one" criteria at least as well as the republican/democrat. plus they won't have to vote with the party on anything. (because third parties don't get them elected, the people do.)
finally, if you were going to base your vote solely on list two or three, then don't! pick a third party and "throw away" your vote that way. until enough people do, we are stuck with our current quagmire. stop saying it will never happen, (even though you wish it would) vote for it to happen, and encourage others to do the same!
do you choose the candidate who best:
• represents your social concerns?
• shares your core values?
• exemplifies leadership?
• protects you financially?
• keeps our country safe?
• maintains our individual freedoms?
• cares for the environment?
• helps minorities?
• deals with our global position and perception?
• meets several of the above?
be honest. do you research your choice? and no, campaign ads don't count. (really, you shouldn't count tv news channels either.) are you actively involved, or are you more passive?
do you choose the candidate who:
• is the most attractive?
• speaks the most eloquently?
• is more entertaining?
• is your gender/race/religion?
• has the best tv ads?
• is from your state?
• cheers for your sports team?
don't laugh! you know there are people who would never admit it, but if they looked hard, would find only one (or more) of these "reasons" behind their choice. but that's not the worst! the scary fact is, many, many people vote based on something far less substantial:
do you vote for the candidate who:
• represents your political party?
if this is you, your only excuse is if you are neither republican nor democrat. if you vote for any of the "third party" candidates, i'm letting you off the hook. (though i hope at least some of the reasons from my first list apply!) likewise, if you vote for a democrat or a republican because of anything on the first list, you're forgiven. otherwise, what's the point?
you're perpetuating one of the biggest problems in our nation. the "two-party" system. you've joined the gang warfare mentality. you happily vote for who "they" tell you to. way to be free!
and don't give me the "the party represents me" crap! they don't represent you. they use you! the only thing they want from you (aside from you money) is your vote, and the only thing they'll ever give you is a victory or a list of reasons to hate/fear the other party.
you know how they choose their candidates right? the person who best represents the party platform. right. in your dreams! they choose the person who has the best chance of beating the other party. period. if you were guaranteed to beat the other party's candidate, you would absolutely get the nomination. ok, nothing's guaranteed. they may not choose you if: you're a gay, environmental, abortion doctor (republican) or the outspoken evangelical ceo of a giant corporation (democrat)
to wrap up, let me plead with you to seriously consider all the candidates, not just two. chances are, you'll find a third party candidate who fits your "list one" criteria at least as well as the republican/democrat. plus they won't have to vote with the party on anything. (because third parties don't get them elected, the people do.)
finally, if you were going to base your vote solely on list two or three, then don't! pick a third party and "throw away" your vote that way. until enough people do, we are stuck with our current quagmire. stop saying it will never happen, (even though you wish it would) vote for it to happen, and encourage others to do the same!
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
political correction
has anyone had the time to get a sum total of what all presidential candidates spend during an election? or even just during the primaries. i haven't made the time, because i know the amount would appall me more than what i already imagine. you always see articles about how much hillary got at a fundraiser, or how many millions mitt spent in a given state. the numbers are astronomical, and grow every year. does anyone else wonder what other, better purposes that money could serve? plus this just perpetuates our system of government where your chances of being elected is determined most by how much you can raise and spend on a campaign. (which in turn perpetuates our flawed "two party system.")
what if, instead of the various much-talked-about yet never enacted "campaign reforms," all candidates, regardless of party or name recognition, were given an equal number of print ads, and tv and radio spots in each state, and were barred from purchasing more. what if all candidates were thusly equalled, and the only benefit to be gained from fundraising was to show how much your campaign was donating to charity, or sponsoring programs that the government no longer will? sure, establish a set of constitutional standards, so these equal shares of advertising aren't wasted on some nut-job who just want his fifteen minutes. just let the money be used for something useful, or at least less corrupt than buying political favors, which is all making large campaign donations is. this would also let the voters of all fifty states learn about all the candidates. since i don't live in iowa or new hampshire, i don't hear a near as much. worse still, i'm in utah, which is so notoriously republican that neither party wants to "waste" their money on advertising here.
long term, let's work for some meaningful, helpful campaign reform. short term, let's just vote for a third party candidate!
what if, instead of the various much-talked-about yet never enacted "campaign reforms," all candidates, regardless of party or name recognition, were given an equal number of print ads, and tv and radio spots in each state, and were barred from purchasing more. what if all candidates were thusly equalled, and the only benefit to be gained from fundraising was to show how much your campaign was donating to charity, or sponsoring programs that the government no longer will? sure, establish a set of constitutional standards, so these equal shares of advertising aren't wasted on some nut-job who just want his fifteen minutes. just let the money be used for something useful, or at least less corrupt than buying political favors, which is all making large campaign donations is. this would also let the voters of all fifty states learn about all the candidates. since i don't live in iowa or new hampshire, i don't hear a near as much. worse still, i'm in utah, which is so notoriously republican that neither party wants to "waste" their money on advertising here.
long term, let's work for some meaningful, helpful campaign reform. short term, let's just vote for a third party candidate!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)