It was the mid-seventies, a time when the tried-and-true traditional approaches to education, society, and morals were being revised (some might say dismantled) by the political left. I attended a “progressive” high school. No tests or grades, only a “go/no go” rating. I graduated 4th out of 325 having never taken a course in American history, literature, civics, or foreign language. You could say I experienced educational malpractice.
Imagine my shock when I arrived at college. So I played catch-up, hit the books, and eventually majored in music. Musicians seem to be predominately liberal, so it shouldn’t be surprising that the music department was a bastion of liberal philosophy. Being nominally liberal myself, I fit right in with the required intellectual conformity.
I graduated with a teaching certificate and taught K-12 band and choir for five years. And voilà, there was liberal conformity in the teachers lounge as well. We all agreed about politics, lack of funding, too large class sizes, and nosey parents who actually wanted to know what their children were being taught.
Fast forward to today. Things haven’t changed much. Same complaints, same structures, same philosophies. What has changed is that I saw the light and became a conservative. Now, we conservatives value education, we are simply skeptical of government experts, bureaucrats isolated in their cubicles thousands of miles away, deciding the fate of our children. That is not unreasonable skepticism.
There are some who assert that parents ought to bow out and let these experts handle things. Nope, not when we are the ones writing the check. Schools are funded by our tax dollars, so we have all the justification we need to get involved. This is not anti-education, it is prudence. Government serves the people, not the other way around.
Most would agree that public schools have a growing image problem, sometimes deserved, sometimes not. But there are times when they shoot themselves in the foot. The big news always is when poor schools fail spectacularly, but rather than taking steps to fix the problem, schools too often circle the wagons.
I do hear good things Bozeman schools, but some of what I read makes me wonder. For example, a student was recently featured on the Chronicle’s front page, not for his accomplishments, but because of who he sleeps with. And one of the elementary schools is regularly featured engaging in their latest multicultural love-fest. Hawk Tawk, the school newspaper, contains a lot of rote regurgitation of political talking points, both left and right.
Actually, I have no real problem with any of this if that’s what the parents want from their schools. However, I have personally experienced what happens when schools lose sight of their primary function, and as a result I’m sensitive to the follies of public school education.
Given that Bozeman schools are reporting their perennial budget shortfall (which actually means funding was increased, but the budget was increased more) one might think that certain priorities would begin to take precedence. But a lot of stuff that schools do is because of entrenched attitudes, imposed requirements, and systemic inefficiencies. That is hard to change.
Getting the feds out would certainly help. The feds bring nothing good, unless you like cash with strings attached, like No Child Left Behind. Couple those mandates with court decisions and progressive activists foisting their novel educational theories upon our little citizens of the world and it’s a wonder any educating gets done at all.
But mostly, the system needs to change. Perhaps ironically, it is public education that is probably doing the best job with taxpayer money, while most other government programs are failing before our eyes. It is probably because the schools are the closest thing to us, where we as citizens have the most influence. That localism is a strength that needs to be enhanced.
A change in the status quo could benefit everyone. That makes me a supporter of education, but a critic of the system.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Friday, April 22, 2011
Juvenile name calling - FB conversation
Please note that the person being responded to has deleted all of her posts.
I posted this: "Our enemies are not big spending Democrats, they're big spending Republicans."
J.W.: How about big spending politicians in general? Republicans and Democrats just differ (somewhat) on what they want to spend everyone else's money on.
R.K.: That's why WE are free! Freedom is not Free.
Me: Exactly, J.W. Too many have bought into the repub vs. demo debate. They all spend our money without restraint or common sense.
Me: Kelly, defense is a constitutionally mandated duty of government. Of course, spreading democracy and nation building are not. We need to get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and now, Libya.
However, military spending is a red herring. What is bankrupting us is Medicare, Medicade, and Social security. Those programs, plus the cost of interest on the debt, account for nearly all of the 2 trillion the govt receives in revenue. All the rest is borrowed.
And now S & P downgraded our bond rating. Slide continues...
R.K.: I don't Glenn Beck, Sara Palin or Banners. (country music occasionally, I prefer Rock & Roll or Classical) So what are all of these free countries that don't have military budgets?
Me: Kelly, feel free to ignore my comment and restate your position as often as you like.
Me: Kelly, I don't know you at all, you must be a friend of a friend. However, in the circles I travel in people converse and debate by stating a position and pointing out specifically where they disagree with each other.
Nor do they engage in juvenile name-calling.
My post from 17 hours ago contains several factual statements. If you think they're wrong, cite your sources. Simply repeating your unsupported assertion is insufficient. If you want to engage in a civil conversation, you will have to do better.
Me: Kelly writes, then deletes: "If anyone is really curious enough they could simply google your "facts" to verify if they're true. I've done so, have not found anything to substantiate anything you say, so have opted to delete my posts. I don't really want to argue with you. Would appreciate it if you would bow out as well."
Me: This is my thread, why should I bow out?
Expenditures, 2010: $3.456 trillion
Social Security is 20.6% of that
Medicare, 13.2%
Medicaid, 7.2%
Welfare, 9%
Interest on debt, 6.5%
Total: 56.5% = $1.953 trillion
Revenues, 2010: $2.163 trillion
I quote myself: "Those programs, plus the cost of interest on the debt, account for nearly all of the 2 trillion the govt receives in revenue. All the rest is borrowed." Therefore, a true statement.
I posted this: "Our enemies are not big spending Democrats, they're big spending Republicans."
J.W.: How about big spending politicians in general? Republicans and Democrats just differ (somewhat) on what they want to spend everyone else's money on.
R.K.: That's why WE are free! Freedom is not Free.
Me: Exactly, J.W. Too many have bought into the repub vs. demo debate. They all spend our money without restraint or common sense.
Me: Kelly, defense is a constitutionally mandated duty of government. Of course, spreading democracy and nation building are not. We need to get out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and now, Libya.
However, military spending is a red herring. What is bankrupting us is Medicare, Medicade, and Social security. Those programs, plus the cost of interest on the debt, account for nearly all of the 2 trillion the govt receives in revenue. All the rest is borrowed.
And now S & P downgraded our bond rating. Slide continues...
R.K.: I don't Glenn Beck, Sara Palin or Banners. (country music occasionally, I prefer Rock & Roll or Classical) So what are all of these free countries that don't have military budgets?
Me: Kelly, feel free to ignore my comment and restate your position as often as you like.
Me: Kelly, I don't know you at all, you must be a friend of a friend. However, in the circles I travel in people converse and debate by stating a position and pointing out specifically where they disagree with each other.
Nor do they engage in juvenile name-calling.
My post from 17 hours ago contains several factual statements. If you think they're wrong, cite your sources. Simply repeating your unsupported assertion is insufficient. If you want to engage in a civil conversation, you will have to do better.
Me: Kelly writes, then deletes: "If anyone is really curious enough they could simply google your "facts" to verify if they're true. I've done so, have not found anything to substantiate anything you say, so have opted to delete my posts. I don't really want to argue with you. Would appreciate it if you would bow out as well."
Me: This is my thread, why should I bow out?
Expenditures, 2010: $3.456 trillion
Social Security is 20.6% of that
Medicare, 13.2%
Medicaid, 7.2%
Welfare, 9%
Interest on debt, 6.5%
Total: 56.5% = $1.953 trillion
Revenues, 2010: $2.163 trillion
I quote myself: "Those programs, plus the cost of interest on the debt, account for nearly all of the 2 trillion the govt receives in revenue. All the rest is borrowed." Therefore, a true statement.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Another whiny column about men: The 17 Most Annoying Male Habits, Explained Every day,
Found here.
There are SEVENTEEN of these. I couldn't even bear posting all 17. Is it any wonder the world is in such trouble when whiny, self-involved, nit-picky women are given legitimacy and attention in places like MSN? At least they let a man answer the questions rather than have some female PHD psychologist explain to us how men are pigs.
-------------------
REDBOOK readers email columnist Aaron Traister to ask questions about the men in their lives: Why is it so hard for him to spit out the words "I'm sorry"? Is my husband the only man in the world who doesn't want to have sex? And what's up with that wiry hair protruding from his left nostril?! Aaron answers online, kind of like individual counseling, but we decided it was time for group therapy. It helps just to know you're not alone!
Selective Hearing Q: Why does my husband remember so many things about sports but nothing I told him yesterday?
Our relationship with sports predates our relationship with you by many, many years. I remember exactly where I was when the Phillies lost the 1993 World Series; I know who I was with and what I did when the Eagles converted fourth and 26 against the Green Bay Packers (I jumped on my friend's back and rode him around my living room). We've been fluent in sports forever, whereas we've only been speaking feelings and to-do lists for a few years.
Q: Should I be worried if my husband has an "office wife"?
I would be if I discovered that Karel had another spouse, office or otherwise. I think a guy's asking for trouble at home and at work if he has a relationship with a colleague that is intimate enough to involve the word wife. Men aren't always good at answering tough relationship questions, like: Is it okay for me to go out to lunch alone with my "office wife"? What about drinks after work, even with a group? Is it awkward if we have to travel together? Will coworkers get the wrong idea? Heck, I'm not sure even a woman could answer these, which is why I prefer to leave all forms of polygamy to Big Love.
Q: Why does my husband swing our kids around and shake them upside down when he knows they just ate or need to go to sleep?
Reason 1: Children are easier to chase and catch when they're trying to digest or are just about ready for bed. That post-dinner sleepiness also means that when your husband throws them around, he's less likely to get a flailing knee to the head or hyper-toddler-energy-fueled elbow to the crotch. Those are things I take into account before I jostle my kids around.
Reason 2: When your husband sees the finish line for the kids' day, he gets excited. For me, it's like I'm running a 5K and I get a burst of energy when I know I've reached the last mile. I love my kids, but I want them to go to sleep so that I can have some time with my wife, alone. When I know that moment is near, I feel like jumping for joy, or ... grabbing my kids, tossing them in the air, attacking them with a pillow, wrestling them to the ground, flipping them over, and generally shaking them up like a bottle of seltzer left in a Volkswagen on the hottest day of the year.
Q: Why won't men say they're sorry? "I'm sorry you're upset" doesn't count!
We're stubborn. Saying sorry is admitting we're wrong and that we take responsibility for whatever is blowing up in our relationship or our life. In fact, the more wrong I know I am, the less likely I am to say, "I'm sorry." Chalk it up to the "man of the house" hangover, but many of us still struggle with the idea that our word is no longer the final word. We are a generation of guys who saw that our grandfathers, and in some cases our fathers, never had to apologize to their wives for anything, even when it was obvious to everyone they were wrong. Progress is hard. Um, sorry.
Q: Do guys really think women look better without makeup?
I really do think women look better without makeup. However, when Karel read this, she told me I had no idea what I was talking about, and that what I think is "no makeup" is actually "natural makeup." I'm not sure what natural makeup involves, but Karel is probably right on this one.
Q: Do men not notice when they have a single, extra-long eyebrow (or nose, or ear) hair? Or do they know it's there but just don't care?
Yes, I notice all my weird hairs, rashes and boils. I'm comfortable with my body and its imperfections. Most guys are much less disturbed by the things women find so gross on their own bodies, and unless we're single and trying to attract an easily repulsed member of the opposite sex, a lot of us let things slide. There just isn't as much pressure for coupled-up guys to look a certain way. Plus, now that we're married, Karel tweezes, plucks, pokes and trims all my freakish growths long before they start to bother me.
Q: Why can't men tolerate hearing anything negative about their moms?
Moms are sacred to us because they were the first women in our lives, and they spent most of their youth keeping us fed, healthy and happy - and many of them sacrificed a lot to do so. Also, most of us put our mothers through hell with worry in our teens and have been trying to make up for it ever since, and your negativity isn't helping. But mostly, no guy wants to hear the woman he loves ripping on the other woman he loves. So leave his mom alone, unless she's egregiously overstepping boundaries and intruding on your life as a couple, and then broach it veeery slowly, and be veeery careful in your choice of words.
Q: Why does he put the moves on me when he can see I'm in a terrible mood?
Because sex is like a combination of penicillin and Zoloft for men: It's a cure-all and antidepressant rolled into one. We just assume the same is true for you. Your mom's in the hospital for hip-replacement surgery? Sex will cheer you up. Worried about getting laid off? Getting laid will take your mind off it. Here comes the comet? Let's have sex - at least we'll go out with a bang. Your guy isn't being selfish; he really wants to help, and he's suggesting something he thinks will be mutually beneficial. If you are positive a quickie won't boost your mood, let him down easy, or you may wind up with two foul-tempered people.
Q: Why do men sit with their legs splayed at a 100-degree angle?
It's very hard to explain how uncomfortable it is to keep your legs closed to a group of people who don't have penises.
Q: What does he have against my friends?
He may not have anything against them - he just can't keep them straight. I have two friends, and my wife loves them. Karel has a million friends: college besties, high school besties, work friends, mom friends. You guys have deep relationships and superficial ones that look almost identical. I think our attitude is interpreted as cold when, in fact, it is confused. We don't understand your level of investment in some of your friendships, so we're not sure what our level of investment should be.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Economic myths, Chronicle editorial
I’m surprised by the myths some people believe about economics, taxation, and government. People aren’t stupid, but they do seem to be naïve. They repeat something they read on a website or heard from a talking head as if it were gospel truth.
Ironically, they then accuse people like me of ignorance. Sure, I’m no expert, but I have a little common sense. And I try to be frank. I do not hide my political proclivities or pretend to be something I’m not, like the political Left often does. No, I disclose up front that I am a libertarian-leaning conservative. And I have some truth for you. The truth about five economic myths.
Myth #1) Bush is responsible for the deficit. Except Bush cannot spend tax money. Not back then, and certainly not now. Certainly Bush was no conservative. Far from it. His “compassionate” conservatism was virtually indistinguishable from the big spenders in Congress.
What we need to understand it is Congress that spends money. Article 1, Section 8 of the living-when-I-need-it-to-be Constitution says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes…” Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution-that-only-matters-when-it-agrees-with-my-politics says, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…” That means every government expenditure must be authorized by the House. Period.
This leads me to myth #2. Obama did not “inherit” anything. Democrats have controlled Congress since 2007, which included then-senator Obama. He and a whole host of other Democrats, along with their Republican co-conspirators voted in favor of every single budget, every single wasted bailout, and every single Wall Street fatcat. They had every opportunity to do something about the debt. But alas, they never met a spending bill they didn’t like.
Myth #3: Unbridled capitalism is to blame. Um, no. There is no such thing. For the past few decades our economic fortunes have been governed by Keynesianism. And Keynesianism almost always manifests as increased taxes and increased regulation of the economy.
This big government Keynesianism is supposed to prevent economic disaster by “reining in” capitalism but nevertheless has led us to our present situation. Indeed, all the laws and regulations passed since the Great Depression did nothing to prevent the Carter malaise, the 2001 recession, or the 2008 Great Recession. Ergo, the “solution” is the problem.
Oh, and by the way. Don’t be fooled by the cheerleaders in the media. Things are much worse than anyone is letting on. I know you know this in your bones, but you want to believe in your saviors. I’m just here to offer you the red pill, Neo.
Myth #4: Tax increases will lower the national debt. Except this has never happened. But what about President Clinton, you ask? Nope. Not even then. Check it here: http://130.94.230.21/debt_history.htm. Yet for some reason tax increases are the only “solution” the Left ever advocates. They seem to believe that it is better to give your money to the government than it is to keep it for yourself. Their highest priority is how much money government has available to it.
This leads me to myth #5: Only Democrats care for the poor, the average Joe, and the environment. Nope, sorry. The sole purpose of politics is the acquisition, accumulation, and perpetuation of power. That’s what politicians care about. The issues you care about are only buzzwords used to increase the power of politicians who love to spend your money.
But you believe myth #6: Government is benevolent. It isn’t. Even when government policies are going the way you like, power is being exercised. All it takes is a change in leadership and suddenly you find that the power you loved is now the power you hate. The problem is power.
So there you have the truth, my friends. From my favorite movie, the Matrix: “I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it.”
Ironically, they then accuse people like me of ignorance. Sure, I’m no expert, but I have a little common sense. And I try to be frank. I do not hide my political proclivities or pretend to be something I’m not, like the political Left often does. No, I disclose up front that I am a libertarian-leaning conservative. And I have some truth for you. The truth about five economic myths.
Myth #1) Bush is responsible for the deficit. Except Bush cannot spend tax money. Not back then, and certainly not now. Certainly Bush was no conservative. Far from it. His “compassionate” conservatism was virtually indistinguishable from the big spenders in Congress.
What we need to understand it is Congress that spends money. Article 1, Section 8 of the living-when-I-need-it-to-be Constitution says, “The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes…” Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution-that-only-matters-when-it-agrees-with-my-politics says, “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives…” That means every government expenditure must be authorized by the House. Period.
This leads me to myth #2. Obama did not “inherit” anything. Democrats have controlled Congress since 2007, which included then-senator Obama. He and a whole host of other Democrats, along with their Republican co-conspirators voted in favor of every single budget, every single wasted bailout, and every single Wall Street fatcat. They had every opportunity to do something about the debt. But alas, they never met a spending bill they didn’t like.
Myth #3: Unbridled capitalism is to blame. Um, no. There is no such thing. For the past few decades our economic fortunes have been governed by Keynesianism. And Keynesianism almost always manifests as increased taxes and increased regulation of the economy.
This big government Keynesianism is supposed to prevent economic disaster by “reining in” capitalism but nevertheless has led us to our present situation. Indeed, all the laws and regulations passed since the Great Depression did nothing to prevent the Carter malaise, the 2001 recession, or the 2008 Great Recession. Ergo, the “solution” is the problem.
Oh, and by the way. Don’t be fooled by the cheerleaders in the media. Things are much worse than anyone is letting on. I know you know this in your bones, but you want to believe in your saviors. I’m just here to offer you the red pill, Neo.
Myth #4: Tax increases will lower the national debt. Except this has never happened. But what about President Clinton, you ask? Nope. Not even then. Check it here: http://130.94.230.21/debt_history.htm. Yet for some reason tax increases are the only “solution” the Left ever advocates. They seem to believe that it is better to give your money to the government than it is to keep it for yourself. Their highest priority is how much money government has available to it.
This leads me to myth #5: Only Democrats care for the poor, the average Joe, and the environment. Nope, sorry. The sole purpose of politics is the acquisition, accumulation, and perpetuation of power. That’s what politicians care about. The issues you care about are only buzzwords used to increase the power of politicians who love to spend your money.
But you believe myth #6: Government is benevolent. It isn’t. Even when government policies are going the way you like, power is being exercised. All it takes is a change in leadership and suddenly you find that the power you loved is now the power you hate. The problem is power.
So there you have the truth, my friends. From my favorite movie, the Matrix: “I'm trying to free your mind, Neo. But I can only show you the door. You're the one that has to walk through it.”
Friday, April 1, 2011
Carbon footprint facebook conversation
I posted a video link on facebook:
The Green Regulation Machine: Saving the Planet or Killing Jobs? www.youtube.com
"When Dwayne Whitney started his trucking business decades ago he had only one truck. Today he has eighteen and 20 employees. But that's about to change. "The State of California says my trucks are killing people," says Whitney. "What do you say to that?" In a few years, new air quality regulations..."
B.R.: What compromise do you propose that will curb our carbon footprint while retaining or expanding jobs?
Me: Meaning no disrespect, but the extreme environmental movement has marched lockstep against capitalism with no compromise at all. The only party that needs to compromise is the ones who have yet to compromise.
B.R.: Seeing as their goals have been largely reduced or rejected, I'd say they've compromised quite a lot.
Me: To lose a battle is not the same thing as compromising.
R.W.: Truth, Ben. Environmentalists talk in PARTS per BILLION and try to scare us into throwing money at a fictitious problem. And these people get these sweet gigs for themselves where they are their own regulators. This guy Enstrum is losing his job because he blew the whistle on the faulty science, the FAKE Scientist that wrote the report, and the two people who oversee the process, who also work for the University .. They control their own funding! They work for the government agency that hands out grants to the universities. It's all very incestuous. I don't want to breath dirty air, and I don't want my children to breath dirty air. But really, how DIRTY is it. Sounds pretty clean to me be all these reports except from the people who want to write more laws. This is not about "Carbon footprint" as it pertains to how MUCH energy are we using. These trucks will burn the same amount of diesel. It has to do with how much is exhausted. And according to many legitimate scientists, it is so much better than it used to be and it is now within tolerable limitations. AS a former truck driver, I can tell you that the WAY they implement these new regulations is also a problem. They don't wait for the end of a trucks useful life, they make the trucker modify or replace his current fleet and that puts him out of business. California is in debt more than any other state, and it is because businesses are LEAVING the state, because of idiots like these people who make the rules, and that leaves the state without all that tax revenue.
B.R.: I agree with you that the changes should be step-by-step so that people don't lose their entire livelihoods. I'm all for a moderate shift year by year that keeps us going in the cleaner direction, rather than a crazy shift that uproots guys like this. But if we're going to start throwing the book at people who "get these sweet gigs for themselves where they are their own regulators", shouldn't we also include the oil and auto executives who sit on regulatory boards and block anything that goes against their interests? Talk about "controlling your own funding". Furthermore, can you show me factual data of the BILLIONS of dollars per year that the environmental leaders are reaping in profits? If you're going to accuse one side of having special interests, shouldn't you take into consideration that there are exponentially larger corporations in America that do everything they can to halt all changes that will put a dent in their earnings?
R.W.: The thing about conservatives is that we don't like corporation where EVER it is. But a trick of the left seems to be when they are caught abusing the system they say oh, ya?! What about evil corporations. Let's not change the subject. If you want to talk about something else we can save that for another post. This thread is about this situation and the explanation that "EVERYBODY does it" will not suffice. Corporations may fight against the rules that are not in their favor, but they do not MAKE the rules. Politicians do. "CARB" does. And CARB is corrupt and those rules effect millions of people and cost BILLIONS of dollars. And when it comes to pollution, most people who work for corporations LIVE in the area that corporation is located in. So they are not keen on polluting themselves.
B.R.: Then let's drop that and see if you can answer my original question: What compromise do you propose that will curb our carbon footprint while retaining or expanding jobs?
R.W.: I go back to truth. Truth from the scientists and truth from the politicians and truth from the evil corporations. Getting that is key because only THEN can we argue over what the best corse of actions is. IS it worth a Trillion dollars to reduce the arsenic in pressure treated lumber from 4 parts per billion to 3? Well, what are the TURE dangers of leaving it at 4? is there any evidence to say it is harmful at all? We know arsenic is bad in and of itself but if it's locked inside the wood... The world is full of dangeous things. We need to treat those things with respect and when an accident happens as it always does, have we taken as many precautions as possible and are we prepared when those accidents happen. There was an oil spill in the gulf. Our reaction was to stop drilling but then we just gave Brazil rights to drill in the gulf but America can't. There is a Nuclear problem in Japan. Do we shut down all plants, or do we learn and move forward? Even the cave men polluted. Archeologist find their trash 1000's of years later. You pollute. You use electricity that was generated from a damn most likely which destroyed the habitate of countless animals. I agree that we have to try and limit our impact but we have to accept that we ARE going to make an impact. Every living thing does. A bird just crapped on my car...
B.R.: That sounds like a good plan. I tell you what, if you and I can find ways to make a difference toward that plan of accurate data from both sides of the conflict, then I think we should actually work together on it. Is there anything you think can be done from the ground up, since neither you or I are scientists, politicians, or oil/auto corporate leaders?
Me: Once again, when extreme environmentalists are willing to compromise, then compromise will happen.
I reject the premise that reducing our carbon footprint is something desirable, something government ought to do, or something that has anything at all to do with pollution.
There is no evidence that turning this task over to government will yield any kind of positive result.
B.R.: do you agree that carbon emissions are too high? Do you agree that the US needs to gradually be on a road toward difference forms of fuel than oil?
Me: I do not agree that carbon emissions are too high, because no one has shown us what level of carbon emissions are "just right."
Oil is a commodity. Its use is the source of our prosperity and lifestyle. At some point in the future we may run out, or other forms of energy will supplant it. The free market will bring about those changes perfectly, as it always does.
B.R.: Okay, so that's as far in the compromise as you're willing to come, is to say that there's no clean air problem, there's no pollution problem, there's no risk involved in letting our oil resources run out, there's no additional action needed to create additional energy solutions. Am I right?
Me: We are discussing carbon emissions. I did not say anything about clean air or pollution.
Nor did I say there was no risk in letting the market determine the economic viability of various forms of energy. However, we already know there is risk when government dictates the process. That's what the video is about.
You assume that the action that needs to be taken is government action. Why?
Me: And for some reason you assume I'm unwilling to compromise. Let me put it another way. The American people have accomodated every dictate of the government regarding the environment, because government carries the force of law. I am saying that all of the compromise has come from one side of the issue, and we who have compromised have had to live with the economic burden those compromises have brought us.
B.R.: Precedent. Recycling is commonplace because the government made an enormous push for it in the 20th century. Composting is increasing in Seattle in large part because it's required in many districsts, and the government provides us with the bins and pickups to make it possible. Why in the world would oil companies and the auto industry make significant changes without being required to? And why would this trucker and other similar small businesses make significant changes without the security of knowing that their government is behind them?
B.R.: I don't assume you're unwilling to compromise; in fact, I'm trying to find common ground. I'm not aligned with a political party and I don't work for the government; I've simply lost patience and sympathy with anyone from any side of any significant issue who tears down any kind of progress without proposing an alternative solution.
Me: So if I may paraphrase you, anything government does is ok with you, because it's for our own good. Government should be able to place any burden it wants on the people since, government provides good things like security. Have I got this right?
What do you mean by progress? The truck driver in the video is obviously not progressing. What version of progress do you want the government to enforce?
I did propose an alternative: the free market. It solves every problem without the need of a nanny government deciding what is good for us.
B.R.: No, your paraphrasing is convenient and inaccurate. I'm saying that when it's clear enough that a national problem has a solution (improving the economy through saving money by reusing and recycling, improving the carbon emissions of automobiles by gradually changing the required levels), then it's the duty of our government to lead the charge of that solution. That solution is what I mean by progress. The truck driver could progress if he evolved his business in his own time in his own way, but if he changes nothing, then he's willfully ignorant. One question about the free market: what do you think it will take for the free market to change the way automobile emissions are decided? How will that happen without the government's affect? This is not a rhetorical question, I actually respect your opinion and want to hear what you think it will take.
Me: Thank you for your kind words.
You mention that this national problem has a solution. But I asked you before what level of carbon emission decrease we need. At what point is it deemed a success?
Indeed, in any social engineering enterprise the government has engaged in, has there ever been success, i.e. mission accomplished, for solving hunger, or poverty, or racism? Is Iraq a success by any measure? What about healthcare? Has anything the government has done regarding social problems yielded a solution?
I'm focusing on your idea of a "national problem." Why is it government's duty to solve national problems? Obesity is a national problem. Do you support government monitoring of everyone's diet? How about a mandatory exercise regimen? Making candy bars illegal?
What I'm after is, where do you draw the line? What is your benchmark?
The Green Regulation Machine: Saving the Planet or Killing Jobs? www.youtube.com
"When Dwayne Whitney started his trucking business decades ago he had only one truck. Today he has eighteen and 20 employees. But that's about to change. "The State of California says my trucks are killing people," says Whitney. "What do you say to that?" In a few years, new air quality regulations..."
B.R.: What compromise do you propose that will curb our carbon footprint while retaining or expanding jobs?
Me: Meaning no disrespect, but the extreme environmental movement has marched lockstep against capitalism with no compromise at all. The only party that needs to compromise is the ones who have yet to compromise.
B.R.: Seeing as their goals have been largely reduced or rejected, I'd say they've compromised quite a lot.
Me: To lose a battle is not the same thing as compromising.
R.W.: Truth, Ben. Environmentalists talk in PARTS per BILLION and try to scare us into throwing money at a fictitious problem. And these people get these sweet gigs for themselves where they are their own regulators. This guy Enstrum is losing his job because he blew the whistle on the faulty science, the FAKE Scientist that wrote the report, and the two people who oversee the process, who also work for the University .. They control their own funding! They work for the government agency that hands out grants to the universities. It's all very incestuous. I don't want to breath dirty air, and I don't want my children to breath dirty air. But really, how DIRTY is it. Sounds pretty clean to me be all these reports except from the people who want to write more laws. This is not about "Carbon footprint" as it pertains to how MUCH energy are we using. These trucks will burn the same amount of diesel. It has to do with how much is exhausted. And according to many legitimate scientists, it is so much better than it used to be and it is now within tolerable limitations. AS a former truck driver, I can tell you that the WAY they implement these new regulations is also a problem. They don't wait for the end of a trucks useful life, they make the trucker modify or replace his current fleet and that puts him out of business. California is in debt more than any other state, and it is because businesses are LEAVING the state, because of idiots like these people who make the rules, and that leaves the state without all that tax revenue.
B.R.: I agree with you that the changes should be step-by-step so that people don't lose their entire livelihoods. I'm all for a moderate shift year by year that keeps us going in the cleaner direction, rather than a crazy shift that uproots guys like this. But if we're going to start throwing the book at people who "get these sweet gigs for themselves where they are their own regulators", shouldn't we also include the oil and auto executives who sit on regulatory boards and block anything that goes against their interests? Talk about "controlling your own funding". Furthermore, can you show me factual data of the BILLIONS of dollars per year that the environmental leaders are reaping in profits? If you're going to accuse one side of having special interests, shouldn't you take into consideration that there are exponentially larger corporations in America that do everything they can to halt all changes that will put a dent in their earnings?
R.W.: The thing about conservatives is that we don't like corporation where EVER it is. But a trick of the left seems to be when they are caught abusing the system they say oh, ya?! What about evil corporations. Let's not change the subject. If you want to talk about something else we can save that for another post. This thread is about this situation and the explanation that "EVERYBODY does it" will not suffice. Corporations may fight against the rules that are not in their favor, but they do not MAKE the rules. Politicians do. "CARB" does. And CARB is corrupt and those rules effect millions of people and cost BILLIONS of dollars. And when it comes to pollution, most people who work for corporations LIVE in the area that corporation is located in. So they are not keen on polluting themselves.
B.R.: Then let's drop that and see if you can answer my original question: What compromise do you propose that will curb our carbon footprint while retaining or expanding jobs?
R.W.: I go back to truth. Truth from the scientists and truth from the politicians and truth from the evil corporations. Getting that is key because only THEN can we argue over what the best corse of actions is. IS it worth a Trillion dollars to reduce the arsenic in pressure treated lumber from 4 parts per billion to 3? Well, what are the TURE dangers of leaving it at 4? is there any evidence to say it is harmful at all? We know arsenic is bad in and of itself but if it's locked inside the wood... The world is full of dangeous things. We need to treat those things with respect and when an accident happens as it always does, have we taken as many precautions as possible and are we prepared when those accidents happen. There was an oil spill in the gulf. Our reaction was to stop drilling but then we just gave Brazil rights to drill in the gulf but America can't. There is a Nuclear problem in Japan. Do we shut down all plants, or do we learn and move forward? Even the cave men polluted. Archeologist find their trash 1000's of years later. You pollute. You use electricity that was generated from a damn most likely which destroyed the habitate of countless animals. I agree that we have to try and limit our impact but we have to accept that we ARE going to make an impact. Every living thing does. A bird just crapped on my car...
B.R.: That sounds like a good plan. I tell you what, if you and I can find ways to make a difference toward that plan of accurate data from both sides of the conflict, then I think we should actually work together on it. Is there anything you think can be done from the ground up, since neither you or I are scientists, politicians, or oil/auto corporate leaders?
Me: Once again, when extreme environmentalists are willing to compromise, then compromise will happen.
I reject the premise that reducing our carbon footprint is something desirable, something government ought to do, or something that has anything at all to do with pollution.
There is no evidence that turning this task over to government will yield any kind of positive result.
B.R.: do you agree that carbon emissions are too high? Do you agree that the US needs to gradually be on a road toward difference forms of fuel than oil?
Me: I do not agree that carbon emissions are too high, because no one has shown us what level of carbon emissions are "just right."
Oil is a commodity. Its use is the source of our prosperity and lifestyle. At some point in the future we may run out, or other forms of energy will supplant it. The free market will bring about those changes perfectly, as it always does.
B.R.: Okay, so that's as far in the compromise as you're willing to come, is to say that there's no clean air problem, there's no pollution problem, there's no risk involved in letting our oil resources run out, there's no additional action needed to create additional energy solutions. Am I right?
Me: We are discussing carbon emissions. I did not say anything about clean air or pollution.
Nor did I say there was no risk in letting the market determine the economic viability of various forms of energy. However, we already know there is risk when government dictates the process. That's what the video is about.
You assume that the action that needs to be taken is government action. Why?
Me: And for some reason you assume I'm unwilling to compromise. Let me put it another way. The American people have accomodated every dictate of the government regarding the environment, because government carries the force of law. I am saying that all of the compromise has come from one side of the issue, and we who have compromised have had to live with the economic burden those compromises have brought us.
B.R.: Precedent. Recycling is commonplace because the government made an enormous push for it in the 20th century. Composting is increasing in Seattle in large part because it's required in many districsts, and the government provides us with the bins and pickups to make it possible. Why in the world would oil companies and the auto industry make significant changes without being required to? And why would this trucker and other similar small businesses make significant changes without the security of knowing that their government is behind them?
B.R.: I don't assume you're unwilling to compromise; in fact, I'm trying to find common ground. I'm not aligned with a political party and I don't work for the government; I've simply lost patience and sympathy with anyone from any side of any significant issue who tears down any kind of progress without proposing an alternative solution.
Me: So if I may paraphrase you, anything government does is ok with you, because it's for our own good. Government should be able to place any burden it wants on the people since, government provides good things like security. Have I got this right?
What do you mean by progress? The truck driver in the video is obviously not progressing. What version of progress do you want the government to enforce?
I did propose an alternative: the free market. It solves every problem without the need of a nanny government deciding what is good for us.
B.R.: No, your paraphrasing is convenient and inaccurate. I'm saying that when it's clear enough that a national problem has a solution (improving the economy through saving money by reusing and recycling, improving the carbon emissions of automobiles by gradually changing the required levels), then it's the duty of our government to lead the charge of that solution. That solution is what I mean by progress. The truck driver could progress if he evolved his business in his own time in his own way, but if he changes nothing, then he's willfully ignorant. One question about the free market: what do you think it will take for the free market to change the way automobile emissions are decided? How will that happen without the government's affect? This is not a rhetorical question, I actually respect your opinion and want to hear what you think it will take.
Me: Thank you for your kind words.
You mention that this national problem has a solution. But I asked you before what level of carbon emission decrease we need. At what point is it deemed a success?
Indeed, in any social engineering enterprise the government has engaged in, has there ever been success, i.e. mission accomplished, for solving hunger, or poverty, or racism? Is Iraq a success by any measure? What about healthcare? Has anything the government has done regarding social problems yielded a solution?
I'm focusing on your idea of a "national problem." Why is it government's duty to solve national problems? Obesity is a national problem. Do you support government monitoring of everyone's diet? How about a mandatory exercise regimen? Making candy bars illegal?
What I'm after is, where do you draw the line? What is your benchmark?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)