Day in the Life of Joe Middle-Class Republican

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

The man’s name is Bjorn Lomberg and he wrote a book called The Skeptical Environmentalist. Rajendra Pachauri of the UN’s IPCC, which deals with climate change, compared him to Hitler. He must have confered with the Libyan Chairman of human rights committee on that one. One can therefore assume that Lomberg’s at least an okay guy.

Self-proclaimed environmentalist talk a good game and all, but in reality their behavior differs very, very little from anyone else.

Example: Ever live in an area with lots of outdoors types? What do they drive? Four-wheel drive, lots of them. Why? To go off road, churning up Mother Nature, or because driving around with an extra 400 pounds of steel driveline is more important than driving a lighter and more fuel efficient car and using chains that one to two percent of the time they are essential. What do why have on the roof? Ski and bike racks, which are most of the time empty. Are they too lazy to take them off and conserve fuel by reducing drag or do they just not care? Why hasn’t one of these self-anointed better-than-thous (and smarter too) invented a rack that clicks on and off easily? Isn’t the environment that important?

Or is it that alot, maybe most, of them, are selfish, elitist bastards who want huge portions of public (everybody’s) land closed off to all but a few like-minded souls to enjoy without any riff-raff around to spoil the scenery. When they get bored with the domestic scene they hop into aluminum tubes, made from bauxite in a very energy-intensive process, and go eco-touring at some far-off locale, burning tons of jet fuel in the process.

I personally, I have a lot more respect for the dirt-bag hippie types, except for the fact that they pollute the air with that pot smoke.

Don’t get me wrong- if someone wants to live high on the capitalist hog, more power to them. But shut the f up and peel off the bumper stickers please.

By the way, if all of you lefties want to see some real first class enviro damage, take thee to the former East Bloc and have yourselves a little look-see. You can wet your beds over the environment precisely because you live in a rich, and by definition capitalist, society, which affords you the leisure time to think about it and the means to acually do something.

42

[quote]CDarklock wrote:
Employers can already avoid paying overtime rates by hiring “exempt” employees for a set salary rather than an hourly wage.[/quote]

This is fraught with problems, so be careful.

[quote]
If you want to pay hourly and still not pay overtime, you can hire them as independent contractors instead of employees, which has additional tax benefits. [/quote]

Independent contractor status is another mine field. Generally, the status can be beneficial to both employer and employee. As an IC, you can also reduce taxes by being able to deduct lots of stuff as business expenses that you could not deduct as an employee (or have limited deductions).

I agree. And international trade is bad too because all international trade does is send jobs overseas, so we need big government to enact trade restrictions.

See guys, as a libertarian I agree with all of you conservatives on the economic issues. If the Republican Party would just stop trying to push a Christian theocracy it wouldn’t be a bad party at all.

43

Mike,

I’m not so sure that the Republicans are pushing a Christian theocracy, but it does just so happen that the sanctity of human life and dignity coincide with many Christian beliefs. Human values, morals, and respect for human life should not be labeled as Christian theocracy. Nor should “rights” be confused with “freedom”.

44

[quote]

I agree. And international trade is bad too because all international trade does is send jobs overseas, so we need big government to enact trade restrictions.

[quote]

most modern republicans are against trade barriers. If you think all international trade does is send jobs overseas then you couldnt not be more wrong. Look at the world around you and, and the country you live in. Its created through international trade.

45

[quote]JohnGullick wrote:
Boston Barrister-
“Minimum footprint drilling”, “cleaner coal power plants”. (“luddite hippy”?! I have nothing to do with english craftsmens revolutions and I’m a bit young for the whole hippy thing + I own an iPod AND an LPG Land Rover! Anyway Luddites hated the fact machines were taking over their crafts, I don’t care about that, theres just far better and cleaner ways to make power than coal! My god, you’re calling me a luddite and defending coal as a power source for the 21st century!) Seriously though…[/quote]

Dictionary.com definition of “luddite”:

  1. Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery would diminish employment.
  2. One who opposes technical or technological change.

I obviously was using it for the second definition. But you’re a funny guy, so it’s all good. Besides, I agree with you on the whole cheaper, easier thing. Please write your MP in favor of nuclear power immediately, if not sooner.

The main interest in Alaska w/r/t oil is in one small coastal area in ANWR, which I maintain is a frozen desert with mosquitoes. They always show pictures from the National Wildlife preserves and great mountain ranges in the anti-drilling ads, but those are not at all representative of ANWR. Drill away up there – especially with the new “light footprint” drilling technology.

Now, don’t set up a false dichotomy. It is perfectly possible and logical to set up drilling contracts in ANWR while preserving some areas from any incursions and not allowing mining for less strategically important materials. And even if we wanted to open up Alaska for extracting oil everywhere it was technologically and economically feasible: 1) it’s not actually everywhere but in discrete pockets; and 2) the newest technologies mitigate the damage considerably from the old methods. See these articles from 1995 and 2001, respectively (I’m sure the technology has improved by an order of magnitude since even then):

http://www.anwr.org/features/conundrum.htm

http://www.heritage.org/Research/PoliticalPhilosophy/EM432.cfm

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2185/is_6_12/ai_77607926

As to your last sentence in the above quote, while I’m sure that the enviro groups would like to artificially constrict supplies of fossil fuels to force up prices and make alternatives more competitive, I’m sure that, if they are so correct, they can wait for the predicted shortages to occur naturally, while continuing to develop the alternatives. The alternatives aren’t used now for two reasons: Either 1) They aren’t competitive pricewise; or 2) the enviro groups have managed to quash them (e.g. nuclear power).

Check out the debate thread we had going on about “the end of cheap oil” awhile back. That will let you know where I come out on the apocalyptic theories.

As to why all the apocalyptic predictions up to now have been incorrect, I point you to the skeptical enviromentalist Bjorn Lomborg referenced above by Schrauper, and to Julian Simon.

46

[quote]
most modern republicans are against trade barriers. If you think all international trade does is send jobs overseas then you couldnt not be more wrong. Look at the world around you and, and the country you live in. Its created through international trade. [/quote]

I was being sarcastic. I totally agree that international trade is a good thing and support the removal of trade barriers.

47

[quote]jackzepplin wrote:
Mike,

I’m not so sure that the Republicans are pushing a Christian theocracy, but it does just so happen that the sanctity of human life and dignity coincide with many Christian beliefs. Human values, morals, and respect for human life should not be labeled as Christian theocracy. Nor should “rights” be confused with “freedom”.[/quote]

Jack,

The question I have is to what extent do you want the government involved in matters involving morality and human values? I say none. Does this mean that some people will make bad moral choices? Unfortunately, yes. But laws cannot and will not solve all of society’s problems. And such laws are an insult to those of us who do lead moral lives, and I consider myself to be in this group. Not to mention that there are judges and government officials out there who are complete morons. Do you want these morons involved in your personal decisions?

48

Thanks much schrauper,
I am quite impressed that anyone knew his name - I sure didn’t! Given only the info that enviros hate him and that he has a nordic sounding name, you nailed it. Remind me never to challenge you in a trivia contest!

49

Boston Barrister-
I am now in a more sober mood than when I wrote that reply (ahh that great week off from training and proper diet when I discover my alcohol tolerance has quietly slipped away). Anyway, I would look up your views on apocalypse, but I have a disertation to research (on American imperialism no less) so I’m going to assume you’re against it. Me too, right on brother! I do feel bad though because you looked up luddite for me.
You know, nuclear power is a wierd one for me, when its done well its great, when its done badly it iradiates Eastern Europe and causes radioactive sheep all over western England (and they don’t even glow, they just give you cancer). I agree that until alternatives become cheap enough for tight-wad conservatives its worth using oil. The thing is certain energy sources already are- biomass, hydroelectric and large scale wind farming are all viable. Why the hell they call it wind farming I don’t know, is it not wind harvesting? Fossil fuel people are, however, fairly powerful, maybe the most powerful men on earth in fact, whilst those luddite wind farmers don’t even have iPods. The road of those tree hugging freaks demands great change too. Change is scary, but then so is the world right now.

50

[quote]Lumpy wrote:
Da Man
You wanted me to address your points. You said in your “rebuttal” that the air and water in Cincy weren’t clean now.

Umm…DUH???

So I guess the answer then is for Bush to roll back EVEN MORE environmental protection? What was your point then?

George W. Bush has the worst environmental record of any modern president. You guys who like to eat fish, I hope you don’t mind a side order of yummy mercury with that.

[/quote]
DUH? Wow, maturity at its finest.

You make reality up as you go, dont you lumper? I didnt say the air and water suck in cincy NOW, i said the air and water in cincy SUCKS, it was independent of a time frame. I was attempting to imply that it has always sucked, which it has, but evidently that was lost on you or I did a poor job with the implication, from here on out I will type everything out. The air and water has ALWAYS sucked in cincy- even when the democratic superman Clinton was in office. How is that the fault of Bush? He was in Texas when the water here sucked.
Have a nice day!

51

[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
This is fraught with problems, so be careful.
(…)
Independent contractor status is another mine field.
[/quote]

Not really. You write a nice solid contract, and you both sign it, and everyone is happy. It only takes a few iterations to come up with a good, solid contract that will pass muster with any attorney on the planet – provided your intent is to be fair.

Unethical business practices are a whole different matter. If you WANT to rip off your employees and treat them like crap, you’ll need to get your tips and advice somewhere else. I’d recommend studying EDS and other Perot-owned businesses.

Bullshit. What sends jobs overseas is greedy companies who think only about the monetary costs involved. Most innovative products benefit vastly from the supply and demand being physically close to one another, so your product should be manufactured reasonably close to where it is purchased and consumed – unless it’s stable and doesn’t change much.

52

[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:

Check out the debate thread we had going on about “the end of cheap oil” awhile back. That will let you know where I come out on the apocalyptic theories.

As to why all the apocalyptic predictions up to now have been incorrect, I point you to the skeptical enviromentalist Bjorn Lomborg referenced above by Schrauper, and to Julian Simon.[/quote]

BB, while I agree that the world won’t one day grind to a halt when we suddenly discover there’s not a drop of oil left, there’s something to be said for staying ahead of the game. True, technological advancements in alternative energy continue to make impressive strides with private funding. However, if our government would put some more money into researching the numerable options out there, we might be able to reduce (eliminate?) our dependence on oil from volatile nations much sooner. Not to mention potentially creating an enormous amount of new jobs.

While I do not care for the Bush administration much at all for various reasons, the one reason I will not vote for him is because of his views on energy. The answer to our energy problem lies in increasing efficiency and find alternatives, not just drilling more oil wells… especially ones that will yield very little and not for several years.

Our auto manufacturers have the ability to make much more efficient and cleaner cars now, so we should be raising CAFE standards and investing in cleaner energy sources; something the Bush administration refuses to do.

Yes, I know about the “hydrogen economy” Bush is backing. The problem is that it is fraught with infrastructure problems that will most likely keep it from becoming a reality for years or decades, if at all.

53

Pyotr!!

You forgot that they would handcuff women to the stove, and force them to have be barefoot and only have babies.

What is the difference, if they want to force you to read from the bible, or the left trying to silence any one that has an alternative view to yourown? You know how when a group of people come out with a different view point, and the lefties will come out and protest, scare, and threaten them until they are silenced. Which party is associated with the Natzi’s?

I know that public schools gave a better education back in the day, to what they try to teach our children.

54

[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:

Check out the debate thread we had going on about “the end of cheap oil” awhile back. That will let you know where I come out on the apocalyptic theories.

As to why all the apocalyptic predictions up to now have been incorrect, I point you to the skeptical enviromentalist Bjorn Lomborg referenced above by Schrauper, and to Julian Simon.

BB, while I agree that the world won’t one day grind to a halt when we suddenly discover there’s not a drop of oil left, there’s something to be said for staying ahead of the game.
[/quote]

agreed, but I disagree with a lot of other things you say…

why would government involvement in this not be “fraught with infrastructure problems that will most likely keep it from becoming a reality for years or decades, if at all.” as you say the ‘hydrogen economy’ is? When a bureaucracy - the governement, no matter what party has power - is involved, it is almost guaranteed to be fraught with infrastructure problems that will most likely keep it from becoming a reality for years or decades, if at all." So why is governement involvement the answer?

[quote]
While I do not care for the Bush administration much at all for various reasons, the one reason I will not vote for him is because of his views on energy. The answer to our energy problem lies in increasing efficiency and find alternatives, not just drilling more oil wells… especially ones that will yield very little and not for several years.[/quote]

and viable alternative energy sources will yield very little at first- unless they fall out of favor like many new technologies do- and not for several years, or more likely decades.

[quote]
Our auto manufacturers have the ability to make much more efficient and cleaner cars now, so we should be raising CAFE standards and investing in cleaner energy sources; something the Bush administration refuses to do.

Yes, I know about the “hydrogen economy” Bush is backing. The problem is that it is fraught with infrastructure problems that will most likely keep it from becoming a reality for years or decades, if at all.[/quote]

I agree with the overall idea for the most part, but disagree with the finer points. The devil is in the details…

55

DA MAN, perhaps I used the wrong wording. I should have said “government funding” rather than “government involvement” with regard to alternative energy.

However, the hydrogen infrastructure is not an uphill battle because of government involvement; it’s an uphill battle because no one can figure out how to 1) economically extract hydrogen, 2) create a national infrastructure to transport it across the country, and 3) determine what form it will be transported and used in vehicles (as a gas, liquid, or solid?). Personally, I think it was a hasty decision on our part to commit ourselves to hydrogen (it sure allows the oil companies to stay in the drivers seat, doesn’t it?). But there’s really no reason why we shouldn’t be redeveloping electric cars. Those have all but disappeared off the radar screen.

As for the “green” energy alternatives out there, I agree that it could take a very long time to implement. But at the same time, there seems to be this mentality that we can pick only one alternative to fossil fuels. Opponents always claim that we would need to cover the entire state of New Jersey in solar panels to generate the amount of electricity our nation needs. Well maybe… with today’s technology.

But great things are happening in the solar industries that will make panels more efficient (think 60 - 70% rather than the current 10 - 20%), and much cheaper. In fact, we’ll need to lose the idea of solar “panels” altogether here soon as there are several companies developing solar materials as thin as cellophane, and others that are trying to make it possible to actually “paint” cells onto any surface.

Bottom line is that I would just like to see our government use some of that money going to subsidize the oil and gas industries and putting it toward renewable sources. Not too much to ask, I don’t think.

56

As to alternative energy:

  1. The government is already funding the development of a lot of stuff in this area. I had a friend who worked for MassTech, which was a quasi-governmental institution that invested funds in the development of alternative energy sources. There are tax credits for “green energy” development, and all sorts of other incentives out there on the federal and state levels. And don’t forget academic research grants. There’s a lot of this going on – and not just in the U.S. either. But they’re still not viable yet, so we should also be investing in oil and nuclear power.

  2. It’s smarter for the goverment to not become more directly involved – otherwise you get stuff like the ethanol subsidies. Honestly, it’s best if the government doesn’t involve itself in the competition between technologies – it would either have to spread a huge amount equally between all sorts of competing ideas, or else pick winners and bias the process. This is not what you want if the goal is to attain the best technology.

  3. When there are viable replacements for oil, the market will embrace them. So keep working on them. But don’t try to force consumers to get them via inducing artificial shortages in oil/fossil fuels or taxing them into an uncompetitive state.

57

[quote]Tyler23 wrote:
we would need to cover the entire state of New Jersey in solar panels to generate the amount of electricity our nation needs.[/quote]

Let’s put this fact into a little better perspective. It sounds like a whole lot of solar panels, doesn’t it?

New Jersey has approximately two thousand square miles of land area.

The total land area of the United States is just over three and a half MILLION square miles.

So in order to provide electric power for the entire nation, we need to give up 1/1750 of our nation’s available land.

Cry me a fucking river.

To place this in further perspective, that’s a little under 2% of the area of the Great Basin desert, and when you really think about it, isn’t the desert a GREAT place to put solar panels? Seems that way to me.

58

Tyler and DA MAN,

Private companies are light years aheadof the government on alternative fule souces and technologies. You guys need to realise that many individuals have given up on the government solving our problems. Did you see the recent private space flight? Yea, and it is way more advanced than the shuttle in terms of it’s re-usability. Ok how about energy, I have shed light on this before but for some reason everyone seems to think it is all science fiction? Even when there are working prototypes. www,blacklightpower,com

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

59

[quote]Vegita wrote:
about energy, I have shed light on this before but for some reason everyone seems to think it is all science fiction[/quote]

No, just bad science. Simple logic can prove this.

  1. Mills claims to have a grand unified theory of quantum mechanics.

  2. The scientific community would LOVE to have a grand unified theory of quantum mechanics.

  3. The scientific community doesn’t give a rat’s ass about Mills.

Clearly, one of two things is true: either the entire scientific community is unaware of how great this theory is, or Mills doesn’t actually have squat.

I think we can do the math on which is more probable.

And you can’t blame this on intellectual property, either. You can neither patent nor copyright a scientific theory.

So pardon me if I discount thirteen years of producing nothing more than a prototype. The idea of perpetual motion generated some prototypes, too.

60

BB, good points, but if it’s best for the government to keep their noses out of it, then how do you explain the support for the “hydrogen economy”?

CDarklock, I was simply quoting what the “opposition” claims when the subject of solar comes up (i.e. it’s not a viable alternative blah blah blah). Besides, I kind of pulled that “state of NJ” out of the air to illustrate a point; I have no idea how much actual landmass would be required to supply our energy needs.

Vegita, very true (re: private vs govt technology). As for Blacklightpower, I haven’t been back there for quite awhile, but if I remember correctly, there is quite a bit of suspicion regarding the owner of the company…? That industry {unfortunately} is full of charlatans.

I guess my overall position is that our government most certainly can do something about our oil dependency. In fact, China, even though it’s really just beginning its economic expansion, has come right out to their auto manufacturers and given them minimum mileage standards to adhere to that rival our averages. IOW, the American standards are fleet averages while the Chinese standards are minimums for each vehicle. They’re playing hardball with the industry and I respect them for that. They see the delicate positions the US and other countries have put themselves in in regards to oil dependency and they’re doing something about it.

But our government doesn’t want to piss off their big business constituency, so we accept mileage standards that are on par with what they were in 1980.