Cynical New Yorkers Behaving Atypically

Here’s something I haven’t seen in NYC before. Unfortunately, I didn’t know this was going on, else I’d have raced down to Union Square for this 1:45AM celebration. That these folks seem a bit giddy and likely drunk is quite appropriate given that the tune being sung was an old drinking song before it got coopted and given new lyrics.

Thanks Alida.

Tell Me Now That Carter Was A Bad President

Please read this article about Carter’s 1977 speech and tell me now that Carter was bad for the country and Reagan was good. Go ahead. Tell me now which of those two presidents had the right long term plan for this country. Tell me how much worse off we would have been had we continued with Carter’s energy plan. Tell me that this speech of Carter’s didn’t detail a large chunk of the events that have now come to pass as a result of not following his plan.

Time to Flip-Flop About Flip-Flopping?

We love to complain when our politicians flip-flop on an issue. Sometimes, especially when the opinion changes dramatically over a short time frame, it is justified to get upset about a candidate changing views. Sometimes, however, it seems that flip-flopping may be a good thing. Wouldn’t it be nice if Bush would flip-flop once in a while, instead of obstinately maintaining a failed course of action.

Regardless though, despite the awful cover* from the New Yorker in this particular issue, the article inside is actually an interesting take on flip-flopping, what really qualifies, and when it is better than not.

Flip-Flop Flap

Obama: Eloquently Stating What Needed to be Said

Here’s yet another incredibly eloquent speech by Obama. I find it very refreshing that we have a candidate that can correctly pronounce place names and even the word nuclear. Further, some of the sentiments expressed in this speech are sentiments I’ve been hoping to hear expressed for a long time. Here is someone who can show real leadership, something we have been sorely lacking for 7 years.

I you prefer to read the text, rather than listen to a 36 minute video, the text is available on the Obama webiste.

Say No to the Gas Tax Holiday!

Of the three presidential candidates, only Obama has this one right. Here’s an excellent write up from Newsweek about the issue. This may be the best of the links here regarding the issue.

Political Pandering

My personal favorite paragraph from the article above is this one, though the bullet points are the real convincing part:

I could highlight a long debate among economists on suspending the gas tax, but there is no debate. Not one respectable economist—and not one environmentalist or foreign policy expert—supports the idea, unless they are official members of the Clinton or McCain campaigns (and even some of them privately oppose it). To relieve suffering at the pump, send another rebate check or provide tax credits or something else, but not this.

Please click this link to a petition site to say no the the gas tax holiday. We must try hard not to get stuck with this horrifically bad idea. There are more links to other great articles below in case you are not convinced by a single source.

McCain: A Climate Disaster

First read this article from the New York Times, McCain Differs With Bush on Climate Change. One thing is clear from this article, all of the remaining candidates want to reduce carbon emissions.

However, what is not clear from this is the magnitude of their differences on the point. Take the following paragraph that I believe to be very poorly written on the part of an otherwise fairly good news source.

In his speech, Mr. McCain advocated cutting emissions 60 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050; Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama propose cutting them by 80 percent in the same time frame while the Lieberman-Warner bills calls for a 70 percent reduction. Scientists say reductions of that magnitude are needed to slow and then reverse production of the gases, chiefly carbon dioxide, which are heating the atmosphere and causing long-term climate changes.

This last sentence is patently false. Scientists say that a reduction of emissions to 80% below 1990 levels is required to avert catastrophic warming and to avoid a tipping point. The planet will not negotiate on politics. So, let’s see just how different are 60%, 70%, and 80% reductions?

Let the Voters Decide

Check this out on Democracy for America’s site. For those who were not aware, the Democrap candidate will likely be decided without much input from the voters. If this bugs you more than a tad, you may want to sign the petition.

Let the Voters Decide

I think the whole idea of super delegates is pretty damn disgusting. In case you think you can be less concerned because you’re a registered Repugnican rather than Democrap, check out this wikipedia page that hints at equal problems in the Repug camp and suggests a complete page. In fact, if you know enough about the way the other camp works, you may want to help wikipedia out on the subject.

Ignore the Hype; Vote the Issues; Find Your Candidate

Let’s try something really new this next presidential election. Let’s ignore the media hype and vote for the candidate that best represents each of our own values. Do you think you already know who that is? Are you sure? You may be surprised. Try the candidate calculator.