Daily Archives: January 8, 2009

Conservatives Online

Posted on
Reply

Sometimes Andrew Sullivan just has posts that make you wonder why other public conservatives aren’t as thoughtful and rational as he. For example, today he posted that:

Does Pajamas Media believe that the future of journalism really belongs to Joe The Plumber? Or that this is really worth publishing? It seems to me that the right is still culturally disoriented. If they are still promoting Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber and Ann Coulter and culture-war resentment as their core message, they are obviously in deep denial about what this election really meant. If their only unifying theme is hatred or reified “elite liberals”, they are doomed.

This denial – this calcification of the worst of the right in the last eight years – is the real danger to Republicans. What they need is a grappling with the public policy issues at hand, and an imaginative constructive, conservative approach to them. But the posturing is so much easier, isn’t it? And still, one presumes, really lucrative for a tiny few.

Definitely my favourite conservative to read online. I find that I agree with much of his reasoning and arguments. Furthermore, when I find that I disagree with something I don’t get frustrated like I would with Fox News; rather, I find that I disagree with his stance, but agree with his logic and rationale.

Link via The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan (January 08, 2009) – The Online Right .

Dramatic action

Posted on
Reply

From a posting on Change.gov:

To finally spark the creation of a clean energy economy, we will double the production of alternative energy in the next three years.  We will modernize more than 75% of federal buildings and improve the energy efficiency of two million American homes, saving consumers and taxpayers billions on our energy bills.  In the process, we will put Americans to work in new jobs that pay well and can’t be outsourced – jobs building solar panels and wind turbines; constructing fuel-efficient cars and buildings; and developing the new energy technologies that will lead to even more jobs, more savings, and a cleaner, safer planet in the bargain.

Sounds good to me. The entire post is definitely worth reading and will probably make you thankful that once again we have a president that can elucidate his points with clarity and poise.

Link via Dramatic action | Change.gov: The Obama-Biden Transition Team.

Re: Arctic Sea Ice

Posted on
4

 

Another blog out there posted an entry that was very critical of the original Daily Tech and Boing Boing stories about Arctic Sea Ice levels that I posted about the other day. Among other charges, the post claims that:

You can see that there might be a downward trend, and any idiot (well, apparently not any idiot) can see that connecting two data points and drawing a conclusion about the trend, or what we might expect the future to bring, is … you get the idea.

In response to this article I posted a comment asking where the author got their graphs and information. The author responded by writing that:

[Response: I made the graphs myself using data available from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (there's a link on the Climate Data Links page).

The stories reproduce a graph from Cryosphere Today, which shows the same trend. It's just as significant statistically but not as evident visually, because the y-axis is on a much smaller scale so they can include more information on a single graph.

 

And there is a concensus on the issue -- among those who know!]

This is exactly the problem that I have with any debates about climate change or global warming. The two extremes are just so set in their beliefs that they consider anyone who disagrees with their stance as an “idiot.” Each side picks some data composed of measurements, graphs, and “indisputable facts” that come from various organizations, etc. What neither one seems to realize is that they are picking the data that matches their viewpoint. With the multitude of sources out there for “facts” about global warming each side uses those that match their opinion and then decry everything else for being misleading and untrustworthy.

Furthermore, what gives either side the confidence that they can accurately predict what the climate and the Earth will do in 50 to 100 years? We got into this whole mess because those in control of industry believed that they could control and harness the power of nature to do their bidding without suffering consequences. Well, isn’t it just as misguided and egotistical to believe that we can predict the course of events in the natural world through computer models and an assemblage of “facts”? To me this falls into the same trap as the industrial greed that led us here.

Why does change need to be forced down people’s throats? I would like to see each side advocate for just living conscious and sustainable lives for the social and personal benefits that it brings and not feel the need to force this stuff upon people with tales of doom and gloom. If cutting carbon emissions and becoming more environmentally-friendly is truly as rewarding a change as some people claim then why can’t they argue for their position through positive claims? Instead of propounding the benefits each side resorts to threats and pessimistic proclamations as to why we must change now.

BART Police Shooting

Posted on
Reply

Again from Boing Boing is a story about a shooting involving a BART police office and an unarmed man. Boing Boing writes that:

In the early hours of New Year’s Day, 27-year-old BART police officer Johannes Mehserle shot and killed 22-year old Oscar Grant. A number of people who were riding the BART train that night witnessed the shooting, and shot video or photos on handheld cameras or phones. The victim’s family today filed a lawsuit for $25 million. Five days after the shooting, the accused officer still has not given a statement. He is said to be have received death threats and authorities are apparently moving him from place to place to protect him from harm. Some people are speculating the shooting may have been an accident — the officer may have grabbed his gun by mistake because he thought he was instead grabbing a Taser device.

Regardless of whether this was an accident or whether it was intentional on the officer’s part the fact of the matter is that it is a horrendous tragedy. I just wonder why a BART officer even needs to be armed with a firearm? Granted, I have only rode the BART a handful of times, but I just can’t imagine a situation there that would necessitate the use of deadly force. To me a Taser device would be more than enough.

Link via “Citizen videos” spread online showing BART police officer shooting unarmed man to death – Boing Boing .

Stimulus money to national parks?

Posted on
Reply

Daily KOS has an article detailing a recent report by the NPCA that asks from money from Obama’s economic stimulus package in order to revamp national parks. The author over at KOS writes that:

There are any number of things that could be done with the upcoming, huge stimulus package to put Americans back to work and and improve infrastructure. About $2.5 billion of that to go to our national parks, says the National Parks Conservation Association, and they have a plan.

This makes sense to me, and I would love to see the National Parks get money in order to properly maintain their services. What I am worried about is that maintenance would turn into expansion. I live right outside of Yosemite National Park and just cringe every time I drive through the valley. It’s one thing to make National Parks accessible and provide for simple accommodations, but that ought to be it. The amount of buildings, paved roadways, etc. in Yosemite Valley and other National Parks is just too bad.

This is what I am worried about seeing stimulus money go toward. If the NPCA wants money to maintain the current roads and buildings then that’s fine; however, if the money is intended for widening roads, building even more housing, and other forms of expansion, then I would have to say that I would be opposed to that. At some point we must realize that by accommodating everyone into a National Park we will simply lose what the park is there for: to protect the natural beauty of the place.

Link via Daily Kos: State of the Nation.