There has been a lot of talk recently about punishing Florida and Michigan for primary-election-time-placement and a lot of people are getting up in arms, claiming that it's a violation of our constitutional right to vote. As a Florida resident, I'm a bit peeved at the situation, but the wrong case is being made. It isn't a violation of our rights for any party to not count Primary votes. Political parties are independent organizations; the constitution did not call for Parties and we shouldn't pretend that it does.
Here are a few interesting (and some not so interesting) takes on Florida/Michigan and the Primary Votes:
#1
He sounds vaguely Cro-Magnon. Notice the excessive exclamation points (Why is he screaming? Or is that grunting....)
#2
This is a CNN article that is interesting because it talks about some logistics.
#3
This is a group that is pushing a petition that, they hope, will bring their strife to the attention of the Democratic Party.
The bottom line is that it could be in the best interest of any party to count all the votes cast during primary elections, but we're positioning it wrong. One of the most powerful things you have as a citizen in the US is your right to vote, but you also have the right not to vote. Not counting these votes isn't wrong because of the Constitution, or because of the feelings of anybody; it's wrong because the Parties are biting the hand that feeds them. How do you show that? You don't whine, because they don't care about your whining. You refuse to vote in November. Show some weight! Refuse to vote and they'll count the votes you already cast.
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Sticking a Foot in Your Mouth
"'My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it,' she said, dismissing calls to drop out." (via NYPost, complete article here).
Are we grasping for straws, or what? Creepy? A bit. Scary? Maybe.
Are we grasping for straws, or what? Creepy? A bit. Scary? Maybe.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Bob Chapman?
While scrolling through my Google-Reader today, I came across this little nugget of a headline:
"THE NEARLY UNFATHOMABLE DEPTHS OF PENTAGON CORRUPTION" by Bob Chapman
I laughed out loud. Bob, have you been living under a rock?
"THE NEARLY UNFATHOMABLE DEPTHS OF PENTAGON CORRUPTION" by Bob Chapman
I laughed out loud. Bob, have you been living under a rock?
Reducing Foreign Oil Dependence
From Cleantechnica on Obama's Plan to Reduce Foreign Oil Dependence:
"Doubling fuel economy standards within the next 18 years is a priority to Obama. Research in engines and advanced lightweight materials will help meet this goal. He also wants to assist auto makers in increasing fuel economy standards through loan guarantees and tax credits for domestic auto manufacturers."
That's cool. But my father and I drive a Volkswagen. What is this? The Soviet Union? Cutting out foreign car manufacturers isn't the answer. Making American Car companies into monopolies isn't the answer. There is a reason that I don't drive an American car: our Volkswagen is much nicer and much more dependable than my mother's Jeep.
This isn't about decreasing foreign dependence. Obama's plan is a plan for foreign alienation. There's a difference.
"Obama’s goal is to have two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol in use by 2013. He plans to use tax incentives, government contracts and cash prizes to help this industry mature and specifically wants to encourage farmer-owned refineries. He would like renewable fuel standards to increase, such that 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels are in the fuel supply by 2030."
If only ethanol worked. Ethanol does burn cleaner, but it also holds less chemical energy for the same volume. Ethanol also burns faster and costs more. My local gas stations are selling 10% ethanol blends at higher prices. Since the ethanol supply is subsidized, that means more frequent and profitable repeat business for energy suppliers and corn growing-conglomerates like ADM.
Faster burning, more expensive fuel means more frequent trips to the gas station which in turn means increased emissions, which adds to the problem that Ethanol was meant to solve. Ethanol corrosion of engine parts also means more dollars spent on parts replacement, new cars and labor in the automobile industries, which also has negative impact on the environment (more stuff put into landfills at a faster rate and more carbon emitted making new cars and parts). So is ethanol about the environment or is this about profit for energy, agribusiness and automobile corporations? Who are the biggest donors to Obama's campaign?
"By 2025, Obama would like 25% of U.S. electricity to be generated from clean, renewable sources including wind, solar and geothermal with a Renewable Portfolio Standard. Obama calls for $150 billion to be invested over 10 years in clean energy and infrastructure to support it. Investment in a national digital electric grid would allow greater amounts of renewable energy to be utilized and make plug-in hybrids more environmentally sound.
“For the sake of our security, our economy, our jobs and our planet, the age of oil must end in our time,” said Obama."
Where is that $150 billion going to come from? Has he forgotten that we're in debt to our eyeballs? Roll out the taxes. Who are you? Prince John? I'll be your Robin Hood.
But more importantly, for the sake of our security we need to make peace with people by making agreements not pushing them out of the sandbox. For our economy we do need to lower prices but we need to do that by opening up trade, not shutting it off. For our jobs we need to push education. For our planet we need to reduce the number of SUVs on the road, we need to cut down our Eliot-Spitzer-style consumption and be more weary of greenwashed politicians and products.
"Doubling fuel economy standards within the next 18 years is a priority to Obama. Research in engines and advanced lightweight materials will help meet this goal. He also wants to assist auto makers in increasing fuel economy standards through loan guarantees and tax credits for domestic auto manufacturers."
That's cool. But my father and I drive a Volkswagen. What is this? The Soviet Union? Cutting out foreign car manufacturers isn't the answer. Making American Car companies into monopolies isn't the answer. There is a reason that I don't drive an American car: our Volkswagen is much nicer and much more dependable than my mother's Jeep.
This isn't about decreasing foreign dependence. Obama's plan is a plan for foreign alienation. There's a difference.
"Obama’s goal is to have two billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol in use by 2013. He plans to use tax incentives, government contracts and cash prizes to help this industry mature and specifically wants to encourage farmer-owned refineries. He would like renewable fuel standards to increase, such that 60 billion gallons of advanced biofuels are in the fuel supply by 2030."
If only ethanol worked. Ethanol does burn cleaner, but it also holds less chemical energy for the same volume. Ethanol also burns faster and costs more. My local gas stations are selling 10% ethanol blends at higher prices. Since the ethanol supply is subsidized, that means more frequent and profitable repeat business for energy suppliers and corn growing-conglomerates like ADM.
Faster burning, more expensive fuel means more frequent trips to the gas station which in turn means increased emissions, which adds to the problem that Ethanol was meant to solve. Ethanol corrosion of engine parts also means more dollars spent on parts replacement, new cars and labor in the automobile industries, which also has negative impact on the environment (more stuff put into landfills at a faster rate and more carbon emitted making new cars and parts). So is ethanol about the environment or is this about profit for energy, agribusiness and automobile corporations? Who are the biggest donors to Obama's campaign?
"By 2025, Obama would like 25% of U.S. electricity to be generated from clean, renewable sources including wind, solar and geothermal with a Renewable Portfolio Standard. Obama calls for $150 billion to be invested over 10 years in clean energy and infrastructure to support it. Investment in a national digital electric grid would allow greater amounts of renewable energy to be utilized and make plug-in hybrids more environmentally sound.
“For the sake of our security, our economy, our jobs and our planet, the age of oil must end in our time,” said Obama."
Where is that $150 billion going to come from? Has he forgotten that we're in debt to our eyeballs? Roll out the taxes. Who are you? Prince John? I'll be your Robin Hood.
But more importantly, for the sake of our security we need to make peace with people by making agreements not pushing them out of the sandbox. For our economy we do need to lower prices but we need to do that by opening up trade, not shutting it off. For our jobs we need to push education. For our planet we need to reduce the number of SUVs on the road, we need to cut down our Eliot-Spitzer-style consumption and be more weary of greenwashed politicians and products.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)