O/T: Opinion AKA: LipStick On A Pig

Page 1 of 4  
Opinion:
I'm glad women are starting to hold high positions not only in gov't, but also in our political parties.
It has been a long road since the days of Margaret Chase Smith of Maine.
Choosing a women to run as your party's candidate for the 2nd highest office is great, but it does not include the privilege of hiding behind her skirts to avoid facing the issues.
"LipStick on a pig", as a vicious personal attack issue? Give me a break.
Let's hear about some issues.
McCain states, "Were going to shake things up in Washington".
Okay, it's his party he wants to shake up, go for it, but that is an internal Republican party housekeeping problem, not a proposal to solve anything.
Maybe he knows something the rest of us don't, but so far haven't heard anything but the same old time political mumbo jumbo attack politics.
As I listen, "Where's the beef?", comes to mind.
When do we get a proposal to solve some of our problems?
I'd like to see something about any of the following:
* What is his proposal to address health care problems?
* What is proposal to address global warming issues?
* What is proposal to address alternate energy policies? (Drill baby drill doesn't count. That's about like saying make more buggy whips to make the cars go faster)
* What is proposal to address veteran's issues or do we just forget about them? We owe them big time.
* What is his proposal to address fiscal problems?
* What is proposal to restore our position of leadership on the world stage?
The list goes on (Iraq, etc), but a proposal on any of the above would be refreshing.
The silence on the critical issues facing us from McCain to date is deafening.
Based on his lack of response to date, one can only assume a continuation of the last 8 years.
What am I missing?
What haven't I heard?
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 11 Sep 2008 06:20:32 +0000, Lew Hodgett wrote:

I freely admit I could, and most probably am, wrong on this, but here is My Opinion:
The people who read and participate in this NG, and other woodworking web based forums, are literate (they can read and write, compose paragraphs, etc.) can use technology like computers, and know how to think through a sequence of steps in using tools (hand and power) to accomplish a goal. In short, they have disciplined their minds to invest their time into projects that are *delayed* gratification by the nature of taking more than an hour to complete; and then delay it even longer when they start the finishing process.
However, mews-readers on TV and Cable, on the other hand, don't want to devote more than 15 seconds to economic theory. How can a person, any person, explain economic theory on blue collar job expansions by private enterprises in 15 seconds. Therefore, it comes down to what will fill that 15 seconds TV has allocated to a discussion of political economics: Spending money to fund Community Colleges across the country to expand teaching small business start-up, or fill that time with "Lipstick?"
You will have to trust me on this, it is easier to explain (in 15 second bites) lipstick quotes than it is to explain causes of 11 retail banking failures in one or two regions and none in rest of country.
Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity being generated?" Is that electricity used by cars really all that pollution free?
Again, I could be wrong here. It sometimes is not the politician's but the News-readers time limit on a subject; they don't want the audience to switch channels, do they?
Again, IMHO, and I may be wrong.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The pure electric cars (i.e. plugin, not gas/electric hybrid) are going to be better for the environment because while yes, the large power generators at the power company do create pollution, they're generally more regulated and much more efficient than either the gas/ electric hybrid or the gas only car, or pretty much any internal combustion engine.
Think about it this way... you could run your house by firing up a 2kW portable generator. But you know those things aren't as good as the power company, because you don't run your house on those portable generators unless you have to. They're prone to failure, are expensive to operate (i.e. keeping fuel in them and repairing them when they break), are inefficient, and are annoying to have on all the time.
So while an electric car is indeed causing pollution, it's going to be overall less because of the economies of scale involved. For a small generator to power the car, it might generate X tons of pollution, whereas a power company to provide the same power, the pollution might only be 50% of X, which is a better deal for everyone involved.
-Nathan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

This seems to make sense and I'd guess that you are correct. But it's one of those things that could be counterintuitive. I'd like to see some data or at least a technical analysis. In that analysis, it would be very interesting to know the NET effect in environmental impact. I agree the the net is probably positive regarding electric cars, but I have no idea whether it's a large or small improvement once you factor in the "environmental cost" of generating the electricity.
Let's face it, popular culture is becoming very obsessed with being "green" and the consumer industry has jumped on the bandwagon to milk our sentiment for every possible $$. The upside is that it has raised awareness. That's good, but it's not good if the economic load to "go green" is MUCH larger than the REAL benefit to the environment. I'm not saying that it's not worth it, I'm saying that I don't have enough FACTUAL data to form a conclusion.
The bottom line is, these this are more complicated that they appear.
Certain factions seem to feel that no cost is too high. I would ask them this: "Would you spend $1,000,000 to save an entire species of animal? Most of us would answer "yes".
Okay then, what about one individual animal. Fewer would say "yes".
What about a tree, or a small plant. Is $1,000,000 worth it?
Food for thought...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Phil Again wrote:

Couple of comments. First, I think demand for natural gas is increasing faster than demand for oil. It may be cheaper now (haven't checked prices for equal BTUs lately) but that may change in the not-so-distant future.
Second, all else being equal larger fuel-burning motors are more efficient than smaller ones. Also, electric motors can be very efficient. Thus, one really big motor at a power plant burning oil to generate electricity to power electric cars could end up being more efficient overall than a bunch of gas-powered cars.
Also, some baseload power plants run at basically full capacity regardless of load. Because of this, a certain amount of baseload generating capacity is "wasted" at night when power consumption drops. This power could be used to charge electric vehicles with minimal effect on overall demand.
Chris
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

generation plants that use oil burners to create the steam.
Phil
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You will have to trust me on this, it is easier to explain (in 15 second bites) lipstick quotes than it is to explain causes of 11 retail banking failures in one or two regions and none in rest of country. Example two: Am I the only person who thinks USA should outlaw the use of Oil and diesel fuel from being used as fuel at large Electrical power plants? And, should Taxpayers offer interest free loans to Utility plants to convert from Oil power plants to Nat Gas? Am I the only person who looks at electrical cars and asks "where and how is that electricity being generated?" Is that electricity used by cars really all that pollution free?
Even Palin can't explain the Fannie Mae deal in 15 seconds or two days!
As to the electrical power plant thing, yes, but.
"BUT" we are not now using oil to generate electricity at more than a handful of locations.
Nearly 80% of our transportation infrastructure, however, depends upon oil.
We impose a tax ($0.50/gallon) on imported Ethanol. THis needs to be eliminated.
We require an FM radio in all vehicles sold in the US, but do not require they be "multi-fuel" capable (adds about $120 to the production cost).
We lease oil reserves (on and off shore) without adding "explore it or lose it" language to the leases. (80% of the leases controled by Oil Corps sit idle as we speak)
OPEC has a big say in US energy production.
They decide what they will produce and, thus, influence the price per bbl at will. They added two new producing nations to OPEC without increasing output by a single barrel. Thus, effectively reducing world supplies!
Republicans (including self-styled Mavericks) have regularly opposed CAFE standards intended to reduce US demand
Our fleet used to include millions of propane-fueled vehicles - many sit in junk-yards today. These could be converted to Picken's NG, no? If we can build propane cars and trucks, we can build NG cars and trucks Every converted vehicle reduces US demand and puts pressure on OPEC
Republicans (including self-styled Mavericks) have regularly opposed significant incentives for personal Hybrid purchases You might get $2,000.00 if you bought a Prius, but it would cost you five grand more than a Hyundai They supported a four-year recaprure on the purchase of a Hummer for small business amounting to nearly forty-grand worth of incentives to put those monsters in every real estate office in the land.
Big Oil wants to lease the rest of the sites before drilling on what they have under lease now. Why is that? Control. If they can lease it all, they control all drilling in the US and thus they can have their own little OPEC. There will be no competition possble - no maverick upstart company could lease a site and start drilling as there would be no more leases available.
In fairness, the Republicans are good businessmen - savvy folks who know how to keep America's oil companies profitable. Folks who know better than I how to keep them earning big bucks and protect their future earnings. Folks who may have tunnel vision. Folks who may not see the the health, safety and well-being of our citizens as a higher value than protecting Capitalist perogatives.
They are working these schemes for our own good ;)
.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hopefully. Large Power Plants use fuel oil almost exclusively to ignite their primary fuel, coal. Outlawing it would make it harder to get the coal burners started, which would lead to environmental problems (unburnt coal in the fly ash) without substantial savings of petroleum.
Oil and natural gas combined only account for about 10% of the electricity generated in the US. Most of that is at smaller facilities.

It sometimes seems to me that you and I are the only *two* people who ask that question.

Generally speaking the economies of scale make pollution abatement at a large centralized power plant more effective overall than at hundreds of thousands of small engines.
I think.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sorry, that should have been 20%.

Yes.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I know you don't really want to know, or you would have looked already, but you could read McCain's web site for answers to your questions. But I know it's more fun to pretend that McCain has said nothing about the above.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"todd" wrote:

As a matter of fact, have looked at the McCain_Palin web.
As far as I can tell, it is the standard regurgitation the Replublicans have been spewing the last 8 years that hasn't worked.
They need a serious update.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So which is it? Has McCain said nothing at all as you originally asserted or has he said something, but you just don't agree with it? I know...it's *sooo* hard keeping all of the liberal propaganda straight. Turn to page 184 of the playbook for your next response.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"todd" wrote:

So far all I see is a continuation of the last 8 years and think it is pretty well documented how these ideas have worked.
It is stuff straight out of G Bush's mouth.
McCain indicates he wants to change things.
I'm all for that, I'm waiting for McCain to tell me how he is different than Bush.
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Lew Hodgett wrote:

He won't wait 8 years to cross in Pakistan in pursuit of the bad guys.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

As for wanting change, what makes you think change from W's policies would be a good thing? You, me, and the sum of the posters in this group do NOT have the whole story. We are bound by what is reported in the papers and as such have no real idea on exactly why a specific plan of action was taken. It's convienent for us to comment on how bad the war in Iraq is, or how terrible a certain economic plan is - but when it comes down to it we have nothing better to offer. All we can do is vote what sounds good to us, which is why I'm voting for Barr this time. But I won't let my dissapointment with the current administration lead me to insult the President or disrespect a serving Senator (not that I'm implying you've done those things either) because even at their worst I could never do better. If I have in the past insulted them, it was at my most immodest of times.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Eigenvector" wrote:

Interesting observation, what makes you say that?

The last 8 years would be a pretty good indication.

Nobody ever accused the current adminstration of playing straight with the American people.

I certainly hope so.
Think that is why we are having an election.
It won't take much too exceed what is in place.

If that is what your research indicates you should do, then by all means do it.

What does disrespect have to do with incompetence?
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess some people feel that recognizing an incompetent leader is disrespectful.
I'm not at all sure Bush-Cheney is incompetent. They've done very well for family and friends, and very poorly for the country because of that. IMO, Bush should be impeached and tried as a traitor. Cheney, too.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

<SNIP>
specifically have YOU experienced in the last 8 years that has led you to believe Bush to be incompetent? I certainly wouldn't call someone incompetent unless I had first hand experience to back it up. Just because all my friends call someone a loser doesn't mean I'm going to.
Personally I've done far better under Bush than I have under Clinton, although I personally have no issues with Clinton years of service either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What I experienced personally is that my brother in law refused to come to the US to help celebrate our 40th anniversary, because of Bush's policies. What I experienced is disgust that a President could lie to the country (either totally wilfully or through incompetence to get the facts) and involve us in a war that was not necesary. I have always had total disgust for the piece of shit who ruled Iraq, but there was no evidence of WoMD or of collaboration with Al Quaeda. Most importantly, that war was started with a lack of sufficient assets and a lack of access. It was started without an adequate plan for governing of the occupied territory, without a plan to police the people or to bring the different factions and tribes together. Remember, what we call Iraq is just some lines on a map drawb after WWI. Lastly, after occupying the area, there was no effort to secure weapons and ammunition left behind the Iraq armed forces, which were disbanded and left to the designs of individuals. And finally, the much ballyhooed (sp?) rebuilding of Iraq has hardly begun, if it has at all. Iraq was a wellfunctioning country as far as economics was concerned. Now it is a total shambles. And I (and you) have to pay for it!!!
And yes, indeed I have not suffered severe financial hardships, but my work has been rather much impeded for lack of funds. The NIH budget has gone down in real terms, and now it is being wasted in part because salaries are being continued, but real work is much slowed because of the need to write more and more grant applications. These are being denied simply because they are first submissions or frst resubmissions, there may be a chance of funding for second or third resubmissions.
</end of rant>
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Eigenvector" wrote:

If you need the obvious explained to you, where would you like to start?
Lew
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.