An opinionated look at current events, culture and faith, since 2005 telling you what to think and why to think it about everything that really matters.
We take heart that John McCain, who appears more certain every day to be the GOP nominee, leads both Democratic frontrunners rather nicely in the latest Rasmussen head-to-head.
There's reason to hope in the bleak midwinter.
7 comments:
Anonymous
said...
This actually brings up a good point. Just as in running itself, leading actually has many disadvantages both psychologically and physically. I wonder if there might be some advantage to the "drafting" of a second place contender like Romney. And, have we seen this effect already come into play this primary? Are we seeing it come into play on the D side, or has Obama waited to long to start his kick? I find this metaphor to be, potentially, a very fruitful one.
Harrumph. McCain actually said something I agree with:
""My friends, I believe global climate change is real, and I think it's a major issue worldwide and in this country. I have been at odds with the Bush administration on this issue for a long time. Suppose that there's no such thing as climate change and we adopt clean technologies. We go to nuclear power. We develop automobiles that go 200 miles before you have to plug them in. We go to hybrids. We use ethanol. There's a broad array of steps we can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Suppose we do these things and we're wrong about global warming. Then all we've done is given our children a cleaner world. But suppose we are right--that climate change is an urgent issue--and we do nothing. I think the consequences are obvious and would be devastating."
Right on. Pascal would agree with his logic completely.
But pat there is a problem with this logic. All of these things cost a lot of money and resources. Some of them are really inefficient and have negative consequences for the world's poor, like ethanol which takes food and turns it into fuel and uses a lot of energy in the process.
I have no problem with nuclear energy if done right, but we still have to deal with the waste and the NIMBY factor.
And all this climate change business takes resources away from other areas that are more pressing.
Don't get me wrong, of the candidates that are left, McCain is probably the least offensive to me. But he is hardly ideal.
There is a part of me that would prefer Obama as president, because at least no one (besides Hillary) will try to call him a conservative and blame conservatism for his failures.
McCain is running in front because he's still largely a media darling. That will change just as soon he gets the nomination. They will turn on him and slay him, helping to elect the Democrat, to the shock and awe of those who swnidishly touted his candidacy.
Polls now are worthless, both the ones showing McCain ahead of the Dem candidates, and the ones showing Romney far behind them. (Dukakis led Bush 41 by seventeen points in Aug. of 1988.)
When McCain finally loses the general election, we'll all take great comfort in that lead he had back in January of 2008. Whee.
I don't McCain is suggesting plowing the entire US Budget into fixing "climate change".
Surely if our country can afford nearly 1 trillion dollars in 2009 for defense spending we can allocate some time/money/energy into addressing some of our more pressing enviromental concerns.
Global Warming bogeymen aside there are very real and immediate health consequences to much of our industrial/agricultural activity on this planet. Addressing those things, "creating a cleaner world" (as McCain phrases it), will address some of the very things you're concerned about.
Love McCain doing Streisand, just as we loved Nelson doing Streisand on The Simpsons.
On the comparison between defense spending and spending on the environment, we suggest care in such comparisons, which embed so many unproved assumptions as to make the comparisons mere empty rhetoric (same goes for the famous bumper sticker about schools, the defense department and bake sales). Specifically, the statement appears to assume:
*spending $1 trillion on anything is indicative of essentially unlimited resources. *spending on the environment will yield positive results for human safety in the same way that spending on defense does, or better. *taking money from citizens with taxes assures that it will be spent on their good more efficiently than if they spend it themselves. *spending on so-called environmental concerns would be better than spending on other concerns (as favorite examples of ourse, we'll name reducing malaria; providing clean water for the global poor; improving transportation, telecommunication and sanitation infrastructure in the developing world; reducing agricultural subsidies in the industrialized world and boosting agricultural efficiency in the developing world to allow for free trade of agricultural commodities and economic development for the world's farmers; removing kleptocracies like those in Burma or Zimbabwe, etc.).
Of course, if resources are unlimited and $1 trillion on defense illustrates that, then there's no need to worry about efficiency or efficacy. We can always just spend more. I don't know about you, but that's certainly how the SWNID household operates (if we spend X on a house payment, surely we can afford Y for cable TV!), so it probably works at a national level as well.
7 comments:
This actually brings up a good point. Just as in running itself, leading actually has many disadvantages both psychologically and physically. I wonder if there might be some advantage to the "drafting" of a second place contender like Romney. And, have we seen this effect already come into play this primary? Are we seeing it come into play on the D side, or has Obama waited to long to start his kick? I find this metaphor to be, potentially, a very fruitful one.
yjqymwbu
Harrumph. McCain actually said something I agree with:
""My friends, I believe global climate change is real, and I think it's a major issue worldwide and in this country. I have been at odds with the Bush administration on this issue for a long time. Suppose that there's no such thing as climate change and we adopt clean technologies. We go to nuclear power. We develop automobiles that go 200 miles before you have to plug them in. We go to hybrids. We use ethanol. There's a broad array of steps we can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Suppose we do these things and we're wrong about global warming. Then all we've done is given our children a cleaner world. But suppose we are right--that climate change is an urgent issue--and we do nothing. I think the consequences are obvious and would be devastating."
Right on. Pascal would agree with his logic completely.
But pat there is a problem with this logic. All of these things cost a lot of money and resources. Some of them are really inefficient and have negative consequences for the world's poor, like ethanol which takes food and turns it into fuel and uses a lot of energy in the process.
I have no problem with nuclear energy if done right, but we still have to deal with the waste and the NIMBY factor.
And all this climate change business takes resources away from other areas that are more pressing.
Don't get me wrong, of the candidates that are left, McCain is probably the least offensive to me. But he is hardly ideal.
There is a part of me that would prefer Obama as president, because at least no one (besides Hillary) will try to call him a conservative and blame conservatism for his failures.
McCain is running in front because he's still largely a media darling. That will change just as soon he gets the nomination. They will turn on him and slay him, helping to elect the Democrat, to the shock and awe of those who swnidishly touted his candidacy.
Polls now are worthless, both the ones showing McCain ahead of the Dem candidates, and the ones showing Romney far behind them. (Dukakis led Bush 41 by seventeen points in Aug. of 1988.)
When McCain finally loses the general election, we'll all take great comfort in that lead he had back in January of 2008. Whee.
@Chris,
I don't McCain is suggesting plowing the entire US Budget into fixing "climate change".
Surely if our country can afford nearly 1 trillion dollars in 2009 for defense spending we can allocate some time/money/energy into addressing some of our more pressing enviromental concerns.
Global Warming bogeymen aside there are very real and immediate health consequences to much of our industrial/agricultural activity on this planet. Addressing those things, "creating a cleaner world" (as McCain phrases it), will address some of the very things you're concerned about.
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTD7FP1mAYk
Love McCain doing Streisand, just as we loved Nelson doing Streisand on The Simpsons.
On the comparison between defense spending and spending on the environment, we suggest care in such comparisons, which embed so many unproved assumptions as to make the comparisons mere empty rhetoric (same goes for the famous bumper sticker about schools, the defense department and bake sales). Specifically, the statement appears to assume:
*spending $1 trillion on anything is indicative of essentially unlimited resources.
*spending on the environment will yield positive results for human safety in the same way that spending on defense does, or better.
*taking money from citizens with taxes assures that it will be spent on their good more efficiently than if they spend it themselves.
*spending on so-called environmental concerns would be better than spending on other concerns (as favorite examples of ourse, we'll name reducing malaria; providing clean water for the global poor; improving transportation, telecommunication and sanitation infrastructure in the developing world; reducing agricultural subsidies in the industrialized world and boosting agricultural efficiency in the developing world to allow for free trade of agricultural commodities and economic development for the world's farmers; removing kleptocracies like those in Burma or Zimbabwe, etc.).
Of course, if resources are unlimited and $1 trillion on defense illustrates that, then there's no need to worry about efficiency or efficacy. We can always just spend more. I don't know about you, but that's certainly how the SWNID household operates (if we spend X on a house payment, surely we can afford Y for cable TV!), so it probably works at a national level as well.
Post a Comment