The key words in the title are just so I can try and get rid of the Christian stuff that popped up on the site after the Olsteen entry, but the going to be gone part is true. I am leaving for a week to go to an environmental leadership camp put on by the Sierra Club. I will be learning all kinds of interesting stuff, listening to awesome speakers, and generally having a good time...hopefully. I'm taking my computer with me (they have wireless at the park), but I don't imagin I will have time to up date while I'm there. I plan on taking very good notes though, and having one mega environment entry when I get back.
Happy blogging everyone!
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Friday, July 18, 2008
Texas Finally Did Something Right
Texas approved a $4.9 billion plan to build energy transmission lines in order to transport the wind-generated electricity in the West Texas wind farms. It's said to be the biggest investment in renewable energy in the nation's history. While Texas is already the national leader in wind energy, this investment will insure there is the proper infrastructure to transport the energy collected from the turbines.
It seems that finally Texas is taking a step in the right direction, and for once we are an innovative example for the nation. Hopefully this will just be one step of many that the Lone Star State takes toward a more environmentally friendly way of life. And hey, if Texas can do it, a state which is infamous for it's oil production and consumption, anyone can. There is hope for the Nation yet.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Fanny and Freddy and Indy, Oh my!
This has been a very interesting economic week overall. It included the second largest financial institution to ever fail, Indymac, being taken over by the FDIC this past Friday, Sunday the government promising to bail out the mortgage finance giants Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, yesterday the Dow jumping up more then 200 points, and today oil falling under $130 a barrel.
This has been a week of government regulations and a small economic upswing, which seems to imply that the government intervention is causing the boost in the economy, but I beg to differ. The cause of the increase in the Dow was the increase in bank stocks. Banks stocks finally bottomed out and investors started to buy. This is economics 101, if a price drops low enough, people will buy as an investment, then the stock will rise. Once stocks begin to rise the economy goes up. Behold the power of the free market. A lot of people will make the argument that the government backing of Fanny and Freddy gave people enough confidence in the market to buy, but really I think its as simple as low prices equals buyer prices.
Free market economics has always been a source of debate in this country, it's really the essence of the on going battle between our two lovely primary political parties, but I would venture to say that this is true even more so now. Currently "free market" almost is teetering on the line of buzz word. You hear it thrown around all the time in political forums and blogs. You can't talk about the economy with out hearing it dropped into the conversation, so the main stream public is really starting to think about it, whether it be positively or negatively. Personally, I am pro. I do not believe that there should be third party regulation of prices or consumption. My basic philosophy is let it ride and the market will take care of itself, as we have seen in the past.
Here is where I flip just a little, while I'm for letting the overall economy do its thing, I am also for social welfare programs. Our tax money should not go towards bailing out Fanny and Freddy, or any other big name business in trouble for that matter, but instead insuring that the lower rung of society's quality of life meets a certain basic standard. The best policies are those that let everyone move up in the world, and to help those who may have a harder time getting started in that process. It is a common idea that you can judge a society by the status of it's lowest citizens. If we can use our tax dollars to insure those who need money get it, we can go a long way to improve the life of the lower class, along with boosting the economy. Almost every dollar that is put into the hands of an individual of lower socio-economic status will be turned around and directly put back in the economy. So why not give money back to the people that really need it?
But as it is now, we are half-assing it both ways. We try to regulate some parts of the economy but not others, we put in place government welfare programs that only kind of work, and then we expect (depending on who is in power) for the economy to fix itself even after we've begun those counter productive regulations. Why not take all of that wasted money, put it towards a few really good programs, and get rid of the rest of the government interference and bureaucracy? You know, cut out the fat. Seems like such a simple solution for such a seemingly complicated problem. But when talking about the economy, this is one time where more money really is a viable solution.
Yeah, I know, I'm too idealistic, we can never be that efficient, but, then again, maybe we can. Either way, wouldn't you like to find out?
This has been a week of government regulations and a small economic upswing, which seems to imply that the government intervention is causing the boost in the economy, but I beg to differ. The cause of the increase in the Dow was the increase in bank stocks. Banks stocks finally bottomed out and investors started to buy. This is economics 101, if a price drops low enough, people will buy as an investment, then the stock will rise. Once stocks begin to rise the economy goes up. Behold the power of the free market. A lot of people will make the argument that the government backing of Fanny and Freddy gave people enough confidence in the market to buy, but really I think its as simple as low prices equals buyer prices.
Free market economics has always been a source of debate in this country, it's really the essence of the on going battle between our two lovely primary political parties, but I would venture to say that this is true even more so now. Currently "free market" almost is teetering on the line of buzz word. You hear it thrown around all the time in political forums and blogs. You can't talk about the economy with out hearing it dropped into the conversation, so the main stream public is really starting to think about it, whether it be positively or negatively. Personally, I am pro. I do not believe that there should be third party regulation of prices or consumption. My basic philosophy is let it ride and the market will take care of itself, as we have seen in the past.
Here is where I flip just a little, while I'm for letting the overall economy do its thing, I am also for social welfare programs. Our tax money should not go towards bailing out Fanny and Freddy, or any other big name business in trouble for that matter, but instead insuring that the lower rung of society's quality of life meets a certain basic standard. The best policies are those that let everyone move up in the world, and to help those who may have a harder time getting started in that process. It is a common idea that you can judge a society by the status of it's lowest citizens. If we can use our tax dollars to insure those who need money get it, we can go a long way to improve the life of the lower class, along with boosting the economy. Almost every dollar that is put into the hands of an individual of lower socio-economic status will be turned around and directly put back in the economy. So why not give money back to the people that really need it?
But as it is now, we are half-assing it both ways. We try to regulate some parts of the economy but not others, we put in place government welfare programs that only kind of work, and then we expect (depending on who is in power) for the economy to fix itself even after we've begun those counter productive regulations. Why not take all of that wasted money, put it towards a few really good programs, and get rid of the rest of the government interference and bureaucracy? You know, cut out the fat. Seems like such a simple solution for such a seemingly complicated problem. But when talking about the economy, this is one time where more money really is a viable solution.
Yeah, I know, I'm too idealistic, we can never be that efficient, but, then again, maybe we can. Either way, wouldn't you like to find out?
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
If there is a hell Joel Osteen's going
Note: So I've decided to start something called "Tangent Tuesday." I really don't want my blog to turn into me whining and complaining and spouting off random opinions, but that doesn't mean I can't have one day of it. I figure if you don't want to read my tangents, then just don't come on Tuesday's. See? Easy.
So I'm spending the week with my sister in Houston, and on my way to her place from work I take 59, which goes right by the old Compact Center (where the Rockets use to play). A few years back, when they decided to build a new stadium, a small humble little church called Lakewood bought it from that proffesional basketball team and made it it's home. The Compact Center now houses 40,000+ worshipers and Joel Osteen.
So I'm spending the week with my sister in Houston, and on my way to her place from work I take 59, which goes right by the old Compact Center (where the Rockets use to play). A few years back, when they decided to build a new stadium, a small humble little church called Lakewood bought it from that proffesional basketball team and made it it's home. The Compact Center now houses 40,000+ worshipers and Joel Osteen.I realize that this is old news, and I too made my peace with Mr. Osteen those few years ago, but today, for some reason, I really got ticked off again. I think it was because on the side of the church, in as big a letters as the church name itself, was his name. Joel Osteen two stories high. I couldn't help but gagg a little.
So, I sat and pondered for a second (after I fumed) why the hell this guy is so popular. And eventually the answer came to me; he dumbs down religion for the masses. That's what all the new age Christian religions are doing. It's no longer about studying your religious background, educating yourself on, not only those sound bite bible verses you get every week, but on every word of the scriptures. It's no longer about trying to find inherent truth by working at your relationship with God through study, but about coming to church every Sunday and mindlessly listening to a feel-good sermon that tells you that if you "pray for a parking spot, God shall provide," and that God wants us to be rich and prosperous, all you have to do is follow him. Since when was religion suppose to be about the money?
I mean yes, churches and religions have always tried to be as rich as possible, I mean look at the Catholic Church for Christ sake (...ha), but never before have they advocated for money to the masses. Joel Osteen is a multi-millionaire, and says his followers can be the same. What I don't understand is how can he sleep at night while millions of people suffer around him and still claim to be "a man of God." Does he honestly believe that God wants him to be getting his beauty sleep on a feather matress in monogramed silk pajamas (because you know he doesn't sleep in his underwear), while some child a few miles down only has rats and roaches as his bed-time companions? Where's the justification in that? Because the kids not a "follower of God"? That's some bullshit if thats the case.
My firm belief on the matter is, that the little good that comes from religion is it teaches people to be generous, modest and kind. Three things our society is generally very lacking in. But now, with the help of Mr. Osteen, one of those inherent religous values has fallen by the way side, I'll give you three guess as to wich one it is....
I realize this subject has been discussed to death by now, and I know I've really just gotten my self all worked up and solved nothing, but dammit this is Tangent Tuesday. Tomorrow I plan to dive head first into today's economic woes, but, unfortunatly, today in Sandwich Nation is all about the Osteen. Thanks for indulging me.
Monday, July 14, 2008
New Yorker depicts Obamas as terrorist
As I'm sure most of you have heard by now, next week's New Yorker cover will depict Barrack and Miche
lle Obama as a Muslim extremist and a terrorist, respectively. The New Yorker's official position on the cover is that it is a satirical representation of the acquisitions posed by Senator Obama's opponents. They were attempting to show the absurdity in said acquisitions, but instead it came across as "tasteless" and even "offensive".
I'd like to point out here that I am, by no means, an Obama supporter (I'm not a McCain supporter either for that matter), but I do think that this particular picture may have gone too far, especially considering they were attempting to show support by publishing it. It will be counter productive in terms of Obama's campaign, and end up just giving him one more thing he has to spend valuable campaign time defending.
Also, I'd like to clear up a misconception some people may have about those of us criticising the New Yorker, this is not a free speech issue. I am not suggesting, and nor do I think any one else is, that the cover should not be allowed to run. I am a firm believer in the right to free speech, even when it may be offensive. But I do think the cover was in bad taste. The only saving grace is the fact that it was meant as a satire. If this would have been released seriously by Obama's opposition, there would have been shock and awe running rampant through the nation. There seems to be a few thin lines still that you just do not cross, and this is something that falls into that category.
Please let me know what you think. I'm interested to hear other opinions on this. Also, I linked to the original article in the title if anyone is wants to read it.
lle Obama as a Muslim extremist and a terrorist, respectively. The New Yorker's official position on the cover is that it is a satirical representation of the acquisitions posed by Senator Obama's opponents. They were attempting to show the absurdity in said acquisitions, but instead it came across as "tasteless" and even "offensive".I'd like to point out here that I am, by no means, an Obama supporter (I'm not a McCain supporter either for that matter), but I do think that this particular picture may have gone too far, especially considering they were attempting to show support by publishing it. It will be counter productive in terms of Obama's campaign, and end up just giving him one more thing he has to spend valuable campaign time defending.
Also, I'd like to clear up a misconception some people may have about those of us criticising the New Yorker, this is not a free speech issue. I am not suggesting, and nor do I think any one else is, that the cover should not be allowed to run. I am a firm believer in the right to free speech, even when it may be offensive. But I do think the cover was in bad taste. The only saving grace is the fact that it was meant as a satire. If this would have been released seriously by Obama's opposition, there would have been shock and awe running rampant through the nation. There seems to be a few thin lines still that you just do not cross, and this is something that falls into that category.
Please let me know what you think. I'm interested to hear other opinions on this. Also, I linked to the original article in the title if anyone is wants to read it.
Friday, July 11, 2008
At least somethings will never change
So, I was worried I was going to have a hard time deciding on what I wanted my first real entry to be about, but then I came across this and all those fears melted away.
The Bush administration, as usual, is avoiding sticking their neck out on the line about anything that really matters. They are refusing to regulate greenhouse gasses; passing the buck to the next administration and completely ignoring the Supreme Court's May ruling to reduce emissions. The EPA goes as far to say that they "made no finding on whether global warming poses a threat to people's health," conveniently disregarding the basic fact that excess carbon dioxide in the air is bad...mmk (sorry, couldn't resist the reference).
This seems to be the general environmental policy of the current administration, ignore it, and hopefully it will magically ride off into the distance, or maybe, if their lucky, someone else will fix it. Either way, they don't' care as long as they don't have to actually address the problem. As we saw in 2002 when Bush dismissed his own administrations report that human activities are effecting climate change, in 2005 when he refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol and today in ignoring even a Supreme Court he stacked in his favor.
Beyond the general qualms with his policy, I don't understand his reluctance to use the Clean Air Act of 1990, an act his father helped pass. The act alone is not enough to fix all of our problems, I will admit, but it's a start. It outlines a clear and concise plan of action to reduce harmful emissions, unlike the recent G8 summit where they proposed a not-so-lofty goal of 50% reduction by 2050 but came up with no tangible plan to do so. If someone could shed some light on this for me I'd be much obliged.
At least we're at a point where our president is willing to admit that global warming is actually real. Now the problem is not to change the opinion of the administration, but to light a fire under it's ass and get it going. Unfortunately the fire is being kindled by the lukewarm environmental policy of the Republican party.
Well, fortunately for the environment, and the nation, there is a silver lining: we are in the home stretch of this president. Within a few months we will have new policies to pick apart, different decisions to critique, and a new president to complain about...or not. Personally, I'm hopping (even though it may mean near death for the political blog sphere) for the latter.
The Bush administration, as usual, is avoiding sticking their neck out on the line about anything that really matters. They are refusing to regulate greenhouse gasses; passing the buck to the next administration and completely ignoring the Supreme Court's May ruling to reduce emissions. The EPA goes as far to say that they "made no finding on whether global warming poses a threat to people's health," conveniently disregarding the basic fact that excess carbon dioxide in the air is bad...mmk (sorry, couldn't resist the reference).This seems to be the general environmental policy of the current administration, ignore it, and hopefully it will magically ride off into the distance, or maybe, if their lucky, someone else will fix it. Either way, they don't' care as long as they don't have to actually address the problem. As we saw in 2002 when Bush dismissed his own administrations report that human activities are effecting climate change, in 2005 when he refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol and today in ignoring even a Supreme Court he stacked in his favor.
Beyond the general qualms with his policy, I don't understand his reluctance to use the Clean Air Act of 1990, an act his father helped pass. The act alone is not enough to fix all of our problems, I will admit, but it's a start. It outlines a clear and concise plan of action to reduce harmful emissions, unlike the recent G8 summit where they proposed a not-so-lofty goal of 50% reduction by 2050 but came up with no tangible plan to do so. If someone could shed some light on this for me I'd be much obliged.
At least we're at a point where our president is willing to admit that global warming is actually real. Now the problem is not to change the opinion of the administration, but to light a fire under it's ass and get it going. Unfortunately the fire is being kindled by the lukewarm environmental policy of the Republican party.
Well, fortunately for the environment, and the nation, there is a silver lining: we are in the home stretch of this president. Within a few months we will have new policies to pick apart, different decisions to critique, and a new president to complain about...or not. Personally, I'm hopping (even though it may mean near death for the political blog sphere) for the latter.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
What I mean by "in the middle."
First and foremost, I am not a moderate fence rider. Quite the opposite actually, I am the extremes of both parties. And I would venture to say that a good portion of the American public can sympathise.
I am a born and bread Texan. I grew up in a small town, and I now go to school in our great state's capitol. I'm also white, middle class, and a Jew. Except for the last one, I am textbook republican. I should be hoot 'n hollerin for Bush, even to this day, but, thankfully, I am not. I was raised by die hard Democrats. My mother is a crazy ex-hippie, and my father an ex-rancher. They are like the ying and the yang of the democratic party.
Me personally, I'm not like my parents. My mother is staunchly liberal in every aspect. If she had her way we'd all be paying half our income to the government to take care of the poor, abortions would be free, and homosexual couples would get priority marriage licences. Fortunatly, my mother and I definitely share some of the same views, but unfortunatly, there are others she wants to kill me over as soon as the words slip out of my mouth (usually on accident. I'm pro peace. ) My father on the other hand is a very moderate Democrat, and relatively unpolitical compared to my mom and me. He votes every election, and he has his issues that he cares about, but he's not nearly as extreme and definitely not as vocal. He even admitted to me once that he voted for a Republican president. Right before he told me he looked around the room and leaned in close and was very serious. I was about 12 years old and completely terrified. I thought he was about to tell me that I was adopted, or that we ate puppies or something. Luckily it was only the fact that he voted for a GOP candidate how ever many years ago. Needless to say, I was relieved. I mean sure, at the time I thought republicans were the devil, but at least I hadn't been eating puppies all my life. Of course he hurriedly told me to NEVER tell my mother about it. Heh, hope mom doesn't read this.
So, I happen to be the best of both worlds I think. I am pro gay rights, pro abortion, pro helping poor people, and am anti-war. I like the idea of socialized health care, I'm into welfare programs, and I dig food stamps and unemployment. On the other hand I'm a capitalist through and through. I'm anti-over taxing, I'm against regulation of the economy, and more then anything I hate big government. I feel the only way a human being can be truly happy is if they have the ability to better their situation in life and move up through society. And I feel capitalism is the only way to insure that everyone has that opportunity. And, I know, I'm a walking and talking American bread wind up doll that spouts capitalistic propaganda I've been feed all my life. But hey, I'm pretty sure I'm right, and that's all that matters.
I guess now your probably wondering how we're going to help the poor if we don't raise taxes, and how is socialized health care not going to expand the role of the government, etc. etc.?Well, we've now come to the purpose of this blog. I plan to address those issues and more over the course of my writing. My goal is to run a political commentary on current events, along with clarifying my ideology, and hopefully entertaining the masses. We'll see how it goes. Also, I forgot to mention, I'm really big into the environment. I plan on having a weekly portion on cheap and easy ways to do your part for Mother Earth.
My goal is to really get my opinion out there, and hopefully make a small difference with it. Or at least that's what I'm telling myself. But honestly, I think my real goal is just to be entertaining enough to be worth reading, and maybe I'll get people thinking in the process. I guess we'll see.
I am a born and bread Texan. I grew up in a small town, and I now go to school in our great state's capitol. I'm also white, middle class, and a Jew. Except for the last one, I am textbook republican. I should be hoot 'n hollerin for Bush, even to this day, but, thankfully, I am not. I was raised by die hard Democrats. My mother is a crazy ex-hippie, and my father an ex-rancher. They are like the ying and the yang of the democratic party.
Me personally, I'm not like my parents. My mother is staunchly liberal in every aspect. If she had her way we'd all be paying half our income to the government to take care of the poor, abortions would be free, and homosexual couples would get priority marriage licences. Fortunatly, my mother and I definitely share some of the same views, but unfortunatly, there are others she wants to kill me over as soon as the words slip out of my mouth (usually on accident. I'm pro peace. ) My father on the other hand is a very moderate Democrat, and relatively unpolitical compared to my mom and me. He votes every election, and he has his issues that he cares about, but he's not nearly as extreme and definitely not as vocal. He even admitted to me once that he voted for a Republican president. Right before he told me he looked around the room and leaned in close and was very serious. I was about 12 years old and completely terrified. I thought he was about to tell me that I was adopted, or that we ate puppies or something. Luckily it was only the fact that he voted for a GOP candidate how ever many years ago. Needless to say, I was relieved. I mean sure, at the time I thought republicans were the devil, but at least I hadn't been eating puppies all my life. Of course he hurriedly told me to NEVER tell my mother about it. Heh, hope mom doesn't read this.
So, I happen to be the best of both worlds I think. I am pro gay rights, pro abortion, pro helping poor people, and am anti-war. I like the idea of socialized health care, I'm into welfare programs, and I dig food stamps and unemployment. On the other hand I'm a capitalist through and through. I'm anti-over taxing, I'm against regulation of the economy, and more then anything I hate big government. I feel the only way a human being can be truly happy is if they have the ability to better their situation in life and move up through society. And I feel capitalism is the only way to insure that everyone has that opportunity. And, I know, I'm a walking and talking American bread wind up doll that spouts capitalistic propaganda I've been feed all my life. But hey, I'm pretty sure I'm right, and that's all that matters.
I guess now your probably wondering how we're going to help the poor if we don't raise taxes, and how is socialized health care not going to expand the role of the government, etc. etc.?Well, we've now come to the purpose of this blog. I plan to address those issues and more over the course of my writing. My goal is to run a political commentary on current events, along with clarifying my ideology, and hopefully entertaining the masses. We'll see how it goes. Also, I forgot to mention, I'm really big into the environment. I plan on having a weekly portion on cheap and easy ways to do your part for Mother Earth.
My goal is to really get my opinion out there, and hopefully make a small difference with it. Or at least that's what I'm telling myself. But honestly, I think my real goal is just to be entertaining enough to be worth reading, and maybe I'll get people thinking in the process. I guess we'll see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
