Recently, I had a co-worker lump me into the “liberal” political camp because of my stands on various issues. Yet I consider myself really quite conservative on most things. I was able to pin down a few hotbuttons from a post from a friend the other day to a mutual mailing list. What do you look for in a presidential candidate? This list provided me a few ideas on what I was looking for…
- Bi-lingual education – Against. We don’t have an official national language, but it’s a disservice to the children to educate them in an alternative language than English at this point in time. If the majority of the country begins speaking another language, I’ll rethink that position.conservative?
- Big government – I think even liberals think “big government” is a bad idea. I’m for spending less without gutting the defense budget. Eliminate the stuff that doesn’t have a constitutional mandate wherever you can.conservative?
- Tax cuts – For. See above. conservative?
- Welfare – Been on it. Was glad for it. In favor of it, within time limits. Again, what those are, I can’t say, but a 1-on, 3-off routine sounds reasonable to me.liberal?
- Racial equality – In favor. Forced avoidance of bigotry is still a requirement for operation in this country, and if you think women and minorities aren’t still discriminated against, you probably don’t live in Utah.liberal?
- Abortion – for a woman’s right to choose, up to a point. What that point is, I don’t know. I recently learned of a child that survived at 22 weeks. I think the morning-after pill is totally OK. I think that late-term partial-birth abortions are a terrible waste of a viable life (in cases where the mother’s life is not in danger).liberal?
- Same-sex marriage – That’s a tough one to have an opinion on in Utah. In my opinion, any person should have the right to enter into any sort of contractual relationship with any other individual, as long as the rights of either party are not abrogated therein (death pacts, torture pacts, etc.) I just don’t why two consenting parties shouldn’t be allowed to enter into whatever sort of contract they want, and I should keep my nose out of it, however much the nature of that contract repulses me. liberal?
- Affirmative action – In favor, only where necessary. I think all affirmative action legislation should have a mandated sunset provision within five years, to re-evaluate if discrepancies have been remedied or not.liberal?
- Creationism in schools – Against. Just the facts, ma’am. I don’t see why Christian mythology about creation should be given priority over Aztec mythology about creation, and it has no place in public school science classes. Philosophy, religion, psychology, or social studies, sure, understanding human mythology is crucial to understanding the human psyche. But it’s not science, and shouldn’t be taught as such.liberal?
- Separation of church and state – Strongly for. Avoid even the appearance of evil by avoiding any appearance of state-funded subsidies of religious institutions. Unfortunatley, this puts me at odds with most of the “school vouchers” crowd, because government payments to church-owned schools sure sounds like a government subsidy of a particular religion to me — any religion that runs a successful private voucher-approved school.liberal?
- Strict environmentalism – Against. Sure, I drive a Super-Low Emissions Vehicle. I donate to green causes now and then. But I think our natural resources should be used within reasonable human impact. If we wipe out a few species, darnit, let’s preserve their DNA and some reproductive samples so that maybe they’ll have a chance at life after we’ve built the air force base there.conservative?
- Private property rights – Strongly in favor. A property owner should have ultimate authority over his/her property, period. I should be allowed to do what I wish with what I own, as long as it does not detrimentally impact other property owners, the general environment, or national security.conservative?
- States’ rights – Should supercede all but constitutionally-mandated Federal rights in all cases. No exceptions. Well, the only exceptions would probably be federal court cases where a nationally-recognized judgement is required to maintain a peacable state.conservative?
- Prayer in schools – Tough issue here in Utah. I’m in favor of the right of any person to pursue religions devotion as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others, but I am not in favor of public schools supporting specific religions. I kind of like how they did it in Maryland at my brother’s high school graduation. A Rabbi gave an invocation, and a Christian closed with prayer. As long as equal time is provided when necessary, no harm, no foul.Can’t tell if I’m conservative or liberal — let people pray publicly in school, but don’t allow any one religion to dominate?
- Protection of civil rights, goals of ACLU – In favor. The Bill of Rights has been eroding steadily over the last hundred years, and one of these days I’m going to become a card-carrying member of the ACLU, once I care enough.liberal?
- Use of American forces on foreign soil: Mostly against, but it depends on the circumstances. I really don’t like our country taking over the “global policeman” role, and we need some smart exit plans. But becoming involved when we need to can be warranted, and I think was warranted in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq. But we need to get out soon.too wishy-washy to be either
- Party registration – registered Republican. I’d be stupid not to be here in Utah. If you’re Republican, you can vote at both the Democrat and Republican polls. If you’re a Democrat, the Republican primaries are closed to you.conservative, out of practicality
- Voted in 2000 – for George Bush.conservative
- Will vote in 2004: not for George Bush. Not sure who I want to support yet, but since he’s the obvious Republican shoe-in for the presidential candidate (duh!), looks like I’m probably voting Democratic. As long as Gore doesn’t run against Bush again, if that happens I think he stinks too and maybe I’ll vote Libertarian.liberal?
Where do you stand on the interesting ones?
Conservative
I’d say a few of those issues you labeled liberal are pretty conservative. For example, reasonable limits on walfare. Despite what the left spews Republicans are not cold-hearted bastards who want the poor to die in the streets. Most just want to help people take care of themselves and use resources other than a fat government first. Also, walfare doesn’t do anyone any good if it requires 25 pages of paperwork, 3 hours in a line, and 6-8 weeks of waiting. Lastly, I don’t think anyone, when pressed, wants folks earning a wage for doing nothing when they are capable of doing for themselves. Same-sex marriage has suddenly become a bit of a conundrum for the conservatives because of a recent push by polygamists to fight the constitutionality of “marriage definition” laws. Here’s the rock: The constitution is clear that Americans can practice their religion in peace. Here’s the hard place: “Them homo’s will ruin our neighborhoods”. Uck. I think that marriage definition advocates are mostly bigots and idiots. I think that polygamists should be able to practice their religion in public where possible crimes against children and families can investigated without causing a civil uprising. I also think that there is absolutely no difference between a gay couple living together and a gay couple married. In other words, who cares? If its important to gays to be married then they should be allowed the same right I allow for myself. Call me liberal, I guess. As for Americans taking the role of Global Policeman. Let me ask this… Who else will? Communities NEED policing and there simply is not other country/organization who even can, let alone will. The ACLU… A fine idea but where was the ACLU when the environmentalist movement forced cattle ranchers off of leased PUBLIC land in southern Utah? Or what about when a city in Massachusets passes an ordinance specifically aimed at keeping an LDS temple from being built and masking it as a standard zoning change? Get my point? They are as politically blinded and biased as the people doing all the so-called eroding of the Bill of Rights. Morning after pill. If you, or your spouse takes hormonal birth control that she takes EXACTLY the same medication that does EXACTLY the same thing. The morning after pill contains high levels of estrogen and progestrone (sp?) to PREVENT pregnancy, not terminate it. I repeat, the morning after pill PREVENTS pregnancy thereby preventing ABORTIONS. I would think that the religious right would be all about the morning after pill. Just think… The Bishop’s daughter has sex on prom night. oops. She didn’t plan it. She doesn’t want to have an abortion. She doesn’t want to be pregnant. Great. Take the pill, she doesn’t get pregnant. No abortion. I think overall, Matt that you and I are more similar than alike. Socially moderate-liberal. Politically conservative. I am a big G.W. Bush fan even though I worry about some of his social politics. No one will be a 100% match for anyone’s taste though. I also like John Kerry and Joe Lieberman. When I vote in the Democratic Primary in Utah. One of those two men will get my vote. In November, if G.W. is on a ticket against either one of those Demo’s then I’ll be happy no matter what the outcome. Whew.
Liberal
Paul, you crack me up. I read a couple weeks ago on WWDN that you were against political postings on the site, figured you didn’t want any political ramblings on any site, leaving our blogs for geek-culture, humor, etc. Guess I was wrong!
I think you’re liberal, and walking the middle, since you’re for everything “within limits”.
What’s the sunset provision for the affirmative action decision? I’ve never heard of that.
Other thoughts: some of the forgotten, or less-heralded, amendments within the Bill of Rights are going to be en vogue once the constitutionality of laws banning same-sex marriage go into verdict deliberations at the federal court circut. First, states rights over federal government rights are already established. Second, the unenumerated rights (#9) are going to defend same-sex marriage. Rights not listed in the Constitution are automatically given back to the people, and there is nothing within the Constitution that governs or prevents same-sex marriage.
Sammy G
Political posts….
Sammy, what I should have said to Wil was that I didn’t care for HIS political rants. 🙂 As I said, socially, moderate-liberal. Politically conservative. That is that I don’t take the position of the left that something is inherently wrong with the country that needs fixing. I also don’t take the alarmist position of thinking that the Consitution is near collapse as a result of the Pledge of Allegance. My socially liberal views include celebrating the diversity or the majority and religious mainstream as well as fringe minorities. What I mean is that the freedom of those who with to pray in school should be maintained despite the fact that I may find it offensive.
Bi-lingual education – Needs
Bi-lingual education – Needs to be increased for english speakers, and English needs to be more demanded of non Native English speakers. Like most other countries, we should have more multi-lingual training. It would be in our best interests to have 4 full years of high school and an additional year or two of college training in Spanish, French, or Japanese. It should also be a requirement for citizenship that one speak English.. and that SHOULD become our official language. People have hidden behind the “we don’t have one” concept for too long, and the unwillingness to demand that foreign born immigrants speak and read English is to their detriment as well as ours. Liberal.
Big government – A complex issue.. deserves more time than I want to give it here. Moderate.
Tax cuts – For. And yes, for the rich, too. But a smaller percentage tax cut for the rich and a bigger one for the poor. That being said, it should be expected that even though the percentage would be smaller, we the people need to understand that the rich will get more money back because they have paid more money out.
Welfare – A screwed up system. It needs to be harder to get and harder to keep. There are plenty of crappy jobs out there that can’t stay filled. People should be forced to do those to get their welfare check until they can get a better job. It would bring in revenue, it could even pay a bit more than traditional welfare, it could build a resume, and it would be less attractive than traditional welfare to those who abuse the system.
Racial equality – I don’t see how conservatives are pro inequality. I think that everyone with a brain is pro equality under the law. I also believe in fair employment and anti discrimination laws. I do think more needs to be done to encourage self suffiency in poorer neighborhoods, and that means welfare reform, which is a conservative issue.
Abortion – Against, in the case of a viable fetus, and that means no 3rd trimester abortions. No partial birth abortions. And the only exception is maybe when the woman’s life is in mortal jeopardy, although, I can’t see too many situations where a ceasarian extraction and attempt to sustain a baby is more dangerous than an abortion. As for second trimester and first trimester abortions, its a non issue, no matter what you or I think about it. No one is ever going to get it passed in today’s society, so it needs to be left alone on the legal end, and pro lifers and pro choicers can try to bring each other around to a different point of view to change the fact that it will never get passed. BTW: Until you’re 18 or emancipated, you should be required to have a parent involved. (Conservative, but realistic)
Same-Sex marriage – On a legal end, why not. There is absolutely no legal reason why not.. but they should not be allowed to adopt (plenty of married people are not allowed to adopt because it is not the best environment for a child). The fact is, adopted children will do better in an environment where there is a mother and father involved – operating as a single unit, and single persons, same sex married persons, or unmarried couples should accept the lack of a child as part of their chosen alternative lifestyle. All that being said, for insurance, housing, and tax purposes, go to town. (Liberal and Conservative on different points)
Affirmative action – Better examined labor practices, required burden of proof on the part of companies, and stronger enforcement of fair hiring would do better here. Too many good women and minorities are turned away from good higher positions at companies who meet their quotas at lower levels, but in the same vein, too many less qualified candidates geet jobs just so quotas get met. Conservative.
Creationism in schools – As a conceivable alternative to the flawed theory of evolution? Yes. Now, I understand you think that my view is mythology, but I (and many) feel that the theory of evolution is too.. so, a day or two spent presenting various creationist ideas as well as alternative theories of how we began is fine, just to give it lip service. Something like, “here is what x believes, here’s what y believes, now lets begin our study of evolution, what the scientific community believes.” Way conservative.
Separation of church and state – Well, yes, as far as not having a faith based state, or anything like that (e.g. Iran or the Taliban, the state enforcing the laws of the church). That being said, I say yes to school vouchers if parents want to home school, private school, catholic school, mormon school, jewish school, muslim school, or whatever. As long as the student is being taught state approved academic curriculum needed to matriculate into a college. Why not.. hte founding father NEVER intended for “separation of church and state” to mean 10 commandment statues get taken down, “under God” gets removed from the pledge and students are forced or even encouraged to obtain purely secular educations.
Strict environmentalism – Against. But I like some moderate stuff. I see the reasons for pollution laws and anti foresting laws. But I have a problem with people getting on “W” for allowing foresters to thin forests that will catch on fire if allowed to grow too thick. Especially since saplings tend to be planted in place. conservative? Private property rights – Umm, what are we talking about here? Not really an issue for me either way. States’ rights – Well, I tend to favor a more federalized government here in the DC metro area. Its bizarre that 20 minutes south of me there are a totally different set of laws, and then go ten more minutes south into virginia and there are more and different laws. Go 35 minutes up and it is way different in West Virginia. Bizarre..Liberal? Prayer in schools – When i was in High School, try and stop me. Seriously, I liked the way my first college worked. If a student wanted to organize a club, all he needed to do was get members and a charter, and he would be given a space to meet. There was a Christian student union and a Pagan student union, and a Jewish Student union ans so on. Its ridiculous these stories I hear of 4 or 5 guys getting together to pray before a game and being ridiculed and sometimes forcibly stopped by school officials. Freedom of religion is a right, and I consider it to be unlawful for anyone to take away my right to practice as long as my practicing wasnt disruptive.
Protection of civil rights, goals of ACLU – ACLU gets rid of 10 commandment monuments in on government owned land, and wants to protect the rights of Gay teenagers to make out in the hallways of high schools. Sorry, this group (like PETA) might have at one time been a good organization, but they are now looking to create a totally secular state with no limitations on behavior. they should be disbanded. CONSERVATIVE
Use of American forces on foreign soil: I don’t like it, but it was needed in these cases. And we should not get out of either Iraq or Afghanistan until we are confident that our interests will be preserved. We are not playing policeman, we are strikning back against foes that have declared US the enemy, not the other way around. Pure self preservation. Conservative.
Party registration – registered Republican. Would not have voted for Gore, agreed with much of the republican ticket (privatization of social security, stronger armed forces, etc)
Voted in 2000 – for George Bush.conservative
Will vote in 2004: To be determined. I’ll listen to kerry, I have heard enough of Dean. It is a wasted vote to vote for anyone who is not a frontrunner for their party. Until the party system is revised, if you would prefer one over the other, then you should vote for that one. FREE THINKING but realistic
Me so like…
I like your comments. I think there is a huge point always left out of the foresting issues by environmentalists. The forests are the foresters products. They have every interest in maintaining the health of the forest. FACT: the healthiest forests in America are maintained or owned by lumber companies. Why? because they would go broke selling new growth trees full of knots and uneven growth. “Separation of Church and State”: find that phrase in the Constitution. The Constitution is clear that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;” The left loves to take only the first half of the Amendment, then re-word it so it fits their agenda of removing all religion from America. Funny, the second half explicitly prohibits the deliberate removing of religious excersize. It makes no mention of “public places” or “government buildings”. It’s very clear, Congress cannot establish a religion, that is, they cannot make The Church of America and require all citizens to belong. Congress also can’t stop the free (not conditional or popular) excersize of religion. I don’t understand why neither the left or the right gets this. It’s 8th grade social studies.
I agree
Hear, hear
this got me thinking….
The Constitution is written so simply. It got me thinking, “Why is that?”. I believe that its not so its premises are open to interpretation. I believe its simple because its mandates are clear and are not in need of in-depth interpretation. It makes me think of the Word of Wisdom. The law refers to drinking “Hot Drinks”. Well, that MUST mean coffee and tea. So that MUST mean caffeine. So that MUST mean soda pop. So that MUST mean carbonation. Suddenly, Mormons everywhere are only drinking pre-bottled, pre-blessed water. I believe the “founding fathers” just like God were/are capable of communicating what they intend in plain language as to be understood clearly without need of second-guessing and second generation interpretation.
An interesting thought…
It is amazing how simple and straight forward these governing ideas seem, yet there are thousands of politicians who dailey make it into a very complex and expensive issue. I have been noodling around my thoughts today trying to get a response together, but there is nothing that i seem to be anle to author that does not just say “Yeah, what he said”.
Cheers~Jon
Separation of Church and State
Well, I’ll play Devil’s Advocate here 🙂
Congress is prohibited from passing a law “respecting an establishment of religion”. The particular reason for this prohibition appears to the rheumy eyes of revisionist history to be the Puritanical roots of America — that people left Europe to escape government-supported persecution by Protestants in Germany, and the Church of England, to name a couple. The Founding Fathers were intent that never again should a religious establishment be allowed to so dominate the government that people would be forced to leave to exercise their religion without threat of violence.
I’m not in the “Bill of Rights hanging by a thread” crowd either, myself, but I think there are critical rights being eroded today.
So far, we’ve done a pretty good job at preventing Congress from making laws about religions. However, the Supreme Court has recently done so, among other things by striking down anti-fellatio provisions on 16 states (specifically aimed at homosexual activity, although technically prohibiting heterosexual oral intercourse as well). It’s no slippery slope by any means, but many hold religious ideals that only certain types of consensual sex are “moral”, and regard this decision as a victory by Satan. Many other critical religion-related decisions — like the abortion question in Roe v. Wade — are made by the Supremes. The Constition does not prevent this.
I think the important thing there is to keep attention focussed on our rights, and prevent any party — atheists, Christians, Moslems, whatever — from coming to dominate the Congress in such a way as to trample the rights of other groups. As always, my main hope is that these things just stay stirred up, so we keep enough attention focussed on it that we don’t make dramatic changes quietly while nobody’s watching. (*cough* DMCA *cough*)
The Amendment, though, only prohibits federal Congress from making laws respecting a religion. No such prohibition occurs at the state level. From that perspective, the old Alabama supreme court justice that put up the Ten Commandments monument on state property may have been entirely within the rights of the state. Which kind of makes me rethink how ridiculous that whole thing was.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Morals?
Although you could echo the familiar refrain of “its all based on christian morality”, the fact it there is no mention of religion in the supremme court decisions there.
So, in this way, I don’t see it as becoming any kind of slippery slope. You yourself called homosexual behavior repulsive. Perhaps thats how a justice saw it, and he felt what was repulsive needed to be stopped.
just a thought.
Why Is It So Simple?
Like any good writer, you put your original draft in action, and then make adjustments to areas that aren’t working. The Founding Fathers obviously got it wrong, in a big way. 10+ years of states battling each other after the ratification of the Articles demonstrated that the initial founding document was mega-flawed. It didn’t get any better after the Constitution. Finally, Mason worked magic to get the Bill of Rights in. Ultimately, the Constitution we have today had the benefit of 15+ years of mistakes and redrafting.
I think the Founding Fathers kept it simple because, like any good writer, you recognize the need to keep your work timeless for all ages. Shakespeare knew this. Jefferson had this winning formula as well. There’s actually a couple shelves of books at the library dedicated the dissection the Constitution. There are many literal absolutists who think the language in the legal is just what it says it is. I believe they kept it simple so that there was applicability regardless of societal habit.
After seeing their first umpteen attempts in action and, watching the mistakes, they must have realized that culture and society change but the legal must be broad enough to apply. However, it’s unfortunate they weren’t able one tiny peek into the crystal bar for the sake of avoiding one huge mistake…
Right to bear arms? Moronic. (Liberal)
WITHOUT ARMS
You wouldnt have hands?
How would you play piano or bass?
Bearing arms
The right to keep & bear arms has been endlessly debated in many forums, so I’m pretty sure I can’t add much. Won’t stop me trying, though. My two cents is, in the historical framework, this makes a lot of sense. The U.S. was frontier country; if you did not have your own weaponry to defend yourself on the frontier, you were at the mercy of anyone who did, including hostile natives who’d been fighting their neighbors for thousands of years before Europeans ever arrived.
Plus, at the time the country was hot on the heels of a revolution, with other wars looming. My opinion is that I think the framers got it wrong. They should have said that every American was required to bear arms at all times when in public. When you know someone can use deadly force against you, you are disinclined to provoke them 🙂
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Gay-Marriage Adoption Ban Upheld
MIAMI, Florida (AP) — Four gay men lost a federal challenge Wednesday to the only blanket state law banning homosexuals from adopting children, a statute passed at the height of Anita Bryant’s anti-homosexual campaign.
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the men, who are foster parents seeking to adopt children in their care despite the 1977 law.
“Obviously we’re crushed,” said Paul Cates with the American Civil Liberties Union’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project.
Florida is the only state in the nation with a complete ban on adoption by gays, whether married or single. The law linked to the movement led by Bryant has withstood several challenges in state court.
Florida argued the state has a right to legislate its “moral disapproval of homosexuality” and its belief that children need a married parent for healthy development.
“We exercise great caution when asked to take sides in an ongoing public policy debate,” Judge Stanley Birch wrote in the unanimous decision by the three-judge panel. “Any argument that the Florida Legislature was misguided in its decision is one of legislative policy, not constitutional law.”
—
Sammy G
Please tell me you’rekidding..
You are, right?
If not, please don’t shoot me.
Nope, not kidding
Before I write, allow me to say that I do not own a gun, and until I feel a more compelling personal need to do so, I don’t intend to own one. Things that could compel me include my walking-disaster neighbor deciding to act up, crime rates increasing in my neighborhood, invasion of U.S. soil, etc. However, I’ve often considere
I think guns make us safer. Nope, not joking. Think about the playground — the kids there all only had their fists, and maybe a handy rock, sand, or some object lying about to use as weapons. One kid holding a fistful of rocks in his left hand would be enough of an advantage that most kids would run away rather than face the rocks. But, fundamentally, the fights would be won by the strongest, toughest kid, normally.
Guns are the world’s equalizer. In this country, we take responsibility for protecting ourselves first — the police, army, etc. all come much later, generally too late for whatever the conflict is. Forcing guns into the hands of the general, law-abiding population has been proven to dramatically reduce crime rates in the few towns and counties where it is a requirement. The criminals will have guns regardless; shouldn’t we be on equal terms with them?
I’m just full of opinions today! Maybe the second amendment can be a blog topic all of its own one day…
—
Matthew P. Barnson
even more to the point…
More to the point, the British had been actively disarming the Colonists. They wanted to be sure their fledgling government could not do that. I want to get a permit and carry a concealed weapon. Why? To piss off liberals. 🙂
Definition of a liberal…
Here’s how I define what a liberal is.
Liberal: n. One who will believes it right to kill babies and wrong to kill a chicken or a cow.
While I’m at it…
Environmentalist: n. One who already has his/her cabin in the woods.
Politks
My $.02
Bi-lingual education: I often tell people I didn’t work my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegitarian. The same principal appplies: America didn’t become the best country in the world only to speak Spanish/Chinese/French/etc. I’m all for having extra classes for foreign students to learn English, but this is America, and we speak English!
Big Government: This ties into the right to bear arms…we rely on government to ‘protect’ us from bad things. However, if we all could and would bear arms, a lot of the bad things would go away. Then we wouldn’t need as much government.
Seriously, relying on the government to do it’s job and protect us while it’s in bed with many of the people we need protecting from is bad, but what’s the alternative?
Gay Marriages: The gov’t couldn’t care less if gay people get married, except for the fact that if they “logalize” it, they’ll lose $$$ because of the tax credit they’ll have to give them. What else does marriage really buy you in terms of the gov’t? It’s all about $$$.
Abortion: Is murder, in my opinion. Teh argument that it’s a woman’s body so it’s up to her is moot, because she wouldn’t be in that position without a man’s help. If she doesn’t want it, then bear it and give it up for adoption.
Racial Equality: We had slaves for 400 years. I don’t believe in reparations, but if we need to jump start the process to balance things out, okay. BUT, I think the practices of colleges and other organizations that weight based on race need to publish their quidelines. If I’m going to be handicapped for being a white male, I want to know how uphill the battle with be.
And this goes for gov’t as well. In Merryland, Rep. Govn’r Ehrlich says “NO NEW TAXES”. But, he was to raise the fees to title and register your car. What’s the f***ing difference?!! If the gov’t wants to take more money out of my pocket, I think they need to show me where the money will go. I realize that they probably already do this, but this is the information age, and it should be more readily available than having to go to 100 gov’t agencies and digging it up. You want my money, tell me how you’re going to be spending it.
Defense spending/America as policeman: If every American could spend a month in Israel or Serbia or any other hot spot, we would
A) realize how lucky we are B) realize the world is not a safe place, and we need to spend whatever it takes to keep America safe
One last tidbit: Why doesn’t Bush take the gazillon dollars he was gonna spend on a trip to Mars and spend it on developing hydrogen fuel technology in America?
Hmmm, Hydrogen is A) The most abundant element in the universe B) when used as a fuel, has a highly nasty by-product called water C) Not tied up in countries that have a nice hatred of our country.
Fini Weed
Hydrogen
The unfortunate reality with hydrogen that’s easily available here on Earth is that it’s almost always bound to something else. Water, in particular. Conservation of energy applies here: liberating hydrogen from water, to use it somewhere else, and convert it back to water, results in some lost energy. If we could figure out an easy eay to tap the hydrogen powering the sun, or harvest free-floating hydrogen somewhere, or discover some way that hydrogen could be released from some substance with a net energy gain, that could solve the problem.
For now, the only convenient way we have of freeing hydrogen energy is by refining long-dead plant and animal matter into usable hydrocarbons for combustion. Gasoline. Diesel. The greenhouse gasses and smog suck, but it works. If you invent and market a way to inexpensively create and use hydrogen for energy, you are going to be immensely rich. I’d buy it.
There’s a possibility of using wind farms or solar panels to provide the juice necessary to extract hydrogen, but those have their own environmental impacts in production and implementation. Tough nut to crack, that.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Hydrogen
There’s no source of fuel that’s not going to take energy to harvest. We will have to derive the hydrogen from water, or from somewhere else…but, we spend a lot of energy to get oil from the ground too. From drilling to refining to shipping, there’s a lot of cost to getting that gallon of gas here. So why not look into hydrogen, which is much cleaner?
entering the race late…
Damn, Matt, your blog got really interesting! I’m going to contribute and hope that you guys actually read the second page.
(skipping around)
Overall: guess!
Flaming liberal
That’s you, Ben. Flaming liberal, all the way. Nice pic, by the way.
Oh, and for the several hundred anonymous readers that will one day read this page, Ben is a Jew. Kind of like West Virginia; natives are allowed to make all the rude stereotypical jokes they want. But it’s terribly gauche to make those same jokes if you aren’t a native.
Native West Virginian here! And Ben, it’s Weed, Sam, and Justin that have made this place more interesting lately. Toss up a few entries (I’ve promoted you to a Barnsonian Horde member), and I’m sure you can stir the pot too!
—
Matthew P. Barnson
Oh, and for the several hundr
Actually, I was talking about Sam.
— Ben Schuman Mad, Mad Tenor
Benny enters the game
I am assuming this is Mr. S., in which case I will be the resident thrower of objects.
In all seriousness, welcome aboard, you Bleeding Hearted Hippie.
Actually, you make some points, and I understand the point of views, its just that it carries us into territories that are dangerous.
ACLU is out of control.
Why is it a bad idea to spend a day on multifaith theories of creation? Many people think evolution is just as bogus as evolutionists think creation is. (I’m not so conservative, but I understand both points of view) Besides, It would be great sociological lesson to learn what, say, the Muslims or the Hindus think. To them, it is as real as science.
I’m thinking more along the lines of teaching kids to become more bilingual. It helps everyone.
Iraq, I go back and forth. On one hand, there has been a lot of questioning of intelligence lately.. on the other hand, Hussein is gone, and Libya (scared they’re next) is much more willing to play ball.
Again, Welcome.
Damn Dirty Hippie
Sometimes, yeah. But if you’re gonna protect equal rights, you have to do it across the board. Do you think the ACLU *enjoys* protecting the rights of the KKK to march in parades? No, but you can’t have *partial* equal rights.
There is no place for creationism in education outside of a course on mythology. Evolution may not be *proven*, but there’s a lot more evidence supporting it than there is for creationism. And I think you’ll find that most Muslims and Hindus (those with brains, at least) recognize that creation stories are meant metaphorically. They have a purpose within a religious context, but they have no place in a science class.
I’m all for kids learning other languages, but that’s not what bilingual education is about — that’s about teaching kids in their native languages so they don’t have to learn English. So you’re teaching the Latino kids in Spanish, and the non-Latino kids in English. And in my opinion, that’s a waste of resources.
True, but at what cost? 500 American lives, 7000 Iraqi lives, $87 billion. And there’s plenty of other dictators in the world who are just as bad if not worse than Hussein – are we going to march around the world and kick the asses of each one? We’re spending money to provide healthcare for Iraqi children, while 30 million American children are without healthcare. That just doesn’t seem right.
Good to see you Justin – thanks for the comments!
—
Ben Schuman
Mad, Mad Tenor
Cogent points
One day I’m going to learn how to indent.
As your explanation of bilingual education goes, I agree.. with this one exception. There shoule be a program in place like TESOL which has the express purpose of bringing children who have been raised in another langauge up to speed in English.. but yes, I agree it is time for English to become the official language and proficiency in English should be a goal.
Actually, I agree with the protecting the free speech thing (ACLU) but the curtailing of religious expression and the encouragement of equal rights for minors involved in inappropriate behavior oogs me out.
Creationism.. if they made a point to teach it in a sociology course, and just give it a minute of lip service.. (“This is the prevailing theory, you will learn religious alternatives in sociology”), people would probably let the issue lie.
Okay.. I want to say more.. but its time to go to work. Welcome aboard, you mad, mad tenor.. (Well, I guess thats just our mad mad tenor, huh)
Indenting
Justin,
Eventually, I’m going to implement an HTML editor into my site so you can have nice formatting without knowing HTML, but for the time being, here’s what you have to do to indent stuff.
First, frame your paragraphs with a <p> and </p> tags. Like this:
<p>This is a paragraph</p>
Then, to quote someone else, you use the <blockquote> tags, like this:
And you can even nest them.
<p>This is a paragraph
And now I’m finishing off my paragraph</p>
Quick warning, though: on my site, if you start using formatting like that, you have to use it throughout, or your formatting gets foosed. The moment my program sees a <p> or <blockquote> tag, it assumes your post is in HTML and stops trying to format it nicely.
And I was the one who re-formatted Ben’s post; because he was using ">" to indicate people’s quotes, it set off the "Holy crap, I’m reading HTML" detector and it looked horrible 🙂 Should have put an EDIT line in there, I guess.
—
Matthew P. Barnson
A Balanced Budget ?
I have been reading this politics string and have not really chimmed in. My views change from topic to topic so i can not really be classified either liberal or conservative. The problem i have with everyone complaining about a balanced budget is that it does not make good financial sense. A balanced budget would mean that we are always spending what we make. Some years you will need to go into debt to help stimulate the economy. The problem is they need to know when enough is enough. The years that they have a surplus, they need to take part of that and sock it away for the years to come that will need some boost. The other part of the surplus should be used to reduce the national debt, or maybe they can fund some kind of program that was not originally funded. Either way, a balanced budget just doesn’t make sense.
I am all for Big government as long as the departments have a purpose. I don’t believe we should create government positions just for kicks and giggles. The government should be run smartly. The only catch to this is there is always a political game being played, and that will always get in the way of the common good.
Bush campaigned on haveing a “war fighting military”. Do i believe in going to alfghanistan? YES. Do i believe in going into IRAQ? YES. Do i think we need to stay and hold there and fund there country? absolutely not. They have enough resources that, if utilized the right way, can fund the efforts over there. We need to pull out our troops and leave a smaller detail in place to mold the government. Marshall law is not the way to make the people regain trust. The world is a better place without Sadam in power, however, too many soldiers are having to pay the price to build an ungrateful country. Remember when we went to Bosnia? we were suppose to be home by christmas ’96? We are still there, but now we have more permanate bases established and there is still no sign of a exit plan.
Same-Sex Marriages – Sure. why not. Do i think same-sex couples should adopt? Only if they can pass the same rigourous process that everyone else has to go through. They should be allowed to take advantage of the tax breaks that other couples get. If the government squashes the right for couples to be legally married, it is not going to put a stop to the lifestyle, which i think is the alternate motive for the protests.
American is the official Language of the United States of America. The government needs to pull it’s head out of it 4th point of contact and make it official. The UK uses traditional English, Ireland uses Irish, France uses French. That leaves American to the US. I am all for teaching students to know multiple languages. My wife’s family speaks czech, and i will be trying to learn it with my kids. It is good to know multiple languages, although i think that everyone who desires to reside & be gainfully employed in the US needs to speak the national lanuage – AMERICAN (English).
All in all i think the government needs to take better care of itself first, then worry about the rest of the world. I am sorry to have gone off on that rant, we will now return you to your regulary scheduled progamming…
~Jon~
more responses
I’m not familiar with TESOL, but I agree that there should be a system to teach children English rapidly. At that age, it shouldn’t be difficult (children have a much easier time learning languages than adults).
This has nothing to do with cultural identity. If you want to speak a different language at home, that’s your business. But children who do not learn English will never achieve a higher economic status.
Well, the curtailing of religious expression only really applies to government-sponsored expression (like Roy Moore’s ridiculous Ten Commandments monument or the outdated Pledge of Allegiance). No one is restricting (and, in fact, the ACLU is upholding) your right to express your religion personally. And what do you mean by “equal rights for minors involved in inappropriate behavior”?
Perhaps, but who really needs to “learn” about creationism? Either you’re a member of a religion with a creation myth, and therefore you already know about it, or else you’re not, in which case you don’t need to know about it.
(thanks for the reformatting, Matt!)
— Ben Schuman Mad, Mad Tenor
Responses
Tesol is the current bilingual education program, but I think we can agree that it needs to have its goals changed to get kids proficient in English (and kids in elementary, then middle, then high School need to be kept there until they can pass an English test.)
Lots of people don’t see the pledge as outdated. There was a ten commandments monument in place in Frederick that was on government owned land, it had been there for years, the ACLU tried to get (and I think got) it taken down. ACLU is also fighting the Boy Scouts, fighting prayer groups led by teachers in sports programs, and jumping in when a school suspends two girls for making out in the hallway. Sorry, Ben, but a school has a right to stop anybody from makng out in a hallway.
The issue is, there are people (and not necessarily myself) who see Creationism as fact, not myth. Therefore, they believe that Evolution is a made up theory by men, and they feel that it is unfair that they have to be taught what is (to them) a myth as fact, while what they “know” (if you were to ask them) that “what really happened” was very different from evolution. That’s why I think it would be nice to just sidestep the argument and present the other sides for one class on one day. 45 minutes, and the argument goes away.
Another one yanked from front-page archives
From time to time, I remove pages from our front-page archive due to the polarizing nature of the discussion, and concerns from relatives who visit here to keep up-to-date on news and pictures. This is one of them.
The discussion is permanently archived, but is no longer available as a front-page item. Thanks for understanding 🙂
—
Matthew P. Barnson