Submitted to a Candid World

20 responses so far ↓

• 1 Dana Hunter // Aug 10, 2008 at 7:52 am

  I have immense respect for you, and others like you. It takes courage, strength, and a stomach of steel to delve into the theocons’ tripe and endure long enough to post stinging critiques.

  I can’t do it. Five seconds in those places, and I have to get out before I explode. There’s not enough alcohol in the world to make it endurable.

  My shot glass is tipped to you, sir!

• 2 Steve // Aug 10, 2008 at 10:22 am

  Ames, I’d say with #2, I think JFK’s statement deserves to be tarred. I just don’t think you can square that sentiment, that people owe a duty to the nation, with the sentiment of “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is in the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Seems to me that latter sentiment rightly advances an idea of “America: love it, leave it, change it, or flat out eliminate and replace it as you see fit at any given point in time.” Way I see it, America exists solely for the provision of “liberty and justice for all”, and whatever loyalty a person owes it is owed solely on the basis of their conclusion that at the present moment, America’s the country best able to deliver that. Patriotism/loyalty to country, as it seems to me, is on the level of “loyalty” to, say, your bank or cell phone company: as long as it best delivers the goods you want, yeah, be loyal to it, but if it slips any… Kentucky’s state constitution is reprehensible in many sections, but highly laudable in others, and one of the most laudable is in section 4 of its Bill of Rights: “All power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority and instituted for their peace, safety, happiness and the protection of property. For the advancement of these ends, they have at all times an inalienable and indefeasible right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.” The nation is an at-will employee of the citizenry - that is an idea worth spreading, not “patriotism is virtuous, yay nationalism!”.

  As to #4, more to the point, abstinence-only programs encourage psychologically damaging behavior and as such are immoral. It isn’t a matter of “teens will have sex”, it’s a matter of “teens should have sex”. Virginity starts to go bad and spoil after a while, and by the time it’s two decades old all it’s doing is pumping poison into a person’s brain.

• 3 Narc // Aug 10, 2008 at 11:48 am

  The problem with #4 is that you assume they’re concerned about the same thing. Planned Parenthood’s sex ed is intended to prevent unwanted pregnancies and prevent disease. The purpose of abstinence-only is to prevent sin. The existence of pregnancy and STDs to them is a feature, not a bug. That’s why they disapprove of things like the HPV vaccine. Without consequences, people will have more sex, and that’s sinful.

• 4 Progressive Conservative // Aug 10, 2008 at 12:26 pm

  Townhall has some great writers/thinkers…you just have to sort through the garbage. It’s no different over at the Huffington post which I read daily.

  Krauthammer, Kemp, Sowell, Will… those are all serious conservatives who don’t let silly stuff get in the way of political thinking.

  Krauthammer has been taking Obama to the woodshed on energy for weeks for good reason. Let’s not forget that the center-piece of Obama’s plan is to force the oil industry to give all Americans $1000. That is something that has never even been considered before. And this is during an oil crisis. Imagine if, in response to 9/11, bush had forced the airline industry to give everyone $1000. How many of those companies would still be around?

  Obama continues to demonstrate a reckless economic policy and it scares me more every day.

• 5 Ames // Aug 10, 2008 at 12:33 pm

  I agree on the oil credit. It’s a little like the gas tax holiday… which McCain supported. They’re both being foolish & partisan in the runup.

• 6 Progressive Conservative // Aug 10, 2008 at 7:59 pm

  McCain is offering to let the American people keep a little bit of their own money that they were previously giving to Uncle Sam. Obama is demanding the oil companies to give billions of dollars to the American people.

  Just a bit different…

  McCain’s plan isn’t a good solution either, but at least he’s not playing Robin Hood.

• 7 Ames // Aug 10, 2008 at 11:57 pm

  Different doesn’t rule out the equal point of fail. And I hesitate to call the oil credit the “centerpiece” of a massive, comprehensive, conservation-oriented plan.

• 8 didionsmommy // Aug 11, 2008 at 9:40 am

  And this is during an oil crisis. Imagine if, in response to 9/11, bush had forced the airline industry to give everyone $1000. How many of those companies would still be around?

  pc, i have to call you out on this comment … did you write this on your way out the door, or are you now attending the karl rove school of philosophy and smart learnin’ where a hallmark tenet is any sweeping statement simultaneously invoking “crisis” and “9/11″ is inherently, unequivocally, and supercalifragilistically beyond moral and intellectual reproach.

  one, that there is an oil crisis at the corporate level is highly suspect. if there is such a crisis, exxon-mobil must be having a hard time holding onto $20B (1st two qtrs of 2008) in profits with all the handwringing that necessarily accompanies any crisis.

  two, continuing the crisis issue, in a capitalist, free-market society (which white, middle-class male bloggers seem so very interested in protecting) the mantra is “adapt or die” … this is a prime opportunity for the oil industry to do just that.

  but then there is three: we don’t happen to live in a free-market society. there are so many industries on a special list for bailout by american tax payers … who can keep track? but rest assured, the oil industry (and the airline industry) are both on it, so if the “crisis” were real … trust me it would cost more than $1000 per american to save the oil industry in its present incarnation.

  which takes me to four and back to your original comment … you might save yourself the fear you apparently are suffering “more every day” if you didn’t fall prey to your own rhetorical trick.

  interestingly, did anyone see friedman’s column in the nyt yesterday about how the europeans (specifically the dutch) are once again infinitely smarter than we are?

  http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/10/opinion/10friedman1.html?em

• 9 didionsmommy // Aug 11, 2008 at 9:45 am

  I agree on the oil credit. It’s a little like the gas tax holiday… which McCain supported. They’re both being foolish & partisan in the runup.

  ames, totally agreed.

• 10 Progressive Conservative // Aug 11, 2008 at 10:44 am

  …interestingly, did anyone see friedman’s column in the nyt yesterday about how the europeans (specifically the dutch) are once again infinitely smarter than we are?

  I believe ‘the Dutch’ live in the Netherlands…and he was actually talking about Denmark. Perhaps you wrote that last bit on your way out the door…? (Sorry, couldn’t resist).

  I actually worked for a company based in Denmark (not the Netherlands) for a couple of years. They definitely were smarter about some things. For example, our restrooms also had showers and lockers (something unseen here) which allowed some employees to bike to work and others to go for a nice jog on their lunch hour and not return to the office smelling like a linebacker.

  Another thing I liked was ergonomic desks which could be raised and lowered so employees could work standing up if desired (I would KILL for that today). The boss also always gave us free beer on fridays.

  Some things i didn’t like were a lack of work ethic at time (they rarely even put in a 40 hour week) and relatively low pay. In Denmark a host of social programs take up the slack between pay and the cost of living. Not so here and they didn’t adjust their pay accordingly. Their attitude was, “That would be plenty of pay in Denmark.”

  Both countries have pluses and negatives.

• 11 Progressive Conservative // Aug 11, 2008 at 10:54 am

  one, that there is an oil crisis at the corporate level is highly suspect. if there is such a crisis, exxon-mobil must be having a hard time holding onto $20B (1st two qtrs of 2008) in profits with all the handwringing that necessarily accompanies any crisis.

  two, continuing the crisis issue, in a capitalist, free-market society (which white, middle-class male bloggers seem so very interested in protecting) the mantra is “adapt or die” … this is a prime opportunity for the oil industry to do just that.

  but then there is three: we don’t happen to live in a free-market society. there are so many industries on a special list for bailout by american tax payers … who can keep track? but rest assured, the oil industry (and the airline industry) are both on it, so if the “crisis” were real … trust me it would cost more than $1000 per american to save the oil industry in its present incarnation.

  Profits are a good thing. And they get re-invested. My company keeps a war chest of around $1 billion. In the last five years we have acquired around $500 million in other corporations, bringing thousands of employees under our umbrella and in most cases giving them a better employer.

  So when profits are threatened in any way, I would argue it hurts a business. To make the government that threat is indeed reckless and one more example of Obama’s economic failings.

  I oppose bailouts for the oil industry, just as I did for the airlines. But there is a difference between a bail out and actually using the IRS to steal from the company to buy votes.

  The oil companies will indeed have to adapt some day. But that day is a long way off. That is the reality of the situation. Forced adaptation won’t work.

• 12 didionsmommy // Aug 11, 2008 at 1:58 pm

  (my bad re: netherlands vs. denmark … it is a genetically-programmed mistake i will make until the day i die. i can point them out on a map; i can tell you which one has hookers in the storefronts, but i cannot keep dane and dutch straight.)

  ***
  there is cost and benefit to EVERYTHING. i personally, am tired of our society protecting corporate profit at the expense of the common good … and before you get excited: i do not believe exorbitant profits foster societal health.

  let me give you an example — non-oil-industry related …

  in california the correctional officers’ union is extremely powerful (arguably even more powerful than the teachers’ union). with huge coffers, the union launches media campaigns in areas of central and eastern california where local economies are lagging, promising gold at the end of the rainbow, if the residents approve the construction of new, privately-owned prisons in their communities.

  the prisons will bring jobs, the union says … they will grow the local economies …

  the towns say yes, and guess what happens? the company running the prisons ships in construction crews to build them and hires people who live outside the local area and commute in to staff them (saves on having to train new personnel), and the local communities remain economically stagnant, though now with a brand-new prisons, busting at the seams with prisoners.

  so when “protecting profits” comes up as a way to protect americans and their way of life and profits are packaged as “always good” … let’s just say i am more than a little wary.

  i do not think taxing profits amounts to theft.

  and one more thing: you are continually talking about “some day,” but in my view, your position amounts to complete and total inaction and — ultimately — complete and total protection of the status quo.

  change can start today. i am no fool; i know that change is difficult and long … but if it never starts …

  oh, and why wouldn’t “forced adaptation” work when imposed on a value-free entity? the corporation doesn’t care what it is producing as long as it is being productive … and what better way to ensure its survival than by exploiting new markets?

• 13 Progressive Conservative // Aug 11, 2008 at 2:20 pm

  the prisons will bring jobs, the union says … they will grow the local economies …

  the towns say yes, and guess what happens? the company running the prisons ships in construction crews to build them and hires people who live outside the local area and commute in to staff them (saves on having to train new personnel), and the local communities remain economically stagnant, though now with a brand-new prisons, busting at the seams with prisoners.

  That’s easy enough to deal with (or should be). See here:

  http://thebigstick.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/greater-accountability-for-economic-development-subsidies/

  i do not think taxing profits amounts to theft.

  Taxing profits at a % higher than other industries, simply because you can, is unfair (and hopefully will be challenged legally if it ever goes that far). Obama’s plan is to take money from the oil industry (around $1500 per adult) and then give $1000 of that money to the American people, while keeping the remaining $500 for his other social programs. By even a very loose definition of theft, that plan stinks.

  and one more thing: you are continually talking about “some day,” but in my view, your position amounts to complete and total inaction and — ultimately — complete and total protection of the status quo.

  You can check both here and at your blog and easily find multiple examples of where I have said a responsible policy is a multi-front approach. Nuclear, oil, renewables and new technology should all be on the table. I also said I favored startup grants for wind and solar. You keep dwelling on oil and pretending that’s all I ever mention, which is simply no factual. The truth is that my approach has a better chance of working than your ‘renewables only’ program because it is actually grounded in reality. We are nowhere near the point where we can wave goodbye to oil. In the meantime, if the oil companies want to invest billions of their own money looking for new sources that might ease the influence of OPEC, that is fine by me.

• 14 didionsmommy // Aug 11, 2008 at 3:56 pm

  i think your summary of your recent mention of oil is quite disingenuous. you have used the oil industry to highlight the threat you feel an obama presidency would bring to the sanctity of the american economy. my continued focus on oil is to call to you to task on your claims …

  obama wasn’t immediately on-board with offshore oil drilling: he lacks a broad, balanced vision for american’s energy future.

  obama wants a windfall tax: he is anti-capitalist and ergo anti-american, but let’s underscore this point by weaving in a reference to 9/11.

  further, you characterize the oil industry as simply an innocent group of businesses just trying to make it in today’s economy. all they want to do is spend their own money and try to turn an honest profit.

  well, i don’t know what economy you are participating in, but the u.s. oil industry does not simply play with their own money … they play with mine … and yours, too … in the form of subsidies.

  (and face it, neither you or i know exactly what corporate tax rate would offset ALL of the subsidized production costs and startup tax breaks each and every domestic drilling venture nets. i suspect, though, it is much higher than what obama’s silly $1000 rebate plan would cost.)

  i spent a long time looking for articles on oil subsidies in the u.s. from sources your wouldn’t immediately write-off as wacko liberals. i found these …

  the cato institute
  http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7066

  resources for the future (an environmental think tank, replete with oil-industry representation on their board of directors)
  http://www.rff.org/publications/wpc/pages/08_07_21_metcalf_energy_subsidies.aspx

  i think both candidates are blowing it on oil, but i also do not agree with your using oil to make sweeping and misleading generalizations about obama’s proposed policies.

• 15 Oneiroi // Aug 11, 2008 at 5:17 pm

  I don’t think we’re in that much of a crisis yet or one that we can do anything about any time soon. The fixes have to come in long term strategies. That being said there’s a lot of political pressure to do something about the prices, so both candidates are addressing the issue. They’re not necessarily great options but the people want their politicians to do something, and the candidates are responding.

  That being the case, I feel like taxing the record breaking profits of the oil companies is one of the few places we can direct pressure to quickly lower the price of gasoline. Much more so than drilling. But I don’t like the idea of just writing checks to people to solve problems.

• 16 Progressive Conservative // Aug 11, 2008 at 9:52 pm

  The only industry I regularly support subsidies on is agriculture. I’ve been willing to make an exception on solar and wind to give both some breakout momentum. I don’t believe in subsidies for oil production, but if that is the beef, then end the subsidies. Or make them a loan instead of direct aid.

  The Obama plan is crap because he is using a feel-good move (like Bush’s two tax rebates) to buy votes from the masses and he funds it by taxing the oil industry. More than likely the oil industry is going to pass on that tax by increasing prices.

  I’ve never heard of an instance where the goverment tried to reduce the price of a commodity by taxing that industry’s profits. To the contrary, prices are usually kept at bay by helping the industry in some way.

  You seem to really be pouncing on the 9/11 reference which was only used because it popped into my head first. I could just as easily site the Depression. When crops failed during the dust bowl and commodity prices went up, the government subsidized farming, they didn’t attack it.

• 17 didionsmommy // Aug 12, 2008 at 8:55 am

  yes, oneiroi, i was confused, too, as to how a windfall tax is supposed to lower the price of oil.

  and, yes, pc, i did jump all over the 9/11 thing because i thought it was a cheap, sensationalist move … and one unexpected from you (but one exceedingly popular with republican strategists) … hence my giving you the benefit of the doubt with the “on the way out the door” comment.

  agriculture subsidies are a tough issue, especially now with corn-based biofuel. there was an article in the nyt about a year or so ago about new zealand and their ending farm subsidies … it was tough at first, but the farm economy adapted and is arguably stronger. i’ll have to look for the article.

• 18 Progressive Conservative // Aug 12, 2008 at 9:45 am

  Just for the record, it’s not a cheap shot to mention 9/11. The airlines were already hurting before the attacks and the attacks compounded the problem. The govt decided that air travel was vital to the health of the nation and so they helped them. I only cited 9/11 as the date an economic crisis kicked into high gear, not as the patriotic symbol of our greatest national tragedy.

  I’ve written about food subsidies before. They are a necessary evil in my opinion.

  To address the point you and Oneiroi make, a windfall tax won’t lower prices at all and it’s not meant to really. It’s meant to make people think the oil companies stole their money and now Obama is giving some back (insert image of Robin Hood here).

  There are only two ways to maintain profit in the face of adversity: increase revenue while keeping costs static or decreasing costs while keeping revenue static. I would suggest that Option B is not feasible because oil technology isn’t going to improve that much. So that leaves Option A.

  If Obama attacked the revenue stream by freezing gas prices, for example, the oil companies would be forced to either reduce costs (hard to do) or accept a lower profit. However, by attacking the profit Obama still leaves them with Option A, which is to simply increase revenue thus getting them back to their target profit. How will this be done? Higher prices.

• 19 Oneiroi // Aug 12, 2008 at 10:49 am

  I didn’t say that Obama’s plan would lower gas prices by giving money back, although I am saying though that working with/through the oil companies is one of the few direct influences we can make on the price of oil. We can’t make that big of a dent in supply, and we have limited influence on the oil abroad.

  And again, if this is a crisis and there’s such a public need, all the people will see is that the oil companies are profiting while the rest of the country suffers. They want something done, and neither of these plans are good but being proposed because of public pressure. Which is why I say they should both back off and stick with their proposed long term plans as the solution, but I don’t think they will.

• 20 It’s the Thought that Counts » Blog Archive » The DemocratIC Party // Aug 20, 2008 at 8:31 pm

  [...] was prompted by this post to ponder the phenomenon of commentators with conservative agendas using the phrase “Democrat [...]

Leave a Comment