A few years ago I was listening to my XM radio as I was heading to a restaurant for some spaghetti in an attempt to gain weight. He continued to emphasis the term ‘climate change’. I wondered why ‘climate change’ and not global warming? He never explained why a change in terminology. So as I ate my spaghetti I thought about why one would chose the term climate change over global warming. If the evidence for global warming was weaker, one might need to change what you called the evidence presented before you. Maybe he never believed in global warming, and simply wanted to present an alternative. Would the continuing use of the term global warming force one to find evidence for warming? While using climate change, would allow one to be open up to other possibilities.
For the person wanting to use the term global warming, I submit this for your consideration. If all countries in the world began performing on 10 different actions which if each one started in the next 5 years, global warming would be eliminated. Would you, as a global warming believer, be happy if everyone agreed and did those 10 actions? The person who believes in global warming and only uses climate change because it’s a more accepted term may say “YES!”. I would want to know why? The person who believes in climate change would refrain for drawing a conclusion. The person would need to know how it would effect the various climates and not just the GLOBAL temperatures. You could have enough areas of cooling combined with areas of warming resulting in no GLOBAL warming. The result could be disastrous, but no more GLOBAL warming.
People continued to use the term ‘Global Warming’. I would wonder if they worked on making the evidence fit this preconceived conclusion. One could allow for different scenarios under climate change, and allow the evidence to lead wherever it leads too. One could and I will continue to be skeptical of the evidence. I want to know that others could have access to the raw data and able to look how the models are created to determine if they are made well.
To stop questioning things is to stop thinking and I will not stop thinking.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Will Obama be able to adjust
When President Obama gave a poor answer during a debate with Hillary Clinton, he continued to cling to his answer. He did not want to be wrong. Will he adjust to not having a filibuster proof senate?
Jumping Ship
Will Joe Lieberman jump ship? He is already in a small boat being towed by the Democratic ship. President Obama would need to be careful how he responds to this election. If his response is aggressive, he may find that he has others willing to jump ship. My question is would Webb or even Bayh jump ship if it appears that President Obama and the other democrats respond aggressively.
Coakley
Martha Coakley became the Sarah Palin of Democrats in Massachusetts. It became difficult to defend someone who did not have a good grasp on the issues.. Had Sarah Palin ran for a Senate seat in Alaska, and made similar mistakes, people would have been ridiculing her. They also does not seem to be any thing to lose in voting for Scott Brown. The desire to see the health care bill pass was not high enough to want to elect Coakley over someone who seemed better aquatinted with the issues.
This should be a good wake-up call for the Democrats and President Obama to make some changes. I would like to see proposing a budget where spending is limited to revenues. And not delaying the balancing of the budget for some time in the future. I would want to see President Obama force congress to work together by vetoing any bill that does not have a reasonable number of Senators and Representatives from both sides of the aisle. Learn some lessons from Bill Clinton. (No No! Not that lesson! I did not mean it that way!) Take polls and use focus groups to determine what the American people want. With today’s technology, one no longer need to hope theirs action will be approved of by their constituents. We the people… can seek out enough information to know what is being purposed. They can have nearly instant feedback on their actions. Learn to listen to the PEOPLE.
Elected office is not a birthright. If the incumbent is not polling well by Feb 1st, you began looking for someone to replace them. With out 60 democratic votes in the Senate, you may see some (Lieberman) who will defect to the Republicans. You will need to negotiate with some Republicans and get them to cross over to the Democratic party. This will be difficult when one looks at how Specter was treated.
When will Scott Smith be sworn into office? Looking through the Wikipedia article about the Late Ted Kennedy, I found something interesting. Ted Kennedy was elected in a special election held on November 6th, 1962. Ted Kennedy was sworn into the Senate on November 7th, 1962. In both cases their was someone who had been appointed to the Senate to replace a Kennedy. So what has changed between 1962 and 2010 to justify any delay in the swearing in of Senate elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts? So with Coakley conceding the election would the Secretary of State of Massachusetts need to certify the election results? Will Paul Kirk be allowed to continue to serve or is he now n
This should be a good wake-up call for the Democrats and President Obama to make some changes. I would like to see proposing a budget where spending is limited to revenues. And not delaying the balancing of the budget for some time in the future. I would want to see President Obama force congress to work together by vetoing any bill that does not have a reasonable number of Senators and Representatives from both sides of the aisle. Learn some lessons from Bill Clinton. (No No! Not that lesson! I did not mean it that way!) Take polls and use focus groups to determine what the American people want. With today’s technology, one no longer need to hope theirs action will be approved of by their constituents. We the people… can seek out enough information to know what is being purposed. They can have nearly instant feedback on their actions. Learn to listen to the PEOPLE.
Elected office is not a birthright. If the incumbent is not polling well by Feb 1st, you began looking for someone to replace them. With out 60 democratic votes in the Senate, you may see some (Lieberman) who will defect to the Republicans. You will need to negotiate with some Republicans and get them to cross over to the Democratic party. This will be difficult when one looks at how Specter was treated.
When will Scott Smith be sworn into office? Looking through the Wikipedia article about the Late Ted Kennedy, I found something interesting. Ted Kennedy was elected in a special election held on November 6th, 1962. Ted Kennedy was sworn into the Senate on November 7th, 1962. In both cases their was someone who had been appointed to the Senate to replace a Kennedy. So what has changed between 1962 and 2010 to justify any delay in the swearing in of Senate elect Scott Brown of Massachusetts? So with Coakley conceding the election would the Secretary of State of Massachusetts need to certify the election results? Will Paul Kirk be allowed to continue to serve or is he now n
Friday, December 11, 2009
TAXES
Most people consider what they pay in taxes is what they have to pay on April 15th. The withholding tables were adjusted to allow an individual keep $13 more each week ($676 a year). But was anything done to insure that the savings, from the adjustment to the withholding tables, would not be taken back? How many people will find that their refund is less than prior years or they still owe more taxes than expected? To some it will seem like a tax increase. And most people will not buy that the change of withholding tables was a tax cut. Taxpayers will be so pissed off that polls will fall for democrats.
Monday, July 13, 2009
Palin
Palin is polling well but keep in mind the person who will be the Republican nominee for President in 2012 is not yet on the radar screen.
The desire of non-republicans to have Palin become the nominee is in order for them to have an easy election. Two things. 1) Since most would be expecting Obama as the Democratic nominee you should be hoping that Obama does a great job as president, and will not be in a position to need an easy opponent when running for re-election. 2) You do not want the person who will be a horrible president to have a lot of money. If the person would receive the nomination and some scandal hit the Obama camp, it could be enough of a shift to allow the person to win. It’s the old ‘be careful what you wish for’ saying. A mistake is in thinking that you want the person you view as being the worse President to be the nominee. Then you find out the person does well as a candidate. You would want the WORST candidate of those who could be a GOOD President. Palin’s popularity demonstrates a great desire for a conservative leader in the Republican Party.
People who are supporting Palin are doing so because they are thirsting for a conservative candidate. George HW Bush won because of peoples love of Reagan and lost when he went away from there, broke his promise and allowed new taxes. George W Bush won only a close election. Gore just needed to win his own HOME State of Tennessee. When the Republicans lose they think ‘we must be too far to the right’ not recognizing that it may be because voters have decided to not vote. As you move further and further to the left you lose more and more. IF moving to the left was the correct direction you would see better results.
The desire of non-republicans to have Palin become the nominee is in order for them to have an easy election. Two things. 1) Since most would be expecting Obama as the Democratic nominee you should be hoping that Obama does a great job as president, and will not be in a position to need an easy opponent when running for re-election. 2) You do not want the person who will be a horrible president to have a lot of money. If the person would receive the nomination and some scandal hit the Obama camp, it could be enough of a shift to allow the person to win. It’s the old ‘be careful what you wish for’ saying. A mistake is in thinking that you want the person you view as being the worse President to be the nominee. Then you find out the person does well as a candidate. You would want the WORST candidate of those who could be a GOOD President. Palin’s popularity demonstrates a great desire for a conservative leader in the Republican Party.
People who are supporting Palin are doing so because they are thirsting for a conservative candidate. George HW Bush won because of peoples love of Reagan and lost when he went away from there, broke his promise and allowed new taxes. George W Bush won only a close election. Gore just needed to win his own HOME State of Tennessee. When the Republicans lose they think ‘we must be too far to the right’ not recognizing that it may be because voters have decided to not vote. As you move further and further to the left you lose more and more. IF moving to the left was the correct direction you would see better results.
Friday, July 3, 2009
Mainstream Sotomayor
Each time a person is nominated to the Supreme Court, people will ask ‘Is the nominee in the mainstream?’ So what does it mean to be in the ‘mainstream’? I see one definition has being “The prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity”.
If the prevailing current of thought is outside of the US Constitution then I do not want the nominee to be in the ‘mainstream’. If the ‘mainstream’ view of the second amendment would have crossed the line of constitutionality but the ‘mainstream’ has not changed the constitution, then I would expect the Supreme court to rule against them. I expect the nominee to follow the US constitution, not what is popular. If its truly popular, I would expect the constitution to change.
Take the D.C. voting rights Bill. It would give the Washington D.C. a vote in the U.S. House. But this is reserved for States. Washington D.C. has not chosen to become our 51st state, and no one is changing the Constitution to allow D.C. to have votes. Allowing them to have a vote may have ‘mainstream’ support but it’s not constitutional. If it has sufficient support it would not be tough to make it constitutional. Simply passing legislation does not make it constitutional.
The Constitution is not living and breathing. It’s static. Its interpretation is not to change as each generation desires. Each generation may chose to change the Constitution, but you change the Constitution. You don’t pass unconstitutional legislation because you think it would be the right thing to do. You don’t pass laws to grant powers to the executive branch because you want them to do something. Congress can not just pass any legislation it wants. Yet that is what it does, and it seems to be accepted by the American people.
If being mainstream means not being constitutional, then don’t be mainstream.
If the prevailing current of thought is outside of the US Constitution then I do not want the nominee to be in the ‘mainstream’. If the ‘mainstream’ view of the second amendment would have crossed the line of constitutionality but the ‘mainstream’ has not changed the constitution, then I would expect the Supreme court to rule against them. I expect the nominee to follow the US constitution, not what is popular. If its truly popular, I would expect the constitution to change.
Take the D.C. voting rights Bill. It would give the Washington D.C. a vote in the U.S. House. But this is reserved for States. Washington D.C. has not chosen to become our 51st state, and no one is changing the Constitution to allow D.C. to have votes. Allowing them to have a vote may have ‘mainstream’ support but it’s not constitutional. If it has sufficient support it would not be tough to make it constitutional. Simply passing legislation does not make it constitutional.
The Constitution is not living and breathing. It’s static. Its interpretation is not to change as each generation desires. Each generation may chose to change the Constitution, but you change the Constitution. You don’t pass unconstitutional legislation because you think it would be the right thing to do. You don’t pass laws to grant powers to the executive branch because you want them to do something. Congress can not just pass any legislation it wants. Yet that is what it does, and it seems to be accepted by the American people.
If being mainstream means not being constitutional, then don’t be mainstream.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
