It would take a windmill field the size of Connecticut to power the city of Phoenix, AZ. It would take a solar panel field, if I remember correctly, about 100 square miles, to power NYC.

The only viable alternative energy right now is nuclear, which has been criticized due to it’s hazards, 3 mile island is used as a poor example that never really panned out as a hazard anyway.

Besides, we can’t run cars on wind and solar power (well maybe solar but not efficiently).

One of the biggest misconceptions right now in the media and from the left is that this is a product of the “Drill baby, drill” crowd. That crowd’s “chant”, refers to “Offshore drilling”, this spill is a result of the regulations imposed that pushed the drilling to “Deep Sea Drilling” and has lead to circumstances that are uncontrollable at such depths. If is were “offshore” drilling, we could have capped it off and under control almost immediately.

Why not look at drilling on land!? Look at the size of the oil pocket under North and South Dakota! We drill there, we reduce the amount of dependability on foreign entities, create american jobs, don’t risk environmental disaster…I mean the “pros” are outstanding.

I think the two parties agree that alternative energy needs to take over, we need to get off of oil, but depending on an inefficient line of energy sources and going cold turkey on oil would kill the economy and destroy American lives. Let’s get these alts up to standards and introduce them to the public with tax incentives that makes them affordable and then maybe we can all agree.

Heck, I would love to see a car run on water…then again, what is the number one contributor to warming in the atmosphere? CO2? Nope, water vapor….but they don’t want to mention that in the global warming reports….

I appreciate the fact you’re willing to communicate your views in an open forum. As a result, I hope you’re willing to take advantage of a great opportunity that is in front of you: an opportunity to further develop your view of the world and offer constructive solutions to its problems. I plan to comment further in another post on why I fundamentally disagree with many of your views but with this post I only want to focus on one thing: your (apparent) bifurcated view of politics and the world. To me, it appears that you have latched onto the dichotomy of politics, Democrats versus Republicans, blue versus red. It is almost like you’ve taken the rivalry between Texas and Oklahoma and applied it to the political world. You’ve latched onto ONE team and would rather be caught dead than cheering for the other side.

Referencing your Republican Manifesto post, you are long on rhetoric and short on substance. It is my belief that people today would rather be entertained than educated (hence why the Bill O’Reillies of the world are so popular). I see a common thread in your posts where you are trying to leverage the Bill O’Reilly model of political discourse in an effort to garner public support. It just doesn’t work for me.

“Obama’s insincere proselytizing isn’t going solve anything in the Gulf. It just left us with gushing oil well in the gulf that needs to be plugged, and another in Obama’s face that needs to be stopped up as well.”

–Byron, you can do better than this. You are smarter than this. Let’s create a forum that can truly foster solutions to the problems we face. I put the ball in your court; you decide how you want to proceed.

Of course, I don’t hide my opinion on my site in regards to things politically and I appreciate civil debate. I have been meaning to research and compare the modern day progressive with the progressive politics of the early 20th Century….It would seem to me that both versions at least consider the Constitution an “evolving” document that was meant to be drastically changed (and that does not mean that I argue for slavery or women’s rights to be suppressed, obviously those changes were necessary). I find it very disturbing that 20% of our country wants us to have a government modeled more after governments that have obviously failed in comparison.

I don’t think that any party would disagree with you on your point that “everyone deserves a chance to make their lives better.”, I absolutely agree with you and that is where the line “All men are created equal”. An emphasis on the word “created”, as carefully written by Jefferson and co-editors, to push the idea that we are all born into the world equally and have the right to shape our lives the way we want. It is a shame that it is read as just “All men are equal”, giving it a completely different meaning that would imply that people have an entitlement from the government to a equal lifestyle as their neighbor.

To be honest, I think that this exact line is the foundation for the separation between party beliefs and how we interpret it.

Very interesting family history though! You have quite the story behind you!

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I am assuming that you are for the most part referring to military power when you espouse the government’s role as protector. If that’s the case, you are calling for protection from invasion, from death by a bullet. Why not protection from death by a virus?

Thanks for commenting! You make an interesting point about Gen Y being more apt to follow social issues than others. Do you think it’s because as a younger generation we tend to be more liberal than older ones (comparatively)?

In terms of this being a downfall of the bipartisan system, I can’t say I agree. In fact, other countries like Italy have sometimes upwards of 100 parties in elections! There a party could just the representative of one singular issue, and somehow these governments still find ways to cooperate and function (most of the time).

What I think is the true downfall is a totally uninterested and undereducated (politically) public. I’ve had the amazing opportunity to speak to a wide variety of people while living in New York. What I’ve found is the average American voter seems to be fairly uninterested in day to day politics because nothing seems to be “real” to them, and no one seems genuine. That, and they feel out of the loop or unable to participate, which is simply not the case.

What I do think is interesting about Gen Y is our willingness to participate. Attribute it to the internet, education rates, Lady Gaga, whoever. I still think it’s a good thing!

-Byron

To begin, I think your assessment that my assumptions were too general (therefore making them simultaneously over and under-inclusive) are a bit unfair. Forgive my vagueness, but I was trying to give a general overview of why I believe what I do by explaining some theories without being too theoretical. (Leave it to me to attempt something that crazy.) However, I can clarify a few things for you.
Locke theorized that the only man would leave the state of nature (existence without government) to consent to governmental rule was protection. In fact, I don’t think a generalized statement like “protection” is under-inclusive for American political thought. I’m so glad you mentioned the Preamble to the Constitution, because you can take each reason given for a new government to be a form of protection:

1. “The formation of a more perfect Union” was a protection from the old types of tyrannical government that the Founding Fathers had experienced.
2. “Insuring domestic tranquility” protects each citizen from unlawful encroachment by another (or other entities),
3. “Providing for the common defense” protects the citizens as a whole from outside forces.
4. “Promoting the general welfare” refers to protecting our society and civilization, rather than our government or us as individuals.
5. “Securing the Blessing of Liberty” protects our innate freedoms we were born with, those “inalienable rights” the Declaration of Independence speaks of.

I’d also like to defend against your over-inclusive argument. You say that my by statements are at odds with my desire to reign in tax revenues and government spending/reach. However, I think you simply misunderstood what I was saying. I do believe the government has to tax its citizens and spend money – the idea that an effective government could accomplish anything without doing that could only happen at the end of Robin Hood. (Ha!) I’m sorry if I was unclear, but my ideas were about the scaling back of government, not the abolishment. I’m sure we agree the government has to have the financial ability to operate, but the dichotomy arrives when discussing the desired reach (and the manner means are procured).

Do I think protection means ensuring health care? Absolutely not. But that’s exactly what it is: my opinion, as everything else on this (section of this) blog. You can choose or agree or disagree with them as you please (I’ll assume the latter. ) I do know something I can agree on with you, however; and that is the topic of governing responsibility. I think all of us, Republican and Democrat, should be examining our elected officials very closely to see if they are meeting the standards set before them (which should be the highest). That was another good thing about Locke: if they government is not doing its job, then vote’em out!

Thanks for commenting! I look forward to hearing your opinion on mine and Tamara’s upcoming posts.

-Byron

We are only moving further and further away from wrongly convicting people with new technology and techniques of investigating. So while you may see it happen sometimes, the majority of these death penalty cases are proven before cast.

I might be able to agree with an anti-death penalty person if their reasoning is that these people should never see the light of day again, stopping them from reentering society to recommit these crimes. It is the Utopian attitude that we can rehabilitate criminals and murders and set them free in the burbs and feel like we can trust they are safe that really bothers me…it is a disconnect from reality.