I just read a story from Newsweek on the polluting prowess of Texas. I was not at all shocked to learn that Texas is the state with the largest CO2 output. However, the following did horrify me:
"Were the Lonestar State to secede from the union it would be the world's eighth-largest emitter of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, just behind Canada."
also:
"Texas still outpaces the combined emissions of California and Pennsylvania, the states with the second- and third-highest CO2 outputs."
That's amazing and terrible and irresponsible and...
"Texans epitomize America's penchant for overconsumption, so much so that they've even coined their own phrase for superlarge portions: Texas-sized. The state's 23.5 million residents use nearly 3,000 more kilowatt-hours of electricity every year than the average American and a higher percentage of them drive large, gas-guzzling vehicles."
"[I]t is one of only 15 states without a climate action plan in place or even under consideration."
I can definitely see that Bush belongs in Texas despite his Yalie pedigree. I recently read an article in GOOD about Vermont's desire to secede because of the restrictive hand of our federal government; they want tougher environmental laws, for one thing. That's great, and I think that states (see California) should be able to enact tougher laws if they want to, and that the federal government needs to get tougher too. My worry with the secession talk (and there is some low-level talk in the South) is that southern states are not very likely to enact tough laws benefiting the environment, and will instead likely go in the other direction, making pollution easier. And we are all affected by the decisions of the eighth-largest CO2 emitter in the world living on our doorstep.
Friday, February 29, 2008
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Kids today
So once again, just listening to NPR and heard this story. Apparently the decline in pretend-type play among children has led to changes in behavior and responsibility, among other things. Read or listen to the story, especially anybody that is or will be a parent.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Sweet hearts!
OK, so my wife got me some of those sweetheart things (in Spanish, they're Corazones Dulces!) for Valentine's Day/our first anniversary, and I have been looking at the messages because they're generally amusingly pithy. This box is some sort of weird mixture though. There's the impressively current (I'M YRS), the completely neutral (NICE GIRL), the thoroughly passe (PAGE ME), the somewhat passe and completely unromantic (FAX ME), and the just plain weird (PAY DAY). Oh, and the one befitting of the angst felt by teenagers everywhere, the blank heart.
Thanks for the treat darling!
Thanks for the treat darling!
Calling BS on Hillary Clinton
Let me start this blog by stating that I voted for Clinton in the primary here in NM because she actually talked about what she would do about the problems facing this nation at her rally. But a story from this morning's Morning Edition is making me change my mind. Can I go back and change my vote? I kind of want to now.
Why? Well, I'll tell you. We have this really bizarre and nonsensical primary system in this country whereby a few states (particularly Iowa and New Hampshire, extremely white states) get a huge say in who gets to run for president from each party. I don't think that this is a particularly fair system, and I would like to see it changed somehow. I haven't done any real research on the topic, but I have not seen a viable solution yet. Anyway, this time around a whole lot of states decided that they deserved to be the most important state in the primary process, and moved their primaries forward. This resulted in New Hampshire and Iowa moving their primaries even further forward, until they occurred ridiculously early. When these states (including both Arizona and New Mexico) floated this idea of moving forward, they knew full well that if they moved them too far forward, their delegates would not be counted. Florida and Michigan moved theirs too far forward, and so their primary results are not supposed to count. They did it anyway. And their votes did not count. In fact, candidates were not supposed to put themselves on the ballot. Clinton did it anyway. And shockingly, being the only major candidate, she carried both states (the second most popular choice was uncommitted).
Now that she's slipping further behind Obama, she suddenly wants those votes counted. Here are some quotes. Early on, she gave her reason for putting herself on the ballot as: "It's clear - this election they're having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot."
Now, the day before Florida primary, she said, "I want the voters in Florida to know that I hear them. Hundreds of thousands of Floridians have already votes, so clearly they are taking this seriously, they believe their voices are going to be heard and should be counted, and I agree with them." Sounds suspiciously like she was hedging her bets by putting herself on the ballot to me.
As I said, I disagree with the system the way it is currently set up, but if there are rules, and you know full well what those rules are, and you choose to break those rules, then you should be prepared to face the consequences. This is why I have little sympathy for anybody that gets a speeding ticket (I've gotten one, and paid it), stop sign ticket, etc. The stakes are higher here, of course. Tad Devine says, "If the margin in these two states represents a difference of who's going to be the nominee, it's going to be hard fought and it could be fought all the way through the credentials and the rules committee and to the convention floor itself."
Of course, as will always happen, this has been turned by some into a matter of race. Surprisingly, Rev. Al Sharpton comes down on the side of reason (the side of reason always being my side): "I do not understand how you can say that you're going to have primaries that are not going to be respected, candidates not going to campaign, and then later change the rules [dumb sports metaphor omitted]. That is a civil rights issue." But Julian Bond, Chairman of the NAACP, sees it differently: "Under present rules, these voters will not be heard, they won't be seated, they won't have any recognition, or representation at the Democratic Convention. I'm old enough to have been through these credential fights at Democratic Conventions in '64 and '68 when the issue was in race, and in some ways the issue is race now. A great portion of the voters in both those states are black. They have a right to have their expressions heard and felt." Why does a credential fight automatically turn into a race issue? No idea. What kills me is that if any other state with a negligible minority population, say Minnesota, the exact damn same thing would have happened. The only possible way that this is a race issue is if black people are somehow more inclined to push their primaries way way early, which I do not think is the case.
The upshot of this whole thing is that Clinton is going back on what she said earlier as soon as it will benefit her. Now, I am not so naive as to think that, if he were in the same position, Obama would not be saying the same thing. And maybe with time I will back Clinton again. But it pisses me off that they are being such politicians, frankly. Tad Devine again: "This is a fundamental issue of fairness. For our party, we're holding ourselves out to be the party of fairness, on issues like taxes, on the way people live and their lives. If our own process doesn't appear to be a fair process, we're going to hurt ourselves. We need to figure out a way to make sure that these states are fully engaged in this political process at the Convention, and certainly in the general election. And that's not going to be an easy thing as long as the nomination is on the line." What would be fair? Sticking to the original plan, despite the fact that it hurts the candidate for whom I voted.
Morning Edition mentioned some solutions proposed for this situation. First, we could rehold the primaries, probably the most reasonable of the options, and the one that they term "unlikely." Second, we could split the votes evenly between the two candidates, which would be a BS solution since it would not actually do anything, just adding the same number of delegates to each candidate. Plus, if Clinton would have actually won real primaries in these two states, it would be only fair that she get her real proportion of delegates. Finally, split the votes according to the proportion of the national popular vote that each candidate holds; this won, again, would make zero difference to anything, since if Obama holds, say, 60% of the popular vote nationwide, he would still hold 60% after those two states were counted. I mean, what is the damn point? I suppose this would be the most popular option for those that want to placate Michigan and Florida and not disillusion them with the Democratic Party. I say, if you play with fire, you might get burned.
Why? Well, I'll tell you. We have this really bizarre and nonsensical primary system in this country whereby a few states (particularly Iowa and New Hampshire, extremely white states) get a huge say in who gets to run for president from each party. I don't think that this is a particularly fair system, and I would like to see it changed somehow. I haven't done any real research on the topic, but I have not seen a viable solution yet. Anyway, this time around a whole lot of states decided that they deserved to be the most important state in the primary process, and moved their primaries forward. This resulted in New Hampshire and Iowa moving their primaries even further forward, until they occurred ridiculously early. When these states (including both Arizona and New Mexico) floated this idea of moving forward, they knew full well that if they moved them too far forward, their delegates would not be counted. Florida and Michigan moved theirs too far forward, and so their primary results are not supposed to count. They did it anyway. And their votes did not count. In fact, candidates were not supposed to put themselves on the ballot. Clinton did it anyway. And shockingly, being the only major candidate, she carried both states (the second most popular choice was uncommitted).
Now that she's slipping further behind Obama, she suddenly wants those votes counted. Here are some quotes. Early on, she gave her reason for putting herself on the ballot as: "It's clear - this election they're having is not going to count for anything. I personally did not think it made any difference whether or not my name was on the ballot."
Now, the day before Florida primary, she said, "I want the voters in Florida to know that I hear them. Hundreds of thousands of Floridians have already votes, so clearly they are taking this seriously, they believe their voices are going to be heard and should be counted, and I agree with them." Sounds suspiciously like she was hedging her bets by putting herself on the ballot to me.
As I said, I disagree with the system the way it is currently set up, but if there are rules, and you know full well what those rules are, and you choose to break those rules, then you should be prepared to face the consequences. This is why I have little sympathy for anybody that gets a speeding ticket (I've gotten one, and paid it), stop sign ticket, etc. The stakes are higher here, of course. Tad Devine says, "If the margin in these two states represents a difference of who's going to be the nominee, it's going to be hard fought and it could be fought all the way through the credentials and the rules committee and to the convention floor itself."
Of course, as will always happen, this has been turned by some into a matter of race. Surprisingly, Rev. Al Sharpton comes down on the side of reason (the side of reason always being my side): "I do not understand how you can say that you're going to have primaries that are not going to be respected, candidates not going to campaign, and then later change the rules [dumb sports metaphor omitted]. That is a civil rights issue." But Julian Bond, Chairman of the NAACP, sees it differently: "Under present rules, these voters will not be heard, they won't be seated, they won't have any recognition, or representation at the Democratic Convention. I'm old enough to have been through these credential fights at Democratic Conventions in '64 and '68 when the issue was in race, and in some ways the issue is race now. A great portion of the voters in both those states are black. They have a right to have their expressions heard and felt." Why does a credential fight automatically turn into a race issue? No idea. What kills me is that if any other state with a negligible minority population, say Minnesota, the exact damn same thing would have happened. The only possible way that this is a race issue is if black people are somehow more inclined to push their primaries way way early, which I do not think is the case.
The upshot of this whole thing is that Clinton is going back on what she said earlier as soon as it will benefit her. Now, I am not so naive as to think that, if he were in the same position, Obama would not be saying the same thing. And maybe with time I will back Clinton again. But it pisses me off that they are being such politicians, frankly. Tad Devine again: "This is a fundamental issue of fairness. For our party, we're holding ourselves out to be the party of fairness, on issues like taxes, on the way people live and their lives. If our own process doesn't appear to be a fair process, we're going to hurt ourselves. We need to figure out a way to make sure that these states are fully engaged in this political process at the Convention, and certainly in the general election. And that's not going to be an easy thing as long as the nomination is on the line." What would be fair? Sticking to the original plan, despite the fact that it hurts the candidate for whom I voted.
Morning Edition mentioned some solutions proposed for this situation. First, we could rehold the primaries, probably the most reasonable of the options, and the one that they term "unlikely." Second, we could split the votes evenly between the two candidates, which would be a BS solution since it would not actually do anything, just adding the same number of delegates to each candidate. Plus, if Clinton would have actually won real primaries in these two states, it would be only fair that she get her real proportion of delegates. Finally, split the votes according to the proportion of the national popular vote that each candidate holds; this won, again, would make zero difference to anything, since if Obama holds, say, 60% of the popular vote nationwide, he would still hold 60% after those two states were counted. I mean, what is the damn point? I suppose this would be the most popular option for those that want to placate Michigan and Florida and not disillusion them with the Democratic Party. I say, if you play with fire, you might get burned.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Do you live in the Southwest?
If you've somehow not heard yet that you live in a desert, you should read this article from this month's National Geographic Magazine that talks about the present and future water-related difficulties of our beloved West. I don't think any of it was really news to me, as a water quasi-professional, but this is probably the most widely-read (amongst laypeople) publication I have seen take a stab at the issue (ha! pun!). Give it a read and a think. You think tap water tastes bad now? Just wait. Also, the writer talked to a lot of scientists from Arizona and New Mexico whose work I have read or am familiar with.
In other news, we went on vacation and discovered a new and frightening quasi-state we like to call New Texico. We have a joint blog post planned to detail this place, which means it will be published in a terrifyingly unnecessary three different locations.
In other news, we went on vacation and discovered a new and frightening quasi-state we like to call New Texico. We have a joint blog post planned to detail this place, which means it will be published in a terrifyingly unnecessary three different locations.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
