Procleangrover,

I think you have provided some excellent suggestions.Without a doubt, personal initiative could go a long way in solving some of our environmental woes.However,some problems are simnply too large for individuals or private enterprise.While we are all taking greater personal responsibility for our impact on the environment, we must also elect political leaders who have some awareness of the need to protect the environment. The usual suspects have not demonstrated a scintilla of awareness that we are even a part of our environment---idylls at the "ranch" aside.

The current energy crisis is a case in point.Those intersted in quick and easy solutions are advocating a complete reversal of some of the environmental protections we have put in place.Drilling in ANWAR or offshore may mitigate some of our problems in the short term,but it is hardly a solution to what is ,ultimately, an unsustainable and costly way of life.

What is needed is cool reflection rather than the usual panic which seems to be part and parcel of this energy crisis and some of the scares of the past.What is needed is something akin to the Space Race that started with Sputnik--- a scare of a different sort.We must attack the problem on a broad front,investing in new technologies,investing in our cities in an attempt to circumvent further urban sprawl and the growth of an ever expanding, energy thirsty suburbia,investing in rapid transit,putting some real money into Amtrak,creating more energy efficient automobiles,changing building codes,investing in infrastructure---we will probably continue to be dependent on the automobile into the foreseeable future ,so we need to eliminate energy devoring bumper-to-bumper traffic snarls;providing tax incentives for the purchase of energy efficient appliances and the implementation of conservation measures;creating a more flexible work week as is presently being done in Utah;moving beyond the car culture----walking on real, honest- to -God sidewalks;eliminating petroleum based disposable packaging, and finally---finally raising our children with a reverence for life and a respect for God's grandeur.

The Muscanator

Great point. I could do alot more than I do recycle more and pay more attention to when and where I drive, but I have almost all Copact flourescent bulbs where I had incandescent. They do cost a little more at the register, but studies show they do save more than they cost in electricity, and the best part is I can't remember the last time I had to change a bulb anywhere in this house.

Fly, your right about more drilling not being a solution to our problems. However it is a temporary solution, along with controling speculators, and improving fuel economy, while we get other sources up and running.

I think that that if we want to keep a lot of our freedoms we need to put some restrictions on the freedom to breed or reward people who do not breed. We should start family consumption planning clinics. We need a new awareness of population control and the environment.

Breed is a word for ANIMALS not humans.

I agree with Deborah Lee on the population issue. I've been saying it for years. If you can afford to raise a child on your own earnings then by all means go for it. But if you intend to put this burden on the backs of tax payers you should not even think of having a baby. The way some women produce babies, then breed is th correct word. I've had animals that care for their young better than some humans I know. I guess you are wondering what this has to do with the energy crisis. Any fool would know the greater the population, the greater the need for energy consumption.

Here's a politically incorrect thought: what efect does massive immigration have on our energy needs?

This must be a trick question because I just don,t get it.

Now Deborah and Fly, your not being good little Liberals.

How dare you question a crack addicts right to spit out child after child by multatudes of differnet men and expect the government to raise them? That will be looked at as a privacy issue and right to there body (like murdering unborn humans). Actually I have always believe this would be a good idea. If you are on government assistance they should be able to keep you from just spitting out social program dependents, when you have no intention of raising or taking care of them.

Fly, isn't asking questions about immigration usually equated to bing a ravcist by Liberals? Thats how I always hear it. People are accused of being a racist if they want our borders protected and expect people to follow the law.

The answer of course is that it greatly increases our needs for energy. I'd say more than most since most illigals live in old, very inefficent housing that requires much energy to heat or cool, and older vehicles which burn a lot of gas.

The "breeding control" is not going to happen, although it would make a drastic impact for the better on our country. We may succeed in protecting our borders, but it will be a hard battle especially with Liberals totally controling our Government, and Mccain wouldn't make it any better if it is him elected.

It was a loaded question.Of course immigration has an effect.Immigration touches upon every aspect of American life.A larger population requires more services,more schools,more roads,more hospitals ,more housing,more infrastructure of every conceivable sort and ,yes, a greater demand for energy.

As a nation of immigrants, we will need to make some hard decisions about the very nature of our country and whether or not we need or can afford to continue the very generous open door that we have maintained in the past.Recognizing that immigration is always a mixed blessing,we will need to balance the contributions that immigrants may yield with what ecologists would term the carrying capacity of the nation: do we really want to live in a nation of four hundred million--five hundred million? Already the nation seems much more crowded than the nation of my youth. David Brouer,founder of the Sierrra Club,quit that organization because the organization refused to take a stand on the issue,essentially washing its hands of any responsibility in the face of what has become a sacred cow in American culture.

That's what I meant.

Musca

John McCain and W are not liberals and they have done and will do very little to secure our borders.I might add that I find McCain's ( still waffling ) stance on amnesty curious since he purportedly represents a state that has been overrun by illegal immigration.

If you're interested in my politics, I consider myself to be a populist.I can't say that I understand some of the stances you've taken because you seem to be just an ordinary guy like the rest of us working stiffs but seem to identify with plutocrats and oligarchs more than with the common man---maybe I'm wrong.I would also like to say that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being a liberal.We really need the loyal opposition despite what the Irish mafia( O'Reilly,Hannity) on Fox seems to suggest.As for controlled breeding,leave that to the Chinese.We live in a democracy.

I am a Libertarian and voted for Ron Paul and will always vote Libertarian.
In 1970, there was a commercial that was on and a young couple were saying goodbye to their parents and when they closed the door a baby carriage was sitting in their living room, left by their parents. Then the commercial said, "YOU DO HAVE A CHOICE". You would never see that commercial even being allowed on the TV. Forward, 35 years and every show has three children and the movie stars are running around with THE BABY BUMP. The owners of the media are making it glamorous because the people who advertise on their shows know that they need plenty of new human beings to sell things to (mainly Chinese junk that is plastic and not needed) from cradle to grave. They are not worried about quality, just quantity. The parents are not thinking about the college education and do not realize that many have to join the military to get a job and an education and end up dying in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Some very interesting comments - that's for sure! As I would like to continue the point of this, the one thing we (Americans of all stripes) must do is find the smallest impact on the environment that we can and work to achieve it. That will require that we learn what is and is not ecologically sound (not always easy - re the current debate over green fuels, many of which are actually worse for the environment than oil. Corn based ethanol is a good case in point).

The "bottom line" is that both adults and children need to know what they personally can do and strive to reach that goal. For now, may God bless . . .

Peace! procleangrover

I see your point. I have really cut down on driving. I have even started using my outside clothes line for items that take so long to dry. I need some light bulbs now so I'll buy those curly kind. I already have a few in place now. I honestly don't know how some people can afford the gas to ride as much as they do. My computer is near a window and you can see the same cars go back and forth.

Plutocrat? Why? because I belive that Capitolism is better than the alternatives? Live in a Communist country if you want, but I'll choose to live in a country where someone from any background can be successful, and the Government won't decide just how good of a life you are entitled to live.

Or because I belive that extreem tax's on the rich will send us into a depression? Look at facts there. We cannot force them to invest in the markt, if we double the cap gains all at once they will pull back and the market will fall. I am mearly looking out for the country with my stances. Taking the effects of something into consideration, before just doing it and letting it ruin us.

Thre is adrastic difference between a loyal opposition and what Liberalism has turned into, and I have only really heard Oreilly bash the Moveon, KOS, S.F values, PETA, type far left Liberals. Has he ever just stated that Liberals as a whole are bad? As I have pointed out the others do tend to actually say anyone who disagree's with Liberals are wrong, but oh well.

Call yourself what you want, but most of your posts as well as your tendancy to attack FOX when the two alternatives are far worse would lead most to believe the same as I.

Or is it my reluctence to blame everything on a President when it is not truely him who runs the country. I just put the blame on the whole system and everyone in washington where it actually belongs.

Sorry Deb, I have just seen you get real snotty when someone doesn't want to expand social programs ( Libertarians believe in no social programs don't they) and jump to insinuate people are racist for no apparant reason ( a tactic of Liberals) so again I just went with what I saw.

Please show me where I wanted to expand social programs. The Libertarians are for promptly withdrawing US troops from Iraq; reductions in federal government expenditures by cutting wasteful government programs(NOT ELIMINATING); reforming the tax code with a simplified, flat tax; reforming the Social Security and Medicare systems with Libertarian alternatives; and ending federal prosecution of citizens for nonviolent, consensual crimes, which is a very simplified explanation. I make no apologies for insinuating that people are racist, because they are. I have had to break up fights between woman, where I taught piano, who said that if an Asian bred with anybody other than an Asian that it would make them less intelligent. Russians feel the same way. People from India feel the same way. I personally do not think that way. If I am racist is anyway it is that Asians are smarter and more musical.

Great post! I believe fully that if you have a complaint, you should also have a suggestion for a solution. Welfare can be changed and needs to be. Presently, it encourages young women to have babies in order to get government support. The more they have, the more they get. This CAN be changed. Give them four years - with no additional children - in school for a degree. Get them working and then they are off assistance.
We all can do something individually to help make a difference. And Fly, would you please stop labeling people. Liberal, conservative, populist, centrist... whatever... how about american. We're ALL americans.

Oh... I've got one more comment. On immigration.... John McCain just might know something about this because he HAS lived with it and dealt with it for many years. But, think on this...it's far-fetched but think on it. In the early 1900's, our country had a huge influx of immigrants from all over the world. They came into one port.... Ellis Island. There they went through a process in order to decide whether they could stay or whether they would be sent home. Maybe we need to establish a new "Ellis Island" in the southwest. One that would be the main port for hispanics to come through. They would also go through a process in order to decide who could stay and who would have to go home. The early immigrants of this country respected the law. They took the risk and came in legally. Anyone who wants to come in to our country ought to respect those laws today and come in through the legal due process. Establishing a new "Ellis", might be just what we need to bring order to the immigration process on that end of the country. What do you think?

I think we all need to take personal responsibility in everything we do, and our government does not promote this.

I do agree that the welfare system needs a major overhaul. Absolutely does not work. It actually promotes what it supposedly tries to prevent.

With all due respect, I don't see Fly "labeling" people. He identified his own leanings in response to bullochgy's routine liberal bashing. BG was the first to throw out a label in this blog with this sarcastic comment:

"Now Deborah and Fly, your not being good little Liberals"

As a matter of fact, I too have wondered why BG backs those who support policies that would seemingly work against his own interests. I think Fly's question was a fair one. And BG does a very good job of explaining it in his response. Now I better understand his point.

Good points were made by all.

Ellis Island of the Southewest? Hmmm... interesting idea. I'll have to think on that one.

Immigrants are the best example of energy conservation there is out there. They car pool, they ride the bus, they ride bikes, they walk to places, and they live like twenty to a room in some places.

What is the differnece between cutting wasteful government programs(NOT ELIMINATING) and eliminating the program?

No one smokes crack any more its meth heads having babies now.

We do not even see how easy we have it in America. It is why I love the United States more than any other place I have ever been. We can actually feel justied complaining about the price of meat, the price of gas, the price of movie tickets. Other parts of the world complain about starving to death, being about to speak their minds, roving gangs of militants....

But these accounts are flawed, historians say. Until 1918, the United States did not require passports; the term “illegal immigrant had no meaning. New arrivals were required only to prove their identity and find a relative or friend who could vouch for them. I found my husband's relatives and all they needed to say was, "going to Parkersburg, WV to live with a brother". People worried that immigrants depressed working-class wages, and there is evidence that this was so. Labor organizing took off most successfully after Congress moved to shut off the immigration funnel in the 1920s. Big business, housing and farming does not want the flow of illegal immigrants to stop. There will never be a Southwestern Ellis Island. At this very moment there are plenty of businesses who for a fee will advertise in foreign countries, supply the proper paper work, fly the people to the United States and it is all legal. You can not beat the system.

Accounts?? What are you tyring to say here anyhow. Just because there where not passports a hundred years ago does not make illegal immigrantion nonexistant now or invalid.

The accounts are the stories about families shaking in their boots wondering if they had the proper documentation and if the man would let them through the gates. All they wanted was a warm body that would work in the steel mills in Pittsburgh or whatever for less money than the last immigrants that they let in. It is the same now. For Mexicans that will work for cheap, they turn their heads and pretend it does not happen. For a person who wants to bring their aged parents over from Germany it takes nine years.

Can your aged parents work for less?

Deborah isn't saying that people are racist without really knowing anything about them or because they disagree with you, calling all Asians, Russians or others racist really racism in itself? It is a Politically incorrect question to ask, but isn't it so?

I explained fully why I called deborah and fly Liberals didn't I? Go read the school breakfast blog and see hwere she got snotty and said I wasn't a good republican, which I guess is true since am not a Republican! Sometimes if you see one of us make a comment there is history there so don't be so quick to point fingers.

Deborah I didn't say you wanted to expand social programs, Why do you streach yourself to put words in people's mouths. What I actually said was you get snotty about people not wanting to expand social programs, which I took your snotty remark in above mentioned blog to be.

"We do not even see how easy we have it in America. It is why I love the United States more than any other place I have ever been. We can actually feel justied complaining about the price of meat, the price of gas, the price of movie tickets. Other parts of the world complain about starving to death, being about to speak their minds, roving gangs of militants...."
This is exactly the way I feel and why I get so sock and defensive when people constantly complain about this country and it's leaders! They do not appreciate how good it is here. I for one fully appreciate the life I have here!

Ok whatnext, you explain to me how the polacies of those who want to socialize this country will help me more than the ones we have now? How will I benefit from higher taxs on the wealthy when it crash's the market and drives us into a depression? I belive sometimes I am one of the few who look at something from all angles and see the consequinces of certain actions. Just as I see the consequinces of not drilling for more oil, and the ones of drilling, but not investing hard and fast into other sources of energy.

So Deborah you gonna vote for Barr?

OK BG, I am not financial expert and won’t pretend to know much about macroeconomics. If I did, I would probably be one of those rich folks investing in the stock market.

But I’m not convinced that higher taxes on the wealthy would necessarily crash the market and drive us into a depression.

I seem to remember that we had a healthy economy and a balanced federal budget (no deficit) when Clinton left office; and when Bush took over and instituted all these tax breaks for the wealthy everything started going downhill. Our economy is in such bad shape now that we are likely headed for a depression regardless of who wins the election.

Giving tax breaks to business and corporations that encourage job creation is one thing, and giving income tax breaks to the wealthiest 1% is quite another. These wealthy people whose salaries are in the millions will continue to invest and become wealthier regardless of their taxes, while regular Americans continue to struggle with the rising cost of living and decreases in their "real incomes".

Check out Snopes on a popular false email comparing McCain’s vs. Obama’s tax changes: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/tax...

…Excerpt on the TRUE average tax bill:
Income over $2.9M
McCain: -$269,364
Obama: +$701,855

Income: $227K-$603K
McCain: -$7,871
Obama: +$12

Income: $38K-$66K
McCain: -$319
Obama: -$1,042

Income under $19K
McCain: -$19
Obama: -$567

With Obama’s plan, it looks like the wealthiest 1% will each have $701,855 less to invest in the stock market, but MILLIONS of folks would have and extra $500 to $1000 of disposable income to purchase goods and services, boosting our economy in a similar fashion as our stimulus checks are intended to do.

Can you explain why favoring the top 1% is a better economic solution? And where are you getting your facts to back up your basic premise that the stock market will crash if we repeal tax breaks on those making over $2.9 million and return to the way it was 8 years ago when the economy was doing just fine?

I’m not being sarcastic - I would like to understand the specifics on how you arrive at your conclusion. Enlighten me.

There is nothing wrong with elevating taxs on the rich. However you cannot just double the capitol gains tax. This is the tax that people pay on sales of property and stock and the like. That is where the ultra-wealthy make there money. If you suddenly double the tax or make it too high period wealthy people will pull back from the market, because it becomes too much of a risk, if they have to pay high taxes on a profit, if they even make a profit. If people stop playing the market what happens? Crash! Depression!

What needs to happen is all Americans should pay social security tax's on all of there income. Right now it is only on the first $100,000 or something close. We pay SS tax on all of our income, but people who make over that amount do not. If it isn't on the total it should be a % across the board.

We also need to stop giving the wealthy tax breaks for buying things like american made Yachts.

it isn't great that the wealthy have a low tax rate, but you have to consider what happens to the market if you highly tax profits from it.

"Can you explain why favoring the top 1% is a better economic solution? And where are you getting your facts to back up your basic premise that the stock market will crash if we repeal tax breaks on those making over $2.9 million and return to the way it was 8 years ago when the economy was doing just fine?" By the way when did I ever make this statement? Never has been said, do me a favor don't put words in my mouth!

Incidentally this is one of the places where Obama is now flip-floping. He promised to double these tax's to win over the socialist left and is now backing off saying the cap gains can't be raised until we get the economy moving again. If I am not right why would he be backing off and stating they can't be raised during a bad economy?

Greetings! This is a good conversation and one that shows the many directions that our small community goes. We are truly a melting pot of ideas - which is one reason for Ellis Island! A comment about immigrants in 1900 and in 2008. IN 1900, there were still a large number of square miles left to be settled and the age of Ford, Firestone, and Getty (and many, many others!) was providing jobs and needed willing workers. The United states needed these immigrants and Ellis Island was a way to increase population and diversity at a time when that was necessary.

Today, those who are coming across our southern border are doing two things that are causing a great deal of angst among "the citizens". First, they are taking jobs from those who are legal citizens. As a small business owner, I have seen the changes in the last 20 years. There is a counter argument that the citizens don't want "those" jobs, but it is not a very compelling one. Second,too many of the 'illegals' are on welfare and are not paying any taxes other than sales tax (which is a compelling reason for a flat tax). The number of dollars that go to this illegal infrastructure is staggering - in the billions.

The bottom line - as I mentioned in the original article - is that each of us MUST find ways that we and our families can do all we can to help with the environment. Every day each of us have many opportunities to cut back, recycle, reuse, and reduce our 'footprint' on our environment. Please join me in finding new ways to do this. till next time,

Peace! procleangrover

When an Asian or a Russian tell you that they are superior as a pure race than one who is of a mixed race, than yes, they are racist. Racist - a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior. If a group of people tell me that they are superior because of their pure race, to call them racist is not racism, it is a fact.

There are many forms of "isms" in our society, some much more 'offensive' than others. Racism is a label that is often given freely to people who don't deserve it. as a point in fact, look at the term, "you're prejudiced!". that is a comment that almost always is used in a negative and often hurtful way. However, everyone, no matter who you are, is prejudiced!

As a couple of examples: I am prejudiced against people who are closed minded and toward those who act as though they know everything. Those types of people are not people with whom I wish to be associated with. Now I am quite sure there are many people who are prejudiced against me. I am a college educated male, Catholic, and both a Republican and a conservationist. Those are certainly several things that get some people's blood boiling!

What is important is how we (each of us as individuals) react to prejudice and racism. As long as I am not bothered by someone elses attitudes toward me, they have no control over me. Once I allow someone to use my emotions to "get under my skin", then they have 'won' and I have 'lost'. Since I own my emotions, only I can give them away.

As an example of those 'isms' that people get so worked up about: Jessie Jackson is infamous for his attacks against isms - and he is playing directly into the hands of those who have learned to control him. For that reason, he has become almost totally ineffectual as a communicator and as a "voice of the people".

Bottom line - since we own our emotions, it is our responsibility to use them wisely and not allow others to control us by what they do. Racism, prejudice, and all those other problem areas could be wiped out if we simply quit letting them bother us. Till next time, may god bless!

Peace! procleangrover

True, Deborah Lee. You are exactly right on this one.

And Procleangrover, amen to your comments as well.

I will refuse to believe that all Asians and Russians are racist. Painting a whole group of people one way is racist in it self and what has been argued against so hard in this country for so long, although only onesidedly, I see black people generalizing whites everyday with no recouse, but I guess thats where we have let things get.

So watchdog, you support the idea that all Asians and Russians are racist? Thats a pretty judgemental and elitist attitude to have to assume you know how a whole race thinks.

Well it looks like this blog got way off topic unfortunately. On a more positive note, I found this wonderful short animation about personal responsibility:

http://www.responsibilityproject.com/fil...