Larry C wrote:


Now this is precisely the point. Instead of blaming the
"Fundamentalist" or "Evangelical" Christians, the influence of which
has been vastly overrated (voter demographics just done lie),
the Democrats need to look at why they are not getting their message
across. Since I follow politics as a spectator sport, my take is that
they have become sidetracked by social issues that either aren't
relavent or distasteful to the voting population. While I disliked Bill
Clinton, politically I had to admire the way that he skillfully coopted
any popular conservative program as his own, which is why he was
elelcted twice during a time when the rest of the Democratic Party was
sucking, while managing to avoid most of these issues (except Gun
Control). The first time you have a Democratic candidate the can
distance himself from Gay Marriage, Abortion, and Gun Control, you are
probably going to have another Democrat in the White House. I really
don't see this happening since the DNC is wedded to certain special
interest groups that won't allow these changes.


Fear is credited by many for their vote for a 2nd-term Bush. There is
the fear of terrorism, with an appearance by the architect of modern
terrorism, Osama bin Laden, just days before the election. Bush's
response to this threat, questionable as to effectiveness, at least is
seen as strong and decisive by the voters.

Closer to home is the fear of moral decay; boobs at the Superbowl,
same-gender marriage, "activist" judges *legislating for* abortion and
gay marriage from the bench. Bush himself made moral issues a
centerpiece in the campaign, playing to and giving voice to the fears
of both religious conservatives and the public at large. It is Bush's
politics of fear that I find revolting and repulsive. Reminds me of a
criminal enterprise used to extort protection money from a fearful
public.





--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

riverman wrote:

"Tinkerntom" wrote:

I suspect that some of these companies would love to develope ANWR, and
maybe Watts would have allowed it, and now Bush and Norton contemplates
it. I also suspect that if they go up there, though they will probably
not be able to leave no trace, they will be required to leave as small
a footprint as possible. The cost of a highly advanced industrial
civilization.

If there is an alternative, I would love to hear it, and see it in
"black and white," not just platitudes and pie in the sky, and talk
about the noble savage. It is easy to whine, show me a plan that works,
and I would be more than glad to promote it to all my fundementalist
friends in high places.



OK. How about "CONSERVE"? And how about "its about time...."


Now there's a word you don't hear much anymore. I wonder how many
times it appears in Cheney's secret energy task force recommendations?
It has been made public that atomic energy (to use the old term) needs
to be revitalized, and will not result in production of greenhouse
gases. Which, the Bush administration has said with forked tongue, has
not been scientifically proven to be a cause of global warming.

Very recently, there have been public meetings for comment on a
proposal by the Virginia Department of Transportation to widen
Interstate 81 from four lanes to eight. A couple years ago these plans
were all but terminated in light of budget deficits. Negotiations are
now taking place between VDOT and STARS, a company owned by Cheney's
Halliburton.

I have a personal suspicion, unsupported by any collaborative
evidence, that the doubling of the width of I-81, with segregated
lanes for tractor-trailer traffic, is in preparation for
transportation of radioactive waste via interstate routes west to
Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Another suspicion is that Halliburton may be planning to use state and
federal highway funds to subsidize the laying of pipelines parallel
to highway construction.






--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

Larry C wrote:

[gay marriage]
It's probable that most of the country is like me on this issue, I
really don't give much of a damn about it one way or the other. But, if
you put it on a ballot and asked me to choose, Marriage is a social
institution and society should be able to dictate what it considers
acceptable. But this isn't a defining issue for me at all.

Correct. Many of today's wedge issues are irrelevant to most people.
The Sierra Club makes an issue of the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge,
but I don't expect to ever go there, and am much more concerned about
river access, parklands near home, and useless traffic lights that
exacerbate pollution while cars idle. I've never heard the Sierra Club
advocate removing or flow-timing traffic lights! And yet it could
probably reduce pollution more than scrapping every SUV in the country.

I'm not sure where you got this statistic, or its relevancy. If it IS true,
then it says that the more educated you are (dismissing the HS dropouts, who
we can agree are 'uneducated', yes?), the more likely you were to register

emocrat, not necessarily to vote Democrat. Do you have any stats about
the correlation between education level and how people voted

I'd think that the tilt of the college educated (BA and
MA) vote this time went to Kerry. Let me know if you have a source. I'll be
absolutely stunned if the majority of people with college diplomas vote

for
Bush

Try a web search on CNN exit poll 2004,
and it will give the the results.

Contrary to the Democratic myth, the College Educated consistantly vote
Republican, with the exception of Post Graduate degrees. I would find it more
likely that the Post Graduate group identify with the Democratic Party because
of it's heavy ties to the Education Community
(and Teachers Union). If you look at the education as just College Degree, the
vote is split at 49% each. If you add in "Some College", the advantage is again
Republican.

The single biggest indicator of voting preference is still income. If you make
over 50 grand, you tend to vote Republican.

Interesting statistics in this poll.

Larry
SYOTR
Larry C.

Larry C wrote:

I'm not sure that I buy the arguement that the Native Americans were
all that environmentally conscious. For example, the Iroquois
Confederation was formed to expand the tribes territory for the Fur
Trade and as a response to the encroachment of the Northern Tribes
supported by the French. They needed more territory because they had
decimated the furbearing populations in their original tribal areas.
Hardly a conservation ethic.

I'm not saying that Native Americans were environmentalists, just that
modern Environmentalism had its roots in indigenous religion. In the
Torah and classical Greco-Roman literature, you seldom or never encounter
wonder of the natural world. Virgil's Bucolic (Eclogues) are mostly
about farming. In European literature, nature worship reached its peak
with German Romanticism, and even there, nature is largely tamed by man.

Whereas in (many tribes') Native American religion, places are sacred
in and of themselves. There might be a rock (present-day Devil's Tower),
or a place on a river (Ishi Pishi Fall on the Klamath) considered sacred.

It could be this respect for natural features that inspired Thoreau,
Leopold Aldo, John Muir, Edward Abbey (etc.) to formulate the seminal
ideas of Environmentalism. Unless you have a different theory.

If one considers earlier Native cultures, there seem to have been
several that suffered from environmental collapses, maybe due to
climate change. The Adena in the East and the Cliff Dwellers in the
west for an example.

I don't know about the Adena, but the Anasazi cliff dwellers were either
escaping severe drought, or pushed out by invading Navajo, or both.

Frederick Burroughs

Fear is credited by many for their vote for a 2nd-term Bush. There is
the fear of terrorism, with an appearance by the architect of modern
terrorism, Osama bin Laden, just days before the election. Bush's
response to this threat, questionable as to effectiveness, at least is

seen as strong and decisive by the voters.

Closer to home is the fear of moral decay; boobs at the Superbowl,
same-gender marriage, "activist" judges *legislating for* abortion and
gay marriage from the bench. Bus

sh himself made moral issues a
centerpiece in the campaign, playing to and giving voice to the fears
of both religious conservatives and the public at large. It is Bush's
politics of fear that I find revolting and repulsive. Reminds me of a
criminal enterprise used to extort

rotection money from a fearful
public.

I find this superfical at best. Looking at opinion polls going into the
election, moral issues were not the deciding factor for most voters, the
economy was number one followed by national security issues.
Fear of terrorism isn't irrational, Osama blew up the World Trade Center and we
all watched on TV. Whether you feel that Bush's response was adequete, proper
or
justified is another question, but being concerned about recurring acts in just
being reasonable and rational.
SYOTR
Larry C.

Frederick Burroughs wrote:
riverman wrote:

"Tinkerntom" wrote:

I suspect that some of these companies would love to develope ANWR,
and
maybe Watts would have allowed it, and now Bush and Norton
contemplates
it. I also suspect that if they go up there, though they will
probably
not be able to leave no trace, they will be required to leave as
small
a footprint as possible. The cost of a highly advanced industrial
civilization.

If there is an alternative, I would love to hear it, and see it in
"black and white," not just platitudes and pie in the sky, and talk
about the noble savage. It is easy to whine, show me a plan that
works,
and I would be more than glad to promote it to all my
fundementalist
friends in high places.



OK. How about "CONSERVE"? And how about "its about time...."


Now there's a word you don't hear much anymore. I wonder how many
times it appears in Cheney's secret energy task force
recommendations?
It has been made public that atomic energy (to use the old term)
needs
to be revitalized, and will not result in production of greenhouse
gases. Which, the Bush administration has said with forked tongue,
has
not been scientifically proven to be a cause of global warming.

Very recently, there have been public meetings for comment on a
proposal by the Virginia Department of Transportation to widen
Interstate 81 from four lanes to eight. A couple years ago these
plans
were all but terminated in light of budget deficits. Negotiations are

now taking place between VDOT and STARS, a company owned by Cheney's
Halliburton.

I have a personal suspicion, unsupported by any collaborative
evidence, that the doubling of the width of I-81, with segregated
lanes for tractor-trailer traffic, is in preparation for
transportation of radioactive waste via interstate routes west to
Yucca Mountain, Nevada.

Another suspicion is that Halliburton may be planning to use state
and
federal highway funds to subsidize the laying of pipelines parallel

to highway construction.






--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

Since you mention the Interstate Highway system, They were originally
established as federal defense corridors during the cold war. They are
designed such that the feds could close them down and block them off,
and be used solely for federal purposes. I don't know if they could get
away with that now that a lot of us have got use to using them, but
that was the original plan, as confirmed by a retired federal emergency
preparedness planner.

So I am sure that to use them as you suggest, is certainly in the
sights of someone. But then the right of driving our car on the
interstate is not assured in the Constitution. Matter of fact I don't
recall Connie saying anything about cars or driving at all. Must have
been an oversight.

Of course that gets me to rivermans big word of "conserve". Maybe the
best way to conserve would be to just confiscate all the
"unconstitutional" cars and let us walk again. That would probably
solve the whole oil crisis, and at the same time solve the "fat nation"
problem. I think you could be on to something riverman, unless that is
not exactly what you had in mind. I suspect the latter!

Conserve is good. Alternative fuel sourse is good. Again do you have
any practical "black and white" suggestions. To do all this while we
have reserves to carry us through transition is wise, But who says we
are wise. Usually we wait until the situation is critical, and then
think that if we throw enough money at it we can fix anything. Maybe
when the price of oil gets high enough, we will be able to develope oil
shale, or coal.

So the real question comes down to how much are you willing to pay for
a gallon of gas, in order to keep driving. Maybe the feds won't have to
close the highway, they will be the only ones that can afford the gas
to drive their nuke waste trucks on the highway that runs through
Sherwood Forest! But then conservation and the environment will not be
the hot issue, but how we have enough fire wood to cook our beans and
stay warm, without cutting down the whole forest! TnT

Bill Tuthill wrote:
Larry C wrote:

[gay marriage]
It's probable that most of the country is like me on this issue, I
really don't give much of a damn about it one way or the other.
But, if
you put it on a ballot and asked me to choose, Marriage is a social
institution and society should be able to dictate what it considers
acceptable. But this isn't a defining issue for me at all.

Correct. Many of today's wedge issues are irrelevant to most people.
The Sierra Club makes an issue of the Alaska National Wildlife
Refuge,
but I don't expect to ever go there, and am much more concerned about
river access, parklands near home, and useless traffic lights that
exacerbate pollution while cars idle. I've never heard the Sierra
Club
advocate removing or flow-timing traffic lights! And yet it could
probably reduce pollution more than scrapping every SUV in the
country.

Here, here, I am with you on this one Bill! TnT

"Frederick Burroughs" wrote in message
...
Larry C wrote:



Fear is credited by many for their vote for a 2nd-term Bush. There is the
fear of terrorism, with an appearance by the architect of modern
terrorism, Osama bin Laden, just days before the election. Bush's response
to this threat, questionable as to effectiveness, at least is seen as
strong and decisive by the voters.

Closer to home is the fear of moral decay; boobs at the Superbowl,
same-gender marriage, "activist" judges *legislating for* abortion and gay
marriage from the bench. Bush himself made moral issues a centerpiece in
the campaign, playing to and giving voice to the fears of both religious
conservatives and the public at large. It is Bush's politics of fear that
I find revolting and repulsive. Reminds me of a criminal enterprise used
to extort protection money from a fearful public.



??? Pot and kettle.

Sounds like you voted for someone else because you were afraid of Bush.

"Larry Cable" wrote in message
...

I find this superfical at best. Looking at opinion polls going into the
election, moral issues were not the deciding factor for most voters, the
economy was number one followed by national security issues.
Fear of terrorism isn't irrational, Osama blew up the World Trade Center
and we
all watched on TV. Whether you feel that Bush's response was adequete,
proper
or
justified is another question, but being concerned about recurring acts in
just
being reasonable and rational.


3000 people died in a country of 250,000,000. And this was an attack that
was off the scales of impact. If its rational to be afraid that you will
actually be harmed in a repeat terrorist attack, then you must live in
absolute constant paralysis of being killed in a car wreck.

The actual risk of being harmed in a terrorist attack is miniscule, but not
the percieved risk. Bush milked that percieved risk for all he could get out
it, which included a second term.

Talk to me about actual vs percieved risk. I was a river guide for 15 years,
and live in Kinshasa. People who voted their own personal safety WERE duped.

--riverman