“Most Huff Post readers and contributors oppose oil drilling. nuclear power, and coal production in the US on the ground that such activities are too damaging to our environment to be expanded,and in fact should be curtailed. These folks argue that we should not suffer the impact of what they consider environmentally dangerous activities in the U.S.. The result is that we permit these dangers, in effect, to be exported to the less developed world. Unwillingness to produce our own energy on the ground that such production damages our micro environment and allowing others to suffer such damage is as morally reprehensible as exporting dangerous and degrading working conditions.”
Dec 30, 2007 at 14:54:48
“Don't know much about the industry, but before there is too much congratulation of Letterman's pro union position, my question is how often does someone buy reruns of talk shows? Are residuals of a late night show worth much? It may be that Letterman wins this one big (both in terms of $ and public relations), and the writers get little but a symbolic victory.”
dgsweet on Dec 30, 2007 at 21:01:48
“Letterman's company also produces primetime series. This is more than a symbolic victory. Also, as content is being cut into bite-sized bits, key interviews or performances on Letterman are ideal for ipod distribution.”
“Remember Democrats ran and won on the campaign pledge to end the war. The numbers in the population support the end of the war. Once elected the Democrats could have and could still be ending the war. They have not and will not. They try to hide, but they can't hide behind the Republicans on this one. So....be wary of giving up control of your health care to these beltway characters. They simply are not accountable.”
“On the Supreme Court: were you referring to Ginsburg? But anyway, the Democrats promised to end the war. Easy to say when it's not your responsibility. Now it is their responsibility and either (1) they never meant it, but they knew they could use it to get elected or (2) once they realized they would be held accountable for ending the war they blinked (and continue to blink).”
“Vehicle weight is the key. Lighter weight means less fuel, regardless of type of fuel. Heavy heavy sales tax on heavy vehicles except verifiable commercial vehicles. There is no need for heavy pickups and SUVs for all but commercial (and politicians) use.
Rationing is impossible. For example, no personal gasoline in New York, Chicago or Wash, D.C.? They have great public transport, but watch it if you take away personal gas. Rationing in Iowa or Texas? Destroy their economies.”
Father O'KC on Jul 18, 2007 at 00:40:05
“sorry, fuel consumption is a function of 1)engine displacement, 2) rpm, 3) gearing, and 4) aerodynamics. There are some incredibly light weight (500-600 lbs) motorcycles out there in the 1000-1300 cc displacement range, getting fuel mileage in the low 30's. Course, they'll go 150 mph at 30 mpg and their engines are capable of 11000-12000 rpm, but a econobox with about the same size engine can get in the low 40's mpg because although it weighs 4 times as much, the engine operates at one third of the rpm and the car has a much lower coefficient of aerodynamic drag.
Lighter vehicles do have a significant effect on our infrastructure, but as long as we are dependent on heavy OTR trucking for distribution of goods, our roads are going to take a beating.
Imagine, though, what a mix of motorcycles averaging 35-50 mpg could do to reduce the gridlock of major cities, easing the flow of traffic and parking in one third the space.
“Progressives argue for accurate information?Progressives don't simply want accurate information from business, they want business to be controlled (not regulated) by the central government. Example: progressives would have the central government fix prices in this or that industry (oil, airlines). Progressives champion competition? C'mon. Progressives argue for elimination of competition in all aspects of society: Example: retirement accounts. Example: using Canadian Health care as an objective. Example: in global trade. Example: public schools Example: On radio stations.
Progressives (take many Hollywood notables for eaxmple) consider the personal achievement of non-progressives as "greed". Warren Buffet is progressive. He travels in a private jet, but that's not greed. Rush Limbaugh is not progressive. His use of a private jet is greed”
cuddletuffy on Jul 14, 2007 at 06:55:59
“unlike you, i can't speak for all progressives/liberals whatever insufficient label you want to choose. i can say that i want business regulated not controlled by whatever level of government is required to regulate - the more local the better. i do not want prices controlled by government, a monopoly or a sophisticated trader in a supply chain. as for your examples of competition they are not well explained. i can say that i want to encourage healthy competition, while ensuring that competition is fair and that the cost to the losers isn't so great that the few winners live in gated and armed estates. i can say that the basis of our social contract is that all men are created equal. but, all are not born equally privileged and we must give everyone a reasonable opportunity to succeed - thus public schools, civil rights protections, taxes to redistribute our finite physical wealth...
what progressive said that private jet travel equates with greed? if any did, it isn't a fair or accurate statement. private jet travel is vulgar and irresponsible, and so is space tourism - particularly when we are at or nearing peak oil and are conducting illegal wars of conquest to steal other nation's oil - labels be damned!
beware of the ego that tells you that all you have done is attributable to nothing but your own genius. without commons and cooperation and shared sacrifice there wouldn't be much in the way of civil society. there would be no einstein without newton, no beethoven without haydn, no bill gates without billions of research dollars and thousands of innovative engineers breeding ideas over decades preceding him that he could steal, no rush limbaugh w/o public airwaves and uneducated dipshits to believe and be entertained by that hypocritical crap.
there is no greater proof that we need free-thinking civility than the destruction of our nation that has been bred by the selfish contempt for the common good that has run so rampant for the past 50 years and reached new depths the past 6.”
“It's regrettable that there are fewer comments to this post. The war on drugs is a failure except to the extent that increases police power. If we have to start out with the disparity of treatment of blacks, that's a better place to start than no start at all. Where's the progressive support to end the war on drugs as it's being waged today?”
“Ms. Ravitch, you are to be commended. To question any form of aid to the poor and further to question a program that even indirectly may benefit unionized teachers takes guts. Your courage is greater since you post your comments in the Huffington Post.”
“You are entirely correct. Whether it's left or right, a thinking and candid candidate has no hope because the extreme (left and right) blogs and the media now share a common interest: to get attention (therefore, money and power) for themslves.
The result is sound (and word) bites that meet media and blog agendas. Managed "neo-robotic" candidates like Clinton(s)and Bush are the only ones that can survive. Human errors or gaffs are not tolerated. New thinking (that would hurt poll ratings) is the end of a winning campaign.
Since so few citizens now even attempt to understand history, economics or American government (can you name your federal and state representatives and senators? what is the cabinet?), there is not much hope for a viable Gore or Richardson or Thompson or Hunter candidacy.”
“I'm assuming the Brady Bunch really has no workable idea.
Keeping in mind that the problem of this sort of violence is caused by the criminal or the mentally unfit, is it really responsible to posit that a government ban on guns will be any more successful against criminals or the mentally unfit than the government ban on drugs? (or most other government bans for that matter?)
All the police have on their side is fear of capture. The criminal and the insane are not afraid. The police cannot be everywhere all the time.
The only realistic deterrant to the criminal at at the time of the crime is that the indended victim will fight back.”
“Democrats are the subject of your comments, so my comment is directed only to Democrats. You are correct. The Democratic party is unwilling to lead on these issues because (1) leadership in this area involves political risk, which the Democratic party has been unwilling to take in any real sense since JFK (Cuba) and (2) the pro-Israel influence is too strong to see meaningful progress (or even a discussion) vis a vis the Arab-Israeli issue (Jimmy Carter). Until at least these two obstacles are addressed, there will be no leadership from the Democratic side of the aisle.”
“As an attorney, I appreciate it that, throughout Mr. Green's proposals from voting to economics, there is woven the prospect of increased litigation opportunities for our brothers and sisters who are attorneys.
That said, the proposals, especially as to voting, would result in virtual disenfranchisement of voters outside of the major population centers.”
“You are correct that much of the "progressive agenda" is poorly marketed, but that is as much because the product is flawed, as it is about the marketing mechanics. When the "progressive" movement argues against big corporations, but then supports big unions; When it laments attacks on public education, yet supports huge public education bureaucracies; When it supports the huge trial lawyers lobby: When,it continues to condone (if not promote) universities that reward professors that don't teach with ever increasing salaries and benefits; The "progressive" movement loses its appeal to those who truly are progressive. In the vernacular, when the "progressive" movement really starts looking out for the "little guy" (or gal) that is sincerely working to make a way for themselves in this country, the "progressive" movement's product will market itself.”
“The U.N. is simply ineffective. It's a wonderful idea, but beyond providing a formum for venting international posturing, it has either been useless or has even caused damage to those it has tried to serve. The U.S. has thrown money, if not complete support at it, with minimal measureable results.”
“Freedom of Speech should be virtually absolute, but just as free for "right wing" speech as "left wing" speech. All too often there is media, academic, ACLU, etc. support for "free speech", but none for those whose speech is not politically correct in the view of the the New Yorker or Salon types.”
“I worked for Bobby's campaign in Virginia and listened all night to the radio broadcast from the Ambassador. Much of what you say about Booby K. is as close as can be this far removed in time, but you're way off when you mention Teddy Kennedy in the same zip code as Bobby. Bobby Kennedy's positive points were genuine, the real deal. Teddy is a wanderer in the Washington fog.”
“Boiled down to the basics, the protectionist, anti-capital thesis you're trying to sell is precisely why the economies of France and Germany are failing. You simply want to substitute big unions for big corporations.
If anything has helped the world wide standard of living, it is economic growth, which has never resulted from anti-capital policies.”
“If the Democratic candidates were interested in good public policy and fairness to the very people whose interests they claim to support, they would demand an end to the "war on drugs". Alas, Democrats are interested in power, not in the common good or good for the common.”