Dan Minette wrote:
>
> --- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >Dan Minette wrote:
> >
> >
> >Of course politics are regional as well so that while W might be >middle of
> >the road in Texas, he's much farther right in comparison >with other
> >politicos in California
>
> Such as Ronald Reagan? While I know that California has gone to the left
> since that time, there are still strong conservative trends there. Making
> English the only official languag
pretty sure that one didn't pass
or the tax roll backs that have severely
> undermined the California schools come to mind.
Yea, prop 13 really f**ked us, but it was an overreaction to property taxes
that had spiraled out of control. We are also beginning to spend a lot more
on education now, and a recent initiative has lowered the percentage of votes
necessary to pass school bonds (to 60% I think). I think Ca. is more liberal
on issues like gun control, reproductive rights, gay rights, environmental
issues etc. And there are pockets of conservatism especially in Southern
California.
>
> Texas is actually increasing the amount of money it spends on schools.
> Indeed, Bush's major initivave, which was defeated,
> was to
??
>
> >and he'd probably be labeled extremist in some European countries (not to
> >mention U.S. College campuses 8^) ).
>
> Well, that depends on the country. He certainly doesn't strike me as more
> conservative than Maggie Thatcher. As far as the campuses go, I think that
> they have a lot more conservatives than they use to before the draft was
> ended. I remember the big sea change when the dorms went for Ford in '76.
I agree here, they are not quite the same as when you and I were in school. I
was kind of poking fun at Kat with that comment anyway.
>
> >From my perspective he is well right of center.
>
> Of your center, or the nations? Are you saying he is one of the more
> conservative Republicans?
The Nation's. His cabinet choices don't strike me as being very centrist at
all. So much for healing and working together or whatever the catch phrases
were.
>
> >More important to me is my perception that he's an oil corporation >toady;
> >that his loyalties aren't quite where they should be.
>
> His disbelief in global warming is disconcerting, that's certainly valid.
> However, I would guess that his view is honestly held; I think he doesn't
> understand the science well enough to understand the evidence.
But that's just saying he believes what he wants to believe and makes no
effort to find the truth. It's not as if he lacks the resources to determine
what the deal is.
> I'm opposed
> to drilling in the Artic Refuge, but for different reasons than most.
> For the self interest of the United States. I think we should keep that
> reserve as long as possible. We should use relatively cheap oil from the
> Mid-East and elsewhere and keep that reserve in the ground for when we
> desperately need the oil. Prices are still relatively low. Energy costs
> are still below the inflation multiplier over the last 20-30 years.
> Eventually, prices will be a lot higher, and that oil will be the equivalant
> of scores of Strategic Oil Reserves.
>
> But, as far as the environment is concerned, the actual risk is rather
> small. With directional drilling, the number of platforms needed to obtain
> the oil will be relatively few, and the environmental ipact of the drilling
> will be small.
I'm not a luddite when it comes to most issues, but keeping wilderness
pristine is one issue that I have difficulty compromising on. If you stick
roads and platforms and pipelines or whatever in there you upset a delicate
ballance in one of the few untouched places in the world.
>
> It should be worth noting that the Norwegians, who score very high on
> environmental protetion, IIRC, are very comfortable with drilling. Now, I
> know that the Californians are not, but I find that less than admirable in
> the Californians. They are perfectly willing to buy SUVs that get 10 mpg
> and to use vast amounts of electricity but will not have oil wells or power
> plants in their back yards.
Note that we've been way ahead of the country in emission standards for many
years. The air in LA is actually much cleaner now than it was 30 years ago
when there were fewer people and fewer cars. This however, does not excuse
the proliferation of gas hogs, but is that just a California thing?
>
> And, for what its worth, the oil patch has had more than its share of
> downturns. I've been through seperate downturns that involved layoffs of
> 60%, 80% and 50%. The oil patch is fairly flush now, but oil companies were
> selling oil below cost 2 years ago.
Why would they do that? Very suspicious if you ask me. Did we need oil any
less a couple of years ago? What is the root cause of this (and other)
supposed crisis? Everyone in this country is dependent on oil and it is
controlled by a very few people, are you telling me that there is no method to
their "madness"? I'm not a conspiracy nut, but that doesn't mean that I don't
think conspiracies can and do happen.
Doug
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
