Find Reviews by Make:
63 Comments on “Car and Driver Endorses McCain. More or Less....”
Read all comments
Latest Car Reviews view all
Latest Product Reviews view all
Recent Comments
- Lou_BC: @Carlson Fan – My ’68 has 2.75:1 rear end. It buries the speedo needle. It came stock with the...
- theflyersfan: Inside the Chicago Loop and up Lakeshore Drive rivals any great city in the world. The beauty of the...
- A Scientist: When I was a teenager in the mid 90’s you could have one of these rolling s-boxes for a case of...
- Mike Beranek: You should expand your knowledge base, clearly it’s insufficient. The race isn’t in...
- Mike Beranek: ^^THIS^^ Chicago is FOX’s whipping boy because it makes Illinois a progressive bastion in the...
Car Reviews By Make view all
New Car Research
Who We Are
- Tim Healey
Managing Editor - Matt Posky
News and Social Media Contributor - Timothy Cain
Sales Analyst - Murilee Martin
Junkyard Finds Author - Matthew Guy
Contributor - Chris Tonn
Contributor
- Adam Tonge
- Bozi Tatarevic
- Corey Lewis
- Jo Borras
- Mark Baruth
- Ronnie Schreiber
Why not inflate your tires properly AND drill in ANWAR?
And do nuclear!! The guy makes a good point, though. Funny name, too!!
Why are virtually all editors of car mags so damn conservative? One or two bleeding hearts wouldn’t be so bad…Remember when Automobile magazine did a story called “Die eco weenies” with PJ O’rourke? I almost vomited looking at that fat asshole with a cigarette hanging out of his mouth. Too bad when cancer takes him down we will all shoulder some of the cost.
Csaba Csere’s video is spot on and fairly accurate in all regards, except… McCain does not support ANWR drilling. Unfortunately, McCain so far only supports ending the federal ban on exploring (let alone exploit) for oil on most U.S. seas, but not ANWR oil exploration.
This does not invalidate the gist of Csere’s comments, because the potential oil gushers from beneath the sea are larger than ANWR: therefore, the point that Obama’s assertions are ridiculous remains.
Tough to argue with that new math stuff.
His entire argument rests on ANWR drilling and how “everyone agrees we would get three percent more oil” than what we currently use from ANWR drilling. This shows him as a total fool.
The McCain proposals do not stipulate that ANY of the oil extracted from Public lands will be sold nationally. For all we know, ALL of this oil will be sold OUTSIDE OF THE U.S. This will only result in yet another record profit period for the oil companies at the expense of the environment, tourism and fishing industries.
I think Car and Driver should stick to reviewing cars. They have a long way to go in that department before they start a new project.
It is easy to say drill now, drill here, blah blah over and over. The devil is in the details.
Why are virtually all editors of car mags so damn conservative?
More libertarian than conservative, but yes, you’re generally right. The thing is, fundamentals of belief come packaged: if you’re a car enthusiast, you’re likely to be a free-marketer at the least, which would tend to see you gravitate to the right rather than the left (well, anywhere except the US, where the political centre is dramatically shifted to the right, and the ultra-right so perverted in their ideals that they approach radical leftism coming the other way), which tends to see you “rub shoulders” with other right wingers, who share related platforms, thus refining said opinions, while you refine theirs.**
This is why it’s fascinating to find, say, a right-wing vegan or a left-wing gun enthusiast. They exist, but they’re so rare they should be shot, stuffed and mounted in the Smithsonian…
..just like the dinosaurs that still roam C&D’s editorial offices. I stopped reading Brock Yates after the “I drive a Hummer and shop at Wal-mart” column; I stopped reading Patrick Bedard long before that because, after a while, his columns’ theme got really repetitive in it’s green/left-bashing. Recently, Csere’s started down the same path.
After a while, it all sounds like “Hey, you kids, get off my lawn!”
** before anyone gets on my case, this happens to left-wingers too.
actually drilling for oil off the Louisiana Coastline does wonders for Fishing
and as a percentage of earnings oil companies make less than utilities
the answer to whether to drill or not? privatize the land then the owner can decide what to do with his own property.
and the Geezer and the Annointed One are equally as bad as each other.
Unfortunately? ANWR is the only bit of cred McCain has left. Don’t worry, though, he’ll jettison that before the election’s over too. Rove’s boys will make quick work of that. (I was actually hoping he’d get the GOP nod in 2000. I would have been happy to vote for him instead of Gore at the time.)
Nuclear is not a panacea. (a) The upfront cost of investment in nuclear remains enormous; they still haven’t solved the questions of (b) safely and securely storing spent fuel (c) ensuring the plant won’t spew radiation all over the landscape (d) securing the plant from terrorists who might actually want to spew radiation all over the landscape. Note that there are theoretical solutions for (c) and possibly therefore (d), but there is no production reactor using them and whether or not they’re actually safer has been called into question.
Obama’s larger point, which Csaba (and the GOP) are intentionally glossing over by ratholing on tire inflation, is that more drilling isn’t going to do anything useful other than enrich oil companies. The oil companies already have millions of acres of oil exploration leases and they’re not actually drilling. When do they start drilling, we won’t see the first drop of oil on the market for about 5 years. When it does go on the market, it will be a drop in the bucket, and make no dent in oil pricing whatsoever.
On the topic of Csaba’s veracity, check out his editorial column in the “2009 Preview” issue of C/D — it’s a completely serious and over the top ode to GM’s technical prowess.
actually drilling for oil off the Louisiana Coastline does wonders for Fishing
It ain’t wonderful if the fish are all dead.
‘Privatizing the land’ means nothing in this context, the debate is over offshore (meaning “in the ocean”) drilling. You cannot privatize the ocean as such.
I think we are missing Sen. Obama’s point, I know he got his figures wrong, but im sure he just trusted some weenie he shouldn’t have. oops! (We’ve all done it and will continue not doing our homework)
I think Obama’s errors are tiny compared to McCain not being able to tell the difference between his opponent and Osama Bin Ladin, or Iraq and Afghanistan, or Suni and Shia!
A large part of not drilling is to increase investment into alternative fuels. What ever they may be. Ethanol, more wind and water turbine electrical generators and solar. And fuel cells, and chevy volt No, I’m just kidding. The volt is hopeless at least with Mr. Lutz running the show with his false sense of security.
The oil companies already have millions of acres of oil exploration leases and they’re not actually drilling.
Well…couldn’t the reason for that be…and this is me going out on a bit of a limb here, that they explored the region and didn’t find much there? It’s tough to believe that there’s a gusher under every square yard of land offshore.
And what’s wrong with drilling in ANWR? I’ve seen pictures of where they want to drill. It’s a muddy, barren wasteland. Nothing like the postcard pictures they usually show on TV. Drill the hell out of it. Even if it does take 5-10 years, that’s still a LOT faster than it will take solar and wind and all the other renewables to become center stage. Right now they’re all hugely expensive for end users. $30,000 for a solar panel system. $18,000 for a wind turbine. And these are the numbers I’ve heard on Planet Green, the network made for the kind of people who like that sort of stuff. Until those markets mature, oil, natgas and coal are going to be the best options, economically, if not environmentally.
ANWR looks as if it’s a barren wasteland but it is not. There are important ecological concerns to take care of.
In Alaska, liberals and conservatives agree that ANWR should be opened with environmental preservation in mind.
This opinion is driven from the states economic engine and how the public views their Permanent Fund Dividend.
What is not known is if ANWR contains oil in quantity. We do know that Exxon, ConocoPhillips and others have held oil leases from the state of Alaska for 30 years without developing them, including oil fields with known reserves.
Opening ANWR doesn’t guarantee oil comes to market.
Properly inflated tires, guarantees we all use less oil.
Husky, that “fat asshole” you refer to is David E. Davis, Jr., someone whom I believe is affluent enough to take care of his own hospital bills.
Csaba Csere’s video is spot on and fairly accurate in all regards, except… McCain does not support ANWR drilling.
Let’s not spoil a good rant by bringing facts into it.
Why are virtually all editors of car mags so damn conservative?
As Brock Yates put it in a column once: Liberals Hate Cars.
This is why it’s fascinating to find, say, a right-wing vegan or a left-wing gun enthusiast. They exist, but they’re so rare they should be shot, stuffed and mounted in the Smithsonian…
Please don’t. You really don’t want to go to the Smithsonian and see that many west coast gun toting liberals. Not as rare as you’d think. My favorite quote from my mechanic? “I’ll defend a woman’s right to choose…with my guns!”
The far right says they want government so small that they could take it out back and drown it in the bathtub. That is no different than the far left’s anarchist that wants to “overthrow the dominant paradigm.” This political polarization will eventually bring us all together?
RichardSD: “As Brock Yates put it in a column once: Liberals Hate Cars.”
Yates has the right to remain wrong.
Liberals love cars. However, Liberals are very concerned about the effect our dependence on cars has on a wide range of issues, security and economy.
So, Obama’s pushing “conservation”? How terrible. Doesn’t he know that God gave Man “dominion over the earth and all of its creatures”?
Drill the piss out of ANWR, boil all the whales, hell, squeeze the grease out of O’Reilly’s hair if you have to — I gotta get to Sonic for breakfast!
He’s right about the shinola Obama’s trying to sell on the tire inflation effect. Simple math shows Obama to be a typical politician inflating the numbers (no pun intended, just a bonus) to support his platform.
Typical politics, and typical that too many in the electorate are too quick to swallow easily debunked numbers.
Liberals love cars. However, Liberals are very concerned about the effect our dependence on cars has on a wide range of issues, security and economy.
Your comment reflects the latent guilt about car ownership that all liberals share. It’s based on the core belief that cars are in some way a bad thing. As Uncle Al put it, “the internal combustion engine is the enemy of mankind.”
Car magazine editors, like most right-thinking individuals, understand that the automobile is the single greatest liberating force in modern times. The car provides the freedom to travel and choose a way of life that drives lefty social engineers insane. Don’t want to live in the high-crime urban utopia? Just drive away.
Husky, that “fat asshole” you refer to is David E. Davis, Jr., someone whom I believe is affluent enough to take care of his own hospital bills.…
He may have plenty of assets, but he pays health insurance premiums, no? That means the shared risk pool picks up his bills. Who by chance is paying in that pool? We all are. As for the photo, I was shooting from memory late at night and too lazy to dig up the issue. Apologize for the error .
And what’s wrong with drilling in ANWR? I’ve seen pictures of where they want to drill. It’s a muddy, barren wasteland.…
Not everything worth protecting looks good on a postcard. If its a refuge then the designation has to mean something. Like stay out. There are vast amounts of public land that are open to drilling right now and they are not being touched. Drilling is much cleaner than it was in the past, but for truly sensitive areas the risk is still too great. Perhaps we will have to drill there in the future, but for now the best bang for the buck is in reducing waste. If you look at any city skyline and see row after row of commercial space aglow at midnight thats all waste..premium waste I might add considering the inherent inefficiency of electrical generation. Theres a ton of stuff like that to start with, and it has zero impact on your lifestyle.
Mr. Csere’s commentary doesn’t exactly give me much faith in Car and Driver’s research skills. He gets some things right, but other things wrong.
It is true that not all tires are improperly inflated, so it seems doubtful that we could reduce gasoline consumption by 3% if everyone managed their air pressure properly. The 3% math might work at the individual level, but doesn’t work in the aggregate.
Csere’s inferences about oil show a lack of understanding of it. Oil is a global, fungible commodity. Any oil that comes out of ANWR or a US offshore rig is not special red, white and blue oil that avoids going into the global pot. It ultimately feeds world supply, and doesn’t just end up in the United States.
Increased oil production ultimately adds supply to the world market, not just the US market. The benefits to the US are an offset to the trade deficit (the US would either import less oil or export some of it, which would offset an import from somewhere else) and perhaps some modest effect on the international price. The effect on the price would probably vary, depending upon circumstances.
I also don’t know where he gets his figure for ANWR adding 3% to US supplies. Mr. Csere claims that this is commonly understood, but I’ve seen no such common understanding. That’s particularly true given that ANWR oil would just join the great global melting pot of oil, and wouldn’t just be reserved exclusively for US use, assuming that the free market for oil continues to operate.
Liberals do not love cars, they love controlling every aspect of your life.
Interesting reading, so far. Some very good points have been made, especially in terms of the global oil market, and how politics often boil down to blowing up one tiny detail insanely out of proportion — “Missing the point,” entirely.
But then, we still get some of that hate-filled right-wing-radio nonsense, “liberals hate cars, liberals hate America, liberals just want everyone to feel guilty about everything,” and so on. Geez, maybe it’s a right-wing trait, entirely: “Missing the point.” Entirely.
From my perspective, I see two kinds of mindsets:
1. Screw everything and everybody else — “I’m gonna do whatever I want, and everyone else can just shrivel up and die.”
2. There’s some sense that we have to “get along with each other” on this planet, and “work together to solve problems” so that everyone might have some kind of fair opportunity to live a decent life, with hope that their children might have that opportunity, too.
Personally, I think mindset #1 is just plain stupid and ignorant. Even if some people might think that it is “The American Way.” It would seem to me if that if more people used mindset #2, perhaps we could just stop yelling at each other and calling each other names, and maybe put that energy into doing something productive.
Screw that, though. “Damn liberal.”
I’m 45 years old, and I am tired of seeing our country lurch from oil crisis to oil crises. I’m tired of seeing my transportation money go to Islamic nutters in the Middle East, or to Communist dictators in South America, or to corrupt Neo-Soviet dictators in Russia. I’m tired of having the Saudis holding us by the short hairs. I’m tired of having to compete with India and China to buy oil.
I want to see a better, long term solution implemented. Drilling will simply postpone the hard decisions we need to make. We could drill the heck out of our coasts and Arctic. But that will simply leave the exact same problems we face today to our children, with a more damaged environment too.
I know that nuclear is not perfect. But I feel that on the whole, its collective problems are no worse than continuing drilling and using fossil fuels.
I would like to see that federal government create a standardize, mid-size, pebble bed nuclear reactor design. A design that can be mass produced and implemented all over. We don’t need custom designs for every plant like we have now. We need a simple, easy and safe to build and operate design.
We can also build a new DC electric grid backbone for the nation to distribute this power.
We’ve tamed all our rivers, built the interstate highway system, and put men on the moon. We can do this too. All of this can be done within the time frame and expense of developing enormous oil fields. We just need to set our minds to it.
In the meantime, the next 5 years, until we can bring such a system online, we need to conserve. And yes, even checking your tires will help.
Then perhaps, when we all here die, we will leave a strong and self sufficient nation to our children, who can focus their time and energy to solving other problems that effect mankind.
The Bush administration clearly stated the most that could be drilled off our coast would be 200,000 barrels a day. In 20 years. And they would know with the Bush family being entrenched in oil.
We are presently consuming 20 MILLION barrels per day in the US.
That’s 1% folks. In 20 years. Properly inflated tires all around would save 3% TODAY.
Facts seems to elude the conservatives these days. And since when do “conservatives” spend like there is no tomorrow running up this country’s largest national deficit ever?
I was surprised to find that Car & Driver still exists, let alone that Mr. Csere is still the editor.
Properly inflated tires all around would save 3% TODAY.
I’m all in favor of proper tire pressure and I won’t be voting for McCain. However, for that 3% factoid to be true, that would presume that no one in the US currently has the appropriate tire pressure and that every drop of oil is used to produce gasoline. Neither point is true.
I think the tire inflation reference is just an example on how little changes here and there can add up.
Properly inflating tires, riding a bike, buying a smaller McMansion… They all ad up.
Reduce the demand. Increasing supply will only lead to more dependency.
why shouldn’t one be able to homestead the seas in exactly the same way as the land – just because it big & blue & wobbly.
and the fish aren’t dead they are thriving
OK, let’s say we go ahead with offshore drilling.
First the oil companies will have to order and send large sums of money for drilling platforms to, probably, the Samsung Ship Building Company in Korea.
After the platforms are completed in 4 or 5 years they will have to be towed to our East Coast, crews will have to be hired, and supply boats and helicopters will have to be found.
Drilling can began in 6 or 7 years. If oil is found it will have to be pumped or shipped to refineries. Since our present refineries are near 85% of capacity they can’t handle any more crude. Jacksonville, Daytona Beach, or Titusville in Florida should be good new refinery locations:-) If new refineries are not available the new found crude will have to be shipped to Spain, Mexico, Japan, or maybe Brazil for refining and we can buy the fuel back from them.
The major oil companies don’t really want go to the north slope of Alaska or face the expense of buying drilling platforms and pay for any mistakes to drill off our East Coast. The oil companies are waiting to get their pumps on the easy to collect Iraqi oil that Bush/Cheny may have secured with the Bush/Iraq war.
Of course, after killing 100,000+ Iraqis and bombing their cities to the stone age the Iraqis may tell our oil companies to go to hell so we may need to find new oil somewhere. But this is unlikely. The Iraqi Government is greedy and wants oil revenue and doesn’t care anymore about the dead Iraqi citizens killed in the Bush/Iraq War than Bush cares about the 4,000+ American soldiers killed in the Bush/Iraq War.
So we have a good chance of getting large amounts of Iraqi oil much sooner than we have of getting oil from our own shores.
Of course, we should drill a few holes off our East Coast and in Northern Alaska to see what is there. And we should keep experimenting with natural gas, new batteries, solar/wind power, sucking oil out of our shale, bio fuel from kudzu, getting weight out of our vehicles, etc, etc, and be open to anything that helps us find new energy and reduce our energy requirements.
But for McCain to suggest offshore drilling as a fix for our current energy requirements is a horrible disgusting insult to the intelligence of the people he wants to be president of. Meanwhile the other candidate wants to prop up a company that has been a major force in putting us in this energy bind and is being raped by its leaders into probable suicide.
What did we do to deserve these two jerks?
Lisa Ling for President! (or maybe Bloomberg?)
bjcpdx, I’mj with you, but in turn I’m surprised that anyone would give a rat’s ass what C&D thinks.
They should stop with the politics and get back to selling cars.
I’m a liberal and a car enthusiast. I let my Car and Driver and Car Craft subscriptions lapse because I got sick of paying money to be told I’m an idiot because of my political views.
I understand that car enthusiasts tend to skew conservative or libertarian, but I wish the magazines would stick to writing about cars. One thing I like about the car hobby is that it is a common ground for people from all sorts of backgrounds.
I have car buddies with different political views, and we have fun because we leave our politics at the door. I think it’s sad that every aspect of life is getting categorized as Blue-only or Red-only.
The whole argument is a silly nonsense comparison of two different things: tire pressure and ANWR drilling. They are not alike and can not be compared.
Lost in Csaba Csere’s case for drilling ANWR is the cost of drilling which has risen dramatically lately. That extra oil when it come to market is not free. It will be expensive. Checking and maintaining correct tire pressure is almost free except for the time and bother involved.
The cost of checking tire pressure vs. drilling is important. When important relevant information is left out of an argument, even a false apples and oranges comparison, the argument is false.
Different things can not be compared, added, subtracted, multiplied or divided. If they are the result is nonsense.
raemer wrote:
“Liberals do not love cars, they love controlling every aspect of your life.”
Are you not flaming all liberal readers of TTAC?
After I pay my taxes, where I am forced to support the Iraq war, faith based initiatives, the privatization of our military, private prisons, private FEMA, the blocking of tests for Mad Cow disease, the politicization of our Justice Department, the gutting of the FDA, lease forgiveness to the oil companies for drilling on public lands, paying ex-military to spread propaganda over 4500 times in TV and newspaper interviews, trashing the Geneva Conventions, spying on U.S citizens without warrants, water boarding, and a thousand other things; for all that, you would accuse someone like me of wanting to control your life!
I do not want to control your life. How about you? Do you want to ban abortion even when the life of the mother is at stake (essentially killing my wife)? Ban same sex marriage? Ban equal rights for hospital visitation and health insurance for same sex partners? Ban stem cell research? Ban the teaching of Evolution in public schools? It seems to me that it is you conservatives who want to interfere in what people do, what they read, what they see at the movies and how they choose to live their life. You stand for the iron fist of authoritarianism, not liberals.
And yes, I love cars, fast, fun cars. But not fat SUVs. SUVs are for conservative Republicans who tune in to opiate-addled Rush and who just want to burn gas and screw the consequences for the rest of the country and the planet.
re: “Liberals do not love cars, they love controlling every aspect of your life.”
Reamer / August 9th, 2008 at 10:35 am
re: “and the fish aren’t dead they are thriving”
HEATHROI / August 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
i do not speak for all liberals. i only speak for one. myself.
first of all, i absolutely do love cars. that’s one of the reasons why i’ve been a ‘regular’ around here for the last few years. and it’s also why i’ve scrimped and saved and gone without my entire life so that i could afford to buy and drive four porsches, three bmws, one mercedes-benz and a series one jaguar e-type coupe – when I could have much more easily benefitted from some serious employee-discounted general motormobiles over the years, courtesy of my father and/or my brother.
second, not all liberals “love controlling every aspect of your life” just those instances where unruly conservatives become problematic and insist on misbehaving themselves. :: glib sarcasm ::
and finally, i have no idea where anybody ever got the mistaken impression that the world’s fish populations are thriving – cuz they are not. so i seriously suggest those who do assert that the fish are fine, fire up their googles and expose themselves to some truth. it ain’t pretty.
here are four links to get you started – from the washington post, the bbc, cnn and the un which states that: “According to a Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110200913.html
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6108414.stm
http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/ 05/14/coolsc.disappearingfish/
http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/story.asp?storyID=800
oh – i almost forgot the main reason i was responding to this post “offshore drilling.”
some here still seem to think that if only we would let the oil companies drill-drill-drill, that they would return the favor by opening the spigots once they get all the oil out and processed and give the world’s people the gift of cheap gas – but that ain’t gonna happen. never. ever.
if they ever get their greedy, grubby, grimey little fingers on this oil, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will do everything within their power to wring every last penny of profit out of every single drop. that’s how they keep achieving record profits, quarter after quarter. and if there happens to be any environmental damage along the way – well – mistakes were made. who the hell cares. that’s just the cost of doin’ business.
the oil companies are only in this for the money. profit optimization is the name of their game – and don’t ever forget it.
I’m with yankinwaoz. Mass-production-type nuclear plants providing cheap, clean electricity, and we dump oil/gas burners for electric vehicles. I really don’t see any other alternative that would be nearly as reasonable.
And yes, I love cars, fast, fun cars. But not fat SUVs. SUVs are for conservative Republicans who tune in to opiate-addled Rush and who just want to burn gas and screw the consequences for the rest of the country and the planet.…
Well said. Being a little bit left of center is not a bad thing.
carlos.negros:
I’d say that deserves a round of applause.
Drilling for oil will never work.
The oil we currently produce is magic oil and was never drilled for.
Only a liberal would believe that.
carlos.negros:
First, I am completely disillusioned with both major political parties in the United States (as well as our two candidates for President). I agree with you that the Republican party has certainly lost the plot with regards to its former small-government beliefs. I am a libertarian and will not be voting for Obama nor McCain this year.
In response to your second major paragraph: leaving aside the greater abortion debate (which I certainly do not want to engage in on a website dedicated to cars) I know many pro-life individuals. None of them would ban abortion in the event that the life of the mother was in danger. That is nothing more than a straw man argument. Marriage (in the legal sense) is government endorsement of a relationship; government has never endorsed same-sex unions, therefore ‘banning’ such is not possible (incidentally, I have no problem whatsoever with same-sex marriage provided that it is instituted legislatively and not through a judicial action). Where are same-sex partners denied visitation rights? I am somewhat ignorant on this subject, but aren’t hospitals generally private institutions? Therefore don’t they get to choose who visits whom? How is the government involved in this? Do laws exist banning visitation? Similarly with insurance coverage, are not insurance companies free to extend coverage to whomever they wish? Again, do laws exist or is legislation pending forbidding insurers from extending coverage to same-sex partners? Again, correct me if I am wrong, but this again seems to be a straw man. With regards to stem-cell research, President Bush did not ban it, he simply forbade the use of federal monies for it. As I am against federal money being used for research rightly left to the private sector, I have no problem whatsoever with this. The real issue is that government money is being spent on research in general. As far as the teaching of evolution (a theory to which I subscribe, by the way) I have not heard of anyone (OK, the Scopes trial in 1925) seeking to ban the teaching of evolution. Rather I have heard of people wanting alternate theories to be mentioned. None of your tirade is remotely accurate. I do not say this to defend conservatives (which I do not consider myself).
There are many conservative policies that I would consider tyrannical. However, many on the left wish to severely regulate guns, limit the amount of money one can earn (‘progressive’ tax rates, windfall profits taxes, etc.), create/maintain questionable social programs at the expense of everyone (government health care, the current social security program, the current public education system, etc.), regulate what one may do with one’s private property/life via ‘environmental protection’ and anti-smoking/anti-trans fat laws, etc. To suggest that conservatives have a monopoly on tyranny is silly.
I will try and address each of my points which you have labelled as “straw man arguements.”
-Abortion: Nebraska, South Dakota and other states have attempted to ban abortion without an exclusion for the life or health of the mother. These have not passed legal muster. Check nytimes archives, Findlaw, Westlaw, or Lexis-Nexus.
-Hospital Visitation: Most states allow hospitals to limit visitation to immediate families. That is one of the main arguements for equal rights for gay marriage. You may want to read about the issues before you dismiss them out of hand.
-Insurance coverage: Again, read up. Focus on the Family was organizing a boycott of companies which provide health insurance coverage to same sex partners. There are still many companies that do not extend this coverage. This is another main argument for same sex marriage.
-Evolution: Again, try reading about the Kansas board or education controversies and the various creationist schemes that abound.
-Guns: Liberals have generally come around to agreeing with the right to gun ownership. See various essays by Lawrence Tribe. The Supreme Court has left open the possibility that cities can regulate guns or require licences.
-Environmental protection. Poisoning the air and water is a concern for all who must breathe and drink. Why should we allow some person or corporation to poison our environment? Why should I have to breathe second hand smoke? Why should the waiter or waitress have to breathe it? Why should we allow a substance such as trans fat to be sold after the FDA has determined there are no safe levels for consumtion by humans? Again, why should the government PREVENT the testing of cows for Mad Cow disease? See the link below.
http://foodconsumer.org/7777/8888/L_aws_amp_P_olitics_42/051303372008_Government_fighting_to_stop_private_mad_cow_testing.shtml
Carlos:
Abortion: As I do not have the time to research this, I will take your word for it. However, to say that there will be prosecution in cases where there is a legitimate threat to the life of the mother is likely inaccurate. The law in general makes exceptions for cases where one’s life is in danger.
Hospital Visitation: States allow hospitals to limit visitation to immediate family? So it is, as I previously stated, left up to the individual hospitals? How is this a problem? Should not private institutions be able to control whom they allow access to, no matter how stupid or arbitrary their criteria?
Insurance Coverage: You speak of boycotts of companies, and individual company decisions. People may boycott whatever companies they like as far as I’m concerned. Similarly, companies may structure their coverage as they like and sell it to whomever they want. This is not tyranny, this is exercise of individual rights. It seems that you want the government to force companies to cover same-sex partners (which, again let me state, I think companies should do). Was not your original argument that conservatives wish to exert control? It seems that you are guilty of this in this case (and in the case of hospital visitation).
Evolution: I just scanned an article regarding the Kansas BOE (leaving for a party in a minute) and it seems that all they are doing is presenting a differing opinion and casting doubt on the theory of evolution. I believe evolution theory to be accurate, but I don’t have a problem with it being presented as a theory (which as far as I know it still remains).
Environmental Protection: I have no general problem with EP laws, simply with certain overzealous applications. Where are you forced to breathe second hand smoke? How are waiters/waitresses forced to so do? If you do not wish to inhale it the solution is simple: do not give patronage to restaurants that allow smoking! Similarly, if you do not wish to work in such an environment you may work elsewhere. I myself will not eat in a restaurant that allows smoking. Similarly with trans fat: if you do not wish to consume it simply avoid products that contain it. Tobacco is not safe, alcohol is not safe, skydiving is not safe. We allow people to do/eat/consume things that are not safe because it is not our place to disallow it. Again, it seems that you are forcing others to comply with your (benevolent) will. This is the tyranny of many liberals; the abuse of power for the (alleged) good of those being abused. The implication of this is that people are incapable of taking care of themselves without government. I find that condescending and objectionable. You yourself have contradicted the thesis of your first post.
Postscript: After scanning the article you linked to I agree. This is a silly abuse of government power.
“Why are virtually all editors of car mags so damn conservative?”
Because the very act of owning an automobile is a conservative ideal. Having a car is having freedom. And freedom is a no-no to liberals. because freedom opens one’s mind.
If liberals had their way, we’d all be car-less, confined to small villages, buying wilted lettuce and wormy apples from overpriced farmers markets and living a primitive and simple existence, without hope or soap. Sound familiar? It should be. I just described communism.
Oil is naturally occurring. It does not come from dead dinosaurs. It is not a finite resource. Oil is everywhere. Grab a shovel, let’s find more!!!
Because the very act of owning an automobile is a conservative ideal. Having a car is having freedom. And freedom is a no-no to liberals. because freedom opens one’s mind.
Please explain how car ownership is exclusive to conservative ideals and how liberals deny your “freedom” of car ownership?
The very concept of exclusivity fails the logic test since mobility is the freedom. Car ownership is a choice that make mobility easier as does public transportation, air travel, etc.
Communism is an economic principal based on central planning. China is communist and does not fit your model.
Liberals are not communists, conservatives are not fascists. Liberals and conservatives think differently to solve common problems, the correct answer depends on the problem. There are extremes on all sides.
Oil at the rate the United States and the world is using it is not sustainable without greatly increasing the cost of extracting more. This lends itself to the ideal that oil usage to excess for personal or industrial consumption will exponentially increase cost.
New sources will have to be found, efficiencies will need to be improved. Inflating your tires properly seems like a good place to start and doesn’t cost a thing. Use or lose policies on oil leases is another good way to improve resource development.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but they are not entitled to their own facts.
Indisputable Fact #1: Oil is a natural resource with many applied uses that benefit us in a multitude of ways.
Indisputable Fact #2: Leaving it in the ground benefits absolutely no one.
“Our doubts are traitors and make us lose the good we oft might win by fearing to attempt.”
Wm. Shakespeare
“You yourself have contradicted the thesis of your first post.”
With all due respect: In a pig’s eye.
Waiters and second hand smoke: No, people do not always have a choice about where they live and work. Many people can’t change jobs quickly. Perhaps that is the only job they can get; perhaps they need the health insurance; perhaps they can’t move out of town because they share child custody – or any other reason. For this, they should get lung cancer?
Trans fats: You don’t ever eat out? How do you know if you are getting them? Should we feed them to our children in school lunch rooms? Should we allow lead and arsenic in our food as well? How about antifreeze in our toothpaste?
Hospital Visitation: If a private or public hospital have the right to decide who has status to visit a patient; then gays and lesbians need legal status to ensure their own rights. The hospitals are 501C3, and pay no taxes. They receive money from the public tax base, whether private or public, and have no right to discriminate against one class of taxpayers over another. Again, not the heavy hand of liberals “forcing” hospitals to accomodate homosexuals; only the fact that we all pay taxes and why should some of us be more equal than others?
Do you consider the voting rights act an “abuse of power” too? Civil rights protections? OSHA? Child labor laws? What about law enforement? Is preventing murder and theft an abuse of government power too? What about the divine right of kings to sleep with every virgin? Are we abusing the poor kings by preventing them from what they see as their right?
Why are car magazine editors so conservative? One reason may be the political economy of niche publishing. The biggest source of revenue for the buff magazines tends to be advertising from the car manufacturers. Some have been known to withhold their dollars if editorial content goes against their interests. We saw that recently when GM pulled its ads from the mighty LA Times in response to Dan Neil’s iconoclastic reviews. My bet: The only reason Dan wasn’t fired was because his superb writing sells newspapers.
Another interesting aspect of the buff magazines is that senior staff tend to stick around for awhile. They develop friendships with the auto execs they cover. They go to a lot of parties where Kool-aid is regularly served. What Brock Yates once called Grosse Point myopia does, to a certain degree, rub off on the automotive journalists who build their lives around motor city.
What makes the situation a bit more complex is that editors must also maintain circulation levels. In order to do that their publication usually needs to be seen as at least somewhat journalistically independent. Thus the schizoid editorial content of the likes of Car & Driver, which has always been noted for snarky critiques of individual cars while relentlessly acting as the industry’s pit bull against its perceived enemies. No one has vilified Ralph Nader better than the buff mags. Same goes for those calling for strong action regarding climate change.
The auto industry as a whole is fairly conservative, and the U.S. manufacturers tend to be more so than their European and Japanese counterparts. This is reflected in the press. For example, the European edition of Automotive News strikes me as more journalistically robust than its utterly boring and toothless American edition.
Perhaps it is the economy of publishing period!
These guys (in the collective, non-gender profiling sense) are pretty sensitive.
When the paper of record in America’s most liberal city got all worked up because some columnist used the word “vagina” to describe a car he was reviewing you had to understand the one thing that it true here: it’s all about money. In the case of publishing – ad money.
In the case of liberal vs. conservative…If you have made $$$(that is made, not inherited), you want to keep it and are a conservative. If you have not made money on your own, you want to take it from people who have made it. Whatever sweet frosting you put on it about why you want it or how it is only fair that you control it, you want to take what is not yours and you are a liberal (a name which, obviously, no-longer has anything to do with liberty). William Crystal has said that a neo-conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.
RF, better that you are now killing only electrons and not trees – we need the trees to clean the air. So too, evidently, does China.
Indisputable Fact #2: Leaving it in the ground benefits absolutely no one.
Ummm…
Now, I realize this is walking into a nasty quagmire of a debate, but there’s the whole “releasing previously locked-down carbon” thing. This entirely depends on your take on CO2 and it’s effects on the climate. Me, I think sending tons of a potentially climate-changing gas into the atmosphere might not be a smart thing to do and might actually harm people.
So, therefore, leaving it in the ground benefits a lot of people.
There’s also the whole concept of “necessity is the mother of invention”. Extracting and refining or building nuke plants has the unfortunate side effect of allowing “steady as she goes” consumption patterns and reducing the pressure to innovate on the demand side. Seriously: if the pressure was off, what incentive would there be to do better? Answer: very, very little.
Again, leaving it in the ground would benefit those who favour conservation and or innovative solutions to curtailing use.
Oil is naturally occurring. It does not come from dead dinosaurs. It is not a finite resource. Oil is everywhere. Grab a shovel, let’s find more!!!
Ummm… Pt 2.
I guess if you define infinite as “given enough time, energy and the use of technology that doesn’t exist yet, oil is infinite”. , then yes, yes that’s true.
side: please tell me I’ve just been trolled.
If liberals had their way, we’d all be car-less, confined to small villages, buying wilted lettuce and wormy apples from overpriced farmers markets and living a primitive and simple existence, without hope or soap. Sound familiar? It should be. I just described communism.
Ummm… Pt 3.
By that yardstick, the conservative philosophy would prefer, nay demand, that everyone has a moral responsibility to kill anyone and everyone, until there’s only one person left alive and in power, standing on the broken corpses of those who couldn’t hack it.
Such is the problem with defining things in absolutes. While it makes you feel superior, it’s wrong.
Conservatives in the United States have a weird problem with the term “liberal”. I’m reminded of Inigo Montoya every time I hear it: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means.” No one else on the world loads the term with nearly as much vitriol: heck, Canada’s centrist (not leftist, centrist) party is called “the Liberal Party” and even the Canadian right doesn’t get as twitchy about it.
It’s like the political establishment was so terrified of the USSR, that they spent fifty years scaring the hell out of the American public, convincing them that, while it was okay that the government maintained a massive, mechanized military that could kill every US citizen six times over but free health care was an evil that must be fought at all costs, lest chaos and death visit us all.
Simple lesson in capitalism: Lower supply vs. increased demand = higher prices. There eventually comes a point in the cost structure where alternative energy technologies finally become viable. Over time, as the cost of finding and extracting oil increases, the more realistic alternative energy ideas and technologies become. Don’t shut off the tap prematurely–let the free markets work. We’re closer, but we’re not there yet.
Who reads car mags anymore anyway?
Sheesh, I get 3 car mags. I never pay more than 10 bucks/yr for any of them and they always lock me in for another 3 yrs. They’re begging for subscribers.
Car and Driver has lost its edge anyway. One of its youngest, brightest journalists was killed testing a car a few yrs back. Larry Griffin recently died. Yates is long gone. The mag also adopted a new format that is more colorful to disguise its decreased editorial content.
It’s a lot more fun just to bookmark TTAC. Can’t read TTAC in the bathroom, however. RF has gotta solve that problem somehow.
By the way, McCain is an honorable man…but he ain’t no conservative. Not by a long shot.
I think many of the comments here are very good. Especially in light of discussing media and going to exactly the point Robert Farago makes with this website and, specifically, this article…
Generally speaking, the media doesn’t have a liberal or conservative bias. It has a profit bias.
The articles media chooses to cover, present or discard are all based on ability to generate revenue and that just sux.
carlos.negros: Ban stem cell research?
Wrong – stem cell research has not been banned in this country. The federal government will not pay for it with tax dollars. There is still stem cell research occurring in this country; it is just being conducted with the support of private individuals, organizations and foundations.
Since you are so worried about YOUR tax dollars supporting government activities that YOU don’t like, I’m sure you support those who don’t want THEIR tax dollars supporting activities THEY don’t like.
Unless, of course, you are a hypocrite.
carlos.negros: Ban the teaching of Evolution in public schools?
I’m sure, then, that you have no problem with allowing people to opt out of the public school system for private schools or homeschooling, and I’m certain that you would not ever want to force them to pay school taxes if they aren’t using the public schools. After all, you have said in your post that you do not want to pay for government activities that you do not support. I’m sure that you are willing to extend this courtesy to others.
What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
carlos.negros: The McCain proposals do not stipulate that ANY of the oil extracted from Public lands will be sold nationally. For all we know, ALL of this oil will be sold OUTSIDE OF THE U.S.
That’s because neither Senator McCain or Senator Obama will ever pin themselves down by taking such a stand. If the oil can be sold for more money on the global market than it can be sold for in the U.S., then it will be sold there.
If you believe that Senator Obama will do otherwise, and turn down the additional revenues from the global sale of oil, then you just fell off the turnip truck.
So it’s time for you to drop this red-herring argument.
carlos.negros: Guns: Liberals have generally come around to agreeing with the right to gun ownership. See various essays by Lawrence Tribe. The Supreme Court has left open the possibility that cities can regulate guns or require licences.
Nice try at rewriting history so soon after the Heller decision, but no dice. You may want to research all of the leftist organizations that filed friend of the court briefs in the Heller case that supported the position of the District of Columbia, which enacted regulations that made ownership of a handgun by invdividuals impossible. Incidentally, the District apparently didn’t get the memo that the left supports gun ownership, because its latest regulations, written after the Heller decision, are still so onerous that they still constitute a de facto gun ban.
I’m heartened that the better informed, more sophisticated view of guns, gun rights and the interpretation of the second amendment supported by conservatives and libertarians is gaining ground in this country. The idea that banning gun ownership among all law-abiding citizens has been proven a failure time and again in this country. But the idea that the left no longer supports draconian restrictions – or outright bans – is a bit much.
carlos.negros: If a private or public hospital have the right to decide who has status to visit a patient; then gays and lesbians need legal status to ensure their own rights.
Hospitals don’t “decide” who gets to visit a patient.
First, they must follow privacy regulations- designed to protect a patient’s privacy – that have been enacted by the federal government. These regulations cover ALL patients.
Second, the patient decides who gets to visit, and who doesn’t. If the patient is not able to make this decision, the hospital must follow the directives of the closest family member. If the patient has not made it clear that his or her same-sex partner is to have visitation rights, and the family has a problem with the partner and won’t let him or her into the room, then the hospital MUST follow the directives of the family, or risk a big fat lawsuit.
carlos.negros: Trans fats: You don’t ever eat out? How do you know if you are getting them?
Not three times a day, every day. At the rate I eat out, having trans fats in the food won’t make any difference. And there is also the fact that the “science” supporting the dangers of trans fat could charitably be described as shaky.
carlos.negros: Should we allow lead and arsenic in our food as well? How about antifreeze in our toothpaste?
Lead, arsenic and antifreeze are poisonous. Trans fats are not. So please put this particular strawman out in the cornfield where he belongs.
psharjinian: It’s like the political establishment was so terrified of the USSR, that they spent fifty years scaring the hell out of the American public, convincing them that, while it was okay that the government maintained a massive, mechanized military that could kill every US citizen six times over but free health care was an evil that must be fought at all costs, lest chaos and death visit us all.
The Soviet Union wasn’t a threat? You need to run that one by the citizens of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Hungary and what was East Germany. They would probably have a different view.
Then google “Venona Project” and start reading of just how extensive Soviet esponiage was in this country during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.
I want to know where this “free” health care is coming from. Are doctors, nurses, radiologists, dentists, etc, going to suddenly start working for nothing? Will drug company researchers also be working for free? Or is the federal government going to start printing more money to “pay” for this health care, as opposed to raising taxes to pay for it?
Otherwise, we will pay for nationalized health care through our taxes. Generally, when I pay for something – either through taxes or directly by paying the health care provider or an insurance premium – I do not considered it to be “free.” Unless you have a different defintion of “free.” If so, please share it with us.
Meanwhile, ponder this statement – if you want to make something expensive and worthless at the same time, have the government start giving it away.
philipwitak: if they ever get their greedy, grubby, grimey little fingers on this oil, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will do everything within their power to wring every last penny of profit out of every single drop.
I would hope so. To do otherwise would charitably be described as “stupid.” Contrary to popular belief, oil companies – like other companies – exist to make a profit for their shareholders by providing products that people want.
philipwitak: that’s how they keep achieving record profits, quarter after quarter.
I guess the oil companies didn’t get that memo during the 1980s and 1990s, when oil prices were low and they had more than a few quarters that were recorded in red ink.
When oil prices and profits are high…it’s the oil companies raping us to make more money. When oil prices are low and profits are low, or nonexistant…it’s oil companies working to keep us addicted to oil.
philipwitak: second, not all liberals “love controlling every aspect of your life” just those instances where unruly conservatives become problematic and insist on misbehaving themselves.
The problem is that many liberal’s definition of conservative “misbehavior” include such activities as owning an SUV, owing a gun, exceeding the ridiculously underposted speed limits on limited access highways, wanting to keep taxes as low as possible, and wanting to educate one’s child at home.
At least, that is what the left seems to have agitated against during my lifetime.
Given that those activities are harmful only in the imaginations of the uninformed or woefully ignorant, I’d suggest that liberal misbehavior appears to stem from not knowing much about the subject matter at hand, but still charging ahead with “solutions.” I see this all the time in my job…
Carlos:
Waiters and secondhand smoke: I will leave aside the greater debate and simply point out that in this case you are endorsing the ‘iron fist of authoritarianism’.
Trans Fats: Of course I eat out, and I am well aware that every time that I do I am being unhealthy and may indeed be consuming trans fats (and an astronomical number of calories). Similarly every time I enjoy a beer I am doing a small amount of damage to my body. I have decided that the enjoyment of consuming these items outweighs this damage. If you do not wish to eat trans fats or drink alcohol you may abstain. If you go to a restaurant and they do not post nutritional information you are welcome to leave and eat somewhere that does. Again, it seems that you are telling me how to live my life, which does in fact contradict your first post. I take no issue with removing trans fats from school lunches because they are eaten by children. Children do not have the same rights as adults because they are children.
Hospital Visitation: I’d be happy to debate the merits of using tax monies for private hospitals but on private property people do not have the same rights as they do in general. I may allow or disallow whomever I please on my property. If I do not wish to have gay people, straight people, black people, white people etc. in my home I may prevent them from being here. If someone displeases me I can remove them. Businesses should be entitled to do the same. If a hospital or other business discriminated against homosexuals I would be happy to join you in a boycott. I will not join you in bringing the force of government to bear upon the hospital.
I do consider some of those laws you list as abuses of power, others not so. In summary, it seems that you support the use of government force provided that it is for a cause or outcome you favor. Which is fine, most people feel similarly. I was merely pointing out that liberals (and you) do wish to exert control over others, which, as I previously said, contradicts your first post.
I’m another liberal who loves cars.
One point about drilling vs. conservation measures: conservation measures permanently reduce the amount of fuel needed. Drilling supplies extra oil only as long as the oil lasts, which would not be very long in the case of ANWR.
Furthermore, for those who missed Pch101’s excellent post, oil is a commodity sold on world markets. Thus, if we were to drill ANWR, that oil would be sold worldwide, and would have very little effect–pennies, if that–on US gas prices.
Then google “Venona Project” and start reading of just how extensive Soviet esponiage was in this country during the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s.
The point was this: only in the United States is “liberal” a dirty word. You can’t tell me that the USSR didn’t have spies in Canada, the UK, France or West Germany. Yet none of those nation-states have nearly the panties-in-a-bunch syndrome about “liberalism”.
Meanwhile, ponder this statement – if you want to make something expensive and worthless at the same time, have the government start giving it away.
So, like the military then?
Again, this is what gets me: somehow it’s acceptable to American conservatives for the government to maintain a police force, military, domestic and/or international intelligence agency, but universal healthcare or welfare is evil?
I don’t get it. I just don’t get it. If “don’t trust the government” Reaganisms like the above is the default attitude, then how can you trust them to manage a force that can–and does–stampede over civilians as needed.
The US has the least effective healthcare system in the developed world. It’s also the least effective and the most expensive because the bulk of the money is spend deciding who should or shouldn’t have coverage, rather than just carte-blanche covering everything.
Government intervention can be a good thing in areas where the market either doesn’t provide sufficient stimulus to “do the right thing”, or where the motive for profit would make delivering services ineffective. That the American people and their government have been so cowed into fearing socialism that any programs they implement are so hamstrung as to ensure failure and abuse not mean that socialized programs and regulation will be a failure in all cases…
…it’s only a failure when Americans do it.
I’m vainly searching for a way to get back on topic. I can’t do it–please excuse this excursion into ideology-ville.
philipwitak: “if they ever get their greedy, grubby, grimey little fingers on this oil, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will do everything within their power to wring every last penny of profit out of every single drop.”
geeber / August 11th, 2008 at 10:26 am: “I would hope so. To do otherwise would charitably be described as “stupid.” Contrary to popular belief, oil companies – like other companies – exist to make a profit for their shareholders by providing products that people want.”
glad to learn you agree with me. i however, do not agree with you. why should the people of the united states continue to put their coastal and atmospheric environments at real risk, just so big oil can continue to profit obscenely? just what has big oil done for us – or what is it we owe them?
there is still plenty of oil on the world market, if one is willing to pay the going rate for it. but why not begin a strategic transfer to alternative fuels now, before that remaining oil is gone, so that we can move away from the use of fossil fuels which are so badly and so seriously damaging our environment – the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil in which we grow our food and on which we live – and do so as quickly as possible?
philipwitak: “that’s how they keep achieving record profits, quarter after quarter.”
geeber / August 11th, 2008 at 10:26 am: “I guess the oil companies didn’t get that memo during the 1980s and 1990s, when oil prices were low and they had more than a few quarters that were recorded in red ink. When oil prices and profits are high, “it’s the oil companies raping us to make more money. When oil prices are low and profits are low, or nonexistant, “it’s oil companies working to keep us addicted to oil.”
i don’t think that you, or i, or we, should be too worried about the fiscal health of the oil companies. they have managed to prosper just fine on their own [with the aid from their lobbyists and the members of congress they have corrupted along the way] – even during those quarters when business was not booming – or they wouldn’t be here today. and last time I checked, they are here. today.
philipwitak: “second, not all liberals “love controlling every aspect of your life” just those instances where unruly conservatives become problematic and insist on misbehaving themselves.”
geeber / August 11th, 2008 at 10:26 am: “The problem is that many liberal’s definition of conservative “misbehavior” include such activities as owning an SUV, owing a gun, exceeding the ridiculously underposted speed limits on limited access highways, wanting to keep taxes as low as possible, and wanting to educate one’s child at home.”
in the first place, that remark of mine you have quoted was expressed with sarcasm – to make a point – not something meant to be taken literally. but since you insist… i think most liberals couldn’t care less if you own an suv – as long it doesn’t pollute the land, the air and the water we all rely on; or occupies more than a fair share of the roads and/or parking lots it inhabits; or makes driving in smaller cars so much more difficult and unsafe for the rest of us.
or care about the guns you possess – it’s just that so many people keep getting killed in this country and the rest of us have a sneaky suspicion that all those guns have sumthin’ to do with it.
or really care whether you exceed the speed limit – as long as you don’t place the rest of us in such grave jeopardy every time we climb into our cars.
as any rational person can plainly see, the activities you have alluded to, and to which i have responded, are actually not only harmful “…in the imaginations of the uninformed or woefully ignorant…” as you have erroneously claimed – they can be and quite often are excessively harmful to real people, in the real world – and therein lies the rub. that is when reasonable people must insist that unreasonable people change their behavior.
the freedom for people to act in any manner they wish, must cease, once any of those actions imperil the well-being of others. period. full stop.
as far as your “wanting to keep taxes as low as possible” comment is concerned – i can only point out that i think we would all like to have lower taxes. the underlying truth of the matter is that nobody really wants to pay taxes – but everybody wants the benefits only taxes can provide.
it was benjamin franklin who once said: “taxes are the price of a civilized society.” they are not simply a burden to be shrugged off, they are an essential investment in our shared future. it seems to me that those who benefit most from this society – and here, ‘wealthy conservatives’ springs quickly into mind – should at the very least be willing to pay for the privilege. the wealthy should quit whining and rejoice in their good fortune.
“home schooling” i know nothing about. my wife and i decided not to bring any innocent children into this corrupt, overcrowded world, long ago.
psarhjinian:
I’m not attempting to open a second debate (seriously- I have a meeting in seven and a half hours and I’ve already spent too much time on this); I would simply like to explain where my views come from (you state that you do not understand the apparent dissonance in those that support a robust military and limited healthcare spending).
I support having a strong military (certainly we have undertaken several actions of questionable merit- I mean only that I support in general having a strong national defense). I do not support government run/funded healthcare. This stems from my belief in a government limited to the powers enumerated in the US Constitution. The Constitution explicitly calls for common defense through a Navy and Army. The obvious counterargument is to speak of the provision whereby the government is to provide for the general welfare of the United States (a source of legitimate debate). Again, I post this not to debate, but to explain how I (and possibly others) hold beliefs that you found inexplicable.
It is actually simple.
We need a smaller government and less regulation.
Like the Constitution intended.
psharjinian: The point was this: only in the United States is “liberal” a dirty word. You can’t tell me that the USSR didn’t have spies in Canada, the UK, France or West Germany. Yet none of those nation-states have nearly the panties-in-a-bunch syndrome about “liberalism”.
All of them – except for France – were quite happy to rely on the U.S. for a large part of their defense, so they could afford to take a more lenient attitude toward the Soviet Union. They could also afford to devote more of their national spending to social programs.
In the case of West Germany, a desire for friendly relations with East Germany also played a role in its relations with the Soviet Union. But don’t kid yourself – the European countries in NATO weren’t about to completely leave the defense umbrella largely provided by the U.S.
You suggested in your original post that the American fear of the Soviet Union was unfounded. Which is incorrect – again, I’d suggest talking to an Eastern European who was an adult before 1989, and then reading all about what was uncovered by the Venona Project.
psharjinian: So, like the military then?
Who said that the military is free? We pay for it with our tax dollars. It’s not “free,” any more than nationalized health care would be free. Someone, somewhere, is still paying for it.
Also note that under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government is specifically charged with providing for the defense of the country. Anyone who has a problem with that needs to talk to the Founding Fathers.
Again, this is what gets me: somehow it’s acceptable to American conservatives for the government to maintain a police force, military, domestic and/or international intelligence agency, but universal healthcare or welfare is evil?
First, as I said above, under the U.S. Constitution, the federal government is specifically charged with maintaining the defense of the country.
Second, you may want to study history regarding the formation of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). You will be surprised to find the number of people classified as “liberals” and “progressives” who pushed for their formation.
Meanwhile, one of the early chief critics of the CIA was Ohio Senator Robert Taft, who was noted for his staunch conservative views.
psharjinian: The US has the least effective healthcare system in the developed world. It’s also the least effective and the most expensive because the bulk of the money is spend deciding who should or shouldn’t have coverage, rather than just carte-blanche covering everything.
Nonsense. One of the best indicators of a health system’s effectiveness is how long a person survives after being diagnosed with a serious disease or condition. The U.S. is at or near the top for virtually every condition (except for diabetes, which may be because of the greater incidence of obesity in the U.S.).
Longevity varies regardless of health care (genetics and health habits play a larger role). Within the U.S., a study of longevity found that among the longest lived were those of Native American descent in the Midwest. Many of them did NOT have access to regular health care.
Infant mortality rates in the U.S. are negatively affected by the efforts to keep premature babies alive, so they are counted in the infant mortality rate when they die. In many European countries, less (or no) effort is made to save these babies, which means that they are not counted for purposes of determining infant mortality rates.
In Germany the government has been instituting co-pays and making citizens clear more hurdles to receive care, especially for end-of-life care for things like hip replacements and dialysis.
This happened to my 92-year-old great aunt before she died.
Meanwhile, here in America, my 95-year-old grandmother is covered by private health insurance, as was my recently deceased 90-year-old great aunt. The doctor wants my grandmother to have knee-replacement surgery. The insurance company will pay for it – but SHE doesn’t want it.
My great aunt needed dialysis. The insurance company would have paid for it, but, once again, SHE didn’t want it. (She was ready to die.)
psharjinian: Government intervention can be a good thing in areas where the market either doesn’t provide sufficient stimulus to “do the right thing”, or where the motive for profit would make delivering services ineffective.
The government – both at the federal level and the state level – already intervenes in the health care market. Given the level of state and federal government regulation and intervention in the health care market, it is quite a stretch to consider it an example of a “free market” in any sense. Many of the problems stem from these government efforts.
philipwitak: glad to learn you agree with me. i however, do not agree with you. why should the people of the united states continue to put their coastal and atmospheric environments at real risk, just so big oil can continue to profit obscenely?
Because it’s not 1969 anymore, the oil blowout off the coast of Santa Barbara, California, happened almost 40 years ago, and informed people realize that offshore drilling can be done in a safe, controlled manner.
Incidentally, if more oil comes on the market, it will increase supply, which will decrease price. The last time this happened was during the 1980s, and oil company profits…plunged. Or disappeared completely.
philipwitak: just what has big oil done for us – or what is it we owe them?
I guess your car is powered by french fry grease, or squirrels. Or you pump your own crude oil, and then refine it. The electricity powering the computer you used to type your post is generated at a nuclear or coal plant. Or your wife is out back, on the treadmill, generating electricity (and getting a good workout) so that you can turn on the computer and post on thetruthaboutcars.com.
And your house is completely solar powered, and you shower with cold water, wash clothes by hand, and hang them out to dry…
philipwitak: i don’t think that you, or i, or we, should be too worried about the fiscal health of the oil companies. they have managed to prosper just fine on their own [with the aid from their lobbyists and the members of congress they have corrupted along the way] – even during those quarters when business was not booming – or they wouldn’t be here today. and last time I checked, they are here. today.
And the last time I checked, you were claiming that they regularly make record profits, and this will go on forever. Which hasn’t been what happened in the past.
Several of them had to merge to survive in the 1980s and 1990s. Sorry, but it hasn’t been one big profit party for oil companies.
philipwitak: in the first place, that remark of mine you have quoted was expressed with sarcasm – to make a point – not something meant to be taken literally. but since you insist… i think most liberals couldn’t care less if you own an suv – as long it doesn’t pollute the land, the air and the water we all rely on; or occupies more than a fair share of the roads and/or parking lots it inhabits; or makes driving in smaller cars so much more difficult and unsafe for the rest of us.
A few facts for enlightenment – modern SUVs are surprisingly clean. A new Ford Explorer emits less emissions running than a 1969 Ford Galaxie emitted standing still, without the engine running (because of gasoline vapor leakage).
There are no truly “dirty” brand-new vehicles being sold in the U.S. To say otherwise suggests either a desire to inflame to score points, or complete ignorance of modern vehicles.
The roads are much safer, too. The U.S. death rate per 100 million vehicle miles driven has been halved since 1978, while the percentage of the total new vehicle market claimed by light trucks has doubled during that same time. If SUVs were really death-on-wheels, that figure would not have declined to this extent.
Most small car drivers (over half) who die in accidents are killed because of collisions with other small cars or stationary objects.
philipwitak: or care about the guns you possess – it’s just that so many people keep getting killed in this country and the rest of us have a sneaky suspicion that all those guns have sumthin’ to do with it.
You need to rely less on “sneaky suspicions” and more on facts. Taking guns away from law-abiding citizens has never reduced the homicide rate in this country. If so, Washington, D.C., would be the safest place in the country. Last time I checked, it was anything but that.
Banning guns won’t even help reduce the suicide rate. (Japan has virtually banned guns, but has a suicide rate more than twice that of the U.S. Same with many northern and central European nations.)
Meanwhile, there are thousands of justified self-defense use of guns in this country every year. If anything, law-abiding citizens with guns DETER crime. And that’s based on more than a “sneaking suspicion.”
philipwitak: or really care whether you exceed the speed limit – as long as you don’t place the rest of us in such grave jeopardy every time we climb into our cars.?
There has never been any proof that exceeding the speed limit on a limited access highway increases danger to drivers or anyone else. If anything, studies have shown that drivers who drive the SLOWEST have the highest rate of accidents.
Someone driving 80 mph in the 65 mph on a limited access highway (designed to be safe for a 1956 car to travel at 75 mph – amazingly, automotive design has progressed dramatically since 1956, last time I checked) is not placing you or anyone else in “grave danger.”
philipwitak: as any rational person can plainly see, the activities you have alluded to, and to which i have responded, are actually not only harmful “…in the imaginations of the uninformed or woefully ignorant…” as you have erroneously claimed – they can be and quite often are excessively harmful to real people, in the real world – and therein lies the rub. that is when reasonable people must insist that unreasonable people change their behavior.
Those activities are only harmful in the imaginations of the uninformed and ignorant. Those who have studied these issues – as opposed to those going by what “everyone” knows – have a true grasp of the real risk posed by said activities, which is why the more sophisticated, better informed position on these subjects is invariably the conservative/libertarian one.
philipwitak: the freedom for people to act in any manner they wish, must cease, once any of those actions imperil the well-being of others. period. full stop.
In which case, you support ownership of guns by law-abiding citizens, realize that the rants against SUVs are silly and uninformed, and recognize the “speed kills” baloney for the nonsense that it is.
philpwitak: as far as your “wanting to keep taxes as low as possible” comment is concerned – i can only point out that i think we would all like to have lower taxes. the underlying truth of the matter is that nobody really wants to pay taxes – but everybody wants the benefits only taxes can provide.
Except that no one seems to know what is “enough.” And Senator Obama wants to raise taxes. Maybe we should raise taxes on the 50 percent who don’t pay any federal income taxes, to give them an idea of how much all of these programs cost. Maybe people who can’t afford children without government support, for example, wouldn’t be so quick to have them. Which would also relieve population pressures.
philipwitak: it seems to me that those who benefit most from this society – and here, ‘wealthy conservatives’ springs quickly into mind – should at the very least be willing to pay for the privilege. the wealthy should quit whining and rejoice in their good fortune.
The wealthy do not benefit from taxes the most. They use private schools, don’t rely on the government for health care, don’t rely on food stamps to eat, and don’t rely on the government for a monthly check to survive. Their children are not fed through the Women-Infants-Children (WIC) welfare program. They live in gated communities or co-op apartments with private security, which means they don’t rely on the police as much.
Spending for entitlements is by far the biggest driver of spending at the federal level. At the state level, spending for education, along with welfare programs, are a huge driver of spending growth.
Given that the wealthy are much less likely to use these services (or more likely to be banned from participating because of income, as in the case of food stamps and WIC), they do not benefit directly from this spending. If anything, they are subsidizing everyone else (which isn’t surprising, as at the federal level, the bottom 50 percent of wage earners pay NO federal income taxes).
I think what is important is that most people are upset about paying $4/gallon and wish they were still paying $2. I’m sure Obama wasn’t trying to say that inflating your tires will solve $4/gal gas, but to point out the absurdity that drilling will. Furthermore proper tire inflation helps your pocket book a 4% (3% Alaska + 1% coastal) increase in US oil production increases the global oil supply 1%, with uncertain consequences on price.