I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 2:50 am Post subject: Political Allegiance
(NOTE: I live in the UK)
I recently joined the UK Green Party partly as they seem to provide the best policies to deal with issues regarding peak oil. Whilst they don't explicitly declare what 'peak oil' is, or what its consequences are (see this post re. Canada), and regardless of whether or not they are aware of the issue, their policies would be of extreme benefit to a peaking world.
To those living and voting in the US I ask: who are you going to be voting for this year?
I understand the tactical reason for voting for the Democrats - to chuck the Republicans out of office. But do the Democrats really provide a solution? For me, I see a vote for either as a wasted vote. Whilst short-term results (no more Bush) may be better, there is no long term scope.
For those not living in the US - who do you vote for, any why?
One argument against voting for Green parties is that a first-past-the-post system ensures its a wasted vote. They will, apparently 'never get to power' and hence what is the point of voting for them? Proportional Representation would do much to help the cause of Green politics, but of course at the cost of political cohesion and other marginal groups, such as fascist parties.
The UK Green Party is not just a party aiming for seats in parliaments and councils. They explicitly state that they also aim to promote the green agenda through other means, such as direct non-violent action. They are a pressure group. If governemnts see them receiving a large number of votes, and a strong following, they take notice.
Therefore, when it comes to your next election, I strongly urge you to consider the Green vote, and encouraging friends to vote the same way. Sure, the Green party may not get elected, but your vote for them will at the very least signal to those who are elected that people care about these issues, and that it would make sense for them to find policies to accommodate them. _________________ Contact me at http://www.jakeg.co.uk/contact/
Read my peak oil dissertation at http://www.jakeg.co.uk/dissertation/
Joined: May 17, 2004 Posts: 1969 Location: Democratic People's Republic of Washington
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:31 am Post subject:
Considering that no political party agrees with my beliefs completely, I normally vote for which candidate will be the best person suiting my personal beliefs. I support some Republican philosophies such as smaller government, a strong military, capital punishment, limited weapons control, and tax reductions. I also support some Democratic philosophies such as a better environmental policy, higher minimum wages corresponding directly to the cost of living, and governmental regulation of crucial modern infrastructure (except for the Internet). I know very little about the Green party, Libertarian party, or other third party policies, so I am not considering voting for them.
I am not registered with any political affiliation, nor do I intend to do so. I vote according to my beliefs, and not according to party lines. I will vote for the candidate that represents my beliefs the most. I consider myself to be an independent conservative. During the 2000 presidential election, I had no idea how I was going to vote until the debates occurred. I chose Bush because of Al Gore's policy regarding gun control. If they would have not had this issue between them, I would have more than likely not have voted at all. During the coming presidential election, I will more than likely vote for Bush.
The reason for this is not because of his positions as much as it is for Kerry's fallacies. To me, it seems that Kerry supports whatever is popular at the second, and has no firm belief on anything. Due to his lack of position on anything for the duration of more than a few weeks, John Kerry has eliminated all credibility with me. I know bush is a liar also, but at least he has some stability in his positions. I strongly feel that Kerry is much more intelligent than bush on many issues so far, but because his opinions and policies change almost every week, I cannot trust anything he says. So unless Kerry can improve his credibility in my view drastically, I will more than likely vote for Bush. _________________ Here Lies the United States Of America.
As a moderator it's probably best that I stay politically neutral, and to this end I have another suggestion: spoil your ballot paper!
If enough people did this it would have to be registered as a protest vote of some kind. To what ends, I don't know. Just another suggestion for the pot, and not something I've actually done myself. _________________ Burning the midnight oil, whilst I still can.
Joined: May 21, 2004 Posts: 158 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 6:47 am Post subject: Re: Political Allegiance
jake wrote:
To those living and voting in the US I ask: who are you going to be voting for this year?
For those not living in the US - who do you vote for, any why?
One argument against voting for Green parties is that a first-past-the-post system ensures its a wasted vote.
Australia has the preferential system. Therefore, if one votes for the greens, and the green candidate is unsuccessful, your vote keeps on voting until it reaches the successful candidate.
I vote for the greens, preferencing against the sitting member in the lower house, and to the Labor opposition in the Senate.
Joined: May 23, 2004 Posts: 276 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 7:48 am Post subject: Re: Political Allegiance
Ender wrote:
Australia has the preferential system. Therefore, if one votes for the greens, and the green candidate is unsuccessful, your vote keeps on voting until it reaches the successful candidate.
For those wondering why this is in place, think of first past the post as being a system to elect the most popular individual, whereas preferential voting elects the person who is overall the least unpopular.
If nobody gets past 50% + 1 vote, the least popular candidate (usually a right wing loonie) gets knocked off and their 2 votes get added to the remaining candidates. If someone has then gotten past 50% + 1 vote, they're in. If not, wash, rinse, and repeat til someone gets 50% + 1 vote.
Ender wrote:
I vote for the greens, preferencing against the sitting member in the lower house,
A strategy that I've been using since I turned 18 - all the electoral bribes get thrown at marginal seats.
I'd love to see Lindsay Tanner get knocked off his perch in the seat of Melbourne (presumably by the Green candidate), as the ALP would then feel a need to work hard to win it back over the following three years
Ender wrote:
and to the Labor opposition in the Senate.
Ditto, though this may change if there's a risk they may actually get a senate majority in their own right.. *shiver* _________________ The purpose of human life revolves around an endless need to extract ever increasing amounts of carbon out of the ground and then release it into the atmosphere.
Joined: Jun 20, 2004 Posts: 250 Location: California
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 10:12 am Post subject: US Politics
My political leanings are largely the same as yours. I think Marxist philosophy has been pretty well laid to rest as unworkable and contrary to human nature. I tend to be conservative in the sense that I feel people need to be responsible for themselves, and not be expecting the government to take care of them. Also the government should generally stay out of our lives, except for policing and as you say controlling critical modern infrastructure.
This nets out to wanting lower taxes, smaller government, fewer social programs, a strong military, strong environmental, health, and safety regulations, and fewer restrictions on personal behavior including gun ownership.
When government action is needed, I strongly feel that solutions that work with the market (and hence human nature) are better than onces that work against them. For example, forget about CAFE regulations, they force automakers to build cars that people don't want, try a $2/gallon gas tax, that will provide the right incentive in the simplest way with the least regulation.
Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are going to step up to the energy issue, though for different reasons. Let's face it, to really get going on this we need to change the behavior of "the masses", so trying to keep gas prices low and avoid hurting "the little guy" is nonsense. The Greens here in the US have bound their environmental message to a Marxist philosophy, so they aren't an option for me (and they don't have a chance of winning anyway).
I tend to vote Republican as the closest thing to my position, although I think Bush was far from the best that the GOP could have offered, and has led us into a terrible position. Kerry isn't the best the Democrats have to offer, either. But he does have an energy plan that he's kept fairly quiet - it involves reviving work on alternative sources of electric power and raising fuel economy for vehicles - it's not much, but it's a start, and it's better than Bush's plan.
Joined: Jun 18, 2004 Posts: 1037 Location: 28° N 81° W
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 12:55 pm Post subject:
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool lefty; I was originally with Howard Dean's presidential campaign. Kerry was, to put it nicely, not one of my top choices. Even so, I've been volunteering for his campaign because of the ABB (Anybody But Bush) factor. I can think of only one thing Bush has ever done right during his administration (resisting pressure to open up the Strategic Petroleum Reserve). He is arguably the worst president in American history, and anybody who wants to replace him is okay in my book. _________________ American by birth, Muslim by choice, Southern by the grace of God!
Joined: May 21, 2004 Posts: 158 Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:05 pm Post subject:
KiddieKorral wrote:
I'm a dyed-in-the-wool lefty; I was originally with Howard Dean's presidential campaign.
I wanted Dean to get the nomination. Now, if I were an American, I'd be voting for Nader
PC: re Labor getting a Senate majority in their own right, won't happen. They'd have to win four seats in at least a couple of states, and consistently win three in all the others. They can only hope to do this if there are no greens elected, and an excellent flow of preferences to them from the micro parties. It's never happened before, and the polls aren't indicating that sort of landslide.
Far more dangerous is the prospect of a returned Lib govt managing to get the magic 39 seats.
I would suggest that if things go badly, the public will blame whoever is in office. The opposite is true for good times. Sort of a "shoot the messenger" philosophy.
We should consider that it may well be impossible to fill the presidential shoes in ANY acceptable manor.
Modern presidents are mostly regurgitating the advice of staff experts on any given subject, and weighing the political consequences anyway.
I also find Nadar's politics agreeable, and well informed and reasonable...
Therefore he will never be president.
In all honesty, I'm not sure I'd wish it on him anyway. _________________ "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F Roberts.
Joined: Apr 03, 2004 Posts: 6959 Location: My Grandkids' Farm
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 3:54 pm Post subject:
I believe we in the US deserve the candidates we get.
We have bumper sticker attention spans and knee jerk reactions to sound bites – we’re way too busy and besides “They’re just a bunch of crooks anyway”.
The average citizen can’t tell you their senator’s - little lone assemblyman’s name.
We read the banner at the back of the podium and believe that’s what is being promoted and switch quickly to Wheel of Fortune - then wonder where the big tax break went and why tuition is going up at the college, and how come the librarian has to keep a record of our books and how come the drug benefit costs more and where are the WMD’s.
It’s the same every term, presidential at least, cause very few vote or pay any attention in off years and local elections – unless it’s for a celebrity.
The candidate that can get the most cash is the one to beat and that makes it very hard for a majority to even get a chance to vote meaningfully.
We’ll get it right eventually…
after trying all the options.
[/rant] _________________ Make a plan and work it:
Posted: Mon Jun 21, 2004 4:53 pm Post subject: Re: US Politics
DoctorDoom wrote:
I tend to vote Republican as the closest thing to my position, although I think Bush was far from the best that the GOP could have offered, and has led us into a terrible position. Kerry isn't the best the Democrats have to offer, either. But he does have an energy plan that he's kept fairly quiet - it involves reviving work on alternative sources of electric power and raising fuel economy for vehicles - it's not much, but it's a start, and it's better than Bush's plan.
I am along the same lines. I have voted republican consistently for the past 10 years. I even donated to Jeb Bush's last campaign for gov in Florida.
But George W Bush is losing me. The budget deficit is just out of control. For this economics major, it is just getting to be too much.
This insane oil policy and energy policy is pushing me towards Kerry.
It is not that I like anything about Kerry, but I just have the gut feeling that Bush is doing the wrong thing.
Also, I think the US govt was in better shape when the White House was held by a different party than the Congress. Let them fight more and get less done. They can do less harm.
The problem I have with the Greens is their hatred of Nuclear Power, which I personally believe to be the Only Hope For Mankind™ (and a small one at that).
Bush is one of the worst leaders in the histury of the world IMO, I am ashamed that he is the leader of my country. He is single-handedly (well, not quite, he's got truly evil Neo-Cons like Cheney and Rumsfeld helping out) leading my country to ruin and international pariah status.
What the fudge does he think he's doing with North Korea??? Giving them an ultimatum with absolutely no solution possible, just like Iraq - we all see how well that turned out. (aside... I seem to remember seeing a map of worldwide U reserves, and I believe that North Korea, small as it is, is sitting on huge deposits of U.)
As far as peak oil - it's so much too late that it doesn't really matter what anybody does about it. I'm resigned to the fact that I should just enjoy what's left of this high energy lifestyle. Read James Howard Kunstler'sApril 26th commentary (you'll have to scroll down) for a good reason that it would be good if Bush won. Kunstler is a good read - I highly recommend "The Geography Of Nowhere" and reading his weekly web commentary.
Joined: May 24, 2004 Posts: 3429 Location: California, USA
Posted: Sun Sep 26, 2004 10:32 pm Post subject:
Well good for them, they got it mostly right.
Interesting point he has about shale oil, that it costs as much energy to extract as it yields.
I am wondering how soon before a candidate for high-profile national office utters the words. I just hope Jimmy Carter is still alive to hear it and maybe lend a hand.
All times are GMT - 6 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10Next
Page 1 of 10
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
