Stats

Comments Posted By cyndibru

Displaying 31 To 60 Of 94 Comments

Republicans to Sue Obama For Not Being Republican

Oh I completely agree it’s in no way grounds for impeachment. The Court upheld the legitimacy of the pro-forma sessions. To me, it’s a question of attempting to over-step the bounds of the separation of powers. The Senate and the House are the ones to determine if they are or are not in session, not the President. Even if some may consider how or why they do it to be “game-playing”. What totally surprised me is that quite a few people here seem to think this “tactic” began with the GOP. Either they were completely unaware that it was first done by Reid and the Dems in 2007, or conveniently ignore that in their “they just hate the President and everything he tries to do” narrative.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 29, 2014 @ 1:36 pm

I’m still surprised how many people of the opposite political persuasion really seem to think the GOP has impeachment as a goal. Even assuming the GOP win the Senate in November, it’s not going to happen. Sure, there’s some TP types hollering for it, but that’s just noise. There’s no political upside to impeachment. There just isn’t. They’ll get farther in the court of public opinion passing legislation and making Obama veto it, and they know it. For all the talk about “they hate him because he’s black”, that’s probably the number one reason they wouldn’t impeach him, no matter WHAT he may do. If they take the Senate, it’s all upside — they’ve shown they’ll take him to court if they feel he’s overstepping constitutional authority with executive “decisions”, and he’ll be very limited on what he can do other than say “no” to any laws they send to him. They’ll have him pretty much in check for the last two years of his presidency. No need to mess that up with attempting to impeach the first black President.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 29, 2014 @ 3:05 am

Of course Bush made mistakes. I believe I said in one of my first posts here that I was sorely disappointed by the lack of fiscal restraint during the Bush administration and especially by Congress during the time when the GOP had control. And you already know my views about how we should conduct “war” if we’re going to engage in it at all.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 28, 2014 @ 1:11 pm

I don’t know about that. They won over the recess appointments issue when they took it to court, by unanimous vote. You’d think a Constitutional Lawyer would have known better…..or maybe he did and just wanted to see if he could get away with it? A lot of Dems didn’t have an issue with it and supported the action Obama took. On that one, it was ruled that he overstepped his bounds. Could there be more? I’m pretty sure the GOP probably has a list of what they feel are transgressions, and they’re going to look at it to see what might be the best to pursue in terms of a legislative court challenge. While I’m sure it’s very frustrating when a President is blocked by Congress, there are limits on how far of an end run you can attempt. Frustration with being told “no” doesn’t change the separation of powers, and not every executive action taken regarding a passed law falls under executive discretion re: implementation of said law.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 27, 2014 @ 10:25 pm

God, Mother Nature, Or The Higher Power.

Beautiful post, Nirek. I’ll share my favorite poem about nature.

GOD’S GRANDEUR
by Gerard Manley Hopkins

The world is charged with the grandeur of God.

It will flame out, like shining from shook foil;

It gathers to a greatness, like the ooze of oil

Crushed. Why do men then now not reck his rod?

Generations have trod, have trod, have trod;

And all is seared with trade; bleared, smeared with toil;

And wears man’s smudge and shares man’s smell: the soil

Is bare now, nor can foot feel, being shod.

And for all this, nature is never spent;

There lives the dearest freshness deep down things;

And though the last lights off the black West went

Oh, morning, at the brown brink eastward, springs —

Because the Holy Ghost over the bent

World broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 26, 2014 @ 4:41 pm

Texas GOP Say “NO” To Reinstating Sodomy Law Without Changing Their Minds

But that’s just it with the gerrymandering — I live somewhere where I was affected for years by Democrat gerrymandering. It took DECADES for the GOP to gain enough representation in my state to put a stop to it. It’s the same for other people in other states as well. So to us, it’s an absolutely hollow lament. This may be the first time YOU were affected, but I can assure you, BOTH sides do in fact do it.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 27, 2014 @ 9:18 pm

I think that’s why we have two main parties. There’s a lot of disagreement on what constitutes “moving forward” and who pays for it. Dirty is dirty, IMO. Whose hands are “dirtier” varies over time, and by location.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 27, 2014 @ 9:13 pm

We can dream! I think the electorate in general is the biggest part of the problem, rather than the politicians. They’re a reflection. If you don’t tell people what they WANT to hear, rather than what they NEED to hear, you don’t get elected.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 26, 2014 @ 11:29 am

I could never run for office — I have a bad habit of telling it like it is and saying what I really think, and I find “political correctness” abhorrent. I’d never make it past the screening committee!

When I am voting, I suspect I am like most people. You have to prioritize what is most important to you, because I know very few people who aren’t in conflict with SOME aspect of their political party. For me, the fiscal and personal responsibility issues are the most important.

And sometimes your party just really nominates a stinker candidate. I actually voted for our Democratic governor, Beshear, twice. The first time he ran, because he supported legalizing casino gaming as opposed to our Republican governor at the time who did not.(and it was opposed by a lot of our down-state reps and senators of both parties because of their Baptist constituencies). To me, that was just a fiscal no-brainer as we were losing a lot of money to surrounding states. Plus, I didn’t think Fletcher had done a very good job overall and was doing some crazy stuff and there were ethics questions going on. It was the first time I voted for a Dem for a state or national office in a long time. I voted to re-elect him again for the same reasons, he still supported casino gaming, he did a better job for the state fiscally than Fletcher had done, and the Republican he was running against was the state senate majority leader who frankly was just an absolute ass.

So while I do find most of the time I’m more in agreement with GOP fiscal policy, I’m not blind about it. The individuals running DO matter. For example, if I lived in South Carolina, I could NEVER have voted for Sanford after his nonsense.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 26, 2014 @ 12:46 am

Sure. I find Rush annoying, just as I find most radio “call-in” type shows annoying. If it’s anyone but a parrot calling in, the host talks (more like SHOUTS) over the caller. Basically, radio shows are entertainment, not sources for unbiased information. I’ve even heard Rush himself say that his job is to be an entertainer. I suspect he could be equally “entertaining” from the other political perspective as well if he chose to. He found a market and he tapped it well. Of course, so did Jerry Springer.

I’m not a Fox News watcher either, at least from a political perspective. I really don’t watch TV news at all, unless I’m looking for something in particular at a specific time, like weather, or something on a big national story, or election results. I’d prefer to be spared the “analysis” and just given the facts, but that doesn’t seem possible on TV these days. If I do watch, it’s usually flipping between Fox, MSNBC, and CNN looking for who’s got what I’m specifically interested in at the moment. The political commentary I recognize for what it is. It’s totally biased on all 3 of those channels. I suppose if I HAVE to listen to it, I’d probably pick Fox just because the conservative point of view annoys me less than the liberal point of view, but just like I know the difference between actual evidence introduced in court versus attorney spin and smokescreen, I know the difference between a reported fact and political commentary/spin. That said, don’t like Hannity, O’Reilly, Matthews, Maddow, and a bunch of others, mostly because I find them grating on my nerves. I didn’t mind Brian Williams when he was on MSNBC, and I don’t mind Brit Hume on Fox.

As for the Koch brothers, I don’t really care about them any more than I care about Bloomberg, Katzenberg, Steyer, Rove, etc. I live in Kentucky and there is more outside money from BOTH sides coming into our Senate race than money from inside the state. Both sides use everything they’re allowed to use by law. As long as there is ONE dark money PAC on the Dem side, they have no leg to stand on when it comes to criticizing the Koch brothers, as far as I’m concerned. It’s either ok across the board or it isn’t, and no fair complaining when the opposing side happens to be winning in the money race at the moment. I find it funny how politicians will lament the money in politics, but then run for office and suddenly, opting for just the public funds isn’t a palatable option even when the opponent is willing. For me, it either all comes out and we allow only public campaign funds, or it’s all in and anything goes. To me, it’s all just politics and everything I find hypocritical and distasteful about it. The only time people complain is when they think “the other side” is beating them at their own game. It’s amazing to me all the complaining since 2010 by the Dems about gerrymandering. It’s not new, it’s been going on for years and years, just like “ward politics” in big cities. I live in a state where historically until recently the Dems had control of both legislative houses and did LOTS of gerrymandering. I’m sure in other states the opposite was true. If you’ve ever done it, you can’t get mad when the other guy manages to do it bigger and better. Frankly, we should all go the way of California and do it with non-partisan commissions. And we should have public financing of elections, IMO. But until then, it’s politics as usual, and no one’s hands are clean.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 26, 2014 @ 12:29 am

Thank you. Philosophically, I may be “progressive” in many ways, but I don’t share what I see as the desire of many “progressives” to right the so-called wrongs of this world. Honestly, I probably see myself more as libertarian than anything else. I have no desire to tell anyone what to do, think, believe, or how to live their personal lives, but I also feel no responsibility to financially make up for the inequalities fate and/or choice has placed anyone in.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 25, 2014 @ 1:35 pm

I have a particular distaste for literal interpretation of the Bible. I fail to understand how anyone with a semblance of an intellect can justify doing so. I freely admit that while I am nominally Catholic, I am a lousy “believer” if religious dogma is the criteria being used to judge. To me, reason and common sense preclude blind faith. In Biblical times, I would have been Doubting Thomas. I do believe in “God”, but I don’t presume to know what defines God. My suspicion is that the higher power in the universe lays more along metaphysical lines, far beyond our current human understanding, and religion is simply an attempt to frame that awareness that a majority of us have into something that gives comfort and structure to us rather than admitting we simply don’t know what lies beyond. We have glimpses.

As for the GOP, I see it as more we’re “stuck” with these people, because they will of course naturally gravitate to the conservative end of the political spectrum. Do we like having their votes? Of course. Do we want them setting public policy? Of course not. It’s a very real problem. For me, I really dislike that wing of the party that wants to focus on controlling people’s lives through social issues. But I also dislike what I see as over-reach on the other side of the aisle that wants government controlling more aspects of people’s lives as well, and their ideas that it is ok and just for GOVERNMENT to take from one citizen to give to another. I have nothing against charity, I simply don’t believe it should be forced. They don’t call it religion, but in many ways it is.

For me, one affects my personal pocketbook, the other doesn’t. Since I don’t feel personally financially responsible for anyone but me and my own family, I have a “live your life as you wish” philosophy until you start affecting me personally. I disagree with the desire to impose religious moral values as a matter of law, and I disagree with the desire to use law and government to hold me financially responsible for the “unfairness” and “financial inequality” of those whose personal circumstances I have nothing to do with.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 25, 2014 @ 1:25 pm

Plenty of “GOPers” and/or conservatives have known for a long time that gay people are born that way and have no problem acknowledging or admitting it. Unfortunately, the bible-thumping “moral majority” members of the party will always have their heads up their asses when it comes to this issue. As a conservative, I’m a lot more concerned that people, whether they are straight, gay, bi, transgendered, or whatever….form stable and committed relationships before they take on the responsibilities of having and raising children than I am with who does what to whom in the bedroom. Of course I favor gay marriage, just as I favor straight marriage as opposed to more casual types of relationships. I’ll never understand the mindset that marriage is just too much of a commitment, but hey, let’s have kids! That said, as long as you’re not asking me to pay for them, set up your family any way you like.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 25, 2014 @ 4:16 am

An Open Letter To Any And All “Conservatives”

I “skipped over it” because in my original post you responded to I was talking about the FIRST time we went into Iraq, Desert Storm, and if we had conducted that war as I believe war should be conducted if you’re going to do it at all, there would have been no need to go into Iraq the second time. Cheney wasn’t VP the first time around so I didn’t find it relevant to what I was discussing and didn’t feel like going down that tangent with you. Secondly, I don’t find the Rachel Maddow Show to be an unbiased source of information about anything. It would be like me telling you to go watch a Fox News video or referring you to an article from a conservative think tank to back up a point I wanted to make — which I would never do because of course they’re biased from the start.

As for the rest of what you contend above, I completely disagree. The Taliban are guilty of plenty all on their own when it comes to oppression and crimes against their own people, in current times, not far back in history. What you seem to derive as the “logical conclusion of my thesis” leads me to believe we would also disagree on what constitutes logical thinking.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 26, 2014 @ 11:51 am

The House sent a vets bill to the Senate and shortly thereafter Sanders unveiled his. McCain joined him and they worked together to compromise between them, and the House voted to pass the compromise version. I don’t see those facts as fitting your narrative above.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 26, 2014 @ 11:37 am

I think Ted Cruz is an idiot and I dislike him intensely. I do not see him realistically having any shot at the nomination and if by some abomination he achieved it, I believe I would have to actually vote for Hillary Clinton if she were the nominee.

Rand Paul is interesting. I agree with him on some things and disagree with him on others. Of the “tea party” types, he is probably the least “tea party” when you really examine his positions. I think his biggest drawback is that he has a tendency to put his foot in his mouth (a common failing in politicians) and has trouble communicating some of his ideas in a way that doesn’t step on people’s toes. I think the problem with him is that he really doesn’t have much government experience and some of his ideas can be pretty radical. I don’t really see him winning the nomination either, but if I had to pick between him and Cruz, I’d take Paul, not that that’s a ringing endorsement!

» Posted By cyndibru On June 26, 2014 @ 1:15 am

I think “the nature of Islam” when it comes to government is pretty much the entire problem….any Islamic government is going to be a problem, just as any government based on or intertwined with any specific religion’s rules and laws is a problem. And it’s a particular problem with Islam and especially the extremist interpretations of it. If you give support and shelter to those who kill innocents in the name of religion, you’re just as guilty of terrorism as those who perpetrated the acts themselves.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 25, 2014 @ 7:55 pm

No problem. My thoughts on Ayn Rand are that I attempted to read “Atlas Shrugged” and it bored me to tears and I gave up before I got very far. Very unusual for me because I am a voracious reader and I can only name 3 books in my life (I’m 50) that I have quit on…..that one, “Billy Budd” by Herman Melville (back in high school), and “Ancient Evenings” by Norman Mailer (I enjoyed several of his other books). Since I disliked the first book I tried from Ayn Rand I didn’t attempt any others and I have not been curious enough about her supposed political philosophies to study them in depth in any way.

As for 2016, I’m not yet enamored of any of the currently mentioned candidates. I think a lot will depend on what political situation emerges from the 2014 mid-term elections.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 25, 2014 @ 7:47 pm

No, I don’t think you’re a sexist. But as a female I think that if biology doesn’t disqualify us from equality in every other facet of life, it shouldn’t disqualify us from the unpleasant duty of compulsory military service. What jobs an individual is physically fit for within the military itself is another matter and can be determined once in.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 25, 2014 @ 1:50 pm

I read your article. Thank you for the link. It was absolutely fascinating. I have often tried to imagine what it would be like to be drafted and have to serve. In today’s age of equality, what do you think about it still being only males who must register with Selective Service at age 18?

» Posted By cyndibru On June 25, 2014 @ 4:42 am

Hi Nirek,
Sorry it took so long to get around to responding to your other questions. Been busy with family stuff.
Cyndi

Why do you folks believe lies that facts prove are lies? Why have so many of you accused the Bergdahl family of awful things? Why do you think Bowe Bergdahl is a deserter without hearing all the facts? Why did the Army promote Bowe twice while he was a POW? Why does Senator John McCain of all people think that we should have left Bowe there?

Your first question to me is simply rhetorical. I don’t have a high opinion of the intelligence of the average American when it comes to being informed on most issues, and I think the frustration with believing the “lies and propaganda” simply differs depending on which side of the aisle you lean politically, nothing more. Stupidity and gullibility are rampant throughout the populace and political spectrum. I’m glad Bowe Bergdahl is home and I don’t believe we have all the facts of the case. There is plenty of time to figure it out. I think there are some people who question the wisdom of the trade made to secure his freedom. While I am not a fan of President Obama, this is one instance where I would have to say I don’t have all the facts and would have to trust that the President made the call he felt best, with the best of intentions. Do I think his feelings about Gitmo, etc played a part in it? Probably. Negotiating with terrorists gives me great pause, but so does knowingly leaving an American behind when we have a chance to get them out. I’m reserving judgment on this one until it plays out, and in the meantime I’m glad Sgt. Bergdahl is home, no matter what his future holds.

Why do you claim to be Americans, yet you want to hold the people in Gitmo without charges and trials? That is not the American way.

I think it is very hard to fight a “war” against terrorists and attempt to “win” such a war while holding to what are termed “American values”. The American people are very fickle. The Dems like to Monday morning quarterback the Bush administration’s handling of the war on terror, but the fear and horror of 9/11 were very real…..and almost everyone in government at the time (Dems included) was determined to prevent another attack by whatever means necessary. I think they could have investigated and processed some of these Gitmo cases faster, as there were some people caught up in it who weren’t major terror threats. As for the rest, I lose no sleep over keeping them there and unable to participate in the activities of Al-Queda and other terrorist organizations. They are not American citizens and do not have the same rights. In fact, they do not adhere to the rules of war and should not expect their professed enemies to do so either. They should have been prosecuted at Gitmo under the military laws and justice should have been swift and severe in the cases of guilt.

Why are your Congressmen/women voting against improvements to the VA and Veterans benefits? How can you claim to be patriots when you vote to go to war, sending men and women into harms way, but refuse to help veterans upon their return from war?

It’s my understanding that votes against the bills prior to the scandal were mostly due to what was attached to those bills in addition to the VA funding, i.e. they were not clean veterans bills. Here’s what I think about those who serve our country: They should be decently paid to start with and they deserve and should swiftly receive every benefit they are entitled to. That said, we haven’t been in a real “war” since WWII. I don’t believe in sending our soldiers into harm’s way to fight for our country and putting stupid fetters on them. War means vanquishing your enemy by any and all means necessary, civilians and infrastructure be damned. There is no “moral high ground” in a war, other than the principles being fought for. You fight to vanquish the enemy and lose as few of your own troops in the process as necessary, period. And when it’s over, you TAKE the conquered territory, and govern or dispose of it as you see fit as the victor, and it should be to benefit YOU, as the victor. If you’re not prepared to do that, you have no business “going to war”. People said we went into Iraq for oil…..if so, where the hell is it? Why are my gas prices still so high? If we were going to help Kuwait militarily as treaty partners by going to war the first time, then we should have not only pushed the Iraqis out but OWNED Iraq by the end of the fighting and completely destroyed their government and their military. If we’re not prepared to do that, then we should stay the hell out of global conflicts. You can’t be the “nice guys with American values” and actually WIN anything worth winning in any of these conflicts if you’re not prepared to scorch the earth and start over. Let them fight it out amongst themselves and the chips fall where they may unless we’re willing to fight to WIN, not to make friends. I think we’ve seen that doesn’t work….in Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. I’m not necessarily an isolationist, but I believe that our duty is to America first, and our soldiers’ lives should not be squandered for anything less than the survival of our way of life. Human nature is what it is; we’re never going to be all one big happy planet earth and we can’t “save” everyone.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 25, 2014 @ 1:21 am

No, I’m not insulted! I like the idea of being a “hybrid”. I’ll take the compliment, and can you throw in a battery recharge?

» Posted By cyndibru On June 13, 2014 @ 12:51 pm

Having a sunset date is certainly preferable to what we have now. I’d still prefer we eliminate subsidies all together, and if we use the criteria of who/what got subsidies in the past to justify giving out new ones, they’ll never end. But like most issues, it would be a step in the right direction.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 13, 2014 @ 12:45 pm

Thank you for the compliment. I am enjoying talking with you here. I frequently find that when we talk things through, there are many points of agreement. (you can be Bernie Sanders, I guess I’ll have to be John McCain, for now at least). At least something got done.

I don’t like the lobbying either. If I were in Congress, I’d go batshit crazy listening to that all the time. But life has become so complicated in today’s day and age that NO congressperson can be an expert on things, so what do they do when they’re looking for someone to write legislation? They turn to the “experts”…..who also happen to have a financial stake in whatever “problem” the legislation is trying to address. Look at the ACA and the insurance industry, and just keep on going and you find that influence in everything, before you even GET to the money. When you look at how complicated and intertwined it all is, it can really give you a hopeless feeling.

I don’t think anyone should prevent energy alternative research and implementation, and I don’t believe that is a CONSERVATIVE goal. It might be a corporate goal on the part of some companies whose products it would supplant, but that’s to be expected. I don’t see it as a conservative government goal.

As a conservative, I don’t feel it’s ALL about money, but it’s certainly a component. There is a FINITE amount of it to go around. We as government can’t fund everything, no matter how good or noble it is. Yet every year, no matter who is in charge, someone wants to do MORE, and comes up with yet another need that somehow we as a collective must meet. But on a PERSONAL political level, money is one of the reasons I AM a conservative. I’d like to keep more of mine, to pay for what I and my family need and feel is important, and to pursue our happiness. I honestly don’t feel this big urge or need to worry about the furtherance of human well being, or fulfill the needs of all mankind. It’s just not possible.

I believe this nation was founded on the principles of individual liberty, not the collective. Yes, there are times we need to do things that are for the common good…..defense, roads, police, fire, public schools, the list goes on….but it has to stop somewhere.

My list of “worries” starts with me and my individual family, and moves outward from there, to extended family, friends, local community, state, nation, world. If you think of life on this planet as a big circle, I start at the center and work out. I think a lot of “progressives” or liberals call this egocentric and find it to be a moral failing, but me, I believe one’s first responsibility is to have one’s own house in order so as not to need or rely upon the charity of others, and therefore have some to give to those who are incapable (not unwilling) to do so. I’m not mean, cruel, or hard-hearted, but I realize and recognize my limits and means of influence and of responsibility. I don’t spend a lot of time worrying about what “may” happen, or how long I’ll live, etc. I could get hit by a bus tomorrow and it’s all moot.

My overall view of progressives and liberals is that they tend to be more emotion driven, and when they have “worries”, they extend to everyone. If you compare to my previous circle example, they tend to be on the circumference, through a global view lens and then work their way in. They feel more of a responsibility to “save” everyone, even from themselves, than I do. While this is noble, I don’t find it practical. While I’m satisfied with “good enough”, they tend to be crusaders. Which is fine, the world needs people like that. Occasionally, I’ll even be persuaded to join a particular crusade. But overall, I’m wary of it.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 13, 2014 @ 2:12 am

Your points about foreign oil are very accurate. I think that is why you hear the “drill, baby, drill” slogan — it’s real meaning is that we should lessen our dependence on foreign oil. The point, while it may be simplistic, is don’t let these nations hold us by our short hairs because we’re reluctant to harvest our own resources. Most of the imported oil goes to power our vehicles, not electric power generation. Until we all have other types of vehicles, gas prices are always a concern. Until the costs of alternative vehicles comes down, the average American just can’t afford to purchase one, even if they’d like to. And high gas prices hit those people in the wallets hard, both for personal transportation and in the rising costs of goods and services.

When it comes to supporting alternative energy research, where I think you and I might differ is what you mean by “support”. I don’t like the corporate subsidies we have NOW. I’d like to get rid of them. If you look at history, almost every subsidy for any reason (not just energy) started as a “good idea” that a majority in Congress thought should be “encouraged” by direct governmental funding or tax breaks. And then they run amok. So I’m not personally in favor of dishing out any more, no matter how “good” the cause is. IMO, it’s how we ended up with this vastly bloated government funding everything under the sun (no pun intended).

I think the best incentive for progress is an economic one — invent the products or technology that fill a need, solve a problem, and you don’t need incentives. The world beats a path to your door, your company is successful. Right now, we need cleaner energy sources at affordable prices, and that’s why the alternative energy sectors are expanding rapidly, and that’s where I think the breakthroughs will come from. The “establishment” is rarely the innovator.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 12, 2014 @ 8:13 pm

I’m assuming that there was some kind of application of the batteries you’re referring to above when it comes to solar power generation and storage? I can see where you wrap it all up into one package, but I see electric production to the grid to power our homes and businesses as something different than what powers our vehicles. Are you aware of any instances of withholding patented technology when it comes to electric power production?

» Posted By cyndibru On June 12, 2014 @ 7:50 pm

I am not as familiar with hydro. I toured the Hoover Dam, absolutely fascinating. I know in my area, there isn’t hydro on the main rivers due to river traffic. When I think of micro hydro I think of the old mills and their water wheels. Do you have any links to info about micro hydro and mid-sized hydro that would explain more about them?

» Posted By cyndibru On June 12, 2014 @ 7:45 pm

Kt, you said above:
“Actually, the federal government gives electricity producers generous tax incentives to invest in alternative energy. Why would any smart businessman/woman not look to the future, especially when they are selling a product that is derived from a dwindling resource? Fossil fuels are a finite resource, not to mention, dirty and harmful to the very home we live in, Earth? If I were generating and selling electricity, I surely wouldn’t wait for the competition to come up with a better way of generating that electricity. I would definitely want to be the innovative leader in the business.”

In my previous converations with Nirek, we’ve made a distinction between power generating companies, and the actual coal, oil, and gas companies. Power generating companies ARE investing in alternatives, vigorously. They’ve increased wind and solar, etc. But they still have to keep the lights and heat and a/c on for everyone, and with current technology, they can’t do it with alternatives alone.

That’s just it. Most coal, oil and gas companies aren’t the power producers, they simply supply them. Most power companies (generating electricity and transmitting it) aren’t run by coal companies, natural gas companies, or oil companies. They’re separate entities that purchase these fuels to run their facilities. They ARE looking to the future, but they have to provide power in the present. And when they use alternatives, the percentage they purchase from coal, oil, and gas companies goes down, but until other fuel and technology SUPPLIERS continue to develop and innovate and come up with ways to generate on a grand and cost-effective scale, coal, oil and gas companies are going to be around. I think it’s naïve to expect THEM to contribute towards their own demise. They’re not worried until their competition starts outpacing them.

Many power companies ARE doing less and less of their own generation and becoming more centered on transmission and distribution. Alternative energy is opening up and expanding a whole new sector and changing the traditional setup. I’m just saying it’s not the coal, oil, and gas companies who are going to be the innovators there or the ones to come up with the solutions.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 12, 2014 @ 2:52 pm

(Sorry, hit the reply button before I was finished)
and have the financial ability to put long term benefits ahead of short term costs. I don’t hold out much hope on that one, based on past consumer behavior. When the technology is at the point that it works better and is more cost efficient, that’s when you’ll see the switch. Can government lead? Yes, and I think you’re right about how they should have been doing it all along with public buildings. In my area, that didn’t start with the Carter administration, that’s for sure. But since about 2005, the public school district I live in has done all of it’s new school buildings that way — solar panels, passive design, etc. It requires a significant up front investment, but it makes long-term sense. Unfortunately, other things like the new courthouses have not been done that way….for two reasons. #1, they rebuilt them in the urban core where they are landlocked, and #2, they’ve been done in the way that has been the least expensive to get what they need to provide the public services now. That’s what I mean about the current realities….short term costs are a big reality and environmentalists haven’t been able to convince even the public entities that sustainable energy should be at the top of their list of concerns when looking at new projects or retrofitting old ones, so convincing enough individuals isn’t likely either.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 12, 2014 @ 12:25 pm

Sorry, Nirek…I haven’t moved on to your other questions yet because we’ve been discussing my previous answers in depth. I’m trying to take the time to really get into the issues you are raising rather than just giving a knee-jerk response. I’ll try to get to this one next when I have time.

» Posted By cyndibru On June 12, 2014 @ 12:11 pm