Tag Archive for ‘politics’ at Three Roads Blog

近來市售許多來源不明的仿冒煙油，無品牌的劣質煙油，購買鯊克電子菸煙油有鯊克系列和彩鯊系列兩大系列，煙油口味繁多，口感好，歡迎在線訂購。

Tag Archive for 'politics' Page 2 of 7

T. Boone Pickens

Published on July 25, 2008 in politics and trends.

Here’s what we know about T. Boone Pickens:

He’s from Texas. He’s a longtime oil man. He has been very involved in Republican politics. He was the money behind the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry in 2004. He also owns what looks like a Pomeranian.

The very same T. Boone Pickens is now putting $10 billion of his own money toward building the world’s largest wind farm in Texas. What’s more, he’s put forth an audacious plan to wean us from our addiction to foreign oil—almost all oil, actually.

According to Pickens, “the United States is the Saudi Arabia of wind power,” and the sooner we realize it, the sooner we’ll see economic revival in the heartland, where most of our country’s wind potential resides.

Unlike Al, Pickens is motivated less by the fear of climate change than by a distaste for high fuel prices and an addiction to foreign oil—an addiction that harms our economy and holds us hostage to petro-dictatorships in the Middle East. He also knows that drilling our way to oil independence is pure folly:

World oil production peaked in 2005. Despite growing demand and an unprecedented increase in prices, oil production has fallen over the last three years. Oil is getting more expensive to produce, harder to find and there just isn’t enough of it to keep up with demand.

The simple truth is that cheap and easy oil is gone.

In addition to erecting windmills, Pickens’ proposal, which he calls “Pickens Plan,” would have us fuel our cars entirely with natural gas and biofuels. Wind would supply the rest of our energy needs.

Learn more.

Obama

Published on July 2, 2008 in politics.

Disclaimer: the following post is my unfiltered opinion on matters political. Read it at your own risk.

I stand to the left of Obama on a lot of issues. So you’d think I would be troubled by his recent veer to the center.

Rejecting public financing; issuing wishy-washy statements on court rulings on gay marriage, capital punishment and guns; affirming Bush’s practice of allocating taxpayer money to religious charities; and airing uber-patriotic television ads—it has been quite a few weeks for Obama. The Economist referred to his recent behavior as “posturing, hedging and outright flip-flopping.”

Those things don’t bother me. They don’t because they make it clear that he is in it to win—and thank god for that, because I don’t think the country can afford—literally, figuratively, politically, militarily, diplomatically, environmentally, spiritually—a McCain presidency.

Obama is a pragmatist (that word has positive connotations for me). He knows that unwavering public commitment to every item on the progressive agenda will result in one thing: our country’s rapid movement away from every item on the progressive agenda.

NGOs, lobbyists, pundits and party apparatchiks derive strength from their strident adherence to a specific agenda. Candidates for president do not. When liberals ask Obama for total progressive purity, they essentially ask him to alienate 80-90 percent of the electorate. They ask him to lose.

I know what you’re saying—winning isn’t everything. But I would argue that this is a special case; it’s special for a number of reasons, but I’ll pick just two: the global climate and the U.S. Supreme Court. Both are inching toward the point of no return.

The Supreme Court: All of the liberal judges are, to be blunt, really, really old. Even crotchety Scalia is spry by comparison. And then there’s Thomas, Alito and Roberts, who have decades in front of them and seem to still exude a youthful extremism. If McCain is given the opportunity to replace any of the aging liberals on the bench, it could take half a century or more before the court regains a semblance of political moderation.

The Global Climate: We might be too late, but if we aren’t, it’s essential that we elect a president who believes in doing something about global climate change—not someone who merely uses the issue as a marketing tactic to differentiate himself from President Bush.

And then there’s the “Who is more likely to start another war in the Middle East?” test. We all know who fails that one.

Lest it be interpreted otherwise, please understand that I have a lot of positive reasons for supporting Obama, but above all of them, there is the fact that he is not John McCain.

I hold no personal animus toward McCain—just a strong conviction that he would be a terrible president.

Ethanol shmethanol

Published on June 23, 2008 in politics.

A DEPRESSING ARTICLE in today’s Times explores Obama’s ties with the domestic ethanol lobby.

Don’t get me wrong: I’d take his larger energy plan over McCain’s any day. But when Obama touts corn-based ethanol as a way to achieve energy independence, I get a little irritated and a lot cynical.

Who is Barack Obama?

Published on June 18, 2008 in politics and uncategorized.

HERE IS A VIRAL EMAIL that’s currently wending its way through the internets:

From: [Redacted]
To: [Redacted]
Subject: WHO IS BARACK OBAMA?

There are many things people do not know about BARACK OBAMA. It is every American’s duty to read this message and pass it along to all of their friends and loved ones.

Barack Obama wears a FLAG PIN at all times. Even in the shower.

Barack Obama says the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE every time he sees an American flag. He also ends every sentence by saying, “WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.” Click here for video of Obama quietly mouthing the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE in his sleep.

A tape exists of Michelle Obama saying the PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE at a conference on PATRIOTISM.

Every weekend, Barack and Michelle take their daughters HUNTING.

Barack Obama is a PATRIOTIC AMERICAN. He has one HAND over his HEART at all times. He occasionally switches when one arm gets tired, which is almost never because he is STRONG.

Barack Obama has the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE tattooed on his stomach. It’s upside-down, so he can read it while doing sit-ups.

There’s only one artist on Barack Obama’s iPod: FRANCIS SCOTT KEY.

Barack Obama is a DEVOUT CHRISTIAN. His favorite book is the BIBLE, which he has memorized. His name means HE WHO LOVES JESUS in the ancient language of Aramaic. He is PROUD that Jesus was an American.

Barack Obama goes to church every morning. He goes to church every afternoon. He goes to church every evening. He is IN CHURCH RIGHT NOW.

Barack Obama’s new airplane includes a conference room, a kitchen, and a MEGACHURCH.

Barack Obama’s skin is the color of AMERICAN SOIL.

Barack Obama buys AMERICAN STUFF. He owns a FORD, a BASEBALL TEAM, and a COMPUTER HE BUILT HIMSELF FROM AMERICAN PARTS. He travels mostly by FORKLIFT.

Barack Obama says that Americans cling to GUNS and RELIGION because they are AWESOME.

Actually, we can thank Christopher Beam over at Slate.com for the email.

Via: Democracy in America

CU-Boulder stumbles (again)

Published on May 28, 2008 in politics.

Stanley Fish, writing for the Times, takes aim at another “Colorado folly.” Perhaps seeking to clean up its image after the Ward Churchill mess, the University of Colorado recently announced it was raising money for a “Chair in Conservative Thought and Policy.” The idea is to balance the left-leaning faculty and student body by hiring a conservative professor. (Sarcastic commentators have called it ‘affirmative action’ for conservatives.)

Citing a good many reasons, Fish says it’s a silly idea, but he also cheekily offers himself up for the position, listing a generous salary requirement. In offering himself for the job, he makes his point that while conservative thought is a worthwhile area of study, it need not be taught by an actual conservative, because academia is about providing dispassionate teaching, not balancing political viewpoints.

Sense from John McCain?

Published on May 27, 2008 in politics.

FINALLY, some sense from John McCain on foreign policy.

Although it’s a little bizarre coming from the same guy who would also boot Russia from the G8.

Methinks the Russians will become less and less excited about cooperating with us on nuclear proliferation if we’re also busy isolating them. Then again, I’ve stopped expecting coherent policy positions from McCain. Part of his maverick appeal, I guess, is being sort of schizophrenic.

Mah-widge

Published on May 23, 2008 in politics.

IT LOOKS LIKE MARRIAGE is back in the spotlight, or hot seat, depending on your point of view. Expect a whole new round of “DOMA” (defense of marriage act) ballot initiatives this fall, and not just in California.

The irony is that those who purport to defend the institution of marriage seek to defend something that doesn’t exist anymore—and hasn’t for over 300 years. Or so says Stephanie Coontz, director of research and public education at the Council on Contemporary Families and author of “Marriage, A History: How Love Conquered Marriage.”

In January Coontz wrote a post—essentially a distilled version of her book—for the Cato Unbound, a blog of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank. In her post she outlines the evolution of marriage.

For most of it history, she says, marriage has been a way to put people in their place and distribute (read: concentrate) wealth and power. Coontz: “[For] millennia, marriage was much more about regulating economic, political, and gender hierarchies than nourishing the well-being of adults and their children. Until the late 18th century, parents took for granted their right to arrange their children’s marriages and even, in many regions, to dissolve a marriage made without their permission.”

Love, compatibility, equity and equality—the things we now associate with marriage—weren’t considered as a basis for matrimony until the Enlightenment, a short 300 years ago.

“These [Enlightenment] marital ideals appalled many social conservatives of the day,” she says. “’How will we get the right people to marry each other, if they can refuse on such trivial grounds as lack of love?’” they asked. “Just as important, how will we prevent the wrong ones, such as paupers and servants, from marrying? What would compel people to stay in marriages where love had died? What would prevent wives from challenging their husbands’ authority?”

Not much has changed. The idea that love is the only prerequisite for marriage, the principle that drives advocates for marriage equality, doesn’t sway conservatives today for the same reason it didn’t sway conservatives 300 years ago: Marriage is about proper societal organization and allegiance to Judeo-Christian morality, not merely the love between two people.

Some so-called defenders of marriage aren’t actually trying to save the institution of marriage as it exists today; it’s already too far gone to be saved. They’d have to turn back the clock to pre-Enlightenment times. Instead, they’re trying to save us from what they see is the socially and morally destructive aspects of homosexuality, and if they can no longer have an outright ban on same-sex relationships (not politically feasible or culturally acceptable anymore), they’ll settle for a ban on same-sex marriage (still politically feasible and culturally acceptable—though I suspect not for much monger, what with Millennials showing an exceptionally high level of tolerance for the untraditional).

Anyway, check out the Coontz’s post. Very illuminating.

Three Roads Blog