Obama '08?

"Make production of huge gas guzzlers a money losing deal, and we get smaller, more fuel efficient cars and no more resistence on the part of the car manufacturers."

What real leaders would do is provide an incentive to car makers to make cars efficient immediately, not some token bullsh!t 30 MPG in 10 years or whatever. Do we have leaders who have the balls to DO IT NOW and not wait another 30 years?

Obama certainly is not one.

Can't remember it that well - if you're not 40 years old, what's the max age you could have been during carter's term? 10 or 11?

Lola wrote:

Besides that, a person has to be over 40 to remember Jimmy Carter.

Alright -- then it must be some other Jimmy Carter I remember.

Lola wrote:

It's not a very effective line anyway, although I agree with you and with Bear that these sound bite messages are what we all deserve.

Although I happen to agree with Bear that the soundbite-ification of politics is unfortunate, that wasn't the point I was making in my post. My point was about McCains remarkable passivity.

This passivitgy shows on the soundbite level, but continues when you go to his webpage and read his statements on the political issues. The lack of initiative and original ideas in his campaign is appalling even when you compare him with his defeated Republican competition -- Mitt Romney for example. If I was a Republican, I'd hope McCain is consciously playing rope-a-dope. Because the alternative is that he's out of gas at the starting line of the general election campaign.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Can't remember it that well - if you're not 40 years old, what's the max age you could have been during carter's term? 10 or 11?

No idea. All I can say is that I remember Carter, and I am of the adolescent age of 39.5

Foxfyre wrote:

Lola wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

There are many many different forms of mental illness. Most are not self inflicted but some are.

http://www.webmd.com/anxiety-panic/mental-health-causes-mental-illness

Most of our problems are self inflicted. That's not the question. How able we are to do otherwise is the real issue. Most of us need help some of the time. Some much more than others. It's an over simplification, I know but I'm hungry and want to go eat dinner.

Not an over simplification at all. I think none of us are 100% self sufficient nor can any of us say that we never need help. Sometimes we cannot solve our problem unless we are willing to ask for or accept available help. I think, however, that we can sometimes fail to see the harmful consequences in the "help" we offer.

Obviously too much help or the wrong kind or help, the kind that encourages unnecessary dependency has harmful consequences. It's knowing what kind of help and how much that matters. But the use of the word choice indicates a judgement about motivation that cannot be known. It would be better to use another word that better describes what you mean.

"Make production of huge gas guzzlers a money losing deal, and we get smaller, more fuel efficient cars and no more resistence on the part of the car manufacturers."

What real leaders would do is provide an incentive to car makers to make cars efficient immediately, not some token bullsh!t 30 MPG in 10 years or whatever. Do we have leaders who have the balls to DO IT NOW and not wait another 30 years?

Obama certainly is not one.

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Can't remember it that well - if you're not 40 years old, what's the max age you could have been during carter's term? 10 or 11?

No idea. All I can say is that I remember Carter, and I am of the adolescent age of 39.5

I'm a few months older than Thomas, still shy of 40, and I recall Carter years vividly.

Lola wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Lola wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

There are many many different forms of mental illness. Most are not self inflicted but some are.

http://www.webmd.com/anxiety-panic/mental-health-causes-mental-illness

Most of our problems are self inflicted. That's not the question. How able we are to do otherwise is the real issue. Most of us need help some of the time. Some much more than others. It's an over simplification, I know but I'm hungry and want to go eat dinner.

Not an over simplification at all. I think none of us are 100% self sufficient nor can any of us say that we never need help. Sometimes we cannot solve our problem unless we are willing to ask for or accept available help. I think, however, that we can sometimes fail to see the harmful consequences in the "help" we offer.

Obviously too much help or the wrong kind or help, the kind that encourages unnecessary dependency has harmful consequences. It's knowing what kind of help and how much that matters. But the use of the word choice indicates a judgement about motivation that cannot be known. It would be better to use another word that better describes what you mean.

No, I think most who move in circles applicable to the word 'choice' in this context would define it as I do.

For me 'choice' is power. It is not accepting that anybody is too inferior or incapable or powerless or disadvantaged to escape their circumstances, conditioning, environment, etc. It is not promoting notiions that it is necessary to accept being a ward of the government or whatever along with whatever restrictions the keeper chooses to impose.

I think the best help is helping people to understand that sociopolitical caste systems in this country are an illusion. I think the best help is to help people see the possibilities out there and what choices are available to them and helping them find the courage and desire to make the best decisions to achieve them. And I think too often government programs intended to help are actually cruel deterrents to people making the choice to empower themselves in positive ways.

I am waiting for a President AND Congress who are willing to understand both the short term and long term consequences of what government does and who choose to do good AND do no harm.

Frankly I don't think either Obama or McCain are stellar examples of leaders with a good handle on that.

He drinks because she scolds, he thinks;
She thinks she scolds because he drinks;
And neither will admit what's true,
That he's a sot and she's a shrew.

You and Thomas were political boy geniuses.

Anyway, you are ignoring my point. Silly you.

woiyo wrote:

"Make production of huge gas guzzlers a money losing deal, and we get smaller, more fuel efficient cars and no more resistence on the part of the car manufacturers."

What real leaders would do is provide an incentive to car makers to make cars efficient immediately, not some token bullsh!t 30 MPG in 10 years or whatever. Do we have leaders who have the balls to DO IT NOW and not wait another 30 years?

Obama certainly is not one.

That's funny, he's proposing that sort of thing through tax credits and raising of the fuel economy standards. Detroit screams bloody murder every time someone brings higher fuel efficiencies up, though...

Cycloptichorn

Foxfyre wrote:

Lola wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Lola wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

There are many many different forms of mental illness. Most are not self inflicted but some are.

http://www.webmd.com/anxiety-panic/mental-health-causes-mental-illness

Most of our problems are self inflicted. That's not the question. How able we are to do otherwise is the real issue. Most of us need help some of the time. Some much more than others. It's an over simplification, I know but I'm hungry and want to go eat dinner.

Not an over simplification at all. I think none of us are 100% self sufficient nor can any of us say that we never need help. Sometimes we cannot solve our problem unless we are willing to ask for or accept available help. I think, however, that we can sometimes fail to see the harmful consequences in the "help" we offer.

Obviously too much help or the wrong kind or help, the kind that encourages unnecessary dependency has harmful consequences. It's knowing what kind of help and how much that matters. But the use of the word choice indicates a judgement about motivation that cannot be known. It would be better to use another word that better describes what you mean.

No, I think most who move in circles applicable to the word 'choice' in this context would define it as I do.

For me 'choice' is power. It is not accepting that anybody is too inferior or incapable or powerless or disadvantaged to escape their circumstances, conditioning, environment, etc. It is not promoting notiions that it is necessary to accept being a ward of the government or whatever along with whatever restrictions the keeper chooses to impose.

I think the best help is helping people to understand that sociopolitical caste systems in this country are an illusion. I think the best help is to help people see the possibilities out there and what choices are available to them and helping them find the courage and desire to make the best decisions to achieve them. And I think too often government programs intended to help are actually cruel deterrents to people making the choice to empower themselves in positive ways.

I am waiting for a President AND Congress who are willing to understand both the short term and long term consequences of what government does and who choose to do good AND do no harm.

Frankly I don't think either Obama or McCain are stellar examples of leaders with a good handle on that.

If you could talk anyone out of behaving self destructively, the world would be a much easier and better place. But if you want an illustration of how poorly rational talking helps, just take a look back at all these political threads. Do you see very many people changing their minds? It's not that people who are hurting themselves don't know all that stuff you just said, it's that they can't make use of that information. A person has to be motivated to change behavior because they want to and talking, or "showing" is experienced as bitching, nagging or preaching. Charlie Brown's "wa wa wa wa." It's just ineffective. My trying to convince you about this point is, as a matter of fact, a good example of wasted effort.

Bernie reminds me of the Ogden Nash quote:

Quote:

He drinks because she scolds, he thinks;
She thinks she scolds because he drinks;
And neither will admit what's true,
That he's a sot and she's a shrew.

Ogden Nash, The Old Dog Barks Backwards, 1972.

As we have discussed in other context, I have been blessed to be in a position to see people change from a destructive lifestyle to a positive one. I have been blessed to see people beat what some would declare insurrountable odds to escape from their environment or circumstances. Yes, I have also seen those who for whatever reason did not do so. I once went with an attorney friend to visit a woman in the hospital where she was recovering from injuries intentionally inflicted by her husband. In much pain with broken ribs, nose, jaw, and cheekbone, she finally agreed to file for divorce, file charges, and escape to safety. A few hours later her idiot pastor preached to her about the sanctity of marriage and persuaded her to give him one more chance as he was very sorry about what he had done. The next time I saw her was at her funeral and I believe he is still probably serving a life sentence for her murder. (I have suspect there may be a cell somewhere in hell waiting for that preacher too.) I feel utterly helpless in situations like that, however, and no amount of government programs will stop it either.

I don't want the government making it easier for people to make unproductive or bad choices and/or even encouraging them to do so. And that is why I raise both eyebrows whenever I hear a politician expound on all the millions and billions he plans to spend to make things better for people. I simply don't believe that it will for most.

Foxfyre wrote:

As we have discussed in other context, I have been blessed to be in a position to see people change from a destructive lifestyle to a positive one. I have been blessed to see people beat what some would declare insurrountable odds to escape from their environment or circumstances. Yes, I have also seen those who for whatever reason did not do so. I once went with an attorney friend to visit a woman in the hospital where she was recovering from injuries intentionally inflicted by her husband. In much pain with broken ribs, nose, jaw, and cheekbone, she finally agreed to file for divorce, file charges, and escape to safety. A few hours later her idiot pastor preached to her about the sanctity of marriage and persuaded her to give him one more chance as he was very sorry about what he had done. The next time I saw her was at her funeral and I believe he is still probably serving a life sentence for her murder. (I have suspect there may be a cell somewhere in hell waiting for that preacher too.) I feel utterly helpless in situations like that, however, and no amount of government programs will stop it either.

I don't want the government making it easier for people to make unproductive or bad choices and/or even encouraging them to do so. And that is why I raise both eyebrows whenever I hear a politician expound on all the millions and billions he plans to spend to make things better for people. I simply don't believe that it will for most.

But if non profit charities do it through voluntary donations, it will help?