Loading ...The Great Debate
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels re-election campaign put out the following statement today regarding debates with Jill Long Thompson.
Two weeks ago we met with members of the Indiana Debate Commission and Governor Daniels agreed to participate in three debates to be held in three different regions of the state. Governor Daniels is looking forward to the debates as a way to discuss with Hoosiers the great progress Indiana has experienced in the last four years and as an opportunity to further share his positive vision for the future.”
No word yet from JLT but I’m sure the question will get asked when she has a news conference today at the Capitol on bringing more “green” jobs to Indiana.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:11 am
“Green” jobs? What is this, 2nd City Television? JLT is starting to sound like one of the cultists who are scamming Americans into spending their money on carbon credits (!????) and on various other taxes and other costs that grand master Gore and others are trying to justify using climate alchemy. If their profit motives weren’t so well funded, they’d be laughable. Jill should take a look at what’s happening in the real world. The following article was published only yesterday. Energy savings wasn’t the goal - the goal was taking people’s money:
.
http://www.mysuncoast.com/Global/story.asp?S=8756499
Florida ends voluntary green energy program
.
Associated Press - July 29, 2008 7:44 PM ET
.
MIAMI (AP) - Florida utility regulators today powered down an $11.4 million program designed to promote green energy, but whose budget overwhelmingly funded marketing and administrative costs.
.
The program, operated by Florida Power & Light and Austin, Texas-based Green Mountain Energy Company, charged willing FPL customers a $9.75 monthly fee in addition to their regular power bills. The parties were supposed to develop an extra 150 kilowatts of solar energy for every 10,000 residential customers who signed on to the Sunshine Energy program.
.
A Public Service Commission report last month said only 24% of the money collected from more than 38,000 households paid for actual energy. The rest funded marketing and administration costs to promote the program.
.
The Public Service Commission voted today to terminate the program, rather than revise it as FPL recommended.”
July 30th, 2008 at 11:24 am
well said shorebreak. Green jobs doing what? and with what money? who’s money? If it’s my money, your above Florida example makes me love “out of touch” Mitch who has enough common sense to dismiss this dumb idea. The debate will be interesting: positive vs negative. Or Luke Skywalker vs Darth Vader, or…I’m sure there are better comparisons.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:36 am
Take a breath, guys.
“Green jobs” means simply, putting together a program which uses the best-available teck, people and resources.
Over 400 of the Fortune 500 companies have green initiatives, for instance. Some are lip service, some are good. If we’re recruiting any of them to come here, might it be good to have the state up-to-speed and speaking the same language?
Don’t be such dinosaurs. Damn. If it’s nothing more than speaking the right words, who gets hurt?
My company’s green intiative is somewhat self-serving, for instance. We’ll save paper. And we produce documents that would choke a horse.
In our Indy office alone, the green initiative has already saved 400 reams of paper–this quarter. Over 1500 reams this year.
I think Green Initiatives can give everyone the opportunity to contribute. Don’t wet-blanket good initiatives.
July 30th, 2008 at 11:59 am
TA - I have no problem with sensible, cost saving, and environment friendly programs and practices. For example, my company (which probably goes through a small forest worth of paper every day) has recently required that all printing be double-sided. That’s a great initiative with positive cost and environmental impact.
.
What I don’t like is when these sensible programs are bundled together in policy initiatives that also include carbon credits and other fancy footwork that is used to justify taking more tax dollars. Or is used to justify corporate “green” initiatives that are used to lure customers into paying more money for programs that are nothing more than marketing ploys - like the one I demonstrated in post #1.
.
If policy makers could step off the media promoted environmental money train and step onto a solid platform of sensible and sustainable environmental stewardship, I wouldn’t be a harsh detractor. Until then, I’ll continue to speak the truth to their agenda.
July 30th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Well, Shore, your truth is another’s fantasy. But to each his own. Thanks.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
TA - Au contraire, mon Frère.
.
Take other recent so-called “green” initiatives that are falling flat on their faces. For example, the new bio-fuels plants that are shutting down - because energy costs have driven corn prices so high that it’s no longer an affordable source for bio-fuel:
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNewsAndPR/idUSN2437227120080627
.
And this: “Right now the so-called summer of ‘08 is on pace to produce the fewest days ever recorded in which the temperature in Anchorage managed to reach 65 degrees.
.
That unhappy record was set in 1970, when we only made it to the 65-degree mark, which many Alaskans consider a nice temperature, 16 days out of 365.”
http://www.adn.com/life/story/473786.html
.
And the following is a perfect example of how the global warming debate is being “managed”. Where true debate is required and is possible among the leading experts, those who control the debate do not allow it. If that doesn’t spell a-g-e-n-d-a, then I’m clearly in need of a refresher course in applied logic:
“American physicists warned not to debate global warming”
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/07/21/monckton_aps/
.
FYI - my examples are all recent (within the last ten days). I could produce enough material to send Al Gore running with his tail between his legs - if he was open to an open debate on the topic. He’s not. The UN is not. and the American Physical Society is not. Can you spell a-g-e-n-d-a? It’s pronounced “censorship to stifle the truth”.
July 30th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
And the climate / planet has not warmed in 10 years . . . but TA will obviously not “think again” about this issue. Who is living in fantasy land?
July 30th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
I direct you to the National Academy of Sciences. And the US Weather Service. You cna have your own opinion, but you cannot have your own facts. The earth has warmed. Whether or not it’s causing the chaos some claim, I doubt. But it has warmed, and perhaps it’s one of those subtle changes that would happen anyway–like forest fires caused by lightning, which have occured for millions of years.
Science has weighed in pretty heavily that we need to do what we can to reduce greenhouse gases, and I don’t think any rational or sane person doubts that any more.
And I’m not in favor of the ethanol nonsense, either. It’s a Farm Bureau hyped program to sell corn. Its effect on our economy is actually almost exactly the opposite of its intent.
Try to pay attention, huh?
July 30th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
If the science, causation, and resolution can’t be agreed upon, can we agree that there are a fixed quantity of natural resources (maybe even moreso than fiscal resources). Are we turn use them as quickly as possible, or agree to save some for our kids and old age?
July 30th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
I direct you to the American Physical (Physics) Society:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm
http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm
July 30th, 2008 at 4:41 pm
TA - you said in your first sentence:
“I direct you to the National Academy of Sciences.”
.
Read the following from the link below:
“In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”
- Frederick Seitz, former President of National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, commenting on the National Academy of Sciences report on climate change.
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm
.
Climate change is natural. Using it to generate tax based policy and for a profit motive is a carefully controlled farce - in order to get more of our money.
.
Taxpayer - I agree that conservative and careful use of natural resources is excellent policy. It’s the distortion and pseudo-science manipulations of the public and of policy for sake of profit and taxation that I disagree with.
July 30th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Et tu, Brute?
Is it to be the Two Party fiction again?
How’s that working? …Hmmm?
It’s one thing for the major parties to say that they’re the only choices. For the media to parrot the entrenched lie is a shameful thing.
The truth is that there is no debate between Democrats and Republicans. To them, government will grow ever-bigger, and citizens will become ever weaker, less significant, and more expendable.
I, sir, am the only choice for Rule of Law, order, peace and justice.
And yes, I’ll be in the Debate Commission debates.
July 30th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Andy - the media is clearly only concerned with collecting it’s 30 pieces of silver. Their bias is complicit with the illegal acts of corporate and ideoligically motivated officials who have been corrupting and distorting the rule of law (for their own benefit) for nearly a century. It’s my contention there can be no positive change back to lawful representative government - locally or nationally - without an unbiased media.
.
I work with PhD’s, PE’s, and folks from a very diverse and highly educated background. Yet most of them rely on popular media (ABCBSNBCNNFOXPBS) for their perspective and understanding of reality. In other words, I’m surrounded by highly educated people who walk around in a constant delusional state regarding their understanding of politics and the state of local, national, and international affairs. Overcoming that obstacle is a necessary yet monumental challenge if there is ever to be positive change towards lawful and Constitutional leadership.
July 31st, 2008 at 12:28 pm
Speaking of “green”, the following article (which is very well referenced at the end of the article) hits the profit motive square in the heart. Here’s the opening statement:
“Not one single day goes by in New Zealand now without a reference somewhere to global warming, and New Zealand’s requirement to comply with the Kyoto protocol. But few people realise that Kyoto was the brainchild of a corrupt multinational energy company, looking to make a buck out of the green movement.”
http://www.investigatemagazine.com/archives/2006/03/investigate_oct_5.html
.
I can’t help but wonder what kind of green program JLT wants to implement in Indiana - and what her motivation might be.