Coming Home, part deux

Dinner is finished. It’s really kind of good the trip is ending because I am ready to be home.

No one mentioned the Ohio and Texas races! (Ok, not in my quick review anyway…) It think it’s really big news to have two Democrats having at it this late in the game. I’m traveling in a group that’s 8 Democrats to 2 Republicans and evenly divided amongst those two candidates. Interesting talk.

Of course I have hundreds of pictures (shooting digital) and it will take a while to get through them. One I hope to get up someday is the wild whirling patterns in the mountains. The sedimentary flatland heaved up into these almost fingerprint patterns all over in one area. Seeing that started some thinking.

If something like it were to happen today – if mountains were to heave up and change the landscape dramatically while we witnessed the process – would Democrats blame the Republicans? If a Democrat were President would the blame be reversed?

This isn’t an opening to debate global warming (which I am sure you would do regardless of my prompting), but more an invitation to debate blame. Who gets it, do they earn it, is it a part of the game? Why?

I have to get up at an unbearable hour tomorrow to sit in an airport hoping for a plane. SATURDAY(not Friday) night I’ll be at the Elmbrook Humane Society fund raiser. Saturday I’ll start sorting through photos as I catch up on laundry.

Let me know topics you want to explore. We’ll start again in earnest on Monday if nothing else comes up.

Comments

  1. Kathryn says:

    LOL, Cindy! Bret Favre announced his retirement Tuesday. The Texas and Ohio primaries were “the other big story we’re following.”

  2. Global Warming is ALL of our fault, not one party. It’s silly you’d even suggest that. If that’s what you were suggesting.

    As for TX and OH, I have to say i’m glad it’s gone on this far otherwise we might not have cultivated a Democratic resurgence in Ohio and Texas. This isn’t just more D’s voting than R’s because the R race is settled–we’re shattering all previous records.

    Texas will be in play this year, and Rick Noriega (a Democrat challenging John Cornyn) for Senate will benefit from Obama (and to a lesser dgree) Clinton coattails.

  3. Kathryn says:

    Hmm, I thought she was asking about BLAME as in how we assign it even for things that appear to just happen on someone’s watch–like earthquakes, economic cycles, el nino…. If my dog runs away, is it because there is a Republican in office? Can I blame him anyway? What if he’s partly responsible?

  4. That’s kind of rubbish! In general, I don’t like to blame anyone for anything (politics excluded!)

  5. Kathryn says:

    Yes, it can be rubbish, but it also has political impact. The party in the White House during an economic downturn gets blamed for the downturn–Jimmy Carter, George HW Bush. How much of that blame is well placed, how much should be placed on previous events? Is it fair to blame Bill Clinton for 9/11? The Saudi’s? If the Saudi’s had beheaded bin Laden instead of disowning him, would we have criticized them for that?

    I’m not even sure this is what Cindy was getting at, it’s just what came to mind when she asked. How do we decide who is politically responsible for what?

  6. Winegirl says:

    The EBHS “Wine and Whiskers” fundraiser is on Saturday, March 8 at the Elm Grove Women’s Club from 7 to 10 pm. Tickets are $ 50 per person. If you go on Friday night, the doors won’t be open–sorry!

  7. Well, I’d argue that Jimmy Carter got way too much blame thrown on him–but then I’d get torn apart by a few of the people here.

  8. Winegirl, THANK YOU! I get an extra day to get back to normal. (Whatever that is…)

  9. El gato says:

    Shawn, there are hundreds of scientists that do not believe the socialists baloney about the causes of global warming. They believe that sun spot activity is the more likely cause. I just read on the internet that global temperatures have actually had a significant decline…enough so that there is concern for global cooling which would be much more devastating than warmer temperatures. This global warming garbage is being advanced by the people who want a tax on the industrialized nations that can be used to give help to the backward nations. Socialism at it’s very worst!

  10. Lucky Lady says:

    Well said, El Gato! There is a conference going on right now in New York of scientists who debunk the global warming theory. But, of course, there won’t be any news coverage because this information doesn’t suit the Libs.

  11. Remember the 90’s, when people were sure that someone was labeling the backs of freeway signs so the Russians and the UN troops would know where to go when they invaded the US? Did anyone ever wonder why they wouldn’t just use the fronts of the signs and their own copy of Rand McNally?
    ….
    EVEN if global warming is a result of natural activity, should we not care about the results? EVEN if global warming is a myth, why does it have to be a conspiracy? Sometimes a bad idea is just a bad idea.

    And why should we get all excited about anything Glen Beck publishes? He is not claiming to be a journalist. He described himself recently as “an entertainer” and said anyone who votes based on his say-so is “an idiot.” (Sorry, I can’t site a source. I think it was one of those awful filler things on CNN. He was a part of a discussion.)

  12. Oops. My comment is awaiting moderation. Guess that makes me the crank for today.

  13. MSM?

  14. Mainstream Media.

    “Socialists.” Why don’t you and Joe McCarthy stop your love affair? In case you didn’t get the memo, the red scare ended a few decades ago.

    How can you say that because 2 people say global warming isn’t real that they are right when 5 people say it is real and you ignore it.

    Maybe we can take in ALL viewpoints (even the scientific ones!)

  15. Does demand for ethanol have more to do with petroleum dependence than global warming? It still pollutes, it requires fertilizer, and corn, at least, badly depletes the soil.

  16. Corn is evil, no matter how you spin it.

  17. It also an issue of national security.

  18. El gato says:

    It’s somewhat odd to consider ethanol to be an issue of national security while the fight against the terrorists in the Middle East is a Bush folly. How does that compute? Ethanol production is the biggest economic disaster the politicians have forced on us in a very long time!

  19. Foreign Oil is an issue of national security, guys.

  20. And the amount of ethanol we can possibly produce will not amount to a hill of beans compared to the total amount of foreign oil we use. Foreign oil will only become more important to us due to the tree huggers and liberals preventing exploration in our own territory. You can’t have your cake and eat it too!

  21. Kathryn says:

    Sorry guys, I’m lost now. Shawn, do you have a position on ethanol with regard to the environment and global warming?

  22. I was going to mention hydrogen, Dan, but I don’t know a great deal about it. I do know that the first answer (ethanol) isn’t always the better answer and often a leapfrog technology does better. Of course, it also happens that we mistakingly invest taxpayer money into a technology that isn’t the better choice and then spend the next few years defending that lesser choice.

    That was a long way of asking, is hydrogen better? Or will full electric (like the Volt) finally make the cut?

  23. I am pro-hydrogen, wind, geothermal, recycled carbon and solar.

    I’m not a supporter of corn ethanol. Cellulosic ethanol (sugar-based) is a different story.

    If it’s efficient, i suppport it.

  24. El gato says:

    Hydrogen powered transportation will not be viable for a very long time. Petroleum is it for a very long time! Of course a wind-powered car with a sail on it could be quite interesting!