Powershift! (Entertaining video)

Btw, why is the head of the EPA encouraging a group that is overtly political? Not to mention pretty unintelligent and ill-informed?

a group that is overtly political? Not to mention pretty unintelligent and ill-informed?

haha, I did not get to see the video yet, but this caught my eye
Could be the Democratic Party?
Could just as likely fit the Republican Party as well!?
hell, it could fit Redscape just as easily huh?

GMTom wrote:

a group that is overtly political? Not to mention pretty unintelligent and ill-informed?

haha, I did not get to see the video yet, but this caught my eye
Could be the Democratic Party?
Could just as likely fit the Republican Party as well!?
hell, it could fit Redscape just as easily huh?

Well, wait 'til you see it. No one at Redscape is this dumb.

Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta-Journal Constitution columnist, "sheds light" on why gas prices are so high: it's because we don't all live in the world of Judge Dredd.

Over the last 30 years, suburban and exurban development, especially in fast-growing Sunbelt cities, have produced sprawling mega-lopolises, wherein workers may live an hour’s drive (or more) from the workplace. Those suburbs aren’t exclusive enclaves of the affluent, either. Many suburbs are economically and racially diverse, so more families of modest means live far from work. A dime a gallon can break the budget.

It’s easy to look back and see what might have been: If Congress and state legislatures had adopted policies back in the 1970s that discouraged never-ending sprawl and encouraged public transit, they would have slowed consumption and eased the pain at the pump. Of course, we can’t travel back in time for a do-over.

But even those policies we could still adopt — pouring serious money into research and development of alternative fuels and boosting public transit, for example — are stalled by Congressional bickering and inertia. Perhaps we’ll get serious when gas reaches ten dollars a gallon.

To many liberals, the government should tell you where to live, what to drive (actually, make driving nearly impossible), and basically run your life. That qualifies as "fair" and "democratic."

Insane. Un-American.

Steve quotes from one of my very least favorite pundits, Cynthia Tucker, talking about cities/suburbs, sprawl, public transit, and gas prices, and says...

Doctor Fate wrote:To many liberals, the government should tell you where to live... Insane. Un-American.

I don't really disagree with your sentiments, but you are totally overlooking the fact that government no matter what plays a huge role in determining land use patterns and has since Ur. They set zoning regs, construction standards, and review development plans. They have a big say in where sewers and water supply pipes will be laid. They decide where the main streets, if not each and every one, will be built. They very often set minimum acreage limits for detached dwellings, sometimes justifying them by citing traffic loads. And when it comes to public transit - meaning anything from city subways to suburban bus lines to intercity rail - they often run the things as public services or determine the routes and schedules. All of this has an enormous influence on density patterns and forward-looking city and regional planners have for many decades been fighting to have the use of all these governmental powers (and more) shifted so as to encourage higher densities and greater efficiencies in not just transport but also construction, heating/cooling, and the provision of public services. Many - irrespective of partisan affiliation - have also bemoaned the way residential building patterns have eroded all sense of "neighborhood" and with it a large degree of neighborliness.

I suppose the radical libertarians among us would argue that a zero role for government in this process would be an improvement. If so, their arguments would be entirely speculative since there's no example in history of any city being built without some degree of centralized "planning". In ancient times that might have meant the building of the "city walls" or at least the drawing of an imaginary line (i.e. a border) within which one enjoys the protection of the collective city defenses. Wanna' bet that had an influence on population density patterns?

On the other hand, there are no real examples of a true city being built 100% by centralized planners, even in the most centralized economies. Land development is always a dynamic process with private and public entities/interests often in conflict.

Is it un-American to use the powers of city/town government to encourage rational land use? LOL. Yes and no. IMHO one of the least rational uses of land is the American single-family detached dwelling as found in the typical suburban subdivision. Some lawn and a white fence, a garage, and 2.3 children. The meme has a strange origin and history, as does the USA itself. (The concept of the frontier spirit is part of the story.) There's nothing quite like the prototypical American suburb anywhere else in the world. (Canada comes closest.) You may love the idea or hate it, but there's no question that 1) public authority has encouraged its spread (intentionally or not), and 2) it results in sprawl, low densities, long commutes, and higher per capita fuel use.

I didn't even click on your link to see what Tucker had to say in detail. Don't care. I'm simply saying that to the extent you think it's un-American and insane to have government influence where people live you couldn't be more wrong. Land use has always been influenced by governments and always will be; they can use that influence wisely or not; they can try to maximize their influence or not. In America there's been very little effort to minimize government influence.

Minister X wrote:Steve quotes from one of my very least favorite pundits, Cynthia Tucker, talking about cities/suburbs, sprawl, public transit, and gas prices, and says...

Doctor Fate wrote:To many liberals, the government should tell you where to live... Insane. Un-American.

I don't really disagree with your sentiments, but you are totally overlooking the fact that government no matter what plays a huge role in determining land use patterns and has since Ur. They set zoning regs, construction standards, and review development plans. They have a big say in where sewers and water supply pipes will be laid. They decide where the main streets, if not each and every one, will be built. They very often set minimum acreage limits for detached dwellings, sometimes justifying them by citing traffic loads.

True now--and especially in places like MA, where every rainstorm creates more "wetlands" that must be protected. However, I don't believe the sum total of the Westward expansion could fairly be described as one that was "master-planned."

Is it un-American to use the powers of city/town government to encourage rational land use? LOL. Yes and no. IMHO one of the least rational uses of land is the American single-family detached dwelling as found in the typical suburban subdivision. Some lawn and a white fence, a garage, and 2.3 children. The meme has a strange origin and history, as does the USA itself. (The concept of the frontier spirit is part of the story.) There's nothing quite like the prototypical American suburb anywhere else in the world. (Canada comes closest.) You may love the idea or hate it, but there's no question that 1) public authority has encouraged its spread (intentionally or not), and 2) it results in sprawl, low densities, long commutes, and higher per capita fuel use.

What Tucker wrote was un-American. Why? Because she suggested that the US, beginning in the 70's, should have mandated tenement-style housing complete with public transportation hubs. The federal government does not have the power to do this and if it tried, I believe, it would collapse.

I didn't even click on your link to see what Tucker had to say in detail. Don't care. I'm simply saying that to the extent you think it's un-American and insane to have government influence where people live you couldn't be more wrong.

I understand what you mean. That's just not quite within the parameters Tucker proposed. She said the federal and state governments could have saved a lot of oil/energy by forcing people into housing situations that only New Yorkers would support.

Land use has always been influenced by governments and always will be; they can use that influence wisely or not; they can try to maximize their influence or not. In America there's been very little effort to minimize government influence.

If anything as overt as what Tucker suggests happened, there would be, um, "unrest."

I finally watched the clip. While we can take any such group and make them look foolish by collecting clips of the right few individuals, this one is disturbing because the entire concept of "Powershift" is one of radical environmentalism and it is being sponsored and encouraged by the Democratic Party. Instead of accepting them and sort of brushing them aside out of the spotlight, they are ENCOURAGED and I simply can not fathom why Dems want to be linked to such extremism.

GMTom wrote:. . . I simply can not fathom why Dems want to be linked to such extremism.

1. Democrats of the Gore/Pelosi ilk generally agree with PowerShift.

2. PowerShift folks, no matter how ill-informed vote.

3. You can't win close elections without worker drones. Welcome PowerShift!

Just saw this and I think it speaks to exactly what I'm saying:

How do you build a volunteer army of young voters by pushing policies that require those same young voters to keep paying into an unsustainable entitlement system? I don’t know, but hey — they’ve still got that pretty logo going for them, and I’ll bet their next mantra-like campaign slogan is awesome. “Commitment to Change,” maybe? “Operation Enduring Hope”? Messina’s working on it, no doubt. . . .

Here’s Messina urging O-bots to imagine this not as a reelection bid but as an “insurgent campaign.” Which, per the left’s new rules of rhetoric post-Tucson, presumably makes him guilty of inciting terrorism.

The blog also notes this sad poll news:

Obama, like previous presidents in times of high oil prices, is taking a hit. Only 39 percent of those who call gas prices a “serious financial hardship” approve of the way he is doing his job, and 33 percent of them say he’s doing a good job on the economy…

The Post-ABC poll results show that 60 percent of independents who say they’ve been hit hard by surging gas prices also say they definitely won’t support Obama in his bid for reelection.

In a theoretical match-up with former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, the top GOP performer in the Post-ABC poll, Romney wins by a 24-point margin among the independents who have taken a severe financial hit because of gas prices, and the president is up 7 percentage point among others.

Thankfully, he's got "Powershift!" On the facts alone, the President won't get re-elected. It will take an army of nit-wits to bring home the victory.

Doctor Fate wrote:Thankfully, he's got "Powershift!" On the facts alone, the President won't get re-elected. It will take an army of nit-wits to bring home the victory.

Neutral question: Don't you think that there's the serious danger that with all Palins and Bachmanns out there any Republican who wants to win the nomination will have to drift too far to the right for him/her to challenge a sitting President ?

My hope,
In a close election with two moderate candidates, then the far extremes need to be courted. But when you have an Obama who sits far to the left, then (I'm hoping) a somewhat moderate Republican will not need to court such extremes, they will have little choice but to vote for the lesser of two evils (in their mind).That's not to say this is what WILL happen but what should happen. Then again, the Democrats continued to run candidates that were from the far left of their party for so long and that's why they kept losing, Obama won due to a faltering economy and two wars, it was hard NOT to win. All they needed to do was run a moderate person and they would have won handily. So what makes me think the Republicans will run a somewhat moderate person? Lately it's the extremists that generate all the buzz and excitement (on both sides) just look at the Tea party and Sara Palin, but there is no NEED to run someone from the far right and the way to unseat Obama is in fact to run someone who will take more of those just left of center votes.

Faxmonkey wrote:Neutral question: Don't you think that there's the serious danger that with all Palins and Bachmanns out there any Republican who wants to win the nomination will have to drift too far to the right for him/her to challenge a sitting President ?

I don't think the Republican nominee is going to have to drift too far to the right. My reason is this. There is no Democratic contest. It does not look like President Obama is going to face any primary competition. Therefore, Independants will most likely choose to vote on the Republican ballots in all the open and partially open primaries. The first 3 primaries, New Hampshire, Michigan, & South Carolina are all open or partially primaries. Further 9 out of the 19 Super Tuesday primaries are open (not sure if any of the other 10 are partial open primaries)

The fact that Independants are typically more moderate in their political positions will have a great impact on candidates positioning. Therefore, they aren't going to have to move as far right as they did in 2008.

Archduke Russell John wrote:

Faxmonkey wrote:Neutral question: Don't you think that there's the serious danger that with all Palins and Bachmanns out there any Republican who wants to win the nomination will have to drift too far to the right for him/her to challenge a sitting President ?

I don't think the Republican nominee is going to have to drift too far to the right. My reason is this. There is no Democratic contest. It does not look like President Obama is going to face any primary competition. Therefore, Independants will most likely choose to vote on the Republican ballots in all the open and partially open primaries. The first 3 primaries, New Hampshire, Michigan, & South Carolina are all open or partially primaries. Further 9 out of the 19 Super Tuesday primaries are open (not sure if any of the other 10 are partial open primaries)

The fact that Independants are typically more moderate in their political positions will have a great impact on candidates positioning. Therefore, they aren't going to have to move as far right as they did in 2008.

I think there's some truth here. However, do we really need another McCain--too timid to even critique Obama? The only reason Trump is gaining traction, other than the fact that most people don't know his record, is that he is blasting away.

I would not be shocked if someone gets in who has said "no, no, no," especially if Trump makes headway or if Romney seems unable to get traction. I think Ryan, Christie, or even Jeb could feel forced to get in.

I disagree agree Steve. Just because a nominee is moderate doesn't mean he are going to run a timid campaign. If anything, I think we will see the opposite. The Republican nominee will be hitting Obama hard on making him look too extreme and himself as the sensible moderate. That is the way General election campaigns go, i.e. both sides trying to take the middle. The problem usually comes in that the candidate had to tack to the extreme in the primary to get the nomination so that he looks disingenuous trying to move back to the center, i.e. I voted for it before I voted against it. I don't think the Republican going to have that kind of a problem next year because I don't think he will have to move that far right.

McCain was a different issue really. There wasn't really a lot to hit Obama with during the campaign. We have to remember that Obama had two terms in the Illinois State Senate where he didn't do a lot and 2 years in the U.S. Senate where he did even less. There was nothing to run against. Except for tenuous tangential issues like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayres. It is pretty well known those issues didn't really matter to the majority of the electorate and hitting him on them would only look desperate and irritate the independents.

Doctor Fate wrote: especially if Trump makes headway or if Romney seems unable to get traction. I think Ryan, Christie, or even Jeb could feel forced to get in.

Ryan has no interest in running for President and neither does Christie. I also think it is too soon for another Bush. Trump is a joke and won't last past June. I think the Republican nomination race is going to be between four candidates. Romney, Pawlenty, Daniels and Huntsman. I think Romeny drops out after 3rd place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire and Daniels is out after a 3rd place finish in South Carolina. The fight will be between Pawlenty and Huntsman on Super Tuesday.

of course this is assuming the all run and with Barbour announcing he isn't, I think they all are.