Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Election and Gaia

Expand Messages
  • Mike Doran
    David wrote: I was ... As we probably all were. Republicans did real well. I am not surprised. Saddened. But not surprised. It isn t magic nor is even that
    Message 1 of 4 , Nov 6 10:31 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      David wrote:

      I was
      > too engrossed in watching the election returns!

      As we probably all were.

      Republicans did real well.

      I am not surprised. Saddened. But not surprised.

      It isn't magic nor is even that Bush was that charming.

      Rather, the low density base grows.

      In 1960, 60 percent of the population lived in small towns and
      cities. That was your DFL base. The Republicans lived in the emerging

      Now, 60% live in the burbs. And that number grows.

      But it has its limits. That is why the economy fritters with
      stagnation, as the intense, 10 trillion dollar subsidies of free
      roads continuely looks for economic opportunity. Even now, people
      don't drive not because of cost but wait. Gridlock is the price of
      this transport--much like the lines for bread in the former Soviet
      Union. Politicians are for sale, as certainly they were in this
      election--because there is something basic to sell . . . like a war
      for oil. A billion dollars spent in places like South Dakota . . .

      But this shift in population is also why this Republican political
      expansion is as short sighted as their energy and envioronmental
      policy--and specific to my concern, to a living earth. And that is
      why at the end of the day I would rather be right and teaching it
      then wrong and belonging. My cup runneth over no matter how a long
      commuter in South Dakota votes.

      I have been posting on climate here and elsewhere for about 5 years
      and as the politics change my message really has not yet it has
      stayed on the cutting edge. And I am also convinced it will be there
      for decades. Truth has a way. Already Texico has run ads about
      a 'new' fuel that is not gas/oil in the Gulf of Mexico. What is this
      fuel? Methane from hydrates, of course. The climate implications of
      harvesting them will be enormous there. My view is what we are
      discussing, debating, about the sun and the biosphere's role in
      modulation, and to what degree and to what degree human activity
      interacts with this dynamic is SO far ahead of the curve that it
      isn't even in the scientific periodicals--but it will be. CO2 as a
      GHG is a loser, but Gaia in the context of cloud behavior, EMFs, is
      not, because it gets to the causal aspects of climate. It suffers
      from complexity, is about all. That is where education comes in.

      By 2009 Three Gorge will be filling and the climate implications of
      that are going to be impossible to ignore. By then we will have a
      visit to Hubbert's Peak, and I think the science of clouds will grow
      to the point that when we as a general public look back at this
      election, we will be very saddened collectively.
    • David
      If you look at the numbers, the shift was pretty small. Maybe 5 or so House seats, and two or three Senate seats. The Democrats had a net gain of one in
      Message 2 of 4 , Nov 6 11:24 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        If you look at the numbers, the shift was pretty small. Maybe 5 or
        so House seats, and two or three Senate seats. The Democrats had a
        net gain of one in Governors. What made it news was that the margin
        in the Senate was so small that this small shift changed the
        majority, and that this election went against the long-standing
        tradition that the party in the White House looses Congressional
        seats in off-year elections.

        I think you, and perhaps many others, may be overestimating the
        impact of last night. From a pure numbers standpoint, the Senate
        only changed a small amount. The Democrats lost 2 seats, and the
        Republicans gained 2. That's not that much. Rarely does a vote
        split straight along party lines. You almost always see cross-overs,
        and that's not going to change now.

        Assuming Johnson(D) holds onto his Senate seat for SD, which I think
        he will when all the recounting is over with, the worst the Democrats
        will see is a 52/47/1 split, and even that's assuming that Terrell(R)
        wins Louisiana in the upcoming runoff. If Landrieu(D) wins LA, then
        you have a 51/48/1 split. Either way, it'll be narrow difference.

        I just don't see that the numbers have changed enough to bring about
        the massive changes you're alluding to. Its not like the Republicans
        hold a 2/3 majority in both houses. Far from it, in fact. You will
        see some things brought about by the changes in committee
        chairmanships and changes in the legislative adgenda, which the
        majority party sets. Hopefully we'll finally get a Homeland Security
        Bill, and maybe some of the judicial nominations that Dachle has been
        blocking can finally be completed.

        And besides, just because I'm a Republican doesn't mean that I want
        to commit wholesale rape upon Planet Earth! I like clean air, clean
        water, a diverse and bountiful flora and fauna, etc etc, just as much
        as you or anybody else! I think you'll find that's the case with
        Republicans most of the time.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.