I do believe that reporters/journalist...

...believe that they represent the general public when they are covering politicians and candidates for public office and tend to act on that believe.

I also believe that politicians and candidates for public office also believe that they represent the general public and tend to act on that believe.

As a member of the general public, why do I feel left out?

This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farrwest.

Pick your Poison...

...would you like arsenic or cyanide?

Is that a crazy question or does it seem reasonable?  Would you like more information?  Is the  poison for a big animal or a small animal.  Is the poison meant for me or perhaps for someone else?  If the poison is meant for me or for those I love and respect, why am I facing this question?  Why is it an either/or question in the first place?  Surely there must be an alternative answer.

There should at least be an alternative question such as which ice cream would you like, vanilla or chocolate?  Who cares either way it is still ice cream.  (The correct answer to that one is of course yes.)  And in case you hadn't noticed it by now, ice cream comes in way more than two flavors and with very few exceptions they are all ice cream and you have a high probability of having an enjoyable experience with any choice you make.

So how in the world did our country get itself into this mess?  Like most of our sporting events we reduce the competitors to two teams for the finals but this time we really did get the two biggest losers.  Sad part is we knew this about them before we got to this point.  The signs were all there long before anyone even decided to start campaigning.  How could a reasonable person not see them for who and what they are?

And as for the original question, how could a reasonable person be expected to answer it?  How do you make a logical choice in an illogical world?

Perhaps it would be better to change the question entirely.  Perhaps we would be better off changing the way the game is played and refuse to be stuck in a lose lose proposition.

In track and field the final race is not between two individuals but between a field of the fastest and best individuals.  Here is an idea worth pursuing, open up your field and let the others in.  I mean really open up the field and go beyond the few side shows the media has been willing to mention a few times in the effort to appear to be journalist.

I am saying that this is the year to stand for something and not just take action to be against something.  If you honestly like one of the choices you have been given that take it and bare the consequences.  But, if you like one of the earlier candidates then write them in.  If you didn't like any of the candidates at all and would much rather have someone else you know would represent you better then write them in.  If you think that a dead comedian would do a better job than the current bunch then write them in.  (I am sure that Pat Paulsen would love the attention and always showed more common sense than the average politician.)  Just make sure you know the rules for write in candidates for your voting area or the rules of the game will get you thrown out.

'But Ed, doesn't that mean I will just be throwing away my vote?'

You don't think it is thrown away already?

What better time than now to make a statement and stand for something?  In the movies when the good guy is presented with a 'pick your poison' question he usually reacts by spitting in the questioners face.  You can at least respect him for that.

This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farrwest.

Energy solutions?

I have seen a couple of commercials lately that have caught my interest but then created disappointment and just a touch of anger. The two I am talking about are the ones espousing T Boone Pickens Plan and the other being the We Can Solve It group.

It seems like every other ad these days has an internet address attached to it for further information and in some cases the only way to find out any information about the company that is doing the advertising. In most cases, probably 98 times in 100 I don’t give the ad a second thought and very seldom if ever actually go to the web site. In fact I am almost anti web page advertising and actively ignore some of the more gimmicky ads like the one that starts you off on some adventure and then wants you to go to their web page to see what happens next. Sorry I haven’t done it yet and don’t intend to. I just don’t manipulate that way.

Curiosity did get the best of me on these two though because they are covering topics that I have had an interest in, or at least I thought I did.

As when American with a pulse knows the price of gasoline has gone up a little bit lately and it has caused some concern. T Boone Pickens, an oil man who has made a fortune from the oil industry is also concerned and has decided to put his money into letting us know of this concern and at the same time offer up a proposal on how to solve this dilemma we now face.

His proposals for the most part are sound with the stated goal of getting America to do some basic things that would significantly reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He suggest converting some of our transportation vehicles such as trucks and buses to run on natural gas which burns more cleanly and is a product that this nation has a rich abundance of.

This approach has a lot of merit but will take a little time and some commitment on people and companies willing to break some new ground. The infrastructure for refueling vehicles with natural gas is not nearly as abundant as it is for gasoline and diesel. As demand goes up so will the facilities. I have a friend right now that is converting to natural gas powered cars and he is loving it. He has to plan his fuel stops but when he fills up it only costs 8 or 9 dollars as compared to the 45 to 50 it has been costing me. He deserves those bragging rights.

The downside is planning a long cross country or even a short trip to grandmothers house will take extra effort to make sure there is fuel available along the way. There are some cars that are dual fuel machines and can run either or but most are single fuel choice. Another setback is the added weight for carrying the heavy high pressure tanks that hold the fuel. This will reduce the performance of the vehicle and I am including handling as part of that.

Another key ingredient to the plan is to really start harvesting one of the energy sources that America has an abundance of, namely the wind. We have all seen the pictures of big wind turbines and some of us have actually seen them in action. They can be quite impressive. Some of the wind farms are immense and make quite an impact by its presence. I have seen wind farms in the hills of California to the high Wyoming valleys. I have seen giant windmills on the hilltops of Greece from 35,000 feet wondering what they would look like at ground level if they where that easily seen from that height. I have seen large single windmills set within city limits and on military installations supplying energy to their communities. I have also seen small single units and testing units churning away producing energy. Each time a see a modern era windmill silently working away I am impressed.

I have often driven through the back country of America, for lack of a better term, and have past often old and forgotten windmills that used to serve the ultimate off the grid user, the ranchers and farmers of the west. These old windmills had one important function, bring the water from the well to the surface to water crops, livestock, and family.

There is so much potential for wind and I hope that it begins to be realized. If interest grows then technology advancements will also grow and increased efficiencies will be injected into the equation making the cost benefit analysis of wind a great alternative energy source. The one thing missing in most all of these arguments is a true comparison of costs.

I think that the cost issue may account for the lack of mentioning of photovoltaic or solar cell technology. Again though, as interest grows technology advances and possibilities increase.

More information about the Pickens Plan can be found at:

http://www.pickensplan.com/index.php

The other advertisement that has had a lot of airplay lately is a group of people taking about the current problems we are having with the high cost of oil but ends with the collective resolve that we can solve it by demanding action.

Before I go any further let me tell you up front what it took a very little digging to find out. This web site is a front for Al Gore and his politics. It is totally centered on his vision of the environment and his environmental manifesto. Just know that going in. I for one was greatly disappointed by this fact.

The commercial has great power in that it alludes to the people of this land banding together as individuals and making changes within their own lives and actions they can take that will lead to a ground swell change. The kind of changes made for individuals by individuals. Changes that come from ideas that are freely shared, and expanded upon by individuals, with the common goal of freeing ourselves from the oil crisis.

What you get is a call to become a political activist and demand Al Gore’s environmentalist programs be turned into Congressional mandates. He has already conned more than 1.5 million into signing up. This means he can weld some influence in Washington which is easily pushed over by such silliness. Do all of those that signed up on the web site really understand that they are giving their voice to the personal fancy of one man?

There are the solutions already mentioned but without any detail nor again any cost benefit analysis which is to be expected of a long term politician. It is easy to say we should enhance energy efficiency and adopt the use of renewable energy; it is a whole other ball game when you actually infuse it with a real plan of action. And that is where Al Gore fails. He wants to set the goal that sets the agenda and he wants others to figure out how to met his goal and then he can take credit for it while he calls it innovative leadership.

Al Gore’s web site can be found at:

http://www.wecansolveit.org

My biggest gripe for both of these movements and especially Al Gore’s is that they both call for government action. Both want government intervention to force and fund full implementation of their plans. That funding would come from taxpayer dollars and changes would be mandated is where these plans break down. If they are viable worthwhile goals, both economically and environmentally, (which I think they are), they should be able to be implemented directly without the need for government mandates, infusions, or interventions.

Of the two plans at least Pickens is putting some of his plan into real action by starting wind farms to harness and produce a real change. I can assure you that he will only do this as long as it is economically viable and that is the other reason for him to seek government subsidization, but a better way would be to continue to seek ways that would make it profitable on its own.

The last energy crunch of the 70’s created a surge in wind generators and solar cells that were heavily subsidized with tax breaks. Because the cost break even points were artificial, true cost benefits were not needed. The quality of the products that were rushed to market to fill the new tax subsidized industry were subpar and new technologies were not needed because existing or old tech would meet the rules for tax write off purposes. When the wind generators broke they sat there broke because it was not worth putting any money in to fix them.

I don’t want to see us head down that path again. We can’t afford to waste time and energy on more knee jerk reactions that continually shift the problem. We need real solutions from real people for real people, not government solutions for the masses. If the government would kindly leave some money in my pocket rather than continually confiscate it for ill conceived plans, then maybe I as a consumer could create an influence through my actions and choices that would make a real difference. Maybe I could afford to support by investing in a wind farm of my own, or at least buying a solar system for my house. One that put money back into my pockets because of savings and sell back would make it all the more sweet. That is where you start and that is how you make it work.

This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.

Did the Lights go out where you live?

It was Earth Hour last night. Did you miss it? On 30 March 2008 between 8 and 9 pm we were supposed to live without electricity for one hour. What and how did you do?

Since I was in the middle of watching the James Bond film “Tomorrow Never Dies” I continued on until the end of the show. By the time I remembered the big event it was 8:40 pm so I figured it was too late to do anything now. I did take a look out the window to see if there was anything noticeable in the neighborhood but from my vantage point it looked pretty much the same. I didn’t notice any mention on the local news, television or radio, either before or after the event. Come to think of it, the only mention I caught on the national news was that Sydney darkened a few places like the Harbour Bridge and the Opera house. Australia was supposed to be first and there for lead the way. I think they thought this would be kind of like the New Years Eve celebration where they could report on the kick off and then give periodic updates as Earth Hour traveled around the globe.

So what was this really supposed to accomplish? Was there an actual goal in mind? Was it to raise awareness, save energy, cut greenhouse gasses, or even grander-- change life habits? Who started this movement, who is promoting it and even more important, why?

Now I am not against this practice if it is done for the right reasons. If it is to better the lives of man through increased awareness and an honest cost benefit analysis shows a true benefit to the participant then I am all for it. If however, it is just another way to mandate the views of a few onto the lives of many or all, then I don’t care what good comes out of it, because it is interfering with the free agency of man, it goes against the design of man. Each and every one of us was given the opportunity to come to this earth and design our own lives. We were given a conscience to let us know the difference between right and wrong and we will be judged by how well we have done making choices in our lives based on our circumstances and using discernment.

This free agency does not mean that we are free from the consequences of our choices and our actions. For the most part, the consequences can and often do help guide and direct our future choices. If we are willing to learn the various lessons life has to offer, the various experiences will bring an increase of knowledge and wisdom. This knowledge and wisdom becomes ours. We own it as individuals. It was not forced on us and it is not a trained habit like you would find in training an animal.

There is a world of difference in this. Two individuals may perform the same act, but one that is compelled is doing it because they have to and gains nothing from the experience, whereas one doing it on their own and for what they through self determination deem to be the right reason will truly be all the better for it.

So when I turn the lights out, it is for my own benefit. I am a conservative by nature but mainly in the cause of financial betterment. When I turn out the light it is to try and control my expenses. I have switched light bulbs to the long lasting compact florescent bulbs that use about a quarter of the energy for the same reason. If a light gets left on accidently it is not as tragic with these bulbs, and if I can find them on sale, all the better. The accountant in me needs to have a cost benefit pay off.

So, if by using less power, there are less greenhouse gasses emitted because less power has to be generated, or the building of another power plant can be delayed for a few more years, then all the better but this for me at the moment is a side benefit, or a bonus for my efforts. For those that feel strongly for the cause of Green and wish to be a conservative with a cleaner planet as their end goal in mind then by all means feel free to do this and you too will find your reward. But when we start to compel others to take or refrain from action, we lose.

It seems that all of the battles fought today, from the battle fields of war, to the battle fields of courtrooms and legislatures, to the battle fields between neighbors, all come from someone trying to impose their will onto the will of another. Instead of trying to meet the needs of others we try to control the needs of others by force. This does not create solutions, only contention. In a world that has the greatest need for harmony, we really should be looking for solutions that will work and benefit all parties involved. Chances are, there will be more than one solution. Don’t just settle for the one that meets your needs and exclude all others. Harmony may be just around the corner.

This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.

Do we get what we deserve with our elections?

You know I was just wondering if anyone else felt the way I did about this whole election fiasco when suddenly I have heard three times now on the national media, both radio and television reference to the Democratic Party as Socialist. This is something I wrote about recently http://farrwestview.blogspot.com/2008/01/limbaugh-taught-me-wrong.html but have been thinking for several decades now. While this is comforting on some levels (knowing I am not the only one thinking this way) it is disturbing on other levels (what if it is true and intentional). Sometimes even when you are right you don’t really want to be. I want to be positive, optimistic and hopeful about the future but some of the possible scenarios are scary.

What if the Presidential election is really down to the final four media selected entrants of Obama, McCain, Huckabee and Clinton? What if no other candidates step up to the plate? What if Republicans and Democrats are really just two sides of the same coin? What if there is no viable third party competition? What if all this talk of change is just more of the same old line we have bought into time and time again?

If this really is the sum total for choices we have been granted this November, what difference will it make who gets in? They will once again promise us pie in the sky high living and the solutions to all life’s ills, then get into office, take care of their closest friends, play high and mighty while they live the good life off the back of taxpayers, and try to pass some more useless legislation to make them feel like they are earning their keep all the time looking for a reason to be patted on the back.

And there is such a large selection of problems from which to choose. International relations or lack there of, failing economy that is selective in its rewardings, universal health care from an overly regulated yet out of control medical industry, and designing and running neighborhoods that just don’t quite look the way they should on their own, and the only way to cure it is to do more of the same only with more meaning.

Whoever wins (?) the next election will truly inherit a collection of challenges that will require some extreme talent to convince the American public that they made the right choice in picking them. But then again, if they were good enough to convince a majority to vote for them why shouldn’t we expect them to keep the magic alive. After all, Bill Clinton still has admiration and popularity. Is that really all it takes is a little charm and favorable media to remain in good standings?

Funny thing about reality and time, they eventually show the true handy work of everyone’s own making.

Sounds pretty cynical doesn’t it? Sorry. It’s just that it seems like I have seen this all too often and I don’t see it changing anytime soon. As long as a majority of the people remain in their ignorance, they will be susceptible to manipulation, and through that manipulation, they will slowly give away their liberties. We have already handed away so much of what our forebears fought so hard to pass on to us. The promises of a better life by giving away your responsibilities is just too enticing for some. Greed and selfishness are winning out over integrity and self determination in this age. If this pattern doesn’t change soon we really will be able to notice what George Orwell warned us about, some animals are more equal than others.

There is a lot of talk even from die hard Republicans that they will not vote this round, that they are left without a viable candidate that can represent their values. This is especially hard for the conservative groups as Mitt Romney seemed to be the only candidate beside Ron Paul talking about the conservative viewpoint. Romney wasn't as hard core as Paul so at least he had a shot. If they sit this one out, it will in essence hand over the election to the Socialist. Then depending on the type of Congress that is elected (and why should we expect anything different there) we will either see a continuing slide or an actively pursued slide away from the ideals that defined the American dream of the last century and those of its founding.

(By the way, did you know that the approval rating for Congress is only about two thirds that of the President. Everyone hears about the Presidents poor approval ratings but does the media ever give us the full picture. It really is time for a change but we’ll not see it from the bunch that has been selected for us.)

How bad do things have to get before the voice of the people crying ‘enough is enough’ can be heard? I actually take optimistic hope in all of this. As I have said before, I want to vote for something instead of always voting against something. From some of what I am hearing there are others out there feeling the same way. We deserve much better than what we are getting this election. We have been deserving of it for a long, long time. If ever there was a time for “None of the Above” this is it http://farrwestview.blogspot.com/2008/01/they-endorsed-who.html . But even then, is there enough of the voting public willing to stand for something, or do we really get what we deserve?

If the percentage numbers of actual voters that vote in an election to the total population at large is any indication, there maybe a whole lot more of us out there waiting for something to vote for than not. Perhaps that is were the real majority can be found. Perhaps they are just waiting for someone with true principles and values to stand up and really be a representative for America. Perhaps we should have given Ross Perot more credit. Perhaps we should be more demanding of exellence in our political parties and process. Perhaps we should be active in defining the platforms of our parties to insure they represent our true values and beliefs.

Perhaps we really do get what we deserve.

This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.

Limbaugh taught me wrong.

Rush Limbaugh did us all a great disservice. Before I name this vast blunder to the English language let me blather on about Rush for just a moment. I was once a fan, listening when I could and even making the journey the great bake sale in Colorado. I enjoyed his frank criticism of the politics of the time and his ability to make sense at a time when so few where even trying to. Does anybody even remember the silliness of the Hightower report?

But somewhere along the way Rush became famous and then his ego was courted and from the sounds of this listener became little more than a mouth piece for the Republican Party. All his attacks were directed at the Clintons and very little criticism was leveled against the Republicans even though they were still making the same kind of bone headed moves that Rush used to thrive on. I got tired of the same old grind and tuned out for some time simply catching a tidbit here and there at lunch time or on a very long road trip. I must admit I did hear him this past week making a point against a Republican though I couldn’t tell you what or who. The fact that he did was enough to catch my attention.

So what was the big Rush faux pas of which I speak? Rush broke the sum total of his us versus them argument into two labels, Liberals and Conservatives. This would have been fine except for two things. First, his agenda broke down over time to be a Republicans versus Democrats discussion and not much more. Second, Rush created a new definition for what a Liberal and a Conservative is and because of his popularity his faulty definitions took hold on the American people.

http://www.wikipedia.com/ has many wonderful articles including much subject matter on just these kinds of definitions. I suggest a surf over there to explore in depth Liberalism, Conservatism as well as many other ism’s to understand why I am so disappointed with Rush’s new dictionary creations. From Wikipedia I will take a portion of the definitions for both.
“Conservatism is a term used to describe political philosophies that favor tradition and gradual change, where tradition refers to religious, cultural, or nationally defined beliefs and customs. The term is derived from the Latin, com servare, to preserve; "to protect from loss or harm". Since different cultures have different established values, conservatives in different cultures have differing goals. Some conservatives seek to preserve the status quo or to reform society slowly, while others seek to return to the values of an earlier time, the status quo ante.”
“Broadly speaking, Liberalism emphasizes individual rights and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market or mixed economy, and a transparent system of government. All liberals – as well as some adherents of other political ideologies – support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.”

The definition given conservatism seems to fit Rush’s position in many ways so maybe his use of it is not so far off though it doesn’t seem to fit across the board for his depiction of the Republican party.

His labeling of Democrats as Liberals is far from valid. He has given the name Liberal a bad conotation using it in a derogative manner but according to the classical definition of Liberalism, the ideals are similar to the definition he associates with that of a conservative. In fact, by the above definition I would consider myself a Liberal though I think I am much too diverse to be limited by a label.

So what label should be used to best describe the Democrats policies and platforms? There is only one that comes to mind time and again and that is Socialism. As I have listened to the political debates of the Democratic party, I can’t help but worry what this country has come to. The founders of this great nation must be tossing and turning too realize that all of their efforts to create a nation based on liberty and freedom and to be protected of the people, for the people, and by the people has spiraled into the political processes we find ourselves today.

To borrow another definition “Socialism refers to a broad array of ideologies and political movements with the goal of a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community. This control may be either direct—exercised through popular collectives such as workers' councils—or indirect—exercised on behalf of the people by the state. As an economic system, socialism is often characterized by state, worker, or community ownership of the means of production, goals which have been attributed to, and claimed by, a number of political parties and governments throughout history.”

With the exception of state ownership the definition is pretty close. If you consider that control through taxation and legislation provides pretty much the same results as direct ownership, the definition becomes very close indeed.

Listening to the debates, the common theme I hear from Obama, Clinton, McCain, Huckabee and such is ‘Put me in charge and I will take care of all your problems’. It seems like such an easy solution to just turn over all your responsibilities to them and they will take care of all your problems and provide all your solutions. Trouble is, their plans don’t seem very thoroughly thought out and what they have done in the past hasn’t really solved anything let alone provided any confidence that this time will be different.

The real problem is that I am not willing to give in just yet thank you very much. I want to solve my own problems. I want to be my own person and come to my own conclusions. I want to make my own mistakes and my own successes. ‘When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man I put away childish things.’ 1 Corinthians 13:11.

Maybe that is why I am liking Ron Paul. He doesn’t have the solution to all mankinds problems, and he doesn’t always have a good understanding of what the problems entail as evidenced by his answers in the debates. By the way, none of the other candidates do either. What he does have is an understanding of the Constitution as a guiding principle. It is that fundamental principle that tells him that the government is not supposed to be the nurse maid for every passing whim of the people. It defines the role of government in very limited terms beyond which it should not venture. Though he is not as polished in his presentations, his message is still getting through to many people who are looking for the one thing that is missing in this run up to the 2008 presidential election, balance.

He won’t be allowed to make it to the finals but wouldn’t be grand if some of the basic principles this nation was founded upon did. May we not forget the past as we work on building a better tomorrow. A lot of effort was made to give us that opportunity.

This is Ed Nef with a view from the Farr West.