As I stated in my May 17th post titled "recipe for a president," I was only 96.3% sure of my support and convergence to the Libertarian party. Well, mark your calenders people because I have decided to take the plunge into the world of Libertarianism!
I had done quite a bit of research into the Libertarian party before hand, but what was keeping me from fully supporting this political party was my hangups regarding environmental issues. I hadn't been able to find a Libertarian argument dealing with the environment that I could agree with until today. Michael S. Rozeff sites this article in his argument that has proven to me that people have taken initiative to safeguard the environment without being told to do so by the government. Along with his breakdown of the article and Libertarian point of view, I now feel comfortable with calling myself a Libertarian!
On a side note, the biggest "environmental" push that I have a problem with is that of ethanol. I have previously stated that just to grow the corn to make the ethanol is environmentally inefficient. On top of this, it actually reduces gas mileage and creates more pollution! Let me explain (for clarity, the term gas will be in reference to the physical state):
Both traditional gasoline and ethanol burn cleanly. Many are made to think that the burning of gasoline is what releases the CO2 pollutant. It is not the burned gas but the unburned fuel that raises your emissions! Cars run on gas vapors.
What causes fuel inefficiency and ALL emissions coming from your car is the liquid fuel that gets pushed through your engine. This liquid cannot be burned, ruins your engine and exits your car through the tailpipe (i.e. lowering MPG & raising CO2 levels coming from your car).
The surface tension of the fuel is one of the main contributors of why some fuel is pushed through as gas and some as liquid. By lowering the surface tension, you increase your MPG and lower your CO2 emissions. Here's a little physical chemistry lesson for you: Have you ever seen a droplet of water on a nonporous surface? If you have, you must have noticed how it bulges up and 'sticks' to itself. Water is a polar molecule, so is alcohol, whether it be methanol, ethanol or any other -ol out there. The stronger the polarity of a substance, the higher the surface tension the substance will possess! And since I've just covered how surface tension effects fuel's ability to vaporize into a gas, you should be able to deduct that alcohol (i.e ethanol) is NOT as efficient a fuel as they have been trying to convince you!
Not only does this polarity increase surface tension, but in the chemistry world, like attracts like, therefore alcohol attracts water. Water aids in the breakdown of your engine further worsening your fuel efficiency. And since alcohol attracts water, this increases the percentage of water that gets pumped through your engine in comparison to traditional gasoline.
Earlier I mentioned that surface tension was one of the main contributors of why some fuel is pushed through as gas and some as liquid. Temperature is another. Higher temps aid in vapor production while lower temps hinder it. There really isn't much we can do about how temperature affects fuel efficiency, but there are other concerns when dealing with temperature. Water is a special molecule in that its volume increases when in a solid state rather than decreases like almost all other molecules. Place water in a closed bottle in the freezer and the bottle will wither expand or break. The same happens to your engine when too much water is present. And because a good portion of the US finds itself dealing with below freezing temps for at least part of the year, anything that attracts water is your car's enemy!
Ethanol, once the end-all-be-all of fuel sources, is no longer looking so environmentally friendly, now is it? I would also like to make it clear that I do not fully support this "rising CO2 levels is causing global warming" phenomenon.--not enough evidence has proven this to be true, there have only been mere correlations--I have only allowed emissions to be mentioned in this post so that those who believe it can use this information when they make their choice at the pump or car dealership.
On another side note, you might want to check this out if you're interested in increasing your MPG. I have yet to try it myself, but chemically, it sounds pretty believable. I'm just not a fan of his suggestions to push government requirements.
~ steph
Tuesday, May 29, 2007
Friday, May 18, 2007
why
About a week after the attacks on September 11, 2001, I began to ask myself and those around me why all this had happened. Back then, I wasn't all that into politics, and I am still in my infancy on the subject, but my gut reaction was, "What has our government done for these people to react in such a violent manner?" I knew it had nothing to do with our freedom of speech, freedom of religion, separation of church and state or any other freedom for that matter. I knew it had nothing to do with the American people but had everything to do with the American government. And if I were one to keep a diary, that is exactly what my entries during that time would have said.
So why are so many Americans upset with what Ron Paul had said in the debates on Tuesday night? Does the true really hurt that much, or were they interpreting him incorrectly? Rudy Giuliani's reaction alone:
"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9/11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."
makes me wonder if he's even competent enough to make decisions in his own home!
Are Americans really that self absorbed that we can only see what is being done to us and not what we do to others? I guess so! If that is what you think, then consider the following list of U.S. foreign policy toward Iraq:
1. The U.S. support of Saddam Hussein.
2. The U.S. furnishing of weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein and the correlative assistance provided by the U.S. in the use of such weaponry.
3. The Persian Gulf intervention.
4. The intentional destruction of Iraq’s water and sewage facilities, with full knowledge as to what effect such action would have on the long-term health of the Iraqi people.
5. The more than 10 years of brutal sanctions, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children from sickness and disease.
6. The deadly no-fly zones, which had not been authorized by either the UN or the U.S. Congress, and whose enforcement entailed the firing of missiles and the dropping of bombs that killed even more Iraqis.
7. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement to “Sixty Minutes” that reverberated throughout the Middle East that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children had been “worth it.”
8. The invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of more Iraqis.
9. The torture and sex abuse of Iraqi men at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq, photographs and videos of which are still being kept hidden by U.S. officials because of their potential blowback.
10. The periodic rapes and murders that some U.S. troops have committed against the Iraqi people during the occupation.
11. The arbitrary and indiscriminate searches and seizures without warrants being conducted by U.S. troops.
12. The indefinite detentions without trial of some 20,000 Iraqi men and women in overcrowded prisons.
~ steph
So why are so many Americans upset with what Ron Paul had said in the debates on Tuesday night? Does the true really hurt that much, or were they interpreting him incorrectly? Rudy Giuliani's reaction alone:
"That's really an extraordinary statement, as someone who lived through the attack of 9/11, that we invited the attack because we were attacking Iraq. I don't think I have ever heard that before, and I have heard some pretty absurd explanations for Sept. 11. I would ask the congressman to withdraw that comment and tell us that he didn't really mean that."
makes me wonder if he's even competent enough to make decisions in his own home!
Are Americans really that self absorbed that we can only see what is being done to us and not what we do to others? I guess so! If that is what you think, then consider the following list of U.S. foreign policy toward Iraq:
1. The U.S. support of Saddam Hussein.
2. The U.S. furnishing of weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein and the correlative assistance provided by the U.S. in the use of such weaponry.
3. The Persian Gulf intervention.
4. The intentional destruction of Iraq’s water and sewage facilities, with full knowledge as to what effect such action would have on the long-term health of the Iraqi people.
5. The more than 10 years of brutal sanctions, which contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children from sickness and disease.
6. The deadly no-fly zones, which had not been authorized by either the UN or the U.S. Congress, and whose enforcement entailed the firing of missiles and the dropping of bombs that killed even more Iraqis.
7. U.S. Ambassador to the UN Madeleine Albright’s infamous statement to “Sixty Minutes” that reverberated throughout the Middle East that the deaths of half-a-million Iraqi children had been “worth it.”
8. The invasion and occupation of Iraq, which has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands of more Iraqis.
9. The torture and sex abuse of Iraqi men at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere in Iraq, photographs and videos of which are still being kept hidden by U.S. officials because of their potential blowback.
10. The periodic rapes and murders that some U.S. troops have committed against the Iraqi people during the occupation.
11. The arbitrary and indiscriminate searches and seizures without warrants being conducted by U.S. troops.
12. The indefinite detentions without trial of some 20,000 Iraqi men and women in overcrowded prisons.
~ steph
the other side of the war
I stumbled across this article and was moved by a comment that was left:
"Such butchery as we saw in WW2 (and WW1, and since) was NOT common place in previous centuries. The scale of slaughter in the 20th century dwarfed ALL conflicts of ALL previous ages in recorded history. It is only the massive growth of central government, debt financing, fiat currency, and obscene taxation that allows governments to amass the resources and mobilize the manpower to wage such wars of slaughter. There is no historical precedent, and even the bloodiest wars of prior ages paled in comparison because no governments could reorganize society and had the technological and financial reach and organization to organize slaughter on such a scale, especially the slaughter of civilians, who were the main targets of military activity judging casualty rolls. Historically wars were between governments, and often common people had nothing against each other and could travel freely. Prior to WW1, average tax rates were under 5% despite large militaries and works."
It's just another confirmation that we must downsize our current government. If we fail to uphold our checks and balances, Bush will become the next Hitler, as he is so close to it already!
~ steph
"Such butchery as we saw in WW2 (and WW1, and since) was NOT common place in previous centuries. The scale of slaughter in the 20th century dwarfed ALL conflicts of ALL previous ages in recorded history. It is only the massive growth of central government, debt financing, fiat currency, and obscene taxation that allows governments to amass the resources and mobilize the manpower to wage such wars of slaughter. There is no historical precedent, and even the bloodiest wars of prior ages paled in comparison because no governments could reorganize society and had the technological and financial reach and organization to organize slaughter on such a scale, especially the slaughter of civilians, who were the main targets of military activity judging casualty rolls. Historically wars were between governments, and often common people had nothing against each other and could travel freely. Prior to WW1, average tax rates were under 5% despite large militaries and works."
It's just another confirmation that we must downsize our current government. If we fail to uphold our checks and balances, Bush will become the next Hitler, as he is so close to it already!
~ steph
Thursday, May 17, 2007
recipe for a president
I've never really been one to follow politics very closely. Not until these last few months, that is. I've known of third parties, but never really took them seriously. I more or less viewed them as an option for those who couldn't decide between Democrat and Republican. That was until I came to know this asshole! :-) Lee introduced me to the Libertarian Party and opened my eyes to a world of better politics. I am now taking a more active role in knowing and understanding the way our government works and how it was actually intended to work! No, I haven't fully converted, and I don't intend to do so until I have done all of my research and feel 110% sure that this is the party for me, though I am about 96.3% there!
Unfortunately, too many people who would normally want to vote third party tend to jump on the two-party bandwagon because they are afraid that their vote will be wasted. But what better way to waste your vote than on a candidate who doesn't represent what you want to see in government!?! With that said, the road to third-party rule has been, and will continue to be, a rough and rocky one. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel! Now, I'm normally against many things Republican (and I'm beginning to hate many things Democrat), but Ron Paul seems to be the ONLY 2008 Presidential Candidate that:
1) has a strong anti-war policy (something that is very important to me),
2) has consistently voted against the Patriot Act,
3) is against the Department of Homeland Security,
4) aims to abolish the IRS and income tax by cutting the funding for many Federal agencies, as well as cutting unnecessary agencies altogether (no more welfare state!), and
5) is pro-life but doesn't feel that it is an issue the Federal Government should decide upon but the one for the individual states to do so. And though I feel that it isn't an issue that any government should be able to decide upon, at least it's a start.
Oh, and did I mention that he once ran for President under the Libertarian banner in 1988!?!
More articles pertaining to the wonderful Ron Paul!
~ steph
Unfortunately, too many people who would normally want to vote third party tend to jump on the two-party bandwagon because they are afraid that their vote will be wasted. But what better way to waste your vote than on a candidate who doesn't represent what you want to see in government!?! With that said, the road to third-party rule has been, and will continue to be, a rough and rocky one. However, there is a light at the end of the tunnel! Now, I'm normally against many things Republican (and I'm beginning to hate many things Democrat), but Ron Paul seems to be the ONLY 2008 Presidential Candidate that:
1) has a strong anti-war policy (something that is very important to me),
2) has consistently voted against the Patriot Act,
3) is against the Department of Homeland Security,
4) aims to abolish the IRS and income tax by cutting the funding for many Federal agencies, as well as cutting unnecessary agencies altogether (no more welfare state!), and
5) is pro-life but doesn't feel that it is an issue the Federal Government should decide upon but the one for the individual states to do so. And though I feel that it isn't an issue that any government should be able to decide upon, at least it's a start.
Oh, and did I mention that he once ran for President under the Libertarian banner in 1988!?!
More articles pertaining to the wonderful Ron Paul!
~ steph
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
fairwell falwell
Since hearing of his death late yesterday afternoon, I have been fighting the urge to do any of my own Falwell Fault Finding. Often, my frustrations come out in unconstructive ways, mainly yelling of hurtful words, clenching of fists, grinding of teeth, hate in my heart (only for the most extreme cases). Surprisingly, I felt very little of this when Andrea told me that Falwell had passed on. Firstly, it took me awhile to remember what he was known for (I'm bad with names, no matter what the subject). Secondly, though an effective way to get rid of unwanted pests, death is no laughing matter. And until I read this beautifully written article, I thought that I was the outsider among celebrating friends. If we are to react in an uncouth manner, then we are no better than the late Jerry Falwell. Yes, he spread many hateful messages that made me question his validity as a Christian, but he was still human. So I urge you, if you find him to be as wretched and vile a man as I do, don't allow your own hearts to turn black by rejoicing so soon. Give his family and friends their due respects while they mourn. There will be plenty of time to bash in the future. Until then, let us refine our debates and be ready for what is to come.
~ steph
~ steph
official gas boycott day
I got a text from a friend out in LA yesterday. It was short and to the point: "don not buy gas today" Her text upset me so I replied in short hand what this blog will soon state.
This was the article that broke the camel's back and made me want to start blogging again. I am sick and tired of getting junk e-mail, especially when they tell me to do something that is downright asinine! The only people who are hurt from this boycott are the business owners who have very little say in the price of gasoline. If you really want to make a dent in how much you pay at the pump, the following are your only options:
1) Carpool so you consume less and spread the cost over several people.
2) Don't drive! Public transit is available in all major metropolitan areas, so take advantage of this opportunity if it is available and convenient.
3) Demand that the government stop subsidizing inefficient energy sources, or anything at all for that matter!
My favorite option is #3. Our tax dollars are being thrown away because these extremist environmentalists are throwing hissy fits over our wastefulness while they ignore the fact that ethanol is just as wasteful, if not more, than fossil fuels! Corn is a very demanding crop, not only on the farmers, but the land and resources as well. It depletes the soil of the majority of its nutrients, requires much more water than most crops and provides only a fraction of the energy per gallon as compared to gasoline. So even with its cheaper price per gallon, ethanol costs more to use than regular gas, and that's only because it's being subsidized. Once their window of opportunity is gone, I predict that the cost of ethanol will be at or higher than that of gasoline. And let's not get into the fact that it is effecting more than just the gas market. Because so many farmers are switching over to this "cash crop," thanks to government subsidies, less feed corn and other crops are being planted. In turn, this is pushing up the cost of other produce and eventually the price of meats that are fed on corn. And don't forget about wind and solar energy, because these require government subsidies, too!
It is time that we take a stand and give Big Government a slap in the face for being the Big Idiots that they are! If I want my money to go to a certain cause, I will send it there. Stop taking my money and deciding where it goes! That's what charities and the private sector is for. If something needs to be subsidized, then it would never survive on the free market. And until we are operating in a free market, gas prices will continue to rise rapidly. If Exxon, BP, Conoco, etc know that we are willing to pay $X, then they will charge $X. So stop bitching about how much Big Oil is making, start bitching about how Big Government is taking our gas money and wasting it on not-so-environmentally-friendly energies.
~ steph
This was the article that broke the camel's back and made me want to start blogging again. I am sick and tired of getting junk e-mail, especially when they tell me to do something that is downright asinine! The only people who are hurt from this boycott are the business owners who have very little say in the price of gasoline. If you really want to make a dent in how much you pay at the pump, the following are your only options:
1) Carpool so you consume less and spread the cost over several people.
2) Don't drive! Public transit is available in all major metropolitan areas, so take advantage of this opportunity if it is available and convenient.
3) Demand that the government stop subsidizing inefficient energy sources, or anything at all for that matter!
My favorite option is #3. Our tax dollars are being thrown away because these extremist environmentalists are throwing hissy fits over our wastefulness while they ignore the fact that ethanol is just as wasteful, if not more, than fossil fuels! Corn is a very demanding crop, not only on the farmers, but the land and resources as well. It depletes the soil of the majority of its nutrients, requires much more water than most crops and provides only a fraction of the energy per gallon as compared to gasoline. So even with its cheaper price per gallon, ethanol costs more to use than regular gas, and that's only because it's being subsidized. Once their window of opportunity is gone, I predict that the cost of ethanol will be at or higher than that of gasoline. And let's not get into the fact that it is effecting more than just the gas market. Because so many farmers are switching over to this "cash crop," thanks to government subsidies, less feed corn and other crops are being planted. In turn, this is pushing up the cost of other produce and eventually the price of meats that are fed on corn. And don't forget about wind and solar energy, because these require government subsidies, too!
It is time that we take a stand and give Big Government a slap in the face for being the Big Idiots that they are! If I want my money to go to a certain cause, I will send it there. Stop taking my money and deciding where it goes! That's what charities and the private sector is for. If something needs to be subsidized, then it would never survive on the free market. And until we are operating in a free market, gas prices will continue to rise rapidly. If Exxon, BP, Conoco, etc know that we are willing to pay $X, then they will charge $X. So stop bitching about how much Big Oil is making, start bitching about how Big Government is taking our gas money and wasting it on not-so-environmentally-friendly energies.
~ steph
in the beginning
I've done on-line journals before, but nothing too serious--mostly immature quiz/survey postings. I'm hoping that since I supposedly am an adult, I will be able to produce a more mature blog than I have in the past. Not to say that this one is guaranteed to be mature; that's up to you to decide.
My biggest reason for starting this blog is that I am fed up with the way things are, and I need a constructive way to let my frustrations out. Though I hate politics, I anticipate most of my blogs to be on this topic, just to warn you! So until I can organize the chaos that is in my mind, this will have to do.
Thanks for participating in my new "choose your own adventure!" To go into the cave, turn to page 6. To follow the unicorn, turn to page 23.
~ steph
My biggest reason for starting this blog is that I am fed up with the way things are, and I need a constructive way to let my frustrations out. Though I hate politics, I anticipate most of my blogs to be on this topic, just to warn you! So until I can organize the chaos that is in my mind, this will have to do.
Thanks for participating in my new "choose your own adventure!" To go into the cave, turn to page 6. To follow the unicorn, turn to page 23.
~ steph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)