.Caught the very tail end of this while going to lunch yesterday. Heard some guy talking about "global warming" and making some pretty broad statements about environmentalists, and was talking back to the radio ("Do you even know what you're talking about?"), and then Frank Stasio thanks "Orson Scott Card, author of Pathfinder. He'll be signing..."
Oh. Ummmmm...
Anyway, as you can tell, I'm left-leaning (not forward, though, 'cause that's just a stupid ad campaign), but I do enjoy listening to OSC talk about writing.
(At least I hope he's talking about writing. I haven't listened to the whole thing yet.)
http://wunc.org/tsot/archive/Orson_Scott_Card.mp3/view
I don't know about Card, I will have to take the time to read the ink but I have noticed that it seems like most of the creative people, which includes singers and actors, who get involved with politics are on one side. As far as I can tell most stay out or ignore the political debates. But as I said those who do get involved, one way or another, most lean one way.
Usually I ignore their leaning when it comes to my entertainment even though I may make a comment about how ignorant, easily convinced or just plain stupid they are when one shouts something from the roof tops.
Notice I said I usually ignore their activities, it can get bad enough for me to decide to ignore them and their work.
As in the case of one well known writer, who has a most forgettable name-actually it's my memory again-who wrote a story about what would happen if a Pro Life party would ever start being elected. Basically it was hell because of super over population. I've always wanted to ask him if he really believed that would happen or if it was just a case of "What If".
There's one question he ignored. If the job situation etc., was so bad how did they keep being reelected.
and like ldw2 said as long as someones writing isnt soppy with their views it doesnt really bother me what they think. to be honest i have never been one of those people who just have to know about their favorite xxxx i know they write/act/sing/whatever well i could give to rats tails about their personal lives. but thats me also.
As LDW pointed out, most singers and actors (and I would also include musicians, artists, decorators and chefs) tend to lean a certain way, politically. Country music is somewhat of an exception, but otherwise, this is generally the rule. However, I have noticed that writers tend to be all over the place in relation to political views. Some, I find quite surprising. Others, not so much. Either way, most writers appear to behave much more civilly than participants in the other arts. Maybe this is due to the type of palette we use and the canvas on which we scrawl.
Edited to add: OSC did not deny global warming in this presentation - he simply said there is no proof of what is causing it. Regardless, the interview is primarily about his new novel, and OSC makes some interesting comments about Ender's Game and his original motivation to write science fiction/fantasy. It would have been appropriate for Open Discussions had not the thread taken a political slant.
[This message has been edited by philocinemas (edited December 12, 2010).]
I should've never mentioned how I caught the broadcast, and just offered it up sans comment.
I certainly didn't want to get into any political debate, I just thought my reaction was kinda funny once I found out who it was. Like I said, I disagree with Card on most political/sociological issues, but he does have good advice on writing.
It's an enjoyable broadcast.
Some, though, I read so early and so thoroughly that, if their writing has a political angle to it, I've so integrated it into my psyche that I can't tell even if my nose is rubbed in it. I was going to name names, but, like Kathleen said, we aren't supposed to discuss politics here. I could discuss it...I can discuss it...I do discuss it...but not here.
(...except maybe the quick quip about this or that...)
*****
It's said that country music is the only popular music written for adults---everything else in popular music is pitched to teenagers. ("Popular" meaning "sells extremely well"---which excludes contemporary jazz and classical music.)
I don't believe there is anyone out there saying that air pollution is a good thing and we need more of it. Politics shouldn't play into any part of this science (on either side), but the sad truth of the matter is that this subject has simply become a veil for debate about taxes and tariffs.
I envy the inventor who discovers a viable way to make an engine run on algae (or seawater, etc) - that is if he/she lives long enough to manufacture it and spend some of the money. Such an invention would obviously be unpopular with many powerful people. However, it will probably be an equally powerful person/company who eventually succeeds at accomplishing this.
Just my opinion .
And since I am a conservative and proud of it, there's no way anyone can discuss global warming without a political slant. The whole subject is politically based.
Again; just my opinion.
Our planet has gone through many major climate changes, and most of these were long before we ever got here. I don't see why trying to understand any current changes is so controversial. Are conservatives supposed to have some great love for fossil fuels? Twenty years ago we loved nuclear energy and the liberals were standing outside the plants picketing - that was political.
As for the algae, that was just an example. Personally, I believe funneling the power through the roads (like a toy race-track) is a much better option. However, my point was that it is in everybody's best interest to find alternative energy sources, whether our current resources are causing the planet to heat up or not.
Where everything becomes political is in deciding whether or how to fund invention and innovation, the coercing of individuals to not use available resources, and the punishing of industries that pollute. As long as we aren't discussing these aspects, I don't see the issue as political.
'tis sad that one issue is so political, other issues are also but that one seems to have a political-religious fever to it.
But some writers of put their political beliefs into their writing, in small ways you can't help it, but at times it's a whole book. Larry Niven and another writer wrote "Fallen Angels" quite a few years ago. I'm not sure if it was written during the Global Cooling, yes they were predicting an ice age, proclamation in the 70s-early 80s or at the start of the current Global Warming debate-yes it's been going on for at least 25 years-but half way through the book and it seems to be a jab at the Green party.
Some good writing in the book however. 
*****
I think a couple of SF writers have picked up on the algae-oil thing...I recall a passing reference to something like it in Blish's Cities in Flight.
just food for thought
oh yea im with philo on the whole global warming shouldn't be political... personal i think that most people are to short sighted to see that the earth moves in cycles warm spells.. cold spells it happens...
just look at the oil spill in the gulf... they used a dispersent to 'help' with the clean up. it did more harm than good. the ocean itself has done more than anything. it has natural ways to deal with crude oil... the stuff leaks out of the ocean floor all the time... thats why the drill offshore....
[This message has been edited by eyegore242 (edited December 13, 2010).]
Another thread reminded me I have done that with two stories. One was a kinda of venting for 9/11- a kinda of fantasy- maybe it's kinda cyberpunk- and another I posted on my AOL web site, when it was up, and have posted on my blog. It deals with the PC issue of saying Merry Christmas or not. Two collage students working a summer on a space freighter discuss it. And I have two ideas for Alternate universe stories that would be political, whenever I write them.
Other than those two finished stories I have tried to keep my political beliefs out of my stories. Morality issues are another matter however.
Oh, and I couldn't let this one go - it was too nice an opening
quote:
And since I am a conservative and proud of it, there's no way anyone can discuss global warming without a political slant.
Wow, you do have an impact on the world. No-one anywhere in the world can have a non-political discussion on global warming _because_ you are a conservative and proud of it. 
But seriously, I agree with philo. There are areas of the global warming debate can be (and should be) conducted in an apolitical manner (proof of existence and impact for example), while others can (and should) be primarily political (which mitigation methods to adopt, if required, and action plans for various risk levels). While it is impossible to take all politics out of science, the ideal of science is the search for the better explanation, which is a different basis to politics. In practice, science can be quite political, but camps are based around individual questions and problems. On the other hand, politics can create roadblocks for the scientists by demanding answers that are too simplistic for the truth of the matter, and by creating an atmosphere of irrelevant muck-raking that obscures the truth.
[This message has been edited by Brendan (edited December 13, 2010).]
quote:
There are areas of the global warming debate can be (and should be) conducted in an apolitical manner...
The political motivations of those who are promoting global warming and global warming solutions prevent one from discussing global warming without discussing politics---their politics.
Aside from that...right now, here in sunny-and-warm Florida, it's freezing cold. What global warming?
.It's not even winter yet here in the Midwest, and we're having high's in the low teens! Single digits for tonight's low.
I'll leave out names as to stay away from political slants. But according to one "expert" Florida and most of California should be under water by now due to the melting of the ice caps. Strange that it hasn't happened. Otherwise, I'd be owning beach front property on the Great Lakes... or would that be a Great Sea if that particular prediction came true. The other is that the guy who made that prediction had just bought beach front property on the west coast. Now why would he do that if he thought his prediction was going to come true?
Politicians will tell us about anything and expect us to believe it. The problem is the American people are smarter than that and finding out how the government is using such tools to manipulate us into believing we have to make sacrifices and change our lifestyles. Makes me sick to even think about it... especially when the government controls most of what's released on the national news these days. Much of it is bald faced lies, and that's where most of the news about global warming and other garbage comes from. And then it gets preached to our kids in school and they come home believing in that trash.
Then you wonder why I can't discuss global warming without thinking of all the political slants that go along with it? Sorry, but it just ain't possible. Excuse me while I go gag.
Sorry for the rant, but this has been building up inside me ever since I've been reading this thread. It had to burst out somewhere. If I've tread on anyone's toes, you have my prefound apologies. But now maybe you can understand why I made that first comment that everyone is having some fun with. Some of the global warming theory is true, but much of it isn't because the government wants us to think that way. I never thought I'd see the day that this happens in the free-est country in the world.
I forgot to add that most of those scientists studying global warming and other political biased subjects are usually funded by the government that expects them to support the government's views on the subject. It happens all the time.
[This message has been edited by Crystal Stevens (edited December 14, 2010).]
For the past thirty-some years, I've observed the sea level at my parents' house, which is on a canal straight off a big estuary connected to the Gulf of Mexico. The level hasn't varied much, going from slightly over the top (and that in a storm) to drained-enough-to-walk-out-onto-the-sandbars. That's about, overall, some six feet. Usually it's about in the middle of this, rising and falling as the tides do.
If global warming works like the global warming people say, the water level would be much higher. Now, who am I to believe, my own eyes or Al Gore?
- To either push or punish the use of fossil fuels.
What really bothers me is that people, who know absolutely nothing about science, go on television (and movies) and try to act like experts - again, on both sides. I wish the experts would have the nerve to debate this themselves, but that wouldn't make for good television - a bunch of pencil-necks talking over everyone's heads.
Anyway, I know that Salt Lake City was part of an inland sea about 65 million years ago - I'm not sure whether that was due to geological reasons or because it was a lot hotter. Either way, I would like to hear about it from experts and not politicians.
A couple of anecdotes above just reinforce my point about politics (and the general public) looking for simple answers where science has already dismissed the simple for valid reasons.
quote:
Aside from that...right now, here in sunny-and-warm Florida, it's freezing cold. What global warming?
_______
If global warming works like the global warming people say, the water level would be much higher. Now, who am I to believe, my own eyes or Al Gore?
Try this experiment. Three-quarter fill a pot with ice and add a little water. Stir. Measure the temperature (it should be 0C or 32F). Place the pot on a hotplate (which is turned on) and stir. Now, should this cause the temperature to rise? Check and see - does it? So the principle of heating a pot doesn't cause a temperature rise in the water? Ok, wait, it is rising now? So the principle of heating the pot does cause the temperature to rise? Then why didn't it rise before when the ice was still melting? Hmm, while the ice is still melting...
My point is, even when there is a simple experiment, with almost total control, taking spot measurements is far from understanding the whole story, and can lead to very wrong conclusions. The science about global warming is about complex systems interacting, and is not invalidated in any way by anecdotal examples of the opposite. So learn about the science, and if it proves too difficult, allow others to learn about it without assuming that an anecdote casts all that has been learned away, or that it is simply political.
First: Now they are saying all this about complexity in the interaction of the environment etc. But a few years ago they were predicting Heat, with a capitol H. Heavy Droughts world wide, sky high temperatures and both of the ice caps melting. Now not only in the US but in other countries, it looks like those who predicting an ice age in the 70s were right after all, they just got the year wrong.
Second it's not just a love for petroleum or a political bent that has people opposed to the Global Warming side. It's the control those on that side want. To fight GW they need scads of new tax money, and all types of new rules, laws and regulations. The US government has passed a bill that includes control of what type of light bulbs we can use. They have already forced the car companies to work on even better gas milage. Some heavy duty GWers want to control what type of cars we can buy, what we put in them and if we can drive at all. Democrats have talked about raising the gas tax from 50 cents a gallon to two dollars plus, depending on who is talking supposedly just to keep us from driving as much.
Sorry if this goes to far a field of the topic but it seems to have changed. I could say more but this is sufficient for this forum.
Back when I sold cars, I came across countless people who would trade their fairly new cars in for eco-friendly cars and take several thousands of dollars in loss to get an extra twenty miles per gallon. This seemed great to them, but if you did the math of an average person driving 15K miles a year, it would take them something like ten to fifteen years to ever make up the difference if the gas was an average of $3/gallon.
Companies are generally more savvy, but they will make innovations to save a buck or a million. They typically do not make changes to avoid taxes because they will just reduce costs to compensate or move elsewhere.
Unfortunately, most liberally minded people see corporate punishment as a win/win - they either reduce pollution or get more revenue in taxes. They really don't seem to understand economic dynamics - (fiscal) heat causes industry to move to (fiscally) cooler places, but if you add (fiscal) flowers it puts everybody in a better (environmental) mood.
I do believe we will find other, cleaner sources of energy. However, I don't believe their is enough incentive out there to prod young inventors or industry to discover these at this time. What we really need is a huge reward - a billion dollars or something! Most reinforcement tends to be negative (taxes and tariffs) and the money is turned around to make for more road construction - Can they not see the contradiction? It's a ponzi scheme!
If I didn't trust them when they were "red," why would I trust them when they're "green?"
What Brendan and philo said.
rich (who believes that the long-term data does indicate global warming or, rather, global climate change; and who also believes that humans DO have a sizable impact on the climate change; and who also believes that the climate change won't mean the end of the world as we know it; maybe humans, but not the world. and that's all i'll say about that.)
I had a rough morning. I realized afterwards that I had gotten too political. I just wish that people who are proponents of global warming could change their tactics for influencing behavior. My apologies.
Regarding climate change: I believe the climate is always changing - We are currently coming out of an ice age, one which put humanity at the top of the food chain. We are entering a new tropical period. The dinosaurs seemed to thrive in such a climate (several million years at a time). I would imagine volcanoes and icreased methane production (from increased dinosaur populations) were factors in maintaining those longer periods of tropical climates. The dinosaurs seemed to do all right during that time. They also got bigger. However, there was considerably less land mass available, which could become a problem if this were to happen to us. I imagine overpopulation was a factor in the dinosaurs' downturn (that and volcanoes and a very large asteroid).
The way I see it, the Earth itself is the "Great Equalizer". Increased carbon-based gasses released into the atmosphere create increased warmth. This seems to slowly over time reduce animal populations, which reduces warmth. The reduced warmth then decreases plant populations, which increases the atmospheric content of carbon-based gasses, which slowly increases warmth. And then we or some other animal life are back.
Humans are (from what we can tell) the first creatures on Earth that can make conscious decisions to affect this balance. However, we will ultimately enter another ice age due to depopulation. We heat up the atmosphere everytime we exhale or fart. Increased heat causes greater spread of disease, diminishing land mass, hurricanes and tornados, and even possibly increased geological instability - things that generally kill more animal life than plant life. Even if we terra-form Mars or Europa, there will still be sudden decreases in animal life and probable climate changes. However, I suspect modern humanity will be able to adapt more easily to increased heat than to decreased heat.
I do find it interesting that there are certain parallels between us and the dinosaurs. As herbivorious populations increased, predators began increasing in size and number. Our society seems to behave similarly regarding war (or terrorism) and murderers.
It's been quite some time since I saw that episode, but I think it has something to do with the level of activity at the Earth's core. When it slows down (or is it speeds up?) the magnetic poles will switch and cause instability. This, in turn, would cause drastic changes in weather and climate world wide.
Strange how we haven't heard anything about this except for that "Nova" episode anywhere, but it does make me wonder if this could be what's happening to our planet at this time.
And, unfortunately, that leads straight back to the political aspects aimed at global warming. The government is the one to release information of this type to the news media, and obviously it's said nothing about the switching of the magnetic poles as a possible cause for all the weather (and climate) changes everyone's talking about.
Interesting theory about the dinosaurs and their parallel with us. I've never heard that one before.
[This message has been edited by philocinemas (edited December 16, 2010).]
So.... (drum roll)... Merry Christmas to all!!!
And a Happy New Year, too!!!
Here is the Nova Presentation.
I've seen this same information elsewhere, but I can't find the source. The video I saw didn't seem to be as cataclysmic as the Nova presentation. I will continue to try and find it.
quote:
All this talk of climate change (global warming) makes me think of an old episode of "Nova" that talked about the reversal of Earth's magnetic poles. Evidently there's evidence that this has happened before. And, according to the scientists that studied this, it's due to happen again soon.It's been quite some time since I saw that episode, but I think it has something to do with the level of activity at the Earth's core. When it slows down (or is it speeds up?) the magnetic poles will switch and cause instability. This, in turn, would cause drastic changes in weather and climate world wide.
This is a fascinating topic. It would seem that reversals and increased volcanism occur at the same time, both being caused by interactions between the core thermodynamics and constraints caused by plate tectonics. The additional volcanism has been considered to cause climate change, through spewing out CO2 (increasing temperature) or sulfides (blocking out solar radiation). Currently, we are overdue for a reversal - the last one suggested to occur was 780000 years ago and the average is around 300000 year. But like faultlines and earthquakes, that doesn't mean that one will come any time soon - it is a chaotic system and there were times where none occurred for purported millions of years.
Current theory put the reversals over thousands of years. Although this isn't my field of study, I did once talk to a geologist that has measured a single lava flow that showed a reversal occurred during that particular flow (a matter of days rather than thousands of years). So some findings do seem to contravene current theory.
As for the media and global warming, I too get frustrated as the goals of media aren't to inform but to entertain. Therefore most debates done in the media are between, for example, a radical greenie and an extreme denier, in the hope that the two extreme points of view will cause sparks to fly. This approach rarely states what the real consensus is, and gives the impression that it is one extreme or the other when usually it is somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, I think that government can be influenced by the media (or by pressure from people who believe one extreme view or the other as portrayed by the media) because it is sensitive to being popular. (Note, this is the reverse of government controlling the media, although on some points they certainly want to, as wikileaks has shown). Furthermore, if the government do try to act on the real problem, people that have grown to believe one side of the extreme views they have seen in the media cry betrayal - in both directions.
From what I have read and heard, not only on the national media but on Pacifica's radio stations, that most of those pushing for Global Warming are radical greenies. I have heard-read a couple that take a more moderate tack but most are hard core.
Exactly my point above re the media. But the scientific community shies away from the media (mostly, not always). It does have a broad range of opinions, and its own extremists too, but the center has moved slowly over the last 30 years from being highly skeptical to moderately worried about the impact of global warming. What has been moving it is the increase of evidence for global warming. In particular (to pick two interesting one), the failure of models to predict the huge breakup of the ice-shelf near Antarctica and the much faster than expected loss of ice from Greenland has indicated that warming has impacted somewhat quicker than expected. The scientific community still keeps looking at the evidence with a skeptical eye, such that things like the (extreme) prediction that the Himalayas will lose all its ice in the next 30 years has been debunked (turns out it was effectively an urban legend).
The scientific community prides itself on its conservatism. That is why someone like OSC can say that it hasn't been proven, and many scientists would agree. However, as a scientist I would ask, "specifically, which part do you believe hasn't been proven?" This is simply asking for clarification. If he means that "we are the sole cause" hasn't been proven, I'd not only agree but go so far to say that it has been proven that we aren't the sole cause - nature has mechanisms that contribute to global warming that we have no control over, and the same to global cooling. If he means that it hasn't been proven that "humans have contributed to global warming", then I would disagree. To prove that position, one must prove that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas, and experimentally it is. If, and I suspect that this is the line that he would really take, he means that "humans have not _significantly_ contributed to global warming", I would say he may be correct, but given the absence of other major climate change drivers and the current increase in CO2 levels, the probability that he is correct is low. Thus I welcome the search for other climate change drivers for our models (e.g. water vapor's dominance over other greenhouse gasses, increased cloud cover mitigation etc) - the better our models, the better we can understand the potential risks. If, however, he means that global warming itself hasn't been proven, then I would say, yes, there are some difficulties in proving global averages throughout history (the temperature records are not sufficiently accurate in past times) but the convergence of several indirect methods do indicate global warming, and the events described above indicate unprecedented warming in the arctic regions. So once again the probability that we are experiencing global warming is increasing as more evidence is being gathered. Not proven yet, but increasing likelihood.
I used to work in a mining department (in the materials science section). This was the sort of consensus that I heard there - not the radical greenies approach, but a moderate concern. If anything, mining companies have the most to lose out of global warming. Remember too, meteorology and atmospheric science is a branch of physics, not environmental science. It is those two areas that are developing most of the models.
If the polarity shift happens and it does cause increased volcanic activity, then I doubt we will be able to do anything about the warming trend. In many ways, it is very natural. Our use of fossil fuels is pushing it along now, but this has happened in the past through several natural causes. I suspect the results will be very trying, but I imagine the long-term consequences of a shift toward an ice age would be worse. Obviously, our species survived the ice age, but I imagine a tropical age would be easier for our current lifestyles.
But considering the impact humans have had--and continue to have--on their environment, I think it's incorrect to say that any climate change "has nothing to do with anything mankind has done". That's an extreme position, and one not borne out by the existing data.
In doing this, it changes the flow of warm and cold fronts - climate change. However, the poles are definitely becoming warmer. Greenland, which has not been green since we've been around, is rapidly losing its ice covering. My argument is that we are heading for a tropical age even if we do reduce the use of fossil fuels, but their use is almost certainly speeding it along.
I do hope we find alternate energy sources, simply because fossil fuels are limited and we will continue to increase their use exponentially unless we find something else. I do not look forward to the day when gasoline is $5+ per gallon, but that day will most certainly occur within our lifetimes.
If it is any consolation, ice ages (where places, like most of the United States, have lots of snow in the winter) are rare in Earth's history. It's typically been fairly tropical. We just haven't seen it because we weren't around prior to this current ice age. Some of the other ice ages ended just as abruptly due to increased volcanic activity. I imagine we'll make it through this period of warmth, and maybe it will push us to learn more at a faster pace.
quote:
My argument is that we are heading for a tropical age even if we do reduce the use of fossil fuels, but their use is almost certainly speeding it along.
I agree. Sure, you have your extremists, but the bottomline is that even if its cyclical, WE are contributing to the effect in a disproportionate amount.
quote:
"Well, what do you want? I should shut down my factory, fire a hundred-thousand workers? Is that good economics, is that sound for the country?" - The Once-lerFrom The Lorax, by Dr. Seus
I'm not alligning myself with The Once-ler, but there is a certain hypocrisy about all of this. I just believe invention and innovation are better answers than the current approach.
[This message has been edited by philocinemas (edited December 18, 2010).]
Plain water, H20, has a 600-times greater effect on the green house effect than CO2.
Magnetic poles are hardly static. They have always been moving. The current south magnetic pole is now somewhere on the northern Canadian coast and constantly drifting southward.
The average temperature during the Dark Ages (cca 600 AD) has been a few degrees higher than today. Climate changes happen all the time, not just in the last 250 years when man has began to burn fossile fuels extensively.
That being said, nothing wrong with trying to cut back on pollution. I was a 'Captain Planet' fan (still am) but you can't instantly solve problems by shutting down everything that causes pollution. After all, those things probably exist to improve our life, not just so they could make the air or water worse.
Things have improved since 30 years ago. Back then, the Danube River was so polluted there were no fish found in it. Now, the fish are abundant in Europe's largest river. So things can turn for better.
There are less harmful ways to use the resources of our planet. But things are constantly improving.
I suppose there are lots of ways of bringing life to an end as you know it, from nuclear war to agreeing to be someone's friend on Facebook...but this version of global warming is not one of them.
I mentioned that I had a non PC Christmas story. I finally remembered to go over it again and to post it. Probably still has some rough spots and nitpicks but it's getting better.
http://musingsofle.blogspot.com/
http://www.sciscoop.com/climate-change-evidence.html
[This message has been edited by rich (edited December 18, 2010).]
Volcanos and other natural happenings have been trying to do that for upteen million years. Sometimes they succeed in changing a few things for a very short period of time but it all works out.
I agree with PB&Jenny Merry Christmas.
And BTW PB&Jenny Since your a guy I assume that you are PB in that case do you know Wren?
Private joke, for the readers of a certain Writer, so probably not. I can explain it if need be.
The PB is short for peanut butter. It's from an as-yet-unpublished children's story about two kids. One PB and the other Jenny. I used to tell it to my kids when they were under the age of 6. A long, long time ago.
And, yes. Please explain your joke. I need a good laugh today.
But in laura anne gilman's series, The Retriever, the MC has a friend who is called PB. Could stand for Peanut Butter or Poler Bear since he kinda of looks like one. If I recall correctly and I'm not sure I do, no one is saying for sure what PB stands for.
The MC is called Wren even though that isn't her birth name. A very well done UF series with twists and excitement. I have stated that I think she is one of the not so minor lights responsible for the current UF rage. Jim Butcher being the King.
She likes her name without capitols evidently.
And she has laid that series aside for the time being to work on another one set in the same universe-same city too.
[This message has been edited by LDWriter2 (edited December 19, 2010).]
[This message has been edited by LDWriter2 (edited December 19, 2010).]
Posted my PC Christmas story and got my political letter to the editor published.
Letter:
http://www.fresnobee.com/2010/12/20/2204617/tax-cuts-help-economy.html
Story:
http://musingsofle.blogspot.com
and in case someone might be thinking it No, not all letters to the editor are political...at least not around here.
As you can see, Louis, I edited my post that followed your first post concerning your "story". I made a comment, then thought better of it, and edited that comment out.
However, since you've again posted the link to your "story", and a letter to the editor of the Fresno Bee, I gotta think you're wanting someone to comment.
I'd be more than happy to, but I don't think we're allowed to go down that road.
So I say yes I want more air pollution. The type produced by wild horses and buffalos we need more of both animals.
And if reindeer and cows can produce this type of really had pollution I would imagine horses can also.
But as to my story and letter. If you don't want to comment on this board you can go to my blog or E-mail.
I know the story most probably needs help. I wrote it three to five years ago and even though I've gone back over it one and a half more times since the first time I posted it, I suspect it still has lots of nitpicks not to mention bad writing.
Us writers are an opinionated lot who have very little problems stating what we believe, as OCS seems to show.
On the political front, however, it's the exact opposite. I find myself wondering how somebody who can be so clear-headed and rational in every other regard can be so blindly, infuriatingly partisan. It's like he shuts off his brain and reads from the Republican handbook.
We all have our different opinions, and I'm not of a mind to argue with his. My solution is to ignore his political articles and stick to his reviews and books, skipping over any political commentary he might add.
quote:
I find myself wondering how somebody who can be so clear-headed and rational in every other regard can be so blindly, infuriatingly partisan.
Yes, I wonder that about some people myself.
quote:
When it comes to his writing and his recommendations for books, TV shows, movies, and food, OSC is spot on in my book, and seems to hit every note I enjoy.
quote:
We all have our different opinions, and I'm not of a mind to argue with his. My solution is to ignore his political articles and stick to his reviews and books, skipping over any political commentary he might add.
I try to wear those blinders every day, and I'm of a right-leaning frame of mind. I don't need the stress!
http://www.climatechangebusiness.com/first_annual_overview_climate_change_industry
Biofuels have driven up the cost of foodstuffs over its few years in existence and is currently an estimated $4 billion industry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel (reference included in article)
"Green" support for alternative energies have sparked new markets in solar, wind, and nuclear power. New nuclear power plants are slated to be built for the first time in almost 3 decades.
Climate Change is a money-making field, and it does that well. This is why you will not see it nor its concepts disappear anytime soon.
quote:
Climate Change is a money-making field, and it does that well.
GREEN IS GOOD
I hadn't heard that Nuke plants had actually been okayed, of course them being built is another matter. Too bad we can't get a couple here but I live in Calif. We can't seem to get things right here...we even voted for more Brown rot.
quote:
:We all have our different opinions, and I'm not of a mind to argue with his. My solution is to ignore his political articles and stick to his reviews and books, skipping over any political commentary he might add.
When it comes to entertainers, including writers, I do the same. When I disagree with them that is. Of course that goes for other areas too not just politics but its hard to do sometimes when they put it deeply in their movie-TV shows-novels.
quote:
I hadn't heard that Nuke plants had actually been okayed, of course them being built is another matter.
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/feb/16/nation/la-na-obama-nuclear17-2010feb17
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environment/17nukes.html?_r=1
Though you're right. Approval is a long way away from implementation.
[This message has been edited by Rhaythe (edited January 06, 2011).]
We have lots of empty spaces that can't be farmed.
Speaking of putting your political beliefs into a book. I just finished a book tonight that may have done that. I should say that I think the writer had her MC add a comment that was actually from the writer.
Something happened to two of the supporting characters and while thinking about it the MC makes that comment. Even though the MC would have felt that way, the wording was not what she usually used, in fact she had never used those terms throughout the book. And it didn't totally fit. Obviously I could be wrong but it seemed to come out of no where. If true the writer has some anger issues with certain people. I don't mean people of different ethnicity.
In fact the whole story was pretty much over by than and that situation could have been added just to jab at those people. Which makes me wonder if some other comments were really from the writer or resembled her beliefs.