Say what you want about Senator Barack Obama’s lack of experience, but remember that George Washington had literally NO experience whatsoever before he assumed the Presidency of the United States. Lincoln as well had little experience before his trip to the White House. And George Bush, sadly, had lots of experience in government and look how well that worked for us. I would rather have a literate (it would be nice to have a President who can speak a goddamn sentence without stuttering and “misspeaking” like a retarded meth-head), extremely well-educated (his tenure as the editor of the Harvard Law Review[1], an accolade shared by only those who inhabit the highest echelons of legal academia, speaks volumes of his intellectual capabilities), but inexperienced man who has new ideas that inspire hope in so many Americans who have looked at the last eight years of this abysmal failure of a Presidency with disgust. Four more years of this, please excuse my francais, ridiculous pseudo-Republican bullshit (try playing the game, “find a Republican who believes in small government” these days) will push this country off the precipice and into a very real and extremely nasty culture war. We live in a time when Conservative Republicans attempt to vilify their Democratic opponents by calling them “latte-sipping” and “arugula-eating” demonstrates the embarrassing devolution of the American political landscape.
What’s perhaps most disturbing about this election is that we are witnessing the biblical fall of John McCain – a man once known as the “Maverick” Republican now panders to the backwards, intellectually bankrupt Christian Right (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/13/AR2006051300647.html) has now run attack ads on Barack Obama that deal with none of the substance of his candidacy; instead these ads amount to nothing more than desperate feces-slinging.
Obama isn’t perfect. We need to know more about his healthcare position. We need to know about his plan to improve America’s security. We need to know the details of how he plans to extricate our armed forces from the quagmire that is Iraq. And on a personal level, I would love for Obama, and for that member, the rest of the Democrats, to change their ridiculous policy on firearms. He needs to remember that shitting on the constitution (secret prisons in Eastern Europe, thousands of detainees held without charges, having the Supreme Court determine elections, the curiously misnamed “Patriot Act,” which could hardly be less patriotic, etc.) is this current batch of Republicans’ shtick. Also, Obama has the added virtue of not having called his wife a “see you next Tuesday” in front of reporters.
Regards,
Jonathan P. Figdor
[1] Obama was selected as an editor of the Harvard Law Review based on his grades and was subsequently elected president of the Law Review, functioning as editor-in-chief and supervising the law review’s staff.
20 responses so far ↓
1 william // Aug 5, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Sorry, I don’t have much to say that directly relates to your article, but I want to write this somewhere and this seems like a good place.
Concerning the comment on the devolution of the American political landscape we can thank the likes of Rush Limbaugh for doling out his slanted generalizations to the american public and for which many republicans not only take for fact, but also use as their only source of political information.
You could also add to the “latte sipping argula eaters” that anyone who cares about the environment must be a liberal or environmental whacko. Or that it is actually the environmentalists who are to blame for our recent increases at the pump. The sad thing is that so many people take this without thinking twice about it.
It is pathetic how often I hear someone trying to relate to me what they thought they heard come out of that biased arrogant A-hole Rush Limbaugh. I listen to the guy so I can hear the bullshit first hand and figure out when someone is telling me something of value when it comes to politics.
Then I listen to 2 of the Democratic versions with one in particular called the Joel Heitkamp show which is the local version of a democratic Rush (I have to say Heitkamp is much easier to listen to), but he is a typical complainer/whiner still pissed that his sister (who ran for Gov. and lost to a Repub) and appellant to the whiners who listen to his show who think that they deserve everything without working for it. From their side you will hear that those who have worked for something don’t pay enough, they get too many write off’s, they make too much money, etc. Typical bullshit.
Anyway, both parties are full of shit.
2 Jonathan P. Figdor // Aug 5, 2008 at 3:08 pm
My main issue with the environmentalist movement is that it has been hijacked by a bunch of anti-corporate hippie dipshits. This example will elucide their mind-numbing illogic.
They are concerned that plastic bags will pollute the environment.
Their solution is to switch to biodegradable paper bags, on the surface, a not-too-shabby idea.
BUT realise that paper bags weigh more than plastic bags, lots more. Roughly 4 times their weight. And they’re less durable, so of course you have to double bag. This means two things. You use twice as many bags which results in 8x the transport costs. This means 8x the fuel and 8x the damage caused to the environment. But these no-load, dipshit, trustfund socialist, socialite retards fail to follow the line of logic. The point is plastic is better for the environment and the economy (they cost DRAMATICALLY less to produce).
3 mongo // Aug 5, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Plastic is recyclable, Paper is renewable and recyclable.
Hmmmm.
4 william // Aug 5, 2008 at 8:05 pm
I have been waiting for a good debate on here for a while and this is a good opportunity.
I disagree with you on the idea that plastic bags are better for the environment. You make some good points but I think your numbers are unrealistic.
Personally, I have used paper bags for my grocieries as often as possible and I’m able to use only 1 bag and fit 2x’s the amount of goods in 1 bag.
And as a matter of fact the times that I get double bagged is actually with plastic. Double bagging paper bags would be a bitch.
Also, I don’t know the details on the production of plastic bags, but I would assume that there is more toxic byproduct when comparing plastic to wood not to mention that paper is a renewable resource.
As for the actual amount of excess fuel used in transportation, I doubt that it is more than 3x’s as much as plastic. Then when considering the number of years that plastic takes to break down which is highly debatable as you will find some saying 10 to 20 years when in reality it probably takes at the least 50 years or more. It is generally agreed upon that paper takes 2.5 months and can be expedited by adding water.
Lets be realistic and admit that as much or more plastic ends up in the landfills than is recycled.
So, any fuel wasting and environmental pollution caused by paper and its delivery is offset by the fact that paper recycles itself and plastic has to be recycled by humans and usually ends up in a landfill which both cost the environment and the economy a lot more when all things are considered.
Also, I think the economy statement is debatable as well, all things considered.
Finally, I try and use a reusable bag whenever possible (actually when I remember to take it/them with me).
And if anyone is still reading this I’m not a dirty booger eating python head which you related to in your comment, which I did find rather funny by the way.
5 Jonathan P. Figdor // Aug 5, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Fair enough, a worthy opponent. But I think you’re off on a few points.
1. It must be conceded that paper bags weigh considerably more than plastic bags, and hence, cost more to transport (both in terms of energy expended and raw dollar cost). Paper bags will have to dramatically outperform plastic in order to justify the higher transportation cost to businesses and the higher environmental cost to those consumers concerned with the damage being done to the environment.
2. Let’s imagine that plastic bags are not biodegradable at all, after all, I don’t care if they do or not. Penn & Teller’s show BULLSHIT! did an expose on landfills that found that not only was the “landfill crisis” of the 90’s an utter farce, but that we have plenty of room in our landfills to store our waste. Add to this the fact that when landfills are decommissioned, they often become public parks or golf courses, and I fear that the environmental impact of landfills is negligible.
3. Whole Foods (unfortunately, my local grocery store) forces all consumers to use paper bags. So if I buy 5 very light items, I get a huge paper bag when the smaller plastic bags are ideal.
3b. Paper bags fail quickly in rain, hence, when I buy groceries while it is raining, my bags get drenched and fail and break while I walk home, which forces me to double-bag. Also, if I purchase any wet items or (items that produce condensation) the bags tend to fail catastrophically.
William, you are clearly not the problem. You did the cost-benefit analysis and arrived at a different conclusion from mine. That is nothing to be embarassed about. Certainly one of us is probably right in the end, but neither of us are guilty of the sin to which I was alluding, namely the scatterbrainedness of many “ecotards.” The problem is that many of the ecotards I know jump from the fact that paper is natural whereas plastic is man-made to the conclusion that paper must be a superior, more environmentally-friendly product. This is the kind of fuzzy-thinking for which I have no tolerance. This ludicrous, “if it comes from nature, it must be better than the man-made alternative” line of reasoning can be disproven by asking one of these infantile retards whether the horse caravan or the turbo-diesel engine is more efficient for long-distance travel.
6 Jonathan P. Figdor // Aug 5, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Also, reusable bags are the obvious best choice sense:
1. There is no transportation cost per trip (you don’t buy a reusable bag every trip, you use the old ones!), only an initial one.
2. They are generally made of strong cloth, which is more durable than either paper or plastic.
3. They are never discarded, so you never have to throw them away.
Also, with regards to the environment, trees have to be chopped down to produce paper and it’s not the case that we have a surfeit of lumber that we need to dispose of. Additionally, chopping down trees causes us to lose their ability to break CO2 into whatever the hell they break it into (isn’t it mostly O2?)(give me a break, I studied philosophy and religion, not science). So those trees aren’t there to help repair the damage done by transporting the various bags to your local retail outlet.
Lastly, I would guess that there are more locations that produce plastic bags than paper ones, and a wider distribution network means that the bags might not have to travel as far to reach their destination.
7 william // Aug 6, 2008 at 12:32 pm
You make some good points concerning the use of plastic. I also have a tendency to fill the paper bags much fuller than I assume the average person would and that is what I’m basing my defense upon (at least partially).
There is nothing to argue about concerning paper weight vs plastic weight I’ll give you that. BUT I’m sure it is a minimal difference and considering you can usually fit more goods into the paper bag (usually), so in my opinion the only reasonable excuse not to use them is the water issue you mentioned.
1. As far as extra fuel and cost used the only way you could account for that is if there is actually an increased number of trips to deliver more paper bags than plastic - lets assume there is, as it seems logical from your standpoint. What I will say to that is this - since we (you or I) don’t actually know the weight difference between 1 plastic bag vs 1 paper bag I will make an educatd guess that it is probably an ounce at most (I think that is a very liberal guess). Considering that , you are probably only getting at most 1o,000 more plastic bags per load (?) I don’t know somebody please tell me if that seems to high or low. AND that is a lot, but don’t forget that a truck can only be loaded by law to a max weight and they will load it to that weight if reasonable whether it is plastic, paper or goat meat so the trips are going to have to be made either way. I can see how that statement might be construed as adding to your point, but I think that if the numbers of extra trips for paper were actually known it wouldn’t be as high as you think (I have nothing but my opinion to back that statement up).
2. Concerning that fucking Ogre Pen and his dancing monkey Teller, they are full of shit. That show is good for one thing and that is entertainment purposes only since they admittedly leave out scientific facts to support their BULLSHIT! So, perhaps the landfill crises is over inflated, but I won’t take their word for it.
3. Concerning byproduct of wood, I’m pretty sure there isn’t much since I see the bags of mulch, wood chips, etc. all over. AND the trees that are usually chopped down have been planted for that reason and then what is taken is replanted so the long term effect on the enviornment from most logging of that sort is nill and at the least the byproducts are much more usable and biodegradable.
Finally, I appreciate the clarification concerning me not being a ecotard - I knew you weren’t grouping me as one. Thanks though.
8 william // Aug 6, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I jsut realised I forgot to acknowledge your statement about the cost of production in plastic vs. paper.
I would assume you are right on that, but that doesn’t mean I support the use or production of plastic over paper.
I also assume that the production of the paper bags ultimately contributes more beneficially to the economy as well, all things considered.
9 mongo // Aug 6, 2008 at 3:09 pm
The answer.
http://www.poconorecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080506/MULTIMEDIA02/80505016
My part here is done.
10 kidpurple // Aug 6, 2008 at 9:09 pm
gonna buy cloth bags next time I’m at the grocery store.
11 Jonathan P. Figdor // Aug 7, 2008 at 12:28 am
Fine Mongo (Ben?) I guess the facts are on your side. As the esteemed Mr. Colbert has said, “facts are known to have a liberal bias.”
12 Jonathan P. Figdor // Aug 7, 2008 at 12:29 am
Also, I prefer to reuse my plastic bags as garbage bags. After all, you’re going to throw your crap in a plastic bag at the end of the day anyway.
13 william // Aug 7, 2008 at 7:27 am
Well done Mongo, that pretty much sums it up.
We (my wife and I) also use the plastic bags as garbage/trash can bags. So,
“It appears my hippocrisy knows no bounds…”
Furfeatherfins and oddnoteccentric I was surprised that you never got in on this melee.
Whats it going to take to get a knock down drag out discussion going on this thing again?
I’ll have to start thinking about something that will piss each and everyone of you off, or at least the majority of you. Hopefully it will get some innocent bystanders involved as well.
Thanks for the debate Figdor and Mongo.
14 oddnoteccentric // Aug 7, 2008 at 9:37 am
This arguement seems to be one of those I was able to stay out of by not evangelizing you. I don’t like paper or plastic, because when I get home, I realize I already have a million of these things and have run out of space for what I have. So the genius at WalMartinez double bags, so my stuff won’t poke through the bottom, and I have TWICE as many of these damn things…
However, I do prefer the plastic for the “Arabian Bullwhip” application. Any thoughts about that?
Kidding aside, these are the kinds of arguements where society gets bogged down. Ban plastic bags? Ban paper because it supports the exploitation of workers and timber? Like that is a bad thing? Why not just use what we already have, save the grocery store from buying more of these things, and lower our costs? Oh, that was rhetorical. I hereby commit to taking NO MORE bags from WalMartinez. And feel free to hold me to that.
Now, does this mean that for every 100 animals that don’t die because they choked on a plastic bag that we can eat one? I wouldn’t mind trying dolphin or seal.
15 mongo // Aug 7, 2008 at 5:29 pm
There’s a whole lot of difference we can make by changing something as simple as our grocery bags. Thats one of the easier ones.
Any Pro-Choicers on light bulbs out there in Skunkland?
Might as well keep a good debate going.
16 mongo // Aug 7, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Mr. Figdor,
I would like to remind you that bias runs both ways, its not just for liberals.
And no, I’m not Ben. But I hear he’s a real POSitive influence.
17 jhawk // Aug 7, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Might I suggest that the inhabitant of Skunkland colaborate their collective intellect to forward the cause of methane production? I seems only appropriate.
18 oddnoteccentric // Aug 8, 2008 at 10:30 am
mongo, hmmm…
Light bulbs: use what you have. When they burn out, and they will, you can replace them, then we will debate amongst ourselves here in the dark, without influence of the mainstream media.
Methane/natural gas: come to WY now and see the extent of our gas production, then come again in 20 years and see our beautiful roads, schools and high pay for teachers. And the dead streams. And the drained and irrepairable aquifers. And all the other nasty things that go with it (I assume). Every sword has two edges, that is what makes it a sword. (I have a visual, with that statement as a caption, of a cartoon on marriedtothesea.com).
Maybe I am a POSitive influence
19 william // Aug 8, 2008 at 9:33 pm
I say freedom of choice when it comes to lightbulbs.
If I want to use a lightbulb that is going to last for 8 years, save incredibly on the electric bill, and literally cost me a few thousand dollars if I drop it and it breaks on my kitchen floor and then I follow the directions and call the hazard control to clean it up… or wait I could simply sweep it up and throw its mercury containing ass in the garbage like everyone else including the ones who are so admant about making them mandatory.
Hey how about this… pro-choice on abortion but not lightbulbs. That would be a hell of a bumper sticker.
Besides, if we get rid of all the old fashioned lightbulbs what are all the crackheads that Obama plans to lessen the sentence for going to smoke their crack out of? LOL, J/K.
From Obama’s site -> the issues - > civil rights
“Eliminate Sentencing Disparities”
“Obama believes the disparity between sentencing crack and powder-based cocaine is wrong and should be completely eliminated.”
reference: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/civilrights/#sentencing-disparities
Anyway, all jokes aside, I’m pro-choice on lightbulbs.
20 Jonathan P. Figdor // Aug 9, 2008 at 2:32 am
If people want to piss away money on incandescent bulbs that last a shorter time than CFLs and consume more energy, be my guest. We cannot make stupidity illegal. Otherwise the Republicans would cry too much about it. Vote Libertarian and preserve your conscience.
Leave a Comment