U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-07-2011, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque NM
2,956 posts, read 4,512,590 times
Reputation: 4258

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by karmathecat View Post
She's the poster child for the new Republicon party. They are corporatists parading as defenders of the Constitution.
Agreed. As a minority female who supports their worldview she is a "trophy governor" who will be paraded around... the Republican Governors' Association has already said they'll be promoting her.

As far as domestic partner benefits, I never expected them (especially in New Mexico) but once they've been in place for years I would object to pulling the rug out from people, however small that rug seems. Will be interesting to see what she decides.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-07-2011, 01:17 PM
 
Location: Bernalillo, NM
1,002 posts, read 1,745,909 times
Reputation: 1592
Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63 View Post
rwjoyak, with all due respect, why are you so desperately clinging to this 3% minority point of view? What's in it for you?

We're not talking a 60/40 split here. Why do you so tenaciously resist what the over 97% majority is saying? I'm not saying you have no right to side with that 3%, but I think the burden is more on you than me to explain latching on to an extreme minority position.
I think we can agree to disagree on this. But I still wonder why you think there has to be something "in it for me" to cause me to have a different opinion....?

My underlying view on all public policy issues is that we (the city, the state, the nation, the world) have limited finite resources to try to fix any number of societal ills. And I think too many folks often view these resources as limitless and want and sometimes demand that we try to fix them all.

This includes trying to reduce the level of risk that faces each of us and humanity in general. When I was younger folks mostly seemed to understand that each person was responsible for themselves for the most part - if you took part in risky activities that was your own business and you took your chances. Someone foolish enough to risk too much deserved what they got.

Of course sometimes government needs to get involved in helping protect folks against risk they have no control over...such as high levels of environmental pollutants emitted by other parties. But too often now I think folks look to government to protect them nearly absolutely against just about all risks, even from themselves in some cases.

This isn't just theoretical. I've worked in the environmental industry almost since it was born. And I've personally seen how radical environmentalists believe we should spend almost any sums of money to reduce environmental risks to as close to zero as possible. But the 80/20, 90/10, 95/5, ... rules apply here just like to everything else - the closer you get to 0 the much more costly it gets.

The fact is that we as a society need to decide intelligently how to best spend our resources. The cost of attacking GW as proposed by many is absolutely enormous. If we do this we won't be able to do many other things, such as trying to combat world hunger which is already a huge problem and expanding extremely rapidly. Unless you agree with the seeming view (which I don't) of some 3rd-world countries that the US and other developed nations should spend most of our available resources on them. So what's in it for me is a better choice IMO of how we should be spending our resources.

And as stated before, I firmly believe GW remains unproven. I could get into more technical arguments over such things as the error bars that surround the climate models being used and how the error ranges are larger than the supposed effects the models show. But I'll leave this argument as is - I think we've hijacked this thread enough already (although I hope it's been a little stimulating for others ).

Quote:
Originally Posted by aries63 View Post
And I don't appreciate being cast as some irresponsible or lazy citizen for believing the 97% and not reading every paper on the subject. But I think you're a decent guy so I'll let you off the hook.
If that's the impression I've given I apologize, it certainly wasn't my intention. It's just that I've run into lots of people with similar views to yours and way too many of them have educated themselves on the issue by only watching Al Gore's movie or reading the newspaper or seriously dumbed down online articles. I've also seen how statistics can be manipulated in a lot of ways to justify things that just aren't true and I believe the 97/3 split you cited is one of those - it's all in how you carve up the data.

I think both of us want the same thing - the best possible planet for ourselves, our children and others. We just disagree on how to achieve that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 01:26 PM
 
1,938 posts, read 4,059,301 times
Reputation: 841
FWIW I'm less concerned over the "natural vs. artificial" debate than I am over what's
going to happen when umpteen zillion Bangladeshi's decide they don't want to tread water.

That'll make life on the sub-continent pretty darn interesting and I doubt that very many
people still believe that we are immune to impacts from other regions..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 10:46 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
12,120 posts, read 27,748,525 times
Reputation: 5757
I am of the opinion that yes, human activity is probably accelerating global warming (not creating it). On the other hand, from the information that I have seen, we can't realistically do squat about it - the amount of money it would take, and the lifestyle changes that would have to be accepted immediately, are way beyond anything that can be accomplished.

I find that the cap and trade programs are just salve for the conscience - we did OUR part, so it isn't OUR fault - when in reality, no real effect was achieved, nor would have been if the entire world had suddenly and simultaneously agreed to cap-n-trade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2011, 10:57 PM
 
Location: Albuquerque NM
2,956 posts, read 4,512,590 times
Reputation: 4258
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwjoyak View Post
If that's the impression I've given I apologize, it certainly wasn't my intention. It's just that I've run into lots of people with similar views to yours and way too many of them have educated themselves on the issue by only watching Al Gore's movie or reading the newspaper or seriously dumbed down online articles. I've also seen how statistics can be manipulated in a lot of ways to justify things that just aren't true and I believe the 97/3 split you cited is one of those - it's all in how you carve up the data.

I think both of us want the same thing - the best possible planet for ourselves, our children and others. We just disagree on how to achieve that.
I've never even seen Al Gore's movie and I'm not one of these wackos who thinks that every bad storm or misplaced snowflake is yet another sign of global warming. But I do note that no Arab nation has issued a statement admitting to human causes of global warming, nor has Iran. See a pattern? I do trust the majority of scientists and scientific bodies in the non-Arab world and I do believe we need to rein in our emissions, that it can be done, and that not to do so would be more expensive and potentially disastrous. But boy, those industry lobbyists sure make it hard! And so would Harrison Schmitt!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2011, 03:03 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM
1,603 posts, read 2,828,743 times
Reputation: 1742
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwjoyak View Post

The fact is that we as a society need to decide intelligently how to best spend our resources. The cost of attacking GW as proposed by many is absolutely enormous. If we do this we won't be able to do many other things, such as trying to combat world hunger which is already a huge problem and expanding extremely rapidly. Unless you agree with the seeming view (which I don't) of some 3rd-world countries that the US and other developed nations should spend most of our available resources on them. So what's in it for me is a better choice IMO of how we should be spending our resources.
What do you suppose the cost of inaction would be?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2011, 07:39 AM
 
Location: Abu Al-Qurq
3,597 posts, read 7,310,830 times
Reputation: 2758
I'm disappointed in the new Guv's choices for climate-sensitive positions, but it should come as little surprise when it's plain to see (even to her supporters) that NM has become a puppet state for TX. That can bring good (reinstate the @#$% death penalty but unlike TX, try not to insist on using it on people who've been falsely accused), and that can bring bad (shortsighted environmental decisions).

There are innumerable climate change threads elsewhere on city-data, and this is about the new guv, not climate change. Let's try and put the word "governor" in every post hence, even if it's a climate change post, to keep it on subject.

Economically, both sides need to face facts: it doesn't matter whether you believe in anthropogenic climate change or not. The federal government and certain other states do, and these form the basis for much of our state's economy. Our soot-belching coal plants near Farmington are already in dire financial straits because California (their partial owner) doesn't want their dirty power anymore. Shame on them, perhaps, but double shame on us if we're stupid enough to go and permit construction of more coal plants when this is taking place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2011, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Albuquerque, NM - Summerlin, NV
3,436 posts, read 5,788,567 times
Reputation: 682
Quote:
Originally Posted by JBM View Post
As for getting a life, I have one. I am free to lobby MY government for what I feel is right. Martinez is MY governor as everyone elses.

Yes, I expect her AND the legislature to be held accountable on this.

Being a Republican(or Democrat) is no grounds or excuse to be out of touch or wrong or hateful.

No, I will "not get over it." Second class citizenship for no one.

Awh did someone get all hurt. Well if she is "your" governor stop yapping! No one cares, niether does she.

Accountable? The dems are still in control, whats not to complain about?

It's not being "hateful", it is just where she stands on the issue. And believe me, I'm gay and you don't see me acting like a fool about it. It's her decision, if she want's to veto it so be it. She is in control, not you.

Looks, like you will HAVE TO GET OVER IT.


As for Zoidberg, Texans have already begun to take over New Mexico before Susana did. Their economy is what ours should be like, we have no excuse for being in a budget mess. They have 30 million people, we have 2 Million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2011, 10:43 AM
JBM
 
Location: New Mexico!
558 posts, read 903,160 times
Reputation: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradly View Post

It's not being "hateful", it is just where she stands on the issue. And believe me, I'm gay and you don't see me acting like a fool about it. It's her decision, if she want's to veto it so be it. She is in control, not you.
No, I don't believe you're gay at all.

For the people, by the people, Bradly. If she wants to keep her job, she'll realize that real fast.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-09-2011, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Abu Al-Qurq
3,597 posts, read 7,310,830 times
Reputation: 2758
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradly View Post
As for Zoidberg, Texans have already begun to take over New Mexico before Susana did. Their economy is what ours should be like, we have no excuse for being in a budget mess. They have 30 million people, we have 2 Million.
Comparing economies is tangent to the point at best, but it's fun when you look at the deficit numbers:

NM State Deficit: $333M
TX State Deficit: $22-25B

66 times the shortfall, 15 times the people.

Unlike TX, NM is one of four states that actually produces more gasoline than it consumes (neglecting offshore production). With the coming oil shocks (back up to $88/barrel and rising), I think NM is in far better shape as long as our governor doesn't do an idiot thing like let the oil & gas companies skip out on their tax obligations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Mexico
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top