Red is the new blue...

...and green is the new red...

If you can follow that train of logic, then you can see why I am leaving the blog green for a while.  If you can't follow that train (or if your train derailed), allow me to elaborate:

Oregon is usually considered to be a "blue" state.  I want to make it RED.  And that isn't as far fetched as it seems.  Back in 2000, GWB lost this state by a far narrower margin than Kevin Mannix lost in the 2002 Governor's race.

In 2000, Bush really should not have won.  Don't get me wrong: I am pleased with the outcome; I just believe that Gore blew it more than Bush won it.

Gore was the sitting VP, under a popular (albeit corrupt) President, in a time of relative peace and prosperity.  His resume as a Representative, Senator, and Vice President gave him a lot of credibility.  His war record, dubious though it was, still looked better to most than W's service in the Guard.  And all the experts kept reminding us that Gore was more intellectual, a better communicator, and could pronounce the word "nuclear" correctly.

Still, Gore lost.  Worse, forgetting all about Nader, the Supreme Court, Florida, and Katherine Harris, Gore lost his own home state and (like his predecessor), failed to carry a true majority of the popular vote.

Why?

BECAUSE THE NATION IS TRENDING CONSERVATIVE, AND THE PEOPLE REJECT LIBERAL IDEALS.

Sure, you can point to Bush's low popularity in the polls.  But take that with a grain of salt: for one thing, the polls are highly stacked against the President (with a combination of push-poll questions and demographic weighting); second, many of the "negative" respondents are hard core conservatives dissatisfied with Bush (over record spending, failure to live up to promises like a defense of marriage amendment, etc.).  If you add up the people who support the President and the unhappy folks who want a more conservative Commander-in-Chief, you get a solid majority.

Even in Oregon.

After all, for a "blue" state, we sure did get some solid majority wins on ballot measures like "one man, one woman."  Doesn't sound very "progressive," does it?

So I believe that the right conservative Republican, one who can satisfy the principles of the far-right while at the same personally connecting to the moderate center, can pull off a big win here.

Blue is the new Red.

However... that whole color thing is sort of a mistake...

Why do we call Republican states "red" when, for years, red was associated with Soviet Russia and Communist China?  It all goes back to an old election where a crummy (but popular) newspaper decided to start printing everything in color, instead of the usual black and white.  They produced an electoral map, and arbitrarily chose red and blue to designate Republicans and democRats.  Somehow, it caught on.

But many of us still continue to associate red with the international communist movement.  And that is where the "green is the new red" comes in...

As Holly Swanson spells out, many of the leaders, organizers, and financiers of the modern environmental "green" movement are the stalwart communists who have been seeking the downfall of our capitalist western democratic civilization for several generations.  The Soviet Union may have collapsed and the Berlin Wall torn down, but that is just a setback for these American fifth-columnist revolutionaries.  They learned that they can't win on an openly Marxist platform, so they have adapted themselves to appeal to our emotions: everyone wants a clean world, right?

Seriously, read the book:

Well, like I said, we all want a cleaner world, right?  I don't know about you, but I like clean air.  In the words of Foghorn Leghorn, "my lungs crave air!"  But what separates me from the "green" movement?  Simple:

I do not believe that we must impede capitalism in order to save the world.  Indeed, I believe that we must EMBRACE capitalism in order to save the world.

The great thing about American capitalism is that it allows the most efficient solutions to problems to come forward.  No other nation has produced as many life-improving innovations as America.  From medicines to satellites to computers to aircraft to superconductors, no other nation has provided so much to the world.  We didn't do it with government control of industry.  We did it because we have fewer burdens on innovation, fewer obstacles in the way of achievement.

You want to make the world cleaner?  Get the government out of the way!

Government obstacles have taken away any incentive for power companies to produce newer, more efficient power plants.  Because of idiotic regulation, it is better for a power company to allow an outdated, pollution emitting system to remain on-line long past its useful lifetime than it is for the power company to build a better power plant.

Don't even get me started on nuclear power (perhaps the only thing France has done right)...

Plastics, which result in more pollution and more fossil fuel depletion than wood and paper products, have taken over in light industry.  Why?  It's not because plastics are inherently cheaper and better.  It's because timber regulation has artificially raised the cost of paper and wood products (which cause less pollution and are naturally renewable) to the point where it makes more sense for manufacturers to covert as much as possible over to plastic.

By the way, when industry uses paper and wood products, American loggers make money and keep that money in America.  But when we switch to plastics, we subsidize foreign oil companies.  You know, the people who we won't allow to run our ports because we are afraid of terrorism...

What happens when you allow a free market system to force companies to continuously improve their production methods in order to lower prices?  You know, traditional competition?

You reduce waste.  Waste costs money.  And pollution is waste.

The more efficient a company becomes as a result of reducing costs to beat the competition, the less pollution is produced.  Free market competition leads to less pollution.  Regulation defeats this objective in two ways: it creates artificial costs that make more efficient methods more expensive, and it stymies technological innovation.  Why invest in a better way to do business if the government is going to add artificial costs to your improvement?  Why risk your capital developing new technologies if government regulation is going to reduce your bottom line?

The more the government tries to control industry in an attempt to save the environment, the less industry can do to save the environment.

And here is the problem we conservative Republicans face: we allow the green movement to label us an anti-environment, when the more accurate statement is that they are anti-capitalist.

Again, I like clean air.  I like clean water.  And, to be brutally honest, I can't think of a single conservative Republican who thinks otherwise.  In fact, that conservative Republican candidate for Governor I like so much, Jason Atkinson, is an avid fly-fisherman who probably cares more about clean water than anyone else running for office.

But we allow ourselves to be held hostage by an environmental movement by letting them control the terms of the debate.  We say "let's get the government out of the way of industry" and they say "Bush wants to put arsenic in your drinking water."  We say "let's not burden ourselves by signing on to the ineffective Kyoto protocols," and they say "Bush is causing global warming."

Don't even get me started on the whole global warming canard...

So I say we take the language back from the lying anti-Americans out to destroy capitalism.

I am going GREEN because I like clean air and clean water, and I believe the best way to achieve it is to elect REPUBLICANS who will cut the bureaucracy and allow free market innovations to lead us into the new millennium.  I encourage all stout-hearted right-wingers to embrace the color green.

Green is the new red, and red is the new blue.  Kick a democRat out of office to make the world a cleaner, healthier place.

As such, the blog stays green.  Enjoy the new look.

Comments

[Kitty Crane]

Outstanding Idea. I don't care for the MSM dictating color assignments to political parties. In addition your anti socialist issues are Capital.

[Max Redline]

fossil fuel

That's the same kind of misnomer that leads to "red" versus "blue" states, and "green" equalling environmental extremism.

"These http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=13284offshore findings support the abiotic, deep earth theories that abundant oil can be found even below the bedrock."

Like many other "green" ideas, the concept of "fossil fuel" doesn't stand up under examination.

The term is a great sound-bite, and has been widely deployed, but it is inaccurate.

It is employed primarily to continue the charade that leftists use each day to convince us all that humans are responsible for every potentially negative event that may happen on the planet.

As noted recently in my blog, we burn stuff and raise cattle. So the media take is that human activity causes "haze" in the Columbia River Gorge.

Ignored completely is the fact that termites generate more methane and ammonia than all of the cows feeding outside of Boardman.

It's just much easier to blame people - and the editors love it.

[lgwdnbdgr]

Heh, you betray your inexperience with your comments on the history of red vs blue states. Red was arbitrarily chosen to represent the CHALLENGER and blue the incumbent (or incumbent's party).

Of course, pop culture only starting paying attention to politics around the 2000 elections. Clinton was president, so the Democratic Party was the incumbent party. Thus, Gore states were assigned as blue. Bush, being in the challenging party, had his states denoted in red.

Don't get me started on the negatives of the masses who dominate pop culture. Suffice it to say, their narrow view stuck. The mainstream media just wants to sell papers or get viewers, so they'll conform to whatever standard the masses like without regard to historical accuracy. Thus, red now means Republican and blue means Democrat. Sad, really, but what can you do?

[HMIL]

Did you really read the book? It's *so* full of details that it's taking me a long time to get through. But I feel like it's a clarion to anyone who bothers to *think* with an open mind and resist the prevalent Left Coast culture.

Oh, and in solidarity, I'm switching the color of my blog to green, too.

[Vonski]

So, do we leave the Democrat color as blue (since it is reported that Republicans by in large are happier), or, switch them to yellow?

[HMIL]

We make the new DemocRat color ... ummm ... how about tye dye of the French flag with a wide yellow stripe down the middle?

[Anthony & Tammy Brotton]

Very nice post Gully.
It shows how the democRats are taken over by the socialist movement.
The democrat party has done it's best to over regulate our lives so that we have no choice but to follow the law.
But we do have a chance to turn it around with this election.
Let's get Jason elected and start the new path.

Green is good if you are a lizard.
LOL
and a late happy St. Patricks Day
Gullyborg.

Anthony & Tammy Brotton
Capitol 3

[greenink]

Oh please. Republicans are environmentalists? Nobody is that stupid. Seriously. Industrial capitalism has been the single most biologically destructive force in history and continues to be so. It's not about politics; it's about common sense.

What is capitalism but an economic machine that seeks to maximize the efficiency in which raw materials are converted into products for human consumption?

The more powerful or widespread that machine, the more rapidly raw materials are converted. Guess what. The earth is finite. The raw materials are finite - clean water, air, tungsten, uranium, oil, whatever. Sure, some things can return, over time, like trees and topsoil, but not anywhere near the rate at which we deplete them.

Capitalism is killing the planet, and republicans are the primary driving force behind it. You might be in favor of clean air and water, but promoting capitalism as a solution to environmental solutions makes as much sense as expecting my horse to solve the problem of my dwindling hay supply.

[Gullyborg]

Wow, you are so brilliant. You are telling us that capitalism and industry are destroying the world. So right. We should stop making computers, and medicines, and machines, and airplanes, and satellites, and go back to living like we did back in the dark ages, when death from starvation and plague were more common than death from heart disease, cancer, and stroke. That's the ticket.

And it's all the fault of, gasp, REPUBLICANS!

Keep on preachin'! All you do is prove my point that the environmental "green" movement cares more about the downfall of western civilization that the care of Gaia Earth Mother.

[Gullyborg]

> promoting capitalism as a solution to environmental solutions makes as much sense as expecting my horse to solve the problem of my dwindling hay supply.

Didn't the development of the horse-plough revolutionize agriculture, allowing the land to be used much more effectively, thus producing far more crops that were consumed by the horse?

Just sayin...

[Sailor Republica]

Talk about a big ass strawman that Greenink puts up.

[greenink]

Gully, please don't fall into the trap of thinking that the only choices in the future of human development are (a) continuation of industrial capitalism and (b) a return to the Dark Ages (which were largely the result of the same social and political forces that got us where we are today). S.R. will be accusing you of erecting straw men. ;-)

Look, it doesn't have anything to do with what *I* want. It has everything to do with reality, past and future. First, consider history. Looking at the big picture, has capitalism been a positive force or a negative force with regard to the environment? Has environmental degradation increased or decreased with the growth of capitalism? It's a dumb question because the answer is contained in the very nature of capitalism, which is a system of efficiently converting natural resources (i.e. the environment) into products for human consumption.

Look at the future. Are natural resources becoming more abundant as we consume them more rapidly, or less abundant? duh. Of course they are becoming less abundant, and the rate of decrease goes up as we become more efficient at extracting and using them. So, what is the obvious result? We will run out of stuff. If you pump water out of your creek faster than inflow and rain replenish it, pretty soon you are going to be thirsty.

Your example of the horse and the plough are typical capitalist short-term thinking. (I'll leave aside the inherent animal-rights argument, since I know capitalists only consider animal welfare within the context of how they can serve humans.) Sure, if I have a horse and a plow, I can sow more hay. As a capitalist, I'll want to sell some of that hay so I can have more horses and thus grow more hay. How long can I keep doing this? ("Why?" might be a better question, but I'll leave that alone for now.) More horses, more hay, more plowing, more land that is dedicated only to growing hay and less that is available to grow food for other creatures that may have little utility in my capitalist scheme.

Then what?

[Gullyborg]

There are more trees in the United States than there were 200 years ago.

How did that happen?

We are producing more food all by ourselves than was produced by the entire world 100 years ago.

How did that happen?

You say that I am wrong for suggesting that the alternative to capitalism is to return to the dark ages. Well, what is YOUR alternative? The Soviet model? Yeah, THAT worked!

And I am confused how the dark ages were caused by the same forces at work today. Are you suggesting that the fall of the Roman Empire was caused by free market capitalism and the desire of every Roman to be free, to prosper based on his own merit?

Funny, they never taught me that in any of the several courses I took in Classics.

You also base your entire argument on the premise that all progress comes at the cost of something, and that is inherently bad. You are afraid that someday we will run out of trees and food.

Perhaps.

Someday, the Earth will swallowed by the Sun.

Do you think that the Earth alone should be the source of all our production as humankind, right up until the Supernova occurs?

I don't.

I envision a day when Man is not just walking on the Moon again, but spreading out to new worlds. Someday the human population might climb to 10 billion, 100 billion, even a trillion.

What is your solution?

Do we let people starve and die? Do we implement forced sterilzation? You sound like a dirty hippie liberal, so you probably think mandatory abortions would be in order.

I, on the other hand, recognizing that the Earth has limited resources and cannot support a ten-fold population increase, like the idea of spreading out beyond this Earth.

But then, if we let people like you dictate policy, it won't be an issue. You won't let us produce the food necessary to support the population. You won't let the free market driven pharmecutical industry produce new medicines.

When the population grows (and it is continuing to grow), people like you would rather see hunger and disease put Man in check than see Man overcome.

But we won't have to worry. Since you probably also oppose using American military projection in order to secure peace, we can count on Iran and other rogue states to develop nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, to wipe out the capitalist threat. So at least we won't starve.

You sicken me. Be gone.

[greenink]

*LOL* Ok, buddy. It's your echo chamber - er, uh, blog. Y'all just talk amongst yourselves. I'm out.

[Sailor Republica]

Good riddance to Green Shi'ite.

[Gullyborg]

I welcome informed disagreement and argument based on logic and facts. But as he had none, he had no voice to break the echo...

[SpankThatDonkey]

Good Post. I would like to send you guys over to http://www.uselectionatlas.org which is David Leips site. He declares "I do not care if certain news outlets decided to change the traditional blue for Pubs and Red for Dems, I have been doing this for like 9 previous elections and I am not going to go back and change everything (paraphrase)

This is the best documentable source of "media bias" going. I surmise they changed because Ronald Reagan kept talking about the "evil empire", and he was talking about the Russian Reds.. candidates represented in our congress by Schumer, Boxer, Kerry et al...

[Individ]

Sorry for coming into this late, but let me state two facts that give the lie to some of Greenink's ideas:

1. The fall of the Communist block revealed far greater environmental degradation than what is typically seen in capitalist countries; and,

2. Resource Science and Economics are far more complex than most, especially the "chicken littles", want to believe. To wit: proven oil reserves at the end of 1993 equaled 1023.6 billion barrels. During the following ten years, 264 billion barrels were produced and consumed, yet proven reserves at the end of 2003 equaled 1147.7 billion barrels. So, are we "running out" of oil?

[Gullyborg]

Follow up:

READ THIS!

http://www.gopbloggers.org/mt/archives/003370.html

[no one will read this]

Once again, I am at the bottom of a long line of comments and readers are probably sparse, but I can't help but comment.

The new color for red is black. The black of profit (as in black friday) and that may lead to the black (and muted browns) of desolation. The problem with letting industry regulate itself is that it often doesn't move until its too late.

Its a matter of what we expect of people. All too often, people look for a short term gain instead of long term goals. The people who control large companies are driven by making profits as large as possible. Often CEOs and other management figures are kicked out of the company if they do not meet shareholder's expectations. The result is an almost sociopathic pursuit of profit NOW, full speed ahead and damn the next few quarters.

I AM A CAPITALIST! I write that now to try and dodge some of the pot shots sure to follow. However, I favor regulation of our natural resources. Without that, the result is what is called "the tragedy of the commons". People will eek out value from shared property for their own benefit to the detriment of others. The environment is such shared property.

Who can we expect to raise fuel efficiency standards on vehicles, certainly not Detroit. Left to its own devices, the auto industry would be lightyears behind its current position on efficiency. Nor can we expect the demands of the people to shape the industry, those monster SUVs are still flying off the lots like hot cakes.

Gully, you raised the energy industry as an example and given your dedication to this page and things politic I am sure you are aware of the recently defeated EPA position. The EPA wanted to change its stance so that old energy companies could upgrade their facilities WITHOUT including the latest environmental protection equipment. This defeats the very nature of your argument. The industry doesn't want to go pro-environment, it isn't as profitable. And it won't be profitable until the bleek future we all fear is sitting on our front door. By then its too late.

I'm sure your retort is that the industry wants to upgrade and will include SOME measure of environmental improvements in its plans. You will say that some is better than none and the regulations I champion will force the company to stay its misreable polluting self.

My answer:
The reason it wants to upgrade is to increase capacity (not merely to be somewhat clean), which reflects an increase in demand for energy that has to be met somehow. I am in favor of that new energy generation coming from the cleanest possible source. As long as the regs are in place, the new energy will be cleaner than the old. The regulations make sure that the only profitable way to make new energy is by being clean. This is the type of regulation that industry needs. It cannot be expected to do this on its own. After all to quote Hamilton (I think), if all men were angels, no government would be necessary. And industry is still controlled by men.

I am sorry for the length of my comment. I did not intend to run on so long when I started and I thank those who have had the patience to read my thoughts.

[no one will read this]

An additional thought. Notice that the regulations do not undercut the capitalist nature of the business world. No one (or at least not me) is looking for a state controlled energy company. Its a matter of encouraging business to make good long term decisions. The best example of this is the new energy production facilities found in upstate New York.

Large super wind power generators standing over 300' tall are being erected over farmland. These structures, when used in concert can replace a midsized powerplant and create completely pollution free power. Additionally, the farmland they are located on is being rented from local farmers (without any more harm to the use of property than sticking a large pole in the middle of a field) and pay around $10,000 per year each to the property owner.

I'm sure this development gives everyone a bit of hope. However, the start up costs for these generators is rather large. Over time they will pay for themselves because there is almost no overhead cost in operating the machinery and no costs for oil/coal/or other fuel, but getting investment is tricky.

The only reason that someone would invest in this type of power is because it has become too expensive to update ye olde coal shoppe and bring it into compliance. Without the encouragement of responsible legislation such as the Clean Air Act it would not be possible.

Once again, thank you for your time.

[Gullyborg]

two quick points:

The thing about upgrading the power plants and refineries without using all the mandated pollution controls is that the old plants pollute A LOT, and they don't produce much energy or refined petroleum compared to newer, more efficient designs. Upgrading them (or building new ones) without the mandated controls would still result in cleaner air, more power, and more refined petroleum. It would be a win for everybody.

I like wind farms. I like solar and nuclear power. I like hydropower. These are all great and could all potentially produce far more energy than burning oil, for less money, over longer periods of time. The problem isn't capitalism. The problem is the LEFT! Look at the Kennedy family, blocking wind farms because they would block the view from the family compound! Why is France thriving on nuclear power when we haven't build a new nuke plant in 30 years? And don't even get me started on dams and the allegedly endangered salmon (that are clubbed to death by thousands by fish and game every spawning season -- some way to treat a threatened species!).

Just some things for you to ponder.

[No one will read this]

As to your first point, it comes back to what you expect out of a company. I expect that a company will upgrade their environmental efficiency as little as possible to meet regulations. Power plants just don't run without needing new parts for decades without end, eventually they must either upgrade or close their doors. Both options lead to a favorable outcome, cleaner sources of power. Besides, do you know what would fix the problem? A sunset time for grandfathered power plants. Either come up to code in a couple of years or be closed. Either way, the market will pick up the slack in meeting energy demand. This is where the inginuity of the American entreprenuerial spirit truly shines.

As to your second point, yes, the problem is laissez faire capitalism (as opposed to what could be called common sense capitalism). New energy sources are not cultivated until it is cost efficient to do so. Being cost efficient is generally not on the same time scale as being intelligent about conserving natural resources or protecting the environment. Generally, it is not cost efficient until doomsday is within view. The best government regulations make the most intelligent outcomes the most cost efficient outcomes. A little bit of common sense in our capitalism.

The Kennedy's position on wind power only goes to show that the rich and powerful are not looking at the best interests of us all, only themselves. (It doesn't take being a Kennedy to place your self interest above the interests of others. That is one of the evils that is too often found in us all. If only all men were angels...)

[Gullyborg]

heheheheh...

the greenies make fun of me for suggesting that the long-term solution to our problems is to aim for the stars.

meanwhile, the smartest man in the entire world agrees with me:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060613/D8I7ADB81.html

for the record, I said it first. ergo, I am smarter than Steven Hawking.

neener neener neener.