Archive for category Al Gore

Smart Guy Wins!

The Tea – not a real – Party, is dead.

Rest in agony.

2 Comments

S.B. 63 Would Give Utah’s Electoral Votes to Winner of National Popular Vote

Senator Howard Stephenson (R-Draper) has introduced S.B. 63, which proposes that Utah join with a coalition of other states totaling 270 electoral votes in order to allocate them as a block to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote. This coalition, called the National Popular Vote, would effectively change the way we elect a President when the electors meet after Election Day in December at the state capitols (constitutionally, that’s when it’s decided). In fact, if this system had been in place in the 2000 election, Utah would have been helped make Al Gore the President — despite the fact a majority of Utahns voted for George W. Bush.

The National Popular Vote law has been enacted by states possessing 132 electoral votes — 49% of the 270 electoral votes needed to activate it.

In an e-mail to constituents, Rep. Greg Hughes supported S.B. 63, saying:

The electoral system does create some unintended side effects. Since the number of electors varies greatly by state (Utah has 6, Florida 29, California 55) consistently red or blue states are accepted as such, and taken for granted in a presidential race. For example, no Republican candidate spends much time in California, and no Democrat candidate spends much time in Utah. As a matter of fact, no candidate spends much time in a state that has historically leaned strongly to either party, instead dedicating most of their time to the eleven or so swing states which could go either way and deliver large numbers of electoral votes. As a consequence, smaller states get ignored –along with states whose majority can be easily predicted. That’s two strikes against a state like Utah.

If the focus were on individual votes (which a mechanism like S.B. 63 would provide) instead of ten swing states, “fly-over land” would suddenly become infinitely more valuable.

S.B. 63 raises an interesting constitutional question.

How can a coalition of states do this without a constitutional amendment that would allow for direct election of the President? States have the right to set the rules governing electors, who are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President. Utah’s electors are not bound to follow the majority popular vote. However, electors traditionally vote for the winning candidate in their state. The few who have broken this unwritten rule are referred to as “faithless electors”.

Given the difficulty of amending the Constitution, it makes sense to try to reform the electoral system on the state level. The National Popular Vote coalition would ensure that that every vote in every state will matter in every presidential election. OTOH you can say the new system would be as undemocratic as the present system, and an election such as the 2000 election would still be highly controversial, except in a different way.

Under the proposed new system, presidential candidates would likely concentrate their campaign efforts in the most populous states instead of the swing states. Utah would not be totally ignored any longer (and would keep its disproportionate 6 electoral votes), but the two major party candidates still might not come here.

Utah Democrats and progressives could go to the polls in the knowledge that their votes might make a difference. At the same time, third-party candidates might lose votes. Voters could worry that voting third-party might hurt the chances of one of the major-party candidates.

Is S.B. 63 a good idea? Any thoughts?

17 Comments

Special Takes On Reality Return To Television!

Unfortunately, I won’t be able to afford them because you have to install an expensive cable or satellite hookup. I hate that particular reality, because it’s obvious in the following video from June 15th that Keith Olbermann is still on top of his game and I enjoy getting my news and opinions from the best:

(I had a bit of trouble with this video because it was choppy and repeated itself, but the commentary is spot-on. Video and transcript can be found here)

UPDATE: Moved video to comment #1 to avoid the annoyance of having it auto-play.

Anthony Weiner’s constituents still support him and have apparently seen through the sex scandal scams which are serious if you’re a Democrat, but will get you standing ovations and chairs on important committees if you’re a Republican. 21st Century reportage, (garbage), portrays war profiteering scams as boring and harmless sex stupidity as MUST-SEE-COVERAGE!

I think it would be GREAT if Mr. Weiner ran in the election to replace himself, and I hope that’s the reason he stepped down – A certain Supreme Court justice and his wife would be watching from the edge of their seats.

I’ve heard the first show will include another courageous top performer in the realm of news reporting and opinion based on reality named Michael Moore.

My ultimate hope is that if Al Gore’s television station broadcasts shows of integrity, giving two sides based on facts, he won’t have to solicit time on any private system of for-profit television and will eventually be seen by the public on their airwaves for free.

Nobody can take my dreams while I’m alive.

DO THIS!

Type dailykos.com into your address bar and a pop-up will appear which will allow you to join with others in requesting that cable and satellite television providers include Olbermann’s show on their lower tier packages.

37 Comments

Diana Ross For The Supreme Court!

I mean HONESTLY, how can you do worse then this?

3 Comments

Keith Olbermann Joins Current TV

Keith Olbermann has signed a deal with Current Media, the TV and digital media company that was founded in 2005 by Al Gore and Joel Hyatt. In addition to executive producing and hosting a new nightly primetime news and commentary show, Olbermann will also serve as the company’s Chief News Officer and will have an equity stake in Current Media. The new show will air weeknights beginning later this year — possibly within a few months.

Keith Olbermann

More info:

Current TV: Keith Olbermann to Host Major New Nightly Primetime News and Commentary Show on Current TV
HuffPo: Keith Olbermann To Current TV: Hosting New Show, Becoming Chief News Officer
FDL: Olbermann to Join Current TV

UPDATE: I tried tuning in to Current TV via Comcast and it came up “Not Authorized.” It’s no wonder this channel has so few viewers if you have to pay extra to get it.

UPDATE:
Al Gore invited Olbermann to Current TV less than 24 hours after he anchored the last edition of “Countdown” on January 21. The “non-compete” clause in Olbermann’s contract ruled out working for all the leading news networks.

21 Comments

BBC Asks the Forbidden Question “What happened to global warming?”

global warming, climage change, Al Gore, climate models, BBC, skeptics, global warming deniers, Ken Bingham, oneutah.org

How did this slip past the editors of the BBC? One of the leading global warming promoters is asking the forbidden question “what happened to global warming?“. To even use the term global warming in a month with an ‘R’ in it is unfathomable but to actually contemplate that climate change may not be occurring is downright heresy. They even go as far as to suggest that global warming skeptics may have legitimate arguments and that the debate over climate change is “far from over”. gasp!

The BBC sites the fact that world temperatures peaked in 1998 and have steadily declined ever since and that the infallible computer models did not predict this. They also site a study that shows the sun may have been the driving force for increased temperatures during the 20th century and not from increased atmospheric carbon dioxide as claimed by Al Gore and global warming believers.

Since atmospheric Carbon Dioxide has increased since 1998 there should have been a corresponding increase in world temperatures but that has not occurred which has baffled scientists. Maybe they will be less baffled if they use actual science to come to their conclusions and show a willingness to change the conventional wisdom when confronted with data that does not fit their preconceived notions?

From The BBC What happened to global warming?

This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.

But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.

And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise.

So what on Earth is going on?

Should the US spend tax money to try and stop global warming?
Is global warming Real? (G) Is it human caused? (H) Will it be catastophic? (C) Can we stop it? (S) G ^ H ^ C ^ S
T T T T T
T T T F F
T T F T F
T T F F F
T F T T F
T F T F F
T F F T F
T F F F F
By Ken Bingham

This is a logic truth table. It carries every option conceivable based on the propositions listed. I have removed the false options on ‘is global warming real’, not because it may or may not be real but that a false renders everything else not only false but irrelevant.

The first 3 propositions are conditions that global warming believers must meet for their hypothesis to even be considered valid.

1. ‘Is global warming real?’ I have not included false logic on the first question since if that premise is false then all others are irrelevant.

2. ‘Is it human caused?’ The question is essential because if it is not human caused then the 4th proposition is automatically false. If humans are not responsible for global warming then there is no possibility we can do anything about it and spending trillions on it would be an act of futility.

3. ‘Will it be catastrophic?’ This is an important question because even if global warming is real and human caused if it is not going to have massive negative effects then it would not be worth spending trillions of dollars to combat a non-problem.

(2 and 3 are not mutually exclusive because even if global warming is human caused it does not automatically mean it will be catastrophic or vise versa.)

4. ‘Can we stop it?’ Must always be true in order to justify spending trillions of dollars, not to mention our freedoms, to stop global warming. However, I would submit that there is nothing that justifies losing our freedom.

Thus my analysis comes to this, if we can’t stop global warming then it is irrelevant whether it is happening or not. If it is really happening then we must expend our efforts to adapt to it rather than tilting at windmills spending trillions of good dollars over bad in a Quixotic effort to try and stop it.
All we can do is adapt which is the only thing nature truly cares about.

, , , ,

198 Comments

%d bloggers like this: