It is interesting that he is not pushing for the symbolism I agree. Somewhat interesting that their Chief White House Science advisor John Holdren was making a push last week in trying to change the term "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Disruption" recognizing the new term is more vague and more difficult to disprove.
Oh dear could it be that George W. warmed up more to "solar panels on the White House" than Obama? Yes it is interesting. The truth behind those solar panels that Reagan removed directly from the source the White House. Why they were removed:leakage Who put them back on: George W. source the White House. http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/ww2.htm
I am sure this Bill Mckibben is extremely disppointed, having such high hopes and even putting Obama's face and name "Globama" on their initiative to put Solar on the White house. Perhaps Obama doesn't want to assoc. with this particular organization and has a plan for the future or it is all political timing and wanting to distance himself from Carter, before an election? Who really knows the truth. I am sure before the end of his administration there will be more solar panels put somewhere on the White House. I am sure no one is against that, except perhaps for "the flashy show" that will accompany it. Funny that under Bush's administration panels were put on apparently without any big fanfare, it was just an appropriate thing to do. Btw I noticed there were more solar powered signs on the highway in I think Manitoba and North Dakota, was good to see.
Obama came into office promising change. This agenda energized the liberals and scared the conservatives (by definition practically). But that's an extremely difficult agenda to manage. Any actual change will please liberals, but only if the change is enough, so effectively it will only please some liberals. Any change will, for sure, further alienate conservatives.
Case in point: health reform made him few friends on the left, and entrenched hatred for him on the right.
Now the solar panels. Of course they are just symbols, but they also ARE that: symbols - like the American flag in church (or absent from the church). For Obama to back off this symbol speaks volumes to me. It seems it is more or less impossible to govern from the middle in the US today. For someone to try to govern from the left would more or less result in a civil war. So we go back to the Right, which will bolster the far left, and so on, and so on. I find this situation very discouraging.
Things are a little better in Canada, where we hung onto the long gun registry by the skin of our teeth yesterday. But there is a strong push towards what I call "American style" politics, where there is no acknowledgement of the middle. Scary.
It is interesting that he is not pushing for the symbolism I agree. Somewhat interesting that their Chief White House Science advisor John Holdren was making a push last week in trying to change the term "Global Warming" to "Global Climate Disruption" recognizing the new term is more vague and more difficult to disprove.
ReplyDeleteOh dear could it be that George W. warmed up more to "solar panels on the White House" than Obama? Yes it is interesting.
ReplyDeleteThe truth behind those solar panels that Reagan removed directly from the source the White House. Why they were removed:leakage Who put them back on: George W. source the White House.
http://www.whitehousemuseum.org/ww2.htm
An take on perhaps why Obama didn't yet use the solar symbolism (although I think this is a stretch).
ReplyDeletehttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704129204575505822147816104.html
I am sure this Bill Mckibben is extremely disppointed, having such high hopes and even putting Obama's face and name "Globama" on their initiative to put Solar on the White house.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Obama doesn't want to assoc. with this particular organization and has a plan for the future or it is all political timing and wanting to distance himself from Carter, before an election?
Who really knows the truth.
I am sure before the end of his administration there will be more solar panels put somewhere on the White House.
I am sure no one is against that, except perhaps for "the flashy show" that will accompany it.
Funny that under Bush's administration panels were put on apparently without any big fanfare, it was just an appropriate thing to do.
Btw I noticed there were more solar powered signs on the highway in I think Manitoba and North Dakota, was good to see.
Obama came into office promising change. This agenda energized the liberals and scared the conservatives (by definition practically). But that's an extremely difficult agenda to manage. Any actual change will please liberals, but only if the change is enough, so effectively it will only please some liberals. Any change will, for sure, further alienate conservatives.
ReplyDeleteCase in point: health reform made him few friends on the left, and entrenched hatred for him on the right.
Now the solar panels. Of course they are just symbols, but they also ARE that: symbols - like the American flag in church (or absent from the church). For Obama to back off this symbol speaks volumes to me. It seems it is more or less impossible to govern from the middle in the US today. For someone to try to govern from the left would more or less result in a civil war. So we go back to the Right, which will bolster the far left, and so on, and so on. I find this situation very discouraging.
Things are a little better in Canada, where we hung onto the long gun registry by the skin of our teeth yesterday. But there is a strong push towards what I call "American style" politics, where there is no acknowledgement of the middle. Scary.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20101005/D9ILGAR04.html
ReplyDelete