I've read stories here off and on for a few years, but only lately have I felt compelled to ask all of you a few things. These questions aren't intended to bait you, I'm not trolling or ranting or anything else. I welcome all answers, there are no qualifications... I'm not asking for strict logic. If you can only answer emotionally, or intuitively, or whatever, that's fine too.
My first question concerns Al Gore and his climate change activism. This isn't about whether climate change is real, or even if it's provable. It might be real and unprovable, and this would still be a grave problem. Reducing our carbon dioxide output isn't even a bad thing if it all turns out to be wrong because whether or not peak oil theory is correct, there is still a finite amount of oil/coal/natural gas. It won't last forever.
No, what I want to ask is this: Supposing that climate change is the slow motion catastrophe that will wreck our world and cause millions and billions to suffer, why is it that Gore still rides around in limos and flies on jet planes? That he's an "important person" just doesn't cut it, for several reasons. First, he was born into a political dynasty, and presumably he and even his grandchildren will remain part of it. This makes it awfully convenient, one would think... our own children will eat gruel and ride bicycles (when they can be found), while his own drive around in biodiesel limos and fly on the last few jets authorized to soar up into the sky. Isn't it awfully convenient? It would be easy (and for him, cheap) to have a satellite link set up so that he could speak at the big rallies on the jumbotrons. No need to pick up the Nobel in person, but he'd get to give his little speech and set an example. Or, he could have sent a staffer in his place ("Hey, it really was important enough that a person had to spew the CO2 into the air, but this isn't about me, so I sent some senior staffer.").
So, again, isn't it awfully convenient that for important events, people will still be able to use these things, and that he and his will always be important?
My second question has nothing to do with the first. For this one, I'd like to ask you about a (former?) site member, Cindy Sheehan. As I understand it, she was frustrated by the lack of progress in ending Bush's folly, and when even the democrats failed to end it she then threatened to run against them in elections. Thus, she became persona non grata here. If I'm not mistaken, this was because she said that she wouldn't be running as a democrat, but presumably as an independent or perhaps some third party. Why the hostility? Had she ran and won, even with an (I) behind her name on CSPAN she would have voted in what most would agree would be a democratic manner. Except possibly for anything having to do with Iraq. If DailyKos is about the democrat party itself though, and not about the ideals, what good is it? If Dick Cheney runs for president in 2012, would it be ok as long as he has ran on the democrat's ticket? Why would you people ostracize Cindy Sheehan, and doesn't this sort of thing just lead to the abuse we've seen from the democrats in Congress since 2006?
My third and final question is one of a matter of policy. Why, tell me, is a federal minimum wage law sacred among those who lean democrat? I'm the first one to say that people deserve a decent living wage for the work that they do, and if you as an employer can't afford that, then maybe the business itself wasn't all that important anyway. We as a nation can certainly survive a fewer fast food franchises... and despite arguments to the contrary we haven't seen any economic contractions in the past due to minimum wage laws. This I take as a given, no need to persuade me. But isn't a minimum wage law something that is more relevant at the state level? Hell, as I understand it, most of the states already have such, and even if the federal minimum wage were repealed tomorrow, most would continue to receive minimum wage of some sort. Anyway, it seems to me that someone living in southern California would deserve a higher minimum wage than someone living out in the middle of nowhere Iowa. The cost of living is different among regions, and therefor a living wage would have to be different. It'd be unfair to make an employer in Nebraska pay the same living wage that someone needs in NYC. And the same that someone receives in New Mexico would have someone starving and living in a cardboard box in Boston. If this is the case, then why do the left-leaning voters and pundits and politicians all start screaming bloody murder when ever someone criticizes a federal minimum wage?
All feedback welcome.