A Friendly Divorce Agreement

DIVORCE AGREEMENT--
WRITTEN BY YOUNG COLLEGE STUDENT
The person who wrote this is a college (law) student. Perhaps there is hope for us after all.

DIVORCE AGREEMENT

THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.


Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al: We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.


Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right for us all, so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.


Here is our separation agreement:


--Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a similar portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.


--We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them.

--You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU.


--Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.

--We'll take the nasty, smelly oil industry and the coal mines, and you can go with wind, solar and biodiesel.

--You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them.

--We'll keep capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street.

--You can have your beloved lifelong welfare dwellers, food stamps, homeless, homeboys, hippies, druggies and illegal aliens.

--We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks.

--We'll keep Bill O'Reilly, and Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood .

--You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us.

--You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.

--We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.

--You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism, political correctness and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N. but we will no longer be paying the bill.

--We'll keep the SUV's, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Volt and Leaf you can find.

--You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors.

--We'll keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and "The National Anthem."

--I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute "Imagine", "I'd like to teach the World to Sing", "Kum Ba Ya" or "We Are the World".

--We'll practice trickle-down economics and you can continue to give trickle up poverty your best shot.

--Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.

Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you might think about which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.


Sincerely,

John J. Wall

Law Student and an American

P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Martin & Charlie Sheen, Barbara Streisand, &
( Hanoi ) Jane Fonda with you.


P.S.S. And you won't have to press 1 for English when you call our country.


Forward This Every Time You Get It ! Let's Keep This Going, Maybe Some Of It Will Start Sinking In!!

I know which side I'm gonna choose. (I'm not going with Jane Fonda and Rosie O'Donnell.)

I'm afraid we will be on opposite sides of the border then Eric. I enjoy a little free thought and a lot of diversity in my life. And those greedy corporations who pay their workers slave wages can stuff their attitudes someplace where the sun don't shine.Thats the problem with these e mails .They don't leave much room for discussion.

Well, we'd have a choice, wouldn't we?

Sorry, but who do you think owns all those wind and solar farms, as well as all the biodiesel? It sure as hell is not all the hippies and "environmentalists." It's Shell, BP, GE, Florida Power & Light, Siemens,... same ones that own all the oil and gas, and the same ones that would be going with the conservatives in this imaginary scenario, and I can guaran-damn-tee you they are not leaving them behind.

Swing again.

riceme wrote:

Sorry, but who do you think owns all those wind and solar farms, as well as all the biodiesel? It sure as hell is not all the hippies and "environmentalists." It's Shell, BP, GE, Florida Power & Light, Siemens,... same ones that own all the oil and gas, and the same ones that would be going with the conservatives in this imaginary scenario, and I can guaran-damn-tee you they are not leaving them behind.

Swing again.

 

I don't have to swing again. I'd take Jane Fonda at my house for Christmas Dinner long before I'd take Sarah Palin, though I might have to rethink that one because my understanding is that Hanoi Jane is quite the religious conservative these days.
As far as Shell or BP owning those solar farms or wind farms it's only because they want to control them from actually taking over power from the oil markets. They aren't doing it for the good of the environment because they don't really give a darn about the environment.
Give me a tree hugger over a warmonger any day of the week, and a free thinker over a religious bigot on any given Sunday.
I get those e-mails too and it amazes me that even though some people actually know me, they still send them.  I think they just cannot imagine that  anyone could possibly  disagree with the thinking enclosed.
PLEASE give me "Imagine" and "I'd like to teach the world to sing" over any battle hymn from any country, any day.
Please leave me on a planet where anyone can believe anything they want to believe and be free to do so, not forced to believe the same as any Jew or any Christian. If the people on my planet want to worship earthworms, I want them to feel free to do so.
Those other planets aren't heaven to me, they're hell on earth.

And yes, some of us do actually believe that, deep in our minds and souls and we will not be quieted.

I have nothing against religious people except for those who preach that if you don't believe exactly as they do you're going to hell. And that's what most of the outspoken religious leaders are saying to the rest of America that might not accept that view. The letter references Christian beliefs specifically.  It references a Judao Christian society. In other words, think like me or to hell with you.


I believe in freedom of religion and also in freedom from religion, if that's what a person chooses. I enjoy living in a society that practices that. You go ahead and join the people who want to force your thinking onto you. I'll stay over there on what you think is the Dark Side, but which is also the free and enlightened side. It's the side where I think most true Christians also abide, because the founder of their religion was actually a pretty liberal guy. He advocated luring converts by showing people that his followers were different, kinder, more accepting , more loving than others. He never asked that the Roman government enforce Christianity on anyone.

And by the way, he didn't mention any symbols of his religion like trees with stars on tops, manger scenes or even cross symbols being placed in any government buildings. That wasn't the reason he said he came to earth.

Otter wrote:

I have nothing against religious people except for those who preach that if you don't believe exactly as they do you're going to hell.

Isn't that true of most organized (major) religions? They all think they are right. One advantage in the U.S. is that one is unlikely to get whacked by someone of an opposing or different religion, or even a different sect of the same religion as in the Mideast.

Grrrreat topic!

Naturally, I'll be living with the peaceniks, anarchists and front yard veggie garden folks. And yep, Jesus was a liberal, but I expect he'll be present on both sides of the border anyhow.

nochain wrote:

Otter wrote:

I have nothing against religious people except for those who preach that if you don't believe exactly as they do you're going to hell.  

Isn't that true of most organized (major) religions? They all think they are right. One advantage in the U.S. is that one is unlikely to get whacked by someone of an opposing or different religion, or even a different sect of the same religion as in the Mideast.

Yes, they do, and it's a shame. Jehovah's Witnesses actually don't believe in hell, which is kind of nice. They believe that some small group of them will stay on the earth and that will be heaven, and everyone else just goes nowhere. When they're dead, they're just dead.

I like that concept. You can't get into too much trouble by being bad that way, and if you're good, you get rewarded.
I just couldn't handle all the footwork they do though. I've got bonespurs on both heels.
So, I guess I just get to go nowhere when I die.

Catholics used to teach that they were the only way to salvation.  Not so much anymore.

I used to tell the Jehovah's Witness folks that I'm a Catholic and can't talk to them because the Church told us not to.

I see where the latest pope said something about Athiests being good people if they live a caring lifestyle.  That would have shocked folks 50 years ago.

Deferent religions (or lack thereof) can coexist peacefully, like it mostly does here in the U.S..  It's when religious zealots try to force their views and practices upon others that religions become despicable.  Islamists come to mind first, but we cannot forget the Crusades and the Inquisition.  And there are pockets of fanatic Jews mostly in Israel where they force Jewish practices upon others.

Live and let live, I say.  As long as participants are willing and no harm is done, I don't have a problem with other people's beliefs or actions.

Eric wrote:

Live and let live, I say.  As long as participants are willing and no harm is done, I don't have a problem with other people's beliefs or actions.

It seems the folks in the U.S. with the biggest ax to grind are some hypersensitive atheists who get offended by a simple cross, the 10 commandments posted on a public building, a generic prayer before a ball game, etc. I always find it somewhat amusing to read about their brutalized feelings over something they say doesn't exist. And the endless lawsuits. Now if they would just live and let live......

I agree with most of that, Nochain. I don't think public monies should be spent to erect nativity scenes or displays of the Ten Commandments and public funds shouldn't be spent to maintain them.

As long as the displays aren't "in yo' face", I don't have a problem with them. I don't think tax money should go toward the erection and lighting of a nativity scene, however. Christmas trees, wreaths and such are not obvious religious symbols like a nativity scene.

I agree with that too Eric. I know I got at least one Christmas card this year from someone who is an atheist. It was very generic but was welcome anyway. I used to have a friend who was Jehovah's Witness and I would give this person a gift at Christmas just like I did everyone else. I was always careful not to include any notation of Christmas on the gift though. I would just tell them it was a gift because they were my friend, and it was always gladly accepted.
Not everyone who doesn't believe in Christmas is so touchy, thank goodness.

Otter wrote:

riceme wrote:

Sorry, but who do you think owns all those wind and solar farms, as well as all the biodiesel? It sure as hell is not all the hippies and "environmentalists." It's Shell, BP, GE, Florida Power & Light, Siemens,... same ones that own all the oil and gas, and the same ones that would be going with the conservatives in this imaginary scenario, and I can guaran-damn-tee you they are not leaving them behind.

Swing again.

I don't have to swing again. I'd take Jane Fonda at my house for Christmas Dinner long before I'd take Sarah Palin, though I might have to rethink that one because my understanding is that Hanoi Jane is quite the religious conservative these days.
As far as Shell or BP owning those solar farms or wind farms it's only because they want to control them from actually taking over power from the oil markets. They aren't doing it for the good of the environment because they don't really give a darn about the environment.
Give me a tree hugger over a warmonger any day of the week, and a free thinker over a religious bigot on any given Sunday.
I get those e-mails too and it amazes me that even though some people actually know me, they still send them.  I think they just cannot imagine that  anyone could possibly  disagree with the thinking enclosed.
PLEASE give me "Imagine" and "I'd like to teach the world to sing" over any battle hymn from any country, any day.
Please leave me on a planet where anyone can believe anything they want to believe and be free to do so, not forced  to believe the same as  any Jew or any Christian. If the people on my planet want to worship earthworms, I want them to feel free to do so.
Those other planets aren't heaven to me, they're hell on earth.

And yes, some of us do actually believe that, deep in our minds and souls and we will not be quieted.

My comment was not addressed to you, and I know exactly why those companies own solar & wind farms, because I have worked in the wind industry for the past 14-years and have done my due dilligence on the subject.

So, do you think they bought out those companies because they want them to succeed or because they want them to fail?
I apologize because I thought you were talking to me, but now I wonder what do you think their purpose in trying to own the competition really is?
I know I suspect it's to keep them small and insignificant.

Otter wrote:

So, do you think they bought out those companies because they want them to succeed or because they want them to fail?
I apologize because I thought you were talking to me, but now I wonder what do you think their purpose in trying to own the competition really is?
I know I suspect it's to keep them small and insignificant.

No apology necessary, Otter.

Renewables is actually not their competition... they are monopolizing the energy industry and ensuring their place in the future energy markets. Trust me, the Oil & Gas corporations that are in the renewables game very much want renewables to grow and succeed.

One of the years I worked for GE Wind (I now forget which year... they all run together now, lol) we made more money than O&G, which is and was absolutely remarkable and unheard of. There is tremendous growth opportunity in green energy, despite the bad press it gets by the HUGE screw-ups you read about in the papers, like Solyndra. Not only that, for anyone reading this who might want to argue with me about renewable subsidies, you would be coming to the right place. O&G and coal receive MANY more times the subsides annually than renewables does, *plus* they are PERPETUAL *and* they've been receiving them for DECADES!

In my opinion, subsidies should immediately end for the entire energy industry. If subsidies go away for O&G and coal, then renewables can compete on an even playing field. But until that happens we cannot, and we're between a rock and a hard place... we need it until O&G and coal gets off the gub'ment teat too.

(Now dismounting soapbox, lol)

So does the government give the subsidies directly to the big oil and coal interests and not to renewables or does it funnel down to the corporations that own them and then the corporations divvy up the subsidies as they like and just give it to the O and G and coal folks and don't put enough into the renewable energy sources?
I'm like you, I don't see why our government should be subsidizing something that is obviously bad for our environment in the first place, and Lord knows, the oil and gas companies charge their customers enough already.

Otter wrote:

So does the government give the subsidies directly to the big oil and coal interests  and not to renewables or does it funnel down to the corporations that own them and then the corporations divvy up the subsidies as they like and just give it to the O and G and coal folks and don't put enough into the renewable energy sources?
I'm like you, I don't see why our government should be subsidizing something that is obviously bad for our environment in the first place, and Lord knows, the oil and gas companies charge their customers enough already.

Fossil fuels (like O&G and coal) receive perpetual (automatic) annual subsidies and have for decades, and renewables has the PTC (Production Tax Credit), which must go through an annual congressional and presidental review / approval / denial process. It expires on 31 December of each year, but has never been approved before the end of the year (that I am aware of, anyways). The result of this is the Boom & Bust Cycle, which we only half jokingly refer to as the Layoff Cycle, because at the end of the "boom," when the cycle "busts" and Congress fails to renew the PTC many, many people get laid off. Again, it is important to note that Renewables is only dependent upon subsidies because fossil fuels receive huge amounts of annual subsidies... if they did not, we would not need them because there would be an even playing-field in the energy market.

I hope all that makes sense... I work nights and have been up for way too long. It's the middle of the night for me .

Thank you for that information- there was a lot that I was not aware of.
Get some rest and sleep well.....

Otter wrote:

Thank you for that information- there was a lot that I was not aware of.
Get some rest and sleep well.....

Anytime, Otter! I have a link to an open letter to Romney (from when he was running for President) that a friend & colleague of mine wrote, and I'll post it for you when I can. He provided many details about the perpetual fossils subsidies, the point being that Romney -- as so many do -- had come out against subsidies for Renewables & that he would not renew the PTC if elected, but failed to also voice the same disagreement or concern regarding all the subsidies that fossils receive... again, as so many do. It really pisses me off that we get so much bad press because the PTC comes up for renewal annually, and because of the fraction of a percentage of -- admittedly phenomenally gross -- failures in Renewables that have been so widely publicized.

Until I can get to an internet connection w/my laptop (I always post from my phone because internet service is so incredibly expensive up here that I can't even afford it... still trying to get back on my feet after my long period of being out of work), if you'd like, you could probably find the open letter to Romney mentioned above by Googling "Wally Laffery, a sustainability minute, open letter to Romney." He posted it on WordPress & I reposted it a few different places.

For good measure I'll state again that I do not believe that anyone should be receiving subsidies, but only so long as fossils receives them, Renewables needs them in order to remain competitive in the market.

Happy new year!!

Happy new year to you too riceme. I'll check out that letter in the AM when I'm a little less sleepy. Not going to wait until midnight to ring in the year, though I know I'll be woke up by the fireworks anyway. Thanks. You are very informative.

Otter wrote:

Happy new year to you too riceme. I'll check out that letter in the AM when I'm a little less sleepy. Not going to wait until midnight to ring in the year, though I know I'll be woke up by the fireworks anyway. Thanks. You are very informative.

Cool, Otter... glad to see you're going to look up that letter. It is well-written and accurate. I badly wish it was a more widely read piece. Wally really knows his stuff and does his research.

Haha, well thank you... wind turbines, Renewables, the PTC and the politics surrounding it are the few subjects on which I am knowlegeable, lol. I have often joked that people shouldn't get me started talking about those subjects because once I get started I'll likely go on for 3-weeks or so, non-stop.

I'll be ringing-in 2014 by clocking-in at work for an 8-hour straight-time (no holiday pay for us!) shift... yay! Well, at least I have a job.

Here is the article... been sitting at a coffeehouse getting jacked-up on espresso (I've had 12 shots so far.... is that bad?? lol) before work and neglected to notice that there is a community computer sitting right in front of my big, fat head.


Mr. Romney, let’s be honest about subsidies to renewable energy
August 19, 2012

Dear Mr. Romney,

A lot of attention was given to you by the media when you declared you would allow the Production Tax Credit for wind energy to expire at the end of the year. Your campaign went further to claim that you will “end the stimulus boondoggles, and create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits.”

If you truly wish to create a level playing field for all sources of energy, please tell us what you intend to do about tax credits — those that you call stimulus boondoggles — that currently exist for coal, oil and gas. Many of these tax incentives have existed for decades while the fossil fuel-based industry continues to set new records for multi-billion dollar profitability year after year. What is your position on the fact that the vast majority of federal subsidies for fossil fuels and Ethanol were spent to support energy sources that emit high levels of greenhouse gases when used as fuel?

How will you reconcile the fact that the federal government has historically provided – and continues to provide – larger subsidies to fossil fuels than to renewables while fossil fuels produce multi-billion dollar profits? Fossil fuels are a mature, well-developed industry that has enjoyed government support since its inception over 100 years ago, totaling approximately $72 billion between 2002 and 2008. During the same period, renewable fuels, which are a relatively young and undeveloped industry, totaled merely $29 billion and 80% of that went to Ethanol subsidies.

How will you address the fact that the Production Tax Credit for wind energy repeatedly approaches expiration on a regular basis unless Congress and the President decide to extend it, throwing costly uncertainty into the renewable energy business model; while the largest subsidies to fossil fuels have been written into the U.S. Tax Code as permanent provisions? It appears that you like to criticize special tax credits for wind and solar and pretend that the tax incentives to fossil fuels don’t exist. Since powerful lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry have gotten their incentives permanently added to the tax code, you seem to believe that they aren’t tax incentives any longer but just ordinary adjustments to corporate balance sheets.

Since so many Americans are spending a lot of time discussing the upcoming expiration of the PTC, can you please address your plans for:

o the Credit for Production of Nonconventional Fuels - IRC Section 45K. This permanent tax provision provides a lower tax rate for companies who produce certain fossil fuels

o the Oil and Gas Exploration & Development Expense – IRC Section 617. Also known as Intangible Drilling Costs (IDC). This tax provision allows fossil fuel companies to deduct the cost of wages, machinery, or unsalvageable materials. The term “unsalvageable materials” is left ambiguous so it can be applied to a broad range of intangible costs

o the Oil and Gas Excess Percentage over Cost Depletion – IRC Section 613. This permanent provision in the tax code allows independent producers and royalty owners to deduct 15% of gross income earned from oil, gas and oil shale deposits. The nature of this tax incentive is nearly equivalent to the wind energy PTC, except that this one has been made a permanent provision in the tax code for fossil fuels

o Coal Royalty Payments as Capital Gains – IRC Section 631(c). This permanent provision allows income from the sale of coal under royalty contract to be treated as a capital gain rather than ordinary taxable income, thereby reducing the tax liability for qualifying individuals. Would you please explain who these qualifying individuals are, and why they deserve this special treatment when profits in this industry are so high?

o the Credit for Enhanced Oil Recovery Costs – IRC Section 43. This tax credit, also permanently written into the tax code, is available specifically for companies who use hydrocarbon-based tertiary injectant methods

o the Exclusion of Alternative Fuels from the Fuel Excise Tax – IRC Section 6426(d). This section further reduces the tax liability specifically for liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), P-series fuels, compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), liquefied hydrogen, liquid coal, and liquid hydrocarbon from biomass.

Those are just a small number of the many tax incentives given to fossil fuel companies that have been written into the tax code as permanent provisions. You have not addressed these in your campaign platform. Do you intend to remove these from the permanent tax code?

Let’s be honest.

I come with an idea. I propose that we extend the PTC long enough for the government to remove the special incentives for fossil fuels from the tax code, thereby leveling government support for all energy sources. Or, we can agree to extend the PTC until the wind and solar industries have managed to add equivalent tax incentives to the tax code that equally benefit them. You said you wanted to create a level playing field. I’m all for it. But allowing the PTC to expire on the basis of “leveling the field for all energy sources” while the fossil fuel industry continues to enjoy their special incentives is the height of government hypocrisy.

Respectfully,

Wally Lafferty
A Sustainability Minute blogger

For more information on special tax incentives for all energy sources, see: Estimating U.S. Government Subsidies to Energy Sources: 2002-2008, by the Environmental Law Institute.

http://www.elistore.org/Data/products/d19_07.pdf