Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by steveternal on Oct 10, 2009 7:52:16 GMT -5
^^^This was my friend's Facebook status for yesterday: "congrats @barackobama on the Nobel prize and I'mma let you finish, but Mother Teresa had one of the best influences on peace OF ALL TIME!"
Why are you people still acting like the Nobel Peace Prize is worth jack shit, decades after it has been given to the likes of Yasir Arafat & Henry Kissinger?
There have also been many credible and laudable folks who have cherished the award. What else is there for giving props to folks who spend a lifetime working at it ?
As for a viable 3rd part: Never gonna happen. If there was a viable 3rd party, someone could end up winning the presidency with only 34% of the vote. If Obama's 53% of the vote doesn't count as a mandate, 34% would leave the remaining 2/3 in opposition.
If you want more choices in candidates, pay attention during the primaries.
Without meaning to offend, I find this a fairly naive position. There is rarely opportunity for one to work his/her way up through the ranks from local committeeman on up. You ALWAYS answer to the party bosses on various levels, and if you do not play ball, your hopes are crushed by party endorsement, if not by other means.
Dennis Kucinich represents a region near me and is one of the best candidates(in my opinion-obviously) that demonstrates ANY kind of variance from the norm. His committee powers are basically nil. He was less "viable" BECAUSE he was a democrat.
People saying,"It's never gonna happen" is precisely why it may never happen. Assuming that a mandate is even necessary to rule, perhaps someone with 34% of the vote could be more unifying. For instance, let's take the civil war as an example. Had there been a party that interjected the possibility of states rights coexisting with federal programs as well, we may have averted killing each other in an us vs. them fashion.
And I find it as laughable that Obama was given the Peace prize as it was that Gore did. It dilutes the meaning of the award-period.
I don't see how that is naive. While there may be little room for advancement in the current 2 party system, it would be exponentially harder for an individual with zero party backing. Often times the reason you answer to the boss is because he's the one that got you a seat at the table. Any 3rd party will have it's own bosses too.
Say Kucinich was a 3rd party candidate ala Ross Perot. How would he have done anything more than syphon off votes from Kerry in the GE? It's absurd to think he would be more viable as a 3rd party. This is precisely why I had said, "If you want more choices in candidates, pay attention in the Primaries."
Who's to say this mythical 3rd party party would have ended the war. That's pure conjecture. It's wasn't even so much of a party divide as a geographical divide, making a 3rd party more difficult. You may not need a mandate to rule, but it is not to your advantage to take office knowing 2/3 of the country doesn't want you there.
I think global warming/climate change, while it may be naturally occurring as some phenomenon of the earth, is mostly just a lie to scare people into wanting more government to protect them from themselves.
I think global warming/climate change, while it may be naturally occurring as some phenomenon of the earth, is mostly just a lie to scare people into wanting more government to protect them from themselves.
Really?
Really, really??
BTW, Dem here saying I'm not so sure Obama deserved the Nobel either. And Maniac, I think you're handling yourself quite well!
Without meaning to offend, I find this a fairly naive position. There is rarely opportunity for one to work his/her way up through the ranks from local committeeman on up. You ALWAYS answer to the party bosses on various levels, and if you do not play ball, your hopes are crushed by party endorsement, if not by other means.
Dennis Kucinich represents a region near me and is one of the best candidates(in my opinion-obviously) that demonstrates ANY kind of variance from the norm. His committee powers are basically nil. He was less "viable" BECAUSE he was a democrat.
People saying,"It's never gonna happen" is precisely why it may never happen. Assuming that a mandate is even necessary to rule, perhaps someone with 34% of the vote could be more unifying. For instance, let's take the civil war as an example. Had there been a party that interjected the possibility of states rights coexisting with federal programs as well, we may have averted killing each other in an us vs. them fashion.
And I find it as laughable that Obama was given the Peace prize as it was that Gore did. It dilutes the meaning of the award-period.
I don't see how that is naive. While there may be little room for advancement in the current 2 party system, it would be exponentially harder for an individual with zero party backing. Often times the reason you answer to the boss is because he's the one that got you a seat at the table. Any 3rd party will have it's own bosses too.
Say Kucinich was a 3rd party candidate ala Ross Perot. How would he have done anything more than syphon off votes from Kerry in the GE? It's absurd to think he would be more viable as a 3rd party. This is precisely why I had said, "If you want more choices in candidates, pay attention in the Primaries."
Who's to say this mythical 3rd party party would have ended the war. That's pure conjecture. It's wasn't even so much of a party divide as a geographical divide, making a 3rd party more difficult. You may not need a mandate to rule, but it is not to your advantage to take office knowing 2/3 of the country doesn't want you there.
"Syphoning" off votes from Kerry and/or anyone who no longer represents me by action, but only by entitlement or as a default is exactly what is necessary to bring accountability back to the Democratic Party. It's going to take a couple of elections and voters being conscious, but a threat to either of the two parties is what's needed to light the fire under their asses. Otherwise, this BS brokering and bickering will continue to waste our money and fill the pockets of special interests.
Again I'll ask, "Why do we expect them to represent us, when they will get our vote anyway ?"
Say Kucinich was a 3rd party candidate ala Ross Perot. How would he have done anything more than syphon off votes from Kerry in the GE? It's absurd to think he would be more viable as a 3rd party. This is precisely why I had said, "If you want more choices in candidates, pay attention in the Primaries."
Who's to say this mythical 3rd party party would have ended the war. That's pure conjecture. It's wasn't even so much of a party divide as a geographical divide, making a 3rd party more difficult. You may not need a mandate to rule, but it is not to your advantage to take office knowing 2/3 of the country doesn't want you there.
Kucinich is NEUTERED within the Democratic Party because he doesn't play corporate ball. The only reason he is continually re-elected is because his district is liberal and his constituents love his vigor.
If he would go third party, let's say Green, as a candidate for president, he would energize the (3rd)party and bring progressive Democrats isolated by the centrism and plutocracy of the democratic party on board. His peace dividend platform would be strengthened by the goals of the party and not weakened, as is the case now. He could possibly bring matching federal election funds to the party in every state that he garnered 5%. And the democrats can only blame people like Nader , McKinney, etc for costing them the election rather than earning it for themselves.
But instead, we get the handoff from GWB to BO and back and forth-different name, same game....ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK.
No Iraq withdrawal on the promised agenda, Afghan escalation, flipflop on the FISA vote removing corporate culpability from their spying crimes, little follow up on Bush criminal enterprise, corporate shill Vilisak appointed to Department of AG destroying organic standards,...ad infinitem.
And an automatic knee jerk reaction by the "majority" in three more years back to the republicrats. Corporate profits increasing, people working harder for less. Bank bailouts, debtor's prisons. Yay two party system .
-When I Hear My Name -Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground -Blue Orchid -Passive Manipulation -Red Rain -Death Letter -My Doorbell -Hotel Yorba -Same Boy You've Always Known -Lovesick -Little Ghost -We're Going to Be Friends -The Hardest Button to Button -Black Math -The Nurse -I Just Don't Know What to Do With Myself
Encore: -Ball and Biscuit -Seven Nation Army -Screwdriver
It's wasn't even so much of a party divide as a geographical divide, making a 3rd party more difficult.
Actually the issue of slavery was very strictly divided by democrat and republican lines. The dems were pro slavery and the reps were the abolitionist party. Quite different from the reputations that either party have today, but nonetheless they were essentially the same parties though they have evolved a great deal over the years.
In fact despite being viewed as racist by some left wingers the republican party was actually founded in specific opposition to slaver by abolitionists leading up to the civil war. So While Red is incorrect about the outcome of having a third party influence you too are inaccurate in stating that a 3rd party influence would be more difficult. The fact is that the republicans actually were the third party and they came to power with the election of Abraham Lincoln.
In short, you're both wrong.
Founded in Ripon, Wisconsin, in 1854 by anti-slavery expansion activists and modernizers,[6] the Republican Party quickly surpassed the Whig Party as the principal opposition to the Democratic Party.[
BTW, Dem here saying I'm not so sure Obama deserved the Nobel either. And Maniac, I think you're handling yourself quite well!
Thank you kindly.
On global warming, in the science world it is still up for debate. In politics it has become a forgone conclusion based on public opinion and $$$. In scientific circles most great minds who are not being funded by those with special interests are opposed to the theory that "global warming" (formerly the "greenhouse effect" and lately "climate change" - never trust buzz words!) is purely or even mostly due to the behavior of man and industry. Aside from the obvious fact that the planet was much warmer before man and much colder and much warmer again and much colder again .... (You get where I'm going with this?) ... there is also substantial evidence to indicate that global temperature trends may be due to the increase and decrease in sun spots. Industry and pollution cannot be held accountable for average temperatures increasing on other planets.
-When I Hear My Name -Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground -Blue Orchid -Passive Manipulation -Red Rain -Death Letter -My Doorbell -Hotel Yorba -Same Boy You've Always Known -Lovesick -Little Ghost -We're Going to Be Friends -The Hardest Button to Button -Black Math -The Nurse -I Just Don't Know What to Do With Myself
Encore: -Ball and Biscuit -Seven Nation Army -Screwdriver
I'll admit my example of the civil war was waaay oversimplified and slightly off target. But the ideal that I'm shooting for here remains. A third party has the opportunity to break the stalemate and lead by example by doing things completely different than business as normal. Compromises , coalitions, and spearheading real change that might be bad for business in the short term, could redefine how some of you label yourselves once you have the courage to blaze the right trail rather than follow the asses and elephants to the circus.
I assume, and I only assume mind you, that you are one of the people who believe that it should be "stopped".
Please explain how it is to be stopped, or addressed in any fashion if stopped is not the right word, without it's cause being known.
To put this in perspective your post could just as well have said "Well we're gonna do something about it regardless of if it works or makes more problems."
I don't know man, I'm doing my best to address that respectfully, but you made it really hard. That reply sort of just throws reason out the window.
Hopefully there's more to it that you didn't explain.
On global warming, in the science world it is still up for debate. In politics it has become a forgone conclusion based on public opinion and $$$. In scientific circles most great minds who are not being funded by those with special interests are opposed to the theory that "global warming" (formerly the "greenhouse effect" and lately "climate change" - never trust buzz words!) is purely or even mostly due to the behavior of man and industry. Aside from the obvious fact that the planet was much warmer before man and much colder and much warmer again and much colder again .... (You get where I'm going with this?) ... there is also substantial evidence to indicate that global temperature trends may be due to the increase and decrease in sun spots. Industry and pollution cannot be held accountable for average temperatures increasing on other planets.
So one "controversial" scientist in Russia, who is an Astronimst by the way makes a claim, National Geographic reports it, and now it is incontrovertible proof.
There is a scientific consensus that we are experiencing climate change, and that humans and CO2 are at least partly responsible. The list of dissenting statements from scientific organizations is very small. I dont think anyone claims to have all the answers, but the more we learn the more it is looking like that the cumulative effect of human civilization, and the Industrial Revolution is to blame. No one is suggesting that we go back to living in caves and living with nature, just that we start taking steps to clean our act up. Limiting pollution seems a pretty good way to start as far as I am concerned. In the 50's and 60's it was considered perfectly normal in TN to dump paper mill, and dye works refuse into the rivers. Finally in the 80's we had huge stretches of dead river. I will never forget seeing the blue green nasty paper mill run off running down the creek into the river, and my dad explaining why we didn't fish there. The point is what we didn't know then killed off huge schools of fish, entire freshwater mussel beds, and most species of predatory birds in the area. These days it is looking a lot better after the mills were forced to stop dumping directly in the river and start using settling ponds. I am not advocating going back to the dark ages but moving from coal to nuclear power, and other basic steps to reduce our emissions. Also while I have some problems with cap and trade making the amount of pollution you can emit into a commodity actually seems like a good way to start.
I assume, and I only assume mind you, that you are one of the people who believe that it should be "stopped".
Please explain how it is to be stopped, or addressed in any fashion if stopped is not the right word, without it's cause being known.
To put this in perspective your post could just as well have said "Well we're gonna do something about it regardless of if it works or makes more problems."
I don't know man, I'm doing my best to address that respectfully, but you made it really hard. That reply sort of just throws reason out the window.
Hopefully there's more to it that you didn't explain.
I was speaking about previous posts denying global warmings significance. I was only referencing your fringe theory as a means to prove my point. Everyone now at least knows it's happening. I really don't even see how you could garner up that much revulsion at that post.
-When I Hear My Name -Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground -Blue Orchid -Passive Manipulation -Red Rain -Death Letter -My Doorbell -Hotel Yorba -Same Boy You've Always Known -Lovesick -Little Ghost -We're Going to Be Friends -The Hardest Button to Button -Black Math -The Nurse -I Just Don't Know What to Do With Myself
Encore: -Ball and Biscuit -Seven Nation Army -Screwdriver
I assume, and I only assume mind you, that you are one of the people who believe that it should be "stopped".
Please explain how it is to be stopped, or addressed in any fashion if stopped is not the right word, without it's cause being known.
To put this in perspective your post could just as well have said "Well we're gonna do something about it regardless of if it works or makes more problems."
I don't know man, I'm doing my best to address that respectfully, but you made it really hard. That reply sort of just throws reason out the window.
Hopefully there's more to it that you didn't explain.
I was speaking about previous posts denying global warmings significance. I was only referencing your fringe theory as a means to prove my point. Everyone now at least knows it's happening. I really don't even see how you could garner up that much revulsion at that post.
I agree with everything here.
And I'll add that just because it's happening, we are not freed from the responsibility to do all we can to slow it down. If fact quite the contrary. With knowledge comes burden. Self restraint is the next step in evolution. What we are experiencing here is it's battle with the ego and entitlement.
And by no means do I find nuclear power a suitable alternative to fossil fuels even in the short term. The justification is always that it's cheaper than investing in concentrated solar power or other much cleaner alternatives AS WELL AS REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF WASTE from taking power for granted. Corporate jet ravel would be one of the areas I'd be concerned about here. I'm aware on a personal level of some of the blatant stupidity of corporate travel in this age of technology.
So just because a man is dying Fishee, does that give ya the right to kick him down a hill ?
On global warming, in the science world it is still up for debate. In politics it has become a forgone conclusion based on public opinion and $$$. In scientific circles most great minds who are not being funded by those with special interests are opposed to the theory that "global warming" (formerly the "greenhouse effect" and lately "climate change" - never trust buzz words!) is purely or even mostly due to the behavior of man and industry. Aside from the obvious fact that the planet was much warmer before man and much colder and much warmer again and much colder again .... (You get where I'm going with this?) ... there is also substantial evidence to indicate that global temperature trends may be due to the increase and decrease in sun spots. Industry and pollution cannot be held accountable for average temperatures increasing on other planets.
So one "controversial" scientist in Russia, who is an Astronimst by the way makes a claim, National Geographic reports it, and now it is incontrovertible proof.
There is a scientific consensus that we are experiencing climate change, and that humans and CO2 are at least partly responsible. The list of dissenting statements from scientific organizations is very small. I dont think anyone claims to have all the answers, but the more we learn the more it is looking like that the cumulative effect of human civilization, and the Industrial Revolution is to blame. No one is suggesting that we go back to living in caves and living with nature, just that we start taking steps to clean our act up. Limiting pollution seems a pretty good way to start as far as I am concerned. In the 50's and 60's it was considered perfectly normal in TN to dump paper mill, and dye works refuse into the rivers. Finally in the 80's we had huge stretches of dead river. I will never forget seeing the blue green nasty paper mill run off running down the creek into the river, and my dad explaining why we didn't fish there. The point is what we didn't know then killed off huge schools of fish, entire freshwater mussel beds, and most species of predatory birds in the area. These days it is looking a lot better after the mills were forced to stop dumping directly in the river and start using settling ponds. I am not advocating going back to the dark ages but moving from coal to nuclear power, and other basic steps to reduce our emissions. Also while I have some problems with cap and trade making the amount of pollution you can emit into a commodity actually seems like a good way to start.
No one is saying that reducing pollution is a bad idea.
It would make sense that an astronomer is taking note of solar activity and the temperature on Mars no?
I sited one article to point out the change in temperature on Mars and that now means that he's the only guy saying that it's not just man if indeed it is man? I guess I'm wrong about the Earth having fluctuated in average temperature since before life formed too.
I am just saying that one Astronomers observation about a different planet with a different, and almost solid CO2 atmosphere holds little weight with me.
Also let's not forget that the National Geographic article that was cited in the article you cited also said that
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
Planets' Wobbles
The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.
"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)
All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.
Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now. Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.
No Greenhouse
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.
He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.
You can check the rest of the article out here. What you posted was a pick and choose spin story, not really anything that had a basis in scientific fact.
And I'll add that just because it's happening, we are not freed from the responsibility to do all we can to slow it down. If fact quite the contrary. With knowledge comes burden. Self restraint is the next step in evolution. What we are experiencing here is it's battle with the ego and entitlement.
And by no means do I find nuclear power a suitable alternative to fossil fuels even in the short term. The justification is always that it's cheaper than investing in concentrated solar power or other much cleaner alternatives AS WELL AS REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF WASTE from taking power for granted. Corporate jet ravel would be one of the areas I'd be concerned about here. I'm aware on a personal level of some of the blatant stupidity of corporate travel in this age of technology.
So just because a man is dying Fishee, does that give ya the right to kick him down a hill ?
I have never once said that pollution is good or that current means of reducing waste are bad or that recycling is poor practice. I am very much in favor of all of these things. Dont' go insinuating that I said anything to the contrary. I probably do more in my personal time to clean up nature than most of you. How many pounds of garbage did you guys pull from the beach this week? I pulled four full lawn and leaf bags - and I didn't even 4x4 on the beach this week. I carried it. When I was a smoker I stuffed my butts in my pockets. I'm not gonna throw out any accusations, but if you're leaving them on the ground you shouldn't. Don't throw them in the water either. I piss off a lot of people complaining to them when they do that. Almost gotten my ass kicked more than once over that and I expect it to continue.
As far as corporate air travel is concerned, well, I have to be on a plane to NM @ 4 am. I fly back to NY on Fri. Then to San Fran on Wed and Back to NY on Fri, then NOLA the following thur, back to NY a week later, then to Dallas the next Sat back home on I think Monday. Out to Cincinnati that wednesday, then I drive to Columbus and work for a few days until I fly back home to NY. I guess I'm the devil. At least I have great health insurance. ;D
Listen, I don't know how old you are or what you do for a living, and I don't want to pass judgment since I don't know, but I'll tell you two things. One is that it took me forever to find a job that didn't make me wish I was dead. I'm really happy dong what I do and corporate travel is just part of business. The second is that if it wasn't for corporate travel you wouldn't have you iPod, computer or any other electronics that you own. At least they wouldn't work anything like you want them to. Forget about software, plug ins, customer feed back -! It CANNOT all be handled on the internet and telephone. I didn't understand what corporate travel was all about and how it actually helped things get done until I was in the middle of it. I work in pro gear now, but I've done consumer too. It doesn't matter. Companies are all over the country and all over the world and some things only get done right person to person. We all work together to make our products work better. We have OEM arrangements and meetings to make things work better together. We send our experts to help their experts and their experts to help our engineers, etc. This even goes on with direct competitors. The necessity for global collaboration among manufacturers (as I know first hand) and other businesses is part of everything that we live with in our daily lives.
On that note. I have to pack. I'm leaving for the airport in less than 5 hours.
I am just saying that one Astronomers observation about a different planet with a different, and almost solid CO2 atmosphere holds little weight with me.
Also let's not forget that the National Geographic article that was cited in the article you cited also said that
Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."
Planets' Wobbles
The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.
"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)
All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.
These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.
Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now. Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.
No Greenhouse
Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.
He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.
You can check the rest of the article out here. What you posted was a pick and choose spin story, not really anything that had a basis in scientific fact.
And I'll add that just because it's happening, we are not freed from the responsibility to do all we can to slow it down. If fact quite the contrary. With knowledge comes burden. Self restraint is the next step in evolution. What we are experiencing here is it's battle with the ego and entitlement.
And by no means do I find nuclear power a suitable alternative to fossil fuels even in the short term. The justification is always that it's cheaper than investing in concentrated solar power or other much cleaner alternatives AS WELL AS REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF WASTE from taking power for granted. Corporate jet ravel would be one of the areas I'd be concerned about here. I'm aware on a personal level of some of the blatant stupidity of corporate travel in this age of technology.
So just because a man is dying Fishee, does that give ya the right to kick him down a hill ?
I have never once said that pollution is good or that current means of reducing waste are bad or that recycling is poor practice. I am very much in favor of all of these things. Dont' go insinuating that I said anything to the contrary. I probably do more in my personal time to clean up nature than most of you. How many pounds of garbage did you guys pull from the beach this week? I pulled four full lawn and leaf bags - and I didn't even 4x4 on the beach this week. I carried it. When I was a smoker I stuffed my butts in my pockets. I'm not gonna throw out any accusations, but if you're leaving them on the ground you shouldn't. Don't throw them in the water either. I piss off a lot of people complaining to them when they do that. Almost gotten my ass kicked more than once over that and I expect it to continue.
As far as corporate air travel is concerned, well, I have to be on a plane to NM @ 4 am. I fly back to NY on Fri. Then to San Fran on Wed and Back to NY on Fri, then NOLA the following thur, back to NY a week later, then to Dallas the next Sat back home on I think Monday. Out to Cincinnati that wednesday, then I drive to Columbus and work for a few days until I fly back home to NY. I guess I'm the devil. At least I have great health insurance. ;D
Listen, I don't know how old you are or what you do for a living, and I don't want to pass judgment since I don't know, but I'll tell you two things. One is that it took me forever to find a job that didn't make me wish I was dead. I'm really happy dong what I do and corporate travel is just part of business. The second is that if it wasn't for corporate travel you wouldn't have you iPod, computer or any other electronics that you own. At least they wouldn't work anything like you want them to. Forget about software, plug ins, customer feed back -! It CANNOT all be handled on the internet and telephone. I didn't understand what corporate travel was all about and how it actually helped things get done until I was in the middle of it. I work in pro gear now, but I've done consumer too. It doesn't matter. Companies are all over the country and all over the world and some things only get done right person to person. We all work together to make our products work better. We have OEM arrangements and meetings to make things work better together. We send our experts to help their experts and their experts to help our engineers, etc. This even goes on with direct competitors. The necessity for global collaboration among manufacturers (as I know first hand) and other businesses is part of everything that we live with in our daily lives.
On that note. I have to pack. I'm leaving for the airport in less than 5 hours.
1) I salute you for doing your civic duty and cleaning up way more than your fair share. If the average person whom touted your same views on global warming did what you do, I might be more inclined to entertain their viewpoints. But unfortunately, many more are like LelieBomb, denying it's existence to save her entitled carcass a buck-the same reason she'd deny some of the lesser fortunate healthcare.
1a) I also have a pet peeve about pigs who think it's ok to throw their butts anywhere. In my younger days, I used to get out of my car at stoplights and hand them back simply saying, "you dropped something".
2) You took the corporate jet travel much too personally. I was referring to reducing waste, not eliminating your travel. I stated that I know personally because my wife has had to do so for meetings that EASILY could have been handled by phone or teleconference. When I say corporate, I am not typically referring to the worker bee, salesperson, or technician who obviously needs to be onsite. I suppose I should clarify and say white collar instead. All I'm getting at is that it is a very easy way to reduce emissions and waste, not that you should have to be chained to a desk without an Ipod fer christ sakes.
3) Have a safe and productive journey. Use plenty of hand sanitizer. Those flu shots are spreading disease like wildfire.
Last Edit: Oct 12, 2009 23:09:55 GMT -5 by red - Back to Top
Post by Fishing Maniac on Oct 13, 2009 0:16:30 GMT -5
1.) It's not my civic duty it's my smurfing prerogative. It's my civic duty to clean up after myself. As it is yours.
1a) Unless you are familiar with LilieBomb's environmental habits it (and even if you are) it is unfair to comment on them when she has not shown herself in this thread for some time and doesn't appear to be doing so any time soon. At least passing judgment on her motivation is.
1b) My views on global warming are that it is not a phenomenon PROVEN to be the result of industry. That is all.
2.)White collar meetings require plenty of travel. I sit in on enough of them to know. It's not just what happens IN the meetings that gets things done. A lot of it's over dinner, drinks even in cabs from the airport. I didn't take it personally I just played it that way to make a point. This may not be reflected in your wife's line of work however.
3) Thanks for the good wishes. Much appreciated. I don't use hand sanitizer. I prefer to build up natural defenses. I touch lots of nasty aquatic $h*t coverd in bacteria and who knows what else remember?
1) With a world as polluted as ours, it IS your civic duty to clean up MORE than your fair share. Continue to lead by example, as will I. No one else is gonna do more than THEIR fair share, so we gotta take up the slack if we wanna try to make progress. Or die trying. The war(against litter and pollution) is already lost, but that doesn't mean the daily battle isn't worth keeping up.
1a) Not an attack on her. She's has exemplified this time and time again. She is the example for others. Proven by her words here and elsewhere. Plus she doesn't join in convos, just lobs the day's spin and runs. Bless her heart.
1b) Our impact and snowballing of global warming IS proven. We just want an out from accountability for the bottom line, so we underline that it is happening anyways. Like I asked, if an old man is dying, does that justify pushing him down a hill ?
2) Though it DOES happen that way, my point is that it doesn't have to. Especially at the cost of losing species and shoreline at an increasing rate directly due to our emissions. I'm not going to cite the countless core samples of arctic ice directly by article, but they are out there and undeniable.
3) I am mostly with you on this one. I am allergic to ALL antibiotics with very serious reactions. Overuse of antibacterials and antibiotics has gotten us here. I have always been a less-is-more guy when it comes to throwing a chemical or agent into the mix.
But you are going to be in a bunch of airports at a pivotal time for seasonal sickness. Godspeed.
Back to this thread's regularly scheduled Obama lauding and/or bashing... ....
Kucinich is NEUTERED within the Democratic Party because he doesn't play corporate ball. The only reason he is continually re-elected is because his district is liberal and his constituents love his vigor.
This has no effect on his placement in the Primaries. He did quite poorly in both campaigns. Blaming his showing on anything but his poor electability silly.
"Syphoning" off votes from Kerry and/or anyone who no longer represents me by action, but only by entitlement or as a default is exactly what is necessary to bring accountability back to the Democratic Party.
I don't know how this makes sense. So you like the dems but since they don't completely represent you, you'd rather have a republican?
Actually the issue of slavery was very strictly divided by democrat and republican lines.
So it just so happened that all the dems lived beneath the mason/dixon line? While Lincoln and the Reps may have abolished slavery, it was more North vs. South than Rep vs. Dem.
Kucinich is NEUTERED within the Democratic Party because he doesn't play corporate ball. The only reason he is continually re-elected is because his district is liberal and his constituents love his vigor.
This has no effect on his placement in the Primaries. He did quite poorly in both campaigns. Blaming his showing on anything but his poor electability silly.
He had no party support because of their corporatism. They don't want to make waves. They have their darlings. Try to even be the renegade committeeman running against another Democrat in ANY primary. Endorsements come down. Progressive campaigns end. Showing at the polls has to do with getting the message out. The party controls whose message gets out by endorsing the darling.
I don't know how this makes sense. So you like the dems but since they don't completely represent you, you'd rather have a republican?
I find them the same. And I refuse to vote for someone who doesn't represent me EVEN if that puts the feared one in office. Yes Bush was WAAAY worse than Obama. But what is far worse than either, is putting off the pressure to make either one accountable by pretending there is much difference between the two.
Dead horse beaten.
Last Edit: Oct 13, 2009 8:54:23 GMT -5 by red - Back to Top
If you wanna play the global warming game, I'm all for it!
How do we curb global warming? continue what we are doing, it is a scientific fact that less sunlight reaches the earth's surface as a result of pollution. Pollution should be causing global cooling with all other variables held constant...
Nice try. Except that the science demonstrates that our atmosphere traps the sunlight in, and the thicker the atmosphere from pollutants or "greenhouse gases", the hotter the greenhouse. duh
Red, seriously think about what u are saying. Using that reasoning, than I can walk through my glass door if I am entering my house but I cannot walk through it if I am trying to leave my house. The same action that is holding heat in is also reflecting it away. More is being reflected away than is being held in