Inauguration thoughts we should all be able to agree on

[MarleysGh0st]

Any other 'codewords' are of your own imaginings.

Nope, that's the one I had in mind. Thanks for the confirmation.

I'll let others continue the debate, now that we've clarified that this isn't about ethnicity.

[Flybrick]

Did you really think I A) either think that way or B) would post anything like that?

Seriously?!

Sorry to turn this thread about me for a second, but when have I ever behaved that way?

My arguments against candidate Obama were always about his record (what there was of it), his stated positions (what there were of them), and his association with, to me, very, very liberal individuals.

Seriously?!

[tlynn78]

Seriously?!

I suspect MarleysG was just being nitpicky about your use of the term European. I don't think he suspected you of suspecting Obama of wanting to turn us into a nation of hairy-underarmed women and stinky men. So to speak.


t.

[MarleysGh0st]

Did you really think I A) either think that way or B) would post anything like that?

Seriously?!

Sorry to turn this thread about me for a second, but when have I ever behaved that way?

My arguments against candidate Obama were always about his record (what there was of it), his stated positions (what there were of them), and his association with, to me, very, very liberal individuals.

Seriously?!

No, I never did think that. I thought you meant European = Socialist.

I also thought that the replies by Sprots and Cal were not being serious, either, but were addressing the word "European" in a "joking about the literal meaning" way. (Or maybe Sprots was being seriously literal.) You didn't seem to get the joke, mentioning graciousness and taking those replies as an attack on the previous administration.

I was trying to act as an interpreter in this thread, not as a combatant.


That is all.

[Flybrick]

Marley, I see (now).

You are quite correct, I didn't (and don't) take the non-gracious posts as anything other than what they wrote. The thread was (and is) about the new President. I thought they took cheap shots at the former president, thus lowering the tone of this thread which is about the new Chief Executive.

Hence, the lack of grace.

[a1mamacat]

Seriously?!

hairy-underarmed women


t.

HEY!

It's Winter!!!


Give me a break

[a1mamacat]

Marley, I see (now).

You are quite correct, I didn't (and don't) take the non-gracious posts as anything other than what they wrote. The thread was (and is) about the new President. I thought they took cheap shots at the former president, thus lowering the tone of this thread which is about the new Chief Executive.

Hence, the lack of grace.

From some of the posts, I don't think that is possible

[tlynn78]

HEY!

It's Winter!!!


Give me a break

lol - notice no mention was made of furry legs...


t.

[TheCalvinator24]

Did you really think I A) either think that way or B) would post anything like that?

Seriously?!

Sorry to turn this thread about me for a second, but when have I ever behaved that way?

My arguments against candidate Obama were always about his record (what there was of it), his stated positions (what there were of them), and his association with, to me, very, very liberal individuals.

Seriously?!

No, I never did think that. I thought you meant European = Socialist.

I also thought that the replies by Sprots and Cal were not being serious, either, but were addressing the word "European" in a "joking about the literal meaning" way. (Or maybe Sprots was being seriously literal.) You didn't seem to get the joke, mentioning graciousness and taking those replies as an attack on the previous administration.

I was trying to act as an interpreter in this thread, not as a combatant.


That is all.

Wow. I can't imagine that anybody thought I was taking a swipe at Bush. I was taking a swipe at Sprots.

[SportsFan68]

I think it was far more likely with Bush and his disregard of environmental issues, such as pushing for drilling in the ANWR and developing oil shale in Colorado, measures that would displace wild animals, eventually to the point of extinction, and create a more developed European-type countryside.

Colorado- you have a point (not to mention oil shale is neither economical nor feasible from an EROEI standpoint at the moment).

But have you ever seen ANWR?

Please...let's not paint unrealistic pictures a la "I am the Lorax- I speak for the trees"!

Jeemie and I are doing great today -- I haven't made a single point effectively so that he understands it and replies on point, and I haven't understood a good half or even three quarters of his replies.

My point about Colorado involves the 1982 Parachute disaster and currently inevitable environmental degradation of oil extraction from oil shale if it goes forward.

I have seen ANWR and its wild and human inhabitants on film. If Jeemie doesn't think that counts, that's fine. I'm going to Alaska next year, but not to see the ANWR, it will be the Kenai Peninsula.

I do not pretend that I am a Lorax or Rosa Parks, even though I accidentally made it sound like I was making that pretension a long while back, so maybe I unwittingly strayed into that area again. If i did, it was unintentional.

[SportsFan68]

Any other 'codewords' are of your own imaginings.

Nope, that's the one I had in mind. Thanks for the confirmation.

I'll let others continue the debate, now that we've clarified that this isn't about ethnicity.

Brilliant, Marley. It would never in a million years have occurred to me to ask about that.

[MarleysGh0st]

Any other 'codewords' are of your own imaginings.

Nope, that's the one I had in mind. Thanks for the confirmation.

I'll let others continue the debate, now that we've clarified that this isn't about ethnicity.

Brilliant, Marley. It would never in a million years have occurred to me to ask about that.

I guess I should get out of the interpreter business.

When FlyBrick mentioned making the country more "European", you did reply about all the Americans whose ancestral origins were from different places than Europe, didn't you? So what's a generic word I can use to describe said geographic origins without involving any overtones of interpretations of implications of racism?

In trying to interpret each of you to the other, I've managed to offend you all. So I'll just sit quietly and let you sort out your own misunderstandings next time.

[Rexer25]

Nope, that's the one I had in mind. Thanks for the confirmation.

I'll let others continue the debate, now that we've clarified that this isn't about ethnicity.

Brilliant, Marley. It would never in a million years have occurred to me to ask about that.

I guess I should get out of the interpreter business.

When FlyBrick mentioned making the country more "European", you did reply about all the Americans whose ancestral origins were from different places than Europe, didn't you? So what's a generic word I can use to describe said geographic origins without involving any overtones of interpretations of implications of racism?

In trying to interpret each of you to the other, I've managed to offend you all. So I'll just sit quietly and let you sort out your own misunderstandings next time.

So, that's it? You're just going to give up. Well, quitters offend me, sir.

[MarleysGh0st]

So, that's it? You're just going to give up. Well, quitters offend me, sir.

Must be your own fault. Bill yourself for $10.

[SportsFan68]

Nope, that's the one I had in mind. Thanks for the confirmation.

I'll let others continue the debate, now that we've clarified that this isn't about ethnicity.

Brilliant, Marley. It would never in a million years have occurred to me to ask about that.

I guess I should get out of the interpreter business.

When FlyBrick mentioned making the country more "European", you did reply about all the Americans whose ancestral origins were from different places than Europe, didn't you? So what's a generic word I can use to describe said geographic origins without involving any overtones of interpretations of implications of racism?

In trying to interpret each of you to the other, I've managed to offend you all. So I'll just sit quietly and let you sort out your own misunderstandings next time.

I truly was not offended, Marley. I really did think it was brilliant. That's the highest compliment I can give anyone -- either that I didn't think of something myself, or that someone wrote something up better than I did or could.

[MarleysGh0st]

I truly was not offended, Marley. I really did think it was brilliant. That's the highest compliment I can give anyone -- either that I didn't think of something myself, or that someone wrote something up better than I did or could.

Okay, let me try a new, Socratic approach to being an interpreter, then. Just as practice for the next time.

All of Brick's forefathers left Europe for a reason, mine too. I just want to note that's not true of all Americans. I work with people whose ancestors crossed the land bridge or got here in other ways from Asia long before Europeans even knew the continent existed, not to mention the people whose ancestors were dragged away from their African homes into slavery. I think there's no danger of our becoming more European with Obama at the helm. I think it was far more likely with Bush and his disregard of environmental issues, such as pushing for drilling in the ANWR and developing oil shale in Colorado, measures that would displace wild animals, eventually to the point of extinction, and create a more developed European-type countryside.

Please define "European" in this context, Sprots.




Or we can just let the Bored Sweeper sweep this whole thread away.

[Jeemie]

Jeemie and I are doing great today -- I haven't made a single point effectively so that he understands it and replies on point, and I haven't understood a good half or even three quarters of his replies.

My point about Colorado involves the 1982 Parachute disaster and currently inevitable environmental degradation of oil extraction from oil shale if it goes forward.

I have seen ANWR and its wild and human inhabitants on film. If Jeemie doesn't think that counts, that's fine. I'm going to Alaska next year, but not to see the ANWR, it will be the Kenai Peninsula.

I do not pretend that I am a Lorax or Rosa Parks, even though I accidentally made it sound like I was making that pretension a long while back, so maybe I unwittingly strayed into that area again. If i did, it was unintentional.

A lot's changed since 1982. However, what hasn't changed is that oil shale isn't economically feasible, so that's the only reason I remain against its use....for now. There is a microwave technique being developed, however, which may make in situ production of the fuel both economically and energetically feasible...and environmentally benign (as benign as any of our technological processes can be).

However, ANWR can be drilled in without "displacing wild animals to the point of extinction", and one can be in favor of drilling there without "disregarding environmental issues".

If you enjoy living in a technological society, but yet are going to be so concerned about enivronmental issues to the point of stopping any and all development of fuels, then you've got some compromising to do. Increased efficiency and alt fuels and conservation are only going to get you so far.

So we're going to need fuels- and more of them- from the ground for some time yet.

[ne1410s]

jeemie:

However, ANWR can be drilled in without "displacing wild animals to the point of extinction",...

Sit at your dining room table. Place a nickel on the table. The table is Alaska. The nickel is the total ANWR area.

But, we are several years behind where we should be (as far as drilling goes).

And several years behind in building nuclear power plants. ( Which would be my first choice.)

[Jeemie]

jeemie:

However, ANWR can be drilled in without "displacing wild animals to the point of extinction",...

Sit at your dining room table. Place a nickel on the table. The table is Alaska. The nickel is the total ANWR area.

But, we are several years behind where we should be (as far as drilling goes).

And several years behind in building nuclear power plants. ( Which would be my first choice.)

Agreed- on both counts.

[SportsFan68]

A lot's changed since 1982. However, what hasn't changed is that oil shale isn't economically feasible, so that's the only reason I remain against its use....for now. There is a microwave technique being developed, however, which may make in situ production of the fuel both economically and energetically feasible...and environmentally benign (as benign as any of our technological processes can be).

However, ANWR can be drilled in without "displacing wild animals to the point of extinction", and one can be in favor of drilling there without "disregarding environmental issues".

If you enjoy living in a technological society, but yet are going to be so concerned about enivronmental issues to the point of stopping any and all development of fuels, then you've got some compromising to do. Increased efficiency and alt fuels and conservation are only going to get you so far.

So we're going to need fuels- and more of them- from the ground for some time yet.

A lot has changed since 1982. For me, your key words about new technology were "being developed." I will oppose oil shale extraction until it is economically profitable and environmentally neutral. I believe we're at least 10 years away. Your sourcess may disagree.

I disagree that using current technology provides for drilling in the ANWR without displacing wild animals. I am certain that any drilling there using current technology disregards environmental issues. Fortunately, enough Senators have agreed with me that we're still not drilling there. Rep. Ed Markey is my new hero. I hope new Rep. Betsy Markey is soon on board (not related, as far as I can tell).

I am ready to compromise, as are many of my friends and neighbors. Various PTB see it differently. For just example, I am willing to use mass transit for everything on weekdays, but the route ends about five miles from my house. There's more, and I believe that increased efficiency, especially when it comes to alternate fuels, and conservation will get us as far as we want to go.

[Tony Reali]

<MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE> <MUTE>

[Jeemie]

A lot has changed since 1982. For me, your key words about new technology were "being developed." I will oppose oil shale extraction until it is economically profitable and environmentally neutral. I believe we're at least 10 years away. Your sourcess may disagree.

They don't- that's why I said I was against the effort to go after oil shale at this point in time.

I disagree that using current technology provides for drilling in the ANWR without displacing wild animals. I am certain that any drilling there using current technology disregards environmental issues. Fortunately, enough Senators have agreed with me that we're still not drilling there. Rep. Ed Markey is my new hero. I hope new Rep. Betsy Markey is soon on board (not related, as far as I can tell).

Ah, but you didn't simply say "displacing wild animals". You said "displacing them...some to the point of extinction"...which is a complete falsehood.

I also disagree that drilling in ANWR means disregarding environmental issues. This isn't China. No technology is environmentally benign...but in this country, we put out probably the best effort in the world to make it as environmentally benign as possible.

I am ready to compromise, as are many of my friends and neighbors. Various PTB see it differently. For just example, I am willing to use mass transit for everything on weekdays, but the route ends about five miles from my house. There's more, and I believe that increased efficiency, especially when it comes to alternate fuels, and conservation will get us as far as we want to go.

No...those efforts are very necessary...but they won't get us where we want to go.

There is no alternative fuel that gives us anywhere near the bang for the buck as fossil fuels. We can save a lot with increased efficiency and conservation, but eventually continued economic growth means increased consumption of fuel.

And the current on-line sources of fuel are peaking or very close to it. They will soon begin to decline.

So, if you don't like oil and you don't like coal, and you don't like nuclear, tell me which cities you would like to go dark?

[SportsFan68]

Ah, but you didn't simply say "displacing wild animals". You said "displacing them...some to the point of extinction"...which is a complete falsehood.

. . .

Some will be displaced to the point of extinction, but darn it, I couldn't find my source. Six years ago, some local students spent the summer filming and collecting data in ANWR and came back with a real eye-opening presentation, but I couldn't find it anywhere. No matter how much you and the other people claim benign, it won't be. Migratory patterns will be disrupted, and some species will go extinct. Some places should stay wild and available for creatures to go ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

There is no alternative fuel that gives us anywhere near the bang for the buck as fossil fuels.

Not true. Two homes in my county (that I know of -- I'm sure there are more than two) are solar powered and off the grid. One has a tiny wood stove in the family room "just in case," the other family refused to install even that.

And the current on-line sources of fuel are peaking or very close to it. They will soon begin to decline.

It sounds to me like you're the one who should be picking which cities go dark since most are so dependent on the fossil fuels I don't like.

So, if you don't like oil and you don't like coal, and you don't like nuclear, tell me which cities you would like to go dark?

This is one of those leaps which cause me befuddlement in attempting to keep up with your thinking. We have not said one word about nuclear, and I have not said I don't like it. I have not said I do like it, I hasten to add. I haven't said. I'll just repeat my reply to your other point: "It sounds to me like you're the one who should be picking which cities go dark since most are so dependent on the fossil fuels I don't like."

[Jeemie]

Some will be displaced to the point of extinction, but darn it, I couldn't find my source. Six years ago, some local students spent the summer filming and collecting data in ANWR and came back with a real eye-opening presentation, but I couldn't find it anywhere. No matter how much you and the other people claim benign, it won't be. Migratory patterns will be disrupted, and some species will go extinct. Some places should stay wild and available for creatures to go ashes to ashes, dust to dust.

Do you understand the difference between "benign" and "as benign as possible"?

Technology will ALWAYS be somewhat disruptive. There's no getting around that. Even primitive technnology was "disruptive".

We must balance off environmental concerns with keeping our technological civilization going.

There are still plenty of places in the world where animals can "live from ashes to ashes, and dust to dust."

Not true. Two homes in my county (that I know of -- I'm sure there are more than two) are solar powered and off the grid. One has a tiny wood stove in the family room "just in case," the other family refused to install even that.

You are thinking of these homes in isolation.

What powers the plants that make the technology for these homes to be off-grid? What powers the technology that extracts and processes the silicon that is used in the solar panels?

Do you know anything about EROEI? These alternative technologies currently require more energy to create than the energy they produce. There is a HUGE scale-up problem with them.

The energy technology of the future requires the energy technology of today to build them. We are not there yet. We won't be able to fully transition for at least 30 years...most likely longer.

And we haven't even addressed the issues of transportation, where most of our fuel is consumed (you ain't gonna see a 747 running on solar cells any time soon).

It sounds to me like you're the one who should be picking which cities go dark since most are so dependent on the fossil fuels I don't like.

Not at all- I am very much aware that we have to get off fossil fuels eventually, as they are a non-renewable resource.

However- as I have pointed out- we need these fossil fuels- as much as we can get our hands on- to CREATE the alternative energy world of the future.

And, we need at least 30 years to transition to avoid suffering any severe economic dislocation (and we're probably too late for that).

Deliberately limiting ourselves of fossil fuel inputs because of an over-valuing of environmental concerns (I am NOT saying that environmental concerns aren't important) only makes the problem worse....for both us AND, paradoxically, the enivronment (since it's the economically POORER nations that do more immediate damage to the enivronment. It's only the economically wealthier nations that can mitigate environmental damage as much as possible).

This is one of those leaps which cause me befuddlement in attempting to keep up with your thinking. We have not said one word about nuclear, and I have not said I don't like it. I have not said I do like it, I hasten to add. I haven't said. I'll just repeat my reply to your other point: "It sounds to me like you're the one who should be picking which cities go dark since most are so dependent on the fossil fuels I don't like."

Sorry- I made an assumption about the rest. However- I believe I have answered the rest of your question.

Big picture. We need to look at the big picture. This is a SYSTEMS problem which requires a SYSTEMS approach to find solutions (which is why we should not put any "hope" in the government to do anything about it. Politicians understand big pictures and systems about as well as my dog understands calculus. Not to mention how many interests to which they're beholden that pretty much guarantees that whatever "solution" they come up with will be the wrong one).

[SportsFan68]

Do you understand the difference between "benign" and "as benign as possible"?

Yes.

Technology will ALWAYS be somewhat disruptive. There's no getting around that. Even primitive technnology was "disruptive"

That is true. What it wasn't was endowed with the ability to kill children for decades (chemical waste, Love Canal for example), disrupt weather patterns (global climate change), change what should be life-giving precipitation into acid rain, and pollute, fatally or non-fatally, our farmlands and waterways with heavy metals and heaven knows what else. As you say, "This is a SYSTEMS problem which requires a SYSTEMS approach to find solutions (which is why we should not put any "hope" in the government to do anything about it." Unlike you, I do have hope in the government to do something about it. My (theoretical) Science PAF works for the EPA in Denver, and every time I see her, she regales us with tales of the latest case. The big picture is the legislation which makes it possible to go after the goons who are ruining habitat not only for the still wild animals in North America but for the humans also.

We must balance off environmental concerns with keeping our technological civilization going.

Again unlike you, I believe we are dangerously close to overtipping the balance. Some people believe we have overtipped already. I believe that we're standing on the line and have the chance in next 10 years to do things that will create a sustainable environment for us and the animals which are about to go extinct because of environmental degradation, like polar bears and Siberian tigers because of loss of habitat. Part of that will involve big picture legislation like giving ANWR permanent protection.

There are still plenty of places in the world where animals can "live from ashes to ashes, and dust to dust."

Or as Ronald Reagan said, "Once you've seen one tree, you've seen 'em all," ignoring the vast complexity of what makes up a sustainable ecosystem.

Do you know anything about EROEI?

Yes.

We won't be able to fully transition for at least 30 years...most likely longer.

It'll be a lot longer than 30 years if we continue to "balance off environmental concerns with keeping our technological civilization going." I believe that we must start putting environmental concerns first.