Stop whining, America!

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
A great experience that I wish more people could share. Sailor green
on
the Great Lakes? I don't think so. A newbie, sure ..but not a stout old
salt.

Edmund Fitzgerald (certainly not an isolated case).

On 26 Aug 2005 12:24:44 -0700, Jay Honeck wrote:

The economy is grand,

huh?

business is sky-high,

really? where?

the flying is awesome, the

true!

plane is running great, and gas is still 1/3 of what our counterparts
in Europe are paying -- and you're complaining? Quit whining, and go
FLY.

and most of the price difference is tax. but you also have to calculate
what our government indirectly pays for us using our tax money and what you
have to pay on your own using your own money.

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...

One of the theories behind the tragic sinking
of the famous freighter Edmund Fitzgerald is that she was downed by a
rogue
wave during a major storm on Lake Superior back in November 1975. No one
will know for sure as everyone perished. from an article in Boat/US
Magazine

From the same article about waves in the ocean that just poof there it is
,
not even a storm....

Imagine cruising on a perfect sailing day and suddenly staring at a 35- to
40-foot wave that comes out of nowhere. "I remember as a boy cruising off
of
Cape Hatteras in a calm sea, seeing a rogue wave come out of nowhere,"

This hardly describes the wave(s) that destroyed the Fitzgerald.

IIRC, it was 100 knot winds over shallow water. Imagine a nosedive into the
lakebed 200 feet below (for a 700 foot ship).

Wave height is only one factor. Distance between waves is even more
important. I'll take a 50 foot ocean wave over a 25 foot Great Lakes wave
any day.

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Dying isn't what the man said, he said get green. Big difference. An
experienced sailor can die in Cherokee Lake making a mistake. But he will
be
a hell of alot less likely to make that mistake than your normal run of
the
mill, put the bass boat in the water type. I am not disputing storms in
the
Great Lakes at all, just disputing the strenght as compared to the sea's
fury.
Just some wave info on the Great Lakes,

Rogue waves are not exclusively an ocean phenomena. The National Oceanic
and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has recorded rogue wave patterns
occurring
frequently on the Great Lakes. Storm wave patterns on Lake Superior in the
winter occasionally reach 26 feet and could create a rogue wave over 57
feet
based on NOAA's observations. One of the theories behind the tragic
sinking
of the famous freighter Edmund Fitzgerald is that she was downed by a
rogue
wave during a major storm on Lake Superior back in November 1975. No one
will know for sure as everyone perished. from an article in Boat/US
Magazine

Hey Marty,
Are you staying high and dry?

The economy is grand,

huh?

Compared to what my parents lived through, our economy is the epitome of
efficiency and success.

business is sky-high,

really? where?

Here!

plane is running great, and gas is still 1/3 of what our counterparts
in Europe are paying

and most of the price difference is tax. but you also have to calculate
what our government indirectly pays for us using our tax money and what
you
have to pay on your own using your own money.

I already pay taxes on everything -- including the air I'm breathing. The
last thing we need is more taxes.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

- If I remodel the hotel TOO extensively, I will have to comply with the
Federal ADA laws -- something we are grandfathered under, because the hotel
is 26 years old. This would mean going out of business.
- If I paint stripes in my four parking lots, I must put "x" number of
handicapped parking spots right up near the doors, rather than allowing my
arriving guests the convenient spots for loading/unloading. Therefore, I
don't paint stripes in my lots.

I don't disagree at all with these laws (except I think x is too high in
most places I've seen).

- If I were to add a new parking lot, I would have to comply with new laws
that stipulate that I plant "x" number for trees for every paved parking
spot. So I get by with my current parking lots.

I very much support this law. There's too much pavement already. Even
in places where there's a lot of land, it's too late too quickly. BTDT

- If I were to change the signage out front of the hotel too dramatically
(say, by adding an airplane to the sign?), it would come under more recent
regulations that prohibit a 3-story sign in front of a business. So, I
make-do with my 20-year-old sign.

This is also a good law. As a person who has to look at those three
story signs, I'd much rather look at three story trees, or sky. Of
course it's "different" when it's =your= business, but like the
internet, there are two hunrded million people out there, and every one
of them has a special message, just for you.

- City ordinance prohibited us from putting a "Grand Opening" sign out front
of the hotel when we bought the place 3 years ago. That's right -- the
local bureaucrats have wound their tendrils so tightly around the throats of
businesspeople that even something as innocent as a "Grand Opening" sign is
forbidden by law.

Maybe they were bitten by the oriental rug dealers, who have a Grand
Opening every week. Were that the case, I'd support that law too.

I've been to places that do not have such onerous regulations. The
result is that electrical connections are made by twisting wires
together and letting them hang loosely. Bottled water is made in the
street by filling an old bottle with a hose, and sealing it with a tape
machine. The neighbor can build a six story luxury apartment building
right up to the property line and the street, next to your one story
house, and the other neighbor can live in a shack with open garbage
pits. The street is filled with cars with boom boxes that would power
Milwaukee for a week just from the friction of the air molecules.

There are plusses and minuses on both sides, but just because =you= have
a business you want to promote or alter doesn't mean that the rest of
the world should have to put up with the side effects.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 13:22:19 GMT, Jay Honeck wrote:

I already pay taxes on everything -- including the air I'm breathing.

what'S the name of this tax? The Iowa breathing tax? 'Breath less, save
money!' :-)

The last thing we need is more taxes.

what you might need are oecological [sp?] taxes: higher taxes on (fuel)
inefficient houses/cars/whatever and benefits for insulation, fuel
efficient cars, car sharing, etc. - then, when you use all the benefits you
should come out ahead - money wise, at least it should be cost-neutral.
those who don't improve their houses etc. will pay more.
but this should then also be true for the whole country; this is one idea
of the Kyoto treaty, IMHO. it might not be perfect, but it is a start.

and saving energy is also an economic argument: you aren't that dependent
on energy. if you have to spent less on heating/cooling at your hotel
because of a new insulation, then you won't have many problems on keeping
your rates constant. But you will have to increase your room rates when
your costs for heating/cooling rises 20 or 30%.

#m

--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

Post this as OT like it is...


"Jay Honeck" wrote in message news:%kvPe.279433$x96.36565@attbi_s72...
Everywhere, every day on the radio, television, and in the newspapers, all I hear is how the "Record Price of Oil" is
killing America.

Yet, strangely, Americans keep driving *more*. And I don't see anyone flying less.

How can this be?

Here are some encouraging stats from the current issue of Newsweek:

- Oil, at $66 per barrel, has set a "nominal" record for high price. However, in real, adjusted-for-inflation dollars,
oil would have to top $86.72 per barrel to beat the price record set in 1981.

- For a gallon of gas to set a record, it would have to cost $3.12 per gallon, which was set back in 1981.

- Or, for that matter, it would have to cost $2.67 per gallon, which is what it cost way back in 1935.

- Since the first "Energy Crisis" in the 1970s, our economy has become MUCH more energy efficient. Total energy
consumption per dollar of GDP has been cut almost in half since 1973.

- Since 1980, the percentage of consumer spending that goes for energy has *declined* from 9 to 6 percent, despite
"record" prices.

- At the current rate of growth, our economy will DOUBLE in size in 18 years. (This is why, BTW, that even after
President Bush's tax cuts, federal revenues are still 17.5& of GDP -- just one percentage point below the post-World
War II norm.)

- Over the last 40 years, increases in productivity have averaged 2.1% per year. Since 2001, it's averaged 3.9%.

- Even though rising productivity means that the economy can grow without adding jobs, we have added over 4 million
new jobs since July 2003.

So why is everything doom and gloom in the media? Why are none of these facts brought to the fore? Is it a
not-so-hidden agenda? An ax to grind? Or is it that Americans are just not happy unless they've got something to
bitch about?

Personally, having been in the business, I think it's just this simple: Bad news sells newspapers; good news sucks.

Get out and fly, people! Life is good!

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"JH" == Jay Honeck writes:

JH Compared to what my parents lived through, our economy is the
JH epitome of efficiency and success.

Perhaps our parents were investing in infrastructure, and we're simply
using it. Thus the apparent efficiency.

Our parents in the 1950s and '60s invested in the Interstate Highway
System, basic electronics research and funding, a great higher
educational system, water and sewage systems, and an expensive
military. Most of this was paid for with taxes and we got good return
on investment because that tax money was used to pay for
something--basic infrastructure--which would improve the general
economy.

Now our neocon society whines about taxes while spending gobs of money
on such life necessities as pet food, Indian and Nevada gambling,
expensive home theatre setups, huge SUVs and huge homes, etc and so
forth. But we object to funding new transportation systems, new
energy systems, and other infrastructure which would pay off for our
children.

But, what to expect from a group--religous neocons--that think it's OK
to asassinate democratically elected national leaders, that
"intelligent design" is an intelligent concept, that changes their
reason for invading and occupying other countries multiple times when
the evidence doesn't support their previous reasons?

A lot of Americans have an uneasy sense that we're running on fumes.