I Will Never Understand Wind

The US is a "wealthy people", and we clean up "our" environment by
polluting other people's (such as Iraq). Why risk leaking our oil all
over the Alaskan tundra when we can let Iraq take the eco-hit, and save
our own? That's the thinking.

That's an interesting way to look at trade. I always thought that the
people who were getting paid were in the driver's seat -- but your theory
seems to put the buyer's in control.

Maybe that was once the case, but I would submit that the current world
energy model does not support your theory. (Although Iraq is not fully
re-integrated into the free market, so their case is a bit different.) It
would appear that the sellers are in command -- and have been for a good
long time -- and we're transferring nothing to them but our wealth.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

HEE HEE,
Yes one must not forget their sunscreen!!!!!!


"Grumman-581" wrote in message
news:fjUee.54089$r53.23998@attbi_s21...
"W P Dixon" wrote in message ...
Interesting dilemma!
Some say nothing is happening to the earth, some say the earth is doomed
if we keep it up.

And the earth is doomed if we don't keep it up... The sun will not last
forever --only another 5 billion years or so... Since I don't have
anything
all that pressing that I need to do in the meantime that would cause me to
be elsewhere, that kind of concerns me... grin

Whatever you wish to believe you knock yourself out


"Peter Duniho" wrote in message
...
"W P Dixon" wrote in message
...
Even in those primitive circumstances you would in fact be consuming.
Just not to the extent of how modern folks do it. You would have to hunt
for food, cut trees to build your cabin, heat and cook.

Burning wood for energy is one of the worst forms of pollution, by the
way. But in any case, even if the lifestyle you suggest were the best way
to conserve, your claim is apparently that no one can claim to be a
conservationist unless they live that lifestyle. That's bull.

It's not bull, but the refusal to see the outright stupidity of
someone complaining about "global warming" while not doing anything to
correct it , especially by flying airplanes around, is in deed bull.

Who says they are not doing anything to correct it?

By your own admission, one can "conserve" without halting all consumption
at all. One can even use resources recreationally, without using them
wastefully. To characterize environmentalists as being different from
wasteful consumers only in their speech, and not in their actions, is to
be completely ignorant of the ways one can conserve while still engaging
in an active, fruitful, and entertained life.

Just like most problems some must be on the far right or the far left
of an issue, when the answer is usually in the middle somewhere.

That's true. So why do you assert that one has to take their lifestyle to
the extreme primitive in order to be a conservationist? Why do you assert
that it's hypocritical to do anything other than engage in the extreme
primitive lifestyle and at the same time talk of conservation?

That was the point of the post.

Really? You wrote:

" To say "the sky is falling" while you still drive your
car , plane , even use toilet paper to wipe your butt with ( think how
many
trees are cut down for that every year! WOW! And that's just for my
bathroom! ) is not really sincere in your beliefs."

That is, you claim that someone arguing for conservation is insincere if
they use toilet paper. Again, that's just bull. And it's not at all the
point you claim to have been trying to make.

[...]
Living is one thing, our hobbies that pollute is another , wouldn't
you agree? So to preach "global warming" while driving to the airport, to
get in a plane and fly for a few hours, to go home and sit and say
somebody needs to do something about our planet....it's like DUHHHHHHH!

So far, it's been your writing on the topic that's "like DUHHHHHHH!" We
could shut down ALL recreational flying and not make a noticeable dent in
our consumption of fossil fuels. To claim that a recreational pilot is
hypocritical for arguing for conservation, even though they fly
recreationally, that's bull.

Pete

"Jay Honeck" wrote in

In my opinion, inner city ghettos are the biggest paradox in American
life. Having worked in several for seven years of my life, collecting
bills, I am qualified to tell you that they are filthy, vermin-ridden
areas that are populated with the most bizarre dregs of the universe. We
are talking lazy, dangerous people who routinely disregard personal safety
to live a lifestyle that, by any measure, is completely self-destructive.

And, most amazingly of all, much of this happens for NO apparent reason.
The lifestyle is a CHOICE -- it's not "put on them by the Man" or, imposed
because of "prejudice" -- or any other knee-jerk, easy explanations. In
fact, many inner city folks are incredibly intelligent people -- they just
choose to live a morally bankrupt lifestyle that must be quarantined from
the rest of society.

It's OT but always nice to hear. The Officially Sad, reproductive warriors
and hind-gut fermenters are a decent lot until you have to pay for them.
Which you do. It's odd, eh? You meet the most adorable people who are
happy to live a life of self abuse supported by others barely paying for it.
But, happy they are. On your tab. Your experience is appreciated.

moo

In article , Matt Barrow wrote:
And inventor/entrepreneur is still bound by laws of the market unless they
live in a command economy.

Exactly; that's why the 'hydrogen economy' won't be here any time soon,
but biodiesels will be. The back end for the use of biodiesel needs a
radical change but the front end (i.e. the end users) don't need the
radical change.

Look at pretty much any entrepeneur - I think we can all agree Bill
Gates is an exemplar with this - yet Bill Gates and Microsoft have never
done anything radical at the 'front end' because the market won't stand
for it. (In fact Microsoft can barely be counted as being an innovator)

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

In article FWffe.63591$c24.40058@attbi_s72, Jay Honeck wrote:
cleaning up the environment. To a large degree, this has been accomplished
in America. (As anyone who lived through the 60s, 70s, and 80s can attest
to.

There's still a way to go but I'd agree with that. In Britain, a few
decades ago people died in large numbers from the sooty smog in London.

My DPE who did my instrument checkride told me about how the rivers
used to catch fire in Beaumont, TX.

However, from having lived in the oil refinery part of Houston (smack
between La Porte and Texas City) I can tell you that there is still work
to do - the sky still turns green and the stench can be pretty awful.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

The US is a "wealthy people", and we clean up "our" environment by
polluting other people's (such as Iraq). Why risk leaking our oil all
over the Alaskan tundra when we can let Iraq take the eco-hit, and save
our own? That's the thinking.

That's an interesting way to look at trade. I always thought that the
people who were getting paid were in the driver's seat -- but your theory
seems to put the buyer's in control.

In trade, each one tries to get what they don't have, and gives away
what they do have. Someone who is hungry trades money for food. Who is
"in control" - the store owner or the hugry patron? Does it matter to
the question whether the food in question is nutritious or not?

Some who are destitue trade sex for money. Who is "in control" here -
the whore or the john? In both cases, the trade occurs at a mutually
decided price; nobody is in control in a free market (and I'm not
presuming a non-free market).

What is significant however is that the =reason= somebody is trading
money for food is that they are hungry - something whose origin is
beyond their control, and whose solution presents itself in the trade.

In the case of trading garbage for money, we are doing it with towns who
need to overlook the long term consequences of having a garbage dump on
Main Street in exchange for the short term benefits of getting their
police force paid. The one "in control" (in the sense that I am
interpreting your comment for my quoted example) is the one that doesn't
have to consider the long term consequence of a trade. The one under
(more) pressure is the one that needs to subjugate the long term
consequences for the short term gain.

We can discuss forever just what those long term consequences are, and
how serious they are, but so long as I am hungry -now-, I'll pay too
much for a not-very-healthy hot dog if that's all that's available.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

I understand the topologist's definition of Klein bottle; those working on
hot fusion have nicknamed the process of containing the energy created a
Klein bottle because it seems (seemed?) to be the same impossible task.

Jim


"Jose" wrote in message
...
Tens of billions to create a magnetic Klein bottle

You sure you mean a "klein bottle"? If we could create a real Klein
bottle, we'd be home free forever.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"W P Dixon" wrote in message
news
Whatever you wish to believe you knock yourself out

lol...

You've been shown to be incorrect, and even self-contradictory, and that's
all you can come up with? Okay then...

"Jose" wrote in message
...
Christ, what a stupid response. [...]
Get a friggin' clue!

hmmph.

Where are the garbage disposal sites around your town, in the inner
cities?

Actually, yes. And the same thing is probably true where you live too.

Here, the garbage is taken to a "transfer station", not a dump. The
difference is garbage in a dump stays there, and garbage in a transfer
station gets transferred elsewhere, in this case to a less affluent city
thirty miles further south. From there (IIRC) it is processed, and put
on a barge to go somewhere else.

Where is that "someplace else"? Do you know or are you just pulling
suppositions out of your ass?

I'm not sure exactly where "else" it
goes, but it probably ends up in a giant dump in the middle of a nearby
large city where it stays until another barge takes it out to the ocean.

Befoe shooting your mouth off, why don't you try finding out how is happens?

If it ever gets there.

Ignorance is bliss.