"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...


Conserve is good. Alternative fuel sourse is good. Again do you have
any practical "black and white" suggestions.

Well. considering that *every single nation in the world* seems to be able
to conserve more than we do, its a simple task to look at them and get some
"black and white" suggestions from their examples. I owned an SUV in Latvia
that got 30 mpg. The same model and make in the US gets 16. Whats wrong with
this picture? Almost every major city in Europe has an effective and
efficient mass transit system. Why not put more effort into that? Many
countries place a high sales surcharge on vehicles that get poor mileage, or
do not sell them at all. Danes have electric cars. The French ride bicycyles
a lot. The Norwegians like to ski to work. The Dutch recycle their own
glassware to buy milk and products wholesale, saving on manufacturing fuels.
There are only about a trillion "black and white" suggestions all over the
world....everywhere except the US. And all those countries I mentioned pay
over $5 a gallon for fuel, and barely any of their citizens complain about
it because they don't use so much for personal consumption.

Oh, but if your meaning is "give me some black and white suggestions that
don't actually involve me changing my lifestyle at all", then you may be out
of luck. Buy one of the electric gizmos that help you lose weight while you
eat pizza and watch TV. Let me know how it goes.

To do all this while we
have reserves to carry us through transition is wise, But who says we
are wise. Usually we wait until the situation is critical, and then
think that if we throw enough money at it we can fix anything. Maybe
when the price of oil gets high enough, we will be able to develope oil
shale, or coal.

How high is too high of a price? We are already debating drilling in
pristine areas that we used to feel were deserving of protection. And just
to get a supply of oil that will temporarily lessen our dependancy on
foreign imports by 4%, based on today's consumption. There is more to the
cost of oil than the price at the pump. With the current attitude of "I
never go there, lets drill in it", we have already passed the limit that I'm
willing to pay.

So the real question comes down to how much are you willing to pay for
a gallon of gas, in order to keep driving.

No it doesn't. It comes down to how much are you willing to sacrifice in
order to avoid doing something that you are going to have to stop doing
eventually anyway. The reserves won't last forever....even if the money
does. If we want to keep driving, its not a matter of coming up with more
money....its a matter of doing what everyone else is doing. Conserve,
diversify, get a little less stupid about it. Maybe get out of the US a bit
and see how easy everyone else makes it look. And then gaze back over the
big pond and notice that you suddenly don't feel so entitled to a gas
guzzler, and driving the 2 blocks to the store for a coke, or heating your
entire factory day and night, or selling 'muscle cars', or having a highway
full of cars with one person in them, or being 'too bothered' to take the
bus. Or a million other "black and white" things.

There's none so blind as those who refuse to see.

--riverman

"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...


I think that is the problem with Moyers position. First he lumps all
Christians into one pile, sets up a straw man arguement, and then
states that we are all wrong. Convienent, but simplistic, and sad
commentary about a supposed journalist. But it also represents the
error of a lot of liberal thinking, and they then cheer themselves on in
their group support meetings.



ROFL

--riverman
(You DO see it, don't you?)

Lord Monkey Fist wrote:

"Frederick Burroughs" wrote in message
...

Larry C wrote:



Fear is credited by many for their vote for a 2nd-term Bush. There is the
fear of terrorism, with an appearance by the architect of modern
terrorism, Osama bin Laden, just days before the election. Bush's response
to this threat, questionable as to effectiveness, at least is seen as
strong and decisive by the voters.

Closer to home is the fear of moral decay; boobs at the Superbowl,
same-gender marriage, "activist" judges *legislating for* abortion and gay
marriage from the bench. Bush himself made moral issues a centerpiece in
the campaign, playing to and giving voice to the fears of both religious
conservatives and the public at large. It is Bush's politics of fear that
I find revolting and repulsive. Reminds me of a criminal enterprise used
to extort protection money from a fearful public.




??? Pot and kettle.

Sounds like you voted for someone else because you were afraid of Bush.


You don't know how right you are.






--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

I think that is the problem with Moyers position. First he lumps all
Christians into one pile, sets up a straw man arguement, and then
states that we are all wrong. Convienent, but simplistic, and sad
commentary about a supposed journalist. But it also represents the
error of a lot of liberal thinking, and they then cheer themselves on in
their group support meetings.



ROFL

--riverman
(You DO see it, don't you?)


Hehehe! Good point :-)

riverman wrote:
"Tinkerntom" wrote in message
oups.com...


I think that is the problem with Moyers position. First he lumps
all
Christians into one pile, sets up a straw man arguement, and then
states that we are all wrong. Convienent, but simplistic, and sad
commentary about a supposed journalist. But it also represents the
error of a lot of liberal thinking, and they then cheer themselves
on in
their group support meetings.



ROFL

--riverman
(You DO see it, don't you?)

I thought I heard a plonk recently from your neighborhood, so I am
surprised to find you ROFL. Must mean you are still listening a
little, though it sounds to me like someone needs a group support
meeting where they can commiserate their losses and lack of audience
for their enlightened ideas.

Now maybe I am wrong about this, but I would hope to hear a more
enlightened response from you than ROFL. I guess I expected that you
were a better communicator. But then there is no end to surprises, and
always something new to learn, however I would hope for a clearer
understanding of your continuing issues. Maybe you only feel
comfortable to share in your recovery group! Though I would encourage
you to continue to elucidate here! TnT

riverman wrote:
"Larry Cable" wrote in message
...

I find this superfical at best. Looking at opinion polls going into
the
election, moral issues were not the deciding factor for most
voters, the
economy was number one followed by national security issues.
Fear of terrorism isn't irrational, Osama blew up the World Trade
Center
and we
all watched on TV. Whether you feel that Bush's response was
adequete,
proper
or
justified is another question, but being concerned about recurring
acts in
just
being reasonable and rational.


3000 people died in a country of 250,000,000. And this was an attack
that
was off the scales of impact. If its rational to be afraid that you
will
actually be harmed in a repeat terrorist attack, then you must live
in
absolute constant paralysis of being killed in a car wreck.

The actual risk of being harmed in a terrorist attack is miniscule,
but not
the percieved risk. Bush milked that percieved risk for all he could
get out
it, which included a second term.

Talk to me about actual vs percieved risk. I was a river guide for 15
years,
and live in Kinshasa. People who voted their own personal safety WERE
duped.

--riverman

I might agree if this had been the act of a single mad man. But this
was the act of an organization that had lead multiple and increasingly
deadly attacks against the US across the world, remember the USS Cole,
the embassy in Kenya, and evidence suggests that Al Queda trained and
masterminded the response in Somolia that you can read about in
"Blackhawk Down". They have since been claimed responsiblity for a
number of deadly attacks around the world. While I don't live in
constant fear of terror attacks, it seems pretty obvious that it is
something that we need to take damn serious.

National Security and personal safety are two related, but seperate
issues. While I am reasonably sure that I am personally safe from
terrorist attacks, I believe that it is just a matter of time before
the US suffers from such an attack again. If I lived and worked in New
York, Chicago or Washington, I probably would be more concerned.

Am event that caused the US entry into WWII caused less casualties than
the World Trade Center.

Bill Tuthill wrote:
Larry C wrote:

I'm not sure that I buy the arguement that the Native Americans
were
all that environmentally conscious. For example, the Iroquois
Confederation was formed to expand the tribes territory for the Fur
Trade and as a response to the encroachment of the Northern Tribes
supported by the French. They needed more territory because they
had
decimated the furbearing populations in their original tribal
areas.
Hardly a conservation ethic.

I'm not saying that Native Americans were environmentalists, just
that
modern Environmentalism had its roots in indigenous religion. In the
Torah and classical Greco-Roman literature, you seldom or never
encounter
wonder of the natural world. Virgil's Bucolic (Eclogues) are mostly
about farming. In European literature, nature worship reached its
peak
with German Romanticism, and even there, nature is largely tamed by
man.

Whereas in (many tribes') Native American religion, places are sacred
in and of themselves. There might be a rock (present-day Devil's
Tower),
or a place on a river (Ishi Pishi Fall on the Klamath) considered
sacred.

It could be this respect for natural features that inspired Thoreau,
Leopold Aldo, John Muir, Edward Abbey (etc.) to formulate the seminal
ideas of Environmentalism. Unless you have a different theory.

If one considers earlier Native cultures, there seem to have been
several that suffered from environmental collapses, maybe due to
climate change. The Adena in the East and the Cliff Dwellers in the
west for an example.

I don't know about the Adena, but the Anasazi cliff dwellers were
either
escaping severe drought, or pushed out by invading Navajo, or both.

If I would compare Environmentalism to a religion, I would have to
compare it to pre-christian Celtic religions (commonly referred to as
Druids), which would qualify as nature worship.

Larry C wrote:


If I would compare Environmentalism to a religion, I would have to
compare it to pre-christian Celtic religions (commonly referred to as
Druids), which would qualify as nature worship.


Actually, the development of true environmental ethics is very recent.
Holmes Rolston was awarded the Templeton Prize for Progress Toward
Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities in 2003; See:
http://www.templetonprize.org/bios_recent.html

Professor Rolston uses natural history examples to illustrate
principles of environmental ethics that are intrinsic and independent
from human value judgment.

Most recently, the 2004 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to
Wangari Maathai; See:
http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2004/press.html

Mrs. Maathai is best known for helping to establish sustainable
environmental practices in Africa, and her organizing poor communities
and women by using an environmental impetus.





--
Burn the land and boil the sea
You can't take the sky from me

- From "Ballad of Serenity" by Joss Whedon

A Usenet persona calling itself Rick wrote:

Larry C wrote:

...stuff deleted
I've come to the conclusion that the current fad of the left of blaming
all the ills of the country on the Christian Right as an act of mental
masturbation of a group that lost contact with the mainstream in 1968
and never has caught up. Even in this election, the percentage of
"Christian" voters was nearly the same as in past elections. But it's
easier to blame the "Christians" than to admit that the party supported
unpopular social views while failing to articulate a clearly defined
alternative to the present administration.

I personally feel that mindless superstition and senseless rituals are
all that seperate us from the animals, but blaming the "Christians" for
the failure of the Democratic party and the percieved lack of
environmental concern of the present administration is laughable.


Larry,

Sadly, this agenda is real. It was first expounded by James Watt about
20 years ago,

Prove it.

and there are individuals in Bush's cabinet who also hold
this view.

Prove it.

Nobody said that this was a mainstream movement, nor that it
was the agenda of all protestent religions, just that it exists. Sadly,
these cultists are in positions of power in our government. Moyer is not
the only individual who has stated this, he is just one of many
competent journalists who have.

Moyers is not a competent journalist, he's a leftist propagandist opinion
columnist who repeated a blogger's lie about Watt. What Moyers claims Watt
said never happened.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser

A Usenet persona calling itself Michael Daly wrote:

On 6-Feb-2005, "Larry C" wrote:

I've come to the conclusion that the current fad of the left of blaming
all the ills of the country on the Christian Right as an act of mental
masturbation of a group that lost contact with the mainstream in 1968
and never has caught up.

And yet the anti-liberal stance is just the right blaming the left for
all the ills of the country.

Difference is, they're correct.

--
Regards,
Scott Weiser

"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend on
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!" TM

© 2005 Scott Weiser