Interesting. I guess this supports my belief that no one party can support every possible person's beliefs which is why I'm vehemently opposed to voting a straight partisan ballot. Yeah, I hope it happens too. I'm sure it won't happen on Bush's watch but I'd still like to see it happen. If he wants to cut taxes so damned much how about cutting taxes for companies that research or implement alternative energy sources!
I'm still not seeing how Arensic can be a waste product of solar cells. What are solar cells made out of anyways? I don't have much experience with them. I've got one on my car and one hooked up to my motorcycle. Theres one in my calculator. Beyond that I don't know anything about the production of them. Still Arsenic isn't a bad thing. It's in the water you drink, the tea I had last night, the Dr. Pepper I'm drinking now. Both of our lunches will contain arsenic. It's even in the air we breath. I don't know how to spread it out to natural trace levels and deposit it back in the ground but there's got to be some way of doing it. Every problem has a solution. I wonder what this solution is.
The ranch though could power a significant portion of the state though. What would need to be developed along side windmills is a reliable method of storing electrical power. When my ranch is generating more power than can be consumed then something should be done with it. Something must be done with it or the generator heads will overheat. I read something about a power generation system that pumped water uphill into a large man-made lake during off-peak hours. I assume that the water was then let back down the hill during peak hours and run through hydro-electric generators. That would be plausible I think. It seems like this was done near the Great Lakes though so they had more water to work with than I would.
One of the neatest power generation stories I've heard of in a long time is methane-electric production in dairy farms. I heard that there are about a dozen of them running or starting up in California now. Imagine the feedlots of Dodge City, KS (enormous, as far as the eye can see and then some) using such a system. I've been told that some of the larger ones can easily power the host dairy farm (which uses a lot of electricity and up to 8 additional dairy farms, or a small town of a couple thousand people. Every little bit counts.
Yeah, people don't like change. That's why I like the idea of the ranch. It's my land and I'll do with it as I please.:-) The same could be done on farmland in Western Kansas or Nebraska. The land could be purchased and the farming-use of the land leased out to a farmer. The towers would simply be driven around like farmers currently do electric poles on electrical easements. Anything is possible.
Not necessarily. It doesn't take an inch. And like I said before the bags are reusable. You might use a bag 14" long for stores a couple steaks. Then when you cook the steaks you wash the bags and use it to store 4 pairs of chicken breasts. You eat them a pair at a time. When you're done with the bag you wash it again. It's about 11.5 long now. You could store whole ears of corn in it or anything else for that matter up until when it gets too small to store large foods. You can use it for spices of pasta at that point. The point is it's not a use-it-once-and-toss-it kind of thing. Unless you're an absolute fool you'll continue using it until you've completely used the entire bag. It's not that hard.
Solar - how many trees and fields will need to be cut down and cleared for "sun farms"?
None. Not a damned one.
Wind - You'll still have to clear-cut the forests.
Like hell you do. Have you ever spent any quality time in any of the Class 4 or better wind resource areas? They tend to have much fewer trees than the lesser wind resource areas. I'm thinking of 2 Class 4 areas in my state (one of which I live in) which has very few trees. It's pastureland, wide-open. Very few trees in sight. The only trees you see are the ones in the bottom of the valleys near the highest concentration of water resources.
You don't have to cut down trees to put up a solar or wind farm. Period. What I would really like to see is advancements in solar power and glass to the point where a regular window on a house can actually be transparent but still function as a solar panel. That's what I want to see. At some point I'd like to see a double-hung window on the market for an extra $50-100 that also acts as a solar panel. Within a few years time that window can pay for itself. I would love to see an advancement like that made.
Do you mean Arsenic? Arsenic isn't a by-product of anything. It's a naturally occuring element, number 33 if memory serves me correctly. I know a lot of land-owners want to fight the towers going up. I however want to be a landowner and put up the towers myself. I want to by a particular ranch the next time it goes up for sale (it's huge so I'll have to be rich) and then cover is with wind mills and continue grazing the land below. Double-use from the same land.
I just wanted to point out that South Dakota isn't the windiest place in the US. It's up there though and a fine state for wind power generation but the majority of the state is only 1/3 Class 3, 2/3s Class 4 and a couple tiny Class 5 spots. As far as wind speed goes Colorado and Wyoming are much better with large portions of their state being Class 6 wind resource areas. Many portions of Nevada are also also classified Class 6. The only Class 7 areas I know of in the US are on the extreme coasts, specifically around Alaska. These figures are from the National Wind Technology Center, part of the Nation Renewable Energy Laboratory. I found a site filled with maps I liked better many months ago. I can't seem to find it now though. I found this one in my bookmarks that might be it. It's not responding though so I can't verify that.
There's a large ranch just north of my parents place that would be perfect for wind generation. Here in the Flint Hills of Kansas we're rated Class 4 year round. The ranch is about 27,000 acres. I would love to be rich enough to buy it the next time it goes up for sale. Imagine if you would 27k acres of wide-open pastureland filled will either longhorns or buffalo (both highly profitable). Looming above the herd would be hundreds or thousands of large 80' diameter windmills. The new Kansas prairie. Get double-use out of the same land. I would love to do that some day. There's a 345KV line that cuts through the middle of it too. If only... I sure hope I'm rich then.:-)
Individually wrapped slices of cheese is supposed to be 1) more convientant for sandwich makers (not a big deal here) and 2) it's supposed to reduce waste by preventing cheese from spoiling as quickly as with a single large block of cheese. That last part is important IMHO. I don't eat sandwiches every day. I may only eat a couple a week. The individually sliced pieces of cheese keep for many weeks, really months. Compare that to a block of cheese which, if you drag it out of the fridge, slap it on a block and cut off a slice or two will only keep for a couple weeks at most. I agree the extra plastic seems wasteful and it might actually be if you can analyze how much energy goes into making the plastic and wrapping the slices vs wasting a large block of spoiled cheese.
What I think everyone should have is a FoodSaver. Then you can buy food in larger quantities, break it into smaller portions, and save it for longer periods of time. I did lots of research on them a couple weeks ago when I was looking for X-Mas gifts for my mother. Now I plan on getting one myself! I tend to buy extremely large quantities of food and store it for long periods of time. You'd think I lived deep in Wyoming or something, the way I buy food. Check out their prices on Amazon. That's cheap. That's the cheapest I've been able to find. The best thing about the FoodSaver is the bags are dishwasher safe and reusable. Shop around on the 'Net for a while and you'll find that the spare rolls of bags are quite cheap. Since the FoodSavers can also suck the air out of a standard mason jar I'm planning on moving all my spices to various sized mason jars to keep them fresher longer. I plan on buying a two of the model 1050 FoodSaver with my next paycheck. If you want to do your part to help counteract corporate greed, a FoodSaver is certainly a good place to start.
I generally count myself as being part of the left. I had no idea that the "left" allegedly has a problem with nuclear energy. That's news to me. By-product waste would be a valid concern IMHO but I don't think that's a show-stopper. Why stop with only nuclear energy as the fossil-fuel alternative? Why not go with wind and water energy? A turbine windmill in a class 5 or better wind resource zone is extremely efficient. Why not create a federal energy grant program to offset the costs of starting up a natural energy resource program like wind or water power. There are such things are water turbines, aren't there? I'm pretty sure I've heard of them at least. I don't really know anything about them though. That's my $.02,
Unfortunately I'm sure a system like that, if it ever was passed, would be found to be unconstitutional. Frankly I would be behind the ACLU in fighting against it. Still there must be some way to get people to educate themselves on the issues and vote sensibly (I don't care what the candidate is and I'm not endorsing any with this proposed action). I just want people to educate themselves on the candidates and issues and vote intelligently. I suppose the professional political advisors have some sort of method for dealing with these people who don't give enough of a damn to educate themselves politically but who can spare the time to vote. I haven't got a clue what it is. Perhaps they put up a candidate that appeals to idiots and who is in fact an idiot himself. Hey, that's not such a bad idea! I think it might have worked before come to think of it...
I can't believe that the majority of the voting citizens in this country are gullible enough, naive enough to believe the Junior and Tricky Dick 's Campaign O Fear/Terror nonsense. Someone else said it and I think they are right. The majority of US citizens have become sheeple. They simply don't care enough about their country to vote intelligently (which implies educating themselves on the candidates and their stances). They simply want to be left alone. Something doesn't directly mess up their day so they don't care about it or if it does they turn a blind eye to it; it's too much work to do something about it. How many times did we hear someone say that they'd be glad when the election was over so the TV advertisements would stop. What a shameful thing to say. Those people obviously don't care enough about their country to give a damn about the election and where the country is heading. Voting is the single most important thing an average citizen can do. Yet I don't think most of them have earned the right to vote responsibly. It's sad, it really is.
The gauge I've always followed, and the one taught to me in school, was West of the Mississippi River and East of the Continental Divide was the Midwest. It made no reference to upper or lower boundaries other than the country's borders. The states listed and maps shown on those two links is nothing like what I've been taught. I'm trying to remember where we were taught that the origins of the word came from. IIRC it came about shortly after the Pacific coast was settled and it became "The West." On the Atlantic you had the "colonies" which were soon expanded and being referred to as the "east." The "south" has always been a fickle grouping and varied often. I've reading accountings from before the early 1800s that called Kansas the south, although I really think that's a huge stretch of the imaginiation. At some point someone needed a reference to say they were going west but not to "The West," thus the "Midwest." Both of the links you provided excluded Oklahoma from the list, Texas too. I supposed the people who call Ohio Midwest call Oklahoma Southwest. Southwest of what? I think when it comes right down to it our naming scheme sucks. It flat out ignores geography. If only our borders were straight lines.:-) It's always irked the living hell out of me. I looked at Michigan and Ohio as the upper Northeast. Indiana is just tagging along. Why couldn't we have straight lines?:-)
My sister moved to Belleville, IL (St. Louis subarb) a few years back. I wonder what she thinks of the term.
Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed because of their wickedness and homosexuality. It is an abomination before the Lord.
I'm an Athiest. Don't try to preach to me.
Here's my question: where do you get your morals and why are they better than anyone else's? If you feel the moral guidance of the President is too strict surely there are others who may feel your moral values are too liberal.
My morals, like everyone else's, come from my upbringing. It's not rocket science. There's an inherent problem with the President's moral values. He's trying to impose them on the population. That also happens to be patently unconstitutional. Ever hear the word "unconstitutional?" It has a very special meaning in this country. Much blood has been shed defining and defending it. It's one of our mose cherished words.
I do think that marriage is between a man and a woman - that's the way the Bible intended it. I certainly don't want civil unions or gay marriage for moral reasons but also companies would be forced to offer benefits to partners of same sex unions.
So what you're say is you want the morals defined by a book you whorship to be dictated to everyone in our country regardless of their personal faith or beliefs? That's religious oppression at its finest. Do you have any idea how this country got its start. Why shouldn't companies be forced to offer benefits to partners of same sex marriages? Why do they offer benefits to partners of heterosexual marriages now? Why? What good does it serve them? When it comes right down to it these extra benefits are merely another form of additional pay. What difference would it make to a company if they had to pay for an extra female spouse of a lesbian company than pay for an extra male of a heterorsexual couple? What business of the companies is it when it comes to the personal life of their workers?
You think health insurance is high now? Wait until civil unions/gay marriages are legal.
Why? Why would it be any higher? Oh, are you making a snide remark about HIV directed at homosexuals? I'm trying to remember the name of the individuals who documented cases of HIV in the US and abroad. Their research contradicted much of what the US government was saying about homosexuals and HIV. The US government blamed the spread of HIV on homosexuals exclusively which was in fact false according the statistical analysis of these researchers. Their research should many times the number of heterosexual individuals infected with HIV that homosexual. These researchers also traced the virus from individual and found the majority of the case a bisexual individual received the virus during sex with a heterosexual individual. The heterosexual infected the homosexual in most cases. The researchers report was the subject of a handful of subsequent articles regarding the US government's allegations of homosexuals spreading the disease. Most allegations were found to be morally-based for political reasons.
So if HIV is more of a problem with heterosexual couples than why would one expect insurance to faulter when it came to homosexual couples?
I really don't. They want special rights, not equal rights. They have the same rights I have - to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Now that's short-sighted. They want the right to marry someone they love. They want the rights other married couples have in the eyes of the law. How can that be considered a special right?
Unfortunately I seem to have wasted the majority of the day on Slashdot discussing the election, morals, and the law with a number of people. Now I must get back to what I should have been doing today. Been fun chatting.
LOL. There isn't any tech bubble money there. That's my retirement. I rolled over my 403B a coupe weeks ago into an IRA. I've been doing so well with my cash brokerage account that I decided to run my retirement as well. My retirement has lost money this year and hasn't had any significant percentage gains in 2 years. My cash brokerage account on the otherhand made 16% in 3.5 months. I made more $$ in my IRA in the first two weeks than I ever did with it at the retirement company. This is my first big loss. It's not a loss though if I don't sell it. I believe it will come back up so I'll just sit on it for a while. I could easily sell it and play the percentage game for a week or so and make it back but I don't really want to do that. With the exception of STEM and another Biotech I've made some damned fine choices since July. Apple was by far my best, hence my userid.:-)
That's a good question. I haven't read any of the documentation about the ballot initiative. Surely the state gets a return somehow. Maybe the $$ comes with an agreement that you won't take your business out of state for the next X years. That way they state will make $$ off of taxes, increased employment, and thus general state revenue. It's basically investing in their future. I can't say for sure though.
true, committees dont make law, but they decide if/when something comes up for vote, plus they reconcile house/senate versions of passed bills. so i would rather have my party in charge of that.
Now I must admit my knowledge of the US government is a bit faulty. I can thank my high school for that (from what I understand it's still a joke). What I understand though is that a committee doesn't have to introduce legislation at all. Legislation doesn't have to begin there. Any legislator can introduce it on the floor. The speaker can of course direct it to a committee where it can rot and die if he so chooses but he doesn't have to. That's my understanding at least.
if someone makes it through a party to the point of being able to run for office, odds are that they fit the majority of the ideals for that party and as a result they fit the majority of my ideals.
Maybe. However I can run for office, claim to be a Democrat, and then have nothing to do with them once I'm in office. I don't need their help. I don't really have to talk to them. The only time the party has direct influence over a candidate is when that candidate runs for an office where the party has to nominate them. If I'm a state senator (big D) and want to run against an incumbent US senator (big R) from my district there's nothing to say I can't. At least that's my understanding of how it works. If I want to run for President as a Democrat though I'd have to get their nomination. I believe that's how it works.
there is never going to be a candidate that matches you exactly. i think that in life we have to take what most closely matches what we want.
its like the trucker steak special, you have to eat the gristle too.
Right. We just have to research the candidates and pick the ones that support our goals the best. I'd love to find a candidate that supports all of my goals. Unfortunately I don't see that ever happening.:-( Until I run for office.:-)
if you were to cast the deciding vote, would you vote for the person who most closely matches your ideals, and have your party loose control? or vote for the the party that most closely matches your ideals?
which do you think would be more effective?
I would vote for the candidate. I don't believe in a party system. I can't possibly think of a more corrupt way of running a government. Granted we're stuck with this screwed up method. Still I'd vote for the candidate, parties be damned. I'm not voting for a party. I could care less what party they are from. I'm voting for the man or woman.
reinstatement of the draft, shriveling rights, and how we'll never win in Iraq
Do you deny that On 23 Sept 2003 the US Select Service and the Defense Department Website called "Defend America" posted a notice for people to join local draft boards. "If a military draft becomes necessary," the notice explained, "approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men, who submit a claim, receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on Federal guidelines." In early November, that notice started to receive media attention, with articles from the Associated Press, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer , the Oregonian, the Toronto Star, the BBC, and London Guardian (unsurprisingly, none of the major papers or networks in the US covered it). In a familiar turn of events, the notice suddenly disappeared from the Website. Hmmm, I wonder why. Could it possibly be because a draft would be a very unpopular thing for a president to say he might do before an election?
Have you heard of a rights shriveling bill called the PATRIOT Act? I don't have to say a damned thing more than that to counter you pitiful comeback.
Ah, Iraq. Good old Iraq. Let me put it this way. WE WILL NEVER WIN. We can't win in the eyes of the Iraqis. We can't give them a perfect democracy. We can't stop the terrorists from attacking the Iraqis and our own troops. We can't win a war that can't be won. We've lost the war in the eyes of the Iraqis. We've lost the way in the eyes of the World. The eyes of our countrymen are apparently too glazed over to realize this simple point. We lost Vietnam, another way that couldn't be won. Iraq will be another Vietnam. If we pull out all hell will break lose. If we stay they'll continue to cut us down a little at a time. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. The only win is short-term and that's with disinformation. History will record this war as a serious fuckup. History already has.
Ok, think about what you just said. Now slap yourself upside your head (you pick which side) and say "Duh." Congress is now predominantly Republican. We no longer have a balance. We're now in a position where the Republican party can ensure that almost all legislation will get through unscathed. Can't you see that? Our leglislation and executive bodies are no longer balanced.
Wisconsin and Illinois... I can see that, although both are on the wrong side of the river. Geographically, they're splitting the line. Ok, we'll call them Midwest. Indiana? No way. Indiana is less than 550 miles from the Atlantic. Ohio? Just over 300 miles. No way could they possibly be considered Midwest. The way the media is drawing the map 80% of the US (excluding of course Alaska which makes up 16.% of the US acreage) is the "Midwest." They consider everything between the coasts to be the "Midwest." I for one hate it everytime I hear Billy O'Reilly call Ohio a Midwest battleground my blood start to boil. Ok, I must admit that everytime I hear Bill take a breath and waste oxygen I also cringe in disgust.
I can see Wisconsin and Illinois being called Midwestern states. They are pretty much righ on the line. I can't possibly see any reasonable person calling Indiana or Ohio Midwestern states though. That's illogical as hell. It would take the similar view of basic geography as the Bush adminstration has taken of science in general to make that illogical comparison. You might as well call Pennsylvania a Midwestern state if you call Ohio a midwestern state. West Virgina, Alambama, and Georgia line up quite well with Ohio too. How many Georgians would consider themselves to be midwestern in a side to side comparison? I'm ignoring the "south" for the moment. It's hard to believe but the "south" has been reclassified more times than the Midwest.
Go back and correct your grammar before I'll reply. I could barely make out much of what you said and I'm not going to make wild guesses at your true meaning.
Not hardly. It's called a slippery slope. The moral right in this country has gained a major foothold in the past 4 years. This is immensly evident in the actions of John Ashcroft. He covered Lady Justice nude figure for peet's sake. He's championed porn laws already. If our courts become more conservative thanks to the anticipated SCOTUS nominations any challenges, no matter how well based in the Constitution they are, will be ruled against by the SCOTUS. The Republicans didn't run the gay marriage part of their campaign on the man/woman arguement. They ran it on the fears of parents that homosexuality would have to be taught in schools, be flaunted at every corner, be pushed on heterosexual society members at large. Those were all out and out lies. The Republicans ran their whole campaign that way. It was the Campaign of Fear and Terror. The Republican played the "Think of the Children" card and it worked. We have 4 more years of Bush in office. I will guarantee you that we will see more anti-homosexual laws on the books that are championed by the administration and their new-found morals, or should we say fair-weather morals. Bush and Ashcroft aren't going to stop with a few silly constitutional amendment, mark my words. I feel sorry for the homosexual community. They've just been outcast by the majoriy in 11 states. I'm sure that makes them feel real... happy. Segregation is the correct word. If nothing else it's prophetic.
I was reading through some book descriptions on Amazon a few minutes ago. I forget the name of the book but one of them talked about how the Bush administration has been so successfull at spinning their reports to say one thing while doing the absolute exact opposite. Actually, I think it might be this book:
Anyhow, back on topic. I can't sell my shares of STEM until Friday without a T violation. I could sell before then without a penalty (just a warning) but I'm more curious to see where the price goes from here once the emotional speculation stops. The Califorina deal should be a big kick in the pants for this stock I think. It should at least be big enough to raise it back up to the level at which I bought it. I'm down about $3k already anyhow.
Committees don't make law though. It still comes down to the individual representatives to vote for or against legislation. Political parties can't represent everyone's personal beliefs on the important (or non-important) issues. There are things I like and dislike about both major parties. There are candidates from both major parties that I like and dislike, trust and distrust. If I were to select all of the candidates in one party I would have a mix of people that does and doesn't support my stances on the issues and people I trusted and distrusted to run the country. I would be wasting part of my vote. Whereas if I chose each candidate carefully I could cast my votes for only those people I believed represented me and my stances. If people weren't supposed to pick individual candidates than there would only be big button (or checkboxes) for the major political parties. That's not how our system is supposed to work though.
I still contend that toeing party lines is irresponsible.
Wasn't there supposed to be 4 possible SCOTUS retirees during the next 4 years? I'm sure I read that somewhere. It was more than 2 I know. That's what all the SCOTUS-worry was about; the fact that the new President could change the balance on the bench.
Dammit, you people are really starting to piss me off. The Midwest is not liberal (as much as I wish it were). Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Arkansas, Louisiana; those are midwestern states. Do you see an overwhelming Liberal population in this list? Ohio and Michigan are not Midwestern states! You're speaking like a true coast-hugger. Everything west of Buffalo, NY is considered "Midwest" by an east-coast-hugger. Everything east of the Las Vegas, NV is considered "Midwest" by a west-coast-hugger. Outside of your second paragraph everything is mostly right.
Yeah, I knew the $3b mark. That's a good thing for me, my investment, and humanity as a whole. I'm glad to see that got a chance to be voted on. The gay marriage voting disgusts me. Why the hell would any sensible person vote for a constitutional amendment that effectively segregates a class of citizens? Has this country learned nothing from the past? I truly hope that they are in fact found to be unconstitutional. Unfortunately I believe Bush will pack SCOTUS with unltra-conservative justices that will support Bush's new-found political religous stance. It will take hundreds of years to repair the damage from 8 years of Bush. That is unless he gets us into a nuclear war in which case the planet is simply fucked. Everyone loses.
Fair would actually be like the Senate. Each state gets (1) electoral vote. Those votes can be determined by however the state wishes to give them.
That would hardly be fair. Hell that wouldn't be any different than the screwed up system we have now. I live in Kansas, a historically Republican state. Under either your system or the current electoral college system my historically non-republican vote wouldn't count for jack shit. What's the difference? There is none. Both your system and the current system are majority takes all of a state systems. The only difference is swing states no longer exist in your system. Well, I take that back. Yes, they do still exist in your system. My state would still be a single Republican vote even though 1/3 of us vote another way. Battleground states like Iowa and Ohio would still exist. They would still be swing states. Your system doesn't appear to change anything in any meaningful way. My vote is still not heard and is thus useless.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting. I guess this supports my belief that no one party can support every possible person's beliefs which is why I'm vehemently opposed to voting a straight partisan ballot. Yeah, I hope it happens too. I'm sure it won't happen on Bush's watch but I'd still like to see it happen. If he wants to cut taxes so damned much how about cutting taxes for companies that research or implement alternative energy sources!
The ranch though could power a significant portion of the state though. What would need to be developed along side windmills is a reliable method of storing electrical power. When my ranch is generating more power than can be consumed then something should be done with it. Something must be done with it or the generator heads will overheat. I read something about a power generation system that pumped water uphill into a large man-made lake during off-peak hours. I assume that the water was then let back down the hill during peak hours and run through hydro-electric generators. That would be plausible I think. It seems like this was done near the Great Lakes though so they had more water to work with than I would.
One of the neatest power generation stories I've heard of in a long time is methane-electric production in dairy farms. I heard that there are about a dozen of them running or starting up in California now. Imagine the feedlots of Dodge City, KS (enormous, as far as the eye can see and then some) using such a system. I've been told that some of the larger ones can easily power the host dairy farm (which uses a lot of electricity and up to 8 additional dairy farms, or a small town of a couple thousand people. Every little bit counts.
Yeah, people don't like change. That's why I like the idea of the ranch. It's my land and I'll do with it as I please. :-) The same could be done on farmland in Western Kansas or Nebraska. The land could be purchased and the farming-use of the land leased out to a farmer. The towers would simply be driven around like farmers currently do electric poles on electrical easements. Anything is possible.
Not necessarily. It doesn't take an inch. And like I said before the bags are reusable. You might use a bag 14" long for stores a couple steaks. Then when you cook the steaks you wash the bags and use it to store 4 pairs of chicken breasts. You eat them a pair at a time. When you're done with the bag you wash it again. It's about 11.5 long now. You could store whole ears of corn in it or anything else for that matter up until when it gets too small to store large foods. You can use it for spices of pasta at that point. The point is it's not a use-it-once-and-toss-it kind of thing. Unless you're an absolute fool you'll continue using it until you've completely used the entire bag. It's not that hard.
None. Not a damned one.
Wind - You'll still have to clear-cut the forests. Like hell you do. Have you ever spent any quality time in any of the Class 4 or better wind resource areas? They tend to have much fewer trees than the lesser wind resource areas. I'm thinking of 2 Class 4 areas in my state (one of which I live in) which has very few trees. It's pastureland, wide-open. Very few trees in sight. The only trees you see are the ones in the bottom of the valleys near the highest concentration of water resources.
You don't have to cut down trees to put up a solar or wind farm. Period. What I would really like to see is advancements in solar power and glass to the point where a regular window on a house can actually be transparent but still function as a solar panel. That's what I want to see. At some point I'd like to see a double-hung window on the market for an extra $50-100 that also acts as a solar panel. Within a few years time that window can pay for itself. I would love to see an advancement like that made.
Do you mean Arsenic? Arsenic isn't a by-product of anything. It's a naturally occuring element, number 33 if memory serves me correctly. I know a lot of land-owners want to fight the towers going up. I however want to be a landowner and put up the towers myself. I want to by a particular ranch the next time it goes up for sale (it's huge so I'll have to be rich) and then cover is with wind mills and continue grazing the land below. Double-use from the same land.
There's a large ranch just north of my parents place that would be perfect for wind generation. Here in the Flint Hills of Kansas we're rated Class 4 year round. The ranch is about 27,000 acres. I would love to be rich enough to buy it the next time it goes up for sale. Imagine if you would 27k acres of wide-open pastureland filled will either longhorns or buffalo (both highly profitable). Looming above the herd would be hundreds or thousands of large 80' diameter windmills. The new Kansas prairie. Get double-use out of the same land. I would love to do that some day. There's a 345KV line that cuts through the middle of it too. If only... I sure hope I'm rich then. :-)
What I think everyone should have is a FoodSaver. Then you can buy food in larger quantities, break it into smaller portions, and save it for longer periods of time. I did lots of research on them a couple weeks ago when I was looking for X-Mas gifts for my mother. Now I plan on getting one myself! I tend to buy extremely large quantities of food and store it for long periods of time. You'd think I lived deep in Wyoming or something, the way I buy food. Check out their prices on Amazon. That's cheap. That's the cheapest I've been able to find. The best thing about the FoodSaver is the bags are dishwasher safe and reusable. Shop around on the 'Net for a while and you'll find that the spare rolls of bags are quite cheap. Since the FoodSavers can also suck the air out of a standard mason jar I'm planning on moving all my spices to various sized mason jars to keep them fresher longer. I plan on buying a two of the model 1050 FoodSaver with my next paycheck. If you want to do your part to help counteract corporate greed, a FoodSaver is certainly a good place to start.
I generally count myself as being part of the left. I had no idea that the "left" allegedly has a problem with nuclear energy. That's news to me. By-product waste would be a valid concern IMHO but I don't think that's a show-stopper. Why stop with only nuclear energy as the fossil-fuel alternative? Why not go with wind and water energy? A turbine windmill in a class 5 or better wind resource zone is extremely efficient. Why not create a federal energy grant program to offset the costs of starting up a natural energy resource program like wind or water power. There are such things are water turbines, aren't there? I'm pretty sure I've heard of them at least. I don't really know anything about them though. That's my $.02,
I can't believe that the majority of the voting citizens in this country are gullible enough, naive enough to believe the Junior and Tricky Dick 's Campaign O Fear/Terror nonsense. Someone else said it and I think they are right. The majority of US citizens have become sheeple. They simply don't care enough about their country to vote intelligently (which implies educating themselves on the candidates and their stances). They simply want to be left alone. Something doesn't directly mess up their day so they don't care about it or if it does they turn a blind eye to it; it's too much work to do something about it. How many times did we hear someone say that they'd be glad when the election was over so the TV advertisements would stop. What a shameful thing to say. Those people obviously don't care enough about their country to give a damn about the election and where the country is heading. Voting is the single most important thing an average citizen can do. Yet I don't think most of them have earned the right to vote responsibly. It's sad, it really is.
Sometimes and some parts I must agree, my friend.
My sister moved to Belleville, IL (St. Louis subarb) a few years back. I wonder what she thinks of the term.
I'm an Athiest. Don't try to preach to me.
Here's my question: where do you get your morals and why are they better than anyone else's? If you feel the moral guidance of the President is too strict surely there are others who may feel your moral values are too liberal.
My morals, like everyone else's, come from my upbringing. It's not rocket science. There's an inherent problem with the President's moral values. He's trying to impose them on the population. That also happens to be patently unconstitutional. Ever hear the word "unconstitutional?" It has a very special meaning in this country. Much blood has been shed defining and defending it. It's one of our mose cherished words.
I do think that marriage is between a man and a woman - that's the way the Bible intended it. I certainly don't want civil unions or gay marriage for moral reasons but also companies would be forced to offer benefits to partners of same sex unions.
So what you're say is you want the morals defined by a book you whorship to be dictated to everyone in our country regardless of their personal faith or beliefs? That's religious oppression at its finest. Do you have any idea how this country got its start. Why shouldn't companies be forced to offer benefits to partners of same sex marriages? Why do they offer benefits to partners of heterosexual marriages now? Why? What good does it serve them? When it comes right down to it these extra benefits are merely another form of additional pay. What difference would it make to a company if they had to pay for an extra female spouse of a lesbian company than pay for an extra male of a heterorsexual couple? What business of the companies is it when it comes to the personal life of their workers?
You think health insurance is high now? Wait until civil unions/gay marriages are legal.
Why? Why would it be any higher? Oh, are you making a snide remark about HIV directed at homosexuals? I'm trying to remember the name of the individuals who documented cases of HIV in the US and abroad. Their research contradicted much of what the US government was saying about homosexuals and HIV. The US government blamed the spread of HIV on homosexuals exclusively which was in fact false according the statistical analysis of these researchers. Their research should many times the number of heterosexual individuals infected with HIV that homosexual. These researchers also traced the virus from individual and found the majority of the case a bisexual individual received the virus during sex with a heterosexual individual. The heterosexual infected the homosexual in most cases. The researchers report was the subject of a handful of subsequent articles regarding the US government's allegations of homosexuals spreading the disease. Most allegations were found to be morally-based for political reasons.
So if HIV is more of a problem with heterosexual couples than why would one expect insurance to faulter when it came to homosexual couples?
I really don't. They want special rights, not equal rights. They have the same rights I have - to marry someone of the opposite sex.
Now that's short-sighted. They want the right to marry someone they love. They want the rights other married couples have in the eyes of the law. How can that be considered a special right?
Unfortunately I seem to have wasted the majority of the day on Slashdot discussing the election, morals, and the law with a number of people. Now I must get back to what I should have been doing today. Been fun chatting.
That's a good question. I haven't read any of the documentation about the ballot initiative. Surely the state gets a return somehow. Maybe the $$ comes with an agreement that you won't take your business out of state for the next X years. That way they state will make $$ off of taxes, increased employment, and thus general state revenue. It's basically investing in their future. I can't say for sure though.
Now I must admit my knowledge of the US government is a bit faulty. I can thank my high school for that (from what I understand it's still a joke). What I understand though is that a committee doesn't have to introduce legislation at all. Legislation doesn't have to begin there. Any legislator can introduce it on the floor. The speaker can of course direct it to a committee where it can rot and die if he so chooses but he doesn't have to. That's my understanding at least.
if someone makes it through a party to the point of being able to run for office, odds are that they fit the majority of the ideals for that party and as a result they fit the majority of my ideals.
Maybe. However I can run for office, claim to be a Democrat, and then have nothing to do with them once I'm in office. I don't need their help. I don't really have to talk to them. The only time the party has direct influence over a candidate is when that candidate runs for an office where the party has to nominate them. If I'm a state senator (big D) and want to run against an incumbent US senator (big R) from my district there's nothing to say I can't. At least that's my understanding of how it works. If I want to run for President as a Democrat though I'd have to get their nomination. I believe that's how it works.
there is never going to be a candidate that matches you exactly. i think that in life we have to take what most closely matches what we want. its like the trucker steak special, you have to eat the gristle too.
Right. We just have to research the candidates and pick the ones that support our goals the best. I'd love to find a candidate that supports all of my goals. Unfortunately I don't see that ever happening. :-( Until I run for office. :-)
if you were to cast the deciding vote, would you vote for the person who most closely matches your ideals, and have your party loose control? or vote for the the party that most closely matches your ideals? which do you think would be more effective?
I would vote for the candidate. I don't believe in a party system. I can't possibly think of a more corrupt way of running a government. Granted we're stuck with this screwed up method. Still I'd vote for the candidate, parties be damned. I'm not voting for a party. I could care less what party they are from. I'm voting for the man or woman.
Do you deny that On 23 Sept 2003 the US Select Service and the Defense Department Website called "Defend America" posted a notice for people to join local draft boards. "If a military draft becomes necessary," the notice explained, "approximately 2,000 Local and Appeal Boards throughout America would decide which young men, who submit a claim, receive deferments, postponements or exemptions from military service, based on Federal guidelines." In early November, that notice started to receive media attention, with articles from the Associated Press, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer , the Oregonian, the Toronto Star, the BBC, and London Guardian (unsurprisingly, none of the major papers or networks in the US covered it). In a familiar turn of events, the notice suddenly disappeared from the Website. Hmmm, I wonder why. Could it possibly be because a draft would be a very unpopular thing for a president to say he might do before an election?
Have you heard of a rights shriveling bill called the PATRIOT Act? I don't have to say a damned thing more than that to counter you pitiful comeback.
Ah, Iraq. Good old Iraq. Let me put it this way. WE WILL NEVER WIN. We can't win in the eyes of the Iraqis. We can't give them a perfect democracy. We can't stop the terrorists from attacking the Iraqis and our own troops. We can't win a war that can't be won. We've lost the war in the eyes of the Iraqis. We've lost the way in the eyes of the World. The eyes of our countrymen are apparently too glazed over to realize this simple point. We lost Vietnam, another way that couldn't be won. Iraq will be another Vietnam. If we pull out all hell will break lose. If we stay they'll continue to cut us down a little at a time. We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. The only win is short-term and that's with disinformation. History will record this war as a serious fuckup. History already has.
Ok, think about what you just said. Now slap yourself upside your head (you pick which side) and say "Duh." Congress is now predominantly Republican. We no longer have a balance. We're now in a position where the Republican party can ensure that almost all legislation will get through unscathed. Can't you see that? Our leglislation and executive bodies are no longer balanced.
I can see Wisconsin and Illinois being called Midwestern states. They are pretty much righ on the line. I can't possibly see any reasonable person calling Indiana or Ohio Midwestern states though. That's illogical as hell. It would take the similar view of basic geography as the Bush adminstration has taken of science in general to make that illogical comparison. You might as well call Pennsylvania a Midwestern state if you call Ohio a midwestern state. West Virgina, Alambama, and Georgia line up quite well with Ohio too. How many Georgians would consider themselves to be midwestern in a side to side comparison? I'm ignoring the "south" for the moment. It's hard to believe but the "south" has been reclassified more times than the Midwest.
Go back and correct your grammar before I'll reply. I could barely make out much of what you said and I'm not going to make wild guesses at your true meaning.
Not hardly. It's called a slippery slope. The moral right in this country has gained a major foothold in the past 4 years. This is immensly evident in the actions of John Ashcroft. He covered Lady Justice nude figure for peet's sake. He's championed porn laws already. If our courts become more conservative thanks to the anticipated SCOTUS nominations any challenges, no matter how well based in the Constitution they are, will be ruled against by the SCOTUS. The Republicans didn't run the gay marriage part of their campaign on the man/woman arguement. They ran it on the fears of parents that homosexuality would have to be taught in schools, be flaunted at every corner, be pushed on heterosexual society members at large. Those were all out and out lies. The Republicans ran their whole campaign that way. It was the Campaign of Fear and Terror. The Republican played the "Think of the Children" card and it worked. We have 4 more years of Bush in office. I will guarantee you that we will see more anti-homosexual laws on the books that are championed by the administration and their new-found morals, or should we say fair-weather morals. Bush and Ashcroft aren't going to stop with a few silly constitutional amendment, mark my words. I feel sorry for the homosexual community. They've just been outcast by the majoriy in 11 states. I'm sure that makes them feel real... happy. Segregation is the correct word. If nothing else it's prophetic.
"All the President's Spin: George W. Bush, the Media, and the Truth"
It might also have been this book:
"Fraud: The Strategy Behind the Bush Lies and Why the Media Didn't Tell You"
Both look about as likely. It looks like they're both fair reads too. I'm most interested in reading Senator Byrd's book though:
"Losing America: Confronting a Reckless and Arrogant Presidency"
I'm really curious to see what he wrote.
Anyhow, back on topic. I can't sell my shares of STEM until Friday without a T violation. I could sell before then without a penalty (just a warning) but I'm more curious to see where the price goes from here once the emotional speculation stops. The Califorina deal should be a big kick in the pants for this stock I think. It should at least be big enough to raise it back up to the level at which I bought it. I'm down about $3k already anyhow.
I still contend that toeing party lines is irresponsible.
Wasn't there supposed to be 4 possible SCOTUS retirees during the next 4 years? I'm sure I read that somewhere. It was more than 2 I know. That's what all the SCOTUS-worry was about; the fact that the new President could change the balance on the bench.
Dammit, you people are really starting to piss me off. The Midwest is not liberal (as much as I wish it were). Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Missouri, Iowa, Minnesota, Arkansas, Louisiana; those are midwestern states. Do you see an overwhelming Liberal population in this list? Ohio and Michigan are not Midwestern states! You're speaking like a true coast-hugger. Everything west of Buffalo, NY is considered "Midwest" by an east-coast-hugger. Everything east of the Las Vegas, NV is considered "Midwest" by a west-coast-hugger. Outside of your second paragraph everything is mostly right.
Yeah, I knew the $3b mark. That's a good thing for me, my investment, and humanity as a whole. I'm glad to see that got a chance to be voted on. The gay marriage voting disgusts me. Why the hell would any sensible person vote for a constitutional amendment that effectively segregates a class of citizens? Has this country learned nothing from the past? I truly hope that they are in fact found to be unconstitutional. Unfortunately I believe Bush will pack SCOTUS with unltra-conservative justices that will support Bush's new-found political religous stance. It will take hundreds of years to repair the damage from 8 years of Bush. That is unless he gets us into a nuclear war in which case the planet is simply fucked. Everyone loses.
That would hardly be fair. Hell that wouldn't be any different than the screwed up system we have now. I live in Kansas, a historically Republican state. Under either your system or the current electoral college system my historically non-republican vote wouldn't count for jack shit. What's the difference? There is none. Both your system and the current system are majority takes all of a state systems. The only difference is swing states no longer exist in your system. Well, I take that back. Yes, they do still exist in your system. My state would still be a single Republican vote even though 1/3 of us vote another way. Battleground states like Iowa and Ohio would still exist. They would still be swing states. Your system doesn't appear to change anything in any meaningful way. My vote is still not heard and is thus useless.