Is it possible to live in America without a car?



Baxter wrote:
> > Environmentalists only pretend to be for nuclear power when there's no
> > prospect of any being built. As soon as that changes, they'll be
> > against it. Environmentalists are against power generation full stop.

>
> Or maybe it's an entirely different group of "environmentalists"?


Yeah, that's it. Like in everything there are fake environmentalists,
just like there are fake conservatives...

"The political right in the U.S. has been largely preempted by neocons,

who are actually imposters - leftists in drag."

Well, you may explain EVERYTHING once you study my theory of the
jungle, which account for so much CAMOUFLAGE*...

*Camouflage in the jungle is widely used, where you see green
chamaleons (Green Party) or lions in sheep's clothing... Well, you know
who they are. ;)

Here is a comment describing the neo-cons:

"When a group of Jewish Trotskyites decided to take over the
conservative movement, they met in a coffee shop in New York and
schemed. They decided they would launch a number of intellectual
journals, and begin debating their Jewish ex-comrades on the Left who
owned major daily newspapers. The end result would be that the daily
newspapers would give them recognition as "the" conservative
movement, would ignore the original conservatives, and thus allow
their Trotskyite doctrines to supplant traditional conservative ways
of thinking. By adopting Trotsky's tactical doctrines on infiltrating
the vanguard of the movements, the neo-conservatives came to power."

http://groups.google.com/group/alt....e+conservatives&rnum=1&hl=en#3f7c96a017f92d0f
 
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>> Bill Baka <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> Tar sands are used for OIL extraction. Controlled Fusion I think is
>>>> still a long way off, due to the heavy duty physics involved and the
>>>> nature of a Fusion reaction. Fusion is roughly 1,000 times more powerful
>>>> than Fission and a screwup with it would make Chernobyl look like a
>>>> small firecracker that just fizzled.
>>> Chernobyl was less than a fizzle. There was no nuclear explosion at
>>> all, merely a physical explosion distributing nuclear waste. A
>>> similar screwup with fusion would do less, as there's less really
>>> nasty waste involved. But commercially-feasible fusion is a pipe
>>> dream; there's no prospect of it in the near future.

>> No,
>> Fusion is entirely done at temperatures like in the core of the sun and
>> is not something you can just do with a few grams of radioactive dust.

>
> Another non sequitur
>
>>>>> Solar power can't be used for transportation directly because you can't get
>>>>> enough energy out of the sun in the surface area of a car.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Yes it can if you let the car sit in the sun all day while you are in
>>>> the building working. You could get 20 miles each way on a sunny day.
>>> ****, it rained, I'm stuck at work. Damn, it's winter, not enough
>>> sun. Oops, I need to travel _30_ miles.

>> Nothing is ever going to be perfect.

>
> To call that imperfect is the understatement of the century.


Another non sequitur. Your favorite phrase when you don't get it?
Bill
 
"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> george conklin <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>"SMS" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Once the U.S. gets over their irrational fear of nuclear energy, and
>>> joins
>>> the rest of the industrialized world, it'll make plug-in hybrids the
>>> best
>>> option.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>> A few years back environmentalists were against nuclear power. Times
>> do
>>change. Of course, in 50,000 years we will still be living with the
>>radioactive waste.

>
> Environmentalists only pretend to be for nuclear power when there's no
> prospect of any being built. As soon as that changes, they'll be
> against it. Environmentalists are against power generation full stop.
>


Unfortunately going back to small farms where we **** in the fields and
pee on composting piles would condemn 75% of the world's population to
starvation. Would an environmentalist volunteer to join the 75% or is that
just up to the rest of us to die first?
 
"Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:

>And, no, Clinton's initiatives wer not unrealistic - they came after eight
>years of study.


Bwah hah hah hahhhh.... Thanks for the laugh, but you almost cost me a
monitor.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote


>> Environmentalists only pretend to be for nuclear power when there's no
>> prospect of any being built. As soon as that changes, they'll be
>> against it. Environmentalists are against power generation full stop.

>
> Unfortunately going back to small farms where we **** in the fields and
>pee on composting piles would condemn 75% of the world's population to
>starvation. Would an environmentalist volunteer to join the 75% or is that
>just up to the rest of us to die first?


Don'tcha get it yet? If one <insert nationality here> dies
accidentally at the hands of the US military, the world should stop
spinning for a couple days while we all contemplate our navels.

OTOH, what's a few million people dying of malaria or starving to
death or dying in death camps? Hardly an issue to concern the elite,
y'know.

Clearer now?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote:

>donquijote1954 wrote:
>> Gore was saying last night on PBS' Charlie Rose that we got 10 years
>> before reaching the point of no return.

>
>Oh, NOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooo..................
>
>:-D


Heh heh heh... what's gonna happen in 10 years? The electrons
composing all of donquijote's spam will congregate, create a black
hole which sucks the earth in after it?

In a way, it would be a relief... ;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Baxter wrote:
>> > Environmentalists only pretend to be for nuclear power when there's no
>> > prospect of any being built. As soon as that changes, they'll be
>> > against it. Environmentalists are against power generation full stop.

>>
>> Or maybe it's an entirely different group of "environmentalists"?

>
> Yeah, that's it. Like in everything there are fake environmentalists,
> just like there are fake conservatives...
>
> "The political right in the U.S. has been largely preempted by neocons,
>
> who are actually imposters - leftists in drag."
>
> Well, you may explain EVERYTHING once you study my theory of the
> jungle, which account for so much CAMOUFLAGE*...
>
> *Camouflage in the jungle is widely used, where you see green
> chamaleons (Green Party) or lions in sheep's clothing... Well, you know
> who they are. ;)
>
> Here is a comment describing the neo-cons:
>
> "When a group of Jewish Trotskyites decided to take over the
> conservative movement, they met in a coffee shop in New York and
> schemed. They decided they would launch a number of intellectual
> journals, and begin debating their Jewish ex-comrades on the Left who
> owned major daily newspapers. The end result would be that the daily
> newspapers would give them recognition as "the"

conservative
> movement, would ignore the original conservatives, and thus allow
> their Trotskyite doctrines to supplant traditional conservative ways
> of thinking. By adopting Trotsky's tactical doctrines on infiltrating
> the vanguard of the movements, the neo-conservatives came to power."
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt....e+conservatives&rnum=1&hl=en#3f7c96a017f92d0f
>


So when someone calls me a neo-con, they're calling me a Hillary in drag?
EWWWWW.

I was conservative long before Neo . . . .

Charles of Schaumburg
 
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 17:41:28 GMT, "Sorni"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>donquijote1954 wrote:
>> Gore was saying last night on PBS' Charlie Rose that we got 10 years
>> before reaching the point of no return.

>
>Oh, NOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooo..................


That mean old Mr. Sluggo is the cause of Global Warming, isn't he?
--
What the heck, I'll play too.
- Dave
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >And, no, Clinton's initiatives wer not unrealistic - they came after

eight
> >years of study.

>
> Bwah hah hah hahhhh.... Thanks for the laugh, but you almost cost me a
> monitor.
>

---------
"You simply can’t talk honestly about the environment today without
criticizing this president. George W. Bush will go down as the worst
environmental president in our nation’s history."
http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/10/09_402.html

Overall, let's talk first about the Clinton administration's legacy. Was it
a good one or a bad one for the environment?

KEN COOK: I think there's no question -- it's a very good legacy for the
environment. And I think anyone who thought there was no difference perhaps
between Al Gore and George Bush in this election cycle needs only to look at
this first round of nominees to see what a stark difference it will be from
that administration to the next one by almost any reckoning. President
Clinton came into office with a reputation for not knowing a lot and caring
a lot or having a very good record on the environment. He left office with a
considerable legacy, some of the items were mentioned in the show tonight,
public lands, pollution controls. He left some work undone, but over time he
trended in the direction of Al Gore and learned a lot and became more
activist.
....
Well, I think it's one thing to look at the bottom up as a democratic
approach. It's another thing to have that be a code word for basically to
turning power over to mining interest and forestry interests to use public
lands as they see fit. No, I think we only know now a little bit about what
President-elect Bush might do from his appointees. And it's not an
encouraging picture. Gale Norton is way outside the mainstream thinking on
how to use public lands and how to manage environmental problems. Certainly,
Spencer Abraham had a deplorable environmental record while he served in the
Senate. He was one of the dirty dozen that the League of Conservation Voters
went after in this election -- I think partly lost because of his
anti-environmental positions.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june01/envpol_1-3.html

Clinton:
Largest expansion of national parks and monuments since Teddy Roosevelt,
signed Safe Drinking Water Act, signed Kyoto Accord.

Bush:
Worst environmental President in history. Used regulations to undermine
Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, rejected Kyoto Accord and expanded
logging and oil drilling in national parks and monuments.
http://www.bushlies.net/pages/2/page2.html?refresh=1145545995896

It scarcely raises an eyebrow nowadays when the Bush administration's
environmental record is characterized, yet again, as a relentless attack on
decades of protections for air, water, and wildlife. But the latest such
charges come from a loyal soldier of the GOP, appointed by the Bushies to
head up the enforcement office of the U.S. EPA, so they carry more weight
than most.

Bush officials waged "an unforgiving assault" on the EPA's enforcement
program, J. P. Suarez was quoted as saying in the October issue of The
Environmental Law Reporter, in an article by Joel Mintz entitled "'Treading
Water': A Preliminary Assessment of EPA Enforcement During the Bush II
Administration" [PDF].
http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/11/02/little-epa/
 
On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 21:36:43 -0700, "Baxter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>-
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> "Baxter" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >And, no, Clinton's initiatives wer not unrealistic - they came after

>eight
>> >years of study.

>>
>> Bwah hah hah hahhhh.... Thanks for the laugh, but you almost cost me a
>> monitor.
>>

>---------
>"You simply can’t talk honestly about the environment today without
>criticizing this president. George W. Bush will go down as the worst
>environmental president in our nation’s history."
>http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/10/09_402.html
>
>Overall, let's talk first about the Clinton administration's legacy. Was it
>a good one or a bad one for the environment?
>
>KEN COOK: I think there's no question -- it's a very good legacy for the
>environment. And I think anyone who thought there was no difference perhaps
>between Al Gore and George Bush in this election cycle needs only to look at
>this first round of nominees to see what a stark difference it will be from
>that administration to the next one by almost any reckoning. President
>Clinton came into office with a reputation for not knowing a lot and caring
>a lot or having a very good record on the environment. He left office with a
>considerable legacy, some of the items were mentioned in the show tonight,
>public lands, pollution controls. He left some work undone, but over time he
>trended in the direction of Al Gore and learned a lot and became more
>activist.
>...
>Well, I think it's one thing to look at the bottom up as a democratic
>approach. It's another thing to have that be a code word for basically to
>turning power over to mining interest and forestry interests to use public
>lands as they see fit. No, I think we only know now a little bit about what
>President-elect Bush might do from his appointees. And it's not an
>encouraging picture. Gale Norton is way outside the mainstream thinking on
>how to use public lands and how to manage environmental problems. Certainly,
>Spencer Abraham had a deplorable environmental record while he served in the
>Senate. He was one of the dirty dozen that the League of Conservation Voters
>went after in this election -- I think partly lost because of his
>anti-environmental positions.
>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/environment/jan-june01/envpol_1-3.html
>
>Clinton:
>Largest expansion of national parks and monuments since Teddy Roosevelt,
>signed Safe Drinking Water Act, signed Kyoto Accord.
>
>Bush:
>Worst environmental President in history. Used regulations to undermine
>Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act, rejected Kyoto Accord and expanded
>logging and oil drilling in national parks and monuments.
>http://www.bushlies.net/pages/2/page2.html?refresh=1145545995896
>
>It scarcely raises an eyebrow nowadays when the Bush administration's
>environmental record is characterized, yet again, as a relentless attack on
>decades of protections for air, water, and wildlife. But the latest such
>charges come from a loyal soldier of the GOP, appointed by the Bushies to
>head up the enforcement office of the U.S. EPA, so they carry more weight
>than most.
>
>Bush officials waged "an unforgiving assault" on the EPA's enforcement
>program, J. P. Suarez was quoted as saying in the October issue of The
>Environmental Law Reporter, in an article by Joel Mintz entitled "'Treading
>Water': A Preliminary Assessment of EPA Enforcement During the Bush II
>Administration" [PDF].
>http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2004/11/02/little-epa/
>


Thanks for the effort. It will be wasted on Mark but at leat he gives
good advice on bikes. The right wingers just don't see how radical
these neocons are. These are the guy that Bush 1's administration
called the crazies. All they want to do is run the world as they see
fit. I can't understand why other folks don't just roll over.
 
dgk <[email protected]> wrote:

>Thanks for the effort. It will be wasted on Mark but at leat he gives
>good advice on bikes. The right wingers just don't see how radical
>these neocons are. These are the guy that Bush 1's administration
>called the crazies. All they want to do is run the world as they see
>fit. I can't understand why other folks don't just roll over.


You guys missed the point. Totally.

The discussion was about clean air legislation. I think it's great
that Clinton set aside more public land for parks, etc. But that
wasn't the discussion...

I simply pointed out that Clinton did nothing to promote clean air
during his time in office, other than lobbing the "time bomb" over the
fence.

Obviously that worked, because you bought into the fact that turning
that into a workable piece of legislation and IMPLEMENTING IT was a
"bad thing".

The things us "neocons" have a hard time understanding about libs is
that facts don't seem to matter. History can be morphed into
whatever's convenient. I guess I'm way too much of an engineer...
;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame
 

> Ok, so it ain't the rich and middle class who have benefitted from tax
> cuts, and it ain't the poor either. So who's paying for the damn war?
> ;)



Your kids.
 
JohnH wrote:
> > Ok, so it ain't the rich and middle class who have benefitted from tax
> > cuts, and it ain't the poor either. So who's paying for the damn war?
> > ;)

>
>
> Your kids.


And the old people.
 
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The discussion was about clean air legislation. I think it's great
> that Clinton set aside more public land for parks, etc. But that
> wasn't the discussion...


Clean Air specifically?
------------
From the start, the new source review program was criticized as too
bureaucratic and complex. In 1999, President Clinton used it to sue owners
of 51 aging, coal-burning power plants, primarily in the Ohio Valley and the
South.

The Bush administration continued those cases, with some success, while also
trying to rewrite the underlying regulations to let more older power plants
continue operating without new pollution controls.
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12817469/

The Bush administration is preparing far-reaching changes in environmental
policy governing air pollution. In line with the interests of the energy
industry, the administration is seeking to eliminate or modify certain
provisions of the Clean Air Act that regulate old electrical plants. The
changes have encountered significant opposition from within the government,
particularly from those sections responsible for environmental regulation.

In reality, however, the administration’s environmental policy has
consistently expressed the interests of big business, and in particular the
giant energy companies that have been principal backers of the Republican
Party. What has become clear over the past several months is that the “Clear
Skies” initiative is basically an attempt to undermine a policy begun by the
Clinton administration of forcing old coal-fired energy plants to pay fines
and install pollution-reducing equipment.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/apr2002/air-a05.shtml

Unfortunately, Washington's energy lobbyists understood this dynamic all too
clearly. And when President Bush assumed office, they wasted little time
blocking this new momentum toward cleaner air ...

In a matter of weeks, the Bush administration was able to undo the
environmental progress we had worked years to secure. Millions of tons of
unnecessary pollution continue to pour from these power plants each year as
a result. Adding insult to injury, the White House sought to slash the EPA's
enforcement budget, making it harder for us to pursue cases we'd already
launched against other polluters that had run afoul of the law,
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0207.schaeffer.html
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote

[snip]

> Example, the lion says: "Sure, you can have a bicycle, but can't

ride
> in traffic 'cause there's no room for you and it's a jungle out

there.

[snip]

and the sad thing is, all too many people are willing to believe such
nonsense, and thereby bring about their own crippling

Jeremy Parker
 
"donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote

[snip]

> Example, the lion says: "Sure, you can have a bicycle, but can't

ride
> in traffic 'cause there's no room for you and it's a jungle out

there.

[snip]

and the sad thing is, all too many people are willing to believe such
nonsense, and thereby bring about their own crippling

Jeremy Parker
 
Regardless, a bicycle is the most efficient means of transportation known.
Measured by Calories per mile. (Or Watts, Ergs, Joules, or any other units
you choose) Even more efficient than walking or riding 4 to a car.

Sid

"Dane Buson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> In rec.bicycles.misc Jack May <[email protected]> wrote:
>> "donquijote1954" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>> William Asher wrote:

>>
>>> And we should be riding bikes and burning the calories which is also
>>> good for your health and aesthetics, right?

>>
>> Riding bike increases the food consumption. Food requires about ten
>> calories of oil energy for each calorie that is consumed. The body at
>> 98.6 degrees is not thermodynamically efficient.

>
> True to a point, however most people in the US are already eating *more*
> calories than they need. Unless they're cycling a lot, most people
> won't increase their food intake. They'll simply not gain weight, or
> perhaps be able to put on some of their old smaller clothes.
>
> Of course, if you really want to use that example you have to realize
> that people are dragging around two tons of steel with them in order to
> use that oil. In addition, you have to account for the much higher air
> drag a car experiences going at 55+ mph. Overall you have to do 25+
> times as much work to use the car to travel. Even at 10 to 1, the
> bicycle can come out as a smarter energy investment.
>
> The US is the fattest nation in the world. I hardly think we need to
> worry about people eating more. They'll do that with or without a
> bicycle.
>
> --
> Dane Buson - [email protected]
> "From empirical experience, your Exchange admin needs to put down the
> crack
> pipe and open a window to disperse the fumes." -- Joe Thompson,
> ASR
 
In article <7N%[email protected]>,
Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Nothing is ever going to be perfect.

>>
>> To call that imperfect is the understatement of the century.

>
> Another non sequitur. Your favorite phrase when you don't get it?


My favorite phrase when you don't make sense.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
In article <7N%[email protected]>,
Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> Bill <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> Nothing is ever going to be perfect.

>>
>> To call that imperfect is the understatement of the century.

>
> Another non sequitur. Your favorite phrase when you don't get it?


My favorite phrase when you don't make sense.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
>Bicycling at fifteen miles per hour or so takes about 600 calories per
>hour. A gallon of gas contains about 31,000 calories. So even if I
>accept your figures, that works out to about 78 miles per gallon for
>bicycling. My ride to work is 7 miles. So I can commute to work for
>more than a week on the equivalent (according to your figures) of one
>gallon of gas.


Except you can't derive sustanence from gas.

>We will not talk about the costs associated with fighting wars to keep
>our oil supply safe.


Don't be silly. If anything oil related, this war is being fought to
keep our oil supply EXPENSIVE.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
 

Similar threads