page eleven and a half
bob wrote:
OCC wrote
Quote:
BLEEP! Wrong. Bad premise. I, and most others, am not buying this BIG LIE.
You must work for an oil company, or perhaps an automobile manufacturer. Auto sales? Insurance? Repairs maybe. Or are you just too set in your ways to see that we are all in this thing together. That the exhaust you spew is the air others breathe. That cities could be extrordinarily beautiful, exciting, healthy places to live if only there weren't so many goddam automobiles. That the people who don't drive actually pay taxes to build and maintain roads for the people that do. That you are not the only one to have worked long and hard. That you haven't paid one red cent for the clean air you convert into CO2. That not everyone wants the shared living space of the city dominated by ugly, dangerous automobiles. That the money you spend on gasoline supports terrorism. That man's contribution to global warming is becoming more clear and that the automobile is the primary culprit.
That's a lot of thats already and I'll bet my friends on the rational, responsibile side of the issue could add a lot more. Let us know if you can muster an inteligent response to even one of them.
At the risk of elevating diatribe to conversation, I will respond in part to your posting.
I am not, and was not, in the employ of any of the groups you mention. So, you are wrong again. I spent almost 40 years in Quality Assurance in the computer hardware and software industry. As a manager I was an early adopter of telecommuting for employees for many reasons, only some of which you might guess.
I served as a member of a state regional planning commission in my spare time, working to promote planned growth, mass transit, clean air, clean water, and worked with solid waste disposal efforts for the 19 towns and 3 cities within the region. I received no pay for the position and funded all my expenses out of my own pocket. So when you say I haven’t paid for my clean air, you are wrong again.
I’ve learned to talk with, listen to, and most importantly question precisely, all those who seek to offer ‘complete solutions’ to environmental problems. Profiteers, errant do-gooders, naive amateurs and even spiteful and vindictive miscreants all jockey for their share of the public coffers to accomplish their ends. Sometimes there are even worthwhile, realistic solutions offered.
Making progress is long hard work. The sunshine soldiers and irrational zealots filled with Luddite type hate make the job even more difficult. When real planners and environmentalists fail to condemn the inaccuracies and the bile put forth as argument by those misguided few, the whole cause for rational progress suffers.
People who don’t drive pay taxes for roads. Roads that are used to carry their mail, their medicine, their food and clothing. People who don’t have children pay school taxes and are able to get doctors, lawyers, tradesmen, etc. for their needs. Such is life and economics.
I served on a town committee to select a new police chief. One point I got several to agree with, was that suspending the Bill of Rights would make the job of policing much easier and effective. All of the finalists for the position also agreed, however, that doing so would undermine the very values of the public they were sworn to protect. It’s much the same with social engineering. While it’s much more effective to be a dictator, the basic freedoms of the individual and the latitude of the free markets must be observed. If that isn’t agreeable to you, then you need to rethink your position or find an agreeable despotic country.
I decry the extent of the measures taken to “ensure security” in the United States and the rest of world; especially since, while freedom is lost, security remains as elusive as ever. Many arguments, not all mind you, on the issues of the environment are as unconvincing as those made for ‘security reasons’ and just as flawed. We must ensure that while entertaining the right to free speech, we don’t put inordinate weight on the words of those who merely speak freely.
OOC
Jaboney - OutofChaos wrote:
Sorry Jaboney, you are wrong on this one. I re-read the original post twice and my quoted extract captures the stated premise. You are inserting a completely different premise about alternatives.
Ok, you're right. But what do you think of my premise, and bob's rebut that prices would be lowered? Personally, I think the oil companies will reap all they possibly can from oil, then transition into operating as other kinds of energy companies... and they'll still reap big profits. One way or another, we'll pay through the nose, might as well do so in less (environmentally and politically) destructive ways.
bob - OutofChaos wrote: At the risk of elevating diatribe to conversation, I will respond in part to your posting.
At least I got your attention. Now that I have, might I suggest that you give some thought to the obvious: using a gasoline tax to fund alternatives is very likely the best way forward out of the mess we are now in. I would explain once again why this is true but given your considerable experience dealing with environmental issues, and the considerable insight and erudition evident in your latest posts I assume that won't be neccessary.
OutofChaos - If earning my contempt for irrational and unworkable solutions was your goal, yes, you were successful. Pretty low goal in my opinion.
Jaboney writes: Ok, you're right. But what do you think of my premise, and bob's rebut that prices would be lowered? Personally, I think the oil companies will reap all they possibly can from oil, then transition into operating as other kinds of energy companies... and they'll still reap big profits. One way or another, we'll pay through the nose, might as well do so in less (environmentally and politically) destructive ways.
OCC wrote - Government bureaucracies, which are all that are created by increased taxes, don’t produce solutions. Free enterprise, innovative entrepreneurs, and encouraged individuals produce the technological change we need to address society’s problems.
I do support plans for generous tax incentives for companies/individuals pursuing energy alternatives, with progressively increased benefits based on demonstrated results.
Carrots for the creative innovators and bold investors, and not sticks for the saddled masses, in my humble opinion, are a much better way to proceed.
bob - OCC wrote: I do support plans for generous tax incentives for companies/individuals pursuing energy alternatives, with progressively increased benefits based on demonstrated results.
As the sun rises over the horizon and you crack the barn door open, a sliver of pure sunshine bursts inward, leaving you realing with the wonder of it all, and some primal instinct entreats you to at last to throw those doors wide open!
OCC wrote
Quote:
BLEEP! Wrong. Bad premise. I, and most others, am not buying this BIG LIE.
You must work for an oil company, or perhaps an automobile manufacturer. Auto sales? Insurance? Repairs maybe. Or are you just too set in your ways to see that we are all in this thing together. That the exhaust you spew is the air others breathe. That cities could be extrordinarily beautiful, exciting, healthy places to live if only there weren't so many goddam automobiles. That the people who don't drive actually pay taxes to build and maintain roads for the people that do. That you are not the only one to have worked long and hard. That you haven't paid one red cent for the clean air you convert into CO2. That not everyone wants the shared living space of the city dominated by ugly, dangerous automobiles. That the money you spend on gasoline supports terrorism. That man's contribution to global warming is becoming more clear and that the automobile is the primary culprit.
That's a lot of thats already and I'll bet my friends on the rational, responsibile side of the issue could add a lot more. Let us know if you can muster an inteligent response to even one of them.
At the risk of elevating diatribe to conversation, I will respond in part to your posting.
I am not, and was not, in the employ of any of the groups you mention. So, you are wrong again. I spent almost 40 years in Quality Assurance in the computer hardware and software industry. As a manager I was an early adopter of telecommuting for employees for many reasons, only some of which you might guess.
I served as a member of a state regional planning commission in my spare time, working to promote planned growth, mass transit, clean air, clean water, and worked with solid waste disposal efforts for the 19 towns and 3 cities within the region. I received no pay for the position and funded all my expenses out of my own pocket. So when you say I haven’t paid for my clean air, you are wrong again.
I’ve learned to talk with, listen to, and most importantly question precisely, all those who seek to offer ‘complete solutions’ to environmental problems. Profiteers, errant do-gooders, naive amateurs and even spiteful and vindictive miscreants all jockey for their share of the public coffers to accomplish their ends. Sometimes there are even worthwhile, realistic solutions offered.
Making progress is long hard work. The sunshine soldiers and irrational zealots filled with Luddite type hate make the job even more difficult. When real planners and environmentalists fail to condemn the inaccuracies and the bile put forth as argument by those misguided few, the whole cause for rational progress suffers.
People who don’t drive pay taxes for roads. Roads that are used to carry their mail, their medicine, their food and clothing. People who don’t have children pay school taxes and are able to get doctors, lawyers, tradesmen, etc. for their needs. Such is life and economics.
I served on a town committee to select a new police chief. One point I got several to agree with, was that suspending the Bill of Rights would make the job of policing much easier and effective. All of the finalists for the position also agreed, however, that doing so would undermine the very values of the public they were sworn to protect. It’s much the same with social engineering. While it’s much more effective to be a dictator, the basic freedoms of the individual and the latitude of the free markets must be observed. If that isn’t agreeable to you, then you need to rethink your position or find an agreeable despotic country.
I decry the extent of the measures taken to “ensure security” in the United States and the rest of world; especially since, while freedom is lost, security remains as elusive as ever. Many arguments, not all mind you, on the issues of the environment are as unconvincing as those made for ‘security reasons’ and just as flawed. We must ensure that while entertaining the right to free speech, we don’t put inordinate weight on the words of those who merely speak freely.
OOC
Jaboney - OutofChaos wrote:
Sorry Jaboney, you are wrong on this one. I re-read the original post twice and my quoted extract captures the stated premise. You are inserting a completely different premise about alternatives.
Ok, you're right. But what do you think of my premise, and bob's rebut that prices would be lowered? Personally, I think the oil companies will reap all they possibly can from oil, then transition into operating as other kinds of energy companies... and they'll still reap big profits. One way or another, we'll pay through the nose, might as well do so in less (environmentally and politically) destructive ways.
bob - OutofChaos wrote: At the risk of elevating diatribe to conversation, I will respond in part to your posting.
At least I got your attention. Now that I have, might I suggest that you give some thought to the obvious: using a gasoline tax to fund alternatives is very likely the best way forward out of the mess we are now in. I would explain once again why this is true but given your considerable experience dealing with environmental issues, and the considerable insight and erudition evident in your latest posts I assume that won't be neccessary.
OutofChaos - If earning my contempt for irrational and unworkable solutions was your goal, yes, you were successful. Pretty low goal in my opinion.
Jaboney writes: Ok, you're right. But what do you think of my premise, and bob's rebut that prices would be lowered? Personally, I think the oil companies will reap all they possibly can from oil, then transition into operating as other kinds of energy companies... and they'll still reap big profits. One way or another, we'll pay through the nose, might as well do so in less (environmentally and politically) destructive ways.
OCC wrote - Government bureaucracies, which are all that are created by increased taxes, don’t produce solutions. Free enterprise, innovative entrepreneurs, and encouraged individuals produce the technological change we need to address society’s problems.
I do support plans for generous tax incentives for companies/individuals pursuing energy alternatives, with progressively increased benefits based on demonstrated results.
Carrots for the creative innovators and bold investors, and not sticks for the saddled masses, in my humble opinion, are a much better way to proceed.
bob - OCC wrote: I do support plans for generous tax incentives for companies/individuals pursuing energy alternatives, with progressively increased benefits based on demonstrated results.
As the sun rises over the horizon and you crack the barn door open, a sliver of pure sunshine bursts inward, leaving you realing with the wonder of it all, and some primal instinct entreats you to at last to throw those doors wide open!
posted by david at 5:28 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home