Current Events

Want to discuss something else? Anything goes here!

Moderator: Bmat

User avatar
ola
Site Regular
Site Regular
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: home soon

Post by ola »

In my humble opinion all this party stuff is nonsense. No matter what country.

What I mean is that political parties shouldn't be b.s.ing each other just to say "Hey, I'm different, the other ones are stupid", but rather look after the well of the country they are supposed to rule.

We don't need a Weimarer Republik II. Germany had a little touch of it again, until the big parties had to get together.

Since I'm in the US I saw a couple of those show on "Newschannels" (I don't think that is appropriate, just because in my opinion news shouldn't be party orientated, but neutral...) and it just annoys me. Those people that are supposed to rule a country or at least participate in it are busier yelling at each other and not even listening to what the other has to say...

I think it shouldn't matter if you're SPD, CDU, Conservative or Democrat. If you have an idea for the better of your country bring it and people should be able to look at it as exactly that, not as an idea from the other party.

Parties were made for a reason. To balance the power (and hence prevent dictatorship), but I fear some people are just shooting way past the goal.

We're just humans, huh.
"He's a stranger to some
and a vision to none,
he can never get enough
get enough of the one" 30stm-from yesterday
There are so many sides to life....why should I only have one? :smt084

User avatar
Qray
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8152
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Down in Cognito
Contact:

Post by Qray »

"Let me warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of Party..."
-George Washington in his Farewell Address of 1796


I agree with you ola. It seems many politicians spend the majority of the time trying to discredit the opposing political party instead of doing their job of representing their constituents. I've noticed it since the time of Regan and watched it happen during Clinton's administration and now Bush's in the U.S. All parties are equally guilty.

I think many of the U.S.'s founding fathers were equally suspicious of political parties. The framers of the Constitution feared that man's natural tendency to join together with others of similar opinions would encourage divisions into special interest groups rather than a commitment to the "general welfare." They hoped the Constitution would control the "factions" and prevent them from pursuing their selfish interests at the expense of other citizen's interests or the common welfare. They established the system of checks and balances to this end.

Unfortunately, the political party, an institution that many of those who wrote the Constitution hoped would never arise in America is now vital in the general operation of our political system.

Much to the countries detriment, IMO.

User avatar
Qray
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8152
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Down in Cognito
Contact:

Post by Qray »

Jack Sarratt wrote:Solar power and wind power...These also seem like good ideas, and in truth they are. But the problem is once again: quantity. Solar power can be converted into electricity and stored in batteries, but solar panels can't generate enought energy to begin with. Wind power is only feasible in areas with consistently high winds.
Solar power also suffers in that it's not all that useful on a cloudy day. A reliable source of solar power collection must be in areas with predominantly sunny days.

Water is another useful source of electrical generation in the form of dams. It's non-polluting, free (at least in the terms of no "fuel" required), and renewable. The downside is that damming rivers drastically changes the ecology of the river system and there are only so many locations that are suitable.
Jack Sarratt wrote:I believe the key issue here is a severe lack of ways to produce and use energy efficiently, not just a lack of energy itself.
Electrical devices grow more efficient ever day though. When you buy a new appliance or electronics device, look for the Energy Star symbol.

In the past few years, I've had to replace a broken refrigerator, dehumidifier, DVD play, and VCR. I replaced them all with Energy Star rated devices and have noticed a recognizable decrease in the amount of electricity I use on a monthly basis.

Or were you referring to something different in "a severe lack of ways to produce and use energy efficiently?"

User avatar
ola
Site Regular
Site Regular
Posts: 201
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: home soon

Post by ola »

You guys always mention wind and solar power - maybe I missed it somewhere- but as far as I know water is actually the most reliant one.

WInd only works in really windy areas, solar power can be really good in the Arizona desert, but not too good up north.

Water on the oher hand is a reliable source. It doesn't change daily and if it changes it is rather predictable and people can adjust to it.

I know water isn't necessarily a good source for cars -or maybe it is, I don't know. I would just say that you cannot generalize the best source anyway. Your ecology is just too different.

AS I said above, in Phoenix a car could run perfectly on solar power, just because a day without sun is a probability of one week during a year...

Now in Oregon at places where wind blows all day that would be the best source.

In Minnesota water....
"He's a stranger to some
and a vision to none,
he can never get enough
get enough of the one" 30stm-from yesterday
There are so many sides to life....why should I only have one? :smt084

User avatar
Jack Sarratt
Casual Poster
Casual Poster
Posts: 168
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 7:20 pm
Location: Athens

Post by Jack Sarratt »

Or were you referring to something different in "a severe lack of ways to produce and use energy efficiently?"
Yes Qray. I was. I meant a more efficient way to produce and use energy so that there is little waste. I also mean a way that costs less and has no adverse effect on the environment. For example, using coal as an energy source has the side effect of fumes and chemicals being thrown into the atmosphere. By straining the fumes through water, the chemical waste is lessened, but it costs too much to constantly strain the fumes and still produce the energy from the coal.
People say to not judge a book by its cover, but first make sure you picked the right title.

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Water can have it's problems.....we have dams in New Zealand.....but sometimes we have problems with Low Lake levels...

It happens when it does not rain, the lake goes down, hence less water to go through the dam to make power....resulting in high power prices....and power shortages

User avatar
aldan
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3886
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 11:46 am
Location: Ohio, right now...
Contact:

Post by aldan »

My "solution" to SS is the following...

1) make it illegal for Congress or any other political group to put their hands within 2000 miles of it.

2) once the money is there and more or less "solid", then for people of one age group and younger, lower (not completely, but lower) the SS taxes they are paying. Then tell those people that they get this "benefit" because they will be responsible for THEIR OWN retirements, so they'd better get working and saving for them!

3) for the rest, increase the amount that they will pay for SS by a bit, but make it be guaranteed that they will receive the "benefits" which, along with the small amount the younger ones who won't receive the benefits will be paying, will help to make it possible for the oldsters to survive as oldsters. There will be one caveat, though... if an oldster is unhappy with the amount they are receiving for SS they will not have anyone that they can bark at, since if they do, the younger folks will be able to go to court to force them (due to their greed and idiocy) to have to live in a "home" that is paid for by the funds allotted for them through SS.

4) now, what will happen to the younger folks? For those who are smart enough to save money, they'll likely be fine. For the rest of the idiots, they will be up a creek with no paddle, a strong current, and a short trip to a long drop down a rocky waterfall. "Oh, how horrible, how awful, how like it was before the socialistic democratic government of the '30s screwed up by forming social security."

One or the other, really. Things'll be tough either way, but at least those who've been paying most of their lives for the benefits will receive them. They just won't be receiving them to live in luxury, or to live greedily. Instead they'll have to pinch Abe Lincoln 'till he pulls his beard out from the pain. The younger folks will have to either learn to save money or they'll end up starving to death, BECAUSE THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO DEPEND upon their kids paying for them to live, since they will be responsible for it themselves....

*shrugs* It's a tough solution, and might not work well, or it might. I'm no economist, and I don't play one on TV or the radio, but perhaps one of you could figure out something similar that WOULD work. It'll be brutal any way it's done. There's naught to be done about that.
"It is better to keep your mouth shut and to appear stupid than
to open it and remove all doubt."
---Mark Twain

User avatar
Merle
Adept Scribe
Adept Scribe
Posts: 2584
Joined: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:11 am
Location: A safe little corner of my mind
Contact:

Post by Merle »

Qray wrote: What have they done with this supertanker full of money? Build new refineries (because according to them it’s the lack of proper refineries that’s one of the reasons gas prices are so high)?

Nope.

Build new pipeline and distribution systems?

Nope.

Put the money back into the business in the form of additional exploration of new oil fields?

Nope.
Disturbing, yes. Like I said above, ANWR isn't the only place that needs to be explored. Off the coast of Florida is another good bet.

One wonders about the cost-benefit analysis that goes into the decisions not to build new refineries, when new, more efficient refineries are so desperately needed. EPA rules make it tougher to build a new refinery, since old ones are grandfathered to a certain extent. In a way, the regs are counterproductive, because they discourage building of newer, more efficient, cleaner refineries. As for the old refineries, the wierd thing is that EPA sets emission standards, so many ppm per day or week or whatever. So when the refinery hits that mark for the time period, it has to shut down, until the next time period begins. Rather than investing to make the refinery cleaner, this is what happens. Again, it comes down to cost benefit analysis for the oil company.

I think if the oil companies could increase their profits by reinvesting, that's what they'd do. But right now cost benefit shows it's not worth it to them.
Beelzebub has a devil put aside for me.

User avatar
lastone
Site Regular
Site Regular
Posts: 250
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 9:57 pm
Location: Melbourne Australia
Contact:

Post by lastone »

What sort of publication would use the Nazis as an example to prove that we can deport twelve million people?

The Answer is Worldnet Daily. A topic I draw to your attention because in the past some have used this ultra right wing blog as a credible source.


source http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50198

Not only will it work, but one can easily estimate how long it would take. If it took the Germans less than four years to rid themselves of 6 million Jews, many of whom spoke German and were fully integrated into German society, it couldn't possibly take more than eight years to deport 12 million illegal aliens, many of whom don't speak English and are not integrated into American society.
I guess you can call it the final solution on the Immigration question
"Goodbye and thanks for the fish"

User avatar
Qray
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8152
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Down in Cognito
Contact:

Post by Qray »

Merle wrote:One wonders about the cost-benefit analysis that goes into the decisions not to build new refineries, when new, more efficient refineries are so desperately needed. EPA rules make it tougher to build a new refinery, since old ones are grandfathered to a certain extent. In a way, the regs are counterproductive, because they discourage building of newer, more efficient, cleaner refineries. As for the old refineries, the wierd thing is that EPA sets emission standards, so many ppm per day or week or whatever. So when the refinery hits that mark for the time period, it has to shut down, until the next time period begins. Rather than investing to make the refinery cleaner, this is what happens. Again, it comes down to cost benefit analysis for the oil company.

I think if the oil companies could increase their profits by reinvesting, that's what they'd do. But right now cost benefit shows it's not worth it to them.
That's the thing though. Even with the regulations the way they are, the oil companies can build new refineries and still make a profit. They just wouldn't make as much of a profit as they'd want. So, IMO like a spoiled child, they won't build new refineries.

The cynical part of me thinks that the oil companies are betting that the country will get so desperate for cheap gas that they'll relax the enviornmental laws to the point where they (the oil companies) can build their new refineries on the cheap.

User avatar
Qray
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8152
Joined: Sat Apr 09, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Down in Cognito
Contact:

Post by Qray »

ola wrote:I know water isn't necessarily a good source for cars -or maybe it is, I don't know. I would just say that you cannot generalize the best source anyway. Your ecology is just too different.
When you use dams to create electricity, it could be used to run electric cars.
ola wrote:Now in Oregon at places where wind blows all day that would be the best source.

In Minnesota water....
One of the problems in building new dams is that it can drastically change the ecology of the river.

There are already quite a few dams in Minnesota and also here in Wisconsin. Wisconsin has a large paper making industry and the Paper Mills were built on the banks of rivers for two reasons. The first being that large quantities of water is needed to make paper. The other reason is they dammed the rivers to produce electricity for the paper making machinery. Many of these dams are no longer in use as either the paper mill closed or the dam machinery fell into disrepair and was never kept up. I wonder how much electricity could be generated in the state if we repaired all the existing dams.

It reminds me of a guy I know that bought an old mill and turned it into a furniture shop. He uses the dam turbine to create electricity for his woodworking machinery and ends up selling the excess electricity back to the city for a profit.
Dark Knight wrote:Water can have it's problems.....we have dams in New Zealand.....but sometimes we have problems with Low Lake levels...

It happens when it does not rain, the lake goes down, hence less water to go through the dam to make power....resulting in high power prices....and power shortages
We experience the same things here in Wisconsin with our dams, but like I said, most of ours aren't producing electricity any longer so we don't see the effects. You said you have problems with Low Lake levels, how does this effect your electricity supply? Do you guys have brown outs or black outs as a result?

User avatar
Magus
Writer Extraordinaire
Writer Extraordinaire
Posts: 10536
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2005 5:34 pm
Location: Illinois
Contact:

Post by Magus »

Wow... I just read what that one person said about the Holocaust and the Deportation of Hispanics. Wow. That has to be one of the worst things I've ever heard somebody say. I won't say THE worst, because I've heard a few even worse than that, but it ranks up there.

Post Reply