Saturday, April 29, 2006

Legacy

Last Tuesday morning I had the chance to attend the Engineering Day displays at the U of U. My son’s project was on display and I took the day off from class to go and see it. It was about 7:30 in the morning when my wife and I headed for the nearest “on ramp”. From a distance we could see the parking lot at the end of it. We headed for the old highway and down toward Farmington. There, where the long neglected Legacy Highway bridge passes over the Freeway, we decided to give I-15 a try. We were barely past the “last chance” exit when every thing bogged down to stop and go gridlock. As we sat there, I contemplated the frustration, pollution, waste, and danger imposed on us and the thousands around us each day. This filthy dangerous disgrace is the Legacy of Rocky Anderson’s political ambition; an example of and fitting metaphor for all the evil caused by those who put their political gain above the good of their fellows and the success of their communities.

The Legacy Highway fiasco is particularly vexing when we consider that after all the wait and all the legal wrangling and all the money lost and the expense increased that the highway will still be built. For ten years it will have phony restrictions placed on it, and then the Legacy Parkway will become a Freeway at last, with much more money spent to up grade it, with much more time wasted and lives lost all to gratify Rocky’s political ambition and the arrogance of some litigious professional protesters.

Now consider the next time you buy gas at inflated prices that President Bush has been trying for years to open the vast reserves of Alaska to our use, and the same political motivations have placed us in economic distress and at the mercy of our enemies. What a waste, what a gridlock, and what a “legacy” for the Democrats in the Senate who bought their power at the expense of the Nation they pretend to serve. Someday the oil will flow from the Artic to the people who need it, but the cost will be greatly increased by the delay forced upon the enterprise by those who could manipulate the mob to support their power.

Twenty Years of spineless immigration policy have allowed a flood of illegal aliens to cross into America, now our border policy has crashed. The politicians in Congress are afraid to take the steps to fix the mess that the President has suggested because they are still seeking political gain at the expense of their nation. Pandering to one side or anther on the issues – succumbing to threats and intimidation - the price of politicizing the immigration policies of our nation may now prove too high to pay. What a legacy!

Consider how day after day Democrats, Clintonistas, professional protesters, seek to bog down the liberation of Iraq, the growth of Democracy in Afghanistan, and the war on terror so they can hurt the President to gain their own power. Their legacy is built on the suffering of our soldiers and the lives of our allies in Iraq who suffer day in and day out at the hands of fanatics, murderers whose hope for world conquest is maintained by the constant obstructions thrown up by the “party out of power” and their media masters.

The high road to world peace will some day be built, but the cost will be greatly increased and the suffering of the peoples of the world will be greatly increased by those who throw up obstructions for the votes of fools.

89 comments:

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

What follows are some excerpts from comments by Davie Beamer, father of Todd Beamer, the “Let’s Roll” hero from Flight 93. Mr Beamer is encouraging all of us to watch the movie. I thought his comments worth noting as we consider those who would leave us a different sort of Legacy in the War of Terror.

****

“In this case and at this time, it is appropriate to get a dose of reality about this war and the real enemy we face. It is not too soon for this story to be told, seen and heard. But it is too soon for us to become complacent. It is too soon for us to think of this war in only national terms. We need to be mindful that this enemy, who made those holes in our landscape and caused the deaths of some 3,000 of our fellow free people, has a vision to personally kill or convert each and every one of us. This film reminds us that this war is personal. This enemy is on a fanatical mission to take away our lives and liberty–the liberty that has been secured for us by those whose names are on those walls in Battery Park and so many other walls and stones throughout this nation. This enemy seeks to take away the free will that our Creator has endowed in us.”

“The passengers and crew of United 93 had the blessed opportunity to understand the nature of the attack and to launch a counterattack against the enemy. This was our first successful counterattack in our homeland in this new global war–World War III.
This film further reminds us of the nature of the enemy we face. An enemy who will stop at nothing to achieve world domination and force a life devoid of freedom upon all. Their methods are inhumane and their targets are the innocent and unsuspecting. We call this conflict the “War on Terror.” This film is a wake-up call. And although we abhor terrorism as a tactic, we are at war with a real enemy and it is personal.
There are those who would hope to escape the pain of war. Can’t we just live and let live and pretend every thing is OK? Let’s discuss, negotiate, reason together. The film accurately shows an enemy who will stop at nothing in a quest for control. This enemy does not seek our resources, our land or our materials, but rather to alter our very way of life.”

“Be thankful for each precious day of life with a loved one and make the most of it. Resolve to take the right action in the situations of life, whatever they may be. Resolve to give thanks and support to those men, women, leaders and commanders who to this day (1,687 days since Sept. 11, 2001) continue the counterattacks on our enemy and in so doing keep us safe and our freedoms intact.”

MindMechanic said...

Two points to be made here...

Point One
I think this is an area where people can debate the best solutions and agree to disagree. I have never felt the Legacy highway should be built...not because there isnt a current need, but because it doesnt represent a far reaching solution.

I think the solution is more complex.

1-I think a better solution is a light rail type mass transit system with efficient transport from the individual stations. Most of the vehicles on the highway-especially during the week-are single occupant vehicles...highly inefficient.
2-I think the traffic problems would reduce by 50% with a series of commercials teaching drivers how to maintain appropriate travelling distances and how to allow for and facilitate merging. Common sense would I think go a loooong way.
3-I think it would help if we realized that the Wasatch Front extends all the way from Tremonton down to Spanish Fork...maybe even Nephi. More effective, long term planning would spread the new business and industry along the front which would avoid the twice a day commuting bottleneck that we face. Well...WE dont face it because I wouldnt trek in to Salt Lake on a business day on a bet.

Point Two-
Still...the point is made (and in fact reinforced on this blog) re obstructionist actions of leftists. I have on several occaisions asked those that are most vocal in their anger and hatred to offer real solutions for debate and discussion. What is heard in return is the defening sounds of silence.

Long ago we decided we didnt want a king...yet our congress totally ignores their role and turns the policy making decisions over to the president. I'm pretty sure that is ALWAYS a bad idea. Yet when it comes to the responses fromdems about solutions offered by the president what do we get?

Education-Raise taxes!

Social Security Reform( you know...the social security system that Clinton said was in crisis)-Block any and all attempts at reform, cheer that you have managed to accomplish nothing, and when pressed...raise taxes!

Public Transportation-Raise Taxes!

Health Care-Raise taxes!

War on terror- Raise-err...no...nothing to see here...lets move on...

If it doesnt involve raising taxes and increasing social spending (and BTW, Bush is no saint here re social spending...) dems have only one response...shrill hatred and anger.

MindMechanic said...

"Therefore let it be firmly resolved:That the United States seek and secure energy independence from foriegn oil"

After a series of 'Whereas's, that was the debate topic in college in 1978;in high school debate in 1979.

Politics and politiking have kept us frozen. We have backed away from 'nookular' power. Solar panels could have been mandated on all new homes and that would have saved how many billions of barrels a year if they provided only the 110 house current needed. But then...who can we tax for free use of the sun? Wind power really is a pipe dream. Hydrogen uses more energy to produce than it provides. Hydroelectric is OK, but enviros wont allow for efficient dams to be built (to which I say "enjoy your blackouts, California...or try burning enviros...they last a loooong time").

Way back when, my debate partner and I developed an affirmative plan that contributed to energy independence. The solution? Squirrel power! Now...keep in mind that we were in fact being a little bit irreverant. Still...we had documented proof from multiple university models and studies backed by people like Ralph Nader, that showed that a single squirrel, properly motivated, could, by using a generator system and battery pack, provide the 110 current needed to run all of a households lights and wall outlets. The plan was indefeatable, unless we had a judge that forgot his or her role and instead of judging the debate insisted on being the negative side.

The point then and now...

How much could we save if we would just get a little creative?

How much bio-desiel could we have produced using just the waste grease from restaraunts? How much fuel alcohol could be produced each year just from tree and grass clippings, fallen fruit, etc? Small solar collectors on each rooftop...and please...with planned engineering you would never see them...how much could we save? How much oil would we save if we WALKED to any destination under say...a half a mile? How much fuel would we save if we just turned off our LIGHTS? How much more efficiently could our transportaion needs be met by an efficient mass transit system?

27 years ago we were 'serious' about energy independence. Today, we have oil WE cant touch of our coasts and in arctic wastelands, yet foreign countries are about to start drilling off the coast of Florida. The moon has a compound called Helium 3. Some experts have said that 1 shuttle load of H3 could provide enough fuel to run the country and more for years. Maybe its speculative...but if it's possible...what are we waiting for?

I suggest that if we werent all so committed to the "you suck, no YOU suck" mentality we have, we MIGHT actually entertain REAL debate and get something done. Silly thought...I know...

a quiet listener said...

i think you leave out another valid source (unless i didn't see it)
geothermal energy is universal and has huge potential. i find it ironic that we all suffer from an "energy crisis" but we ignore the fact that we're floating on molten rock. with sufficient research and development that same steam produced by pumping water 3-6 miles down could produce many megawatts of power.

on another note, since i work on hydrogen powered solid-oxide fuel cells i think you short change them a little. if pollution free hydrogen or hydroelectric resources were more than the current 7% of power used then problems like air pollution, environmental pollution, foreign dependancy, and global warming could be greatly offset.
as you mentioned getting to electricity to perform electrolysis of water and obtain hydrogen becomes the bottleneck.
no one solution alone will fix the fact that 68% of electricity produced is done so using fossil fuels. however even now there are several different ways to create electricity that do not use fossil fuels such as nuclear power, hydroelectric dams, solar cells,
wind turbines, geothermal power,
wave and tidal power.

solar cells alone could provide the necessary energy consumed in homes if as little as 1/3 to 1/2 of the roof were integrated with the cells. the initial cost would be around 10,000 dollars is the problem. in a home built without this technology that assumes a big barrier, but new homes could integrate this cost into the mortgage would and would be offset by the decreased cost of energy. solar cell efficiency decreases with time though, after 20 to 30 years they would need replacement or a supplemental source of energy.

A_Shadow said...

Wow, all rather interesting indeed.

Ironically not more than two weeks ago me and a friend of mine were discussing how infiriating the Legacy fiasco can be, if you let it.

He was irritated about the same things posted by Lysis, all of the wasted money and time. Mind you the highway could have been built by now and would have definately been cheaper.

As for Brainmechanic, as I believe that person brought it up, we are, in fact, also building a light rail system that runs north to south concurrently with Legacy.

The plan, as I understood it, was to always offset Legacy with massive pushes from mass transportation from the bus systems.

Now the catch is to get those people that don't use it, TO use it.

Many people won't like using it for many, many obvious reasons. I know that I am among them. I don't mind carpooling with friends, but mass transportation south of Cache valley is horrible. Or at least it was the last time I bothered.

Anyways, an additional point is something that I felt a few of us could apprectiate that evolved out of my friends' and my conversation.

The irritating thing for us with the opposition is that the first reaction is to STOP the solution, and not not provide one of their own. Stop the problem, stop your "redneck/republican" way of fixing it. There's never really a compromise. It just should magically be fixed.

As for energy:

I believe from Chemistry and Physics, though I've never honestly pulled out my pen and paper to figure it all out, that Electrolysis is effecient enough as a system that it could be augmented with solar, hydroelectric, wind, tidal and geothermic energies. It would pretty much take them all, or that would be best, but it could bring our fossil fuel immissions to so low that it's hardly worth mentioning. Oh, and don't forget Nuclear power, but good luck getting the fearful media/public to sign on.

Correct me if I'm wrong, though, on Electrolysis. I would definately like to find out how exactly efficient it is, Joule for Joule.

As for Squirrels, I suppose the thing that I noticed first was the duration, amongst others, naturally. Not that I don't find it interesting that a squirrel can produce the right level of current as anything else for the house. How many armies of squirrels would it take to produce a kilowatt-hour of energy?

Last but not least, the Tritium, the name that science gives to Helium Isotope 3 is supposed to be one of the most efficient fuel known to man.

But like all other alternative fuels, short sighted individuals won't see the potential. Funding is lax in projects to prove its worth, and those that have been funded in the past have only proven mildly effective (I have heard success stories where the energy returned is upwards of 10 times what was put into it for smaller reactions, but they can't control them/sustain them for very long from what I understand).

Because of the limited stability, and the starting costs, it will take some real enterprising people to get that one going. If you run a search for 'helium 3' or Tritium on Google, you'll find a few of those enterprising projects. But I doubt they will be openly endorced by a government, or by the president. It will probably end up as a commercial venture (if we're lucky to have the energy pioneering equivalent of SpaceShipOne) or one funded by an organization such as NASA as a pet project.

Would be nice to see. But it's not a realistic goal if you ask a politician, methinks.

Just had to interject my long absent two cents. Hope you don't mind.

MindMechanic said...

Quiet Listener-

I did short change other fuel sources but it wasnt an intentional slight. I think the point being (and answered well by both you and A Shadow) that there ARE a lot of viable answers. Now we just need a congress courageous enough, with enough vision, and with a willingness to cooperate for the greater good...

sheesh...what am I saying!!!!

MindMechanic said...

BTW...I know light rail is being proposed...my point is that I think it is a more viable answer than the Legacy Highway. Of course...if "we the people" cant adopt a more European mind set when it comes to mass transit it will hardly matter...

Dan Simpson said...

I appreciate AQL bringing in some science (an area that I am not a specialist by any means). All the points made here I think are good, though I don't think wind power is a pipe dream, it seems to me to be a very good addition.

I would think, going along with AQL, that mandating solar panels on new construction could make LOADS of difference. I don't see it any different than mandating fuel standards on cars, or any of the other mandates we have in place when it comes to energy.

The problem is not just with Congress' inaction, however, as has been touched on here. People are incredibly lazy.

Why don't we have a comprehensive recycling program? Why do people have to be compelled to not water their lawn every day, though we live in a desert?

People aren't that interested as a whole. It is highly unfortunate, but it is true, I find that people don't get off their butts until it affects them.

Case in point. In the last two to three years some of us here in Utah have been enraged, and fighting the Bill Barrett company's drilling in Nine Mile Canyon. For those unfamiliar with Nine Mile, it is an hour or so outside of Price, and is the biggest repository of prehistoric rock art in the U.S. (perhaps in the world). The canyon is also dotted with archaeological remains of Fremont Indian dwellings and graneries.

The Bill Barrett corporation, with the help of the local BLM, gave a token look at requirements such as an EIS, the BLM ignored their own Archaeologist (who had worked in Nine Mile for twenty years), and drilling comenced.

I am not against domestic drilling, but to me, the benefits cannot possibly outweigh the consequences in this case.

The only reason I point to this, is that it goes to what I think is the basis of the problem, and what will be the biggest roadblock, power.

No, not as in energy, but worldly power. If energy becomes cheap, their is no power behind it, and that would be a mighty fall for a lot of people.

truth to power said...

I'm convinced we *can't* "adopt a more European mind set when it comes to mass transit". Our history and culture are just too different.

Does anybody here ever ride the bus? I have about five years experience doing so on a regular basis. I've seen and heard a great many things I would have missed in my own car. I probably would have preferred it that way. I'm sure the self-righteous, environmentally conscious bleeding hearts who preach mass transit at us have the same preference. It's the rest of us who should have to sit next to the lunatics, addicts, and whores for three hours a day.
Trust me, gas prices are going to have to go MUCH higher before ordinary Americans make such a choice.

Anonymous said...

I suggest that this summer the President should encourage more drilling and exploration in the high Uintahs, especially and also next to all Utah/Idaho/Wyoming boy scout camps and Lysis.

Then Lysis can offer "on the spot reporting" of other places than I-15 pollution -- Think, it would have been so much cheaper if we had done it sooner!!!!!

A new merit badge could be oil derrik identificaion and the toxic gasses that emit therein!!!!

To the Lysis' "anywhere but in my backyard" ethic of oil exploration:

Just, keep distracting from those well oiled Bush cronys, oil profiteers, flush with new billions, while bashing the environmentalists concerned with the enfouled stench and distruction of the Alaskan slopes further from home. . . . Another buck for Halliburton, Yea!

Yes, I know, Lysis is from Alaska -- far from it!!!!

Lysis said...

Boy, am I impressed with the depth and breadth of the knowledge demonstrated by the comments on energy.

Brianmechanic

1. I also would like to see light – or even “heavy” - rail. I spent two years on trains in Japan, and as a boy I had the chance to ride cross country on trains – they definitely have good points. But the key is that trains need to be a supplement to a quality surface highway system. That the entire flow of traffic down the “spine of Utah runs through one narrow freeway is silly and dangerous. Let’s have both a freeway and a mass transit system. We need both, and have wasted a fortune getting neither.

2. Education is a key to more effectual use fuel in America; sometimes commonsense needs to be taught.

3. I’m all for putting people to work in other places that in Salt Lake City. I applaud every new office or business that goes up in Davis County; leave Salt Lake to the Mormons and the maniacs.

On your second point – I do not see Bush calling for increased taxes to solve the problems of America – rather, as this quarter’s economic report revels – we have a President that has set us on a course of growth that will enable our economy to provide the programs and supports we need. Especially in Social Security - a robust economy and privatized SS accounts are the only hope for that system.

A Quiet Listener;

I hope that all the energy sources you and Brian suggest will come on line in the future. The key is to make not just America – but every individual American - energy independent. Perhaps oil will price itself out of use. I still hope that we will be able to go for the oil that is available – use it up on the cheep now - and then use the wealth saved and produced by demotic oil exploitation to finance the alternatives you have recommended.

Shadow;

It is nice to hear form you again. The point I most appreciate in your observations is your clear indictment of those who call for someone else to do the work – take the blame for any mistakes or costs, and then grab up the advantage of either success or failure. This cowardly and destructive political policy is the bread and butter of the Democrat Party’s dream for political gains in 2006.

I don’t put a lot of hope in squirrels.

Dannyboy – Lazy is a good world for the problem – lazy in the head. It is the problem of the “over provided for” that they lose the edge in survival. Americans need challenges to continue to grow. The greatest evil represented by socialism is the promise to remove challenge from the people. The road to the welfare state is paved with good intentions – but the ultimate destination will be impotence. No wonder Flaccid is rooting for it.

As for as drilling in Nine Mile Canyon; I would like to know how putting oil wells in that canyon will destroy either its aesthetic or historical value; just curious for the details.

Truth to Power:

Let mass transit compete with private transit. As the trains and busses improve they can win ridership. But, to force all people to take the bus is like forcing all students into public schools.

Flaccid:

I would be delighted to see oil discovered at my Camp. I would be eager to share the profits of such a discovery with the BSA – and willing to share the benefits of such resources with the rest of the nation. It is perfectly feasible for our natural resources to be utilized under the multiuse philosophy of conservation that made America wealthy and great in the first place. I would point out the Alaska caribou have a lot more territory to share than the BSA, and I am sure they would not be harmed in the least by sharing. Your position, that oil exploration and extraction produce toxic gasses is absolutely ridiculous. I would point out that the place I would most want oil discovered is in my own back yard. Some day I need to tell you the story about a man named Jed, a poor mountaineer barley kept his family fed. Then one day he was shooting at some food and up the ground came a bubbling curd – oil that is- black gold, Texas Tea. Look out Beverly Hills – here we come!!! Just for a visit of course. I’d need to get home and watch the oil flow.

Rumpole said...

Lysis,

There is so much opportunity here that I don’t know where to begin. I guess I’ll start with the easiest target, the Anonymy.

Anonymy,

Your lack of knowledge about oil “profiteering” astounds me! Given your track record I do not expect you to listen to the facts, but here they are anyway.

Who makes the most money from oil? It is federal, state, and local governments through currently applied taxes! Do your own research. I’m not going to do it for you. “Profits” generated through taxation far outpace profits that go to the oil companies. Do you want affordable oil? Let’s cut the taxes!

As to your environmental sanctimony, when are you going to sell your car? Don’t bother with the stories of how you ride your bike, walk, and depend on UTA for all your transportation needs already, I won’t buy it. How are you going to heat your home next winter? Don’t use your wood burning stove on a red burn day! My point? Put up or shut up! Offer a real, non-hypocritical solution (devoid of the hate-Bush rhetoric). Are you capable?

BrianMechanic,

Your posts have been thoughtful and provocative. When I disagree with you I hope you will understand that it is still with great respect for your opinion.

You post “I have never felt the Legacy highway should be built...not because there isn’t a current need, but because it doesn’t represent a far reaching solution.”

I have always felt that the Legacy Highway should be built. My reasoning has nothing to do with congestion, though the reduction of traffic congestion will be a welcome benefit from the Highway. We need Legacy to provide an additional path of egress out of the Salt Lake Valley. Past North Salt Lake (where I-215 merges into I-15) there is no other exit. In the event of a natural disaster in the Salt Lake Valley, no one is coming or going in either direction if I-15 is shut down.

You post “I think it would help if we realized that the Wasatch Front extends all the way from Tremonton down to Spanish Fork...maybe even Nephi.”

The plan for Legacy is not Davis County specific. It currently is intended to go from Brigham to Spanish Fork. Not quite Tremonton, but it is close.

As to a European mindset, you lose me when you imply that we out to do what the Europeans do. I apologize for reading into your words and I acknowledge my guilt, but I am unwilling to support change simply because it is European. If the European method is better for us then what we are doing, by all means we ought to support it. However, all too often I have seen the European suggestion promoted simply because it is European.

I’ve run out of time. I’ve have to save my opinion for Rocky Anderson for tomorrow. Mr. “Kyoto Protocol” himself!

A_Shadow said...

Of course it's nice to be back.

I just wanted to add a useless, and coincedentally anycdotal, portion of my life of where I have ridden the bus, just this last year I had one of the best scenarios.

If every station and DOT could take lessons from CVT, then there would be much gained. For those not on the lingo, Cache Valley Transit.

I could set my watch by that system.

We did have our share of wierdos, but they are our wierdos and we loved them, heh.

But aside from it being more reliable than anything save walking, it was free, paid for by the taxes of the locals (and worth every penny, lest you boo taxes or not.)

There's a reason that I don't like SL County's transit system.

I've ridden it, and unless it gets a great deal more efficient then it has been in the past, I never will again. I don't mind paying for the transit, but if it got me where I was going, and within a reasonable time, then it would be worth it.

I don't know about everyone else's experiences, but I'd sooner walk to SLC than ride the bus there, lol.

MindMechanic said...

Rumpole et al...

I love disagreement. With disagreement you have discussion, with discussion you have a valid exchange of ideas, and with that...if everyone's ego is in check...you have progress. I dont take it as an offense.

I have seen the typical posts of anger and hatred. I think it is pathetic that some folk cant engage in conversation without their little bag of rhetoric. But since it is expected it becomes almost comical. Well done.

As to the Euro idea...I have had the opportunity to travel throughout most of Europe. Part of it is pure economics (they have always paid two to four times as much for gas as we have), but in most places people utilize the public transport and even walk (shocking...I know).

Education, conservation, exploration, creativity, there are a lot of pieces to the puzzle. I'd love to see us work towards achieving those goals. Everything on the table...find what works.

BTW...re the idea of drilling near a certain scout camp...tell me...are there geo surveys that demonstrate the possible/probable actual existence of oil there? See...in Alaska...where they want to drill...in this vast frozen land where no one lives and the indiginous folk think it would be a great idea...there actually IS oil...vast amounts of it...

Its not 'my' backyard...its no ones back yard. The governor of Alaska...the people of Alaska...heck, I think even the moose are even in favor of it...

Just a shot in the dark here...but this is yet another discussion where the bitter angry left has no actual value or solutions to discuss...right?(again I am stunned) Well...why should they be any different than any of the other libs...

MindMechanic said...

To Lysis- re "On your second point"

Sometimes things get a little confusing.

I didnt suggest Bush was raising taxes ...my comment was that raising taxes is the traditional democrat solution to all ills.

I do wish Bush were more a fiscal conservative. Still...Despite a major attack, two wars, an ongoing war on terror, and a devastating national disaster, all reports are that the economy just keeps chugging along...if anything getting stronger.

I think the Bush plan to modify social security never saw the light of day. Most people dont even know what it is or what they were against. All we heard from the dems and the media was that he was cutting social security. What we didnt hear was that the investment plan was voluntary, involved minor percentages, and provided the same investment opportunity enjoyed by congress.

In response, the democrat plan to save social security was...anyone? Buhler? Hello? Seems Clinton must have been lying when he said there was a social security crisis.

Anonymous said...

I can't speak for Anonymous, but I do not own a vehicle. I do indeed ride my bicycle or take mass transit everwhere I go.

Dan Simpson said...

Though I am not the most qualified to answer your question (I only got a bachelors in anthropology, with only a few archaeology classes), I am lucky enough to be related to the BLM archaeologist in question.

To lay a little groundwork, he has been in the position for more than two decades and it is his job to go to new construction, roads/highways and the like, as well as proposed gas/oil/mineral excavations to see if their will be archaeological impact. He is not anti-drilling, and has approved countless areas.

In this case, after studying the Barrett company's plan, which included such things as bulldozing a new road through the canyon, sending a few dozen thumper trucks* through the area, and constructing several compressor, he concluded that the impact would be highly negative on the archaeological treasures. A few reasons why:

First, many large trucks would begin driving through the area on a very regular basis, this activity on the dirt road would kick up large amounts of dust which works like a corrosive on rock art, wearing it away at a vastly accelerated pace. The construction that was proposed was incredibly close to several large deposits and the geological disturbance had great possibilities to further weaken sandstone cliffs. (I have seen large chunks that have cracked and broken off with my own eyes at these sites since the construction began.

Bulldozing new areas through this mostly undiscovered area could destroy unfound archaeological sites (which it did, at least twice so far as bulldozers went right through two ancient inhabitant sites.)

Lets be clear on something, as I said before I am not against domestic drilling, I have always been a strong proponent in fact. However, I do feel that there needs to be some responsibility in the process. The Barrett company owns a huge piece of land (several thousand acres) the nine mile piece being a miniscule point in the corner of their holding. Their best geological survey's tell them that the whole area has a massive natural gas deposit under it. I think they should drill for it, and pump it out, I just don't think the archaeologically sensitive spot is the best place to do it. So why are they? From their own mouths it is because of ease and cost saving. There is already a road into Nine-mile. Though they could easily drill on the plateau that they own, they would have to build a road.

They performed an EA (environmental assesment) instead of the required EIS (environmental impact study), the local BLM people rubberstamped the applications, and construction and exploration began.

*thumper trucks are very large trucks that drive through and every so often lay down a large steel plate to send vibrations through the ground to try to detect deposits. Not really good for sandstone, unless it doesn't matter if it cracks and falls down. Which in most cases it wouldn't.

To top it off, the restrictions that the company agreed to in an effort to mitigate damage have been almost wholly ignored (again, I have seen this with my own eyes, not rumor)

Reach Upward said...

Studies show that mass transit can only serve about 5% of the populace well at any given point in time. It is somewhat (not a lot) higher in eastern population centers, but it isn't any higher in the holy environmentalist city of Seattle, where mass transit is virtually worshipped. However, we need to continue to build out mass transit, as our population continues to expand, thus, expanding the 5% as well.

Mass transit works best when you are moving a lot of people to and from centralized locations. That's why TRAX works OK. That's why it works well in Europe where population density is pretty high. Incidentally, I spent two years in Norway. Mass transit only works well in the largest population centers where lots of people live in high-rise housing. It serves suburban areas poorly. It's great to ride a bike (I do), but try doing weekly grocery shopping for a family of seven on a bike or while riding the bus.

Europeans do not deal with the distances we have in the U.S. When my grandmother visited from Germany, my folks took her to Yellowstone. She couldn't believe the number of hours they drove without crossing into another country.

Let's also realize that high fuel costs increase the cost of mass transit. For all of the left's love for high fuel costs, studies have found that (particularly in Europe) people do not give up driving due to high gasoline prices. They temporarily reduce driving when large spikes occur, but they soon return to previous habits. People will curtail other spending before they will curtail driving.

In fact, the only thing that really gets large blocks of people to use mass transit is when driving becomes less convenient than mass transit. Rocky and his buddies understand this. That is why they opposed Legacy. They *want* more congestion. Rocky also has a stake in forcing all north-south traffic along the Wasatch Front to funnel through the Salt Lake epicenter, with an eye toward forcing people to work and do business there.

I also agree with A_Shadow, that mass transit south of Cache Valley stinks. When I was a kid, my friends and I made a joke by altering the lyrics of a song in a UTA commercial to say, "You wait all day and walk half way when you ride UTA." This is as true today as it was back then. The inordinate wait time for accessing mass transit assumes that people have nothing better to do with their time. It elevates certain virtues to a level that most people obviously disagree with.

I agree with Rumpole that Legacy is needed. On the frequent occasions that a wreck stops traffic on I-15, the people on the freeway parking lot can't simply hop out of their cars, Semi trucks, and busses, and walk to the nearest light rail station. We need an alternative north-south corridor in addition to light rail.

Envision Utah people are correct when they note that our communities along the Wasatch Front have become unwalkable -- that is -- it is not very reasonable to be able to walk to work, the store, the theater, etc. Heck, I can't even feasibly walk to my kids' soccer and baseball games. It seems that one side would ignore the problem while the other side would attempt to force 'good' community structure using old Soviet bloc tactics. We need better solutions than either side offer.

Alternative fuels need to be explored, but most experts agree that there is no single solution that could replace oil. It would require a patchwork of solutions. The oil market top to bottom is also a huge (human) power structure. There are immense barriers to entry into the market. How could you, for example, replace the distribution system that the oil market has built over a century of hard work? For all the altruistic ideals behind some alternative fuels, they will only work when they make somebody money -- a lot of money. That's when the market moves and when entrepreneurs move people and organizations to make things happen. I'm sure that sounds dirty to some folks, but it's the reality of how the free market functions.

Anonymous said...

Lysis writes:
"The greatest evil represented by socialism is the promise to remove challenge from the people."

Socialism:
Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

When Lysis chooses to argue for the Legacy Freeway he conveniently forgets that the Legacy BOONDOGLE is, has, and will be, goods collectively owned, administered, and distributed by government; ie, SOCIALISM.

We have seen the Lysis political ethic of, "anywhere but in my backyard unless I get a cut" NOW become the opportunistic ethic of "PAY for my backyard and I'll not call it Socialism".

Lysis, have a little faith -- Capitalism, Jim Hansen and one day's windfall profits from the petroleum industry, could have privately financed the whole mess years and years ago -- with new found powers of eminent domain and some Abramoff-like kick-backs to Republican city fathers, I'm sure communities like Syacuse Layton, Kaysville, Centerville and Bountiful would gladly want to "share the profits" with you too!!!!

Apollo said...

Lysis-

After reading your original post I must say that I'm quite disappointed! You of all people should realize that in some things the cost is worth the means. Legacy Highway for example will free up the congested freeways and allow smoother travel. This in turn will save us millions, possibly even billions, down the road to help control pollution. Think about it, the longer you sit in traffic jams, the more toxic fumes you emit. Then our children and us have to pay to cleanup the mess left by those who could have done something better. I feel you are focussing on the moment and materialism.

We are the slaves of objects around us, and appear little or important according as these contract or give us room to expand.
- Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

If we spend a few million dollars that will in turn help us in the long run, so be it I say.

Another thing, you are ranting about the Democrats and I can't help but wonder that if the Legacy Highway was a Conservatives idea, would you be so highly critical? Forgive me for thinking this but I think that you would be all for it and fighting those who opposed it.

You can't expect people to look eye to eye with you if you are looking down on them.
- unknown

You have to remember that "Minds are like parachutes, they only function correctly when open." You may be a Republican and your opponent may be a Democrat, but:

Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box.
- unknown

Now the question is; Who's the King and who's the pawn? Some would argue that the "party in power" is the king but I would say that he who acts as the bigger man is the King.

In final I would like to remind you that the King is higher than the pawn, but the true power goes to those who play and watch the game, the masses, us. May we use this power in a way that will benefit all of mankind.

Apollo

Anonymous said...

Apollo:
Yes, two doobies is your maximum intake!!!!

Lysis said...

Child;

Once again the Anonomy provide examples of ignorance by which the rest of us can learn. While I will grant that the Rocky Anderson’s infection, which made a boondoggle of the Legacy Highway, has been an attempt at socialism. Now that the highway will be built by private companies contracted to the government as it fulfills its obligation to provide of the common welfare and insure the flow of interstate and free commerce, we will see how effectively a capitalist state can marshals the resources of individuals to produce a highway for the individual benefit of its people. IN a free society government serves at the will and for the benefit of the people, in a socialist society the people are required to serve at the will and for the benefit of the ”government”. In a socialist state there would be no need for a highway, as there would be no traffic or trade to travel on it, no growth requiring it, no privately owned automobiles to utilize it. Thus, Rocky has sought to stunt the growth of Utah and the derail the growth of the wealth of Utahans to get the votes of the Flaccid crew. Not all government programs are socialism.

Child, demonstrating that you do not understand the difference between legitimate government operations in a capitalist society and the disease that is socialism; is to expose the to us all reason why you cannot tell the difference between liberation and occupation, between terrorists and innocents, between legitimate criticism and sniping for political gain, between the absolutes goods of freedom and self-determination and false fanaticism of belief in “virgin dispatching” Allahs – that reason is ignorance.

In a non socialist society all the people do share the profits of success to the level to which they are willing to expend effort to obtain them. In the socialist nightmare – no effort is necessary for the lazy and inept to pray upon those who work. Such systems are universal failures – the collapse of Communism is, of course, the most telling example of the failure of socialism – but the decline of old Europe, each nation dieing to the degree to which they have mixed socialism into their economies, is just as telling. The malaise that is dragging Canada toward third world status, the inertia that keeps Mexico there, are examples of the ills of socialism. The continued growth of the U.S., German, and Japanese economies, the hope of India and the limited success of China are ample proof of the wonders that come from allowing the free market to operate, of allowing people to face and meet challenges.

Apollo;

I am all for the legacy highway! I was for its being built years ago, and have lamented the obstructionists that have dragged us into the dangers, costs, and pollutions discussed above.

Dannyboy;

Thank you for the detail and the explanation of how you came by the information. It does seem to me that the problem is with the company that is going after the oil or gas, not the going after it. I am ever reminded of the need to reduce the impact of use, and of sharing the wilderness with a variety of uses. For an “energy company” to wantonly destroy historic and natural treasures to save a few bucks is as stupid as locking up resources in order to preserve rock paintings and tortures. The answer is to find a way in which both can be done. Let’s get a new company working in Nine Mile Canyon – but we need to get somebody working.

Dan Simpson said...

You missed one major part of my post lysis, I don't think ANYONE should be working in Nine Mile, the same mineral deposits are accessibly from on top of the plateau where there is NO danger of harm to the archaeological treasures. I am all for drilling for the gas that is there, as I am for drilling in Anwar, but I wouldn't advocate putting a moose on the ground and drilling through it to get the oil, get it where it doesn't harm anyone or anything irreplaceable (there are plenty of places in Alaska, and in Eastern Utah where the oil/gas can be sucked out without damage.)

Rumpole said...

Anonymy,

You post “I can’t speak for Anonymous, but I do not own a vehicle. I do indeed ride my bicycle or take mass transit everywhere I go.”

My apologies, but your statement is just too good to pass up. We’re going back in the archives at the Agora now, but I’m certain you must be the same anonymous that goes to the library at 2:13 AM to post at the Agora even when the library is closed. Do you ride your bicycle? I hope you obey all the traffic signals, even at that time of night!

Reach,

You post “That is why they opposed Legacy. They *want* more congestion. Rocky also has a stake in forcing all north-south traffic along the Wasatch Front to funnel through the Salt Lake epicenter, with an eye toward forcing people to work and do business there.”

I’ve been aching to go off on Rocky. I acknowledge that the comments that follow are all purely emotional. Anonymy, I don’t want to bore or offend you; on that basis, you ought to stop reading here. Please. Grant me the same courtesy you granted RFB.

Rocky Anderson is the most agenda-driven, pandering-to-a-specific-base politician I have ever seen. He does deserve credit in that he truly understands the coalition that elected him, and he does not deviate from playing to them. The Republicans in Congress could take a lesson from that. If they would stick to their core principles (i.e. documents like the “contract with America”) they would have far greater success.

But I digress. Back to Rocky. As an example of his pandering to his base, Rocky does everything he can at the opportune time to rail against the LDS Church. His base loves it, and I guarantee that you will hear the same kind of rhetoric from him again in his next election. His base loves it.

Have you noticed, however, he isn’t saying much about the Church right now? That is because he wants something. His downtown redevelopment plans hinge on the LDS Church. He has to make nice for awhile until he can get what he wants.

Those redevelopment plans also hinge on the support of Davis County. To paraphrase from Rocky, the people in Davis County ought to leave all their pollution and congestion problems in Davis County. He doesn’t want them. But, ironically, he does want the tax dollars the people of Davis County can provide to flow into his city’s coffers. It just better be on his terms.

My understanding of the original intent of Legacy is that it was designed to have limited access, i.e. very few on-ramps and off-ramps in order to move traffic quickly through the Salt Lake Valley. I’m all for that. That way the highly sought Davis County tax revenues can fly right by to the open arms of Utah County.

Every now an then an emotional purge is good for the soul. Dump Rocky! Long live Legacy!

Aeneas said...

Lysis,

GREAT POST. My reasons for supporting the construction of the Legacy Hwy are the same as Rumpole's, i.e., security. I had the opportunity last summer to aid in Hurricane Katrina relief efforts, and among the "many" lessons learned from the evacuation fiasco of New Orleans is that the city suffered from a similar problem as that of Salt Lake City, few exits out of the city. There are basically three main roads out of New Orleans that lead northerly and out of the path of an oncoming hurricane, and two of the three roads are forced over Lake Pontchartrain. Such few escape routes helped contribute to the chaos of the Great New Orleans exodus. Let's build the Hwy, if not for public convenience then for public safety.

HYPO: Let's imagine that some disaster occurs in Salt Lake City and the public must quickly evaculate the Salt Lake Valley. However, because of the bottle necks which would occur on I-15, many lose their lives.

RESULT: Now imagine that during the recovery, the populace begin the process of evaluating why so many had to die because they could not evacuate the Valley quickly enough to prevent the tragic loss of life. The people will want heads to roll and among the first to roll will be that of Rocky Anderson.

MindMechanic said...

Aeneas-

I dont disagree that the Legacy should be built...I just think there are other more immediate concerns. I do agree that the blocks were political and the solution even more so.

I dont know if I buy your "escape from SLC scenario. By my calculations you can go north, south, West, Redwood rd, the East through the canyon, westbound on just about any of the major streets and then south or north...lots of escape routes. But there will be problems escaping any major city.

The New Orleans situation is different also. Those people werent stranded because the roads were impassable..they were stranded because the local and state leadership refused to order evacuations and had no evacuation plans in place to get those out that needed assistance. Once the hurricane hit it was too late.

Anonymous said...

Lysis:
I presented a cogent DEFINITION of Socialism in my post, then linked it to the WILL BE, IS, and WAS of the Legacy highway. You choose to proclaim that Legacy is being built privately and that makes it Capitalistic????

You also disregard that Legacy will be RUN for "time and all eternity" by government's local, State and Federal; ie, the "advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration . . ."
part of the DEFINITION of Socialism that OBVIOUSLY pertains.

I am very well familiar with Lysis' abhorrence of the limiting powers of definition and the alacrity with which he will NOW call forth the rhetorical powers of "Divine Jupiter"; finding himself not making any sense at all -- he's already used demagoguery and wrapped himself in the flag!!!!

To IGNORE definitions of words is what IGNOR. . .ANCE is all about.

Lysis. I hope your Socialism "lecture" didn't come from class notes nor from your 'mother wit extempore' -- the Agora deserves more -- your students CERTAINLY do!!!!

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

Flaccid;

Incapable of dealing with any point or argument in the entire post: from the political motivation of the obstructionist, (including Rocky and the Democrat Party in general), to the need to balance environmental issues to energy needs, to the true nature of the enemy we face in Iraq as put forward by David Beamer, Flaccid you drop them all. The only straw left for you to clutch is making up a definition of socialism that might apply to any government activity from the founding of Rome to the first man on the moon and then say that because Legacy Highway seems to fit your definition it is a socialist project …. What? For what propose are you executing all these contortions of words? What difference does it make? Are you advocating socialism? Are you blaming socialists for the failures of the legacy project? What is your point?

Here’s an example of what you do: (I put it forward here in hopes that you can see your folly because I actually don’t think you can tell how silly you sound.)

1. People who make up definitions to fit their position and then try to cram them down the throats of thinking people by insult and chop logic are radishes.

2. Flaccid makes up definitions to fit his position and then tries to cram them down the throats of readers here in the Agora with insult and chop logic.

3. Flaccid is a reddish BY DEFINITION.

Believe me, by the time they’re done with my class, my students are able to tell the difference between a socialist and a radish. Follow along, there’s hope for you too, Flaccid. You might even learn the difference between an argument and a copout.

Anonymous said...

Lysis:
I copied the definition "whole cloth" from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition. C 2001 pg 1111.

That's the definition *I* used -- Still waiting for yours. (Please make it something more credible than chapter and verse from the "book" of Divine Jupiter or "The Best of Hannity")

My purpose?
Of course, to expose arrogance, hypocrisy and demagoguery to the scorn of rightful and truthful thinking!!!!

If MY teacher were teaching basic political theory without the pedagogical discipline of a DEFINITION of SOCIALISM I, as a student, would not be confused about radishes; I rather would wonder why pandering to a political agenda and demagoguery were MORE important to my instructor than was the QUALITY education he SHOULD have offered to his students.

I like Rocky! The hypocrisy, arrogance, and demagoguery keep him busy too!!!!

As for the name calling: flatulence, flatulence, flatulence -- I believe that now catches me up -- or you might still be up by two flaccids, I'm not sure.

Apollo said...

Lysis-

I do not mean to badger you as you are under a lot of badgering from those who just want to argue by blatantly disagreeing with you in an insulting way. I would have to say that it seems as though a lot of you are just siding against Lysis just to have him slam you down and you try to slam him back. Well done! I'm quite enjoying the show. Just to help those who are against the Legacy Highway here are some stats. Just to inform you I am for it but like I said it is entertaining to see you go against a master debator like Lysis without background and facts. Here is the cavalry charging in on your side. I am quite anxious to see where this goes. I hope someone capitalizes on these facts:

1)The Legacy Highway is among the top 27 road projects in America.

2)The cost to federal tax payers is a little over $1.4 billion.

3)Legacy Highway would cut through five counties and cross a total of 1.2 million acres of farmland, destroying many of the last acres these counties still have in farm production.

4)The highway would damage wetlands that are internationally noted for their biological importance as a habitat and breeding site for three million ducks, 500 wintering American bald eagles, and 11 mating pairs of threatened peregrine falcons.

5) At least 114 acres of wetlands would be paved over by the Legacy Highway project. Fragmentation and decreased hydrologic flow would damage an additional 200 or more acres. This would severely diminish the region's habitat value for migrating birds and other species.

6)Western Utah's towering mountain ranges frequently trap pollutants close to the ground and prevent their dispersion, sometimes for days at a time. This results in a situation in which Utah is already dangerously close to exceeding federal air quality levels. Residents are concerned that increased automobile use triggered by the highway would further degrade regional air quality.

7)Transportation experts agree that the construction of new highways encourages more and longer car trips, more sprawl, more auto dependency and increased congestion.

Have fun with those, and don't worry, these are the weak ones, I have more if you need them!

Apollo

Anonymous said...

Apollo:
Yes, Yes, Yes, the Laurel wreath for "Master-debating" has ALWAYS belonged to Lysis and his conservative fraternalia at the Agora!!!!

Thank you for stuffing our 'debate boxes' full of such percepive and relevant information Apollo --- I for one am having a lot more fun now!!!!!

Lysis said...

To my dear friend the Flaccid;

Some times I despair of teaching you anything. I realize it must be hard for you to think when you’re too limp to hold up your head – but once more, for your sake, I will try.

First to your Webster’s definition: As usual – your snip and cut the words (even of Webster) to fit your agenda. I would point out that the piece of definition which you cut “part cloth” from Webster’s and “whole cloth” from your desire to finesse a point that can’t stand up on its own; continues as follows: “A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.”

Second – you missed the point of the radish explanation completely, but I understand, I have a few flopping heads in my classes who require special education – I am glad to accommodate you. Follow me now, try to hold up for just a minuet – you’ll enjoy it.

1. There is a definition of Socialism (partial and incomplete) that says, “Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.” BUT Flaccid, that does not define the Legacy Highway. No matter how you sputter and blow, the Legacy Highway is not “an economic and political theory”, nor does building the infrastructure for free enterprise equate with “the administration of the means of production AND distribution of goods”. Therefore you are misrepresenting both the definition of Socialism and the Legacy Highway for some still unexplained reason.

2. There is a limp and drooping “poster at the AGORA” WHO “continually makes up definitions to fit his position and then tries to cram them down the throats of readers.” BUT that is not a radish! It is not “the pungent fleshy root of a plant of the mustard family usually eaten raw; also the plant that produces radishes.”

Do you see how it works, You misrepresent a definition of Socialism then push it at us, but it doesn’t make it true, in the example I gave a partial definition of you and called it a radish, but you are not a radish, you are neither pungent nor fleshy – you’re just flat. Just sticking definitions on things does not provide truth or reason; it is limp, shriveled, and weak. Now what does that define?

Apollo;

Thanks for trying to shed a little light, but as you implied these are not legitimated arguments.

1) Legacy among top 27 road projects – so, is that good or bad? I think it’s great, let’s have the number one road project in America – Utah should always have the best.

2) The cost to federal tax payers is a little over $1.4 billion. Your point??? Is this not a good way to spend federal tax dollars? You know, making life better for the people of Utah and the people of America in general. Would you rather waste it on some socialist project that eats up the cash and produces nothing but dependency?

3) As for cutting through five counties and crossing 1.2 million acres of farmland - Do you have some preference for farmland over highways? Davis County is going to houses – wouldn’t it be a good idea to have some place for the people who live in those houses to drive on when they need to get somewhere? Is there a shortage of farm land? Isn’t the reason that farmers are selling it off is that it is more valuable for other things. Aren’t there plenty of empty places for farmland else where. Seems to me that California has even more highways and even more farm products than Utah. Is there something wrong with replacing substandard and relatively unproductive farmland with housing projects and highways if those are the things the people need and that free enterprise demands? When farmland becomes more valuable house holders my well re-sell their tract homes for onion production.

4) As for wet lands – there are more wetlands in Utah than there are ducks to us them. In fact the original Legacy deal set aside, in perpetuity, far more wetland than it will use up. I think you know this Apollo, so why bring this up here. Bald eagles aren’t even endangered any more. Let um move a little west – they can eat the ducks.

6) As for Fragmenting the hydrologic flow and damaging 200 acres; there are millions of unusable and unspoiled acres of habitat going empty for lack of birds to live on them. Not one bird will die; in fact they will probably be safer a little farther from Rocky Anderson. All that hot air can’t do them any good – it probably would fragment something. We’ll have to ask Flaccid, he could make something up.

7) What exactly is wrong with long car trips? I love them myself. Why not make our autos more dependable and then keep on depending on them. As someone up above has pointed out, we can get anywhere on earth with a bike and a bus. Just what are you worried about?

Thanks for the FUN!

Anonymous said...

Rumpole:
"I’m certain you must be the same anonymous that goes to the library at 2:13 AM to post at the Agora even when the library is closed. Do you ride your bicycle? I hope you obey all the traffic signals, even at that time of night!"

That's me. Yes, I do, except when I am in a hurry, then I take mass transit. (It runs at that time too.) When I ride my bicycle I do obey all of the rules of the road. Thanks for your concern.

I was also glad to read that you find my statements "just too good to pass up." I'll try to keep up the good posts.

Lysis said...

Rumpole:

Now it become clear why Anonymous is able to go everywhere he wants on the bike or bus. He obviously doesn’t go anywhere but the library.

Rumpole said...

Lysis and Anonymy,

I think Lysis must be right about the Anonymy's frequent trips to the library. My observation is that the library must be a great distance from the Anonymy's home. Either that or the Anonymy always hits the red lights on his way to the library. I know he wouldn't save time trying to run them for he clearly said that he obeys all the signals.

What else could explain all the ill-informed postings? The greater time is obviously spent on the trip to the library rather than doing research inside the library!

Maybe on those "quick trips" to the library when you use mass transit you are able to use your laptop to work on your reasearch. Wait, I forgot, you don't have a computer!

Well, at least you can keep warm at the library on those cold, no burn nights. Too bad you have to depend on those dispicable gas and oil companies in the process.

Happy pedaling! Thanks for all you do to keep our environment clean!

Lysis said...

Aeneas;

Thank you for your insight into what really is the greatest problem. I do believe that many people suffer real harm from the day to day bog down I 15, but the possible disaster emergency you speak of is truly the most frightening and cogent point. It is as always humbling to deal with someone with actually has experience and understanding.

Brainmechanic;

What would your suggestion be to the father of a family of children in Davis County when the only road from Salt Lake to his children is blocked by the masses trying to run to safety? Perhaps there are routes to the deserts or mountains, but I would prefer the chance to get to my family. As for the quality of local leadership in Salt Lake – let me point out that Rocky Anderson is still the mayor of SLC. Not very encouraging is it?

Rumpole said...

Anonymy,

Sorry to chime in on your discussion with Lysis about socialism, but it looks like you need a little help.

How about an example of the most effective institution of socialism into a local program? I can see it so very clearly! You and your bicycle alone together, riding on the Trax to the library on the way to a 2:00 AM computer session! It's almost poetic!

MindMechanic said...

Lysis-

"What would your suggestion be to the father of a family of children in Davis County when the only road from Salt Lake to his children is blocked by the masses trying to run to safety?"

Well...as I said...I dont think it is just a matter of running into the desert and I dont think you can fairly say "only road". If Salt Lake City is so massively blocked that escape to the north is impossible I would say you still have escape west to Wendover, east to Park City, and South to Lehi.

I suppose rough calculations have it at somewhere around 1.5 million in the Salt Lake Valley. facts is facts...thats going to make for an ugly bugout, whether there is a Legacy Highway or no. Doable? sure. How many different ramps feed west, east, and southbound traffic (including backroads)?

Please dont get me wrong. I dont think it should NEVER be built. I DO think there were other steps that could have been more effective (beginning with education programs). We'll see soon enough how effective it will be because the votes have been tallied and it will be built and so since we are a democracy we may grumble but we wont attempt some terrorist strike to get our way. So...from me...build and build swift. The sooner the better. That was never my point.

And on another note I would like to point out that the overall intent of the original post was not IMO a defense or attack of the Legacy hwy...it was a statement on obstructionist government in the name of ignorance and partisanship (at least that is my read).

To bring that point back home, here here! Sacrificing the country for party gain is despicable (and fairly said, it affects both parties).

MindMechanic said...

Ever notice that the only people ADVOCATING socialism/communism are either socialist/communist leaders or citizens from a thriving democracy?

Reach Upward said...

Popular Mechanics has a very interesting article here that explores the various alternative fuels and how they "stack up in the real world." They try to consider more than just the lab side of research, focusing also on the money side of things and how the fuels can work in real life on the road.

Anonymous said...

Lysis:
Glad to be of help to those who suffer "attention deficit impairment" in the use of a dictionary!!!!

"1 :any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods 2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condittion of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state 3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"

Note the 1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . . hierarchy of definitions -- this is done for a purpose.

The order of senses within an entry is historical: the sense known to have been first used in English is entered first; ie, the first definition is the more "generic" and the following 2 . . . 3 . . . definitions being more derivative.

In my original post, I had made careful effort to note that I was referencing "PART, PART, PART, of the definition that obviously PERTAINED" to my point, that the Legacy Highway is Socialism/Socialistic, having already used the number (1) definition provided by Webster.

Also Webster prefaces the (1) definition with the qualification "any of VARIOUS, VARIOUS, VARIOUS, economic and political theories" (repetition and all caps are annoying, but they are like braille for the obtuse) . . . of which I was using and referencing the FIRST definition as ONE of the VARIOUS options -- so simple even a radish farmer should understand.

Lysis claims I was being dishonest and sinster because I didn't reference ALL (2 and 3) of the other usages of the word Socialism -- as if a word could be guilty of some "sins" acquired by another separate meaning of the same word.

Lysis, take a break from the annual radish harvest at LHS, grab the OED and look up the word "run". It is 15 pages and *82* different meanings, pgs. 893-908 in vol. 8 (Poy to Ry). So, then, when a perceptive Agorite remarks that Georege W. Bush has "irresponsibly run up the deficit" it doesn't mean that George now has a better view!!!!

Lysis doesn't believe the Legacy Highway is theoretical?
Of Course it's theoretical -- good ol' Socialistic theory at its best! The government plans, produces(pays for the production), and administers, forever, the highway -- not privately owned -- publically owned and operated.

If Lysis attempts to drive his Hummer along the "Legacy" NOW he will find only a morass of clay, swamp, reeds and abandoned cement abutments -- certainly no Freeway -- and that's why its STILL THEORETICAL. . . . Watch out for the goose scat on the windshield ol' boy -- that ISN'T theoretical!!!!

Lysis really has no valid point or argument and instead seeks to fill the Agora with BF -- bull flatulence. I really think it is the dispepsia of too many radishes that has brought on all the "sputter and blow" of this latest noxious spectacle!!!!

Anonymous said...

Anon:
On what page can I find the definition of 'Legend-in-his-own-mind" in the OED because I am really sure that is what applies to Liesis! Good job with the slammin' him down with common sense and the ACTUAL definition. Hey Apollo! Still around? I know you are still in his class, like others, but if you got the balls, ask for the wreath back! Your master debater just got debated, masterly, into the hard ground. Don't worry about he has to next next. His mouth is full of dirt!

Incedentally, if you want to keep the dirt that grows the bush that cleans the air that you breath clean then may I recommend www.voterocky.com! May I also recommend you to the only party that has historically, often, and is now still promoting alternative energy in a real way, as an independent and as the best way. You can vote for them this fall. They are the Democratic Party. The same party that warned against "$3.00 per gallon gas prices" in the 2000 Presedential election and were scoffed at as being "ozone warriors" the party of conserveration as a "personal virtue" by DICK cheney, and as the doomsday party, by BUSH, because "no American should conserve on their personal gasoline usage." The historians in the audience should be taking notes. (You're right. I know, the "historians" in the audience are lucky to be able to know how to open a book let alone know how to take notes in one.) The Democrats put us in Kyoto. The Republicans led by Bush arrogantly took us out of it. No matter who wins the next Presidential election they will be begging for more countries to follow the U.S. lead as we try to get ahead a problem we have all created.

Anonymous said...

Anon:
On what page can I find the definition of 'Legend-in-his-own-mind" in the OED because I am really sure that is what applies to Liesis! Good job with the slammin' him down with common sense and the ACTUAL definition. Hey Apollo! Still around? I know you are still in his class, like others, but if you got the balls, ask for the wreath back! Your master debater just got debated, masterly, into the hard ground. Don't worry about he has to next next. His mouth is full of dirt!

Incedentally, if you want to keep the dirt that grows the bush that cleans the air that you breath clean then may I recommend www.voterocky.com! May I also recommend you to the only party that has historically, often, and is now still promoting alternative energy in a real way, as an independent and as the best way. You can vote for them this fall. They are the Democratic Party. The same party that warned against "$3.00 per gallon gas prices" in the 2000 Presedential election and were scoffed at as being "ozone warriors" the party of conserveration as a "personal virtue" by DICK cheney, and as the doomsday party, by BUSH, because "no American should conserve on their personal gasoline usage." The historians in the audience should be taking notes. (You're right. I know, the "historians" in the audience are lucky to be able to know how to open a book let alone know how to take notes in one.) The Democrats put us in Kyoto. The Republicans led by Bush arrogantly took us out of it. No matter who wins the next Presidential election they will be begging for more countries to follow the U.S. lead as we try to get ahead a problem we have all created.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

Flaccid and friend – thanks for the laughs.

For those who are watching the news today, you have probably heard Moussaoui announcing to the world, (as he is marched off to jail for the rest of his life), that he is “the winner”. I think he even said it twice for emphasis, but no one notice, they were too busy laughing. Or was that the laughter at the “double posting” Anonymous? Doesn’t matter – both are bad jokes at best.

There is also a video clip of Al-Zarqawi trying to act tough with a gun. He doesn’t know how to fire it so he just starts calling people names and saying “dirt in your mouth!” “Flatulent!” “Dirt in your mouth!” “Flatulent!” “Dirt in your mouth.” I guess he got his feeling hurt by been shown a fool.

Oh, no wait, that is the debate tactic of some anonymous posters here in the Agora. I must admit it is difficult to tell the difference between you guys. Who is teaching whom? It must be rather scary down in the Special Ed department you’re all attending.

MindMechanic said...

Kyoto was defeated in congress by a vote of 95 to 0. Thats right...ZERO. NO senate democrat would even go on record as supporting Kyoto.

Interesting points about Kyoto-

The requirement to reduce emmissions to pre 1990 levels were already in place in the US

'Developed' countries (read that as The United States) would have been responsible to finance the changes in the developing countries. The United States would NOT have a say on implementation or cost.

The really big hitters-Russia, India, China-were exempt from reductions under Kyoto.

Yep...That sounds like a democrat plan to me.

If you are going to use the argument, at least do a little research on it.

And BTW...how is it going so far with those countries that DID actually agree to Kyoto?

Anonymous said...

I can't believe that a 'teacher' needed lessons on how to use a dictionary. : 0

Russia has signed Kyoto. The only "developed" countries that have not are the U.S. and China. Isn't it great to be put in a category with China again? I mean, along with countries that kidnap citizens off streets without due process, spy on their own citizens, and torture detainees. Makes you really proud to be an American.

Can't we do better!!!??? Sure we can!!!! But maybe we should start small. The Legacy highway might even be too big. I will settle for a public teacher that knows how to use a dictionary.

Resign Liesis, resign. Or at least learn how to copy a definition.

Anonymous said...

Anon:
Oh I think Liesis knows how to copy a definition perfectly well. I think he was just trying to be misleading or to out right lie to most of his cult followers here that take his words at face value. I don't think he was counting on anyone actually looking up what he said. To be fair, he doesn't reference the things he says very often. Mostly he makes them up from his posterior. That is why this is one of the few times we are able to point out directly what an outright liar he often is. Should make some wonder about the veracity of most of what he says.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, Lysis leaves out the numbers: 2a, b, and 3 and you call him an out right liar, the other guy leaves out two thirds of the definition and he’s your hero? Get a life.

Lysis, I’ve noticed that when people, like Moussaoui and the anonymous guys writing in here, have to announce they are winning that proves they know they have lost

MindMechanic said...

Anonymous said...

"Russia has signed Kyoto." True...because with allowances, Russia's requirments for reductions were zero. They also had no cost liability.

"The only "developed" countries that have not are the U.S. and China."
Not true...Its the US and Australia. China signed for the same reasons as Russia.

"Isn't it great to be put in a category with China again?" Well...OK...except it isnt true. And then you further cloud the Kyoto argument with hystrionics NOT related to the debate.

And you COMPLETELY ignore that the dems did NOT support Kyoto as you first stated (In point of fact, it was the senate democrats under Senator Byrd in 1998 that passed legislation INSISTING the US not ratify Kyoto if it at all restricted the US development of industry and economy. Again...do a little research).

geez...yer lousy at this!

maybe your name should dishonestymous

MindMechanic said...

"The Kyoto Protocol limits emissions to a percentage increase or decrease from their 1990 levels. Since 1990 the economies of most countries in the former Soviet Union have collapsed, as have their greenhouse gas emissions. Because of this, Russia should have no problem meeting its commitments under Kyoto, as its current emission levels are substantially below its targets"


OH...BTW...more fun facts. Did you know...the UN allowed provisions for nations to sell their excess emmission credits for fun and profit? Russia benefits from that as well.

MindMechanic said...

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html

More on the Byrd/Hagel SR. Also some interesting democrat positions on Kyoto...

MindMechanic said...

Signatories to the UNFCCC are split into three groups:

Annex I countries (industrialised countries)
Annex II countries (developed countries which pay for costs of developing countries)
Developing countries.

Annex I countries agree to reduce their emissions (particularly carbon dioxide) to target levels below their 1990 emissions levels. If they cannot do so, they must buy emission credits or invest in conservation.

Developing countries have no immediate restrictions under the UNFCCC. This serves three purposes:

1-Avoids restrictions on growth because pollution is strongly linked to industrial growth, and developing economies can potentially grow very fast.
2-It means that they cannot sell emissions credits to industrialised nations to permit those nations to over-pollute.
3-They get money and technologies from the developed countries in Annex II.

Developing countries may volunteer to become Annex I countries when they are sufficiently developed.

Developing countries are not expected to implement their commitments under the Convention unless developed countries supply enough funding and technology, and this has lower priority than economic and social development and dealing with poverty.

Anonymous said...

OH...BTW...more fun facts. Did you know...THE UNITED STATES allows provisions for BIG OIL COMPANIES AND REFINERIES to sell their excess emmission credits for fun and profit? They trade in Chicago. THE UNITED STATES benefits from that as well.

ALSO, it was a DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT, the party of environmental conservation, that took us into Kyoto. It was GEORGE BUSH, a REPUBLICAN, the party of BIG OIL TAX REBATES that took the U.S. out of Kyoto.

ALSO, "The Kyoto Protocol limits emissions to a percentage increase or decrease from their 1990 levels. Since 1990 the economies of most countries in the former Soviet Union have collapsed, as have their greenhouse gas emissions" AND they signed the protocol, AND their emmissions are lower, AND the under BUSH, the U.S. emmissions have increased, AND Russia has come to control more of the petroleum market - that the U.S. is addicted to - than any other country on the planet! What is your point? Russia is beating us with lower emmissions and we are hooked on what they are pushing????

Wouldn't it be nice if the U.S. had leadership moved us out of this silly mess and towards a brighter future? A place where "addiction" was not an adjective to describe the American people. You can make it happen! Turn out and vote, vote often, vote blue!!


BTW, I'm going to call Brainyersm-boy, "Irrelavantismech" from now.

GO ANONYMOUS! You are all of us!!!

Lysis said...

To the Anonymous who posted to the Anonomy. Thank you for two excellent points.


Brainmechanic;

Thank you for your clear arguments, the presentation of facts, and the truth. You will soon learn that giving some people the facts only drives them to distraction, but please keep up the good work.


To the Anonymous, who is even more of a child than Child;

It seems you have left us needing more definitions - “Irrelavantismech”? But I’m not worried; I’m sure your Flaccid hero will make one up for you; or at least part of one. Your little screed about “Kyoto” reminds me of the rantings of a Sophomore student I had in my A.P. class last year. In the heat of the 2004 election campaigns, he would shout all kinds of gibberish; reciting over and over again the Kerry/Edwards’ propaganda. He even gave me a “pro-Kerry” sticker. I stuck it to my wallet so I could sit on it, what is left of it is still there. When logic revealed this kid’s mistakes he would just shout the same misinformation and irrelevant taking points over and over again, as if repetition of falsehoods would give them life. After the election he just sulked. That was a year ago and I have some hope that he has matured a little by now. I will hold out the same hope for you. Stick with us, little guy – hope does spring eternal.

Anonymous said...

Irrelevant-is-Mech. Surely, I'm not the only one that sees this. It does take a bit of a quick wit though. Children do not typically develop this ability for sly comedy until age twelve. Some never do.

I quite like the idea that Anonymous is all of us. More often than not she posts exactly along the lines of what I am thinking, and, I think, what a lot of other people are thinking too. I haven't heard a good argument yet for why the Legacy should be built. Maybe Liesis has a few more early morning graduations to attend? Just get up a few minutes earlier lazy bones. As for the N.O. evacuation, was it just me or wasn't the big problem with N.O. that the city did NOT order evacuation; no one tried to leave? Maybe you were busy watching Faux News and missed that part. O'Reilly was probably busy enternaining the defecient male ego with his heroing tales of chasing down Anonymous callers at home that mentioned the name Keith Olbermann on his air-time.

There will always be traffic jams. The same cannot be said be for a unified Iraq despite all of the legal wrangling, the lies, the blood shed, the treasure spent, the thousands of lines of boring right-wing blog nonsense spewed. (No one here is guilty of that. *Sarcasm*)

Now let's see if he can figure out his new name after his last post: Irrelevantisliesis.

MindMechanic said...

Well now...see? This is better. Instead of just mindless angry blather you are at least ATTEMPTING logical thought, even if you are making it up to support your hatred.

Lets play.

1-The US doesnt HAVE emission credits to sell because the US isnt a signee of the Kyoto accord. Nice try. Making up facts still equates to no facts. But you ARE trying to be relevant.

2-The signees do not distribute emmission credits to private company's.

3-Wrong again. The Kyoto accord is the fourth meeting of the UNFCCC. The US entered into the UNFCC in 1992 under George Bush Sr. There have been 6 meetings since. The Kyoto protocol was nothing more than another meeting, just like the last one, held in Canada and the upcoming session.

4-Without Kyoto, the US is AHEAD of all Kyoto nations in reducing the emissions to pre-1990 levels.

5-Senator Byrd is a Democrat. Senator Byrd in 1998 sponsored the legislation ENSURING the US would not be a signee of Kyoto.

6-At no time has any US senator voted to ratify or even moved to support Kyoto

Your empty headed hate filled rhetoric simply cannot stand scrutiny.

MindMechanic said...

Anon-one wonders if you actually read some of the things you post...

"Since 1990 the economies of most countries in the former Soviet Union have collapsed, as have their greenhouse gas emissions"

Lets stop there for a second. Do you miss the key point? Their ECONOMIES HAVE FAILED. When your factories have closed and your people are starving and your unemployment is running 40+%, well...sure...take solace that you arent emmitting as much greenhouse gas emissions...

But you follow with...

"AND they signed the protocol, AND their emmissions are lower, AND the under BUSH, the U.S. emmissions have increased, AND Russia has come to control more of the petroleum market - that the U.S. is addicted to - than any other country on the planet! What is your point? Russia is beating us with lower emmissions and we are hooked on what they are pushing????"

The 'point' (wow...I cant believe you have to have this explained to you...) is that since their economy is in the toilet and their people are out of work and their factories and industry are shut down, there is no decrease required and therefore no downside to signing Kyoto. In point of fact, BECAUSE of these problems the US would be responsible to provide them with developmental dollars. See...thats called a 'downside'...

Just as an "info you..."

The Russian industrial complex put out approx 1,400,000,000 metric tons of carbon a year, until about 1990. just 10 years later their output was reduced through attrition to 800,000,000 due to economic collapse.

"According to the report from the State Statistics Committee, only 21.6% of Russian people had their income lower than the official living wage during the last quarter of the last year. The official living wage is 1.893 rubles a month, which is a bit more than $50."

"The number of the Russian people, whose level of income is lower than the living wage, does not have a tendency for reduction: 31 million people in the first quarter of 2001 and 30.9 million in the beginning of the year 2003. Their number is supposed to grow in the percentage ratio."

"Last year the State Statistics Committee informed that up to 40 million Russian people suffer from undernourishment on a regular basis. It is obvious at present that the number of hungry people is going to increase in the nearest future."


Makes you want to rush right out and move to Russia, right? Thank goodness their greenhouse emissions are low.

MindMechanic said...

On emissions...

In 1990 (the Kyoto reduction target), US Methane emissions were 724 MMT (million Metric tons). In 1996 they were 675.8. In 2004 they were 639.5. The restrictions are in place to continually reduce them.

Carbon is not at 1990 levels. The estimates are that they will reach 1990 levels by 2012. There are no plans to remove those restrictions.

It cant be too large a shock that emissions are still higher than 1990 levels. The number of cars on the highways have significantly increased. Unemployment is significantly decreased which places more people in the work force. Home building and home sales is at an all time high.

The economy is booming. People by the millions are streaming into the US for economic opportunities.

Somewhere, someone has to be doing something right.

Anonymous said...

Irrelevantismech: (LOVE the name)
Check out CCX at chicagoclimatex.com. That is the website for the Chicago Climate Exchange where private companies and municipalities exhange emmissions credits for profit and fun.

Thought your fiercely irrelevant rantings could benefit from some knowledge.

Keep up the good posts Anon.

MindMechanic said...

Again...did you actually READ the report???

"Recently, Baxter’s Castlebar, Ireland facility transferred one hundred metric tons of its greenhouse gas allowances from the European Union Trading Scheme to Baxter’s Chicago Climate Exchange Carbon Financial Instrument™ contracts registry account."

Now of course...the anonymous post stated

" Anonymous said...
OH...BTW...more fun facts. Did you know...THE UNITED STATES allows provisions for BIG OIL COMPANIES AND REFINERIES to sell their excess emmission credits for fun and profit?"

So...I guess FACTS arent relevant...just the little snippets that you use to occasionally attempt to actually defend a position...even if they are made up figures, misrepresented, or outright lies.

Baxter BTW is a healthcare company. Since Canada IS a signee it isnt beyond the realm of possibility that they might be interested in trading.

But lets examine that...

The UNFCCC in the 4th meeting known as the Kyoto accord created an ALLOWANCE for nations to sell their excess clean to excess polluters, which relives them from responsibility to actually affect positive change.

the ANON point was that it was the evil US gas companies. The fact is that it is the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol itself that set up the opportunities for the sale of excess emissions, thus circumventing the actual requirements for change.

Yep...thats quite a system you have there. You still think Kyoto is a GOOD idea??? Well...for some reason none of the democrats in congress agree with you. Not some...NONE.

Anonymous said...

Your gastro eruptions that you call posts are only so much hot air Irrelevantismech. The two most important Democrats in the party from 1992-2000 supported Kyoto, the VP, Al Gore who was essential to creating the agreement and the President, Bill Clinton, who signed it. Guess that makes two more Dems than Republicans' zero who supported making lasting environmenal protections for our future. Your statements are laughable in the face of these reality body checks you keep running into at full speed.

MindMechanic said...

Wait...it gets better...

Apparently the CCX began formation in 2000 (just checking...that was Clinton era still...right?). Its members, participant members, and associate members are all private businesses, not governments, or local municipalities that choose to follow greenhouse guidelines (and if memory serves from the UNFCCC website there were some 187 cities that voluntarily committed to following the guidelines) and participation is voluntary. Last I checked there wasnt any corporate representation on the UNFCCC...

So it is nothing more than a stock venture. Still trying to see how it plays into this overall discussion...

MindMechanic said...

Oh yeah...one last thing...

Maybe I missed it but I am not seeing a single oil company represented in the CCX membership and trading...and wasnt that the initial 'gotcha' argument? You can check and verify...maybe I did miss it...old eyes...

http://www.chicagoclimateexchange.com/about/members.html

MindMechanic said...

Son...cant you get ANYTHING right? Clinton never signed it...Gore did. Gore didnt negotiate any part of it, nor was he 'instrumental' in getting it passed. The developing UN member states pressed for passage because they knew if it was signed and the US was on board, they would get PAID.

read the next part carefully...

"On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations CNN. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification."

Facts are pesky little things...arent they? Didnt you like it so much more when you could just spew venom and hatred?

MindMechanic said...

BTW...the US objections were not to reductions of emissions. Those goals are and have been in place and are being met.

The US objections (and you have to accept that it was the position of congressional democrats as well as republicans since 1997)were to UN imposed restrictions on economy and industrial development, on forcing the US to pay for the rest of the worlds industrialization, on the lack of enforcement controls, and on the immediate exemptions granted to appease major industrial poluters (specifically China and India).

Anonymous said...

Pull your head out and smell the history Irrelevantismech. I think all that time you spent out of the country - how many years was it with your head in the sand - has impaired your sense of what has actually been going on in the U.S. The U.S. signed the Kyoto Protocol on Nov. 12, 1998. You can read it all about it in this article from CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/TECH/science/9811/12/climate.signing/index.html

And because your sense of history is so dramatically impaired I should tell you that Bill Clinton was a Democrat. He put the U.S. in Kyoto. The vote you talk about was from Sept. '97 before the Clinton administration signed the agreement. No one got to vote on the Kyoto protocol.

Al Gore, he was a Democratic U.S. Vice President, flew to Kyoto during the final phase of negotiations on the treaty to push for agreement. He got it. George Bush - he is a Republican - withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto protocol. (That's because he thinks global warming is not occuring and that dinosaurs lived only 4,000 years ago, if at all.)

On your plea for help in examining the CCX, see:

Peoples Gas System; TECO Coal; Central Vermont Public Service; Amerex Energy; EXO Investments; ICAP Energy, LLC (holder DOE U.S. Crude, EIA Gas among others); SR Energy - defines their involvement as "emissions trading is a mechanism that can help businesses to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reductions in the most economically efficient way. It is one of three flexible mechanisms proposed as part of the Kyoto Protocol;" American Electric; Dow Corning, Dupont (the two largest industrial users of oil for non refining purposes); Ford Motor Company (idirect user of crude and heavy metal pollution); Roanoke Steel; countless holdings in derivative oil holding members.

Direct municipalities (not including municpal companies, some already listed above):

City of Aspen
City of Berkeley
City of Boulder
City of Chicago
City of Oakland

Not just old eyes, old brain.

This is beginning to be a game. You scream to be corrected. I correct you. This 'playing' as you called it is getting old though and your credibly is fast dwindling.

The 'gotcha' moment is that everything you complained about that Kyoto allows is being allowed in the U.S. already. So you have to ask, what is your point!? That Russia has lower emissions than the U.S.? That U.S. emissions have increased? That U.S. dependence on oil rich regimes like Russia has increased? Or that the U.S. deserves better leadership that took environmental conservation and alternative energy seriously? That was the Democratic party. Gotcha! But now we are in an energy crisis since the Republican administration let their friends in the oil industry and Enron write the national energy policy, including billions in tax giveaways to the same companies now experiencing the largest profits in coporate history. Guess they got us!

MindMechanic said...

You are comical.

"The U.S. signed the Kyoto Protocol on Nov. 12, 1998."

Ummm...did you get that directly FROM my previous posting? I said as much. Gore symbolically signed the Kyoto protocol. Symbolic only because of two reasons...one, it is not binding without ratification and two, he (and Clinton) knew it would never be ratified by the senate. No demcrat OR republican would vote for it. They didnt during the next three years of the Clinton administration just as they havent under Bush.

"I should tell you that Bill Clinton was a Democrat. He put the U.S. in Kyoto. The vote you talk about was from Sept. '97 before the Clinton administration signed the agreement. No one got to vote on the Kyoto protocol."

Clinton didnt "put us in Kyoto"...we were "in" every UNFCCC accord since 1992. Bush Sr put us in that. The vote never occured because Clinton knew the democrats would never agree to it (and never have). I posted the direct link to the democrat sponsored legislation opposing Kyoto....did you miss THAT too?

G"eorge Bush - he is a Republican - withdrew the U.S. from the Kyoto protocol." Hogwash. Our status is unchanged in the Kyoto Protocol. It is no different under Bush than under Clinton. It remains symbolically signed but will NEVER be ratified because the democrats AS WELL AS the republicans in congress wont sign off on it. It is a BAD agreement. It has a negative impact on the US.

Have you ever READ the provisions of the UNFCCC approved Kyoto protocol? Just what in there do YOU approve of? You defend it...do you think it is a good plan? Beneficial?

BTW...The global warming arguement is something we could dedicate a complete dialog to. Some scientists agree it is happening. Some disagree. Some agree but believe it is a naturally re-occuring phenomen that has happened three previous times WITHOUT the help of the industrial age.

RE the CCX members...again...I posted that
"Its members, participant members, and associate members are all private businesses, not governments, or local municipalities that choose to follow greenhouse guidelines (and if memory serves from the UNFCCC website there were some 187 cities that voluntarily committed to following the guidelines) and participation is voluntary."

I already CITED the cities and municipalities. In case you missed it...in addition to the ones you picked there are 187 other US cities that could if they choose VOLUNTARILY trade as well.

The fact that some companies have HOLDINGS in oil does nothing to justify the anon arguement that
"OH...BTW...more fun facts. Did you know...THE UNITED STATES allows provisions for BIG OIL COMPANIES AND REFINERIES to sell their excess emmission credits for fun and profit?

OIl companies and refineries dont "sell their excess emission credits". We arent obligated under Kyoto. The US oil companies dont have anything to trade...or BUY. And the ASSumption they do indicates you believe they have EXCESS credits which would mean then that "big oil" (which you hate so much) must be cleaning up ahead of schedule to HAVE excess credits...which they arent subject to in the first place. You use one strawman after the other to defend your fallacious initial arguement.

Your initial arguement was that the US created these provisions for oil companies to sell emissions credits. That was a lie. The UNFCCC created provisions to allow for its members to sell emissions creits...not the US and not big oil. The selling of credits simply allows countries to buy their way out of pollution controls. Just another point AGAINST the passage of Kyoto.

"This is beginning to be a game"
This point is laughable. You have posted one lie after the other. You make up 'facts' which are easily proven lies. You pick one out of six arguements, make a 'point' that is easily proven a lie, and think your 'logic' has won the day. You then run to your other anon self and belly bump and slap hands...its an image that is hillarious and comical. I picture George and Ira (or whatever the Ben and Jerry characters names were) from the movie City Slickers...'woof!' You are pathetic.

Look up the statistics on US emissions suring the 1990's. They steadily increased. Dont worry...thats not too large a knock on Clinton...a nations carbon output WILL increase when that nations economy climbs, when their working population increases. Its not magic. Its factual.

Russias "emissions decrease" has nothing to do with pollution control efforts. It has everything to do with their economic collapse. Thats a point that agin...you keep missing.

As to the oil dependence...you are either an idiot or blinded by your hatred if you think that the United States became suddenly oil dependent in the last 5 years. It has been going on since the early 70's. I have posted in this link NUMEROUS TIMES that I believe we MUST make steps to relieve that dependence. On this point we even have agreement. The difference is, you are so blinded by your hatred of one man that you refuse to accept the answer does NOT lay in the hands of one man...the responsibility lays with congress...both house and senate...as per the constitution...and for all your anti Bush rhetoric you simply are unable to recognize that congress is where that change HAS to happen. You will get your wish. Bush will be gone in another few years. If the democrats had actually supported a real candidate he might have been gone following the LAST elections. But when Bush is gone, congress will still remain for whoever is elected president. Until that congress is made to be effective and accountable, NOTHING will ever change.

"That was the Democratic party." WHO? ANd what happened? Where is the sweeping energy legislation from the democrat party? Who is the champion? Harry Reid? John Kerry? Ted Kennedy? Senator Byrd? All of these men have been in the senate a LOOONG time. NONE of them support Kyoto. What are they doing other than the same thing the anon alliance here does...blame, lie, misrepresent, and refuse to offer anything that resembles a PLAN?

Hey...in case you missed it....I tried the independent route. Politically it doesnt work. I tried the third party Libertarian route. The Libertarians are no different than any other party. They join a party and loose the ability to express independent thought. I'd love to see a viable third party alternative to the two parties we have because they are BOTH BROKEN. Unfortunately every third party that gets a head of steam always ends up shooting themselves in the foot.

History is a wonderful teacher. Do yourself a favor and read a little of ENRONs history and connection to the Clinton administration since 1993. Enrons ties to Bush lasted about a year before their collapse. Just curious if you have the guts and integrity to admit where corruption exists and are as willing to point the finger of blame at dems as you are republicans or if you are just committed to your blind hatred.

Lysis said...

The debate has been most instructive, but you guys really ought to get some sleep!

On last night’s debate between Brainmechanic and the Anonomy:

I spent eleven years as a debate coach and even more as a judge, this reminds me of the old days

Quick analysis from the “judges” table: The Anonomy, call names, reference body functions, and spout disinformation in frustration.

Brainmechanic gives us facts and logic, and a bit of self-deprecating humor.

The class of the debaters and the validity of the positions are easy to rate.

A big "W" to Brainmechanic; "LLL" to the Anonomy. Seems it’s the quality not the age of brain that counts.

On Kyoto. I do agree with the Anonomy, Bush saved us from that terrible mistake. The Democrats were ready to bind America's hands and the U.S. economy for the sake of a few votes. It was the Legacy Highway in macrocosm.

MindMechanic said...

ahhhhh...sleep...some day...

I find myself up too late too often working on thesis research or other assignments. Between the full time work, school, intern work, and homework...well...I do love my weekends.

The blog provides a diversion. It keeps me going. Especially when it is a valid discussion and not just personal attacks. Not that I mind personal attacks. Personal attacks say far more about the instigator than anything I would ever need to say.

I also love honest, intelligent, thought provoking debate. Vive le difference. It amazes me that we have this system where half the country identifies themselves as liberal and half as conservative and there is virtually no room for independent thought. That doesnt even occur in a one on one relationship like a marriage...yet we accept it as the norm from our politicians (and often, ourselves...).

I have had many discussions with my mother-in-law re the war against Iraq. She and I disagree. We come from different perspectives. Her opinions are intelligent and well thought out and not based on rhetoric. I respect her positions and have even accepted many.

I also think I have said here that I value people like Susan Sarandon. She is consistent and has integrity, even though I disagree with her position. She is opposed to war...any war...and engaged by any president. While I disagree with her disagree with her I respect that least she doesnt change her mind based on the changing winds of political fortune.

I appreciate the opportunity for honest exchanges of ideas. Debating with others has caused me to alter my positions on issue like abortion, the death penalty, others. It has educated and reinforced other ideas. That is the value of this to me.

I knew some things about Kyoto before this thread began. I have learned more along the way. There is still much to learn. That to me makes it all worth it.

Dan Simpson said...

What democrats Lysis. As Brainmech has pointed out, no one in Congress was willing to get us caught up in that stupidity. And that is saying a lot, if you can't find one nutjob in Congress to vote for something, you know you have a bad plan.

Anonymous said...

Ha ha. . . Irrelevant got his 'information' from Wikipedia. : ) It is verbatim. Ha!

MindMechanic said...

In point of fact it was Wikipedia, DOE, your referenced CCX site, and about a half dozen others.

Which trumps the anon tendency to make things up, outright lie, or totally misrepresent.

BTW...you will see every posting that is taken from a website has quotations. I dont alter it. As you said...it is cited...word for word. I dont pretend it is mine and I dont alter it to make my point more effective. And unlike others...I dont pull it from...well...we'll be gentile and say thin air instead of referencing pulling things from your arse.

But please...by all means...cite YOUR references. This can become more and more like a 'real' debate. As I JUST SAID in my previous post...it gives the opportunity to read and link and learn.

My personal opinion re Wikipedia is that it is no more or less effective than any other website. They all have slant. They all have bias. Hopefully...you read enough (instead of just what supports your own particular bias) and hopefully somewhere in the middle the truth starts to emerge.

Just a small sampling (and yes...I save them in history when referencing them for just such an occasion) of the sites reviewed during this exchange-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/summary/pdf/0573(2004)es.pdf

http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/

http://www.globalwarming.org/

http://www.factcheck.org/

MindMechanic said...

Oh...and I forgot to mention the most important part...how PROUD I am of you actually reading a little bit. You are obviously beginning now to verify. Thats an EXCELLENT start...

And while that WAS slightly sarcastic, this is not...should you find other informative sites that are not pure slant and bias and would actually provide real benefit...PLEASE post them. If you have an actual real live honest to goodness substantive arguement besides bleating hatred and bigotry PLEASE present it. I love to learn from others perspectives as well.

Cameron said...

Long time listener, first time caller.....

Thank you BrainMechanic for posting links to information. I have begun to read much of it.

The following is the meat of the Senate bill you referred to previously. This is the one that passed 95-0, which appears to take partisanship out of the Kyoto debate.

No one liked it.

Not Democrats, not Republicans, not even Independents.

Here it is:

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

(B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Senate shall transmit a copy of this resolution to the President.

Anonymous said...

Happy Valley Moro. . it's just too easy, nevermind:
It's obvious that Irrelevant does not realize how Congress works since he calls a Presidential signing of a treaty "symbolic" instead of the necessary first step in that treaty becoming binding law. It is apparent that you have very little understanding of Congressional workings as well. Here is something to consider, the U.S. Senate voted UNAMINOUSLY to allow the federal hearing of the Terry Schiavo case. Do you erroneously believe that partisianship was ruled out of the debate according that vote? Make no mistake, environmental is a partisan issue. Republicans are on the side of pseudo science and Big Oil rebates, no conservation. Dems are on the side of securing a future for all of us.

mostly just listening said...

Interesting that Anonymous the latest divides environmentalism so clearly between the Republican and Democratic Parties. I read, just this morning, about how environmentalism is being viewed as the issue that will divide the religious right. Though I don't necessarily think this will be the case, the argument stems from the fact that Republicans are splitting from Republicans on environmental issues. I guess, like pretty much every issue in U.S. politics, environmentalism can't be clearly assigned to any one party, though there are those who would be quick to claim otherwise.

Cameron said...

Historically it seems that Democrats have assumed the title of environmentalists while Republicans have generally been seen as caring more for industry and capitalism with the environment coming in a distant last.

The Kyoto Accord seemed to follow along those same lines.

However, the entire Senate voted against signing it.

Which means that even the "environmentalist" Democratic party does not want the United States to enter into the Kyoto Agreements as presently constituted.

MindMechanic said...

Anon-

In 1998 the democrat president of the US sent his VP to sign the Kyoto Accord knowing that it would not only not pass a congressional vote, but that it would not even be submitted. Call it symbolic, call it significant, call it what you will. The fact remains that from 1998 to the end of Clintons term in 2000 it never saw the light of day. And for the very same reasons it hasnt during the Bush presidency.

Lysis said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Lysis said...

Dannyboy:
The Democrats I was referencing were the ones “Flaccid and fools” referenced, Bill and Al. Be that as it my; your point is well taken, supported with data by Brainmechanic, and underlined by Mostly Just Listening

I will extend: My point is that there are many who would sell out America, Utah, even their mothers. . . for some political gain. Al Gore is an excellent example of this. (Gore is Rocky Anderson on the national level) Gore had a “substance free” book put out over his name on the “environment thing” so he could claim that special interest vote in the election – kind of like Billy locking up half of Utah while standing in Arizona, Gore then went on to claim some kind of environmental commitment by “signing” a nonbinding protocol, kind of like Woodrow Wilson signing the U.S. up for the League of Nations. I believe Wilson was an idealist – Gore is nothing but an opportunist. The target of his enviro - Nazi propaganda ploy? There are a lot of nuts in California – and a lot of electoral votes as well.

By-the-way, Gore actually had a book written for him on family values while he was still thinking about a run in 2004. That “special interest group” is still laughing!

Flaccid Jr:

What is your hang up with WIkipedia, could it be that it too (Like the boondoggle over Legacy) is in the socialist form, “Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods”? (By the way Jr. I did not put in the numbers for you – but then neither did the “Big Flat One” the first time he cut and pasted his definition.) I have come to recognize you contempt for Socialism – can you explain it?

Cameron said...

The question remains, Why didn't anyone want the US to agree to Kyoto?

The answer is found in the same document written by Democratic Senator Robert Byrd and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel which was passed by a bi-partisan 95-0 vote in the Senate:

Whereas greenhouse gas emissions of Developing Country Parties are rapidly increasing and are expected to surpass emissions of the United States and other OECD countries as early as 2015

Whereas the `Berlin Mandate' specifically exempts all Developing Country Parties from any new commitments in such negotiation process for the post-2000 period

129 countries, including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea, as `Developing Country Parties'

According to the United States Senate, Kyoto would allow the "Developing Countries", including China and India, to continue to increase their pollution unabated. So much so that eight years from now their pollution will be greater than that of the Phase I countries'.

Kyoto started as a worldwide pollution control mechanism. It ended up as a free pass to developing countries (is China really "developing"?) to pollute all they wanted. Of course they signed it!

Of course the US Senate refused to sign it! Hurray for them.

Lysis said...

Magic Valley Mormon:

Extremely well said. Allow me to expand by pointing out that there are many “Americans” who actually want to hurt America. We need to understand this; they don’t just want to give advantage to other nations, they are eager to do it at America’s expense. As you imply, no wonder those who represent America were against Kyoto. I can’t help but wonder who Flaccid and the little droops think would support this “treaty”. I wish Flaccid Jr. would “reference” them so they could be identified and the American people could get them out of Congress before they sell us out to our enemies.

Anonymous said...

Now that Agorites everywhere know how to read a dictionary definition:

flatulent 1 a : marked by or affected with gas generated in the intestine or stomach b : likely to cause gas 2 : pompously or potentously overblown

A useful word with which to be fore-armed when confronting so many master-debaters at the Agora!!!!

Cameron said...

Are you kidding? That's all you have to say?

Are you for Kyoto? If so, why?

Anonymous said...

MVM
Where's your badge? Where's your warrant? Ask nice next time!!!!

Lysis said...

Oh my word! Colonel Jessup (A Few Good Men) is posting at the Agora. Come on "old man" – “We can handle the Truth!”