owl

No. I don't think rising sea levels should be my primary concern right now. I'm literally not worried about them at all.

And all I'm saying is that rising sea levels will probably resolve a long term solution for Miami and Florida's mass transit dilemma, so don't sweat it.

the exact sort of people who, we

But I'm also not worried in the least by rising sea levels.

Are you planning to move soon?

I am not a city planner, and I don't see you out there surveying possible routes for buses.

I know, dude. On the other hand, isn't most of Florida at sea level? Any chance you're a levee engineer?

By the way, and no offense, I'm not sure that you'd be able to see whether I do anything about city planning--or whether I just talk about it on a bulletin board.

You cannot force any sort of lifestyle on people. Wouldn't that go against your liberal beliefs anyways?

I am not talking about forcing anything upon anyone. Nature is not liberal or conservative.

Assuming liberalism is a luxery (which is absurd on its face, but hypothetically...) does that mean that it is inherently wrong?

I guess by my logic it would be unnecessary.

But I will agree that Americans on the whole rarely have to worry about where their next meal will come from, and this allows us the luxury of having more leisure time.

Which allows us to plan to have more leisure time, but obviously not any kind of sustainable lifestyle.

Edit: OWL

You obviously aren't familiar with the saying tongue-in-cheek, huh.

Sorry if I misunderstood your recent not-wanting-to-brag-bragging. But at least I now have my first satirical thread at ViaChicago. I've only been here for 5 years; I can't believe it took this long.

I'm not rich in the least, but I am comfortable.

 

Sorry, not to fit into your classist attack.

Speaking as one who has reaped some of the benefits of the recent administration, I will truly miss the big guy.

Exactly.

 

Well not exactly "fuck everyone else" but I've enjoyed some of the opportunities that have arisen with out too much government interference.

 

Sorry you find success so distasteful.

 

Vibes.

Well, I don't like to brag but you won't hear me complaining about high gas prices.

 

If you catch my drift.

No but having the free time, since you're not an indentured servant working for some conservative land owner, to rally for these rights is a by product of a high standard of living.

So it's either slavery or destruction of our natural resources. I can see now that the choice is really easy for you.

I'm not saying that's what I want. I'm saying that's how it will be, drilling or not.

Have you ever been to South Florida? You can't just say that and then say we have to adopt mass transit. This isn't Chicago. It isn't New York. The cities weren't planned with this in mind.

 

It's fine to criticize if you actually have an idea of what to do, but the fact of the matter is in Miami, and many North American cities, public transportation isn't a feasible option for the foreseeable future, and it has nothing to do with the lifestyle of the citizens and everything to do with a lack of city planning from the highest levels. Miami built out rather than up.

Yes I have on many occasions and I don't disagree with you. I'm just saying that it's not something that people will be able to postpone for much longer. Population densities will increase in some areas, and others will become ghost towns. The rich will continue to do what they do. The rest will have to find a way.

Oh and rest assured, if gas hits $8 a gollon, I will still be able to afford to "cruise around" at will.

And rest assured, you will not hesitate to let us all know how rich you are.

How many people in China are on the Internet debating the use of oil to increase the standard of living to the detriment of mother earth?

I don't know. Do you want to know what our standard of living is doing for China?

That's the funny thing about liberals; they don

It's a pretty safe bet that with an increased demand (not just the US) and a limited supply (no new drilling/sources) oil will continue to go up.

Well, it was. A lot of retirement funds aren't looking so secure anymore.

Public transit isn't feasible on a mass scale.

That's what an artificially-sustained standard of living will do. That's what laziness will do to an economy. It's not because we're running out of oil that this is a problem--it's because we refused to see it coming and instead opted to continue to gratify ourselves while it lasted. It will have to become feasible. Personal, gas-powered automotive transport isn't looking feasible anymore, either, like it or not.

The environmental argument is secondary to my concerns over our standard of living, rest assured if we don't use "cheap" energy other countries will have no problem using it for us.

I love the "everyone else is doing it" argument. That's the funny thing about conservatives: they try to claim moral high ground but in an instant will do anything for money.

There is no quick solution to this problem. No drilling--and no mass transit systems--will produce instant results. You might as well get used to it. By the time we realize the four-cent benefit of oil drilling along the coasts and in ANWR, we'll already be 10 years into exponential gas prices and it won't make any difference whatsoever. You might as well get off your ass and onto your bike. It's amazing what people will destroy just to put off having to change for another few years.

I'm sure your oil futures have nothing to do with your interest in the subject, though.

Fortunately, lifting the executive order is largely symbolic. A federal law that prohibits drilling is still in place.

You have to ask yourself: is it worth it to save an estimated four cents to the gallon, or is it just an excuse for Bush to use an emergency to make oil men richer? Note that Bush never mentions the four cents when he promotes offshore drilling.

There are many, many things we could do right now to save gas--that would make a much greater impact than the four cents/gallon that we'll save a decade from now, when gas will probably be $15/gallon.

Ride your bikes or walk for short errands.

Encourage your employer to let you telecommute.

Do more of your shopping locally.

Etc.

I put a really nice soundboard/audience mic matrix of the Hideout on Owl&Bear, for anyone interested:

http://www.owlandbear.com/2008/07/13/hoste...t-july-10-2008/

No, I totally understand. It's really easy to rationalize one's dislike for someone when he/she expects something of you.

Yeah, I didn't realize that he has publicly asked people to sell their homes and buy smaller ones, has refused to donate millions to environmental causes but asked others to do so, condemned the airline industry and said nobody should be allowed to fly, etc.

And that he's wrong is a separate point. It's amazing how in science, no experiments are ever made, it's science's policy to always judge hypotheticals as false. Cool.

For starters, he lives in a 20-room mansion. I guess it's possible that he wanted 30 rooms but decided to limit himself to 20 for the sake of the environment. Maybe he does pay extra for "green" energy, but by using so much electricity, he's not setting a very good example for those that can't afford to pay extra. He advocates the type of environmental policies that would be hard on the average person while himself not making much of a sacrifice.

Ohhhh, I get your point now: because Al Gore's has a large house, he's wrong about climate change. Also, he's wrong about climate change because you've tabulated all of the personal "sacrifices" he's made to help the environment, and you find them to be insufficient.

Or at least not travel by jet. If global warming is such a huge doomsday disaster, sacrifices have to be made.

Ah, that makes sense. The only way to make a sacrifice is to avoid air travel--or at least only fly via biplane.

Or because Gore's right about climate change, he's wrong to travel by jet. I've noticed on this board that hypocrisy on the right seems to invalidate their views.

You make a good point: if climate change is true, then everyone would have to give up travel.

Well, technically, it would be the military that's polluting in the "phony" war, and not Bush. And whether you agree or disagree with the war, it's not like it's Bush's personal war. It's supposedly being waged on behalf of the nation. I've never been invited to stay in Al's mansion. I guess I should cut Gore some slack, though. It's really tough to limit your electricity usage to only 5-10 times that of the normal person. Gore's really making some sacrifices in his effort to stop global warming.

You make a good point: because Al Gore travels by jet, he's wrong about climate change.

Amen.

I don't think the songs on Shepherd are as strong as past efforts, but I also don't think it has anything to do with the more elaborate production.