Pangloss

Well put, and I agree.

I was driving to work today right after browing the forum, and it occured to me to wonder about this: Do local laws permit you guys to proceed with a left turn on a red light? When I was growing up in Georgia right-on-red turns were illegal (though I think that's changed since I moved to Florida) -- in Florida they're legal, though you have to come to a full stop first (though most people don't bother). I guess the idea is that since you're turning into the lane that's right there and don't have to cross any other traffic, either oncoming or tangential, it's relatively safe, so long as the cross-road traffic coming from our left (your right) is clear at the moment. Which I guess is the same for you guys, just reveresed, eh? (Yes, I wonder about such things. I'm weird that way.)

I agree with that. Social pressure is one of those things that's occassionally useful but too-often gets pushed too far. The problem isn't SUVs or the intelligence of their owners, it's the pollution they put in the air. Picture a battery-powered Chevy Suburban rolling up alongside Gerald Broflovski's Toyota Prius and accusing HIM of not caring about the planet. That's a perfectly viable future.

I heard about this loan thing. Obviously it's not a good way to MAKE money, but it's not hard to see that the money candidates "spend" on their campaigns can be readily paid back to themselves if they achieve sufficient donations, and they can take any amount of time to do that. So basically it costs them nothing (assuming they find donors down the road for Hillary's 2012 campaign). (Which seems a sure thing, though I must say if Obama loses in 2008 I don't think Democrats will ever forgive Hillary.)

I for one welcome our neo-gallilean overlord!

Actually I can prove it in one simple statement: High gas prices have done more in three years to change behavior than your demonization has done in 30+. People have been convinced that global warming is real for some time now, but when it's come down to packing Timmy and Lisa and Fido and the stroller and all the Christmas toys for that three-state drive to gramma's, and your choice is a small hybrid or a big, safe SUV, and gas was only 99 cents a gallon, well let's just say the Ford F-150/Explorer platform was number one for a reason. People don't like being told they're wrong. Liberals make movies and conservatives watch them, then they laugh and walk out of the theater and liberals are left scratching their heads, wondering how a guy like Bush can get re-elected after all the demonizing they've been doing. "Gosh, Neon Star Blue, I just don't understand why people can vote that way! What is Fred Neck's problem? Quick, tell him he's stupid some more, maybe just just wasn't paying attention!" So yah, you certainly can equate SUV drivers to child molestors if you wish, nobody's stopping you. But that's been the liberal "way" for decades now, and all its gotten you is the rise of Conservative Talk Radio, a surge on Republican partisanship and a whole string of frustrating policies. I'd agree that educating and trying persuasion hasn't done much either, but that's why I think careful regulation and incentives are the answer, combined with investment in practical science and engineering solutions (e.g. hybrids with electric-only modes, compact fluorescent lighting, etc).

Ah yes, I quite agree. One of the areas where this has been particularly problematic is installers that predate Vista not recognizing User Account Control. So they don't cut to the gray screen and prompt you to click, and just go ahead and try to install. But of course that's not permitted under Vista, so the installer appears to work when in fact it hasn't done its job at all. This one has frustrated everyone from users to Microsoft product managers (note the recent publicity about the leaked emails). It's a very good point, and industry analysts suspect that these proplems lie at the heart of Microsoft's recent announcement of a moving-up of its timetable to replace Vista as early as late 2009.

An amusing comparison.

How much life would be harmed if we were to radically, forcibly and immediately eliminate all pollutive emissions in the United States? (I know you weren't suggesting that, I'm just offering counterpoint.) Of course there are limits, that's why I said: But I wasn't defending people's right to pollute, I was saying that demonizing their pollutive habits doesn't accomplish anything. What if those habits weren't producing pollution? Wouldn't we still be listening to the same tired litany about Western decadence and corruption? I think we would, because that's about smug supriority and a desire for individualism, not solving global warming. Koyaanisqatsi is an observation, not a motivation.

Well that's just it, right? Who doesn't need to make a living? Isn't everyone pretty much in the same boat there? I guess that's why I object to proposals of radical change, because it's not just evil corporations and decrepit wealthy tax-dodgers who would be harmed.

The funny thing about Thompson is he'd take it all back in exchange for still being alive. Hell, he'd go on a 30-state speaking tour on the evils of drug use, hypocritical bastard that he was. The world didn't do him in while on a "brutal ride" to an unhappy place. He did it to himself. And the world is going on just fine without him.

Ubuntu doesn't use device drivers?

So you're contributing the problem of people wanting conspicuous luxury, yet you're complaining about what other people do. Seems sorta odd to me, but hey, I'll join you for that beer. I understand the point about people's lack of concern about the environment, I'm just saying that people with freedom will do what they want. Society's role is to determine guidelines and mitigate the damage, not demonize and insult people for their choices. Complaining what people do with their freedom is very much a "glass houses" affair. Ever watch that thing Jay Leno does called "Jaywalking"? He goes up to people on the street and asks them when the Declaration of Independence was signed, or what coast New York is on -- really basic questions that most people know the answer to. But of course that's the gimmick -- most people know the answers. He only airs the ones that don't know, making them, of course, look like idiots. It's just comedy, but I wonder sometimes how many correct answers he has to go through before he finally gets a goofy one he can air. Some of those people look like they've been standing there with him for at least a few minutes, and are getting a bit impatient! Point is, everyone does stupid things, and I bet if you were to really analyze what daily practices cause the most pollution, I suspect that you would find that EVERYONE is contributing to the problem. Everyone. Well okay, not Ed Begley, Jr. Everyone else. But hey, if it really makes you feel better you can go to the mall and hand out "awareness citations" to all the SUV owners. Just don't send me your medical bill. http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/155193

There's nothing twisted about our lifestyle.

Well you can prop a horse up in various ways. But I can only assume that much thought has been devoted to the subject, and that there are many variables preventing or hindering the use of the obvious alternatives. The Barbaro case was certainly an interesting example. As I understand it there was also another horse that broke a leg in the trials before the Derby last week, and he has been given a 50% chance to live. Clearly this is not an unfamiliar problem in the industry. As I say, I'm willing to go with the opinions of experts. It does sound like they have sufficient motivation to not euthanize if they can help it.

Some changes, perhaps, but I don't agree with those. Not less cars, not re-organizing our cities for mass transit, not junking the family road-trip vacation, not buying less junk for our homes, not even dumping the SUVs. It simply is not necessary -- that's about changing "disgusting" life styles, not solving Earth's problems. There is nothing wrong with the American way of life ASIDE from the fact that it is likely causing global warming. That's a challenge, not a condemnation. I believe we CAN solve this with technology. I believe we can eliminate emissions and preserve the current American way of life -- the whole nine yards of it. I believe this is what we SHOULD do. I just takes proper guidance and motivation. We have the motivation now, we just need the leadership.

An amusing confluence of arcane terms, which seem appropriate coming from such him. Too bad idiots like this never seem to go back just a wee bit farther and realize they're all semites (well ok, not the persians). He has a point, though, and while it is necessary to allow Iraq to ally with Iran at the moment, over the long term that's going to be a source of concern. Tehran is not going to be satisfied with a coalition government -- it wants a second Shi'a state. We'll need to keep a close eye on that.

It's really hard to imagine death being a better option than life with a crippling affliction, but perhaps that's because we're used to humans not having that problem -- we have all sorts of options. But I think if veteranarians and other objective observers feel it's best to go that route, then I can only trust their judgement. I just don't know enough about it. (Gee, skepticism about a subject I can't comprehend all the variables on. I can't imagine where else I might apply THAT reasoning!)

Hehe, whatever you say man.

Well it's your vote, fair enough. I do think it's interesting how many people I've talked to around town who feel that way, who oppose Obama but have difficulty really pinning down why. It's quite often I hear the "bad vibe" mentioned, or the association with Rev. Wright, or his popularity. Very different from the kinds of objections leveled against Clinton or McCain. Those tend to be VERY specific.

Yeah the tax suspension thing just fails on so many levels. What are we paying, 18 cents a gallon on federal? Out of four bucks? Like I said in the Horse Race thread, she just can't seem to buy a break these days. Even when she panders it doesn't work, which says a LOT about someone who works in an "industry" in which pandering is the only tactic universally guaranteed to bring success. I don't think we should subsidize current hybrids. I think we should subsidize the new generation of electric-only-capable hybrids and other vehicles that use combinations of approaches that include pure electrical situational modes. Some of these cars have the ability to run for WEEKS on a tank of gas while commuting 60-80 miles per day (since it isn't using gas there at all), while still allowing for a fairly large, safe vehicle that can go out of town on weekends and fill-up on regular unleaded. These cars preserve the American dream of vehicular independence, which in my opinion is something to celebrate.

Gas prices are already having that effect, with sales of big SUVs and trucks down 25-40% almost across the board, and small, fuel-efficient cars up about the same amount. But I think there is a role for government leadership, particularly in the area of fuel efficiency standards (the recent change to how it was measured was a good step, for example), but also regulating air quality in the output, because while there's a built-in incentive to buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle, there's not one to buy a less pollutive one, and we only get the side benefit of the fact that they mostly coincide. I agree with iNow -- it's going to be far easier to modify the cars then to change the lifestyle. The single most embarassing statistic of American consumption is the lack of change in MPG minimums in the past FOUR administrations. More efficient cars are also less pollutive cars, and you kill two birds with one stone (or at least severely wound it). It does matter, ecoli -- had we raised those limits earlier we probably wouldn't be in a recession right now (because people wouldn't be hurting as much from the higher price of gas). When you look at the difference in cost of operating a pure-electric vehicle running off grid energy, and the fact that 75% or more of that emission is vehicular, it really makes electric look like a prime solution, even if it's coal-powered. Put another way, if you replace gas with electricity and just slap a few sulfur controls you can almost solve the problem even without eliminating the coal plants. And I've heard (I think it was in a recent Nova or Frontline) that millions of cars could be recharged overnight on CURRENT production capacity because of lower energy use at night. That's the thing -- it doesn't take a radical overhaul of society. Just a few changes and a little effort, really.

Oof. You guys are too much.

As you may have heard, the Kentucky Derby ended in tragedy yesterday when the second-place horse, a female named Eight Belles, possibly overburdened by an extremly fast pace set by a male who won by over 4 lengths, collapsed on two broken ankles and was immediately euthanized. Animal rights activists promptly leapt on the issue, bringing up the usual litany of concerns (many of which are valid, IMO), and pressed the current presidential candidates to speak out on the issue. At which point somebody remembered that two days earlier Hillary Clinton, in one of those standard publicity moves on the campaign trail, had stated that she was going to place a bet on Eight Belles. I tell you what, I almost feel sorry for Mrs. Clinton sometimes. She's won the last, what, eight primaries, and yet she just can't seem to catch a break. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/peta-writes-to.html

If we're already dead then I guess we have nothing to worry about. Yes, you are Hollywoodizing life. Concern is a good thing, panic not so much. You're ignoring a lot of success and prosperity and focusing on a relatively small set of problems that is (not always, but more often than ever before) growing smaller. More people have been uplifted from poverty to the middle class in China in the past ten years than exist in the entire United States of America, a fact which might seem unique and unrepeatable if it wasn't for the fact that the exact same thing happened in India. More attention is focused on problem areas and hot spots than ever before, and if we screw some of them up from time to time (like Iraq), people are inflamed to a passion never seen before -- good luck repeating THAT mistake. (But yes, repeats are possible, so as I said, concern is a good thing.) Also, a larger, more prosperous society is one that can afford to waste more time. This is not a new thing, it's a pattern that has been repeated for at least ten thousand years, all the way back to the first time a cave-man family discovered flint and realized it could afford to keep feeding its unproductive elders. Enhancing personal freedoms has simply accelerated the pace.