In response to (e:libertad,50) This started as a comment, but it is something I've been wanting to write about for a while, so I'll post it here.
"A patriotic company isn't just concerned with the bottom line, but for the environment in which it operates, the welfare of its employees and the image they are portraying of their country." Hell yea to that Brother!
We have been fooled, in so many ways, by those who make a profit. They have convinced us that the most profitable course of action is the most enjoyable.
Paying less, has become more valuable than walking to the corner store, interacting with your neighbors and being part of your community.
There is no community at Wal-Mart, just miserable underpaid staff and impatient irritable customers. Is that Life? Does it mean that society is doing well if we have more faceless warehouses selling us cheap crap? Paying $3.99 instead of $4.99 for a garbage can is supposed to make my life complete?!
Instead how about, running a small business doing what I love to do, a hardware store, clothing store, a bike shop, shoe store, camping store etc... That's life, waking up each morning and doing something I enjoy.
Instead we are convinced that if we can buy more things, then our life will be fulfilled. What we own determines how happy we are, not how we live. What a bunch of crap.
Personally I'm careful of where I spend my money, I will pay that extra dollar at a local business to get a plunger for my bathroom, instead of looking for the cheapest price. Because local businesses make my community a better place, they are more enjoyable to visit, and I feel like I am giving the owner a gift by helping them to live peacefully. The paradigm in this country has got to shift.
Dcoffee's Journal
My Podcast Link
06/02/2006 13:16 #21730
Proffit and American lifestyleCategory: society
05/18/2006 22:02 #21729
You are being Spied uponCategory: politics
Yea, it seems more and more, that Fascism and Neo-Conservatism are one in the same. if you haven't read the recent Beast article "top ten signs of an impending police state" 
you definitely should. it's a quick laundry list of the atrocities being committed against us by our imperial president. I'm sorry, but this stuff is seriously getting out of hand.
Now the whitehouse is tapping journalists phones the reason, so they can find out who is leaking information to the press. You know like Abu Graib, our secret prisons in Romania and other un-american atrocities committed by the Bush administration. The goal apparently is to stop the american people from finding out any damaging info about the Bush administration.
And PS, they're tapping your phones too . actually if you want to be technical, they aren't actually listening to your phone calls, they are simply recording every number you dial. So they know everyone you call. the daily show explains .
And if that wasn't bad enough, they're spying on the Internet. The following quote is from a key witness in the lawsuit against AT&T saying it was against the law for the them to comply with the NSA spy program. Hello Totalitarianism!
"In 2003 AT&T built "secret rooms" hidden deep in the bowels of its central offices in various cities, housing computer gear for a government spy operation which taps into the company's popular WorldNet service and the entire internet. These installations enable the government to look at every individual message on the internet and analyze exactly what people are doing. Documents showing the hardwire installation in San Francisco suggest that there are similar locations being installed in numerous other cities."
More of his story here
This all clearly has little to do with terrorism, and it has everything to do with detecting ANYONE who disagrees with the policies of the executive branch. Watergate was nothing compared to this.
the "Legitimate power of the executive" as dick Cheney calls it, is just a polite way of saying, the imperial president.
you definitely should. it's a quick laundry list of the atrocities being committed against us by our imperial president. I'm sorry, but this stuff is seriously getting out of hand.Now the whitehouse is tapping journalists phones
the reason, so they can find out who is leaking information to the press. You know like Abu Graib, our secret prisons in Romania and other un-american atrocities committed by the Bush administration. The goal apparently is to stop the american people from finding out any damaging info about the Bush administration. And PS, they're tapping your phones too
. actually if you want to be technical, they aren't actually listening to your phone calls, they are simply recording every number you dial. So they know everyone you call. the daily show explains . And if that wasn't bad enough, they're spying on the Internet. The following quote is from a key witness in the lawsuit against AT&T saying it was against the law for the them to comply with the NSA spy program. Hello Totalitarianism!
"In 2003 AT&T built "secret rooms" hidden deep in the bowels of its central offices in various cities, housing computer gear for a government spy operation which taps into the company's popular WorldNet service and the entire internet. These installations enable the government to look at every individual message on the internet and analyze exactly what people are doing. Documents showing the hardwire installation in San Francisco suggest that there are similar locations being installed in numerous other cities."
More of his story here
This all clearly has little to do with terrorism, and it has everything to do with detecting ANYONE who disagrees with the policies of the executive branch. Watergate was nothing compared to this.
the "Legitimate power of the executive" as dick Cheney calls it, is just a polite way of saying, the imperial president.
libertad - 05/30/06 09:59
(e:jason),
Thanks for your response. DCoffee hasn't written in a while so I just saw your comment. I decided to ask The Beast myself what they consider themselves. Here is my email to the editors. If they write me I'll post it in my journal.
----------------------------------------------
Here is a question for The Beast. Does The Beast
consider itself a liberal publication? If not, where
does The Beast fall on the political spectrum?
Thanks,
Libertad
(e:jason),
Thanks for your response. DCoffee hasn't written in a while so I just saw your comment. I decided to ask The Beast myself what they consider themselves. Here is my email to the editors. If they write me I'll post it in my journal.
----------------------------------------------
Here is a question for The Beast. Does The Beast
consider itself a liberal publication? If not, where
does The Beast fall on the political spectrum?
Thanks,
Libertad
jason - 05/19/06 16:42
I can't speak for Joshy, but I believe it is a liberal publication. Now, I don't use the term as a perjorative, but merely a term to describe their politics in a most general way. They admit as much in their columns now and then, and anyway I think they are comfortable enough in their own skin to not be offended.
Although I consider most of its contents only bird cage worthy, I do have a serious soft spot for their brand of humor. I love how they make fun of Tom Cruise. I thought the Terri Schiavo "America's Favorite Vegetable" cover was way over the top extreme, same for the Reagan cover, but every one of us has an evil bastard inside that laughs at these things.
It's kind of funny when you think about how similar The Beast is to a program like Rush's, or probably more appropriately Rusty Humphries. In Rush's terms, they employ absurdity to demonstrate what they believe to be absurd. It's entertaining, it works, and it also gives you little nuggets of fact to think about. Yes, even Rush's show contains interesting little tidbits of fact to chew on.
I'm not so secretly wondering if any one of you take in any right-leaning media at all. I have Thom Hartmann set up on my iTunes podcast list, and I think he's great. I don't think you can take in a story from only one political perspective, and truly believe that you are being responsible and informed. For example, someone said the other day on the radio that the war on terror is bullshit - Why? - because if we were really so serious about stopping terror we would be policing the border better. It made me think about the war on terror from a new perspective. Very valuable.
Of course the Beast's article is mostly junk, but there are little nuggets of fact inside to consider - like the jails being built. Also the fact that Bush never uses his veto - very interesting.
I don't think people should take that particular publication very seriously, on both ends, in terms of believing everything they say, and in terms of getting so pissed off when something is said that upsets you.
I learned that lesson very recently.
I can't speak for Joshy, but I believe it is a liberal publication. Now, I don't use the term as a perjorative, but merely a term to describe their politics in a most general way. They admit as much in their columns now and then, and anyway I think they are comfortable enough in their own skin to not be offended.
Although I consider most of its contents only bird cage worthy, I do have a serious soft spot for their brand of humor. I love how they make fun of Tom Cruise. I thought the Terri Schiavo "America's Favorite Vegetable" cover was way over the top extreme, same for the Reagan cover, but every one of us has an evil bastard inside that laughs at these things.
It's kind of funny when you think about how similar The Beast is to a program like Rush's, or probably more appropriately Rusty Humphries. In Rush's terms, they employ absurdity to demonstrate what they believe to be absurd. It's entertaining, it works, and it also gives you little nuggets of fact to think about. Yes, even Rush's show contains interesting little tidbits of fact to chew on.
I'm not so secretly wondering if any one of you take in any right-leaning media at all. I have Thom Hartmann set up on my iTunes podcast list, and I think he's great. I don't think you can take in a story from only one political perspective, and truly believe that you are being responsible and informed. For example, someone said the other day on the radio that the war on terror is bullshit - Why? - because if we were really so serious about stopping terror we would be policing the border better. It made me think about the war on terror from a new perspective. Very valuable.
Of course the Beast's article is mostly junk, but there are little nuggets of fact inside to consider - like the jails being built. Also the fact that Bush never uses his veto - very interesting.
I don't think people should take that particular publication very seriously, on both ends, in terms of believing everything they say, and in terms of getting so pissed off when something is said that upsets you.
I learned that lesson very recently.
libertad - 05/19/06 13:34
I love the Beast, particularly their covers. My favorites were when Reagan died and the head line was "Reagan accepts key position at the gates of hell" and this one :::link:::
Their disturbing and twisted humor often mimics the disturbed nature of our traditional media and our government.
(e:joshua), do you really think the Beast is liberal?
I love the Beast, particularly their covers. My favorites were when Reagan died and the head line was "Reagan accepts key position at the gates of hell" and this one :::link:::
Their disturbing and twisted humor often mimics the disturbed nature of our traditional media and our government.
(e:joshua), do you really think the Beast is liberal?
dcoffee - 05/19/06 13:17
of course they are, but that doesn't mean they can't find good info or write well. :)
you should read the bullited headlines at least, and their notes on how Bush has never vetoed a bill, but has issued twice as many signing statements as ALL previous presidents combined. Saying things like "Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law "as advisory in nature." hmm, not a veto?
of course they are, but that doesn't mean they can't find good info or write well. :)
you should read the bullited headlines at least, and their notes on how Bush has never vetoed a bill, but has issued twice as many signing statements as ALL previous presidents combined. Saying things like "Only the president, as commander in chief, can place restrictions on the use of US armed forces, so the executive branch will construe the law "as advisory in nature." hmm, not a veto?
joshua - 05/19/06 12:49
Dude - you do know that the guys at The Beast are unhinged lunatics, right?
If you want a reasonable liberal who knows what he is talking about, check out Thom Hartmann.
Dude - you do know that the guys at The Beast are unhinged lunatics, right?
If you want a reasonable liberal who knows what he is talking about, check out Thom Hartmann.
05/09/2006 21:53 #21728
New Apartment!Category: life
I'm leaving North Street and heading a few blocks up Richmond into a much nicer apartment. the one we're in now is dirty, small, and a haven for too many crackheads. Molly and I are moving into a much bigger and nicer place now.
A picture of the new apartment on Richmond.
It has a porch in the back, off-street parking, all utilities and appliances included, 2 bedrooms, a big living-room, a real kitchen with counters and storage, and it's in a nice building, not like this one.
Very excited, I can't wait to have a porch and more space, it's going to be a good summer.
__________________________________________________
I'd also like to mention one of my new favorite beverages,
Wild Irish Rose. one bottle costs a whopping $3.50, and after about half of it you start slurring your words. It's a red wine with 18% alcohol, but it's not bitter or cough syrupy, it's like a light sherry, easy to drink. Great for bonfire parties, camping, and barbecues. it's my fun summer wine.
At this point in the bottle Molly and I were too drunk to stay inside, so we went for a drunken stroll around the neighborhood. it was too fun, we aren't lightweights, this is just good wine.
A picture of the new apartment on Richmond.
It has a porch in the back, off-street parking, all utilities and appliances included, 2 bedrooms, a big living-room, a real kitchen with counters and storage, and it's in a nice building, not like this one.
Very excited, I can't wait to have a porch and more space, it's going to be a good summer.
__________________________________________________
I'd also like to mention one of my new favorite beverages,
Wild Irish Rose. one bottle costs a whopping $3.50, and after about half of it you start slurring your words. It's a red wine with 18% alcohol, but it's not bitter or cough syrupy, it's like a light sherry, easy to drink. Great for bonfire parties, camping, and barbecues. it's my fun summer wine.
At this point in the bottle Molly and I were too drunk to stay inside, so we went for a drunken stroll around the neighborhood. it was too fun, we aren't lightweights, this is just good wine.
metalpeter - 05/10/06 18:01
That is one of the Many houses I've walked by and thought it must be a great place to live. It looks huge but from the outside you can't tell how it is divided, in any event it looks like a great place.
That is one of the Many houses I've walked by and thought it must be a great place to live. It looks huge but from the outside you can't tell how it is divided, in any event it looks like a great place.
dcoffee - 05/10/06 08:34
Hmm, havn't tried Thunderbird wine, it looks kind of scary. I didn't wake up with a headache after drinking Wild Irish Rose, which is also produced in the fingerlakes making me feel a little better. if I was a wino, this would be my drink.
Havn't tried "napa valley's bien nacido's 2004 qupe" but I'll have to give it a try. I should write a post on wines, I've tried a lot of different kinds since wine is what I drink most of the time. hmmm
Hmm, havn't tried Thunderbird wine, it looks kind of scary. I didn't wake up with a headache after drinking Wild Irish Rose, which is also produced in the fingerlakes making me feel a little better. if I was a wino, this would be my drink.
Havn't tried "napa valley's bien nacido's 2004 qupe" but I'll have to give it a try. I should write a post on wines, I've tried a lot of different kinds since wine is what I drink most of the time. hmmm
mrdt - 05/09/06 22:58
be prepare for a headache... for a summer white try napa valley's bien nacido's 2004 qupe. at about $12 it will please the pallet and impress friends
be prepare for a headache... for a summer white try napa valley's bien nacido's 2004 qupe. at about $12 it will please the pallet and impress friends
libertad - 05/09/06 22:21
hmmm, I'll have to give that wine a try. The apt. looks beautiful.
hmmm, I'll have to give that wine a try. The apt. looks beautiful.
jenks - 05/09/06 21:59
is it as good as thunderbird "wine"??
is it as good as thunderbird "wine"??
04/30/2006 19:49 #21727
More on Gas and oilCategory: politics
Thoughts,
ok supply and demand right, if America raised the fuel efficiency standards on vehicles we would all save money. if there was some incentive for car companies to make more fuel efficient cars, or if there was an incentive for people to buy more efficient cars, the price of gas would go down and everyone would save money. do you think that this is a good use for government?
We need to demand that car companies make more fuel efficient cars. The fuel efficiency standards haven't been raised since the 1970s, raise them 2-6 mpg and we'll be saving a lot of oil and paying a shit load less for gas as a nation. We will be using less gas because we have switched to more fuel efficient cars.
Thoughts from you guys?
ok supply and demand right, if America raised the fuel efficiency standards on vehicles we would all save money. if there was some incentive for car companies to make more fuel efficient cars, or if there was an incentive for people to buy more efficient cars, the price of gas would go down and everyone would save money. do you think that this is a good use for government?
We need to demand that car companies make more fuel efficient cars. The fuel efficiency standards haven't been raised since the 1970s, raise them 2-6 mpg and we'll be saving a lot of oil and paying a shit load less for gas as a nation. We will be using less gas because we have switched to more fuel efficient cars.
Thoughts from you guys?
jenks - 05/01/06 00:33
I must say that is the one thing I'm unhappy about with my car (a mini). I'm SUPPOSED to get this fantastic 30+mpg, but I'm LUCKY if I break 20. 20!! That's pathetic!
I must say that is the one thing I'm unhappy about with my car (a mini). I'm SUPPOSED to get this fantastic 30+mpg, but I'm LUCKY if I break 20. 20!! That's pathetic!
zobar - 04/30/06 20:23
Yeah, I got thoughts:
The best economic incentive for consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars is kind of self-evident. Many people don't understand or don't care that inefficient cars are more expensive: fuck 'em.
The best economic incentive for manufacturers to develop more fuel-efficient cars is no less obvious: people would buy them. Many automobile manufacturers don't understand why nobody is buying a 26mpg subcompact :::link::: : fuck them, too. :::link:::
- Z
Yeah, I got thoughts:
The best economic incentive for consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars is kind of self-evident. Many people don't understand or don't care that inefficient cars are more expensive: fuck 'em.
The best economic incentive for manufacturers to develop more fuel-efficient cars is no less obvious: people would buy them. Many automobile manufacturers don't understand why nobody is buying a 26mpg subcompact :::link::: : fuck them, too. :::link:::
- Z
04/29/2006 02:07 #21726
Gas PricesCategory: politics
I'm tired of the short term political 'solutions' to the increase in gas prices. Artificially lowering the price of gas by giving a gas tax holiday, or rebate checks, and all the other bs will just screw up supply and demand, and ignore the real issue of declining fossil fuel supplies. I'm also pissed that we are giving tax breaks to the richest company in the world Exxon-Mobil, which has made record profits the past 6 years straight, but they still get breaks from the government.
La Times sums it up well
Oil and politics don't mix
April 28, 2006
NO DOUBT PRESIDENT BUSH hoped his Tuesday speech to the Renewable Fuels Assn. would mollify grumpy Americans tired of high gas prices. But by proposing dubious policies that - at best - might save a few cents per gallon in the short term, while doing little to address the underlying problem of U.S. oil dependence, the president did something worse than nothing: He ushered in a silly season for wrongheaded, economically ignorant proposals by headline-chasing politicians.
Just a few short months ago, Bush was paying lip service to addressing the country's oil "addiction." On Tuesday, he offered us gas junkies a cheaper, faster fix by deferring new deposits to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And now, after a week's worth of 1970s-style economic rhetoric, the prospects for successful detox seem all the more distant as public officials scramble to follow the president's lead in dreaming up their own "solutions" to the oil market. Like most insta-legislation rushed to the floor in the wake of controversial news - think Terri Schiavo - the gas-price proposals should be ignored and scorned.
Take the calls to root out alleged misdeeds by oil companies. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) wants to look at Big Oil's tax returns "to make sure [they] aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man." Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) proposed breaking up the industry altogether. And state officials want their piece of the witch hunt too. On Tuesday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he had sicced the California Energy Commission on the case. In Arkansas, a candidate for attorney general also pledged to investigate oil companies, even though that state's anti-gouging law only applies during emergencies.
Everyone likes to see a villain squirm. The problem is, the Federal Trade Commission already has been sniffing out price gouging in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and has yet to uncover one instance of illegal behavior. Election-year investigations into marketwide collusion and gouging are window dressing, nothing more.
Worse are renewed calls to authorize drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to relax environmental restrictions on polluting refineries. A still-lower circle of populist hell is reserved for embarrassingly baldfaced sops to voters, such as the Senate's $100 taxpayer refund. Or that body's proposal to increase farm energy subsidies by $1.5 billion. Or its push for a 60-day federal gas tax holiday.
All of these proposals would provide scant relief even while encouraging continued fuel overuse. As Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before Congress on Thursday, "Unfortunately, there's nothing, really, that can be done that's going to affect energy prices or gasoline prices in the very short run."
Sensible policy would focus on curbing consumption. Indeed, if politicians were being honest about breaking the addiction, they'd admit that it might make sense to hope that gas prices stay high - which would drive down demand and perhaps spur businesses to get real about alternative fuel technologies and improved auto mileage.
As a Texas governor running for president wisely said in 2000, the "Strategic Reserve should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election."
La Times sums it up well
Oil and politics don't mix
April 28, 2006
NO DOUBT PRESIDENT BUSH hoped his Tuesday speech to the Renewable Fuels Assn. would mollify grumpy Americans tired of high gas prices. But by proposing dubious policies that - at best - might save a few cents per gallon in the short term, while doing little to address the underlying problem of U.S. oil dependence, the president did something worse than nothing: He ushered in a silly season for wrongheaded, economically ignorant proposals by headline-chasing politicians.
Just a few short months ago, Bush was paying lip service to addressing the country's oil "addiction." On Tuesday, he offered us gas junkies a cheaper, faster fix by deferring new deposits to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. And now, after a week's worth of 1970s-style economic rhetoric, the prospects for successful detox seem all the more distant as public officials scramble to follow the president's lead in dreaming up their own "solutions" to the oil market. Like most insta-legislation rushed to the floor in the wake of controversial news - think Terri Schiavo - the gas-price proposals should be ignored and scorned.
Take the calls to root out alleged misdeeds by oil companies. Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) wants to look at Big Oil's tax returns "to make sure [they] aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man." Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) proposed breaking up the industry altogether. And state officials want their piece of the witch hunt too. On Tuesday, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced that he had sicced the California Energy Commission on the case. In Arkansas, a candidate for attorney general also pledged to investigate oil companies, even though that state's anti-gouging law only applies during emergencies.
Everyone likes to see a villain squirm. The problem is, the Federal Trade Commission already has been sniffing out price gouging in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and has yet to uncover one instance of illegal behavior. Election-year investigations into marketwide collusion and gouging are window dressing, nothing more.
Worse are renewed calls to authorize drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and to relax environmental restrictions on polluting refineries. A still-lower circle of populist hell is reserved for embarrassingly baldfaced sops to voters, such as the Senate's $100 taxpayer refund. Or that body's proposal to increase farm energy subsidies by $1.5 billion. Or its push for a 60-day federal gas tax holiday.
All of these proposals would provide scant relief even while encouraging continued fuel overuse. As Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke testified before Congress on Thursday, "Unfortunately, there's nothing, really, that can be done that's going to affect energy prices or gasoline prices in the very short run."
Sensible policy would focus on curbing consumption. Indeed, if politicians were being honest about breaking the addiction, they'd admit that it might make sense to hope that gas prices stay high - which would drive down demand and perhaps spur businesses to get real about alternative fuel technologies and improved auto mileage.
As a Texas governor running for president wisely said in 2000, the "Strategic Reserve should not be used as an attempt to drive down oil prices right before an election."
jason - 04/29/06 19:20
Oh, the second largest thing that stuck out for me in the article was the assertion by the author (somehow, an energy policy expert) that we should focus our policy on consuming less. DUH NO SHIT. I'm surprised, no, actually I'm not surprised that people don't think of this.
If demand goes down, prices go down with it. Although we still won't be able to do one single damn thing about the exploding parts of the world (in terms of oil usage heh) which also increases global demand. I don't think there is anything we can do to bring us back to the good ole days of $1.25 gasoline, but we can help ourselves.
Oh, the second largest thing that stuck out for me in the article was the assertion by the author (somehow, an energy policy expert) that we should focus our policy on consuming less. DUH NO SHIT. I'm surprised, no, actually I'm not surprised that people don't think of this.
If demand goes down, prices go down with it. Although we still won't be able to do one single damn thing about the exploding parts of the world (in terms of oil usage heh) which also increases global demand. I don't think there is anything we can do to bring us back to the good ole days of $1.25 gasoline, but we can help ourselves.
jason - 04/29/06 19:05
I'd hate to burst your bubble, gentlemen, but people who can afford an SUV aren't pissing and moaning about how much it costs to fuel it. Seems to be the econobox drivers who do more than enough of it for everyone (including me). =D
And, sorry, I can't sign on with a mentality that forces someone else to live the way I want them to live. I'm sure in utopialand we would all drive scooters powered by peanut oil. If someone wants to drive an SUV, a Vespa, a bicycle, whatever. The only real way it could change without an all-out riot from the majority of America is to have this change be market driven. High gas prices will force change, but until it makes financial sense for companies to do it, and for consumers to consume it, Americans won't sign on.
We shouldn't pay a cent of tax on fuel anyway. Sixty plus cents per gallon of tax in our state? I thought consumption taxes hurt the poor the most, and that's the rationale for not increasing the sales tax by one percent? This is something permanent, that we all should be able to agree on.
I do agree in principle that we need change, but the answer isn't to Gestapo the rest of America into living the way we want them to live. I also agree that these band aid solutions we are being offered aren't good enough. I think the only real political solution is to get real about how many dollars we invest in new technology. We have to make a significant investment, not a paltry few million.
I had a disagreement with my brother about the subsidization. I didn't like it, he said it was the only way these companies would invest in new tech. No business will act in a way that would damage the bottom line. Those that do end up out of business (unless they are the government). If it ain't profitable, they won't do it, so although if I were an energy exec I would be forward-thinking, and start investing my own profits into something new, I'm not an energy exec. It is horrible that we have to do it, but otherwise they won't do the things they should be doing anyway, if they wanted to have a leg up on the competition in the future.
I'd hate to burst your bubble, gentlemen, but people who can afford an SUV aren't pissing and moaning about how much it costs to fuel it. Seems to be the econobox drivers who do more than enough of it for everyone (including me). =D
And, sorry, I can't sign on with a mentality that forces someone else to live the way I want them to live. I'm sure in utopialand we would all drive scooters powered by peanut oil. If someone wants to drive an SUV, a Vespa, a bicycle, whatever. The only real way it could change without an all-out riot from the majority of America is to have this change be market driven. High gas prices will force change, but until it makes financial sense for companies to do it, and for consumers to consume it, Americans won't sign on.
We shouldn't pay a cent of tax on fuel anyway. Sixty plus cents per gallon of tax in our state? I thought consumption taxes hurt the poor the most, and that's the rationale for not increasing the sales tax by one percent? This is something permanent, that we all should be able to agree on.
I do agree in principle that we need change, but the answer isn't to Gestapo the rest of America into living the way we want them to live. I also agree that these band aid solutions we are being offered aren't good enough. I think the only real political solution is to get real about how many dollars we invest in new technology. We have to make a significant investment, not a paltry few million.
I had a disagreement with my brother about the subsidization. I didn't like it, he said it was the only way these companies would invest in new tech. No business will act in a way that would damage the bottom line. Those that do end up out of business (unless they are the government). If it ain't profitable, they won't do it, so although if I were an energy exec I would be forward-thinking, and start investing my own profits into something new, I'm not an energy exec. It is horrible that we have to do it, but otherwise they won't do the things they should be doing anyway, if they wanted to have a leg up on the competition in the future.
libertad - 04/29/06 13:25
I didn't know what a Scion XB was so i looked it up. Interesting. Not sure how I feel about the boxy look yet, but sounds great for earthyy type soccer moms that want better MPG than an Expedition. Sometimes I think they look like a modern herse or something DR. Claw from Inspector Gadget would drive.
I didn't know what a Scion XB was so i looked it up. Interesting. Not sure how I feel about the boxy look yet, but sounds great for earthyy type soccer moms that want better MPG than an Expedition. Sometimes I think they look like a modern herse or something DR. Claw from Inspector Gadget would drive.
dcoffee - 04/29/06 12:34
I agree, I'm happy that gas prices are going up, it makes people realize that this lifestyle of huge SUVs and Fosil fuel based energy is unsustainable. I drive a Carola and it costs me $50 to fill my tank, but I don't care, I'll deal with the inconvenience if it mekes people realize how foolish we have been. and as soon as the come out with a hybrid Scion Xb it's mine!
I agree, I'm happy that gas prices are going up, it makes people realize that this lifestyle of huge SUVs and Fosil fuel based energy is unsustainable. I drive a Carola and it costs me $50 to fill my tank, but I don't care, I'll deal with the inconvenience if it mekes people realize how foolish we have been. and as soon as the come out with a hybrid Scion Xb it's mine!
libertad - 04/29/06 10:18
Paul, I couldn't agree with you more. At least we can sit back and gloat as people start crying when they don't have enough money to fill up there Hummers! It's kind of sad that money is the only thing that seems to drive policy around here. If anyone here does have sympathy for the Hummer drivers, they should get their hair cut at EnVus on Elmwood, cause I'm sure the woman who owns it really could use some help filling up her Hummer.
Paul, I couldn't agree with you more. At least we can sit back and gloat as people start crying when they don't have enough money to fill up there Hummers! It's kind of sad that money is the only thing that seems to drive policy around here. If anyone here does have sympathy for the Hummer drivers, they should get their hair cut at EnVus on Elmwood, cause I'm sure the woman who owns it really could use some help filling up her Hummer.
mrdt - 04/29/06 02:17
just a thought
- in Brazil gasoline is $6 a gallon and I hear in Europe it's not much less
just a thought
- in Brazil gasoline is $6 a gallon and I hear in Europe it's not much less
paul - 04/29/06 02:10
I agree it is outrageous but at the same time mabye the highest gas prices will make people switch to something better, like legs.
I agree it is outrageous but at the same time mabye the highest gas prices will make people switch to something better, like legs.
jenks, thats so funny! This has all turned into quite a dialogue eh? Thats good.
Speaking of Local stores that is really what downtown needs. It is great that there are lofts and all kinds of apartments and people moving downtown. But What would really help the city is if those people had local places to shop for clothes and food and other needed items. It would be nice to see that happen soon.
when i first moved here i was looking for a hardware store- and ended up at the allen street hardware store cafe. oops! haha.
Great points everyone.
I tend to walk to get most of what I need, that's why I like living in the city near a commercial district, not that I mind driving, but it's just a more enjoyable lifestyle. I shop at a 24 hour Walgreen’s, Latinas, Ambrosia, and Cafe 59. I have to drive to Aldi to get most of my food. but I am definitely boycotting Wal-Mart.
I'd like to see more local businesses because they seem to enrich my environment more than big all inclusive shopping centers that are surrounded by fields of asphalt. it's just my preference, but I really hate the wide Sprawlways, long traffic lights, and huge parking lots where the infrastructure is Only set up for cars, not people. so I shop locally.
and FYI, there are some good hardware stores and such at Grant and Ferry if you don't feel like venturing to the burbs for stuff.
I admit Target is a great store Movies, DVDs, CD's, clothes, house stuff, food and you get my point they sell a lot of stuff. It is nice to try to go to local places but often you really can't. In my hood I know of no local electronic stores, drug stores, sneaker place etc. I try to get my CD's at New World when I can. But quality and ones personal taste is verry important also. Some people like cafe' Aroma, some like spot, some prefer starbucks, or even solid grounds (why did i get that stair like no body has ever heard of it). If one has a choice of big corporate or local it is better to go with local. But I don't think I have ever seen a mall with all local stores. Convience is a big factor when buy things wich is why places like target are verry sucessfull.
First off I want to go on record as saying of course I support local business and would rather have them get my dollar than a big mega-chain.
That said, I will admit that I love Target. It's not so much about the price, as the convenience. If I need fish food, socks, paper towels, a plunger, and milk- I could go to five stores, or I could go to Target/Walmart.
Sure in a perfect world I'd drive my emissions-free vehicle, or better yet ride my bike/walk, to five mom and pop stores and stop and chat and ask about the kids and get warm fuzzies... But that's just not always feasible. Don't get me wrong, I wish it were, but it just isn't always.
(e:leetee) and I try to shop at small, local, mom and pop stores as much as possible even if it means paying a bit more.
I have been trying to be more aware of where I spend my money. hey its not that hard when you dont have any! We are lucky in Buffalo to have some great local stores. Some of my favorites are (e:petsupplies), Chef's Deli, Guercio's and Talking Leaves.