I was sitting here drinking my coffee, contemplating what albums I wanted to buy as I listened to the Decemberists. As the song ended, I could hear a truck backing up in the street outside and the warning sounds (beep.... beep.... beep....) matched the pitch and the mood of the song perfectly, which I have to say was a very surreal moment. The song was "Shankill Butchers" - if you know anything about "the troubles" in Northern Ireland you may be familiar with the subject material. Having the end of a song about murderers be somewhat interrupted by a noise reminiscent of a heart beat emanating from a monitoring machine in a hospital was strange. Maybe it was that same effect as that character in The Tell Tale Heart... not that I'm harboring any guilt or anything. It was one of those moments you have when you are alone that make you stop, gaze out of the windows and think for a moment.
(e:jason) left for the Adirondacks so it has afforded me some time alone to get some things done. Last night I went back to Lagniappes for jambalaya and my luck was spectacular. Just as I walked in, the jambalaya was just coming out of the oven! The chef said to me, "you're not going to find fresher jambalaya anywhere around here!" Knowing that he was not telling a lie, I stood in silent anticipation. It was the shortest wait I've ever had there, which was merely a bonus in my mind, but nice nonetheless as I walked back to Mariner St. thinking I was the cat the got the cream.
After enjoying my favorite comfort food I watched No Country For Old Men.... well at least the first half of it. It was as if my eyelids were anchored down by cement blocks last night. I very much want to see the movie since it won multiple Academy Awards and is based faithfully on a novel written by Cormac McCarthy, an author that I'm reading currently (The Road, and later Blood Meridian). If you are on Facebook and you are my friend, you can check out my bookshelf. I try to keep it current because it is one of the few things I keep track of regularly. Facebook's captivating allure is lost on me - for me there really isn't much utility to the site.
Every month when the new copy of Spin arrives I sift for an hour and read it from front to back. The back end of the magazine is where you will find all of the music reviews and it is this section that I read with the most care. I read music reviews with a grain of salt, or in the case of Pitchfork, with an entire truckload of salt. When half of the music reviews get 3.5 stars only one of the following can be true. Either there really were a host of average albums for this month's issue, or the reviewers just don't have the courage to call a bad album a bad album. I also notice a very provincial attitude - I'm tired of reading about Brooklyn bands, half of which are absolute shit. In any case, there are some notables this month - Stereolab, Sigur Ros, Black Kids, The Hold Steady and a few others that I "question marked." Subscribing to Spin is one of the better media choices I've made in a while. I get a hell of a lot out of the magazine each month and occasionally they do have some brilliant spurts of rock journalism.
Joshua's Journal
My Podcast Link
08/02/2008 09:28 #45225
Saturday Morning07/24/2008 10:22 #45120
Endless eBay FrustrationI have shit luck on eBay.
I've posted about this before - this is where (e:paul) would find the old link and leave it here but I'm not that industrious.
For years now, I've been looking for a very specific copy of Jack Kerouac's On The Road. I've owned and read several copies previously and I suppose you could say that to me this is more than just a book. My interest in Beat literature has evolved from voracious reading to voracious reading with an additional wish to collect paperback copies with original cover art. Some examples -
I just bought The Subterraneans from another guy on eBay a month ago. Now I wish I would have waited... or maybe I'll buy this one and donate my copy to a local library or a friend.
This is a copy currently up for bid. THIS IS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR. Cruelly (at least in my view) I just missed out on a copy like this a half-hour ago, for a third of the price. The guy who won? The guy who sold me The Subterraneans! Still though, this is a slightly nicer copy and is three years older (fourth edition, 1960). Even with the picture a bit fuzzy it is hard to believe that this is a 48-year old paperback. Is it worth up to $30? Had I not missed out on bidding I could have gotten the other copy for $11, including shipping. That is the frustrating bit - on eBay more often than not auctions get "bidded up" by armies of resellers. These people test maximum bid limits on honest people to bid up their auctions - I lost an auction on a similar copy of On The Road to a guy who got screwed like this to the tune of $64. Buyers with names such as f***e, a***r, t***a, etc. kept ratcheting up the auction to trigger this guy's maximum bid at the last minute. On other occasions I've seen someone flat out bid up on an auction within seconds from $4.50 to $20 - why would somebody increase the price they have to pay for the book? If you ask me, this kind of activity is borderline criminal and at the very least is completely unethical. Really, when the sellers cry about eBay's rules I laugh. Where else can people be readily ripped off and the company facilitating it all has no rules to protect buyers from predatory tactics like I've described?
So now somebody with a similarly anonymous name has bid on this copy I'm watching.... and I wait.
I've posted about this before - this is where (e:paul) would find the old link and leave it here but I'm not that industrious.
For years now, I've been looking for a very specific copy of Jack Kerouac's On The Road. I've owned and read several copies previously and I suppose you could say that to me this is more than just a book. My interest in Beat literature has evolved from voracious reading to voracious reading with an additional wish to collect paperback copies with original cover art. Some examples -
I just bought The Subterraneans from another guy on eBay a month ago. Now I wish I would have waited... or maybe I'll buy this one and donate my copy to a local library or a friend.
This is a copy currently up for bid. THIS IS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR. Cruelly (at least in my view) I just missed out on a copy like this a half-hour ago, for a third of the price. The guy who won? The guy who sold me The Subterraneans! Still though, this is a slightly nicer copy and is three years older (fourth edition, 1960). Even with the picture a bit fuzzy it is hard to believe that this is a 48-year old paperback. Is it worth up to $30? Had I not missed out on bidding I could have gotten the other copy for $11, including shipping. That is the frustrating bit - on eBay more often than not auctions get "bidded up" by armies of resellers. These people test maximum bid limits on honest people to bid up their auctions - I lost an auction on a similar copy of On The Road to a guy who got screwed like this to the tune of $64. Buyers with names such as f***e, a***r, t***a, etc. kept ratcheting up the auction to trigger this guy's maximum bid at the last minute. On other occasions I've seen someone flat out bid up on an auction within seconds from $4.50 to $20 - why would somebody increase the price they have to pay for the book? If you ask me, this kind of activity is borderline criminal and at the very least is completely unethical. Really, when the sellers cry about eBay's rules I laugh. Where else can people be readily ripped off and the company facilitating it all has no rules to protect buyers from predatory tactics like I've described?
So now somebody with a similarly anonymous name has bid on this copy I'm watching.... and I wait.
tinypliny - 07/24/08 11:56
Whoa. $30? Seriously?
I should probably not be encouraging a distinct tendency to packratting, but if you ever travel to Delhi (The Old Walled City, in particular), find the second-hand book market on Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg and Netaji Subash Marg, Daryaganj on a Sunday. You will be in Jack Kerouac heaven. It is a stone's throw away from my hospital/med school. Had I known I would make an acquaintance with a rabid Kerouac packratter in 2008, I would have bought the whole pack - several times over at a price that might blow you away. Rs. 5 for each -> that's like 13 cents each.
If you anticipate travelling across the pond anytime soon, you should wait this out and get it for cheap later. :)
Oh, and I think the names on ebay are purposefully anonymized so people can't target their vitriol at others who have outbid them. You can see what you are anonymized as if you logout and go to the items you have bid on. If you used your real name, you would be j****(your last name's first alphabet) -> atleast that's how mine turns up.
Whoa. $30? Seriously?
I should probably not be encouraging a distinct tendency to packratting, but if you ever travel to Delhi (The Old Walled City, in particular), find the second-hand book market on Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg and Netaji Subash Marg, Daryaganj on a Sunday. You will be in Jack Kerouac heaven. It is a stone's throw away from my hospital/med school. Had I known I would make an acquaintance with a rabid Kerouac packratter in 2008, I would have bought the whole pack - several times over at a price that might blow you away. Rs. 5 for each -> that's like 13 cents each.
If you anticipate travelling across the pond anytime soon, you should wait this out and get it for cheap later. :)
Oh, and I think the names on ebay are purposefully anonymized so people can't target their vitriol at others who have outbid them. You can see what you are anonymized as if you logout and go to the items you have bid on. If you used your real name, you would be j****(your last name's first alphabet) -> atleast that's how mine turns up.
07/30/2008 12:37 #45190
California - Earthquake FodderThe Golden State is truly golden in many ways, but it is a statistical reality that in our lifetimes we will see an earthquake similar to the scale of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. How real is this reality? Take a look for yourself. 
Call me paranoid, but when I was in SF I was very conscious of the unstable earth beneath my feet. Californians seem to ignore the danger and rely greatly on their excellent warning systems, but there are inherent dangers to living in one of the most seismically active places on earth that are ignored at their certain peril. Living in California means that in many ways you have the best of things and the worst of things in America; Californians are quite accepting of that fact and live their lives without much concern for the inevitable. It is an interesting mindset and somewhat unique to this area of the country.
A book I've ranted and raved about, and suggest every single California resident read, is A Crack In The Edge Of The World, by Simon Winchester. The book is a historical study of the San Andreas fault, how settlers approached living through natural disasters, how dramatically such a seismically active area can affect the landscape, and most beautifully he recreates the morning of the "big one" using historical accounts from survivors. Mr. Winchester is an Oxford-trained geologist and an author of many excellent books - his writing style is captivating and engrossing. Why do I bring up the book? Because he studies the historical nonchalance with which Californians choose to approach any risks to living where they do. This mindset, according to Mr. Winchester, originated with the risk-averse settlers that put everything on the line to migrate to the mine fields in the mid-19th century. Also, he mentions something very, very prescient to current events.
Yesterday, southern California was struck with a magnitude 5.4 earthquake, the epicenter of which was a few miles east of downtown Los Angeles. In Winchester's book he mentions in particular that seismologists have undertaken revealing studies about how very seismically active areas often suffer smaller earthquakes before a much larger one. Lo and behold, today an article discusses the subject.
One of the most alarming facts of this situation I have found was from a different article in the SF Chronicle, which was special report regarding the exodus of the middle class in their fair city. SF residents are becoming a dramatically richer demographic as a result of high property values. Many regular folks simply can't afford to live where they work, and the statistics are alarming. The article is a good read in any case, but in particular I found this a very, very scary situation -
In other words, it is certain that a vast percentage of law enforcement and first responders will not be able to access the city during the time of its most vital need when an earthquake strikes. If you live in SF, you better think carefully about that. It seems apparent that if another massive quake hits the Bay Area that San Francisco may very well suffer just as badly, if not worse, than the city did in 1906 despite all of the better construction techniques and warning systems. If many first responders cannot access the city, how will a massive fire like North Beach suffered in 1906 be stopped? How can an orderly evacuation be conducted, if at all? What about triage? I hope their first responder plan is water tight despite what seems to be an alarming weakness. Part of the warning system relies on seismologists monitoring murmurs that indicate an earthquake is coming, but there is no way to predict exactly when an earthquake will strike.
The good news for ol' Frisco is that the area truly due for a big one is southern California. Los Angeles suffered an earthquake in the early 1800's that, based on survivors' accounts, was at least as severe if not more severe than the one that struck in 1906. La La Land is overdue, but in truth the San Andreas Fault could rupture anywhere and the scientists say that enough pressure has built up along the fault line to expect another big one within 30 years.
Call me paranoid, but when I was in SF I was very conscious of the unstable earth beneath my feet. Californians seem to ignore the danger and rely greatly on their excellent warning systems, but there are inherent dangers to living in one of the most seismically active places on earth that are ignored at their certain peril. Living in California means that in many ways you have the best of things and the worst of things in America; Californians are quite accepting of that fact and live their lives without much concern for the inevitable. It is an interesting mindset and somewhat unique to this area of the country.A book I've ranted and raved about, and suggest every single California resident read, is A Crack In The Edge Of The World, by Simon Winchester. The book is a historical study of the San Andreas fault, how settlers approached living through natural disasters, how dramatically such a seismically active area can affect the landscape, and most beautifully he recreates the morning of the "big one" using historical accounts from survivors. Mr. Winchester is an Oxford-trained geologist and an author of many excellent books - his writing style is captivating and engrossing. Why do I bring up the book? Because he studies the historical nonchalance with which Californians choose to approach any risks to living where they do. This mindset, according to Mr. Winchester, originated with the risk-averse settlers that put everything on the line to migrate to the mine fields in the mid-19th century. Also, he mentions something very, very prescient to current events.
Yesterday, southern California was struck with a magnitude 5.4 earthquake, the epicenter of which was a few miles east of downtown Los Angeles. In Winchester's book he mentions in particular that seismologists have undertaken revealing studies about how very seismically active areas often suffer smaller earthquakes before a much larger one. Lo and behold, today an article discusses the subject.
One of the most alarming facts of this situation I have found was from a different article in the SF Chronicle, which was special report regarding the exodus of the middle class in their fair city.
SF residents are becoming a dramatically richer demographic as a result of high property values. Many regular folks simply can't afford to live where they work, and the statistics are alarming. The article is a good read in any case, but in particular I found this a very, very scary situation -High housing prices are also a key reason that among 2,227 sworn police officers in San Francisco, only 675 live in the city, a little more than 30 percent, said Gary Delagnes, president of the San Francisco Police Officers Association.
The nightmare consequence of this would be an evening earthquake that shuts down BART and bridges, blocking two-thirds of the city's police officers and large percentages of other first responders from quickly attending to life-threatening building collapses, injuries or fires.
In other words, it is certain that a vast percentage of law enforcement and first responders will not be able to access the city during the time of its most vital need when an earthquake strikes. If you live in SF, you better think carefully about that. It seems apparent that if another massive quake hits the Bay Area that San Francisco may very well suffer just as badly, if not worse, than the city did in 1906 despite all of the better construction techniques and warning systems. If many first responders cannot access the city, how will a massive fire like North Beach suffered in 1906 be stopped? How can an orderly evacuation be conducted, if at all? What about triage? I hope their first responder plan is water tight despite what seems to be an alarming weakness. Part of the warning system relies on seismologists monitoring murmurs that indicate an earthquake is coming, but there is no way to predict exactly when an earthquake will strike.
The good news for ol' Frisco is that the area truly due for a big one is southern California. Los Angeles suffered an earthquake in the early 1800's that, based on survivors' accounts, was at least as severe if not more severe than the one that struck in 1906. La La Land is overdue, but in truth the San Andreas Fault could rupture anywhere and the scientists say that enough pressure has built up along the fault line to expect another big one within 30 years.
metalpeter - 08/02/08 14:35
Yes I know you aren't criticizing me Personaly. There is one thing that I should clarify a bit. There are some people who think the levy system was made bad on purpose and that there was no response because the people where poor and black and Bush hates those people, that is a step or two past what I think. Yes it is an jump to think that the response was slow because they where poor and black and that if they where white and rich or at least his kind of people That the Army would have been there the next day. I do know that there is red tape and the government moves slow but it shouldn't be that way. If an earth quake hits, there are 25 feet of snow, or some other natural diesater hits then the government some branch of the military needs to just step up. There shouldn't be "Well we have to see if it a national Diesater, then once it is then we can send people into help". It should also be about going to help not about giving the local people money to rebuild stuff. Go in there put troops (oh yeah I'm sorry there in a country that had nothing to do with an attack on us) there and get other feds there to help the locals and get people out (watch a movie and see how they do it there and get some ideas). I think since the feds do move slow the any city should have plans, so should each county and each state. I do think response to SF would be quicker (wait Bush doesn't like the gays so maybe it would be slower, but he likes baseball and they have a team but it isn't texas, kidding) but with how the feds move not quick enough so that is why local people have to come up with there own plans.
On a side Note I haven't been there since I was a young kid and it would be great to go back again. To bad you didn't get any Chocalate. I went to a trader Joes in Carolina and they had there own beer there, it seemed like a pretty nice place.
Yes I know you aren't criticizing me Personaly. There is one thing that I should clarify a bit. There are some people who think the levy system was made bad on purpose and that there was no response because the people where poor and black and Bush hates those people, that is a step or two past what I think. Yes it is an jump to think that the response was slow because they where poor and black and that if they where white and rich or at least his kind of people That the Army would have been there the next day. I do know that there is red tape and the government moves slow but it shouldn't be that way. If an earth quake hits, there are 25 feet of snow, or some other natural diesater hits then the government some branch of the military needs to just step up. There shouldn't be "Well we have to see if it a national Diesater, then once it is then we can send people into help". It should also be about going to help not about giving the local people money to rebuild stuff. Go in there put troops (oh yeah I'm sorry there in a country that had nothing to do with an attack on us) there and get other feds there to help the locals and get people out (watch a movie and see how they do it there and get some ideas). I think since the feds do move slow the any city should have plans, so should each county and each state. I do think response to SF would be quicker (wait Bush doesn't like the gays so maybe it would be slower, but he likes baseball and they have a team but it isn't texas, kidding) but with how the feds move not quick enough so that is why local people have to come up with there own plans.
On a side Note I haven't been there since I was a young kid and it would be great to go back again. To bad you didn't get any Chocalate. I went to a trader Joes in Carolina and they had there own beer there, it seemed like a pretty nice place.
joshua - 08/02/08 11:38
(e:tiny) - you know, I stayed at a hotel in the Wharf, not too far from the Ghirardelli building. My last day I took some contraband down by the water, to watch the sun cast itself lower and lower off of the Golden Gate, Marin Co., and generally absorb the mountains and the beauty of it all. It was a really nice evening. I hated leaving - I had superlative after superlative for the city that I told (e:ajay), (e:twisted) and my friends that live there. I didn't get any chocolate though! I spent my time that evening eating at an Italian restaurant, walking down Columbus and back through the Wharf to a Trader Joe's, where I bought a bunch of snacks and juice, then back to the hotel where I watched KQED for the night. They show a lot more partisan stuff on their public TV.
(e:peter) - Hey man, I'm not criticizing you for having an opinion. I think you know that. It's well thought out. I'm just saying that I've heard these things in the past and feel that it is a lot of supposition. I think we got caught with our pants down in a major way in a disaster that many said was inevitable. It was only inevitable that the poorest among the citizens would have the hardest time in a disaster like that, and I think it would be true regardless of where the disaster occurred. I visited NO a year after Katrina happened - I saw exactly what happened to the city because we drove through those poor neighborhoods. Seeing many black people suffering live on TV stirred up a lot of racial bitterness that has always been seething - then people say "well if it were white people this would have never happened!" We don't know that! That is absolutely bogus and I reject that kind of supposition. People have to remember, EVERYBODY suffered greatly in that region of the country and it doesn't help that this particular region is bar none amongst the poorest in the USA. People are almost equating the response to Katrina as some kind of genocide that the government intentionally reacted slowly to fix - that is absolutely insane. The single greatest embarrassment that Katrina laid bare as proof was that the richest country the world has ever seen has little capability to protect its most vulnerable when a disaster occurs. White, black, brown, whatever - that is a scary thought for all of us.
(e:tiny) - you know, I stayed at a hotel in the Wharf, not too far from the Ghirardelli building. My last day I took some contraband down by the water, to watch the sun cast itself lower and lower off of the Golden Gate, Marin Co., and generally absorb the mountains and the beauty of it all. It was a really nice evening. I hated leaving - I had superlative after superlative for the city that I told (e:ajay), (e:twisted) and my friends that live there. I didn't get any chocolate though! I spent my time that evening eating at an Italian restaurant, walking down Columbus and back through the Wharf to a Trader Joe's, where I bought a bunch of snacks and juice, then back to the hotel where I watched KQED for the night. They show a lot more partisan stuff on their public TV.
(e:peter) - Hey man, I'm not criticizing you for having an opinion. I think you know that. It's well thought out. I'm just saying that I've heard these things in the past and feel that it is a lot of supposition. I think we got caught with our pants down in a major way in a disaster that many said was inevitable. It was only inevitable that the poorest among the citizens would have the hardest time in a disaster like that, and I think it would be true regardless of where the disaster occurred. I visited NO a year after Katrina happened - I saw exactly what happened to the city because we drove through those poor neighborhoods. Seeing many black people suffering live on TV stirred up a lot of racial bitterness that has always been seething - then people say "well if it were white people this would have never happened!" We don't know that! That is absolutely bogus and I reject that kind of supposition. People have to remember, EVERYBODY suffered greatly in that region of the country and it doesn't help that this particular region is bar none amongst the poorest in the USA. People are almost equating the response to Katrina as some kind of genocide that the government intentionally reacted slowly to fix - that is absolutely insane. The single greatest embarrassment that Katrina laid bare as proof was that the richest country the world has ever seen has little capability to protect its most vulnerable when a disaster occurs. White, black, brown, whatever - that is a scary thought for all of us.
metalpeter - 08/02/08 10:39
Here is what I believe is the truth. Bush is an idiot (well he like most people listen to he advisers so it isn't all on him) but the current adminestration has been so inempt for years that maybe if it was rich white people they would have got there a day sooner. But what that still comes down to is people not caring. What should have happened is the military shouldn't have waited some one should have been a man and called his buddies and said we are going to help and done something. The fact is in this country there is a class war going on in this country where the poor get poorer and the rich get richer (yes some rich people care and do help out the poor). But most people only care about there own. Now maybe if there something awefull in SF what ever plans they have will get people there in a day instead of 3. In terms of New Orleans why would any body care, no really why would they. When people go visit they go to The French part to party not to go see the poor people but that is true in any city. So if most people don't care why should the government. There was bad planning there because people in power didn't care. Hopefully people in SF and the government care more and have better plans and if something does happen there caring will get them their faster.
Here is what I believe is the truth. Bush is an idiot (well he like most people listen to he advisers so it isn't all on him) but the current adminestration has been so inempt for years that maybe if it was rich white people they would have got there a day sooner. But what that still comes down to is people not caring. What should have happened is the military shouldn't have waited some one should have been a man and called his buddies and said we are going to help and done something. The fact is in this country there is a class war going on in this country where the poor get poorer and the rich get richer (yes some rich people care and do help out the poor). But most people only care about there own. Now maybe if there something awefull in SF what ever plans they have will get people there in a day instead of 3. In terms of New Orleans why would any body care, no really why would they. When people go visit they go to The French part to party not to go see the poor people but that is true in any city. So if most people don't care why should the government. There was bad planning there because people in power didn't care. Hopefully people in SF and the government care more and have better plans and if something does happen there caring will get them their faster.
tinypliny - 08/02/08 10:19
Totally flippant comment (and you can't really expect anything else from me) but I think the Bay Area Rapid Folders (BARF) alone make SFO worth living in (not to mention the ban on plastic bags and legal gay marriage). I would totally not mind being killed by an earthquake while I am folding one of Kawahata's complicated insects and drinking Ghirardelli chocolate out of a non-plastic biodegradable cup! ;-)
Totally flippant comment (and you can't really expect anything else from me) but I think the Bay Area Rapid Folders (BARF) alone make SFO worth living in (not to mention the ban on plastic bags and legal gay marriage). I would totally not mind being killed by an earthquake while I am folding one of Kawahata's complicated insects and drinking Ghirardelli chocolate out of a non-plastic biodegradable cup! ;-)
joshua - 08/02/08 10:10
I am not suggesting that they do not have plans in place, (e:tiny) - what I am suggesting is that they are inherently inadequate for various reasons, some of the most important of which they have absolutely no control over. They can have all the earthquake awareness sessions they want in SF, but the potential damage and loss of life will dwarf any previous U.S. natural disaster by many degrees. Interestingly enough there was a special on two nights ago on History Intl. that dealt with this very subject, with Mr. Winchester participating. They seem inclined to think that if another quake hits SF the city is absolutely doomed because there are far more residents and far more gas lines that will start thousands of fires across the city in combination with lack of access, not to mention that the city of SF itself has no statistics on how many buildings in the city are actually quakeproof. With 2/3 of the city's first responders having no access to the city in the event of a quake that is a serious problem. In the end, SF was an incredibly stupid yet incredibly beautiful place to build a city.
So far I think (e:sara) has the most logical explanation for the mindset - the bigger events are so spread apart that the risk seems minimal in the context of time. I suppose the frequency is tempered with the eventual scale of the disaster. Quakes are just one problem that Californians deal with - mudslides, droughts, power grid issues (brought upon entirely by themselves, I might add), but it is clear that people work through it because of the greatness of everything else.
(e:peter) - I'm not buying the racial/economical crap. I knew someone was going to go there.
I am not suggesting that they do not have plans in place, (e:tiny) - what I am suggesting is that they are inherently inadequate for various reasons, some of the most important of which they have absolutely no control over. They can have all the earthquake awareness sessions they want in SF, but the potential damage and loss of life will dwarf any previous U.S. natural disaster by many degrees. Interestingly enough there was a special on two nights ago on History Intl. that dealt with this very subject, with Mr. Winchester participating. They seem inclined to think that if another quake hits SF the city is absolutely doomed because there are far more residents and far more gas lines that will start thousands of fires across the city in combination with lack of access, not to mention that the city of SF itself has no statistics on how many buildings in the city are actually quakeproof. With 2/3 of the city's first responders having no access to the city in the event of a quake that is a serious problem. In the end, SF was an incredibly stupid yet incredibly beautiful place to build a city.
So far I think (e:sara) has the most logical explanation for the mindset - the bigger events are so spread apart that the risk seems minimal in the context of time. I suppose the frequency is tempered with the eventual scale of the disaster. Quakes are just one problem that Californians deal with - mudslides, droughts, power grid issues (brought upon entirely by themselves, I might add), but it is clear that people work through it because of the greatness of everything else.
(e:peter) - I'm not buying the racial/economical crap. I knew someone was going to go there.
tinypliny - 08/02/08 09:44
Its an interesting question, but despite being aware that motor vehicles are the top cause of accidental death in this country (http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/riskcompare.htm) how many of the people have stopped driving their cars? The point is risk-taking is an inherent part of life. You are taking a risk the minute you are born. It's part of surviving. What emergency plans are in place, you ask? How do you know that they are not in place? Many workplaces in and around the Bay area have an earthquake preparedness sessions at least once every year. My brother has an earthquake-prepared backpack that was given out by his workplace. I trip on it every time I visit him because he insists on keeping it right by the door. They were apparently taught to run out with the backpack the minute they felt a violent jolt.
Its an interesting question, but despite being aware that motor vehicles are the top cause of accidental death in this country (http://hazmat.dot.gov/riskmgmt/riskcompare.htm) how many of the people have stopped driving their cars? The point is risk-taking is an inherent part of life. You are taking a risk the minute you are born. It's part of surviving. What emergency plans are in place, you ask? How do you know that they are not in place? Many workplaces in and around the Bay area have an earthquake preparedness sessions at least once every year. My brother has an earthquake-prepared backpack that was given out by his workplace. I trip on it every time I visit him because he insists on keeping it right by the door. They were apparently taught to run out with the backpack the minute they felt a violent jolt.
metalpeter - 07/30/08 19:10
I think that SF, LA and lot of places in CA have a big advantage over New Orleans. The people in that state are cared about. I have never been to New Orleans but people where warned (that isn't new) then buses and people with cars left. The people who didn't or couldn't leave where poor black people who lived in poor black areas (not all mostly) yes there where some whites and they where poor to. But when you are poor no one cares, when you are black no one cares, when you don't have the means to leave, no one cares. I will admit that there is a lot of red tape in government. But I think if that flood would have hit Miami Beach or maybe south beach the reaction would have been much different. I think if any major City in SF where hit (yes people would die who shouldn't still) I think the federal and State Governments and maybe even military from that state would mobilize a lot quicker.
I think that SF, LA and lot of places in CA have a big advantage over New Orleans. The people in that state are cared about. I have never been to New Orleans but people where warned (that isn't new) then buses and people with cars left. The people who didn't or couldn't leave where poor black people who lived in poor black areas (not all mostly) yes there where some whites and they where poor to. But when you are poor no one cares, when you are black no one cares, when you don't have the means to leave, no one cares. I will admit that there is a lot of red tape in government. But I think if that flood would have hit Miami Beach or maybe south beach the reaction would have been much different. I think if any major City in SF where hit (yes people would die who shouldn't still) I think the federal and State Governments and maybe even military from that state would mobilize a lot quicker.
iriesara - 07/30/08 17:10
I would be interseted in reading that book, though for sure.
I would be interseted in reading that book, though for sure.
iriesara - 07/30/08 17:10
A few things...
as a NY-tranplant living in Southern California, I have felt exactly one earthquake in 7 years, and at the time, I could've sworn someone ran into the garages under my apartment with their car - a big "bang" and the room swayed..that's about it.
Some of my friends here in the office felt a bit yesterday, while I, who sit 100 feet away, felt nothing.
I know a few people here who have lived through very bad earthquakes in other areas of California, and of course it's a crazy horrific terrible thing.
I'm still waiting though. I always tend to get a little pissed when I don't feel it. Not that I want the Big One, but fuck!
In regards to post-911 NY activity, and granted I was not in NYC when that happened, but it seemed to me that things didn't exactly go smoothly at first, and that first responders absolutely did have a hard time getting to ground zero. What are you gonna do? That's life.
You also note in your comment that "some things are impossible to plan for" and that's just it. As regular citizens we can do our best. As City planners and emergency preparedness crews we can do our best, but you can't plan for everything. That's where faith comes in, but that's just my opinion.
Of course, and this is the real impetus of my comment, it never ceases to amaze me how people who have lived here (CA) their whole lives, and who have experienced semi-serious earthquakes don't worry about it one bit. When I tell them I'm from Buffalo, they look at me like 1) what a poor soul, and 2) I must be crazy. When I tell them I miss the weather, I must be crazy. Their whole thing is that Buffalo winter is sure to come every year, whereas you could have a good 10, 20, 30 years with no even quasi-serious earhquake, so to them it's a no-brainer. You will probably have the same gut-reaction I did at first (well, fuck, at least I won't die with my fucking house on top of my head, gosh, put on some gloves, you'll be fine). But, seriously, you're right, it's not thought about that much at all in terms of fear.
The bottom line, I think, is that people become accustomed to what they know. Talk to old people in Buffalo and that's the first they say about living in Californa - EARTHQUAKES!!! Just about anyone I know here would much rather deal with that risk occasionally than have the surety of a shitty winter.
I'm somewhere in between...take it as it comes, whaddya gonna do?
A few things...
as a NY-tranplant living in Southern California, I have felt exactly one earthquake in 7 years, and at the time, I could've sworn someone ran into the garages under my apartment with their car - a big "bang" and the room swayed..that's about it.
Some of my friends here in the office felt a bit yesterday, while I, who sit 100 feet away, felt nothing.
I know a few people here who have lived through very bad earthquakes in other areas of California, and of course it's a crazy horrific terrible thing.
I'm still waiting though. I always tend to get a little pissed when I don't feel it. Not that I want the Big One, but fuck!
In regards to post-911 NY activity, and granted I was not in NYC when that happened, but it seemed to me that things didn't exactly go smoothly at first, and that first responders absolutely did have a hard time getting to ground zero. What are you gonna do? That's life.
You also note in your comment that "some things are impossible to plan for" and that's just it. As regular citizens we can do our best. As City planners and emergency preparedness crews we can do our best, but you can't plan for everything. That's where faith comes in, but that's just my opinion.
Of course, and this is the real impetus of my comment, it never ceases to amaze me how people who have lived here (CA) their whole lives, and who have experienced semi-serious earthquakes don't worry about it one bit. When I tell them I'm from Buffalo, they look at me like 1) what a poor soul, and 2) I must be crazy. When I tell them I miss the weather, I must be crazy. Their whole thing is that Buffalo winter is sure to come every year, whereas you could have a good 10, 20, 30 years with no even quasi-serious earhquake, so to them it's a no-brainer. You will probably have the same gut-reaction I did at first (well, fuck, at least I won't die with my fucking house on top of my head, gosh, put on some gloves, you'll be fine). But, seriously, you're right, it's not thought about that much at all in terms of fear.
The bottom line, I think, is that people become accustomed to what they know. Talk to old people in Buffalo and that's the first they say about living in Californa - EARTHQUAKES!!! Just about anyone I know here would much rather deal with that risk occasionally than have the surety of a shitty winter.
I'm somewhere in between...take it as it comes, whaddya gonna do?
joshua - 07/30/08 14:33
I was blown away with SF when I visited. Anybody that has read my journal knows I've been highly critical of their public servants and public policy, but as far as the city goes, it is an interesting, dynamic and diverse place, not to mention the natural beauty that surrounds the area. Before I left, I wrote in my journal at the time - "SF I was wrong about you!" My interest in the subject started when I visited SF in January - I was introduced to the book I've referred to by a friend in SF, who was very passionate about how good the book was. Having been there at the time I drew a great deal of inspiration and appreciated the book a lot, and it lead me to learn more about the history of the state and how governments in the area prepare for earthquakes.
In other words, it is complicated! I love the state of California and feel as if it is a second home, and the more I have learned the more concerned I've become regarding what might happen if another big quake struck in a densely populated area. New Orleans didn't have the amount of complications that SF would in the event of a natural disaster. Katrina proved that we had our pants down in a major way, and I worry about the fact that despite learning as much as we can from our mistakes that a disaster in the Bay Area could be just as ugly, if not worse. First responders would make the difference between life or death for many if a big quake hit... could you imagine 9/11 with limited triage and limited ability to maintain law and order at the outset? That is a serious concern if it is true that a large majority of public servants in SF do not actually live there.
The place and the people are magic and I don't want to see people die as a result of something that *might* have been prevented. I want to live there one day as well, which affects my interest. I'm not saying that their plans are inadequate - I'm just saying that some things are impossible to plan for, and when a vulnerability comes to light people should know about it.
I was blown away with SF when I visited. Anybody that has read my journal knows I've been highly critical of their public servants and public policy, but as far as the city goes, it is an interesting, dynamic and diverse place, not to mention the natural beauty that surrounds the area. Before I left, I wrote in my journal at the time - "SF I was wrong about you!" My interest in the subject started when I visited SF in January - I was introduced to the book I've referred to by a friend in SF, who was very passionate about how good the book was. Having been there at the time I drew a great deal of inspiration and appreciated the book a lot, and it lead me to learn more about the history of the state and how governments in the area prepare for earthquakes.
In other words, it is complicated! I love the state of California and feel as if it is a second home, and the more I have learned the more concerned I've become regarding what might happen if another big quake struck in a densely populated area. New Orleans didn't have the amount of complications that SF would in the event of a natural disaster. Katrina proved that we had our pants down in a major way, and I worry about the fact that despite learning as much as we can from our mistakes that a disaster in the Bay Area could be just as ugly, if not worse. First responders would make the difference between life or death for many if a big quake hit... could you imagine 9/11 with limited triage and limited ability to maintain law and order at the outset? That is a serious concern if it is true that a large majority of public servants in SF do not actually live there.
The place and the people are magic and I don't want to see people die as a result of something that *might* have been prevented. I want to live there one day as well, which affects my interest. I'm not saying that their plans are inadequate - I'm just saying that some things are impossible to plan for, and when a vulnerability comes to light people should know about it.
janelle - 07/30/08 13:12
Interesting topic.
More interesting is your passion on the subject.
Where did it come from?
Interesting topic.
More interesting is your passion on the subject.
Where did it come from?
07/25/2008 10:02 #45134
Love Affair Over?Two extraordinarily unflattering articles regarding the Anointed One -
London Times mocks Obama in ways only the British can -
American press corps admits realities of Obama campaign's arrogance, stoking suspicions many Americans have always had of the man. FNC? National Review? Try The New Republic -
London Times mocks Obama in ways only the British can -
American press corps admits realities of Obama campaign's arrogance, stoking suspicions many Americans have always had of the man. FNC? National Review? Try The New Republic -
brit - 07/26/08 09:05
The Times is just beside itslef that British politicians have never and never will possess an ounce of charisma.
unless the ten point lead that the pollsters (my Republican department chair included) will predict for Obama on Labor day can be overcome by a ten point bump in racism then McCain is fucked...all hail the messiah!
The Times is just beside itslef that British politicians have never and never will possess an ounce of charisma.
unless the ten point lead that the pollsters (my Republican department chair included) will predict for Obama on Labor day can be overcome by a ten point bump in racism then McCain is fucked...all hail the messiah!
mrmike - 07/25/08 11:11
Snark worthy of the American Spectator...
Snark worthy of the American Spectator...
07/28/2008 12:53 #45171
Mutiny in the Op-Ed of the Wash. Post?Category: politics
You decide: Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D), Speaker of the House of Representatives, is actively fighting against the wishes of the American people and is single-handedly preventing a vote on drilling legislation in the House. The Washington Post, bastion of leftward-thinking editorials in the same tradition as other papers such as the NY Times, Baltimore Sun and Boston Globe, then proceeded to print this:
A certain segment of our society loves pointing to polls suggesting that is the express wish of the American people for the Iraq war to end, and stomp their feet like spoiled children when their candidates teeter even slightly... especially when men who know what they are talking about (such as Gen. Petraeus) give that candidate information they find politically offensive. So much for "fact finding." I just have one simple question. Why is Speaker Pelosi ignoring the will of the American people on one issue while simultaneously trumpeting the will of the American people to justify her stance on another issue?
You see, Speaker Pelosi is playing a dangerous game on an issue she is dead wrong about. Forget this non-sense about opening the strategic oil reserve - it is a fallacious argument because these liberal politicians argue themselves that drilling won't affect price. Putting 90 billion barrels of oil on the market, they argue, will not affect price accordingly but putting 70 million barrels on the market is somehow a better solution in their eyes. Not only is this argument insulting to the intelligence of the American middle class who are being hurt incredibly by gas prices, but it defies even the most basic tenets of supply and demand. Even the length of time it would take to put the oil on the market has been incredibly overblown. Details aside, this is what the American people clearly want and if she doesn't allow the vote backlash against Democrats will be enormous, albeit unfairly for certain Democrats who, unlike Speaker Pelosi, respects the will of the American people.
Speaker Pelosi is willing to watch Rome burn to make a point and to stay true to the environmentalists she is beholden to. Even papers such as the Washington Post are now standing with mouth agape at Nancy Pelosi. She and she alone is to blame for preventing a vote, which she can do by decree as Speaker, which is a vote that would likely pass. What Americans want only matters to her when Americans agree with her. If she continues she will not be Speaker in another year and will be forced to walk the plank for potentially endangering the majority they currently enjoy.
Trent Lott lost his position for much, much less. If defying the will of the American people based on ideology is treasonous in the context of George W. Bush (sound familiar?), then in this context it is equally applicable as well. People should not be surprised to see that Congress is less popular than President Bush, and under the current leadership it is truly miraculous that in two years Democrats have proven that their leadership is even more haphazard than when Republicans ran things. It has only been two years! When Americans watch and listen to the leaders of Congress, can it be possible that by removing the incompetent Republicans that things have actually gotten worse? Watch and listen to Speaker Pelosi and judge for yourself.
A certain segment of our society loves pointing to polls suggesting that is the express wish of the American people for the Iraq war to end, and stomp their feet like spoiled children when their candidates teeter even slightly... especially when men who know what they are talking about (such as Gen. Petraeus) give that candidate information they find politically offensive. So much for "fact finding." I just have one simple question. Why is Speaker Pelosi ignoring the will of the American people on one issue while simultaneously trumpeting the will of the American people to justify her stance on another issue?
You see, Speaker Pelosi is playing a dangerous game on an issue she is dead wrong about. Forget this non-sense about opening the strategic oil reserve - it is a fallacious argument because these liberal politicians argue themselves that drilling won't affect price. Putting 90 billion barrels of oil on the market, they argue, will not affect price accordingly but putting 70 million barrels on the market is somehow a better solution in their eyes. Not only is this argument insulting to the intelligence of the American middle class who are being hurt incredibly by gas prices, but it defies even the most basic tenets of supply and demand. Even the length of time it would take to put the oil on the market has been incredibly overblown. Details aside, this is what the American people clearly want and if she doesn't allow the vote backlash against Democrats will be enormous, albeit unfairly for certain Democrats who, unlike Speaker Pelosi, respects the will of the American people.
Speaker Pelosi is willing to watch Rome burn to make a point and to stay true to the environmentalists she is beholden to. Even papers such as the Washington Post are now standing with mouth agape at Nancy Pelosi. She and she alone is to blame for preventing a vote, which she can do by decree as Speaker, which is a vote that would likely pass. What Americans want only matters to her when Americans agree with her. If she continues she will not be Speaker in another year and will be forced to walk the plank for potentially endangering the majority they currently enjoy.
Trent Lott lost his position for much, much less. If defying the will of the American people based on ideology is treasonous in the context of George W. Bush (sound familiar?), then in this context it is equally applicable as well. People should not be surprised to see that Congress is less popular than President Bush, and under the current leadership it is truly miraculous that in two years Democrats have proven that their leadership is even more haphazard than when Republicans ran things. It has only been two years! When Americans watch and listen to the leaders of Congress, can it be possible that by removing the incompetent Republicans that things have actually gotten worse? Watch and listen to Speaker Pelosi and judge for yourself.
dcoffee - 08/04/08 13:43
We're paying the price for our own inaction over the past 30 years. We could have raised CAFE standards for cars and trucks and stayed ahead of the rest of the world, whose cars we're shipping overseas and buying in America now. We could have stopped subsidizing oil companies and instead funded R&D of renewable technologies, which are suddenly popular, and should be making huge profits for forward thinking American companies. But we didn't do any of that.
Don't blame the tree-huggers... Seems like the environmentalists succeeded in getting support for preserving open spaces in America, it became a popular idea to protect parts of America from pollution, and save them for future generations. But environmentalists did not succeed in convincing the people or the government to take the next logical step, to start creating alternatives and more efficient machines for us to use. Environmentalists have been talking about conservation, pushing solar, wind, raising the CAFE standards... they've been working on it for years, you can blame them for failing to convince the people and the government, or you can blame the politicians and the people for not getting it sooner.
But the real problem is that there is a finite supply of fossil fuels, and if America makes the advances quicker than the rest of the world, we will reap the benefits of a better balance of trade, more wild places for us to enjoy, and more money in our pockets to spend.
People are getting squeezed now because we waited for the market to tell us what to do, instead of acting on the obvious. The government's job is to anticipate changes and make sure the country is prepared to adjust and hopefully be able to take advantage of those changes, they failed. Now the market is squeezing us by the balls, and we're like "but we can't change that fast" and the market is like "what the hell have you been doing for the past 5 years? you knew this was going to happen." and we're like "Rush Limbaugh told us it would all be fine!?" /comedy
I do believe that competition is the engine of innovation, but I also see that an unregulated market usually leads to monopoly, not competition. The idea that the market should be the only government we need is the biggest pipe dream of them all. /tangent
I know working class people are paying the price for all these high prices, my family is a case in point. and something needs to be done, because they don't deserve this crap. But we should put drilling as the last priority, not the first, because even though we won't see that oil for about 5 years, drilling is still a short term solution. I'll blame the government for inaction, not the environmentalists who have been demanding change for all these years. I remember hearing that if the environmentalists get their way the economy would be in the toilet, well the economy is in the toilet, even without those 'green' bogymen.
We're paying the price for our own inaction over the past 30 years. We could have raised CAFE standards for cars and trucks and stayed ahead of the rest of the world, whose cars we're shipping overseas and buying in America now. We could have stopped subsidizing oil companies and instead funded R&D of renewable technologies, which are suddenly popular, and should be making huge profits for forward thinking American companies. But we didn't do any of that.
Don't blame the tree-huggers... Seems like the environmentalists succeeded in getting support for preserving open spaces in America, it became a popular idea to protect parts of America from pollution, and save them for future generations. But environmentalists did not succeed in convincing the people or the government to take the next logical step, to start creating alternatives and more efficient machines for us to use. Environmentalists have been talking about conservation, pushing solar, wind, raising the CAFE standards... they've been working on it for years, you can blame them for failing to convince the people and the government, or you can blame the politicians and the people for not getting it sooner.
But the real problem is that there is a finite supply of fossil fuels, and if America makes the advances quicker than the rest of the world, we will reap the benefits of a better balance of trade, more wild places for us to enjoy, and more money in our pockets to spend.
People are getting squeezed now because we waited for the market to tell us what to do, instead of acting on the obvious. The government's job is to anticipate changes and make sure the country is prepared to adjust and hopefully be able to take advantage of those changes, they failed. Now the market is squeezing us by the balls, and we're like "but we can't change that fast" and the market is like "what the hell have you been doing for the past 5 years? you knew this was going to happen." and we're like "Rush Limbaugh told us it would all be fine!?" /comedy
I do believe that competition is the engine of innovation, but I also see that an unregulated market usually leads to monopoly, not competition. The idea that the market should be the only government we need is the biggest pipe dream of them all. /tangent
I know working class people are paying the price for all these high prices, my family is a case in point. and something needs to be done, because they don't deserve this crap. But we should put drilling as the last priority, not the first, because even though we won't see that oil for about 5 years, drilling is still a short term solution. I'll blame the government for inaction, not the environmentalists who have been demanding change for all these years. I remember hearing that if the environmentalists get their way the economy would be in the toilet, well the economy is in the toilet, even without those 'green' bogymen.
mike - 07/28/08 23:11
i say high gas prices are fine. I think we don't need falsely low gas prices, it is only gonna come bakc and slap us in the face eventually. WE might as well start dealing with it now and start looking for alternatives and lower the amount of driving. I don't think we need to have cheap gas, people oculd rearrange their life and tyr to live on less gas. Granted i live at home and work a block away but i just tink it miht be good if there are other ways to deal with high prices instead of pumping out more oil
i say high gas prices are fine. I think we don't need falsely low gas prices, it is only gonna come bakc and slap us in the face eventually. WE might as well start dealing with it now and start looking for alternatives and lower the amount of driving. I don't think we need to have cheap gas, people oculd rearrange their life and tyr to live on less gas. Granted i live at home and work a block away but i just tink it miht be good if there are other ways to deal with high prices instead of pumping out more oil
drew - 07/28/08 15:49
I am not saying that high prices are good. But high prices are leading to conservation, and that is good.
Prices, so long as they are set by an open market, are neither good nor bad. They are natural. (On the openness of the oil market, I am not smart enough to speak--but it doesn't seem very open to me)
As for congress standing up to the executive branch, they have rolled over on war funding, on the wiretapping of American citizens, and on obstruction of justice. I believe the last two are impeachable offenses, but the congress, after raising a bit of a stink, stops fighting and even goes along with these misdeeds.
I am not saying that high prices are good. But high prices are leading to conservation, and that is good.
Prices, so long as they are set by an open market, are neither good nor bad. They are natural. (On the openness of the oil market, I am not smart enough to speak--but it doesn't seem very open to me)
As for congress standing up to the executive branch, they have rolled over on war funding, on the wiretapping of American citizens, and on obstruction of justice. I believe the last two are impeachable offenses, but the congress, after raising a bit of a stink, stops fighting and even goes along with these misdeeds.
joshua - 07/28/08 14:51
Oh - after all that - it is worth mentioning that the complaints concerning the government purchasing oil were heard. In 2006 the government announced that it was going to stop purchasing crude, and in May of this year stated that by July all increases in the reserve would be halted. By the way, reserve capacity is also affected by refinery capacity, but it also appears that we are reaching full capacity for the reserve anyway, so I suppose it is only logical that this slowdown would occur.
Oh - after all that - it is worth mentioning that the complaints concerning the government purchasing oil were heard. In 2006 the government announced that it was going to stop purchasing crude, and in May of this year stated that by July all increases in the reserve would be halted. By the way, reserve capacity is also affected by refinery capacity, but it also appears that we are reaching full capacity for the reserve anyway, so I suppose it is only logical that this slowdown would occur.
joshua - 07/28/08 14:46
(e:ajay) - what she is doing isn't funny - the middle class and the poor definitely aren't laughing at what she's doing. The lady is an embarrassment nationally and deserves every bit of criticism she is getting. The opinion polls aren't flattering... even Dick Cheney is trumping Congress at the moment.
(e:drew) - I support a multi-pronged approach, including drilling as much as possible while simultaneously pursuing alternative technologies in an aggressive manner. Some aspects of our energy infrastructure could be easily replaced with power supplied by renewable resources, but with other aspects switching to different sources is a pipe dream. We aren't snapping our fingers and replacing a hundred million cars, thousands of aircraft, etc. to hydrogen or biofuel. It just isn't going to happen - like it or not we still need oil for the foreseeable future, but in my opinion I don't see why (save this for posterity) Al Gore's goal of having all renewable electricity within 10 years should be ignored.
Taking oil from the reserve is a political blunder and nothing more. Even if they released the entire reserve the amount of oil would last 33 days - we are talking about a tenth of that amount. This is akin to pissing on a house fire and blatantly ignores the will of the people.
I have to admit - when people suggest that high prices is a good thing, it drives me bat shit crazy. Tell that to the working poor and to the elderly, the latter of which represented a quarter of all bankruptcies last year. Punishing the most vulnerable in our society because of an ideological slant is unconscionable, even immoral in my view. Arguing that the ends justify the means, which is exactly what this is, is specious. In my opinion anyway, this is just as regressive an idea as cigarette taxes.
Again, why is the will of the American people important when the topic of Iraq comes up, but is utterly irrelevant when drilling comes up? No critics of drilling are able to answer this question so far. Americans are getting upset, particularly when they discover that between ANWR, the continental shelf and the shale oil in the Rockies we have three times (!) more reserves than the Saudis, not to mention vast reserves of natural gas. The environmentalists' concerns are becoming less relevant in the minds of the American people - that much is absolutely crystal clear. The environmentalists have been good at intimidating the politicians but they will not intimidate the vast bulk of Americans (three-quarters of all Americans, based on the most recent Zogby poll) who are not concerned about the plight of the caribou and support expansion of domestic drilling.
I don't think subsidizing oil companies on anything will be happening anytime soon, particularly when just this week the big oil companies are going to release news of record profits. What are they doing with their profits? Buying back stock. People are watching them carefully and are wondering why more money was spent buying back stock than attempting to find more supply and development of alternative energy combined.
It is incredibly easy to beat up on the energy companies though. Did you know that we haven't built a new refinery in America in over 30 years because groups like the Sierra Club actively intimidated your politicians into rejecting the idea? In the State of California, just as an example, the citizens are proud and puff their chests because they prevented the construction of new nuclear plants in their state. Now 25% of the power provided to California is imported from nuclear plants in neighboring states. It is the height of hypocrisy, but also sheds some light on how special interests have bought off our government to see things their way, to the utter detriment of the country.
Point on conservation - that is a valid point, and I think it is true that conservation has lead in part to decreased prices. I'm not about to make a logical leap and inflate the importance of conservation on prices, but I think in the long run we are going to conserve more and more. I also think any drop in the amount of crude that we use will be more than offset by demand in India and China in the long run. That is part of the problem. In any case though, Americans have instituted their own de-facto conservation policy which has been interesting to watch. The one thing we cannot do is tell people how to use their energy and how to live. Believe me, if it were a sin to be wasteful with energy Al Gore would have a special place in Hell.
One of the most interesting aspects of the low Congressional approval ratings is the variety of reasons why people are not happy. As far as 'standing up to the executive branch' is concerned, what exactly do you mean? I would love to see a qualification of that statement. They are co-equal branches and do not oversee or regulate each other, nor does one branch set an agenda for the other. I can't think of one instance where the Democratic Congress acquiesced since they took over.
(e:ajay) - what she is doing isn't funny - the middle class and the poor definitely aren't laughing at what she's doing. The lady is an embarrassment nationally and deserves every bit of criticism she is getting. The opinion polls aren't flattering... even Dick Cheney is trumping Congress at the moment.
(e:drew) - I support a multi-pronged approach, including drilling as much as possible while simultaneously pursuing alternative technologies in an aggressive manner. Some aspects of our energy infrastructure could be easily replaced with power supplied by renewable resources, but with other aspects switching to different sources is a pipe dream. We aren't snapping our fingers and replacing a hundred million cars, thousands of aircraft, etc. to hydrogen or biofuel. It just isn't going to happen - like it or not we still need oil for the foreseeable future, but in my opinion I don't see why (save this for posterity) Al Gore's goal of having all renewable electricity within 10 years should be ignored.
Taking oil from the reserve is a political blunder and nothing more. Even if they released the entire reserve the amount of oil would last 33 days - we are talking about a tenth of that amount. This is akin to pissing on a house fire and blatantly ignores the will of the people.
I have to admit - when people suggest that high prices is a good thing, it drives me bat shit crazy. Tell that to the working poor and to the elderly, the latter of which represented a quarter of all bankruptcies last year. Punishing the most vulnerable in our society because of an ideological slant is unconscionable, even immoral in my view. Arguing that the ends justify the means, which is exactly what this is, is specious. In my opinion anyway, this is just as regressive an idea as cigarette taxes.
Again, why is the will of the American people important when the topic of Iraq comes up, but is utterly irrelevant when drilling comes up? No critics of drilling are able to answer this question so far. Americans are getting upset, particularly when they discover that between ANWR, the continental shelf and the shale oil in the Rockies we have three times (!) more reserves than the Saudis, not to mention vast reserves of natural gas. The environmentalists' concerns are becoming less relevant in the minds of the American people - that much is absolutely crystal clear. The environmentalists have been good at intimidating the politicians but they will not intimidate the vast bulk of Americans (three-quarters of all Americans, based on the most recent Zogby poll) who are not concerned about the plight of the caribou and support expansion of domestic drilling.
I don't think subsidizing oil companies on anything will be happening anytime soon, particularly when just this week the big oil companies are going to release news of record profits. What are they doing with their profits? Buying back stock. People are watching them carefully and are wondering why more money was spent buying back stock than attempting to find more supply and development of alternative energy combined.
It is incredibly easy to beat up on the energy companies though. Did you know that we haven't built a new refinery in America in over 30 years because groups like the Sierra Club actively intimidated your politicians into rejecting the idea? In the State of California, just as an example, the citizens are proud and puff their chests because they prevented the construction of new nuclear plants in their state. Now 25% of the power provided to California is imported from nuclear plants in neighboring states. It is the height of hypocrisy, but also sheds some light on how special interests have bought off our government to see things their way, to the utter detriment of the country.
Point on conservation - that is a valid point, and I think it is true that conservation has lead in part to decreased prices. I'm not about to make a logical leap and inflate the importance of conservation on prices, but I think in the long run we are going to conserve more and more. I also think any drop in the amount of crude that we use will be more than offset by demand in India and China in the long run. That is part of the problem. In any case though, Americans have instituted their own de-facto conservation policy which has been interesting to watch. The one thing we cannot do is tell people how to use their energy and how to live. Believe me, if it were a sin to be wasteful with energy Al Gore would have a special place in Hell.
One of the most interesting aspects of the low Congressional approval ratings is the variety of reasons why people are not happy. As far as 'standing up to the executive branch' is concerned, what exactly do you mean? I would love to see a qualification of that statement. They are co-equal branches and do not oversee or regulate each other, nor does one branch set an agenda for the other. I can't think of one instance where the Democratic Congress acquiesced since they took over.
ajay - 07/28/08 13:44
"Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D), . . . is actively fighting against the wishes of the American people"
LOL.
(deep breath)
LOL.
(deep breath)
LOL.
(deep breath)
You have a great sense of humor, (e:Joshua). Say, could you remind your "Decider" about the wishes of the American people too, sometime? Thanks!
"Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D), . . . is actively fighting against the wishes of the American people"
LOL.
(deep breath)
LOL.
(deep breath)
LOL.
(deep breath)
You have a great sense of humor, (e:Joshua). Say, could you remind your "Decider" about the wishes of the American people too, sometime? Thanks!
jason - 07/28/08 13:39
Of course she doesn't want a vote. She's afraid the people on her side will do the predictable thing and vote based on what will get them elected.
Of course she doesn't want a vote. She's afraid the people on her side will do the predictable thing and vote based on what will get them elected.
mrmike - 07/28/08 13:32
She has been a catastrophe. The 2006 election gave the Dems a chance to claim a mandate for action and she has been pissing it away. This latest pile of nonsense does make you wonder about who she actually is working for. Being scared to get vetoed shouldn't keep you from at least trying.
She has been a catastrophe. The 2006 election gave the Dems a chance to claim a mandate for action and she has been pissing it away. This latest pile of nonsense does make you wonder about who she actually is working for. Being scared to get vetoed shouldn't keep you from at least trying.
drew - 07/28/08 13:27
There is a lot of rhetoric on both sides of this issue.
Meanwhile, prices are heading back down. Why? Because people are driving less.
Meanwhile, conservatives are starting to convince me that more drilling MAY be a good thing, if it is done responsively (and isn't subsidized at all.)
In the short run, actions with the strategic reserve WOULD have a much greater effect, because they would be immediate and two-fold. Not only would we be releasing oil to the market, but we likely would stop filling the reserve as well. Right now, the federal government is driving UP the cost of oil by buying for the reserve.
You know what else uses a lot of oil? War. Those Humvees ain't hybrids.
For the record, I think we should be cautious with drilling, and neither fill nor empty the reserve. We should end the occupation because it is the will of the Iraqi people and smart, and if it reduces gas prices, that's nice bonus (I believe it will).
Prices will remain high for a while which should serve as an economic incentive for other technologies. Additional incentives, when done cautiously and intelligently, might help (note: not the way we are doing ethanol--that is just pork for farm states).
As for your opinion on Pelosi, I agree that she has been disappointing, but for different reasons. She has done little to stand up to the executive branch as it has abused the constitution. Forgive me for sounding like Ron Paul, but she has failed to uphold her oath of office nearly as much as Bush/Cheney have.
There is a lot of rhetoric on both sides of this issue.
Meanwhile, prices are heading back down. Why? Because people are driving less.
Meanwhile, conservatives are starting to convince me that more drilling MAY be a good thing, if it is done responsively (and isn't subsidized at all.)
In the short run, actions with the strategic reserve WOULD have a much greater effect, because they would be immediate and two-fold. Not only would we be releasing oil to the market, but we likely would stop filling the reserve as well. Right now, the federal government is driving UP the cost of oil by buying for the reserve.
You know what else uses a lot of oil? War. Those Humvees ain't hybrids.
For the record, I think we should be cautious with drilling, and neither fill nor empty the reserve. We should end the occupation because it is the will of the Iraqi people and smart, and if it reduces gas prices, that's nice bonus (I believe it will).
Prices will remain high for a while which should serve as an economic incentive for other technologies. Additional incentives, when done cautiously and intelligently, might help (note: not the way we are doing ethanol--that is just pork for farm states).
As for your opinion on Pelosi, I agree that she has been disappointing, but for different reasons. She has done little to stand up to the executive branch as it has abused the constitution. Forgive me for sounding like Ron Paul, but she has failed to uphold her oath of office nearly as much as Bush/Cheney have.
I have to give you props for being able to read music reviews. For me they don't do anything. One of the problems is voice and sound. Say I like band A and they say Band B sounds just like them, that doesn't mean that band B sounds good to me. Some bands are great and some bands are shitty but how do they sound to the person listing to the music and what do you feel like listening to. I admit I don't get that much exposure to new music, so there are a lot of bands I have never heard of. An example of what I mean is Coldplay Yes (e:Tiny) I love coldplay, What ever you call there song and Chris Martins voice I really like, but if someone where to describe what they sounded like I would have never given them a chance.
I recommend Diamond Head! It's funny you mention the beep-beeps matching pitch with the song you were listening to. This song: "Wild on the Streets" from their '93 album "Death and Progression" has sirens in the background - they even sing in tune!
:::link::: And it rocks!