Sunday November 29, 2015
Jump to content
a. I'm sure you know all this, but a quick down-and-dirty summary. We need domestic sources of oil so that we can compete with OPEC, drive their prices down, and retain more of our earnings in our own country.
b. Tar sands from Canada will help us do that.
c. The Keystone XL pipeline would have been an 1,179 mile long pipe that ran from Alberta, Canada, to Steel City, Nebraska, where it would join an existing pipe carrying up to 830,000 barrels of oil each day.
d. Because of pressure from his environmental supporters President Obama has turned down the project and the environmentalists are now happy, saying that will save the Earth because the tar sands oil will not be used.
e. The truth, however, is that if we do not get that oil there are other nations who will be glad to take it — China being just one of them — and so the same amount of tar sands oil will be burned and the same amount of carbon dioxide will go into the atmosphere anyway. There is no other logic conclusion.
f. The difference is that we will not get the lowered gasoline prices we would have gotten, not will we get the hard cash that would have resulted from the project.
None of the questions I am going to ask asks whether or not we SHOULD get the tar sands oil; as far as I am concerned the facts above speak for themselves.
Okay, a few of questions for you. They are each separate, so please comment on them that way.
One, what effect will this decision have on the 2016 election?
Two, will any of the Democrats, seeing the position their are in, try to find some kind of compromise, and also, is there any possible compromise?
Three, how high will the price of gasoline go if something isn't done to get the Keystone XL pipeline in operation; what I am really asking is this: Is the extra cost of shipping the oil by rail — which, of course, what will happen — make much difference?
When I read this headline on at least a dozen online news sources I became just a bit angry, thinking that yet another town was trying to over-regulate its townspeople. Here it is:
Sacramento OKs ban of loud or sleeping people from buses and trains
But as I read a few of the articles that went with that headline I realized that the headline itself — as so often happens on the net — was quite misleading.
Yes, Sacramento did ban a few things, but I saw nothing whatsoever repressive about their new rules for their buses and light rail trains. So instead of letting you just read the online headline I thought I'd put up each of the rules and let you judge whether or not that headline was justified:
Here is a short summary of the two rules involved:
Passengers are not permitted to:
Play "sound equipment that is audible to other passengers."
Sleep "on a train that has reached the end of the line."
Now, I ask you, is it fair and accurate to describe those two regulations as a ban of "loud or sleeping people from buses and trains," which makes it sound as though you can't talk or doze off along the way? Or is it just another gratuitous swipe being taken at California?
Also, why don't online headlines, which are often taken from some TV station, stay within the same reasonable limits as newspaper headlines?
It's Your Call....
"Is this in Tucson or South Tucson?"
I wouldn't have the slightest idea. The article just said Tucson, and I didn't know there was such a division.
"Where do they go to a bathroom?"
"Are they allowed small burners to cook on?"
It didn't say.
"How do they keep the sidewalk clean?"
"No they should not be allowed to camp on the sidewalks."
I agree. The City of Tucson ought to be able to control the public areas it created.
"No one wants to walk thru that to get somewhere or to shop in the area."
"I am surprised the business owners allow them in front of their stores."
They are all along a park sidewalk. No stores mentioned.
"I don't think those people are looking for a job, they are looking for a handout."
My best guess when I look at the people who are pushing all this is that it's just another, lower level, form of welfare project. There are some people who just can't seem to get it through their heads that some forms of help (probably given in hopes of being able to conveniently collect up the people and get them into voting booths to vote the "right way") are destructive, not helpful.
Exactly! That's what Diane Douglas is trying to do, but the high-and-mighty board members seem to think that their powers, being unlimited, don't allow it.
Right, John! As I remember my ed psych classes and a few other psychology courses I took, that age (7/8th grades) is just the time when that kind of thing happens. It's natural, it's been around since rain, and it is — just as you said — self controlled because the kids don't want to be pointed out and laughed at.
And I agree with "phooey!" Especially with phooey on all over controlling idiots who want to remake the world in their own image.
I'd hate to look inside some of those heads. Ugh! It would be like looking into a vacuum.
Interesting thoughts, Michael. I keep wondering if there will ever be another convention. Thins just seem to drag on, getting worse all the time, with no one paying much attention to it.
"It has become ridiculous what is considered _____."
Fill in the blank.
Here are a few suggestions.....
Lots of room for more, folks. Join in!
"Now, I fully appreciate that some may take that as a shot over the "gender" bow, but like physiology, women simply are different than men, Thank You, Lord!"
The only thing I remember from three years of French is "Vive la difference!"
"Most of the women that I know who are perfectly comfortable with and around firearms, and they are many, don't see firearms as strictly the domain of men. It is offensive to them to have folks imply that such things should be left up to the "guys". And after watching how accurate many of them are in their shooting skills, I sometimes think THEY should be the ones responsible solely for protecting home and hearth."
I'm glad to hear all that. It's fairly close to my observations. I am talking about my experience in the military where my duties as the training NCO in many outfits led me to believe that women are extremely capable where handguns are concerned. Until we began using rifles with smaller caliber bullets I thought that it was downright difficult for many women to handle the usual military rifle — too heavy, too long, not made for someone without strong arms.
I remember a movie starring Hemingway's two daughters. The older of them (Mariel?) was supposed to be a crack shot in the film, and she may have been one in real life too, but they gave her some kind of rifle (I've forgotten what; may have been some hunting rifle I wasn't familiar with) that she used to rid the world of some slob, and just looking at the way she was leaning way-way-back to counter-balance that weight and length told me something I have never forgotten.
But the new weapons? An AR for example? I saw the tip of the iceberg when weapons similar to that came along. You take a short version of an AR and you have an ideal shoulder weapon for a woman. And for anyone else, for that matter.
If I were a woman trying to make a life in some city I'd have a concealed carry license and some small, effective automatic that I carried when doing anything where some creep could try something.
Pat, that's a good sensible approach.
"I do not like guns, never did...."
That made me think. Because I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment people reading this forum might think that I "like guns." The truth is very different. I like any tool which is well well and does the job for which it was made, but I do not have, nor have I ever had, and particular predilection for guns. A slightly older friend in high school taught me how to shoot; I listened to what he said and did it, and was a good shot from the very first. I taught a lot of basics how to shoot and when one of them wasn't doing well I just observed what he was doing, saw the flaw, and told him how to correct it. Great tools! Do a necessary jobs and do it well.
"Crazy, fallen world is it not?"
Uh-uh! Crazy people. The world runs on nice, practical, basic laws. It would not surprise me that if we somehow or other found out some day how those laws were created (not by Who, but how) that there would be a group which was opposed to gravity.
"Maybe they should shoot themselves, make room for more dogs and it would give the dogs something to eat. (:"
Hey! There's an idea! If you really care about animals, then don't ask other to sacrifice their natural rights for your ideas, set an example! So PETA members, with their "humane" ideas about freezing surplus animals to death as a way to "aid" them, and other nut case groups which place animals above humans, could make places for their members to freeze themselves, thereby (a) reducing the human impact on global warming, (b) reducing our reliance on foreign and domestic oil, (c) materially slowing down the invasion of the wilds by humans, (d) cutting down on the carbon footprint of the human race, and (e) providing food for needy animals.
I'd like to think that you're wrong, Ron, but I can't see any other way to get rid of the garbage we have. I hope that when the next constitution is written it gets rid of things like "house rules" an "senate rules" and tell them that what we want is a straight up and down vote on anything which is placed in the hopper. And more importantly, the very first change has to be the banning of political parties and the elimination of everything, both in the federal and in the state laws, which keeps them in power. Example? Primary elections. Why should the only people who get to run be those hand picked by some political party?
Last login: today