[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: conservation hypocrits
>
>can anyone explain to me why it is wrong to explore for oil in Alaska. Yet
>the situation is not dire enough to boycott gas and plan for alternatives.
>Yes, like buying super ultra-low emission vehicles like the Honda Insight,
>but how about carpooling.
or riding a bicycle, or walking, or any other number of things....
>It's obviously more socially acceptable to be conservative (or liberal i
>guess, here they appear to are synonymous); but it seems that this
>conservatism stops when it means sacrificing/altering our lifestyle. Ahhh,
>Democratic sentiment at it's fullest; or should i say empty. Where's the
>logic. How easy is it to fight for something at a distance (say a wildlife
>refuge some 4,000 miles away); God forbid doing something to help rather
>than getting on Politically Incorrect or the Fox News Channel to win some
>votes.
I agree with you here, but the notion that Cheney has put forth that it
would be a non-intrusive drill site astounds me. The smoke and waste from
the fires of the wells in Kuwait still worry me. Let alone the Valdez. I
agree that we need to move away from fossil fuels and into more
environmentally friendly pastures, so to speak, but until we can be
convinced as a people that it's feasible, then we're going to continue to be
single candles in the darkness. (sorry about waxing poetic)
>i hear Bush ripped for not intervening and saying something about the gas
>prices. I SAY CARPOOL PEOPLE. is this some new innovation. Hey, when you
>drive to work look around at how many people are driving alone, these are
>the same people that are complaining about the gas prices. Driving a car is
>a luxury, not a right. i have a theory that we need to revert to the old
>system, that is living in the neighborhood in which you work. See, since
>the inception of the Suburb, that's what people did, right? Now, and since
>the 50's (When was Levittown built?), people have been moving further and
>further from the cities and their jobs. Now, and in the gas crisis in the
>70's, people are beginning to wake up. Only the vision is not that WE
>should do something to change US, rather the government should intervene
>for us and bully the oil companies/OPEC.
I might be confused here, but don't some of the biggest shareholders and
thus profiteers of this hike include some of the members of the government?
And thus, doesn't it run counter to their personal interests to intervene?
Old argument, but it was the same one that I heard when I was in the Gulf...
>Am l on to something here? Does anyone agree. i'm not gonna proofread this
>to ensure that i made any sense. Cuz l know that if my logic is skewed,
>I'll most definitely hear about it.
>
>Sorry for the ranting, Mike
and as my debate professor would say, never apologize for a heartfelt rant.
Back it up with cold hard facts, and you don't have to apologize..
She'd be so proud that I remember that...hah
-Jason
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/