"Gas prices sinking - fill 'er up!" (America, the superficial)

That ABC Good Morning America caption (9/12/06) illustrates the chronic
shallowness of Americans. A field reporter was jubilant that the price
of gas had dropped, and hoping for more of the same. Not once did this
dingbat mention conservation in her report. Diane Sawyer didn't either.
Hard working Americans (in an oil-addicted economy) are offended by
high prices, so let's not upset them with talk of restraint. We must
keep the economy addicted and growing forever, or else.....or else we
might have to live sustainably? Don't suggest that!

The fact is, $3+/gallon gas has been the only motivation for the
average fool to conserve fuel and stop buying ego-tanks. Watch as SUV
sales spike in coming months. These people don't care where oil is
coming from or what it's doing to the climate, as long as they can
"fill 'er up!" and go about their self-centered business. They are like
Pac-Man, eating up whatever oil appears in their path. They show little
concern for their own life-support systems. Do they think money creates
energy itself?

If we really want to curb global warming and pollution, shouldn't we be
somewhat grateful for anything that forces us to do it? The truth is,
most people only care about their immediate wants. Like bleating sheep,
they'll try to blame someone else when Peak Oil and climate change
finally forces them off the road. Mark my words: the masses won't act
until the fan slings brown matter.

R. Lander

> The fact is, $3+/gallon gas has been the only motivation for the
> average fool to conserve fuel and stop buying ego-tanks.

So what?

> Watch as SUV
> sales spike in coming months. These people don't care where oil is
> coming from or what it's doing to the climate, as long as they can
> "fill 'er up!" and go about their self-centered business.

If you don't watch out for yourself, don't expect anybody else to.

> If we really want to curb global warming and pollution, shouldn't we be
> somewhat grateful for anything that forces us to do it?

The air is cleaner now than any time in the last 80 years.

But what are YOU doing about it?

Larry Bud wrote:

> > The fact is, $3+/gallon gas has been the only motivation for the
> > average fool to conserve fuel and stop buying ego-tanks.
>
> So what?

"So what?" is the hallmark of the brain-dead. You're illustrating my
point perfectly.

> > Watch as SUV
> > sales spike in coming months. These people don't care where oil is
> > coming from or what it's doing to the climate, as long as they can
> > "fill 'er up!" and go about their self-centered business.
>
> If you don't watch out for yourself, don't expect anybody else to.

Same mentality as above. You're afraid to think, or just too selfish.

> > If we really want to curb global warming and pollution, shouldn't we be
> > somewhat grateful for anything that forces us to do it?
>
> The air is cleaner now than any time in the last 80 years.

That's propaganda. Most of those comparisons date back to the 70s
before fuel injection and smog requirements. Population growth is
cancelling out cleaner engine technology, especially in growing towns.
It all depends on the comparison dates and what region you're talking
about. Boise, Idaho is a good example of rising air pollution and noise
pollution. Growthmania ensures the trend will continue.

> But what are YOU doing about it?

More than you, I'm sure. Why ask a question when you don't even care
about the answer? You're just displaying shallowness.

R. Lander

> > > The fact is, $3+/gallon gas has been the only motivation for the
> > > average fool to conserve fuel and stop buying ego-tanks.
> >
> > So what?
>
> "So what?" is the hallmark of the brain-dead. You're illustrating my
> point perfectly.

It's your premise, you back it up. Try to do so without the ad-hominum
attacks. (I won't hold my breath).

> > > If we really want to curb global warming and pollution, shouldn't we be
> > > somewhat grateful for anything that forces us to do it?
> >
> > The air is cleaner now than any time in the last 80 years.
>
> That's propaganda. Most of those comparisons date back to the 70s
> before fuel injection and smog requirements.

And? You're the one claming pollution is getting worse.

http://www.epa.gov/airtrends/2006/econ-emissions.html


> Population growth is
> cancelling out cleaner engine technology, especially in growing towns.

Sorry, you're just plain wrong, as shown by the EPAs graph in the above
link. Since 1970, Vechicle Miles driven have gone up by 178%, yet
emissions have declined by 53%.


> It all depends on the comparison dates and what region you're talking
> about.

Ahhh, so your blanket statement that pollition is worse you knew to be
untrue.

Now, obviously to limit the scope of measuring pollition by region when
accusing the entire Country's trends is bad science at best. At worst
you're a downright liar.

> > But what are YOU doing about it?
>
> More than you, I'm sure.

Translation: "Nothing. How dare you bring up my hypocrisy. Don't do
as I do, do as I say".

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), R. Lander said in
rec.autos.driving:
> > > The fact is, $3+/gallon gas has been the only motivation for the
> > > average fool to conserve fuel and stop buying ego-tanks.
> >
> > So what?
>
> "So what?" is the hallmark of the brain-dead. You're illustrating my
> point perfectly.

Typical left winger. Someone refuese to buy your propaganda, resort to
name calling. No wonder the Republicans have been kicking ass in the
elections of the last 10 years or so.

> > > Watch as SUV
> > > sales spike in coming months. These people don't care where oil is
> > > coming from or what it's doing to the climate, as long as they can
> > > "fill 'er up!" and go about their self-centered business.
> >
> > If you don't watch out for yourself, don't expect anybody else to.
>
> Same mentality as above. You're afraid to think, or just too selfish.

See above. Anyone who refuses to bow down to your dogma is "afraid to
think," or "selfish."

> > > If we really want to curb global warming and pollution, shouldn't we be
> > > somewhat grateful for anything that forces us to do it?
> >
> > The air is cleaner now than any time in the last 80 years.
>
> That's propaganda. Most of those comparisons date back to the 70s
> before fuel injection and smog requirements. Population growth is
> cancelling out cleaner engine technology, especially in growing towns.
> It all depends on the comparison dates and what region you're talking
> about. Boise, Idaho is a good example of rising air pollution and noise
> pollution. Growthmania ensures the trend will continue.

Cite?

> > But what are YOU doing about it?
>
> More than you, I'm sure. Why ask a question when you don't even care
> about the answer? You're just displaying shallowness.

Evasion of the issue duly noted.

** P * L * O * N * K **

--
"The people who cast the votes don't decide an election,
the people who count the votes do."
--Joseph Stalin

>R. Lander wrote:
>>>Snip stupid GW babbling

You GWer's always see the cloud and never the silver lining. If the
Yankees use up all the oil then there will be none left to burn. You
should encourage more usage.....


Dumbass.....

In article .com>,
R. Lander > wrote:
>That ABC Good Morning America caption (9/12/06) illustrates the chronic
>shallowness of Americans.

Well, actually, it illustrates the shallowness of "Good Morning
America". As you might guess from the title, it's not intended to be
a hard-hitting news program of any sort.

>high prices, so let's not upset them with talk of restraint. We must
>keep the economy addicted and growing forever, or else.....or else we
>might have to live sustainably? Don't suggest that!

We can't live "sustainably"; for starters, just to keep consumption
near current levels would require zero population growth. To actually
significantly reduce consumption would require that plus serious
reductions in the standard of living. To eliminate the use of oil
would require the death of most of the US population.

>most people only care about their immediate wants. Like bleating sheep,
>they'll try to blame someone else when Peak Oil and climate change
>finally forces them off the road.

Peak Oil? That ain't sheep you're hearing; that's Chicken Little.


--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Matthew Russotto
said in rec.autos.driving:
> We can't live "sustainably"; for starters, just to keep consumption
> near current levels would require zero population growth. To actually
> significantly reduce consumption would require that plus serious
> reductions in the standard of living. To eliminate the use of oil
> would require the death of most of the US population.

Same for growing economies like China and India. I wonder if "R.
Lander," is willing to commit genocide for its ideals....

--
"Capital punishment: them without the capital get the punishment."
--John Spenkelink

Matthew Russotto wrote:

> We can't live "sustainably"; for starters, just to keep consumption
> near current levels would require zero population growth.

So ?

> To actually
> significantly reduce consumption would require that plus serious
> reductions in the standard of living.

What do you mean by 'standard of living' ? Fewer cars maybe but probably better
quality of life.


> To eliminate the use of oil
> would require the death of most of the US population.

You're utterly mad. Those 400 pound fatties would get a bit slimmer for sure !
Mind you I would complain if the USA perished of mass stupidity.



Graham

Matthew Russotto wrote:

> In article .com>,
> R. Lander > wrote:
> >That ABC Good Morning America caption (9/12/06) illustrates the chronic
> >shallowness of Americans.
>
> Well, actually, it illustrates the shallowness of "Good Morning
> America". As you might guess from the title, it's not intended to be
> a hard-hitting news program of any sort.
>
> >high prices, so let's not upset them with talk of restraint. We must
> >keep the economy addicted and growing forever, or else.....or else we
> >might have to live sustainably? Don't suggest that!
>
> We can't live "sustainably"; for starters, just to keep consumption
> near current levels would require zero population growth. To actually
> significantly reduce consumption would require that plus serious
> reductions in the standard of living. To eliminate the use of oil
> would require the death of most of the US population.
>
> >most people only care about their immediate wants. Like bleating sheep,
> >they'll try to blame someone else when Peak Oil and climate change
> >finally forces them off the road.
>
> Peak Oil? That ain't sheep you're hearing; that's Chicken Little.

This is such a great example of pathetically muddled American thinking that it
deserves a wider audience !


Graham