Also, as I said before, even if there were more trees today, it would only
be because forests were ravaged in the 17th century. Nothing to be proud
even if it was true.
David G Fisher
Also, as I said before, even if there were more trees today, it would only
be because forests were ravaged in the 17th century. Nothing to be proud
even if it was true.
David G Fisher
The fact that the more well known communist states also happened to be
undemocratic doesn't mean the two go hand-in-glove. There are lots of
extreme right wing totalitarian governments, too.
Marc
> Best to you.
> Dave B
> > You seem to have missed my tongue-in-cheek point. I am not an US
citizen,
> > but living next door in Canada, we chuckle at the frequent use of the
term
> > communist to describe anything that isn't in-line with the current US
> > military position.
> > A majority of Americans don't even know what communism is...rattling on
> > about communism versus democracy.
> > CNN is so right wing compared to any intelligent world news source (BBC,
> > CBC, most anything in Europe), that to call it what you did suggests a
> > complete myopic misunderstanding of the US vis-a-vis the rest of the
world
> > and a complete misunderstanding of the term communism.
> > Marc
> > > Well,
> > > If that's how 'you' feel about it, you are entitled to you're
> opinion,
> > > but I think you are wrong.
> > > > Yep, everything and everyone in the US who isn't 100%
unconditionally
> > > > patriotic is a commie.
> > > > Marc
> > > > > 25 years ago when I was 20 I certainly didn't pay attention to
> world
> > > > > events and I was terrible at geography. But I don't believe that
> would
> > > > > have had any effect on my ability to serve my country if I had
been
> > > > > called upon to fight.
> > > > > But back then we didn't have CNN 'communist new network'
> > > > > disrespecting the military and our commander in chief either :/
> > > > > Dave B
> > > I'm always amused when someone claims to *need* something that was
> > > invented fairly recently. I like my car, but I live within a few
> > > miles of most services and a bicycle is much more fun (in nice weather).
> > ROFL, you almost had me there for a second, right up until you mentioned
> > the bicycle bit, then I realized this was a joke
> Joke's on you. My bicycle gets more _hours_ of use per year than my car --
> of course I go on longer trips with the car, so the car does more
> miles/year. Cycling with a good bike _is_ fun, and also saves the wear and
> tear on the car from those short trips that never really get the engine
> warmed up.
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
http://www.theuspits.com
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--
> > According to a discussion in another NG, this statement is not true...,
> > apparently Rush Limbaugh made this statement and it seems to have been
> > proven false
> I actually got the info from a US Forestry Service book written in the late
> '70s. My father-in-law was the head forester for a large, local paper mill.
> His job some often put him ad odds with the rest of management. While I was
> building my house, my wife and I stayed with her folks for a few months.
> There is a lot of info on the internet that goes out without quoting
> sources. Much of it is probably made up. I don't know what sources the
> Forestry Service book used, but I trust it more than unknown internet
> sources. Or I could just make something up, like the statements about Rush's
> info being wrong were proven to be lies by people who had it in for him.
> Regardless, I certainly didn't go out counting all the trees in the US in
> 1700 and then again in 2000. I'm not that old. I suppose the book could be
> wrong, but I'd think if they were going to make something up, it would help
> their agenda to state just the opposite.
> Of course, from the 14th to 18th centuries we were in a mini ice age. Winter
> temperatures here in Maine were often 40 below zero.That would certainly
> hurt tree growth, and the temps we've had since then are conducive to it.
I can't back up that statement, I wouldn't even know where to start
looking, but I bet someone like Rush would, maybe you both read the same
book ? :-)
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
http://www.theuspits.com
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--
--
Slot
Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com
> > >Well, except for being #1 in food production and technology, and the
> most
> > > driving and stable force in the world economy. Oh, and #1 in giving
away
> > > money to politically insignificant countries.
> > Grin. How about those millions of dollars Ted Turner paid to the US
> > because they wouldn't even fulfil their financial obligations (!) as a
> > leading and founding member (!) of the UN?
> ><snip>
> > Regards, Ruud
> One born every minute with ol' Teddy. A penny sent to the UN is a
wasted
> penny; thank God we don't pay them a damn thing more than we already do.
> Maybe your country would care to pay 1/3 of it's operating
expenses(which
> is seperate to the costs you mention above), and host it ?
> Wouldn't hurt my feelings any to get that dead weight out of this
country.
> John
Now that you mention it, yeah. IIRC the big question in that election
(popular vote wise) was voter fraud in Chicago, tho I could be wrong.
Would have given Nixon the popular vote most likely.
I was under the impression that Iraq hadn't been fully complying with
the inspections, so we asked the inspectors to leave. Same thing, I
guess.
I dunno how right I am here, but I'm guessing that if you strip a
military dictator of his ability to keep an active military, his
regime would lose much its influence politically in that country.
Just an idea. IMHO, the second Saddam completely dismantles his armed
forces he'll be overthrown (assuming the rebel groups in Iraq actually
pulled together).
Not to justify anything Saddam has done, but those chemical weapons
were designed (and, at least initially, manufactured) in this country.
At worst, a glass crater in the middle east. At best, a glass crater
in the middle east. =)
Assuming they can find someone to sell them the technology to build
ICBM's. =) Certainly, he'd threaten the use of tactical nukes, but as
recently as 10 years ago he couldn't even accurately fire a missile at
Israel. Unless he's been smuggling rather large rockets into the
country, his best missile is still the "aim it in the general
direction of your target and hope it hits something" Scud.
Really? The only terrorists I can think of in Iraq are
anti-government. Saddam has had a history of snubbing muslim
extremists. Part of the reason why we're unsure about how to handle a
post-Saddam Iraq is that the internal opposition to his regime
consists primarily of the muslim extremists we're trying to wash our
hands of. Hopefully 9/11 taught a few people in the CIA that
supporting terrorism as long as it has the same agenda that we do is a
bad thing.
I'm sure the Kurds would, but after we allowed them to get slaughtered
after the last war (the whole "incite the Kurds to attack by pledging
US support then pull our troops out" move) they seem a bit more
tentative about supporting us again.
Jason
> Ignoring the obvious energy costs of growing a crop,
> and the need to use petroleum products to operate
> farm machinery, the massive abundant crops that Joe
> the farmer managed with a bull and a hand plow might
> not handle the sun waiting for a truck to come and
> bring it to the city. Or the train that hasn't got any
> diesel..
> I have read estimates that the USA has about 15
> years worth of oil in reserve. thats not taking population
> growth into account. IMO, the increase in cost to
> produce and ship food will grow and will be reflected
> in what people have to pay for it. And unfortunely
> more people will go hungry as the poverty line effectively
> rises. It's a bleak picture but ignore it at your peril. I
> do have faith in humankind (including you yanks :) to
> be able to produce renewable replacement resources
> but only if some energy is expended on such research.
> Some interesting reading on oil ...
> http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> food consumption and energy use
> http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> Future world oil supplies
> http://www.racesimcentral.net/
> Anyway, this is more on topic than the original post
> (though sim cars don't need real oil) :)
> iksteh
While Solar power (photovoltaics) has huge potential growth, I don't think
that it has the potential to replace fossil fuels. I mean, just glancing at
the numbers, it would take something like 8 billion sq meters of 100%
efficient solar cells working 24 hours a day (in space) to equal the ~340
quadrillion BTUs produced from fossil fuels per year worldwide. If you want
them on the surface of the earth, you would have to what, double or triple
(or maybe more) that? If you can only raise the efficiency to say 50% you
would have to double the number again. I think they are currently running in
the low ***s for efficiency right now, so I'm thinking that there would be
considerable time and money required to achieve even those numbers.
As dwindling oil supplies impact the economies of the world to greater and
greater extents, I'm sure that public opinion on Nuclear Power plants
(Fission) will change dramatically. Even so, there is a limited amount of
fissionable material available, so I'm not sure whether it is even possible
to operate the number of Fission plants that would be required to replace
fossil fuels.
I think the greatest hope lies in Nuclear Fusion plants. The science is
already known, so now it is essentially an engineering problem. Which means
that it will be solved eventually. But the question is whether or not it
will be solved before the petroleum reserves run out. If I were in charge of
energy policy, I would put every research dollar possible into Fusion
technology, because IMO it's the only energy supply that can replace (and
greatly surpass) what we have now in oil. IMO when Fusion is implemented on
a large scale, the world will undergo a standard of living increase even
greater than that created by petroleum.
db
Well, New England forests being ravaged in the 17 century isn't something
I'm going to be ashamed of either. If you feel the need to take on the guilt
from all of history, that's fine by me. I prefer to try to deal with the
current situation and focus on the future ;).
db
Of course, one wonders how anyone would know, with certainty, what the
forests were like on the west coast in 1650. And, the maps only go to 1926.
I believe that from around 1870 to 1930 they had the worst logging practices
ever.
Regardless, the maps are only covering *** forests so they are irrelevant
to the original statement. It's kind of like counting the number of people
playing GPL, but you can only count the ones running the original version
1.0, not anyone running patches or upgrades. It has nothing to do with the
current state of forests.
I just looked at a map showing the forests in northern Maine (top right
corner of the US for those failing the CNN pole) and I assure you it looks
like the 1650 map on your link.
--
Slot
Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com
> Also, as I said before, even if there were more trees today, it would only
> be because forests were ravaged in the 17th century. Nothing to be proud
> even if it was true.
> David G Fisher
> > > According to a discussion in another NG, this statement is not
true...,
> > > apparently Rush Limbaugh made this statement and it seems to have been
> > > proven false
> > I actually got the info from a US Forestry Service book written in the
> late
> > '70s. My father-in-law was the head forester for a large, local paper
> mill.
> > His job some often put him ad odds with the rest of management. While I
> was
> > building my house, my wife and I stayed with her folks for a few months.
> > There is a lot of info on the internet that goes out without quoting
> > sources. Much of it is probably made up. I don't know what sources the
> > Forestry Service book used, but I trust it more than unknown internet
> > sources. Or I could just make something up, like the statements about
> Rush's
> > info being wrong were proven to be lies by people who had it in for him.
> > Regardless, I certainly didn't go out counting all the trees in the US
in
> > 1700 and then again in 2000. I'm not that old. I suppose the book could
be
> > wrong, but I'd think if they were going to make something up, it would
> help
> > their agenda to state just the opposite.
> > Of course, from the 14th to 18th centuries we were in a mini ice age.
> Winter
> > temperatures here in Maine were often 40 below zero.That would
certainly
> > hurt tree growth, and the temps we've had since then are conducive to
it.
The White House is putting pressure on Iraq now because they weren't making
progress on the war on terrorism, and they wanted to maintain support he got
(as any president would have) from the mindless flag wavers after 9/11.
Where would the U.S. today be if they had lost the war before we decided it
might be a good idea to help out? They don't need to say thank you.
Besides, Europeans and their families began and built this country.
David G Fisher
I do try to listen to Paul Harvey when I have the chance, though. Does that
count for anything ;-)
--
Slot
Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com
> > > According to a discussion in another NG, this statement is not
true...,
> > > apparently Rush Limbaugh made this statement and it seems to have been
> > > proven false
> > I actually got the info from a US Forestry Service book written in the
late
> > '70s. My father-in-law was the head forester for a large, local paper
mill.
> > His job some often put him ad odds with the rest of management. While I
was
> > building my house, my wife and I stayed with her folks for a few months.
> > There is a lot of info on the internet that goes out without quoting
> > sources. Much of it is probably made up. I don't know what sources the
> > Forestry Service book used, but I trust it more than unknown internet
> > sources. Or I could just make something up, like the statements about
Rush's
> > info being wrong were proven to be lies by people who had it in for him.
> > Regardless, I certainly didn't go out counting all the trees in the US
in
> > 1700 and then again in 2000. I'm not that old. I suppose the book could
be
> > wrong, but I'd think if they were going to make something up, it would
help
> > their agenda to state just the opposite.
> > Of course, from the 14th to 18th centuries we were in a mini ice age.
Winter
> > temperatures here in Maine were often 40 below zero.That would
certainly
> > hurt tree growth, and the temps we've had since then are conducive to
it.
> I hardly think an organization like FAIR would state something they
> couldn't back up with facts regardless if they have it in for Rush, and
> the fact is that Rush couldn't back up his own statement which was
> nearly identical to your statement, and unlike most of us in here he
> needs his rep to be fairly clean, he can't afford too many blunders, so
> I'd think it's fair to say that if that statement could have been backed
> up with facts, Rush would have done so instead of back peddling like he
> did, wouldn't you agree ?
> I can't back up that statement, I wouldn't even know where to start
> looking, but I bet someone like Rush would, maybe you both read the same
> book ? :-)
> Beers and cheers
> (uncle) Goy
> http://www.theuspits.com
> "A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
> --Groucho Marx--
> Assuming they can find someone to sell them the technology to build
> ICBM's. =) Certainly, he'd threaten the use of tactical nukes, but as
> recently as 10 years ago he couldn't even accurately fire a missile at
> Israel. Unless he's been smuggling rather large rockets into the
> country, his best missile is still the "aim it in the general
> direction of your target and hope it hits something" Scud.
I do feel however that you make some excellent points, in Afghanistan
there was an opposition ready to replace the Taliban regime, they were
even willing to do the grunt work as long as they got a little help,
can't see the same thing happening in Iraq, would probably be the start
of a very ***y civil war if we take out Saddam
And then we can start talking about the Oil, Iraq is believed to have
the second largest source of oil, beaten only by Saudi Arabia, who gets
the oil ?
Iraq owes Russia for instance about 12 billion dollars, one of the
reasons Russia didn't vote for the resolution right at once is because
they can't afford to lose that kind of money and wanted some assurances
that their economic interests in Iraq would be protected (for want of a
better word), naa, I'm being cynical here .....
I find it somewhat strange that another "rogue" nation, North Korea, can
develop weapons of mass destruction and nobody really seems to care all
that much, yes I know some people (Bush) has said something but I
haven't heard any news about a UN resolution being prepared, but
Iraq.....couldn't be because Iraq has OIL and North Korea has nothing
anyone would be interested in unless you need to grow large amounts of
Rice, naa, I'm being cynical here ....
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
http://www.racesimcentral.net/
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--
Ya, I guess the US is out, huh? The nice (or bad) thing about nuclear
weapons for him is, if you sent up 2 or 3, it doesn't really matter much
where they land as long as they don't come straight down :-)
--
Slot
Tweaks & Reviews
www.slottweak.com
> Goy, I don't know. I have no idea what Rush's schedule is like. Maybe he did
> have a comeback statement but his bashers just don't mention it. I listened
> to his show a couple times and he was bashing the NE Patriots, so he's not
> exactly on my Christmas Card list.
---
---
So while it does indeed look like the US are doing the right thing right
now, and he goes to some length to argue that case and back it up with
facts, he doesn't even attempt to back up the original statement
It's not really important, I just thought it was a bit funny to see Rush
quoted about this in another NG and within days I see someone making the
exact same statement :-)
Sorry, don't know the guy so you don't get any credits for that :-)
Beers and cheers
(uncle) Goy
http://www.theuspits.com
"A man is only as old as the woman he feels........"
--Groucho Marx--
Um, I have friends who are Republicans and they all think Rush and Newt are
idiots too. Maybe the guy is just biased against idiots?
How about this then. The original statement (and Rush's) is ridiculous
because it misleads the uninformed and tries to make them think that the
current conditions of forests and trees in the U.S. is good, especially when
compared to the distant past when the U.S. was covered in diverse old growth
forests from the east coast to the Mississippi.
The current conditions are not good at all. They are a f**ken pathetic mess
compared to what they were before Americans destroyed them. It's something
to be extremely, extremely ashamed of. In 2002, we still have many U.S.
citizens who could care less.
David G Fisher
> --
> Slot
> Tweaks & Reviews
> www.slottweak.com
> > http://www.racesimcentral.net/~mblowers/def.html
> > Also, as I said before, even if there were more trees today, it would
only
> > be because forests were ravaged in the 17th century. Nothing to be proud
> > even if it was true.
> > David G Fisher
> > > > According to a discussion in another NG, this statement is not
> true...,
> > > > apparently Rush Limbaugh made this statement and it seems to have
been
> > > > proven false
> > > I actually got the info from a US Forestry Service book written in the
> > late
> > > '70s. My father-in-law was the head forester for a large, local paper
> > mill.
> > > His job some often put him ad odds with the rest of management. While
I
> > was
> > > building my house, my wife and I stayed with her folks for a few
months.
> > > There is a lot of info on the internet that goes out without quoting
> > > sources. Much of it is probably made up. I don't know what sources the
> > > Forestry Service book used, but I trust it more than unknown internet
> > > sources. Or I could just make something up, like the statements about
> > Rush's
> > > info being wrong were proven to be lies by people who had it in for
him.
> > > Regardless, I certainly didn't go out counting all the trees in the US
> in
> > > 1700 and then again in 2000. I'm not that old. I suppose the book
could
> be
> > > wrong, but I'd think if they were going to make something up, it would
> > help
> > > their agenda to state just the opposite.
> > > Of course, from the 14th to 18th centuries we were in a mini ice age.
> > Winter
> > > temperatures here in Maine were often 40 below zero.That would
> certainly
> > > hurt tree growth, and the temps we've had since then are conducive to
> it.