backtop

Blog: Science Big Engineering: The End of Greatness
Michael Asher (Blog) - May 29, 2007 12:41 PM
Print 230 comment(s) - last by jtesoro.. on Jun 8 at 11:11 PM
Silently an era in U.S. history passes

I've recently returned from a trip through the Panama Canal.  Built by American engineers after a two failed French attempts (the remains of which can still be seen in Panama today), it has been called "The Eighth Wonder of the World."  Seeing it caused me to consider some of the great engineering projects built in the U.S. -- Hoover Dam, Mount Rushmore, the Golden Gate Bridge, the Interstate Highway System.  All awe-inspiring achievements.  And all built long ago. 

Such big engineering just isn't possible in the U.S. any longer.  New dams, bridges, canals, tidal power stations, even nuclear reactors or oil refineries -- the list goes on and on.  Should such a project even be proposed, a well-funded army of environmental activists quickly shuts it down, lest it disturb a bird's nest, or the home of a field mouse.  Masquerading as environmental concerns, in reality its simply blind worship of "Mother Earth" ... and the belief that any change man makes is by definition bad.  Evil, in fact.

Even on land already developed, ersatz environmentalism slows projects and adds enormously to the price tag.   Boston's "Big Dig" was dug almost entirely through reclaimed landfill, and even still required an 11 year billion-dollar environmental impact study, which included concerns over disrupted habitat for sewer rats.  New York's Freedom Tower being built to replace the WTC is enduring an expensive, multi-year environmental review, even though its site hasn't been home to a single plant or animal in well over a century.  And one of the U.S.'s most succesful civil engineering projects -- the massive system of drainage canals which converted Central/South Florida from dangerous, malarial swampland into one of the most vibrantly growing regions of the country -- has not only been halted, but today is slowly being rolled back.  Truth, my friends, is stranger than fiction.

Big engineering is still being done, just not in America.  As examples, I give you  Japan's Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge (nearly twice as long as the Golden Gate), Dubai's Burj Dubai or its astounding, artificial Palm Islands, China's Three Gorges Dam (five times the size of Hoover), India's $70 billon National Highway Development Project.  All exciting, inspiring engineering projects with enormous economic benefits.  And all of which could not possibly have been built in America's current political climate. 
Denying the U.S. such projects means real economic losses of course.  But it also carries a deeper, more pernicious impact.  People go where the action is.  How long will the world's most skilled firms and engineers continue to remain in a country that refuses to use their talents  

A century ago, similar factors caused Europe to lose its preeminent position to the USA.   What nation will hold that top position in the 21st Century?  I don't know ... but I'm sure it will be one not afraid of large engineering projects.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Sewer Rats
By BMFPitt on 5/29/2007 2:01:04 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Boston's "Big Dig" was dug almost entirely through reclaimed landfill, and even still required an 11 year billion-dollar environmental impact study, which included concerns over disrupted habitat for sewer rats.
I don't know about you, but before digging up a landfill full of sewer rats, I'd like to know if it is going to cause them to flee straight towards my house.




RE: Sewer Rats
By grenableu on 5/29/2007 2:53:11 PM , Rating: 5
How about instead of spending $100 million studying the rats habitat, we just spent a few thousand on rat poison instead?


RE: Sewer Rats
By gramboh on 5/29/2007 3:13:07 PM , Rating: 4
How will that impact groundwater which could affect a ton of stuff? Environmental impact studies aren't just for crazy extremists wanting to stop progress, they are mostly to determine if there will be an impact on the ecosystem which could negatively affect nature and mankind alike. They are important and the author of this blog again goes way off the deep end on his editorials (just as those environmental extremists he accuses do on the other end of the spectrum).


RE: Sewer Rats
By James Holden on 5/29/2007 3:20:13 PM , Rating: 5
Do you really think those studies are worth billions of dollars though?

We build cities on garbage for christ's sake~ literally everything we do could require some kind of environmental study. I'm all for studying these things within reason, but as a contractor I've dealt with some of these types.

Believe it or not there are people that believe preserving the habitat of some swamp toads is more important than building a hospital. If you could show me that those toads are going to treat the burn victims from this ER, then yes I'd agree we should be spending more time investigating the environmental impact.

However, next time some kid dies in South Tampa because the ER was 20 miles further, YOU can be the one to explain to the parents that we had to save some toads first.


RE: Sewer Rats
By porkpie on 5/29/2007 3:25:43 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
However, next time some kid dies in South Tampa because the ER was 20 miles further, YOU can be the one to explain to the parents that we had to save some toads first
There are more than a few environmentalists who believe that kid dying is a good thing. The ones that claim killer viruses are actually good for the environment, by reducing the amount of people on the planet.


RE: Sewer Rats
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Sewer Rats
By James Holden on 5/30/2007 3:38:39 PM , Rating: 5
There's a reason why that guy gets moderated down into oblivion every time he posts.


RE: Sewer Rats
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Sewer Rats
By porkpie on 5/30/2007 3:59:54 PM , Rating: 1
What tripe are you spouting now? Because I failed to respond to some other guy in some other thread, that somehow "proves" I don't care about human life?

With logic like that, what tiny shred of credibility you had left just went flying out the window.


RE: Sewer Rats
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Sewer Rats
By BMFPitt on 5/29/2007 4:10:07 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
We build cities on garbage for christ's sake~ literally everything we do could require some kind of environmental study.
I built this hospital up from nothing. When I started here, all there was was swamp. Other HMOs said I was daft to build a hospital on a swamp, but I built it all the same, just to show 'em. It sank into the swamp. So, I built a second one. That sank into the swamp. So, I built a third one. That burned down, fell over, THEN sank into the swamp, but the fourth one stayed up! And that's what is gonna treat burn victims.


RE: Sewer Rats
By novacthall on 5/29/2007 5:05:52 PM , Rating: 3
Nothing like a Monty Python adaptation to brighten your day.

You, sir, are a silly, silly person. And for that you have my gratitude.


RE: Sewer Rats
By cityplannerx on 5/29/2007 4:47:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
However, next time some kid dies in South Tampa because the ER was 20 miles further, YOU can be the one to explain to the parents that we had to save some toads first.


Why did you buy a house or move into a community with no hospital (i.e., outside 20 miles) in the first place? Why should biological resources (e.g., toad habitat) be destroyed because you insist on living in suburbia? I cannot begin to name the number of times I have dealt with people who are too short-sighted to analyze the community they move into. As an example, people consistently purchase homes within neighborhoods that border open spaces and retain the presumption that the open space will remain indefinitely when public documents clearly envision future development. Don't go blaming others for your decisions, or asking for quick fixes to your short-sightedness.

Back on subject concerning American engineering feats, how about those impenetrable levees protecting New Orleans. Engineers definitely showed Mother Nature who she was dealing with; Man can build anything, anywhere. I think the "environmental studies" of that levee could have used a few million more dollars (particularly a more thorough hydro-geological assessment report). I realize I am alone in this, but I for one support preparation of "environmental studies" because man has yet to prove the ability to relinquish selfish and greedious behaviors.


RE: Sewer Rats
By BMFPitt on 5/29/2007 5:00:35 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Back on subject concerning American engineering feats, how about those impenetrable levees protecting New Orleans. Engineers definitely showed Mother Nature who she was dealing with; Man can build anything, anywhere. I think the "environmental studies" of that levee could have used a few million more dollars
My understanding is that the engineering stated quite clearly that the levees would fail in a category 4 or higher hurricane. Studying only does you good if you do something about the results.


RE: Sewer Rats
By novacthall on 5/29/2007 5:15:40 PM , Rating: 4
Adding to your point, money was redirected away from levee repair in New Orleans for decades. Despite the advice of the engineers to beef the infrastructure, money was instead sunk into building the welfare state.

Throwing money at the studies did absolutely nothing.


RE: Sewer Rats
By Ringold on 5/30/2007 12:15:28 AM , Rating: 3
An identical situation which exists in South Florida today; if the levees just busted by, say, a Hurricane Charley that whips South Florida instead of Central Florida, thousands could die within hours. Lake Okeechobee is QUITE a bit larger than anything New Orleans faced. Well, except for the ocean, of course..

But hey, it'd do wonders for the Everglades!


RE: Sewer Rats
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Sewer Rats
By grenableu on 5/29/2007 5:32:44 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Why should biological resources (e.g., toad habitat) be destroyed because you insist on living in suburbia?
Because, sir, men are more important than toads.


RE: Sewer Rats
By roadhog74 on 5/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Sewer Rats
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Sewer Rats
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Sewer Rats
By Ringold on 5/30/2007 10:29:36 PM , Rating: 3
And what do you think this country was started over? Free minds and free markets, as Reason magazine says.

There are countries that value touchy-feely social dependence on the state and each other, such as France. You could live there and enjoy the 20% unemployment among those in their 20s and 50% unemployment in the suburbs, with an overally national unemployment that hasn't been below 10% for possibly as long as you've been alive.

That's a trade off most people aren't willing to make. In fact.. with the election of Sarkozy, it seems to suggest your European ilk realized that even they arent willing to sacrifice the almighty dollar just for big liberal dreams.


RE: Sewer Rats
By TheGreek on 5/31/07, Rating: 0
RE: Sewer Rats
By TheGreek on 6/4/07, Rating: 0
RE: Sewer Rats
By jacarte8 on 5/30/2007 4:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
This is a fact.


RE: Sewer Rats
By James Holden on 5/29/2007 5:43:46 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Why did you buy a house or move into a community with no hospital (i.e., outside 20 miles) in the first place? Why should biological resources (e.g., toad habitat) be destroyed because you insist on living in suburbia? I cannot begin to name the number of times I have dealt with people who are too short-sighted to analyze the community they move into.

Chicago, Tampa, Miami, New Orleans (er, bad example) were all built on swamps, so we should desert those as well. LA and San Fransico are built on fault lines, Phoenix is in the middle of a fucking desert with no water.

Are you recommending we all move to ... Detroit?

Here's the problem -- when environmentalists stop something like a hospital or a public works project that was slated to be built there for decades. How is that fair to the residents who were promised by the government that a hospital would be built? Same for schools, fire departments, highways, etc.

quote:
Why should biological resources (e.g., toad habitat) be destroyed because you insist on living in suburbia

You know, a lot of people live in the suburbs because it's cheaper and they don't have any means to live elsewhere.

I feel bad for the toads or whatever, but when we're talking about a hospital or a school (not a Nordstroms), I think as a society we have to get our priorities in order.


RE: Sewer Rats
By Ringold on 5/30/2007 12:17:39 AM , Rating: 5
We shouldn't of left Africa, obviously. Who the hell were we to wander mindlessly in to Europe, chop down all the trees to build boats to then invade North America with capitalist expansion? Psh, and now you expect hospitals?! What, just because you're human you think you're special or something?

Environmentalists crack me up


RE: Sewer Rats
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Sewer Rats
By James Holden on 5/30/2007 3:40:30 PM , Rating: 3
Hard thing to prove given that foraging in the wilderness sort of guarantees that you won't live past the age of 40 anyway. Certainly not old enough to develop any kind of cancer.


RE: Sewer Rats
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Sewer Rats
By jtesoro on 6/1/2007 11:57:11 PM , Rating: 3
So you're saying hospitals should be built first in the middle of nowhere? Only then should people move in, right? Same goes for schools, government offices and other infrastructure. They should be built BEFORE anyone is in there. And if this is done the toads would be saved too!


RE: Sewer Rats
By AMDJunkie on 6/2/2007 7:28:48 AM , Rating: 1
Very bad example.

South Tampa has no less than three hospitals that I can name off the top of my head: Tampa General on Davis Islands, Memorial on Swann Ave., and St. Joesephs right on Dr. Martin Luther King Blvd near the stadium. If anyone's going to die because the hospital was 20 miles away, it's not a South Tampa child, that's for sure.

Also, because of non-existant environmental planning during the earlier portion of the twentieth century, even after this rather extreme drought that Florida has been suffering through, this recent rainfall has already flooded several streets in South Tampa, notably Swann and MacDill avenues (Mind you, it took more than a sprinkle to do that this time around...). Perhaps people should consider that environmental studies are not ways to impede project progress for the benefit of species they perceive as worthless to the welfare of their lives, but rather, research into how contruction will impact the organisms that live in that unique ecosystem, including humans .

Also, South Tampa apparently has little restriction to development if the most recent overpriced housing boom (now bust) cash-ins are any indication. Areas that were deemed undesireable due to their relative proximity to a dirty air force base (love seeing the brown cloud of jet fuel smog over CentCom when fishing in the bay) are now hosting high-scale residences like "Westshore Yacht Club." Yecch.

And one final thing, for the author of this article this time: Great projects require great funding, almost unlimited funding in fact. Many times a "wonder" is created despite the prohibitive cost because of a sense of perhaps national pride or sheer necessity, rather than economic sensibilities (even if such investments are definitely for long-term investment). You'll have a civic board meeting full of irate residents protesting the rising taxes to support the bloating cost of building an uberdam or a private meagbuilding receiving public funding support, before they start waxing heartrending odes to a woodland creature. These criticisms are not ignored by people, especially politicians... Fringe environmentalists typically are.


RE: Sewer Rats
By roadhog74 on 5/30/2007 12:26:50 AM , Rating: 4
if Queensland had done an environmental study on the impact
of caine toads prior to introducing them.

$100 Million would have been a bargain.


RE: Sewer Rats
By Adahiyast on 5/30/2007 12:16:50 PM , Rating: 3
I would have nothing to play golf with then :(.

*Breaks out the petrol, a match and a golf club.*


RE: Sewer Rats
By novacthall on 5/30/2007 2:03:27 PM , Rating: 5
That's not on-topic. Your example is the introduction of an alien species to an ecosystem in order to offset the local predator-prey relationship.

The point being made in the article is that it seems more often than not that great engineering projects in this country are completely derailed because of massively expensive environmental impact analysis studies that prioritize insignificant animal habitats over human well-being.

There are excellent arguments to be made for good stewardship, but the eco-religion tends to take it too far.


RE: Sewer Rats
By Moocher on 5/31/2007 3:36:29 AM , Rating: 3
I agree that in some situations they do take it too far. But on the flip side of it, there are some areas, where it isn't taken far enough or is ignored completely.

I have worked in the O&G industry for a few years now, in both Canada and the US. I will say this, for all of the things that I have seen that have been so very detrimental to the environment, I have yet to see much of any response or interest by environmentalists.

Certainly I have heard about Greenpeace sitting out beside the offshore platforms, heckling the workers. But I have never seen anyone interested in that big diesel powered land rig, burning 25,000 liters of fuel a week, sitting just outside of a national park.

If you need an example of how a blind eye is turned, and you live in the southern states, go visit one of the private (not public) beaches along the Gulf. I did, and was pretty disgusted, and I work in the industry.


Some big projects in America
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/29/2007 2:26:14 PM , Rating: 5
I am also a civil works nut, and I've been keeping tabs on a few major projects in the U.S.

Chicago TARP: 50-year civil works plan to redo the drainage in metro Chicago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_and_Reservoir_...

TKM-WorldLink (kinda): US-Russia connection
http://dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=7022

Chicago Spire: 2000 ft building proposed almost exactly where Frank Lloyd Wright's mile high Illinois Building was proposed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Spire

Las Vegas Tower: Would be the tallest building in the US if the Spire isn't completed. Same architects as the Sears Tower and Burj Dubai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Las_Vegas_Tower

SF Transbay: Half a dozen towers slated for downtown SF.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/ch...

Further thoughts: It's interesting to see that Burj Dubai is being built by American (Chicago) architects that used The Illinois as inspiration.




RE: Some big projects in America
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/29/2007 6:13:16 PM , Rating: 5
I forgot to mention that the U.S. was an integral component in one of the largest public works projects ever -- the Internet. Since then, GPS probably ranks up there as the second greatest world-contribution in the last 30 years.

For those looking at what could be the next major U.S. megaproject, check out "Future Imagery Architecture" from Lockheed.


RE: Some big projects in America
By Lightning III on 5/30/2007 11:40:00 AM , Rating: 2
Yea but thats Darpa primarly for the military then converted to public use


RE: Some big projects in America
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/30/2007 1:04:14 PM , Rating: 4
Do you know what one of the main functions of the US highway system is?


RE: Some big projects in America
By masher2 (blog) on 5/30/2007 1:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
To allow for emergency landing of military aircraft. That's why 1 mile in every five must be perfectly straight. :)


RE: Some big projects in America
By Scorpion on 5/30/2007 6:27:52 PM , Rating: 2
That's a myth, btw.


RE: Some big projects in America
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/30/2007 6:40:12 PM , Rating: 3
Well the Federal Aid Highway Act of 1956 mandated that the highway and interstates were specifically to facilitate troop movement. Ike always championed it for national defense over anything else.

Sweden, if I recall correctly, uses their highway system as their primary airstrips.


RE: Some big projects in America
By Lightning III on 5/30/2007 9:23:20 PM , Rating: 2

The best example I know is Hawaii it has exactly two federal highways H1 which runs from schofield barracks home of Tropic Lightning the 25th Infantry Division to Hickam AFB and then on to Pearl Harbour and then H2 that runs from Kaneohe Marine Base across a mountain range and across an ancient Hawaian burial place to the afore mentioned Hickam AFB and onto well you should get the picture yes I'm that rarest of rares a liberal that belives in a strong defense and who has actually served so if were going for the Heinleinequse quotes only us that have served should be able to vote or run for elected office so Guess according to previous post's in this thread I hate myself but my opinion should really count

I kinda wandered off there didn't I

ooh well at least the part about the Highways was good


By Lightning III on 5/30/2007 9:28:56 PM , Rating: 2

ooops my Heinlein comes from Starship Troopers my favorite book

which by the way is just about an exact negative image of the movie

the book which is more about why men fight

and another of his utopian cultures


By Lightning III on 5/30/2007 9:39:43 PM , Rating: 2
dammit its three highways h1 really goes from the unground military installation now run by the national gaurd inside diamondhead all the way to barbers point NAS H2 branches off to schofield and H3 branches off

I knew I shouldn't post after 8 oclock


RE: Some big projects in America
By spwrozek on 5/29/2007 6:20:26 PM , Rating: 4
I don't see how it is is that interesting that Americans are involved with the Burj Dubai. UAE and specifically Dubai is one of, if not the leader, in most high rise structures being built in the world. You have to go where the money is. Last time I was in Chicago I hardly saw any high rise construction happening.

Also why has no one mentioned one of the biggest engineering projects in America right now????

The new Bay Bridge in San Fran. It is huge, looks awesome, it will be the largest self-anchored suspension bridge in the world, it is the most innovative bridge ever to deal with seismic activity (It can handle 1 yard of movement). There is a great article about it in the June 2007 issue of Popular Mechanics.

Another project not quite as big but the I-280 bridge in Toledo, OH is pretty impressive and it is just about finished. 9,000 ft cable stayed bridge and the center tower is supposed to light up in the night sky.
http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/projects/i-2...


RE: Some big projects in America
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/29/2007 6:32:26 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Last time I was in Chicago I hardly saw any high rise construction happening.

On the contrary, Chicago is one of the only places supertall buildings are going up in the US!

Chicago Spire, Trump Tower, Mandarin Oriental Tower, Waterview Tower and the Aqua Tower. The smallest of those 5 is 80 stories and all are proposed completed by 2010.


RE: Some big projects in America
By spwrozek on 5/29/2007 7:49:57 PM , Rating: 6
It has been a while, so it is good to see that some things are being built that are more impressive then the average high rise building.

In comparison to Dubai though it isn't even close and why I think you see American companies over there. They currently have 328 high rises being built and 316 approved for construction.
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/sk/?id=100485

Chicago is at 57 under construction, not to bad, and 37 approved.
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/sk/?id=101030

NYC has the most in the states under construction at 125. 35 more approved.
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/sk/?id=101028

Of course all the hire rise buildings going up are not so glamorous. Most being a typical office/apt building.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/29/2007 8:15:20 PM , Rating: 3
Awesome resource. You get a gold star for today.


By peternelson on 6/3/2007 12:32:13 AM , Rating: 3
"In comparison to Dubai though it isn't even close and why I think you see American companies over there. They currently have 328 high rises being built and 316 approved for construction."

Having been to Dubai and stayed at the Burj Al Arab nearby all this development and seen the offshore islands, I would like to contribute the reason that all this new construction development is going on (including by American engineers) is that I believe Dubai has ZERO property taxes, at least for the moment. Compared to UK or USA, that is a very big incentive to build, or relocate there.

It's just an example of how government policy like taxation can either catalyse or decelerate projects.


RE: Some big projects in America
By masher2 (blog) on 5/29/2007 7:07:02 PM , Rating: 3
> "why has no one mentioned one of the biggest engineering projects in America right now???? The new Bay Bridge in San Fran..."

I considered that a special case, as it's principally a replacement for the existing bridge, damaged in the '89 quake. I find it unlikely that California would have approved a wholly new bridge in this day and age.

> "it is the most innovative bridge ever to deal with seismic activity (It can handle 1 yard of movement)."

The Akashi Kaikyo bridge can handle 2 yards of movement, and is rated to handle an earthquake of 8.5 on the Richter scale.


RE: Some big projects in America
By spwrozek on 5/29/2007 7:21:35 PM , Rating: 2
I can see your position on that but I would still say that it is a big deal because it will be a come to San Fran to see it type of structure. Like Golden Gate, Hoover Dam, Mackinac, St. Louis Arch, etc...

I was unaware the Akashi Kaikyo could withstand such a beating very amazing.


RE: Some big projects in America
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Some big projects in America
By grenableu on 5/30/2007 12:12:24 PM , Rating: 4
Maybe the fact that, without the bridge, some 300,000 cars per day will have to travel nearly a hundred miles further, adding countless tons of additional pollution to the air and causing a loss of some 200 million man-hours of productivity per year. And if the span isn't replaced, another earthquake may take it out entirely, causing economic chaos and possibly severe loss of life.

Seriously, learn about your subjects before you knock them. You embarrass yourself a lot less that way.


RE: Some big projects in America
By Ringold on 5/30/2007 1:03:21 PM , Rating: 2
Economic efficiency isn't understood, or cared about, by this particular breed of environmentalist. Might as well have been talking in tongues!


RE: Some big projects in America
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Some big projects in America
By Ringold on 5/30/2007 1:29:30 PM , Rating: 2
So much for your ignorance, because no, it wasn't more efficient; double-hulled tankers leak less in accidents, and leaking oil is not just leaking revenue but cannon fodder for half a century worth of lawsuits. Doubled-hull tankers therefore are indeed more economically efficient, and many ships today that serve much different roles are doubled-hull.

Nice shot, though. Best go back to spin-master school though, your l33t sk1llz are lacking.


RE: Some big projects in America
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Some big projects in America
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 1:52:44 PM , Rating: 1
There are countless bridges and roads that can be justified in this manner and yet they are not built.

Of all the reasons anything gets built in a capitalistic world the good of mankind is never the main reason, we're only lucky if it ends up being a side effect.

The question still stands.


RE: Some big projects in America
By porkpie on 5/30/2007 2:17:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There are countless bridges and roads that can be justified in this manner and yet they are not built.
Name one. With anywhere near the economic and pollution savings of the Bay Bridge, that is. Fact is, there aren't any. Not in the US at least. In any case, your entire argument is ass-backwards. Just because some other bridge may not be being built says nothing about the cost benefits of THIS bridge. Those benefits are real. And massive.

The "making of money" that you sneer at IS for the good of mankind. Go live in some society that makes very little money, and see how widespread poverty, disease, and other social problems are. See how bad environmental problems are in those countries...how polluted their air and water is, how unsafe their food is.

Money is simply an efficient method of managing resources. And resources, kiddo, are good for mankind.


RE: Some big projects in America
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: Some big projects in America
By porkpie on 5/30/2007 3:09:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You really think when one skyscraper is the worlds tallest and then the next one beats the current winner by 10 feet that their are any tangible benefits
Tangible benefits besides the billion dollars or so the construction pours into the area, the long-term benefits of the extra commercial and/or residential space the building adds, the added tourism the world's largest building brings directly, plus the extra business brought in indirectly by it?

Are you serious with this, or just trying to make the enviro-whackos look bad again?

quote:
I'll just wait for the next bigger bridge to be built to answer that one
Couldn't name one, could you? So much for your "countless" examples.

quote:
But some people just insist on parroting 200+ year old libertarians
Sorry to confuse you with the facts, but there aren't any 200+ year old Libertarians. The party and even the philosophy itself isn't nearly that old.


RE: Some big projects in America
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 3:23:02 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Tangible benefits besides the billion dollars or so the construction pours into the area, the long-term benefits of the extra commercial and/or residential space the building adds, the added tourism the world's largest building brings directly, plus the extra business brought in indirectly by it?

Yes cities rationalize this stuff all the time to host the Olympics.
quote:
Couldn't name one, could you? So much for your "countless" examples.

All bridges are like that, size is irrelevent.
quote:
Sorry to confuse you with the facts, but there aren't any 200+ year old Libertarians. The party and even the philosophy itself isn't nearly that old.

And so your contribution is........?


RE: Some big projects in America
By Ringold on 5/30/2007 10:36:10 PM , Rating: 3
I agree, except the libertarian part. I'd say almost every leader in America in 1776 was a libertarian by modern standards, as well as many classical figures. Of course, don't believe they'd of called themselves that; at the time, wouldn't they of been called liberals?

Funny how liberalism has become Barry Goldwater-style Conservatism. :P (I hate calling it Reagan conservatism, he gets a bit much credit, just not everybody knows Goldwater)


RE: Some big projects in America
By TheGreek on 5/31/07, Rating: -1
RE: Some big projects in America
By porkpie on 5/31/2007 9:31:33 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
"Is this hair splitting or plain old he doesn't know what he's talking about?"
Neither. A 200 year old Libertarian is the same as a 200 year old BMW convertible. They don't exist. You got it wrong, plain and simple.

quote:
One thing you can give credit to Reagan for. He was the first to make fun of the other party
I got a nice chuckle out of this. Look back at some of the statements made by the Federalists in the late 1700s. Or by the Democrats against the Whigs in the mid 1800s.


RE: Some big projects in America
By TheGreek on 5/31/07, Rating: -1
RE: Some big projects in America
By TheGreek on 6/4/2007 9:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
Well?


RE: Some big projects in America
By jtesoro on 6/2/2007 4:55:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of all the reasons anything gets built in a capitalistic world the good of mankind is never the main reason, we're only lucky if it ends up being a side effect.

So it seems that your beef is with Capitalism. Well, in Capitalism, people striving for their own self interest ends up benefiting society. It works. You against that? What's your alternative?


RE: Some big projects in America
By TheGreek on 6/4/2007 10:39:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So it seems that your beef is with Capitalism. Well, in Capitalism, people striving for their own self interest ends up benefiting society. It works. You against that? What's your alternative?


As I started, taking responsibility for one's actions and ramifications.

quote:
people striving for their own self interest ends up benefiting society.


So tell us how Ken Lay accomplished this.


RE: Some big projects in America
By jtesoro on 6/8/2007 11:11:38 PM , Rating: 2
In every situation there will be exceptions (in Capitalism or whatever mechanism you are supporting). Overall, the statement still stands. The Capitalist system where people strive for their own self interest ends up benefiting society.


RE: Some big projects in America
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 9:49:37 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
a loss of some 200 million man-hours of productivity per year.

How much is it after everyone's been outsourced? Ooops, wrong country.


RE: Some big projects in America
By Ringold on 5/30/2007 10:41:16 PM , Rating: 2
America was founded on out-sourced low-skill labor jobs being transfered to America, which allowed them to retask labor to more productive endeavors. Likewise, America has sent lower skills jobs further westward for the last century, continuously, slowly retasking those displaced by structural unemployment. It's nothing new, it's the natural progression as economies grow, and while painful to those immediately effected the best thing that can be done is offer them some free college credit-hours.

But to frame it in historical and economic terms wouldn't allow the left (or the right! shame be upon them) to use it for their unfounded isolationist agendas. And to fully discuss it would make it really hard to make a single line wise ass post.


RE: Some big projects in America
By TheGreek on 5/31/2007 9:24:40 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
America was founded on out-sourced low-skill labor jobs being transfered to America, which allowed them to retask labor to more productive endeavors.


1. A lot of current outsourcing is not low skilled labor and that percentage is growing.

2. Those expensive skills we buy overseas add to the trade deficit far more quickly than the Nike assembly line jobs.

3. It is true that the high percentage of people who have no work ethic would not have worked the lower paying jobs, and outsourcing give them more time to devise more elaborate get rich quick schemes. I think their intended victims make be poorer.

4. What does a nation covered in casinos actually accomplish anyway? Oh, this could be some of the new great buildings Asher talked about. Copies of the great pyramids and such.


By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 9:53:24 AM , Rating: 2
In his usual fashion Asher fails to mention any, let alone all, of the detrimental problems and issues that caused by such projects. In his scientific world that can only be described as existing in a perfect vacuum, removed from all aspects of reality and pragmatism, he relies only the final outcome of the alleged "progress", disregarding anything that even the simplest people would take note of by sticking their heads out the window to see the world for what it is.

In a recent story TV it mentioned how polar bears are suffering from the effects of pesticides and PCBs. In the world of Asher their would be no scientific proof of a way such chemicals could reach this creature so then it must not be scientifically possible. But even if he did such scientific information would not be welcome, so you certainly would not read about it here. Of course there's no proof we have any need of the species so scientifically God created it obviously to merely stands in Man's way. Only someone who's omnipotent would behave this way.

You know education is about being able to see the possibilities, not using facts to bolster ignorance and stupidity. If Asher had a constructive or useful bone in his body he would fine a way for developers and nature to coexist instead simply mocking people who may not have their facts as straight or as "complete"(as far as he is concerned and not one inch more) as he does, but certainly won't cause anywhere near as much damage as he will.

The emperor is as naked as a jaybird.




By grenableu on 5/30/2007 10:16:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In a recent story TV it mentioned how polar bears are suffering from the effects of pesticides and PCBs.
When you get your science from the television, your're going to be continually scared and confused. Of the 20 known populations of polar bears, two are in decline, two are growing, and the others are all stable.


By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 10:29:37 AM , Rating: 1
But when a scientist tells me MTBE is safe I am even more scared.


By grenableu on 5/30/2007 10:36:24 AM , Rating: 2
Because you know much more than the scientists do eh?


By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 10:41:38 AM , Rating: 1
No because I admit there's more to it than what I know. I don't pretend to know it all.

Only Asher can out-Asher Asher.

All of that was pretty obvious.


By James Holden on 5/30/2007 1:33:20 PM , Rating: 3
Regardless of whether or not you agree with him, (I often don't), the fact that he has a consistent answer for everything should be something to respect.

I've learned a lot of Masher, but I still think he's over the top. There isn't quite as much black and white in the world of environmentalism, in my opinion.

What I would love to see is projects that benefit both parties. I don't see how these can be mutually exclusive. I think I read from Kris's link that the Chicago Tunnel improved the wildlife in Lake Michigan and improved the city's drainage dramatically.


By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 2:08:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
the fact that he has a consistent answer for everything should be something to respect.


So does Rush Limbaugh and evangelists, matched by their ability to disregard.

quote:
What I would love to see is projects that benefit both parties.


And did he do this?


By James Holden on 5/30/2007 3:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And did he do this?

Did you?

I think the only person that did was Kris actually.


By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 3:43:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Did you?


Well once Asher stooped so low as to address me saying I offered no solutions and that meant my comments were not welcome. Now he comes along and does the same thing.

And I'm not the one trying to generate advertising money from what I say.

Last I remember the kid that yelled the emperor had no clothes on? He had no solution either. That didn't make him wrong.


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/30/2007 4:48:30 PM , Rating: 2
I'd like to make it very clear that Masher's blog on DT is a privilege he earned by being one of the most prolific and respected posters on the DT forums -- he's not a DT employee even. We only display remnant ads on the blog section, and it's more of a community thing than a way to make money.

That being said, if you (or anyone else) can demonstrate the same level of participation and respect, I'd be happy to give you a blog right next to Masher's.


By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 5:11:59 PM , Rating: 1
Now how is that possible, that respect part, when so many here are not interested in solutions or improvements, but merely the capability/opportunity to "own" someone and nothing more.

There's no indication the many posters here are any less self serving than the people they condemn.

MAshers (the A should be capitalized) simply has more experienced and adaptability at being able to compartmentalize his logic with bullet proof walls(of which a good portion of that is the ability to deflect facts that don't suit one's point of view.)

But in reality this proves what?


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/30/2007 5:38:47 PM , Rating: 3
I think you'll have to look at the history of his posts, and not just this one blog, to really understand the whole picture.


By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 10:07:46 PM , Rating: 1
His MO is to use only the facts that only suit him. I've noticed this many times. Of course all the people who insist the emperors new clothes are real and great are all bent out shape.

Of course the technique is nothing new. Limbaugh, John Stossel, Bush, Fox. When you can't some up with a substantial argument you stoop to generalizations like Ashers to make a point.


By Ringold on 5/30/2007 10:56:06 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, John Stossel doesn't at all deserved to be in the same sentence as Limbaugh. He's done excellent work, and a piece he did years ago comparing the level of economic freedom in America, Japan and India even got me on the career path I went down. Ask any economist of either political party; John Stossel doesn't fudge those issues. Anything else he may cover, I don't know.

Second, on Masher, note you're almost the only one to level such charges against him. Why? The rest of us know he's not at all what you claim, even if we dont always disagree with him.


By TheGreek on 5/31/2007 9:50:20 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Anything else he may cover, I don't know.

He's also made public apologies for not getting the facts straight. He routinely uses his economic "facts" to slant his (lack of) environmental concerns not only to prove them wrong but to make fun of them as well.
quote:
Second, on Masher, note you're almost the only one to level such charges against him. Why?

You mean I'm the only one who spoke up. Yes most people are more comfortable just being a follower or leaving. Lot less work that way.


By porkpie on 5/31/2007 11:10:51 AM , Rating: 2
What facts has he gotten wrong? Everything in this article is perfectly correct. Environmental wackos have stalled and halted innumerable large projects in the US, a nation which used to contain the largest buildings, dams, bridges, etc in the world. As a result the real action is now overseas. That has a real economic cost, which myself and a dozen other people have pointed out to you.

I know you're not proud of your country, but some of us still are. And we don't like to see bad things happening here.


By TheGreek on 5/31/2007 11:38:29 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Everything in this article is perfectly correct.


Of course it is.

quote:
I know you're not proud of your country, but some of us still are.


To be proud of accomplishments makes perfect sense. To use the pride to ignore and allow the continuation of wrongs makes no sense at all.

quote:
That has a real economic cost, which myself and a dozen other people have pointed out to you.


An inability to comprehend or accept leads one to believe only he can be right. True deliberations allow otherwise. Everything else is just being pigheaded.


By 1078feba on 5/31/2007 2:21:48 PM , Rating: 3
I agree. You're pigheaded.


By TheGreek on 5/31/2007 4:16:19 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I agree. You're pigheaded.


It's about time you contributed something substantial.

Either that or the local tire center is on fire.


By TheGreek on 5/31/2007 11:28:24 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Second, on Masher, note you're almost the only one to level such charges against him. Why?

A better question would be why is the entire globe on the environmental bandwagon except the country who's president is a puppet of large corporaions? You can't blame American politics for the stand all other countries have taken.


By masher2 (blog) on 5/31/2007 12:20:41 PM , Rating: 4
> "why is the entire globe on the environmental bandwagon except the country..."

You make an excellent example of the logical error known as the "bandwagon fallacy"...even going so far as to use the word itself. However, one should remember our mothers words of wisdom. Simply because others are ready to jump off a cliff does not mean one should follow them.

Certainly a large number of nations are "on the bandwagon". But the wagon seems to have a couple wheels loose. Germany signed Kyoto, for instance...then promptly exempted its entire coal industry from it, making it irrelevant. Canada signed..and has since increased carbon emissions faster than has the US. England and France failed utterly to meet emissions goals. Finland appears that it'll make its goal...but only by following a course of action I've advocated for decades, one that makes environmentalists cry out in horror-- by building more nuclear reactors.

And of course, we musn't ignore the fact that recent scientific data makes the wagon's ultimate destination appear to be wholly incorrect. The ecosystem is being found to be far more resilient than we once thought, and a moderate degree of warming appears to be more beneficial than baneful. This is bad news for the doom-and-gloom witchdoctors, but glad tidings for the rest of us.


By TheGreek on 5/31/2007 1:00:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
You make an excellent example of the logical error known as the "bandwagon fallacy"...even going so far as to use the word itself. However, one should remember our mothers words of wisdom. Simply because others are ready to jump off a cliff does not mean one should follow them

Gee I thought the "bandwagon fallacy" explained you and your followers generalizations and scorched earth dismissals rather well.

Real words of wisdom are "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Of course that assumes the problem created has a cure. But then nothing here is really about wisdom, is it now? Just intellectual one-upmanship.

quote:
The ecosystem is being found to be far more resilient than we once thought,

Does that imply it's less likely to degrade gradually and more likely to eventually snap like a rubber band? Can science pinpoint when that would happen? No, but what the hell, let's go there anyway.


By masher2 (blog) on 5/31/2007 1:56:57 PM , Rating: 4
> "how [is] my stand is part of the "bandwagon fallacy..."

I would have thought it self-obvious. You're attempting to support a position based not on its own merits, but on the fact that others support it. It is the clear implication in the statement, "the rest of the world is on the environmental bandwagon, why aren't we?".

Argumentum ad Populum at its finest.


By Proteusza on 6/1/2007 6:57:43 AM , Rating: 2
TheGreek, why are you so bitter towards Masher2? Why single him out? What has he done wrong? Are you jealous that he has a blog in which he can expound his theories on Life, The Universe, and Everything?

Whatever your feelings on his blog post, you seem to be his most vocifereous critic, and I cant honestly see why.

There are some facts, or ideas if you will, that I think you should consider:

1. Some big economic projects, such as new bridges and skyscrapers and what have you, may benefit mankind. Others still, might even benefit the environment, in some way, however small.
2. How would you feel if I said, "Right we need 1000 more homes for people. Instead of bulldozing an old rundown building and building a skyscraper block of flats, we will invade the precious marshlands and build sprawling mansions and invite devastation upon the inhabitants of the land." the point I'm trying to make is that, although man made constructions arent always ideal, for our needs, they may be just what we need.
3. If the environment can still be protected, is it not reasonable for society to still advance?
4. If you think human technology is all bad, why use a computer?

Whatever humans do, we will always have a negative impact on the environment. The question will always be, how great will that impact be, and can we live with it? If we screw up this planet really bad, we die, and in a short amount of time compared to the planets lifespan, it will recover.


By TheGreek on 6/4/2007 10:04:33 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
why are you so bitter towards Masher2


Stossel-ized facts, lack of subjectivity. Simply observe how he lays blame. The rest follow for they are eager.

There's nothing wrong with large structures as long as all facts and issues are properly weighed, but politics get in the way of many projects (like damns) have been built in the wrong place (given the conditions) or with a philosophy or just forcing it on people regardless of their concerns. This is corporate mob rule which many seem eager to accept. Note how pragmatism and normal human behavior have no place here (my ratings) only the scientific facts one chooses to not ignore.

All of MAshers facts don't amount to even a cursory investigation into the entire subject, yet he and his followers behave like they have the answers to everything. It's that kind of arrogance that's the problem. I suggest an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure but I'd be stoned if that were still in fashion. But then nobody ever changed the opinions of the original flat earthers either.

quote:
If you think human technology is all bad, why use a computer?

Did I really say that? I have 4 processors folding right now.

Now take a look at several other posters. Some have not submitted a single original idea, they've only parroted what they like without weighing any of the issues. Tell me now who's contributed and who hasn't.
quote:
If the environment can still be protected, is it not reasonable for society to still advance?

Did you see anything remotely like that in MAshers original article? You tell me.


By TimberJon on 5/31/2007 2:41:11 PM , Rating: 2
MAsher, Im going to have to say that your logic is correct. While I agreed wholly with your original blog post on the halt, pressure and resistance against large-scale projects, I also never believe anything I hear when it claims to be factual. I have an open mind and love engineering projects. Technically, I can generally understand how they work and/or what categories of physics are applied here and there. The miniscule details may get away from me, but I nail them later. It is the same with the facts, as everyone likes to twist them.

Posters here should take your blog as a bit of information and a small amount of frustration. Ultimately, you can say whatever you want to anyone but your voice may not be heard, and if heard, not likely implemented. I saw the blog as informative and all the supporting facts and environmental concerns I disregarded.

Why? Because the statement that this project exists and that project is so many times larger than another is just data. If you say its 5 times larger, it might actually be 4.7 times larger, and they round it up. I expect this from numbers as they are almost NEVER exact. I also apply the same logic to everything else. Unless I read it consistently from different cited, open, public and/or neutral sources, I wont believe it!

Some readers need to RE-LAX and take a breather. Puff whatever else if you dont like oxy, nitro, co2 and particulates. Do some research yourself if you arent satisfied with the answer. Instead of pinning someone to the wall here at DT you might actually find to your HORROR that the poster was pretty close. You cant fault them for not being dead-on.

As far as I can tell, you take your info from tabletop sources but also in the cookie jar and hidden back under the sink. Even if you mix them all up a little bit, so what? Its not your responsibility to get all the facts 100% correct. Human error exists after all. I dont see you deliberately misrepresenting any one thing or changing the facts in the same manner. So it then appears that it is the responsibility of the reader to research whether or not a statement is true or not.

Nobodys perfect.


By TimberJon on 5/31/2007 6:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
Not every scientific result that is later believed to be fact is proven through experiment, trial or study.

Also, you cannot prove that you are right or technically "correct" by pure insistence, pride or stubbornness.

The existence of human error is uncontroversial.

This is like stating that we need to scientifically prove that the sun really does generate the light we see.


By TheGreek on 6/4/2007 11:18:26 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The existence of human error is uncontroversial.


Not if you're the emperor around here. There's plenty that can't wait to gulp down the green Kool-Aid, and ask for seconds as well.


By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 10:34:11 AM , Rating: 2
And I certainly am not getting the full story here any more than I am the TV. Propaganda is practiced here quite well.


By TimberJon on 6/1/2007 4:58:18 PM , Rating: 2
There really is no full story for anything. The original topic was a frustration about how big engineering projects are always halted by people who --and I may point a finger here to make an example-- want any kind of fuel they can get their hands on just to feel powerful and be in charge of something, to argue against something, or to move against something both verbally and physically. This is the case when environmentalists say this or that will impact blank. When you say something should be acted upon, perhaps it should! but money talks to greedy people, or broke people in the case of our government. Maybe the cost is just not feasible, or that the cost is so enormous and there is a chance the effort will be in vain later. Maybe the maintenance of the change or precaution will be too great annually. We might want some park to be saved because of the cute little animals, or the insects that will then flood the nearest residential area. Everyone wants to be the hero, but nobody wants to be a hero that spent all they had just for some glory.

Nobody is going to step up to anything in this wicked world, and truely do good for people or our economy without some kind of reservation or personal agenda.

Like the UN. A body of reps that talk and talk. No action taken when it needs to be, and not 100% committed. When the UN needs to take action against something, its going to cost them. What do they gain? Unappreciative people and/or countries, a huge invoice and some respect or glory.

How long does glory last?

If you save this park, someone will demolish another one. So whats the use?


By Ringold on 5/30/2007 1:26:03 PM , Rating: 2
Nice point about polar bears, but here's the difference in logical reasoning.

Modern food production techniques lead to polar bear deaths. That's not tolerable. We should use much lower efficiency organic methods and lower economic efficiency, regardless of the cost, so that polar bears do not suffer.

And then there's this reasoning:

Modern food production techniques lead to polar bear deaths. Uh... Does polar bear meat taste good with BBQ? No? Then.. well, that's just too bad. Got a billion people in China that'll soon be able to afford BBQ, and they're going to be impatient.

These two different lines of reasoning will never be able to come together. There's almost no possible way for them to be any more radically seperated.


By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 2:24:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
These two different lines of reasoning will never be able to come together

If you convince yourself they never will then they never will. If you want to really accomplish something meaningful you will attempt to overcome this obstacle.


Totally on the mark
By grenableu on 5/29/2007 2:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
Environmentalism has degenerated a long ways from its early roots. It does much more harm than good now.

BTW, China is planning a bridge much longer than Japan's Akashi-Kaikyo. The free span is going to be almost 8000 feet across.




RE: Totally on the mark
By merc14 on 5/29/2007 3:35:37 PM , Rating: 5
Environmentalism has become the new home for Socialists, plain and simple. Their objective is the destruction of capitalism at all costs. No one wants a polluted environment and regulations are a requirement but environmentalists have taken things beyond any sense of rationality. They are truly a scourge on any country they target.


RE: Totally on the mark
By Rampage on 5/29/2007 4:49:33 PM , Rating: 5
Brilliant post merc14.

Unfortunately, western civilization is the only place where we have enough freedoms to allow people who hate neoliberalism and laisse faire capitalism to destroy it from within.

Global Warming and every other environmental endeavor have valid roots in science.. but its been politicized and over-exaggerated so far that most of us no longer buy into its validity, and frankly no longer care at all. I'd rather they just leave the USA.
Its become counterproductive to the original cause. Anytime a political group harps on something as hard as the socialists have on global warming, people tend to shun it.
Nancy Pelosi? Give me a break. :/

Its sad, but environmentalists are todays new brown shirts.
I'd like to square them off against radical Islam.. both are pretty insane.


RE: Totally on the mark
By Ringold on 5/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally on the mark
By merc14 on 5/30/2007 8:52:58 AM , Rating: 2
Gloabl Warming is going to be one of the greatest scams in socialist history. That the planet is warming seems indisputable now but whether or not that warming is bad or good is debatable. What angers me about all the rhetoric is that the enviromentalists blame man, and man alone, for the planet's warming. Mars has warmed as much as 5c over the same period, did man cause that? No mention of the Sun's influence on climatic changes from CNN though.

BTW, what is wrong with a more temperate climate? Who is to say that the climate we live with now is the "best"? Didn't the recent cooling, that we seem to be pulling out of now, cause mass migrations in the first millenium as arable land disappeared in the northern regions? Isn't a slightly warmer earth better than a slightly cooler earth?


RE: Totally on the mark
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally on the mark
By grenableu on 5/30/2007 11:00:15 AM , Rating: 2
But we can answer what is RIGHT with a more temperate climate. Longer growing seasons, less food lost to cold snaps, fewer people killed from cold and cold-related diseases, less fuel used for heating, and many other things.


RE: Totally on the mark
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 11:03:28 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot more mold. All part of a balanced argument, right?


RE: Totally on the mark
By grenableu on 5/30/2007 12:15:05 PM , Rating: 2
More mold in cold climates-- which don't have much of a problem with it now anyway. Tropical and subtropic climates aren't affected by global warming. If we can handle the mold problem there, we can certainly handle the mold in Canada if it warms up a degree and a half.

I know how happy you'd be to believe in a "killer mold" scenario, but it just ain't happening, sorry.


RE: Totally on the mark
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally on the mark
By Ringold on 5/30/2007 1:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
Beautiful. That made huge headlines and spread like fire amongst the left-wing environmentalists as yet another rallying cry against the evils of the industrialized world, but after a Navy researcher discovered it was a parasite (as was suspected by rational professionals all along) that was devastating the bee population, it's been met with almost total silence and simply disappeared from the news.

Do you even try to hide your liberal bias towards cheap propaganda tricks and disinformation, or is it subconscious?


RE: Totally on the mark
By porkpie on 5/30/2007 1:35:57 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I'm pretty sure TheGreek is just posing as a fanatical eco-guerilla simply to make them look bad.

If I'm wrong, please accept my apologies in advance.


RE: Totally on the mark
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally on the mark
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 1:43:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
it's been met with almost total silence and simply disappeared from the news.


Perhaps that why I never encountered the explanation on the news. It was merely an honest question, sprinkled with a little zest.

Since most here decided to disregard it I never advocated the extremist point of view, I did the opposite. In case you haven't noticed there are always 2 extremist point of views, not just the one that they hate. The fact that even the so called educated here seem to (dis)miss that puts their true motives in question.

Oh you used the "L" word. Like, I am so crushed.

Yes there are extremists masquerading as environmentalists, such as those that fight against even wind power because it will ruin their personal outdoor view. These people are the anti-Ashers, they too see what they want to see in their little vacuum world and disregard all common sense. Instead of viewing them as the enemy you should see them as a reflection of Asher, for that is what they really are.

And the extremists should not be cause for dismissing the people who want to deal with the issue fairly and rationally. Unless it's really convenient for you.


RE: Totally on the mark
By porkpie on 5/30/2007 3:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Perhaps that why I never encountered the explanation on the news
When all you read is alarmist headlines, you're going to go through life being alarmed. It probably explains why you believe polar bears are dying out, that global warming is going to swamp all our coastal cities, and numerous other enviro-scares.


RE: Totally on the mark
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 3:37:26 PM , Rating: 2
Please read what I said , which was chemicals are being found in polars bears that should not be there.

Only you can address your comprehension level of the English language and your ability to break into alarmist mode whenever you feel the need.

You're constantly setting the example I am trying to make about extremists at large. For that I thank you.


RE: Totally on the mark
By porkpie on 5/30/2007 4:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please read what I said , which was chemicals are being found in polars bears that should not be there
No, what you said was "polar bears are suffering from the effects of pesticides." Its right there in black and white. A statement that is certainly "alarmist" and factually incorrect. Sure you can find a trace molecule or two most anywhere. That doesn't imply harm, not by a long shot.


RE: Totally on the mark
By masher2 (blog) on 5/31/2007 12:53:59 PM , Rating: 2
Your links are all to popular news sites and environmental organizations. Actual scientific research shows a different picture. Polar bear populations are healthy and thriving:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/citation/156...

Polar bear populations in Canada's Davis Straight are exploding, with numbers increasing from 850 to 2,100 in the last two decades. Canada has recently increased the harvest quota for polar bears.

According to the USGS, Polar bear populations are increasing in Alaska as well:

http://biology.usgs.gov/s+t/noframe/s034.htm

Finally, I have to point out that DNA analysis shows polars bears to be more closely related to the common brown bear than are some races of humans to each other, and in fact they can (and sometimes still do) interbreed with brown bears. The polar bear differentiated only during the last ice age, during a period of naturally decreasing temperatures. Those arctic temperatures have been increasing (and Arctic ice melting) for the past 7,000 years or so. Even without a human presence on the planet, polar bears will most likely vanish, merging back into the brown bear population, simply due the planet's own natural cycles and changing climate.


RE: Totally on the mark
By TheGreek on 5/31/2007 1:08:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
According to the USGS, Polar bear populations are increasing in Alaska as well:


And so that leaves how many unaddressed areas? And should I make broad assumptions about overall general trends based on just these examples? Please continue.


RE: Totally on the mark
By TheGreek on 5/31/2007 4:25:17 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And so that leaves how many unaddressed areas? And should I make broad assumptions about overall general trends based on just these examples? Please continue.


Still waiting.


RE: Totally on the mark
By TheGreek on 6/4/2007 10:12:20 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
And so that leaves how many unaddressed areas? And should I make broad assumptions about overall general trends based on just these examples? Please continue.


Still waiting for the omnipotent response.


RE: Totally on the mark
By TheGreek on 6/4/2007 10:21:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Polar bear populations in Canada's Davis Straight are exploding, with numbers increasing from 850 to 2,100 in the last two decades. Canada has recently increased the harvest quota for polar bears.

My references did not address polar bear population but issues of health that may be caused by man.

What's the reason you decided to deflect that fact? Surely you could not have missed it accidentally, right?


RE: Totally on the mark
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 4:58:30 PM , Rating: 1
Wow all my links to worldwide articles on the effects of pesticides on polar bears have been deleted (along with multiple personal attacks from a party that will remain nameless.)

This place is just like the EPA website, a strong pro-corporate slant.

Like they needed the help.


RE: Totally on the mark
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 5:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
oops


RE: Totally on the mark
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/30/2007 6:45:35 PM , Rating: 2
None of your topics were deleted. We're very anti-censorship here.


RE: Totally on the mark
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 9:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, which is why I posted "oops".

But then this group practices the total resentment, denial, and elimination of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" that you may have just as well deleted the whole thing anyway.

Seldom has so much education been used to substantiate premeditated ignorance.


RE: Totally on the mark
By Lightning III on 5/30/2007 11:54:51 AM , Rating: 2
opiate of the masses

hey you leave that with religion where that belongs


RE: Totally on the mark
By Lightning III on 5/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally on the mark
By Ringold on 5/30/2007 1:06:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
];P>


Why does that always make me think you have mad cow?


RE: Totally on the mark
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: Totally on the mark
By Ringold on 5/30/2007 10:48:01 PM , Rating: 2
It'd be okay to disregard the statement so easily, except for the fact that it's a documented fact that communists and some socialists have joined the green movement. It's quite logical, and smart, for them if you think about it; it's the perfect marriage of political agendas, as one supports the other. And make no mistake -- socialists are smart, hence a recent meeting of European Socialist party leaders deciding that they should make a strong effort to change their name to "Democratic" parties due to the strong negative connotation associated with the word "socialist" and "communist".


RE: Totally on the mark
By TheGreek on 5/31/2007 9:59:28 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
except for the fact that it's a documented fact that communists and some socialists have joined the green movement.


Isn't that all the more reason not to apply the kind of broad brush tactics like those of Asher's article?


RE: Totally on the mark
By jacarte8 on 5/30/2007 4:41:37 PM , Rating: 2
This is true


Heinlein Said it Best
By qdemn7 on 5/30/2007 7:59:18 AM , Rating: 2
I can't top this:
quote:
"There are hidden contradictions in the minds of people who "love Nature" while deploring the "artificialities" with which "Man has spoiled 'Nature.'" The obvious contradiction lies in their choice of words, which imply that Man and his artifacts are not part of "Nature" -- but beavers and their dams are. But the contradictions go deeper than this prima-facie absurdity. In declaring his love for a beaver dam (erected by beavers for beavers' purposes) and his hatred for dams erected by men (for the purposes of men) the "naturist" reveals his hatred for his own race -- i.e., his own self hatred. In the case of "Naturists" such self-hatred is understandable; they are such a sorry lot. But hatred is too strong an emotion to feel toward them; pity and contempt are the most they rate. As for me, willy-nilly I am a man, not a beaver, and H. sapiens is the only race I have or can have. Fortunately for me, I like being part of a race made up of men and women -- it strikes me as a fine arrangement and perfectly "natural." Believe it or not, there were "Naturists" who opposed the first flight to old Earth's Moon as being "unnatural" and a "despoiling of Nature."

Robert Anson Heinlein
The Notebooks of Lazarus Long




RE: Heinlein Said it Best
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 10:28:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the "naturist" reveals his hatred for his own race -- i.e., his own self hatred.


Here you use lies via the "choice of words." More likely is the recognition that man's damage has more and greater ramifications, but I understand the choice of words as being part of your rationalization.


RE: Heinlein Said it Best
By grenableu on 5/30/2007 10:35:13 AM , Rating: 2
A few of the many quotes that prove the point:

"Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
- Dave Foreman, founder Earth First and board member, Sierra Club.

"Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs."
-- John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

"The planet is about to break out with fever and we humans are the disease"
-- environmentalist Thomas LoveJoy

"Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, is not as important as a wild and healthy planets...Some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."
-- David Graber, biologist, National Park Service

"I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."
-- Paul Watson, founder Greenpeace

"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
-- Prince Phillip, speaking for the World Wildlife Fund.


RE: Heinlein Said it Best
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 10:44:01 AM , Rating: 2
You make an excellent point by using other people's "in a vacuum" logic to show how silly logic "in a vacuum" really is.

Thanks.


RE: Heinlein Said it Best
By Ringold on 5/30/2007 1:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
Many things can be taken out of context. However, those sentences represent fully formed self-evident ideas, and at least a few of them by chance must likely reveal the true character of those saying them, and the correlation that they're all environmentalists forms the rest of the picture. It also helps that a former Green Peace founder also admits environmentalists are much more radical than he ever intended.

With all these posts are you just going to criticize and trying to obfuscate and diminsh other peoples posts, or going to contribute something useful? Just wondering :\


RE: Heinlein Said it Best
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 1:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With all these posts are you just going to criticize and trying to obfuscate and diminsh other peoples posts, or going to contribute something useful? Just wondering :\


If the author did not perform this function why should I?


RE: Heinlein Said it Best
By porkpie on 5/30/2007 2:20:04 PM , Rating: 2
At least you're admitting you haven't contributing anything useful.


RE: Heinlein Said it Best
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 2:44:30 PM , Rating: 2
I see you disregarded my points about all extremists in general. Now why is that? Is that your way of saying I really did contribute something?

What are your plans when Asher passes out green Kool-Aid?


RE: Heinlein Said it Best
By Xietsu on 6/1/2007 5:52:53 PM , Rating: 2
For one, curious as to what state you live in, TheGreek. I am half Greek and I know little of us to be in affiliation and with familiarization in regard to worldly affairs, so such a thing of relativity interests me indeed. ;P

For two, TheGreek is merely acknowledging the fact that he is not obligated to contribution, even despite him having made it insofar. Such a forum of discussion as this comment interface provides stands in just such a trifle of significance -- it's a comment interface. The idea that contributory mentations are to be transmitted is fallacious, yet, hopefully the byproduct of such a utility's implementation.

For three, the idea of true, actual, and dignified environmentalism isn't the neglection of human welfare, but the inclusion of it in a scenario where conservationism can best have its place. I think such a label is best seen given to true advocates, under the likes of Steve Irwin, etc. Nowadays, there is acceptable conservationism and then there is intolerable fundamentalism.


RE: Heinlein Said it Best
By Ringold on 6/2/2007 4:26:26 AM , Rating: 2
I for one never remember Steve Irwin acting like the modern Green Peace environmental extremists. They disgrace the original movement in just the same way Jackson and Sharpton bring disgrace to the civil rights movement which was originally made great by Rev. King.

Secondly, there are many well composed, thoughtful, and informative posts, some of which get rewarded with a 5 or 6. The fact that "OMGBBQ~!" posts tend to get modded down to 1,0, or -1 indicate that at least some folk around here do indeed expect SOMETHING logical from posters.


RE: Heinlein Said it Best
By TheGreek on 6/4/2007 11:59:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Secondly, there are many well composed, thoughtful, and informative posts, some of which get rewarded with a 5 or 6.


Shows us one that is contra-MAsher and I'll show you a balanced place of discussion.


RE: Heinlein Said it Best
By TheGreek on 6/4/2007 9:41:28 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
For two, TheGreek is merely acknowledging the fact that he is not obligated to contribution,

My pointing out the original article didn't contribute anything really earned a lot of respect here. Although the number of people who said that was flat out wrong seem rather low in number.

quote:
even despite him having made it insofar.

Blasphemy!


RE: Heinlein Said it Best
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 11:21:47 AM , Rating: 2
By the way how many of the people you're trying to ridicule can also use "scientific fact" to prove their extremist point of view? Care to take a stab at that number?


RE: Heinlein Said it Best
By TheGreek on 6/4/2007 10:49:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
By the way how many of the people you're trying to ridicule can also use "scientific fact" to prove their extremist point of view? Care to take a stab at that number?


See we have a clear line of hypocrisy. When I asked if some limited scientific facts would be just as adequate for the opposing opinion there's no answer.

Should I be surprised?

MAsherism at it's finest.


Isn't this kinda the point?
By chsh1ca on 5/29/2007 9:22:31 PM , Rating: 2
Even rudimentary biology or environmental studies in high school teaches you about the delicacy of the interactions of species in an environment. I mean to simplify it, kill all the frogs in the swamp, experience a massive explosion in fly population which then has to be controlled by another species -- man, birds, other insects, lizards more capable of adapting, etc...

I think the point of expensive environmental studies is to ensure that whatever is being done isn't going to cause yet another species to go extinct. Sometimes it is really stupid though, such as the WTC site example.

Then again, what do I know? I live in the Great White North and we have lots of nature up here.




RE: Isn't this kinda the point?
By porkpie on 5/30/2007 9:52:12 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
rudimentary biology or environmental studies in high school teaches you about the delicacy of the interactions of species
Yep, the propaganda starts young; it tends to stick better that way. But the fact is, the environment is far more resilient than the environmentalists give it credit for.

I won't mention all the idiot games now being used to define 'species'. Take the "California Spotted Owl" vs. the "Northern Spotted Owl". They're the same bird and can and do interbreed regularly...but by defining them based on where they live (and not any real genetic difference), then viola! We have two different "species", both of which must be protected.


RE: Isn't this kinda the point?
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 11:34:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I won't mention all the idiot games now being used to define 'species'.


Very much the way the Bush administration passed laws to protect wetlands and then changed the definition of wetlands so the laws had virtually no impact.

You're right, idiot games.


RE: Isn't this kinda the point?
By Lightning III on 5/30/2007 12:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
hey you left off the healthy forest act that allows clearcutting in our national forests


RE: Isn't this kinda the point?
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 5/30/2007 1:10:29 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is those idiots are allowed to add riders that have nothing to do with the topic to bills that would almost certainly pass anyway. There's no way that could have passed on its own.


RE: Isn't this kinda the point?
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 4:20:17 PM , Rating: 2
No matter, it's fashionable to play pin the tail on the environmentalist. They've become the 21st century witches. Or perhaps they are card carrying members? But no matter when you live in a country governed by

"We The Corporations....."


RE: Isn't this kinda the point?
By Lightning III on 5/30/2007 8:29:35 PM , Rating: 3
gotta agree ask one what liberal means and then compare it to what it says in the dictionary

but I guess they waved the godless abortionist bloody placentas at us enough

so its time to wage another assault on reason by saying everybody who cares about leaving a little bit of the woods and nature to their kids hates themselves wow some of you are really buying into that crap

it's all the terrible liberals fault (insert jews here herr ringold ) and it seems wait next comes the international conspiracy theory thatss propagating the climate change hoax unless you live in europe where climate change means alot more flooding or africa where the draughts are lasting longer but hey up here in yankee land it's win win

sorry about the herr ringold coment ];P> thats my sticking my tongue out while winking and making a rasberry sound devil

I could agree on a mad longhorn though

oooh wait I forgot blame it on the mexicans anything to keep from having to stop and look at our own habits,lives and actions

quote:
because everybody needs sombody to look down on who they can feel better than anytime they want
Jesus was a capricorn written by John Prine


RE: Isn't this kinda the point?
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 10:17:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
so its time to wage another assault on reason by saying everybody who cares about leaving a little bit of the woods and nature to their kids hates themselves wow some of you are really buying into that crap

Bingo!

But if he you're a follower of Stossel then the entire world's population fits in the state of Texas. (No word on where the rest room is.)


RE: Isn't this kinda the point?
By Ringold on 5/30/2007 11:29:40 PM , Rating: 2
Where to start..

I'll pull this from the dictionary:
4. favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
5. favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression:

That describes our founding fathers quite well. It's undeniable, however, that political names and the ideology associated with them have shifted. It's a problem I run in to with economics all the time; if I accidentally refer to an economic policy as "liberal", people assume I mean "state run" or "heavily regulated", when what I really mean is the classical textbook definition of liberal economics, which is free markets. That's become a problem because modern self-described liberals, asides from legalizing drugs (which I agree on from a personal liberty perspective), share no links at all with the original liberals. Hence the creation of the term libertarian, which is precisely what liberals once upon a time were before they lost their way.

Also a silent, small number of self-described conservatives fit perfectly the classical definition of liberal, but the Republican party has lost itself, corrupted by power and the drive to become a "big tent" party, like the Democrats, for the pure purpose of winning elections.

That shouldn't surprise you, either, since the Republican party in 1860 was the liberal Northern-based abolition party and the Democrats were the old-fashioned bible-belt party of good ol' boys. There's been a total inversion of politics since then, and as such, the world "liberal" and "conservative" doesn't mean what it used to. If you think Hillary Clinton, for example, espouses classical liberal dictionary views as you said then unfortunately you don't know what "liberal" means.

The disagreement over global warming and whatnot, I think the left get a little bent out of shape myself. In my own field.. my god, if economists were as right as often as climate scientists and weathermen have been right, not only would the field not be respected our economy would be in the gutters. It does no harm to analyze the situation and take slow, measured effective steps when prove necessary by people other than political government organizations. With China bringing online a coal plant at a rate of one per week on average this year, America and Europe could obliterate themselves economically and it'd all be for nothing anyway.

And the random Mexican comment makes no sense. People of both parties are unhappy with the current bill and it's quite difficult for some people on both sides to ignore the laws already on the books and give amnesty to people who illegally invaded our country. It's a bipartisan problem, being dealt with in a bipartisan way, probably more so than anything else going on in Congress at the moment.

Anyway, call yourself a liberal and pretend it means what the dictionary says all you want. Government intervention to the degree advocated by modern "liberal" parties, however, it's entirely incosistent with its roots. I'd love to see you make historical references contrary to this.


RE: Isn't this kinda the point?
By TheGreek on 5/31/2007 10:06:07 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
but the Republican party has lost itself, corrupted by power and the drive to become a "big tent" party, like the Democrats, for the pure purpose of winning elections.


Wow, an objective statement. I'd up your score if I could.


RE: Isn't this kinda the point?
By Lightning III on 5/31/2007 1:19:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression:

although my dictionary also says open to new idea's

no this is me

and you an me are alot closer than you think it's probably an age gap

when I was young, a person I respected once told me
quote:
if your young and not a liberal you have no heart, and if your old and not conservative you have no brain


my resistance to the broad brush enviromental comments comes from living in the greenest city in the US (according to a recent msnbc article)

all you have to do is go to houston sometime for the flipside or even better stinkadena (somtimes called pasadena outside of houston)

for the diametric oppisite philosophy on the enviromnet and protecting its constituants

I always laugh because the 2 biggest centers for the high tech industry southern califonia and Austin TX have some of the toughest enviromental reg's in the nation. I always thaught it was a greater level of education that made them gravitate to these to spots.

maybe I was wrong, wouldn't be the first time Probably won't be the last.

as for the redfining of the word liberal through propaganda and demonization ( we are all godless abortionist's after all who belive in a woeman's right to chose rather than what's espoused by pope hitlers youth hold the line ratcatcher )

when several US cardinal's came out in favor of bush over Kerry because of this one issue I had to leave the Catholic Church ( don't worry I didn't end my relationship with god just organized religion the original opiate of the masses the people who gave us the flat earth theory endorsed the divine right of kings and the crusades their selective prejudice aginst any one different from themselves)

and the denial of science I cannot abide in any form

as the polarization of our nation grows the shame is that although close in our personal leaning's (maybe)its starting to boil down to who's standing next to you on your side of the fence

is it for corperate control of america, religious intolerance and skinheads, gun nut's and xenophobia and approval of the current administation (although they have expanded the purview and size of goverment at every turn)

or

enviromentalism godless abortionists ( alledgedly larger goverment per your comment) although big engineering is goverment look at the projects mentioned oooh no we have brought this back around to the original topic and anti war kooks and anybody living an alternative lifestyle

and then ask who would jesus really stand with the bankers, the pharisee's and sadducee's or with someone else

I do know that there is no place in the bible were Jesus said I hate Fags and all the direct jesus quotes were about love and tolerance and that he would rather honor a whore than the relgious establishment

so to me and I sure to many other self proclaimed liberal's means open to new ideas and tolerant of others I posit that you sir are a liberal so suck it up and admit it

I personally stand against Hate and Intolerance in any form or fashion form and as for the Mexican comment arn't they what the conservative are using to whip the base into frothing at the mouth since the bloody abortionist shirt doen't seem to be working or they are resting on the laurels of the ridiculus Partial Birth Abortion Ban

Here let me explain the Fatutus argument there

fist they named it Partial Birth Abortion It's not what the procedure's really called

so now rather that trying to pull the Aborted fetus out in one smooth motion they insert a wire swish it back and forth chopping the fetus up and then they insert a vacum hose to suck out the remenants if they dont get it all it can lead to infection and a possible hyserectomy

enjoy your victory and the 0 actual fetuses saved

but a bone was needed for their support and they bought it shame on them

from my side of the fence yuou have just as many kooks an nut cases as we do just look at ted nuget and the NRA slippery slope arguement on handguns

anyway enjoy I hope I gave you something to ponder

];P>


RE: Isn't this kinda the point?
By Ringold on 6/2/2007 5:03:18 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, liberals accept new ideas, which is why capitalism and free markets is referred to as "liberal" economics because in the 1700s and 1800s it was a new idea. Now, like I said, I can't refer to "liberal" economics among non-business people by that name lest the people I'm talking to automatically assume I mean heavy regulation, taxation, price controls, and possibly out-right state control of economic assets. That has become the position of self-described modern liberals, and yet 200 years past that would've been the generally accepted "conservative" position. Today, a *true* conservative (not necessary George Bush or hardly any Republican that manages to get face time on TV, but more along the lines of John Stossel and Neal Boortz) fits the classical definition of liberal nearly perfectly, some of whom advocate for decriminalization of drugs and the likes and believe extremely strongly in privacy laws and whatnot.

I really do want to emphasize the split from evangenlicals and the old-guard/libertarian style conservatives. There's been very little conservative about our 'conservative' President. The Republican party isn't monolithic by any means -- just compare Guliani, the Govenator, and Bush! Very little alike between them. Much in the same way I'd expect that if Harry Reid and Joe Lieberman were placed in a locked room alone only one would come out alive, despite both being Jewish.

Lastly..

quote:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.


quote:
The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.


As Yale political science professors have attested, that is the essential position of Hillary Clinton, and she makes a speech virtually every week which speaks of the need to act collectively rather than individually (and classical liberalism was entirely about the individual). The entire Democrat party has incrementally moved closer and closer towards the first definition. I'll stand by my assertion that modern self-described liberals are in fact socialists in sheeps clothing, and evangelicals are nut jobs and the few Goldwater-style conservatives and libertarians are the true liberals, in the classical sense of the word.


RE: Isn't this kinda the point?
By merc14 on 6/4/2007 9:50:01 AM , Rating: 1
Wow! Just wow. Absolutely one of the finest examples of liberal diatribe I have read here. You display the liberal fall back policy beautifully lightning (and Thhe Greek by default):

1. "but I guess they waved the godless abortionist bloody placentas at us enough"

I am not sure what abortion has to do with any of this but it's quite instructive that you lead off debating your stance on environmentalism by bringing up abortion. I'm not even sure what you're talking aout here re. abortion as it looks like you did a cut and paste from MoveOn.org LOL. Well, anyways, with credentials established we'll move on.

2. "so its time to wage another assault on reason by saying everybody who cares about leaving a little bit of the woods and nature to their kids hates themselves wow some of you are really buying into that crap"

Bang. Watch it boys as this is the broadside after the ranging shot. Your balanced argument regarding the possible ill effects of out-of-control environemntalism leads to being labeled as one who wants to destroy any and all forests and nature, in the wild eyed pursuit of....what, and deny our children any forests or seashores to grow up in.

Don't get caught here and argue this point. It is ludicrous and the idea is to get you so caught up in defending yourself against an outrageous accusation that you lose your way, and the argument, by default. Accusations like this mean the liberal is now out of any kind of statistical, logical or scientific evidence and it is time to shout you down.

3. "it's all the terrible liberals fault (insert jews here herr ringold ) and it seems wait next comes the international conspiracy theory thatss propagating the climate change hoax unless you live in europe where climate change means alot more flooding or africa where the draughts are lasting longer but hey up here in yankee land it's win win

sorry about the herr ringold coment ];P> thats my sticking my tongue out while winking and making a rasberry sound devil"

LMAO. Ok, you are now a "Nazi" Anyone who disagrees with a liberal is a Nazi. "herr ringold"(sic) is the dead giveaway here but Lightning III seems to be a youngster who hasn't mastered the finer points of liberal discourse and sees fit to throw in the "you hate Jews" thing.

Once again I have no idea how this paragrapgh fits in and seems to be another cut and paste job.

4. "oooh wait I forgot blame it on the mexicans anything to keep from having to stop and look at our own habits,lives and actions
quote:
because everybody needs sombody to look down on who they can feel better than anytime they want"

What the??? Once again this has nothing at all to do with this topic but suddenly you hate Mexicans too. Immigration is now brought up and lightning believes that open borders are wondeful things but why is this accusation here? Well, to once again draw you into a different argument that sidesteps the whole environmentalism debate.

Bottom line: Lightning ran out of ammo a loooong time ago, as has TheGreek. ABC and CNN short-points only go so far when confronted by anything resembling a cogent, fact based argument. Also, there is no debate here. Lightning and TheGreek are indoctrinated and rather than listen to anything that may go against doctrine they attack the debater with accusations of racism, anti-semitism and the whole abortion mess.

The thing is, no one knows what the climate will be in 100 years. Is the planet warming? Yes, probably it is but WHY is the question and is this warming intrinsically bad? I believe solar activity has much to do with our current warming since Mars is warming as well but Ihave no proof of that just like there is no concrete proof that warming is man's fault entirely.

Liberal doctrine says that man is the sole cause of global warming and that global warming will lead to earth's destruction. I beg to differ and am therefore a nazi, anti-semite, and a racist who wants the destruction of all forests in my quest for .....whatever. Silly and transparent , just don't get sucked in.


Big Projects in Hong Kong
By cheetah2k on 5/29/2007 11:06:39 PM , Rating: 6
There are quite a few BIG projects currently underway in Hong Kong also. Such as Stone Cutters bridge, which featured on Discovery Channels Extreme Engineering series in late 2006

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonecutter%27s_Bridg...

Also, the Mega Tower in Kowloon spanning 490m tall, and being one of the tallest hotels in Asia

http://www.rwdi.com/aspx/pub/Misc/ProjectUnionSqua...

As an engineer and currently construction manager building hotels for Venetian/Sands in Macau, its projects like these that keep me in this region. While they are few and sometimes far between, it is truely an awesome experience standing back and watching them be built.




RE: Big Projects in Hong Kong
By cheetah2k on 5/30/2007 4:20:24 AM , Rating: 2
I found a much better web site of Stone Cutters Bridge. The HK people get real excited about projects like these, they actually dedicate web pages with up to date progress on the building works.

http://www.stonecuttersbridge.net/en/main.htm

This is definately one hell of a nightmare and a massive engineering challenge to be sure!


RE: Big Projects in Hong Kong
By oTAL on 5/30/2007 12:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
Ah! I got one of those close to home ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasco_da_Gama_Bridge

"Due to the bridge's length, it was necessary to take the Earth's curvature into account to site the piers correctly, otherwise a mistake of 80 cm would have appeared at either bridge's end."

"It is the longest bridge in Europe, with a total length of 17.2 km (10.7 mi), including 0.829 km (0.5 mi) for the main bridge, 11.5 km (7.1 mi) in viaducts, and 4.8 km (3.0 mi) in extension roads."

"The bridge has a life expectancy of 120 years, having been designed to withstand wind speeds of 250 km/h and hold up to an earthquake 4.5 times stronger than the historical 1755 Lisbon earthquake (estimated at 8.7 on the Richter scale). The deepest foundation piles, up to 2.2 m in diameter, were driven down to 95 m under mean water level."



Back on topic:
I do like big engineering products, but I think it's pretty good they are forced to study their impact on the environment, instead of "fixing stuff as it happens".
Does it cost a lot of money? Yup.
Is it worth it? Mostly.

It doesn't mean you have to surrender you project if the study reveals some toad will loose its habitat... but at least you know about it and you can do something to mitigate the problem.

Environmentalism and social responsibility cost money, but that money brings benefits and it ultimately reverts back to society. Eco-friendly regulations usually tend to invigorate businesses, not harm them.

Bottom-line: Big engineering projects happen more in Asia than in the US. True. But it's not because of environmentalism. It's because of their booming economies and lack of infrastructures. The really important projects in the US were done, and if they were destroyed they'd mostly be rebuilt. In Asia they are now having the economic boom that has already taken place in the US. Sorry, but it has nothing to do with the environmentalists.


RE: Big Projects in Hong Kong
By grenableu on 5/30/2007 12:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
There are countless projects in the US which have been cancelled due to environmental protests and draconian environmental legislation. A reasonable environmental policy pays dividends, yes, but that's not what we have now in America. We have total insanity.

A farmer near here recently cut a small trench to allow better drainage for a small corner of his farm, which tended to flood for part of every year. It was less than one acre out of more than 5,000). He wound up with a $150,000 fine from the EPA, and had to pay to turn five acres somewhere in Florida into swamp as well. Had the EPA been able to prove some endangered species had ever lived in his farm, his fine would have been much higher.

Total Insanity.


RE: Big Projects in Hong Kong
By Ringold on 5/30/2007 1:13:55 PM , Rating: 2
I think this situation is mirrored in the financial world as well. Sarbanes-Oxley. A response to corporate book-cooking. Unfortunately, it's had far more profound negative impacts than positive ones, and has essentially handed London billions worth of business that formerly would've gone to Manhattan if not for extreme compliance costs/headaches. It was a good idea for a response to a real problem, but was just taken way, way too far.


RE: Big Projects in Hong Kong
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 2:47:38 PM , Rating: 2
All bills that are knee-jerk reactions amount to as much. Just more extremists that see only what they want to see.


RE: Big Projects in Hong Kong
By James Holden on 5/30/2007 3:46:54 PM , Rating: 2
The same can be said for a lot of things. Look at Ralph Nader's work. (Almost) all of it had the best intentions, but since then politicians have so bastardized his work that it's almost impossible to adhere to any of these guidelines anymore.

Someone else posted earlier that another factor might be at play here, corruption and greed. I think its a big possibility that you don't see major projects anymore because the politicians and media ruin it, to some extent.


RE: Big Projects in Hong Kong
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 10:12:37 PM , Rating: 2
The last time I went to the old country I was asked whom I voted for. When I told them I voted for Nader I was treated like a hero by everyone who knew.


eh?
By evildorf on 5/29/2007 5:23:35 PM , Rating: 2
So to regain (or maintain) our primacy in the world we should be building very large buildings/bridges? While I'll admit that these projects are quite impressive and employ the talents of many an engineer during their construction, I question that conclusion. Anyway, the U.S. has recently built and is building a number of huge engineering projects including the ones you mention (Big Dig, Freedom Tower) plus a number of others in Las Vegas and Chicago to name just a couple spots.
As for your apparent conclusion that environmentalists are the reason big projects aren't done in the U.S., I would question that as well. You cite the Big Dig and Freedom Tower as examples, yet the Big Dig exists. The Freedom Tower will certainly be built as well. Now environmental impact studies (and the lawsuits filed by enviro groups in response to them) DO make the barrier to such projects higher here than in, say, China. However, I would submit that if we begin to play the game of running around trying to match other countries' lack of environmental regulation for fear of economic impact, we would soon find ourselves without any environmental protections at all. Also, these enviro impact studies aren't only to protect plants/animals. Human health impacts, for example, are a major component.




RE: eh?
By James Holden on 5/29/2007 5:34:16 PM , Rating: 2
That theory, investing billions of dollars into massive projects as a common goal, is actually pretty much exactly what Masher longs for I believe.

There's actually some very sound psychology behind it. I believe this guy coined the term "megaproject" and he has written some neat things about it:

http://flyvbjerg.plan.aau.dk/whatisamegaproject.ph...


RE: eh?
By grenableu on 5/29/2007 5:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You cite the Big Dig and Freedom Tower as examples, yet the Big Dig exists. The Freedom Tower will certainly be built...
You missed the point. Those projects are being built on land already developed. You really think either of those two would have been approved if it meant development of some "wetlands" (swamp, before they renamed it) or some "old-growth" forest?

quote:
these enviro impact studies aren't only to protect plants/animals. Human health impacts, for example, are a major component
Sorry, it doesn't take a billion dollars and 11 years to determine the human health impact of building a tunnel through some landfill. It doesn't take even a tenth of that.


RE: eh?
By evildorf on 5/29/2007 7:39:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You missed the point. Those projects are being built on land already developed. You really think either of those two would have been approved if it meant development of some "wetlands" (swamp, before they renamed it) or some "old-growth" forest?


I don't think I did miss the point, but whatever. Construction projects that pave over swamps or forest are approved quite often and usually after some careful deliberation about the development's environmental effects. See many a massive housing development for examples.

quote:
Sorry, it doesn't take a billion dollars and 11 years to determine the human health impact of building a tunnel through some landfill. It doesn't take even a tenth of that.


Most likely true enough. I never said the length of time or cost of that particular study was in line with what it should be. I'm all for whatever measures could bring down those costs as long as the study is thorough. All I was attempting to point out is that these studies aren't done for the sole reason of saving the <insert obscure species here>, which is the tone I got from the article.


RE: eh?
By spwrozek on 5/29/2007 7:54:53 PM , Rating: 2
Projects through wetlands are indeed approved. If you take away wetlands you are going to be subject to mitigation from the DEQ. It you take more then .333 acres of wetlands then you have to mitigate.

Mitigation typically calls for a 5 to 1 turn around. So if you take 1 acre they will expect you to make 5 acres of wetlands that don't exist adjacent to existing wetlands. If you can't do this it is doubtful the project will be approved.


RE: eh?
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 11:31:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would submit that if we begin to play the game of running around trying to match other countries' lack of environmental regulation for fear of economic impact, we would soon find ourselves without any environmental protections at all. Also, these enviro impact studies aren't only to protect plants/animals. Human health impacts, for example, are a major component.

See now you're throwing in a dose of reality and spoiling the whole silly game.


RE: eh?
By grenableu on 5/30/2007 12:21:43 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, we're just asking for a sane environmental policy, that recognizes that human needs are more important than those of plants, animals, and insects.

In places, we are letting children die for want a 50 cent medical treatment, yet we're spending millions of dollars per animal for each and every living Florida Panther. That's insane, any way you slice it.


RE: eh?
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 1:22:20 PM , Rating: 2
There's nothing balanced in Asher's writing, only delusions of adequacy.


not just a US issue
By kattanna on 5/29/2007 4:07:43 PM , Rating: 2
heres another example of environuts doing more harm then good

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3017009.stm

quote:
Two giant incinerator plants were supposed to be completed this year, but construction has been delayed. Local pressure groups are fighting to stop the building.


thats a telling quote from the article. the one i originally read, but cannot find now, a couple weeks later talked about them trying to find new waste dump sites..but the local residents had that "not in our backyard" mentality so famously found here in america.

the environuts want us to stop using oil from foreign countries, and i'm game for that for many reasons, but when alternatives for the shortfall of energy are brought up, they scream. i'm sorry but theres no way we can stop using oil or coal ASAP and switch over to wind..PALEASE.

im actually expecting the pendulum to swing back the other direction in the next couple of decades due to people getting a clue about environuts and the harm they are doing, like in this article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6659401....




RE: not just a US issue
By BMFPitt on 5/29/2007 4:13:16 PM , Rating: 2
I saw nothing in that article about environmental groups. Just about all people - no matter what their political sentiment - don't want a garbage incinerator in their neighborhood. No doubt those protesting still want it built, just not there.


RE: not just a US issue
By Griswold on 5/29/2007 6:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
Get your facts straight. These are people who dont want that shit in their backyard and before you run your mouth over this "attitude", I want to see you move in the neighborhood of such facilities.

Geez, the masherists are taking over...


RE: not just a US issue
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 11:00:41 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Geez, the masherists are taking over...

Sad isn't it?


RE: not just a US issue
By therealnickdanger on 5/30/2007 11:50:13 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, heaven forbid common sense and scientific reasoning should sway someone's opinion.


RE: not just a US issue
By sxr7171 on 5/29/2007 7:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
If they want $10 a gallon gasoline, let them have it. Odds are that these "environuts" will suffer the most with their 1978 gas guzzling cars and low incomes.


RE: not just a US issue
By TheGreek on 5/30/2007 10:45:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Odds are that these "environuts" will suffer the most with their 1978 gas guzzling cars and low incomes.


That was so scientific and well researched.


By hoosier on 5/31/2007 3:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
Don't be fooled by the propaganda. The oil companies have closed 174 refineries in the last 30 years. Most of these voluntary in order to reduce capacity. There has been exactly 1 application to build a new refinery in the last 20 years. The oil companies have had no interest in building new refineries.

In many cases other companies offered to buy these closing refineries for good money. But it was in their interest to close them and dismantle them at great expense to reduce capacity to create the market we have today.

http://wyden.senate.gov/leg_issues/reports/wyden_o...
This is a government report from 2001 predicting the situation we are in today.

I have no particular love for the enviromental groups as many of them have hidden agendas, but not everything is as it seems.




By grenableu on 5/31/2007 4:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
Of course a lot of refineries have been closed in the past 30 years. From when the 1976 Clean Air Act was passed, in fact. Since then, no new refinery have been built and many existing ones closed.

Why? Because of vastly increased environmental regulations which required billions of dollars in retrofits per plant, even for a small one. No one is going to operate a plant at a loss, and small plants or ones in areas where they could not expand just weren't economic. Furthermore, up until a couple years ago, refining oil (not pumping it) was a very risky, low-profit business.

Even today with the price sky high, would you invest your OWN money in a plant that takes 30 years to pay off, with the government continually passing new environmental regulations, and the entire world screaming that we need to use LESS gas? Will you even have a market for your product before you show any profit?

Still, people ARE trying to build new refineries. A company in Yuma has been trying for over six years to get all the thousands of federal, state, and local permits needed to build a plant. So far they haven't been succesful. They've blown $25 million just in trying...and a local environmental group has already filed suit to stop them, even before they've turned over a single spade of dirt. Will they ever succeed? Who knows.

quote:
This is a government report from 2001 predicting the situation we are in today
Yes. And the National Petrochemical Refiners Association has been predicting this situation since 1998. They've testified before Congress many times warning us, and yet government action was never taken.


By hoosier on 5/31/2007 4:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
Grenableu , it is true in many cases these were outdated refineries that would of cost too much to update to meet enviromental standards or to be profitable. But don't get caught drinking the koolaid here. The big 5 aren't stupid and this has been carefully orchestrated to drive out the smaller refiners and create just the conditions we have now. Most of this was done in the mid 1990's and there are internal memos from many of these companies proving their intent.

There were also many of these refineries that had already been updated to meet standards and were still closed and dismantled. There are many of these refineries that when it was announced the plants were going to close other companies offered to buy the refineries. Rather than sell the refinery they would tear it down at much greater expense. Now why in the hell would any company do something like this, other than there was a much deeper and insidious plan at work.

We are just pawns in this game. We are force fed propaganda from all sides, but the only winners are the politicians and the big oil investors who reap unbelievable profits off the backs of us peons who have little choice or control over the situation.


By grenableu on 5/31/2007 5:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The big 5 aren't stupid and this has been carefully orchestrated to drive out the smaller refiners
Now you're just being silly. You don't drive out a smaller refiner by closing your own plant. That HELPS the smaller guy survive, by raising prices, lowering competition, and increasing his profitability.

Plants were closed because they couldn't meet the new environmental regulations, or because local governments wouldn't grant them permits to expand.

quote:
are many of these refineries that when it was announced the plants were going to close other companies offered to buy the refineries.
It always surprises me that people can believe such obvious nonsense. This little gem flew around the Internet more times than I can count, and each time grew in the telling. It started when Shell tried to close its 75-year old Bakersfield plant, because it was located in an area of declining oil production and woul soon need new supply pipelines, as well as a total retrofit. The public outcry was enormous, however, so Shell simply went and found a buyer instead. They sold it to Flying J (practically had to give it away, the rumor goes) and the plant still operates to this day.

quote:
the only winners are the politicians and the big oil investors
You can become an oil investor at any time. Just go buy some stock. Then you too can get rich overnight, right?

Hell, if you have a 401K or a pension fund, you already are an investor in one of these companies. Most Americans DO own stock in these companies, at least indirectly. Casting this as some childishly socialistic "us vs. them" scenario doesn't cut it.


By hoosier on 5/31/2007 5:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
Have another sip of the Koolaid.

This article is just one example of a refinery mysteriously taken off the market after there were 3 bidders.

http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/energy/nw/?postId=...

I do have money invested in oil companies. But that does not make their actions any less insidious.
There's 2 sides to every story. One of the very first lessons an investigator is taught is "FOLLOW THE MONEY" and there are piles of it to follow in this situation.


By TheGreek on 6/4/2007 11:49:05 AM , Rating: 2
"There's 2 sides to every story."

Not here there's not.

"One of the very first lessons an investigator is taught is "FOLLOW THE MONEY" and there are piles of it to follow in this situation. "

More blasphemy!


Interesting read
By Xoddoza on 5/29/2007 4:45:51 PM , Rating: 2
This has been a really big issue in NZ too. We have a very long winded expensive and complicated system (resource management) before anyone can build big things (or small things). Its expensive, time consuming and biased towards the complainers.

We generate a large amount of our power from hydro. One power company was doing a big study into another large scale hydro (project Aqua) which would have made a big contribution towards future power supply. All the environmentalists were outraged, camping places, protesting lodging complaints etc etc the project was eventually canceled due to rising costs and failure to obtain resource consent.

New Zealand is already quite close to its generating capacity and so said power company switched to another coal station and guess who decided to oppose that and protest.

The thing that really irks me is people who protest against something without truly considering the other options and how they will have repercussions on everyone else (IE running out of power)




RE: Interesting read
By sxr7171 on 5/29/2007 7:25:58 PM , Rating: 2
They should let these people put their money where their mouths are. They should be allowed to continuously disrupt electric generation projects if they agree to disconnect themselves from the grid.


RE: Interesting read
By Lightning III on 5/31/2007 1:57:41 PM , Rating: 2

I'm trying to diconect from the grid but my low income and car that has 1978 milage standards produced by the big three automakers is keeping me from installing my solar panels


RE: Interesting read
By roadhog74 on 5/30/2007 12:11:22 AM , Rating: 2
gosh never thought i would see national party voting
farmers considered environuts.

I think the people complaining most were the people with 30
metre high canals passing in front of their front door
and no compensation offered for the privilege.

We have pretty much dammed everything we can here.

All i can say is the RMA is better that the old ministry of works act which said we want your property here is a couple
of beads.

Also i suspect you actually haven;t gone through the
process yourself and are just relying on our useless media
you sensationalise as much as they can, from experience
the resource consent process is usually painless.


RE: Interesting read
By TheGreek on 5/31/2007 12:06:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We have pretty much dammed everything we can here.

Well we've built bridges to nowhere, perhaps we can damn nothing. That would get us back in the limelight.


Other issues
By Martimus on 5/30/2007 12:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
I think a bigger problem to the enviromental impact is the corruption and organized crime that takes over any large government funded project these days.




RE: Other issues
By Lightning III on 5/30/2007 8:58:36 PM , Rating: 2
only slightly off change that to culture of coruption and white collar corperate crime like the Govt owed oil royalties not being piad in the millions with Govt Auditors being told to sit down and shut up.


RE: Other issues
By Martimus on 5/31/2007 10:36:06 AM , Rating: 2
I am a little slow. I have read that reply twice now, and it still doesn't make sense to me. Could you try explaining it in a manner that an imbecile like me can understand?


RE: Other issues
By Lightning III on 5/31/2007 8:29:21 PM , Rating: 2
there are oil wells on govt ergo publicly owned land

oil companies when they drill have to pay royalties to who ever owns the mineral rights on that land

simlar to the north slope of alaska and the national forests there that george was opening up for them

well it seems there is

quote:
When veteran government auditor Bobby Maxwell learned oil giant Kerr McGee was not paying the $10 million he says it owed in oil royalties, he prepared an order to Kerr McGee to pay up. Making sure the government gets its money from energy companies was Maxwell's job in the Minerals Management Service (MMS), a division of the Department of the Interior. But Maxwell claims his bosses at the MMS quashed that order.


anyway here a link you can watch it on the internet or download it to your ipod

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/319/

unfortunaly

the current administation has always chosen loyalty over compentcy evey time

so not only do they give them billions in tax breaks

not only are they making record profits after record profits

there cheating us to boot

just like bp's management of the alasakan pipeline


maybe you should move to love canal
By Lightning III on 5/30/2007 11:30:28 AM , Rating: 2
unfortunaly the overwhelming drive in this country is greed so it's needed to make sure their not building on a toxic dump

if a land fill is properly lined to protect the water table the impact of piercing that liner could matter quite alot to the local drinking water situation

if you want big engineering move to texas here in austin the just apprved the waller creek flood control tunnel that will bring a costant level san antonio river walk enviroment to downtown as well as a floating amphitheater.

or Gov Perry's trans texas corridor (or as we like to call it the trans texas boondogle)

what your really saying is you can't make as much money paying attention to enviromental concerns and you would rather have an enviromental trainwreck like china's moving to ( have you seen the draconian mesures they are implamenting for the olympics )

or are you just another nimby ( not in my back yard )unfortunatly the only time republicans care about the enviroment is if the coal fired power plant is in their back yard and they have to deal with the nickel and cynide acid rain.

Well don't make your money elseware polluting the enviroment and then try to move to austin we don't want you




RE: maybe you should move to love canal
By TheGreek on 5/30/07, Rating: -1
RE: maybe you should move to love canal
By Ringold on 6/2/2007 4:13:41 AM , Rating: 3
Selective memory? If I recall the situation, a private equity group bought out the utility company and slashed the expected number to be built dramatically.

The end result being, as any non-liberal could very easily foresee, that they have absolutely no idea how to affordably meet future energy demans, and are essentially waiting and praying to God, Allah, Buddha or the spirit of John Maynard Keynes for the market to miraculously drop a technological whiz-bang method of power generation in their laps before the situation becomes critical. If it doesn't happen, then.. who knows. Maybe nuclear? Or maybe they'll just yield large amounts of market share to other companies less caring about protests. I have no idea and neither do they as far as I can tell, but the increased demand for energy will have to be met somehow, lest one of the largest states in population in the country face rolling blackouts for no good reason.


By TheGreek on 6/4/2007 4:53:32 PM , Rating: 2
"Selective memory?"
No, class is over.

"If I recall the situation, a private equity group bought out the utility company and slashed the expected number to be built dramatically."

I'm curious as to your selective perception of selective memory. Seems it was OK for MAsher to come to a global conclusion on polar bears based on just 2 scientific examples. Did that not bother you because of some highly scientific objectivity?

"as any non-liberal could very easily foresee"
Oh the true agenda here, labeling people. Must be scientific progress in the world of MAsher.


Big government
By dever on 5/29/2007 2:40:19 PM , Rating: 2
I typically agree with many of your posts and enjoy reading them, and I fundamentally agree with the spirit of this one. Envronentalists have successfully decapitated much of the civil property rights by which America became successful.

However, I would not hold up giant government-sponsered projects as beacons of purity. These projects deprive individual liberties by taking from the masses to benefit a few.




RE: Big government
By James Holden on 5/29/2007 2:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
It's hard to say. The 3G Dam is going to save millions of lives. Sure, a few stuppas will be underwater now -- and that is a tragic loss -- but there's really only good that can come out of that project in the long run.


From George Carlin
By Mitch101 on 5/29/2007 4:42:22 PM , Rating: 4
The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles…hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages…And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet…the planet…the planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!

http://gospelofreason.wordpress.com/2007/05/24/geo...




Mount Rushmore
By noxipoo on 5/29/2007 2:05:10 PM , Rating: 1
blowing up a sacred native american mountain and carving some giant faces then leaving it half done isn't exactly a great engineering feat i'd say.




RE: Mount Rushmore
By James Holden on 5/29/2007 3:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
Manifest destiny at its finest.


Ramesses curse them too.
By AlabamaMan on 5/30/2007 7:25:12 PM , Rating: 1
As early as 5 thousand years ago, Egyptians build magnificent structures - the Pyramids. But then the God damn environmentalist movement took off and we have not had a single pyramid build for thousands of years. It's an outrage.

I don't understand why people demand that we take finite resources, such as space, water or animal habitat into account. That's not what engineering is all about! Sure, some could say that building a destructive high-tech system that both protects the environment and serves human needs is in itself a feat of engineering far more impressive then an oversized phallic symbol constructed of a million tons of steel, concrete and glass, but we all know better.

We also don't need to know what will happen 20, 30 or 50 years down the road. Why? Will you be alive at this point? More importantly, why is going to buy my stock based on what will happen decades from now?

And don't give me all that "biodiversity" bullshit. Guess what? Nature kills off species all the time. The only way we should ever deice if a species stays or goes is by assessing whether its continual existence has greater utility than its extermination. If our time on this planet has proven anything is that as, humans, are the ultimate rational creature of impeccable judgment not found anywhere in nature. As such, it is only logical that we arm ourselves with a short-term view (just so you know, fiscal quarter is still 4 months -a perfect timeframe to be thinking in) and serve as arbiters for what should and should not exists.

We should start with pets. I hate to break this to you, but your cats and dogs are useless shit machines that waste resources and provide no utility to me, the self-appointed avatar of humanity, whatsoever. In fact, they are even worse then those damn spotted frogs - I don't recall ever stepping in frogshit. I think the society will realize great gains by making them into soap and gelatin. Using all the money we will save on dog feed, we can build a two-mile skyscraper on a 50 mile bridge between two super dams in the middle of Everglades. And we can use the penthouse as the burial chamber for the really important people, like myself.

Ramesses would be proud.




By brandonmichael on 6/5/2007 6:09:28 PM , Rating: 2
Thats a funny post! I'm always excited when someone who disagrees with mAsher and Reingold comes up with something even semi-decent.


Confessions of an "environmentalist"
By brandonmichael on 6/5/2007 2:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
Alright... alright.
I admit it.
You guys win. You are too smart. You are too articulate and you are far too good at supporting your argument and sounding intelligent while you do it.

I admit it.
I post my hastily concocted retorts primarily because you piss me off with your smugness and your superiority... and even though I fight tooth and nail you see right through me and that pisses me off even more.

I admit it guys.

But lets get something straight.
Your tactics are dirty and cheap... they are.
Come clean.
I have never once splashed paint on someone wearing fur, nor have I ever chained myself to a tree yet I am called an environmentalist in every response. I write about wanting less pollution and all of the sudden I am a socialist and an environmentalist.
Shame, thats dirty guys. Do we refer to you as "rednecks" because you dont like the federal government? Do we call you "religious freaks" because you take a more republican stance?
You did the same thing to us when we didnt want to send our children to get shot at. You called us "Anti-American". It was cheap then, its just pathetic now... mostly because we still fall for it.

You have sufficiently demonized the term "environmentalist", you have associated it with the most ridiculous people the left has to offer and now you are using that term to encompass anyone who says they would rather have a park in their neighbor hood instead of a high rise.

I am not an Anti-American. I am not an environmentalist. Get it straight.

And as for you guys being right all the time... well, I figured it out. You just know what we're trying to say even if we dont. You are right, we all know that the environmental change cant be stopped and most of the people who are falling into your traps dont see that there really is a hidden agenda behind the movement... It is politically and economically motivated and we liberals are so naive that we think the movement is lead by people with little wings and halos.

Well once we get past that and we're going to tell you that what we really want is change. We think your Big Business has become too powerful. You'll say that the country was formed to be a haven for free trade, we'll say the country was formed to escape monarchy. You'll say that hurting big business is hurting progress, you'll say that the change will do more damage than good...
We'll say maybe it will. To you.
You see, we dont own stock in oil, but we bought in cheap with Hydrogen and we're going to back this puppy until its big and strong and then we'll take it back down again and support something else.

We're the voice of change... and we're calling you petulent, SUV driving dick-heads out.




By merc14 on 6/6/2007 1:06:05 AM , Rating: 1
Well said Brandon but you have one thing wrong, "we" don't have an agenda or a doctrine to live by. We look at the facts and see that, honestly, no one really has a grasp on why the planet is warming, nor do we, or at least I , think that a general warming of the planet over the next 100 tears is necessarily bad.

We're coming out of a mini ice-age and the "environmentalists" find that horrible. A warmer planet means expanded growing regions, less harsh winters world-wide and possibly some of those regions written off as uninhabitable becoming the opposite. What is wrong with that?

Mars has warmed by 5c over the same period that the earth has warmed by 2c-3c. I find that very telling and wonder why...WHY...that is not mentioned by the Press. The numero-uno, big kahuna in all our lives is the star we orbit and it has far more effect on our climate than puny man could ever hope to have. Volcanoes blast more CO2 in the air in a month of eruptions than 60 million Hummers could even hope to exhaust.

The earth is 70% covered by water and a billion trees could not even come close to absorbing the CO2 that the ocean recycles. The "rain forest" really doesn't do all that much when you look at the CO2 recycling machine the world's oceans are.

Lastly, please lose the assumption that anyone who defies the doctrine is a monster who wants all trees cut down, the entire habitable world turned into a factory and all joy removed from life. We are just plain folks who have read both sides of the argument and come to the conclusion that this is more politics than reality.

We have families and want our children to grow up in a beautiful world just like anyone else. I am an older father and want my son to grow up and see nature in all its wonder. I just don't want to see the greatest country in history destroyed by the rantings of deluded people being led by the most opportunistic monsters one could imagine.

Hey, I am all for a few centigrade warmer earth. Why are terrible winters something we should work on saving? Bottom line is we have very little control over this planet. Blaming man for the planet warming is like blaming your wife's blow drier for heating up a 5000 sq ft home. The effect is there but it is negligible. Nature has it all over us.


Wow!
By sxr7171 on 5/29/2007 7:03:00 PM , Rating: 2
Wow! this is a great post! For sure one of the best short articles I've read on the internet. I read about all the projects you referenced and learned a great deal about some of the most amazing projects I've ever seen.




If you are truly intrested
By ziggo on 5/30/2007 10:00:18 AM , Rating: 2
I am also a fan of large scale engineering projects, though for me, large scale civil engineering isn't any better than the work that goes into the design of a fully functional military aircraft, manned or otherwise. We don't have to deal with the environmental groups though.

If you are interested in learning more about the Panama
Canal and its path to completion check out "The Path Between the Seas" by David McCullough. It is an excellent book that covers both of the French failures and the eventual success of the American team. It was a beauty to read about the studies of the doctor who made it possible by applying scientific reason to reduce Malaria and virtually eradicate Yellow Fever in the face of everyone saying it was some sort of supernatural jungle curse.

He also wrote a book about the building of the Brooklyn Bridge though I have not been able to read it yet. It is titled "The Great Bridge"




elevator
By Visual on 5/30/2007 10:24:54 AM , Rating: 2
I don't care much about USA economy and such, but I care about mankind's progress in general. We should not stop building bigger and bigger things...

Automated research stations, small habitable outposts or even whole cities should eventually be build on a variety of unusual places in the not-too-distant future - floating in the sea or underwater, in earth orbit, on the moon or mars...

Maybe the USA will be the first to build a space elevator, can't imagine a larger-scale project than that...

... at least until the Vogons start their interstellar highway bypass, that is.




By ricleo2 on 5/31/2007 7:51:04 AM , Rating: 2
Check out Dallas Cowboys and Arlington,TX's website for a big engineering project. I voted against Jerry Jones' stadium but I can't help but marvel at the engineering.




We need self-sustained Arcologies
By TimberJon on 5/31/2007 2:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
Such as the ones described in the books by Peter F. Hamilton, "The Naked God" - Part 1 & 2

Ones with interior ecologies that are protected.

Any news on plans to build a city-in-a-building?




By GeorgeOrwell on 5/31/2007 8:44:09 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, so-called "big engineering" projects in the US have mostly turned out to be big mistakes. There is no "big thinking" or "big wisdom" that goes into these large projects, merely "big greed".

Destroying the world's best system of trains -- highly efficient transportation -- to replace it with an incredibly wasteful system based on cars and trucks -- is a prime example of "big engineering"/"big greed" in action.

In all likelihood, the entire world would have been far better off, global warming included, had America not destroyed its train system. And without this enormous waste of money and source of pollution, America would be far more prosperous as well. Imagine how much more money Americans would have with lower health care costs, lower transportation costs, increased productivity (riding on a train vs. spending time driving), etc, etc, etc. It is staggering how wasteful the Interstate Highway System is.

Between "Big Highway" and another "big engineering" project -- "Big Space Program" -- America managed to destroy much of the planet's ozone layer as well.

Ultimately it is the culmination of many carefully thought out "small engineering" projects that has built the world's most beautiful towns, roads, and buildings. In fact, "small changes" is how nature itself works. But it takes wisdom to see this.

Unfortunately, the author of this blog has nothing more to offer than "big nihilism", carefully hidden behind a web of deception.




By Shadowmaster625 on 6/4/2007 4:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
What is this piece of propaganda even doing on here? Half the environmental lobby is bought and paid for by big energy. Didn't you know that? The oil lobby goes and sets up a fake environmental group to rail against nuclear power. etc etc. Big coal does the same thing to big gas. They all use tree huggers as their whipping boys, and the public buys into the rush limbaugh line that it's just a bunch of tree huggers causing all our problems. They take your land to save the environment, next thing you know they're building hotels and condos and shopping malls on it. Wake up ffs, this is the 21st century, and the propaganda war is a lot more complicated now. If you can't even understand 1960's style propaganda like this, how can you possibly hope to understand what is going on today?




Big Projects Big Money
By ceefka on 6/5/2007 6:22:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And all of which could not possibly have been built in America's current political climate.


However big the money, you can only spend it only once.
Are we going to war (again) or are we going to build some water protection system for New Orleans?




"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki