misguided old economist attempts to pollute young, idealistic minds
check out this article and see if i'm crazy, or if this guy doesn't secretly wish he had become an actor instead of an economist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/28/business/28every.html?ex=1125979200&en=08a661b9c1be67ce&ei=5070&emc=eta1
interesting article, although i can't say i agree with the message. his ending line, "i'll never be young again" is the admission that his life isn't going as he wants it to. c'mon, youth is a state of mind not an age! according to this guy, the two secrets to a happy life that he wished he had known are 1.attain fabulous wealth and 2.marry someone with the same values as you. it seems to me that this guy is just nostalgic of the good ol days-- those days when worrying about the "material world" were not yet his concern. he doesn't even understand what the source of his own happiness is. he says that working helps people's self-esteem, so why is he yearning for the day he can retire? he's simply broadcasting the messages that have been drilled into his head over the years as an economist: work is good, and money = happiness. i'm not buying it, and i hope my fellow youth don't buy it either.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Monday, August 08, 2005
polar bears are cute
like fuzzy polar bears?
want to see them covered in oil?
neither do I! that's why one of the campaigns my fellow eco warriors will be working on this year is stopping the budget from getting passed in late September/ early October.
why stop the budget? well, those wiley republican critters have discovered that they didn't have enough political capital to get the energy bill passed if the provision to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was contained in it. this is a result of over 5 years of lobbying reps from all over the country to defeat this provision... and up until now it has worked. the pro-wilderness folks have threatened to fillibuster if the provision was in the energy bill. so in response, the republicans have sneaked it out of the energy bill (which, by the way, is an abomination to the world community, considering that it further encourages the use of fossil fuels which will speed up the effects of global warming), and put it into the budget.
but, alas, the budget has its own quirky voting system where you only need a simple majority to pass it, and the filibuster is, conveniently, not allowed!
sooooo, that leaves us in a sticky spot. we'll need to convince some middle of the road republicans and democrats to vote to preserve a national wildlife refuge from total destruction.
sounds like i'm exaggerating? just look at the prudhoe bay oil field in alaska to see how destructive these drilling facilities are to the region's ecosystem, wildlife and human populations. there, the facility reports one oil spill a day.
for more on the destruction caused by prudhoe bay oili field, check out : http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/arcticconnections.htm
there is no way the industry can guarantee a safer, cleaner site only a few miles away. scientists have labeled the Arctic refuge as the most biologically diverse preserved region north of the Arctic circle. it is currently supports a complete and in tact ecosystem that will stand absolutely no chance against these oil fields. if the coastal plain were to be opened for drilling, scientists predict 50% of the caribou population will die, polar bears that give birth on the land there will die, thousands of migratory birds will lose their habitat, and the list just doesn't stop.
the absolute worst part of this scenario is that the purported oil supply under the ice of the coastal plain in alaska is minimal. the most positive estimates are far lower than what it would take to fuel the country for a year. if they opened the entire area and drilled every last drop, it would be the equivalent of 5-6% of the total country's annual oil usage. 5%!!! AND, that wouldn't be around for at least 10 years, while the infrastructure gets set up.
the US consumes 25% of the world's oil, and it has about 5% of the world's oil on its own territory. So, if you would all do the math, you'll find that..... drumroll please..... we can never free ourselves from "foreign oil" continuing at the same rate we do right now! it just doesn't work out mathematically!
the amount of oil predicted to be in the Arctic would be less than the amount of oil we could save by having better tires on every car. it is significantly less than the amount of oil we'd save with higher fuel efficiency standards for cars. it is merely a drop in the big oil bucket. not to mention the tragedy it would be for the wild life of the region and the birds from all over the world.
moreover, transporting the potential fuel from alaska to the lower 48 states involves the use of a trans-alaskan pipeline that already poses a clear and easy terrorist target. a few years ago a guy got drunk and went shooting in the woods with his buddies. he actucally hit this pipeline and punctured it, spewing oil into the forest for 3 days, and stopping the flow of the oil for weeks. the last thing we need to do in today's national security driven environment is to depend more heavily on such a huge bullsye for terrorists.
(for more info: http://www.solcomhouse.com/pipeline.htm)
i'm not saying that you all need to believe in the beauty of nature or the right of animals to have a habitat. i'm not even saying that you all should feel sympathy for the Gwitch'in indigenous people of the area who live off of the land, and have been there for the past few hundred years. all i'm saying is that there are smarter alternatives that would make us all better off anyway. e.g. raising fuel efficiency standards on US automobiles would decrease the amount of greenhouse gasses being released into the atmosphere.
please encourage your local senators and congressmen (and women) to vote the right way on this budget. take the time to write a hand-written letter or make a phone call. the only people who'll benefit from this proposal are the oil companies, and that's a cold hard fact.
for more specifics about the campaign the Sierra Club is working on, and also to send an email to your senator or congressman, check out: http://www.arcticrefugeaction.org/
what are your thoughts???
want to see them covered in oil?
neither do I! that's why one of the campaigns my fellow eco warriors will be working on this year is stopping the budget from getting passed in late September/ early October.
why stop the budget? well, those wiley republican critters have discovered that they didn't have enough political capital to get the energy bill passed if the provision to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was contained in it. this is a result of over 5 years of lobbying reps from all over the country to defeat this provision... and up until now it has worked. the pro-wilderness folks have threatened to fillibuster if the provision was in the energy bill. so in response, the republicans have sneaked it out of the energy bill (which, by the way, is an abomination to the world community, considering that it further encourages the use of fossil fuels which will speed up the effects of global warming), and put it into the budget.
but, alas, the budget has its own quirky voting system where you only need a simple majority to pass it, and the filibuster is, conveniently, not allowed!
sooooo, that leaves us in a sticky spot. we'll need to convince some middle of the road republicans and democrats to vote to preserve a national wildlife refuge from total destruction.
sounds like i'm exaggerating? just look at the prudhoe bay oil field in alaska to see how destructive these drilling facilities are to the region's ecosystem, wildlife and human populations. there, the facility reports one oil spill a day.
for more on the destruction caused by prudhoe bay oili field, check out : http://arcticcircle.uconn.edu/ANWR/arcticconnections.htm
there is no way the industry can guarantee a safer, cleaner site only a few miles away. scientists have labeled the Arctic refuge as the most biologically diverse preserved region north of the Arctic circle. it is currently supports a complete and in tact ecosystem that will stand absolutely no chance against these oil fields. if the coastal plain were to be opened for drilling, scientists predict 50% of the caribou population will die, polar bears that give birth on the land there will die, thousands of migratory birds will lose their habitat, and the list just doesn't stop.
the absolute worst part of this scenario is that the purported oil supply under the ice of the coastal plain in alaska is minimal. the most positive estimates are far lower than what it would take to fuel the country for a year. if they opened the entire area and drilled every last drop, it would be the equivalent of 5-6% of the total country's annual oil usage. 5%!!! AND, that wouldn't be around for at least 10 years, while the infrastructure gets set up.
the US consumes 25% of the world's oil, and it has about 5% of the world's oil on its own territory. So, if you would all do the math, you'll find that..... drumroll please..... we can never free ourselves from "foreign oil" continuing at the same rate we do right now! it just doesn't work out mathematically!
the amount of oil predicted to be in the Arctic would be less than the amount of oil we could save by having better tires on every car. it is significantly less than the amount of oil we'd save with higher fuel efficiency standards for cars. it is merely a drop in the big oil bucket. not to mention the tragedy it would be for the wild life of the region and the birds from all over the world.
moreover, transporting the potential fuel from alaska to the lower 48 states involves the use of a trans-alaskan pipeline that already poses a clear and easy terrorist target. a few years ago a guy got drunk and went shooting in the woods with his buddies. he actucally hit this pipeline and punctured it, spewing oil into the forest for 3 days, and stopping the flow of the oil for weeks. the last thing we need to do in today's national security driven environment is to depend more heavily on such a huge bullsye for terrorists.
(for more info: http://www.solcomhouse.com/pipeline.htm)
i'm not saying that you all need to believe in the beauty of nature or the right of animals to have a habitat. i'm not even saying that you all should feel sympathy for the Gwitch'in indigenous people of the area who live off of the land, and have been there for the past few hundred years. all i'm saying is that there are smarter alternatives that would make us all better off anyway. e.g. raising fuel efficiency standards on US automobiles would decrease the amount of greenhouse gasses being released into the atmosphere.
please encourage your local senators and congressmen (and women) to vote the right way on this budget. take the time to write a hand-written letter or make a phone call. the only people who'll benefit from this proposal are the oil companies, and that's a cold hard fact.
for more specifics about the campaign the Sierra Club is working on, and also to send an email to your senator or congressman, check out: http://www.arcticrefugeaction.org/
what are your thoughts???
Monday, August 01, 2005
another abuse of power by the bush team
our lovely president and his team just sneaked his appointee for position of UN ambassador, Mr. Bolton, in behind senate lines. the president realized his appointee would never get Senate approval, so he waited till the Senate was in recess to sneak him into office under the scrutiny of congress.
here's how some senators were quoted in the nytimes:
(check out the whole article: http://nytimes.com/2005/08/01/politics/01cnd-bolton.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=6014f62ea8a1344d&hp&ex=1122955200&partner=homepage )
might not seem like a big deal in comparison to other crap the Bush administration has come up with? well, it still seems like an abuse of power, and another exmample of bush getting arund every check and balance he can. and i'm glad to see that i'm not the only one who's pissed off... i guess that's a good sign that i haven't fallen completely and utterly into the wallows of disillusionment and cynicism.
what do you all think about this tasty treat from the gang at the white house?
here's how some senators were quoted in the nytimes:
Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, characterized Mr. Bush's
move as "the latest abuse of power by the Bush White House," while another
Democrat, Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, said in a statement that "even
while the president preaches democracy around the world, he bends the rules and
circumvents the will of Congress" at home.
(check out the whole article: http://nytimes.com/2005/08/01/politics/01cnd-bolton.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=6014f62ea8a1344d&hp&ex=1122955200&partner=homepage )
might not seem like a big deal in comparison to other crap the Bush administration has come up with? well, it still seems like an abuse of power, and another exmample of bush getting arund every check and balance he can. and i'm glad to see that i'm not the only one who's pissed off... i guess that's a good sign that i haven't fallen completely and utterly into the wallows of disillusionment and cynicism.
what do you all think about this tasty treat from the gang at the white house?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
