Susan's Place Transgender Resources

According to one research organization the most liberal city in the USA is Detroit, MI and most conservative Provo, UT. The hole study included 237 bigger cities.

And where does Helsinki fall along that continuum?

DL, does it ever strike you at all that your concerns about the USA should maybe take at least second place to what might be your concerns about your own city and homeland?

Just askin.'

I wouldn't want to live in either city.

Detriot is what one might term as being in a state of FUBAR. F'ed up beyond all repair.

Provo as in Utah, no thanks.

I second what Nichole said in the above.

And?

I'm from Detroit, and it used to be a great place.  Thanks to the auto industry, anybody could get a good job.  Even if you didn't work in the industry, you made good money, because if other employers didn't pay well, they would lose workers to the auto plants.  Auto workers spread their money around in stores, resteraunts and bars.  It was the truest realization of the American Dream.  Detroit was liberal, because common people ruled. 

If Detroit is FUBAR now, so is that dream.

I liked the previous answer!  :)

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worst-city.com%2Fimages%2FSlums-of-Detroit.jpg&hash=4c5553dda0c7feeeab8a4d231f4e3a7f4b1fe5ac)

I could buy that whole block for 10K. An individual house for $300.

No kidding guys, check out the Detriot foreclosure listings.

We could set up a whole Trans community for about 25 grand.

Then again we would be living in Detriot.

Yeah, you can buy in Detroit cheap, but where do you work? Unemployment is rampant, which is why there are so many foreclosures.

Provo? No F'ing thank you. I lived between Salt Lake and Ogden for 2 years, that was more than enough for me. That was bad enough, Provo is worse.

Heres an interesting link, from the UK Telegraph newspaper by way of the Drudge Report.

Apparently the Obama Admin is considering bulldozing large portions of US cities that are in decline.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5516536/US-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5516536/US-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html)

I have to admit, I actually find myself agreeing with his Greatness.

The idea presented in the link make a heckuva lot of sense, and nods toward sensibility as well. :) I could see that happening in some areas of Philly. There's no longer anything to support the housing lots of folks have no jobs abd haven't had them for awhile. The city center is re-rising, but those folks living there are often living on investment income or upper-level management salaries. :) Ok, so maybe the center-city boom is about to go bust as well. :)

Oh, great, the spirit of Robert Moses lives on.  ::)

How about we tax the hell out out emitting CO2, and then we can bulldoze Levittown instead and plant a potato field there?

Quotethen we can bulldoze Levittown instead and plant a potato field there?

They beat around the bush and refuse to admit that the world is over populated. Think of the consequences when they admit the problem.

2nd place on liberalism: Gary, IN
2nd place on conservativism: Lubbock, TX

According to wiki, Gary has a per capita income of about 14,000 USD.

In fact, Gary held the "honors" for being the murder capital of the nation ...
Notice the clean air!



http://www.pbase.com/mcc2000/image/34523518 (http://www.pbase.com/mcc2000/image/34523518)

Quote from: Alyssa M. on June 13, 2009, 12:32:10 AM
Oh, great, the spirit of Robert Moses lives on.  ::)

How about we tax the hell out out emitting CO2, and then we can bulldoze Levittown instead and plant a potato field there?

You know Robert Moses never learned to drive a car?
Turn Levittown back into a potato field, thats rich Alyssa!!!

Quote[/They beat around the bush and refuse to admit that the world is over populated. Think of the consequences when they admit the problem.
Posted on: Today at 01:32:10 amPosted by: lisagurl 
quote]

Thats a fallacy, a very large one. Then again, "repeat a lie, preferably a big lie often enough. And the people will believe the lie." That quote is from Adolf Hitler, who like the rest of the radical socialists advocated mass extermination of human populations. Current estimates of future populations show that world pop. over time will even out to be roughly some 12-15 billion people. A sustainable number, as will be the current standard of living enjoyed in western nations.

We need not go back to the stone age, or exterminate large groups of humanity.

Finally, Darklady. How about you just publish the entire list. So far I am impressed with neither of the two most liberal cities, as they are what we Americans refer to as sh*th*les.
If your advocating large scale liberal policies than Gary, Indiana and Detriot Michigan are very poor choice. Highest crime rates, highest unemployment, worst health care etc are not what I desire in the name of equality.

QuoteCurrent estimates of future populations show that world pop. over time will even out to be roughly some 12-15 billion people. A sustainable number, as will be the current standard of living enjoyed in western nations.

LOL, tell that to the people in Africa, India, China, South America, Indonesia and many other places around the world who are dropping their standard of living. Even in the U.S. the standard of living is not sustainable. There simply are not enough resources. Have you bought gas lately remember supply and demand?

How about future research and development. More effeciancy in production. Economics of scale. "Green" energey sources, once there profitable. Clean coal, nuclear. Nanotech, biotech, advances in chemical engineering, food production etc.

This arguement that the world is becoming overpopulated and theres not enough resources is an agruement put forth by progressieves to justify more "stateist" policys, comtrol, and taxes.

What crap, let market forces deceide. In regards to Chinda, India, Africa, etc... as their standard of living rises, their rate of natural increase will decrease. In about 50-100 years time women in these areas will average 2.1- 2.3 children per woman.

Quote from: lisagurl on June 13, 2009, 02:46:18 PM
LOL, tell that to the people in Africa, India, China, South America, Indonesia and many other places around the world who are dropping their standard of living. Even in the U.S. the standard of living is not sustainable. There simply are not enough resources. Have you bought gas lately remember supply and demand?

Nah, we ought to be able to reduce energy consumption and switch to enough carbon alternatives that the price of gas at the pump won't be very important. It just requires taxing it like crazy or a (real and enforced) cap and trade system (or we can just do nothing, and wait for the fit to hit the shan, as the saying goes). America is actually losing population, except for immigration (so the population is growing slowly, but if there were no immigration or emigration, it would be shrinking).

However, much of Africa, Latin America, and SE Asia are having problem stabilizing population (i.e. stopping population growth). That's a different problem, and one which also is not lacking for effective solutions, but only will.

I wouldn't classify Lubbock as much higher on my list of wonderful places to live than Gary, but that's not relevant. The point is that the liberal policies of cities (and pretty much every large city is liberal; only podunk towns like Lubbock are conservative) do not cause, but are caused by the conditions of the city. That doesn't mean wealth or poverty or safety or crime -- it means many people trying to live more or less harmoniously while in close and frequent contact. That's why Salt Lake City is nearly as liberal as New York City, even though Utah overall is one of the most conservative states.

QuoteHow about future research and development. More efficiency in production. Economics of scale. "Green" energy sources, once there profitable. Clean coal, nuclear. Nanotech, biotech, advances in chemical engineering, food production etc.

I worked with leading Universities in energy conservation for almost 30 years. The truth is new technology does not save in the big picture. It gives people false value so they spend more and that uses more energy. Every technology has just as many new problems and more that the technology it replaces.  Green is a marketing buss word. It is only green at what you see but look farther and you will see black. Take Ethanol for example. It takes 180 gallons of water to grown and refine a gallon. It takes more diesel fuel to farm and transport, counting the pumps chemicals for growing and the energy they use and pollute you have a environmental disaster. Then there is the dead zone in the gulf from the runoff.

Quote from: lisagurl on June 13, 2009, 06:51:04 PMIt gives people false value so they spend more and that uses more energy.

... Not if you make up the difference through taxes. Not if there's so much worldwide demand that it's unaffordable not to conserve. It will happen -- energy consumption will go down, at least consumption based on emitting CO2. The question is, will it go down because we've burned every last bit of coal and oil and natural gas we can find? Or will we make it too expensive some other way before we get to that point, and thus avoid the absolute worst effects of the mass extinction resulting from very significantly altering athmospheric and oceanic chemistry?

One simple proposal that would be a big step forward: set the minimum pump price to be $4/gallon, starting two years from now; tax rates could be based on price of crude and refining to make this happen. Make the pump price go up by inflation plus 7.2% every year (so it doubles every ten years, even after inflation). Then people will actually conserve, just like they did last summer when prices went up.

Ethanol: cellulosic ethanol has the promise to be a vast, vast improvement, and simply uses what is now waste product. Just one small part of the picture. The one part of the picture that has been missing, and the one that holds the key to anything else working is that we continue to subsidize rather than tax carbon-based energy. It's quite simple: We need to pretend that we'll run out of petroleum in the year 2030, not 2100.

QuoteNot if you tax the remainder

Taxes have rarely worked as they are expected, just like new technology. The sharp lawyers that are smarter than the law makers figure out how to circumvent taxes for their own profit. Take Al Gore and his carbon credits for example.

Methane and other greenhouse gases will increase with population. Look at China's smog problem due partly to their cooking fuel. In the U.S. many cities had wood smoke problems before oil and gas. We will need more electricity which demands coal also and clean coal is not clean. Just the building of a nuke plant creates a lot of CO2, not to mention all the cooling water, waste and mining issues.
As the population increases we see less forests and wet lands our natural filters. The oceans are almost fished out. It takes lots of energy to farm fish. Plastics create another problem and deposit tax and or recycling has not keep billions of tons out of the ocean. Just about every plastic product has a short life to the consumer, not to mention the chemical problems to health and environment, more population will only magnify that issue. Many past mining operations such as in Montana cost more to clean up than the lifetime out put of the mine. Which makes Montana having one of the lowest per capita income in the country. Australia has killed its dry environment and then added non indigenous species that have no natural control. They can not support any more population.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20090612/ts_usnews/howtheglobalwarmingbillwillaffectyourwallet (http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnews/20090612/ts_usnews/howtheglobalwarmingbillwillaffectyourwallet)

Earliest estimate of make Al Gore filthy rich cap and trade, $1600 per American family per year.

Ah, the programs that could pay for though.

Yes, obviously it's a big problem. Population is a big problem ... elsewhere, i.e. where it's actually increasing. I'm aware of that. So what? Are you saying we should (1) give up (2) exterminate half the population of the planet or (3) something else? Based on your statements, I really have no clue what you think would be the best course of action. Look: for any kind of tax or regulation, you will have people trying to circumvent it. But I don't see a whole lot of gas stations avoiding taxes in America or Europe right now. With your reasoning, you're letting perfect be the enemy of good.

Michelle -- I really don't care how much money Al Gore makes, nor do I understand (or care) how Al Gore would collect a  windfall from cap and trade. How on earth is an ad hominem attack against some guy who doesn't even hold political office remotely relevant? ?????? Contrariwise, what about all Dick Cheney's oil money? Failing to cap and trade gives Cheney lots of cash -- see, another vice president cashing in.

But the current system costs a LOT more than that, or will soon. Who should that $1600 of cash from the hard-working American taxpayer go to? The governments of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Venezuala? Or Uncle Sam? "Neither" is not a possibility. Or should we just keep pumping it into the next unnecessary war that we start because we're freaked out that "they hate us" because we support the Saudi government because we're so dependent on their oil? Ah, the programs we wouldn't need to pay for if it weren't for our utter dependence on foreign oil.

All right -- I'm done, because if I continue, I won't get enough sleep for my mountain tomorrow. :)

Al Gore cashing in on carbon-offsets and the like take your pick... http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=al+gore+cap+and+trade&fr=yfp-t-501-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8 (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=al+gore+cap+and+trade&fr=yfp-t-501-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8) 
I've even read articles, Wall Street Journal?, that show his "interest" in what would be the future exchange board for such a system. It just seems convienent that the man who has been championing the whole global warming bit is one of the ones who stands to make 100's of millions of dollars.

Cheney and oil people. I would very much like to see an investigation into if, and how, the crude futures market could have been "fixed" last year. Most, if not all. commodities are physical possesion... not paper trades. A basic reform of that market would be to require that a successful bid for a contract result in holding at least 10% of said crude.

About population, see this prior post of mine:

"Thats a fallacy, a very large one. Then again, "repeat a lie, preferably a big lie often enough. And the people will believe the lie." That quote is from Adolf Hitler, who like the rest of the radical socialists advocated mass extermination of human populations. Current estimates of future populations show that world pop. over time will even out to be roughly some 12-15 billion people. A sustainable number, as will be the current standard of living enjoyed in western nations.

We need not go back to the stone age, or exterminate large groups of humanity."

I think the last sentence speaks for itself.

About foreign oil. We can, and should, be off foreign oil in as little as 10 years max 20 yrs. That though would take, God forbid, actually increasing drilling and refienery capacity domestically.

That $1600 figure is what it will cost the average family ABOVE what they pay now, its not a transfer/zero sum figure.

A final note on oil, somewhere around 50% of oil used is used to manufacture goods. Your shampoo bottle, tuperware, computer case... plastics.

Also enjoy the mountain... just keep in mind if the radical environmentalists have their way it will cost a small fortune to climb it in the future.

On the topic of the population.
In many countries, people aren't producing enough offspring to keep the work-force populated through the next 30-50 years.

Quote from: michellesofl on June 13, 2009, 11:00:47 PM
Al Gore cashing in on carbon-offsets and the like take your pick... http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=al+gore+cap+and+trade&fr=yfp-t-501-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8 (http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=al+gore+cap+and+trade&fr=yfp-t-501-s&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8) 
I've even read articles, Wall Street Journal?, that show his "interest" in what would be the future exchange board for such a system. It just seems convienent that the man who has been championing the whole global warming bit is one of the ones who stands to make 100's of millions of dollars.

Cheney and oil people. I would very much like to see an investigation into if, and how, the crude futures market could have been "fixed" last year. Most, if not all. commodities are physical possesion... not paper trades. A basic reform of that market would be to require that a successful bid for a contract result in holding at least 10% of said crude.

About population, see this prior post of mine:

"Thats a fallacy, a very large one. Then again, "repeat a lie, preferably a big lie often enough. And the people will believe the lie." That quote is from Adolf Hitler, who like the rest of the radical socialists advocated mass extermination of human populations. Current estimates of future populations show that world pop. over time will even out to be roughly some 12-15 billion people. A sustainable number, as will be the current standard of living enjoyed in western nations.

We need not go back to the stone age, or exterminate large groups of humanity."

I think the last sentence speaks for itself.

About foreign oil. We can, and should, be off foreign oil in as little as 10 years max 20 yrs. That though would take, God forbid, actually increasing drilling and refienery capacity domestically.

That $1600 figure is what it will cost the average family ABOVE what they pay now, its not a transfer/zero sum figure.

A final note on oil, somewhere around 50% of oil used is used to manufacture goods. Your shampoo bottle, tuperware, computer case... plastics.

Also enjoy the mountain... just keep in mind if the radical environmentalists have their way it will cost a small fortune to climb it in the future.

Yea. Adolf Hitler was a ''radical socialist''. His main rivals were socialists and he used word ''national socialist'' just for propaganda.

QuoteI really have no clue what you think would be the best course of action.

The place to start is to recognize the problem. That is something leaders refuse to address because it is a political suicide.

Population control has got to start with reduced procreation. China experimented with it and found problems such as one sided sex choice.  Limiting expensive resource wasting medical procedures on people who do not want to live would be a choice. Allowing one to end their life another. These are all moral issues that go against religious beliefs that put life above everything. Tackling the religious problem is the main stumbling block, that will, if not faced lead the world to much suffering.

QuoteIn many countries, people aren't producing enough offspring to keep the work-force populated through the next 30-50 years

That is not the problem, consumption is the problem.

And then the third pplace cities:
3rd liberal: Berkeley, CA   (Yes, that Berkeley with People's Park)
3rd conservative: Abilene, TX

Quote from: lisagurl on June 12, 2009, 03:31:48 PM
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worst-city.com%2Fimages%2FSlums-of-Detroit.jpg&hash=4c5553dda0c7feeeab8a4d231f4e3a7f4b1fe5ac)

That's Detroit? Really? Holy crap.

Quote from: michellesofl on June 12, 2009, 08:53:07 PM
Heres an interesting link, from the UK Telegraph newspaper by way of the Drudge Report.

Apparently the Obama Admin is considering bulldozing large portions of US cities that are in decline.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5516536/US-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/5516536/US-cities-may-have-to-be-bulldozed-in-order-to-survive.html)

Cool ------actually it was THE REPUBLICAN PARTY that devised this plan for New Orleans after Katrina.

I have to admit, I actually find myself agreeing with his Greatness.
Whatever totalitarian schemes you think Obama is hatching-------Bush hatched them first

---

Post Merge: June 14, 2009, 10:41:28 PM

---

I think it is pathetic when so many people identifying as gender varient are spouting this neocon nonsense

Yeah and it was a good idea than also.

Build and than rebuild a city in what amounts to an underground bathtub.

Makes perfect economic sense to me.

THE POINT IN NOT REBUILDING NEW ORLEANS WAS TO TRY AND KEEP IT MOSTLY WHITE SO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CONTROLLED THE ENTIRE STATE>

Quote from: xsocialworker on June 15, 2009, 11:05:53 AM
THE POINT IN NOT REBUILDING NEW ORLEANS WAS TO TRY AND KEEP IT MOSTLY WHITE SO THE REPUBLICAN PARTY CONTROLLED THE ENTIRE STATE>

I thought that it made sense for it to go back to wet lands and help filter some of the fertilizer that has made a dead zone of more than 100 miles in the gulf.

Michelle,
First of all, I was referring to Lisa's comments regarding the population problem I agree that it is completely solvable -- although we need to get over the completely false notion of "sustainable growth" -- the only "sustainable" growth rate is zero. But your Hitler quote is about as blatant a violation of Godwin's Law (or its corrolary, anyway) as I've ever seen. Who cares what Hitler (or Cheney or Gore) say? You are making a combination ad hominem and straw man argument. It just isn't relevant. The point is that it's not clear whether 12 to 15 billion people really is sustainable, or whether instead that number of people would lead to lots and lots of wars and famine and disease and ... well, pretty much what we have right now. Certainly 15 billion people can't consume at the rates of the average person in the Western world -- today's 6 billion can't even continue to consume at current rates for many more decades. That $1600 is going to look like a bargain the way oil prices will go if we try. Even if the world had enough petroleum and the world could handle the CO2, American oil will never be able to replace foreign imports. There's just not enough to replace what we're getting from Saudi Arabia. In other words, we can let supply dry up and have nothing in place and a much worse mass extinction event than we see already ... or we can pretend that supply has already started to dried up.

Radical enviros? Nope, no worries about them, by and large. Sure, there are a few that want to restrict access by foot in some places (such as my local open space authority that recently added some red tape to go off-trail in some places that I love to bushwhack, and close more rocks than seems reasonable for raptor nesting for over half the year), and I think the FLREA is a complete boondoggle (but that's the fault of Bush and the "market-oriented" Republicans controlling Congress when it passed and USFS bureaucreats). That I have to pay to access one of my favorite ares during the summer -- even if I show up at 3:00 a.m., even if I bike there from a nearby town -- does not endear the USFS to me. But overall, access is much better today than it has really ever been before, thanks to the Nature Conservancy, Access Fund, Sierra Club, etc. The small fee I had to pay for a permit to climb Mt. Shasta and similar fees for very overcrowded peaks (Rainier, etc.) and the fees for mountaineering in poor places with high mountains (Kenya, the Himalaya and Karakorum, the Andes) are completely reasonable to keep the mountains relatively unmarred or to give a small boost to local economies. Most mountaineers agree.

Lisa -- thanks, that answered my question. :) I'm convinced that supporting a decent education system for all people (most imprtantly women) is the best and most effective solution to the population problem.

The Republicans only care about elections and playing to their "base". No TG can be part of this group by definition.

"Lisa -- thanks, that answered my question.  I'm convinced that supporting a decent education system for all people (most imprtantly women) is the best and most effective solution to the population problem."-- by Alyssa.

I admit that I made a deliberate use of "Goddwins Law," in attempt to see just where Lisa was going with the population growth issue. Sometimes "shock" value has its benefits. Real quick. If where moving anywhere along a fascist model it would be along the lines of "corporate fascism."

The oil consumption issue, I think that T. Boone Pickens has good ideas in regards to that particular issue.

Cap and trade,to me,= cap and tax.

You mentioned empowering women. The trend and growth of the "micro-loan" industry is helping to address that problem. Also, I believe, the website "girl power dot com" has good ideas re: unleashing the power of women to change 3rd world societies thru education. I could be wrong on the website name, a problem of recall on my part.

About global warming. Didn't Las Vegas get 6 inches of snow this winter? The Dakotas, Canada, and the mid-west regions have to yet reach summer temps. Also I beleive that no less than 3 confrences on the issue of global warming were all but snowed out this past winter. Glaciers in South America, Argentina, are growing.

Enough for now, this has been an interesting thread.

Mich'

QuoteThe oil consumption issue, I think that T. Boone Pickens has good ideas in regards to that particular issue

Have you investigated Pickens?

Pickens is out for Pickens alone and does not care a flip about society. His government supported windmills is a shame for the real purpose of getting right of ways to put a pipeline from the water rights he bought in west Texas to empty the aquifer and sell it to the big cities. It would be stealing to empty the Texas aquifer that is very slow to fill. It will leave west Texas totally barren. This is a prime example of using resources faster than they can recover. It would be better to reduce the Texas population than add wind mills and exhaust the natural gas supply driving to price up so Pickens could profit. Remember the natural gas shortage a few years ago? Then when they said they had plenty and build gas turbine generators the gas price tripled and those generators could not afford to compete with coal.

Start building the desalinization plants ASAP.

To clarify T.Boone... his proposal to switch to natural gas interests me the most.

Also we need to update the US power grid. Now that would be one heckova stimulus project. The Fed's could finance the project and than auction off the distribution rights to the various utility companies.

QuoteStart building the desalinization plants ASAP

Then where do we get the energy and where do we dispose of the toxic waste?

---

Post Merge: June 16, 2009, 02:45:31 PM

---

QuoteTo clarify T.Boone... his proposal to switch to natural gas interests me the most.

Natural gas is very limited like oil. It is just that he holds a lot of gas rights. Gas is also seasonal. So summer gas is cheaper. If you start to power transportation with natural gas the price will sky rocket. It still puts carbon into the air. Gas could be used for Air Conditioning but the price is not competitive with electricity.

---

Post Merge: June 16, 2009, 03:52:09 PM

---

QuoteAlso we need to update the US power grid. Now that would be one heckova stimulus project. The Fed's could finance the project and than auction off the distribution rights to the various utility companies

It take lots of maintenance to keep a grid working. Also the longer the lines the greater the loss. Not to mention people especially CA do not want them in their back yard as there is also EMF. The Feds control the price of wheeling most power companies can not recoup their maintenance costs from wheeling charges.  How the companies make money is buying on one side and reselling on the other at a much inflated price. Remember Enron?

http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/143945 (http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/143945)

Nokia has devised a way to power a cell phone for "free."
A modern day app from an idea of Tesla.

Quote from: michellesofl on June 16, 2009, 05:30:45 PM
http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/143945 (http://tech.yahoo.com/blogs/null/143945)

Nokia has devised a way to power a cell phone for "free."
A modern day app from an idea of Tesla.

OK, one idea from the mind of Tesla that has received a new life thanks to Nokia. But that's a long way from T. Boone and windmills and gas taxes. So is desalinization, heavy on the process end and light on the profit end.

The idea of Fed research grants and paid labor building this infrastructure that is necessary to the entire culture and then "auctioning" it away is simply laughable. Like the "winning" auction bid will go to Mobil, Exxon, Royal Dutch Shell, or BP, etc at some less-than costs price.

A grid to power the entire country and communications technology will then enter "private and eternal" corporate ownership. And whatya suppose you'll pay to use whatever the benefit from it is?

You expressed some dismay at "corporate fascism" earlier. Where do you imagine all of that will lead?

I understand that ideology can get in the way of lots of things, but this line of reasoning is pretty surface level and doesn't require a lot of thought to ferret out.

I'd rather see the government run the whole dammed shebang than hide and watch the multi-national power companies do so.

Hate goverment all ya want and chat on about bureaucracies and inefficiency all ya want as well. In fact, the government bureaucracies of the 1930s and 40s worked a sight better than the capitalist-powers-that-had-been who were all pretty busy buying into national socialism and the Krupp, Bayer, Farben and Siemen's connections they saw as "the future."

Now, why should anyone think that the successors of such "leading lights" have seen the errors of their ways? They've certainly only shown a decided capacity for greed unparallelled and a "damn everyone else" approach to pretty much everything.

But, as many have said USA is incredibly naive historically. We like to think everything is new and that the past doesn't affect us or make anything we desire unlikely.

A world, for instance, where water is more scarce and less clean than it has ever been and "leading lights" are suggesting that we can still support 12-15 billion people on a planet that doesn't seem able at the moment to support 6-7 billion without more than about 85% of the population living on the margins at best, dying consistently at worst.

The day has come and gone, I believe, when 3% of the world's population can collectively consume around 25% of that world's resources daily.

But, dreams that are called "rational" seem to have a tough time dying in those who would like nothing better than an endless summer of profligate consumption. Just sayin' an' all.

Nichole

endless summer of profligate consumption

We will find a way to have our cake and eat it to.
Additionally I don't see why we can't over time bake a larger cake, so that the rest of the world can partake as well.

RE: the need for a next generation power grid. There are some projects that are so large. Time, labor, geographical size, cost, etc that only the government can coordinate and finance the project. Bringing the US power grid into the 21st century is one of those projects.

Much like the interstates were in the 20th century. And railroads, combo private/gov, in the 19th century.

Theres a good pilot program going on here in South Florida. FAU is doing reseach into putting turbines on the ocean floor. It's beyond tidal. The idea is to harvest the generation potential of the gulfstream curents themselves.
If this idea/system works, the whole eastern seaboard could be powered, by a 100% renewable source of power.

Any notions at all about what all that turbine-action would do to the sea-floor and just how much effect such a project would have on the web of sealife and environment?

Yep, I agree, just like interstates, and last I checked interstates hadn't been sold to trucking companies or Walt Disney Studios.

The railroads were not particularly private/government they were more on the order of private-government. I mean, heck, the first Pub president was a very high-paid railroad lawyer! :o A very under-reported fact.

I haven't much of a problem with technological progress. I do have a problem with having to re-do the "progress" made technologically from other generations in order that fewer people will die or live in a world without air. Of course, that prolly qualifies me as a Luddite. 

And I agree that if one would bring some of those tech resources and projects elsewhere perhaps standards of living would be increased. Buckminster Fuller was suggesting that was possible decades ago. That idea wasn't made at Citicorp, in fact, Citicorp prolly hasn't yet realized it's possibility.

But, to make such things work Fuller licensed his own patents for free to anyone who'd use them. Not so many takers. I somehow doubt that DuPont, Westinghouse, Siemen's, etc are going to go for that idea.

It's nice ideas, Michelle, but as is so often true no one takes anything remotely that could be considered "the long view." People invent and patent and send out the products, often with no regard to the ramifications. Like that ocean-floor generating scheme perhaps?

N~ 

QuoteIf this idea/system works, the whole eastern seaboard could be powered, by a 100% renewable source of power.

The energy moving the current would be taken away and the current would slow. The worlds weather is controlled by ocean currents. What do you think the result would be. Nothing is free and without consequences. I can only imagine what other problems there would be such as maintenance and environment changes. How about all those tires FL dumped in the ocean to make a reef. They are now trying to figure how to get them out.

Every time something new is tried we find many more problems.

---

Post Merge: June 16, 2009, 08:11:55 PM

---

QuoteYep, I agree, just like interstates, and last I checked interstates hadn't been sold to trucking companies or Walt Disney Studios.

The interstates were designed after WWII as Germany used the system for the war machine. They changed the fabric of America and not all good. Trains are much more energy efficient than trucks. Tell some of the small towns that turned into ghost towns after the roads passed them by.  The bigger roads increased traffic and pollution it is a losing battle the more lanes they add the more cars fill it up and the more further people commute to work. In CA some people spend 4 hours a day in their car. Progress?

First things first.

Liberal and conservative are words that say unlike 'strawberry ice cream" tend to mean radically different things to different people, and they mean different things in a generational context, and they mean very different things in say Massachusetts and California then in Texas and Utah.  So, how you rate places according to such a guide is problematic.  And any survey that has Detroit coming out on top of any list other than "most important City to have yo ass out of before the sun goes down" should be checked as something is very wrong.  Detroit is about the most f-ed up places in the USA.  It looks like a war happened.  And one did.  It has huge crime rates, no opportunity and crappy weather.  How did it wind up being on top, unless its a survey of welefare payments and offices.  And People's Park is the least liberal deal in Berkeley, its just bums/hippies/beggars and the like.  If you want to meet the liberal part of Berkeley try the faculty and students.

As for all the energy stuff.  Do you understand what Newton said in the Laws of Motion?  What the Laws of Thermodynamics are?  Do you really get it?  I don't think you do.  There is no 'something for nothing' in the universe.  Energy is not unlimited, heat is not unlimited, it just moves around, in moving around you can do some things with it, but it takes energy to move it around see, and in the end the you to put in the energy required to get enough output.  The best you can do in a physics sense is break even.

No amount of 'new technology' is going to be able to replace the gasoline powered world, and the infrastructure built up to promote and sustain it - the sprawling suburbs engaged in massive material accumulation while using massive amounts of power to do it.  It's a pipe dream at best that somehow some other way cheep and easy to use solution, one that won't be too hard on the earth too of course, is bound to appear just in the nick of time.

Prudent people would be planning for the future, one where energy is a lot more expensive and might have to 'gasp' actually do real work again.

Quote from: tekla on June 17, 2009, 10:46:47 AM
First things first.

Liberal and conservative are words that say unlike 'strawberry ice cream" tend to mean radically different things to different people, and they mean different things in a generational context, and they mean very different things in say Massachusetts and California then in Texas and Utah.  So, how you rate places according to such a guide is problematic.  And any survey that has Detroit coming out on top of any list other than "most important City to have yo ass out of before the sun goes down" should be checked as something is very wrong.  Detroit is about the most f-ed up places in the USA.  It looks like a war happened.  And one did.  It has huge crime rates, no opportunity and crappy weather.  How did it wind up being on top, unless its a survey of welefare payments and offices.  And People's Park is the least liberal deal in Berkeley, its just bums/hippies/beggars and the like.  If you want to meet the liberal part of Berkeley try the faculty and students.

As for all the energy stuff.  Do you understand what Newton said in the Laws of Motion?  What the Laws of Thermodynamics are?  Do you really get it?  I don't think you do.  There is no 'something for nothing' in the universe.  Energy is not unlimited, heat is not unlimited, it just moves around, in moving around you can do some things with it, but it takes energy to move it around see, and in the end the you to put in the energy required to get enough output.  The best you can do in a physics sense is break even.

No amount of 'new technology' is going to be able to replace the gasoline powered world, and the infrastructure built up to promote and sustain it - the sprawling suburbs engaged in massive material accumulation while using massive amounts of power to do it.  It's a pipe dream at best that somehow some other way cheep and easy to use solution, one that won't be too hard on the earth too of course, is bound to appear just in the nick of time.

Prudent people would be planning for the future, one where energy is a lot more expensive and might have to 'gasp' actually do real work again.

The study was done solely based on voting statistics.

Voting for who, for what?  If its the last national election I say that Detroit wins because it's like 80% African-American and voted for Obama that way, not because they were way liberal and voted for the liberal.

Quote from: tekla on June 17, 2009, 12:37:03 PM
Voting for who, for what?  If its the last national election I say that Detroit wins because it's like 80% African-American and voted for Obama that way, not because they were way liberal and voted for the liberal.

Agreed in large part.

Try walking through Detroit as visibly transsexual or crossdressed and see how "liberal" it is. :)

Butcha gotta understand this "through a Finnish mirror darkly" stuff goin' on with Dark Lady. High need for a steep learning curve and an almost impossible ability to get the notion that "conservatives" would have voted for Obama and no notion of the racial aspects of the last election.

I think she prolly has no conception of the fact that to be Pub maybe be to also be considered a "liberal" Pub and that lots of Dems are less "liberal" than some Pubs. I think there's an understandable misunderstanding of our confusing "two-party system" goin' on here.

Right, Dark Lady?

QuoteTry walking through Detroit as visibly transsexual or crossdressed and see how "liberal" it is. 

The last time I flew into Detroit the rental car company had a sign warning to look out for bricks thrown from the over passes.

Try walking through Detroit as visibly ...
Oh pick one: white guy, white girl, non gang member, wearing the wrong colors in the right neighborhood, oh we could go on.

This is very pretty though, in a rather creepy way.

http://56minus1.com/2009/04/abandoned-detroit/ (http://56minus1.com/2009/04/abandoned-detroit/)
(remember, some of these homes can be had for as little as $1.

http://www.forgottendetroit.com/ (http://www.forgottendetroit.com/)

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Yc6&ei=lZU5SretN4_IsQPLpJn-Bg&resnum=0&q=photos+abandoned+detroit&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=l5U5Sq-YJYK2sgOFyoD-Bg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title (http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Yc6&ei=lZU5SretN4_IsQPLpJn-Bg&resnum=0&q=photos+abandoned+detroit&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=l5U5Sq-YJYK2sgOFyoD-Bg&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&resnum=4&ct=title)

Actully the study was made before the presidential election 2008.

Speramus meliora; resurget cineribus ...

Somehow I don't quite see Detroit as the New Phoenix, but hope springs eternal.

what was the study called?, who conducted it?

The Bay Area Center for Voting Research (2005-08-11). "The Most Conservative and Liberal Cities in the United States"

http://www.hallnj.org/ (http://www.hallnj.org/)  The Hall Institute of Public Policy,  funds The Bay Area Center for Voting Research

Since its inception in 2005, the institute has emerged as a leading voice for public policy in New Jersey. More than 200 papers have been posted on our website, along with special features such as a Property Tax Forum, an online Virtual Debate between New Jersey's candidates for U.S. Senate, and the contents of our 295-page hardcover book The State of the Garden State.

Basically it a measure of black population.

The link.   http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1464256/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1464256/posts)   to DL's list/article.

Tekla, yes I am well aware of the Laws of Thermodynamics and the Conservation of Energy. If anyone were to end up on my doorstep trying to sell me a perpeptual motion machine their nose would receive my front door.

I was trying to point out that theres tech in development that can help alleviate the CO2 release problem.

BTW... those pics of Detriot made me cry.... so sad.

This whole thread reminds me of that old Chinese proverb/curse, "may you live in interesting times."

Oh, Nichole... regarding "public use patents." Where using one right now. The World Wide Web was developed by a CERN scientist and given away for free... circa early 1990's?

Quote from: michellesofl on June 18, 2009, 06:46:15 PM
Oh, Nichole... regarding "public use patents." Where using one right now. The World Wide Web was developed by a CERN scientist and given away for free... circa early 1990's?

Yep, we are, 'Chelle. But our houses are still square or rectangular for the most part. Darn those geodesic domes just didn't manage to be used regardless their efficiency and sense, eh?

Maybe if they'd have been made entertainment of some sort ...? :) 

Nich'... funny, you crack me up sometimes. thanks I needed the laugh.

Entertainment?  Imagine the "Jolly Green Giant" and his family using our new geodesic dome homes as soccer balls!!! :P

Quote from: michellesofl on June 18, 2009, 07:09:58 PM
Nich'... funny, you crack me up sometimes. thanks I needed the laugh.

Entertainment?  Imagine the "Jolly Green Giant" and his family using our new geodesic dome homes as soccer balls!!! :P

:) Yep, I hadn't thought of that problem. My home as a soccer ball to green and very large people!! :laugh:

Hey I remember using acoustic couplers to hook up to the 'WELL and type Grateful Dead Set Lists in circa 1985-86 - in DOS mind you.  Much to CERNs constant chagrin, they only invented the now commonly used protocol, (which, like Windows and Apple OS allowed total morons to get access to computers) not the system, which, as you know - or should - is a 100% DoD/DoE infrastructure put together so that the few Cray supercomputers then existing could work together to solve calcs for nuclear weapons.

100% DoD/DoE infrastructure put together so that the few Cray supercomputers then existing could work together to solve calcs for nuclear weapons

I thought ARPANET was set up so that we could fire a return volley of M.A.D.

Nah, it was to 'simulate' nuclear expolsions so that despite a test ban treaty would could continue to 'explode' weapons, and thus design them better and improve them, as 'more bang for the buck' was always important.

The real MAD weapon were the subs.  Independant, alone, with standing orders - the subs were doomsday.