Today: Iraq

[kandrathe]

"So, dial power consumption back? Sacrificing the manufacture of your TV, your Car? Down to say what level? Zero?"

Haven't we heard enough slippery-slope tactics this last year? With over 2/3 of the worlds energy production being used by 1/3 of its population, a remark like that surely must come from someone in the lucky group. Noone said you have to shut down your own cars, TVs or computers (even if many 'civilised' people have several of each).

I am in the lucky group who gets to pay $275 per month for electricity and $1.75 per gallon for gasoline.

But do you need all those neon lights in the streets?

No. In fact 5 years ago I led a local movement to block the installation of curbs and gutters, street lights and sidewalks throughout our little community. It was a grand idea from a developer who had bought the city council and was transforming our community into something 90% of us had escaped from. We ended up replaceing the entire city council and the mayor, thanks to democracy and activism.

If everyone had the same high energy consumption as we have, the world would have to produce twice as much. Every country, including the socalled 'evil Islamic' ones, would need its own nuclear plants. Seeing how both fossile and uranium-based nuclear power will last only for several decades at the current pace (or did we forget uranium is a rare element?), that would give quite a problem.

The US should lead by example, but I would be a hypocrite to call for the curtailing of the energy use of others (nations), while we consume so much. I believe that as nations progress towards prosperity it is inevitable that their energy consumption would rise accordingly.

Uranium supply does not seem to be the problem as much as the Uranium market.

[Doc]

I am in the lucky group who gets to pay $275 per month for electricity and $1.75 per gallon for gasoline.

Holy Jeebus! Sorry for the slightly off topic slant, but goodness to goofy gosh. I start foaming at the mouth when my power bill hits 100 bucks. It's usually around 50 or so. I once had a 150 some odd dollar powerbill and I was so outraged that I went down to the CPU (Commission of Public Works) and chewed somebody out in person. And I run central heat and air too.

I just don't see how people have to pay so much. I realize I might live in a slightly odd fashion, I do most of my cooking and such over a wood burning stove. I make sure to keep lights turned off when not needed. I keep 40 to 60 watt bulbs. I am down right miserly when it comes to conservation. I even have a wood burning water heater as well as electric. I run a whole farm for crying out loud on 100 bucks or so a month. How on earth do people jack up their electric bills so badly?

If the power company sent me a bill for 275 bucks I would start making heads roll. **Shudders**

Stunning.

[kandrathe]

I have one of those modern wonder homes built in the late 60's... all electric! The worst offender is the baseboard electric heat. I've looked into conversion to something else, but it would be $5,000 minimum and most likely more. My preference would be baseboard hot water with a super efficient NG/Fuel Oil/Wood combination furnace. I've worked on making sure windows, doors and walls are very well insulated.

I am a father now and so inherit the curse of constantly wandering through my house to turn things off after my wife and children. I have only two acres, so wood burning is only for the infrequent fireplace entertainment and when the power goes out. Having small children means frequent use of the washer and dryer. Wood burning stove, nope not here. My wife loves to bake fresh bread, muffins, rolls, cookies and etc for our sons 2-3 times per week, so that might be a part of it. We don't have air conditioning, as the temperature here in the summer rarely climbs above 85F.

As for lightbulbs, I've replaced them all with flourescent ones where practical (they won't go on in the garage at < 20 degrees). My hot water heater is set to 120F and super insulated as well as all my HW pipes.

[Doc]

I have electric stuff. Stoves. Yes. A double oven in the wall. Electric. Dishwasher. I have all that crap. Electric stoves are poo. Baking bread and the like is so much better in wood burning stoves. I have a washer and a dryer. The dryer seldom sees any use. Clothes feel softer and smell better when air dried. Central heat and air in both the house and the barn. (Barn houses some sensitive sick animals that need a stable temp on occasion)

I have my own water supply, my own well, and someday, I would like to unhook from the power company completely. If I can figure out a way.

While my home has modern appliances, it's not a modern home. It started out as a log cabin over 100 years ago, has been rebuilt a time or two, and had a large addition added on made from rock and mortar. The stone walls are about 2 feet thick, the wood section has logs about a foot thick. The entire house is sunk three feet down into the ground. Modern homes? Bah. Humbug even. Some times the best way is the old way. Look at all those folks out in the South West making homes from mud and rocks again :)

[kandrathe]

I grew up on a farm similiar to what you describe and I've always dreamed of returning to one some day. When I finally convinced my wife to leave the safe confines of the metropolis, I showed my city girl some farms I would have really liked to own and she would have none of it. A very "Green Acres" scenario, but in this case we compromised and found a cozy rural community still within 30-45 minutes drive to the metropolis where I could have the solitude and woods, but not so far that she would miss her city services and bus routes.

I suppose just so we are comparing apples to apples, my house is about 3300 sqft, and I pay about .08/Kwh.

Edit:

Clothes feel softer and smell better when air dried

Ours would be stiff as a board and hey, who can smell anything when the low tonight is -5F/-21C? :D

[Chaerophon]

It only appeared to be irony if your manufactured stance you gave me exsisted.

Suffice to say, the implication of your posts being that you have difficulties with the english language, the actuality of you providing literary advice just now is rather ironic, don't you think?

[Occhidiangela]

Liberalism has changed, and some of its early tenets are indeed embedded in our current system -- all Western Systems. That is why I spelled out the elitists for a category, since there is a tension inherent in liberalism: the level of and balance between individual sovereignty and State paternalism.

Point: Free education does not exist, publicly funded education does. Now the question is, under what framework, under what assumptions, and under what limitations?

Liberalism assumes non-victim status for the individual, while elitist-Socialism does not. Liberating man from mionarchy only to have him dominated by the State, which is the tool of other wealthy elites than ancien regimeroyal families and organized religion, is small progress: ask Solzhinytzen.

So, on one point we seem to agree, in that people currently calling themselves liberals, and some tarring others as Liberals perjoratively, do not necessarily, "get" how the 19th century Liberalism has beem embedded in current Western social models, left and right.

Liberalism is not Anarchy, nor is it Libertarianism.

EDIT: spelling was awful, I added a word or two for clarity

[Occhidiangela]

I was being a bit too brief, and you and Jester both did nice jobs of exploring some of the gaps left by my brevity.

Thank you both. :lol:

[Occhidiangela]

You could cover 1/2 of texas with solar panels and store the electricity in batteries.

Cover most of New Mexico with solar panels, it would be an improvement. :P (Try driving NM on I-40 and you will see what I mean.)

Better Idea: Cover the entire Sahara desert with Solar panels. :) Make electricity, and provide more shade.

[Occhidiangela]

Also, would you rather be looking up at our current, white, moon with a few grey speckles of craters, or something eesembling the death star all covered in refineries and smelting works, and mines. Is it right for man to make a mess of the moon just because we want to get more minerals?

At present, what stops us is the laws of physics mixed with budgetary limitations and our state of expertise.

In 10 years, who knows?

[Occhidiangela]

Given the way you built your sentence, I suggest adopting the word substitution from my post's the title for the sake of both accuracy and precision. ;)

Your friendly, neighborhood Rogue grammarian. :D

[Guest]

But it doesnt mean I was wrong.

[Guest]

"Irony is a constrast between the actual and the implied"

""Given the way you built your sentence, I suggest adopting the word (evidense)substitution from my post's the title for the sake of both accuracy and precision"

Irony is an odd bird and can fly in either direction.


The supposed irony would be.

I use a much energy relative to my consideration vs. I think people should use less energy



The problem is there is no evidense for anything in the case, it was an opinon on my part and his side only had a base, if he added essentially to my statment- namely "necessary".

Its a bit of a mess to dicern the proper elements of a given irony, when it doesnt exist.

[Rhydderch Hael]

Also, would you rather be looking up at our current, white, moon with a few grey speckles of craters, or something eesembling the death star all covered in refineries and smelting works, and mines. Is it right for man to make a mess of the moon just because we want to get more minerals?

What about looking up at the moon and seeing the glimmer of city lights in the shadow of a crescent moon, or spans of greenhouse domes bearing verdant hues of vegetation and azure dots of oases? To hold witness that humanity, unencumbered by the bonds of Earth, does have the ability to turn even the most barren rock into someplace called home?

Or are we condemned to see that the cradle of humanity becomes its grave as well.

[kandrathe]

The supposed irony would be.&nbsp; I use a much energy relative to my consideration vs. I think people should use less energy

Oh. I thought the irony was that you were figuratively and literally wasting energy by lurking on this forum devoted to gaming, while simultaneously posting that you believe in conserving energy. You are seemingly advocating a lifestyle to which you do not subscribe. Pete thought that incongruity was hipocritical and ironic.

When you start dancing around with "supposed beliefs" and "your manufactured stance you gave me exsisted" it sounds like either you are not clearly stating your positions, are stating positions you do not believe in, or are that you are unwilling to defend.

If you are not clearly stating your positions, then perhaps you would reduce the amount of tension in your communications by previewing your posts to insure that what is written it a clear statement of your beliefs. If you are stating positions that you do not believe in; that is what we call trolling. If it is just that you have stated your beliefs and are unable or unwilling to defend them, well you can just communicate that and then let it drop.

[Occhidiangela]

I was tweaking Chaerophon's nose, not yours, on how he nudged you in the ribs from a grammarian's perspective. The evidence for a grammarian to pounce upon exists even within your latest post, as well as in others, regarding the irony of your arguing fine points about grammar, definition, and usage:

Its a bit of a mess to dicern the proper elements of a given irony, when it doesnt exist.

Correctly put, as any grammarian would insist, that should be:

It's a bit of a mess to discern the proper elements of a given irony when it doesn't exist.
(Comma splice as well)

The tweaking of Chaerophon's proboscis was another way to say:

If you are going to play the grammarian role, get it right!&nbsp; ;)

Evidence is stronger than implication in support of an argument, even one about irony.

[Guest]

I use threaded veiw, but still lost track.

This thread is nasty big.

[Chaerophon]

Fair enough, I was just trying to place that little barb within his own established framework:

Irony is a constrast between the actual and the implied.

Your way certainly is stronger - and more applicable.

[Rhydderch Hael]

I always though irony was the same as silvery or stony, but with iron...

[--Pete]

Hi,

When asked if he knew the meaning of "irony", the pointy haired one replied, "No. I send my shirts to a laundry."

--Pete