Monday, August 28, 2006

Mixing Latter-day saints with politics

Today I took a cyber walk down memory lane. There was a site I used to frequent that is a Mormon myspace. I think we all know the site to which I refer. Within this site there are discussion forums. The one I would frequent was the political one. Because I haven't been there for months I was not ready for what I was about to read. Here is the beginning thread.

"Global Warming Unstoppable for up to 100 Years, even if humans disappeared.
Better hurry and pass some international laws, eh? Actually, many scientists say it looks unstoppable for about 300 years due to the lag time, meaning that it's too late to correct. Just for fun, let's assume this is true. Should we focus more on coping or fighting a lost cause in prevention?
Or.... do those urging global legislation have another motive entirely?"

"Rationalguy" links to a National Geographic page that explains there are some models that predicts polar ice caps melting for hundreds of years after today. That is if we stopped all emitions today. A gloomy picture to be sure. Near the end he makes an implication, by asking the question, "Should we focus more on coping or fighting a lost cause in prevention?". He implies that we shouldn't waist our time cutting down pollution because it is hopeless. Okay so my mind is half blown. I forgot people think like this.

Let me tell you how the other half was blown. This next post huffed and puffed and said, "I think the end of the world will come before then anyway so it might not be anything to worrry about." What I was about to say was "what about after toughs few hundred years?" But the young scholar "Banndor" pulled the rug right out from under my idealistic crocs, with me in them. Well check mate! All I could say was "this is a joke, right? ... You guys are joking."
Remember in the early years of the Internet when you could trust a person’s self-chosen title, you know the good old days. Well Rationalguy you really muffed this one. Maybe you ment Nationalguy.

Dear Nationalguy,
I can understand why you are resistant to change. It hurts. Change makes you do new things. New things cost time and money. But, arguing with progress could cost more time and money in the long run. Lets have some hope in humanity. Even after reading your post I still have hope. Well honestly I have a little less hope because I am reminded that there are people really short sighted.

P.S.
Dear Banndor,
Not even you know when the end of the world is. I know your level 12 Wizard "Banndor" scored high far-seeing points when playing Dungeons and Dragons. Banndor, you aren't a wizard you are a guy that wishes he were someone else.

Friday, August 25, 2006

my fired artworks










This is what I did this summer. I spent a lot of time in the ceramics studio. My corner of the room is shown to yours and my left. Cassian and I would trade insults and make objects. Despite his claims, I actually made thies things. The pink vessle with a blue bird was the last piece cass ... I mean I made. By the way the bird comes off. There are before photos at Draw With Friends. The first ones I did are the big white ones. I think they are really simple and pritty.
The white rabbit object is a "Jack be nibble" character I changed a bit. I put mustashes above there lips and wepons in there mits.

Saturday, August 19, 2006

Midwife Crisis again

I know I have put the link to this up in the past. but I just learned how to imbed the youtube window in my blog. If you have seen this already disregard.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

This made me LOL all over myself

Cache showed this little clip to me two nights ago. Maybe you have seen this clip. I hope you like it. I present to you "grape lady falls".

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Who killed the electric car?
















Ruel and I with Steve and Sarah stamps, car-pooled up to see the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" The movie as really interesting. It wasn't one of toughs balanced stories. It told one side of the story but I still think it is worth seeing. It was frustrating to see that right now we have the technology. In fact 1997 we had the technology. The fact is, we as a country do not want an electric car. a car that puts out no emotions is not a reason to by a car for most consumers.

Some people keep telling me "let the market dictate". I say we don't need a dictator. We need a balance of power. The market has many wonderful assets. But if it where not for some federal laws there would be no seat belts in cars, our cars would still get 12 miles to the gallon. this point was brought up in the movie. We have swung too far. it seems that there is no reigning in powerful corporations. In fact they get a tax break.


There is hope, but we need to make some long sighted desitions.
This is Jimmy Carter's 10 plinciples.

1. We can have an effective and comprehensive energy policy only if the government takes responsibility for it and if the people understand the seriousness of the challenge and are willing to make sacrifices.

2. Healthy economic growth must continue. Only by saving energy can we maintain our standard of living and keep our people at work. An effective conservation program will create hundreds of thousands of new jobs.

3. We must protect the environment. Our energy problems have the same cause as our environmental problems —wasteful use of resources. Conservation helps us solve both at once.

4. We must reduce our vulnerability to potentially devastating embargoes. We can protect ourselves from uncertain supplies by reducing our demand for oil, making the most of our abundant resources such as coal, and developing a strategic petroleum reserve.

5. We must be fair. Our solutions must ask equal sacrifices from every region, every class of people, every interest group. Industry will have to do its part to conserve, just as the consumers will. The energy producers deserve fair treatment, but we will not let the oil companies profiteer.

6. Reduce the demand through conservation. Our emphasis on conservation is a clear difference between this plan and others which merely encouraged crash production efforts. Conservation is the quickest, cheapest, most practical source of energy. Conservation is the only way we can buy a barrel of oil for a few dollars. It costs about $13 to waste it.
He called #6 the cornerstone of the policy

7. Prices should generally reflect the true replacement costs of energy. We are only cheating ourselves if we make energy artificially cheap and use more than we can really afford.

8. Government policies must be predictable and certain. Both consumers and producers need policies they can count on so they can plan ahead. This is one reason I am working with the Congress to create a new Department of Energy, to replace more than 50 different agencies that now have some control over energy.

9. We must conserve the fuels that are scarcest and make the most of those that are more plentiful. We can't continue to use oil and gas for 75 percent of our consumption when they make up seven percent of our domestic reserves. We need to shift to plentiful coal while taking care to protect the environment, and to apply stricter safety standards to nuclear energy.

10. We must start now to develop the new, unconventional sources of energy we will rely on in the next century.

Monday, August 07, 2006

I thought I would shack the hive a bit



C-SPAN aired this conference in LA. It is about the 911 Conspiracy. I call it a conspiracy because there is a relatively small group of people that believe 911 was a self-inflicted wound. But there is a very large group that thinks the 911-commition report has left some things out. They think there is something going on. I number myself with the latter group.
I will give you 2 clips. The first one is Prof. Jones of BYU speaking on his experience with the theory that the WTC was a demolition.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=F5kBkOX-qgg

The second clip is of an author that brings up some interesting points.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FxxpqsOP3SI


By the way I hate how the host sounds. He sounds like the radio political voices I hate. I think the BYU prof. has the strongest argument.