Jump to content
I'd have thought you would speed up your clap for this one.
I guess I see the mental illness issue a much harder thing to solve than having a simple law that requires a background check. The law is not asking for confiscation of a gun. Just an effort to keep people with a record of being unstable from buying a gun and, sure, we may not prevent 100% but even 5%-15% success rate is better than nothing, I would think.
My boyfriend has sold quite a few guns lately that he hasn't been using. This is a man who hates inconvenience which is the reason we moved from Malibu, CA to 99362. He couldn't handle the Los Angeles traffic. He hasn't complained one bit having to go through a few extra steps to sell a gun knowing it isn't likely to end up being sold to someone who shouldn't have a gun. He'd be devastated if he couldn't hunt but doesn't see any laws or politicians calling for gun confiscation and neither do I. I just don't get the emotional charge on this issue. Crazy me. Just don't put a gun in my hands.
Namvet60, seems to me that so many companies of every type end up with taxpayer supports or funding, the banking industry being the biggest recipient in recent history, not to cheat the oil industry of that honor as well.
I just admitted that I love innovation. Govt plays an important part in most research and implementation. I grew up with a fellow who went to UCLA, which was virtually free or about $100/quarter at the time given it was a state supported school. He ended up with a dental degree and Ph.D in pathology, went back to Maryland where he kind of practiced dentistry, enough to support his love of fine living. His his true love was doing research for NIH. Ended up at taxpayer expense discovering a new medication for third world diseases, started a company, sold the company, and made an obscene amount of money.
The automobile industry has been financed at times by the taxpayer. GE has been financed by the taxpayer. The military industry is a sink hole for govt spending. Agriculture too. For that matter churches are tax exempt which is a taxpayer gift. Hard to think of anything that isn't. There exception may be the small business person who is slowly eroding because of govt backed businesses like Cabela's and Walmart which do damage to small business owners.
If it appear that I'm anti govt, I"m not. I think that the private and public sector are important to each other. As for the green industry, the U.S. missed a chance at being the wind turbine manufacturer of the world because the fed govt initially subsidized wind but cut the subsidies prematurely. This happened more than once. Whether you like wind power, being the major supplier to the world isn't something to be sneezed at. The honor went to Europe. We also missed the chance at solar for the same reason. China ended up as the major manufacturer.
Oops. Sorry about that NewInWW. I'm a little slow for my own good--and everyone else for that matter.
There are so many interesting energy sources coming up on the horizon. I'm not so negative about solar as some of you are. I love new possibilities. I can't wait to see what Elon Musk comes up in the Nevada desert with batteries. If he comes up with a way of storing solar power, it could create a whole different scene. Elon Musk is my heartthrob, just for your information.
My most favorite story is http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/MIT-Students-Hope-to-Revolutionise-the-Nuclear-Sector-with-New-MSR-Design.html . Two MIT Ph.D students came up with what they are calling the ‘Waste Annihilating Molten Salt Reactor" and one of two students is a female, bless my gender. There seems to be quite a few new small nuclear start-ups. Bill Gates is putting money into "TerraPower of Bellevue, Washington, which is designing a "travelling wave" reactor, which uses spent fuel to create a slowly expanding ring of fission in a reactor core that could sustain itself for decades." See http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229644.900-startups-fuel-boom-in-smallscale-nuclear-power.html#.VTLTIl33-iw .
Forests are too vast for clearing to be the only answer even with an unlimted budget.
If any of you haven't read The Big Burn by Timothy Egan, it is a good read. Gives an interesting history of the forest conservation movement. There have been changes in approaches to forests throughout the years.
Steve, I agree with you that AGW shouldn't be political. I don't quite know what can be done about this. I will never have the patience to read 120 books with graphs and chart. I spent time checking out the credentials of the authors of the books in your library. Btw, for the rest of you, Steve is meticulous with his books. He not only has a complete list of the books he has read but each book has an excellent summary. My problem is that I lived 30 plus years near CalTech and JPL. Those scientists were my friends and neighbors and enough of them worked on AGW related projects to make me think I could trust their perspective. I'd send them various contrary AGW articles with those dang graphs and charts that aren't my most favorite reading material. They'd email back their first hand professional experience and supportive reading material. I have no doubt they have read at least 120 text on the subject and I have no doubt about them being highly qualified, intelligent and honest. My experience is that most scientists aren't in it for the money but for the challenge and excitement of discovery. I have a hard time believing that mainstream scientific organizations can be hoodwinked given the amount of professional scientific members who value truth.
Furthermore it doesn't make any sense to me that we can dump loads of stuff into the sky and not affect the atmosphere and climate. I lived in Los Angeles long enough to know that there are consequences of pollution including my lungs as a child hurting when I breathed. School was dismissed given the certain pollutants in the air when I was a child. As far as I am concerned, it was worth California putting pressure on the auto industry to put smog devices on cars so my children could breathe easier on the school yards than I was able to.
As for the mainstream media, yuk. Who knows if we ever get anywhere near the truth. Sensation seems to be where the story is. The best we can do is read a variety of sources and see what picture emerges. As for the current administration, neither side seems to be happy. Meanwhile the military and many regions of the country are seeing the effect of global warming and are planning accordingly. I'm sure the military would much rather spend its budget on war defense than AGW, which I would think true for state and local starved budgets as well.
PearlY, there is a 2010 published study by Oregon State University that was also recently published in the journal Ecosystems, and funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. Here is the summary:
A recent study indicates that some past approaches to calculating the impacts of forest fires have grossly overestimated the number of live trees that burn up and the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere as a result.
The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy takes a flexible approach using clearing and fire depending on what makes the best sense. I spent a year before moving to Walla Walla traveling the west mostly to see every last National Park possible. I saw quite a bit of clearing but the forests were so immense that I don't see how with even an unlimited budget, clearing is the answer to wildfires nor do I think clearing probably should be. Read about the Oregon study: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100127121532.htm and see what you think.
We moved from Malibu, CA, which is part of the Santa Monica Mountains. Every dang October, my boyfriend left home for the Midwest to hunt and every dang October Malibu would have a wildfire which I was left to deal with. We worked together in our community to prevent and to prepare including brush containment. Not that this is an answer but the best protection was having had a wildfire sweep through the area within the last few years so there wasn't as much to burn.
Be more specific, NewInWW , with what you disagree with. Do you think the fossil fuel industry incapable of the things I wrote? Are politicians not capable of being bribed with donations and any big business not capable of influencing with donations? Are not mainstream scientific institutions on the side of AGW?
Where does the reality rest?
Last login: Monday, June 8, 2015
2015 Best Of The Best Winners
The latest wine and dine news.
The Valley's people, wine & food.
Find your way around the Valley.
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Union-Bulletin, 112 S. First Ave., Walla Walla, WA 99362/509-525-3300. All rights reserved.