Michael Moore USA Today press pass

[mikemurphy]

Bill,

Ahhh, to have time to research like you do. I sincerely and respectfully wish I had that kind of time, so I'll only comment on the stats that you provided.

1. I'll stand by the fact that there is a very persuasive oil lobby in Washington. I know someone that works for a lobbiest firm that does work in the capital, so don't dismiss it because you don't agree with it.

2. If I'm reading your graph right, isn't it shocking that most of the money you show goes to republicans?

3. Don't be hurt, I have read many of your posts in the past concerning the SUVs. I just don't agree with your witchhunt. Do they waste gas? Yes. More so that the average compact car? Definately. But to put the blame on them when you can simply sit down at any highway overpass and look at the shear numbers of cars in any given city. It's everyone's problem Bill, YOU INCLUDED! I don't care what car you drive. You and your wife are adding to pollution, helping raise the cost of gas, helping deplete the reserves just like the rest of us.

4. As for your house, I certainly wish everyone could be as cost efficient as you, but once again, unless you are solar driven or some other alternative, then you too are in the group. You can't classify blame on the premise of quantity. "Oh, I don't litter as much as the factory down the street, so I'm not to blame." That's absurd.

5. I'm speaking from the gut here, but to tell me that the oil companies (i.e. Mobil, Exxon, etc.) are screaming poor. These conglomerates are huge. Are you telling me that through drilling, refining, transportation, and direct selling to public, that they are barely getting by. I don't buy it, and I don't think anyone else does.

Cxt,

WMD were the stated reasons, and the one they espoused. Why? Because it was the one where they could get the best reaction from the people. Who wanted to see Saddam with a suitcase nuke? But it was a lie and they knew it all along. Either that or it was a huge case of negligence on the sake of our intelligence community which has now cost us 1000 lives.

As for the other violations that you mentioned, you are correct, but Iraq violated these UN mandates, not US mandates. Why is it that the UN didn't agree with what the US did. It was just another case of the US doing their own thing regardless of world opinion. Another reason for blaming the current administration.

Panther,

BOY, I'd love to go to task on your explanations regarding the war examples, especially the Civil War, but those are best for another thread. Start one up dude! But I do agree that most of this is all about economics. Oil is money, and oil makes the world go around....not SUV's Bill

mike

[Bill Glasheen]

Mike

Well your logic is easy to work with, because at least you are clear with your argument.

The issue isn't whether we use resources or not, Mike. To suggest that we are to "blame" or it is a "problem" to use resources is patently absurd. You say I use resources, so therefore I am just as bad as everyone else.

No, no, no!

The issue is the sustainable use of resources. It's like managing your money. Some people manage to take a normal salary, live a decent lifestyle, send their kids to college, and have money left over for retirement. They even can absorb a financial bump in the road (or two). Meanwhile most of the world pi$$es their paychecks away as soon as they get them, live constantly in debt (which lowers their standard of living), and want government to bail them out when things go bad or when they retire with no nestegg.

Get it?

Our first Americans were examples of sustainable use of natural resources. They hunted, they fished, and they harvested, and yet there was so much game in the midwest that the skies sometimes would be blackened by flocks of birds, and the plains were covered with animals in numbers we can't even fathom today.

Then came the Europeans (the Anglo Saxons, to be specific). They would farm a plot of land until it wouldn't yield any more cotton and corn. Then they would move on. Again, and again, and again. The European migration west was less about adventure and more about not knowing how to make do with what you have. It reminds me of a certain female I know who will buy clothes, wear them, throw them on the floor, and then buy a new outfit because it's easier than washing it or sending it to the dry cleaners (I kid you not...). As for game, well the predators were "inconvenient" so they were eliminated. Roaming game were plentiful, so they shot them for sport from train cars and left the carcasses. My great grandfather witnessed this. They put up fences which stopped the normal migration. Pretty soon, the whole ecosystem was out of whack. Buffalo almost became extinct. Deer need to be culled by humans because their natural predators were eliminated. And then there was the dust bowl era.

A few books worth reading on this are

Undaunted Courage:
Meriwether Lewis Thomas Jefferson and the Opening of the American West
by Steven Ambrose

The Last Stand:
The War Between Wall Street and Main Street over California's Ancient Redwoods
by David Harris

That'll get you started on what I am thinking. Of course any decent financial counselor could teach you the same principles (or lack of application thereof).

So - for example - don't call my friend Mr. Castanet "rich" (as opposed to Rich) as if it were a pejorative. He worked hard. He saved. He fixed his own stuff. He invested. He retired young. Now he's having the time of his life. His kids are through college, He has half a dozen cars around the house. His house is paid for. Good for him. He spent wisely. He engaged in sustainable consumption. And now he's in great shape.

This is NOT the same as the guy down the street who is saddled in debt and will go bankrupt if he gets layed off or has a bad medical bill.

Back to energy.

Do NOT compare me to the guy down the street who uses 10 times as much energy (literally) to heat his home.

Do NOT compare me to the guys down the street who use 5 times as much gasoline because everyone drives solo, and drives SUVs.

Do NOT compare me to the guys who are NOT working hard to purchase a next vehicle that'll have multiple options for energy (E85 or biodiesel or hybrid or some combination thereof).

No, no, no!

And any financial advisor will tell you that it's the little things that make big differences down the road. Save a dollar today and it's worth 3 to 10 dollars a decade from now. Borrow a dollar on a credit card today, and you've got quite a debt a decade later. Do enough "little" things right, and it isn't chump change any more.

Never mind the fact that SUVs kill their occumpants (via rollovers) and anyone they run into... Like the Yankees, there's lots of reasons to hate 'em.

As for your "speaking from the gut", well you are indeed doing so. Pay close attention to the language, Mike. Perhaps you need some finance and accounting classes to appreciate the concepts here. (I picked them up from the school of hard knocks). Rich touched on this as well. Any smart investor wants X% yield when (s)he invests a dollar. Right now, oil and gas companies aren't a great investment. Their profit margins are pretty slim now. As we would say, there are big opportunity costs putting your money there as opposed to some other place where your profit margins are bigger and your return would be better.

I'll let the other guys battle out over your other statements. Gotta leave something for the gang to play with...

- Bill

[RACastanet]

This is fun. Bill and I are close to 180 degrees apart on SUVs but other than that are much of the same mind. When shopping for the next SUV (which will be way down the road since as Bill mentioned, I keep my vehicles going for many years) I will definitely be getting one with an engine that has multi fuel capacity. Diesel would be a good option as well. I'm not enamored by turbo or supercharged diesels... too much complexity. I favor good old cubic inches.

As Bill also mentioned: "He saved. He fixed his own stuff. He invested. He retired young. Now he's having the time of his life. His kids are through college, He has half a dozen cars around the house. His house is paid for. Good for him. He spent wisely. He engaged in sustainable consumption. And now he's in great shape."

This is true. In fact, I have the first share, of GE stock I purchased in 1974 and it has appreciated about 4,000% since then. Plus it pays a nice dividend which has increased every year for the last 25+. Yep, saving is a good thing. Einstein is alleged to have said that the greatest mathematical formula ever was not e=mc2, but compounding interest. And it is.

The key economic issue to me is not energy, or health care, but the ability to pay for it. The US tax code does not encourage savers like me. I pay a huge penalty because I have accumulated wealth. The Bush tax cuts on dividends, interest and capital gains are what allowed me to take a break from the full time working world (I am a sub school teacher though). And yes, it is wonderful! It allowed me to take the time to pursue my otherwise unthinkable dream to be a leader of Marines! Not in battle unfortunately, but at least on the training field.

The dems position on high taxes and redistribution of wealth as they see fit absolutely crushes those who have saved to do what I am doing. I cannot wait for the end of cheap credit. I want my savings to earn 7%, not 1 or 2%. Redistribution of wealth and social safety nets only encourage bad financial behavior. Increasing capital gains taxes will only further discourage investment by individuals and businesses alike.

Back to the oil companies... They pretty much live in a feast or famine world. At this time profits are very good, but just a couple of years ago they were terrible and stock values dropped. When they get into the economic environment that drives high profits, they are lambasted for price gouging, conspiracy, and the politicians begin to hold hearings and investigate them.

Oil companies need to be allowed to make huge profits. This drives exploration, capital spending, production, R&D, shareholder value. As I have said many times, if you have not been deeply involved in the manufacturing industry, you have no concept of the costs involved in delivering a product to an end user. What the US needs is more domestic exploration and more refineries. We actually can get all the crude we need... we just cannot refine it because the environmental and political barriers discourage the capital investment required for the new refineries we need.

More on energy... we pursued many generation projects in my part of the company. To get even a small coal fired generating plant on line took over four years from conception to startup. The first three years were the permitting process. Without permits, no ground was broken. Oil fired plants were cleaner so a little easier, and natural gas fired plants the easiest, with about a year to get a permit. This drove the industry toward oil and gas. When all of these new plants came on line the cost of fuel was driven skyward. This affects everyone. This is an unintended consequence of environmental rules that raised the cost of energy worldwide!

The nuclear permitting process is about 10 years. This really is absurd. The political and environmental and tax policies are hurdles that discourage capital inventment in the cleanest and cheapest and most renewable energy source available. I truly hope that VA Power gets to add a third unit at Lake Anna. As a side benefit the fish, ducks and other wildlife have prospered because of the warm lake waters. Near the plant, swimming is comfortable through August! Duck hunters are out in shorts well into fall.

The drags on our economy are socialistic policies such as wealth redistribution, way too much environmental regulation, and tax policies that discourage savings and investment (ie: not SUVs). Unleash the full powers of the free market and everyone who has the desire to prosper will prosper. It is not hard... it just takes a litle time.

Rich

[Valkenar]

Mike
Do NOT compare me to the guy down the street who uses 10 times as much energy (literally) to heat his home.

I think the idea isn't that you're equally as bad as much as it is that anyone who participates in our society's passion for conspicuous consumption and waste is contributing to the unsustainability of our lifestyle. No, you're not "just as bad" and to be completely outside the unsustainable culture you'd have to focus your whole life on doing so, but the point stands that if you drive you are contributing to the depletion of petroleum. Even if you deplete it far less than most people.

Do NOT compare me to the guys who aren't working hard to purchase a next vehicle that'll have multiple options for energy (E85 or biodiesel or hybrid or some combination thereof).

Working hard is not enough to ensure that you can purchase a next-generation vehicle. It's entirely possible to work very, very hard in a crappy dead-end job, with no opportunities for advancement and still be poor.

Rich:
Could I ask what is it you mean when you say you are a predatory capitalist? What is it that phrase means to you?

By various methods of measurement, the US consumes about 20 to 25% of all of the energy used in the world. However, it is not being pissed down the toilet.

Yes, that energy is being used to produce goods but that doesn't mean it isn't being pissed down the toilet. The problem is that producing goods is basically synonymous with producing trash. All the little plastic knicknacks, all the little gizmos that people buy new every week, for no better reason that they like the feeling of buying things. When it comes to energy use, our preoccupation with conspicuous consumption is a real problem.

[Bill Glasheen]

I stand my ground on this one, Justin.

First, my home is heated by natural gas. That is a renewable energy resource. Natural gas can be made from organic waste. Furthermore, I am prepared to convert to dual use (electricity OR gas), which is available in my area. So far the need is not there.

I am not depleting petroleum by heating my home. And I am using natural gas as efficiently as a human can reasonably do it.

Second, my search for a good diesel and/or a good hybrid for a family vehicle is all about getting away from petroleum. I don't buy the crap about I am not at Nirvanah, so I am part of the problem. These things need to be taken in steps. First you buy a diesel, which puts you in the position to use biodiesel to fuel your vehicle. First you buy a car that can burn E85, which puts you in a position to burn as much as 85% of your car energy from a renewable resource (alcohol from corn). First you buy a hybrid, which helps car manufacturers work towards the ultimate goal of a fuel cell car. And fuel cells burn hydrogen, which can be made from ANY energy source - including sustainable energy sources.

By taking the best possible actions today, I am part of the solution, and not part of the problem.

Meanwhile, my debating partner would rather attack me for pointing out that SUVs today (and other unreasonable uses of energy) are part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution.

If he buys the new Lexus RX hybrid though, I would reconsider. If he buys an SUV diesel, I would reconsider.

It isn't SUVs per se - its the kinds that people are buying and driving. It's the issue that folks are getting around the whole spirit of CAFE restrictions by classifying SUVs as trucks so they don't get dinged economically for buying a gas guzzler and making the problem worse than it has to be. THAT is the problem.

Fix the workaround, and the problems will begin to fix themselves.

Meanwhile, the guy who buys a stationwagon gets dinged economically for similar gas mileage, because it's classified as a car. He may have to pay several thousand dollars on top of the price of the car. Is that fair, Justin? Have you ever wondered why we don't see stationwagons any more? It isn't because they aren't popular. It's because the SUV is the path of economic least resistance. And that is a path of unwise energy policy.

I can't bloody believe I am arguing this to two liberals!!! I know Rich is sitting back here and quietly laughing his buns off.

- Bill

[benzocaine]

I agree with much of what Rich said about America's energy situation. The enviromentalists want us to use less oil, coal, and nuke power but as soon as an alternative like wind harvesting is suggested they scream "not in my backyard!".

There was a statement made though, that I'll have to disagree on.

Despite what you hear from John Kerry and his gang, the US manufacturing economy is enormous. It has shifted away from low entry level, unskilled jobs to higher tech jobs. Those that choose not to shift with the economy are left behind and would prefer to whine than do something about it.

Rich. Got news for you. When a person loses their blue collar job many don't get a fat severence package to go find another or get paid to go back to school for something else. Many people who had blue collar jobs have a harder time being retrained for a high tech job. Some haven't read more than a newspaper in more than 20 years.. and now they are supposed to go learn how to program computers? OK.. many did just that only to find their job went to India because corporate HQ made some 'tough' decisions and had to 'let go' many americans because they could pay slave wages overseas.

I think it's pretty calous to call their greivences whining. These are people who worked hard for a company and stayed loyal because they thought they'd have a job until retirement, and get a pension and a gold watch.(I'd be pretty angry too [just wanted to add that this bad words symbol is meant as humor in a not so humorous subject]) This used to be the promise of many companys. Americans are learning fast that corporations don't give a rats behind about employees.. profit is all that matters. Sad.

There is a Bible verse that says "What profit a man if he gain the entire world but lose his very soul?" This I got mine tough kucka for you mentality seems to be king for many these days. Sad. How about a little compassion for those who went to work one day and found their factory was closed and a 12 year old in Indoesia has their job?

[RACastanet]

"Rich:
Could I ask what is it you mean when you say you are a predatory capitalist? What is it that phrase means to you?"

Simply put, the law of the jungle. The strong survive and get stronger, more able to compete and survive. Make a better product to boot.

The best example? The company everybody loves to hate - Microsoft. Bill Gates did his best to drive his products to market supremacy. If he could not beat an upstart in the marketplace, he'd buy them to assimilate their knowledge or to shut them down! Being so highly visiible did attract unwanted government attention so a price was paid for his audacity. But, his company sure came a long way in a short time, and he created untold wealth for many thousands of people.

GE fits well in this category as well, but learned many decades ago to be lower profile and a bit more socially conscious when growing market share and profit.

Do not mistake predatory capitalism for predatory pricing. In this mode, a large company drops prices below cost until it drives its smaller competitors out of business. Then, it can really raise prices! This was the oil company model of 100 years ago, such as Standard Oil.

Today, the old line airlines such as United are struggling to survive. The government has stepped in with loans and other guarantees that keeps them going. Why? Let them die. Southwest is the model to follow. If United disappeared tomorrow, there would be pain and suffering but a better and stronger company would emerge to replace them. Southwest is a predatory captalistic company. They use what appears to be predatory pricing but in fact they just happen to have their costs under control. They are not dumping their product at a loss. If they were, that would be predatory pricing.

"It's entirely possible to work very, very hard in a crappy dead-end job, with no opportunities for advancement and still be poor."

Yes, but whose fault is that? In the US we are not indentured servants. We pretty much earn what we are worth. No education? No ambition? Not willing to take a chance or strive for something better? Too bad for you!

"The problem is that producing goods is basically synonymous with producing trash."

Hmmm... my Tahoe is not trash. My HP computer is not trash. Plus, manufacturing these products created a supply chain of manufacturing and services that generates roughly $10 in the economy for every dollar I paid to buy them. This is what drives the economy. Plus, they raised my quality of life.

"When it comes to energy use, our preoccupation with conspicuous consumption is a real problem."

Some agreement here, but I did not buy my Tahoe to be conspicuous, I bought it to tow my boat to the nuclear reactor cooling pond I like to swim and fish in.

Rich

[Bill Glasheen]

I couldn't resist posting this after Mike commented negatively on our impatience with the UN concerning Iraq.

Powell Calls Sudan Abuses
Genocide, Seeks U.N. Action

Associated Press
September 9, 2004 11:47 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Colin Powell said the abuses committed by government-supported Arab militias in Sudan qualify as genocide against the black African population in the Darfur region -- a determination that should bring pressure to bear on the government to rein them in.

In remarks prepared for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Mr. Powell said the conclusion was based on interviews conducted with refugees from the Darfur violence as well as other evidence.

"We concluded that genocide has been committed in Darfur and that the government of Sudan and the jinjaweed [Arab militias] bear responsibility -- and genocide may still be occurring," the secretary said in his prepared remarks.

He said that as a contracting party to an international genocide convention, Sudan is obliged to prevent and punish acts of genocide. "To us, at this time, it appears that Sudan has failed to do so," he said.

Mr. Powell noted that Article VIII of the convention provides that parties to the accord may call on the United Nations to take such action under the U.N. charter "as they consider appropriate for the prevention and suppression of acts of genocide."

The State Department said in a report that interviews by U.S. officials with refugees from the Darfur region revealed a "consistent and widespread pattern of atrocities committed against non-Arab villagers." The report was based on interviews with 1,136 Darfur refugees and was partly intended to help the Bush administration determine whether the abuses in Darfur should be classified as genocide.

The interviews with the refugees took place over a five-week period this summer in Chad, which borders on Sudan.

"Most respondents said government forces, militia fighters, or a combination of both had completely destroyed their villages," the department's report said. It said 61% witnessed the killing of a family member, 16% said they had been raped or had heard about a rape victim.

***

State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said yesterday the attacks on Darfur's villages have followed a familiar pattern. The assaults, he said, begin with bombing raids by government aircraft on villages. Trucks with government soldiers and then Janjaweed militias on horseback or camels arrive in the villages and surround them.

"People who flee are attacked and chased down, and the villages are looted and burned," Mr. Boucher said. "That, unfortunately, has been a pattern that we've seen again and again."

He said designating whether the situation in Darfur constitutes genocide "is a matter of fact and law." Political considerations, such as whether any such designation would help or harm U.S. efforts on behalf of Darfur's victims, play only a minor role, he added.

Civil rights activist Jesse Jackson said in a telephone interview that, given the grave humanitarian situation, the U.S. should deploy airplanes, helicopters and trucks to the region to deliver relief supplies.

He also said Mr. Powell would be able to bring a quick end to the crisis if he engaged in shuttle diplomacy between Darfur and the Sudanese capital of Khartoum. Mr. Powell believes international pressure on the Sudanese government is the best way to end the crisis.

The Darfur situation, Mr. Jackson said, is another example of excessive U.S. patience in the face of a crisis involving Africans.

***

This is sad and funny at the same time.

* See the U.S. plead to the U.N.

* See the U.N. debate.

* See the U.N. pass resolutions.

* See some country getting payola behind the scenes skuttle the humanitarian process in the U.N.

* See people continue to be killed.

And...Jesse Jackson accusing the U.S. of "excessive patience." That is friggin' funny as heck.



See what me mean?

- Bill

Note: I am using humor and satire to draw needed attention to yet another tragedy that the U.N. is completely incapable of resolving

[RACastanet]

Ben said:

"Rich. Got news for you. When a person loses their blue collar job many don't get a fat severence package to go find another or get paid to go back to school for something else. Many people who had blue collar jobs have a harder time being retrained for a high tech job. Some haven't read more than a newspaper in more than 20 years.. and now they are supposed to go learn how to program computers? OK.. many did just that only to find their job went to India because corporate HQ made some 'tough' decisions and had to 'let go' many americans because they could pay slave wages overseas."


I will again say, whose fault is that? I'm from Pittsburgh. I saw it happen big time. My father and grandfather were coal miners. I was a member of the United Mine Workers. Thirty years ago that was a truly socialistic/anarchistic union if there ever was one. The union kept the members in a dark hole, literally and figuratively. Disenters were literally murdered. I was threatened with a pipe for voting the wrong way in a UMW election (how did they know - it was a secret ballot). When the need for coal went away, the workers were clueless. They wanted to be led. The were led to poverty, and many are still complaining about it as they collect their welfare checks to this day. The same is true in western VA and W.Va.

What did I do? I went to school and moved to where the good jobs were. Moved 6 times in fact. Had a GE factory closed out from under me in 1987. Ended up doing better at the next job. My function at GE was on the ropes in 2003 because of many of these changes taking place in the world economy. Fortunately I saved, invested, and left the company last year with no regrets. No severence, no buyout, no benefits at all! But I was prepared.

So, I have no pity for anyone that fails in this world financially. None. There is no excuse for it. Zero!

Regarding slave wages overseas... The average person working for GE in an offshore facility makes about 10 to 12 times the average pay in that country. Yes, it is still way below what they would be paid in the US, but they are absolutely thrilled to be making what in their country is a princely sum! Even in the Nike plants, they make more in a day than they would have in a week in the past. Those workers are very happy to be working for 'slave' wages, rather than not working at all.

Rich

[Bill Glasheen]

To Rich's point...

The last company I worked for got bought by a larger company. They no longer needed an R & D department way out in Richmond. So my whole department was eliminated. Thanks for the memories, and make sure you pick up your watch for working here for over 10 years...

It sucked. I lost 17 pounds while I was between jobs.

I now have a better job. Meanwhile, I didn't pick up a single unemployment check. And I got my new job because I paid OUT OF MY OWN POCKET to go to a professional conference, that led to a contact and a new job a half year later. And I didn't even have to move.

It hurt like hell. Those around me saw me suffer, and saw me gaunt before it was all over with. But it is a fact of life.

****** it up, and get on with your life. With a little bit of help from your friends, most end up in a better situation than they were.

- Bill

[benzocaine]

In practice I agree with Rich and Bill. I've moved 700 miles away from my home for greener pastures. I am trained for an in demand job. I have a retirement account. My house is a duplex where my tennet pays 75% of my mortgage. So I understand sacrificing.. I sacrificed my early 20's working full time and going to school while other people goofed off every night.

I also can see what Rich is saying about Pittsburg and union corruption. I think unions were needed once in history to improve conditions, but power corrupts and I think unions do more harm than good in todays world. I saw first hand at SUNY Syracuse's medical center that a vested Union employee had to practically kill someone to get fired.

I still disagree that it's tough cookies for those who've lost their jobs to lower paying ones overseas. Their should be ways to make a profit and still keep people employed over here. It seems outsourcing has caused a domino effect. Each company has to compete with the next. As long as there is an advantage to outsourcing there will continue to be what Ross Perou(sp?) called that great sucking sound.

[Valkenar]

Bill:

By taking the best possible actions today, I am part of the solution, and not part of the problem.

Well at this point the argument is more semantic than anything else. I say yes and no. If an elevator is filled with people over it's weight limit, the skinniest guy is still part of the problem. He's the least part of the problem but still part of it. But whichever way you look at it, we agree on the important parts and I never meant to make it seem that I was standing on a soapbox cussing you out for your environmental iniquities. I respect your ecologically-conscious lifestyle and am glad you choose to live that way. In fact, I'm sure you're better than I am, since I the house I rent has crappy insulation and what are probably very inefficient appliances.

Re: Station wagons... I don't know anything about that. I'm sure you're right, and *of course* I think it's terrible that SUVs are excused polution for no reason. What kind of commie-pinko-scum would I be if I didn't?

Simply put, the law of the jungle. The strong survive and get stronger, more able to compete and survive.

That's the law of the jungle, but we don't have to live that way. There's room in our age of modern convenience to get rid of that. But I imagine you don't view it as just the way things are, but as a good way for things to be. Am I right that you appreciate the aesthetic of the strong being able to have their way with the weak? If so, I couldn't disagree more stongly, but given that this is a fundamental way of looking at the world I don't think we would get anywhere arguing it.... but I probably will anyway.


[quotes]The best example? The company everybody loves to hate - Microsoft. Bill Gates did his best to drive his products to market supremacy.
[/quotes]

This is a perfect example of why I don't think might makes right. Microsoft's products are very bad. Their operating system is so technically awful it's unbelievable. Their products are insecure, unstable and incredibly far behind what they could be in terms of providing utility to users. But through agressive marketting and clever business moves they've managed to push an inferior product into total market dominance because almost nobody knows what they're missing. You might admire the brilliance behind this, but it's a real shame that marketting savvy and unethical choices won over quality to the detriment of anyone who uses a computer.

Yes, but whose fault is that? In the US we are not indentured servants. We pretty much earn what we are worth.

I disagree that people automatically earn what they are worth. You could argue that people are paid according to how much revenue they generate for a company. I still think that the managers and CEOs are paid disproportionately highly, but even if people are paid a fair proportion of how much revenue they generate that doesI wouldn't say they're being paid what they're worth as human beings. What wealth you generate coorelates almost not at all with your worth as a human being I would say.

No education? No ambition? Not willing to take a chance or strive for something better? Too bad for you!

...

So, I have no pity for anyone that fails in this world financially. None. There is no excuse for it. Zero!

Just to quickly counteract the excuses bit, what about people who are injured, chronically ill or otherwise happen across some mishap of debilitating nature? Surely you don't think you would've gotten where you are now if you'd been brain-damaged in the course of your work?

That said, how do you expect people to be aware of their opportunities? I truly appreciated hearing your story and I'm glad you prevailed in the face of adversity, but there are people who simply do not have the means to do what you did. There are many great rags to riches stories to be told, no doubt. But at the same time, to totally discount the oppressing effect of poverty seems extreme.

What about the fact that the very nature of corporate society is that there will be people who can't succeed and make a fortune? It's not possible for everyone to be rich. People who are rich get that way by making a profit off the work of a number of people who make much less.

Then again, what is it you're calling a financial failure? Is being poor sufficient or do you actually have to go on welfare of some kind?

Do you really think everyone can be an exceptional person, or would you consider people who are not smart or talented irrelevant?

[Panther]

Just a note to all:

Thank you for remaining relatively nice in this debate... though there've been a couple of times that I thought were borderline and pushing the boundaries, those who (I felt) were attacked didn't complain, so I've let it slide. Please continue to discuss and debate and do not go where you can't come back from!

Take care and be good to each other...

[Valkenar]

Forgot a point.

Rich:

Hmmm... my Tahoe is not trash. My HP computer is not trash

Not everything that a person buys is trash. Particularly, those things you just mentioned are things that you probably plan to use a lot and for a reasonably long time.

I would make a distinction between objects that improve your life because of what they are and objects that improve your life because they are at all. I don't doubt that it genuinely makes people happy to buy and own things for the sake of doing so. Personally, I feel that this is an unfortunate mindset for people to be in when there are numerous other activities, like martial arts, for example that could fill up their lives without filling up landfills.

[Panther]

It is difficult to explain to some people that there are differences in energy consumption. Some is necessary and good while others are the "evil conspicuous consumption" railed against.

I am not depleting petroleum by heating my home. And I am using natural gas as efficiently as a human can reasonably do it.

It is hard to explain to someone who doesn't live like this what it means. Unfortunately, I don't live in the relatively milder climate of the lovely Commonwealth of Virginia, but rather in the higher elevations of central New England. I don't heat with gas OR oil OR (surprise) electricity beyond powering some fans/blowers to move the heat to various parts of the house. I heat with a completely renewable energy source using a very high efficiency (80-90% depending on fuel) furnace. My two main sources for heat use wood. I have a small spit of land up here and the ~75 acres are entirely covered by trees with nearly 1/3 planted specifically as a tree farm. I have literally thousands of trees and I can heat my house with a few a year... However, I can cut that number down with my furnace that can also use corn or wood pellets/chips. I get those for a reasonable cost. They are made from the sawdust that is produced at sawmills & papermills. (you get the paper to wipe your behind, I use the leftover shavings to heat my house! ) And when trees are harvested, new ones are planted...

Second, my search for a good diesel and/or a good hybrid for a family vehicle is all about getting away from petroleum.

I have looked into the diesel vehicles and have diesel already on-site. I run the front-end loader that is used to plow the ~12-14' of snow each winter off of my 1/3-1/2 mile dirt/gravel driveway. Unfortunately, the cost of diesel trucks vs. their fuel efficiency vs. the rising cost of diesel vs. the higher cost of diesel mechanics... etc. means that economically it just isn't the best solution for now. I've also looked into and highly anticipated the introduction of hybrid trucks/SUVs. You see, your normal car just doesn't cut it on my driveway. Without 4x4 AND some ground clearance you're not coming to visit me! Unfortunately, those hybrids are expensive, not readily available (yet), and simply don't currently have the power I need here.

And fuel cells burn hydrogen, which can be made from ANY energy source - including sustainable energy sources.

That may be true, but currently it is made from natural gas and currently the natural gas reserves/discoveries (according to the petroleum producers) are getting smaller...

Meanwhile, my debating partner would rather attack me for pointing out that SUVs today (and other unreasonable uses of energy) are part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution.

There are people who need these vehicles... A stationwagon won't make it up my driveway if I happen to be out and get 6-12" of snow... and I can't carry the family in a pickup truck.

The last company I worked for got bought by a larger company. They no longer needed an R & D department way out in Richmond. So my whole department was eliminated. Thanks for the memories, and make sure you pick up your watch for working here for over 10 years...

I was laid-off while finalizing a divorce which left me fighting for my home without any money... Hi-Tech, Yep... R&D and advanced product development, Yep... Golden Parachute or more than a few weeks severance, NOPE... Have a nice life and we can't afford any stinkin' watch at the door!

It sucked. I lost 17 pounds while I was between jobs.

Actually, the additional weight loss for me was welcome, but you don't have any to spare like me!

I now have a better job. Meanwhile, I didn't pick up a single unemployment check. And I got my new job because I paid OUT OF MY OWN POCKET to go to a professional conference, that led to a contact and a new job a half year later. And I didn't even have to move.

My situation is similar... Now things are better, but still not back to where I was before. I was well on the path that Rich has taken, but the divorce, keeping the house and surviving the unemployed time wiped me out for savings and put me into a hole. I'm keeping steady with my work now, but I'm not really getting ahead and I'm still trying to dig out of the debt... Before the divorce, 9/11/01 and the lay-off, I NEVER[/I had any debt beyond my mortgage! And to get through that time, I didn't get a penny from the guv'mint... just as you, I paid OUT OF MY OWN POCKET to get by, network with the right people, take some classes, and buy the necessaryu equipment to start my business. And I still have my home.

It hurt like hell. Those around me saw me suffer, and saw me gaunt before it was all over with. But it is a fact of life.

****** it up, and get on with your life. With a little bit of help from your friends, most end up in a better situation than they were.

Yep, but IMNSHO, we're better for it.

I can't bloody believe I am arguing this to two liberals!!! I know Rich is sitting back here and quietly laughing his buns off.

Rich is most certainly laughing, but I'm not so sure you're arguing with anyone... It looks more like you're making your points and then sitting back waiting for people to jump back in and pick at you on semantics.