Termyn8or
Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline
|
FR, with the typical Termy slant of course.
I think in some cases the term liberal might fit, that is in the context that the liberal types in DC think they can legislate for the whole world, while much evidence exists to the contrary. In that context the term may apply, but it infers no special reverence to the environment, just the attitude and ergo the methods of dealing with a problem as well as which problems that are targeted for action.
Liberals are thought of by others as being incapable of forward thinking in any useful manner, though they may try. Almost like a city boy/country boy thing. This perception may be true, in varying degrees amongst liberals, but the same can be said for others. Actually I think it shows when it comes to environmental issues.
I was going to joke about this thread, about some guy named Guido from whom you will go down to the ghetto to buy yuor clothespins and other things banned, but have decided not to turn it into a circus. The issue is serious enough that it does not warrant ridicule.
In the most simplistic sense, we now have people burning up a bunch of gas going to another state to buy soap. Surely this has a negative impact, but is it significant ? If ther ban on phosphates was nationwide would the Mexicans again form cartels and gangs and such to meet our black market needs ? What would be the final analysis of the impact then ? Another tax free criminal entity on the planet, just what we need. But I don't wan't to dwell on that, there is a much bigger issue witrhin this issue. But noone can really disagree that people are burning more fossil fuel to get SOAP.
Shall we explore some similar issues ? I say let's. Since this topic started with soap, let's go with water first. Water savers. Faucets, toilets, showerheads, all the new ones are water savers. Well let me tell you some facts. When my house got rebuilt in 1995 after the fire they put in a water saving showerhead. It took so long just to get my hair wet a modification was called for. I am serious, you can't even call it a shower, more of a drip. sure there was a stream, there just wasn't enough water in it. So what does one do ? One will stand there longer and in the end has wound up using just as much water as he would have without the "water saver". Likewise, the water saving faucet on the kitchen sink, if you are about to do dishes you generally fill one of the tubs and add some soap. You are going to fill it to the same level, using the same amount of water, it will simply take longer. And if you ever get a water saving toilet get a good one. With the cheap ones you literally have to shit, flush and then wipe, flush, or it won't go down. I know I had the cheapo they put in. I always had problems with it until I replaced it with one costing three times as much. This baby is nice, hegh tech. It almost cleans itself. But if you go for the water saver and also want quiet flush, your cleaning crew will have hell to pay. These things go KAWOOSH, if not they do not they won't clear properly and will cause problems. Someone will be in there with buckets of water to clear it, so where is the water saving now ?
In the same ilk, as issues go, we have the lowly light bulb. Twenty years ago we had what were called flourescent lights, they were more efficient than incandescent and thus were used VOLUNTARILY by most businesses and any place with large open spaces which needed to be lit. They put out about twice the light per watt, it was a logical decision, and it worked. The bulbs also lasted alot longer in most cases. Well those beloved liberal whipping boys made themselves into a target on that one if I ever got my grubby big hands on some media coverage. They attacked this superior technology demanding improvements.
So the ubiquitous 40 watt became a 32 watt and later 28 watt or whatever, but as usual it was not all it was cracked up to be. First of all they put out less light so that necessitates using more of them. What's more they do not last as long, requiring replacement more frequently. Even if we disregard the environmental costs of manufacturing more such bulbs, what of their disposal ? In my judgement this action has failed, except that it probably made someone some money. I don't have exact figures, and I doubt they exist for public consumption, but overall logic seems to indicate that this whole course of action has been counterproductive.
I believe that is how liberal became near an insult these days. Sure it's stereotypical, but we seem to thrive on that.
Let's not let go of light bulbs yet. By 2012 they want to eliminate incandescent bulbs because they are too inefficient. Bye bye Edison, your day is over, but wait. I used three 100W bulbs in my livingroom light, but they are on a dimmer which was very rarely turned all the way up, usually it was set less than halfway up. The light was adequate, the bulbs lasted a long time and if I really needed alot of light I could just crank it up. As of 2012 I guess I will have to find a Mexican cartel to get my precious bulbs. The new version generally can't be used with a dimmer, oh and by the way it is hazardous to dispose of, check local regulations. My old incandescents have no mercury in them, just glass, tungsten and argon.
So really, liberal is not the word. A forward thinking liberal, one who can understand the concept of cause and effect, and projection for the long term, is no worse than a supposed conservative who can't. My sister and I have a word for that, it is "stoopid" and the only discussion needed beyond that is how many "O"s are there in the word.
The lack of foresight is near universal among our "leaders" today. You can't put all the blame on either side of the aisle, nor anything alse. They are all stoooooooopid. (or have an ulterior motive)
T
|
RE: Liberals cause Detergent smuggeling - 
Profile
.
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread