This ought to really piss someone off

BTW, that applies to repeat offenders only

Ah Trace, I feel your sarcasm,and I share your point of view,this might surprise you,so does Dave.

who, me? letterman? mustaine? diamond dave?

what is a baby killer?

Killing a baby, killing an adult...is there a difference? Are we applying emotion to the thought of baby killers that we don't apply to middle-aged man killers? Should their be seperate laws for babykillers? Are there killers out there that just target babies? What the talking about here Trace?

he's talking about abortion. a little of the incite without insight - death penalty for people who have or perform abortions. get the liberals in a lather. if i know trace.

:-)

Too bad we know that one already. You know, the whole problem with abortion is a conflict of ethics - the American ethic that the individual is to be respected and should be sovereign over their own lives and bodies, vs. the ethic that holds human life is for the most part sacred and begins at conception. I think that neither one is strong enough to overpower the other at this time.

ok, so trace you were just gonna belch out that nonsense and walk away and or were you actually gonna mix it up a bit?

Ok, here goes: Abortion once for a mistake, or a faulty condom or sleeping with your brother, while morally corupt, is over lookable. A second time, and all bets are off. Once is a mistake, beyond that you gotta pay the piper, baby

You are asking our already cluttered courts to determine and make this kind of judgement? There will always be exceptions to the this rule. Say a woman is raped twice....is she fucked? Say a a mistake is made the first time, and raped a second? Say a 13 year old girl is being molested by her father or brother repeatedly...is she fucked that second time around. This is too gray of position to take muchless make a law for. Its seems like this would work like the 3-strike law, which is proving itself more and more to be an utter failure.

wait so, 'paying the piper'....what is that? having a baby? DAMN-IT.....what is so wrong with people making their own decisions?

Are you really going to take Trace's bait, folks? Haven't we done abortion till the fetus' are running screaming from the womb covering their ears to block out our pompous droning diatribe?

I thought at the beginning of this thread,they were talking about somebody who killed a living child,like that bastard that I posted about last year at this time,that took his 2 year old daughter out in desert and torched her,then drove back to make sure she was dead.He should be put down.ASAP

well cat i don't see you offering gratuituous bum shots in the meantime, so yes, we'll take the bait....

Oh Hunka Patrick, you know my ass is just your basketball hoop. Take a shot big boy.

man.....

damn damn damn damn

Can I get in on the rebound?

As far as rape goes................. I know a fifteen year old who got pregnant. Rape she cried! But, she did not want to press charges or tell the cops who it was. She kept the baby (for now, but her parents are getting ready to yank it). Now, she is pregnant again by the same guy. How many pregnancies that are blamed on rape are rapes? As far as incestial rape, if it happens a second time, why? Why the hell was the sick mother fucker not in prison to be sodomized by buba?

Rape pregnancies: Probably most. Incest pregnancies: I refer you to Pilate and his stories about his kid's biological relatives. Any more questions you need answered? Please note that I refrained from making additional comments on your questions that could be construed as personal attacks (I do feel they are pretty tasteless, though, considering how many folks have come out on this board as victims of rape).

I was not attacking anyone. I simply meant that there should not be a second incestial rape

Trace your solution doesn't deal with the problem. Your solution only seeks to bring a child into the world only to be unwanted, and in a broken home. This girl you described sounds like she has problems to begin with to sleep with her rapist again. If she is too weak to resist this guy why would you want her to have a child? Would puttign her in prison solve the problem? Do you want your tax dollars paying for prison for people like this? I think a psychologist rather than a judge is more appropos to deal with this girl. Why would you want her to bring the child to full term? She has OTHER problems that need dealing with. Rather than make some silly 2 strike law why not deal with the problem? I agree that a teen molested by a family member should not go through it twice, and the magic bean judge should appear after a teen gets pregnant from the first time and put the molester in jail BUT molesters arent always caught the first time around. You are not being realistic. Justifying this silly proposition because you qestion how many rape pregnancies are actual rape pregnancies doesn't work. think about what you are saying man, it makes no sense

in other news . . .

i didn't think i'd fall for this a second time. this thread was obviously put up as bait & nothing more. but i'll take the bait for just a few seconds & re-state my opinion on the whole abortion issue, as if anybody couldn't guess what that opinion might be. if people are too fucking dim to use birth control, then abortion is the next best solution. there aren't enough hours in the day as it is. so why should i waste two precious seconds weeping over the fate of a "potential" person? to me, a baby is a blob, a thing, a mindless, shrieking nuisance w/ no redeeming qualities, no endearing traits, no rational thought, no great contributions to humanity. it's just a fucking THING. a blank slate that any random fool can scrawl its warped, worthless thoughts onto. a fetus is worth even less. it's not a person. it's a blob of parasitic tissue that literally feeds off the insides of women, like something out of a late-night monster movie. & i'm supposed to be marching up & down the streets to save something like this? i'm supposed to be waving signs & upholding the "rights" of thirteen-year-old girls to belch out one runt after the other? i don't think so. i know this guy. he's stepfather to a 15-year-old. his kid knocked up an even younger kid. well, daddy dearest doesn't believe in abortion. so he's going to make the kid "do the right thing". the boy had college scholarships in the wings. he had a future. but not anymore. daddy made him drop out of school & marry the dumb little cunt, insted. that proves, right there, that the "father" in question has no love for his stepson whatsoever. a POTENTIAL person has been allowed to destroy his son's very REAL future. daddy's gloating about how the kid's on his own now, will have to find whatever menial work he can to pay for his mistake. this is so fucking wrong. if daddy loved his kid--a kid who's already fucking here, not some bogus "potential" kid--he'd pay for that girl to have an abortion & that's that. if the girl was too damn dumb to get it, she should have to sign a waiver exempting the boy from all further responsibilities. if an abortion is offered & then refused by some dumb little twat w/ her head stuffed full of right-to-life propaganda, then let it be known far & wide that help WAS offered to her & she plainly refused. better a knitting needle should be shoved through the fetus' little so-called brain than to allow two teenagers' lives to be utterly ruined so early in the game. as for the serial incest & rape thing, anybody who says it doesn't happen has got fucking rocks in their head. damn near every girl i knew in school was being fucked by her relatives, including me. several girls got knocked up by family members. you don't tell because (a) nobody will believe you & (b) you'll get your fucking throat cut if you do. it's pretty simple. not difficult to understand at all. pilate's son has got a sister whose retarded child was fathered by her own uncle, by way of rape. & people say that a girl should have to bear a child because some goddamn bully beat & raped her? no way, jack. no way in hell.

Again, your point of view is a very good one.

thanx. i realize that i'm probably a tiny bit strident in my pro-choice opinions, but it's just an issue that i happen to feel strongly about. i've got pro-life activists in my family. one of them is my stepmother--the same woman who threatened me all during my teen years that if i EVER got knocked up, she was going to beat the holy hell out of me & then march me straight down to the abortion clinic. after i left home, she magically turned pro-life. like so many pro-lifers, she found it a great position to hold, because it no longer affected her personally. she believes that all babies should be brought to full term--except for mine, of course, which would've ended up w/ a coat hanger through the eyes, courtesy of mom herself. this may be one of many reasons i find the whole right-to-life movement so blatantly hypocritical & illogical. i know that the actions of one woman aren't the actions of an entire social movement, but it did admittedly give me an attitude problem pretty early on. people can hold whatever opinions they like. don't force yours on me & i won't force mine upon you. we can TALK about it all day long. it makes for some stimulating (& occasionally surreal) debate. i only get nervous when people actually try to legislate their pro-life opinions, or force unwilling participants (their teenage daughters, for instance) into bearing children they never wanted. then the shit gets serious. but since this is just a message board, what the hell. let the debate continue.

i love you crimson. my 2 cents: 1) 36 chromosomes contained in a cell membrain = human life? no. You might as well fight for the life rights of the zit i just scratched off my forehead, cause it had alot more life than that. Or a cancerous lump, and they cut those out every day. Come on. 2) capital punishment? bad. no government should have the ability to kill anyone, damnit. I mean, just look at these guys. (confused about how abortion is okay but capitol punishment isn't? see #1) p.s. although i do think the PTC needs to die. Fuck i hate those self-rightious bastards. I've been on their website for over an hour now.... feeling just a wee bit edgy....

I wanted to leave it alone, but crimson's "don't force yours on me & i won't force mine upon you" statement bugs me. The premise assumes that there are only two relevant parties here, the prengant woman and the government. Were this premise universally accepted, there would be no debate on abortion. The point that the pro-life movement is trying to make is that there is a third party with rights, the fetus, and I do not think that this point has been defeated. Granted, at n weeks of development, it's indistinguishable from a rat/chicken/etc., granted it's not (for the most part, late term abortions are another matter entirely) capable of life outside the womb, but I wouldn't say that one could write "ergo, it's OK to kill it" after any of these. So if you accept, for a moment, the supposition that the fetus is a human, then in either case of abortion legal or illegal, the will of one party is enforced on that of the other, and as the government isn't actually killing the woman (in most cases) by making abortion illegal, this would seem the better choice. So you see, it's not such a clear-cut case of "live and let live" as both sides have a claim to that position. As for me, I don't have an opinion. I usually avoid discussions of abortion altogether and think about something else when it comes up in my mind. I'll probably never be in a position where my opinion matters. I pointed out the above fallacy because it seems that those on one side of an issue are unlikely to criticize any of the arguments for that side, regardless of validity. Were everybody here pro-life, I'd do the same for an argument against abortion on biblical grounds.

I am ending this thread, as this is a dead horse that keeps getting beat. Anyone who thinks an unborn baby is not human is a heartless bastard, and have never felt a baby in their womb, or heard it's heart beat, or seen a sonogram of their child. I watched mine hiccup and suck her thumb. If they have seen these things, and still claim it not to be a human truely is a heartless bastard indeed. Are we gods? (Nate, don't answer that), Can we determine at what magical point this unborn child has a soul? No, medical science will never be able to prove that either. Better to error on the side of caution, especially in the medical field. Your right to choose (rape, incestial rape, danger of life points excluded in this argument) ends when you choose (rape is not a choice) to have sex. Yes, having a baby is paying the piper in this situation. The situation being concentual, informed sex. To allow a "morning after pill" to be sold is a travesty. Drive through abortions? The very thought of this has me fuming. I can understand it if a woman has been raped, but she has to take this thing within 48 hours of the event. It takes some women (understandably) at least a few days to seek help, unless the rape included a beating that put them in the hospital. In this instance, I do feel she has a right to decide wether or not to keep the baby, What a horrible thing both for the woman and the child. Even if she gives it up for adoption, why put her through nine months of hell? And as far as the child goes, knowing he or she came into this life a product of one of the worste crimes a person can possibly commit. But you will never convince me that abortion is not murder. Ever. But, as I have said, I do not feel that is ever going to be settled, and until then the right of what happens to a woman's body should be up to the woman. America is about freedom. And that must be protected at all costs. It shouild be up to a woman's morals and itegrity to make the choice to murder her child or to give the greatest gift human kind has ever been granted by science or God. To give life.

This thread only ends when I say it ends. I didn't bother reading Trace's crap because I think I know what it says. Some white middle class male protecting the rights of the unborn, right? More moralistic claptrap. (yawn) Can we talk about something interesting now, please?

The you assume mostly wrong.

Oh shut the fuck up Trace. You're not worth arguing with. Bring on Russell Crowe.

did you get your tail caught under the rocking chair again?

It's stuff like this that makes me support retroactive abortions. Hell, I think that by the time they hit 18 and start voting republican, THAT'S when you start scraping at 'em with coat hangers and pouring coca-cola all over 'em, by gum! And I will confess to being amazed that Trace has a womb. I never would have guessed. That made my day! I think that ethically, most right-to-lifers screw up when they only focus on a fetus as "having rights." What about the monkeys in test labs? If they are developmentaly equal to two-year-olds, how come you never see the right-to-lifers bombing Mary Kay cosmetic labs? Why does the respect for life stop at the fetus for these people? Why is it bad for a woman to induce a miscarriage with RU-486, but it's ok to cram 4 chickens to a cage so you can have an omelette? Such limited perspective. (I predict that I'll be going free-range omnivore sometime in the near future) I think Gee assumed mostly right, too. So abortion's ok in cases of rape and incest, but if the "potential human" will be born into a situation where it will not recieve adequate health care, education and social support of a family, that's ok? And don't feed me that claptrap bs about adoption, when we both know that the majority of people waiting to adopt are waiting for a bay that fits their preferences, not for the ones that need a stable family the most. If you really believed adoption was the best alternative, then you should have one big-ass multiethinc family in a wheelchair-accessable house,or kill me.

I think you all are moraly corrupt. You have no moral values what so ever, and if you do, they contridict eachother. If you think so little of human life, then you should kill yourself. Why keep living?

If people would just learn to accept that the crux of this matter is a spiritual one, and the less we legislate and dictate morality the better off we will be. Equating abortion to murder is an emotional claptrap the rhetoric of your church has bestowed upon you. Its effective, as so many religious crackpots have bought. It has the same effect when PETA says eating meat is murder. It's sensationalism. Trace it's not so much that we don't respect a human life, its just we have a different definition for human life....again, i point back to the spirituality point. Trace a lot of americans would say you are morally corrupt for eating meat, driving a fossil-fueled car and hypocritically supporting the death penalty. I tend to think you are morally empty, void of any original thought outside of what the preacha man tells you on sunday, that all the crap you did monday through saturday is ok because you have slaved to get up, put on your penny loafers and believe every word he barks for 3 hours. I think there is inherent irony in calling the rest of us morally corrupt when i think many here diplay distinct morals in the way they lead their lives. I tend to think people who sit in a chruch to be reassured they are good humans, and will be embraced in a ray of light, into some gods hands when they die, ultimately easing mans biggest fear is morally empty and weak. I know i have more values and morality than most of your christian right claim to have. And i don't need their rhetoric to know this. the american moral majority is no where near as moral as they like think of themselves.

The essence of your argument, Trace, is that we can't determine when life begins. Why do you then say that we're corrupt? If you fundamentally can't know, how can you fundamentally judge? You can't. And yet you do. That says alot about you. And, in the end, I base my judgements of you on that behavior: your propensity to judge other people on grounds you say are completely insubstantial.

And the "american moral majority" is not a majority either. Our most recent election (selection?) showed that, even if you assume all Shrub voters are on the christian right. So that means that the "moral majority christian right" actually is none of those things. More contradicitons than a Zen koan!

There is no solution. But, again, I give you all the respect you deserve. Following my own argument about life begins when... How do we know if a worm has a soul? If it does, then is it wrong to use the worm to fish? Do cows and pigs and chickens and fish have souls? If is, then is it wrong to eat these things? Maybe, just maybe darwin was right. Maybe it is survival of the fittest. I have my own internal conflicts. Where's god thoughts, and I am not sure what my own beliefs are anymore myself. I should not call you all morally corupt, I respect you for stateing your opinion. I know what I have been told. Most of the things I feel are wrong I feel are wrong because I was told they were. I have already changed my mind about many things. Homosexuality, I have no problem with. In fact, some of my best friends are gay. I was raised that it was an abomination of God. Most of my arguments are empty because I am spewing the shit i was fed. garbage in, garbage out. But, I will not stop eating meat and driving my fossile fuel burning car.

i think the life YOU have is too short to ponder the large and looming questions about souls of worms and farm animals. Just maybe, just maybe Darwin was wrong, who the fuck knows....i've got photos to take, a business to help my wife start xmas packages to ship, and sex positions and toys i need to try out.....talk to me about soul searching questions over whisky on my xmas holiday

Sure there's a solution, and it's an ethical one at that. All women are in charge of their bodies and should never be legislated against on the basis of someone else's differing moral beliefs, especially if there is no scientifically testable grounds for such belief. If they want an abortion, they live with the consequences of the decision the same as they would if they didn't. Except it's less expensive. (f'm.i.t.c.t.a.j.)

"By Trace on Wednesday, December 20, 2000 - 12:26 pm" well done, trace. the more your think, the less you know, the better person you become. that's my opinion.

I fucking refuse to speak on this subject, we all heard my opinon a long time ago... Yet on the other hand, Trace, glad to see you getting in the spirit of baiting people and starting a controversial conversation. Impressed, sort of, the topic was already done, but you tried... God I'm fucking tired.

Hal, i thinks its time to take a stress pill and think things over.

I love the idea of making a woman have a baby as punishment. That is really a great way to bring a kid into the world. 'Pay the Piper' indeed. Who is the one who really pays? The unwanted, unprovided for child. And don't say 'there's always adoption' because for children of color or physically/defective ones there isn't and really, what type of woman decides to have an abortion? ONE WHO CAN'T PROVIDE A HOME FOR A CHILD OR DOESN'T WANT A CHILD. Why force someone to have one in those circumstances? Some twisted sense of morality/getting back at someone? That is really sick and abusive to children.

Trace, sorry to pull the rug out from under your holier than thou soles...but you don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to morals. After all, you're the married guy who makes sleazy and suggestive comments to girls as young as 16 on these very boards.

that's immoral? that's male! stop oppressing men!

heh

Actually in the conversation where Trace was creaming his panties all over D of M, Nate posted that he believed she was too young to be on the boards.

that was just nate being nate. stop oppressing nates!

Okey Dokey, no handcuffs for Nate mate.

I think Nate likes the handcuffs.

yes Moonit,did I ever say I love you?

Anyone's abortion is nobody else's business. That's btwn the female, her doctor & her conscience.

Don't forget the father of the baby, or is he unimportant since he is male?

That was a clever ploy by Trace to try to get me re-involved with this conversation, but if he isn't inviting me over for Xmas dinner, it ain't gonna happen, bub. In the words of the homeless man today: "everybody got tah Pay dee Pipah."

I wish I was having xmas dinner at home

What does Roddy Piper have to do with any of this? Trace has a womb, so his opinion on abortion is valid.

UGH

Roddy Piper: SATANs secret identity. flatulence and paprika. But never together.

Trace, you start a thread you know will give up opinions that differ with your own. Then you tell the people who *surprise* disagree with you that they are corrupt/moral-less. Surely if you had morals you wouldn't start a thread that ends up with Nate in handcuffs. J... I love you too! I have been xmas-ing and take no rsponsibility of making sense at this place in time. happy holidays!

i'm not in handcuffs. fucking stoners. can't type with handcuffs on. actually, i guess you can. nevermind. INSIST ON BITTER COLD!

you bastards don't deserve our energy. how ironic that i'm now paying some of nate's electric bill and resenting it. utilities are a tax and there should not be a profit margin.

you're not paying any of my electic bill, bitch. fucking hippies. we'd be fine if the fucking hippies didn't tie up the diablo canyon nuclear power plant. if it didn't take 4 years of government hoops to jump through just to start the building of a new powerplant. then there are the nimbys. don't get me started. this gets me going like whatever the fuck it was you were bitching about elsewhere.

sure i am. we have to ship you're sorry asses our energy and now we're having our own crisis. hence, the rates go up to maintain the profit margin. wouldn't wanna upset all the investors, would we? yes, i am paying your electric bill. a "thank you" would suffice.

end consumer rates are heavily regulated. even though PG&E is getting charged upwards of $0.25 per kwh, the most they can charge me is a nickel. besides, money is being pulled out of california and into your meager states. we are the capitalist gem in the crown of the US economy. kill our computers and the country goes to hell. enjoy.

maybe they're regulated there but here, they as much as doubled overnight. kill your computers and the country gets a big break from california. datacenters are popping up all over here which contributes little to the real crunch. it's not the computers that cause this, it's the heating and air-conditioning of your multiple-thousand square foot homes and the watering of thousands of your golf courses and millions of lawns and multi-millions of endlessly thirsty throats that could never otherwise survive in a desert. bitch.

you're talking about florida, texas, and the midwest, alternately. California should secede. I can't believe I'm forgetting how to spell secede. Someone help?

I think you spelled it correctly. I think.

My husband works in the power industry and it's going to get alot worse,Dave said it well,here, anytime the power company needs to expand their Generators,eveyone puts up a stink,not in my backyard,but they want their cell phone,and air-conditionig,etc.We sell alot of power to California.

I heard the Gov of CA was asking for a price cap of $100 per megawatt

i live in a rain forest. the southland doesn't have as much of an energy problem anyway. we have a transport bottleneck in los banos (or something,) that prevents us from juicing the north. i heat my home with oak and madrone.

yahooo for LA municiple..... i am neither relying on Edison nor PG&E. Its a good xmas for some power brokers. I think the state should REregulate the power back. Privatization of the powerplants has led to cutbacks in the name of profit. Obviously deregulation didn't work.

Nate, your killing the rainforest!

Privatization of the powerplants has not led to cutbacks in the name of profit. that's rediculous. powerplants are independantly owned. the idea that a business would shut itself down for a day so that it's competition can make more money is ludicrous. i suppose the talking heads told you that. goddamn liberals. if we had good nuclear powerplants up and down the state we'd be fine. nuclear power is the cleanest form of power we know of. but the goddamn granola brigade has kept nuclear power down. and now we all suffer. but really, the granola brigade suffers. i can afford the rate hikes.

Deregulation always seems to turn around and bite you on the ass,remember when they deregulated the phones and airlines?

nuclear powerplants have also been shut down by the private companies that own them in the name of profit efficiency.they state was willing to loose money on particular plant while they did the necessary work, as long it was safe to keep running. private businesses do whats best for private businesses first, THEN do whats best for the people they serve second. its not JUST the granola heads. would prices be this high if deregulation never happend? probably not. im all for responsible, safe nuclear power. but its seems damn simple to me. im in an area that was never deregulated, my power is fine and the same price it always has been. those with deregulated power are getting fucked. the solution is simple...reregulate the plants. you capitalist don't have RIGHT to make money on everything you know.

your area was deregulated. LA muni power was just smart enough not to sell of its plants. if PG&E still owned its own plants, it would be fine, too. instead, PG&E is going bankrupt because it has to eat $0.20 a kwh due to regulation. where is it stated you have a RIGHT to electricity? just like you have a RIGHT to buy an SUV?

im not sure i have a right to electricity per se, BUT i think i should be protected from corporate and government chess playing and the negative repercussions that come from it. i shouldn't have to pay because the gov't was stupid enough to sell its plants to the Montgomery Burns of the state. We pay enough for our gov'ts negligence and corporate greed and sabatoge. as a resource that can be infinitely producing by splitting atoms i think it ludicrous to be gouging the public like they are speaking of. considering how many people's lives are dependent on electricity, i think in a way, people have a right to it. better yet, at this point, i don't think the prive sector have a right to hold the public hostage with somethats nearly as staple as water.

its getting to the point where schools may now be facing budget problems over this shit....as if CA schools needed one more point of contention.

fuck yeah, we have a right to electricity. how will it benefit consumerism if everyone doesn't have energy? that's a stupid fucking argument. almost as stupid as financial institutions and the upper class saying that "it's not our fault the poor are poor. they don't know how to manage their money, live within their means. they don't understand fiscal responsibility." the last thing they want is for everyone to be fiscally responsible. they depend on the masses buying up everything they can, especially if it's on credit. they're nothing more than pushers. deny that. what the fuck happened to you, nate? what made you become so selfish and smug?

Uh, you are not garaunteed the right to electricity. If that were the case, they could not shut you off for not paying.

shutting people off is wrong.

and i'm talking about rights, right and wrong, not what is and what is not.

when i see the power companies get a shiny new fleet of trucks every other year and see my rates go up, it makes me wonder. the same with the city and state motor pool.

I just saw Erin Brockovich the other night. Makes you wanna really hate them power companies. I have a lot of distaste for Qwest, our phone provider right now. I believe they secretly hold on to all work orders for two weeks absolute minimum before allowing a technician to press the appropriate button.

well, with deregulated power the "power companies" in CA are getting the shaft. Even more than the consumers. the idea that the power generators are to blame is ridiculous. they can produce power at a certain rate, and they sell it at a price the market can bear. that is the american way. demand is high, supply is low. electricity is hardly a right. it is generated by private companies. it is a marketable commodity. elecrical generators are not interested in grabbing cash now and running with it. charging higher rates when supply is low will allow the creation of new, cleaner and more efficient generation and transport of electricity. the money goes back into the industry. if i run my credit card up on fancy dinners and then can't pay the minimum payment each month, they'll come and take everything i own. is that fair? yes. it would be my own fucking fault. even if i was ignorant of the fact that when you use a credit card you'll have to pay off the balance some day. companies are predatory and take advantage of a stupid populous because they CAN. if people were smarter, companyies would have to find other ways to make their profit. this is the american way. this is captialism. tell me that the quality of life in any socialist/communist country is better.

this is the best place in the world. no doubt. the system is not natural law, however. we're not talking laws of conservation, thermodynamics or even relativity although there are similarities. capitalism, in it's current manifestation is powered by whatever algorithms that take the dynamics of the current system and convert them into profit. the system is artificial in that somebody(ies) created it and it seems to me that if the system were changed, the formulas could be tweaked to reflect that change and still come up in the black. all it would take is a willingness. therein is the problem. outside of pure mathematics, nothing can grow exponentially forever. reality won't support it. if you want this country to join the majority of the rest of the world as a miserable stinking hole of humanity, then keep supporting a system that profits by gouging the people and it'll happen. keep expecting to make more and more and have more and more all the time forever, to hell with everyone else, and it'll happen. you'll have to live here, too. won't that be great?

likewise, if energy didn't cost more as supply became short, where would the impetus to conserve be? as it is, i see a bunch of whores with their christmas lights burning all day and night. i don't agree on your end results-- the system only works so long as the consumer can pay. if the consumer can't pay, the provider doesn't profit. moving towards your extreme is not in the interest of big business. in fact, the more and more people demand that they get whatever they want for the price they want to pay, the more and more we'll head towards your antiutopia. the government OWES me power. the government OWES me healthcare. the government OWES me because I'm not happy yet. once we get away from that idea, once people realize that they don't DESERVE anything, we'll be on better footing. the poor don't have to be poor. in these times it is a choice. the system exists and is simple. play by the system's rules, market yourself appropriately and you won't be poor. it's the american way.

that's just not true. while everyone may have the potential to pull themselves out of poverty, not everyone can. there's not enough room at the top. i'm not expecting it for free, i just think there needs to be a limit on many of the basic things that make life bearable. when i bought this house, i had to use city water and sewer. wells and septic systems are verboten. i HAVE to buy their product at whatever rate they say it costs. i think that if you have to buy a product, by law, then the profit margin should be capped. same with insurance, i HAD to buy homeowners insurance at whatever price they say it should be. obviously there should be a cost but when i'm being gouged so the provider can meet their arbitrary anticipated growth margin, i get all pissy. is it possible the profit margins are unrealistic? sure it is and the provider may ultimately fail but in the meantime, i'm forced to buy their ill-managed product. you support this? if you pull the, "nobody forced you to buy that house" argument, i'm gonna come down there, grab you by the neck and just fucking squeeeeeeeeeeze.

city water and sewer are regulated for the reason that it is not feasable to have more than one provider. homeowners' insurance is not regulated, and you do not have to buy any particular brand of insurance. different insurance companies have different premiums for the same coverage. you can go with the cheapest one. energy is the same way. there just isn't enough of it for everyone to use as much as they are. so people need to trim down their energy usage to a level they can afford. just like you don't do that cross country driving trip when gas is $2.20 a gallon. just like you don't eat steak and lobster everynight when all you can afford is pinto beans and rice. unless you have a credit card.

and the "there's not enough room at the top" line is bunk. i'm not talking about the top. i'm talking about the cooshy middle. any single person can climb the ladder. everyone won't. someone always has to be at the bottom

how bout i kick both of your asses......offer a peace pipe of ganja (a beer for dave) and we call it day.

sounds good. except for the ass kicking part.

There is not enough room at the top, but you can pull yourself out. I did. No grants, no help, no scholarships. I went from $4.60 an hour to $13 an hour two years later, without even going to school. But yes, there is always going to be someone at the bottom, but maybe someday that person at the bottom can feed themselves and thier family with dignity and pride.

see, that's what i'm saying. like i said above: it's do-able but it requires a willingness. i don't think humans are evolved enough to do what it takes, but i think the burdens could be lightened without ruining prosperity. i mean, for most people, paychecks are little more than loans. you get paid and immediately hand it back to the machine. give people more while capping the costs of the necessities (yes, they are necessities) and the extra will no doubt get handed right back but they'll be better able to manage the burden. i dunno, arguing what is against what could be shows how the economy actually does mirror natural law. it's too bad that lives need to be munched up and resources need to be depleted in the process of overcoming inertia and halting momentum.

i bet you don't go and drop $100 on sushi for you and your wife very often, eh? that's because we're capitalists! no sushi for all!

nah, we drop $15 or 20 and make our own. that's because if you throw enough soy sauce on it, it all tastes the same.

that was directed at trace, but whatever. i'm sorry we're stealing your electricity, dave..

No, I never spent $100 for sushi, maybe $50, but that was california rolls, i think (not sure if I want to get into sashimi or sushi topic again, not real literate in japenes "cuisine"). But, we drop $100 on dinner for the two of us all the time

that's ok, nate. as long as you acknowledge it.

I just want to mention since Bush is in the white house that we are in a recession,you might have not realized it,so I don't want to hear about it,but this happened before he came into office.Gas, it cost alot now,electricity,going to get worse,it's not just Californias problem the trickle down effect will affect all states,It's not going to be kosher.

our power just went out for about 5 minutes. the whole damn neighborhood. windspeed: less than 5mph. temperature: 40°. @#&*%$@#!!!

So Bush will inherit the economic fuckups of the Clinton (and Bush v.1) administrations in the same way that Clinton inherited Reagans success? It's all Greenspan's fault, of course. Everything is.

My gas bill has increased 300%, fuck.

Nate, our power is deregulated, which is why the rates are being hiked. It might also be why my power is out at the moment, and why it has been out for two days. Thank God for my laptop. They claim the power might come back on later. *sigh* This always happens here. Nate, I don't resent you for having power. I'm just tired of this power crisis. Trace, when was the last time you felt a baby in your womb? I'm so glad we burn poor defenseless trees for our heat, it's cheap. I'm interested to see what happens with Bush's proposal to drill off the coast here. Speaking as someone who flies all over the place, I can't really protest drilling. But I don't like the thought. Maybe I'll just start walking to Europe. Anyway.

Ah, I love being right. Yesterday, Tom says "Greenspan." Today, the Oregonian carries a headline: "Greenspan to visit with California Governor Regarding Power Crisis."

I always said it was about Greenspan,he can controle interest rates ,but he can't controle power

the rates are not being hiked because the power was deregulated. the rates are being hiked because people come in the way of power plant construction (nimbys, hippies). and we now have a shortage. the reason why the price increase is being passed on is because of deregulation. though i understand the left feels that you can get something from nothing.

Um, OK so i never felt a baby in "my womb" per se, but I have felt her kick in my wifes, and hiccup and move, etc.... I wish I could have a fire place, maybe my gas bill would not be so high. As far as drilling goes, who cares where you drill? Survival of the fittest, baby. Besides, wood fires are far cleaner than gas or electric heaters, and more renewable then gas by far. Wood is one of our greatest natural resources that we can take advantage of and should. I realize it takes a while for a tree to mature, but I am sure we can find a way to expidite the process.

GMOs!

If everyone used wood fires, you'd be eating them words, Trace. Air quality would be bad, plus massive habitat destruction and even worse erosion than we have now. Nate is actually right about nuclear power, it's just the consequences of a srew-up are much worse than if a coal-burning plant goes kablooie. You should care where we drill, too. There just aren't too many true wildernesses left in our world, and if we, the world leaders, don't protect what little we have jurisdiction over, why should any one else? Survival of the fittest for our species at this jucntion means how intelligently we use our resources, and if we fuck it up, then I guess we aren't fit, huh? So much for a nice world for your kids and grandkids.

plus, the world really won't mind sloughing off the carcasses of 7 billion people. since when has radiation ever bothered a planet? it's really more like an antiseptic. keeps the wounds clean and gets rid of annoying coastal itch.

an honest question: wouldn't deregulation + nuclear power lead to cost-cutting in said nuclear power plants? So are you advocating a government-regulated nuclear power scheme, or unsafe, cheap power?

DISCLAIMER: THE VIEWS EXPRESSED BY THIS POSTER MAY NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE NORMAL HUMAN BEING. BUT THEY ARE HIS VIEWS, AND THEY WILL BE EXPRESSED. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, WE NOW RETURN YOU TO YOUR REGULARLY SCHEDULED STATE REGULATED BULL SHIT

what a dumbass thing to say.

"wouldn't deregulation + nuclear power lead to cost-cutting in said nuclear power plants?" what's better, private sector goods and services or government goods and services? i may be mistaken, but since a nuclear power plant is a fairly expensive venture, if i were a private power company i'd want it to last a long time without melting down. and it's not like coal buring or dams-- the by products of nuclear power generation are hot water and solid radiocative waste. you don't have to worry about leaks or exhaust or anything. just moving around this solid waste and burying it. the government can regulate the radioactive material going in, so it knows what would need to come out. any shady disposal scheme would be noticed immediately. besides, the most expensive part of operating a business in this country is the US litigation system. no one wants to be sued.

Nuclear power is definately something that is worth considering. It is one of the best ways to conserve natural resources. Except what the hell do you do with the waste?

Hide it in your neighbor's trash....you know, Canada, Mexico.....

contain it and bury it in the desert. it's safer than the liberal media makes it seem.

The whole reason we don't use it is deregulation - too expensive for private companies, what with litigation and bad p. r. and all that. Of course, there are some concerns with waste nate. I refer you to Chernobyl. Me? I'm all for windfarms across the dreary cornfields of the midwest.

Chernobyl was a tragedy. no nuclear power plant in the US could fall for the reasons Chernobyl did. The risk of meltdown is low. A lot lower that you would think, if you get your info from the liberal media. windfarms require energy to manufacture and construct. the ROI makes them more of an energy impact than they are worth. and besides, once the granolas see the damage windfarms do to bird populations, they'd be locked down where they stand.

I lived out next to the mojave for a year and a half. excellent area to build power plants, wind farms, solar or nuclear. not a soul for miles. they need the employment, not altogether a bad idea.

If there's not a soul for miles, then who needs the employment? the cacti? I hate the mojave. passionately. like I hate flash. "liberal media." Yeah. The media's liberal. blah. The media is like the democratic party. Liberal, schmiberal; they're just a different dumping ground for different companies. Sometimes even the same companies (that is, as control the "conservative" factions.) two points: Burying the waste really ISN'T that safe. It doesn't go anywhere. It just sits there, so it's still a threat. and (corollarily) once the waste gets released, be it 100 years from now or tomorrow, it's some fairly nasty and dangerous shit; not just to humans, but to the flora and fauna around whereever it gets released. Deserts have ecosystems too, y'know. The only really safe answer is to fire that shit into outer space. I need to stop reading sci-fi now. I think I have the basic idea of windfarms down, but I've never heard of them before. Is it a techno'ed up windmill? How about hydroelectric power? Isn't there some way to turn the push and pull of the tides into man-usable energy? mmmm... I'm thirsty.

but if you fire it into space and the rocket fails and it lands in ohio, umm. . .good idea, tom. the only time i've ever seen a windfarm was when i was driving from modesto to san fran. up in the hills there were a bunch. oh, and on the kyuss "welcome to sky valley" cover.

that would be livermore. it is not difficult to contain nuclear waste. burying it in safe containers is a lot better for the environment than firing coal exhaust into the atmosphere. nuclear waste is solid. it can't spill or travel in a cloud. energy production is the #1 industrial polluter in the US. moving the US to nuclear power would effectively end the #1 cause of air and water pollution in the US.

regarding hydroelectric power: i know that, at least in california, a few hydroelectric plans were stopped because of the impact on fish. aw, who needs fucking electricity anyway?

er. What you meant to say was "aw, who needs fucking fish, anyway?" I completely agree. The problem, Nate, is that it DOESN'T GO AWAY. It won't dissipate, it won't slowly become harmless in those safe containers. It just sits, and waits, and in one-hundred years, when no one remembers this debate, your great great great grandchildren will be digging a well and accidentally bust open that safe container, and said solid nuclear waste begins to poison the land, and the water supply, and the plants on the surface, until the entire commune falls sick and dies, and no one knows why, so they blame it on God, and *badaboom!* Gommorah part 2. "And the Angel went unto Nateville and said 'There is entirely too much ass in this town. I shall beg the lord to melt the populace, and show the homophobic nature of the Lord our God.' Nate v.4 begged the angel, then, saying 'but angel, if I should find 10 people who don't get ass and enjoy it, then will you spare the city for those 10 souls?' And the angel agreed. However, Tom v.4 was on vacation that day, and so, Nate v.4 could only gather 8 other assless people, and the angel spake unto the people of Nateville, saying 'YOU HAVE BEEN JUDGED! Because of the amount of ass being had in this city, I shall poison your water supply; I shall mutate your deer, and make your lettuce taste sour: furthermore, your hair shall fall out.' and the people at the bards, and there was much rejoicing.

your arguement doesn't hold water. first of all, secure containment is not a myth. it is not hard to make containers that cannot be accidently opened or burst by well digging. second, nuclear waste does become harmless. it just takes a long time. third, killing a handlful of stupid folk in the desert in 100 years is a lot better than soaking the earth with 100 years of increasinly worse acid rain. and who knows how many deaths from cancer could be avoided if we stopped burning gas and coal to make our energy. we don't know. the bottom line is that the way we are producing energy right now is a hell of a lot more damaging to the earth and it's peoples than even the potential (however unlikely) threat of nuclear generated power.

i guess if we did have nuclear power plants up and down the coast, all we'd need is one big rumble along the san andreas fault and we'd all be glowing too. those fucking hippies.

Switch to solar energy. It is that simple.

*snicker*

As someone who's had some experience in consulting for wind power projects (on the cultural resources end), no major energy development is simple. There are hoards of factors to consider, from environmental effects (yes, solar and wind do have deleterious environmental effects if placed in inappropriate locations) to effects on communities. Here in Ohio, we had a wind farm location abandoned because the turbines would have had a serious effect on the community, in that the community partially defines itself by all the church steeples that dot the horizon. 300-tall turbine towers in that context would have had a serious effect on the cultural landscape. So basically, it can take a few years for major green energy projects to get off the ground, just like any other major energy projects. But there's hope. I'd like to see a lot more individual solar projects, where the solar power generators are part of the fabric of the building. I also just saw a design for a type of wind turbine that lies along the ridge line of the house, and serves the dual purpose of energy generation and roof cooling. So there are solutions out there, but we'll still need to rely on "dirty" sources of energy while we switch over to "clean" sources. It would help to have a full government push behind an effort to convert, but that's not going to happen with the current crop of GOP dickheads.