3 of 3
3
Stupid to the last drop
Posted: 22 February 2014 04:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4539
Joined  2007-08-31
Coldheart Tucker - 21 February 2014 10:18 PM

Its behind a pay wall, but ExxonMobil’s CEO joins suit to block fracking operation near his house.

Isn’t that great? I always plead that the proponents of nuclear energy should store the nuclear waste in their back garden. For some reason they always seem to refuse…

BTW, you can read the article via Google Cache. Wondering when this obvious hole in pay walls gets closed…

 Signature 

GdB

“The light is on, but there is nobody at home”

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2014 06:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2602
Joined  2012-10-27
GdB - 22 February 2014 04:23 AM
Coldheart Tucker - 21 February 2014 10:18 PM

Its behind a pay wall, but ExxonMobil’s CEO joins suit to block fracking operation near his house.

Isn’t that great? I always plead that the proponents of nuclear energy should store the nuclear waste in their back garden. For some reason they always seem to refuse…

BTW, you can read the article via Google Cache. Wondering when this obvious hole in pay walls gets closed…

Not even the back garden.  They don’t want to be within miles of it. And why should they? It’‘s dangerous and they know it. And they apparently don’t mind if hoi polloi are endangered. Nothing new in that attitude, as long as it isn’t themselves.

Lois

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2014 07:21 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4843
Joined  2007-10-05

Here is one not behind a pay wall. Exxon CEO opposes fracking water well. Why? Because it will reduce the value of his $5 million house, of course.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 February 2014 11:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3186
Joined  2011-11-04
Thevillageatheist - 21 February 2014 07:36 PM

I was born, bred, and always lived in Texas. I have remembered the Alamo for over half a century.  But I am sick inside at the prevailing political and social senses of the majority of my fellow (voting) Texans.

I can understand the frustration that you and Darron feel in a predominately red State, believe me, I feel your pain here. I did read somewhere however that Texas may be turning more blue of late. Is that true or is someone just blowing smoke? I’ve always viewed Texas as an ultraconservative State but I have met people from there who were moderate to left of center and hate the “cowboy” image often projected by the media. There’s got to be more of you guys down there, it can’t be all red! Of course I know more about your history than what’s happening now. But as you know full well it’s voter apathy that keeps the Perrys and the Kacischs in power. They interviewed some 20 something Obamacare recipients today on NPR and they stated that they didn’t really know about it and had No interest in politics. None. This is why John Q is so easily duped by emotional hot button issues and appeals to State pride and super patriotism with a little Jesus thrown in for good measure.


Cap’t Jack

Apathy doesn’t help, that’s for sure.  And cynicism is not only a good excuse for apathy, it is a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Thus, would-be-progressively-inclined young people tend not to vote. 

And there is less apathy, I suspect, among Texas rednecks who have an innate revulsion to there being a black President.  I suspect that Tea-party propaganda is a good cover, even for themselves, from a simple seething underlying bigotry.  Almost all of the TV ads, now, are Republican, and almost all of those are attacking Obamacare.

Then there is the broader masses of regular folk who are simply interested in living their daily lives without burdening themselves with political matters.  The only political education they get is what might be thrust on them by political commercials, while they are watching their favorite TV shows.

Wendy Davis is the one shining hope, at the moment.  You would love her if you met her in person, but, I have not seen whether she can and will be able to mobilize the masses on the broader statewide level, enough, to overcome the entrenched Republican stranglehold on Texas.  She has proven that she will not give up even when fighting a losing battle.  That’s probably not going to be enough.  Maybe she would have a chance if there was an influx of money from progressives around the country for her campaign.  (Maybe William Travis would have had a chance if Sam Houston had sent reinforcements.)

But in this case, the battle of the Alamo, will not likely be followed by a battle of San Jacinto.  IOW, I expect no ultimate victory for the “good guys” anytime soon.

 Signature 

As a fabrication of our own consciousness, our assignations of meaning are no less “real”, but since humans and the fabrications of our consciousness are routinely fraught with error, it makes sense, to me, to, sometimes, question such fabrications.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 February 2014 01:51 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
Coldheart Tucker - 21 February 2014 08:44 PM

A dozen or so years ago, I would have said that there was a chance humanity wouldn’t make it past 2100, now, I think the real issue is just how we’re going to take ourselves out.

What really needs to happen is a fundamental shift in human thought.  We still have the same weakness that the Greeks are said to have with their democracies: The winner a debate wasn’t the person who argued the truth, but the better orator.  If someone were able to formulate a style of debate that was easy to learn, but didn’t reward people who spewed lies in an appealing manner, that would go long way towards giving us a framework in which to shift us in the right direction.  It wouldn’t solve everything, of course, but it’d be a start.  Provided it caught on with society rapidly.

I’ve come to pretty much the same conclusions, there’s more than enough people out there that see the problems and we’ve got more than enough solutions being presented, but the amount of interference is drowning out a coherent response. The conservative Canadian government is an excellent example of this, it supports climate change deniers here, vilifies any politician or activist that advocates taking realistic action and works behind the scenes to sabotage the kind of all-inclusive international agreements that many understand are necessary.

I think the truth does prevail in the long term, so the big question now is how close to a non-recoverable threshold are we and not just on climate change. Over fishing, clear cutting rain and temperate forests, industrial farming, urban sprawl and more all feed into a an overall replacement of the natural world with a “normal” human one that is developed to meet the needs of just a few species.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 February 2014 02:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  464
Joined  2013-12-20
DarronS - 22 February 2014 07:21 AM

Here is one not behind a pay wall. Exxon CEO opposes fracking water well. Why? Because it will reduce the value of his $5 million house, of course.

When he is acting as Exxon CEO, not a homeowner, Tillerson has lashed out at fracking critics and proponents of regulation. “This type of dysfunctional regulation is holding back the American economic recovery, growth, and global competitiveness,” he said in 2012. Natural gas production “is an old technology just being applied, integrated with some new technologies,” he said in another interview. “So the risks are very manageable.”

In shale regions, less wealthy residents have protested fracking development for impacts more consequential than noise, including water contamination and cancer risk. Exxon’s oil and gas operations and the resulting spills not only sinks property values, but the spills have leveled homes and destroyed regions.

I think this is the definition of destructive self-interest.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 3
3