I drive a Ford F250 (full size, American made, accept no substitutes) with a 6.8L Triton V10 engine that needs lots of clean fuel. I ride tall and proud in American iron and I need American oil to power it. Since 1960 the ANWR reserve has been waiting for God fearing Americans to extract our deserved bounty from it. We have waited long enough for the sake of some dumb animals we can't even see, let alone hunt. What good is land after all unless it serves Him and His true children?
I will not let Birkenstock-wearing, polar bear hugging, dope smoking eco-weenies deny ME MY right to drive what I want, where I want and however fast I want. Rush says we can get 10 years of oil from ANWR (or was it oil after 10 years - who cares?) I will never EVER buy an alien looking Prius or any future hybrid truck shit cause I need the rumble of those 10 pistons when I'm sitting still. That V10 thunder assures me that I have massive American torque on tap at all moments. You never know when you might have to pull a stump.
Drill ANWR now and stop your eco-whining about "nature." True nature is against everything America stands for. We were born to build and haul big loads in Big Iron.
Steve
"It's money that matters, hear what I say..." (Randy Newman)
You'd be wise to start looking into producing substitutes for fossil fuel because the oil is going to start getting very scarce a lot sooner than ten years.
On 26 Mar 2005 11:29:29 -0800, "Educated Republican" <educated snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com wrote or quoted :
I did a calculation a while ago, and it was under 2 years, presuming no increase in demand.
Perhaps we need a third party to check the figures.
In any case, by destroying ANWR you get to procrastinate going to alternate energy a little longer, letting the Japanese get that much further ahead in clean energy. BUT you lose ANWR. Seems to me a questionable benefit and a very high cost.
Republicans claim to believe Bush when he tells them UA Flight 93 was hijacked by Saudi terrorists who were not aboard.
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 15:13:06 -0600, "andro" <s@spam> wrote or quoted :
Guess who is thinking ahead -- the Japanese. When the pain gets too great to continue using oil because of price and greenhouse gas side effects, who are you going to call? The Japanese who have been quietly getting the technology ready.
The USA will then be totally at Japan's mercy. The USA will HAVE to retool no matter what the cost. Even the US military will be useless without oil. It is as if the USA has an unconscious death wish with its deliberate blindness to the oil crunch.
Republicans claim to believe Bush when he tells them UA Flight 93 was hijacked by Saudi terrorists who were not aboard.
Mr. Educated: After the drilling, I don't see why we can't kill all of the animals and have them canned to be sold at Wal-Mart. After all, once all the holes are drilled and the land is decimated, the animals won't need the area anymore. In addition, why not develop the entire area. Let big republican business supporters sell every square foot and bull doze all the trees. Think of the profits that could be made. When the drilling starts, the Excursion will be back, with a bigger motor and six wheels. With the oil flowing, 3 miles to the gallon will be acceptable mileage in America. Ron
I agree. Kill all the animals (they're not doing us any good there anyway), drill for the oil, pump it only for our use and let the stupid arabs drink their oil for a while. Anyway, these tree-hugging idiots believe everything the liberal "thinkless tanks" come up with. We have plenty of oil to supply the world for a long time to come. It's just that admitting so doesn't fit their agenda. By the way, there are more deer in American now than when Columbus discovered this place (or was it the Norse? Oh well, who cares we own it now) and more forests than ever. If they would only let the lumber companies harvest the way they want there would be an almost inexhaustable supply of wood for whatever we need. The eco-terrists want everything stopped, as long as it doesn't affect them. Here's an idea: For every worthless animal killed in Anwr let's replace it with a tree-hugging PETA rep.
I find it interesting that these two sites seem to agree pretty well on the NUMBER of deer in America... However, alas, it also seems that at best there are 1/3 to 1/4 the number of deer that roamed the land when American was unsullied wilderness. As for the lumber...I suspect that you don't have a lot of contact with building ANYTHING from wood. Over the past
30 years that *I* have been woodworking, I have seen some significant changes. 1) The quality of construction material has dropped enormously and the cost has risen through the roof. In the
70s, one could get good, stright 2x4 stock with almost no knots from small branches and tight, strong grain for $0.50/$75 per stud. Now...the studs are full of knots and pin-branch roots, they curl all over the place and have grain the size of soda straws, and, cost $2.50 or more each. 2) In the 60s and 70s it used to be very easy to get 1"x12" stock for cabinetry. Not any more. If it is available, it is often a "special order", it is bloody expensive, and, while the quality has not dropped as much as with construction grade stuff, it is still harder to get great looking wood these days. Why is this the case? In the case of construction lumber, the logging industry clear-cut the old growth timber, then walked away from the denuded landscape. After decades of neglect, they were forced to start replanting...but have chosen to plant species that will grow to "maturity" in the shortest possible time. Volume of wood does not come for free. The quicker the wood grows, the more of if that is left as air when it dries. The more air...the less structurally sound it is. The only way to fix this problem is to go back to planting slower growing, denser species, and, take the time to let them come to maturnity. If this takes 30 years instead of 10...so be it. As for the case of cabinet woods...again...the old growth has been cut, and, with these woods (walnut, Maple, etc), it takes many decades to produce a tree several feet in diameter, so we may not see wood of that quality again. To say there are more forests than when America was discovered is at worst an outright falsehood, or, at best, an overstatement of reality. There may be almost as many trees...but how can one compare a grove of twigs a foot or less in diameter, that has grown in a couple of decades, to a grove of giants some twenty FEET in diameter, that have been growing for a couple hundred years? There is no comparison between the quality and quantity of wood available from the latter..
History shows that if we allow the logging companies to harvest the way they WANT, we end up with millions of acres of bare, eroding land, covered with rotting stumps. The fact of the matter is that companies (especially now) are run by short-sighted beancounters whose only goal is to keep their cozy jobs by ensuring that the stock holders get big returns every quarter. This means cutting expenses to the bone..and in their eyes, investing in the future by replanting logged lands is nothing more than a huge hassle and expense...to be cut. It is true that wood is a renewable resource, but, it requires that the public pressure the industry to not only replant the logged lands but, to replant them with a diverse collection of species that reflects the original mix of plants. This will ensure that the next time the land is logged, the quality of the wood gathered will be as good as the last time. However, this also gets back to the fact that this will cut down on growth speed...and will require patience to wait for the next harvest. So, on the positive side, thanks to public pressure, the industry IS replanting trees. The downside is that they are ONLY planting the species that they believe will produce the most volume of wood in the shortest time. It is called "monoculture" and, is a bad thing. It leaves huge stands of trees vulnerable to infection, pests, etc, allowing huge areas of them to be killed when they get infected. One of the benefits of a multi-species planting is that it leaves islands of a given species, and makes it harder for pests to travel from area to area... If you want a human example...look what happened to the Native American cultures when the European diseases were introduced. The natives had no immunity to them, so, the bugs spread like wildfire, and, what would have been a mild illness to a European was deadly to the Native. Oh yea...it can happen again, by the by...I just heard a report that antibiotic resistant Staph infections have started popping up outside of the hospitals where they have been most common. Modern medicines are great, but, something like this could cut back on that 11 billion population in the world REALLy quickly.
That should be been one of the Republican Party's planks way back in 1996. They probably would have won. Geese are also on the rise, so are Bald Eagles, so are Herons, Egrets, Hawks, Falcons, etc. My photos from my area in the 1950's shows no trees, just new subdivisions and flat prairie farmland. Now the entire area looks like wilderness forest. The only emergency ecological problems are the damn imports brought over in the ballast tanks of foreign ships.
First some facts. There ARE more white tail and mule deer in America now than when Europeans first arrived. There are some interesting reasons for this but probably the biggest is that farmers cleared land and planted crops that deer dearly love (sorry for that).
I would venture to guess that since I normally had wood hauled in by the semi-truck load I've probably used more wood in my lifetime than you have building cabinets for 30 or even 40 years. BTW I not only manufactured Rvs with wood I also worked for a while as a home builder so I not only know wood but have worked with it since I was a boy whittling knives and swords with a pocket knife. Which reminds me, you can't even carry one of those to school now without bringing on a hoard of police cars with guns drawn and helicopters overhead. Remember when some schools had shooting ranges in the basement where you could bring your dad's ole 22 single shot to school for training in target practice and safe gun handling? Don't hardly see that anymore, now do ya!?
Over the past
As for the forests here is a well-known fact. If the lumber companies were permitted to go into national forests and remove the larger old growth trees the younger, smaller trees would have a better chance. Also, when forest fires strike we wouldn't loose nearly as much of the old growth. When the tree-huggers throw a ring around a given stand of trees and say, "No, don't cut any of these, you can take those over there," it creates a situation where the lumber companies are trying to satisfy public demand for wood but are forced to take everything in their path because they are limited so much in where they can harvest. Incidentally, I'm getting ready to do a major remodel on our own home and plan to use steel studs wherever possible. Totally straight, never warp, already set up with electrical chases, etc. Just remember, not everyone fits a mold and things are not always as the liberal press likes you to think.
No question you can't find black walnut trees 4-feet in diameter anymore but that's just life. Same with the redwoods. You cut one and it takes a long time to grow another one. Just a fact of life. You say you work with a lot of cabinet woods so I guess we can blame you for the reduction in available woods such as walnut, maple, etc. If you're so concerned why not just build your cabinets out of pressboard and cover it with a high-pressure laminate. Lasts a lot longer and you can actually make the substrate pretty much with "junk" wood and glue. Oh wait, your customers want something better and different, oh, and they have cash too. Guess you're in the same class as everyone else who's trying to scratch out a living. You give a little and take a little. Some just take more and give less.....that's all.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.