Print this article | E-mail this article | Comment on this article

Google Earth Highlights Destruction

By BetaNews Staff, BetaNews

March 12, 2007, 12:48 PM

While Google Earth has primarily been touted for its uncanny ability to take users on a tour of the world's most beautiful sights right from their desktop, a new feature added Monday highlights the immense destruction human beings leave in their wake.

Environmental advocacy group Appalachian Voices has joined to Google to deliver a special interactive layer for Google Earth that tells the stories of over 470 mountains that have been destroyed from coal mining, and its impact on nearby ecosystems. Separately, the World Wildlife Fund has added the ability to visit its 150 project sites using Google Earth.

Add a Comment (101 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

By v7brown

edited Mar 15, 2007 - 3:49 AM

al gore, having received a majority of the votes, would have made a much better president than the draft dodging, liar and cheat we got if he had he been confirmed. as it is he now is in a position to unite the american people in a way unknown since, at least, FDR.

the al gore forum, http://www.goreforum.com allows people an opportunity to input their ideas

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 16, 2007 - 8:59 AM

Al Gore is a joke. Laugh and get over it.

Score: 0

By amg96

posted Mar 15, 2007 - 10:41 AM

Al gore is one of the biggest environmental hypocrits. He has bigger carbon footprint than anyone, flying around in private jets - one flight can produce more CO2 than about 1000 cars in a year!!!

Score: 0

By Willsy7

edited Mar 15, 2007 - 1:42 AM

PC_Tool, how much do you like to hear yourself talk? Because inferring from how much you like to see your typing, you must never shutup, and that goes for some other frequent posters.

And when in the holy ****ing name of tangent, did this discussion become anything other than plans for google and environmentalists to use Google Earth to plot Deforestation, strip mining, and other eco-projects?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Mar 16, 2007 - 12:56 PM

And when in the holy ****ing name of tangent, did this discussion become anything other than plans for google and environmentalists to use Google Earth to plot Deforestation, strip mining, and other eco-projects?

Laughable attempt at character assassination aside, it became a political discussion the moment environmentalism was brought into it. If you fail to see the link there, that's your deficiency, not mine.

Have a day.

Score: 0

By amg96

posted Mar 15, 2007 - 10:36 AM

I like hearing myself talk a hell of a lot more than I like hearing you talk, Willsy7 - That's for sure. Instead being whiny and making meaningless character attacks why don't you respond intelligently to the argument -- that is if you have any intelligence.

Score: 0

By Willsy7

posted Mar 16, 2007 - 1:23 AM

What argument? Because, I'm still pretty sure that the article is about using Google Earth to plot deforestation, strip-mining, and other ecological projects. Not bashing liberals, conservatives, or any type of politicians.

And if you would like the definition of irony look no further than your post. Way to talk about character defamation then make the obviously intended rhetorical question about my intelligence. I was simply making an observation for your obvious need to be heard no matter how irrelevant your point to the topic is.

As for the article, I say sure, if you want bloated software that only really runs well on a computer with the suitable GPU. Also, I don't really see the point until they work out rendering/scaling. The last enhancement of 3D rendering is ridiculous with the Eiffel Tower reaching into the stratosphere. I don't see where Google Earth is currently suited for this type of project. On the other hand, I respect the intent of the idea. So pretty much I'm undecided about it.

Score: 0

By amg96

edited Mar 15, 2007 - 1:06 AM

You know what. I am pretty fed up with all of the down with humanity people. Every single one, especially Al Gore, is a hypocrite when it comes to minimizing your precious "Carbon Footprint." Why don't you all move into a forrest or desert island, protect it the best that you can, and leave the rest of us alone.

Yes, there happens to be a COROLLATION between global warming and CO2 levels. But the warming trend started before industrialization, and there have been warming and cooling cycles on the earth way before man was here. Want to know why??? Because the Earth's revolution around the sun oscillates closer and further every 200,000 years or so. Also the magnetic poles of the Earth also shift causing a thinning of the atmosphere during a shift which also leads to temporary warming.

What happened to all the chicken littles who cried, "Oh no, we're headed for another ice age in the eighties" Guess that didn't happen did it!

To paraphrase George Carlin, how do you know that we weren't put here to create styrofoam., or to use trees, or dig holes, use oil, whatever. Don't you all think that we are just a product of evolution. Are you so holier than God to think that we are outside of nature? How pompous to think that we can save a whole planet. The planet will be here long after we are gone, because you know why? Survival of the fittest, and if we're not the fittest, then syanara to humanity, baby!

If you don't like big polluters, then don't support them. Stop trying to use the government's police force, because someday you might be on the receiving end of that force. Ride a bike, live in a cave, don't use the sewer system, don't use the power system, but STOP PREACHING WHAT YOU DON'T PRACTICE!!

Yes, we should try not to pollute because nobody wants to breath polluted air or drink polluted water, or see the cute fuzzy little animals die out, but why is it that no one seems to care about the insects, or how about this -- who gave you vegetarians the right to kill plants for food or kill bacteria and viruses. Why don't you all just become breathans and live off the air!

I'm all for space exploration. There are plenty of planets and stars out there, and why don't all the tree huggers live on Earth and the rest of us can live on other planets and do as we will. If we have to use some trees for houses or kill some animals and plants for food, or mine some coal (or use wind - hey I'm not unreasonable), then let us do it in peace, and stop trying to bully the rest of the world. If it wasn't for business, you wouldn't have 1 tenth of the things you have -- you would have to make your own clothes, hunt or grow your own food and build and maintain your own shelter, forget about your own energy! Think a little before you try taking us all back to the stone ages!!!

Score: 0

By old61

edited Mar 15, 2007 - 8:41 AM

yea to you,I'm about fed up with the bs myself.....should be legal to hunt or at least export them (venus,maybe?).......next time I have to put up face to face with an eco-nazi,they are going to be rudly awakened by my response to them

Score: 0

By tahegnu

edited Mar 15, 2007 - 9:25 AM

Hate to break it to you amg96, but the air belongs to me, and nobody else. I've got rights to it in an exclusive deal with God, and I don't like people destroying my stuff.

Seriously, the air I breathe belongs to me, which is a sticky subject, but think about it. Can I inject poison into your lungs? Or into your AC system? I would probably get arrested as a terrorist for spewing non-government sponsored poisons into the open air. What is different about automobiles and strip mining is that someone somewhere is making/saving a ton of money.

Oil companies are going into Peru, and destroying the land that indian tribes have been stewards of for thousands of years. The indians tell the people that they need to stop, and they get shot.

The correlation between global warming and CO2 levels is there, yep. My girlfriend works in the climatology and coastal watershed studies department of the United States Geological Survey, and the data shows that yes we are in a cycle and we are accelerating the cycle many times. The general consensus is that while we don't know how much we are affecting global warming, we are definitely accelerating it.

Plants and animals need time to adapt, and they're not likely to have the time given our treatment of my air and my water (yes, my water).

Score: 0

By animad

posted Mar 14, 2007 - 12:18 AM

yeah, that's need to be done. So we can realize, that the beauty of this earth has been exploited by people. Maybe better if it can shown the destruction & massacre that happening in Iraq, huh?

Score: 0

By Austin814

posted Mar 14, 2007 - 2:04 PM

Yeah, and dont forget to show the destruction and massacre that happend in downtown new york and the pentigon.

Score: 0

By pasamio

edited Mar 14, 2007 - 11:45 PM

Perhaps you mean 'pentagon'. Heres a statistic for you: Over three thousand Americans have died in Iraq since the war began (http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/). That means George W Bush God Bless his Soul has sent more great Americans to their deaths than what those 19 suicide bombers achieved. Who is the greater terrorist?

Score: 0

By Austin814

edited Mar 15, 2007 - 1:52 PM

Well, lets think about it. Die today for a cause or die tomorrow because we didnt protect that cause. Some interesting info: Germany never attacked us and in WWII about 112,000 lives per year were lost. (where would we be if we didnt fight then?) North Korea never attacked, during that war approx 18,000 were lost per year. (Where would we be if we didnt fight that war?) Vietnam never attacked us, the US lost about 6,000 a year in the Vietnam war. Clinton started a war with Bosnia (without UN consent), Bosnia never attacked us. And now that there is a terroist group that comes to the US and attacks us and we lose the least amount of lives in any extended war you are crying? What do you think gives you the right to not support your presedent? Why dont you move to iraq and vote with blood for Saddam because you knew if you voted for anyone else you would be killed. Oh, did you forget freedem isnt free. War is ugly, people die. Do you know Ghandi suggested to the Jewish community to turn themselves over to the Germans to be killed and there act of group suicide would make them heros? Antiwar is not always the answer. You have to stand for something or you will fall for anything.

Edit: Afterthought, if you do not believe there is a threat why dont you turn yourself over to a terrorist group and tell them you WILL NOT practice the religion. What do you guess would happen? And since you meantion the number if US deaths in Iraq...now I know Bush isnt over in Iraq killing our US solders. Someone else must be targeting us? Who could it be? Those peace loving terrorists? Do you suggest a new war strategy that equates to run and hide? A note of interest...the US is fairly easy to find on the map. We cant hide forever.

Score: 0

By pasamio

posted Mar 15, 2007 - 8:07 PM

Indeed. Germany didn't attack you, but Japan did. USA figured it might as well stop its isolationist policy and help the rest of the world (except for Japan, Germany, Italy and the smaller attached players) fight a war. I'm not sure you realize just how many countries were fighting the war before the Americans decided to pull their finger out and join. Perhaps they thought that they'd be able to stay where they were and nobody would bother attacking them. I don't the reasoning behind the policy makers of the time but in any case Pearl Harbour solved that problem for them. Heres an interesting statistic, how many civilians died? 6. They died when a Japanese firebomb exploded killing a pastor, a teacher and four children.

North Korea never attacked and strangely enough after losing all of those lives it ended up at the same place: the 38th parallel. The war was quite literally pointless and started where it began. Now they have big guns pointed at each other.

Why did anyone go into Vietnam? Its beyond me why it was done and just like Korea, it was fought back and I'm certain that the combined forces didn't win that one either. So, theres another tie/loss.

Lets review Bosnia then. Bosnia gets attacked unilaterally. Bosnia now develops terrorist groups to attack their attackers. See a link here?

Who sent them to Iraq? Who stood up and said that we need to go there? Bush is the mouthpiece at least if he is not guilty of the crime. Iraq wasn't fighting any one and it is now beyond obvious that they never posed a threat to anyone. We haven't found any WMD, and their defence forces crumbled far too easily. So troops are there for freedom. I could have sworn we went there for WMD's because they posed a clear and present threat.

And I have the right not to support the PRESIDENT (you can't spell the title of your most senior politician/commander in chief correctly?) of the United States of America because I'm an Australian. I didn't vote for the moron in power over here either not that either major party wouldn't love to play America's lapdog anyway, they don't have the balls.

I have a war strategy: none. Iraq wasn't needed. Afghanistan wasn't needed. Bosnia wasn't needed. And the long stream of other places that America has visited/occupied in its history (Philippines, Guatemala, Cuba, etc). In reality Iraq has become open season on the occupying forces. Why go to America to shoot at Americans when they will come to you? Far easier and cheaper.

If you want to do something against terrorism, go invade Northern Ireland where they've had terrorists for year. Or ask the Russians if they want a hand with their long term terrorist issues.

Antiwar may not always be the answer but going around the world proking people isn't the answer either.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Mar 16, 2007 - 12:57 PM

it is now beyond obvious that they never posed a threat to anyone

Try telling that to the Kurds.

Score: 0

By pasamio

posted May 4, 2007 - 9:30 PM

So on that basis we should invade Turkey as well?

Or perhaps we should invade the evil country that supplied the biological weapons to Iraq in the first place. That country must be so evil supplying those dangerous biological and chemical weapons that were then tested on Kurds. We should invade them and stop their terrorism. Oh wait, that country is the good ole USA. Perhaps you forgot that the US govt gave a lot of this technology and weaponary over to begin with?

Score: 0

By Austin814

posted Mar 16, 2007 - 1:27 AM

Do you see the irony of your views? You disagree with the policy that was being used before the US went to war in WWII. (The not fighting one)until we were attacked by Japan and then later suggest the policy be "none". Did you forget that we were attacked? Did you hear about the WORLD trade towers? Those two planes that hit the towers, crashed them down and the economy at the same time. Hundreds of thousands of US families lost jobs and homes and retirement and stability. Look at the bigger picture. Do you think the only casualty that day happened at "ground zero"?

You talk about Russia having a problem with terrorists which leads me to remind you of a country called Russia that went to war in that same region and pulled out before it was finished and now have a terrorist problem in there own country.

You say Bush sent the soldiers to their death by saying we need to go to war. Who sent all the mothers and fathers to there deaths in the world trade towers? Do you honestly believe the responce to that should be "Those mean ol terrorists, I sure hope they dont do that again." ? Remember, we WERE attacked, and it wasnt the first attack, it wasnt even the first attack at the world trade towers.

Now the reason for going to war might have been labled as WMD. I know it wasnt good to say were going after X and not find it but to me not finding WMD's doesnt matter because they used airliners full of people to fly into towers filled with people. (Gee, they must not have been too concidered that there might have been civilian casulties) That right there should be enough to make it personal. The intent was not to fight like we might think of fighting but to put fear in every person knowing that they were THE target, not a military outpost. The president decided to let the people know we (the US) will not stand idle while we are being attacked.

Moving on, there are people such as yourself who have so short a memory and are only concerned about the here and now so much that you cant see the bigger picture. Yes it is a horrible loss when each and every soldier that has died doesnt come home but please remember that each and every one of them signed up at there own will to protect their country and a way of life. Every freedom we have today has been paid for in blood in the past. That will continue to be the case for as long as more then one person is on the earth.

I understand that there is no way to please everyone. Never will everyone agree that we should of shouldnt be at war, how could we if we cant agree on things much more simple. I do hope however that when you think about war you think about it in spans of 20 to 30 years and not 3-5 years. This all ties in back to where we started, remember WWII when we (the US) waited as long as possible to not fight, that was one of the bloodiest wars. Now, concider again...fight now or wait until someone crashes a plane into one of your skyscrapers and sit back and wait until waiting is no longer an option. Remember the old saying that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Score: 0

By pasamio

posted May 4, 2007 - 11:24 PM

The World Trade Centre Terrorists have the following break down:
Came from:
Saudia Arabia
Egypt
Lebanon

Trained in:
Yemen
Sudan
Afghanistan

Met in:
Pakistan
Malaysia

Funded by:
Italy
Germany

Taught to fly:
USA

Now out of all of those countries the US went and invaded Afghanistan. I have no great issue over that because its been a noted terrorist training ground and the reason to go there is sound enough, I don't necessarily agree it was the best move but I can see the justification in the scope of the World Trade Centre attacks. Do you know about Bali?

Of course, it must be obvious to America that the logical next step must be to invade Iraq. It was obviously highly involved in the terrorist attack of September 11. In fact I'm sure it was Saddam who produce the plan, not Osama.

And you are absolutely correct, the thousands of dead people weren't the only casualty, America started to lose its human rights. It started a long train of very dangerous events and laws being passed.

Russia now has a terrorist problem after they invaded a country. Sound familiar? Who trained those terrorists during the Russian occupation of Afghanistan?

And who sent them to their deaths? People in the countries that I listed certainly helped but Iraq isn't on that list? You were attacked by terrorists, who have typically been a highly mobile group of people. You were attacked, but where is the Iraq link to 'airliners full of people to fly into towers filled with people'. It wasn't the first attack on the World Trade Centre and America in general, and while Americans are in Iraq I'm sure that the deaths will continue. Why go through airport security to attack Americans on their home soil when you can enter Iraq and take your own pot shot at an American soldier?

And yes, Americans fought and died for their freedoms. Australia, also a former British colony took the 'peaceful' route. Thats where you don't wage wars. There are a few other examples around the world of British colonies that didn't need a big war to become independent. But every day I see those freedoms being taken away by a fear driven nation.

The US waited while Europe fought against Germany, Italy and Turkey, while Asia fought against Japan. They waited while entire countries were invaded and taken over. They call everyone to action so fast yet forget that they themselves in two major wars only appeared half way through.

So I can see Afghanistan, you were attacked by people that the United States of America trained there, that good for nothing country training terrorists like Osama Bin Laden. I think we should bomb them out of existence to prevent terrorists ever attacking again. And supporting regimes such as Iraq by handing over chemical and biological weapons then additionally providing nuclear technology. How could such an evil nation be allowed to continue on when the Coalition is sent to wipe out these evil nations, why don't we take down the nation behind the evil?

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 6:18 PM

Special interactive layer showing the damage Al Gore's ego has done. Destroying logic, reason and sensible debate in the 21st Century.

Score: 0

By TomA102210

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 1:05 PM

I concur, one person can make a difference...

Ronald Reagan = no more Soviet Union
-----------------------------------------
Change that one person to Mikhail Gorbachev, not Reagan. Do some reading if you don't believe that. For openers, Gorbachev had planned to tear down the Berlin wall before Reagan made the request. When Reagan heard that Gorbachev was going to tear the wall down Reagan made the request. Cheap shot on Reagan's part but that's world politics for you.

Score: 0

By hesh

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 10:49 AM

I like this idea. People tend to think the world is full of unlimited resources when it isn't. And some people don't realize things without the help of visual aids and something like this could make people think a bit more about what they're doing. Obviously there won't be overnight changes but it's a start.

Score: 0

By utomo

edited Mar 12, 2007 - 10:37 PM

Google need to improve the user interface.
so it will become nicer and easier to use.
just my 2 cents
----------------------------------------------
http://www.software-asli.com

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 9:35 AM

Your 2 cents doesn't belong here. Go away.

Score: 0

By shicaca

posted Mar 14, 2007 - 1:49 AM

I'm sure you were kidding, but google map's functionality is crap. It's like playing with a mentally disabled dog -- not really fulfilling, but sometimes you just have to do it.

No really though. The interface is crap, the resources it takes up is insane, and it generally is bloated beyond what it should generally be.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Mar 14, 2007 - 9:13 AM

Are you talking about Maps, or Google Earth?

Your resources comment leads me to believe you're talking about GE, even though you specifically mentioned GM.

As for GM, I like the interface, and I can't really comment on the resources, as I have them to spare.

As for GE, yeah, it's a mess. *shrug* But it's a fun little toy to mess around with on occasion. It actually does wonders for my kids in Geography.

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 2:19 PM

Ok, this isn't news people know the world is going to ruins but they figure...well one person cannot make a difference and if no one else is doing it I am not either.

The only way you can fix this is get rid of the problems causing it, if people think big suvs are damaging the world, stop making them. if people think using electricity like its going out of style (al gore, anyone?) then stop using the sources we have now that are causing the problem and start using new ones.

Its not going to happen though until the previous ways are removed as long as they exist recycling a can, using less energy to do something isnt going to do much.

Its either everyone agrees or nothing you can't fix something if half the world agrees and the other half disagrees. so in part right now this is a futile effort which is being wasted.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 5:04 PM

well one person cannot make a difference and if no one else is doing it I am not either.

Two words:

Rosa Parks.

'Nuff said.

Score: 0

By shicaca

posted Mar 14, 2007 - 1:54 AM

umn ... Rosa Parks rebelled, yes, but so did Martin Luther King, the Little Rock Nine, Thurgood Marshall and countless other African Americans. In no way, shape, or form did Rosa Parks single handedly bring down the white powers that were in place. It's dumb to argue about something like this, but I firmly believe she was awesome for what she did, but there were so many other people that did the same thing and get squat for recognition.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 14, 2007 - 9:10 AM

I said she made a difference, genius, I didn't say she singlehandedly did *anything*.

Score: 0

By terminalx

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 6:06 PM

I wasn't saying that one person cannot make a difference but in the majority they feel why waste the effort when it produces no rewards.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 9:35 AM

lol...

No rewards.

Gotta love it. Our society is so hung up on instant gratification that we can't be bothered to look even 10 years down the road? Even if we *firmly* believe we're destroying the earth?

If that's the case, we deserve whatever hell we make this planet into.

Score: 0

By jcushing

edited Mar 15, 2007 - 2:07 PM

Actually, the term "destroying the Earth" is incorrect. We are killing ourselves, our way of life, all surrounding animal and plant life. We are not destroying the earth. The earth has been through this at least 4 times already and has, in turn, produced abundant life thereafter.

To say that we are 'destroying the earth' is selfish and a little overconfident (not directed at you PC_Tool) Even if we engaged in all-out nuclear war, the planet would eventually come back into it's life sustaining state after 40,000 to 100,000 years...

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 16, 2007 - 12:59 PM

We are killing ourselves, our way of life, all surrounding animal and plant life.

...and that's not a tad arrogant?

Like I said, I can agree with the statement that we *may* have sped it up by a few years, but I laugh at the folks who claim we're 100% responsible, and even more-so at the folks who claim we can fix it.

Score: 0

By Austin814

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 12:26 PM

This is along the lines of no single rain drop belives that it is the cause of the flood. Likewise each individual doesnt feel they can/will make a difference. In all honesty if one less rain drop falls it wouldnt make a measureable difference to a flood. There needs to be a very signifagant percentage of people who choose to make a very signifagant change in lifestyles to make something happen. Recycling milk jugs, aluminum cans and news papers isnt slowing the process. Another interesting plan would be capping a lifestyle to limit personal consumtion. When you get a raise at work save it / give it to a good cause instead of buying a bigger house/car/boat etc.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 3:51 PM

Not speaking of any particular eventuality or need, but only concerning the ability or inability of one person to change the world:

It's not a question of ability. It's not a question of possibility. It's a question of need.

Right now, it's unnecessary in my opinion, and the opinion of many others. Simple as that. I suppose the word "need" could just as easily, with today's media, be replaced with "perception".

Score: 0

By tiefel

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 6:05 PM

I concur, one person can make a difference...

Ronald Reagan = no more Soviet Union

Score: 0

By mjm01010101

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 11:24 PM

LOL. My how the passage of time skews history.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 8:00 AM

more like soviet union= no soviet union.

Score: 0

By debonair

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 4:27 PM

and see just how much longer earth will last if everyone has the same attitude as you do about one person not making a difference. It ALWAYS starts with one person.

Score: 0

By tiefel

edited Mar 12, 2007 - 2:13 PM

Maybe we can tag the entire tree-hugging environmentalist whack-jobs and track them using Google Earth so we can avoid their lunacy.

Score: 0

By Paradise-FH-

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 3:04 PM

my bet is they've done a bit more research than you have in your two ignorant sentences.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 8:02 AM

gotta admit some of them go about it in the wrong way though. all though in the face of such oposition.....

Score: 0

By TurningWorm

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 2:57 PM

And maybe you can avoid knowing a damn thing for your whole life! You can spend your whole life in total ignorance thinking everyone else is crazy! Awesome!

Score: 0

By PartyKidAnt

edited Mar 12, 2007 - 1:18 PM

Thank you 4 adding this in...the world needs 2 see 4 themselves how much destruction & chaos they have put themselves into ... it would be helpful also to put a couple more option's on Google Earth such as realtime people & transportion w/ an option of the population in that area @ the time & weather reports, and possibly the global warming effect of the area. If anyone can think of anything else that might help, like putting this on your desktop as a Google Gadget,post your comment,ty :D

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 1:12 PM

Yay! The Tree-hugging hippies are at it again!

The most amusing thing I've seen recently is a report form PETA stating that livestock has contributed more to Global Warming "Greenhouse" gas emissions than all of the cars and industry in the world combined.

...

Think about that for a second.

...

Hey, Al Gore, how's that steak?

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 4:47 PM

Yeah.. I always thought that was pretty ironic.

Soo.... we should eat more animals to cut down on green house gases, right? =p

(To would-be flamers: No, I don't actually think that.)

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 5:01 PM

The point there was basically that any Global Warming Nut who eats meat has absolutely *zero* credibility.

The Prius doesn't cut it anymore.

Score: 0

By Silentmaster101

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 8:03 AM

so how about volcanoes, what do they produce?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 9:31 AM

Meat?

Red-hot, molten, flowing meat?

Duh...everyone knows that. :p

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Mar 14, 2007 - 12:57 PM

LMAO, I almost fell out of my chair.

Score: 0

By tiefel

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 4:59 PM

You know, since calves produce less gas emissions, we should eat more veal.

Score: 0

By Straspey

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 1:39 PM

Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards.

With his first swallow of water, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to ensure their safety and that they work as advertised.
All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too.

He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for the laws to stop industries from polluting our air.

He walks on the government-provided sidewalk to subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union.

If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune.

It is noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe also forgets that his in addition to his federally subsidized student loans, he attended a state funded university.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards to go along with the tax-payer funded roads.

He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans.

The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have."

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 6:22 PM

You lost me on the "daily medication", but then most liberals are "daily medicated", that's why they're so out of their minds.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 14, 2007 - 9:09 AM

ROFLMAO...

That was awesome.

Score: 0

By Insane_loki

edited Mar 12, 2007 - 2:41 PM

No one is saying that any of that stuff you mentioned is bad. It is when these ideas are taken too far.

For instance Unions and liberals got there medical benefits and are now pushing for National Health Care. Because why pay the $10?

Joe's medicine is safe, thank you liberals. and thank you for regulating the industry so much so that the only way to afford medications is to have insurance or the government buy it for you to further justify your own existence.

They got regulations against meat packing and the entire food industry. Now they want to regulate even stricter standards so they do not have to think for themselves when shopping.

They got the Public Transit and Sidewalks, but now we should have government funded Internet access. Because everyone deserves to be a contributor.

Yes his money is federally insured. But just where is the government getting the insurance money? Oh yeah higher taxes.

If poor Joe loses his job he will get unemployment. But no that runs out so to help Joe not have to work in Fast Food we had to give him Food Stamps and Welfare. Soon Joe doesn't return to work at all.

His childhood home is financed by Farmers' Home Administration who would still gladly kick Joe's father out on keester for missing a payment. Business is business and banks are banks no matter what you call them.

His Father lives on SSN# and has Pension drawing more money than he ever put into the system. So much so in fact some poor schlub will never see his benefits because Joe's father didn't die soon enough.

Let's not forget Joe's breath of fresh air provided solely by liberals and the Unions. Let's take a minute to thank them for driving industry to other nations and making this nation more dependent on foreign sources of oil.

One thing not mentioned is that the radio is free. Joe has a free form entertainment right there inside his union provided safe car. Who made it free? Could it be capitalism? The free market saw a perfect form of advertisement. A form of which liberals and the unions are now trying to say can cause cancer because of the radio waves.

I hope Joe's day ends with him on his knees thanking liberals for setting him free. Thank them for removing his choices and stripping him of free will.

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 11:02 PM

Your post seems skewed by (1) a simple belief in the propaganda fed to you by an upper class that provides inept leaders with $210,000,000 severance packages (talk about taking out more than you put in!), and (2) a lack of understanding of history. Most (note the word "most") of the programs you speak of were enacted in response to abuse of hardworking citizens of this country. Unfortunately, a lot of those abuses are making a comeback without most people even noticing, because instead of taking the time to study a little history, they just listen to sound bites from cable news. History often repeats itself because people pay no attention to it.

Score: 0

By Insane_loki

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 11:28 AM

I agree with that history does repeat itself. History has shown us if we keep going down the same road we are going down (thanks to liberals) we will turn into welfare state.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 11:51 AM

How is any form of government subsidized retirement anything *but* social welfare?

Get rid of it. Push 401Ks, IRAs, stocks, etc...

People need to wake up and realize that it is no-one's responsibility but their own to plan and work for their financial future.

Score: 0

By dannyp22

edited Mar 15, 2007 - 12:48 AM

Sorry, PC_Tool, but 401Ks and IRAs _are_ government subsidized retirement programs. Tax deductions and their cousin, tax-deferred accounts, make the overall taxation system more regressive, and that's good for people who make more than a certain amount of money, and bad for people who make less.

Think about it: The higher your tax bracket, the more value a 401(k) has to you.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 16, 2007 - 8:54 AM

*gasp*

You mean the more successful you are the better lifestyle you can expect when you retire?

OH NOES!!!

Tell me it ain't so!

Good, you proved you went to school. Now prove you can actually use that knowledge you've gained and try actually thinking about it.

BTW: They aren't subsidized, they are paid before taxes. That's not the government footing the bill, their just waiting a bit longer to take their cut. (Which could be good or bad depending on how high/low taxes are when you retire.)

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 1:41 PM

That's fine, as long as the tools that you us to plan your future are not abused by those in control of the wealth. Unfortunately, we can already see that that dream is not working out.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Mar 13, 2007 - 2:41 PM

I am in 100% control of my 401K, my investments, and my bank accounts.

Who's going to abuse those but me (And I recently did just that...damn market)?

Score: 0

By TurningWorm

edited Mar 12, 2007 - 4:24 PM

OK, this makes no sense, do you even know anything about these issues or just take all your opinions from the "unjustifiably irritated white guy" playbook?

National Healthcare would still have a co-pay. It's just insurance like any other. It's about coverage for the uninsured, not eliminating the co-pay. Seriously, do you READ?

So drug companies should be allowed to produce unsafe meds? Snake-oil anyone?

Explain how my intellect is supposed to protect me from spoiled or infected meat? Should I insist the store allow me to perform a biopsy before my purchase?

I don't even understand the point about sidewalks and the internet...

Do you actually know how much of your tax dollar goes to the FDIC? About $0.004. b**** about something that matters.

And Joe will live in tenement housing and brush roaches off his govt cheese. I've never tried welfare living, but I don't think it's the fun vacation you neo-cons make it out to be.

What has the FHA got to do with anything?

So your solution then is to start shooting the elderly? I'm not saying SS is perfect, but I'm not ready to resort to parricide.

What??? Are you blaming liberal unions for the fact that most of the worlds oil in in the Middle East or for the fact that Americans don't want their air to be polluted? Last I heard, this country had more oil then it could refine efficiently and no one was rushing to built refineries in Guatemala.

Again, a brainwashed idiot who thinks liberalism and capitalism are antonyms. What the hell does Radio have to with anything? I don't recall the writer expressing misgivings about ad-supported business models. Hell State Farm could slap a big ol' billboard on my roof if they bought my gas.

Uhhhhh... so to sum up your argument, attempts by regulatory agencies to ensure clean air, clean water, fair trade, safe roads, access to health care and a decent life for the elderly are commie plots infringing on your free will? Free will to do what? Live like a slob and let the rest of us pay the price? I'll lay a solid bet your one of those folks who also thinks it's a matter of National Security when the FBI bugs my phone because I'm a member of the Sierra Club.

Score: 0

By Insane_loki

edited Mar 12, 2007 - 3:54 PM

Apparently you missed the point of my post completely. I said that I do not disagree with the main points the first poster made. All those things were good. I was referring to going to extremes and attempts by liberals to do just that.

No matter how much money it is in taxes it is still a tax.

I never endorsed killing the elderly. I was making the point that they are taking more money out of the system then they ever put in and the resistance of liberals to allow alternate options to young people will make it so they will not have access to Social Security or even their pensions.

Try and read the post again without your blinders on.

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 11:08 PM

"they will not have access to Social Security or even their pensions."

You're blaming liberals for lack of pensions??? You'll need to reconsider that. Also, you may want to consider that most "retirement" is now tied to the stock market and then check out how many companies are now going private to prevent shareholders from having any oversight regarding how companies spend their money. You think taxes are rough? How do feel when a company you invest in squanders that money on golden parachutes for greedy CEOs at the same time they are jacking up your health care premium?

Score: 0

By Insane_loki

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 11:24 AM

I am blaming liberals for blocking private account options. I am blaming liberals for blocking stricter standards when it comes to disbursements. I am blaming liberals for taking away individual responsibility when it comes to retirement.

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 1:21 PM

You call that a reply? You've added nothing new to the conversation. We get it; you blame liberals and you're too blind to see that your blame is partially misplaced.

Score: 0

By Insane_loki

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 6:19 PM

I do not blame CEOs for getting large bonuses. They get exactly what the market will bear and I say more power to them for getting to the position they got in. They are successful, just as successful as anyone in America can be if they work just as hard. That is what makes America. Everyday someone goes from nothing to everything.

Yes, retirement is tied to the stock market. Which is why liberals should stop blocking private accounts so people can have control fo their own retirement monies. Or just abolish Social Security and let us keep our money and invest how we see fit.

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 11:02 PM

Re your first paragraph: I'm sorry I have to say this, but that is an incredibly naive view. In many cases, they are as crooked as they can get away with. We should all aspire to that?

Re the second: As long as the above mentioned situation exists, I can never support privatization. It just provides another cookie jar for corporate criminals.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Mar 13, 2007 - 11:49 AM

Eh?

I'm personally responsible for my 401K.

I know I can likely kiss any SS funds goodbye.

Anyone depending on SS is in trouble, and if they have a brain, should use it (their brain) to *gasp* be responsible for their own financial future.

Privatizing SS is all well and good, but other options exist...such as the complete dismantling of this terribly broken social-support system.

Why should I count on anyone else to pay for my retirement? It's not their responsibility, nor should it be the governments.

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 1:35 PM

"Why should I count on anyone else to pay for my retirement?"

It's part of an implied social contract, whereby you provide your labor, intellect, creativity, etc. to someone and they provide you something in return. Corporate pensions worked because they relieved a lot of the government burden for taking care of people who could no longer work due to advancing age. Now, with the destruction of pensions, shaky investment options (see Enron, etc.), and wages that frequently do not support saving, we will end up with a retired class that will be so poor that the government will have to support them (and your taxes will be raised again).

It's fine to parrot the idea of "personal responsibility," but it ignores some basic realities like corporate greed and unequal opportunity.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

edited Mar 13, 2007 - 2:44 PM

It's part of an implied social contract, whereby you provide your labor, intellect, creativity, etc. to someone and they provide you something in return.

That's what a paycheck is for. It's my job to use that money wisely.

Corporate pensions worked because they relieved a lot of the government burden for taking care of people who could no longer work due to advancing age.

Corporate pensions have been rolled into 401Ks for the most part. Working for a company that has failed to do this is the employees problem. Not mine.

It's fine to parrot the idea of "personal responsibility," but it ignores some basic realities like corporate greed and unequal opportunity.

I parrot nothing. Many others simply feel as I do. If corporate greed enters into it, leave the company. As for unequal opportunity... Why is this my problem? I didn't force their parents to squander their opportunities, I didn't promise them the "Good Life", I didn't force them to drop out. There are no guarantees in life. Living in the US does not (or should not) automagically guarantee you a certain standard of living.

Sure, it's not *nice*, it's not *ideal*. If I want to help those folks, that's my choice, and I strongly believe that given the choice, we could do better. It should *never* be forced upon me by the government.

Living in the US is not, nor has it ever been a free ride. Opportunity for success is greater here than most other countries, but it is not a sure thing.

Look, I understand the need to help others. I understand that things never go as well as one hopes, and I understand that there are people out there who, as wealthy as they are, refuse to help out. I simply believe that it is not the governments job to force the issue. With personal freedom, comes great personal responsibility.

It's an ideal. I'm not stupid enough to actually believe it will ever happen...

Score: 0

By ogman

edited Mar 13, 2007 - 3:59 PM

"It's an ideal. I'm not stupid enough to actually believe it will ever happen..."

And that's the problem. We spend way too much time preaching "ideals" and not enough time dealing with reality. Not everyone is able to do what you and I can do, and those people mop the floors and pick up the trash. Most of them have little idea how to do anything with investments or 401Ks. That is why pensions were so effective. Oh, and not one single company went broke providing pensions, they just couldn't make their CEO quite as rich as they can now.

You're very willing to have the poor and the middle-class practice "personal responsibility" and yet you seem to want to give the wealthy a pass. After all, isn't it responsible to help sustain the society that made them so wealthy by providing decent wages and benefits to workers, especially since the average CEO now gets paid over 800 times more than the lowest paid workers?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 13, 2007 - 4:56 PM

Most of them have little idea how to do anything with investments or 401Ks.

Are you trying to imply that it is *impossible* for these people to *learn*? Walk into any Social Services center and ask for a pamphlet, FFS.

You're very willing to have the poor and the middle-class practice "personal responsibility" and yet you seem to want to give the wealthy a pass. After all, isn't it responsible to help sustain the society that made them so wealthy by providing decent wages and benefits to workers...

BS. No-one *gave* me my wealth. I studied, got experience, and *worked* for it. No-one but *me* made me wealthy. I sustain society by doing my job and paying my employees to do theirs. Those who produce products instead of providing services sustain society by giving them what they've paid for.

especially since the average CEO now gets paid over 800 times more than the lowest paid workers?

This has nothing to do with it. If you don't like how much your CEO is making, leave. Find another job. If it's a CEO you don't work for, tough sh*t. You have *no* say whatsoever in what any company thinks their people are worth other than not giving them *your* money.

Score: 0

By ogman

edited Mar 13, 2007 - 9:11 PM

Well heck, the next thing you know the king will be f-ing your wife.

Your answers are still at the extreme ends of your "ideal." You still assume that everyone can do what you do, and it's simply not true. You also assume that everyone is treated fairly, again not true. Finally, you assert that inequality is okay no matter how wide the chasm. I suspect you won't get it until the greedy ba$tards at the top come to get yours.

By the way, people have tried the reactions you suggest in your last sentence and the corporations have reacted by lobbying the terrible government to give them even more control over workers and consumers. So, what happens when the top 2% gets all of the control and all of the wealth and the rest of the people have nothing?

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Mar 14, 2007 - 9:08 AM

Well heck, the next thing you know the king will be f-ing your wife.

WTH?

You still assume that everyone can do what you do, and it's simply not true.

Bzzt. Wrong. Everyone is different, everyone excels and lags behind in certain areas. It's up to them to figure that out and *do* something with it.

You also assume that everyone is treated fairly, again not true.

Wrong again. Life's not fair. Do you honestly think that getting where I am today was *easy*? That it was all handed to me on a silver platter?

Finally, you assert that inequality is okay no matter how wide the chasm.

You nailed it there. Equality is based, in your assumption, on social and economic standing. I'm sorry (No, I'm not), but if you do nothing, make nothing, provide nothing, you *get* nothing. Back to the fairness bit for a moment...how is that anything *but* fair?

By the way, people have tried the reactions you suggest in your last sentence and the corporations have reacted by lobbying the terrible government to give them even more control over workers and consumers. So, what happens when the top 2% gets all of the control and all of the wealth and the rest of the people have nothing?

Corporations will be greedy. Duh? We can curb that by not staffing their businesses with our bodies and not buying their goods and services.

Why is it the Government and "everyone else" has to *do* something about it? Why can't you?

Score: 0

By ogman

posted Mar 14, 2007 - 10:35 AM

Most of your reply shows that you and I have a failure to communicate. I don't think that's going to end, so I won't address those points, as we are just running around in circles. No one said anything was handed to you and I don't expect anyone to have anything handed to them. I just expect hard-working people to be treated fairly.

"Corporations will be greedy. Duh? We can curb that by not staffing their businesses with our bodies and not buying their goods and services."

No, that can't be done and I told you why, you just missed it. A great example is the reemergence of the business monopoly. A monopoly takes choice away from people. If I don't like the way a company provides a necessary service, but they have a monopoly, I can't do anything about that. However, I can work with the government to address the problem. I know, I can always move to another state, country, etc. or whatever other snarky answer you come up with. That is simply not realistic and you know it. As for not staffing their businesses; outsourcing covers that, eh?

"Why is it the Government and "everyone else" has to *do* something about it? Why can't you?"

I'm not even sure why you bothered with that sentence. I certainly "do" something about "it." I support (where I can) companies that act ethically and treat employees and customers fairly. Beyond that, I try to elect representatives that will step in and correct corporate misconduct and unethical behavior. I also strongly support fair treatment of the average American worker.

I don't expect to convince you that I am "right." What I hope is that you will see that my position is not as extreme as you make it out to be and that allowing corporations and those who run them to operate without any controls is pure foolishness. Unchecked greed and power will only lead to a society of very few masters and many, many slaves, and I don't think either of us want that. That battle has gone on throughout history and the endgame is not pretty for anyone.

I think we've spent enough time on this. I leave the last word to you, as I gotta get back to work. :o)

Score: 0

By tiefel

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 4:02 PM

Liberals are so easy! Just make a few posts and they go nuts.

Want to save millions of gallons of gas? Cut down all the trees, we waste more fuel by driving around them.

Score: 0

By Straspey

edited Mar 12, 2007 - 5:53 PM

I need to clarify something here.

Even though the vitriol can get a bit thick in this forum, my experience from daily visits leads me to believe that a great deal of posters here have been around long enough to have seen most everything, but some of the comments in reference to my post above have given me cause to post the following:

In the interest of honesty and fair-play, I have to inform all that I did not write the long story about "Joe" posted above. I have seen it floating around the net and have received it as an email from friends on more than one occasion.

Having said that, the *reason* I posted it was to make the point, which I did; and I certainly respect everybody's comments which follow. I enjoy this forum and am sure that soon enough somebody here would stumble upon "Joe's Story" and would accuse me of being dishonest and underhanded, which I very well could be...but not here and now ;)

However, for the record, I am a liberal, I do belong to a union, I do enjoy the benefits of an employee sponsored health plan and pay between $10 - $25 co-pay for my prescriptions. I think there is a definite distinction between receiving a helping hand and a free handout, and being a liberal does not imply that one subscribes to the "handout" scenario because, as someone said so well above, that leads to living in a tenement while brushing roaches off the gov't supplied cheese. And that's not good for anybody.

Score: 0

By Insane_loki

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 7:30 PM

I am glad you see the difference. Maybe you will help your union understand that when they go to negotiation table next.

Work hard to avoid and fight the socialism of our nation. An act that will surely cripple us. Our nation has lasted 200+ years and if we keep going the way we are going we will be lucky to see 300.

Score: 0

By AaronDobbins

posted Mar 12, 2007 - 9:51 PM

I like the Joe story, and I can see both sides of the argument. But if you want to talk about the stripping of free will then we must mention the conservative movement to legislate their beliefs in the Bible. Unfortunately my friend, LIBERAL contains in its definition the concept that people should be allowed to make their own choices (e.g. gay marriage, abortion, evolution).

The problem is that conservatives want to legislate their beliefs that gay marriage is wrong, abortion is the destruction of a life, and evolution is hogwash. Instead of being tolerant they continue to insist on interfering with other peoples lives and telling them what is good for them. I do apologize, but if I don't believe that I should throw out my wife's embryos in a glad bag instead of donating them to science that could lead to cures of major diseases then it is none of your business (as long as your tax dollars do not go towards the research as much as my tax dollars do not go towards schools that refuse to teach evolution).

I do agree on the social security reforms actually, and it shames me to admit, but I liked what I heard about Bush's plan for privitization. At least then I would know where my money is and how much I have.

I also agree with the Repubs on illegal immigration, though I do favor LEGAL ways of entering the country.

I also disagree with many positions the ACLU takes when it goes overboard, e.g. banning crosses from the city seal for Las Cruces (The Crosses) in New Mexico(?).

I also believe in global warming and found an Inconvenient Truth to be a good flick. I do drive an SUV though and haven't made as many efforts as I should to combat the problem.

My only hope is that once we are out of Iraq we can all come together and have some real bi-partisanship instead of all of the fighting which does not provide any value to us as Americans.