@Lawdeedaw

Obesity and religious beliefs can hardly be paralleled the way you do. Obesity is largely caused by a change of diet affected by processed foods (corn syrup anyone?) and an extremely sedentary lifestyle, made worse by the fact that it is often cheaper to buy unhealthy/processed foods. Moreover, it is quite possible that genetics are involved in a person's likelihood of being obese (http://www.cdc.gov/Features/Obesity/). Do I think obese people are crazy? No. Like you said, the fat is there, you can feel it, you can taste the 10th liter of coke you're guzzling. I may consider the morbidly obese highly irresponsible, or perhaps mentally ill in cases of obsessive binge-eating, but it is not akin to the superstitious beliefs of religion that one is indoctrinated with as a child. Of course, stuffing one's kid with unhealthy food when an alternative is possible is at best the result of ignorance, at worst irresponsible neglect.

Btw, humans may wired to project agency (thus evolving superstitious beliefs), but religious belief is a matter of indoctrination. Recent studies are showing that young children will not naturally offer supernatural explanations for phenomena (see also this article).

p.s.: one can be overweight and still live a happy and successful life... obesity does not necessarily "always destroy what it touches".

capitalism is doing a dandy job undermining itself atm... it needs no help, other than what the banks/politicians (primarily Republicans, but also Democrats) are already contributing

it is quite simple to look back at history (which extends beyond 6000 yrs), and by looking at historical trends to extrapolate what future trends should be, to quite accurate degree

no one is saying taxes and regulation DIRECTLY affect the temperature... and if you believe that the left actually think that, you need to do a little introspection... however, again looking at history you can see that taxes/regulation are able to focus/define/direct economy and industry... its exactly what brought the US out of depression for example... so if your goal is to reduce environmental impact of industries that are leading sources of pollution, or to spur innovation/creativity in new, less harmful technology... taxes/regulation is how you do it

if you leave it up to the private sector alone, what motivation do they have to not do business as usual? the current US/World economy is less driven by innovation as it is driven by profit... someone comes up with a good idea? buy them out or leverage them out of the market if it competes with your product (or better yet buy their product, but sit on it... why bother going through the expense of changing systems)... the US has been brainwashed into thinking Capitalism is wringing every last drop of blood out of a stone, rather than creating new markets/fields

there has been alternative energy source vehicle technology for DECADES, yet they are just trickling into the market now... and its not because people haven't asked for it, its because profit is shortsighted and definitely not philanthropic... its because people stopped buying American gas guzzling penis extensions and started looking at the more economical foreign offering... industry couldn't predict that a shrinking middle class and rising gas prices would change the market... but change was there, so they might as well throw in that environmental issue people have been worried about for the past 50yrs

and when someone starts touting capitalism and poo pooing marxism, socialism, and the like... that's when I know I've been introduced to an idiot... you do realize your quality of life, your standard of living, services you consider essential, etc come from those ideals AS WELL AS Capitalism...

right?

and one or the other, on their own, taken to the Nth degree, are just as horrific as the other

an idiot who hasn't thought for themselves is QUITE ready to start cheering for one side or the other

Those sort of statistics are created by calculating that a chicken eats a said amount of corn, or grain, which is farmed using petro-chemical fertilizers, and gas guzzling tractors, not to mention carbon emitted through the practice of fallow fields. Such feeds are transported by truck to the factory farms where the chickens, cows and pigs (just as beautiful of creatures as your beloved pets) are raised in often abhorrent conditions.

Of course, if you still think these stats are bunk, add up the transportation of the animals to slaughter, then packaging (in cans or plastic which of course use fossil fuels) and again, more fossil fuels consumed through additional transportation to retail outlets, where they sit on shelves in a heated or air conditioned box store, and are finally driven in your 4x4 to your suburban home.

Furthermore if your dog eats beef, instead of chicken, theres the added fun of methane (which cows can produce abundantly due to their unnatural diet of corn, which their stomachs aren't evolved to properly digest without the added methane creation, but makes them fatter faster). Methane is a much more powerful GHG (measured by it's ability to trap infrared radiation as well as its longer decay rate in the atmosphere).

Personally, I think you should get rid of your car before your pet, but that's because I understand the psychological importance of pets in today's age of "social networking." Also, bikes are fucking fun to ride, and you feel great after a month or so of bicycle commuting.

Oh, and if I haven't pissed off pet lovers enough by backing these QI statistics, think about how many people will starve to death while your obese dog bongo fills up your back yard with shit today.

The video brought a lot of questions to mind, but the link answered most of them for me. Here's a summary:

What exactly am I seeing? Apparently it is a lightweight car chassis with an electric motor, regenerative braking as in hybrid cars, rowing-machine style generator for replenishing battery and/or increasing motor speed, and 2 or 4 seats all with access to the rowing-style power generation.

How fast can it go? It seems that with multiple people actively working the generators plus battery-driven electric power while going downhill, it could approach or exceed 60MPH.

Why not just use a bicycle? The bicycle is 100% powered by the rider. This has an electric motor, and can be driven without using the rowing-action generation at all; or you can supplement speed or battery life by rowing to whatever extent you desire. Safety and stability at moderate to high speed would be much better than a bicycle or motorbike. It also seems to go reasonably faster than a bicycle, on average.

OK, so why not just use an electric bicycle / electric motorbike (very popular item in China)? I would say either could be pretty useful if you buy into the general idea. This car could comfortably transport more passengers and probably go faster, but simply due to weight it would be less efficient in general and particularly on hills. However, an electric bicycle probably wouldn't cost you $15,500.

So, all in all it looks pretty cool but I think it would have to drop in price quite a bit before it would be more practical than either a good ol' gas guzzling car, hybrid car, electric bicycle, or standard bicycle for any particular niche application.

A bunch of country bumpkins with missing teeth and an 8th grade education burning a piss poor Obama effigy while guzzling Budweiser.

Sounds like fun.

the cash for clunkers program is a simple yet effective and very smart program. over 700,000 old polluting,gas guzzling clunkers taken off the roads and replaced by new, fuel efficient, less polluting vehicles. 45% of the new cars are big 3 cars.this is jobs all up and down the chain.toyotas and hondas sold in the program are madde in the usa.
cash for clunkers saves lives. get a new vehicle with airbags,antilock breaks etc.in short it stimulates auto sales.makes us more efficient and safer. only backwards looking worn out old republicans oppose these programs. many other countries in the world do this. not just us,we must also keep up with the rest of the modern world. there are many instances where the governmet must protect us from ourselves. i.e. seatbelt laws. child restraint laws. etc. ron paul is an idiot.....idiot. these people and all who listen to them want to drag us back to the dark ages where people believe that a 500 year old man built a giant boat and put all the life on earth in it.

turn off fox news and your life will change.

The 'informational video' is extremely misleading, it makes it sound like is you have an old beat up car 'clunker' you're assured of $4.5k off. Not true. Your car has to get less than a combined estimated 18mpg as determined by this site: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/sbs.htm

And its funny cause they show a 'car' in the commercial yet most 'cars' don't qualify unless they're old sports cars or massive yacht like cars. What it's really meant for? To help the car companies sell their SUVs and trucks.

If you want to buy a new passenger car the new vehicle needs to get 4mpg more than your old vehicle for $3.5k, if its 10 or more mpg better you get $4.5k

If you want to buy a new mid size truck/suv its only 2mpg better for $3.5k or 5mpg better for $4.5k

If you own a big-ass truck/suv you can buy another big-ass truck/SUV and get the $3.5k off for the $4.5k off it only needs to be 2mpg better.

So basically it has nothing to do with getting people to drive more fuel efficient cars and everything to do with helping the auto industry sell their big-ass gas-guzzling machines that put them in the poor house to begin with. Thank you for turning what could have been a forward thinking incentive based program into another handout to to auto industry.

It was a legitimate question. Bush was justifiably harped on for not reacting 'fast enough' after 9/11... Not reacting 'fast enough' after Katrina... Now the news media harps on the man-child for not acting fast enough with AIG and you whine about it? Oh - I see... :eyeroll: When BUSH acts slow it is because he is out of touch and stupid. When OBAMA acts slow it is because "he wants to know what he's talking about first..."

It really is amazing just how much of this guy's Flavor-Aid some people will frantically guzzle to justify hypocrisy. They when they start keeling over and dying from Obama's poison they'll try to think of some way to blame someone else for it.

That's nothing. You should see him guzzle a fifth of Sake while soliciting geishas in tandem!

If a banner like that was used on buses in the USA (besides all the political nukes that would explode), would be only to increase fuel-eating cars (read: gas-guzzling SUVs), and lessen bus fare. Cus there are less atheists then Christians that use public transportation.

Maybe those atheists are in league with the gas companies....

I cant help but be split on the issue.

On one hand you have the garunteed collapse of the currency and economy if you let them fall, and on the other, bailing them out is garunteeing corporate rot if you dont force them to change their ways.

They have been held up and floating with their heads held above the waterline for 30 years now, and its just made the ocean fettid, but society has been living off the corpse like bacteria and maggots.

To let it sink would be a disaster, but its a dead body anyway...so I mean, either way you go, you are still fucked.

Shitty situation tbh. GM, C and F need to have a radical re-think of the shit that they are pumping out to the US consumer market, and it seems about 40 years too late to have this conversation, but gas guzzling beasts sitting on 20mpg, while european equivilants are at 60-80mpg is just a joke.

When the politicians who claim to reflect public opinion bandy about the "oil independence" as public policy, you would think that reclaiming an economical auto industry would be priority #1, but noone cares....its all about keeping that dead body up.

Eventually dead bodies fall apart when connective tissues are all gone, and sink when the fat has been consumed.

What then America ?

Refutations posted on ThinkProgress:

"Unions do not deserve the blame placed on them by the right wing. In fact, unions have repeatedly made concessions to auto executives over recent years. Contrary to Kyl’s claim, new auto employees earn $25.65 an hour.

Big Three automaker CEOs and executives based their business model on a future of cheap oil, fighting fuel efficiency standards despite warnings against such a strategy. Detroit manufactured, as Tom Friedman pointed out, oversized gas-guzzling SUVs that reduced their competitive edge.

Financial firms AIG, Merrill Lynch, and Bear Stearns did not have unionized workers but still suffered economic collapses. Frozen credit markets and a spiraling recession were major contributors to Detroit’s current state. Today, the Center for American Progress urged Congress “to support legislation to grant a $25 billion bridge loan to the U.S. auto companies to ensure that they avoid bankruptcy” provided the automakers provide health and retirement security and invest in clean technology."

http://thinkprogress.org/2008/11/17/unions-auto-bailout/

Bailouts = Corporate WELFARE.

Say NO. If they can't compete in a FREE AND FAIR market, then they deserve to fail.

Here is the problem. The US did not participate in a true open free and fair economic model. Still, with government protections on many key industries, many are STILL failing. They expected government bailout. Rather than innovate, they pushed to continue focusing on gas guzzling vehicles. Too bad. Japan kicked your ass USA. They were simply smarter and more innovative.

Time to rethink the business model Go bankrupt. Restructure, and come back with a more open mind.

>> ^mjeppsen:
Who the hell has video surveillance installed on both sides of their vehicle?



Paranoid Right-Wing Hummer drivers?
(and before y'all get all up in arms about that: if it is perfectly ok to stereotype women drivers, then I see no reason not to extend the same courtesy to Hummer drivers who, in my personal experience, I have found to consistently be Republican, gas-guzzling, and fail to pay attention to their driving because they're too busy with whatever precious phone conversation they're having to adhere to our quaint little traffic laws..)

When Ron Paul says he wants small government he means it as in he would love to slash spending by billions and close down/minimise large money guzzling governmental departments. This is what republicans were meant to stand for.

> but when we need more teachers or a better healthcare system, they bitch and moan about 'big government', and we buy into it.

well, don't be stupid enough to buy into it...
The reason you find this need to beg the government for more teachers and bad health care is because you put it into the hands of a small group of incompetent people who have no incentives to make it better.