Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on January 9, 2015 at 2:04pm

@ craig

I 'm sure you don't mean me.

Permalink Reply by Ragnars Repo on January 9, 2015 at 2:30pm

Mr Warner, you say you are an industrialist. By definition you are someone who ownes, directs, or has substant financial interest in a particular industry. So which one is it?

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on January 9, 2015 at 2:51pm

@ Ragnar Repo

So you do care after all.

Well you have me there.

Though I did question my usage, I failed to look up the definition for myself.

Nice to see that someone else is interested in accuracy.

While inexcusable, it was never my intention to mislead; I just failed to exercise due diligence.

I'm retired, but I spent most of my life working for corps, not owning or managing.  For the most part, except for a couple of short-lived ventures, my financial interest was a paycheck.  I do, however, support responsible industry in a moral sense.  

Can I assume that your question is not one of neighborly curiosity?

What do you do for a living?

Please allow comments to your response.  It's becoming difficult to keep the replies straight.

Permalink Reply by Ragnars Repo on January 9, 2015 at 6:47pm

I'm in the transportation sector, and the question was rhetorical in nature. I appreciate your passion for alternative energy. I like to believe that under a stack of patents lies Tesla's design for free personal energy. Until then I'm at the mercy of others. Those others include oil/gas, coal, nuclear, and wind/solar. I believe there are hardworking individuals in each trying hard to make them cleaner, cheaper, and more environmentally friendly. I would also like corporations to be morally in check. To this there is no easy answer. A corporation can start off with the most moral of intentions and a few board member changes later be as corrupt as our government. It only takes one individual to taint an entire industry. It's also become increasingly difficult to know what to believe. I can quote a story from Fox News that denigrates green energy, I can quote a story from the NYT that denigrates fossil fuels. I can believe the government telling me a you tube video was responsible for killing an ambassador, or I can believe that Phizer sells the safest drugs. I can j-walk or I can believe the cross walk sign will protect me from getting run over. You claim that you are "trying to balance the issues with fact checking". Here are some of the facts of my life with oil/gas. I leased my small acreage property because I believed it would benefit me. A rig went up in front of my home and I had all of the noise and dust associated with drilling traffic and none of the monetary benefits. My property value went down. The rig went away, my home value went back up. The view out the front window has almost returned to its original state. The grass is still green, the deer are still abundant, the birds are plentiful. I have no headaches or nosebleeds. My water is not tainted and there are no mysterious smells. I know some have been screwed by other companies and that is unfortunate. I believe some individuals would be screwed wether it's oil/gas or wind/solar. Still unfortunate. I care about my neighbors and my countrymen. I care about the environment. I obviously don't believe in the methane monopolist, Al Gore. I'm also glad I have not subject my neighbors to one of those monuments of a green utopia that doesn't yet exist, the windmill. If you think you care more about the earth or people than those leased with oil/gas I suggest you raise the capital to plant one of those things in your backyard. Enjoy the breeze.

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on January 10, 2015 at 9:38am

@ Ragnars Repo

I appreciate the civil tone, but I fear we have ventured far afield of this thread.  

I will point out, though, that windmills use wind; they don't create it. 

Permalink Reply by Ragnars Repo on January 10, 2015 at 9:43am

You sir are a master of the obvious.

Permalink Reply by Thomas Lilli on January 10, 2015 at 10:09am

Dan,
With regards to your experience, yes there are bad eggs. We, as a nation do what we can to combat what you describe. Not all companies are that bad, I similarly worked for a leading paper company For the first third of my career that was nothing like what you describe.

Imagine though, and I've said this before, the nievity of those who feel empowering government (made up of the same people) to fix these problems.

I'm convinced empowering a government to solve people's problems only empowers them to relieve the same people of thier freedom to choose.

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on January 10, 2015 at 4:07pm

@ Thomas Lilli

I share your libertarian (with a lower-case L) POV, but I don’t think we can afford to be idealistic in the days of mega-corps.  It’s just not realistic to imagine that an individual or even private group could offer significant deterrence to this sort of behavior.  If that were so, considering all the efforts currently taking place through protest, civil disobedience, media exposure, etc., combined with govt. programs such as EPA and the Superfund, the US would be spotless.

This is not to deny the laziness, ignorance, and corruption inevitable in any powerful, not-for-profit group.  Absent the imperative for quality or quantity, justifying and preserving ones job becomes the priority.  I don’t subscribe to the ‘absolute power corrupts absolutely’ theory; I believe that power attracts the corruptible.   I think that the ‘power corrupts’ theory is a salve for the voter when his candidate’s real motives become public.

The founders created what was then a robust system of checks and balances, but that has since been shot full by corp. cronyism.  To think that a set of 2+ century old doctrines is sufficient in the present day is what I consider to be naïve. 

Members of any organization (e.g. GMS) are subject to the rules made by the governing body, however it is selected.  It is therefore inevitable that an individual will be required, at some point, to forego total freedom of choice.  This is done either because the man has deemed the rewards of cooperating to be worth the loss of that freedom, or, as in our case, he is born into it.

Permalink Reply by Barry D on January 6, 2015 at 8:40am

It failed because vibrations from an earthquake weakened it's structure. The earthquake was caused by fracking.

Chuckle

In reality there are problems associated with all forms of energy creation. We have to weigh the cost verses the return (amount of energy produced). Right now the returns far outweigh the costs in the production of fossil fuel. The costs aren't worth messing with alternatives such as wind right now.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Allingham on January 6, 2015 at 10:15am

I don't think we should allow wind w/i 2 miles of any school.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Dan Warner on January 6, 2015 at 10:45am

Wow!

I know that O&G is powerful, but I didn't realize that they could control the wind!

The wind turbines are doomed!

But seriously, I don't think we should allow our children within 2 miles of any school.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert Allingham on January 6, 2015 at 4:41pm

My comment was a joke that you missed.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page