Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Eh, try Chickenbailey. :wink:

The information is not meant to make us afraid.

Denial is not a river in Egypt, Mr. Lamb. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Eh, try Chickenbailey. :wink:

The information is not meant to make us afraid.

Denial is not a river in Egypt, Mr. Lamb. :wink:

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Conclusion?

Stuff it, Mr. Rush, right up yours!

easy, marc.... you're coming unglued.


TK

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Conclusion?

Stuff it, Mr. Rush, right up yours!

easy, marc.... you're coming unglued.


TK

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Fresh water is a renewable resource, not a nonrenewable one. It is constantly being replenished by evaporation and condensation, so stock limits don't apply. But flow limits do. A flow limit says, not that there's only so much we can take, period, but that there's only so much that can be taken at any one time. If we use fresh water faster than evaporation and condensation can replenish it, then the amount we draw drops over time.

Brian, why not desalinate sea water? Nearly every ship at sea does this so there is no reason why we cannot do it on land. You could even do this at every existing power plant, I would think. Utilize the heat produced in power generation to superheat steam (if it is not available at the plant already) and flash sea water seven times. Voila: fresh drinking water.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Fresh water is a renewable resource, not a nonrenewable one. It is constantly being replenished by evaporation and condensation, so stock limits don't apply. But flow limits do. A flow limit says, not that there's only so much we can take, period, but that there's only so much that can be taken at any one time. If we use fresh water faster than evaporation and condensation can replenish it, then the amount we draw drops over time.

Brian, why not desalinate sea water? Nearly every ship at sea does this so there is no reason why we cannot do it on land. You could even do this at every existing power plant, I would think. Utilize the heat produced in power generation to superheat steam (if it is not available at the plant already) and flash sea water seven times. Voila: fresh drinking water.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Brian, why not desalinate sea water? Nearly every ship at sea does this so there is no reason why we cannot do it on land. You could even do this at every existing power plant, I would think. Utilize the heat produced in power generation to superheat steam (if it is not available at the plant already) and flash sea water seven times. Voila: fresh drinking water.

Desalination is a very expensive process, if you want to do it on a scale to produce water for large population, let alone irrgation projects.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Brian, why not desalinate sea water? Nearly every ship at sea does this so there is no reason why we cannot do it on land. You could even do this at every existing power plant, I would think. Utilize the heat produced in power generation to superheat steam (if it is not available at the plant already) and flash sea water seven times. Voila: fresh drinking water.

Desalination is a very expensive process, if you want to do it on a scale to produce water for large population, let alone irrgation projects.

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Conclusion?

Stuff it, Mr. Rush, right up yours!

I guess you're arguing that the presence of hydroxyl ions in the upper atmosphere makes all this environmental brouhaha just disappear, or at least makes it all better. OK, let's see how your chemistry is today.

• What's better?
• Why?
• What's unaffected by this?
• Why?
• Is this at all important to global warming?
• If so, how does the presense of hydroxyl ions make things better (or worse)
• Why did you post this?

I'll be awaiting your response with bated breath. 8)

Originally Posted by Marc S. Lamb

Conclusion?

Stuff it, Mr. Rush, right up yours!

I guess you're arguing that the presence of hydroxyl ions in the upper atmosphere makes all this environmental brouhaha just disappear, or at least makes it all better. OK, let's see how your chemistry is today.

• What's better?
• Why?
• What's unaffected by this?
• Why?
• Is this at all important to global warming?
• If so, how does the presense of hydroxyl ions make things better (or worse)
• Why did you post this?

I'll be awaiting your response with bated breath. 8)

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Fresh water is a renewable resource, not a nonrenewable one. It is constantly being replenished by evaporation and condensation, so stock limits don't apply. But flow limits do. A flow limit says, not that there's only so much we can take, period, but that there's only so much that can be taken at any one time. If we use fresh water faster than evaporation and condensation can replenish it, then the amount we draw drops over time.

Brian, why not desalinate sea water? Nearly every ship at sea does this so there is no reason why we cannot do it on land. You could even do this at every existing power plant, I would think. Utilize the heat produced in power generation to superheat steam (if it is not available at the plant already) and flash sea water seven times. Voila: fresh drinking water.

I lived in the Tidewater region of Virginia for 20 years. During that time, they talked endlessly about desalinization. They passed on the idea for one reason only: $$$$$$$. Desalinization is ~10+ times as expensive as the final option they chose: ten years of litigation culminating in a 100 mile long pipeline to a nearby lake.

Other than tha, it makes a lot of sense. The oceans are too large to be impacted by the process, even along the coast. Of course, you need to handle the salt properly. Dumping it on the local beach is definitely a faux pas. :lol:

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Fresh water is a renewable resource, not a nonrenewable one. It is constantly being replenished by evaporation and condensation, so stock limits don't apply. But flow limits do. A flow limit says, not that there's only so much we can take, period, but that there's only so much that can be taken at any one time. If we use fresh water faster than evaporation and condensation can replenish it, then the amount we draw drops over time.

Brian, why not desalinate sea water? Nearly every ship at sea does this so there is no reason why we cannot do it on land. You could even do this at every existing power plant, I would think. Utilize the heat produced in power generation to superheat steam (if it is not available at the plant already) and flash sea water seven times. Voila: fresh drinking water.

I lived in the Tidewater region of Virginia for 20 years. During that time, they talked endlessly about desalinization. They passed on the idea for one reason only: $$$$$$$. Desalinization is ~10+ times as expensive as the final option they chose: ten years of litigation culminating in a 100 mile long pipeline to a nearby lake.

Other than tha, it makes a lot of sense. The oceans are too large to be impacted by the process, even along the coast. Of course, you need to handle the salt properly. Dumping it on the local beach is definitely a faux pas. :lol:

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Desalination is a very expensive process, if you want to do it on a scale to produce water for large population, let alone irrgation projects.

Tristan, by any chance do you know of a site which details the cost of this process? Or at least the environmentalist's opposition to it? Actually, I guess I should try to do a search. :wink: I just remain skeptical because I have listened to professional enironmentalists do their spiel about water in real life and, each time, I have asked them about simply constructing desalinization plants. Each time, their response has been, "Er...um...uh...," as if I caught them unaware. One time, one of these guys got around to saying that he thought (but he wasn't sure) that there was a problem in disposing of the salt produced in the process. Another time, I got another excuse, perhaps having to do with cost (but I cannot remember for sure). Regardless, each time it seemed as if these environmentalists did not have a good answer perhaps suggesting that I had hit an Achilles heel in their Malthusian argument about water. So I really wonder: could this be the disingenuous (read cloaked Marxist) portion of the environmental movement at work with regard to water? What better way to control people (and institutionalize socialist planning) than to control their access to water!

But just thinking about it, I really cannot understand where this great expense would arise. Power plants near the sea which use steam can serve a double function producing drinking water with little modification and little expense. If there is no steam used anywhere in a given plant, the heat produced in the generating process can be used to produce steam through an economizer process. Again, little added expense. The only real expense I can think of might concern transporting sea water to inland plants. Just build a pipeline as is done for oil and problem solved.

I just do not see where the problem is here. We have all the water we need in the oceans. Just flash it with superheated steam and convert it to fresh water as is done by virtually every ship on the sea, every day of our lives. The environmentalists might object to the fact that a minimal amount of fossil fuel is typically used to heat the steam. If so, so what? Let's at least produce the drinking water we need until we can find an alternate means of producing superheated steam. And what of the salt extracted in the process? Simply dump it back in the ocean where it should dissolve. Why on earth would it not dissolve? Perhaps the ocean has already achieved some sort of equilibrium? Well, rainwater and brackish water in tidal portions of rivers should take care of such a problem. I just do not see the problem here.

Originally Posted by Tristan Jones

Desalination is a very expensive process, if you want to do it on a scale to produce water for large population, let alone irrgation projects.

Tristan, by any chance do you know of a site which details the cost of this process? Or at least the environmentalist's opposition to it? Actually, I guess I should try to do a search. :wink: I just remain skeptical because I have listened to professional enironmentalists do their spiel about water in real life and, each time, I have asked them about simply constructing desalinization plants. Each time, their response has been, "Er...um...uh...," as if I caught them unaware. One time, one of these guys got around to saying that he thought (but he wasn't sure) that there was a problem in disposing of the salt produced in the process. Another time, I got another excuse, perhaps having to do with cost (but I cannot remember for sure). Regardless, each time it seemed as if these environmentalists did not have a good answer perhaps suggesting that I had hit an Achilles heel in their Malthusian argument about water. So I really wonder: could this be the disingenuous (read cloaked Marxist) portion of the environmental movement at work with regard to water? What better way to control people (and institutionalize socialist planning) than to control their access to water!

But just thinking about it, I really cannot understand where this great expense would arise. Power plants near the sea which use steam can serve a double function producing drinking water with little modification and little expense. If there is no steam used anywhere in a given plant, the heat produced in the generating process can be used to produce steam through an economizer process. Again, little added expense. The only real expense I can think of might concern transporting sea water to inland plants. Just build a pipeline as is done for oil and problem solved.

I just do not see where the problem is here. We have all the water we need in the oceans. Just flash it with superheated steam and convert it to fresh water as is done by virtually every ship on the sea, every day of our lives. The environmentalists might object to the fact that a minimal amount of fossil fuel is typically used to heat the steam. If so, so what? Let's at least produce the drinking water we need until we can find an alternate means of producing superheated steam. And what of the salt extracted in the process? Simply dump it back in the ocean where it should dissolve. Why on earth would it not dissolve? Perhaps the ocean has already achieved some sort of equilibrium? Well, rainwater and brackish water in tidal portions of rivers should take care of such a problem. I just do not see the problem here.

Originally Posted by David '47

I lived in the Tidewater region of Virginia for 20 years. During that time, they talked endlessly about desalinization. They passed on the idea for one reason only: $$$$$$$. Desalinization is ~10+ times as expensive as the final option they chose: ten years of litigation culminating in a 100 mile long pipeline to a nearby lake.

David, do you recall from this episode specifically where this allegedly exorbitant cost lies? I just do not see it. With corporate-government corruption, I can certainly see exorbitant costs surrounding contracts for construction and transport, etc., priced exponentially higher than they should be. Get rid of the graft and I cannot see what would be so expensive. It makes no sense. We are talking about H2O and heating steam which recycles itself, thus minimizing fuel consumption. If done at an already existing power plant which produces heat, we are only talking about H2O. That's it! What on earth could be so expensive?

Originally Posted by David '47

I lived in the Tidewater region of Virginia for 20 years. During that time, they talked endlessly about desalinization. They passed on the idea for one reason only: $$$$$$$. Desalinization is ~10+ times as expensive as the final option they chose: ten years of litigation culminating in a 100 mile long pipeline to a nearby lake.

David, do you recall from this episode specifically where this allegedly exorbitant cost lies? I just do not see it. With corporate-government corruption, I can certainly see exorbitant costs surrounding contracts for construction and transport, etc., priced exponentially higher than they should be. Get rid of the graft and I cannot see what would be so expensive. It makes no sense. We are talking about H2O and heating steam which recycles itself, thus minimizing fuel consumption. If done at an already existing power plant which produces heat, we are only talking about H2O. That's it! What on earth could be so expensive?

I did a brief search on desalinization plants. In fact there are desalinization plants currently in operation in various places all over the world. There are plans for many more of them here and abroad. It is indicated that the costs (whatever they may be) have come down while the cost of existing drinking water has gone up. So desalinization is now more feasible than ever. In fact, the heat produced in existing power plants is typically used, just like I said.

An article concerning a planned plant in Tampa attributed the remaining cost hurdle to disposal of the brackish mess extracted in the process. They could easily just dump it back in the river running by the plant (which is already brackish) but this would violate mandated "salinity goals." Hmmm. So the more radical environmentalists seek to maintain set salinity in brackish water which varies in its salinity anyway according to the tides. Sorry, but that sounds pretty psycho to me. Get these creeps to shove their absurd brackish water salinity goals where the sun don't shine and start converting sea water to fresh water. It should be cleaner and less expensive than whatever you are drinking now.

I did a brief search on desalinization plants. In fact there are desalinization plants currently in operation in various places all over the world. There are plans for many more of them here and abroad. It is indicated that the costs (whatever they may be) have come down while the cost of existing drinking water has gone up. So desalinization is now more feasible than ever. In fact, the heat produced in existing power plants is typically used, just like I said.

An article concerning a planned plant in Tampa attributed the remaining cost hurdle to disposal of the brackish mess extracted in the process. They could easily just dump it back in the river running by the plant (which is already brackish) but this would violate mandated "salinity goals." Hmmm. So the more radical environmentalists seek to maintain set salinity in brackish water which varies in its salinity anyway according to the tides. Sorry, but that sounds pretty psycho to me. Get these creeps to shove their absurd brackish water salinity goals where the sun don't shine and start converting sea water to fresh water. It should be cleaner and less expensive than whatever you are drinking now.

Did somebody mention SUVs? Heh heh.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster73.html

(Usual discaimers)



Top Twelve Reasons To Go to the North American International Auto Show in Detroit

by Karen De Coster

• To show support for the auto industry, gas guzzling, SUV buying, free choice, and irrational exuberance.
  
• To look at the SUVs ? particularly the Hummer H2 ? and ask yourself if you should trade in your compact roller skate for something with a little more headroom.
  
• To look at all the pitiable, hybrid cars that no one wants to buy, and wonder if special interest causes had anything to do with the production of them.
  
• To make Arianna Huffington absolutely livid.
  
• To look at all the glorious SUVs ? in complete tranquility ? without having to explain to all the anti-SUV, would-be dictators why you need one.
  
• To produce some reason, any reason that?ll support your posturing for needing an SUV, since that bit of Marxist drivel seems to have become some sort of a prerequisite before buying an SUV.
  
• To do a survey of the anti-SUV public, asking them how they would define need, and then do a follow-up survey asking them if they need everything they own and enjoy, for instance, convertibles, muscle cars, classic cars, sports cars, DVD players, home surround sound units, Sony PlayStation, the $30,000 deck out back, the vacation home on the lake in the woods, the country club membership, and, well, you know. Then close out the latter survey by asking them if it?s okay if others determine their needs on an arbitrary basis. Then flash them a big smile.
  
• To buy a new SUV and help disprove Arianna Huffington?s whacky position, that is, that owning an SUV: directly supports Muslim terrorism, and therefore, makes you a terrorist; is un-American; pits you "against us, and with the enemy"; makes you are a direct threat to national security.
  
• To survey anti-SUV people on this question: If you found out that government decrees, courtesy of its pact with the Greens and various other special interests, were responsible for the modern SUV design that you so despise, would you then support the eradication of government intervention in the free market?
  
• To observe the bemused, oblivious stare of each person who is asked the above question.
  
• If you are a man, and you used to attend the show just to gaze at the scantily-clad, auto show models, for a fleeting look at all the cleavage, skin, and legs or whatever, now you can go to the new, politically correct Auto Show where the women are now rescued from being mere "objects" and are "elevated" to the point of wearing tuxedos, pantsuits, and other apparel that will not only cover the natural beauty of their feminine persuasion, but will make the ugly, misshapen, envious, feminist types very happy.
  
• To pick out the interior color for your next Ford Expedition.

January 11, 2003

Did somebody mention SUVs? Heh heh.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster73.html

(Usual discaimers)



Top Twelve Reasons To Go to the North American International Auto Show in Detroit

by Karen De Coster

• To show support for the auto industry, gas guzzling, SUV buying, free choice, and irrational exuberance.
  
• To look at the SUVs ? particularly the Hummer H2 ? and ask yourself if you should trade in your compact roller skate for something with a little more headroom.
  
• To look at all the pitiable, hybrid cars that no one wants to buy, and wonder if special interest causes had anything to do with the production of them.
  
• To make Arianna Huffington absolutely livid.
  
• To look at all the glorious SUVs ? in complete tranquility ? without having to explain to all the anti-SUV, would-be dictators why you need one.
  
• To produce some reason, any reason that?ll support your posturing for needing an SUV, since that bit of Marxist drivel seems to have become some sort of a prerequisite before buying an SUV.
  
• To do a survey of the anti-SUV public, asking them how they would define need, and then do a follow-up survey asking them if they need everything they own and enjoy, for instance, convertibles, muscle cars, classic cars, sports cars, DVD players, home surround sound units, Sony PlayStation, the $30,000 deck out back, the vacation home on the lake in the woods, the country club membership, and, well, you know. Then close out the latter survey by asking them if it?s okay if others determine their needs on an arbitrary basis. Then flash them a big smile.
  
• To buy a new SUV and help disprove Arianna Huffington?s whacky position, that is, that owning an SUV: directly supports Muslim terrorism, and therefore, makes you a terrorist; is un-American; pits you "against us, and with the enemy"; makes you are a direct threat to national security.
  
• To survey anti-SUV people on this question: If you found out that government decrees, courtesy of its pact with the Greens and various other special interests, were responsible for the modern SUV design that you so despise, would you then support the eradication of government intervention in the free market?
  
• To observe the bemused, oblivious stare of each person who is asked the above question.
  
• If you are a man, and you used to attend the show just to gaze at the scantily-clad, auto show models, for a fleeting look at all the cleavage, skin, and legs or whatever, now you can go to the new, politically correct Auto Show where the women are now rescued from being mere "objects" and are "elevated" to the point of wearing tuxedos, pantsuits, and other apparel that will not only cover the natural beauty of their feminine persuasion, but will make the ugly, misshapen, envious, feminist types very happy.
  
• To pick out the interior color for your next Ford Expedition.

January 11, 2003

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

An article concerning a planned plant in Tampa attributed the remaining cost hurdle to disposal of the brackish mess extracted in the process. They could easily just dump it back in the river running by the plant (which is already brackish) but this would violate mandated "salinity goals." Hmmm. So the more radical environmentalists seek to maintain set salinity in brackish water which varies in its salinity anyway according to the tides. Sorry, but that sounds pretty psycho to me. Get these creeps to shove their absurd brackish water salinity goals where the sun don't shine and start converting sea water to fresh water. It should be cleaner and less expensive than whatever you are drinking now.

It's Road De-Icer to make the roads safe for "Our Kids" and the SUV's. Send it north to rot our highways and bridges! 8)


Or put in fancy boxes and sell it to "gourmets" as Sel de Mer de Tampa which tastes like the Ocean... try "Crimson Tide" as a brand name. HTH

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

An article concerning a planned plant in Tampa attributed the remaining cost hurdle to disposal of the brackish mess extracted in the process. They could easily just dump it back in the river running by the plant (which is already brackish) but this would violate mandated "salinity goals." Hmmm. So the more radical environmentalists seek to maintain set salinity in brackish water which varies in its salinity anyway according to the tides. Sorry, but that sounds pretty psycho to me. Get these creeps to shove their absurd brackish water salinity goals where the sun don't shine and start converting sea water to fresh water. It should be cleaner and less expensive than whatever you are drinking now.

It's Road De-Icer to make the roads safe for "Our Kids" and the SUV's. Send it north to rot our highways and bridges! 8)


Or put in fancy boxes and sell it to "gourmets" as Sel de Mer de Tampa which tastes like the Ocean... try "Crimson Tide" as a brand name. HTH

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

An article concerning a planned plant in Tampa attributed the remaining cost hurdle to disposal of the brackish mess extracted in the process. They could easily just dump it back in the river running by the plant (which is already brackish) but this would violate mandated "salinity goals." Hmmm. So the more radical environmentalists seek to maintain set salinity in brackish water which varies in its salinity anyway according to the tides. Sorry, but that sounds pretty psycho to me. Get these creeps to shove their absurd brackish water salinity goals where the sun don't shine and start converting sea water to fresh water. It should be cleaner and less expensive than whatever you are drinking now.

It's Road De-Icer to make the roads safe for "Our Kids" and the SUV's. Send it north to rot our highways and bridges! 8)


Or put in fancy boxes and sell it to "gourmets" as Sel de Mer de Tampa which tastes like the Ocean... try "Crimson Tide" as a brand name. HTH

Brilliant, Mr. Saari. In the former case, we will probably be informed by our environmentalist friends that such Road De-Icer adversely affects the ecosystem of roadside rodents. We will see salinity standards set for road shoulder habitats such that roads can no longer be de-iced. Those in Northern climes will no longer be able to drive for good portions of the year...but, but, but this will improve fuel economy and display our reverence for the divinity contained within crude oil. Such is Progress!

In the latter case, we will hear from the health conscious (Mothers Against Salt Shakers et al.) and individual salt consumption will be strictly regulated in order to lower health care costs (ah, the joys of national health care!). "Crimson Tide" willl be classified as contraband and users will be subject to no-knock raids by jokers (whose salaries we are forced to pay at gunpoint) in full SWAT regalia. This is your brain; this is your brain on salt. No three strikes you're out, but mandatory jail time. This will require more prison construction which will be heralded as a boon to the economy. This is win-win all the way around.

Ah, but more and more Americans will cease to have drinking water. Oh well, who cares? At least we will not have altered the ecosystem in brackish estuaries and on roadside shoulders (gotta maintain those roadkill quotas). And those who can find drinking water will live longer thanks to diminished salt consumption. Ah, yes. Logan's Run is just a broken salt shaker away....

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

An article concerning a planned plant in Tampa attributed the remaining cost hurdle to disposal of the brackish mess extracted in the process. They could easily just dump it back in the river running by the plant (which is already brackish) but this would violate mandated "salinity goals." Hmmm. So the more radical environmentalists seek to maintain set salinity in brackish water which varies in its salinity anyway according to the tides. Sorry, but that sounds pretty psycho to me. Get these creeps to shove their absurd brackish water salinity goals where the sun don't shine and start converting sea water to fresh water. It should be cleaner and less expensive than whatever you are drinking now.

It's Road De-Icer to make the roads safe for "Our Kids" and the SUV's. Send it north to rot our highways and bridges! 8)


Or put in fancy boxes and sell it to "gourmets" as Sel de Mer de Tampa which tastes like the Ocean... try "Crimson Tide" as a brand name. HTH

Brilliant, Mr. Saari. In the former case, we will probably be informed by our environmentalist friends that such Road De-Icer adversely affects the ecosystem of roadside rodents. We will see salinity standards set for road shoulder habitats such that roads can no longer be de-iced. Those in Northern climes will no longer be able to drive for good portions of the year...but, but, but this will improve fuel economy and display our reverence for the divinity contained within crude oil. Such is Progress!

In the latter case, we will hear from the health conscious (Mothers Against Salt Shakers et al.) and individual salt consumption will be strictly regulated in order to lower health care costs (ah, the joys of national health care!). "Crimson Tide" willl be classified as contraband and users will be subject to no-knock raids by jokers (whose salaries we are forced to pay at gunpoint) in full SWAT regalia. This is your brain; this is your brain on salt. No three strikes you're out, but mandatory jail time. This will require more prison construction which will be heralded as a boon to the economy. This is win-win all the way around.

Ah, but more and more Americans will cease to have drinking water. Oh well, who cares? At least we will not have altered the ecosystem in brackish estuaries and on roadside shoulders (gotta maintain those roadkill quotas). And those who can find drinking water will live longer thanks to diminished salt consumption. Ah, yes. Logan's Run is just a broken salt shaker away....

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Did somebody mention SUVs? Heh heh.



http://www.lewrockwell.com/decoster/decoster73.html

(Usual discaimers)



Top Twelve Reasons To Go to the North American International Auto Show in Detroit

by Karen De Coster

• To show support for the auto industry, gas guzzling, SUV buying, free choice, and irrational exuberance.
  
• To look at the SUVs – particularly the Hummer H2 – and ask yourself if you should trade in your compact roller skate for something with a little more headroom.
  
• To look at all the pitiable, hybrid cars that no one wants to buy, and wonder if special interest causes had anything to do with the production of them.
  
• To make Arianna Huffington absolutely livid.
  
• To look at all the glorious SUVs – in complete tranquility – without having to explain to all the anti-SUV, would-be dictators why you need one.
  
• To produce some reason, any reason that’ll support your posturing for needing an SUV, since that bit of Marxist drivel seems to have become some sort of a prerequisite before buying an SUV.
  
• To do a survey of the anti-SUV public, asking them how they would define need, and then do a follow-up survey asking them if they need everything they own and enjoy, for instance, convertibles, muscle cars, classic cars, sports cars, DVD players, home surround sound units, Sony PlayStation, the $30,000 deck out back, the vacation home on the lake in the woods, the country club membership, and, well, you know. Then close out the latter survey by asking them if it’s okay if others determine their needs on an arbitrary basis. Then flash them a big smile.
  
• To buy a new SUV and help disprove Arianna Huffington’s whacky position, that is, that owning an SUV: directly supports Muslim terrorism, and therefore, makes you a terrorist; is un-American; pits you "against us, and with the enemy"; makes you are a direct threat to national security.
  
• To survey anti-SUV people on this question: If you found out that government decrees, courtesy of its pact with the Greens and various other special interests, were responsible for the modern SUV design that you so despise, would you then support the eradication of government intervention in the free market?
  
• To observe the bemused, oblivious stare of each person who is asked the above question.
  
• If you are a man, and you used to attend the show just to gaze at the scantily-clad, auto show models, for a fleeting look at all the cleavage, skin, and legs or whatever, now you can go to the new, politically correct Auto Show where the women are now rescued from being mere "objects" and are "elevated" to the point of wearing tuxedos, pantsuits, and other apparel that will not only cover the natural beauty of their feminine persuasion, but will make the ugly, misshapen, envious, feminist types very happy.
  
• To pick out the interior color for your next Ford Expedition.

January 11, 2003

uh-buoy.....what a crock of s*%t! I attend auto shows simply because I love cars. The only SUV at the 2002 Columbus Auto Show that I actually liked (though not enough to buy) was the Jeep Liberty, which isn't especially wasteful or menacing as SUVs go.

At auto shows, I tend to spend most of my time checking out near-luxury sporty cars like my own 3-series (which doesn't guzzle gas by the way-- it gets a respectable 24 miles per gallon); as well as similarly equipped sport sedans and wagons such as the Volvo V70 (for my hopefully-family-oriented future).

And I'll admit, the cute models don't hurt either -- even if most are a little too young ;-)