Letter to America by Margaret Atwood

04/02/2003 12:49:26 AM · #26

that's total bs. you are foolish for saying something like that. i am all for developing hydrogen fuel cell cars that are marketable to these "conservatives" that own suvs here. currently people who purchase hydrogen fuel cell cars here get a 2000 buck tax break for doing so. this year ford is coming out with a 45 mile per gallon suv. so things are in the works. god i would do anything to have a marketable fuel cell car because that means less dependence on foreign oil. i think that is only 20 years max away from being a reality given the pace that technology progresses at. what country will be at the forefront of such research jimmy?

another thing that just crossed my mind was a possible other reason most arab countries don't like the idea of us going into Iraq. it's because then saudi arabia won't be getting nearly as much money as they do now from oil from us. what will they do then? of course they oppose something that will economically hurt their country.

back to the original point though

1. liberals, conservatives, independents all drive suvs here
2. i hope to have a marketable car like that within the next 10-20 years, probably sooner.

jimmythefish

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/02/2003 01:06:56 AM · #27

Originally posted by achiral:

oops, i'm sorry. liberals, conservatives and independents will all feel betrayed. one of the companies at the forefront of fuel cell research is canadian, by the way - ballard power. the fuel cell technologies sure are making dents in the oil industry, hey? the alternative fuel vehicles whizzing past me on a daily basis makes me dizzy. the oil industry in north america hasn't allowed these cars access to the market at all...there are a few hybrid hondas out there but nothing to suggest that it's even a trend. 20 years ago the pundits predicted that gas-powered vehicles would be all but obsolete by now. how wrong could they have been. what makes you think that it'll be any different in another 20 years?

almost everything in the north american lifestyle, from the food you eat to the plastic keys under your fingers, is made from or dependent on petroleum or petroleum byproducts. when gas is $10/gallon they'll be a lot of pissed-off people out there, for sure. when joe lawyer can't drive his porsche to work and has to put put put in his shoebox, he ain't gonna be happy...

Message edited by author 2003-04-02 01:07:47.

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

04/02/2003 01:19:03 AM · #28

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

the oil industry in north america hasn't allowed these cars access to the market at all...there are a few hybrid hondas out there but nothing to suggest that it's even a trend. 20 years ago the pundits predicted that gas-powered vehicles would be all but obsolete by now. how wrong could they have been. what makes you think that it'll be any different in another 20 years?

This is so sad. I've been reading science magazines for a long time. My dad is a science teacher, and he has a collection of Scientific American that goes back to the 60s. Time after time you see reports of new inventions that would revolutionise the car industry and get us all using less oil, and time after time they quietly disappear. I remember another article I read about a decade ago about a technique that allowed you to 100% recycle all petroleum based plastics. 100%!!! You could keep manufacturing new plastic products based entirely on old ones. Where is this technology now?

04/02/2003 01:19:47 AM · #29

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

Originally posted by achiral:
that's total bs. you are foolish for saying something like that. i am all for developing hydrogen fuel cell cars that are marketable to these "conservatives" that own suvs here. currently people who purchase hydrogen fuel cell cars here get a 2000 buck tax break for doing so. this year ford is coming out with a 45 mile per gallon suv. so things are in the works. god i would do anything to have a marketable fuel cell car because that means less dependence on foreign oil. i think that is only 20 years max away from being a reality given the pace that technology progresses at. what country will be at the forefront of such research jimmy?

another thing that just crossed my mind was a possible other reason most arab countries don't like the idea of us going into Iraq. it's because then saudi arabia won't be getting nearly as much money as they do now from oil from us. what will they do then? of course they oppose something that will economically hurt their country.

back to the original point though

1. liberals, conservatives, independents all drive suvs here
2. i hope to have a marketable car like that within the next 10-20 years, probably sooner.

oops, i'm sorry. liberals, conservatives and independents will all feel betrayed. one of the companies at the forefront of fuel cell research is canadian, by the way - ballard power. the fuel cell technologies sure are making dents in the oil industry, hey? the alternative fuel vehicles whizzing past me on a daily basis makes me dizzy. the oil industry in north america hasn't allowed these cars access to the market at all...there are a few hybrid hondas out there but nothing to suggest that it's even a trend. 20 years ago the pundits predicted that gas-powered vehicles would be all but obsolete by now. how wrong could they have been. what makes you think that it'll be any different in another 20 years?

almost everything in the north american lifestyle, from the food you eat to the plastic keys under your fingers, is made from or dependent on petroleum or petroleum byproducts. when gas is $10/gallon they'll be a lot of pissed-off people out there, for sure. when joe lawyer can't drive his porsche to work and has to put put put in his shoebox, he ain't gonna be happy...

*sigh* i guess ignorance really is bliss in your case

jimmythefish

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/02/2003 01:32:09 AM · #30

Originally posted by lisae:

Originally posted by jimmythefish:
the oil industry in north america hasn't allowed these cars access to the market at all...there are a few hybrid hondas out there but nothing to suggest that it's even a trend. 20 years ago the pundits predicted that gas-powered vehicles would be all but obsolete by now. how wrong could they have been. what makes you think that it'll be any different in another 20 years?

This is so sad. I've been reading science magazines for a long time. My dad is a science teacher, and he has a collection of Scientific American that goes back to the 60s. Time after time you see reports of new inventions that would revolutionise the car industry and get us all using less oil, and time after time they quietly disappear. I remember another article I read about a decade ago about a technique that allowed you to 100% recycle all petroleum based plastics. 100%!!! You could keep manufacturing new plastic products based entirely on old ones. Where is this technology now?

I worked for a forestry company, in the head office in downtown Vancouver (I do GIS and 3D terrain modeling) for a while and, soon after I got there, noticed that there were no recycling bins anywhere for pop cans and such. Indeed, it was even frowned upon to use paper recyling, and many of the executives would throw wads and wads of paper into the garbage.

I discreetly approached someone about setting up a few pop-bottle recycling bins around the place, and was told, in no uncertain terms, that the VP wasn't having any of it as we were employed by an industry which was dependent on the production of primary goods, and recycling harms our profits.

While shocked, I returned with the argument that cans and bottles were not made of trees. She just smiled. It was one of the many reasons why I decided to leave the company.

Yet, in my heart of hearts, I really believe that all those oil execs in government, and indeed in the oil industry, are pulling for alternative fuel sources. They aren't there because it isn't in the best interests of the US economy.

Message edited by author 2003-04-02 01:39:10.

ChrisW123

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

04/02/2003 02:03:22 AM · #31

To be fair, most Canadian people that have lived their (not "just off the boat") support the USA in our policies and consider us a friend and ally... it's the government they (and we here in the US) are ashamed of. Canada's government is just as socialist as New Zeland's is. ;)

And why is everyone in the World so fixated on the US and love to talk about us, debate us, bad-mouth us, buy our blue-jeans, put us down after we have funded and defended you, listen to our music, enjoy coming to our country, love our movies, you buy our cars, watch our TV and News, live in our country... but at the same time you still have this "love-hate" relationship with us don't you? You don't know if you like us or don't like us. You'll move here and enjoy our capitalism but under your breath point out everything that's wrong with the country and put the country down.

Hoogie

Nikon D50

04/02/2003 02:10:51 AM · #32

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

You'll move here and enjoy our capitalism

LOL your so amusing...thats the funniest joke ive heard in a while, well done.

Message edited by author 2003-04-02 02:25:24.

jimmythefish

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/02/2003 03:23:45 AM · #33

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

What you are still failing to make a distincion between is the ADMINISTRATION and the ELECTORATE. Let me repeat a few times. Let it sink in: administration. administration. administration. I am against the administration.

I'm on YOUR side! I'm terribly worried that Dubya is eroding your very way of life! That was what the Margaret Atwood piece was all about. Why can't you see that questioning your government and its actions and motives is a fundamental priciple of a democracy! You need to do it! If you don't have checks and balances, and accountability, you're no longer a true democracy.

As Canadians, we're proud of our underdog status and, despite being bound very strongly culturally and socially with Americans, absolutely see ourselves as an autonomous unit. Of course we have a love/hate relationship with the US. We get the US culture driven down our throats so much that most of us know more about the US than we do about our own country. This, quite obviously, is cause for some mild resentment. It is also reason to critique the US government's actions. As a free country we're entirely entitled to do so. As a member of the North American economic giant, it's our duty.

It's always entertaining to go to the States and have to field the questions about Canada. Americans know nothing about Canada at all. The questions are really very funny...and they show an ignorance which we brush off through years of conditioning. This is part of our answer:

American beauty, eh
Rick Mercer pulls some Yankee leg
By BILL BRIOUX
Toronto Sun

"Congratulations, Canada, on making Beaver Balls your national dish."

That's just one of the silly salutes heard tomorrow night on Rick Mercer's Talking To Americans (9 p.m. on CBC).

The hour-long special, a mix of classic road hits from This Hour Has 22 Minutes as well as new material, shows just how clueless Americans are when it comes to their neighbours to the Great White North.

Over the past four years, Mercer has travelled all over the United States, quizzing everyone from college students at Columbia and Princeton, to state governors and politicians as lofty as George W. Bush.

The results are always the same: For most Americans, Canada isn't even on the radar.

"Some of the stupidest are (governing) states," Mercer says.

Bush, for example, didn't even blink last fall on the presidential campaign trail when Mercer brought him greetings from "Prime Minister Poutine."

"Every time, usually at the start of every shoot, I'm saying, 'I can't say this. Somebody's going to get me,' " Mercer says. Yet, time and time again, the Yanks fall for the gag, even when Mercer asks them to salute prime minister Tim Horton, sign a petition to legalize insulin or travel across the Peter Mans Bridge.

"I was very honoured," Peter Mansbridge says.

Mercer insists the responses are never set up or faked.

"It would be a hard sell just showing up out of the blue and asking the Republican Governor of Arkansas to come on the show and make an ass of himself," Mercer points out. "Much easier just to tell him our national igloo is melting."

Mercer says the beauty of the gag is that it would never work the other way around.

"If you went to the University of Toronto and said you were bringing greetings from President Stinky MacPharlane, it wouldn't work. We all know who their president is."

Some fans of The Tonight Show might argue that Americans are just as clueless about their own politics. Jay Leno's "Jay Walking" segments are always drawing blanks from students asked to name somebody as obvious as the current Vice President.

"With Leno, they know him and they know they're having fun with a comedian," he says. "People in the United States don't know who I am; they think I'm a newsman."

More and more people are getting wise to Mercer. After he ambushed Bush last fall, the Gore team was waiting to make sure he didn't pick off their man.

Mercer also failed to goon the Governor of California. "An official asked us straight up, 'Are you the same people who asked George Bush if your prime minister was named after french fries? Get out before we have the state trooper throw you out.' "

Message edited by author 2003-04-02 03:33:39.

ClubJuggle

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/02/2003 06:57:36 AM · #34

Originally posted by BigSmiles:

Why was Michael Moore silenced at the academy awards for calling the president "a fictitious president fighting a fictitious war."? Freedom of speech only applies when expressing an opinion that

Michael Moore was silenced when he had exhausted his allotted 45 seconds to speak, as was every other award winner who exhausted his or her allotted speaking time.

-Terry

Diana

04/02/2003 07:46:36 AM · #35

An Open Letter to the Hollywood Bunch
Soapbox Article Archive (2003)
by Charlie Daniels

//www.charlieddaniels.com/soapbox/03/242.html

BigSmiles

04/02/2003 08:13:32 AM · #36

no way. michael moore was practically Booed off stage! They let another winner (the name escapes me) stand on stage for practically 5 minutes and thank every person he's ever known! They didn't give michael moore fair warning and they cut him off mid sentence. they were pretty much warned before the show not to say anything regarding the war.. I just dont get how that's right! michael moore is a very outspoken man and I think they tried silencing him that night... it'll only piss him off and lead him to make more documentaries that sit people down and force them to listen.

lisae

Olympus C-720UZ

04/02/2003 08:24:17 AM · #37

You can read his account of the Oscars night on his site, MichaelMoore.com.

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/02/2003 09:13:59 AM · #38

you know it was going to be bad when the producer of the oscars said he hoped none of them would go on about the war. the fact that he got booed just shows that not everyone is hollywood is a complete lunatic. moore doesn't have freedom of speech during an awards ceremony, just as it is frowned upon in many other types of work. people have a warped view of freedom of speech. there are correct arenas for every area of speech. if the oscars were about debating the war there would have been no problem, but it's just about inflating ignorant people's egos, no wonder he had no tact when he got up on stage.

paganini

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/02/2003 04:48:46 PM · #39

yeah, you have your civil rights BECAUSE of people in the 60's. If U.S. is still like it was in the 50's/60's, we might as well live in S. Africa when the Apartheid was in place.

Originally posted by ChrisW123:

Who is Margaret Atwood, and why should we care what she thinks? At the end it says "studied at Radcliff and Harvard in the 60's"... That tells you a lot right there. :) Probably still having "flash backs" from the 60's.

Alecia

04/02/2003 04:58:02 PM · #40

Originally posted by BigSmiles:

actually--from the way it looked to me--michael moore said his piece and was done with it. he probably got out exactly what he wanted--knowing fully well that he was out of line in using his spot to spout his opinion. apparently he had broken the academy committee rule about using their time on stage for personal (maybe political?) agenda. i dunno the exact rule--just saw it mentioned somewhere. i wouldnt worry about him not having fair warning--they all knew they only had like 1 minute to talk (remember julia roberts a couple of years ago!) anyhoo, it was adrain brody who spoke the longest--and he basically flatly refused to go anywhere and even insisted they stop the music for him. but the difference was he was speaking from a more humanitarian point of view--about the troops and war in general, not about any one particular person or government.

Message edited by author 2003-04-02 17:05:19.

Anachronite

Sony DSC-S85

04/03/2003 12:42:19 AM · #41

Goodness, I hate working so many hours during the week.. I get to miss all of the good stuff... I don't have the time to read everyone's posts and argue with those I disagree with.. however I will offer my opinion on the letter and the author...

The author: while I personally view her as nothing more than a former potsmoking acid dropping hippie slut reject from the 60's (ok I smoked and partied for a while as well, call me a hippocrit :oP ), who now is nothing more than a greedy militant femi-nazi. I do think that her story The Handmaid's Tale was a pretty unique and somewhat thought provoking sci-fi story... I pray however, that our society never turns into the society depicted in the novel... truly horrifying... the huge problem with the story however, is the left-wing anti-American and
anti-religeon inspiration behind it... it really reaches for ridiculousness to spite the right and has no basis based on the evolution of our society to this point... however it is entertaining as a movie... check it out if your a sci-fi fan... it's dark and not very nice... but worth a look if just for a unique discussion afterwards....

Margo, is also a militant unscientific environmentalist. As well as a militant extreme left wing liberal feminist... Not to mention atheist and secular humanist... all off which are major contributing factors to the erosion of the values and standards that America was founded on...

The letter: This letter smacks of anti-American propaganda... We are still much the same America she purports to remember ... she contradicts herself:

"You stood up for freedom, honesty and justice; you protected the innocent. I believed most of that. I think you did, too. It seemed true at the time.....You have always wanted to be a city upon a hill, a light to all nations, and for a while you were. Give me your tired, your poor, you sang, and for a while you meant it."

and then: I think your recent Iraqi adventures have been -- taking the long view -- an ill-advised tactical error. By the time you read this, Baghdad may or may not look like the craters of the Moon, and many more sheep entrails will have been examined. Let's talk, then, not about what you're doing to other people,

We are standing up for freedom, honesty and justice; and protecting the innocent... it outrages me that anyone thinks it is only for oil (yes partly it is, and it will benefit everyone!!!! not just us) but liberating Iraq and protecting ourselves from the threat of saddams regime and terrorist connections are the main reasons! Yes, some civilians are going to die, and we might lose 1000+ men in taking over BD, but saddam's regime has already raped, tortured, killed over 500,000 people as well as brutalizing millions of his citizens... not to mention he shits on toilets made out of gold... LoL

On her paragraphed that said: You're gutting the Constitution. Already your home can be entered without your knowledge or permission, you can be snatched away and incarcerated without cause, your mail can be spied on, your private records searched. Why isn't this a recipe for widespread business theft, political intimidation, and fraud? I know you've been told all this is for your own safety and protection, but think about it for a minute. Anyway, when did you get so scared? You didn't used to be easily frightened., I agree completely! our rights are being eroded ... and not party is without blame ... the thing to look at is reasons ... the left seeks power and control over the people; the socialist state (something utterly despicable and completely anti-American. "Socialism: The Light Communism"), while the right seeks to protect us from the enemy outside, they are forgetting about history and the enemy within... we can not give our government absolute power... history proves absolute power absolutely corrupts those with the power... The right should remember Ben Franklin's great words, "Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" (or something like it)... thank God the rightside doesn't want our guns... at least we can die fighting for our freedom when they come....

what she said about our debt and economy is so completely unfounded... the boom of the 90's was a result of the work Reagan and bush did in the 80's... then the lecherous dog wild bill Clinton tried to claim credit but before he left office the economy was already taking a downturn resulting from his policies... Now fortunately the economy is turning around.. even before the war started the recession stopped and things were picking up... now with the necessary war, things remain uncertain... freedoms price is not only blood and sacrifice, but also money... funny thing is it could go either way... hopefully we'll have bagdad sooner than later, but either way, we'll be fine...

anyway, gotta go.. might not have time to respond for a while... but hopefully, the hornets are stirring in their nest...

Message edited by author 2003-04-03 01:03:48.