Posted on 03/29/2007 10:47:15 PM PDT by Silly
Silly,
I’m sorry to be away when you asked us to meet.
This week, I am in midtown 4/4 - 4/5..
May a silver-haired, lead-tongued conservative FRiend buy you a drink on one of those dates at 50 Vanderbilt?
If not, there are an infinity of future dates. Let’s pick one...
If so, it would be my pleasure to introduce you to some “movers and shakers” who are NOT idiots..
Best wishes anyway...
Silly,
I’m sorry to be away when you asked us to meet.
This week, I am in midtown 4/4 - 4/5..
May a silver-haired, lead-tongued conservative FRiend buy you a drink on one of those dates at 50 Vanderbilt?
If not, there are an infinity of future dates. Let’s pick one...
If so, it would be my pleasure to introduce you to some “movers and shakers” who are NOT idiots..
Best wishes anyway...
Why don’t you have a lawyer?!
Can’t afford one, and none of them are interested.
No way: If it's as you described, you and the company have documentation, there are other witnesses, it's a big company and you have a police report, it's a slam dunk.
The company will settle in a heartbeat and a lawyer would take it on contingency.
I wouldn't be looking for a job if my boss hit me--I'd be looking for a lawyer on the internet.
The fact they gave you an office and salary shows they admit some culpability! They'll settle in a heartbeat....
Get a lawyer.
Do you know any?
By the way, you must be feeling pretty bad about that whole Supreme Court thingy huh?
Tough to be on the wrong side of history and science resulting from the blindness caused by paranoid conspiracy theories.
Let me know when you are ready to help find some conservative, economically reasonable solutions to the problem. Or perhaps you can sit idly by as the left uses it to redistribute wealth.
Hmmmm....
When you said: “...the Supreme Court thingy...”?
I assume you meant THIS:
“...a divided Supreme Court decided Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency has untapped authority to regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from new motor vehicles under the Clean Air Act...”?
If so, I gather that YOU think that continuing a policy that is at least six-years old is a “new” victory. LOL! I say: “Big whoop”.
Regarding the rest of your message: when you have a moment, please look up “Occam’s Razor”. Hopefully, it will make you re-think your convoluted theory that the Sun does NOT warm the Earth, but SUVs do. But “re-thinking” would require you to have an open mind, wouldn’t it? And an open mind is not consistent with your self-annointed “omniscience”, is it?
Sometimes I think that the biggest difference between Americans and Europeans is that, in America, teen-agers grow to adulthood. In Europe, teen-agers just drift into a state of perpetual adolescence. The shallow “omniscience” of teen-agers is well-documented. As is yours...
I gather from your zeal in promoting Europe’s half-baked “carbon-trading” schemes, that you have a financial interest in “pushing” them. It’s either that, or an over-abundance of shallow-thinking “skills” that has allowed you to be seduced by an obviously corrupt system:
From: http://onthecommons.org/node/991
“...Last week I spoke at a conference in Berlin on the state of global efforts to combat climate change. The conference was groping for a path beyond the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012 and whose modest targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions won’t be met. I expected a fair amount of U.S.-bashing, but most of the Euro-criticism was directed at Europe itself. A main focus of ire was the European Trading System, in which governments issue tradable carbon emission permits to polluting industries.
The European governments that set up the system are doing two huge things wrong: first, they’re handing out too many permits, and second, they’re giving them free to polluters, who then raise prices and reap windfall profits.
In Germany, the big winners have been coal-burning utilities, and the losers have been nearly everyone else. As one German steel maker complained, “the utilities get windfall profits, and energy users get windfall costs.” In Britain, the first-year windfall to polluters was estimated at £1 billion.
What’s going on here, of course, is a large-scale transfer of wealth triggered by a massive enclosure of a commons. The commons in this case is the earth’s atmosphere, a shared inheritance if there ever was one. It’s being sliced into valuable private property rights that are handed free of charge to polluting corporations, in rough proportion to their historic pollution. The more they polluted in the past, the more new wealth they receive. Not just once, but year after year.
There’s no defensible rationale for this giveaway; the only reason for it is the political power of polluting corporations...”
I know... I know...
YOU find dealing with the facts (such as corporate power in Germany) to be just TOO confusing. You’d rather live your life according to the “labels” (green=”good”;USA=”bad”) placed on things, not the real things themselves.
Just like every other shallow-thinking “omniscient” teen-ager, nicht wahr?
And yet you respond to good natured ribbing with such maturity.
I used to be impressed. It is fading. Too bad; thought I might learn something.
The wounded-victim “tone” of your last comment suggests that my good-natured barbs are penetrating your invisible “new clothes” rather easily.
I was very interested to learn from the reference I provided that the carbon-trading scheme in Germany is actually being “managed” to reward powerful German corporations. Surprise! Surprise!
Of course, such a result would be easily foreseen by anyone with an iota of common sense. In other words, by any ADULT.
Since you have been “pushing” carbon-trading for a while, I conclude that the information on the corruption in German “carbon-trading” is “new” to you. Otherwise, I’d have to ask what kind of person would — knowingly — “push” a corrupt scheme.
It follows that you should have learned something today.
As my only purpose in life is to educate you and, hopefully, earn your admiration thereby, I now feel happy for the BOTH of us...
As you know as well as I and anyone who has taken economics 101, the carbon trading system is absurd. It is a market that rewards "not" doing something and is so convulted and silly as to be easily manipulated (do you even know what goes in to "establishing a baseline" and "proving additionality"?.
The correct solution would be to tax carbon. It would be infinitely more effective, probably cheaper and less easily manipulated than a cap and trade scheme.
The only problem of course is that governments have a way of using taxes for spurious wealth-redistribution schemes and concentrating power.
If a tax on carbon were coupled with tax relief elsewhere that would be ideal - but unfortuantely highly unlikely.
However, I am convinced that if conservative minds put their heads together a decent solution that is neither a wealth-distribution scheme nor unnecessarily harmful to the economy can be found and implemented.
Regardless, I am pleased to see that you are now intersted in discussing the best solutions to the problem and are out of the denial phase (what I mean is denying that something is going to happen in terms of policy. I know you arent't convinced about anthropogenic warming).
I think I missed the numbness (first phase), and I suppose the anger and depression phase is what I am now experiencing considering your name-calling. But, once we get past that I would be pleased to sit down with you and a beer (if you happen to be in Germany) or other drink in your city of residence and discuss what might actually be done to solve the problem without allowing the wacko-left to use it as an excuse to control our lives.
Have a very pleasant holiday weekend.
Some answers for you:
“...(do you even know what goes in to “establishing a baseline” and “proving additionality”?.
==> Yes. Bribes.
“...The correct solution would be to tax carbon. It would be infinitely more effective, probably cheaper and less easily manipulated than a cap and trade scheme...”
==> Actually, the “tax carbon” scheme hasn’t worked out so well for Europe, has it?. Everyone knows that gasoline taxes are much higher in the EU than in the US and that, as a result, most Europeans must drive tiny metal coffins. Even so, the US is doing better at reducing its carbon dioxide emissions than the EU. So I really think you need to “think outside the [”Just raise taxes!”] box” for a change.
As an example of such thinking, I think “carbon sequestration” by using living plants shows great promise. That’s one reason I have planted so many flowering trees around my home over the years.
Now, why don’t you surprise me and do some research on this? I think the website below is very interesting. I am now looking into investing with this company.
http://www.greenfuelonline.com/
“...numbness...anger...depression...considering your name-calling...”
==> Please be aware that I have zero-tolerance for monkeyhear-monkeysay America-bashing from so-called college-graduates, who have so little of value to offer the world that simple economics forces them to live with their parents (i.e. post-teen “adolescents”). That IS a serious problem in Europe, is it not?
If you want to talk about how “good” Europe is, OK. But if you want to talk about how “bad” America is, then I feel fully justified in treating you as just another self-righteous, ignorant “troll”. And if pointing out some rather large “imperfections” on your side of the pond is “name-calling”, so be it.
“...Have a very pleasant holiday weekend.”
==> Thanks for the pleasant thought. It snowed here today so my wife and I looking forward to a long weekend in Natchez, Mississippi, which should be glorious:
http://www.monmouthplantation.com/
I hope that MY azaleas bloom before June this year.
You seem to be confusing me with someone else. I am neither defending nor promoting European models. To the contrary, Europe is fundamentally incapable of leading and therefore American solutions are required. Why else would I bother?
Thus I find your current line of attacks to be a bit off base and strange.
I am a big fan of carbon sequestration. God saw fit to put the largest reserves of coal in the US, India and China. There is no way that these countries aren’t going to burn it. But the fact that China is creating a massive non-sequestration coal burning infrastucture at the rate of about 1 new powerplant every two weeks concerns me a bit. Carbon aside, that is an awful lot of SoX and NoX.
But, as I said, I am glad we are beginning the dialogue about solutions. That is the right step. I will look at the website this long weekend.
Happy Friday.
With regrd to your plantation in Mississippi - I want to go there and you have made me jealous.
If I weren’t in sunny Munich (hands down the best city in Germany), it would be worse.
Siemens, GE, Alstom and several other engineering firms large and small were working together several years ago on sequestration solutions. They no longer cooperate because the market potetnial is too great and they do not want to give up a potential competetive advantage.
At the end of the day, bio-tech is likely to be the better solution. And of course, lots of money is to be made.
I imagine you have heard of this too: www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/09/business/climate.php
A decent idea, questionable actors.
I just read your story and you have my sympathy. I would have shown up for this, but I haven’t had the chance to log in for over a month.
I hope things have turned around for you, that is you have a new job, or your criminal boss was gotten rid of.
Best regards,
CT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.