jump to navigation

Green Dilemma November 23, 2008

Posted by admin in : Economics, End Of The World, Environment, Irrelevant, Lies , 1 comment so far

So let’s say I have about 10 good years left on my Honda Accord, which gets like 32 hwy/23 city. I’d like to trade it in for a Prius. So I drive my gas-guzzling Accord to the Toyota dealership and trade it in for a nice green Prius. The dealer then sells the Accord to Joe the Plumber who continues to drive it for the remaining ten years of its life.

Why is it better for the planet and all that for him to drive it for the next ten years than for me to be driving it?

That Sure Was Horrible, but It Doesn’t Rise to the Level of Genocide November 25, 2007

Posted by admin in : Economics, End Of The World, Giving, Lies, Political/Editorial , add a comment

What a phrase: “rise to the level of genocide“.

I know there’s a definition or many definitions, and because of this, some things are and other things are not genocide. But still, it strikes me as weasly, bureaucratic, dismissive. It’s almost always used in the negative. You hardly ever hear anyone say: “Well, how about that? This one *does* rise to the level of genocide. Yep. Sure does. It was just under that level, there’s the level, then it rose above that level.”

No — it’s usually, “that thing is horrible, but does it rise to the level of genocide?” (posed as a question but is really being answered in the negative). Or: “One thing is clear: it doesn’t rise to the level of genocide.” And then the argument hinges on a technicality or selective choosing of an operative definition of genocide. It’s like saying, “I’m indignant, but according to Webster’s dictionary, my indignation does not rise to the level of outrage. I’ll write one letter to my congressman, but I won’t write two, because this atrocity does not meet the two-letter criteria. I’ll send $100 to the relief of the victims, but I won’t send $200, because their suffering just does not quite rise to that level.” One’s suffering must rise to a certain level, after all.

“Ooo, so close! But it just doesn’t rise to the level of genocide. Try again next time!”

Personal Dirigibles July 17, 2007

Posted by admin in : Economics, Irrelevant, Outdoors/Travel , add a comment

Million-dollar prize offered for soldier ‘power pack’

I need to draft my personal dirigible schematic, but it’s a no-brainer. Tie off the packs to the mini-zeppelin hovering overhead. The Zep will have a little propeller for propulsion so the soldier will hardly notice it’s there.

It can’t fail!

And this is related to anti-trust how again? July 15, 2007

Posted by admin in : Economics, Irrelevant , add a comment

Revealing Mackey’s sock-puppeteering does a good job of embarassing him personally, damaging Whole Foods reputation, but it protects consumers how again? It is relevant to the Wild Oats acquisition how again?

(link)

That Sinking Feeling June 18, 2007

Posted by admin in : Economics, Environment, Irrelevant, Outdoors/Travel, Political/Editorial , add a comment

I’ve been wondering how to feel about the idea of carbon offset programs.

We dig fossil fuel out of the ground, burn it and fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, and then plant trees to soak it back up. If only it were so simple.

( linkeroonie )

 

FTC to Try to Block Grocer’s Acquisition June 5, 2007

Posted by admin in : Economics , add a comment

DENVER (AP) — Natural foods grocer Wild Oats Market Inc. said Tuesday that federal regulators will file a lawsuit to prevent its acquisition by competitor Whole Foods Market Inc.Greg Mays, Wild Oats’ chairman and chief executive, said his company and Whole Foods will challenge any lawsuit that is filed because they believe the union of the two grocers will benefit the marketplace.

I’m no economist, but this makes no sense to me. Who does Whole Foods NOT compete with? The idea that the Wild Oats acquisition would limit competition in the whole/organic foods marketplace is preposterous. I can get organic food at Safeway, Long’s drugs, Trader Joes, Costco, Walmart, to name a very few competitors. To block this acquisition overly favors those competitors and violates the principle of anti-trust, does it not?