Posted by Morris Dovey on March 30, 2009, 2:23 am
Ken Maltby wrote:
You miss (or choose to miss) the larger point. Change is the only
constant - and a particular change may or may not be rooted in politics.
Creatures who are able to survive only in stasis are doomed to
extinction, and those who adapt best survive best. It's not a matter of
dogma, and wanting to believe otherwise will not change that.
I'm not sure whether you're thick, or simply ignorant. I /manufacture/
devices that free my customers from the need to purchase the energy (and
to pay the taxes) about which you're complaining.
One of my customers seems to take an inordinate amount of satisfaction
that his solar heated shop building costs nothing to heat while a
neighbor spends over $00/year to heat his comparably-sized shop with a
conventional heating system.
Frankly, I have no idea how much of the $00 is tax - and I don't much
care. I /do/ have a pretty good idea how much of the $ is tax, and I
guess I should be glad that you're there to make up the tax revenue my
customer isn't providing.
You can anticipate change and adapt in some appropriate way or not. I
see it as choosing to dodge the steamroller rather than choosing to let
it run over you - and while you stand rooted to the spot dithering about
steamroller dogma, I could hardly care less.
However much you try to project, none of the above has ever /been/ mine
to call. I have crossed oceans by both jet and propeller aircraft, and
by ship. I enjoy sailing, and have thought for a long time that I might
enjoy the trip by sail.
I've only made a few trips by helicopter - and you might approve that I
exited at flight altitude at the midpoint of all trips. (Obviously, I
found my way down without serious problems.)
If you have a problem with Gore's or Edwards' lifestyle, then it strikes
me as more appropriate for you to first take up the matter with them.
If you have a problem with /my/ lifestyle (which strikes me as
improbable) then you're welcome to stop by for coffee and present your
criticisms and suggestions. There're maps and address on my web site -
and I'm told I make good coffee. :)
How about if I say I'm responsible for the resources I choose to use and
you are responsible for the resources you choose use? Are you more
comfortable with that?
Now what would you say if Eric (sorry, Eric) joins the consumption game
and uses so much of the same resource that you and I are using that the
price increases fourfold?
My reaction is most probably going to be to look for ways to minimize my
dependence on / consumption of that resource and make that savings
available to others. In real life, that's exactly what I've done and
continue to do - although I can understand how you might be unaware of that.
As far as I'm concerned, you and Eric are welcome to the consequences of
playing the game if you so choose. I'm not, however, inclined to feel
much sympathy when you say you don't like the consequences of your choices.
Wow! I claimed that? I don't think we're speaking the same language, and
even though the words /do/ seem familiar, they sure aren't mine.
I had, and have, no intention of politicizing any of this, and said so
in the first sentence of my three-sentence post.
Which appears to have been too complex for at least one reader to grasp.
DeSoto, Iowa USA
Posted by Ken Maltby on March 30, 2009, 5:47 am
While we still have some control over our government, the
imposition of such taxes, is not an inevitable, unavoidable
change. It can be resisted and even overturned if it should
come to be. Obama's liberal agenda is not a force of nature
sufficient to roll over all opposition, the nation is at a 50/50
balance. The rosy glow of many of his announced plans
will quickly fade as the actual actions involved come to light.
You sell passive thermal solar not unlike those writen up, many
times, over many years, in many publications such as Mother Earth
News, Popular Science, and a host of others. You essentially
provide what has been a do-it-yourself project, to those with more
money than handyman skills. Your site is subtitled "The Home of
"Zero-Carbon" Energy Solutions", (quite an accomplishment for an
elongated window box lined with black plastic). While your efforts
don't appear to qualify for tax support or your products likely to give
your customers any tax break/credit, there are plenty of the more
connected ""Zero-Carbon" Energy Solutions" that do. Oboma's
planed expansion of such efforts may even reach you with my tax
dollars, some day soon. Or you could get some of that "Cap &
You took the position that others were squandering resources,
and that it would be those who object to the planned Cap and
Trade/Energy taxation. The direct implication would be that you
would not be one of that group and that if you controled the
resource it wouldn't be squandered.
Taking quick cheap shots at all who don't support the "Zero-Carbon"
agenda, isn't too complex to see through, especially coming from "The
Home of "Zero-Carbon" Energy Solutions".
Posted by Morris Dovey on March 30, 2009, 11:28 am
Ken Maltby wrote:
That is the sort of misrepresentation I might expect from an
unscrupulous competitor. You reveal yourself as a person who is
comfortable making statements without concern for truth.
The actuality is that the majority of my customers over the past five
years have had /better/ than "handyman" skills. Two of my best showcase
installations are in workshops - one a farm shop in Iowa, and the other
a production shop in Ontario.
You're not even a good guesser. :)
One of my biggest sales obstacles has been the assumption that the beer
can technology of the 70's and 80's was as good as solar could do -
Ignorance dies hard, as you illustrate.
> While your efforts
My interest is strictly in providing warmth, and that is what my
customers want. You're the only person in this picture who's fixated on
government and politics and reaching into other people's pockets.
Another misrepresentation. I took /no/ position and said:
"I expect the loudest complaints to come from those who insist they have
a "right" to squander resources at everyone else's expense."
I think perhaps I'm not the the one spouting "cheap shots".
DeSoto, Iowa USA
Posted by Jim Wilkins on March 30, 2009, 11:06 am
The 'logic' underlying socialism fails unless you assume zero-sum,
whatever one person has was taken from or denied to another, thus
undercutting the right of possession.
Posted by Morris Dovey on March 30, 2009, 11:49 am
Jim Wilkins wrote:
Since you're responding to me, I'd like to understand what you said.
Would you care to try again? I'm in the uncomfortable position of
thinking I understand all the words, but not the message.
What on earth has socialism (or any other -ism, for that matter) to do
with my efforts to find less costly ways of doing things?
DeSoto, Iowa USA