12 Mar 2003 | JL said...

Wonderful. Will this administration ever do anything right?

12 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

The whole effort is an empty gesture...arctic drilling will not not add a helluva lot to lowering fuel costs. In fact, as Trudeau wrote in Doonesbury not too long ago, we could probably save the same amount of fuel if more people switched to hybrid.

12 Mar 2003 | fajalar said...

Please write your senators. And while I say that to encourage those who oppose drilling, I also hope (in the spirit of "getting involved") that everyone who feels anything about this issue will write.

DO NOT DRILL!

12 Mar 2003 | fajalar said...

Here's what I sent:

~~~
Please do not vote to open ANWR to oil drilling. I lived in Alaska for 21 years, and while I know there are Alaskans that feel it should be opened, I know there are many that do not believe it should be opened.

Now I am a resident of Illinois, and my feelings haven't changed. I believe the risks of being wrong about the potential dangers of drilling outweigh the benefits of the oil that we may find.

I do not feel that there is actual overwhelming support for opening ANWR. And even if there was overwhelming support I believe that the desires of the population as they stand today do not warrant always being satisfied. People just have to change sometimes, and it is up to the elected leaders to help manage that change.

I hope you will vote against this issue, and encourage your colleagues to vote against it as well.
~~~

Feel free to use it (modify it as needed of course). It's not incredibly eloquent, but I hope it gets my point across. If the 7 senators that I have sent it to so far even read these emails.

12 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

I say drill it. After all, there's, like, nothing there ... not even a decent cigar bar.

12 Mar 2003 | Benjy said...

I bet this isn't about oil either!

12 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

yeah, this is about the right of the oil to enjoy the American dream and finally be liberated from the oppressive tyranny of an undemocratically installed permafrost ;)

12 Mar 2003 | worm said...

By the time Dubya leaves office, the U.S. will be down to two companies (probably tank and aircraft manufacturers), we'll have oil drills everywhere there isn't a Walmart, and smolderin Iraq once rebuilt, will have a Starbucks and Micky D's on every corner.

12 Mar 2003 | Hagbard Celine said...

...and the Mickey D's will serve New York Burgers and Freedom Fries.

12 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Well ... at that point, you can always move to Iraq or North Korea.

12 Mar 2003 | Hagbard Celine said...

Oh, and the Starbucks will, of course, have Freedom Roast Coffee.

12 Mar 2003 | Darrel said...

I was just about to email my senator, Norm Coleman, but then I remembered that I don't think he can read.

Anyone have some good pictographs of why drilling in Alaska is bad?

(In all seriousness, I will be writing my senators about this one. Sadly, I don't think this really has to do with what we think, but rather what the appropriate lobbyists and buddies of the administration want...sad times indeed.)

12 Mar 2003 | worm said...

LOL!

And by then the French jokes will have worn thin and we'll be on to the other countries that didn't support us. For example, if you're a loose cannon, you may end up playing Freedom Roulette some night in a drunken stupor.

12 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

French jokes never grow tiresome. Still, I read a better suggestion elsewhere -- call them 'Chips' instead of French Fries in honor of the UK.

12 Mar 2003 | jim said...

And all this time I was afraid of what the Democrats would do in power (big government, bad military decisions, etc...). I officially give up on politics.

12 Mar 2003 | worm said...

Toby - I think you missed my sarcasm. I'd rather "honor" a country that has the balls to stand up to our idiotic administration. This French crap really makes the whole Republican party look like a bunch of 3rd graders.

I like this quote from Jason Kottke (www.kottke.org):
If the US were a person, nobody would want to hang out with him (again, note the deliberate use of the masculine). You don't want to play on our team? Fine. We're gonna blacklist you, stonewall you, ridicule you, and basically make your life a living hell. Is this really how we want to represent ourselves as a country? We're running the world like the Mafia.

12 Mar 2003 | JF said...

We're gonna blacklist you, stonewall you, ridicule you, and basically make your life a living hell.

Who have we blacklisted? Who have we stonewalled? And, BTW, if we're talking about stonewalling ( Dictionary.com: To refuse to answer or cooperate"), how about laying that on Saddam? Ridiculed? There's plenty of ridicule to go around on all sides... Whose life have we made a living hell in regards to this particular issue?

12 Mar 2003 | Darrel said...

We're running the world like the Mafia.

If we were the Mafia, Saddam would be at the bottom of the Hudson already. Quick. Clean. Smooth.

12 Mar 2003 | fajalar said...

I say drill it. After all, there's, like, nothing there ... not even a decent cigar bar.

Go there. See it.

This is what cracks me up about people who say, "Drill it." Most of them don't have any idea what it looks like. What goes on there. Why it was set aside in the first place.

Darrel asked for some links:

Pro Drilling
Anti Drilling
Data-driven USGS info
Satallite image links (large image files)
USGS 1998 assessment (some decent graphics)
Article on a recent poll

12 Mar 2003 | hurley#1 said...

For example, if you're a loose cannon, you may end up playing Freedom Roulette some night in a drunken stupor.

I believe the Congressional cafeteria now offers "Dressing for Success," instead of Russian dressing with its salads.

12 Mar 2003 | worm said...

JF - the point is simply a comparison to juvenille behavior. When you are young and immature and someone else doesn't dress like you/think like you/have the same interests as you, then you label them an outcast and ridicule them. You enjoy snickering about them with your other "cool" buddies. In short, you make their life hell so that you can feel better about your's.

I think it is an accurate analogy to the right-wingers and their French bashing. They don't think like us (and I hesitate to use "us" since it is only about half of "us") so therefore we'll make fun of you and call you names.

12 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Funny how many Americans are so anti-American. Gee ... don't here Iraqis (*IN* Iraq) being anti-Iraq.

To think I signed up, took an oath, and was willing to kill and die for you. Sheesh.

(On the other hand ... the fact that you ARE so anti-American shows that my efforts were *not* in vain; you ARE free, after all. God bless.)

12 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Don't _hear_. Hear. H-E-A-R.

Sheesh ... I'm such a doofus.

12 Mar 2003 | JF said...

When you are young and immature and someone else doesn't dress like you/think like you/have the same interests as you, then you label them an outcast and ridicule them. You enjoy snickering about them with your other "cool" buddies.

Oh, interesting. So, all this anti-american sentiment we're hearing about is polite, mature, acedemic anti-Americanism? All those peace protesters with their civil, mature, enlightened anti-war signs. I guess Americans are the only ones who act "young and immature." Please. All sides act the same (where they are allowed to). People are people.

12 Mar 2003 | worm said...

You don't hear Iraqis being anti-Iraqi because they'd get their heads cut off if they bad-mouthed Saddam. A good percentage of them would love to get new leadership. That said, I still don't think that gives us or anyone else the right to set up a government the way we'd like over there.

Trust me, I'm not anti-American and I'm rather tired of that label for people who don't agree with what the government thinks. Just because I can make up my own mind about issues (that don't jive with the Republican administration) does not make me anti-American. It makes me a free thinker and for the ability to voice my opinions without getting my head cut off, I am very grateful. Being able to hold intelligent "debates" like this are a privilege.

12 Mar 2003 | JF said...

"acedemic" should have been academic.
Bad word to mess up.

12 Mar 2003 | fajalar said...

Define "american." No one will come up with a definition for that to describe more than themselves. So I don't see how you can then define "anti-american."

I agree, people are people.

And thanks Don, but next time ask me. I don't want you getting in harms way on my account. I much prefer having you around to banter with.

13 Mar 2003 | SU said...

In situations such as these, I often ask myself "Self, what would the Beastie Boys do?" And here they are, ready to give their answer. (mp3 link)

13 Mar 2003 | MegaGrunt said...

Is the term Un-American still used in the U.S., or has it gone out of fashion?

13 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Fajalar ... I hope you catch that I caught myself in my own trap. Of COURSE people will disagree and voice it -- that's the very escence (sp?) of freedom.

I can be so dumb some -- MOST -- times.

:-)

(But I can lift heavy things)

13 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Hmmm ... let's see ... save a bear, or heat my house ... save a bear, or heat my house ... hmmmm.

I say DRILL!

13 Mar 2003 | fajalar said...

Here's an article on the percentages of Alaska gas directly exported from Alaska. The first paragraph of the article is somewhat ironic. It's from August 2001. I am having trouble finding current numbers.

Not I wrote "driectly exported from Alaska." I am trying to find out what happens to the oil that is sent to the West Coast. I know some of it stays here, but I bet some of it is exported again. But I could be wrong. It's happened before.

13 Mar 2003 | fajalar said...

Not I wrote=Note I wrote

And remember Don, when the oil runs out you can heat your house with the bear.

13 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Fajalar -- excellent point!

Tell me; what do you heat with? Just wondering?

Actually, you want my SERIOUS thoughts on all this? www.rmi.org.

Seriously. I like to "Yank peoples' chains" from time to time, but I'm mostly all about solar.

13 Mar 2003 | fajalar said...

We just bought a house (built in 1918) in December and it is heated with natural gas. Which, on the impact scale, is slightly less than electric heat as that is generated mostly by coal (at least in Illinois).

But, when we put a new roof on late this coming summer, we will be adding a small (but scalable) passive solar system. Eventually we want to get to the point of selling back energy during the summer. Given our winters I don't think we will acheive selling back energy from October to April.

But I did live for a week once in a small (two-person tent size) shelter in northern Alaska that was heated and lit with seal oil. Mmmm, seal oil.

13 Mar 2003 | boysen said...

I thought this was a site about Usability. Don't get into politics or it won't be "useful" to me anymore.

13 Mar 2003 | JF said...

boysen, what do you want to talk about?

13 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

Perhaps if they are to design sites for dummies the 37signals crew need a few live examples of their target audience.

13 Mar 2003 | fajalar said...

Most conversations meander from time to time. This blog may be full of varying threads, but still has a conversation feel to it.

Perhaps instead of just pointing out a "problem" you should come up with a solution. Say... a design solution that will increase the amount of oil taken out of the ground, but reduce the impact of the process on the environment.

You have 30 seconds. Go.

13 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Fajalar, I think they've already addressed that problem. Seriously.

I honestly don't think drilling in ANWR would be that bad on the environment. My stand is that oil is SO 20th century. It's time to move on.

13 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Here's the problem: I couldn't care less about ANWR, 'cause I'm not there.

But I care deeply about the ocean (again, I'm a member of Surfrider) because I surf.

How typical, AND HYPOCRITICAL AND WRONG, is that? Shame on me.

13 Mar 2003 | Paperhead said...

Yay!! @ go solar.

I have a roof covered in panels - waaay cheaper in the long run.

13 Mar 2003 | JF said...

Paper, could you post a picture of your roof? I'd love to see what the tiles look like. Thanks.

13 Mar 2003 | fajalar said...

Here is some (a little) info (with pictures) of photovoltaic shingles.

13 Mar 2003 | Darrel said...

Yes! Solar!

I only wonder where solar technology would be today had we not decided oil was just find back in the 80's.

I'm in MN where we're finally embracing wind power on a large scale. It's great to see.

As for heating your house. Most houses built are severly under-insulated. We build McMansions to the absolute minimum specifications. An extra 4-6" of insulation would go a long ways towards NEVER having to drill in unspoiled wilderness.

14 Mar 2003 | alisha said...

fajalar,
thanks for the links - good stuff.

Its so funny how the pro-crowd thinks that the burden should lie on the end-user:
"If consumers were to behave differently, immediate gains in energy conservation would result. For instance, drivers can save 1-5% in gasoline costs simply by maintaining optimum tire air pressure or installing microchips to record tire pressures and warn of discrepancies. Travel-related energy conservation need not be costly, burdensome or deadly (as from smaller, lighter cars). Better road systems, sequenced traffic lights, rush hour tolls, incentives for ridesharing, and improved transit all can increase energy savings."

In reality, most people will do only what they have to - not more. If there were laws in place, enforcing these energy conservation methods, people would follow them more. And from those who dont, the state would have an extra income. But what politician wants to be responsible for doing such an evil thing to the american people? And what about the last five points? Whos responsible for these? What about natural gas, which cuts automobile emmisions up to 80%? Is America investing in this technology? -Maybe they are, Im not sure.

"I thought this was a site about Usability. Don't get into politics or it won't be "useful" to me anymore."

I would also like more usability issues, but also enjoy the wide range of issues.

14 Mar 2003 | alisha said...

Id like to add that it will probably take a major meltdown - one worse than the Calif. meltdown - to get people to demand other technologies. So ironicly, it will probably will be the end-user who has to demand change.

14 Mar 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Here is some (a little) info (with pictures) of photovoltaic shingles.

There are actually a variety of photovoltaic shingles available, including some that look like terra-cotta tiles. Much more aesthetic than the big solar collector on the roof, which many people find ugly or too blatant. One of the great things about PV is that you don't need to live in a sunny climate for it to work...those cells still generate power on a cloudy day. I've been thinking of setting up a PV system for my office so I can do all my work with solar power. A nice little marketing touch as well to help sell my services to clients.

14 Mar 2003 | hurley#1 said...

Great as solar is, it's not going to do much to reduce our dependence on oil. Oil is mainly used to run vehicles, provide feedstocks for various products, and (in just a few parts of the country) heat homes. It's not used much to generate electricity, except for a few power plants in New England and small applications like diesel backup geneators.

Active (as opposed to passive) solar space heating works best in warmish parts of the country or those that get a lot of sun. I don't think you can do electric resistance heating using PV, as you'd need an awful lot of panels and it would be prohibitively expensive. On the other hand, passive solar design and good insulation can cut down your oil consumption considerably if you heat your home with oil.

The choices for reducing oil consumption are basically to improve energy efficiency (including fuel efficiency of vehicles); switch to alternative fossil fuels such as natural gas; and switch to non-fossil technologies such as ground-source heat pumps, fuel cells (which currently use fossil fuels but don't have to); passive solar design, instantaneous hot-water systems, and solar heating technologies in places where they work.

Fuel cells and natural gas microturbines are particularly interesting near-term solutions, because a small unit (refrigerator size or smaller) can provide all the heat, hot water, and electricity for a home. If/when they become affordable, they could go a long way toward reducing oil consumption for space heating.

14 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Actually, I think the best long-term solution is one that just will not happen: a complete re-structuring of our society into more "communal" living where people walk more, bike more, and share gardens.

*sigh*

"He's an old hippie, and he don't know what to do. Should he hang on to the Old, should he grab on to the New..."

14 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

Don Schenck, fanatical New Urbanist. Whoda thunkit?

If I may run OT, modern suburban developments are detrimental to society and the economy. We need cars, of course, but it would make sense begin rebuilding communities where you didn't need cars for everything. Small towns are a pleasure to live in and were the American norm until the 1950s (remember, until WWII, more people lived in rural communities). Now people believe that Suburbs = clusters of macro-houses off of the interstate. (I ask you, who wants a mansion if it is 12 feet away from another one?)

I'm not asking for the end of development, just regional planning guidelines to ensure that new developments are built sensibly (with a mix of houses laid out with parks and stores), won't cause the next town over to flood out (happens here), and funnel everybody into traffic-snarling feeder roads (happens everywhere).

14 Mar 2003 | Don Schenck said...

I have my Square Foot Garden, to be sure!

14 Mar 2003 | fajalar said...

Don, you look very relaxed in that chair. Nice hat!

14 Mar 2003 | Darrel said...

If I may run OT, modern suburban developments are detrimental to society and the economy.

Detrimental? They're downright apocolyptic. Urban sprawl in the US is pretty much maxed out. Our highways, sewers, watersheds, etc are all pretty much stretched to their max.

That's not even bringing up the fact that these homes aren't really being built with energy efficiency, longevity, community, or aesthetic appeal in mind.

Sadly, I don't see it getting better before it gets worse. :(

I currently live in a major metro area and I REALLY want to build a house IN the central core. But no one seems to want to accomodate that. Most empty lots are going to non-profit low income housing. So, that means I have to drive to the burbs to find a lot.

Which is fine, until I actually drive out there and realize that I'd have to make that drive every single day, live next to a vinyl-clad box, and have to trek 5 miles to find any food, which invariably will be a SA station or an Applebees.

Ugh.

Don...you're not the only one thinking communes. More and more people these days seem to at least give it more than a passing thought. Brining up ideas like 'wouldn't it be nice if we all just used ONE car as our 'second car'? What if we all shared one lawnmower? One day care provider? One driveway?

14 Mar 2003 | fajalar said...

I have some friends that are working on buying a city block (one house at a time) to turn into a community of sorts. Shared cars, shared yard work, but definitely still have areas of privacy (ie your own home).

It is a good effort. One that I hope to buy into (literally, as I already do figurtively).

15 Mar 2003 | andy said...

Falajar - where are your friends trying to purchase their block?

15 Mar 2003 | fajalar said...

Yeah, sorry. That was in response to Darrel's comment about communes.

They want the convenience of living in a city, but in a commune-like setting.

16 Mar 2003 | alisha said...

"Actually, I think the best long-term solution is one that just will not happen: a complete re-structuring of our society into more "communal" living where people walk more, bike more, and share gardens."
---
People crave this instintively. New Urabnism is based on this theory. My mother-in-law talks about about the time before the war (WW2). She says neighbors brought chairs from inside out into the street to sit together and chat in the evenings. Somehow the war ended that. Nowadays people keep to themselves - although Germans have much more of a "communal lifestyle" than Americans (based on the fact that most our towns and cities existed before cars). - think Beer Gardens...

16 Mar 2003 | alisha said...

... talks about about the time...
I need to start using that damn "preview" button!

18 Mar 2003 | Toby said...

Fajalar, I like the commune idea, a lot. It is a difficult thing to run, human nature as it is. I wish your friends luck, it should at least be an interesting experiment.

I'd like to try the same thing, but I live in Philadelphia...and who wants to live in fear of low-flying police choppers. :)

18 Mar 2003 | hurley#1 said...

This just in from the Daily Grist:

THE THRILL OF NO DRILL With a quarter of a million troops amassing outside Iraq and the city of Baghdad preparing for Armageddon, it's tough to find anything resembling a silver lining in the headlines. But there was some good news yesterday in the environmental sector: Senate Republicans said they had probably come up short in their efforts to secure enough votes to open Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, the highly controversial cornerstone of President Bush's energy plan. The Senate will vote on the plan late this week or early next, and by all indicators, the pro-drilling faction is about two votes shy of a success. The expected failure is sure to be an embarrassment for Bush, who vowed while campaigning to undo President Clinton's refusal to drill in the refuge. Environmentalists said they were cautiously optimistic about the lay of the land, but weren't going to exhale until after the vote.

19 Mar 2003 | SU said...

Senate Rejects Drilling in Alaska Refuge:

The 52-48 vote against a key element of Bush's energy program came despite GOP hopes that the likely onset of war with Iraq over the next few days would reinforce arguments for domestic energy production to help reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil.

Incredible.

19 Mar 2003 | fajalar said...

Maybe all the emails helped... This was nice to hear about.

16 Jan 2004 | Adlard said...

This topic is one we will tackle later in this article, but it refers to making sure that your application and the dock aren't fighting it out for supremacy of the screen.