Re: [biofuel] Washington Wants War! Was: Just one man's observation!
Hi Ken Keith writes: This is exactly why the US, the UK and the other Allies formed the UN after WW2. It is a problem for the whole world, not just Washington, and when the whole world disagrees with Washington's proposed solution, Washington should listen, rather than trying to railroad the UN and the world. This gives me an idea -- I've been wondering how to refer to my country in conversations these days. The problem is that America is obsessed, America wants war, etc etc. doesn't speak for ME or many of the Americans I know. That's definitely a problem - I think many of us non-Americans here are feeling that. It certainly goes for most of the Americans I know. And I post all this stuff that the war-party lot then dubs anti-US or America-bashing, but nearly all of it's written by Americans! I think I'll start referring to the insane masterminds of this immoral foreign policy, as well as the ones who just sit idly while it happens, as Washington. That doesn't cover all of 'em, but it covers a good percentage. Somewhere along the way, Washington got the idea that it was synony- mous with America. It's not, and we need a simple way to clarify that in discussions. Excellent! Thanks for the tip, Keith :-) -K Thanks for applying it properly. :-) Keith Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Washington Wants War! Was: Just one man's observation!
Ken, I am not sure that it is a good idea. Many Americans would take it as an even larger offense. If Washington lived now, I do not think that he would like to be that associated with Bush and what is going on in the city that have his name. Maybe we could start to call both America, US and Washington for Bushington instead, in the context of what is going on. How does it sound with Bushington is obsessed or Bushington wants war etc etc. Hakan At 07:50 AM 2/25/2003 -0800, you wrote: Keith writes: This is exactly why the US, the UK and the other Allies formed the UN after WW2. It is a problem for the whole world, not just Washington, and when the whole world disagrees with Washington's proposed solution, Washington should listen, rather than trying to railroad the UN and the world. This gives me an idea -- I've been wondering how to refer to my country in conversations these days. The problem is that America is obsessed, America wants war, etc etc. doesn't speak for ME or many of the Americans I know. I think I'll start referring to the insane masterminds of this immoral foreign policy, as well as the ones who just sit idly while it happens, as Washington. That doesn't cover all of 'em, but it covers a good percentage. Somewhere along the way, Washington got the idea that it was synony- mous with America. It's not, and we need a simple way to clarify that in discussions. Thanks for the tip, Keith :-) -K Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Washington Wants War!
You are correct Hakan. 'Ol George WOULD be rather horrified at what this good country he started had become. It has become overflowing with Corruption ... Propaganda ... etc. In fact, 'ol George would probably even be embarrassed of continuing to call this country America. It's not the original country he started .. it's been bought out. Like a store ... that has a new owner. The only thing it has in common with the old store ... is the name. But an empty .. hollow name. So you know what I'm gonna CHANGE all that!! The Government's all corrupt ... the Land they control is corrupt. So we'll change this whole country's name to Bushington. The people are cool ... as many non-my-countrymen have observered so We'll retain the name of Americans. Now, let's put it all together in a sentence.Many American's ... who reside in the country of Bushington. Or, a large percentage of the people living in Bushington are Americans. Something like that. Curtis Get your free newsletter at http://www.ezinfocenter.com/3122155/NL - Original Message - From: Hakan Falk [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ken, I am not sure that it is a good idea. Many Americans would take it as an even larger offense. If Washington lived now, I do not think that he would like to be that associated with Bush and what is going on in the city that have his name. Maybe we could start to call both America, US and Washington for Bushington instead, in the context of what is going on. How does it sound with Bushington is obsessed or Bushington wants war etc etc. Hakan Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Washington Wants War! Was: Just one man's observation!
Hakan Falk wrote: Many Americans would take it as an even larger offense. I don't speak for all Americans, but I don't take offense. It's common in English to refer to a nation's government by the name of its capital--it's like a collective noun. We understand that when a news reporter says: According to Moscow, she's really referring to the Russian government. If Washington lived now, I do not think that he would like to be that associated with Bush and what is going on in the city that have his name. If George Washington lived now, we wouldn't be in this mess! Maybe we could start to call both America, US and Washington for Bushington instead, in the context of what is going on. How does it sound with Bushington is obsessed or Bushington wants war etc etc. Hakan Sorry, but that doesn't work for me. I have different ideas about the whole topic, so please forgive me in advance for the following sermon: Whenever we start rattling sabers over here, I can't help but wonder what would change if citizens began shifting the paradigm of the discussion away from bellicose rantings about WOMD and lobbied Congress to pressure Mr. Bush into a sane energy policy. For what this allegedly fiscally conservative Republican Administration is willing to spend dropping bombs and shooting missiles at people in other countries, we could invest in American companies, American technology and American jobs and let the Arabic peoples solve their problems without our blundering, near sighted assistance. Here are some of my favorite URLs: http://www.hydrogencomponents.com/cvi.html If Mr. Bush is serious about hydrogen, he doesn't have to invest billions into the black hole of government partnerships with the auto industry! The aftermarket can handle these things quite admirably! http://www.acrosolarlasers.com/index.html Displacing fossil fuels for home and swimming pool heating is a good way to reduce dependence on foreign energy supplies. This company is even from Texas! http://www.sterlingsolar.com/engines.htm From Florida, Jeb Bush's domain, Jeff Sterling is trying to market ORC engines to produce electricity from low temperature sources, like sunlight, or burning biomass. Then, there's the ever controversial William Mook, who advocates a transition to mass hydrogen production through a solar powered synfuels idea, initially involving coal. http://www.mokindustries.com/pages/762107/index.htm We have considerable expertise with solar concentration in my country, and vast land area with excellent insolation in the western part of the nation. For less money than we will spend killing Iraqis, we could eliminate the need for their oil. I'm not convinced that government partnerships will be of benefit, but our government could shift its tax policy to favor certain sectors by promoting private investment in the renewable fuels industry. Without the pesky obsession for energy that dominates our foreign policy, then perhaps we could become the world's leader for promoting human rights. Maybe we could spend more time weeding out corruption, greed and the exploitation of less wealthy, less powerful people, and we would shine like the beacon we envision ourselves to be. We could do a LOT more good by turning our attention to technology that's currently available, reducing our need for energy by serious and intelligent conservation; we'd create domestic jobs in the process and eliminate the funding sources for terrorists and rogue nations. That's my patriotic vision. As my sister said to me last night: Dissent IS NOT unAmerican! robert luis rabello The Edge of Justice Adventure for Your Mind http://www.1stbooks.com/bookview/9782 Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Re: [biofuel] Washington Wants War! Was: Just one man's observation!
Dear Robert, I took this with Washington or Bushington as a joke with a bit seriousness in it. After all, it is not American bashing that we do when we foreigners are critic it is the policies. We suffer in Europe from the US policies, because of spill over effects and the influence US have. With EU things are getting better and EU started to develop its own policies to a higher degree. Apart from that, we are completely in agreement. The problem is that when I am saying it, I get accused of American bashing. I think that it is many things that US can start to do a.s.a.p., but it is a lot of artificial and political road blocks that seems to get in the way. I had an interesting exchange with William Mok about the solar concentration. It is some things that I want to know more about it and we agreed to continue at a later stage, when he produced more documentation. He also wanted to use the cheap solar electricity to produce hydrogen from coal, to benefit from the Bush energy initiative. He could clearly see the coupling. We also had some common experiences from earth houses. Even if ours was from simulation of HVAC for the large nuclear safe shelters in Stockholm, Sweden. Hakan At 08:05 PM 2/25/2003 -0800, you wrote: Hakan Falk wrote: Many Americans would take it as an even larger offense. I don't speak for all Americans, but I don't take offense. It's common in English to refer to a nation's government by the name of its capital--it's like a collective noun. We understand that when a news reporter says: According to Moscow, she's really referring to the Russian government. If Washington lived now, I do not think that he would like to be that associated with Bush and what is going on in the city that have his name. If George Washington lived now, we wouldn't be in this mess! Maybe we could start to call both America, US and Washington for Bushington instead, in the context of what is going on. How does it sound with Bushington is obsessed or Bushington wants war etc etc. Hakan Sorry, but that doesn't work for me. I have different ideas about the whole topic, so please forgive me in advance for the following sermon: Whenever we start rattling sabers over here, I can't help but wonder what would change if citizens began shifting the paradigm of the discussion away from bellicose rantings about WOMD and lobbied Congress to pressure Mr. Bush into a sane energy policy. For what this allegedly fiscally conservative Republican Administration is willing to spend dropping bombs and shooting missiles at people in other countries, we could invest in American companies, American technology and American jobs and let the Arabic peoples solve their problems without our blundering, near sighted assistance. Here are some of my favorite URLs: http://www.hydrogencomponents.com/cvi.html If Mr. Bush is serious about hydrogen, he doesn't have to invest billions into the black hole of government partnerships with the auto industry! The aftermarket can handle these things quite admirably! http://www.acrosolarlasers.com/index.html Displacing fossil fuels for home and swimming pool heating is a good way to reduce dependence on foreign energy supplies. This company is even from Texas! http://www.sterlingsolar.com/engines.htm From Florida, Jeb Bush's domain, Jeff Sterling is trying to market ORC engines to produce electricity from low temperature sources, like sunlight, or burning biomass. Then, there's the ever controversial William Mook, who advocates a transition to mass hydrogen production through a solar powered synfuels idea, initially involving coal. http://www.mokindustries.com/pages/762107/index.htm We have considerable expertise with solar concentration in my country, and vast land area with excellent insolation in the western part of the nation. For less money than we will spend killing Iraqis, we could eliminate the need for their oil. I'm not convinced that government partnerships will be of benefit, but our government could shift its tax policy to favor certain sectors by promoting private investment in the renewable fuels industry. Without the pesky obsession for energy that dominates our foreign policy, then perhaps we could become the world's leader for promoting human rights. Maybe we could spend more time weeding out corruption, greed and the exploitation of less wealthy, less powerful people, and we would shine like the beacon we envision ourselves to be. We could do a LOT more good by turning our attention to technology that's currently available, reducing our need for energy by serious and intelligent conservation; we'd create domestic jobs in the process and eliminate the funding sources for terrorists and rogue nations. That's my patriotic vision. As my sister said to me last night: Dissent IS NOT unAmerican!
