[HarryBosch]

We Were Warned: Tomorrow’s Oil Crisis

I just watched this last night on CNN. I didn’t know that Brazil is completely independent of oil from other nations. They use “E85” and produce all of their own “sugar-cane ethanol”. The world production of oil could stop completely and Brazil would go on as if everything were normal. Besides Rio there’s another reason to move there :)(http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas/03/10/brazil.ethanol.example.ap/index.html)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/03/14/cnnpce.we.were.warned/index.html

Program Overview

It is September 2009. A Category 5 hurricane roars through Houston, destroying oil refineries, drilling platforms and pipelines–the complex system that provides a quarter of our nation’s daily fuel supply. Three days later, terrorists attack two key oil installations in Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest supplier. In the days and weeks that follow, gasoline prices hit record highs, food prices soar as trucks cannot afford to make deliveries, and Americans begin to realize that their very way of life is in peril.

In We Were Warned: Tomorrow’s Oil Crisis, CNN’s Frank Sesno explores the potential ripple effects of this frightening scenario. The events depicted are hypothetical, but oil experts believe the scenario is entirely plausible. His interviews with energy experts reveal that we are nearing the point at which the world, led by the U.S. and China, will begin to consume more oil than can be pumped from the ground and the oceans. Tracking the global race to find new pools of oil, Sesno also considers the viability of alternative fuels, such as ethanol, which is used as fuel for 40% of cars in Brazil. Throughout his investigation, Sesno tries to find out whether any of these ventures can solve our looming energy crisis or whether we are already too late.

[HarryBosch]

Well, obviously one of my favorites is Michael Connelly. I always enjoy his books especially during long plane trips. I did recently read Dean Koontz – “The Husband”. It was a fast read and entertaining with some twists. Koontz writes about OC and sometimes Riverside County so it’s cool to read a good fictional story with references to locations I have been to and street names that I have actually walked or driven down.

If you’re looking for non-fiction one of my favorites out of the past is “The Naked Ape” by a zoologist, Desmond Morris.

[HarryBosch]

Well, obviously one of my favorites is Michael Connelly. I always enjoy his books especially during long plane trips. I did recently read Dean Koontz – “The Husband”. It was a fast read and entertaining with some twists. Koontz writes about OC and sometimes Riverside County so it’s cool to read a good fictional story with references to locations I have been to and street names that I have actually walked or driven down.

If you’re looking for non-fiction one of my favorites out of the past is “The Naked Ape” by a zoologist, Desmond Morris.

[HarryBosch]

Well, obviously one of my favorites is Michael Connelly. I always enjoy his books especially during long plane trips. I did recently read Dean Koontz – “The Husband”. It was a fast read and entertaining with some twists. Koontz writes about OC and sometimes Riverside County so it’s cool to read a good fictional story with references to locations I have been to and street names that I have actually walked or driven down.

If you’re looking for non-fiction one of my favorites out of the past is “The Naked Ape” by a zoologist, Desmond Morris.

[HarryBosch]

Well, obviously one of my favorites is Michael Connelly. I always enjoy his books especially during long plane trips. I did recently read Dean Koontz – “The Husband”. It was a fast read and entertaining with some twists. Koontz writes about OC and sometimes Riverside County so it’s cool to read a good fictional story with references to locations I have been to and street names that I have actually walked or driven down.

If you’re looking for non-fiction one of my favorites out of the past is “The Naked Ape” by a zoologist, Desmond Morris.

[HarryBosch]

Well, obviously one of my favorites is Michael Connelly. I always enjoy his books especially during long plane trips. I did recently read Dean Koontz – “The Husband”. It was a fast read and entertaining with some twists. Koontz writes about OC and sometimes Riverside County so it’s cool to read a good fictional story with references to locations I have been to and street names that I have actually walked or driven down.

If you’re looking for non-fiction one of my favorites out of the past is “The Naked Ape” by a zoologist, Desmond Morris.

[HarryBosch]

Since we’re laying our cards on the table I might as weigh in as well.

Is homosexuality right or wrong is a moral question. Just as is having multiple wives right or wrong also a moral question. Moral questions can only be answered with opinions – which are neither right nor wrong. Therefore any legislation related to homosexuality is morally driven.

If the majority of a community, city, state or nation believe that “(substitute any majority opinion here)” then the majority opinion should be enacted as law. Because if a majority opinion is not reflected in the laws of the community, city, state or nation then this can only lead to problems – how could it be otherwise?

Why or when is it right for the minority opinion to be the dominant opinion to the point that it becomes law?

Since the majority in our state already voted to ban gay marriage then I think that a court (of 7 people) should not be able to overrule the populous vote. Therefore gay marriage should remain banned.

Personally, I don’t see any benefit of homosexuality to our society. I ask myself why do men want to have sex with women? It obviously feels extremely very good. And why we’re we – and almost all other creatures – built this way? What is the result of sex between the male and the female of the species? The result is offspring. The result is procreation. The result is the next generation of our species.

If the act of homosexuality cannot benefit the species then we, as a society, should not be encouraging it.

On the other hand, I do accept that all people are not created equal. We have people born left handed, right handed, some with autism, etc. Every person’s body and brain is unique. Therefore I think some people are born with a predisposition – maybe even genetic – to be homosexual. But I dont think we should be encouraging homosexuality through laws, television, education or other mediums – for the reason I stated earlier, that it does not benefit the species.

Our problem is that there are so many people now that it is easier for minorities to scare politicians and small courts of seven people into creating laws that favor the minority.

[HarryBosch]

Since we’re laying our cards on the table I might as weigh in as well.

Is homosexuality right or wrong is a moral question. Just as is having multiple wives right or wrong also a moral question. Moral questions can only be answered with opinions – which are neither right nor wrong. Therefore any legislation related to homosexuality is morally driven.

If the majority of a community, city, state or nation believe that “(substitute any majority opinion here)” then the majority opinion should be enacted as law. Because if a majority opinion is not reflected in the laws of the community, city, state or nation then this can only lead to problems – how could it be otherwise?

Why or when is it right for the minority opinion to be the dominant opinion to the point that it becomes law?

Since the majority in our state already voted to ban gay marriage then I think that a court (of 7 people) should not be able to overrule the populous vote. Therefore gay marriage should remain banned.

Personally, I don’t see any benefit of homosexuality to our society. I ask myself why do men want to have sex with women? It obviously feels extremely very good. And why we’re we – and almost all other creatures – built this way? What is the result of sex between the male and the female of the species? The result is offspring. The result is procreation. The result is the next generation of our species.

If the act of homosexuality cannot benefit the species then we, as a society, should not be encouraging it.

On the other hand, I do accept that all people are not created equal. We have people born left handed, right handed, some with autism, etc. Every person’s body and brain is unique. Therefore I think some people are born with a predisposition – maybe even genetic – to be homosexual. But I dont think we should be encouraging homosexuality through laws, television, education or other mediums – for the reason I stated earlier, that it does not benefit the species.

Our problem is that there are so many people now that it is easier for minorities to scare politicians and small courts of seven people into creating laws that favor the minority.

[HarryBosch]

Since we’re laying our cards on the table I might as weigh in as well.

Is homosexuality right or wrong is a moral question. Just as is having multiple wives right or wrong also a moral question. Moral questions can only be answered with opinions – which are neither right nor wrong. Therefore any legislation related to homosexuality is morally driven.

If the majority of a community, city, state or nation believe that “(substitute any majority opinion here)” then the majority opinion should be enacted as law. Because if a majority opinion is not reflected in the laws of the community, city, state or nation then this can only lead to problems – how could it be otherwise?

Why or when is it right for the minority opinion to be the dominant opinion to the point that it becomes law?

Since the majority in our state already voted to ban gay marriage then I think that a court (of 7 people) should not be able to overrule the populous vote. Therefore gay marriage should remain banned.

Personally, I don’t see any benefit of homosexuality to our society. I ask myself why do men want to have sex with women? It obviously feels extremely very good. And why we’re we – and almost all other creatures – built this way? What is the result of sex between the male and the female of the species? The result is offspring. The result is procreation. The result is the next generation of our species.

If the act of homosexuality cannot benefit the species then we, as a society, should not be encouraging it.

On the other hand, I do accept that all people are not created equal. We have people born left handed, right handed, some with autism, etc. Every person’s body and brain is unique. Therefore I think some people are born with a predisposition – maybe even genetic – to be homosexual. But I dont think we should be encouraging homosexuality through laws, television, education or other mediums – for the reason I stated earlier, that it does not benefit the species.

Our problem is that there are so many people now that it is easier for minorities to scare politicians and small courts of seven people into creating laws that favor the minority.

[HarryBosch]

Since we’re laying our cards on the table I might as weigh in as well.

Is homosexuality right or wrong is a moral question. Just as is having multiple wives right or wrong also a moral question. Moral questions can only be answered with opinions – which are neither right nor wrong. Therefore any legislation related to homosexuality is morally driven.

If the majority of a community, city, state or nation believe that “(substitute any majority opinion here)” then the majority opinion should be enacted as law. Because if a majority opinion is not reflected in the laws of the community, city, state or nation then this can only lead to problems – how could it be otherwise?

Why or when is it right for the minority opinion to be the dominant opinion to the point that it becomes law?

Since the majority in our state already voted to ban gay marriage then I think that a court (of 7 people) should not be able to overrule the populous vote. Therefore gay marriage should remain banned.

Personally, I don’t see any benefit of homosexuality to our society. I ask myself why do men want to have sex with women? It obviously feels extremely very good. And why we’re we – and almost all other creatures – built this way? What is the result of sex between the male and the female of the species? The result is offspring. The result is procreation. The result is the next generation of our species.

If the act of homosexuality cannot benefit the species then we, as a society, should not be encouraging it.

On the other hand, I do accept that all people are not created equal. We have people born left handed, right handed, some with autism, etc. Every person’s body and brain is unique. Therefore I think some people are born with a predisposition – maybe even genetic – to be homosexual. But I dont think we should be encouraging homosexuality through laws, television, education or other mediums – for the reason I stated earlier, that it does not benefit the species.

Our problem is that there are so many people now that it is easier for minorities to scare politicians and small courts of seven people into creating laws that favor the minority.

[HarryBosch]

Since we’re laying our cards on the table I might as weigh in as well.

Is homosexuality right or wrong is a moral question. Just as is having multiple wives right or wrong also a moral question. Moral questions can only be answered with opinions – which are neither right nor wrong. Therefore any legislation related to homosexuality is morally driven.

If the majority of a community, city, state or nation believe that “(substitute any majority opinion here)” then the majority opinion should be enacted as law. Because if a majority opinion is not reflected in the laws of the community, city, state or nation then this can only lead to problems – how could it be otherwise?

Why or when is it right for the minority opinion to be the dominant opinion to the point that it becomes law?

Since the majority in our state already voted to ban gay marriage then I think that a court (of 7 people) should not be able to overrule the populous vote. Therefore gay marriage should remain banned.

Personally, I don’t see any benefit of homosexuality to our society. I ask myself why do men want to have sex with women? It obviously feels extremely very good. And why we’re we – and almost all other creatures – built this way? What is the result of sex between the male and the female of the species? The result is offspring. The result is procreation. The result is the next generation of our species.

If the act of homosexuality cannot benefit the species then we, as a society, should not be encouraging it.

On the other hand, I do accept that all people are not created equal. We have people born left handed, right handed, some with autism, etc. Every person’s body and brain is unique. Therefore I think some people are born with a predisposition – maybe even genetic – to be homosexual. But I dont think we should be encouraging homosexuality through laws, television, education or other mediums – for the reason I stated earlier, that it does not benefit the species.

Our problem is that there are so many people now that it is easier for minorities to scare politicians and small courts of seven people into creating laws that favor the minority.

[HarryBosch]

Hmm, someone is sure feeling guilty about not being home with their kids more often. Or maybe they’re feeling guilty about not wanting to be home with their kids more often.

I think that the more vehemently someone disagrees with another person the more likely their disagreement is more of an emotional reflex – a defense mechanism to protect themselves from some stressful memory or feeling.

They attempt to present rational arguments to justify their emotional stress not knowing or wanting to acknowledge where their stress really originates. And that’s when I usually stop taking their arguments seriously.

The more vehemence they display the less they are actually talking about the topic at hand but more indirectly about something stressful within themselves.

[HarryBosch]

Hmm, someone is sure feeling guilty about not being home with their kids more often. Or maybe they’re feeling guilty about not wanting to be home with their kids more often.

I think that the more vehemently someone disagrees with another person the more likely their disagreement is more of an emotional reflex – a defense mechanism to protect themselves from some stressful memory or feeling.

They attempt to present rational arguments to justify their emotional stress not knowing or wanting to acknowledge where their stress really originates. And that’s when I usually stop taking their arguments seriously.

The more vehemence they display the less they are actually talking about the topic at hand but more indirectly about something stressful within themselves.

[HarryBosch]

Hmm, someone is sure feeling guilty about not being home with their kids more often. Or maybe they’re feeling guilty about not wanting to be home with their kids more often.

I think that the more vehemently someone disagrees with another person the more likely their disagreement is more of an emotional reflex – a defense mechanism to protect themselves from some stressful memory or feeling.

They attempt to present rational arguments to justify their emotional stress not knowing or wanting to acknowledge where their stress really originates. And that’s when I usually stop taking their arguments seriously.

The more vehemence they display the less they are actually talking about the topic at hand but more indirectly about something stressful within themselves.

[HarryBosch]

Hmm, someone is sure feeling guilty about not being home with their kids more often. Or maybe they’re feeling guilty about not wanting to be home with their kids more often.

I think that the more vehemently someone disagrees with another person the more likely their disagreement is more of an emotional reflex – a defense mechanism to protect themselves from some stressful memory or feeling.

They attempt to present rational arguments to justify their emotional stress not knowing or wanting to acknowledge where their stress really originates. And that’s when I usually stop taking their arguments seriously.

The more vehemence they display the less they are actually talking about the topic at hand but more indirectly about something stressful within themselves.

[Author]

Posts