hort.net Seasonal photo, (c) 2006 Christopher P. Lindsey, All Rights Reserved: do not copy
articles | gallery of plants | blog | tech blog | plant profiles | patents | mailing lists | top stories | links | shorturl service | tom clothier's archive0
 Navigation
Articles
Gallery of Plants
Blog
Tech Blog
Plant Profiles
Patents
Mailing Lists
    FAQ
    Netiquette
    Search ALL lists
    Search help
    Subscription info
Top Stories
Links
sHORTurl service
Tom Clothier's Archive
 Top Stories
Disease could hit Britain's trees hard

Ten of the best snowdrop cultivars

Plant protein database helps identify plant gene functions

Dendroclimatologists record history through trees

Potato beetle could be thwarted through gene manipulation

Hawaii expands coffee farm quarantine

Study explains flower petal loss

Unauthorized use of a plant doesn't invalidate it's patent

RSS story archive

Re: Washers


RE:>> Now I am really confused -- first being misled by Gore and Bush,
and now Beth -- what will happen next?
---------------------------
You mean I've been in a big tither about nothing?   I have got to quit listening to my big sister to be (we're trying to be adopted by the Conner's so that we can be around baby Hostas in their TC lab).  She's probably in the know, however, since she is so close to the business.   I do believe that if there isn't legislation on this issue, there should be or will be soon.  We human beings HAVE to be protected from ourselves, and I'm not just saying that.  I really do believe that many have to be lead like children to do the right thing, for themselves and in regard to others (if you don't believe that, look at how many people still smoke and drink).

Most of the time, we're just not being kept up to speed on the research and we hold onto old notions that are detrimental to ourselves, preferring instead to be "independent and free".   Free to pollute; free to drive without seat belts or air bags, but at whose expense?  I like MY freedom but I don't like the OTHER guy being quite that free.    I'm a whole lot more conscientious than some of these big monopolistic companies.  And yes, I am in favor of the Justice Department breaking up Microsoft.  If you don't believe they have a monopoly, try buying a computer at your local computer store with something other than MS-Windows loaded on it.  And what market share does MS-Office hold for new computers?   

(Beyond here, delete if not interested.  It's just me taking a few moments to vent... )

Part of the problem is like what the Ohio Supreme Court Justice once said, "Most people are 100% for progress, and 1000% against change".  I suppose there were others that said this in a lot of different forms that should receive credit, too, but this is one adage  that stuck and it is often so very appropo.

So sure, this Presidency thing IS a big deal, but fortunately it's NOT as big a deal as it would be in other countries where there is only the king or a premier to "rule".  We've seen it so many times--a candidate makes big promises and yet years and years later, they haven't been able to keep those promises.  They want to implement big changes but they don't get it done.  Why?   Because they may be the "leader" of the country, but they don't really "run things".  This is actually done for them by those who REALLY are in power--whose names we seldom hear but we know as being members of the Council on Foreign Nations, or the good ol' boy clubs, where major decisions occur on issues for which we will never have a chance to vote.

I'm not a wild radical by any means, but I do believe we often vest to the President much more "authority" than he/(she some day?) really has.  Sure, they make the announcement, and sure, they have some input during the decision making process.  Most decisions, however, are the judgement of many people that get congealed into a statement that appears to be "their" decision....

I spend a lot more time thinking about the ideals espoused by the candidate than I do about their party affiliation.  I don't vote for the person because they are a "Democrat" or a "Republican" -- that is just where they get the money to fund the campaign.  I try to find certain values that they hold with which I can agree, or can at least respect their opinion.  I'm not a green party member but I happen to like the idea of holding companies accountable for cleaning up their own polution.  I remember the view of Denver from the continental divide thirty years ago--when the city was engulfed by this huge blanket of smog.  I made a decision at the time that I liked clean air and that I would never live in a huge city.   Des Moines is plenty big enough for me.  We don't have smog and I hope we never will.  We do however, have to smell the National By-Products odors from time to time and is it ever horrendous!!! I believe these companies should have to turn their profits back around into pollution cleanup efforts.  Massive odor eaters, if you will.  Does that make me a Democrat?  Maybe.  But more importantly, it just makes me pay attention to what these super collassal companies are doing and to be glad that the big, bad Federal Government CAN help pull in the reigns on these folks.  Left to their own desires alone, without intervention, they would NEVER clean up their messes-- and Des Moines would stink ALL of the time.

I remember taking a school trip down the Cuyahoga River near Cleveland, OH.  This was about 40 years ago.  The captain of the ferry said that it was okay to throw our popsicle sticks over the side into the river because the high acid content of the river would desolve the wood and debris so that it wouldn't be unsightly.  Wow.   The river was so acid that it would devour the litter!   I understand that now Cleveland has taken a great deal of responsibility for this travesty and is cleaning up this river, and Lake Erie.  Do you believe, Beth, that this would have occurred without government intervention?   Without the long arm of those "dastardly Democrats" or at least the environmentally conscientious Republicans, who would force this to come about?   (Why do I believe there are fewer in this party than the other?  -- because of statements like GWB's about being a pragmatist on bringing more oil down from Alaska--if it means we don't invest in research to avoid over reliance on fossil fuels, then I don't want to be that practical).

I know we need a strong military (which seems to be one on the continual major platforms of the Republican party), but at what price?  Are we falling behind in the international ratings for quality of life because we're still spending too much on the war machine?  These issues are what helps me determine how I will vote.  So, Beth, my perspective on this is if we can encourage the Maytag's, the White-Westinghouse's, etc. of the world,  to introduce these new European styled, water-miser appliances (they tend to be front loaders)AND to get them to be mass produced so that don't have to cost $1,000 apiece, I'm all for it.  Why do we always have to have the cheapest thing that is not "good" for us--with "us" being defined as ALL of us, not just me or you.  

Were it not for the Japanese teaching the American automobile manufacturer's a lesson about the American consumer; that we DIDN'T all want to buy big gas-guzzlers that would be lucky to see 100,000 miles; that we would pay MORE for a car if we could have fewer repair bills; that we would LIKE to treat our car purchases more like an investment than a vanity item that was mostly about exterior appearance and little about quality;  we wouldn't be seeing most of the greatly improved autos that we have today.   Once their market share got into the 30's, Detroit finally woke up and started to listen to the consumer.  Now the average life expectancy of car has been pushed up to 8 years (or is it higher?) and people are "investing" in cars, as though they could be driven and enjoyed for well over a decade.    And American cars are the most reliable they have ever been.   Are these changes solely the result of American creativity and the morals of the manufacturer management?  I wish I could believe that it was.  Instead, I believe it was foreign competition and the strong arm of the government, forcing quality in manufacturing, fuel economy and safety issues into the design of the car from conception to manufacture.  Left to their own devices, we'd still be seeing a lot of Chevettes, Eidsels, and Corvairs coming off the assembly lines.

I have some history, too, for forming my opinions.  I remember the supply side economics era (fiasco?) and the financial hardships with near double digit unemployment, deflation, and lots of folks losing their shirt.  I'm not too excited about going there again.

Now, about those Hostas....

Andrew L.

--------------
Rogers wrote:

>I could care less if you lose your washer.  I was only trying to make the
>point that the government should not be able to tell me what kind of washer
>or anything else for that matter that I can buy.

I happened to be in an appliance store today, shopping for a new
refrigerator, and asked the owner about this new federal law prohibiting
the manufacture and sale of top-loading washers.  To quote him, "You have
to stop believing what you hear on the Internet.  There is no truth to that
rumor."  Now I am really confused -- first being misled by Gore and Bush,
and now Beth -- what will happen next?

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off this list, send email to majordomo@mallorn.com with the
message text UNSUBSCRIBE HOSTA-OPEN

-- 
Andrew Lietzow, Plantsman            http://hostahaven.com
HostaHaven.com                       mailto:andrewl@hostahaven.com
1250 41st Street                     515-274-0300 voice
Des Moines, IA 50311-2516
 



 © 1995-2015 Mallorn Computing, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
Our Privacy Statement
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index