<$BlogRSDURL$>
The Center for the Homogeneity of Life Weblog

Charting the events that converge on our goal: one planet, one species, one genotype


Please visit the CHL homepage for more information. To leave/read feedback on a post, click "comments."

This organization, like environmental problems, could be serious, or not. Most of the time we don't know ourselves.


Wednesday, December 21, 2005
 
Can you taste it yet?
"I've been at this for 25 years. This is the closest I've ever come." -- CHL Alaskan delegate Ted Stevens

Both sides in a U.S. Senate debate over opening an Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil drilling expected a close vote on Wednesday over the latest attempt by Senate Republicans to pass the measure, this time by adding it to a big military-spending bill.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, known as ANWR by the idiots in the environmental community who do not use the term wilderness and do not understand the importance of language, may hold 10 billion barrels of oil. Then again, it may not.

Most Senate Democrats and some moderate Republicans say the frigid wilderness and its assortment of wildlife, ranging from polar bears to peregrine falcons, should be protected. Republicans contend the refuge must be opened to drilling to stop a steady slide in U.S. crude-oil production. Republican Ted Stevens of Alaska attached the measure to a $453 billion defense-spending bill that pays for U.S. troops and Pentagon weapons programs in the coming year. Furious Democrats threatened to block the measure with a filibuster, saying the ANWR measure has no connection to military spending and violates Senate rules.

Republicans have to muster 60 votes to stop a filibuster. They hold 55 seats in the Senate while Democrats have 44 seats. There is one independent. "I think it will be a very close vote," said Democratic Leader Harry Reid. "This is going to be a hard day."

Stevens, who has fought since the 1980s to pry open the refuge, gave mixed signals. Initially he said he would drop ANWR from the bill if Democrats successfully filibustered it, but later said he would force the entire bill to be renegotiated. "I'm hopeful I'll have them," Stevens said, when asked by reporters if he had the votes to end a filibuster. "I've been at this for 25 years. This is the closest I've ever come."

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages ANWR, describes it as "one of the finest examples of wilderness left on the planet." The refuge is the same size as South Carolina, with most of its land accessible only by plane or boat. Oil companies say exploration and drilling could be limited to a small area and would not harm the wildlife.

For a half-dozen Republicans who have long opposed ANWR drilling, the defense bill represents a difficult choice. Few politicians want to be seen rejecting a defense bill that pays the salaries of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. The defense bill also includes funding for Hurricane Katrina reconstruction, the bird flu pandemic and a program that helps poor families pay winter heating bills.
Comments:
this weblog sucks. I've been reading these petty rants for a years now, and I think its time for you guys to start thinking outside of your cynical little boxes. one species? one genotype? Is this the best you can do???

One element!
One motherfucking proton!

Better yet, zero!

Absolutely fucking nothing!

without a single discrete thing to stand in contrast to the absolute nothingness of anything else!

I'm talking about the achievement of perfect, absolute, complete homogeneity.
 
Dear Mr. Shot,

I will not support the kind of extremism you propose. We can not have a single species without a diversity of atomic elements, multiple electron shells, different isotopes, different spins, and a mess of quarky things. We can not have a single species without localized high energy dissipation in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics.

Your views are too radical for us. Perhaps you should start your own organization. At least that would help us appear more centrist in our approach.
 
PS One proton? Please. Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, dipshit. While I appreciate your sentiments (though if we're cynical, I wonder how you'd describe yourself, Mr. Destroy-The-Universe), you've got to be realistic and abide by the laws of physics. Stop reading if we don't have enough "imagination" for you. Sheesh.
 
"abide by the laws of physics"???

I merely suggest broadening your narrow, paltry, incomplete view of homogeneity, and I am chastised and furthermore called a dipshit (incorrectly, as I will point out below)!

Once again the authors of this website demonstrate their complete inability to really grasp the concept of homogeneity, desiring no less than a "diversity of atomic elements, multiple electron shells, different isotopes, different spins, and a mess of quarky things" - o yeah, you probably want a bunch of different chromosomes, too, and a diversity of organelles originally derived from divergent genetic lineages, don't you? Wussies!

In addition, it would seem your understanding of physics that seems stuck in the 19th century!

Have you ever heard of Einstein?

Matter can be created! Out of Energy, dipshit! It happens all the time in particle accelorators!

Likewise, matter can be destroyed, by a simple conversion into energy! Consider the nuclear bomb!
 
Post a Comment