Why do so many people believe

that I will like them better

If they can prove

that they are better than I am??


Dr. Laura, Why?

It’s been quite a long time since I listened to Dr. Laura, but she has some good things to say. I was busy driving when she popped on the radio and began a little discussion of something that also puzzles me:

“It’s strange how often you see two people fighting and one person is trying to beat up on the other one so they can win the argument — so the other person will love them.”

It is a wonderment, isn’t it, why anyone believes I would like them better if they can prove that I am not as good as they are. A lot of people try. Maybe it’s our “winner” fetish.

I remember when a kindergarten here was trying to tell the students they all are winners. And then the parents take them out to a ball game. Even babies know everyone isn’t a winner; lucky that; it’s better to spend your energy trying to succeed at something worthwhile. Like being a compassionate friend, or something like that.

Letter to a Friend Who Told me About Diesel Conservation

Hi there,

I’m sorry we got interrupted before I finished understanding what you were saying about diesel. Now I see the announcement has just come out, and Union of Concerned Scientists sent me the below. I don’t know very much about diesel, but I know the situation is someone’s effort to make it last longer (more years to benefit a larger percentage of our people).

And I do know that the energy to run most of human things (all the fossil fuels and most everything else) comes from plants, and much of it is from fossilized plants and animals. Our useful energy is not the unlimited energy of the sun. It is plants that convert sun energy into organic energy (carbon compounds). The cars and trucks use the same kind of energy the ecosystem uses and that we use in our bodies. Not the exact molecules, but it is the exact origin from plants. The real problem is that we are using more fuels and we are destroying more plants and we are feeding more people. The earth will not make more fossil fuels, and energy can not be recycled like tin cans. That’s a law of nature as old as gravity (Laws of Thermodynamics). If we tried to “make energy,” we would have to use up more energy to make the diesel (or whatever) than there is in the diesel to use. Or we would make diesel out of plants that people need for food. And killing off the other people won’t work either, but that’s another issue with different reasons.

We are in a situation exactly like an income/outgo financial situation — with money in the bank for retirement. The fossil fuels are the money in the bank, and the bank is going to crash because we have literally grown to big to fail, which means too big to be sustainable into the future, which is exactly the same as too many mouths to feed. When I say people are telling lies about this issue — they are, because it is very well known how the ecosystem processes energy. In reacting to this crisis, different people will do different things. Some people will try to make a lot of money fast for themselves, and other people will try to make a good life for human beings in the world, and some people will pretend it is not happening, but the problem will not change and it will not go away. So I think it would be better to try to help solve the problem for the people of the future (my future, your life).

So the solution to the problem is for us (the ecosystem works on the whole earth, not just locally, so that’s what I’m referring to) not to use as much energy if we don’t want the grandkids to fall upon extremely hard times. The job of the helpful citizen would be to keep an eye on the various solutions that people try to use to help deal with the problem (as the diesel situation you tried to describe to me when we were distracted).

In other words, if the diesel situation is not a good solution, we should first try to understand the problem it is trying to solve — the reason someone thought it was important enough to challenge the liers. And then try to find a better solution for the problem, because the problem is real and it is bigger than any persons. No politician can change the way the ecosystem processes energy (or believe me I would be deeply into politics, which I do as little as possible), so the only thing that we have the power to change is how we use it.

We get to choose: do we decide now how to get back to where we are not too big to fail? Or do we wait until the environment makes the choice. I think it would be better for the grandkids if we start facing the facts, because the longer we wait the bigger will be the crash — especially affecting people who deal in engines that run on ecosystem energy.

And, if you can understand all that car stuff, I believe you can understand my ecology book that explains just what I said above but in more detail. Knowledge is power, waiting around to see what kind of ax falls is unpleasant.

Energy shortage is a fact, and we have to deal with facts (like money, or like illness, or a farmer whose crops fail) if we like it or we don’t like it. But I did not know about the diesel part of the story, so would like to hear more. Possibly there is a better way to deal. If so, I’m sure it would require discussion with the parties involved to find out how each would be affected (if your idea would be better or worse than what they are trying to do); an educational effort so that everyone can understand exactly what we are trying to fix (the reason I chose to do this part is because I don’t see anyone else doing it); and promotion so people would learn in what way it might be to their advantage to fix it. Unless the public is willing to help solve problems, it pretty much leaves the politicians no choice but to lie about them because politicians can not change mother nature’s basic nature.

Here’s the letter I got today:

Clean Car Rule Makes History—But Auto Dealers Try to Turn Back the Clock

Over the past decade, UCS analysts, advocates, and activists have been at the forefront of a movement pushing for state and national vehicle standards that will get clean car technology off the shelf and on our roads. Our efforts have come to fruition, as the Obama administration just announced a strong final rule for national fuel economy standards, which will cut global warming pollution, reduce America’s oil consumption, and save consumers billions of dollars at the gas pump.

Many automakers supported these common-sense regulations, which mark the first time in U.S. history the federal government has regulated global warming pollution under the Clean Air Act. Unfortunately, the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) is still trying to keep cleaner cars off our roads. Their lawyers are actively supporting attempts to block the government’s ability to regulate global warming emissions.