About Me

Name: thekeenobserver
Email: reallykeenobserver@yahoo.com Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Once again, good ol' American ingenuity saves the day

 

The tension is palpable.

 

You can feel the suspense...the foreboding. Were fast-approaching the 11th hour-- (play "Dragnet" music) DAHN, ta- dun- dunt...dahn- ta-dundun- DIR-R-R-R (music fades).

 

So what's all the drama about? Of course; it's those dreaded, fast-rising sea levels, ominously licking away at land masses everywhere.

 

Time is running out!

 

Does anyone remember the fallout shelter-building mania that swept America a generation (or two) ago? There was utter paranoia that the Russians would, at any time, launch simultaneous thermonuclear attacks, and concerned schoolchildren were taught, "if you see a blinding flash, duck 'n cover" (your head).

 

Recently, a report issued from a UN climate change conference in Copenhagen stated a similar grim warning: Given the rapid melting of the Antarctic ice sheet, we should prepare for the worst-- a possible 20 foot rise in sea levels during the 21st century, triggered by global warming.

 

So now, we have "major risk" that many coastal areas will be inundated by the end of the century, because polar ice sheets have been (quote)... "melting much faster than previously estimated"...and..."low-lying areas in Bangladesh, the Maldives, Florida, plus certain areas in Europe, all face catastrophic flooding by the year 2100."

 

This of course begs the obvious question: in all recorded history, has there ever existed a NON-catastrophic flood? After all, a flood is a flood; and no one-- save Noah-- is usually prepared.

 

The UN conference report also stated that Britain, in particular, remains "imperiled". (Quote)..."Large areas of the Thames Estuary are likely to disappear by 2100; and cities including London, Hull and Portsmouth will need new flood defenses."

 

New flood defenses?

 

Well allright then; no problem. It's actually just what the worldwide economy needs-- a monumental, shovel-ready, stimulus package. Dig, baby dig!

 

So why not take a cue from the Dutch, and initiate a massive, comprehensive, dike construction project?

 

Yup; we'll show those darn, stubborn rising seas a thing or two.

 

Imagine...a worldwide dike-building project: the economic stimulus...the jobs created; and above all-- we'd now feel SAFE.

 

People would again be able to sleep at night, and no longer would children come home from school and preach environmentalism to Ma 'n Pa. We'd could laugh in the face of "climate change" resulting from our use of those horrendous, nasty-nasty fossil fuels-- no more controversy! 

 

It seems like the Chinese had the right idea from the git-go: Got a problem with invaders? Well, just build a great wall to stymie the rascals. But instead of inland, everyone would be building their own version of the Great Wall adjacent to their coastlines.  

 

Makes sense doesn't it? Turning a negative into a positive, and thwarting invasion from the seas. The unemployed now have jobs, and the world economy takes off. 

 

Of course, it would block coastal views, but what's aesthetics compared to saving lives? If your worried about it, just make like a submariner and get a periscope.

 

It can't miss!  It would spark a revival in the construction-building trades, creating yet more union employment for the jobless masses, and give them a well-deserved chance at a middle class lifestyle.

 

Indeed, for almost a generation now, the global warmongers have been forecasting the coming of the great coastal boogie man--worldwide rising sea levels.

 

But now, with the advent of the dyke (er, dike) era, we can return to our good ol' wasteful American selves, and continue to use up 25% of the world's resources, while letting those sea levels rise merrily away-- the fish will love it!

 

Basically, the crux of the global warming argument has been obfuscated.

 

An environmental threat has transformed into a "heated" political debate: we must literally "pay" (cap 'n trade) if we dare emit too much "greenhouse gas", which warms the earth, melts the glaciers, and ultimately raises sea levels -- all that calamity-stuff  jazz.

 

But now, with the onset of the modern dike-building era, we can just greenhouse gas-away to our hearts' content!

 

Ergo...problem solved, except for the environmentalists, who would be forced into seeking  a new line of work. After all, as the old saying goes...what goes 'round, comes around (etc.)

 

So let the oceans rise; who cares? They won't have a chance. Man conquers nature, a first in world history!

 

And no need for shared sacrifice, economic turmoil, or lifestyle disruption brought on by noisy windmills, ugly electric cars, or energy conservation-- thereby negating the Congressional "enviro-crats," who've been trying to jam climate change legislation down our throats, and tax us to oblivion.

 

Furthermore, America would retain its role as the economic engine of the world. It would be our chance to play locomotive, and chug-chug the world out of recession, as coastal countries all adopt dike-building programs of their own.

 

So now, with the world's economic and environmental problems in remission (and everyone busy at work again) we all could go on living happily ever after-- or at least until the next big problem comes along.

 

So let the earth continue to warm, and let those dreaded winter blizzards fade away. The plants and trees will proliferate, our heating bills plummet, the sea levels rise, and the marine mammals (and all those billions of schools of fish) no longer face ocean overcrowding.

 

And besides all the newly-carefree plant and marine life, the land animals also experience welcome lifestyle changes as never before:

 

No more sleepy wintertime bears; no more skinny hibernating squirrels; and birds of a feather no longer need migrate south together; all due to the resourcefulness of the Dutch, who as it turns out-- all along-- have been hundreds of years ahead of the rest of the world.

 

Why didn’t we think of this before?

 

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Energy independence?...Have you ever wondered about all those unnecessary trafffic signals everywhere?

 
Watching the Democrats on TV during the convention, it was only a matter of time before the magic catch phrase was heard..."OUR DEPENDENCE ON FOREIGN OIL". Everyone knows foreign oil is draining petrodollars from our economy. But did you ever wonder how much of the oil we import goes to gasoline wasted at unnecessary, stupid traffic signals? It's hard to imagine that anything so blatantly stupid and so unnecessarily maddening, can still persist in our society and with such prevalence. And the more you think about it, the more stupid it becomes.

 

How many of us drivers out there are plagued everyday by stupid red lights? They're especially annoying on your way to work. Think about it...if you were elected the mayor of your town, wouldn't the first thing you'd get around to doing would be to get rid of all the stupid red lights in your municipality? After you'd done that, you'd be re-elected for life. After all, wouldn't you vote annually for the person who got rid of all stupid red lights around town?

 

Now you could run for governor. From the very moment you began to campaign on a platform of removing all those stupid red lights in your state, you'd instantly garner a landslide of approval. Your opponent would probably concede the election, or else co-opt (steal) your idea. "Vote for so-and so! He (she) wants to get rid of all the stupid red lights."

 

The word would spread like wildfire...people would be going door-to-door. It would make the national news. "Gubernatorial candidate so-and-so, from such-n-such is proposing to get rid of all the unnecessary red lights in their state"!  Now the movement begins to pick up steam.  All the other mayoral and gubernatorial candidates nationwide are adopting the same platform..."Git rid a them stupid red lights".

 

And now their opponents, not wanting to be left in the dust, begin chanting..."Not only will I get rid of all the stupid red lights, I'll get rid of all the stupid stop signs"! And the war on dumb traffic signals has finally been joined..."Not only will I get rid of all the stupid red lights, and the stupid unnecessary stop signs, I propose to synchronize all the traffic signals, so no one has to slow down or stop unnecessarily"! 

 

Whoa...now we're getting somewhere.  But seriously, at what point do we actually wise up and consider the time and gasoline that's collectively lost nationwide everyday by idling away at unnecessary or unsynchronized red lights? You can drive through any town today, large or small, and whether you live there or not, you encounter red lights that you know are unnecessary. Perhaps they were put there when traffic patterns were different, or before populations shifted.

 

We do need red lights. They prevent pandemonium at intersections; and to go through a red light at a busy intersection is kamikaze driving. But if the nation's traffic signals were synchronized for traffic flow all across the country, it would definitely save huge amounts of gasoline, time and road rage. Plus it would cut down on traffic fatalities. 

 

Since 90% of fatal traffic accidents occur at intersections, the incidence of running red lights would be lessened if drivers didn't have to guess about the duration of the yellow. If everyone knew that yellow lights were all standardized for equal time duration everywhere, (say 3 seconds) they wouldn't have to play chicken, and risk T-boning into a car coming from the opposing street.

 

But still, the stupid red light insanity persists. Every city has them, and every signal has a different time duration for the yellow. So it makes you wonder. Are all these unnecessary red lights there for safe traffic flow, or do they remain there to DELIBERATELY create disrespect for the law? Instead of removing the stupid red lights from where they have no purpose, many cities now are placing red light cameras or patrol cars at intersections where drivers crash stupid red lights most frequently. They can claim it’s for "safety."

 

This is truly sinister. Everyone suffers that one red light that dogs each of us to no end. You dread to approach that intersection, praying this will be one time you make this light. But it always turns yellow when it "sees" you coming. Now it's decision time. Do you stop? Nope: you decide to pour on the coal and go for it. Your car and your heart speed up...you're now within ten yards of making it...a-a-and...it turns red! "AARGH", you hit the brakes. Yup; caught again by a stupid red light.

 

You sit there idling away, with no opposing traffic in sight. Your blood pressure has spiked now to 220/180.  Fearful of a possible lurking police car, you dare not crash it. Hapless, you continue to glance in your rear view mirror, daring yourself to go through the beast. But you can't.

 

Now, you're running late for work. Your heart is nearing ventricular fibrillation. Think about it...fired after all those dutiful years because of a stupid red light. And what if you're a road-raging, "type A" driver?  Would a coronary occlusion, resulting from a stupid, unnecessary red light, be considered a traffic fatality? The sheer irony of it all!

 

But with the mega-buck gas prices we now have to pay, maybe traffic signal synchronization will finally make enough sense to become a reality. It won't end our dependence on foreign oil; but it might save some hapless souls their jobs.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »