15 Jul 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamSame thing is happening here in the east coast with natural gas.
There are white neighborhoods all over the country that do not have city water because they are not in the service area, can they sue too? Is the city being racist against them?
They could have built up the natural gas system ten times more volume than it has now and everyone could heat their homes with it, most people in Pa are on oil heat, which lately sucks big weenies.
When we moved to Pa, oil was 78cents a gallon, so our 550 gallon tank cost about 430 bucks to fill. Now its 4.49/gallon, $2,500 for just one fill! 570percent higher. So now we are all scrambling to find alternate. One option is coal, Pennsylvania is loaded with coal and at 120 bucks a ton, it's one hell of a lot cheaper, I think they figured about ten tons per year for our monster house (4500 square feet)
so 1200 bucks is like our total bill when we first moved here in 1983.
I am looking at that and natural gas, but they have just in the last month ran gas lines in our neck of the woods. The weird thing is, gas was more expensive than oil, a LOT more expensive but now I don't know. I was checking the specs on how much heat they give off, on a per pound basis, natural gas has it all over oil, both heat wise and smoke wise, being about 98 % efficient. But it may still be more expensive than oil, even when oil is closing in on 5 bucks a gallon.
Wood is another possibility, there certainly is enough to go around here, Pa is mostly forest. But to convert to water heated wood is about 10 grand and you have to load the wood manually outside in crappy weather, not a nice option. At least with gas you don't have to shovel or load. But if gas costs more than oil, that is not a viable option.
And with all that there is the atmospheric pollution to contend with.
Electric is an option also but not especially desireable. With underground piping going to a heat pump you triple the # of btu's you get from just electric heaters but still, my house takes about 180,000 btu/hr so that is one heck of a lot of electricity. That btw, is AFTER I insulated! I think we will move to Hawaii🙂
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamI don't know what's worse.
The residents were outside the water district and subsisted on wells, a common practice all over the country.
The story of racial bigotry or the fact people are subsisting on wells in one of the most industrialised countries in the world.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by shavixmirI know what's worse. The water Israeli's give the Palestinians. I used to live there and saw the results, people dying because of highly toxic water. That must be high up on the list of sins against humanity. That said, I still have plenty of very close friends on the Jewish side of the line.
I don't know what's worse.
The story of racial bigotry or the fact people are subsisting on wells in one of the most industrialised countries in the world.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by Sam The ShamYou do know that the US has signed up to the international bill on human rights, don't you?
Here's why the jurors weren't allowed to hear the city water district testamony regarding these people turning down water service because they didn't want to pay for the hook-up fee:
http://www.ohsd.uscourts.gov/images/jmarbley.jpg
No further explanation is needed
And you do know that you have a right to clean water, don't you?
So, even if residence don't want to pay for the hook-up fee, the government has still to hook them up anyway.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by shavixmirCall it something else Shav, a priviledge maybe, clean water is not a 'right'.
You do know that the US has signed up to the international bill on human rights, don't you?
And you do know that you have a right to clean water, don't you?
So, even if residence don't want to pay for the hook-up fee, the government has still to hook them up anyway.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by shavixmirCall it anything but a 'right'. That's all I'm saying, not talking about the poor widdle diddums childrens,
Article 25.
Look at it this way Wajoma: what about the children? Should they be denied clean, normal water, just because their parents are backwards trailer-living trash?
15 Jul 08
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaDid you just hatch from an egg or something?
There you go, you're on to it, call it an Article 25.
Article 25.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
EDIT:
Obviously it's covered by the international treaty on children's rights too. However the US and Somalia didn't sign up to that...
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by shavixmirYes and as I keep pointing out, all those are bogus 'rights' the whole 'article' that you quote is so open to subjective interpretation as to be useless. "adequate"? We're already in trouble as to what standard of adequacy. Try to get with some black and white shav, see things as you've never seen them before.
Did you just hatch from an egg or something?
Article 25.
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or ...[text shortened]... ational treaty on children's rights too. However the US and Somalia didn't sign up to that...
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by WajomaWhat the hell are you babbling on about?
Yes and as I keep pointing out, all those are bogus 'rights' the whole 'article' that you quote is so open to subjective interpretation as to be useless. "adequate"? We're already in trouble as to what standard of adequacy. Try to get with some black and white shav, see things as you've never seen them before.
A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.
Well. No. Don't bother answering. I don't give a flying f^ck to be honest.
You just keep living in your little dream world, which seems to be collapsing all over the place...
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by shavixmirA RIGHT is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.
What the hell are you babbling on about?
Well. No. Don't bother answering. I don't give a flying f^ck to be honest.
You just keep living in your little dream world, which seems to be collapsing all over the place...
Can't put it any more clearly than that, even threw in a bit of capitalisation, italisation and some boldisation. A liter of water is not a right, a roof is not a right.
15 Jul 08
Originally posted by WajomaNeither is property then. Or liberty. Is it?
A [b]RIGHT is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.
Can't put it any more clearly than that, even threw in a bit of capitalisation, italisation and some boldisation. A liter of water is not a right, a roof is not a right.[/b]