Chicagoist: Wanna Go to the Beach, Part 2

Scooter Libbby

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:06:06 -0600

Friday's Tribune is going to have an article that buried in the variance request is an increase in the mercury dumped into the lake! Mercury!

guest

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:07:33 -0600

The truth is no one has come up with anything to effectively replace the combustible engine. So, Kevin, you are essentially asking politicians to create legislation mandating the use of something that doesn't exist. Let's be realistic; until someone invents a cheaper and/or more efficient way to travel, the combustible engine is here to stay. The best we can all hope for right now is tougher MPG regulations. I mean, I don't see anything wrong with saying everyone needs to drive economy cars. Somewhere Henry Ford is laughing, as the collective intelligence of the 21st century cannot significantly outdo him! Amazing!

guest

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:42:26 -0600

Uh, Kevin, no (I'm guest 3) If you recall, you wrote: " it won't change the fact that we are quickly approaching a point where we'll have to take increasingly desperate steps to produce fuels for our lifestyle. " That is a huge claim. I was curious why you thought this: Peak theory, for instance? I don't expect you to write a thesis, but even a dependent clause could do the trick. You do want people to take you seriously, don't you?

Navin

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:26:44 -0600

Matty, I'm not allowed to post links so go to environmentillinois[dot]org and you'll find petitions and alerts, look to the right of the homepage "How you can help".

Kevin Robinson

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 14:23:00 -0600

Guest #3: My point was that it is silly to try and stop energy companies like BP from dumping in Lake Michigan if you aren't going to push comprehensive energy legislation that takes us off polluting technologies like oil. What they don't dump in the lake will be dumped somewhere else when they figure out a different location to refine it at. matty: If you are concerned about this issue, a good place to start would be to contact your elected representitives. If I remember correctly from your previous comments, you live in the Rogers Park area. Your Congresswoman is Jan Schakowsky, so a phone call to her office would be helpful, even if she already opposes the permits. Politicians need all the encouragement we can give them. A few phone calls to environmental groups might also plug you into some other productive ways to take action. Also, in regards to the BP ad that is appearing on Chicagoist, I believe that the advertising policy at Chicagoist is much like that at The Nation: if you're willing to pay for it, we're willing to publish it. So, while we may disapprove, or even feel repulsed by, the political views of some of our advertisers, we generally won't ban them from advertising with us. But we do reserve the right to attack them in our our columns. I'd like to believe that our readers are smart enough to read what's presented to them and draw their own conclusions with out Chicagoist acting as some sort of opinion filter.

guest

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:21:50 -0600

Joshua: Well, I've explained myself, so you can get your panties unbunched, but the burden still rests with Kevin to, at least one of these days, support his opinions--even the ones we might tend to agree with. That was the whole point of my rant, and your claims of irony, while technically correct, are weak and beside the point. You are right--you did not attack me. My apologies.

matty

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:07:40 -0600

also here's a link to swill mineral water with bill murray - dredged from the bottom of lake erie - he likes his with a twist! metacafe.com/watch/253357/swill_mineral_water/

joshuatrees

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:02:56 -0600

"wrote" -- excuse me for the typo!

matty

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:02:21 -0600

oh man! anyone see the google ad "called bp and lake michigan"??? it's an ad by BP re this issue. glad to see chicagoist getting paid off this. haha.

joshuatrees

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 13:01:50 -0600

Guest #3: I did not "attack" you. I simply wanted to point out that you were contradicting yourself by doing something that you professed to disdain. Your original comment did not merely ask Kevin what the evidence for his opinion was. It insinuated that he did not understand how to support an opinion. That is both an insubstantiated claim (as you say, "speculation) AND an attack. If you had just written, "Kevin, what is your evidence for making these claims? Don't you think it is problematic to make an argument without supporting evidence?" you would be right. But that isn't what you wrot

matty

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:43:18 -0600

I'm no liberal but the oil companies saying things like "we'll have to take increasingly desperate steps to produce fuels for our lifestyle" reminds me of the war on terror and the changes we will reluctantly be forced to change in our lives. To me this logic makes little sense. They are essentially saying, to preserve your lifestyle you will have to change it in the name of preserving it. So BP can ruin our lakes in order to preserve our lifestyle, though we can no longer fish or possibly swim in it, while the government says that they can cap certain freedoms we used to enjoy, like due process, in order to preserver our lifesytle. In taking these steps, isn't our lifestyles already changed? I for one am confused. Anyway, the great lakes is (are?) one of the most important freshwater ecosystems in the world. I am glad there has been a blacklash against this and that people care (they do!) and hopefully this will stall or stop completely any attempt to put more pollutants into our lake. Lastly, can someone point a link to how I can get involved? Sign a petition go to a protest? Thanks. Sorry for the long post but this is a very important issue to me.

guest

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:37:34 -0600

Guest #3: "this type of writing--one unsupported claim after another--does nothing to win over people." I agree with you... but being condescending isn't a particularly good way to win people over either. You sound like a real prick.

guest

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:32:27 -0600

All I asking is that Kevin hint at what drove him to his conclusion. Is that so hard? I, for one, am basing my conclusion on peak theory and future distribution problems, among other factors, including continued war in energy-producing areas and increased global-warming remedies. 6: Ironic in a cheap way, I guess. I merely asked Kevin what his evidence was for this idea, and you attack me. Funny how that works. I though it was the duty of the writer to back up his opinion, and you will notice I simply asked him for his facts. 7: No shit. But do you expect readers, especially those who might be persuaded to Kevin's ideas, to read his mind with every post? Apparently, he does. I find it funny, in a sad way, that you try to argue with me on something we agree on. Apparently you are a barber school graduate as well?

guest

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:17:34 -0600

Actually, guest #3, all the evidence out there indicates that if we have not already hit what is called "peak oil", then we are rapidly approaching it. Not even the oil industry itself denies this fact. The industry just says that we haven't hit peak oil, but it does not deny that we are approaching peak oil. We hit the peak of new oil field discoveries back in the late 1960's. As far as peak oil theory goes, pessimists say we've already passed the peak, optimists say peak oil won't be hit until 2037. Either way, its coming and it will be bad for oil-reliant economies. Therefore, Kevin's assertion is correct that if we continue to rely upon oil, increasingly desperate (and expensive) measures will be necessary to continue to acquire oil, from sources not previously considered, such as Canadian Tar Sands, greater reliance upon heavy crude (such as that which is produced by Venezuela (Gulf oil is the most desireable - light crude)) or from new techniques to suck out the last remnants of oil from old, shuttered wells. Read up on peak oil: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil

joshuatrees

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:56:05 -0600

Guest #3, I find it ironic that, instead of supplying Kevin with the statistics that would be needed to flesh out his argument -- one with which you apparently agree -- you do exactly what you claim he does, i.e. "drop bombs into copy," by speculating that he does not know the difference between a supported opinion and an unsupported one. The substance of your complaint appears to be the insinuation that Kevin is incompetent because his argument doesn't have any substance. But since insinuations are by definition insubstantial, your complaint doesn't actually have any substance, either.

Navin

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:17:47 -0600

I'm confused . . . why is Illinois leading the uproar over this and not Indiana? Don't get me wrong, I am glad that Illinois is out front on this important issue, but I'm constantly surprised at the obvious silence coming from Inidana. I suppose BP and the oil lobby lining Indiana politicians pockets and a population of people who are oblivious, look at who they elect over there. #3 I'm glad you agree with him but look at all your asking him to do. He'd have to take over the whole first page of the Chicagoist site to scratch the surface of what you've requested. Can't we just say that there's a limited supply of oil and a booming demand for it? Should people have to quote figures and facts if they believe in Global Warming just because a small minority of naysayers exist.

guest

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 11:15:10 -0600

Bravo Guest #3! I was just going to bitch about what a pretentious windbag Kevin is, but you Sir (or Madam), may do the boy some good!

guest

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:23:10 -0600

Kevin writes, "Even if Congress stops BP from processing Canadian Crude oil at it's Whiting facility, it won't change the fact that we are quickly approaching a point where we'll have to take increasingly desperate steps to produce fuels for our lifestyle." While I agree with you, it would be nice if you could support such claims with, you know, actual figures or other information. This claim is by no means universally accepted (if it were, the political situation in the USA would likely be different), and though you often write as though you are among a select group of truth-tellers, this type of writing--one unsupported claim after another--does nothing to win over people. I realize you are writing opinion, but even opinions must be shown to be supported by facts. I find it hard to believe you've not grapsed this fact yet in your education or work or writing experiences. Perhaps you don't take your Chicagoist volunteer work seriously enough to write as one of those good writers who uses facts to back up claims--hell if I know. Perhaps you never had the good fortune of having a professor or editor or boss educate you on how to write in ways that actually change people's minds and bring them over to your cause. Again, I am only speculating. If you need such guidance, however, there are numerous tutors. In fact, I can offer you my services at a very reasonable rate. As I said, Kevin, I agree with you on this specific claim, but it would nice to know if we agree on this claim based on similar facts, or if we have different ideas about why we believe that statement to be true (peak theory?; economics of fuel distribution? effects of Chinese and Indian fuel consumption? political pressures? all of the above? something elese?). Just dropping bombs into copy is no way to go about writing anything of substance, unless all you intend to do is preach to the converted, which is a pretty small and meaningless activity, I think. Certainly you realize this, right?

guest

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 10:12:12 -0600

flagtothefloor

Thu, 26 Jul 2007 09:57:09 -0600

I read their "BP Responds to Accusations" clarification, and it didn't seem like a big deal. Are we just getting huffy about something that won't do anymore damage to the lake than a wastewater treatment plant? Or is BP lying in their clarification? Why can't we just have electric cars.