Kinky Friedman visits Denton, talks of Cadillac trade, Willie as an aide

[Blake]

By CLAIRE CUMMINGS / The Dallas Morning News

DENTON – Kinky Friedman drives a full-size luxury sedan he calls his "Yom Kippur Clipper."

But the independent candidate said Wednesday that he plans on trading the Cadillac Deville for a biodiesel-fueled vehicle – and as governor, he would push for wider use of the clean-burning fuel, too.

"If Bonnie Raitt can do it and Neil Young and Willie Nelson, why can't Texas do it?" Mr. Friedman asked while touring a biodiesel production plant.

Denton's year-old Biodiesel Industries of Greater Dallas Fort Worth was one stop on Mr. Friedman's five-day environmental-issues tour across Texas. The plant captures methane from an attached landfill to heat large holding tanks that turn vegetable oil into environmentally conscious fuel.

All Denton city vehicles, garbage trucks and Denton school buses run on the plant's biodiesel.

Mr. Friedman spent much of the tour, which included a trip up to the landfill, asking questions about the fuel production process and touting Mr. Nelson, whom he plans to make a renewable-energy official in his administration.

"If these guys can make it, which they have now for over a year, there's no reason why plants like this couldn't be going up everywhere in Texas," he said. "Why shouldn't Texas be No. 1 in something besides executions, toll roads and property taxes?"

The fuel produced in Denton is a blend of 80 percent diesel and the rest biodiesel – made from material such as sunflower seeds, soybeans and cooking oil from restaurants. But Mr. Friedman said he would like to see vehicles run on fuel made completely from organic material. Plant directors said there isn't enough material or production facilities available to have fuel more than 20 percent biodiesel.

Even if all vegetable oil and animal fat in the U.S. were converted to biodiesel, it would replace only 15 percent of the total demand for regular diesel, said Sam Mannan, professor of chemical engineering at Texas A&M University.

Texas leads the nation with seven operating biodiesel plants and four proposed or in construction and is highly competitive with Midwestern farming states where feedstock is readily available, Mr. Mannan said.

"We, as a nation or as a society, cannot just depend on one form of energy," he said. "We have to diversify our energy sources."

Some plant workers stopped to take pictures with the candidate Wednesday but said they weren't sure whether they will vote for him for governor. No other candidates have visited the Denton plant.

But Mr. Friedman has Blake Morgan's vote. The plant spokesman said he has a "Kinky" sticker on his car – next to a "biodiesel" one.

"It would be great if we could fill the sides of the highways with sunflower seeds and harvest those every year instead of mowing the grass every year," Mr. Morgan said. "With [Willie Nelson] as his ally and Kinky's commitment even before the campaign to renewable energy, we're very confident."

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...1.246ee75.html

[e-brake]

Originally Posted by shadymuz

"If these guys can make it, which they have now for over a year, there's no reason why plants like this couldn't be going up everywhere in Texas," he said. "Why shouldn't Texas be No. 1 in something besides executions, toll roads and property taxes?"

just nailed my vote for sure *not that I wasnt gunna vote for him anyway*

[Zeonfiend]

"If Bonnie Raitt can do it and Neil Young and Willie Nelson, why can't Texas do it?" Mr. Friedman asked while touring a biodiesel production plant.

"It would be great if we could fill the sides of the highways with sunflower seeds and harvest those every year instead of mowing the grass every year," Mr. Morgan said. "With [Willie Nelson] as his ally and Kinky's commitment even before the campaign to renewable energy, we're very confident."

That's two reasons I wouldn't vote for him, right there. I will not accept being dictated to by geriatric hippie musicians and well-paid clowns. I don't care what Tom Cruise or Oprah or who-the-hell-ever fucking does, it has nothing to do with how a state is run or what a state should do with itself on any level of government. Mr. Friedman can push for whatever he wants to and give logical and sound reasons why this should be done in this fashion, and I'll give it a listen; if he has to resort to using celebrities as his inspiration, motivation, or platform to push an idea, he's talking out the wrong hole. I'm not voting for Willie Nelson, or his sock puppet politician.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by Zeonfiend

That's two reasons I wouldn't vote for him, right there. I will not accept being dictated to by geriatric hippie musicians and well-paid clowns.

Even if their efforts are helping wean America off the oil addiction that's keeping us(and you specifically, since I see you're at Fort Hood) involved in the nutjob Middle East? How about looking past the person he mentioned and viewing their actions instead?

[Satchel]

I guess he would rather be dictated to by church grandstanding tools.

[Blake]

Originally Posted by Zeonfiend

That's two reasons I wouldn't vote for him, right there. I will not accept being dictated to by geriatric hippie musicians and well-paid clowns. I don't care what Tom Cruise or Oprah or who-the-hell-ever fucking does, it has nothing to do with how a state is run or what a state should do with itself on any level of government. Mr. Friedman can push for whatever he wants to and give logical and sound reasons why this should be done in this fashion, and I'll give it a listen; if he has to resort to using celebrities as his inspiration, motivation, or platform to push an idea, he's talking out the wrong hole. I'm not voting for Willie Nelson, or his sock puppet politician.

I think you're a little confused. He's simply stating that these people use it all the time, so why can't we as a whole state? God forbid an ex-musician use musicians as an example. And he does give logical and sound reasons for it, but at the same time is showing you an example that works. Would you rather him show you the facts and give you examples of how it's working great for people, or just say "Hey bud, my stuff works, i promise" with no backup and proof?




And lol @ being "dictated"

[Zeonfiend]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Even if their efforts are helping wean America off the oil addiction that's keeping us(and you specifically, since I see you're at Fort Hood) involved in the nutjob Middle East? How about looking past the person he mentioned and viewing their actions instead?

Is our involvement in the Middle East revolving around oil? My bad, I thought I and my brethren were over there because the Middle East breeds nutjobs that like to blow people up because some sand-baked god tells them to, not because it has oil. If it's all about the oil, we'll just rip it out of the Gulf of Mexico and leave well enough alone. I, for one, have been and am going back over to exterminate vermin, not drill wells.

The United States is the probably the only industrialized nation on the globe that could wean itself off of oil and withstand it without devolving into anarchy. It's not going to happen because we aren't hurting badly enough yet, and won't bother until the cost of doing becomes excruciatingly bad until the transition is complete. That's the way it works in America: do nothing until the last possible minute, and then suck in the scream and survive. Unless Friedman intends on seceding from the Union to fulfill this scheme, this isn't "weaning America" off of anything, so don't buy into that delusion. How about looking past the national level and realize that he's talking about a gubernatorial election, not some nationwide Master Plan. If the intent is to use Texas as a guinea pig for the rest of the nation to follow (provided they can afford it, which I doubt), then he should just up and say it: "Folks, if you elect me into this position, I plan on taking Texas out of the oil business, but it's going to hurt like a bitch," not "See? This ain't so bad; Neil Young did it, and he only has to use 4% of his weed money to staunch the blood flow."

I guess he would rather be dictated to by church grandstanding tools.

This nation has been since its inception. What makes you think this would be any different? Name me a politician that doesn't pander to a church who's ever been elected to a higher office.

Would you rather him show you the facts and give you examples of how it's working great for people, or just say "Hey bud, my stuff works, i promise" with no backup and proof?

No, I'd rather he show me the facts when they exist and give me examples of how it's working great for people, not insanely rich court jesters who just decided one day to rip out the ol' backyard 30k and replace it with a hydroelectric station that runs on cornmeal. Just because some snotrag with a bank account that runs into eight figures can go out into the backwoods wearing nothing but deerskin britches and hunt to survive and says "Hey, anyone can do this? See how much better this is?" doesn't mean that the entire greater Dallas-Fort Worth metropolitan area can or should even be expected to suddenly become hunter-gatherers, and unlike aforementioned snotrag, they all can't just go back if things go sour. The article itself already stated that Texas leads the nation in biodiesel development, and that's without Friedman in office. So why is this proposal any more special than what's already being done?

And of course, all of this revolves around whether or not the Texas legislature buys off on any of this, which they may not be so inclined to do, so it may all be moot anyway.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

Even if their efforts are helping wean America off the oil addiction that's keeping us(and you specifically, since I see you're at Fort Hood) involved in the nutjob Middle East? How about looking past the person he mentioned and viewing their actions instead?

Kinky hoped to add support by name dropping rather than by preaching the merits. Many people, myself amongst them, find the pronouncements of celebritites as to how we commoners should lead our lives inherently pompous and conceited. As such, we tune them out even, when as here, the fact is that it looks like a pretty good idea.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by Zeonfiend

Is our involvement in the Middle East revolving around oil? My bad, I thought I and my brethren were over there because the Middle East breeds nutjobs that like to blow people up because some sand-baked god tells them to, not because it has oil. If it's all about the oil, we'll just rip it out of the Gulf of Mexico and leave well enough alone. I, for one, have been and am going back over to exterminate vermin, not drill wells.

To deny oil as a factor for our presence in the Middle East is to deny understandings of basic economics and US national security interests. If you think we have either the capacity or the economic ability to "just rip it out of the Gulf", you really need to examine the refining capacity of the US as well as the drilling capacity of American oil companies. Even *if* we were able to drill out enough oil to make up for the oil we import from the Middle East & OPEC, we don't have nearly the refining capacity to get the supplies to the country, and it would take a decade - assuming oil demand remains stagnant, which it won't - before we're even close to getting enough refineries online. Simply put, America needs more oil than it can provide for itself. Oil is the reason you're shooting Iraqis instead of Koreans right now.

I'm not going to denegrate your service. I applaud you for putting your life on the line for our country and I respect the sacrifice you are making. It is exactly the sacrifices you and your brothers are making that infuriates me so much, because I feel like there are much better places for our troops to be utilized than Iraq(like finishing what we started in Afghanistan, for starters). Most of the men in my family have served in the military in every branch. My dad was a jarhead in Vietnam, my grandfathers fought in WW2 in Europe and the Pacific, and I have uncles that are former Army Rangers as well as Navy & Air Force. I can appreciate what you're doing, so don't take any of this as a knock against you. My quarrel is with the CiC, not the troops.

Originally Posted by Zeonfiend

The United States is the probably the only industrialized nation on the globe that could wean itself off of oil and withstand it without devolving into anarchy.

Seriously, do you even research the claims you make? America is actually one of the least capable because in pure volume we import more oil than the entire European Union. We have 5% of the population and 25% of the global demand for oil. We provide less than half of our own supply and that percentage is steadily declining. In contrast, many of the European nations are making serious headway with renewable resources. Denmark makes nearly 20% of its energy from biomass for example. Germany is the world leader in solar energy capacity increases. The EU is calling for 20% of all electricity in the EU to be provided by renewable sources by 2020. Meanwhile we have a president who can't think beyond "clean coal" and hydrogen fuel cells. We're in a worse spot than most, especially when you consider the increasing demand in China and India.

Originally Posted by Zeonfiend

It's not going to happen because we aren't hurting badly enough yet, and won't bother until the cost of doing becomes excruciatingly bad until the transition is complete. That's the way it works in America: do nothing until the last possible minute, and then suck in the scream and survive. Unless Friedman intends on seceding from the Union to fulfill this scheme, this isn't "weaning America" off of anything, so don't buy into that delusion. How about looking past the national level and realize that he's talking about a gubernatorial election, not some nationwide Master Plan. If the intent is to use Texas as a guinea pig for the rest of the nation to follow (provided they can afford it, which I doubt), then he should just up and say it: "Folks, if you elect me into this position, I plan on taking Texas out of the oil business, but it's going to hurt like a bitch," not "See? This ain't so bad; Neil Young did it, and he only has to use 4% of his weed money to staunch the blood flow."

There's a couple things I think you may be misunderstanding about Friedman's statement. 1: Biodiesel is not more expensive than regular diesel. In fact, an increasing portion of the diesel that's coming out these days already contains 20% biodiesel. Biodiesel is actually pretty cheap at this point, though there won't be a point anytime soon where the production capacity of biodiesel will match that of regular diesel. 2: He's not touting biodiesel as the sole savior for energy independence. He's also been mentioning wind farms & solar power as well. If there's any lesson to be learned from the energy crunch of today, it's that becoming overly reliant on any one form of energy is retarded. Diversifying the energy sources is the real answer to the problem.

The main reason I harp on this subject is because getting off imported oil is imo the ticket to telling the rest of the world to go fuck itself. How much better would our position have been after 9/11 if we could have shithammered the Saudis, something we couldn't really do because we needed their oil. How much more sway would we have hold over where and how to deploy our armed forces if we didn't have to follow the syringe over to OPEC? We could pull our bases out of Saudi Arabia(which was a main reason OBL was pissed at the US in the first place and started Al-Qaeda) and tell them to fend for themselves. We could tell Iran to put up or shut up without fear of them cutting off their pipelines. Right now we're a company that's balls deep in debt trying to haggle with a credit card company; imagine how much more leverage we would have if we were debt-free. I don't want our soldiers dying in a questionable war in a country that didn't attack us in the first place. I don't want other Americans paying in blood because we need to keep gas prices under $3/gallon.

Besides, we need you bitches back here building a fence to keep the illegals out.

[Zeonfiend]

Originally Posted by Dionysos

To deny oil as a factor for our presence in the Middle East is to deny understandings of basic economics and US national security interests. If you think we have either the capacity or the economic ability to "just rip it out of the Gulf", you really need to examine the refining capacity of the US as well as the drilling capacity of American oil companies. Even *if* we were able to drill out enough oil to make up for the oil we import from the Middle East & OPEC, we don't have nearly the refining capacity to get the supplies to the country, and it would take a decade - assuming oil demand remains stagnant, which it won't - before we're even close to getting enough refineries online. Simply put, America needs more oil than it can provide for itself. Oil is the reason you're shooting Iraqis instead of Koreans right now.

I would buy that if OPEC were the primary exporters of our oil imports. They aren't: Canada and Mexico are. We don't get the bulk of our oil from the other side of the Atlantic, so ipso facto we aren't there for their oil.

I'm not going to denegrate your service. I applaud you for putting your life on the line for our country and I respect the sacrifice you are making. It is exactly the sacrifices you and your brothers are making that infuriates me so much, because I feel like there are much better places for our troops to be utilized than Iraq(like finishing what we started in Afghanistan, for starters).

I hear you there. My beef is with the mission statement and the ROE, not the location, though.

[quote]Seriously, do you even research the claims you make? America is actually one of the least capable because in pure volume we import more oil than the entire European Union. We have 5% of the population and 25% of the global demand for oil. We provide less than half of our own supply and that percentage is steadily declining.[.quote]

Yes, but unlike the rest of the world, we're sitting on our own massive reserve that we aren't touching. Nations like Japan or some of the European ones would perish shrieking if they were cut off from their supply for more than a year; the US has the capability (if not the willpower) to shut off all oil imports for a decade and maintain level, and it also has the industrial base to spend whatever is necessary to convert the entire nation over to nuclear/hydrogen/solar power within that decade. It would be a shitty decade, but the nation would survive it.

In contrast, many of the European nations are making serious headway with renewable resources. Denmark makes nearly 20% of its energy from biomass for example. Germany is the world leader in solar energy capacity increases. The EU is calling for 20% of all electricity in the EU to be provided by renewable sources by 2020. Meanwhile we have a president who can't think beyond "clean coal" and hydrogen fuel cells. We're in a worse spot than most, especially when you consider the increasing demand in China and India.

Europe has long known of their weakness when it comes to fuel sources, so it's logical that they would be the ones dumping insane amounts of GNP into their own programs (helps when you spend less than 3% of your GNP on defense, and have someone else do your fighting for you when you get your train stations bombed, but that's another topic). Here's the funny part: by 2020, we could have over 50% alternative fuel across this nation while the Europeans struggle with reaching their 20% mark. China is flat-out screwed, so they're trying to leave the planet. India runs risk every time they put up a nuclear plant that someone will come along and blow it up, but they'll never be able to afford the changeover away from fossil fuels.

The main reason I harp on this subject is because getting off imported oil is imo the ticket to telling the rest of the world to go fuck itself.

We've had the ability to do that since World War II and haven't, and as much as the world has a gun to our heads, we have a Death Star pointing at theirs. The rest of the world would shrivel and die if we called in every IOU we've written since the Industrial Age. I am in complete concurrence with you about the oil import thing; get us the hell away from that nonsense, but don't tell us we have to do it because Bonnie Raitt did, and that's what I have the biggest problem with. I'd vote for Friedman tomorrow if he just up and said "We're putting *insert amount* of money into biodiesel and renewable energy sources across the entire state of Texas because we're going to be the first state in the Union to tell the world to fuck itself with a chainsaw because we don't need anything from them and that's why we're bad-asses, and if the rest of the nation had any balls, they'd do the same goddamn thing and quit whining like little bitches." No celebrities, no special interests, no cheap theatric moralizing, and no ifs, ands, or buts. Pure Gonzo hatred.

And no, I'm not automatically voting for Perry just because I'm a Republican; I think he's done some good things, I just can't think of what any of them are off the top of my head. I would love an alternative solution to the ream of crappy choices we've got this time around, but it has to be an alternative I can place my trust in while my back is turned, not someone who's going to throw a bevy of millionaire dancing clowns at the Texas people and make bank while the clowns face-rape us for four years with their false-altruistic hippie bullshit.

How much better would our position have been after 9/11 if we could have shithammered the Saudis, something we couldn't really do because we needed their oil. How much more sway would we have hold over where and how to deploy our armed forces if we didn't have to follow the syringe over to OPEC? We could pull our bases out of Saudi Arabia(which was a main reason OBL was pissed at the US in the first place and started Al-Qaeda) and tell them to fend for themselves.

We were in Bahrain and Turkey before we were ever in Saudi Arabia. The entire intent behind NATO was to have bases established in every region of the globe to combat the Communists wherever they may appear. Bin Laden would have cropped up whether we were there or not, because that's what god would have told him to do; we just provided him with a target that wasn't Israel. We don't need the Saudis' oil, we need their damn airports, just like we needed Kuwait's (they, at least, love the shit out of us and would probably cry if we ever left).

We could tell Iran to put up or shut up without fear of them cutting off their pipelines. Right now we're a company that's balls deep in debt trying to haggle with a credit card company; imagine how much more leverage we would have if we were debt-free.

Honestly, we could tell Iran to fuck off tomorrow and be no worse off. The entire globe is balls-deep in debt to us. We may end up sucking on a lemon for a while over the oil thing while we convert over to other energy sources, but the rest of the planet, including the entire Middle East, would be clutching at pillows screaming as their accustomed ways of life perish and they're reduced to trading salt and spices from camelback across the Sahara again, clawing out a 12th century existence to go along with their 12th century idealism.

I don't want our soldiers dying in a questionable war in a country that didn't attack us in the first place. I don't want other Americans paying in blood because we need to keep gas prices under $3/gallon.

Then inform the oil companies that we aren't paying $3 a gallon for crude that was pumped out of the ground years ago, and while we're at it, tell them to start drilling Alaska because we aren't importing anything anymore from outside of this hemisphere. As for the questionable war, by all rights we were obligated to destroy Saddam for his documented use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War of '84-'88, a war crime according to the UN, the same UN that chose to not prosecute a member nation for using such, thus rendering every other war crimes trial for the use of WMDs hypocritical. That we had to wait eight years for a President to correct the UN's oversight is due to the shortsightedness of the American people. That is why Iran is so miffed, because the UN acknowledged Iraq's use of Tabun gas and G-nerve agent during that war back in 1991, and yet did nothing because it wasn't a European problem (but the UN were quick to jump on Ceauscescu & Milosevic for crimes just as hideous, which just makes them blowing off Iran's case that much worse). Now Iran wants us out of there so that they can a) avenge themselves on Iraq after the UN didn't serve the justice up when they were supposed to, and b) obliterate the last real stronghold of Sunni Islam in the region; the rest of them are Shi'a and can be bullied as long as no one unites them under some big pan-Arab flag to resist the encroaching Persian horde.

I admit we've put ourselves into a pickle jar, as I stated above about the mission statement and the ROE, but I also hope we're there for another 50 years, because once we pull out, that whole bitch belongs to Iran, and that's a monster with an expansionist history that's already getting too big for its box.

Besides, we need you bitches back here building a fence to keep the illegals out.

Sounds like a National Guard problem to me. I breach obstacles, not build them.

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by Zeonfiend

I would buy that if OPEC were the primary exporters of our oil imports. They aren't: Canada and Mexico are. We don't get the bulk of our oil from the other side of the Atlantic, so ipso facto we aren't there for their oil.

We do import nearly as much from Venezuela(OPEC member) as we do from Canada from the last stats I saw, and Saudi Arabia(another OPEC member) isn't far behind Venezuela. We're linked to OPEC and the Middle East when it comes to oil, in part because Canada & Mexico don't really have the excess capacity to supply us fully if we cut off all ties with OPEC countries.

Originally Posted by Zeonfiend

Yes, but unlike the rest of the world, we're sitting on our own massive reserve that we aren't touching. Nations like Japan or some of the European ones would perish shrieking if they were cut off from their supply for more than a year; the US has the capability (if not the willpower) to shut off all oil imports for a decade and maintain level, and it also has the industrial base to spend whatever is necessary to convert the entire nation over to nuclear/hydrogen/solar power within that decade. It would be a shitty decade, but the nation would survive it.

The problem that stems from that is that a lot of our reserves(like ANWR) aren't even completely scouted, much less has pipelines built to it. To tap those reserves would take years before we saw the first drop. It's not like we have a guy sitting by a switch just waiting for the word.

Originally Posted by Zeonfiend

Here's the funny part: by 2020, we could have over 50% alternative fuel across this nation while the Europeans struggle with reaching their 20% mark. China is flat-out screwed, so they're trying to leave the planet. India runs risk every time they put up a nuclear plant that someone will come along and blow it up, but they'll never be able to afford the changeover away from fossil fuels.

I've bolded the operative word: could. It won't happen with the current administration(or probably the next one from the candidates I've seen) and if we're going to make serious headway by 2020 it needs to start yesterday. China's actually making a lot of headway right now; I don't know if you got to see the Discovery special Thomas Friedman did, but it talked about how China is starting to create entire villages that are 'green' in nature. I don't know how wide the scale is on this project, but I know they're serious about getting it underway before 2008 so they look all shiny and clean for the 2008 Olympics. They're learning from our mistakes, it seems.

Originally Posted by Zeonfiend

The rest of the world would shrivel and die if we called in every IOU we've written since the Industrial Age. I am in complete concurrence with you about the oil import thing; get us the hell away from that nonsense, but don't tell us we have to do it because Bonnie Raitt did, and that's what I have the biggest problem with. I'd vote for Friedman tomorrow if he just up and said "We're putting *insert amount* of money into biodiesel and renewable energy sources across the entire state of Texas because we're going to be the first state in the Union to tell the world to fuck itself with a chainsaw because we don't need anything from them and that's why we're bad-asses, and if the rest of the nation had any balls, they'd do the same goddamn thing and quit whining like little bitches." No celebrities, no special interests, no cheap theatric moralizing, and no ifs, ands, or buts. Pure Gonzo hatred.

If the end result is the same, does the way he phrased it really matter though? I recognize the rhetoric for what it is, rhetoric. It's catchy marketing and slogans, something Kinky's proven to be quite adept at over the years. I'm paying more attention to the substance behind the phrase than the phrase itself.

As for the debt remark, there's no bigger owner of America's debt than China. We don't recall all the IOUs because it would put us under as well. Consider it the economic version of 'mutually-assured destruction'.

Originally Posted by Zeonfiend

And no, I'm not automatically voting for Perry just because I'm a Republican; I think he's done some good things, I just can't think of what any of them are off the top of my head.

That's the way a lot of people felt about Dubya at the end of his stint as Texas governor. I'm not too thrilled when even Perry's own base has trouble coming up with things he's done to help the state.

Originally Posted by Zeonfiend

We were in Bahrain and Turkey before we were ever in Saudi Arabia. The entire intent behind NATO was to have bases established in every region of the globe to combat the Communists wherever they may appear. Bin Laden would have cropped up whether we were there or not, because that's what god would have told him to do; we just provided him with a target that wasn't Israel. We don't need the Saudis' oil, we need their damn airports, just like we needed Kuwait's (they, at least, love the shit out of us and would probably cry if we ever left).

I'm not going to pretend the world would be all peaches & ice cream if we weren't in SA, but the well-documented fact remains that it is America's base in SA that spurred OBL on the path he is on today. Given how much havoc AQ has caused to date, wouldn't the thought of removing SA bases seem like a good idea, especially since we're permanently in Iraq now?

Originally Posted by Zeonfiend

As for the questionable war, by all rights we were obligated to destroy Saddam for his documented use of chemical weapons during the Iran-Iraq War of '84-'88, a war crime according to the UN, the same UN that chose to not prosecute a member nation for using such, thus rendering every other war crimes trial for the use of WMDs hypocritical. That we had to wait eight years for a President to correct the UN's oversight is due to the shortsightedness of the American people.

I'll leave this alone because it goes outside of the scope of Kinky & biodiesel, and we're already going off on tangents as it is.

[Satchel]

Originally Posted by xian

Kinky hoped to add support by name dropping rather than by preaching the merits. Many people, myself amongst them, find the pronouncements of celebritites as to how we commoners should lead our lives inherently pompous and conceited. As such, we tune them out even, when as here, the fact is that it looks like a pretty good idea.

Do you not think that just reinforces the stereotype of your side being ignorant and close minded, or is that a badge of honor? Unlike most celebrities, Willie is actually making a positive contribution, and lauding him for it should not be considered a negative. In fact I would say that any discussion involving Bio Fuel in Texas would be remiss without a mention of Willie.

[kalamu]

Willie Nelson as Renewable Energy official in the Texas Governor's office?

LOL. We should also make him the Weed Commander in the DA's office while we're at it.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by Satchel

Do you not think that just reinforces the stereotype of your side being ignorant and close minded, or is that a badge of honor? Unlike most celebrities, Willie is actually making a positive contribution, and lauding him for it should not be considered a negative. In fact I would say that any discussion involving Bio Fuel in Texas would be remiss without a mention of Willie.

I think you misread what I was saying. I agreed explicitly that the pursuit of programs like biodeisel are a good thing. Kinky could have made that point without dropping Willie's name don't you think?

[Dionysos]

Originally Posted by xian

I think you misread what I was saying. I agreed explicitly that the pursuit of programs like biodeisel are a good thing. Kinky could have made that point without dropping Willie's name don't you think?

Given that Willie has one of the highest-profile biodiesel fuel stops in the country, it seems silly NOT to mention him.