I agree

I've read good and bad things about Walt Disney but, if there's one thing I remember from it all, it's that he could never be called a slouch by any definition of the word. I found a great quote at YoungEntrepreneurBlog:

“When you’re curious, you find lots of interesting things to do. And one thing it takes to accomplish something is courage.

Somehow I can’t believe there are any heights that can’t be scaled by a man who knows the secret of making dreams come true. This special secret, it seems to me, can be summarized in four C’s. They are Curiosity, Confidence, Courage, and Constancy and the greatest of these is Confidence. When you believe a thing, believe it all the way, implicitly and unquestionably.

I have been up against tough competition all my life. I wouldn’t know how to get along without it.

When we consider a project, we really study it–not just the surface idea, but everything about it. And when we go into that new project, we believe in it all the way. We have confidence in our ability to do it right. And we work hard to do the best possible job.

Biggest problem? Well, I’d say it’s been my biggest problem all my life. MONEY. It takes a lot of money to make these dreams come true. From the very start it was a problem. Getting the money to open Disneyland. About seventeen million it took. And we had everything mortgaged including my personal insurance.

The way to get started is to quit talking and begin doing. If you can dream it, you can do it.”

Love it...

Both sides of the story...

It's REALLY hard to take a stand when everything is so CONFLICTED. From The New American (a publication I know nothing about):

We have more than 22,000 scientist signers of our global-warming petition who’ve looked at the issue and concluded essentially the opposite of these United Nations people. This says nothing about the science. Science does not depend on polling. Just because we have 22,000, and the UN may have 600, does not matter. The only thing our petition demonstrates is that there is no consensus among scientists in support of the UN claims.

Scientific questions are never settled in this way. Science is about natural truth. The truth doesn’t require any advocate. It stands by itself.

In science, a scientist may discover the truth about something. Then he develops a hypothesis, and the hypothesis is tested by various means. So long as the hypothesis passes experimental tests, it becomes stronger and is further relied upon — unless it fails an experimental test. If it is a very fine hypothesis with wide utility, it may spread throughout the entire scientific community and become part of the basis of scientific knowledge. The process by which this is done is not what is important. The truth is important. Scientific truth is not determined by polling or by convening meetings.

If you like truly understanding the environment, make sure you read that article. I can't stress how important it is to get the entire picture. If you blindly follow a cause that is supposed to be based in reality/science, you better make damn sure you're always questioning your stand. That's the scientific method.

I'm always trying to get the most accurate picture of what is going on around me. True, I blog about sustainable transportation and environmental impacts but I'm always willing to see both sides of the issue. Burning oil to power our cars has more than just climate impact and that's, clearly, still being debated.

QUESTION EVERYTHING or you have NOTHING.

Hrrrmmmmm....

This keeps coming up... via AutoBlogGreen again:

When people like GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz talk about how new fuel economy regulations are going to add $5-6,000 to the price of new cars and trucks, it's worth examining how they come to those numbers. Obviously there are some cars today that can achieve the 35mpg level without being insanely expensive. Unfortunately those tend to be smaller cars that the vast majority of American new car buyers seem to be unwilling to buy at current fuel prices. For any number of reasons, Americans still prefer vehicles that are larger, heavier and thirstier, in some cases for perfectly legitimate reasons.

Unless the cost of operating those vehicles rises dramatically, it seems Americans won't want to make the switch. Of course the cost may jump anyway, although the timing of such a rise is uncertain. As is all too often the case, trying legislate a simplistic solution to a complex problem is likely to lead to unintended consequences. If customers want their bigger vehicles but carmakers are forced either produce unaffordable versions of big rides or smaller vehicles people don't want, something has to give.

In Cuba, where nearly half a century of U.S. trade embargoes have eliminated access to new American cars, people have just learned to keep the cars that existed there in the fifties on the road seemingly indefinitely. During a discussion at the Chicago Auto Show, GM NA President Troy Clarke indicated something similar could also happen here in the coming years. If car-makers are unable to provide the vehicles customers want at a price they can pay, businesses that specialize in reconditioning used vehicles could step in to fill the gap. While this would benefit consumers by providing affordable transportation, it would negate the benefits of higher fuel economy standards by keeping those more efficient vehicles from supplanting older ones in the fleet. Unless car buyers have a real financial incentive to move to smaller vehicles, they will likely just move to the used car market.

Sounds familiar...

CleanTDI on its way

The new 50-state legal CleanTDI is on it's way! This is great news from the company who built a huge TDI following here in the states only to leave them hanging for several years. I guess I shouldn't put the blame on VW; a lot of the problem had to do with the US and our diesel regulations. For a while there, diesels could not be sold in California and 4 other states. Not any more!



via AutoBlogGreen, the most prolific blog I've ever subscribed to (really, it's out of control, guys/gals).

*sigh* ... going the wrong direction

Innovation and consumer choice has it's upsides and downsides. Meet the XUV.

That makes the 660 ft-lbs of torque generated by its 7.2L Caterpillar engine seem paltry. Besides the big-rig-meets-Excursion bodywork, your nearly $200,000 expenditure for this XUV will get you hardwood floors, custom captains chairs, a 42-speaker sound system, two drop-down 16-inch TVs plus a 42-inch plasma, four computer workstations, plus a train horn

Powered by a Caterpillar engine no less... seriously, why?

I have not forgot about you...

Hang in there my few but intrinsically excellent subscribers! I hath not forgotten about thee!

There has been a lot going on in my world, most of which is demanding attention and time-critical. I don't like to half-ass things so I'd rather simply just not post then post for posting's sake.

Coming up:

More words of the day

A session on batteries

A session low-resistance tires

Maybe a scoche of politics

Thanks for your support... I won't disappoint!