Mister P-Mosh

I think it was stolen by the band Depeche Mode.

Someone overheard the group's lead singer telling someone about, "your own, personal, Jesus."

# 10. how much money did you spend all up last year?

Is that english?

Spend all up........hee hee

It makes more sense if you say it with an Aussie accent. Bloody oath, mate.

Ta.

What are you a communist or somethin unamerican? You eating at cheap french restarants...makes me think of what happened to them freedom fries? How much of that baloney with koolaid did you swallow in kansass to get to gripen about good old american food anyway.

I'm worse actually, because I said "Persian" rather than "Parisian". Persia is Iran. Still, one of my most right-wing, conservative, Bush-loving friends ate there and liked the food so much he said, "If this is what terrorism is all about, sign me up!" It was embarrassing to be surrounded by middle eastern people when he said that, but it's still funny.

Actually p-mosh ... in Ron's Jupiter thread you claimed that your belief was "mainstream" ... so that made me wonder if it was mainstream here. I don't believe this bill is a Republican idea ... Bush promised a veto .. but McCain and Obama both are in favor, so this should not be a real big politics issue.

I'm not a big fan of using polls to determine science, since in the past the right-wing would murder scientists who said the world was round or that the Earth was not the center of the universe, and kept the public believing wrong things. However, since you specifically want to see if belief in "global warming" is real or not, you can easily find polls such as this one, which basically says that only 11% of people don't think we are threatened by "global warming."

As far as saying that the bill is a Republican idea, what I was trying to say is that it seemed like a nonsensical idea that the Republicans would come up with. I know both parties are pushing for stuff like this, but I don't think you can successfully enact social change by enacting taxes.

I'm not sure why you say the poll makes no sense ... this is the solution Washington is coming up with ... how do you stop CO2 production if the government is not involved?

Washington is not coming up with good solutions. The reason being is that Americans need to change our way of life drastically. They are saying that we are nearing the end of the middle class suburban lifestyle where everything you own is imported from other nations. Experts predict that we're going to see the middle and upper classes living in cities, while the poor live in the suburbs. This is already happening in many places, so it's not too surprising. What also is starting to change is the shipping of food. People are making a lot bigger deal out of locally grown food, and with gas prices rising (especially diesel which is insane) you'll see locally grown food be financially competitive with big agribusiness. Our ancestors weren't able to eat mangos and kiwis year round, and I don't think we will be able to in the future either. It would probably be healthier for us to change our eating habits to match our local climates anyway. Plus, meat will get a lot more expensive, and we'll go back to eating a more sane amount of it rather than what we get now. This trend is happening as a result of society, and not the government.

So what can the government do? There are a few simple things. The first is to offer money to go towards things like building better public transportation, building more nuclear power plants, investing heavily in research for clean technologies and making existing technologies more efficient. This would reduce our pollution, create jobs, and allow us to become a world leader again in the economy because we would be able to export the new things we come up with. Investors are already preparing themselves for the "green" boom, and smart people have already been buying up stock for companies that do things like wind energy and organic grocery stores. The job of the government is to help shape the nation for the will of the people. If they already know the trends and what people want, they need to set the goals and give us the policies to get there. The free market itself doesn't work without government intervention as we learned in the 1920s, and are re-learning today.

I should have included ... "No tax, man made CO2 is a problem, but the government should not try to stop it" or some such. It seemed clear to me that if you believed man made CO2 is destroying the planet, you would want our government to in some way tax it to prevent it, so I didn't think of that.

It is a problem and the government should do something about it. However, there seems to be some sort of right-wing idea that any attempt to solve a problem is of equal merit to another attempt. There are right ways and wrong ways of doing things. I think taxation is the wrong way.

Though it does seem many companies have voluntarily acted to reduce their "carbon footprint", partly for PR reasons. But they are also largely moved by fear that if they do not act, some draconian laws will be passed, like what is proposed now.

The PR reasons you are referring to is what environmentalists call "greenwashing." I agree that the proposed law is bad, but if the government did take steps to do things like I listed above, it would create a booming economy. I also don't think we need to raise taxes to do it, since we are wasting billions of dollars in Iraq. Some of that could easily be redirected to a better cause such as making more energy efficient technology or maintaining our nation's infrastructure.

So basically, I know anthropomorphic climate change is a real threat, and I don't think taxes or carbon credit trading or any of that stuff is a good idea or a real solution to the problem.

true jen-o ... we can joke about it .. and whistle past the graveyard ... and fiddle while Rome burns ...

here is more hilarity ...

UAH: Global Temperature Dives in May

June 3, 2008

Confirming what many of us have already noted from the anecdotal evidence coming in of a much cooler than normal May, such as

late spring snows

as far south as Arizona,

extended skiing in Colorado

, and

delays in snow cover melting in many parts of the northern hemisphere

, the University of Alabama, Huntsville (UAH) published their satellite derived Advanced Microwave Sounder Unit data set of the Lower Troposphere for May 2008.

It is significantly colder globally, colder even than the significant drop to -0.046°C seen in January 2008.

The global ∆T from April to May 2008 was -.195°C

brrr ... it really has been a cool spring .. as David noted ... I feel a cold wind blowing ....

Horribly bad "science" on your part. First of all, just because it is a cool spring in your area doesn't mean that is the case everywhere. Here in Texas we've had a hotter than normal spring. Second of all, what you are doing by looking at as short a time period of one month to another is about as bad as trying to determine the long term direction of a stock by measuring the stock price one millisecond to the next. Still, you do this all the time, and are silent every time there is a heat wave, then whenever it's cold try to use a low temperature and faulty science to push your political views on climate science.

Stuff like this is why I generally don't eat fast food. When I want to eat cheap, I go to small hole in the wall places with good food for low prices. For example, yesterday I ate a huge torta (a Mexican sandwich) with carne asada (grilled steak) that was bigger than the 6" Subway sandwich, but cost $2. There is a Persian restaurant I occasionally go to where you can get a really tasty lamb kebab plate with rice and veggies for around $5. Even better, when it comes to work I just take my lunch as much as possible. It's healthier and cheaper.

I'm not saying this to criticize you, but just to say that you'll find a lot less frustration if you stop eating at those places.

Mine went into a negative number. I eat organic, not a lot of meat, take the bus to work, own a somewhat "green" home, and try to spend my money responsibly. Still, I feel that I'm not doing enough, so I don't like the quiz and think it was way too lenient or something.

Rhino- a very "oddly" worded poll, called in the business as a "PUSH POLL". It is designed to elicit results which wrongly interpret the real positions of the people who participate. "Pushing" them to a response that does not represent their real view.

Sorry, I am not going to pull the lever and would recommend others to use caution if they wish to contribute. If I were to vote, none of the answers accurately reflect my view, and I would have concerns as to how you would later use the results to proclaim a poll result that misrepresents the actual diverse views on the subject held by Spotters.

good luck with it, maybe others will be fooled into punching a chad or two, but the results will still in my opinion be bogus because of the slanted questions themselves. Don't feel bad, I pretty much always refuse to participate in push polls by any organization for the same reason.

~HAP

I agree with this completely. The poll makes no sense whatsoever with regard to stopping man made effects on the climate. Personally, I'm not in favor of taxes, and it sounds like a very Republican idea.

Of course, this also goes to what my complaints are about in Ron's thread, and how Ron and rhino keep trying to turn the Open forum on this site into an extension of the political forum.

Hap --- let it go. You and I will never agree about this, OK???? I disagree with RumRunner too.

And --- my thinking will never match up with yours (or his), concerning envirionmental stuff.

I know this was addressed to Hap, but I have to say something as well. Those of us on the mainstream side of the "debate" get annoyed by seeing sarcastic, mean-spirited stuff like this pop up in the Open forum on this site. If I wanted to see idiotic posts to make me mad, I'd go to the Political forum. You aren't the one who originally posted this, so I'm not blaming you, but I can see why Hap as well as myself want to respond to comments here. There is an ongoing push by people like Ron to get us all in lockstep with his extreme right-wing opinions. Sometimes I feel like people around here are just as pushy, arrogant, and narrow-minded as they were in TWI. Personally, I feel it's ok for people to have whatever opinions they have, even if they are completely wrong. I just don't like to have it littering this section of the forum when there's an appropriate place for it. When it's posted here rather than in the Politics area, I view it as Ron trying to shove his political beliefs down my throat and misleading the general population of this site into thinking his opinion is the only valid one.

I think there's a Bible verse somewhere that goes something like " ...it is better to dwell on the corner of a rooftop than with a brawling woman in a wide house..."

Proverbs 25:24, a classic.

I'm racking my brain trying to think of a society that not only survived but prospered when a man wasn't at least the nominal head of household. Seems there was a Polynesian culture where the women ran things out in the open (as opposed to today where women often really run things but in the background) and the way of life seemed fine. But other than that.. history doesn't seem to have happy endings for cultures where the women feel free to get pregnant by whatever man happens along at the time. Yet.. no one wants to make a big deal about it in our country now, huh?

The thing is, all cultures end or are swallowed up by others. While it's true that most have been ruled by men, there have been and still are a few cultures where women are openly considered to be dominant. However, even in older times, women were really equal or more powerful than men in the family. Look at it this way, do you really think your dad could do whatever he wanted and not have consequences from your mother? Probably not. Only abused women put up with everything a man does, and even in the past when divorce was stigmatized, sometimes the women made their husbands' lives a living hell. You know how they say that there are things worse than death? I think ....ing off a woman too badly is one of those things.

Wow Ron and Rhino, you two are geniuses. The words "climate change" pops up, and you instantly pull out your dunce hats and political soapboxes and start spewing B.S. because two keywords you have been brainwashed to think a certain way about triggers your programmed thought patterns, and ends up polluting the internet (which you are able to use in a large part due to Al Gore taking an active interest in and lead the way in funding it) with trash.

For those of you that might have a clue but not understand all the way, the words "climate change" basically mean when a climate is going through a change. The "El Niño" weather pattern, for example, is a type of climate change, but is not man-made. Our pollution, however, has caused what is called "anthropomorphic climate change" which is about as accepted by modern science as the effects of gravity are. Unfortunately, big polluter corporations, some bribed "scientists" (who never publish anything in a peer-reviewed format for others to verify), and corrupt/delusional politicians try to make you think that we really can't pollute the environment. So don't let people like Ron and rhino tell you what to believe, because quite simply they are representing the far right, which is completely delusional. Even George W. Bush, who is pro-business and anti-science, says that anthropomorphic climate change is real.

I don't want to get in the middle of all the nonsense, but I can confirm the Iceland thing to some degree. I have a friend that went to work there a few years, and not only are they a very promiscuous people, but they are sort of all a bunch of swingers. Even married couples openly sleep with other people in their houses. If a man invites you to eat dinner with his family, you might also be invited to sleep with his wife afterwards.

That lifestyle is very bizarre to us, and I know I'd be murderous if anyone tried to sleep with my wife, but I can understand their different values and I think if it works for them, then that's fine. I don't have to participate so it's ok.

Oh, and as far as all the talk about single people sleeping around being a new thing, I think that is highly delusional. Things like pre-marital sex have existed forever, as well as cheating, homosexuality, polyamory, or any other taboo stuff. The pill didn't do anything to cause people to have more sex, it just made it to where you don't see as many teenagers getting married because of pregnancies now.

However, there are quite a few teenage girls that want to have babies. Some of the reasons include wanting to be an adult and stop being treated as a child, not feeling enough love from others so they need to get the attention from a baby, and the delusion that a baby would get their boyfriend to become more committed to them like in the past. Throw in the fact that all this abstinence-only education and public shame around sexuality makes girls ignorant about sex and too embarrassed to get the pill because they don't want their parents to find out. Like always, boys and men have no responsibilities sexually, so all of the pressure is on the women and girls to take care.

What about The Big Lebowski? Jesus in that movie was pretty weird.

Here is Buchanan's article on this subject. He seems to present a good case for why some of these Christian views make for sound culture.

You shouldn't have to use the words of a white supremacist to make your point. It's pretty safe to say that if Pat Buchanan has an opinion on something, the exact opposite is most likely the truth. Let me post something he wrote in his book:

America faces an existential crisis. If we do not get control of our borders, by 2050 Americans of European descent will be a minority in the nation their ancestors created and built. No nation has ever undergone so radical a demographic transformation and survived. Only whites have the appropriate “genetic endowments” to keep America from collapsing.

So there's no point in you posting lies from an openly racist thug like Buchanan, and if you find yourself agreeing with him, you should probably stop, take a step back, and consider exactly where you went wrong.

I saw today's Dear Margo column (Click HERE!) and was dismayed by her advice. She seems to be saying that marriage is totally optional for single women wanting to have children. While I agree that branding unmarried single moms with a scarlet letter is wrong I don't go so far as to say its just hunky dory either.

Dear Margo seems to be in step with the current American culture, though. Pick up most any edition of People magazine and see the fawning over all the Hollywood starlets who are having children out of wedlock. The stigma does indeed seem to be completely gone.

sudo

There are many ways to look at this, and many things to consider. I don't know that it's any worse than a woman marrying a horrible man who is abusive because she wants a family. Nor is it any worse than staying in a bad relationship because of the kids. However, I do agree that in most cases it's not a good thing. Kids are better off with two good parents and a strong extended family. It's just that in reality, you can't always provide that. As far as celebrities are concerned, even when they get married the couple doesn't have time to spend with the kids, so it probably doesn't make much difference.

All things told, I think we'd have been a whole lot better off to have never embraced relgion at all. It seems like the human species is hardwired for it though. Every culture cooks up some superstition or other to waste their time with and in order to have good solid reasons for hating people different than themselves.

I wonder how much longer the Roman empire would have lasted had they not converted to Christianity. For all the talk religious zealots say about things like homosexuality ending great societies like Rome, the reality is that homosexuality was a part of their culture for hundreds of years longer than Christianity was, and it was. That's not to say that the conversion to Christianity is to blame for the fall of Rome, but it certainly was a factor or a symptom of the problems.

It's great that you got it, but if it's like the last "tax rebate" checks, be prepared to pay for it next year. Me, I got my check too. It went straight into the bank.

MISTER P-MOSH: You could have chosen "Internet (anything related)"

MSTAR1: You could have chosen "Antiques/Restorationers"

IT WAS THERE GUYS....IT REALLY IS! So far the only thing that I missed was Artist and Morticians (anything related). I just also messed up the poll, it was too lengthy apparently for this board capabilities. Ah well, it was a nice try if I do say so myself.

Actually no. My job has absolutely nothing to do with the internet, so it doesn't fit into that category. It doesn't matter though, the poll doesn't work for me at all. Still, I would place technology related things into a professional category. It's just as complicated to be a software engineer as it is to be a mechanical engineer or architect.

Long story short -- he wasn't the best Governor. But that there was one of his favorite phrases.

Someone in the state legislature wanted to enact a law that folks (all over the state)

couldn't have ice houses (for ice fishing) out on the lakes, after a certain date.

Jesse confronted the legislator face to face, and asked --- "Do you think folks are STUPID??"

He continued saying -- "If they are THAT DUMB to leave a fish house out on the ice at that time of year,

they DESERVE to have their fish-house sink."

I can see the logic in it though, given the right factors. Let's say that it costs $10,000 to print signs to put out around lakes and give cops the ability to fine people who leave ice houses out after that date. On the other hand, let's also say that a single rescue costs $10,000 each, with perhaps five rescues happening each year, with maybe two people dying and their families suing the government for something related to it. By putting out those signs and making it illegal to leave the fish house out on the ice, they would be saving the government, and thus the taxpayers, a lot of money.

So yes, there are a lot of stupid people out there, and I agree that people need to learn to think more for themselves and become self-sufficient. However, not all the things that seem to be catering to stupid people are just for their benefit. If we can keep stupid people from doing things that would waste our resources, then we all are better off.

An advantage of corn to ethanol is it keeps money in the country ... and does a little to reduce oil usage. But corn is not the best plant, at least not yet. But is it unethical to price poor countries out of corn, but it is OK to price them out of energy? Corn has gone from $2.25 to $6.00 while oil has gone from $15 to $126.

That's what people would like to think, however, the market is heavily invested in by foreign companies, particularly Saudis and other wealthy middle easterners. We make them rich by buying their oil, which sometimes goes to fund terrorists. We also make them rich by letting them and their surrogates invest in our stock market and make money there. Look at the bin Ladens, for example. Some members of that family were involved with (and probably still are) our defense industry prior to 9/11. They are all heavily involved with our energy companies.

Also, you can't really compare oil to corn that easily. Both are used for a variety of things, and there's some ratio that shows how much money you can get from a certain amount of each. From what I've read, about 1/3 of our corn goes to ethanol now, with about another 1/3 going to feed cattle, with the remaining third going to other things like food for humans, primarily through heavy processing (such as HFCS.) Oil goes into producing a lot of plastics too, where corn is just beginning to be used for that more. Also, the process of refining each is different, so it is a very complex comparison to make.

China and India need to import more and more of our grain ... are we obligated to lower the price for them? I think we are better with corn and soybean prices high ... it will help restore our trade balance..

I think we should pass the expense on to them in exchange for them passing on all their cheap lead-painted plastic crap to us. However, we should let China and India bear the brunt of the cost increase on behalf of third world nations that are struggling because of our higher prices.

So we can blame the Chinese ... if they would just stick with their traditional diet, they would not need so much corn and soybeans. I'm not sure the US is responsible to offer the world cheap food, while we are strangled with a ten fold increase in oil prices, and competed against with dollar a day workers in China.

They're holding back rice now as well. I don't know if you've seen it there, but here in Houston we are seeing some rice shortages. Even with the limits, Sam's Club and Costco have been out of rice entirely lately. You can still find minute rice in some places, but not the normal kind as easily.

We need a lot of nuke reactors, a lot of coal usage, open exploration, develop shale oil technologies ... and maybe better batteries for the places where electric can be used. And quit wasting energy trying to reduce CO2 ...

I don't see how reducing CO^2 is a waste of energy, but rather should be part of a conservation effort. In my opinion, it's time for us to live more like our grandparents and great grandparents who lived within their means and more independently. My grandparents were always into gardening. The reason is that my grandfather was a kid during the great depression, and my grandmother grew up in a third world country. Both were involved with World War II, where people had to learn to conserve. They also lived in a time were debt wasn't something you got into lightly. I think conservation and responsibility are what our nation needs more than finding ways to keep living outside of our means.

Some sort of solar siding or roofing for home winter heat might make sense one day. Sun to make heat can be much cheaper than sun to make electricity.

I thought about putting solar panels on my roof, and I can afford it. Unfortunately, my homeowners association prohibits them within sight, as well as windmills. I suspect a lot of other people have similar problems. They also prohibit you from growing food in your front yard (although fruit trees can be ok, providing you don't allow fruit to sit on your grass. The technology is there, but our society places a lower importance on it than on superficial appearances. My in-laws in Mexico have been using a solar hot water heater for decades now. My uncle in Ireland has had instant hot water in their house for so long that it has a pull chain to turn it on (I don't know how old it is, but it is old.) Coming up with the technology is not the problem, because I think most of what we need is in reach soon if it's not already available. We are missing the will to change as a society, and we are missing self-control.

In all this we still have to be concerned about the US economy ... if we collapse, we may have to deal with the Chinese or russian military ... both of which are using their trade money to build their military. They may be first and foremost concerned about being mean, not green.

The funny thing is, at least in the case of China, our collapse would result in their collapse too. They, the Saudis, and a few other nations are propping our economy up, and became interdependent with us. They are trying to broaden their investments now and you always hear rumblings about them dropping the dollar and whatnot, but the truth is, if they did it anytime soon, they'd cause their own downfall. Granted, mankind has always been self-destructive and it is possible, but it would be dumb. As far as Russia is concerned, they're almost all bark and very little bite. They have a huge national ego and may be pining for the days of the U.S.S.R., but those days are long gone. They're just another third world nation with a corrupt government. We only take them a little bit seriously because they have nukes that can reach our soil.

It sure seems we should have a good clean 55 mpg small car by now. I have an E85 truck that gets about 21 on the highway, but I have never put E85 in it ... they say that might reduce mileage by 20%. It is 8 cylinder, but 4 can cut out when not needed.

We probably could have, but it hasn't been a priority. I think we will at some point, but we'll also probably see all cars being hybrids in the future. It seems like all the hybrid is boils down to a fancy alternator and bigger battery with an electric motor. There's nothing super amazing about it. It just needs some refinement and one day all vehicles will have it.

I had a slightly different path, but there are a lot of similarities. One difference though, is that for whatever reason, I've always had a somewhat scientific mindset, even since birth, and have modified what I believe or think based on the evidence. I used to read extensively and Carl Sagan's "The Demon Haunted World" really helped me break out of the rut of TWI.

My reading helped me learn about other ways of thinking and other ideas that people have, but seeing other people live happy, successful, fulfilled lives without being in The Way helped me edge past that TWI-created fear of "the adversary" and truly break free. It was amazing to meet good, honest, moral people who just happened to be Buddhist, Wiccan, Muslim, Catholic, Southern Baptist, Atheist, and others. As I got to know these people better, I saw that we are all human beings, we all have the same desires, questions, feelings, and fears. We just respond to things differently, and some questions/fears weigh on us more than others. Eventually, I realized that nobody really has the answers. Even in TWI we learned that we see through a glass darkly, no matter how sure of their beliefs Christians are.

Overall, I guess I would be open to believing in any religion, providing they can give sufficient evidence that I would trust. So far, none have done so.

I couldn't vote either, because I would get an error. However, there really aren't I.T. jobs listed there, so I had to try to pick "other" as well. I'm a computer programmer/team lead/software architect/project manager/scapegoat type person for an energy company (and by energy, I mean primarily natural gas right now.)

I never did any gardening in the past, but with the increasing cost of food, how unsafe commercial food is, and other factors I decided to try out a small garden this year. So we're growing hothouse tomatoes, serrano peppers, zucchini, and cantaloupe. We also planted a variety of flowers, but we're having some issues with our yard and focusing less on our garden right now. We have some problems, such as the discovery (when I planted the garden) that the builder of the house didn't put any topsoil down on top of the clay when they put the sod. So now we're going to try putting soil on top and hope that we don't have to end up re-sodding our grass. We also are having an issue that I didn't think happened here in Texas -- slime molds. For some reason, it appears that the mulch I bought is a haven for this stuff, so I get these huge bright yellow blobs appearing out of nowhere in our flowerbeds where I put down the mulch.

Re: alternative fuels

Ethanol delivers less energy per gallon than gasoline. So, the higher the percentage of ethanol in your mix, the lower mileage you get. This should be considered in any evaluation of the possibly lower price per gallon of ethanol or ethanol/gas mixtures. I won't spend a lot of time on the "actual" cost of ethanol (higher food prices, etc.); but I will mention that special gas tanks and fuel lines are required for ethanol concentrations above about 50%. And, because ethanol absorbs moisture from the air, it really can't be piped the way gasoline can, so transporting it to refineries, etc., must be done by rail car or truck (much more expensive than pipeline).

I agree with this completely. Everything I've heard about ethanol is bad news. We could produce higher quality ethanol from other plants, but the feedstock corn used to produce it right now is worthless, in my opinion. It also pollutes more, so there's really no advantage to it. It's just a fad the government is forcing on us.

Biodiesel sounds wonderful, but it has one problem like ethanol: diversion of food crops to produce fuel. When I was involved in a biodiesel project at work, it was noted that biodiesel would only be competitive (without a fat government subsidy) when oil hit $100/barrel. (At the time, oil was about $45/bbl.) So is it competitive now? NO, because the price of seed oils has also doubled! And then there's all that by-product glycerine to deal with. (A car that would run well on glycerine might be helpful here...) Biodiesel from animal fat MIGHT be a solution.

Actually, the corn used to produce ethanol is not something meant for human consumption. It is used to feed cows, but it's harmful for the cows too. The real problem, which is worse than just diverting foods, is that food crops are not being planted, and the corn used to produce ethanol is instead. That corn is also subsidized heavily, by the way.

Additionally though, diesel engines are much better and more efficient. I don't mean to tell people to go out and get a big truck and drive around, but rather to get one of the VW or BMW diesels. Those things get great gas mileage and if you live somewhere like Texas, you can get biodiesel made from fast food grease (I've been told the Chinese restaurants have the best grease, although I think it probably doesn't matter.) If you want the best diesel cars, though, you have to get them from Europe and bring them over here.

Hydrogen sounds lovely also (none of that "evil" carbon dioxide produced, doncha know); but presently there is no cost-effective way to make hydrogen that doesn't involve CO2 as a by-product. Some day, solar cells may generate enough electricity for cost-effective water-splitting, but it hasn't happened yet. And high-density storage of hydrogen (so you don't need an immense fuel tank) hasn't happened yet, either. And something the eco-nuts haven't told you: water vapor is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

I think hydrogen is too far out there to even discuss. Plus, water vapor doesn't stay in the atmosphere as long, so it's debatable what would happen if we switched over.

Give me a fuel-efficient gasoline engine.

I agree. My wife's Corolla gets great mileage and can compete with the hybrids. It gets close to the same mileage at a significantly lower price.