Mom’s oven was broken, so no turkey for me. To take the edge off, I prescribed myself a quart of whiskey mixed with milk, and this video. Enjoy!
Share your favorite lines from the video in the comments!
Can’t Bring Yourself to Type the Word “Ass”?
Eager to share our brilliant political commentary and blunt media criticism, but too genteel to link to horsesass.org? Well, good news, ladies: we also answer to HASeattle.com, because, you know, whatever. You're welcome!
I liked:
“Solar, wind power, and knives!”
“Don’t you know how much plastic that wastes eating that?”
Hmmmm! That was not a funny video.
“Use your fuckin’brain!”
If you want an enviro-tip, it probably ought to be that we should give a critical look at the Washington Ferry system, particularly before we put another quarter billion dollars into ferries for the PT to Keystone run.
Besides encouraging urban sprawl, the ferries ARE NOT a particularly good deal when it comes to the environment.
Last year the ferry system burned about 17.5 million gallons of diesel to provide a grand total of 182 million passenger miles. That is ONLY 10.4 passenger miles per gallon of diesel.
http://www.ntdprogram.com/ntdp.....s/0035.pdf
Since burning diesel actually gives 15% more carbon release than burning an equivalent volume of gasoline…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel
that is the equivalent of 8.84 passenger miles per gallon of gasoline.
Now even a huge SUV with only the driver in it gets 15mpg. A Hummer gets 14 city, 18 highway.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg.....2006.shtml
And if you carpool with these vehicles you get up to eight times that many passenger miles.
But throughout the entire ferry fleet through all of 2006, the average consumption was the carbon equivalent of 8.84 miles to the gallon.
Worse yet, while diesel trucks and equipment must meet current air pollution standards, that hasn’t been required of the ferries. These engines were specifically exempted from the Clean Air Act of 1970, and the technology to clean them up has never been retrofitted.
http://www.downtownexpress.com.....iesel.html
http://action.foe.org/pressRel.....se_KEY=282
Technology DOES EXIST to help with this problem, although it won’t get them as clean as the exhaust of an eighteen-wheeler
http://www.allbusiness.com/gov.....307-1.html
BUT WADOT HASN’T IMPLEMENTED IT.
Yes, WADOT touts that they have switched to low sulfur diesel fuel rather than continuing to use bunker oil…the lowest grade of diesel, they neglect to tell the public that they did it only after they were forced to do so by federal law.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg.....esel.shtml
They also neglect to tell you that one of the purposes of the low sulfur fuel is to allow secondary processing of exhaust by catalysts (basically an oversize catalytic convertor), something WSF doesn’t do.
Anyone truly concerned about carbon footprints and air pollution ought to look long and hard at the figures for our ferry system. These marine diesels are the dirtiest, least efficient engines around on a passenger mile basis.
“When the Clean Air Act was passed in 1970, marine engines were left off the hook,” said Long.
Representatives of Bluewater Network recently held a press conference on the steps of City Hall to announce their findings on ferry pollution. The report, “Air Pollution From Passenger Ferries In New York Harbor,” is located on its Web site, http://www.bluewaternetwork.org. The report states that ferries must become 95 percent cleaner in order to match the emission reductions achieved by cars and trucks.
With the E.P.A.’s recent report, diesel emissions have increasingly become a topic for politicians. Governor George Pataki announced that contractors at the World Trade Center site will be asked to use ultra-low sulfur fuel. New York City buses now also use the lower-emission fuel.
Federal clean air guidelines for marine engines are in the offing. They will begin in 2004, according to Zimmerman of the E.P.A., becoming mandatory in 2007. The regulations, however, will apply only to new boats. Older boats would be permitted to operate for the length of an engine’s life, roughly 15 to 20 years.
Okay, John C. Reilly (loved him in ‘Boogie Nights’) and Will Ferrell (why God, why?) I recognize. Who’s the third guy?
“Here’s a tip. Shut your fuckin’ mouth!”
“Try wrapping your feces in tin foil and saving it in a cooler.”
The clip seems to go sharply downhill from this point onward.
Is it time to wrap HA in tin foil?
The Piper
@4 It makes sense to regulate large commercial vessels such as ships and ferries. Recreational boaters, on the other hand, make a puny contribution to air pollution. On any given weekend, all the recreational boats on Puget Sound together put out less emissions than one ocean-going freighter. You don’t have tens of millions of people driving boats 5 days a week. Most of the air pollution comes from cars and trucks, power plants, and airliners.
@8 — This is mocking your view of the environmentally aware. You can understand it or not. It’s entirely voluntary.
@4 It’s also silly for people to get their undies in a bunch over pollution from lawn mowers and other yard equipment. C’mon, just how much CO2 can a lawn mower or chain saw put out? You can run a lawn mower all day and you wouldn’t begin go pollute the air as much as one delivery truck driving by on the street.
@8 — “Here’s a tip. Shut your fuckin’ mouth!”
Personally, I like lawns. The greener, the better! Lush, long, green grass! Vegetable gardens are even better!! Especially CARROT gardens!!! YUMMY!!! I LOVE CARROTS!!! You can never have too many lawns and gardens. I think it’s silly to mow grass, though. Let us rabbits eat it! What we need is fewer lawn mowers and chainsaws, and MORE RABBITS!!!
It would also help the atmosphere if we could cut down on the amount of wingnut brain farts.
@14: Saving the amount of methane usually expressed in these comments threads would prevent at least a decade of warming.
I am all for the war on global warming as long as it is on a volunteer basis. The soldiers in Iraq all volunteered. We also did not raise taxes for the Iraq war so we shouldn’t raise them for the war on global warming. You libs can do all the fighting while we repubs sit back a laugh while patting each other on the back on how patriotic we are.
WHAT A PIECE OF SHIT
AND RAPE AS FUNNY JOKES AS WELL – THIS SITE HAS GONE TO HELL
GUEST FAG says:
WHAT A PIECE OF SHIT
AND RAPE AS FUNNY JOKES AS WELL – THIS SITE HAS GONE TO HELL
11/22/2007 at 9:45 pm
Did she put ice on it???
@17 This site went to hell long ago, when the wingnuts showed up.
re 16:
Jane Balough’s Dog says:
“You libs can do all the fighting while we repubs sit back a laugh while patting each other on the (ASS) on how patriotic we are.”
This MIGHT be, “… taking things out of context.”
@12
Chainsaws are pretty nasty actually.
Newer 4 stroke outboard boat motors are clean running and don’t pollute the sound with oil in the exhaust.
@20
Goldy and Will seem to be doing a pretty good job of running themselves into the ground, wingnut trolls or not.
@ 5
The third guy is Adam McKay, Will Ferrell’s writing partner and former head writer for SNL.
Further information on Ferry pollution problems from the bluewater coalition. Although this article is about New York City, the issues are just as applicable to the Puget Sound region.
Evidence has mounted that passenger ferries and other marine vessels are significant sources of air pollution, and steps are being taken to control their emissions [1-6]. At the same time, urban passenger ferry service is expanding rapidly in many coastal regions as a means to add capacity to crowded transportation systems [7-9]. This trend has been accelerated by the introduction of high-speed (>30 knot) craft that can cut commute times and provide acceptable commute trips [10-12]. These trends combine to present a significant environmental problem for local air pollution managers [13-15]. Where passenger ferries have become a visible and fast-growing segment of the transportation system, emissions have become an important environmental issue.
Air pollution from marine sources has been regulated only recently. While federal automobile emission controls were first phased in for the 1973 model year, standards for marine engines were first regulated (beginning with voluntary standards) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) only in 2000 [16]. Figure 1 illustrates this disparity by comparing emission requirements for one pollutant, nitrogen oxides (NOX). Federal regulations of automobile emissions of NOX have caused advances in technology and significant reductions in pollution. By 2007, when the last planned standards are in place, automobile emissions will be reduced by over 99%. In contrast, mandatory emission standards for ferry engines will not come into force until 2004, and even when more stringent standards apply starting in 2007, ferry emissions will fall by less than half. Other pollutants have similar profiles. Importantly, engines that are installed onboard ferries over the next three years while less stringent Tier 1 standards apply will remain in service for 15-20 years, creating a window of opportunity for dirtier (and cheaper) engines to gain a place in New York for years to come.
http://www.bluewaternetwork.or.....report.pdf
Relative to their landside alternatives, emissions from the high-speed Highlands and short-distance Weehawken-W. 38th St. routes show a pattern similar to other such comparisons [15]. These ferry commutes with existing engines are much more polluting than substitute travel by auto, bus, and rail. The improved methodology shows that reduction in ferry emissions needed to achieve pollution similar to the average landside commute modes are greater than estimated earlier, from about 50% (for CO and SOX) to 98% or more (NOX and PM).
The Staten Island Ferry results are different. This very large, moderate-speed vessel has greater emissions than the average landside commute modes on a per passenger-trip basis for NOX and PM, but lower emissions for HC, CO, SOX and CO2. This is unlike other ferry-landside comparisons, and is largely due to the fact that although the Staten Island Ferry holds 15 times as many people as most contemporary passenger ferries, it does not have engines 15 times as large. It appears that large ferries may have less of a pollution problem as long as they are heavily used, as the Staten Island Ferry is. Nonetheless, focusing on the pollutants with the largest health consequences, NOX and PM, even the Staten Island Ferry requires emission reductions of 90% or more to achieve emissions similar to competing landside travel options. This figure applies to both main and auxiliary engines. If auxiliary engines are not controlled, it may not be possible to reduce emissions from the Staten Island Ferry to levels comparable to landside travel options.
George Fucking Bush Has No Fucking Idea Dep’t.
According to the Washington Post,
“President Bush yesterday offered his strongest support of embattled Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying the general ‘hasn’t crossed the line’ and ‘truly is somebody who believes in democracy.'”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/.....04_pf.html
As Matthew Yglesias of The Atlantic says,
“It should seem obvious that reacting to an adverse Supreme Court ruling by suspending the constitution, having the head justice fired and arrested, and then ordering mass arrests of political opponents … is not consistent with” believing in democracy.
http://matthewyglesias.theatla.....e_line.php
@25 How much of Puget Sound’s air pollution comes from cars, and how much from state ferries?
@28
Depends on the particular contaminant you wish to measure. And in fairness, there is other shipping that goes on (like the cruise ships) that is similarly unregulated.
The better measure, however, would be which mode is more polluting on a passenger mile base. By that criteria, the ferries clearly pollute more per passenger mile.
But from a recent report:
The Puget Sound Air Emissions Inventory measured air pollution created in 2005 by oceangoing vessels, cargo-handling equipment, trucks, rail and harbor craft such as ferries. The area studied extends from the Strait of Juan de Fuca east to the Cascades, north to the Canadian border and just south of Olympia.
In 2005, maritime activities produced more than 1,444 gross tons of diesel particulate matter — more than half of the studied area’s total — and an additional 3,109 gross tons of fine particulate matter such as dust, dirt, soot and smoke. The study also measured nitrogen and sulfur-containing compounds, volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide.
After the oceangoing vessels, harbor craft such as ferries were the second-largest contributor to diesel particulate matter, adding 456 gross tons to the air in 2005. In 2002, Washington State Ferries began to upgrade their engines, but they are still one of Puget Sound’s largest polluters.
Ships in transit through the Strait of Juan de Fuca were the biggest contributors by far to emissions of oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, diesel particulate matters and other particulates. Oceangoing vessels in transit put 11,390 gross tons of nitrogen dioxide into the air in 2005 as well as 497,000 gross tons of greenhouse gases.
The sad fact of the matter is that the emission control laws that were applied to vehicles have largely done their job, but these laws weren’t applied to maritime traffic and even though these emission sources STARTED to be regulated in 2007, the amount of pollution allowed is far higher than in vehicles. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/.....ons11.html
@28 “The better measure, however, would be which mode is more polluting on a passenger mile base.”
No, it’s not the better measure, because the number of ferry passenger miles is miniscule compared to auto passenger miles. By this misleading measure, you could make a case that farting mosquitoes cause more pollution than power plants do.
Nursing Home Scandal
Private equity firms are buying up the U.S. nursing home industry, with disastrous results for patients. These investors make millions by slashing nursing staffs and neglecting patients, while protecting themselves from fines and lawsuits by creating extremely complex ownership structures that make it impossible for regulators and patients’ lawyers to track down the real owners.
http://www2.tbo.com/content/20.....analysis-/
Another fucking failure of capitalism.
U.S. Planning to Persecute Pulitzer-Prize Winner Journalist
An Iraqi photojournalist whose Pulitzer Prize winning war photography offended the poobahs of the Bushevik regime has been held in a U.S. military prison for 18 months. The Pentagon has used a rightwing blogger to leak their propaganda about the case to the media. Here’s the current lowdown:
“Reports out since Monday note that the United States Department of Defense will seek to have criminal charges brought against Bilal Hussein, an Associated Press photographer ….
“The story was first broken by a right-wing blogger who has has been used as a regular dissemination point for … the case by senior Pentagon figures. That fact is one of the dead give-aways of the case. This blogger … published histrionic attacks on Hussein before he was arrested, claiming that his photographs showed that he was associated with insurgent organizations and attacking the Pulitzer Committee for its decision to honor [his] war photographs. In the end, the order to arrest Hussein came from very high up, and the reason for the arrest was unmistakable: he was the man who took those damned photographs!
“A Pentagon source who requested anonymity advised me that the Pentagon has prepared a total of nine charges against Hussein. … The source said all of these allegations … were ‘extremely weak’ and ‘lacked any meaningful evidence to support them’ but noted that ‘after more than a year and a half of holding this man in prison, it was not possible simply to release him, because that would mean admitting that a mistake was made.’
“The source also stated that the Pentagon’s public affairs division … had been deeply engaged in the matter from the outset. … The source also stated that using right-wing bloggers as a means of disseminating the story was a strategy formally embraced by Pentagon public affairs at a very high level. … He likened the right-wing blogosphere to sheep dogs who would keep the American mainstream media in line.
“The Associated Press and its lawyers have previously investigated all specific allegations made against Hussein. In every case, the allegations turned out to be baseless. I examined several of the allegations myself, and learned in the process that the U.S. military had not even investigated the accusations it dished out.
“Similarly, the Associated Press undertook a review of all of the Hussein photographs and concluded that a series of claims made by right-wing bloggers and the Pentagon about them were simply untrue. …
” … U.S. forces have … insinuated that Hussein had close ties to a particular insurgent organization based in Al-Anbar province. No serious evidence has been presented to support this claim … the organization they cite is not considered to be hostile by U.S. forces in the region today. In fact, it … is … receiving training and equipment support from the Americans. … So the implication that Hussein is somehow an insurgent is … consciously deceitful.
“It is also striking that the Pentagon says that Hussein attempted to ‘infiltrate’ the Associated Press … this … absurd allegation … has a clear provenance. Former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and some of his key Neoconservative advisors repeatedly leveled this accusation in the period 2004-06. As you will recall, this is the period in which … [t]he Pentagon was eager to chill media coverage of the insurgency.
“There is probably no journalist in Iraq who did more to provide dramatic coverage of the insurgency in Al-Anbar than Bilal Hussein. This is why he was seized, and it is why he is now coming to face charges. …
“It is in the end about freedom of the press, and the right of the American public to secure more comprehensive coverage of what is happening in a war zone.”
Quoted under fair use; for complete article and/or copyright info see http://www.harpers.org/archive.....c-90001717
Roger Rabbit Commentary: This case needs to get a lot more attention from the progressive blogosphere. We need to raise a hue and cry so loud the MSM will have to pick up the story. The real story here, of course, is not just that the U.S. military is persecuting a journalist because they disliked his reporting, but that PUBLIC RELATIONS PEOPLE are in control of prosecutorial decision-making!
New Developments in U.S. Attorney Scandal
1) Rachel Palouse, a 34-year-old U.S. attorney in Minnesota under investigation, has resigned. Palouse was an “interim” appointee. She replaced a moderate Republican who refused to pursue “voter fraud” cases against Native Americans. Palouse was involved in a number of controversies, including a staff revolt and allegations that she maintained a blacklist of “problem” news reporters. Minnesota’s Republican U.S. Senator, Norm Coleman, said he welcomed Palouse’s resignation because even he had “concerns” about her management of the office.
2) Attorneys in Alabama have sent a letter to Attorney General Mukasey demanding the firing of U.S. attorney Leura Canary, who initiated the controversial political prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman.
(According to Wikipedia, Siegelman was “defeated for reelection in November 2002 by … 3000 votes. The margin was controversial, as a voting machine malfunction in a single county produced the votes needed to give Riley the election. The irregular recount of that county’s votes was affirmed by the state’s Attorney General, a Republican.”)
However, this complaint does not involved the Siegelman railroad job. The attorneys sought to take depositions in a case involving corruption allegations against GOP Gov. Riley. Canary responded by opening a criminal investigation against their client. This is at least the second time Canary has used the federal government’s prosecution power to intimidate people involved in investigations of her husband’s clients. Her husband is Alabama’s top GOP campaign consultant. This is, of course, a conflict of interest. In addition, her office is a black hole for corruption charges against GOP officials in that state.
http://www.harpers.org/archive.....c-90001711
@28 “The better measure, however, would be which mode is more polluting on a passenger mile base.”
No, it’s not the better measure, because the number of ferry passenger miles is miniscule compared to auto passenger miles. By this misleading measure, you could make a case that farting mosquitoes cause more pollution than power plants do.
Not so. Using rates is the standard method in public healthand epidemiology in deciding where you can make the greatest effect with the least effort.
http://www.doh.wa.gov/Data/Gui.....yratesused
The fact of the matter, as the cited references from the bluewater coalition and other environmental groups demonstrates, is that over the last 37 years we have pushed the technology of control of auto pollution pretty hard, and the cars and trucks of today are extremely clean compared to the cars and trucks of the 1960s. We have done almost nothhing like that with fixed diesel engines and the mobil engines of ferries and ships, and for certain types of pollution, these few sources actually do represent the majority of the pollution for that pollutant while for others they only represent a disproportionate amonunt for the miles traveled.
By your model, ANY small mode, no matter how polluting would be OK, simply because it was a small mode. The Asarco smelter whiched for decades belched Arsenic (a known carcinogen) all over the lower Puget Sound region, would still be in operation, because bad as it was, it never really constituted a MAJORITY of pollution.
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0209031.pdf
If you truly care about theenvironment, Rabbit, you’ll deal with reality. Not discard the science when it doesn’t fit your preconception.
That’s what the left accuses the right of doing and I agree that sometimes happens, but if you deny the ecological damage the WSF does, you are no better than a Creationist who refuses to believe that dinosaurs ever existed.
Hey Will… I thought it was funny. What were these guys talking about?
Diesel emissions are the predominant source of cancer risk in Scorecard’s assessment of hazardous air pollutants. Inclusion of diesel emissions in EPA’s National-Scale Assessment of Air Toxics has totally transformed our scientific understanding of which chemicals and pollution sources are responsible for the largest part of the air toxics problem. Previous analyses (like EPA’s Cumulative Exposure Project) have focused only on hazardous air pollutants listed under the federal Clean Air Act and did not include diesel emissions. Now that estimates of diesel particulate concentrations are available from NATA, it is clear that the cancer risks from diesel emissions are about ten times higher than the cancer risks from all other hazardous air pollutants combined. For the U.S. as a whole, the average cancer risk associated with diesel emissions is 580 per million – 80% of the total estimated cancer risk from all hazardous air pollutants (740 per million).
http://www.scorecard.org/env-r.....iesel.html
Also, rabbit, you might read this article:
http://www.bluewaternetwork.or.....ssions.pdf
an excerpt:
This analysis compares the air emissions from three existing commuter passenger ferries in New York Harbor to current landside alternatives on a per passenger mile basis. The comparison indicates that ferries produce 20 to 200 times more pollution per passenger mile than other transit options, including single-occupant cars, diesel buses and trains. The air pollution from these vessels must be reduced by at least 95 percent in order to minimize
emissions to be commensurate with automobiles, buses and trains. The problem is that while cars and buses have become 97 percent cleaner over the past three decades, marine engines remain uncontrolled.
Is it time to wrap HA in tin foil?
Every wingnut who’s come around here has worn the tin foil.
Rachel Palouse, a 34-year-old U.S. attorney in Minnesota under investigation, has resigned.
This lady thought she was a queen and even had a coronation ceremony complete with trumpets hailing her appointment. Classic wingnut Bushie.
Good riddance.
Another reading assignemnt for rabbit and anyone else who thinks that ferry boat pollution isn’t a problem in Puget Sound:
Marine vessel air emissions (including emissions from ocean-going vessels, ferries, tugboats, etc.) are not as stringently regulated as other sources, although regulations are presently being drafted to adopt international standards in Canada. Nevertheless, other sectors are more highly regulated: progressively more stringent controls are being applied, by means of regulations, to on-road vehicles, and stringent regulations are also proposed for off-road diesel engines that are found in construction, mining, farming, and forestry machines. As emissions from these other sectors decrease, emissions from marine vessels are projected to become a proportionally greater source of the remaining pollution inventory. In the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound (GB/PS) air shed, marine vessel air emissions are also projected to increase significantly in an absolute sense, as a result of strong growth in trade volumes. Marine vessels emit large quantities of SOx, NOx, and PM. The annual emissions from shipping in the GB/PS international air shed have been estimated at 24,500 tonnes of SOx, 86,500 tonnes of NOx, and 4,000 tonnes of PM.
If emissions from land-based sources continue to fall in line with planned regulations and emissions from shipping remains unchanged, shipping-related emissions are projected to account for an unprecedented portion of the local emission inventory. For example, under a business as usual scenario with no regulations on fuel or technological improvements, it is estimated that marine vessels will contribute 37% of SOx, 22% of NOx, and 16% of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) to the total emission inventory in the Lower Fraser Valley by 2015. At the same time, there is increasing evidence that these contaminants – even at today’s comparatively low levels – continue to cause significant adverse human health impacts. As such, emissions from shipping are a source of concern for public health.
Source: MANAGEMENT OPTIONS FOR MARINE VESSEL AIR EMISSIONS March, 2005, BMT FLEET TECHNOLOGY LIMITED (submitted to Environment Canada) (http://www.westcoastcollaborat.....Report.pdf)
Handjob @ 39
What’s your point? We can require ferries to use biodiesel. They’re going to start making a lot of that stuff in Grays Harbor pretty soon.
But then that leaves all the other ship traffic in Puget Sound doing the same damn thing.
Why do you have such a hard-on for ferries?
Ooops no pun intended.
Jimbo @ 35
I have no idea.
However, I’m glad you liked it. I love Will Ferrell, and all the stuff he writes with Adam McKay.
@40Handjob @ 39
What’s your point? We can require ferries to use biodiesel. They’re going to start making a lot of that stuff in Grays Harbor pretty soon.
We can require any diesel to use biodiesel, although we haven’t. Biodiesel doesn’t stop diesels from putting out toxic chemicals, it just reduces their carbon footprint somewhat. What reduces their toxic chemicals is the kind of controls that we require on trucks, buses, and diesel cars. We haven’t put those controls on the ferries because it would require new engines and make them less efficient, and they only get about 11 passenger-miles to the gallon of diesel as it is.
Now yes, biodiesel does decrease the amount of polyaromatic hydrocarbons in the fuel by 80%, since they have less of the stuff than petrodiesel, but unfortunately those don’t seem to be the major carcinogens…those seem to be nitroaromatic compounds, and soot itself. Biodiesel actually has a tiny little bit more than petrodiesel of nitroaromatic compounds, or at least aromatic croups with amines on them that tend to burn to become nitroaromatic compounds, but that’s almost trivial. Diesels are very high compression engines, and produce most of their nitroaromatics when the nitrogen in the air chemically combines with the diesel (bio or petro) at the moment of high pressure combustion.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.g.....id=1651040
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/73/9/1085
http://www.catf.us/projects/di.....php?site=0
So I’d like to return your question with another question:
Why do the board libs seem so hard over on defending the ferries? They are environmentally unfriendly, inefficient users of petroleum (or biodiesel), and contribute to urban sprawl.
And the carbon footprint of constructing new ones is HUGE. You ever worked in a steel mill or shipyard?
Now making fun of a guy’s name may be cheap fun, YLB, but providing an honest answer to these questions would demonstrate a little bit more integrity than just doing snipe and run at serious issues.
So tell me, why do you defend the indefensible. If there were vehicles on the road producing this much carcinogen per passenger mile they’d be totally illegal. Why do we tolerate it from a boat?
@40
YLB
Here’s another good article on the INCREASE of NOX (nitrate air pollution) associated with using biodiesel. It ranged from 10% increase in older (relatively low compression) diesel engines to 31% (in more modern turbo diesel engines) if you convert to 100% biodiesel. The data comes from Canada’s renewable energy laboratory.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ve.....ormick.pdf
So I ask you again, why do the libs keep pushing for inefficient, environmentally unfriendly, and sprawl inducing ferries?
Thanks, Will. Now I see where Ferrell’s lack of talent comes from……except for “Stranger Than Fiction”. That was a hoot!
“I have a MURDER BONER!”
bwaaaaa!
Funny until the fucked up rape joke at the end.
Will, why did you post this video? Do you really think it is funny? I bet women do not think this is hilarious. Rape is not hilarious. What a stupid, frat-boy video. I bet you are 20-something and haven’t had to think above your dick. (There, that should be an appropriate comment for Horse’s Ass comment section.)
Dear Will:
Rape is not hilarious.