Blatantly political rant

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

That reminds me of a joke that James Burke related, in his video "After the Warming," about a man who falls off of a 100-story building.

On the way down, a man sticks his head out of a window on the 15th floor, and shouts out to the falling man, "How's it going?"

To which the falling man replies: "So far, so good."



We might... if it all happens in the next fifteen floors...

Y'all should watch James Burke's Connections instead. Older but more balanced.

Why are we in this crunch?

1. Because we've spent the last 15 years trying to make the two most populous countries in the world capitalist and affluent. Guess what? We're succeeding, and they're outcompeting us for natural resources.

2. America has collectively refused to do anything to help with the problem. Offshore drilling for oil? 90% of the US continental shelf is shut down to drilling. (the other 10% had already gotten started before the eco-simps got their moratorium.) No ANWAR, no matter how carefully its done. Colorado oil shale? Now that it's profitable, it's now No Way Jose.
Nuclear power. NIMBY'ed to death, even though we know where and how to handle the waste. New oil refineries? We've finally gotten the first new one in 30+ years thru the regulatory gauntlet. And then the very same people who caused all of this whine that civilization is going to come to an end. To quote Wyoming Knott in Heinlein's Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, "Rockheads, you deserve to starve!"

Despite all the roadblocks, we greedy, vicious, bloody-minded capitalists will still get the system working back to snuff in another 7-10 years, if you <bleeping> pessimists and no-growthers will just get off our backs (and out of our wallets). To quote James Burke's Connections (last episode) "Technology has always caused problems in the past, but it's then solved them later. Why should now be any different?" And so say I.

[Madam Broshkina]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Y'all should watch James Burke's Connections instead. Older but more balanced.

Why are we in this crunch?

1. Because we've spent the last 15 years trying to make the two most populous countries in the world capitalist and affluent. Guess what? We're succeeding, and they're outcompeting us for natural resources.

2. America has collectively refused to do anything to help with the problem. Offshore drilling for oil? 90% of the US continental shelf is shut down to drilling. (the other 10% had already gotten started before the eco-simps got their moratorium.) No ANWAR, no matter how carefully its done. Colorado oil shale? Now that it's profitable, it's now No Way Jose.
Nuclear power. NIMBY'ed to death, even though we know where and how to handle the waste. New oil refineries? We've finally gotten the first new one in 30+ years thru the regulatory gauntlet. And then the very same people who caused all of this whine that civilization is going to come to an end. To quote Wyoming Knott in Heinlein's Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, "Rockheads, you deserve to starve!"

Despite all the roadblocks, we greedy, vicious, bloody-minded capitalists will still get the system working back to snuff in another 7-10 years, if you <bleeping> pessimists and no-growthers will just get off our backs (and out of our wallets). To quote James Burke's Connections (last episode) "Technology has always caused problems in the past, but it's then solved them later. Why should now be any different?" And so say I.

Great points all. Though I would not say it is fair to say that "America has collectively refused to do anything." It has been largely Democrats in Congress who refuse to do anything. Attached is a graphic that compares Democrat vs. Republican Energy Policies.

Methodology: Retail gasoline prices are the result of literally hundreds of factors including crude oil supply, global demand, refinery capacity, regulation, taxes, weather, the value of the dollar, etc. Therefore it is impossible to say with certainty what one individual action will do to the overall price. However, based on what we know about the impact of crude oil supply and prices it is possible to develop some potential ranges of impact on gasoline prices for certain policy changes. For example, using the methodology employed by Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats that suspending shipments into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (between 40-77,000 barrels of oil a day) would reduce gas prices by at least 5 cents, bringing ANWR online (at least one million barrels of oil a day) could impact gasoline prices by between 70 cents and $1.60.

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

I know, I know... Politics is a bad thing to talk about in such a place.

As we have just been reminded..

[vivaldirules]

I'm not jumping into this discussion - one way or the other. But I just have to laugh at this which I post in my office every election.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

I'm not jumping into this discussion - one way or the other. But I just have to laugh at this which I post in my office every election.

Good reason to vote Republican, especially if you're an atheist. However this is the type of "thought" I have come to expect from the Democratic party. I.e wave the emotional flag to get votes - no thought required. Anyway, I prefer the Republican's lies to those of the Democrats.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Madam Broshkina

Great points all. Though I would not say it is fair to say that "America has collectively refused to do anything." It has been largely Democrats in Congress who refuse to do anything. Attached is a graphic that compares Democrat vs. Republican Energy Policies.

We collectively elect those Bozos (all of them), so the buck stops with us.....


(Here, Kitty! Here, Kitty! - Erwin Schrodenger....)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Y'all should watch James Burke's Connections instead. Older but more balanced.

Saw it... and still have the textbook! Thing about Connections was, it discussed the history of technology as it got us to today. After the Warming discussed where technology was taking us, namely, into global warming, rampant pollution in our air, land and sea, and an eventual ruination of our present way of life.

It might be easy enough to "just drill here," or "just put a nuke there," but if you're not going to be concerned about the waste and pollution that will result, you're not helping anything... in fact, you're just continuing to dig us deeper into a hole that's already too deep now.

Max'ing out the old, dirty technologies aren't going to help. Developing new technologies, and a new way of life, will.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Saw it... and still have the textbook! Thing about Connections was, it discussed the history of technology as it got us to today. After the Warming discussed where technology was taking us, namely, into global warming, rampant pollution in our air, land and sea, and an eventual ruination of our present way of life.

It might be easy enough to "just drill here," or "just put a nuke there," but if you're not going to be concerned about the waste and pollution that will result, you're not helping anything... in fact, you're just continuing to dig us deeper into a hole that's already too deep now.

Max'ing out the old, dirty technologies aren't going to help. Developing new technologies, and a new way of life, will.

After The Warming is not factual, unlike Connections. It was a projection, an estimate of the future. It may match reality as it unfolds, it may not. Most likely, it will match in some aspects (in a broad sense) and miss on others.

We have a politically made resource gap currently. You seem to be happier with the limitations of the resource gap than changing the politics to allow more resources to be produced to narrow it. So be it. Don't expect me to not point out the factual reality. As for global warming, rerun the Connections about growing wines in England in 1000 A.D. It's barely getting warm enough to do that now. The world didn't come to an end in 1000 A.D.

I'm all in favor of cleaner technologies. When Solar gets cheaper than powerplant energy, I'll panel over my roof with solar cells (which might make me energy dependent, depending on efficency.) I might even do it at twice the amortized cost. (It's currently 4-5 times the cost.) But I'm not going back to 19th century technology while I'm waiting. The marketplace (and new technology) will solve these problems, if given the chance and some time.

What really frustrates me is the attitude that somebody else has the right to tell me how to live my life. Non servum!

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

As for global warming, rerun the Connections about growing wines in England in 1000 A.D. It's barely getting warm enough to do that now. The world didn't come to an end in 1000 A.D.

According to http://www.english-wine.com/history.html

"The period from the end of the First World War to shortly after the end of the Second World War may well be the only time in two millennia that vines to make wine on a substantial scale were not grown in England or Wales."

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by slayda

Good reason to vote Republican, especially if you're an atheist. However this is the type of "thought" I have come to expect from the Democratic party. I.e wave the emotional flag to get votes - no thought required. Anyway, I prefer the Republican's lies to those of the Democrats.

No, no. This is a joke and nothing more. You just have to laugh at it whether your left, right, or something else.

[pshrynk]

Left, right, I don't care. Just -- Let's stop going to war becasue it's a manly thing to do, 'k? We still have not done what needs to be done to fully stop terrorism. We still have not caught bin Laden. We have destroyed a country on false pretenses.

Do we need to drill for more oil? Possibly. The scince on that is still not finished. Do we need to develop clean, alternative energy? Absolutely. Have either the Dems or the Reps done what is needed? Not really.

They went to war and killed 4K+ of our soldiers. Based on a lie. And a lot of Iraqis, which number we don't see all that often. Based on a lie. Shame on all of us for letting this happen.

202 days, Matilda.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

No, no. This is a joke and nothing more. You just have to laugh at it whether your left, right, or something else.

I didn't find it funny. I wouldn't find it funny if you swapped the party label, either.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

Left, right, I don't care. Just -- Let's stop going to war becasue it's a manly thing to do, 'k? We still have not done what needs to be done to fully stop terrorism. We still have not caught bin Laden. We have destroyed a country on false pretenses.

Do we need to drill for more oil? Possibly. The scince on that is still not finished. Do we need to develop clean, alternative energy? Absolutely. Have either the Dems or the Reps done what is needed? Not really.

They went to war and killed 4K+ of our soldiers. Based on a lie. And a lot of Iraqis, which number we don't see all that often. Based on a lie. Shame on all of us for letting this happen.

202 days, Matilda.

So, what would you have done about the twin towers? Say "Bad terrorists, No, No?"

The one thing the "Bush lied" camp seems to overlook is - where do you want the terrorist to strike? Soft cilivian targets in the US? Or volunteer soldiers somewhere else? Iraq is a lightning rod for terrorists.

As for "Based on a lie." How many lies did the previous administration tell? What about that bombing of a bio-warfare plant (asprin factory)? But those lies are OK, 'cause you like the politics.....

[pshrynk]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

So, what would you have done about the twin towers? Say "Bad terrorists, No, No?"

The one thing the "Bush lied" camp seems to overlook is - where do you want the terrorist to strike? Soft cilivian targets in the US? Or volunteer soldiers somewhere else? Iraq is a lightning rod for terrorists.

As for "Based on a lie." How many lies did the previous administration tell? What about that bombing of a bio-warfare plant (asprin factory)? But those lies are OK, 'cause you like the politics.....

I don't like Clinton, either! I don't like being in a war in a acoutntry that did not have anything to do with 9/11. I don't like being in a war because 9/11 was allowed to happen by the previous six administrations!

If we go to war, let's go to farking war and win. Let's have a targetable enemy and wipe them out. Let's go to the country where the enemy is and destroy his capacity to wage war against us. Let's have good intelligence and use it appropriately.

Let us not, however, say that a country is a threat and then use up all our availabel resources to do something that does not have anything to do with the terrorists in Afghanistan. Let us not ignore the real threat, the Taliban, in order to get rid of a tin pot dictator who is not the immediate threat. Let us not squander the good will and moral imperative we have when we are attacked.

I am not a peacenik. I believe in the use of military when it is not possible to further our goals diplomatically. I believe that diplomacy is the ultimate way of getting us to where we need to be, but that sometimes it is necessary to give them a good bonking in order to gain their attention.

But let's just be circumspect in why we do what we do. The war in Iraq has wasted so many of our resources that we are not able to get what we really need form all this: security by means of projection of force.

All politicians lie. I hate that they do. This administration governs based on lies. That, in my estimate is the thing that makes them reprehensible. Clinton was an idiot and I voted against his wife. McCain is a man of integrity , as is Obama. We finally have an actual choice and I welcome either one of them to take the reins in 202 dayds.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

...

If we go to war, let's go to farking war and win. Let's have a targetable enemy and wipe them out. Let's go to the country where the enemy is and destroy his capacity to wage war against us. Let's have good intelligence and use it appropriately.

...

Unfortunately Terrorists are not an easily "targetable enemy" and they do not make up the entirety or even the majority of any "country" nor are they restricted from being a member of any country. E.g. the Oklahoma bombing was done by a US "locally grown" terrorist.

In fact the whole idea of terrorism is to make the terrorists as untargetable as possible - i.e. to hid among "normal" people. Something else I finally realized is that the goal of terrorists is not "necessarily" to kill but to scare (or terrorize) us all into a panic that we might be killed or maimed.