OT: Obama Foreign Policy Middle East
JetsLife
Per the Obama Administration's private thinking: I see Israel
attacking Iran. Then Iran draws in the US. Then Obama has cover.
I pray it doesn't happen. I pray we bring all of our boys and girls
home ASAP from that barbaric region. Let them destroy themselves.
Remy McSwain
news:46751e18-8a42-4071...@d39g2000yqa.googlegroups.com,
As we've seen, leave them to their own devicess, and they destroy
us.
Glenn Greenstein
> I have my concerns. History will be the judge.
>
> Per the Obama Administration's private thinking: I see Israel
> attacking Iran. Then Iran draws in the US. Then Obama has cover.
Who is Obama covering? I mean he is tall but how is his back peddle
and what were his shuttle times?
Michael
> Innews:46751e18-8a42-4071...@d39g2000yqa.googlegroups.com,
>
> JetsLife <JetsL...@aol.com> wrote:
> > I have my concerns. History will be the judge.
>
> > Per the Obama Administration's private thinking: I see Israel
> > attacking Iran. Then Iran draws in the US. Then Obama has
> > cover.
>
> > I pray it doesn't happen. I pray we bring all of our boys and
> > girls home ASAP from that barbaric region. Let them destroy
> > themselves.
>
> As we've seen, leave them to their own devicess, and they destroy
> us.
As we've seen....
Pursue short sighted foreign policy, give weapons and aid to "the
enemy of my enemy", support brutal dictatorships to scratch the itch
of the moment, support corrupt and self serving monarchies for oil,
star wars on a trumped up pretext, step on toes and stick our fingers
in other peoples eyes and pies gives them reason to want to...
destroy us.
I suppose you can always piss out that old canard about "them" wanting
to destroy us because of our freedoms.
Michael
> On Mon, 3 May 2010 00:12:37 -0700 (PDT), JetsLife <JetsL...@aol.com> wrote:
> >I have my concerns. History will be the judge.
>
> >Per the Obama Administration's private thinking: I see Israel
> >attacking Iran. Then Iran draws in the US. Then Obama has cover.
>
>
> Don't worry, JL... we're not going to attack Iran, unless they attack Israel.
> Kinda like a NATO agreement we have with Israel.
> And as long as we're addicted to their oil teet, we're going to continue *hangin' out* in
> that region.
> I know many hate Carter, but had Reagan not stopped Carter's plan to get the US energy
> independent by 2000, would be a different world. Iraq never would've happened... and Iran
> wouldn't be as powerful, since Iraq always kept Iran in check. Once Bush attacked Iraq,
> Iran became the big power in the region.
> What Israel does... who knows... but Israel won't attack the Iran nuclear facilities,
> unless they KNOW they can really destroy them. And at this point, from what I've read,
> Iran has put them so deep underground, any attack wouldn't work.
> Besides, Israel will be too busy, as it looks like Iran & Syria are moving to provoke
> Israel into some kind of war this summer... they're sending tons of long-range arms to
> Hezbollah. Read about it:http://bit.ly/bDjvMY
>
>
>
>
>
> >I pray it doesn't happen. I pray we bring all of our boys and girls
>
> - Show quoted text -
That report is not very impressive. I want to know what kind of
"rockets" and "missiles" they are "piling up" there. More glorified
bottle rockets for another politcal pissing match, or do they have
some real hardware over there now ???
Johnctx
> On Mon, 3 May 2010 00:12:37 -0700 (PDT), JetsLife <Jets...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I have my concerns. History will be the judge.
>>
>> Per the Obama Administration's private thinking: I see Israel
>> attacking Iran. Then Iran draws in the US. Then Obama has cover.
>
>
> Don't worry, JL... we're not going to attack Iran, unless they attack Israel.
> Kinda like a NATO agreement we have with Israel.
> And as long as we're addicted to their oil teet, we're going to continue *hangin' out* in
> that region.
> I know many hate Carter, but had Reagan not stopped Carter's plan to get the US energy
> independent by 2000, would be a different world.
You are dreaming. Carter's plan was unsustainable with $9 barrel. He
wanted to use a carrot & not a stick. Most humans are wasteful and
Americans are no better.
If we elected Anderson there was a chance. It was more stick.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
Any energy policy that is not based on developing clean, renewable
sources as a priority is a horse shit policy. Electric and hybrid
cars dont do jack shit. You still have to burn fossil fuels to turn
generators in order to charge batteries. Fossil fuels are a dead
end. An expensive and globally destructive dead end. Orbiting
microwave power transmission satellite systems (MPT) would give us all
the clean power we need. The technology already exists. Once again,
excellent solutions are held up by politics and greed.
papa.carl44
"buRford" <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
news:2mptt55bf0j6918f3...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 3 May 2010 00:12:37 -0700 (PDT), JetsLife <Jets...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I have my concerns. History will be the judge.
>>
>>Per the Obama Administration's private thinking: I see Israel
>>attacking Iran. Then Iran draws in the US. Then Obama has cover.
>
>
> Don't worry, JL... we're not going to attack Iran, unless they attack
> Israel.
> Kinda like a NATO agreement we have with Israel.
> And as long as we're addicted to their oil teet, we're going to continue
> *hangin' out* in
> that region.
> I know many hate Carter, but had Reagan not stopped Carter's plan to get
> the US energy
> happened... and Iran
> wouldn't be as powerful, since Iraq always kept Iran in check. Once Bush
> attacked Iraq,
> Iran became the big power in the region.
> What Israel does... who knows... but Israel won't attack the Iran nuclear
> facilities,
> unless they KNOW they can really destroy them. And at this point, from
> what I've read,
> Iran has put them so deep underground, any attack wouldn't work.
> Besides, Israel will be too busy, as it looks like Iran & Syria are moving
> to provoke
> Israel into some kind of war this summer... they're sending tons of
> long-range arms to
> Hezbollah. Read about it: http://bit.ly/bDjvMY
Amen....an intelligent response. Only minor question is about Israel...not
so sure they think as clearly anymore...and may be a little more cowboy in
their attitudes....really agree about the "god" the conservatives created
with Reagan....the guy who raised the defecit, destroyed unions, and created
a bunch of messes.....but he did make things good for Goldman Sachs :-)
papa.carl44
"Johnctx" <j...@spamtx.net> wrote in message
news:u_OdnZIV-ITKk0LW...@giganews.com...
When the Hell did I run for President? But, I would have done a better
job.....and I don't think these sticky thumpy things are workin out too
good.
papa.carl44
"Michael" <mjd...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:8e289421-1f2c-44f6...@r11g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
Damn Michael....we agree. There is hope for the Universe ! :-) Let's
elect Rex to be in charge of it all.
Michael
wrote:
> "Michael" <mjd1...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
What NFL coach past or current do you think would make the best US
President.
I'd say may be Parcells or Landry... Or we could re-live the Nixon
administration with Belichick.
How about... Glanville ??? He'd be fun at least.
papa.carl44
LOL...NONE of them......but Buddy Ryan would be interesting :-) Glanville
the most though.....and Elvis would be Sec of State.
Copp
"papa.carl44" <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
> Amen....an intelligent response. Only minor question is about Israel...not
> so sure they think as clearly anymore...and may be a little more cowboy in
> their attitudes....really agree about the "god" the conservatives created
> with Reagan....the guy who raised the defecit, destroyed unions, and created
> a bunch of messes.....but he did make things good for Goldman Sachs :-)
The Israelis ironically are becoming more Medieval, or maybe Roman
Occupational. Ironically because we started these wars with the hope
of eliminating the medieval religious states, but the wars have caused
the reactionary forces in the Middle East to become stronger. Israel
is having trouble removing settlers from Palestinian territories because
the ultra-orthodox in the military refuse to do it.
We got rid of the Indians by exterminating them. Now they are coming
back in population and causing problems because we didn't get rid of
them entirely. I'm not saying we *should* have exterminated them, I'm
saying because we didn't, they are still a problem. Unless we are willing
to exterminate the Taliban in Afghanistan, with collateral damage inevitable,
the war there is a waste of time, they will always fight, and the same
for Iraq. We should just get out of there, but I'm afraid right now
the wars are a massive Federal jobs program. No way is there a job for
all those returning vets in this economy.
It seems to me we fought the wrong wars. 9/11 was caused by a bunch of
Arabs. We should have invaded Saudi Arabia and just taken their oil fields,
same for Iraq, f--- the society-building. We should have invaded Iran
with Iraq's help and taken their oil too. Instead we have two worthless
wars with nothing to show materially for them even if we "win", *and*
we are going to have to help Israel against Syria and Iran to boot.
I don't envy Obama.
papa.carl44
"Copp" <cr7...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:289d08c0ae1d3160...@rip.ax.lt...
The invasion of Iraq won a war for Iran. It was incredibly stupid and
showed absolutely no understanding of the balance of power in the region.
It is not going to come to a "good" end either. I not only don't envy
Obama, I don't envy our grandchildren and their children.
Johnctx
Michael in your usual flippant way, as they say in Texas, you "throw a
rabid possum in our lap" and walk away.
:)
In the short term controlling demand for energy takes pressure off the
electric grid, lowers consumption of carbon fuels and can seriously
lower imports of oil. It also reduces the need for additional power
plants & buys time. No matter what your position on global warning even
this conservative knows that fossil fuels are finite.
We are nation of wimps. No one wants to deal with the price of energy.
If Obama meeds tax $ to balance the spending of Congress then look here.
Figure out a fair energy consumption per household & tax the hell out
of people who use above that limit. Raising the price of power will make
people think twice about leaving routers on, 3 computers on, the beer
refrigerator in their garage, etc. The rising cost of energy makes
renewables more economical and again lowers demand on the grid.
As for your microwave transmission you made a common error of the media
and politicians. The technology isn't here yet. The science may be but
the technology is not.
Finally, I know many of you think that there is a big bogeyman of
special interests killing technology. Who do you think is best
positioned to benefit from new energy technologies? If the energy
companies don't step up the opportunity arises. Remember for a few
hundred years the energy capital of America was New Bedford , MA, not
Texas they just couldn't transition from whale oil.
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
John... I'm grinnin' like a possum eatin' a sweet potato. You are
washed up on two points here. First off, tell me what part of the
technology is missing for SBSP(space based solar power) by means of
microwave ??? The science is there and so are all the materials. It
is not like trying to have sustained nuclear fusion or
superconductivity at room temperatures or some other avenue that would
require materials and systems that are far off in dreamland. The
amount of power that can be generated also outweighs the amount of
dollars that it would cost to deploy. Once such a system becomes a
standard, you might as well consider it free power.. Currently, the
Japanese have designed and built a 1-gigawatt test system that is
going to be deployed in 2015. This is not pie in the sky. It is
being done. Deploying this sort of thing on a large scale is only a
matter of political will. Next.... If you have any illusions that the
energy/petrochemical companies don't really put their own financial
health before all else, then we should go back to talking football.
Johnctx
I am glad I have never heard that before.
>
You are
> washed up on two points here. First off, tell me what part of the
> technology is missing for SBSP(space based solar power) by means of
> microwave ???
The fact it hasn't been done tells me the science is there & not the
technology.
>The science is there and so are all the materials. It
> is not like trying to have sustained nuclear fusion or
> superconductivity at room temperatures or some other avenue that would
> require materials and systems that are far off in dreamland. The
> amount of power that can be generated also outweighs the amount of
> dollars that it would cost to deploy. Once such a system becomes a
> standard, you might as well consider it free power.. Currently, the
> Japanese have designed and built a 1-gigawatt test system that is
> going to be deployed in 2015. This is not pie in the sky. It is
> being done. Deploying this sort of thing on a large scale is only a
> matter of political will.
Michael I am not wrong on two counts & not splitting hairs with you but
technology & science are two totally different things. The Soviets were
great at science & terrible at technology. To me technology is the
commercial application of science. If it could be done it would be in
the air. Right now it is science not technology.
I don't know enough about microwave technology to discuss is feasibility
but use the word science & technology correctly.
>
Next.... If you have any illusions that the
> energy/petrochemical companies don't really put their own financial
> health before all else, then we should go back to talking football.
Please tell me why they care where they get their money? As the
feasibility of wind & solar appeared profitable who was in the middle of
it? there are certainly obstructionists but it is more the utilities
--since deregulation-- that are the problem.
papa.carl44
John, You are a nice guy, and obviously a decent person who generally
thinks the best of people. I'm not nice, and I expect some people, like
certain business interests, to do whatever gets them the most money with as
little change as possible on their part. Now, that may seem difficult to
understand when a company decides one of those measures or tactics is to
drill in the middle of the ocean, but if "oil" is what they know that is
what they do. They simply are not interested in learning new things, not
the technology so much, but the marketing and the whole deal of figuring out
how they can capture the entire market. Even so, several years ago BP
started aquiring most of the companys that manufacture solar panels, but
they didn't "grow" those companies....they seem to be letting them go to
waste in terms of optimum use. I think the technology is there to do a lot
of stuff we are not doing. Why can Europe and Asia run efficient high speed
rail lines and we can't? We have Amtrak and they have incredible super high
speed railways. We do not use technology in this country.....we use
economics and that generates which technology will be used and how...and the
economics is the god that makes the decisions. You think much more highly
of these folks than I do, watch out...they will get you. :-) Papa
Michael
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK, Nimrod... Get this through your thick skull. A test bed for
microwave satellite power is being constructed in Japan. It is going
to be put into orbit in two years. Not science fiction. It is fact.
Understand ??? It CAN be done and it IS being done.
Johnctx
Papa I could have a field day with what you just wrote. You sound like
an Oliver Stone movie
Are they bad because they drilled a well? Then obviously the
environmentalist are bad because for 20 years they fought the building
of pipelines that would have brought natural gas to the NE?
Please tell me how you know that big energy companies --oil isn't their
only business--are averse to doing new things. So their trading, ag
products, renewable energy & the many things these companies do away
from oil are ignored?
>
Even so, several years ago BP
> started aquiring most of the companys that manufacture solar panels, but
> they didn't "grow" those companies....they seem to be letting them go to
> waste in terms of optimum use. I think the technology is there to do a lot
> of stuff we are not doing.
Papa, quite honestly with all the BP bashing, especially where I am,
please tell me where you have learned of BP's plan to squash solar?
Then tell me why the Europeans & Asians are more focused on efficiencies
and limiting the growth of demand via taxation rather than these
technologies you talk about? Photovoltaics isn't there yet and where it
should be used to forestall the need for additional generation utilities
fight taking the excess back. If throwing money at problems was always
the answer then fusion would be have been solved.
>
Why can Europe and Asia run efficient high speed
> rail lines and we can't? We have Amtrak and they have incredible super high
> speed railways.
Because they are willing to have transportation be a cost of government
& run heavily in the red while we have decide not to do that. Again,
tax the demand and pay for things via the taxation. I assume you only
use public transportation?
:)
>
We do not use technology in this country.....we use
> economics and that generates which technology will be used and how...and the
> economics is the god that makes the decisions. You think much more highly
> of these folks than I do, watch out...they will get you. :-) Papa
Papa, I truly suggest you do some reading or talk to commercial real
estate developers & no not the guy who built a 10,000 SF strip mall who
has no energy costs because everything is triple net. Efficiencies are
all these guys want and green both real and imagined sells but the real
translates into a better bottom line.
Those folks are us. People take care of their interests whether it is
SEIU, the auto business, education, you name it & they are looking after
themselves first. This bogeyman mentality is a product of Hollywood &
is franchised by the left when they want to trash business & the right
when they want to trash whatever they are mad at that day.
Johnctx
> microwave satellite power is being constructed in Japan. It is going
> to be put into orbit in two years. Not science fiction. It is fact.
> Understand ??? It CAN be done and it IS being done.
So they are calling it test bed because it is proven. Next time I buy
a car I will take for a technology drive.
Unlike you Mikey I try to do two things each day. Be better man than
the guy I put to bed & learn. Part of learning is reading & then
evaluating what I read. So show me what you have twerp.
Michael
OK, Tuff Guy...
You need to pull your head out of your arse. Along with what you say
it is you try to do each day, what you also do plenty of is insinuate
yourself ad nauseum. A test platform that is under construction is not
a fantasy to be simply dismissed in order to support your argument.
What is being worked on now in the way of SPS is BOTH science AND
technology. I don't object to thinking outside the lines, but I just
don't get the point you are making. How in hell can you not call it
"technology" ??? What is it then, botany ??? And the larger point
here. Why is the available technology not being bought to bare with
greater zeal ??? Because the current energy mongers want to ride the
current horse until it is dead. They do an excellent job pressuring
and greasing the right political palms to make sure it happens too.
Again... I'm left wondering why you resist seeing that too. If you
want additional information on microwave satellite, all you have to do
is give it a google. Plenty out there including the project in Japan.
papa.carl44
Lets agree to flat out disagree. I live in NJ...talk to real estate
developers?????? Every square inch of Jersey gets something built on it.
We are in the Route 1 corridor...where they keep building corporate
headquarters and nothing ever moves in. Merrill Lynch is around the corner
from me...it was NEVER filled and now is not even close to being used and
less than a mile away somebody else is building another huge project with a
lot of empty buildings. They can get away with it because of all the tax
breaks they get. You assume I'm a solid Democrat, you assume I'm sided with
crazy folks who made bad decisions all along when I'm saying we need a
totally NEW play for our future....that's all.....calm down. "People take
care of thier interests..." , right, and that may not always be in the best
interest of the country or the collective good of us all.
Johnctx
> On May 5, 8:43 am, Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> wrote:
>> > OK, Nimrod... Get this through your thick skull. A test bed for
>>
>>> microwave satellite power is being constructed in Japan. It is going
>>> to be put into orbit in two years. Not science fiction. It is fact.
>>> Understand ??? It CAN be done and it IS being done.
>> So they are calling it test bed because it is proven. Next time I buy
>> a car I will take for a technology drive.
>>
>> Unlike you Mikey I try to do two things each day. Be better man than
>> the guy I put to bed & learn. Part of learning is reading & then
>> evaluating what I read. So show me what you have twerp.
>
> OK, Tuff Guy...
>
> You need to pull your head out of your arse. Along with what you say
> it is you try to do each day, what you also do plenty of is insinuate
> yourself ad nauseum.
Michael you really must live an insulated life. If you talk like you
write you would be in the hospital on a regular basis. It probably
explains your obsession with guns.
>
A test platform that is under construction is not
> a fantasy to be simply dismissed in order to support your argument.
> What is being worked on now in the way of SPS is BOTH science AND
> technology. I don't object to thinking outside the lines, but I just
> don't get the point you are making.
Because you are not a very bright man?
What does the misuse of a word have to do with thinking outside the
line. What the hell is outside the line? Is that where you reside, in
foul territory?
>
How in hell can you not call it
> "technology" ??? What is it then, botany ??? And the larger point
> here. Why is the available technology not being bought to bare with
> greater zeal ??? Because the current energy mongers want to ride the
> current horse until it is dead. They do an excellent job pressuring
> and greasing the right political palms to make sure it happens too.
> Again... I'm left wondering why you resist seeing that too. If you
> want additional information on microwave satellite, all you have to do
> is give it a google. Plenty out there including the project in Japan.
How dense are you? Look up the words science & technology. They are not
the same thing.
I was looking for help as you took the role as an expert. So I looked it
up & they do use the word test which means the technology isn't there
yet. If it was they wouldn't use the word test.
btw what does your long term solutions have to do with controlling the
use of natural resources via the market in teh short term you ass? It
is bad enough when someone is a windbag it is quite another thing when
they take small piece of information & become the prince of bombast.
Johnctx
> Lets agree to flat out disagree. I live in NJ...talk to real estate
> developers?????? Every square inch of Jersey gets something built on it.
> We are in the Route 1 corridor...where they keep building corporate
> headquarters and nothing ever moves in. Merrill Lynch is around the corner
> from me...it was NEVER filled and now is not even close to being used and
> less than a mile away somebody else is building another huge project with a
> lot of empty buildings. They can get away with it because of all the tax
> breaks they get.
I live next to Rice University. I am still not very good at
differential equations.
My point was, & is, about developers. If they have an energy component
in their project the better ones, meaning the successful ones, have
learned that efficiency pays off.
I don't know why people are building empty projects in NJ-- maybe they
were half way through the Merrill Lynch and B of A is on the hook for
the rent?-- but I can tell you the tax code is only beneficial to
commercial RE if you are making money. Empty buildings generally don't
make money.
>You assume I'm a solid Democrat, you assume I'm sided with
> crazy folks who made bad decisions all along when I'm saying we need a
> totally NEW play for our future....that's all.....calm down.
I assume you re a liberal because you said you are and I can read. I am
calm and usually am calm.
I missed my calling. I should have written for Olberman or Hannity as I
obviously have the ability to make you crazy.
>
"People take
> care of thier interests..." , right, and that may not always be in the best
> interest of the country or the collective good of us all.
>
I was pointing out to you that people watch their interest, whether they
are oil companies or unions. Stupid things happen like the objections
to pipelines, oil companies fighting environmental rules that are fair,
it doesn't make them evil or stupid.
Michael
> Michael wrote:
> > On May 5, 8:43 am, Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> wrote:
> >> > OK, Nimrod... Get this through your thick skull. A test bed for
>
> >>> microwave satellite power is being constructed in Japan. It is going
> >>> to be put into orbit in two years. Not science fiction. It is fact.
> >>> Understand ??? It CAN be done and it IS being done.
> >> So they are calling it test bed because it is proven. Next time I buy
> >> a car I will take for a technology drive.
>
> >> Unlike you Mikey I try to do two things each day. Be better man than
> >> the guy I put to bed & learn. Part of learning is reading & then
> >> evaluating what I read. So show me what you have twerp.
>
> > OK, Tuff Guy...
>
> > You need to pull your head out of your arse. Along with what you say
> > it is you try to do each day, what you also do plenty of is insinuate
> > yourself ad nauseum.
>
> Michael you really must live an insulated life. If you talk like you
> write you would be in the hospital on a regular basis. It probably
> explains your obsession with guns.
Ahhh... I think you are about teach me about the "playground" again.
And who said I had an obsession with guns ??? That is a libelist
statement. You might want to consider avoiding provocative words like
"twerp" if you also wish to avoid being spoken to in kind.
> A test platform that is under construction is not
>
> > a fantasy to be simply dismissed in order to support your argument.
> > What is being worked on now in the way of SPS is BOTH science AND
> > technology. I don't object to thinking outside the lines, but I just
> > don't get the point you are making.
>
> Because you are not a very bright man?
> What does the misuse of a word have to do with thinking outside the
> line. What the hell is outside the line? Is that where you reside, in
> foul territory?
Thinking outside the lines could include your own particular
definition of "technology" inside the given context of a point you are
making. I think what you are trying to say is that is not completed
and currently in use. Anything under development is "technology".
Why do you think they call it technological development ???
>> How in hell can you not call it
> > "technology" ??? What is it then, botany ??? And the larger point
> > here. Why is the available technology not being bought to bare with
> > greater zeal ??? Because the current energy mongers want to ride the
> > current horse until it is dead. They do an excellent job pressuring
> > and greasing the right political palms to make sure it happens too.
> > Again... I'm left wondering why you resist seeing that too. If you
> > want additional information on microwave satellite, all you have to do
> > is give it a google. Plenty out there including the project in Japan.
>
> How dense are you? Look up the words science & technology. They are not
> the same thing.
No kidding.
> I was looking for help as you took the role as an expert. So I looked it
> up & they do use the word test which means the technology isn't there
> yet. If it was they wouldn't use the word test.
OK. What would you call it ??? A pile of wires and semi
conductors ??? It is TECHNOLOGY under development. And most
importantly for the sake of the point I'm making, it is technology
that is now about to be demonstrated and tested. If I were pissing
out demands to use cold fusion, I'd understand the argument you were
making. That technology is WAY off. It might even be impossible to
bring about in practice. Not the case with what I'm taking about.
> btw what does your long term solutions have to do with controlling the
> use of natural resources via the market in teh short term you ass?
What do you mean by short term ??? SPS, if pressed aggressively can
remake the world in about thirty years. May be we should just forget
about it because it wont be on line tomorrow.
> is bad enough when someone is a windbag it is quite another thing when
> they take small piece of information & become the prince of bombast.
John... At the risk of pissing you off even more... Do you not agree
that the self interest of the petrochemical/energy companies serves to
perpetuate itself ??? We are all part of it ourselves because we
consume, buy you have to agree with me that the energy octopus is not
self motivated to release the tentacles.
BTW... What is your personal relationship with the oil companies ???
Do they write your checks or do you just have some stock in one ???
JetsLife
> On Mon, 3 May 2010 00:12:37 -0700 (PDT), JetsLife <JetsL...@aol.com> wrote:
> >I have my concerns. History will be the judge.
>
> >Per the Obama Administration's private thinking: I see Israel
> >attacking Iran. Then Iran draws in the US. Then Obama has cover.
>
> Please elaborate on said *private thinking.*
>
> Don't worry, JL... we're not going to attack Iran, unless they attack Israel.
> Kinda like a NATO agreement we have with Israel.
> And as long as we're addicted to their oil teet, we're going to continue *hangin' out* in
> that region.
> I know many hate Carter, but had Reagan not stopped Carter's plan to get the US energy
> wouldn't be as powerful, since Iraq always kept Iran in check. Once Bush attacked Iraq,
> Iran became the big power in the region.
> What Israel does... who knows... but Israel won't attack the Iran nuclear facilities,
> unless they KNOW they can really destroy them. And at this point, from what I've read,
> Iran has put them so deep underground, any attack wouldn't work.
> Besides, Israel will be too busy, as it looks like Iran & Syria are moving to provoke
> Israel into some kind of war this summer... they're sending tons of long-range arms to
> Hezbollah. Read about it:http://bit.ly/bDjvMY
>
>
>
>
>
> >home ASAP from that barbaric region. Let them destroy themselves.
"Private thinking": just making logical deductions. I think it's
fairly clear, as you pointed out, the US under Obama is not going to
attack Iran. Meanwhile Obama knows Israel feels existentially
threatened by an Iranian Bomb and has shown no compunction about
defending itself. So Obama knows he may get drawn into an Iran war
whether he likes it or not. Thus Obama is choosing to stand by and
let Israel - or Iran - start the war.
JetsLife
> On Mon, 3 May 2010 00:12:37 -0700 (PDT), JetsLife <JetsL...@aol.com> wrote:
> >I have my concerns. History will be the judge.
>
> >Per the Obama Administration's private thinking: I see Israel
> >attacking Iran. Then Iran draws in the US. Then Obama has cover.
>
> Please elaborate on said *private thinking.*
>
> Don't worry, JL... we're not going to attack Iran, unless they attack Israel.
> Kinda like a NATO agreement we have with Israel.
> And as long as we're addicted to their oil teet, we're going to continue *hangin' out* in
> that region.
> I know many hate Carter, but had Reagan not stopped Carter's plan to get the US energy
> independent by 2000, would be a different world. Iraq never would've happened... and Iran
> wouldn't be as powerful, since Iraq always kept Iran in check. Once Bush attacked Iraq,
> Iran became the big power in the region.
> What Israel does... who knows... but Israel won't attack the Iran nuclear facilities,
> unless they KNOW they can really destroy them. And at this point, from what I've read,
> Iran has put them so deep underground, any attack wouldn't work.
> Besides, Israel will be too busy, as it looks like Iran & Syria are moving to provoke
> Israel into some kind of war this summer... they're sending tons of long-range arms to
> Hezbollah. Read about it:http://bit.ly/bDjvMY
>
>
>
>
>
> >I pray it doesn't happen. I pray we bring all of our boys and girls
> >home ASAP from that barbaric region. Let them destroy themselves.
Yes from what I've heard Israel would have to deploy low-yield nukes
to destroy the deeply-buried sites. As unbelievable and crazy as that
sounds, I wouldn't put it past them to do so.
Johnctx
> Supposedly, they can reach most of Israel from Lebanon, now.
A friend swears that this is going to blow up, meaning the Mideast &
that was the logic behind Iraq & why Obama seems married to
Afghanistan--even I didn't like it when Bush went in there & still
scratch my head over O's fascination with it. He claims that they
wanted bases & men on the ground.
This guy is the least partisan person I know. I hope he is wrong.
Johnctx
> On Mon, 03 May 2010 12:56:42 -0500, Johnctx <j...@spamtx.net> wrote:
>
>> buRford wrote:
>>> On Mon, 3 May 2010 00:12:37 -0700 (PDT), JetsLife <Jets...@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have my concerns. History will be the judge.
>>>>
>>>> Per the Obama Administration's private thinking: I see Israel
>>>> attacking Iran. Then Iran draws in the US. Then Obama has cover.
>>> Please elaborate on said *private thinking.*
>>>
>>> Don't worry, JL... we're not going to attack Iran, unless they attack Israel.
>>> Kinda like a NATO agreement we have with Israel.
>>> And as long as we're addicted to their oil teet, we're going to continue *hangin' out* in
>>> that region.
>>> I know many hate Carter, but had Reagan not stopped Carter's plan to get the US energy
>>> independent by 2000, would be a different world.
>> wanted to use a carrot & not a stick. Most humans are wasteful and
>> Americans are no better.
>
You think I ma wrong someone call the press.
:)
Dreaming may be harsh as I have the benefit of hindsight. The falling
price of energy made much of Carter's plan for energy independence
uneconomical even with the tax benefits.
>
Had Reagan continued on that
> path, in whatever way, we wouldn't be in this mess now. Remember, even a minor thing like
> the speed limit. People got used to the speed limit decrease to 55. People were aware of
> conserving energy, because of the price shock, and fuel rationing, etc. Reagan did away
> with all that... and complacency took over. That was the perfect time to turn into an
> energy future, and Carter had the foresight, whether his plan was workable, or not.
Reagan did away with some of Carter's plan when the price warranted it.
Carter with the pressure to reduce inflation would have done the same.
If the CPI wasn't enough then the need to grow the economy would have
done it. BTW The 55 mph speed limit was put in under Ford.
Not being a smart ass but you probably use AC, drive a car, etc. & give
little thought to that because it is cheap.
>
>> If we elected Anderson there was a chance. It was more stick.
If Anderson was elected two problems would have been solved.
Johnctx
So when things change under a GOP Prez it is his fault--even though he
only had the Senate for two years & never the House-- but when it is a
Dem with both Houses it is Congress? Is that fair?
I am not disagreeing with your point. I am just trying to get your
blinders off.
> Even with a significant majority, the Dems could barely pass a feeble, watered-down
> healthcare bill, which was similar to the GOP plan offered in the early 90s.
> Cap and trade is a start, but that won't happen, because the GOP *forgot* it was their
> idea. It's the corporations that rule now, and until they make the effort to transition,
> we're all f***ed.
Replace corporations with moneyed interest, which includes, unions, both
sides of abortion, doctors, teachers, foreign countries etc. & I agree.
Johnctx
>> Dreaming may be harsh as I have the benefit of hindsight. The falling
>> price of energy made much of Carter's plan for energy independence
>> uneconomical even with the tax benefits.
>
> He treated the electorate as adults saying this is how it is, and this is what HAS to be
> done. Reagan said, *nah, let's just make believe there's no problem.*
b, I am writing this with all respect but your Reagan hatred is blurring
your memory of Carter and the times.
Carter couldn't deal with political pain of making Americans grow up so
he threw the onus on the auto companies. Why not tax gasoline & let the
American "adults" decide? You know why he didn't do that because it was
easier to tell Detroit to raise their MPG but didn't want to tell the
average Joe to use less gas by taxing them. The reality is inflation
was bad enough and no one would have taken the pain but that was the way
to go.
Carter could not have dealt with the political pressure that would have
faced any president. Under Reagan gas prices in real dollars plummeted
more than 50%. Detroit & the unions did not want that MPG to go up as
one of our huge advantages at the time was in trucks. Congress sets the
MPG not the executive branch. Reagan & the Democratic Congress wanted
the economy to grow and making it easy on Detroit was easy.
> Car efficiency wente up something like 25% in the 70s. I read recently that in the past 20
> years, efficiency has gone up .7%. To me, it was Reagan that was dreaming ;)
>
>> Had Reagan continued on that
>>> path, in whatever way, we wouldn't be in this mess now. Remember, even a minor thing like
>>> the speed limit. People got used to the speed limit decrease to 55. People were aware of
>>> conserving energy, because of the price shock, and fuel rationing, etc. Reagan did away
>>> with all that... and complacency took over. That was the perfect time to turn into an
>>> energy future, and Carter had the foresight, whether his plan was workable, or not.
>> Reagan did away with some of Carter's plan when the price warranted it.
>> Carter with the pressure to reduce inflation would have done the same.
>> If the CPI wasn't enough then the need to grow the economy would have
>> done it. BTW The 55 mph speed limit was put in under Ford.
>>
>
> The price wasn't the point... it was Reagan's lack of vision, & being married to ideology.
> Everyone knew oil was finite, and it was fresh in-mind how the Arabs could kill our
> economy with oil. Yet, he rolled everything back. Just a total lack of leadership.
> Look at everything happening now... THAT was the price.
> The point is that it was happening. People were doing it. We were saving tons of oil, &
> lives. Money was going into alternative research. Americans were getting into the habit
> of conserving, something that will be very difficult to start again, with how spoiled &
> selfish Americans have become.
Americans respond to price increases. You can talk vision all day but
leadership won't be followed unless it helps your pocketbook.
I will say this, for the sake of the country this should be a GOP issue
, because the Dems have been painted fairly & unfairly as idiot tree
huggers. Sustainability should be sold as an issue of thrift.
>
>> Not being a smart ass but you probably use AC, drive a car, etc. & give
>> little thought to that because it is cheap.
>>
>
> Actually, no. I've always been anal about waste. But I do drive a car, and use AC when
> the heat/humidity is horrific ;)
> I wish I had zillions, so I could build the sustainable chateau, and get off the grid.
It is part of the joke of Hollywood. Spend $10 to save .10 & tell the
world about it. It is easy to be green when it doesn't hurt.
:)
For the record I am no different.
Grinch
<papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>John, You are a nice guy, and obviously a decent person who generally
> thinks the best of people. I'm not nice, and I expect people -- politicians,
> government bureaucrats, unions, so called "non profits" (which have profits
> but only don't have them taxed) business interests -- to do whatever gets
> them the most money with as little change as possible on their part.
Fixed it for 'ya.
'Cause surely you didn't mean that *only* business people are
self-interested, like their DNA is different from everybody else's.
> Now, that may seem difficult to understand
> when a company decides one of those measures or tactics is to
>drill in the middle of the ocean, but if "oil" is what they know that is
> what they do. They simply are not interested in learning new things,
Right.
That's why in 100 years they went from scooping up surface oil in
Pennsylvania and drilling all of 100 feet down on dry land in Texas to
produce kerosene for lamps, *to* drilling out on the ocean under
thousands of feet of seawater and then thousands of feet more of
seabed to get oil they pipe to a refinery to produce high-octane
lead-free gasoline that they then deliver to a station near your home,
for you to buy for your car -- for less than the cost of bottled
water!
In fact, for *a lot less* than the cost of bottled water, subtracting
the major part of the gas cost that is federal and local taxes.
Because they don't learn new things. ;-)
But hey, even if that's the only thing they've learned, you've got to
admit it's a neat trick!
>not the technology so much, but the marketing and the whole deal of figuring out
>how they can capture the entire market. Even so, several years ago BP
>started aquiring most of the companys that manufacture solar panels, but
>they didn't "grow" those companies....they seem to be letting them go to
>waste in terms of optimum use. I think the technology is there to do a lot
>of stuff we are not doing. Why can Europe and Asia run efficient high speed
>rail lines and we can't? We have Amtrak and they have incredible super high
>speed railways. We do not use technology in this country.....we use
>economics and that generates which technology will be used and how...and the
>economics is the god that makes the decisions.
You mean, they do what makes money, and don't do what loses money?
That's the religion that the "economics god" imposes on them?
Well, yeah! Praise the Lord!
Grinch
Whenever anybody trots out the "finite / infinite" argument in
economics, hold onto your wallet. Somebody is trying to scam you.
The energy from the Sun is finite! If we use it, it will run out! (Of
course, if we don't it will too.)
Computer chips are made of silicon, from sand. Even liberals know the
supply of sand is finite! Stop making computers!
Coal has been consumed by people for thousands of years -- *far
longer* than oil -- and the supply of coal is finite. Where is the
panic about Peak Coal????
The supply of EVERYTHING is finite. Copper, lead, wood, water, air ...
STOP BREATHING!
But the relevant question, of course, is how long will a finite supply
last?
Let's look at some facts:
As GDP grows, as the economy develops and advances and people become
richer, consumption of the world's physical resources DECLINES.
Here's some data and a nice little summary chart:
http://blog.scrivener.net/2009/04/save-earth.html
The reason is simple. Economic development is the process of
increasing productivity -- getting **more from less**
Some of you may be old enough to remember when tin cans actually were
cans made of tin.
Back at Shea in its first seasons, if you wanted a beer they'd pull
out a big *heavy* tin can, and punch it open with a church key opener
for you. Same with soda cans and all else.
Actually, before that there were steel cans. Then came tin cans. Then
aluminum -- with pop tops. Then plastic ... etc. Ever *less* mass
and material in the container
Because in a *competitive market economy* everyone always wants to pay
less, driving innovation to get more from less.
The consumer wants to pay less. The beer distributor at Shea wants to
pay less. The shipper to Shea wants to pay less. The beer manufacturer
who pays for shipping wants to pay less. So they are all constantly
competing to find new ways to make products *lighter*, and less
expensive, by using less material.
Not just with beer cans, with *everything*.
A hundred years ago the big-money manufaturer was US Steel, consuming
millions of tons of coal, iron ore, etc. annually.
Today the big-money manufacturer is Intel, consuming tiny amounts of
silicon (and vast amounts of knowledge) in making its chips --- which
then are used in computers to figure out ways to use less-and-less in
making everything else.
Including less oil and energy
>We are nation of wimps. No one wants to deal with the price of energy.
US oil consumption has declined 47% per dollar of GDP since 1965. It
continues to decline.
Is that such a wimpy nothing?
And per dollar of GDP *per person* -- accounting for both growth in
the population and everyone getting richer -- it still has declined
20%.
Doesn't everybody know that oil consumption steadily declines decade
after decade?
>If Obama meeds tax $ to balance the spending of Congress then look here.
Why??
Surely not because we are going to run out of its "finite" supply. Or
why not put a tax on everthing else that uses anything finite -- like
silicon in computer chips?
Is it because, even with oil consumption steadily declining as the
economy advances, one might "logically" if niavely assume it must run
out sometime, being finite!
But when? Before the finite power of the Sun runs out?
Well, oil products -- from gasoline to plastic bottles to the
synthetic fibre in your shirt -- don't come from "out of the ground",
you know, they are manufactured in factories. So they are certainly
*not* finite in supply any more than any other manufactured thing is,
-- we can always make more as long as there is manufacturing stock to
input.
An the manufacturing stock for oil products is *anything* organic:
Petroleum oil, coal, natural gas, shale, tar sands, garbage, plants,
old newspapers, whatever.
Petroleum oil is used by preference today (usually -- alternatives are
ramping up fast) simply because it is cheapest. But Germany and Japan
ran oil-from-coal economies during WWII with no big problems (until
the USAAF bombed their plants) and South Africa ran an entirely
oil-from-coal modern economy in the 1980s during the embargo years,
and still is using oil from coal. So oil-from-coal economies are not
theory, they exist in the real world.
With coal, natural gas, shale, tar sands, etc., as stock for the
plants, oil is just about as "finite" in supply as sand and sunlight.
But what of the cost?
Well, manufacturing productivity gains reduce cost 3% annually, for
over the last 100 years.
(Very conservatively in energy. In 100 years we went from guys in
rowboats spearing whales to their grandchildren sitting at home
watching astronauts land on the moon -- on a TV, and with air
conditioning, powered by nuclear energy. Or maybe by oil drilled from
the far below the bottom of the ocean.)
Now 3% compounded for 100 years is 1,920%, 19.2 x.
That means that 100 years from now oil that costs $1,150 per barrel
will be just as economic as oil costing $60 today.
At $1,150 per barrel, just known coal supplies *alone* give enough
oil to last over a thousand years -- and there is so much coal nobody
has ever even surveyed it to guess how much more there might be. Add
tar sands, shale and the rest, and there are tens of thousands of
years of supply.
The US Geological Survey says there is near 100 years worth left of
drilled petroloeum "Texas tea, Saudi light", etc.
By the time that 100 years is up, those tens-of-thousands of years
worth of alternative sources will be readily available, if wanted.
(They are already coming on line. Canada is our biggest source of
imported oil today, and that's from tar sands.)
In short we will *never* come *anywhere near* to "running out of
oil".
What is going to happen in the real world is this: We are going to
continue using *less and less* oil per dollar of GDP, just as we are
doing now.
And, just as over the 100 years after the 1860s the world moved from
whale oil and coal to nuclear and petroleum, over the *next* 100 years
we are going to move largely from petroleum and fossil fuels to ...
next-generation nuclear, solar, photovoltaic ... *we don't know* what
the market will produce by the 2100s any more than the guys in the
whale boats knew about nuclear and TV and moon landings coming by
1969.
The reason why petroleum and fossil fuels will be phased out will NOT
be because we came anyhwere near to running out of them, but the same
reason why whale oil was dropped and coal largely phased out after
1860 -- cost, cleanliness, and in this case CO2. (When photovoltaic
power matches the cost of coal/oil power, it will just be plain
better.)
"Peak Coal" actually was a major concern in Britain at the end of the
19th Century.
The entire Industrial Revoulution, and British economy in particuclar,
ran on coal. But coal was obviously finite in supply. Worse, the
best, easiest-to-get and cheapest coal was being used up first. So
coal supply and quality was declining. Coal cost *had* to go up as
supply declined, grinding the economy to a halt. Then coal supply
*had* to run out -- bringing the final Coal Crash.
What else was possible? QED!
http://www.econlib.org/library/YPDBooks/Jevons/jvnCQ0.html
Sound familiar? ;-)
Today, there is more known coal in the ground in Britain than they
ever imagined they had back then, and it is sitting there worthless,
not worth digging out of the ground.
That's the same thing that is going to happen to oil. In 2110 *vast*
oil sources will be sitting there to go unused forever.
And people then will look back and laugh at the big "peak oil scare"
of circa 2000 as being just as absurd as the big "peak coal scare"
of the late 1800s.
And they will be right, it is.
> Figure out a fair energy consumption per household & tax the hell out
>of people who use above that limit.
OK, but who will "figure out" this "fair" amount?
Do you think the majority of voters will say, "I consume too much, I'm
unfair! Tax me!" ??
No, it looks like we'll need a Philosopher-Dictator to decide that.
Hmmm, who shall we pick?
How about Thomas Friedman? He writes for the NY Times so we know he's
wise, and he's on this issue all the time urging energy conservation
-- "as he himself lives in a 11,400-square-foot mansion, whose carbon
footprint may be visible from orbit"
Or Harrison Ford. He *waxed his chest* to raise awareness of the
Amazon rainforest -- and made of video of it!
http://www.conservation.org/fmg/pages/videoplayer.aspx?videoid=30
Enjoy!
Paul McCartney is always urging conservation, and drives around
England in a hybrid Lexus -- that he had *flown there from Japan*!
Al Gore! Al Gore! To save the planet with his 2007 Live Earth
concert, he flew its performers ore than 222,000 miles to get there
putting 31,500 tons of carbon emissions into the atmosphere.
These guys are obviously so sincere, any of them would do a great job
raising taxes on *everyone else*.
More candidates:
http://blog.scrivener.net/2009/12/its-hard-being-green-especially-in.html
Or heck, just let Obama decide who else has to cut back on energy use
-- he had a St Louis chef flown 850 miles just to make pizza at the
White House for him. But would we hold that against him?
Rule of thumb: When people like this start *acting* like they
beliieve what they say about the importance of conservation, you might
then start considering them seriously.
> Raising the price of power will make
>people think twice about leaving routers on, 3 computers on, the beer
>refrigerator in their garage, etc. The rising cost of energy makes
>renewables more economical and again lowers demand on the grid.
Alas, turning down the refrigerator and putting the computer on
hibernate just isn't going to do much to save our finite supplies of
Texas Tea and Saudi Light.
You are going to have to move us back in the direction of using real
tin cans again, if you want to do that.
If you want to reduce oil consumption by more than the increase in
productivity, the *only* way to do it is to *reduce human welfare* --
you know, make people really *poorer*, worse food, worse family life,
worse medical care and living conditions, earlier death.
There's no "free lunch" here, as so many like to imagine.
"Conservation" is a profitable play thing --a pose for profit -- for
people who live in vast mansions, shave their chests for the Amazon,
fly their hybrid cars 12,000 miles, and fly a pizza cook 850 miles for
a pie.
If they *really* wanted to save oil, they'd say: "People, it is time
to get poor again, really poorer than we are now. Watch me start."
Ha, ha.
Here's reality: If you want to save the physical Earth, to consume
less of it, grow the economy *faster*!
Be impressed by what Friedman and Ford and McCartney and Gore and
Obama *do* -- not what they say -- strive to make the whole world rich
enough so everybody can consume as much as they do!
When we're all that rich, the economy will be so advanced it will
hardly consume anything material at all.
Nobody who's rich enough to join the Sierra Club has to burn down rain
forest to feed his kids and keep his family alive.
Grinch
wrote:
>John... I'm grinnin' like a possum eatin' a sweet potato. You are
>washed up on two points here. First off, tell me what part of the
>technology is missing for SBSP(space based solar power) by means of
>microwave ??? The science is there and so are all the materials. It
>is not like trying to have sustained nuclear fusion or
>superconductivity at room temperatures or some other avenue that would
>require materials and systems that are far off in dreamland.
Did you know that a concept car made of carbon composites is driving
around on the road? Actually built, nothing theoretical. Its body is
both flexible and indestructible -- making it the safest vehicle ever
built -- and it is so light it gets 90 miles to the gallon. Or with
an electric motor it zooms like a fantasy. You can watch video of it.
Of course, it costs $300,000 to produce. If retailed, closer to
$400,000.
>The
>amount of power that can be generated also outweighs the amount of
>dollars that it would cost to deploy.
If this is supposed to mean the poer it produces is less costly than
power from alternative sources ... bullshit.
> Once such a system becomes a
>standard, you might as well consider it free power..
Ah, remember when they were saying, "Nuclear power, it will be too
cheap to meter!"
And at marginal cost it is!
Alas, it is that fixed cost of "the system becoming a standard" that
kills.
> Currently, the
>Japanese have designed and built a 1-gigawatt test system that is
>going to be deployed in 2015. This is not pie in the sky. It is
>being done.
Wow, a small *test* system is planned to be deployed in 2015. That
proves there's "free power" at hand right now! ;-)
Look if one wants alternatives to oil/coal, there are plenty right
now.
France is near 100% nuclear. They've decided to pay the price and run
over the anti-nuke and anti-waste storage protestors. And done it.
Anybody anywhere the sun shines can run a building on photovoltaic and
batteries right now *if willing to pay the price*.
But there ain't no free lunches.
> Deploying this sort of thing on a large scale is only a
>matter of political will. Next.... If you have any illusions that the
>energy/petrochemical companies don't really put their own financial
>health before all else,
Of course they do, which is why energy companies have constantly
innovated new ways to generate and deliver more and more energy for
less and less cost for, oh, 170 years now.
Because when they *don't*, then their competitors do it and take
their profits and put them out of business -- which is bad for their
financial health.
That's how a competitive market economy works.
Now if you want to talk about *non-competiive* interest groups with
monopoly power -- such as unions, politicians, etc -- who put their
own welfare first, extracting rents from the economy and polity,
without being driven by competition to produce anythng positive in
return, that can be an interesting discussion too.
Grinch
wrote:
>On Mon, 3 May 2010 00:12:37 -0700 (PDT), JetsLife <Jets...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>I have my concerns. History will be the judge.
>>
>>Per the Obama Administration's private thinking: I see Israel
>>attacking Iran. Then Iran draws in the US. Then Obama has cover.
>
>Please elaborate on said *private thinking.*
>
>Don't worry, JL... we're not going to attack Iran, unless they attack Israel.
>Kinda like a NATO agreement we have with Israel.
>And as long as we're addicted to their oil teet, we're going to continue *hangin' out* in
>that region.
>I know many hate Carter, but had Reagan not stopped Carter's plan to get the US energy
>independent by 2000...
Ha, such nonsense.
Carter's *big plan* was the Synfuel Corporation, which was to turn
coal into oil at a cheap price.
Carter's government put TWICE as much taxpayer money into the Synfuel
Corporation as FDR's government put into the Manhattan Project to
develop the atom bomb to win WW II -- and the result was a complete
deadweight loss, fiasco, *nothing*.
Only a government can waste money on that scale.
You wanted to keep that going??? Because it would have made us
"energy independent"?
Hey, if "independence" is really *so* important, we don't have to
waste taxpayer money like that to get it.
The Nobel economist Milton Friedman pointed out that if we want
"independence" on anything, it's easy! Just block all trade at the
border, nothing goes in or out. Zero. Nada. Independence acheived!
Then he said we can also make sure the *every* American has a job in
our new independent economy -- every last one! -- by destroying all
the farm equipement (tractors, reapers, etc.) and making everyone farm
by hand to eat. Believe it, there'd be no shortage of jobs then, as
people try to make up by hand for food production dropping 98%.
Of course, our living standards then would plunge to make us envy
Bangladesh -- the Great Depression would be a Golden Age of Prosperity
in comparison -- but we'd be totally "independent" and "fully
employed"!
Moral: The increase in *human wefare* that results from economic
developement -- why life expectancy in the US has increased by near 40
years since 1900, including the life expectancy of everyone reading
this -- comes from increasing productivity, getting more from less.
Not from "independence".
Trade increases productivity. Including trade in energy resources.
Imposing "independence" reduces productivity and makes us all poorer,
and dying younger.
If Carter's "energy independence" program attained "independence" for
us like it was going to, at say $12 a gallon for gasoline and
equivalent prices for all other fuels, do you really think we'd all
have been bettor off?
And how many people do you think would have voted for a government
that imposed that?
Yeah, *blame* Reagan for not spending another Manhattan Project's
worth of taxpayer money for nothing.
>....it would be a different world.
>Iraq never would've happened... and Iran
>wouldn't be as powerful, since Iraq always kept Iran in check.
More nonsense.
> Once Bush attacked Iraq, Iran became the big power in the region.
The bulk of US oil imports come from Canada and Mexico.
The bulk of Arab/Iranian oil exports go to Asia.
So you are imagining that if the US stopped buying oil from Canada --
became independent of Canada! -- then all this crap wouldn't be
happening in the Middle East, because the Chinese and all would stop
buying arab oil ... and the Sunnis and Shias wouldn't all still be
killing each other at every opprotunity after hating each other for
the last 700 years ... and, retroactively in time, Iran "wouldn't be a
power" such as was able to fight a war causing a *million* casualties
before Bush was elected president.
Sure. ;-)
I mean, you're saying that if the US had cut off its oil imports from
Canada and Mexico ... then Saddam and his regime would still be in
place in Iraq ... after already fighting one war with Iran to "keep it
in check", which caused more than a *million* casualties -- using
poison gas and all the rest ... so the Iranians, with such an
arch-enemy monster right on their border *wouldn't* be selling oil to
the Asians to get money, and *wouldn't* be building an atom bomb.
Because .... why?
Oh, yeah: "it's Bush's fault". Explains all!
QED
;-)
papa.carl44
"Grinch" <oldn...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:p2t6u55u9ch53oitc...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 4 May 2010 19:34:16 -0400, "papa.carl44"
> <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>>John, You are a nice guy, and obviously a decent person who generally
>> thinks the best of people. I'm not nice, and I expect people --
>> politicians,
>> government bureaucrats, unions, so called "non profits" (which have
>> profits
>> but only don't have them taxed) business interests -- to do whatever
>> gets
>> them the most money with as little change as possible on their part.
>
> Fixed it for 'ya.
Well....how interesting. Since I happen to be one of the founders and
president of a 501c3 I will take your statement as a slanderous and
libelous. The charity I am involved in has absolutely no problem presenting
all of our financial information to anyone who asks appropriately. It's a
shame you are so near sighted you can't figure out what I said. If you want
to say something on your own....grow a set and say it...but please don't
"fix" anything I say. Now, if you are not taking a direct shot at my
Foundation, I will accept your apology. If you are suggesting something
like that I'll do what needs to be done.
Johnctx
Grinch, I think we agree on many things but that is a fallacious
argument. The economy has grown in real terms 15X since 1965 so we are
using quite a bit more gasoline. I agree some efficiencies have kicked
in especially when you consider the anti-pollution devices but don't
pretend we have made any sacrifices. Electricity consumption has more
than tripled as the % of what we generate. Not surprisingly the most
efficient users in electricity is industry. Retail & Consumer use are
the biggest pigs. We also waste way too m uch of what we generate.
I agree with much of what you wrote but many of our short term energy
issues could be fixed by lowering demand. The added benefit is they
don't raise my income tax they tax the morons with the beer
refrigerator, AC & heat blasting all day, three computers on, etc.
No but in areas of the country where the grid is strained it might keep
us from having black outs.
You are a bit verbose but it was an interesting read.
Thanks
Johnny Morongo
> Everyone knew oil was finite...
Oil is about as finite as the number of wrong opinions that get spewed
around here. Can you say "Gulf oil spill?" The oil is there, and in
humongous quantities. Getting it up and out safely and economically is
the problem. But the fact of its existence does not change the fact
that there are corporate considerations which rule the roost.
Eighty years ago a guy named Westinghouse got to and suppressed the
"free energy" technology that a guy named Tesla had developed. If that
story goes the other way, the world looks like a much different place
today. But it didn't, and it actually never had a chance because the
profits from free energy could never match the profits that could be
produced from oil, gas guzzling autos, and the "energy grid."
Then, as now, as always will be with sick minded humanity, GREED rules
the day. Republicrats are just the magician's trick of misdirection
that keeps the sub-rosa plot running, with corporate media as the
necessary tool of distraction. As that planet spins out of control, we
watch American Idol. Humanity has become the disease that will kill the
planet.
But I'd still like the Jets to win one before it shortly all comes undone.
Johnctx
> buRford wrote:
>
>> Everyone knew oil was finite...
>
> Oil is about as finite as the number of wrong opinions that get spewed
> around here. Can you say "Gulf oil spill?" The oil is there, and in
> humongous quantities. Getting it up and out safely and economically is
> the problem. But the fact of its existence does not change the fact
> that there are corporate considerations which rule the roost.
I am confused & not sure what your point is here. If your point is that
enviros (cooped by the rich in CA) lost credibility when their claims
about the amount of oil left in the ground was ridiculously low, then I
am right there with you. If you are saying we have unlimited supply or
hat CO2 emissions is not an issue then you are all alone.
>
> Eighty years ago a guy named Westinghouse got to and suppressed the
> "free energy" technology that a guy named Tesla had developed. If that
> story goes the other way, the world looks like a much different place
> today. But it didn't, and it actually never had a chance because the
> profits from free energy could never match the profits that could be
> produced from oil, gas guzzling autos, and the "energy grid."
Help me out here Johnny & I am here to learn. Why would Westinghouse
whose business was electricity kill "free energy?" I am not a very
smart man but even in 1880 you would make money with that.
>
> Then, as now, as always will be with sick minded humanity, GREED rules
> the day. Republicrats are just the magician's trick of misdirection
> that keeps the sub-rosa plot running, with corporate media as the
> necessary tool of distraction. As that planet spins out of control, we
> watch American Idol. Humanity has become the disease that will kill the
> planet.
Yeah, & you are still a poopie pants.
Johnny Morongo
> Johnny Morongo wrote:
>> buRford wrote:
>>
>>> Everyone knew oil was finite...
>>
>> Oil is about as finite as the number of wrong opinions that get spewed
>> around here. Can you say "Gulf oil spill?" The oil is there, and in
>> humongous quantities. Getting it up and out safely and economically
>> is the problem. But the fact of its existence does not change the
>> fact that there are corporate considerations which rule the roost.
>
> I am confused & not sure what your point is here. If your point is that
> enviros (cooped by the rich in CA) lost credibility when their claims
> about the amount of oil left in the ground was ridiculously low, then I
> am right there with you. If you are saying we have unlimited supply or
> hat CO2 emissions is not an issue then you are all alone.
>>
>> Eighty years ago a guy named Westinghouse got to and suppressed the
>> "free energy" technology that a guy named Tesla had developed. If
>> that story goes the other way, the world looks like a much different
>> place today. But it didn't, and it actually never had a chance
>> because the profits from free energy could never match the profits
>> that could be produced from oil, gas guzzling autos, and the "energy
>> grid."
>
> Help me out here Johnny & I am here to learn. Why would Westinghouse
> whose business was electricity kill "free energy?" I am not a very
> smart man but even in 1880 you would make money with that.
At last! You admit your ignorance! What don't you understand about the
idea of controlling the supply of energy as opposed to providing a
source of free energy for ALL consumers? If Westinghouse had controlled
the supply of Tesla technology then he would have done so for the sake
of profits. But the Tesla technology was suffocated at birth, so to
speak, so that it wouldn't be relatively freely available in turn
causing energy consumers to take what Westinghouse and his ilk had to
offer. Kill the competition and you can sell ice to Eskimos.
>>
>> Then, as now, as always will be with sick minded humanity, GREED rules
>> the day. Republicrats are just the magician's trick of misdirection
>> that keeps the sub-rosa plot running, with corporate media as the
>> necessary tool of distraction. As that planet spins out of control,
>> we watch American Idol. Humanity has become the disease that will
>> kill the planet.
>
> Yeah, & you are still a poopie pants.
And you are still the poopie.
Johnctx
As a wise old Texan said to me once, "I hear what you are saying. I
understand you. I just don't believe a word of it."
:)
JM I am not being a putz here. I save that for Michael.
:)
I have never heard of this conspiracy, and yes I Googled it, and it
seems the conspiracy was more about his death. I knew a little about
Tesla & AC versus Edison's DC but not much more. I also saw where
Westinghouse lost his company to JP Morgan and here is the really hard
question:
If Tesla who tore up his agreement with westinghouse because it was
breaking the company's back and he was purely interested in science&
capitalism, if he had something why did it never get out? I ams sure he
didn't work in a vacuum.
>>>
>>> Then, as now, as always will be with sick minded humanity, GREED
>>> rules the day. Republicrats are just the magician's trick of
>>> misdirection that keeps the sub-rosa plot running, with corporate
>>> media as the necessary tool of distraction. As that planet spins out
>>> of control, we watch American Idol. Humanity has become the disease
>>> that will kill the planet.
>>
>> Yeah, & you are still a poopie pants.
>
> And you are still the poopie.
That I am. btw how was Abe Froman the Pizza king of NJ?
galen...@yahoo.com
Yes, I agree. That a resource is finite should not really be an
argument.
That does not mean that oil consumption is declining.
> Is that such a wimpy nothing?
>
> And per dollar of GDP *per person* -- accounting for both growth in
> the population and everyone getting richer -- it still has declined
> 20%.
That does not mean that oil consumption is declining.
> Doesn't everybody know that oil consumption steadily declines decade
> after decade?
Where are those facts? In 1980 we were consuming 15-17 million barrels of
oil/day. In 2008 we were at about 20 million.
Were do you see that our aggregate oil needs are actually declining?
That is the issue. Petroleum's cost to the environment is not factored
into the price of the petroleum. We need to know that cost and include
it into the initial purchase price of the product so then, economics can
take over and the best product will be bought. Even more so for coal.
Companies are not in the business of considering anything other than
costs for producing and getting out the door. We consumers aren't going
to be interested in anything other than the lowest priced highest
quality goods. Our environment needs the cost of our products to
include the entire lifecycle of the products we buy.
Examples of companies performing immoral and dishonest acts to decrease
cost is pretty abundant. The examples of consumers not giving a damn
about a products effect on the environment is everywhere.
A clean environment will not just happen because the free market is
involved, but, instead, an untethered free market will disregard the
enviroment completely.
--
Galen Boyer
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Johnny Morongo
What, a voice of reason and conscience? In this news group? Get the
hell outta here. And stay out! Regard for the environment? Sheesh.
What were you thinking?
papa.carl44
"Johnny Morongo" <j.mir...@harmonicconcordance.com> wrote in message
news:FbOdnWVMROI...@giganews.com...
Johnny, He probably followed oldnasty's trail from somewhere else...there's
a lot to follow, and some stuff even crazier and angrier than here. Papa
galen...@yahoo.com
> What, a voice of reason and conscience? In this news group? Get the
> hell outta here. And stay out! Regard for the environment?
> Sheesh. What were you thinking?
LOL!
Johnny Morongo
> American Idol, Miley, and Ms Lohan are the bee's knees ;)
Yup!
Johnny Morongo
> Just b4 we were to meet. I saw the bloody mess runny away.
> He's my hero ;)
It's true as any story that you might tell, class clown. Be quiet or
I'll tell 'em about the offer you couldn't refuse to get out of the
Hakensack pizza racket.
Remy McSwain
buRford <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
> While it's true that unions, etc, have their power, they are no
> match for the Corporations.
> As for unions, don't forget what they actually are. They do
> represent poeple, while Corporations represent one thing - -
> profit.
That's simply untrue. A union is an organization. It 'represents
nothing. It consists of its members who are interested primarily in
money. About the only thing besides money in which they're
interested is their own safety, as they should be.
Therefore, the unions and the corporations are interested in the
same thing, more or less. If you're going to make the leap that
unions represent the working people, then by the same logic, I could
make the case that the corporations represent the consumers. But
both arguments are nonsense.
Unions don't give a damned that the more they get paid, the less
consumers can afford to buy. They don't care how many people get
hurt by their strikes, and they don't care that their demands could
even kill the goose that lays their one golden egg, as witnessed by
the bankruptcies of the big three. They could care less about any
of that. The only thing they want is money, and they want it now.
Screw the future.
I'm not blaming the woes of the economy on the unions, or even
suggesting that I, or you, would do anything different. I'm simply
saying that the claim that these guys are on the right and proper
side of the fight, and that the stockholders are on the wrong side
is all a bunch of nonsense. People are people, and human nature is
what it is, whether it's at play by stockholders, or by unions.
papa.carl44
"buRford" <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote in message
news:slbbu594sljv8l0qd...@4ax.com...
> See below.
>
>>
>>I am not disagreeing with your point. I am just trying to get your
>>blinders off.
>
> How could you know if I'm wearing blinders, when your field of vision is
> so narrow?
> It aint an either/or proposition...
>
> I could go into an elaborate discourse, to help widen your visual acuity,
> but I'll just
> make it simple.
> The GOP walk lockstep.
> The Dems go with the wind... all over the place.
> The Dems want to govern, so their nature is to compromise.
> The GOP could care less about governing. There is no compromise. They
> just follow
> whoever their leader is, lockstep... whether it's Bush, McConnell, Rush,
> or the
> TeaBaggers.
> Bush led his Party. Obama doesn't.
> If anyone is actually leading the Dem Party, it's Ms Pelosi. Obama aint a
> leader, yet,
> may never be. He's an arbitrator who leans against his own beliefs.
>
>
>
>>
>>> Even with a significant majority, the Dems could barely pass a feeble,
>>> watered-down
>>> healthcare bill, which was similar to the GOP plan offered in the early
>>> 90s.
>>> Cap and trade is a start, but that won't happen, because the GOP
>>> *forgot* it was their
>>> idea. It's the corporations that rule now, and until they make the
>>> effort to transition,
>>> we're all f***ed.
>>
>>Replace corporations with moneyed interest, which includes, unions, both
>>sides of abortion, doctors, teachers, foreign countries etc. & I agree.
>>
>
> the
> Corporations.
> As for unions, don't forget what they actually are. They do represent
> poeple, while
> Corporations represent one thing - - profit.
Good points Burf. I'm always amazed at these guys who are so pro business
and anti union. They don't appear to have any sense of history at all.
None of us would exist without the union movement. In fact, there wouldn't
be an NFL because a sport like that would never have arisen without the
middle class to back it. Unions created the middle class as we have known
it for some time. It's a harsh reality that once upon a time kids went to
school and were taught they had to learn and elevate themselves so they
didn't come home filthy and exhausted every night...then they went home to a
dingy abode and watched their filthy, dirty father come home and
collapse--so much for family values education. The anti union, anti middle
class, anti everything crowd are little more than an extension of the roots
this country was born out of and fought like Hell to escape. It's the
classism of the European background. We got it going, hard word built it,
the lives of miners and laborers and factory workers created it and now the
upper level gang want it all to themselves...not very different than what
folks ran away from a few hundred years ago. I honestly believe to even
discuss it with some of the myopic folks here is a waste of energy. My view
is if it doesn't change, grow and become something different it will simply
die. If you want it to be another two tier society with a very small upper
level...have the guts to say it, but don't claim all this red white and blue
and American crap and then go after the very things that made it work in the
first place. Now...go ahead and flame me.....I expect it.
papa.carl44
"Remy McSwain" <Paradi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:wN6dnQPk_5DtTnjW...@giganews.com...
> In news:slbbu594sljv8l0qd...@4ax.com,
> buRford <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>
>> While it's true that unions, etc, have their power, they are no
>> match for the Corporations.
>> As for unions, don't forget what they actually are. They do
>> represent poeple, while Corporations represent one thing - -
>> profit.
>
> That's simply untrue. A union is an organization. It 'represents
> nothing. It consists of its members who are interested primarily in
> money.
Try telling this to the families of those coal miners in West Virginia...the
ones from the non-union mines that keep killing folks...its only about the
money though right????? I was the president of a union once...won a great
contract too...and it was about a Hell of a lot more than money. I notice
you made a concesion to safety....why is it that it is incumbent for workers
to unionize to get some safety standards? Doesn't that sort of tell a story
about the corporate powers who they work for? To me it does.
papa.carl44
<galen...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:14qy6fu...@yahoo.com...
He's right...be careful Galen...these are "football guys" , Tough dudes who
oppose all that commie environmental crap...and only woosies have a
conscience.
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
> OK, Nimrod... Get this through your thick skull. A test bed for
> microwave satellite power is being constructed in Japan. It is going
> to be put into orbit in two years. Not science fiction. It is fact.
> Understand ??? It CAN be done and it IS being done.
Why do you lie!!????
We all know that NONE of this can be done without a flux
capacitor!!!!!
The Japs do NOT have a flux capacitor!!!!!
We will never get rid of fossil fuels, gasoline, opium, nuke energy,
or reality TV without a flux capacitor!!!!!
mr dude
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
> Everyone knew oil was finite,
That's true!!!
In the year 1970 Time Magazine said we would be out of oil!!
Ooops they fucked up!!!
Oil is NOT finite!
Our planet is making oil as we speak!
Fucktarded conspiracy theorists like you is what is wrong with our
country!
Along with the "population bomb" (we would all starve to death), the
"Alar" scare (kids would die eating apples), "Y2K (planes would fall
out of the sky), "the coming Ice Age (how ironic), killer bees, etc.
Not to mention the Lefts fascination with Bigfoot, UFOs, the Loch Ness
Monster, pyramid power and more.....
The Leftist loons are insane! Give them no quarter. Keep them away
from children!!!!
mr dude
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
> As for unions, don't forget what they actually are. They do represent poeple, while
> Corporations represent one thing - - profit.
>
American interests destroyed by unions:
Steel industry
Auto Industry
Public Education
Government Employees
Dock Workers
Thank you unions for fucking over the United States!!!
mr dude
mr dude@harvarduniversity.edu
>
> That's simply untrue. A union is an organization. It 'represents
> nothing. It consists of its members who are interested primarily in
> money.
Wrong! A "union" exists to demand results and obligations from the
employer!
Since when does an employee have the right to demand conditions from
the employer through use of threats and violence?
Why does a school teacher have tenure after three years?? This
prevents the teacher from being fired if the teacher becomes
ineffective.
Why should a tax payer have to pay for 50 years of pension after a
teacher quits after 20 years?
The NEA takes poditions that harm education!!
mr dude
MZ
Michael, a lot of the technology harnesses wasted heat to charge batteries.
Reminds me of this...
http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/22/green.gym.conservation/index.html?hpt=Sbin
MZ
> A clean environment will not just happen because the free market is
> involved, but, instead, an untethered free market will disregard the
> enviroment completely.
That's not the fault of a market. That would be like the Pepsi CEO
dropping a bomb on all the Coca Cola plants in the world, claiming
victory, and having the world scream, "Look what the free market did!"
Companies that exist within an "untethered free market" still have
societal rules which it must obey, including making sure that raping,
pillaging, and shitting toxins into the environment doesn't happen.
That's not a market issue.
MZ
> While it's true that unions, etc, have their power, they are no match for the
> Corporations.
> Corporations represent one thing - - profit.
The teachers unions are a hell of a lot more influential than the
schools they work in.
The same goes for doctors, lawyers, and really just about any *licensed*
professional. Their wages are high solely because the "supply" of
workers in those fields are kept artificially low by licensure/degree
requirements, manufacturing restrictions (eg. IP law), etc. They have a
vested interest in making sure that they keep the money train intact,
which means lobbying government to "regulate". "Regulate", in this
context, is shorthand for making things harder for newcomers to enter
the field (analogous to raising the barrier to entry).
Remy McSwain
papa.carl44 <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
> "Remy McSwain" <Paradi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:wN6dnQPk_5DtTnjW...@giganews.com...
>> In news:slbbu594sljv8l0qd...@4ax.com,
>> buRford <buR...@buR.ford.com> wrote:
>>
>>> While it's true that unions, etc, have their power, they are no
>>> match for the Corporations.
>>> As for unions, don't forget what they actually are. They do
>>> represent poeple, while Corporations represent one thing - -
>>> profit.
>>
>> That's simply untrue. A union is an organization. It
>> 'represents nothing. It consists of its members who are
>> interested primarily in money.
>
> Try telling this to the families of those coal miners in West
> Virginia...the ones from the non-union mines that keep killing
> folks...its only about the money though right????? I was the
> president of a union once...won a great contract too...and it
> was about a Hell of a lot more than money. I notice you made a
> concesion to safety....why is it that it is incumbent for
> workers to unionize to get some safety standards? Doesn't that
> sort of tell a story about the corporate powers who they work
> for? To me it does.
>
>
> About the only thing besides money in which they're
>> interested is their own safety, as they should be.
You should actually keep reading before responding with hyperbole.
papa.carl44
And you should just read....why is it up to the employee to fight for their
own safety? I acknowledged your give away on that count....now you answer
my question.
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
news:Pd6dnROcZ5ByGXrW...@giganews.com...
I'd still rather go to a *licensed* MD than one that isn't. And....some
licensed professionals don't get paid in line with the work they do. The
medical field is all over the place I think. I also think the very high
number of foreign MD's is a good indicator of salaries that do not attract
the very bright American students anymore, they want more and go into
business fields now. I agree that some docs make outrageous amounts
compared to what they do, but I've been in a position to see the real deal
guys in major hospitals who never seem to take a day off and really don't
make the huge salaries some do. Why does a cosmetic plastic surgeon make so
much more than a transplant surgeon? I understand the reason but it really
doesn't make sense. How would you regulate those professions?
Johnctx
>> Carter couldn't deal with political pain of making Americans grow up so
>> he threw the onus on the auto companies. Why not tax gasoline & let the
>> American "adults" decide? You know why he didn't do that because it was
>> easier to tell Detroit to raise their MPG but didn't want to tell the
>> average Joe to use less gas by taxing them. The reality is inflation
>> was bad enough and no one would have taken the pain but that was the way
>> to go.
>
> No. Detroit was pushed by the Govt, but moreso, that people started looking to Japan for
> their cars. I assume you were more than a child back then... I don't understand how you
> can say Carter didn't say people should use less energy. Hell, he told people to adjust
> their thermostats during winter, and wear a sweater. He was on Prime Time saying just
> THAT.
buRf, I assume you aren't deliberately missing my point but Carter did
ask the country he just didn't force them use by raising the price of
gas. You make my point the targeted MPG that he felt safe throwing on
Detroit's back would have been met when people more more efficient cars.
Again, I don't price of oil changed the mindset in this country not
Reagan or Carter.
MZ
I would rather go to a competent MD than a licensed one. If a guy is
good at what he does, then having special degrees from hand-picked
colleges is not really relevant. "Hand-picked", by the way, is one of
the reasons for the problems you cite above. "Hand-picked" means that
the US government has endorsed only one avenue for pursuing a medical
education. There are no alternative approaches, innovation is not
allowed. Med students are largely taught the same way they were taught
50 years ago.
Let me give you four examples of medical professionals who are very
often well-trained in their field, but are not allowed to treat patients
in a "medical" kind of way no matter how smart, skilled, or established
they are. 1) Psychologists, 2) Medical experts with PhD's instead of
MDs, 3) Medical technicians, 4) Chiropractors.
Back to the point... guess which lobbyist group has been among the most
influential at making it HARD to become a physician... The AMA. And
this isn't true just for doctors. Plumbers, electrical workers,
teachers, counselors, truck drivers ... just about every profession that
requires licensure. They almost universally favor more restrictions
that would narrow the field of practitioners. And what this does is
raises prices so that regular stiffs like us have to pay more money for
services!
Johnctx
buRf, I actually try not to come off as condescending. If I am Hopalong
does that make you Calamity Jane-- I can't remember his sidekick?
>
> I could go into an elaborate discourse, to help widen your visual acuity, but I'll just
> make it simple.
> The GOP walk lockstep.
> The Dems go with the wind... all over the place.
> The Dems want to govern, so their nature is to compromise.
> The GOP could care less about governing. There is no compromise. They just follow
> whoever their leader is, lockstep... whether it's Bush, McConnell, Rush, or the
> TeaBaggers.
> Bush led his Party. Obama doesn't.
> If anyone is actually leading the Dem Party, it's Ms Pelosi. Obama aint a leader, yet,
> may never be. He's an arbitrator who leans against his own beliefs.
I would say since 98-20 that would be a fair commentary of the GOP. One
reason is that GOPers that were not in lockstep, like Weld, get picked
off because there is a need by both sides to label opponnets. Then other
GOPers that really were more economic based than social like Gramm,
Armey & Archer have moved on. I wish the pro-choice movement would get
a constitutional amendment allowing abortion. It would end the litmus
test for both sides and fewer idiots in congress.
I am not sure what Obama is about. Clinton (Bill not Hillary) had his
links to the centrist Democrats and I am not sure if Obama has that.
Pelosi's problem is she has some nut job constituencies that she has to
deal with and she is always on attack mode.
>
>
>
>>> Even with a significant majority, the Dems could barely pass a feeble, watered-down
>>> healthcare bill, which was similar to the GOP plan offered in the early 90s.
>>> Cap and trade is a start, but that won't happen, because the GOP *forgot* it was their
>>> idea. It's the corporations that rule now, and until they make the effort to transition,
>>> we're all f***ed.
>> Replace corporations with moneyed interest, which includes, unions, both
>> sides of abortion, doctors, teachers, foreign countries etc. & I agree.
>>
>
> While it's true that unions, etc, have their power, they are no match for the
> Corporations.
> As for unions, don't forget what they actually are. They do represent poeple, while
> Corporations represent one thing - - profit.
It is a nice sounding line but property rights had as much to do with
the formation of this country as personal liberties. This is regualr
problem fault of the left--- and you aren't that far over there-- the
other's guy money is bad.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/toppacs.php?cycle=2010&party=A
Half the top PACS are union based & they give 90% to the Dems. The corp
buy both sides.
Johnctx
So you beat up a blind mugger in a wheelchair?
Johnctx
I didn't realize I was anti-union I thought I was making a point about
money in politics. For a guy who is hyper-sensitive at times you really
make some broad conclusions about people. When I write something jump on
me with two feet but when I don't write it, it is unfair to assume it. I
know the history of the unions in this country and if you want to talk
about Eugene V. Debs one day I will be up in NJ.
For the record I understand the value of the skilled trades and how they
insure a steady supply of trained workers. I also strongly support
certain highly specialized trades like American shipping.
I think low skilled workers are hosed by their unions and are mor of a
pol lobbying group such as SEIU but those are the rules. Many older
industries like auto & steel care only about the older workers.
Johnctx
good one Dude
Johnctx
sorry should read
Again, the price of oil changed the mindset in this country not
Reagan or Carter.
Remy McSwain
Because it's their's. I'm not suggesting that it's good thing the
other people aren't also looking out for their safety. I'm simply
acknowledging the human nature of the fact that their's nothing
inherently special about union people, as you seemed to suggest.
had their personal circumstances been different, and they had ended
up in management positions, they'd do the same. In fact, these
days, most union people are also stockholders, and I dare say that
when it comes to their own persona retirement accounts or
portfolios, their not making investment decisions on the basis of
much of anything except how that particular stock is going to
perform.
papa.carl44
So these coal miners are looking at the stocks they get via their jobs?
Teachers have stock in the system? Police officers and firemen too? I'm
not saying union members are special at all...and I've seen lots of
situations when a union leader jumps ship to the other side to make more
money. What I am saying is without unions no real middle class takes root.
I'm also saying that as we have seen unions erode over the last couple
decades we have seen an increase in the issues related to their
establishment, like safety and basic life conditions. I agree the disease
of American Greed infects all levels society.
papa.carl44
"Johnctx" <j...@spamtx.net> wrote in message
news:8NCdnZXpOIY6inXW...@giganews.com...
I wasn't responding to you John.
papa.carl44
"MZ" <ma...@nospam.void> wrote in message
LOL...I'm smiling because that is where I fit and I couldn't agree more ! I
have a license in behavioral health...I'm a Licensed Clinical Alcohol and
Drug Counselor. I had to deal with insurance companies that "told" me how
to treat "their" patients. What was worse, the hospital I worked for went
along with it. I really believe treatment works, but not three visits and a
kick out the door. Some were better than others, but a lot of policies
suggested a couple of IOP visits and then some antidepressants from the
Psychiatrist and off to AA on their own....sometimes 30 years of an
addiction problem and that was their idea of treatment. Treatment does work
and there is a lot of evidence to prove it....but there is really little
treatment in this country. Treatment is reserved for criminals who are
incarcerated. and the reality is the vast majority of people with addiction
issues are not criminally involved. People with alcohol issues who seek
treatment on their own are screwed for the most part. I could tell you a
lot of stories about some of the related professions who lobbied with
insurance industry to create a secure market for themselves when they are
not the best people to be doing the job. Still, very few in total of these
folks are ever in unions.
>
> Back to the point... guess which lobbyist group has been among the most
> influential at making it HARD to become a physician... The AMA. And this
> isn't true just for doctors. Plumbers, electrical workers, teachers,
> counselors, truck drivers ... just about every profession that requires
> licensure. They almost universally favor more restrictions that would
> narrow the field of practitioners. And what this does is raises prices so
> that regular stiffs like us have to pay more money for services!
The AMA is a bunch of fat cat, rich old white dudes who have very little
caring or understanding of healthcare. OMHO, and that of my doctor too.
galen...@yahoo.com
> galen...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> A clean environment will not just happen because the free market is
>> involved, but, instead, an untethered free market will disregard the
>> enviroment completely.
>
> That's not the fault of a market.
It most certainly is a downfall of a free market, and why the society
must always police and tether it. A free market has little or no
conscience. History is littered with corporations that cared only for
the bottom-line, to the disregard of the well-being of the populace and
as well, the environment.
> That would be like the Pepsi CEO dropping a bomb on all the Coca Cola
> plants in the world, claiming victory, and having the world scream,
> "Look what the free market did!"
Well, with a completely untethered free market, that would be victory.
We had completely untethered free markets many many years ago. They
were called kingdoms, and those guys would do whatever they damn well
pleased. Completely untethered free markets lead to monopolies like,
well, kingdoms.
> Companies that exist within an "untethered free market" still have
> societal rules which it must obey, including making sure that raping,
> pillaging, and shitting toxins into the environment doesn't
> happen.
What, like the kingdoms of old? Raping, pillaging? Hm... Those would
describe their actions completely.
> That's not a market issue.
I don't see how it can be nothing but a market issue.
MZ
Galen, you don't know what the word "market" means, and you have no idea
what's generally meant by "free market." That makes it very difficult
to try to show you that an economic market and an act of violence (eg.
my bomb example) are unrelated. So let me put it a different way
instead. You can have a free market AND imprison people for murdering
competitors. Murder is not a property of a market system. Likewise,
you can have a free market AND imprison people for harming the environment.
A couple other corrections --
(1) in a truly free market, "corporations" don't exist. Incorporation
and limited liability are fabrications used by the state to manipulate
the market. Therefore, those things are anti-free market.
(2) I can't think of any truly free markets in history. Some have
argued that medieval iceland resembled a free market, but I don't know
enough about that to comment. Kingdoms are clearly not free markets as
they rely on the marriage between state and quasi-private ownership.
This is precisely the type of system that free market advocates criticize.
(3) Free markets are, by definition, anti-monopoly. Monopolies are very
often state inventions. Most people actually LIKE monopolies, since
they think it serves a beneficial economic end. There are even
provisions in the constitution okaying the establishment of monopolies.
But free market advocates are one of the only groups that oppose
monopolistic policies across the board.
Remy McSwain
papa.carl44 <papad...@nospamverizon.net> wrote:
> "Remy McSwain" <Paradi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>> While it's true that unions, etc, have their power, they
>>>>>>> are no match for the Corporations.
>>>>>>> As for unions, don't forget what they actually are. They
>>>>>>> do represent poeple, while Corporations represent one
>>>>>>> thing - - profit.
[snip]
>> Because it's their's. I'm not suggesting that it's good thing
>> the other people aren't also looking out for their safety. I'm
>> simply acknowledging the human nature of the fact that their's
>> nothing inherently special about union people, as you seemed to
>> suggest. had their personal circumstances been different, and
>> they had ended up in management positions, they'd do the same. In
>> fact, these days, most union people are also stockholders,
>> and I dare say that when it comes to their own persona
>> retirement accounts or portfolios, their not making investment
>> decisions on the basis of much of anything except how that
>> particular stock is going to perform.
>
> So these coal miners are looking at the stocks they get via
> their jobs?
I'm not even sure what that question is asking, but my point is that
many coal miners have retirement accounts and other ways in which
they've invested in the stock market, and that their decisions as to
where they invest that money is no different than that of other
investors in the stock market And whereas directors and executives
respond to the investors almost completely, that the coal miners, as
people, are no better or no worse than corporate executives, or
directors, or institutional investors.
> Teachers have stock in the system? Police officers
> and firemen too? I'm not saying union members are special at
> all...
When you claim that unions represent people whereas corporations
represent only profits, then you_are_saying that union members are
special unless, of course, you believe that profits are just as
important as people.
> and I've seen lots of situations when a union leader jumps
> ship to the other side to make more money. What I am saying is
> without unions no real middle class takes root. I'm also saying
> that as we have seen unions erode over the last couple decades
> we have seen an increase in the issues related to their
> establishment, like safety and basic life conditions. I agree
> the disease of American Greed infects all levels society.
I've seen it all play out very directly, and there are many reasons
for the erosion of the unions, including the fact that their own
greed lead to the death or degradation of so many domestic
industries. They almost killed the entire auto industry by
demanding pay, pensions, and benefits that the industry could never,
ever hope to be able to sustain. I've seen very many times locally
when a trucking outfit has no choice but to secure concessions from
the union, or die, and the union chooses death rather than
concession because of the idiotic idea that any company could
survive if not for those greedy owners. When unionized companies
die, membership goes down.
I agree that unions need to keep corporations in check or
corporations will spin out of control. But I also think that unions
need to be kept in check, or they spin out of control as well.
Human nature is at work on both sides. But as long as we, as a
society, cling to the myth that unions about all that is good and
wholesome (i.e., "the good of the people"), and that corporations
are only interested in dirty, filthy, profits, then the unions will
spin out of control until they kill the goose which lays the golden
egg, which is what they've done in very many cases.
Johnctx
> I wasn't responding to you John.
Papa, sorry but at least you know I know who Eugene V Debs is..
:)
Johnny Morongo
Yeah, but the sucker had sharp pencils. I still kicked his ass.
Johnctx
>
> Yeah, but the sucker had sharp pencils. I still kicked his ass.
Pencils, are you sure it wasn't buRF? He was in the media at one time?
Johnny Morongo
No, I'm sure. BuRf, the Ex King of Hackensack, (now BuRfex?) has lost
all credibility in media.
papa.carl44
Well, if you don't know what the question is asking...you sure came up with
a lot of stuff to respond. Tell me, do all these non-union coal miners go
home and sit at their computers and manage their investment accounts? I've
been in that part of the country a bit.....never saw that happen. I'll have
to ask the next time I'm there I guess. I also wasn't aware they made that
much money, to be able to be so involved in investing. Why the Hell bother
with all the hassle of being a corporate executive if you can just go do
some low down and dirty work and then come home without the job worries and
still make money?
papa.carl44
papa.carl44
>
>> I wasn't responding to you John.
>
> Papa, sorry but at least you know I know who Eugene V Debs is..
>
> :)
He was a little before my time...just a little. I think anybody who paid
attention in history class should know who he is....and then I admit that I
doubt many Americans seem to have ever paid attention in history class. As
a matter of fact, I think schools stopped teaching history because those few
who did listen, and maybe even read the book and then some caused some
problems. So, to stem the tide of rebellion it was decided to not teach
history anymore or let people understand exactly how our current society was
created. But that's only my humble opinion. One thing you gotta admit,
Debs had some big ones and was't afraid to stand up for what he believed.
There seems to be a movement afoot now to make sure nothing like that ever
happens again.
Remy McSwain
I took a shot.
> Tell me, do all these
> non-union coal miners go home and sit at their computers and
> manage their investment accounts?
I wasn't necessarily talking about non-union coal miners. I think
you read a lot into what I post that I don't write.
> I've been in that part of the
> country a bit.....never saw that happen. I'll have to ask the
> next time I'm there I guess. I also wasn't aware they made that
> much money, to be able to be so involved in investing. Why the
> Hell bother with all the hassle of being a corporate executive
> if you can just go do some low down and dirty work and then come
> home without the job worries and still make money?
Somehow or other, you seem to think that sarcastic laced hyperbole
is the way to conduct a debate. I don't. So I'll attempt to
explain my point one last time, to which you can either respond
substantively, or not. But I have no intention of taking the bait.
People don't need to sit by their computers every night to be
investors, nor do they have to make a lot of money either. For my
own part, and probably to me detriment, I look at my 401K account
probably twice a year, and I might not change where I place my money
even that often. But when I do, it's because I want to maximize my
investment, and not because I want to change corporate policy. I'm
suggesting that union workers (and probably all workers), do the
same thing to the extent that they have retirement accounts or
elsewhere. As such, that makes them no better, and no worse than
other investors, and so no better of worse than directors and
executives.
How you came to the conclusion that I was referring to non-union
coal miners alone escapes me.
I think that had you reads the above, there would've been no reason
for your rude response. But I might be wrong, and you just might be
a rude person. Who knows.
papa.carl44
I was following the line of what I previously said.
>> I've been in that part of the
>> country a bit.....never saw that happen. I'll have to ask the
>> next time I'm there I guess. I also wasn't aware they made that
>> much money, to be able to be so involved in investing. Why the
>> Hell bother with all the hassle of being a corporate executive
>> if you can just go do some low down and dirty work and then come
>> home without the job worries and still make money?
>
> Somehow or other, you seem to think that sarcastic laced hyperbole is the
> way to conduct a debate. I don't. So I'll attempt to explain my point
> one last time, to which you can either respond substantively, or not. But
> I have no intention of taking the bait.
I apologize...I was thinking the same thing about you. I will be more
careful in the future.
>
> People don't need to sit by their computers every night to be investors,
> nor do they have to make a lot of money either. For my own part, and
> probably to me detriment, I look at my 401K account probably twice a year,
> and I might not change where I place my money even that often. But when I
> do, it's because I want to maximize my investment, and not because I want
> to change corporate policy. I'm suggesting that union workers (and
> probably all workers), do the same thing to the extent that they have
> retirement accounts or elsewhere. As such, that makes them no better, and
> no worse than other investors, and so no better of worse than directors
> and executives.
>
> How you came to the conclusion that I was referring to non-union coal
> miners alone escapes me.
I have been defending the need for unions....I also am aware that the
current trend if to de-unionize the mines. I understand what a PIA unions
that become institutionalized can be. One of my mentors taught me some
years ago that "institutions" exist for one main purpose...to perpetuate
their own existence. I think there is a lot of truth in that. This
conclusion makes me think that all "institutions" need to be kept fresh,
made to change when needed and always allow new blood and new ideas in.
But, I think the creation of unions was a very necessary thing. I also
think that when unions became corrupted it was a bad thing. Now, with
unions being done away with I don't believe we have solved any problems, the
issue was to take the union back to doing what it should have been doing and
that should have happened internally and been done by the union membership.
Still, without worker protections the "institution" of the corporation and
it's interests will do the same things that the corrupted unions did...so
something new has to happen....a new union movement if needed. If some
don't want government regulation or involvement then that is the only way it
can happen. I will be less "sarcastic" if it offends you. I really didn't
intend it...thought I was just responding in kind. My apologies.
Johnctx
I can get lost in history but often periods of American history bore me
to tears. Debs was an interesting guy as he was product of the
capitalist system and that rather aggressive tactics of social
Darwinism. Unlike many supposed Socialists or Marxists -- Lenin, Castro,
etc. he didn't appear to be an opportunist.
As for preventing future Debs I am not sure how if that is the goal or
even the outcome of the current curriculum but it could be factor. I
think the bigger problem is that being bought has become socially
acceptable, & actually put into law, when it comes to govt and politics.
papa.carl44
Wow...we agree. A number of strange events have shaped how we behave. I
was frequently called upon to do public speaking events for the hospital I
worked for before I got sick. Often I would address parents groups and
school groups and the subject of shaping behavior in young people would come
up. I would attempt to point out to them that it does matter what happens
on a National and business platform. They always wanted to dismiss all of
that and hold the children and young adults to a much higher standard than
politicians and corporations are held to (or event themselves). Personally,
I think that a point of "change" might be the Challenger disaster. The
engineers involved in that knew it had flaws and the stance taken by those
in charge was to keep quiet, never admit something is wrong and always tell
the guys on top what they want to hear. In essence, it became OK to "not
tell the truth" if the spin that was being created worked for the best
business interests of the party making the money. The mores and standards
that are set this way in a culture do not stay put, they do filter down.
The idea of "not getting caught" has become more prevalent than "doing the
right thing." You are 100% correct...it's been put into law and into
custom. This idea that the majority on The Supreme Court just handed down
claiming a corporation has the same rights as an individual is a HUGE step
away from where we began.
I don't really see the folks you referenced, Lenin, Castro, etc as
alike...each one is very different and generated by much different
circumstances. You can make a very good argument that US policy in Cuba
really created Fidel and his movement. I also don't think the current
curriculum matters as much as current mores and standards...excepting that
history is not taught much anymore. Maybe the new attempt to revise things
in Texas will spread. I know the liberals are going nuts over that, but my
feeling is nobody teaches history anyway, and if they do it's once a week in
elementary school and is treated as a mandatory boring class in high school.
History is PEOPLE...not random events. History has to be taught in terms of
people, biographies, cultural changes and movements...when you do this, the
interest level changes. I never got bored with history class...about the
only thing I really always loved. I just wish I could remember everything
now and didn't have to go look it up all the time :-)