I cleared his comment ... maybe its Ted Nugent, he's a rip roaring conservative.
On a personal note I have family coming in for the next several days through next week and won't be able to post much. So, unless some monumental event occurs, and I feel compelled, I'll be on after that ....
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
We have a FAN!
I want to know who "Ted" is... I have no idea, other than he is a HUGE fan of Sarah Palin as the VP candidate for Mac.
Childish banter aside...
I'm not saying I'm opposed to Romney being on the ticket... but I AM saying that McCain is fighting at a distinct disadvantage in this election. He has no one to blame but himself, because his disadvantage is the result of his repeatedly "bucking" the GOP platform over the last 14 years. Causes aside, he needs to take into account that his choice for VP candidate is far more impacting than Obama's.
Obama will have his "base" support, regardless of his running-mate... but Mac could conceivably screw up his chances even more by picking a "moderate". As much as I like Joe Lieberman, imagine what the hard-core conservative wing of the GOP will do (and say) if he selects him to run?
Romney didn't strike me as very "in your face" about his positions on hot-topic items like the border, national defense, the war, etc. He was calm, clear and concise... but so is Mac. The ticket needs a "no BS" approach to the election, and what Mac can't deliver, his running-mate MUST. If you want to look at other "still fresh in the memory" candidates... then I'd say either Huckabee or Thompson would be better choices (although Thompson brings no Exec experience to the table, either). Both rock-solid conservatives, both with good track records, and both able to give a damn fine "fire-and-brimstone" speech on demand.
Again, I'm sure Romney is on the short list... but I think there are better choices on that same list than Romney. That's all.
Obama will have his "base" support, regardless of his running-mate... but Mac could conceivably screw up his chances even more by picking a "moderate". As much as I like Joe Lieberman, imagine what the hard-core conservative wing of the GOP will do (and say) if he selects him to run?
Romney didn't strike me as very "in your face" about his positions on hot-topic items like the border, national defense, the war, etc. He was calm, clear and concise... but so is Mac. The ticket needs a "no BS" approach to the election, and what Mac can't deliver, his running-mate MUST. If you want to look at other "still fresh in the memory" candidates... then I'd say either Huckabee or Thompson would be better choices (although Thompson brings no Exec experience to the table, either). Both rock-solid conservatives, both with good track records, and both able to give a damn fine "fire-and-brimstone" speech on demand.
Again, I'm sure Romney is on the short list... but I think there are better choices on that same list than Romney. That's all.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Go recite some poems why don't ya!
Or whatever you wine-guzzling people do to gain forgiveness from sin, for THAT was completely uncharitable. And they're Golden PLATES, dufus.
You know who else lost his first primary battle? Ronald Wilson Reagan "The Great." So did George H Bush, and Reagan "The Infallible" turned around and picked him as a VP running mate, and they won sweeping victories, keeping G.H. Bush in the executive branch for a total of 12 years. Don't give me this nonsense about all America will remember is that he lost - hogwash, poppycock. What America will resonate with is that the economy is in trouble and this guy knows what he is doing in terms of it. Not to mention, maybe you knock out Michigan as a red state with Romney (his Dad was governor there and he polls high). Plus he can out-fundraise nearly anyone, and MAC will need that against the Obama campaign's deep pockets.
Sorry buddy - history doesn't bare you out on this one .... that will be 43 Hail Mary's and 67 Our Father's. Go forth and pray my son .....
You know who else lost his first primary battle? Ronald Wilson Reagan "The Great." So did George H Bush, and Reagan "The Infallible" turned around and picked him as a VP running mate, and they won sweeping victories, keeping G.H. Bush in the executive branch for a total of 12 years. Don't give me this nonsense about all America will remember is that he lost - hogwash, poppycock. What America will resonate with is that the economy is in trouble and this guy knows what he is doing in terms of it. Not to mention, maybe you knock out Michigan as a red state with Romney (his Dad was governor there and he polls high). Plus he can out-fundraise nearly anyone, and MAC will need that against the Obama campaign's deep pockets.
Sorry buddy - history doesn't bare you out on this one .... that will be 43 Hail Mary's and 67 Our Father's. Go forth and pray my son .....
Bite my golden tablets, okay?
Sheesh... I have only ONE thing to say about Romney:
LOSER!
There is no room in an already heated compaign for any Primary-rejects like Mitt. Palin and Crist are perfectly suitable, and both bring good things to the ticket... but Romney is NOT currently in politics, and all most Americans are going to recall is that he LOST he primary.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with his pagan faith, by the way... Mac just can't afford any losers associating with him right now.
LOSER!
There is no room in an already heated compaign for any Primary-rejects like Mitt. Palin and Crist are perfectly suitable, and both bring good things to the ticket... but Romney is NOT currently in politics, and all most Americans are going to recall is that he LOST he primary.
This has absolutely NOTHING to do with his pagan faith, by the way... Mac just can't afford any losers associating with him right now.
Anti-Mormon
What's wrong with you? WHERE is Romney on your list, you rabid anti-Mormonite? What, our holy underwear not good enough for you? Our churches not old enough for you? Tisk, tisk. He's on the VERY short list of possibilities, and its well known that he is being "vetted" as we speak. There's really only 3 choices (in my opinion), and I'll rank them in order of most likely to be tapped:
1.) Mitt Romney.
As the economy over takes all other issues on the minds of voters - every poll I see seems to indicate that, including overtaking Iraq in importance - Romney's case is being made for him. He is seen in terms of economic mastery the way MAC is on national security. It's the perfect one-two punch in my estimation.
2.) Crist.
He delivers Florida on a silver platter. Meaning all MAC has to do is add Ohio and its "President-elect McCain."
3.) Sarah Palin.
A woman invigorates the McCain candidacy and demands media attention in a away no other candidate does. Plus you chip off a few disgruntled Hillary supporters, and maybe some South West states leaning blue.
Don't get me wrong, Barbour is undoubtedly more in sync with my politics and that of the GOP base, but in practical application, these are the three, and only three choices. My preference would have been Bobby Jindal. As you might know I've been following this guy for years, since he was running for governor the first time, before he was even a congressman. He is not only down the line conservative on each and every issue - he's a literal genius. And articulate to the point of devastating in any argument ... how nice would that be to have after the last 8 years? ...*sigh*
1.) Mitt Romney.
As the economy over takes all other issues on the minds of voters - every poll I see seems to indicate that, including overtaking Iraq in importance - Romney's case is being made for him. He is seen in terms of economic mastery the way MAC is on national security. It's the perfect one-two punch in my estimation.
2.) Crist.
He delivers Florida on a silver platter. Meaning all MAC has to do is add Ohio and its "President-elect McCain."
3.) Sarah Palin.
A woman invigorates the McCain candidacy and demands media attention in a away no other candidate does. Plus you chip off a few disgruntled Hillary supporters, and maybe some South West states leaning blue.
Don't get me wrong, Barbour is undoubtedly more in sync with my politics and that of the GOP base, but in practical application, these are the three, and only three choices. My preference would have been Bobby Jindal. As you might know I've been following this guy for years, since he was running for governor the first time, before he was even a congressman. He is not only down the line conservative on each and every issue - he's a literal genius. And articulate to the point of devastating in any argument ... how nice would that be to have after the last 8 years? ...*sigh*
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Finally... a VP?
I have reviewed our past posts, and think I can boil down our requirements for a "good" VP for McCain as the following (in no particular order):
1) A strong "conservative", to counter Mac's past "bi-partisan" tendencies
2) A Southerner, to garner the always-important "South" vote
3) An executive (read Governor), to bolster Mac's lack of "executive" experience
4) Youth (in relative terms... anyone looks young compared to Mac)
An argument could be made that selecting a minority would also help... but I don't think it is a priority in the formula. I am convinced that Mac wants to pick on merit more than anything else, and having a "token" anything (black, woman, Latino, etc.) will only leave him open for accusations of pandering.
Other positives (but not requirements):
Strong faith background/moral views (realisticly, I guess I'd have to say that NOT being Catholic is probably also a plus... there's a whole new stigma to being Catholic right now in this country that is unfortunate, but still a measurable reality in politics).
Tough on crime and illegal immigration issues.
Strong military support record.
Good fiscal record/supports low taxes.
More than one political success story.
So, knowing this, who are the OBVIOUS candidates? (I'm not including those that have excluded themselves from the "list"... Jindal, Thompson, etc.)
Charlie Crist (FL) has always been on the list, and is still a good choice. Seriously popular in FL, he brings some real, tangible recognition to the ticket from a key electoral state.
Haley Barbour (MS) is well-known to all of us. His success as the "leader" of post-Katrina MS is well-documented and easily comparable to the record of LA's former governor. Lacking in youth, he brings a whole lot to the ticket... from the South, proven unwaivering conservative views, and a track record of solid fiscal responsibility, mainstream Protestant Christian with no (known) baggage.
Bob Riley (AL) would be the "youthful" version of Barbour, in my opinion, with a lot less of the recognition nationally. Outstanding record of keeping the State of AL's books in the black through the judicious application of low-taxes and lottery revenues.
Sarah Palin (AK) is another growing name in the GOP world. The single most popular governor currently in office, she is half-way through her two-term max as Governor of Alaska. There is NO more staunch supporter of "drill now" than Palin... she defines the "conservationist conservative". No one could call her name on the ticket "pandering"... she is a raging success story from the word GO.
Rick Perry (TX) is well-spoken, good-looking and popular with his State. He has only one drawback... he may look "soft" on border issues when compared to other "border State" Gov's. He ahsn't made the name for himself as tough on illegals the same way the rest of the Southwest has... but he is a rock-solid conservative with a great record as governor of TX.
So, who ISN'T on MY list of VP choices?
Tim Pawlenty (MN) does NOT have the record of conservative consistancy that the above do. He did balance MN's $4.3 billion budget deficit without raising taxes... but he lost a lot of ground to the public and the polls by cutting the way he did. He has almost NO national name recognition... and coming from the heart of DFL land, he isn't going to bring a whole lot of popularity to the ticket from the Upper Midwest. I think Mac can do WAY better here.
Let me think about the Dem choices...
1) A strong "conservative", to counter Mac's past "bi-partisan" tendencies
2) A Southerner, to garner the always-important "South" vote
3) An executive (read Governor), to bolster Mac's lack of "executive" experience
4) Youth (in relative terms... anyone looks young compared to Mac)
An argument could be made that selecting a minority would also help... but I don't think it is a priority in the formula. I am convinced that Mac wants to pick on merit more than anything else, and having a "token" anything (black, woman, Latino, etc.) will only leave him open for accusations of pandering.
Other positives (but not requirements):
Strong faith background/moral views (realisticly, I guess I'd have to say that NOT being Catholic is probably also a plus... there's a whole new stigma to being Catholic right now in this country that is unfortunate, but still a measurable reality in politics).
Tough on crime and illegal immigration issues.
Strong military support record.
Good fiscal record/supports low taxes.
More than one political success story.
So, knowing this, who are the OBVIOUS candidates? (I'm not including those that have excluded themselves from the "list"... Jindal, Thompson, etc.)
Charlie Crist (FL) has always been on the list, and is still a good choice. Seriously popular in FL, he brings some real, tangible recognition to the ticket from a key electoral state.
Haley Barbour (MS) is well-known to all of us. His success as the "leader" of post-Katrina MS is well-documented and easily comparable to the record of LA's former governor. Lacking in youth, he brings a whole lot to the ticket... from the South, proven unwaivering conservative views, and a track record of solid fiscal responsibility, mainstream Protestant Christian with no (known) baggage.
Bob Riley (AL) would be the "youthful" version of Barbour, in my opinion, with a lot less of the recognition nationally. Outstanding record of keeping the State of AL's books in the black through the judicious application of low-taxes and lottery revenues.
Sarah Palin (AK) is another growing name in the GOP world. The single most popular governor currently in office, she is half-way through her two-term max as Governor of Alaska. There is NO more staunch supporter of "drill now" than Palin... she defines the "conservationist conservative". No one could call her name on the ticket "pandering"... she is a raging success story from the word GO.
Rick Perry (TX) is well-spoken, good-looking and popular with his State. He has only one drawback... he may look "soft" on border issues when compared to other "border State" Gov's. He ahsn't made the name for himself as tough on illegals the same way the rest of the Southwest has... but he is a rock-solid conservative with a great record as governor of TX.
So, who ISN'T on MY list of VP choices?
Tim Pawlenty (MN) does NOT have the record of conservative consistancy that the above do. He did balance MN's $4.3 billion budget deficit without raising taxes... but he lost a lot of ground to the public and the polls by cutting the way he did. He has almost NO national name recognition... and coming from the heart of DFL land, he isn't going to bring a whole lot of popularity to the ticket from the Upper Midwest. I think Mac can do WAY better here.
Let me think about the Dem choices...
AAAAAAGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I was picking a fight not a debate and you went all mommy on me. It sounded like "Play nice boys and I'll go make you some lemonade"ish. If I wasn't typing on a $150 keyboard I would have broken this one in half this morning.
Funny you should mention those lines from Saving Private Ryan, I use them all of the time with my troops when they want to know why I don't bitch and moan around them. "Gripes go up Rybun not down" LOL.
So to play your game a little bit. There is no doubt that drilling for domestic oil, additional refineries, gas from coal conversion and such is absolutely necessary. I'm not scared of nuclear power but I am not a huge fan of it either. Big targets holding nuclear material from a national security point of view and then there is the whole waste issue and what to do with it. We are currently building a huge hole in a mountain in Nevada, I believe it is Yucca mountain that is supposed to become the US nuclear waste depository but from what I saw on the television we are still years away from completing it and who knows if it will hold it all. But I am just one relatively uneducated and ill informed citizen and what would I know. If we as a nation do not make renewable energy and its development as equally important as oil, coal and nuclear we are only cheating ourselves. These are sources that are ever present. Free for the taking with the right technology and viable. They will not power our cars exclusively at this point but they will power homes and businesses and that will take some of the stress off of coal and oil burning power plants so we can divert those resources to areas that need them more, thus HELPING REDUCE OUR NATIONS DEPENDANCY ON FOREIGN OIL. One of the beutiful by-products of using renewable energy to assist with powering homes and businesses is putting expendable income back into the pockets of the persons that earned it, thus boosting the economy.
This is not a one solution problem and I do understand that there are priorities that have to be placed but to call renewable energy tertiary at this point...well I think you are wrong. We didn't have the production capability when we entered WWII to win that war but in 3 years we did because we took on that cause on a national level and everyone got involved, all of the way down to the individual person. We didn't build all of the tanks, and then build all of the planes, and then build all of the ships. We did it all at the same time. We tested new things and improved on old. We developed new things and tested some more until we found what worked. Then...well we kicked ass. This situation is no different, the difference is the boneheads running the show. It's that whole leadership thing that Titus was talking about. The government needs to place a sensse of urgency on this and make it a national priority of nothing like we have seen since WWII and then we will see some shit getting done.
Funny you should mention those lines from Saving Private Ryan, I use them all of the time with my troops when they want to know why I don't bitch and moan around them. "Gripes go up Rybun not down" LOL.
So to play your game a little bit. There is no doubt that drilling for domestic oil, additional refineries, gas from coal conversion and such is absolutely necessary. I'm not scared of nuclear power but I am not a huge fan of it either. Big targets holding nuclear material from a national security point of view and then there is the whole waste issue and what to do with it. We are currently building a huge hole in a mountain in Nevada, I believe it is Yucca mountain that is supposed to become the US nuclear waste depository but from what I saw on the television we are still years away from completing it and who knows if it will hold it all. But I am just one relatively uneducated and ill informed citizen and what would I know. If we as a nation do not make renewable energy and its development as equally important as oil, coal and nuclear we are only cheating ourselves. These are sources that are ever present. Free for the taking with the right technology and viable. They will not power our cars exclusively at this point but they will power homes and businesses and that will take some of the stress off of coal and oil burning power plants so we can divert those resources to areas that need them more, thus HELPING REDUCE OUR NATIONS DEPENDANCY ON FOREIGN OIL. One of the beutiful by-products of using renewable energy to assist with powering homes and businesses is putting expendable income back into the pockets of the persons that earned it, thus boosting the economy.
This is not a one solution problem and I do understand that there are priorities that have to be placed but to call renewable energy tertiary at this point...well I think you are wrong. We didn't have the production capability when we entered WWII to win that war but in 3 years we did because we took on that cause on a national level and everyone got involved, all of the way down to the individual person. We didn't build all of the tanks, and then build all of the planes, and then build all of the ships. We did it all at the same time. We tested new things and improved on old. We developed new things and tested some more until we found what worked. Then...well we kicked ass. This situation is no different, the difference is the boneheads running the show. It's that whole leadership thing that Titus was talking about. The government needs to place a sensse of urgency on this and make it a national priority of nothing like we have seen since WWII and then we will see some shit getting done.
A new Bund Member?
What ever happened to Rick?
Someone get me his e-mail address. Do you have it Titus?
Someone get me his e-mail address. Do you have it Titus?
Saturday, July 26, 2008
"MAKING BITTER AND CLINGY SEXY AGAIN"
That's my caption for the picture to the right ... Obama was describing PA after all.
Well, well, well ... my name hasn't been shouted out this many times since me' lady's last night off. Let me see ... ah yes, badboy wrote:
"Hell I have been known to change my point of view on occasion based on information presented. Once again in my opinion Ryan is incapable of that.
I have to give him his props though, that has to be his shortest post ever. He went from long winded and monotonous to incapable of forming his own words in less than 24 hours."
Oooooh ... I love it when you talk dirty to me big boy.
Look, this isn't fair to you because you've not been present the numerous times I've conceded a point to either Titus or Jambo, and vice versa, dating years back, but I'm proceeding anyway.
The tenor of your recent posts reminds me of someone, about 7 years ago - me. And if that sentence makes you smile, don't, its not a compliment (as Titus and Jambo can attest to). I'm not talking down to you here, I'm not being shitty, its just you trying to lecture me on debate and proper political speak would be like me attempting to lecture you on virtually anything hands on military. Let me put it this way - when I met "the brothers" I was full of piss and vinegar, sure that I could argue any subject (politically speaking) to such a degree that the opposing side would yield unconditionally. Then a funny thing happened - Titus wouldn't yield. This frustrated me to no end, especially when we went from arguing dock side on the Grand's aft porch, to email threads. I wanted to snap the key board in half and fill my screen with explicits so as to relay to him what I thought of his opinion. And sometimes I did (the explicits that is, no key boards were harmed in the making of this friendship). Jambo too, although he was a little less confrontational. I soon realized that simply describing them and or their position with colorful adjectives accomplished nothing - and I didn't feel any better (intellectually) for having done it. HOWEVER, researching my position, evaluating it, spending time in front of the screen thinking how best I would understand it were someone arguing my point to me, didn't just cause me to win more arguments, it allowed me to start having real ones. And I developed the habit of asking myself a question each time either of them proposed an idea I was inclined to disagree with. "Okay, he's a smart guy. There has to be a reason he's saying this. Find out what that reason is, research it, think about it, and work backwards from where he finished so as to demonstrate why your position is closer to the truth" (assuming it was after all that).
Two quick examples. One was the question over what ended the Great Depression. Titus and I went round and round on that for probably two years. It was a catastrophe at first. We finally settled it, and I learned a valuable lesson. Learning why he thought what he did, asking him questions without rebuttal, but with further questions, then proposing an alternative answer as to why he had certain impressions, only then followed by my position, aided me greatly when it came to the next biggie - illegal immigration. First explaining his position back to him for clarity without being shitty, and then my own - rather then calling him a name - allowed us to actually get somewhere. Even Jambo conferred on me the rank of Jedi Master after that one, for I had to resist his misstep of calling me ethnocentristic, nativist and even a down right "hispanic-phobe" during his frustration (and note no one here is above making your mistake at times), and cut through to just why he disliked the entire premise of enforcing the border on a misplaced, yet authentic and admirable sense of fairness for the downtrodden. Another one occurred regarding the offensiveness (or lack there of) of the cycle and hammer versus the swastika. He was hell bent on convincing me the former was less offensive. He eventually conceded that one too - not because I called him a commie loving pinko, but because I willingly acknowledged his healthy fascination with Russia and asked if that might be clouding his judgment, of course followed by a recitation of the carnage left by the USSR. Now, I've conceded my fair share too (they'd argue more then they probably), so don't get me wrong, I'm by no means claiming a perfect record. The point is that making the opposition defend their position while establishing your own, rather then shout out your gut, visceral reaction, is much more enjoyable by conversation's end. And you learn a lot in the proccess about the given subject.
I'm sure you've seen Saving Private Ryan. There's a few lines of dialogue that always make me grin. One of Hank's men is complaining that this mission to collect Ryan is "FUBAR." Then the sharp shooter of the outfit chirps in exclaiming "Sir you put me and this here rifle anywhere inside up to a 1000 yards of one Adolf Hitler, and this war is over boys." And Hanks responds, "listen up, this is how you complain." That's what Jambo did with his last. He didn't attack my position, he made me defend it by offering a further explanation of his own.
The point I'm trying to make is if you properly argue that your position is closer to the "truth" then your opponents, then you won't need to call him "narrow minded" or "short sided".... he will confess to it himself.
****
Now to that subject, energy. Jambo, you and New Deal politics ... I know some love affairs never die, you randy rascal you. You guys and FDR are like us and Reagan. How is the effort to rename earth the "Roosevelt blue ball memorial" going anyway? He,he. Look, I'm not contending that the solar/wind homeowner use has zero merit. It was my impression that you were proposing it be the sole, or center piece of a national energy policy, and that's what bothers me. We are hard wired into fossil fuels, that's the reality. And to a lesser degree nuclear. As a number 4 or 5 on a priorities list (subsequent to domestic drilling, nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, refinery construction), I have no problem with your solar plan, on that level, and have stated so previously - but it doesn't seem like a practical single solution to overall US energy needs. In fact I would contend that if you want to see a successful transition to an all renewable energy nation, we need to build a bridge from what I contend is a priority as described above to those renewable energy sources you tout. I will give you that its an innovative approach to home energy costs, no question, and I applaud your lateral thinking. However, in my opinion it is subordinate to what will be the answer to our over all energy needs.
Furthermore, the current energy problem isn't a lack of government action - its their "over actions" or more appropriately over regulation that has contributed to this current state of affairs. But when we are arguing whether or not government should or shouldn't be the "middle man" for your turbines and solar panels, we aren't really arguing energy, are we? We are discussing ideology, notions of principle - what is the proper role of government in solving the problems of her people? I contend that given government's record (outside of war making and admittedly other successes) I would prefer that it enable problem solving activity rather then engage in that activity itself. So, slash and burn all the red tape for drilling, refineries, clean coal, etc, including your solar panels, and incentivize the tax code for rapid development and then "the people" in the form of energy companies and the homeowner will remedy this crisis their selves. And as I have stated, the "list" Titus and I seem to agree on simply must include the fossil and nuclear, not to the exclusivity of your solar ideas, but certainly as the primary focus of government's deregulation efforts. Forgive me, but your idea, while not without merit, doesn't rank any higher then a distant tertiary (my opinion) in terms of a realistic comprehensive answer to our most pressing national energy needs.
But that's just my "monotonous, self-absorbed, narrow minded, blinders on" opinion ......
Well, well, well ... my name hasn't been shouted out this many times since me' lady's last night off. Let me see ... ah yes, badboy wrote:
"Hell I have been known to change my point of view on occasion based on information presented. Once again in my opinion Ryan is incapable of that.
I have to give him his props though, that has to be his shortest post ever. He went from long winded and monotonous to incapable of forming his own words in less than 24 hours."
Oooooh ... I love it when you talk dirty to me big boy.
Look, this isn't fair to you because you've not been present the numerous times I've conceded a point to either Titus or Jambo, and vice versa, dating years back, but I'm proceeding anyway.
The tenor of your recent posts reminds me of someone, about 7 years ago - me. And if that sentence makes you smile, don't, its not a compliment (as Titus and Jambo can attest to). I'm not talking down to you here, I'm not being shitty, its just you trying to lecture me on debate and proper political speak would be like me attempting to lecture you on virtually anything hands on military. Let me put it this way - when I met "the brothers" I was full of piss and vinegar, sure that I could argue any subject (politically speaking) to such a degree that the opposing side would yield unconditionally. Then a funny thing happened - Titus wouldn't yield. This frustrated me to no end, especially when we went from arguing dock side on the Grand's aft porch, to email threads. I wanted to snap the key board in half and fill my screen with explicits so as to relay to him what I thought of his opinion. And sometimes I did (the explicits that is, no key boards were harmed in the making of this friendship). Jambo too, although he was a little less confrontational. I soon realized that simply describing them and or their position with colorful adjectives accomplished nothing - and I didn't feel any better (intellectually) for having done it. HOWEVER, researching my position, evaluating it, spending time in front of the screen thinking how best I would understand it were someone arguing my point to me, didn't just cause me to win more arguments, it allowed me to start having real ones. And I developed the habit of asking myself a question each time either of them proposed an idea I was inclined to disagree with. "Okay, he's a smart guy. There has to be a reason he's saying this. Find out what that reason is, research it, think about it, and work backwards from where he finished so as to demonstrate why your position is closer to the truth" (assuming it was after all that).
Two quick examples. One was the question over what ended the Great Depression. Titus and I went round and round on that for probably two years. It was a catastrophe at first. We finally settled it, and I learned a valuable lesson. Learning why he thought what he did, asking him questions without rebuttal, but with further questions, then proposing an alternative answer as to why he had certain impressions, only then followed by my position, aided me greatly when it came to the next biggie - illegal immigration. First explaining his position back to him for clarity without being shitty, and then my own - rather then calling him a name - allowed us to actually get somewhere. Even Jambo conferred on me the rank of Jedi Master after that one, for I had to resist his misstep of calling me ethnocentristic, nativist and even a down right "hispanic-phobe" during his frustration (and note no one here is above making your mistake at times), and cut through to just why he disliked the entire premise of enforcing the border on a misplaced, yet authentic and admirable sense of fairness for the downtrodden. Another one occurred regarding the offensiveness (or lack there of) of the cycle and hammer versus the swastika. He was hell bent on convincing me the former was less offensive. He eventually conceded that one too - not because I called him a commie loving pinko, but because I willingly acknowledged his healthy fascination with Russia and asked if that might be clouding his judgment, of course followed by a recitation of the carnage left by the USSR. Now, I've conceded my fair share too (they'd argue more then they probably), so don't get me wrong, I'm by no means claiming a perfect record. The point is that making the opposition defend their position while establishing your own, rather then shout out your gut, visceral reaction, is much more enjoyable by conversation's end. And you learn a lot in the proccess about the given subject.
I'm sure you've seen Saving Private Ryan. There's a few lines of dialogue that always make me grin. One of Hank's men is complaining that this mission to collect Ryan is "FUBAR." Then the sharp shooter of the outfit chirps in exclaiming "Sir you put me and this here rifle anywhere inside up to a 1000 yards of one Adolf Hitler, and this war is over boys." And Hanks responds, "listen up, this is how you complain." That's what Jambo did with his last. He didn't attack my position, he made me defend it by offering a further explanation of his own.
The point I'm trying to make is if you properly argue that your position is closer to the "truth" then your opponents, then you won't need to call him "narrow minded" or "short sided".... he will confess to it himself.
****
Now to that subject, energy. Jambo, you and New Deal politics ... I know some love affairs never die, you randy rascal you. You guys and FDR are like us and Reagan. How is the effort to rename earth the "Roosevelt blue ball memorial" going anyway? He,he. Look, I'm not contending that the solar/wind homeowner use has zero merit. It was my impression that you were proposing it be the sole, or center piece of a national energy policy, and that's what bothers me. We are hard wired into fossil fuels, that's the reality. And to a lesser degree nuclear. As a number 4 or 5 on a priorities list (subsequent to domestic drilling, nuclear, clean coal, natural gas, refinery construction), I have no problem with your solar plan, on that level, and have stated so previously - but it doesn't seem like a practical single solution to overall US energy needs. In fact I would contend that if you want to see a successful transition to an all renewable energy nation, we need to build a bridge from what I contend is a priority as described above to those renewable energy sources you tout. I will give you that its an innovative approach to home energy costs, no question, and I applaud your lateral thinking. However, in my opinion it is subordinate to what will be the answer to our over all energy needs.
Furthermore, the current energy problem isn't a lack of government action - its their "over actions" or more appropriately over regulation that has contributed to this current state of affairs. But when we are arguing whether or not government should or shouldn't be the "middle man" for your turbines and solar panels, we aren't really arguing energy, are we? We are discussing ideology, notions of principle - what is the proper role of government in solving the problems of her people? I contend that given government's record (outside of war making and admittedly other successes) I would prefer that it enable problem solving activity rather then engage in that activity itself. So, slash and burn all the red tape for drilling, refineries, clean coal, etc, including your solar panels, and incentivize the tax code for rapid development and then "the people" in the form of energy companies and the homeowner will remedy this crisis their selves. And as I have stated, the "list" Titus and I seem to agree on simply must include the fossil and nuclear, not to the exclusivity of your solar ideas, but certainly as the primary focus of government's deregulation efforts. Forgive me, but your idea, while not without merit, doesn't rank any higher then a distant tertiary (my opinion) in terms of a realistic comprehensive answer to our most pressing national energy needs.
But that's just my "monotonous, self-absorbed, narrow minded, blinders on" opinion ......
One more thing...
Ryan IS capable of changing his mind in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary!
I feel I single-handedly showed him that his (Ryan's) defense of Rummy beginning in March of '03 and running well after his "retirement" was the biggest waste of intellectual effort I have ever seen the man make! While I still don't hear him calling for the former DefSec's nuts to be removed (as I do)... I don't hear him singing the man's praises from the tree-tops, either.
That's progress, right there!
I feel I single-handedly showed him that his (Ryan's) defense of Rummy beginning in March of '03 and running well after his "retirement" was the biggest waste of intellectual effort I have ever seen the man make! While I still don't hear him calling for the former DefSec's nuts to be removed (as I do)... I don't hear him singing the man's praises from the tree-tops, either.
That's progress, right there!
Okay...
Let's get something straight right off the bat: I'm not picking fights or making slights at ANYBODY (even Ryan!). What I am saying is simply something I believe to the very core of my being.
I am afraid that Baddboy is equating "political expediency" with "compromise".
Understanding that to gain the priority issues in modern politics by conceding secondary or tertiary issues to the opposite position is as old as politics itself... Hammurabi's "Code" (read in it's entirety) is an excellent example of the same understanding dating back 3,800 years. If this is what you want to define "compromise" as, then I agree, it is the "expedient" form of political leadership.
The UNCOMPROMISING aspect of leadership that I feel is lacking in modern American politics is the part of the formula that determines the "priorities" in the first place. Were a politician in today's climate to need to "wrangle" to get what he feels he needs from fellow politicians, then that is the game we play... the same game Sun Tsu understood so well 2,400 years ago.
However, people like Reagan, or Truman, or Lincoln (an excellent example) determined their course of action and view... and did not waiver even when things looked their worst. They were CONVINCED of the correct and morally-superior position of their view, and did not "compromise" one iota of that view. They may have brokered deals to forward that view... but the view itself remained intact from conception to completion.
I will ALWAYS rather debate, argue or try to convince someone like Ryan, or Baddboy, or Jambo, or Mick "the Lib" that MY view is closer to the truth than theirs, than I ever would want to try and convince someone that is intentionally LOOKING to change his or her view, simply to expedite political change or position.
Force ME to convince YOU... don't wait for me to "water-down" my side while you "butter-up" yours so that the two begin to look similar enough to pass for the same view!
I am afraid that Baddboy is equating "political expediency" with "compromise".
Understanding that to gain the priority issues in modern politics by conceding secondary or tertiary issues to the opposite position is as old as politics itself... Hammurabi's "Code" (read in it's entirety) is an excellent example of the same understanding dating back 3,800 years. If this is what you want to define "compromise" as, then I agree, it is the "expedient" form of political leadership.
The UNCOMPROMISING aspect of leadership that I feel is lacking in modern American politics is the part of the formula that determines the "priorities" in the first place. Were a politician in today's climate to need to "wrangle" to get what he feels he needs from fellow politicians, then that is the game we play... the same game Sun Tsu understood so well 2,400 years ago.
However, people like Reagan, or Truman, or Lincoln (an excellent example) determined their course of action and view... and did not waiver even when things looked their worst. They were CONVINCED of the correct and morally-superior position of their view, and did not "compromise" one iota of that view. They may have brokered deals to forward that view... but the view itself remained intact from conception to completion.
I will ALWAYS rather debate, argue or try to convince someone like Ryan, or Baddboy, or Jambo, or Mick "the Lib" that MY view is closer to the truth than theirs, than I ever would want to try and convince someone that is intentionally LOOKING to change his or her view, simply to expedite political change or position.
Force ME to convince YOU... don't wait for me to "water-down" my side while you "butter-up" yours so that the two begin to look similar enough to pass for the same view!
Thanks...
Must be that damn picture to the right... makes me wax nostalgic for that one pint out of fourteen that I spilled that night, instead of drinking.
[sigh]
[sigh]
The truth lies somewhere in the middle!!!!!
I don't deny the fact that leadership requires unwaivering decision making. Nor do I deny that as CIC those are qualities that are admired my the troops. But when it comes to getting anything done within the current political climate ie. the Senate and the House of Representatives there are compromises that have to be made and all sides have to be taken into consideration. We are a nation of many and with that in mind there is no one single answer to everything. I will be the first to say that you can't please everyone and for sure treating everyone fairly does not mean treating them the same. A closed mind and blinders are a bad thing in all situations and will without a doubt slow progress.
I think from my previous posts you can tell I just a little right of center but I am capable of hearing an opposing point of view and taking it into consideration. Hell I have been known to change my point of view on occasion based on information presented. Once again in my opinion Ryan is incapable of that.
I have to give him his props though, that has to be his shortest post ever. He went from long winded and monotonous to incapable of forming his own words in less than 24 hours.
I think from my previous posts you can tell I just a little right of center but I am capable of hearing an opposing point of view and taking it into consideration. Hell I have been known to change my point of view on occasion based on information presented. Once again in my opinion Ryan is incapable of that.
I have to give him his props though, that has to be his shortest post ever. He went from long winded and monotonous to incapable of forming his own words in less than 24 hours.
Where does the truth reside?
I wanted to make a short, easy response to Baddboy's last post.
Tongue-in-cheek aside, you ended your post with comments about Ryan's "ideal" candidate status. To quote, you said: "Your inability to recognize that like the truth the answers lie somewhere in the middle makes you an ideal candidate. Just one more person to add to the mix of people who are incapable of compromise making the system ineffective."
I more than understand this sentiment... I really do. None the less, I think that it is exactly this sentiment that is killing modern American politics.
If you can show me five of the greatest examples of American politicians over the last 235 years, I will show you five of the most UNCOMPROMISING and INFLEXIBLE politicians in American history.
Reagan, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Roosevelt, Lincoln, Jackson, Adams, Jefferson, and Washington were some of the most stubborn, inflexible, and uncompromising individuals that ever led a nation. Yet, these are the names that anyone can point to as examples of powerful, successful and dynamic leadership of our nation in times of trouble and crisis. Now, list the Presidents with the most obvious ability to "compromise"... Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Coolidge, Wilson, Taft, Buchanan, and Polk. Every single one of these Presidents had an opportunity to determine the outcome of a specific crisis in our history... and all chose the road of compromise and restraint rather than decisive action and determined effort.
For me, personally, I am NOT voting for Obama because he is focused on, and now beholden to, FAR too many outside interests to EVER manage to conduct himself as the Commander in Chief of these United States of America. I was unable to vote for Kerry because he held NOTING sacred... not his Catholic faith, not his relationship with his family, not even his Oath as an Officer in the United States Military... ALL OF IT was up for debate and compromise.
Bush Jr.'s greatest failings stem from a habit of wearing "blinders" when it came to political advice (that's my opinion)... but I don't confuse that with determination. His determination lies in his uncompromising loyalty to friends and his dedication the the Office of President... but he allowed the former to stain the latter (again, my opinion).
I think that there is NOTHING this country needs more, right at this moment in history, then an UNCOMPROMISING, dedicated and passionate individual to act as the Leader of this nation... so that we can look to him and KNOW that he will conduct himself as stated, without change or compromise, with no shortage of back-bone or will-power. We need the next "generation" of Harry Trumans or Ronald Reagans to step up and show America and the world just how GOOD traits like uncompromising and inflexible can be when counted as leadership qualities.
So, for my part... as much as the man pisses me off... I hope Ryan NEVER learns to compromise his opinions or his views. He (as do we all) retains the right to CHANGE HIS MIND in the face of overwhelming evidence... but he should never compromise.
Compromise your opinion, even once, and how far are you from compromising your morals, or your faith, or your honesty? There's far too much of that in American politics now as it is.
Tongue-in-cheek aside, you ended your post with comments about Ryan's "ideal" candidate status. To quote, you said: "Your inability to recognize that like the truth the answers lie somewhere in the middle makes you an ideal candidate. Just one more person to add to the mix of people who are incapable of compromise making the system ineffective."
I more than understand this sentiment... I really do. None the less, I think that it is exactly this sentiment that is killing modern American politics.
If you can show me five of the greatest examples of American politicians over the last 235 years, I will show you five of the most UNCOMPROMISING and INFLEXIBLE politicians in American history.
Reagan, Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, Roosevelt, Lincoln, Jackson, Adams, Jefferson, and Washington were some of the most stubborn, inflexible, and uncompromising individuals that ever led a nation. Yet, these are the names that anyone can point to as examples of powerful, successful and dynamic leadership of our nation in times of trouble and crisis. Now, list the Presidents with the most obvious ability to "compromise"... Clinton, Carter, Johnson, Coolidge, Wilson, Taft, Buchanan, and Polk. Every single one of these Presidents had an opportunity to determine the outcome of a specific crisis in our history... and all chose the road of compromise and restraint rather than decisive action and determined effort.
For me, personally, I am NOT voting for Obama because he is focused on, and now beholden to, FAR too many outside interests to EVER manage to conduct himself as the Commander in Chief of these United States of America. I was unable to vote for Kerry because he held NOTING sacred... not his Catholic faith, not his relationship with his family, not even his Oath as an Officer in the United States Military... ALL OF IT was up for debate and compromise.
Bush Jr.'s greatest failings stem from a habit of wearing "blinders" when it came to political advice (that's my opinion)... but I don't confuse that with determination. His determination lies in his uncompromising loyalty to friends and his dedication the the Office of President... but he allowed the former to stain the latter (again, my opinion).
I think that there is NOTHING this country needs more, right at this moment in history, then an UNCOMPROMISING, dedicated and passionate individual to act as the Leader of this nation... so that we can look to him and KNOW that he will conduct himself as stated, without change or compromise, with no shortage of back-bone or will-power. We need the next "generation" of Harry Trumans or Ronald Reagans to step up and show America and the world just how GOOD traits like uncompromising and inflexible can be when counted as leadership qualities.
So, for my part... as much as the man pisses me off... I hope Ryan NEVER learns to compromise his opinions or his views. He (as do we all) retains the right to CHANGE HIS MIND in the face of overwhelming evidence... but he should never compromise.
Compromise your opinion, even once, and how far are you from compromising your morals, or your faith, or your honesty? There's far too much of that in American politics now as it is.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Is it wrong to write Ass Spelunker on a family friendly site?
Sorry about the shirt. I'm looking at it right now hanging in the closet. It'll go out Monday ok?
My comeback is this: If you are so against the government middleman in this instance, as in leasing equipment or flat out buying the stuff and installing it for middle class homeowners, even looking at all the benefits to 1) John Q. Public and Sally Average Homeowner in terms of money saved on energy bills each and every month till the sun burns out and 2) National Security and 3) the economy in just about every sector, then why oh why do you advocate government middleman status for big business and power company conglomerates? Why do the Feds need to spend this much money ($25 billion a year for the two term length of the next President) just to get 40 nuclear plants on line? Why does John Q Taxpayer and Sally Ass Spelunked Middle Class have to foot the bill for this? Private sector is private sector. Let PG&E, all the Southern Power companies, all the Edison power companies, name your power company, let them build the plants on their own. Is that what you advocate?
My next question then is, why haven't they done this already?
Before you scream at your computer, I see and understand complex licencing and EPA red tape. Streamline that and see how much this gets done with a benevolent group of socially conscious power companies.
Even without the sarcasm, we all know how much would happen without incentives, without breaks, or without flat out government funding.
So if the Feds are going to throw money at big business, why the hell NOT do the same for John and Sally? THIS is what I meant by money being spent anyway. THIS is what I meant by a direct benefit to the economy, as in three days after these kits are installed. And the economic B12 shot keeps growing because, doing the math and looking at the numbers, the five billion I'm talking about each year in added discretionary income INCREASES by 5 billion as the next set of homes gets done the following year. 2010 has one million homes done. 2011 has ANOTHER million, for a total of 10 billion pumped into the economy. Same with 2012 and so on. Do nuclear powers plants, each by their very nature taking 7-10 years to complete, have that kind of an immediate impact?
Drilling, new plants, yes, all this needs to be done. But poo-pooing the federal government directly assisting homeowners in the way I've mapped out makes no sense since they're going to do it for big business.
My comeback is this: If you are so against the government middleman in this instance, as in leasing equipment or flat out buying the stuff and installing it for middle class homeowners, even looking at all the benefits to 1) John Q. Public and Sally Average Homeowner in terms of money saved on energy bills each and every month till the sun burns out and 2) National Security and 3) the economy in just about every sector, then why oh why do you advocate government middleman status for big business and power company conglomerates? Why do the Feds need to spend this much money ($25 billion a year for the two term length of the next President) just to get 40 nuclear plants on line? Why does John Q Taxpayer and Sally Ass Spelunked Middle Class have to foot the bill for this? Private sector is private sector. Let PG&E, all the Southern Power companies, all the Edison power companies, name your power company, let them build the plants on their own. Is that what you advocate?
My next question then is, why haven't they done this already?
Before you scream at your computer, I see and understand complex licencing and EPA red tape. Streamline that and see how much this gets done with a benevolent group of socially conscious power companies.
Even without the sarcasm, we all know how much would happen without incentives, without breaks, or without flat out government funding.
So if the Feds are going to throw money at big business, why the hell NOT do the same for John and Sally? THIS is what I meant by money being spent anyway. THIS is what I meant by a direct benefit to the economy, as in three days after these kits are installed. And the economic B12 shot keeps growing because, doing the math and looking at the numbers, the five billion I'm talking about each year in added discretionary income INCREASES by 5 billion as the next set of homes gets done the following year. 2010 has one million homes done. 2011 has ANOTHER million, for a total of 10 billion pumped into the economy. Same with 2012 and so on. Do nuclear powers plants, each by their very nature taking 7-10 years to complete, have that kind of an immediate impact?
Drilling, new plants, yes, all this needs to be done. But poo-pooing the federal government directly assisting homeowners in the way I've mapped out makes no sense since they're going to do it for big business.
"Junior, When we get home I'm gonna punch your momma right in the mouf"
Well after some time to think about your last couple of posts and your commentary that I shouldn't hold back and be nice if I don't feel like it I'm not going to. I usually save my verbal abuse for my closest friends but I will make an exception in Ryans case. (Good lord I wish I could do this in person, I am so much better at verbal debating)
1. As far as the energy policy goes I think that everyone has good ideas (some better than others) but Ryans inability to accept other peoples ideas as legitimate makes him a perfect person for public office. You have to be one of the most short sighted close minded people I have ever had the fortune of coming in contact with. The current energy concerns in this country are not just foreign oil based. Like Jambo said, home energy bills are skyrocketing. Gasoline and Diesel prices are over the top. Propane isn't reasonable anymore (my home is propane instead of natural gas). With all of this in mind, energy is removing dollars from our wallets at exponentially increasing rates. What does this mean? SUCKS FOR THE ECONOMY ON A LARGE SCALE. Your commentary that renewable energy usage by the individual would only help on the small scale and would not do anything to help in the short term is an ignorant statement and once again short sighted. This happens to be one of those times in our history where the individual person has the ability to make a huge difference not only for themselves but if accomplished en mass a huge difference for the country. The use of renewable energy sources in my case has nothing to do with saving the planet but everything to do with how much money can I put back in my pocket over the long term and push myself closer to self sufficiency. George Carlin once said that it is arrogant to think that the human species can kill the planet, I happen to beleive this also.
2. As far as your goal of political office, well lets just say I think you are perfect. From what I have gleaned from the many posts I have read from you I get the impression that you are self absorbed and self important. Your inability to recognize that like the truth the answers lie somewhere in the middle makes you an ideal candidate. Just one more person to add to the mix of people who are incapable of compromise making the system ineffective. This doesn't mean we can't be friends, it just means that I will have enough ammo to keep me busy. Understand that I don't agree with alot of my friends politically but it does make for great debate.
1. As far as the energy policy goes I think that everyone has good ideas (some better than others) but Ryans inability to accept other peoples ideas as legitimate makes him a perfect person for public office. You have to be one of the most short sighted close minded people I have ever had the fortune of coming in contact with. The current energy concerns in this country are not just foreign oil based. Like Jambo said, home energy bills are skyrocketing. Gasoline and Diesel prices are over the top. Propane isn't reasonable anymore (my home is propane instead of natural gas). With all of this in mind, energy is removing dollars from our wallets at exponentially increasing rates. What does this mean? SUCKS FOR THE ECONOMY ON A LARGE SCALE. Your commentary that renewable energy usage by the individual would only help on the small scale and would not do anything to help in the short term is an ignorant statement and once again short sighted. This happens to be one of those times in our history where the individual person has the ability to make a huge difference not only for themselves but if accomplished en mass a huge difference for the country. The use of renewable energy sources in my case has nothing to do with saving the planet but everything to do with how much money can I put back in my pocket over the long term and push myself closer to self sufficiency. George Carlin once said that it is arrogant to think that the human species can kill the planet, I happen to beleive this also.
2. As far as your goal of political office, well lets just say I think you are perfect. From what I have gleaned from the many posts I have read from you I get the impression that you are self absorbed and self important. Your inability to recognize that like the truth the answers lie somewhere in the middle makes you an ideal candidate. Just one more person to add to the mix of people who are incapable of compromise making the system ineffective. This doesn't mean we can't be friends, it just means that I will have enough ammo to keep me busy. Understand that I don't agree with alot of my friends politically but it does make for great debate.
Some details ...
Who pays for and distributes the wind generator and solar panels? I assume from your descriptive "New Deal" phrase that you contend the government put in an order (with a preceding open bid process) and then sell them to homeowners. This is impractical in the extreme brother ... follow me here. You get all these things made with a 10k price tag to the homeowner, and since it has to pass through the hands of government first, make that 12k. Only the top 1% or so of income earners can write a check for that (bare in mind the top 1% is an annual salary of $366,000 and above). Maybe the top 10% can make payments. And you can say, "hey, they were going to spend that dough anyway." Well, for you it may be practical, but what about all the retirees (as in FL) whom will do the math with their 80 degree thermostat setting and say, "its not worth it." Then the Democrats will come hand over fist handing out grants and subsidies to lower income peoples so that they can participate in "saving the planet too" (not assigning that phrase to you Jambo, but that's what they'll say). In other words its like buying a Honda Prias right now - its the equivalent. Now how many people with a car paid off, or even in a car still making payments have been inclined to trade their car in for a Prias in order to get the 50 mpg? Not many. Look, your idea is GREAT on paper, but that's where its inherent greatness starts and ends in my estimation. I have NO problem including it as an incentivized option for private citizens (via the tax code etc) if they are so inclined to purchase it from the private sector (read: no government bureaucratic middle man) as part of a comprehensive energy plan. But in my estimation, given the practicality (low income families, subsidised living, renters & lets not forget the government intervention in getting them to market), I see it as small potatoes, and but a tiny aspect of the overall energy policy I would push. And by the way, the energy crisis of 2008 and beyond is related to fuel costs, not home cooling and heating costs. I'm not saying your price hike isn't related in a macro way, or hurt your pocket book, I'm saying its not what's driving the need for an energy policy right now - the price per barrel of oil is, and your plan does little to nothing to directly impact that, thus it is relegated (in my book) to but a small aspect of a much broader energy policy which would put emphahsis on domestic drilling, nuclear plants, incentivizing existing technology (like that 110 mpg converter, clean coal, natural gas) etc ... and I still haven't received my dress pants & shirt. Think you can fit the post office in on the way to picking up The Champagne of Beers? Good thing I'm not waiting on a kidney or something .... sheeeeesh.
That "New Deal" smell...
To touch on Jambo's comments...
Yes, the plan sounds more than do-able, and yes, it does smack of real, New Deal politics. I just want to add, though, that in my eyes, we CAN'T forgo the nuclear power plants or the "clean coal" generators to supply the wind and solar generators to the general public.
There are more than 1,200 petroleum-fueled electric plants of 100 Megawatts or greater int he US... and only 66 nuclear ones. Of the "renewable" kind (wind, geothermal, hydro and solar) we have a whopping total of 225, of which 183 are hydro plants built between 1925 and 1989 (almost all New Deal projects!).
According to the EIA website, every time we DOUBLE the number of non-petroleum plants, we cut the national cost to generate electricity by as much as 20%!!! This seems too good to be true, but the cost of cleaning, maintaining and upgrading old plants has to be figured in, as well. So, if, in the next 20 years, this nation could put 180 new nuclear or alternative-fuel plants online, we will have reduced the national cost of electrical production by a factor of nearly 50% from the cost today. (NOTE: I can't say for sure that this accounts for ADJUSTED dollar value... only that if it costs $100 billion today, it will cost $52 billion after the 114 new plants are online)
This doesn't detract from Jambo's plan at all. His plan reduces national dependence on centralized power sources (at least for the private individuals needs), which would then free up power and reduce cost for commercial and industrial use, further lowering costs on a national scale. Furthermore, it makes what happened after Katrina nearly impossible to repeat. How many homes in LA and MS went weeks without power, but still had functional roofs and 3 months of blue skies and high temps?
Perhaps Jambo wasn't calling for the money to be spent on power plants to be "redirected"... but if he was, then this is my rebuttal.
Yes, the plan sounds more than do-able, and yes, it does smack of real, New Deal politics. I just want to add, though, that in my eyes, we CAN'T forgo the nuclear power plants or the "clean coal" generators to supply the wind and solar generators to the general public.
There are more than 1,200 petroleum-fueled electric plants of 100 Megawatts or greater int he US... and only 66 nuclear ones. Of the "renewable" kind (wind, geothermal, hydro and solar) we have a whopping total of 225, of which 183 are hydro plants built between 1925 and 1989 (almost all New Deal projects!).
According to the EIA website, every time we DOUBLE the number of non-petroleum plants, we cut the national cost to generate electricity by as much as 20%!!! This seems too good to be true, but the cost of cleaning, maintaining and upgrading old plants has to be figured in, as well. So, if, in the next 20 years, this nation could put 180 new nuclear or alternative-fuel plants online, we will have reduced the national cost of electrical production by a factor of nearly 50% from the cost today. (NOTE: I can't say for sure that this accounts for ADJUSTED dollar value... only that if it costs $100 billion today, it will cost $52 billion after the 114 new plants are online)
This doesn't detract from Jambo's plan at all. His plan reduces national dependence on centralized power sources (at least for the private individuals needs), which would then free up power and reduce cost for commercial and industrial use, further lowering costs on a national scale. Furthermore, it makes what happened after Katrina nearly impossible to repeat. How many homes in LA and MS went weeks without power, but still had functional roofs and 3 months of blue skies and high temps?
Perhaps Jambo wasn't calling for the money to be spent on power plants to be "redirected"... but if he was, then this is my rebuttal.
It's "nickers", not "short pants."
Goodness. You make it sound like I've fallen off the face of the earth. Between work and having the kids and juggling my savage night life, it's been busy.
(Savage night life. Now that my picture is posted, the world can see why Ryan passes on the world's greatest lap dance and I consider a slamming night out a Stargate Atlantis marathon, a six pack of Miller High Life and a frozen pizza.)
Here's my post and text and everything you've wanted. And it's exactly what you don't want to talk about. ENERGY.
Let's pretend I'm still in my house. (sniff) My budgeted monthly power bill was $215. That eased the summer spike over the course of an inexpensive winter (gas heat and all) but my annual bill was $2580, or $2600 for easy math. I lived in a modest 1500 sq. ft home with decent appliances.
The April bill for my apartment power (electric everything, no gas) was $135. The May bill was $140. My first full month here was June, $155. It was during June Mississippi Power notified all its customers of a price hike. My July bill? $268. Before I moved here I figured my average power was going to be in the $150 range. Now I'm assuming that on an annual basis I have to plan on the $225 guess. So in my crappy 900 sq. ft. apartment, my annual bill is $2700. (God help my ex-wife. I have no idea what her power bill is about to become.) Baddboy told me his power bill in July was $385. His home is considerably bigger than my former dwelling, but still. Damn.
So, remember that we're pretending I'm living in my home? I mentioned the apartment to show everyone the price hike. If you look at that bill and realize it's an increase of 178%, it doesn't take Einstein to realize that my former budget is about to be blown wide open. To the tune of an annual bill of $4725.
Combine a 100 KW wind generator ($10,000 installed, $8,000 if I'm Bob Villa) to a 200 KW solar array (two 4x8 panels, $15,000 installed) and my power usage is covered to the tune of 90%. Which means, over the course of a year with prices frozen (yeah right, but we're pretending) I'm saving $4252.50 a year. The $25000 price tag is paid in full in 5 years nine months.
Someone please tell me how this is bad. Remember the numbers I pitched last time? $25 billion a year for eight years for nuclear power plants. Where does that money go? Who does that help, like right now? Is that $25 billion going into the economy, sparking economic growth? No. But give a middle class homeowner an extra five grand each year every year for now on and wow, watch the economy soar. And the beauty of it? YOU'RE NOT GIVING THE HOMEOWNER ANYTHING! It's not welfare, or a tax credit, or a stimulus. It's money you were ALREADY going to spend. And at $25 billion annually you're doing this to ONE MILLION home owners per year! Not even factoring domestic production of wind generators and solar arrays, $5 BILLION is saved by middle class home owners in energy bills! $5 BILLION homeowners are going to fork right back into the economy. And that number just goes up the worse the energy situation gets.
I admit, it's New Deal. But this is not some crack pot Democratic plan that Al Gore yanked from some low water flow composting toilet. This is:
1) Good for National Security. Reduces strain on the national power grid by diversifying power generation and reducing strain on power generating nodes.
2) Good for the Economy. NO one can say $5 billion in discretionary income is bad for anything.
3) Good for the Environment. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Name a Democrat that thought anything like this up. Then accuse him of stealing my idea because he did.
So, does this remove the thought of solar powered airplanes once and for all? No space aged Star Trek technology here. All people need to do is pass the appropriations and start the programs rolling.
And give me my props.
(Savage night life. Now that my picture is posted, the world can see why Ryan passes on the world's greatest lap dance and I consider a slamming night out a Stargate Atlantis marathon, a six pack of Miller High Life and a frozen pizza.)
Here's my post and text and everything you've wanted. And it's exactly what you don't want to talk about. ENERGY.
Let's pretend I'm still in my house. (sniff) My budgeted monthly power bill was $215. That eased the summer spike over the course of an inexpensive winter (gas heat and all) but my annual bill was $2580, or $2600 for easy math. I lived in a modest 1500 sq. ft home with decent appliances.
The April bill for my apartment power (electric everything, no gas) was $135. The May bill was $140. My first full month here was June, $155. It was during June Mississippi Power notified all its customers of a price hike. My July bill? $268. Before I moved here I figured my average power was going to be in the $150 range. Now I'm assuming that on an annual basis I have to plan on the $225 guess. So in my crappy 900 sq. ft. apartment, my annual bill is $2700. (God help my ex-wife. I have no idea what her power bill is about to become.) Baddboy told me his power bill in July was $385. His home is considerably bigger than my former dwelling, but still. Damn.
So, remember that we're pretending I'm living in my home? I mentioned the apartment to show everyone the price hike. If you look at that bill and realize it's an increase of 178%, it doesn't take Einstein to realize that my former budget is about to be blown wide open. To the tune of an annual bill of $4725.
Combine a 100 KW wind generator ($10,000 installed, $8,000 if I'm Bob Villa) to a 200 KW solar array (two 4x8 panels, $15,000 installed) and my power usage is covered to the tune of 90%. Which means, over the course of a year with prices frozen (yeah right, but we're pretending) I'm saving $4252.50 a year. The $25000 price tag is paid in full in 5 years nine months.
Someone please tell me how this is bad. Remember the numbers I pitched last time? $25 billion a year for eight years for nuclear power plants. Where does that money go? Who does that help, like right now? Is that $25 billion going into the economy, sparking economic growth? No. But give a middle class homeowner an extra five grand each year every year for now on and wow, watch the economy soar. And the beauty of it? YOU'RE NOT GIVING THE HOMEOWNER ANYTHING! It's not welfare, or a tax credit, or a stimulus. It's money you were ALREADY going to spend. And at $25 billion annually you're doing this to ONE MILLION home owners per year! Not even factoring domestic production of wind generators and solar arrays, $5 BILLION is saved by middle class home owners in energy bills! $5 BILLION homeowners are going to fork right back into the economy. And that number just goes up the worse the energy situation gets.
I admit, it's New Deal. But this is not some crack pot Democratic plan that Al Gore yanked from some low water flow composting toilet. This is:
1) Good for National Security. Reduces strain on the national power grid by diversifying power generation and reducing strain on power generating nodes.
2) Good for the Economy. NO one can say $5 billion in discretionary income is bad for anything.
3) Good for the Environment. Talk about an inconvenient truth. Name a Democrat that thought anything like this up. Then accuse him of stealing my idea because he did.
So, does this remove the thought of solar powered airplanes once and for all? No space aged Star Trek technology here. All people need to do is pass the appropriations and start the programs rolling.
And give me my props.
Handsome devils ...
Great shots there - I wondered how long you'd leave Ollie and I up, but you've found the perfect replacement. Great night, great friends, and a great pub. Look, don't feel bad - at least you're returning the texts and squeezed in a post, not to mention pictures I didn't previously have ... Jambo hasn't returned a text nor put up a post since Moses wore short pants, and I don't know what the deal is. Swinging bachelor that he is, I guess its all cocktails and lingerie strewn about. Do your duties, I won't give ya any more grief (well, that's probably a lie).
On Mac - yes he does have a "muddy delivery" problem ... sigh. Why is that the GOP has a far superior take on the world at large, yet can't find a representative for that party whom can put two syllables together in an inspiring way? This while the Dem's have the worst ideas on America and the world, and yet they have the slickest teleprompter guy in the universe? On that note Titus brought up Obama's Achilles heel - when his mother dunked him in the river Styx, apparently her fingers covered up the spontaneity bone - you get this guy off his script and it's a walking disaster. Case in point: he walks into friendly territory in an interview with Katie Couric - one of the gushing anchors accompanying him on this Cannon Ball Run through Europe and the Mid East - and she hems him up (unintentionally at first I believe) on the troop surge question. To paraphrase (its on the CBS site) she asks him the crystal ball question,"knowing what you now, about the positive impact the surge is having, would you support it were you able to do it over again?" The stumbling, um, ah, ummm that followed was stunning. And shockingly enough she pressed him on it until he finally said, "There's no doubt if we pour millions of dollars and thousands of troops into a situation that its going to be affected, but we should have directed those resources to Afghanistan and lets not forget how crucial it was to get the Sunni tribe leaders, in the 'Sunni awakening', to side with us and oppose Al Qeada and Al Sadir." She let him off the hook after that. First off the hot spot under the most enemy fire at that time, the theater needing an answer at that time was IRAQ! What in the world is he suggesting? That as the nation appealed to the PoTUS for answers in Iraq that he go on television and announce a 28k troop surge into Afghanistan? It would have been insanity, much as it is insane to suggest it now. And lets also note that it was the surge that made all the "Sunni awakening" possible! He speaks as if they occurred in some vacuum coincidentally timing with the surge announcement. They figured with the extra troops and enhanced orders (to get Sadir under control asap), that they wanted to be on the winning side - the US. This is all documented fact ... simply stunning.
This serves as lesson for all you aspiring politicians and public servants out there - when your avowed political opponent has an undeniable success, acknowledge it and move on. Denying the existence of what we can all see with our own eyes makes you look foolish, and certainly not ready to be the leader of the free world. I'm assuming The Emperor's New Clothes was NOT among his bed time stories.
****
Something funny - I'm at Wal Mart picking out socks. This attractive Asian gal walks up to me and asks if I'm a local (I figure she wants directions somewhere). She pulls out a pen and pad and explains that she's a casting agent for a new Playboy reality series entitled, "The World's Best Lap Dance." She asks if I'd like to be a judge on the show, all she needs is my email and she'll get me the details. Apparently 100 guys will judge several hundred Vegas strippers by actually getting lap dances. Now, I must admit, being the red blooded heterosexual American male that I am my animal instinct was to jump all over being paid (rather then paying) to judge exotic lap dances in which each busty babe will be trying to out "shock" the last. And I really had to pause and ask myself - "alright Ryan, are you seriously going to make an effort to run for congress by age 42 (don't ask me how I got that number)?" So, I turned the young lady down (not that Ang would have given that deal the ok anyway). So, there's my campaign slogan - "Hey, I passed on he worlds greatest lap dance for this, VOTE MOORE." He, he.
Well, good luck with the opening, I hope they give you a day off before Obama's second term (kidding - I agree it's not a forgone conclusion by any means). And Jambo ... drop me a line when you get back from the Crocodile Dundee style walkabout you are apparently undertaking ... later.
On Mac - yes he does have a "muddy delivery" problem ... sigh. Why is that the GOP has a far superior take on the world at large, yet can't find a representative for that party whom can put two syllables together in an inspiring way? This while the Dem's have the worst ideas on America and the world, and yet they have the slickest teleprompter guy in the universe? On that note Titus brought up Obama's Achilles heel - when his mother dunked him in the river Styx, apparently her fingers covered up the spontaneity bone - you get this guy off his script and it's a walking disaster. Case in point: he walks into friendly territory in an interview with Katie Couric - one of the gushing anchors accompanying him on this Cannon Ball Run through Europe and the Mid East - and she hems him up (unintentionally at first I believe) on the troop surge question. To paraphrase (its on the CBS site) she asks him the crystal ball question,"knowing what you now, about the positive impact the surge is having, would you support it were you able to do it over again?" The stumbling, um, ah, ummm that followed was stunning. And shockingly enough she pressed him on it until he finally said, "There's no doubt if we pour millions of dollars and thousands of troops into a situation that its going to be affected, but we should have directed those resources to Afghanistan and lets not forget how crucial it was to get the Sunni tribe leaders, in the 'Sunni awakening', to side with us and oppose Al Qeada and Al Sadir." She let him off the hook after that. First off the hot spot under the most enemy fire at that time, the theater needing an answer at that time was IRAQ! What in the world is he suggesting? That as the nation appealed to the PoTUS for answers in Iraq that he go on television and announce a 28k troop surge into Afghanistan? It would have been insanity, much as it is insane to suggest it now. And lets also note that it was the surge that made all the "Sunni awakening" possible! He speaks as if they occurred in some vacuum coincidentally timing with the surge announcement. They figured with the extra troops and enhanced orders (to get Sadir under control asap), that they wanted to be on the winning side - the US. This is all documented fact ... simply stunning.
This serves as lesson for all you aspiring politicians and public servants out there - when your avowed political opponent has an undeniable success, acknowledge it and move on. Denying the existence of what we can all see with our own eyes makes you look foolish, and certainly not ready to be the leader of the free world. I'm assuming The Emperor's New Clothes was NOT among his bed time stories.
****
Something funny - I'm at Wal Mart picking out socks. This attractive Asian gal walks up to me and asks if I'm a local (I figure she wants directions somewhere). She pulls out a pen and pad and explains that she's a casting agent for a new Playboy reality series entitled, "The World's Best Lap Dance." She asks if I'd like to be a judge on the show, all she needs is my email and she'll get me the details. Apparently 100 guys will judge several hundred Vegas strippers by actually getting lap dances. Now, I must admit, being the red blooded heterosexual American male that I am my animal instinct was to jump all over being paid (rather then paying) to judge exotic lap dances in which each busty babe will be trying to out "shock" the last. And I really had to pause and ask myself - "alright Ryan, are you seriously going to make an effort to run for congress by age 42 (don't ask me how I got that number)?" So, I turned the young lady down (not that Ang would have given that deal the ok anyway). So, there's my campaign slogan - "Hey, I passed on he worlds greatest lap dance for this, VOTE MOORE." He, he.
Well, good luck with the opening, I hope they give you a day off before Obama's second term (kidding - I agree it's not a forgone conclusion by any means). And Jambo ... drop me a line when you get back from the Crocodile Dundee style walkabout you are apparently undertaking ... later.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
At the pub with the Bund...
Jambo has been busting on me to get a shot of the three of us up on the blog. So, here they are... First pic, from left to right: Mick, Titus, Jambo, Liz, Leona, Ryan. We're enjoying pints at one of my favorite pubs in Scranton, PA... and if memory serves, this was right after my 40th birthday and right before my wedding. It's all a bit muddy, though... seems we knocked down about 19 pints of Guinness and another 9 of Smithwicks (that's right... we killed the keg of stout!) between the three of us, our friend, Mick "the Mick" and James' better half. Six hours plus of serious, dedicated drinking and problem solving... with lots of laughs thrown in! A good time, to be sure.
The second is just "us"... for the really dedicated Bund fans... Titus, Ryan and Jambo. I put this photo up in the "Bund Shots" section... but it is a bit small.
Good Times!
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
*sigh*
Ryan is sending me texts that are blatant attempts to "guilt" me into posting. Yes, I have been neglectful of my blog duties... but, DAMN I've been busy. It's not easy opening a casino, after all.
The best I can offer is a quick summary of what I have read from Ryan's posts, and any opinions I may have concerning them.
While the conservative voter out there probably is quaking in his/her boots at the thought of an Obama Presidency, it is far from a foregone conclusion. The man is incapable of holding his own in an "unscripted" environment... and that is very un-Kennedy-like, in my opinion. He can try to look like Kennedy, he can take lines from Kennedy's speeches, and he can paint himself the new King of Camelot all he wants... but it all boils down to delivering on promises.
Kennedy did not win in a landslide. In fact, unless my memory is wrong, the '60 election was the closest in modern history until you get to the 2000 Bush/Gore election. Kennedy was very unpopular his first 100 days, and it only got worse by the end of his first year. Prior to his death, Kennedy was a very "polarizing" politician... you either loved him or hated him, and LOTS of people hated him before November of '63.
However, most of mainstream America was so shocked by the assassination that they all came to believe that the "possiblity" of real change was what had been taken away, at least as much as JFK himself had been taken away. I'm a life-long Democrat, and even I know that Jack's mystique was built on the "what if" more than the "what was" of his Presidency.
Obama doesn't have that luxury. He can't afford to have a bad "100 days" and a really bad first year will not bode well for the "mid-terms" in '10.
Why is this important?
Because, if the GOP is worth even a shread of its former self, then it will continue to pound home the message that "collective" actions and programs are NOT the answer. It is far easier to point fingers at failing policy and say "See? It isn't working" than it is to defend policy that isn't working (ask Bush this question right now!). Obama continues to talk about BIG solutions to BIG problems, but he offers no answers to the questions of HOW (or more imporantly, HOW MUCH?) these solutions will be implemented. In short, he is running on NO SUBSTANCE... the same way Kerry did, the same way Gore did, and the same way Carter did.
Mac has substance... but it is getting lost in his "muddy" delivery and often can't be heard through his rabid defense of "clean" campaigning. Were he a bit more worried about winning and a little less worried about looking like a mud-slinger... I think the gap in the polls would be far greater.
Now, that said, I am forced to admit that Ryan is also very correct in another of his assessments... I have no Party. As a national organization, there is so little left of the Party that I grew up supporting as to make no difference at all. No "mainstream" aspect of moral, faith-based, conscience-driven, pro-America is left within the leadership of the DNC... nothing. The Deans, the Pelosis, the Gores, and the Clintons have removed the last vestiges of "conservative" Reagan-Democrats from the formula, and all we are left with are the absolutely impotent Congressional "Blue Dogs" that effect nothing within the Party.
While I admire Mac, and I am more than willing to cast my Presidential vote for him... I'm not sure he was the best candidate to run in '08. I know, the "people" made their choice... but I still feel that if the GOP is going to win against Obamania, then it needs a far firmer voice than Mac's. This is where I feel Thompson, or Romney, or even Huckabee would have been better off. They all have a commanding presence on a stage or on a TV screen... and Mac simply does not. He doesn't... simply a fact.
End of rant... I'll try and do better with another post later.
The best I can offer is a quick summary of what I have read from Ryan's posts, and any opinions I may have concerning them.
While the conservative voter out there probably is quaking in his/her boots at the thought of an Obama Presidency, it is far from a foregone conclusion. The man is incapable of holding his own in an "unscripted" environment... and that is very un-Kennedy-like, in my opinion. He can try to look like Kennedy, he can take lines from Kennedy's speeches, and he can paint himself the new King of Camelot all he wants... but it all boils down to delivering on promises.
Kennedy did not win in a landslide. In fact, unless my memory is wrong, the '60 election was the closest in modern history until you get to the 2000 Bush/Gore election. Kennedy was very unpopular his first 100 days, and it only got worse by the end of his first year. Prior to his death, Kennedy was a very "polarizing" politician... you either loved him or hated him, and LOTS of people hated him before November of '63.
However, most of mainstream America was so shocked by the assassination that they all came to believe that the "possiblity" of real change was what had been taken away, at least as much as JFK himself had been taken away. I'm a life-long Democrat, and even I know that Jack's mystique was built on the "what if" more than the "what was" of his Presidency.
Obama doesn't have that luxury. He can't afford to have a bad "100 days" and a really bad first year will not bode well for the "mid-terms" in '10.
Why is this important?
Because, if the GOP is worth even a shread of its former self, then it will continue to pound home the message that "collective" actions and programs are NOT the answer. It is far easier to point fingers at failing policy and say "See? It isn't working" than it is to defend policy that isn't working (ask Bush this question right now!). Obama continues to talk about BIG solutions to BIG problems, but he offers no answers to the questions of HOW (or more imporantly, HOW MUCH?) these solutions will be implemented. In short, he is running on NO SUBSTANCE... the same way Kerry did, the same way Gore did, and the same way Carter did.
Mac has substance... but it is getting lost in his "muddy" delivery and often can't be heard through his rabid defense of "clean" campaigning. Were he a bit more worried about winning and a little less worried about looking like a mud-slinger... I think the gap in the polls would be far greater.
Now, that said, I am forced to admit that Ryan is also very correct in another of his assessments... I have no Party. As a national organization, there is so little left of the Party that I grew up supporting as to make no difference at all. No "mainstream" aspect of moral, faith-based, conscience-driven, pro-America is left within the leadership of the DNC... nothing. The Deans, the Pelosis, the Gores, and the Clintons have removed the last vestiges of "conservative" Reagan-Democrats from the formula, and all we are left with are the absolutely impotent Congressional "Blue Dogs" that effect nothing within the Party.
While I admire Mac, and I am more than willing to cast my Presidential vote for him... I'm not sure he was the best candidate to run in '08. I know, the "people" made their choice... but I still feel that if the GOP is going to win against Obamania, then it needs a far firmer voice than Mac's. This is where I feel Thompson, or Romney, or even Huckabee would have been better off. They all have a commanding presence on a stage or on a TV screen... and Mac simply does not. He doesn't... simply a fact.
End of rant... I'll try and do better with another post later.
Is it in their DNA?
Modern Democrat presidential candidates I mean. Titus pointed out that it must of been a very windy day when the apple fell from that tree - the stewardship passing from the Truman/JFK era to the Kerry/Obama reign. But the metamorphosis this party, especially its leadership, continues to undergo (further and further towards the left, highlighted in hostility towards the US military) never fails to shock me.
Obama's "trip" to the Middle East - a PR bonanza meant to assure the American voter that this relatively young, and certainly inexperienced Senator has a grasp on foreign policy, has turned into a complete disaster for anyone bothering to listen to what he says. He just CAN NOT bring himself to credit the troops unequivocally. This from FOX News:
Barack Obama continued Tuesday to downplay the results of the so-called troop surge in Iraq, telling CBS News that while he credits the surge with helping to reduce violence in Iraq it “doesn’t meet our long-term strategic goal.”
Earlier, Obama — in the middle of an overseas trip that so far has taken him to Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Jordan — had drawn criticism from John McCain’s campaign after he told ABC News that, knowing what he knows now, he still would have opposed the troop surge in Iraq.
Asked about that comment, Obama said in his latest interview with CBS News that “there’s no doubt” spending billions a month in Iraq and sending extra troops will “have an impact.”
“But it doesn’t meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term,” he said, repeating his argument that the resources spent in Iraq are detracting from U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.
The Illinois senator again said the surge is just one of several factors that has helped reduce violence.
“There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence, just as making sure that the Sadr militia stood down or the fact that the Sunni tribes decided to flip and work with us instead of with Al Qaeda,” he said.
Obama earlier in the day declined to rate the troop surge as a success, saying: “I think that the definition of success depends on how you look at it.
“Originally, the administration suggested that the key measure was whether it gave breathing room for political reconciliation. So far, I think we have not seen the kind of political reconciliation that’s going to bring about long-term stability in Iraq,” he said.
McCain told CBS News that Obama’s view of the surge is “really quite a commentary.”
Asked what he meant by that, McCain said: “That Senator Obama does not understand the challenges we face and … the need for the surge. And the fact that he did not understand that, and still denies that it has succeeded, I think the American people will make their judgment.”
Obama, you are spouting bush league, amateur hour fodder, and I think its clear whom the adult is in the room. Why not just say the troops ROCK and be done with it you son of a .... what is wrong with you ???? Man alive that pisses me off to no end !!
Add to this his comments on Hamas - "They will, at some point, have to decide whether they are going to be a legitimate voice representing the needs of the Palestinian people."
At some point? Decide? I think they made that choice dear Senator. Once you include pushing all Israelis into the Red Sea as a part of your stated charter, I think that choice has been made!
Furthermore, he continues to claim that Afghanistan is the central front in the war on terror, rather then Iraq. Even the Washington Post, in today's editorial, ripped him a new one on that. The geopolitical consequences of a victory or loss in Iraq far out ways that in Afghanistan, especially for the US. And, because he wasn't on a teleprompter, he stuttered more then G.W. Bush reciting Shakespeare. And walking around with your jacket on your shoulder and sleeves rolled up, a clear play to claim you're the next JFK ... please. I studied JFK. I've read JFK. I know what JFK stood for. And Senator, you are NO JFK.
Obama's "trip" to the Middle East - a PR bonanza meant to assure the American voter that this relatively young, and certainly inexperienced Senator has a grasp on foreign policy, has turned into a complete disaster for anyone bothering to listen to what he says. He just CAN NOT bring himself to credit the troops unequivocally. This from FOX News:
Barack Obama continued Tuesday to downplay the results of the so-called troop surge in Iraq, telling CBS News that while he credits the surge with helping to reduce violence in Iraq it “doesn’t meet our long-term strategic goal.”
Earlier, Obama — in the middle of an overseas trip that so far has taken him to Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait and Jordan — had drawn criticism from John McCain’s campaign after he told ABC News that, knowing what he knows now, he still would have opposed the troop surge in Iraq.
Asked about that comment, Obama said in his latest interview with CBS News that “there’s no doubt” spending billions a month in Iraq and sending extra troops will “have an impact.”
“But it doesn’t meet our long-term strategic goal, which is to make the American people safer over the long term,” he said, repeating his argument that the resources spent in Iraq are detracting from U.S. efforts in Afghanistan.
The Illinois senator again said the surge is just one of several factors that has helped reduce violence.
“There is no doubt that the extraordinary work of our U.S. forces has contributed to a lessening of the violence, just as making sure that the Sadr militia stood down or the fact that the Sunni tribes decided to flip and work with us instead of with Al Qaeda,” he said.
Obama earlier in the day declined to rate the troop surge as a success, saying: “I think that the definition of success depends on how you look at it.
“Originally, the administration suggested that the key measure was whether it gave breathing room for political reconciliation. So far, I think we have not seen the kind of political reconciliation that’s going to bring about long-term stability in Iraq,” he said.
McCain told CBS News that Obama’s view of the surge is “really quite a commentary.”
Asked what he meant by that, McCain said: “That Senator Obama does not understand the challenges we face and … the need for the surge. And the fact that he did not understand that, and still denies that it has succeeded, I think the American people will make their judgment.”
Obama, you are spouting bush league, amateur hour fodder, and I think its clear whom the adult is in the room. Why not just say the troops ROCK and be done with it you son of a .... what is wrong with you ???? Man alive that pisses me off to no end !!
Add to this his comments on Hamas - "They will, at some point, have to decide whether they are going to be a legitimate voice representing the needs of the Palestinian people."
At some point? Decide? I think they made that choice dear Senator. Once you include pushing all Israelis into the Red Sea as a part of your stated charter, I think that choice has been made!
Furthermore, he continues to claim that Afghanistan is the central front in the war on terror, rather then Iraq. Even the Washington Post, in today's editorial, ripped him a new one on that. The geopolitical consequences of a victory or loss in Iraq far out ways that in Afghanistan, especially for the US. And, because he wasn't on a teleprompter, he stuttered more then G.W. Bush reciting Shakespeare. And walking around with your jacket on your shoulder and sleeves rolled up, a clear play to claim you're the next JFK ... please. I studied JFK. I've read JFK. I know what JFK stood for. And Senator, you are NO JFK.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
By the numbers ...
My father is president of his local Lion's Club, and they had a WWII veteran in as the guest speaker of honor, whom told a heroing POW story, and eventual escape. At any rate he rattled off the numbers of enlisted versus dead at the end of the speech, and that got me thinking - just for reference if nothing else, what is the enlisted to casualty rate (battle related and not) for each of America's wars? Some quick online research and here they are (if you see any discrepancies, please alert me to it, online sources are at times inaccurate, as we all know).
United States Casualties by Conflict
Conflict Total Who Served / Battle Deaths / Disease & Nonbattle Deaths / Wounds Not Mortal
American Revolution
1775–1783 Estimated 184,000 to 250,000 / 4,435 / NA / 6,188
War of 1812
1812–1815 286,730 / 2,260 / NA / 4,505
Mexican-American War
1846–1848 78,718 / 1,733 / 11,550 / 4,152
Civil War (Union Only)
1861–1865 2,213,363 / 140,414 / 224,097 / 281,881
Spanish-American War
1898–1899 306,760 / 1,000 / 5,400 / 1,662
World War I
1917–1918 4,734,991 / 53,402 / 63,114 / 204,002
World War II
1941–1945 16,112,566 / 291,557 / 113,842 / 671,846
Korean War
1950–1953 5,720,000 / 33,686 / 2,830 / 103,284
Vietnam War
1964–1973 8,744,000 / 47,410 / 10,788 / 153,303
Gulf War
1990–1991 467,159 / 148 / 151 / 467
I obtained the Iraq & Afghan war rates from a separate site.
Iraq War
2003- present
Roughly 1.2 million in the US Armed Services, currently 158,000 deployed to Iraq. 4,119 dead as of July 15th 2008. As of March 2008 there were 8,914 wounded requiring medical air transport. 20,416 wounded did not require medical air transport. Of all the wounded 13,109 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours. Medical air transport was required for an additional 8,273 for non-hostile injuries, and for 23,052 for diseases or other medical conditions.
Afghan War
2001–present
560 dead 2,205 wounded.Roughly 17,000 currently deployed.
United States Casualties by Conflict
Conflict Total Who Served / Battle Deaths / Disease & Nonbattle Deaths / Wounds Not Mortal
American Revolution
1775–1783 Estimated 184,000 to 250,000 / 4,435 / NA / 6,188
War of 1812
1812–1815 286,730 / 2,260 / NA / 4,505
Mexican-American War
1846–1848 78,718 / 1,733 / 11,550 / 4,152
Civil War (Union Only)
1861–1865 2,213,363 / 140,414 / 224,097 / 281,881
Spanish-American War
1898–1899 306,760 / 1,000 / 5,400 / 1,662
World War I
1917–1918 4,734,991 / 53,402 / 63,114 / 204,002
World War II
1941–1945 16,112,566 / 291,557 / 113,842 / 671,846
Korean War
1950–1953 5,720,000 / 33,686 / 2,830 / 103,284
Vietnam War
1964–1973 8,744,000 / 47,410 / 10,788 / 153,303
Gulf War
1990–1991 467,159 / 148 / 151 / 467
I obtained the Iraq & Afghan war rates from a separate site.
Iraq War
2003- present
Roughly 1.2 million in the US Armed Services, currently 158,000 deployed to Iraq. 4,119 dead as of July 15th 2008. As of March 2008 there were 8,914 wounded requiring medical air transport. 20,416 wounded did not require medical air transport. Of all the wounded 13,109 were unable to return to duty within 72 hours. Medical air transport was required for an additional 8,273 for non-hostile injuries, and for 23,052 for diseases or other medical conditions.
Afghan War
2001–present
560 dead 2,205 wounded.Roughly 17,000 currently deployed.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Heller's Lawyer ...
I just listened to Allen Guro (sp?), whom represented the Heller case against DC, on the Glenn Beck Radio Show. Just a few points not in the mainstream press. First, there were 6 plaintiffs aside from Dick Heller. They included 3 African Americans, 2 women and one gay guy. Each with concerns about their personal security. HARDLY cammo wearing gun nuts with NRA memberships and a suspiciously high amount of fertilizer on property. Second, the DC city council has rewritten the law which includes each gun owner having to drop off his or her gun at the police station in order for them to squeeze off a few rounds in order to make a ballistic record. Guro pointed out that he has done mountains of research and in each locality this has been enacted the ability to track a murder or gun crime was not enhanced by any discernible degree, however they will not be challenging this requirement. Another requirement the DC enacted was that the gun owner keep his weapon in a quote, "safe place" when not in use. As Guro pointed out, this is a meaningless gesture, its unenforceable. How would the police know where it was before you put down an intruder? Now, an aspect which IS going to bring a further suit is the DC ban still in place against semi-automatic weapons. Virtually all hand guns owned by home owners are semi automatics. He noted that the clause forbidding "exotic technology" shouldn't include such common place weaponry such as a semi-automatic fire arm. Its meant for housing a Howitzer and they're using it to ban any gun that has a clip.
Titus may be aware of all this given his briefs research, but I wanted to make mention.
****
By the way - it appears The New York Times has blocked the publishing of McCain's op ed, which was a response to the recent Obama op ed, which they of course allowed. So much for a "free" press.
****
And don't believe the hype on Malaki (Iraqi PM) agreeing with Obama on a 16 month withdrawl of coalition forces. It was a near mistranslation from a German Magazine, Der Spiegel, that these claims are based upon (fyi, Der Spiegel is violently anti-American). It was more along the lines that "IF" the security assessment on the ground was in such a place that troops could leave in 16 months, that would be a great development. Who the HELL wouldn't call that a great development?? But that hardly equates to endorsing Obama's "get out now" policy. Correcting the mainstream press is a full time job - if I wanted that I wouldn't be working 3 days a week! Ugghhh .....
Titus may be aware of all this given his briefs research, but I wanted to make mention.
****
By the way - it appears The New York Times has blocked the publishing of McCain's op ed, which was a response to the recent Obama op ed, which they of course allowed. So much for a "free" press.
****
And don't believe the hype on Malaki (Iraqi PM) agreeing with Obama on a 16 month withdrawl of coalition forces. It was a near mistranslation from a German Magazine, Der Spiegel, that these claims are based upon (fyi, Der Spiegel is violently anti-American). It was more along the lines that "IF" the security assessment on the ground was in such a place that troops could leave in 16 months, that would be a great development. Who the HELL wouldn't call that a great development?? But that hardly equates to endorsing Obama's "get out now" policy. Correcting the mainstream press is a full time job - if I wanted that I wouldn't be working 3 days a week! Ugghhh .....
I know I do "funny" better ...
... so says Titus about my attempts at sarcasm. Of course I realize no one was advocating solar powered craft, I was simply making the point that as "solar everything" began to creep through our blog as the answer according to badboy and Jambo (that was my impression anyway), I decided some resemblance of reality needed to be injected via sarcasm.
****
First, I enjoyed the Scopes post. The Marx reference was certainly an apt one. They have embraced an anti-traditional view of life in America in every conceivable aspect from God, to energy, to security. You are truly a man without a Party. Whereas I'm a man with half a Party (if that).
****
Titus, I find our "lists", on what the US national energy policy should be, shockingly similar. I have a knee jerk hesitance regarding your federally mandated MPG standards, but as a part of a compromise its something I'm willing to give on. NOT that I oppose the idea of better fuel mileage mind you, I'm talking its federal mandate. But as I just said, as part of a compromise to get the the list in force, its a "go." Also, I understand your wanting to federalize the fuel standards to one, presumably lower and clearer, threshold so that all states can utilize each other's resources; however, you would have to outlaw, forbid or otherwise prevent states like CA from maintaining their standards or implementing new ones. Obviously the feds can use federal highway funds as a hostage, but their willingness to do so is suspect at best. Cities and mayors in the Golden State routinely violate federal immigration law with their sanctuary codes, and with no federal consequence whatsoever.
However, that aside, it appears to me our lists are at least 90% in sync. We want drilling as one necessary aspect of an overall energy policy; less federal red tape in every sector of energy; new sources such as nuclear and alternative; implementation of proven existing technology.
NOW, what's the likely hood of this very common sense, measurable and specific "list" of ours becoming a reality? In my estimation - ZERO. Democrats will further their grip on congress this cycle. Perhaps even governorships. The presidency is too close to call, but if it goes McCain the House & Senate will obstruct anything outside of the Algorian manifesto - thus maintaining the status quo. If it goes Obama, they will institute the Algorian manifesto, thus doing the seemingly impossible - making the current status quo look appealing.
The GOP brand name is not revivable this cycle, and its their own fault for abandoning core issues. Mac (with his maverick/anti-GOP credentials) may be the only exception. In the legislature congressional Republicans have finally become vocal about a policy that resembles our list, but its too late in this political season for them to turn the Democrat tidal wave. Mark my words, we are in for a very tough 4 years in terms of energy policy. For the controlling congressional Party in DC has sold its soul to a green ideological "movement", rather then represent the people they took an oath to serve. Our foreign oil dependence will continue. The junk science of "global warming" (or whatever they've changed the name to now) will continue to spread in cult like fashion, diminishing the chances of drilling and nuclear each day. Fuel prices will continue to hover at $4.00 a gallon. And US hostile/oil rich nations within OPEC will grow more emboldened each month. And guess what - that's if McCain wins. Multiply each prediction by a factor of ten and you'll have the Obama scenario.
God help us .... and if that request offends any lurking Democrats .... good.
****
First, I enjoyed the Scopes post. The Marx reference was certainly an apt one. They have embraced an anti-traditional view of life in America in every conceivable aspect from God, to energy, to security. You are truly a man without a Party. Whereas I'm a man with half a Party (if that).
****
Titus, I find our "lists", on what the US national energy policy should be, shockingly similar. I have a knee jerk hesitance regarding your federally mandated MPG standards, but as a part of a compromise its something I'm willing to give on. NOT that I oppose the idea of better fuel mileage mind you, I'm talking its federal mandate. But as I just said, as part of a compromise to get the the list in force, its a "go." Also, I understand your wanting to federalize the fuel standards to one, presumably lower and clearer, threshold so that all states can utilize each other's resources; however, you would have to outlaw, forbid or otherwise prevent states like CA from maintaining their standards or implementing new ones. Obviously the feds can use federal highway funds as a hostage, but their willingness to do so is suspect at best. Cities and mayors in the Golden State routinely violate federal immigration law with their sanctuary codes, and with no federal consequence whatsoever.
However, that aside, it appears to me our lists are at least 90% in sync. We want drilling as one necessary aspect of an overall energy policy; less federal red tape in every sector of energy; new sources such as nuclear and alternative; implementation of proven existing technology.
NOW, what's the likely hood of this very common sense, measurable and specific "list" of ours becoming a reality? In my estimation - ZERO. Democrats will further their grip on congress this cycle. Perhaps even governorships. The presidency is too close to call, but if it goes McCain the House & Senate will obstruct anything outside of the Algorian manifesto - thus maintaining the status quo. If it goes Obama, they will institute the Algorian manifesto, thus doing the seemingly impossible - making the current status quo look appealing.
The GOP brand name is not revivable this cycle, and its their own fault for abandoning core issues. Mac (with his maverick/anti-GOP credentials) may be the only exception. In the legislature congressional Republicans have finally become vocal about a policy that resembles our list, but its too late in this political season for them to turn the Democrat tidal wave. Mark my words, we are in for a very tough 4 years in terms of energy policy. For the controlling congressional Party in DC has sold its soul to a green ideological "movement", rather then represent the people they took an oath to serve. Our foreign oil dependence will continue. The junk science of "global warming" (or whatever they've changed the name to now) will continue to spread in cult like fashion, diminishing the chances of drilling and nuclear each day. Fuel prices will continue to hover at $4.00 a gallon. And US hostile/oil rich nations within OPEC will grow more emboldened each month. And guess what - that's if McCain wins. Multiply each prediction by a factor of ten and you'll have the Obama scenario.
God help us .... and if that request offends any lurking Democrats .... good.
For those that don't appreciate irony...
Eighty-three years ago this very day, a man was convicted of violating the Butler Act while teaching science to his students. He was fined $100 and fired from his position at his school in Dayton, TN. The teacher's name was John Scopes, and the "taboo" he was teaching was evolution. Today, we see a society where the exact opposite may very well happen... a teacher convicted of the "crime" of teaching "creationism"... or simply mentioning God... to his or her class.
THIS is what I am convinced is wrong with the Democratic Party. They foist such examples as Scopes, or Rosa Parks, or Susan Anthony as models for how society should "fight" injustice and intolerance... while promoting the SAME injustice and intolerance towards those with differing opinions.
It never ceases to amaze me that the people promoting the most "doom and gloom"... global warming, pandemic outbreaks of superflus, floods, famine, even meteor strikes... are the ones also promoting the REMOVAL of God from every facet of our society. No God in school, in art, in politics, or on public display.
On a daily basis, I am finding more in common between Karl Marx and the DNC leadership... and that is no joke.
THIS is what I am convinced is wrong with the Democratic Party. They foist such examples as Scopes, or Rosa Parks, or Susan Anthony as models for how society should "fight" injustice and intolerance... while promoting the SAME injustice and intolerance towards those with differing opinions.
It never ceases to amaze me that the people promoting the most "doom and gloom"... global warming, pandemic outbreaks of superflus, floods, famine, even meteor strikes... are the ones also promoting the REMOVAL of God from every facet of our society. No God in school, in art, in politics, or on public display.
On a daily basis, I am finding more in common between Karl Marx and the DNC leadership... and that is no joke.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Was that sarcasm?
Here's my "list" that anyone can compare with Ryan's...
- That all Federal restrictions on drilling be lifted and all future drilling rights be determined by the individual States. This way, the revenue from the leases are going into the State coffers, rather than back into the Federal "bottomless pit" where they will never be seen again. Examples of this system working? Alaska and Alabama are my "Top Two" in this regard, and not simply in matters of crude oil drilling.
- The only Federal requirements on refinery or nuclear power construction should be those concerning National Security... the "Where, When and How" questions should be completely up to the individual States. This, more than any other factor, will ensure that our ability to refine oil and produce clean electricity with NO fear of a "centralized" system that would leave us open to attack or damage by natural disaster.
- We have all seen the results of Federal "emissions" regulations (worse still, those coupled with State regulations, like in CA) to the refining industry here in the US. One, single standard set of regulations that determine the "mix" of all gasoline fuels (diesel, too) would do TWO things immediately: it would reduce the cost to make the gasoline nationwide, and it would boost our national ability to provide gasoline "nationally" in a time of emergency. In other words, gasoline from Texas could easily be shipped to California if CA couldn't provide all it needed for its industry and civilian needs. I have NEVER seen evidence that California is any "cleaner" because of its much more stringent requirements of additives to gasoline, so let's stop requiring them.
- I will not listen to arguments that "national expectations" on fuel economy are unreasonable... they are not. I have DRIVEN cars that have gotten 45 MPH... as has Jambo, and this as far back as 1990. These were affordable, usable and perfectly functional Mitsubishi products that managed to wrack up more than 200,000 miles before dying tragic deaths (to collisions... not wear-and-tear). This is FUNCTIONAL, EXISTING technology that only needs to be implemented on a national scale, and if enough extraneous regulation is removed from the formula on the gasoline-production end of the equation, then some Federal guidelines on fuel economy on the automotive-production end of the equation might not be a bad thing. So, please... enough with the "solar-powered airplane". No one suggested that here, we're simply not that stupid.
The new slogan of the DNC seems to be "We can't drill our way to prosperity." If we look at the literal application of these words, we can see that they are patently UNTRUE. We COULD drill our way to a very prosperous future... but it would do NOTHING to guaranty our ability to remove our dependence on foreign sources of oil. Our domestic production could be increased by a factor of ten, but our society would still be REQUIRING 75% of all crude oil needed from foreign sources. THAT is the "ball and chain" of a free-market system. Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Russia, even Great Britain ALL have nationalized oil-production industries with NO futures-speculation allowed in the formula... currently, the US is the only large-capacity crude oil producer that does NOT maintain a curb on speculation (since 2003) AND no national crude oil production means (meaning ALL our oil is drilled by private industry with NO guarantees that it will end up in American refineries).
I AM NOT advocating a nationalized system of drilling and production... I NEVER will. I am stating fact: we can drill every drop of oil we can, now and for the next 50 years, and the only control we could hope to gain over our society's dependence on oil would be to "glut" the market price down to something we could afford. That, my friends, DOES NOT EQUAL safety and security in regards to a resource as vital to the US as crude oil. NOTING terrifies me like the thought of our society and its security "hanging" on the whims of a global futures market that could easily be "controlled" by the likes of Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, or even China.
THAT is why I say we MUST begin a program, on a national level, to REDUCE our dependence on oil that we CAN'T supply to ourselves if we needed it. If the world is a happy, friendly place and we CHOOSE to purchase 100 billion barrels of crude to fuel our SUV's every year, that's fine... but we MUST be able to fuel our trucks, trains and planes DOMESTICLY to ensure that when the world is no longer friendly, we can still function as a nation-state when the "tap" runs dry at the import docks.
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Solar powered aircraft ...
Like I have said in the past "Necessity is the mother of invention"...
Thanks for clearing that up badboy, I always wondered who originated that phrase. Next time you feel the need to "emotionally" unleash on me, just do it. Don't talk in shadow terms as if I dodged some bullet, and "lucky you" Ryan.
****
"Throw it all at the wall" is not necessarily accurate. I am being specific when articulating what needs to happen (my opinion of course) and in what order.
1.) All federal and state moratoriums need to be lifted on drilling and exploration.
2.) The federal requirement process for construction of new refineries and nuclear plants not only needs to be streamlined, the tax code should incentivize the process to induce its rapid development.
3.) States to the extent they can, like CA ,will block such efforts and for those states or any other state or individual inclined, we implement the incentivized solar program. Time will bear out its effectiveness and practicality within the United States. But this is hardly the catch all as an answer to our energy needs (thus its #3 positioning) for I will never board a solar powered plane.
4.) While the private sector will "reward" people like the 110 mile per gallon converter, the brand new source, the "it" we all hope will come along, can be encouraged by government in a moon shot campaign spearheaded by the PoTUS, muck like JFK (only not government developed like NASA).
And please, no more of this "it will take ten years" nonsense from anybody if you don't mind. I don't know what mother ship is coming to pick up all those spouting this talking point, but I plan on still residing on earth ten years from now, God willing.
And while we're at it, has anyone noticed the price per barrel of oil in the last several days? It has dropped about $14. Since when? Since the PoTUS announced the lift on the executive moratorium on drilling in certain federally protected lands. Now someone stated quite clearly in several posts ago that given the markets are psychological beasts, the mere fact that the world's remaining superpower is getting serious about finding cheaper fuel (domestic fossil), the price would be depressed. I will even concede that because energy in general has become "the" campaign topic, the markets are reacting to the fact that "something" will be done, and whether its exclusively alternative, exclusively fossil or a blend, they are reacting to the fact that we (the US) are finally going to get serious about energy policy.
Now, if we could just remember who that strapping young genius was that alerted us to the fact that oil prices would drop by the mere articulation, from the US, of s serious energy policy ... hmmm.
Thanks for clearing that up badboy, I always wondered who originated that phrase. Next time you feel the need to "emotionally" unleash on me, just do it. Don't talk in shadow terms as if I dodged some bullet, and "lucky you" Ryan.
****
"Throw it all at the wall" is not necessarily accurate. I am being specific when articulating what needs to happen (my opinion of course) and in what order.
1.) All federal and state moratoriums need to be lifted on drilling and exploration.
2.) The federal requirement process for construction of new refineries and nuclear plants not only needs to be streamlined, the tax code should incentivize the process to induce its rapid development.
3.) States to the extent they can, like CA ,will block such efforts and for those states or any other state or individual inclined, we implement the incentivized solar program. Time will bear out its effectiveness and practicality within the United States. But this is hardly the catch all as an answer to our energy needs (thus its #3 positioning) for I will never board a solar powered plane.
4.) While the private sector will "reward" people like the 110 mile per gallon converter, the brand new source, the "it" we all hope will come along, can be encouraged by government in a moon shot campaign spearheaded by the PoTUS, muck like JFK (only not government developed like NASA).
And please, no more of this "it will take ten years" nonsense from anybody if you don't mind. I don't know what mother ship is coming to pick up all those spouting this talking point, but I plan on still residing on earth ten years from now, God willing.
And while we're at it, has anyone noticed the price per barrel of oil in the last several days? It has dropped about $14. Since when? Since the PoTUS announced the lift on the executive moratorium on drilling in certain federally protected lands. Now someone stated quite clearly in several posts ago that given the markets are psychological beasts, the mere fact that the world's remaining superpower is getting serious about finding cheaper fuel (domestic fossil), the price would be depressed. I will even concede that because energy in general has become "the" campaign topic, the markets are reacting to the fact that "something" will be done, and whether its exclusively alternative, exclusively fossil or a blend, they are reacting to the fact that we (the US) are finally going to get serious about energy policy.
Now, if we could just remember who that strapping young genius was that alerted us to the fact that oil prices would drop by the mere articulation, from the US, of s serious energy policy ... hmmm.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Whew that was a close one
I read Ryans post last night and tried to come up with a way to reply to it...well as my momma once told me "if you can't say anything nice don't say it at all" so I slept on it. I log in after work and I see Titus has responded in a once again civil manner and all was saved.
See my biggest problem is I'm an emotional creature. I promise I try real hard not to jump before i look but sometimes I just can't help myself. That's where the Red Menace post came from.
The Solar energy system that I read and saw was in Spain. The system supplies 2 towns with power and has yet to falter. The individual solar systems are a known quantity and work, and the reality is that if homes, small businesses and for that matter very large commercial buildings can go solar. The UPS West Coast facility in Northern California is 100% solar power 24 hours a day. Ryan living in the desert of Nevada should know for sure that solar is one of the most promising renewable energy sources. If I read the map right the Las Vegas area gets 7 hours of usable sun a day on average year round making it one of the most promising areas for solar. One of the funniest things I ever read about energy distribution has to do with the Boulder Dam. Of all of the hydro-electric energy produced by that dam none of it goes to Nevada. It is distributed to California, Arizona and parts of Utah if I remember correctly.
On a national security note, if we are in the process of trying to find new energy sources and use more renewable energy wouldn't it be smart to decentralize as much of it as possible? If we are all somewhat independant of a centralized supply wouldn't that make what was left of the centralized system less of a target for terrorists/badguys?
And just to clarify one more point, I am a fan of throw it all at the wall and see what sticks. Try and do it all and see what comes out the winner. Like I have said in the past "Necessity is the mother of invention" and money is the best incentive. We didn't win WW II in 3.5 years because we waited for someone else to do it for us.
See my biggest problem is I'm an emotional creature. I promise I try real hard not to jump before i look but sometimes I just can't help myself. That's where the Red Menace post came from.
The Solar energy system that I read and saw was in Spain. The system supplies 2 towns with power and has yet to falter. The individual solar systems are a known quantity and work, and the reality is that if homes, small businesses and for that matter very large commercial buildings can go solar. The UPS West Coast facility in Northern California is 100% solar power 24 hours a day. Ryan living in the desert of Nevada should know for sure that solar is one of the most promising renewable energy sources. If I read the map right the Las Vegas area gets 7 hours of usable sun a day on average year round making it one of the most promising areas for solar. One of the funniest things I ever read about energy distribution has to do with the Boulder Dam. Of all of the hydro-electric energy produced by that dam none of it goes to Nevada. It is distributed to California, Arizona and parts of Utah if I remember correctly.
On a national security note, if we are in the process of trying to find new energy sources and use more renewable energy wouldn't it be smart to decentralize as much of it as possible? If we are all somewhat independant of a centralized supply wouldn't that make what was left of the centralized system less of a target for terrorists/badguys?
And just to clarify one more point, I am a fan of throw it all at the wall and see what sticks. Try and do it all and see what comes out the winner. Like I have said in the past "Necessity is the mother of invention" and money is the best incentive. We didn't win WW II in 3.5 years because we waited for someone else to do it for us.
Grease monkey, I ain't ...
I was simply unaware of this technology being already in play, thus the "as far as I know" flavor of my statements on that technology; and I have ZERO problem with incentivizing GM et al via the tax code in order to get the 110 mile a gallon invention discussed in previous posts, along with the natural gas engine as standard on new vehicles (they'd have to increase their work force by 30% if it were announced that the new Yukon SUV - one of their biggest - got 1oo miles a gallon). That would be solidly smart for Mac and company to push. On the solar panels, I know how it works, oddly enough, due to a FOX report just the other day which featured an entire town in Europe (I forget which country, Holland maybe) that supplied every resident and business with the solar panel upgrade, they explained the checks coming back from the grid, etc (although even they were skeptical of a large scale building use, such as in Yankee Stadium for example). And that's all well and good - I wasn't arguing whether it quote "works", I was arguing "time" with Jambo. This isn't something that can or will be done inside of 09' in a way that would cause a significant impact (in my estimation), even if Mac started pushing it today. We are talking 5 to 7 years in either direction, thus its no ore time effective then drilling, nuke plants, refinery construction etc.
But lets get back to square one. My incarnation: The Bund Energy Initiative (which clearly has things in common, and not, with the New Deal 08' energy plan). It's open to any good idea. As I clearly stated in my last, this is not a zero sum game. So we adopt the GM et al tax breaks for making standard the innovations Titus spoke of in terms of gas mileage and natural gas (because its cheaper, I really don't care one wit about it being cleaner - man made climate change is a hoax as I have well established in a thread some time ago, which no one here as ever refuted to this day). We incentivize the solar panels for those inclined, and we build the nuclear plants, refineries, and start the drilling in the scores of places I've named in previous posts, and STILL offer the "prize" for anybody who can find a brand new renewable domestic source, or innovate yet another new efficient method (like Cochise with the miles per gallon converter).
So what's wrong with that plan?
I'm telling you Mac ol' buddy. The first to come out and hammer real, viable, measurable and specific solutions to energy will take a commanding lead in this race. Use The Bund Energy Initiative as I've laid out here (with input from my friends) ... just endorse me for Congress in Nevada and we'll call it even ... I'll take it from there!
But lets get back to square one. My incarnation: The Bund Energy Initiative (which clearly has things in common, and not, with the New Deal 08' energy plan). It's open to any good idea. As I clearly stated in my last, this is not a zero sum game. So we adopt the GM et al tax breaks for making standard the innovations Titus spoke of in terms of gas mileage and natural gas (because its cheaper, I really don't care one wit about it being cleaner - man made climate change is a hoax as I have well established in a thread some time ago, which no one here as ever refuted to this day). We incentivize the solar panels for those inclined, and we build the nuclear plants, refineries, and start the drilling in the scores of places I've named in previous posts, and STILL offer the "prize" for anybody who can find a brand new renewable domestic source, or innovate yet another new efficient method (like Cochise with the miles per gallon converter).
So what's wrong with that plan?
I'm telling you Mac ol' buddy. The first to come out and hammer real, viable, measurable and specific solutions to energy will take a commanding lead in this race. Use The Bund Energy Initiative as I've laid out here (with input from my friends) ... just endorse me for Congress in Nevada and we'll call it even ... I'll take it from there!
Ryan is wrong about New Deal '08
First off, people have been driving propane-powered vehicles since 1978, and Ryan knew one of them very well (the man that sold me my first home also sold my step-son an LP Ford F150). The technology to fuel a car or truck with LP is as standard as filling your grill's tank at the local LP distributer... nothing daunting in that at all, and no actual "conversion" is needed for the engine. Remember, gasoline must be "atomized" by a carborator or fuel injector before it is burned in a cylinder... LP already is atomized and combusts quite nicely.
Secondly, there is no "training" or education needed to have the kind of national drive to get small and medium businesses "off the grid". The panels are installed, the storage batteries are hooked up, and when the sun stops shining, the needed power comes off the grid. When there is excess power from the panels (meaning you are making more than you use) it is sent UP the grid, and the local power company sends YOU a check for the number of kW hours you are contributing.
Thirdly, while I am not convinced that the solutions forwarded by Jambo would impact the national economy in the way that reducing the price of oil by 70% would... it is still a win-win solution when seen long term.
I would only add that, if we knew that the Feds were "rewarding" inventors and manufacturers for designs that increased the fuel economy of combustion engines as well as develop new and alternative forms of fuel... what could we expect then?
How much would it benefit the US economy INSTANTLY if it still cost a truck owner $125 to fill up, but he knew he could get 1,200 miles to the tank instead of 400? The technology exists RIGHT NOW to increase fuel economy in modern, computerized combustion engines by as much as 3x... that means that Ryan's F150 could be getting as much as 45 miles to a gallon rather than the 15 he is probably getting.
There is no magic here, simply the tried-and-true methods of a truly capitalist industry that has never seen it as "advantageous" to push fuel economy as vital prior to crude oil hitting $145/barrel. NOW we see GM reducing its employee numbers by 30%, and reducing its truck and large-engine vehicle production by 50% in the 2009 models (got that from the radio last night).
If the Feds gave massive tax-breaks to companies like GM, Ford, or anyone else making a combustion engine (Cummings, Briggs & Stratton, et al) that utilized this technology at a PRODUCTION level rather than insist that it only be available through after-market installations that now cost at least (the cheapest I've seen here in NEPA) $900... what kind of "turn around" could we expect? NO ONE in today's world owns a car for more than 5 years... honestly. If you are buying a new car inside of the next 5 years, you should KNOW you are buying a vehicle that will get at least 35 MPH, regardless of body-style or engine size.
THAT is one fast, and cost-effective way to push "conservationism" (as opposed to "environmentalism") from the GOP platform.
Secondly, there is no "training" or education needed to have the kind of national drive to get small and medium businesses "off the grid". The panels are installed, the storage batteries are hooked up, and when the sun stops shining, the needed power comes off the grid. When there is excess power from the panels (meaning you are making more than you use) it is sent UP the grid, and the local power company sends YOU a check for the number of kW hours you are contributing.
Thirdly, while I am not convinced that the solutions forwarded by Jambo would impact the national economy in the way that reducing the price of oil by 70% would... it is still a win-win solution when seen long term.
I would only add that, if we knew that the Feds were "rewarding" inventors and manufacturers for designs that increased the fuel economy of combustion engines as well as develop new and alternative forms of fuel... what could we expect then?
How much would it benefit the US economy INSTANTLY if it still cost a truck owner $125 to fill up, but he knew he could get 1,200 miles to the tank instead of 400? The technology exists RIGHT NOW to increase fuel economy in modern, computerized combustion engines by as much as 3x... that means that Ryan's F150 could be getting as much as 45 miles to a gallon rather than the 15 he is probably getting.
There is no magic here, simply the tried-and-true methods of a truly capitalist industry that has never seen it as "advantageous" to push fuel economy as vital prior to crude oil hitting $145/barrel. NOW we see GM reducing its employee numbers by 30%, and reducing its truck and large-engine vehicle production by 50% in the 2009 models (got that from the radio last night).
If the Feds gave massive tax-breaks to companies like GM, Ford, or anyone else making a combustion engine (Cummings, Briggs & Stratton, et al) that utilized this technology at a PRODUCTION level rather than insist that it only be available through after-market installations that now cost at least (the cheapest I've seen here in NEPA) $900... what kind of "turn around" could we expect? NO ONE in today's world owns a car for more than 5 years... honestly. If you are buying a new car inside of the next 5 years, you should KNOW you are buying a vehicle that will get at least 35 MPH, regardless of body-style or engine size.
THAT is one fast, and cost-effective way to push "conservationism" (as opposed to "environmentalism") from the GOP platform.
Well Cry Me A River
Available from the National Academy of Science http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10388&page=29 is this little tid bit regarding oil contamination reaching into the ocean and other bodies of water. It would seem that not only is the opposition to domestic drilling by "environmentalists" unfounded, its damn irresponsible:
You see dear greenies, we (read the United States of America), are more responsible about oil "leaks" then say the Saudis, the Iranians, and Venezuelans. Despots don't seem to care about algae, go figure. So, if you really care about the environment and your beloved dolphins (tasty on rye with mayo I might add ... kidding), and given for the foreseeable future the world (and the Americas are in the world, for you Obama supporters whom think that means "Europe") runs on oil, you must, you need, you can not avoid advocating domestic drilling as an offset to transporting it in. Oh ya, and that "consumption" section, it includes yachts, wave runners, private planes etc... which none of you liberal leaning, "oil comapnies are evil" folks use of course. And keep in mind that "world marine waters" includes countries with NO environmental hazard standards whatsoever, such as China, to a great extent India, Venezuela etc. When you configure only North American standards of domestic drilling the numbers are even more favorable and thus inducive to the advocation of drilling here versus importing from there. Mr. Gore, RFK Jr, et al, when it comes to restrictions on drilling versus imports, I believe they call that check mate dear sirs ....
Sincerely, F. Ryan.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Easy on the happy juice ...
"Right now, in 2009?" Are you kidding? Let me get this straight: construct the untold number of solar arrays needed for the leasing project (a production capacity that doesn't exist as of now). Then train an untold number of people to install them. Then convert the hundreds of millions US homes and businesses with those solar arrays after they're built and the people are trained. Then expect that lower income people will have the capacity to do this. Then assume that places like Washington state don't even qualify because the lack of sunshine per year. Then convert all traditional (or most) gas stations to natural gas... look this is NO "quick fix" (and while we're at it, just WHO has invented the vehicle fuel conversion your talking about installing? I'm not aware the technology exists to convert my F-150 to a natural gas car). My guess is 5 to 7 years before it became reality. Hell, they can't even go from analogue to digital in less then a decade, and we are talking TV's. This argument that it will take X amount of years to do nuclear or build refineries, or tap domestic oil reserves - is a silly argument. It was made last 10 years ago. I'm not necessarily looking for a "quick fix", I AM looking for a sound and serious energy policy, and taking ten years is a very reasonable estimate for something so monumental as becoming energy independent (or at least reasonably so). And in all of that which I'm proposing I expect the feds reduce the red tape to make it feasible. Refineries aren't illegal you know, the reason they haven't been built in 30 years is due to asinine over regulation causing its cost effectiveness to prevent it, as was the intention of these over burdensome regulations.
Look, 5 years, 10 years that is not the point - no matter the course its going to take at least that long get things on the domestic energy front up and running. The point is to enact a serious energy policy with proven technology. Nuclear, domestic drilling, more refineries, and the ingenuity of the American people pushing us towards that next new source. I'm skeptical in the extreme about natural gas car technology existing now, and only slightly less skeptical about the practicality (in expense and application) of "solar homes." But hey, there's no reason we can't enact both plans simultaneously and let localities decide which they'd rather have in terms of new sources of energy ... its not a zero sum game.
Look, 5 years, 10 years that is not the point - no matter the course its going to take at least that long get things on the domestic energy front up and running. The point is to enact a serious energy policy with proven technology. Nuclear, domestic drilling, more refineries, and the ingenuity of the American people pushing us towards that next new source. I'm skeptical in the extreme about natural gas car technology existing now, and only slightly less skeptical about the practicality (in expense and application) of "solar homes." But hey, there's no reason we can't enact both plans simultaneously and let localities decide which they'd rather have in terms of new sources of energy ... its not a zero sum game.
Mr. Peabody makes another trip...
Dialing the WayBack machine to whenever... (Here's a chance for lurkers to show themselves. When DID we have this conversation?) Revisiting New Deal 2008's energy plan, with some new twists.
Ryan wants to throw in dozens of nuclear power plants. Not being afraid at all of nuclear power I have no problem with it, but the recent conversations with Baddboy did make me rethink something else we've discussed here before, alternative energy. For argument's sake, I'll use the number 50. We need fifty nuclear power plants to either augment existing nuclear power or replace aging fossil fuel burning plants.
Unless someone gets into office and slash and burns the EPA, we're still looking at 7-15 years before the new plants come online. But let's take the low end and be optimistic about our next president. $200 billion over eight years (assuming re-election, I love being an optimist!) is $25 billion a year in domestic energy production, exclusively nuclear. A very doable number when viewed against an overall annual budget that is nearly $1.5 trillion. Except there are no RESULTS until the man is out of office.
Take the same number, $25 billion annually for 8 years, and dedicate it to alternative energy production for private residents and small businesses, (wind and solar arrays) at $25K installed per average building and the same money gets you 1 million buildings off or minimally drawing from the grid PER YEAR. And the beauty of it? Same dollar figure, very little future expense as the equipment is leased to own to homeowners and small business folks. Maintaining a nuclear plant has a bunch of future expenses rolled into it. Personnel, waste, physical maintenance, and so on. McCain's push for more nuclear plants is fine, I have no problems, but isn't it more appealing to the American Conservative that hey! I own my home, I want to generate my own power. I live in SoCal or PA or NV or some place where the wind blows and the sun shines. Why the hell not? And it's not like I'm saying the Feds should GIVE the stuff away. My American Conservative homeowner will gladly pay a $200 lease bill as opposed to a $200 power bill for up to a decade when at which time the equipment is his/hers and the power it sends back to the grid puts money in his/her pocket.
When the demand on the grid starts to fall because urban domestic power generation is carrying more and more of the weight, diverting domestic petroleum products like coal and natural gas to refineries and distribution centers for automotive uses makes John Q. SUVOwner happy because filling up the Escalade with natural gas at $1.55 would make anyone happy.
"Moonshot" solutions for cars is another far away solution a new president won't see within his terms. McCain can do this NOW, as in January 2009, and see results fast. I mean, for real. How hard is it to hook up a gas station to a natural gas pipeline? Not very. How difficult is it to convert an average auto to burn natural gas? Not very. (New tank basically. Natural gas burns way cleaner than gasoline anyway. Conversion costs will be saved within a year of not spending $4 a gallon for unleaded.)
New Deal rocks.
Ryan wants to throw in dozens of nuclear power plants. Not being afraid at all of nuclear power I have no problem with it, but the recent conversations with Baddboy did make me rethink something else we've discussed here before, alternative energy. For argument's sake, I'll use the number 50. We need fifty nuclear power plants to either augment existing nuclear power or replace aging fossil fuel burning plants.
Unless someone gets into office and slash and burns the EPA, we're still looking at 7-15 years before the new plants come online. But let's take the low end and be optimistic about our next president. $200 billion over eight years (assuming re-election, I love being an optimist!) is $25 billion a year in domestic energy production, exclusively nuclear. A very doable number when viewed against an overall annual budget that is nearly $1.5 trillion. Except there are no RESULTS until the man is out of office.
Take the same number, $25 billion annually for 8 years, and dedicate it to alternative energy production for private residents and small businesses, (wind and solar arrays) at $25K installed per average building and the same money gets you 1 million buildings off or minimally drawing from the grid PER YEAR. And the beauty of it? Same dollar figure, very little future expense as the equipment is leased to own to homeowners and small business folks. Maintaining a nuclear plant has a bunch of future expenses rolled into it. Personnel, waste, physical maintenance, and so on. McCain's push for more nuclear plants is fine, I have no problems, but isn't it more appealing to the American Conservative that hey! I own my home, I want to generate my own power. I live in SoCal or PA or NV or some place where the wind blows and the sun shines. Why the hell not? And it's not like I'm saying the Feds should GIVE the stuff away. My American Conservative homeowner will gladly pay a $200 lease bill as opposed to a $200 power bill for up to a decade when at which time the equipment is his/hers and the power it sends back to the grid puts money in his/her pocket.
When the demand on the grid starts to fall because urban domestic power generation is carrying more and more of the weight, diverting domestic petroleum products like coal and natural gas to refineries and distribution centers for automotive uses makes John Q. SUVOwner happy because filling up the Escalade with natural gas at $1.55 would make anyone happy.
"Moonshot" solutions for cars is another far away solution a new president won't see within his terms. McCain can do this NOW, as in January 2009, and see results fast. I mean, for real. How hard is it to hook up a gas station to a natural gas pipeline? Not very. How difficult is it to convert an average auto to burn natural gas? Not very. (New tank basically. Natural gas burns way cleaner than gasoline anyway. Conversion costs will be saved within a year of not spending $4 a gallon for unleaded.)
New Deal rocks.
"Danke Shoen"
Think Wayne Newton.... it'll make sense in uno momento.
First, Tony Snow passed away. My condolences to his family. He seemed like a very decent guy, a convert to Catholicism, and flat out the best hire of the Bush Administration to date in terms of matching skills to the position. He was very apt, in my opinion, as Press Secretary, and that's not just being gracious to the deceased, he was just good at that job. And given PR is one of the Bund's chief White House complaints, I wanted to mention one bright spot on that front - Tony Snow.
****
Well, well, well. Yet another day, yet another speech, and yet another opportunity for Obama to proclaim yet another reason America, and in this case Americans, embarrass his delicate nuanced social sensibilities. Modern Democrat presidential nominees, they go together with European elitism like veggie hot dogs and public radio fans. But I'll get to that in a second, let me quickly knock out my list (and fyi, I'm adding northern Africa to the parameters):
1.) Normandy - for obvious reasons.
2.) Bastogne - again, for obvious reasons.
3.)Thermompalaye - Western "democrats" pushing back hordes of Persian fanatics bent on world domination ... I find that slightly rellevent. Besides, it's got to be in the top ten notable battles in all of history.
4.) Zama - this is my non Euro addition, as Carthage was not in Europe (modern Tunisia and Algeria, Africa). Hannibal and Scipio, ringside for one of history's most daring commanders and the Roman General that vanquished him, I'm diggin it.
5.) Battle of Issus - Modern day Turkey if I remember correctly (I'm not quite ready to lump them in with France on America's blocked sender list by the way). Alexander (one of my personal favorite characters of History) inflicts 50,000 casualties on Darius's boys and takes only 500 casualties within his Macedonian ranks. Damn, now that's a route. Oh ya, and he reshaped the known world barely out of high school.
****
Back to Barak Millhouse Obama (a good line - I stole - given its not PC to use his middle name, which is nutty in and of itself, but I digress) ....
As you all have undoubtedly heard the good Senator from the land of Lincoln says it's "embarrassing" to him that Europeans visit the US and are able to speak several different languages yet, "we go over there and all we can say is "Merci Buquo." I don't know how to spell it, and I'm quite proud of that fact. Well I think this is a fantastic campaign approach: "higher taxes and more French", that's a bumper sticker for change in America if one ever existed.
To be serious for a moment, does anyone see how obscene this is? Forget the issue of being bilingual, I don't care about his thoughts on that. The man whom wants to be president of these United States stands in a forum and trades on the "ugly American" stereotype, chuckling at us, enjoying treading on the most advanced nation God ever gave man as if it were a joke to be mocked, ridiculed and looked down upon. He spoke as a man in a Parisian cafe, sipping warm wine and rolling his eyes as Yanks scurry by with their fannie pacs looking as if their belt had devoured a small rodent. This RATHER then speaking inspiringly about a nation that has afforded he personally with uncapped opportunity. I'll tell you what buddy - I'll take from July 4th 1776 through to right this second and stack the technological, philosophical, economic, medical, and military innovations and accomplishments of the American people up against any other 232 year period in European history! I'll even spot them an extra century. To belittle this nation and its citizens in such a juvenile, dismissive way shows a level of disconnect with what this country stands for and has done that quite frankly boggles the mind. But perhaps I'm being too rash, too judgmental... maybe following Europe's lead is precisely what America needs to do senator. Yes, lets do it ... ready? First lets follow Italy's lead and outlaw abortion here. Then as we work our way around the European map we arrive at England - and we'll establish an official church in the US. Next is France (your favorite, man) and we make it a trifecta - establish an official language, build nuclear power plants at break neck speed, and maintain double digit unemployment for two straight decades ... yes, lets follow our brothers from another Anglo mother dear Barak, and bring this country the "change" it deserves ....danke shoen Barry.
The second portion of this speech that I found particularly revealing was when he spoke of Hispanics ... or rather Hispanics speaking. "Don't worry about whether they're going to learn English, make sure your kid can speak Spanish.." Is he mad? Again, the attributes of a bilingual education is not at issue. He literally has no qualms with Hispanics never learning the language of economic success. Were I Hispanic I would see that as an attempt to literally "keep me in my place" at the lower end of the job scale. This is the ultimate in enabling unhealthy activity. Hispanics need to learn English not for F.Ryan's convenience nor F. Ryan's comfort, but for THEIRS. Obama is so wrapped up in rejecting or changing the landscape of core American traditions and values in an effort to right "whiteys" historic sins, that not even the language passed down by these white slave owning so-called founding father's escapes his wrath. And he will gladly sacrifice an entire ethnicity's economic future in order to satisfy his sense of what America should be.
****
On energy. All due respect badboy, how many times must I say this? The Bund Energy Initiative has been laid out by me (with input from Jambo) countless times.
1.) New drilling in scores of places as laid out in "THE" energy post of the decade I made some weeks ago. Drill sites and rigs are 11 times less prone to oil spills and accidents then imports.
2.)Dozens of new nuke plants.
3.) 50 new refineries (so we can actually bring to market the oil we recover).
4.)Inspire truly new renewable energy innovation with a "moon-shot" initiative which awards lucrative "prizes"to the likes of everyone from the person or company who finds a new brand source all together, to those such as the gentlemen with the 69' 110 mile a gallon Stang whom has developed a brand new method. What don't you see in there? Solar. Solar is no more "the" answer then just drilling in ANWR is ... and what we need now is "the" answer. Take my approach and now you've got yourself a bold new energy policy. Were Mac to push this macro plan, and then get into the micro issues of private gear leases etc, he would establish himself as the adult in the room. This gives him 2 GOP bread and butter issues at once - national security and pocket books. It's there for the taking Mac, just grab that ball and run ... I'm begging you.
First, Tony Snow passed away. My condolences to his family. He seemed like a very decent guy, a convert to Catholicism, and flat out the best hire of the Bush Administration to date in terms of matching skills to the position. He was very apt, in my opinion, as Press Secretary, and that's not just being gracious to the deceased, he was just good at that job. And given PR is one of the Bund's chief White House complaints, I wanted to mention one bright spot on that front - Tony Snow.
****
Well, well, well. Yet another day, yet another speech, and yet another opportunity for Obama to proclaim yet another reason America, and in this case Americans, embarrass his delicate nuanced social sensibilities. Modern Democrat presidential nominees, they go together with European elitism like veggie hot dogs and public radio fans. But I'll get to that in a second, let me quickly knock out my list (and fyi, I'm adding northern Africa to the parameters):
1.) Normandy - for obvious reasons.
2.) Bastogne - again, for obvious reasons.
3.)Thermompalaye - Western "democrats" pushing back hordes of Persian fanatics bent on world domination ... I find that slightly rellevent. Besides, it's got to be in the top ten notable battles in all of history.
4.) Zama - this is my non Euro addition, as Carthage was not in Europe (modern Tunisia and Algeria, Africa). Hannibal and Scipio, ringside for one of history's most daring commanders and the Roman General that vanquished him, I'm diggin it.
5.) Battle of Issus - Modern day Turkey if I remember correctly (I'm not quite ready to lump them in with France on America's blocked sender list by the way). Alexander (one of my personal favorite characters of History) inflicts 50,000 casualties on Darius's boys and takes only 500 casualties within his Macedonian ranks. Damn, now that's a route. Oh ya, and he reshaped the known world barely out of high school.
****
Back to Barak Millhouse Obama (a good line - I stole - given its not PC to use his middle name, which is nutty in and of itself, but I digress) ....
As you all have undoubtedly heard the good Senator from the land of Lincoln says it's "embarrassing" to him that Europeans visit the US and are able to speak several different languages yet, "we go over there and all we can say is "Merci Buquo." I don't know how to spell it, and I'm quite proud of that fact. Well I think this is a fantastic campaign approach: "higher taxes and more French", that's a bumper sticker for change in America if one ever existed.
To be serious for a moment, does anyone see how obscene this is? Forget the issue of being bilingual, I don't care about his thoughts on that. The man whom wants to be president of these United States stands in a forum and trades on the "ugly American" stereotype, chuckling at us, enjoying treading on the most advanced nation God ever gave man as if it were a joke to be mocked, ridiculed and looked down upon. He spoke as a man in a Parisian cafe, sipping warm wine and rolling his eyes as Yanks scurry by with their fannie pacs looking as if their belt had devoured a small rodent. This RATHER then speaking inspiringly about a nation that has afforded he personally with uncapped opportunity. I'll tell you what buddy - I'll take from July 4th 1776 through to right this second and stack the technological, philosophical, economic, medical, and military innovations and accomplishments of the American people up against any other 232 year period in European history! I'll even spot them an extra century. To belittle this nation and its citizens in such a juvenile, dismissive way shows a level of disconnect with what this country stands for and has done that quite frankly boggles the mind. But perhaps I'm being too rash, too judgmental... maybe following Europe's lead is precisely what America needs to do senator. Yes, lets do it ... ready? First lets follow Italy's lead and outlaw abortion here. Then as we work our way around the European map we arrive at England - and we'll establish an official church in the US. Next is France (your favorite, man) and we make it a trifecta - establish an official language, build nuclear power plants at break neck speed, and maintain double digit unemployment for two straight decades ... yes, lets follow our brothers from another Anglo mother dear Barak, and bring this country the "change" it deserves ....danke shoen Barry.
The second portion of this speech that I found particularly revealing was when he spoke of Hispanics ... or rather Hispanics speaking. "Don't worry about whether they're going to learn English, make sure your kid can speak Spanish.." Is he mad? Again, the attributes of a bilingual education is not at issue. He literally has no qualms with Hispanics never learning the language of economic success. Were I Hispanic I would see that as an attempt to literally "keep me in my place" at the lower end of the job scale. This is the ultimate in enabling unhealthy activity. Hispanics need to learn English not for F.Ryan's convenience nor F. Ryan's comfort, but for THEIRS. Obama is so wrapped up in rejecting or changing the landscape of core American traditions and values in an effort to right "whiteys" historic sins, that not even the language passed down by these white slave owning so-called founding father's escapes his wrath. And he will gladly sacrifice an entire ethnicity's economic future in order to satisfy his sense of what America should be.
****
On energy. All due respect badboy, how many times must I say this? The Bund Energy Initiative has been laid out by me (with input from Jambo) countless times.
1.) New drilling in scores of places as laid out in "THE" energy post of the decade I made some weeks ago. Drill sites and rigs are 11 times less prone to oil spills and accidents then imports.
2.)Dozens of new nuke plants.
3.) 50 new refineries (so we can actually bring to market the oil we recover).
4.)Inspire truly new renewable energy innovation with a "moon-shot" initiative which awards lucrative "prizes"to the likes of everyone from the person or company who finds a new brand source all together, to those such as the gentlemen with the 69' 110 mile a gallon Stang whom has developed a brand new method. What don't you see in there? Solar. Solar is no more "the" answer then just drilling in ANWR is ... and what we need now is "the" answer. Take my approach and now you've got yourself a bold new energy policy. Were Mac to push this macro plan, and then get into the micro issues of private gear leases etc, he would establish himself as the adult in the room. This gives him 2 GOP bread and butter issues at once - national security and pocket books. It's there for the taking Mac, just grab that ball and run ... I'm begging you.
Monday, July 14, 2008
If you'd been paying attention...
I had mentioned mainland Europe. I completely understand that on the British Isles hold a plethora of very cool sites to visit, Hastings being the top of the list. (Clontarf a close second, Sterling Bridge a must) The thought being that if you had a limited time on the mainland, what would you see?
Why France?
Stamford Bridge, Bosworth Field, St Alban's, Hastings, Marsten Moor, the Isle of Athelney, Sterling Bridge... all within the same geographic area as Wisconsin and Iowa combined, along with enough OTHER sites, places and people of interest to keep a history buff happy for lifetimes.
Of course, I know France has the same plethora of historic sites to explore, and a "written" history even longer than England's... but it is France. I'm still not happy enough with the French to justify spending even the falling-value of our beloved dollar there.
Nope, the British Isles or Italy... that's where I'd go. Or Istanbul... but Turkey is on the same list (for me) as France.
Of course, I know France has the same plethora of historic sites to explore, and a "written" history even longer than England's... but it is France. I'm still not happy enough with the French to justify spending even the falling-value of our beloved dollar there.
Nope, the British Isles or Italy... that's where I'd go. Or Istanbul... but Turkey is on the same list (for me) as France.
I've got one for you.
You'd be amazed what the mind can come up with while standing dead on a Mississippi Stud game on a Sunday night. But here's a question that had me thinking for a solid six hours.
You've got a limited amount of time and money, you're on the mainland Europe, and you've got to pick no more than five significant battlefields to visit. Where do you go?
Now I kept in mind the limited funds and time and grouped mine kind of close together. In no order of significance, they are:
1) Normandy
2) Agincourt
3) Waterloo
4) Bastogne
5) The Somme
If you'll notice, my battlefields are all geographically fairly close, thus fulfilling the time and hopefully money limitations. With the exception of Agincourt, all are relatively modern battlefields. With the exception of the Somme, all were absolutely critical moments in their respective conflicts. (Haig had no chance of ending or even significantly altering the scope of WW1 at the Somme. The entire campaign was designed to draw German resources away from Verdun, which it did at horrific cost. In all honesty, I picked it because three of the most famous Inklings were there.)
I know Titus has seen several battlefields on the European mainland, around Moscow and St. Petersburg, so his list may be completely different from mine, but it's a start.
You've got a limited amount of time and money, you're on the mainland Europe, and you've got to pick no more than five significant battlefields to visit. Where do you go?
Now I kept in mind the limited funds and time and grouped mine kind of close together. In no order of significance, they are:
1) Normandy
2) Agincourt
3) Waterloo
4) Bastogne
5) The Somme
If you'll notice, my battlefields are all geographically fairly close, thus fulfilling the time and hopefully money limitations. With the exception of Agincourt, all are relatively modern battlefields. With the exception of the Somme, all were absolutely critical moments in their respective conflicts. (Haig had no chance of ending or even significantly altering the scope of WW1 at the Somme. The entire campaign was designed to draw German resources away from Verdun, which it did at horrific cost. In all honesty, I picked it because three of the most famous Inklings were there.)
I know Titus has seen several battlefields on the European mainland, around Moscow and St. Petersburg, so his list may be completely different from mine, but it's a start.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
