... you have your head lodged squarely up your ass!!!!!
As clearly stated in the Constitution, any child born in the US is a US Citizen, with all the rights, privileges, and guarantees found therein (see 14th Amendment). Thus, the immigration status of the parents of an unknown number (but well over 4.5 million) of children CITIZENS of this Nation should have no bearing on the CITIZEN's ability to use the SCHIPs system.
DUFUS - the question I cut and pasted IS for the child too!! It was listed for both the applying parent and the child. Sheesh - of course I know if you're born here you're a citizen. I am not surprised at all though that you assumed the "poor kids" were citizens - THEY'RE NOT! If you don't believe me, check the site yourself - http://nevadacheckup.nv.gov/OnlineAppEnglish.htm
****
I can not tell you how utterly despicable I find this statement ...
159,000 of the finest, best-trained and best-equipped troops the world has ever seen struggle to "secure" ONE CITY against less than 10% of their number in armed insurgents for FOUR YEARS! How much harder will it be to "secure" 13,522 miles of US border and coastline against the prospect of 2,700 illegal entries A DAY?
We are kicking the shit out of them now, and FYI, I haven't heard of the illegals emerging on this side of the Rio with RPG's, IED's, AK-47's and the like! You moron! It apples and Cadillacs! In fact, given that we are turning the tide in Iraq, I would say that our boys would be more than capable to fend off unarmed civilians SIMPLY BY THEIR PRESENCE! But I want you to say it - say our military would fail if they were ordered to non-lethally secure our border - go ahead I dare ya.... just write the words - THE US MILITARY WOULD FAIL.
****
In fact on every issue here you have turned night into day and up down -
My point from the very beginning has simply been that the reason these people are "illegal" is that the system by which their status is determined is failing at every possible level of operation
NO, NO, NO! They are ILLEGAL because they broke the law professor. I'm sick of this liberal, too cute by half redefinition of plain common sense.
****
And by the way Webster's New World Dictionary, Fourth Edition:
Crime n. - an act in violation of the law.
So take it up with Webster smart guy.
****
My beef with the afore mentioned "plan" of Ryan's is simply that no one has shown me that any kind of draconian immigration legislation, at present or in the past, has ever WORKED!
No one has tried it! Very clever, ask me to give you an example of a program working that's yet to be implemented! The one thing you were right about outside of denying social services to illegals (which shocked me since that includes the "poor little children") was that republicans have failed miserably on this issue. The thing that was "too of something" is too little back bone or political will to say and enact my common sense measures.
****
Here's where you're particularly out of touch to a level that even surprised me ....
If, as you have said in the past, the US public is as frustrated and angry over the illegal immigration problem as you are, then why did H.R.4437 get so little support from middle-class white America? Why was the polled public (which I admit is a very small percentage of actual numbers... but it is all we have) so against the Bill from it's inception? Why was the Party that champions such causes unable to get it through the Senate (36 of 202 Democrats in the House voted FOR the Bill... 18%!)? Why did over 1 million protesters take to the streets in 11 major US cities over a bill that would simply have made illegal ENTRY into this country a CRIMINAL act, and would have had very little effect on those already here?
Did I already use the word dufus? Shucks ... did you watch any of the news at all on this? Maybe because some of the protests were ones in which I drove through here in Vegas, meaning this was a BIG issue out here, our local news teams covered this more, and you don't understand what happened with these marches because of limited PA coverage. I'm stretching hard there to give you the benefit of the doubt. The truth is that in every poll I've seen roughly 70% of all Americans agree with me, Middle Class America - white, black and (legal) brown - opposed the afore mentioned bill, the "amnesty bill."The "millions" protesting were the illegals and their supporters like La Rasa, and other advocates of amnesty! Back me up here James - he's wrong on this. They were protesting that bill on their behalf! Thet thought it TOO STRINGENT. The other side, like me, thought it was AMNESTY! It was people like me, that called their elected leaders in the millions and demanded they kill this thing. And we were successful. You are WAY out to lunch on this thing. Those marchers (whose numbers were actually in the tens of thousands) weren't Joe and Jane six pack - that wasn't middle America, or hardly ANY Americans as far as I can tell - they were illegals! You're right though - they are more closely aligned with your thinking on this, but YOU are WAY outside the common man's (non politicians) mainstream on this. You don't even know who was protesting and for what - look it up if you don't believe me. People called their reps by the millions - and believe me, it came from both parties. The calls to kill that bill, from people of all political stripes overloaded email servers and jammed up the congressional phone lines for days on end - didn't you read about any of this? WE were the majority, the mainstream, the common sense advocate that killed that amnesty bill, and it was the illegals and their advocates on the fringes that protested that bill because what we considered amnesty they thought was too tough, and it was Joe and Jane America that squashed it. Sheeesh ....
The bottom line is this: A super majority of Americans want enforcement first, followed by deportation of illegals who have committed further crimes, followed by a "back of the line" path to citizenship for those who then remain. That EXACT line was recited by both Obama (just tonight here in Vegas), Guliani, Hillary, Romney, Thompson, and now McCain. One of those people WILL be president. The "enforcement first" crowd has become a majority, hit a critical mass, and it WILL HAPPEN. I only hope it's before a city goes up in smoke at about 10,000 degrees. And trust me, if it's a Republican that wins, the wall will get built - he doesn't need to pass that, THAT is already law, all he has to do is get it funded.
My belief is that a wall - both real and virtual - manned to the teeth; a systematic deportation of "two time" criminals (they have commited a crime beyond their mere presence - 29% of federal prisons are illegal aliens sentenced for just that); multi billion dollar fines for hiring illegals; very public ICE raids; and denial of ALL social services to illegals (let alone credit cards), and THERE. There you have a common sense approach of stopping the leak in the boat, then addressing the repairs. It's what a super majority of Americans want. And the cost? A lot - but I bet less then the net cost illegals cost us now, and A HELL OF OF A LOT LESS then the human toll of another 9/11 ... or something much, much worse.
Anyone whom disagrees with that approach is allowing something (emotion, ignorance etc) to interfere with their natural God given common sense. So quit telling me to "show you where it has worked." At some point in the future, given the "enforcement first" crowd is the majority, a plan similar to this will be implemented. If it fails, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong, so until it is put into place we might as well suspend debate on it. At least I have a plan outside of setting up photo ID shops on the border, and jamming them in here without medical cexams, English proficiency, and accurate background checks - THAT would be a disaster, not to mention not a single candidate (outside of Kucinich) on either side is advocating that.
My plan won't fail. It's based on common sense and fair play - it's an American plan ... to save Americans.
FR
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Illegal immigration isn't criminal...
... but slander is.
My beef with the afore mentioned "plan" of Ryan's is simply that no one has shown me that any kind of draconian immigration legislation, at present or in the past, has ever WORKED!
Show me an historical precedent where ANY immigration laws have both curbed illegal entry AND avoided heightened ethnic or racial tensions within our society... and then I'll listen to your arguments and comments. In the mean time, your opinion is no more valid than mine.
About the title of this post, it's true. With the "death" of H.R.4437 (the Sensenbrenner Bill), any hopes of making illegal or undocumented entry into this country for the purpose of residence, employment or standard of living "criminal" in the eyes of the US Code of Regulation became mute. Thus, it is only a civil infraction to be an "illegal"... meaning the maximum fine is $3,000 coupled with the possibility of deportation at the discretion of the immigration authorities.
Do I think this is a satisfactory situation? Absolutely not. Do I think that the number of illegals already within this country constitute a problem within our society? Without question, YES. Does the fact that anywhere between 12 and 20 million illegals have entered into the US in the last 20 years show me that there is a serious threat to national security literally surrounding us at every moment? Of course I do.
My point from the very beginning has simply been that the reason these people are "illegal" is that the system by which their status is determined is failing at every possible level of operation. The means by which a secure and safe border around this country could be achieved have proven too great or too costly (or too something)... otherwise they would have been met 10 years ago, when the first "laws" calling for the completion of a partial wall were put in place.
10 years of a Republican-controlled Congress and nearly 8 years of a GOP White House failed to garner even ONE piece of substantial immigration reform legislation, at a time when the illegal population was growing at exponential numbers (the lowest estimates I have found are 2,640 new illegals every day for the last 17 years!).
Ryan's outrage at a health care program like SCHIPs that allows applicants to avoid questions that would show illegal status while applying is undoubtedly understandable, and unquestionably justified... I just don't feel that the CAUSE of this problem lies with the 7 to 9 million CHILDREN in this country that have no viable health care coverage because of the failings of the immigration system. As clearly stated in the Constitution, any child born in the US is a US Citizen, with all the rights, privileges, and guarantees found therein (see 14th Amendment). Thus, the immigration status of the parents of an unknown number (but well over 4.5 million) of children CITIZENS of this Nation should have no bearing on the CITIZEN's ability to use the SCHIPs system.
I will look into this book you are raving about, but understand this... I understand the argument that illegals are a drain on society because they draw more than they contribute, but I would be willing to wager that for every citation you can produce showing that drain, I can produce one just as valid against it. These kinds of statistics are arbitrary at best.
I'm not being shitty... honestly, I'm not. Look, I'll give ONE example, okay? Bear with me...
In 2007, the Social Security Administration released a report showing that the total SSI tax amount for 2005 was just over $1,590 billion dollars, and that an estimated $150 billion of that was "misrepresented" revenue... meaning it was money taxed against (amongst other filings) both the illegal employee and the illegal employers (Wal Mart, Tyson Foods, et al)... that is nearly 9.5% of total revenues for the SSA that will never be drawn upon by its contributors. These figures are clearly shown in the SSA report found here.
If we assume that the total population of illegals in this nation is right at 20 million, then that represents 6.6% of the total US population of 303.3 million people. If 6.6% of the total population is contributing 9.5% of the measurable SSA revenue for a given year, is that unrequited contribution taken into account in reports and works like the book you are referring to? And if it is, then how is it reflected? How are the numbers applied?
If, as you have said in the past, the US public is as frustrated and angry over the illegal immigration problem as you are, then why did H.R.4437 get so little support from middle-class white America? Why was the polled public (which I admit is a very small percentage of actual numbers... but it is all we have) so against the Bill from it's inception? Why was the Party that champions such causes unable to get it through the Senate (36 of 202 Democrats in the House voted FOR the Bill... 18%!)? Why did over 1 million protesters take to the streets in 11 major US cities over a bill that would simply have made illegal ENTRY into this country a CRIMINAL act, and would have had very little effect on those already here?
What you are suggesting in your "plan" is to segregate and marginalize right around 7% of the total US population at this time... roughly 20 million people living and working (and paying taxes... lest we forget, even illegals have to have their wages Federally taxed and file their returns each year... the IRS tax code is ALSO outside of the INS reporting authority) in a COUNTRY AT WAR. Forgive me if that seems like a counter-productive attitude during a time when military enlistment is at a 20 year low, and demands on the military are at a 20 year high, or when Federal budgets are running 15% to 28% HIGHER than projected revenues for the next 11 YEARS!
All I have ever suggested is rather than marginalizing nearly 7% of the people already living here, let's make it easier for them to become the Citizens that they want to be... and streamline the process for those trying to get in illegally now. To suggest that this can't be done SAFELY and SECURELY for less than it would cost the nation to "secure" 7,551 miles of open mainland border, along with another 5,981 miles of coastline still seems utterly ridiculous to me. Please, I'm begging you... show me I'm WRONG here! 159,000 of the finest, best-trained and best-equipped troops the world has ever seen struggle to "secure" ONE CITY against less than 10% of their number in armed insurgents for FOUR YEARS! How much harder will it be to "secure" 13,522 miles of US border and coastline against the prospect of 2,700 illegal entries A DAY?
If you want my opinion on how we can cut down on illegal abuse of public assistance, then we can discuss that, too. NO ONE should get living assistance that isn't a Citizen... PERIOD. If I can't get FEMA or MDA assistance after an event like Katrina, then no illegal should be getting Section Eight housing assistance or food stamps. No welfare assistance if you aren't legal. No Federal benefits outside of emergency services (and YES, I know these are the most expensive benefits, but my morals DO enter into this here). No State or Federal registration (i.e. drivers licenses, state IDs or permits) and no extended education benefits for illegal adults (not when 21% of LEGAL high school graduates can't afford to go to college full time).
To deny health care to children of illegals is to deny health care to at least some Citizens... and that I have a problem with, but it is something I am willing to discuss as a solvable problem within the current guidelines of the Federal and State regulations. Otherwise, I think I am pretty "conservative" about welfare for illegals.
There... that is my opinion. I do not think it is THAT outside of the "norm" in America, and I think it is a rational, reasonable opinion... not the ravings of an emotional "bleeding heart" Liberal, as Ryan seems to think.
My beef with the afore mentioned "plan" of Ryan's is simply that no one has shown me that any kind of draconian immigration legislation, at present or in the past, has ever WORKED!
Show me an historical precedent where ANY immigration laws have both curbed illegal entry AND avoided heightened ethnic or racial tensions within our society... and then I'll listen to your arguments and comments. In the mean time, your opinion is no more valid than mine.
About the title of this post, it's true. With the "death" of H.R.4437 (the Sensenbrenner Bill), any hopes of making illegal or undocumented entry into this country for the purpose of residence, employment or standard of living "criminal" in the eyes of the US Code of Regulation became mute. Thus, it is only a civil infraction to be an "illegal"... meaning the maximum fine is $3,000 coupled with the possibility of deportation at the discretion of the immigration authorities.
Do I think this is a satisfactory situation? Absolutely not. Do I think that the number of illegals already within this country constitute a problem within our society? Without question, YES. Does the fact that anywhere between 12 and 20 million illegals have entered into the US in the last 20 years show me that there is a serious threat to national security literally surrounding us at every moment? Of course I do.
My point from the very beginning has simply been that the reason these people are "illegal" is that the system by which their status is determined is failing at every possible level of operation. The means by which a secure and safe border around this country could be achieved have proven too great or too costly (or too something)... otherwise they would have been met 10 years ago, when the first "laws" calling for the completion of a partial wall were put in place.
10 years of a Republican-controlled Congress and nearly 8 years of a GOP White House failed to garner even ONE piece of substantial immigration reform legislation, at a time when the illegal population was growing at exponential numbers (the lowest estimates I have found are 2,640 new illegals every day for the last 17 years!).
Ryan's outrage at a health care program like SCHIPs that allows applicants to avoid questions that would show illegal status while applying is undoubtedly understandable, and unquestionably justified... I just don't feel that the CAUSE of this problem lies with the 7 to 9 million CHILDREN in this country that have no viable health care coverage because of the failings of the immigration system. As clearly stated in the Constitution, any child born in the US is a US Citizen, with all the rights, privileges, and guarantees found therein (see 14th Amendment). Thus, the immigration status of the parents of an unknown number (but well over 4.5 million) of children CITIZENS of this Nation should have no bearing on the CITIZEN's ability to use the SCHIPs system.
I will look into this book you are raving about, but understand this... I understand the argument that illegals are a drain on society because they draw more than they contribute, but I would be willing to wager that for every citation you can produce showing that drain, I can produce one just as valid against it. These kinds of statistics are arbitrary at best.
I'm not being shitty... honestly, I'm not. Look, I'll give ONE example, okay? Bear with me...
In 2007, the Social Security Administration released a report showing that the total SSI tax amount for 2005 was just over $1,590 billion dollars, and that an estimated $150 billion of that was "misrepresented" revenue... meaning it was money taxed against (amongst other filings) both the illegal employee and the illegal employers (Wal Mart, Tyson Foods, et al)... that is nearly 9.5% of total revenues for the SSA that will never be drawn upon by its contributors. These figures are clearly shown in the SSA report found here.
If we assume that the total population of illegals in this nation is right at 20 million, then that represents 6.6% of the total US population of 303.3 million people. If 6.6% of the total population is contributing 9.5% of the measurable SSA revenue for a given year, is that unrequited contribution taken into account in reports and works like the book you are referring to? And if it is, then how is it reflected? How are the numbers applied?
If, as you have said in the past, the US public is as frustrated and angry over the illegal immigration problem as you are, then why did H.R.4437 get so little support from middle-class white America? Why was the polled public (which I admit is a very small percentage of actual numbers... but it is all we have) so against the Bill from it's inception? Why was the Party that champions such causes unable to get it through the Senate (36 of 202 Democrats in the House voted FOR the Bill... 18%!)? Why did over 1 million protesters take to the streets in 11 major US cities over a bill that would simply have made illegal ENTRY into this country a CRIMINAL act, and would have had very little effect on those already here?
What you are suggesting in your "plan" is to segregate and marginalize right around 7% of the total US population at this time... roughly 20 million people living and working (and paying taxes... lest we forget, even illegals have to have their wages Federally taxed and file their returns each year... the IRS tax code is ALSO outside of the INS reporting authority) in a COUNTRY AT WAR. Forgive me if that seems like a counter-productive attitude during a time when military enlistment is at a 20 year low, and demands on the military are at a 20 year high, or when Federal budgets are running 15% to 28% HIGHER than projected revenues for the next 11 YEARS!
All I have ever suggested is rather than marginalizing nearly 7% of the people already living here, let's make it easier for them to become the Citizens that they want to be... and streamline the process for those trying to get in illegally now. To suggest that this can't be done SAFELY and SECURELY for less than it would cost the nation to "secure" 7,551 miles of open mainland border, along with another 5,981 miles of coastline still seems utterly ridiculous to me. Please, I'm begging you... show me I'm WRONG here! 159,000 of the finest, best-trained and best-equipped troops the world has ever seen struggle to "secure" ONE CITY against less than 10% of their number in armed insurgents for FOUR YEARS! How much harder will it be to "secure" 13,522 miles of US border and coastline against the prospect of 2,700 illegal entries A DAY?
If you want my opinion on how we can cut down on illegal abuse of public assistance, then we can discuss that, too. NO ONE should get living assistance that isn't a Citizen... PERIOD. If I can't get FEMA or MDA assistance after an event like Katrina, then no illegal should be getting Section Eight housing assistance or food stamps. No welfare assistance if you aren't legal. No Federal benefits outside of emergency services (and YES, I know these are the most expensive benefits, but my morals DO enter into this here). No State or Federal registration (i.e. drivers licenses, state IDs or permits) and no extended education benefits for illegal adults (not when 21% of LEGAL high school graduates can't afford to go to college full time).
To deny health care to children of illegals is to deny health care to at least some Citizens... and that I have a problem with, but it is something I am willing to discuss as a solvable problem within the current guidelines of the Federal and State regulations. Otherwise, I think I am pretty "conservative" about welfare for illegals.
There... that is my opinion. I do not think it is THAT outside of the "norm" in America, and I think it is a rational, reasonable opinion... not the ravings of an emotional "bleeding heart" Liberal, as Ryan seems to think.
Unbelievable ...
We've gone over the illegal alien debate - and obviously enforcement first, followed by reasonable solutions to those already here is the answer. Jambo and I have put together a more specific plan in previous posts and we've concluded that the only reason Titus wasn't on board (not a 100% anyway) had more to do with emotions - his disdain for enforcing our sovereignty doesn't "feel right" to him (my opinion), it seems ethnocentristic. Although he doesn't deny, when pressed, the need and logic in enforcing our laws. WELL, one of the problems I have seen - and there is book out there I am looking for that discusses the net cost the illegal's presence have on our economy (juxtaposing the economic benefits they contribute against the social and criminal services consumed) - is the available access of many social programs. Now I have come across one first hand. It occurred to Angela that although my income is too high, perhaps she can qualify (within 200% above the poverty line) to get the boys SCHIPS until my insurance is available in March of 08' (they offer part timers a more expensive version & that's the sign up date). So, I'm perusing the state site and I'm looking at the application - the yellow shaded areas are "required." Guess what's NOT shaded - the box for your social security number. And as my jaw drops, it gets even more blatant as I scroll down:
US Citizenship Status* (optional): U.S. Citizen ( ) Undocumented Alien ( ) Qualified Alien with Legal Immigration Status ( )
*Information received on adults' citizenship status is not reported to INS.
CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT??? Optional! Your legal status is optional! Then if you "opt" to answer you can still check "undocumented!" And don't worry - we won't snitch!
I don't EVER want to EVER hear how much illegals "contribute" again. Those are my tax dollars! I am incensed at this! Perhaps if the 12-20 million illegals weren't here, soaking up these social benefits, then maybe the extended SCHIPS program that the PoTUS vetoed would be feasible! The jobs illegals do - manual labor, etc - do not include health benefits, they're just not those type of jobs. So I'm sure the vast majority are accessing these type of programs. Now if Titus wants to focus solely on cracking down on companies that hire illegals - they only portion of Jambo & my plan he could bring himself to agree with - on the basis of "removing the "magnet" for illegals to come here, then he MUST also agree that services such as these are just as big of a magnet as employment! You must COMPLETELY REMOVE these attractions as well if you're going to be intellectually honest about what draws them here!
Not to mention, here's a state agency blatantly announcing to the nation - "we will further enable you to break the law", not to mention it equates to saying "FU** the feds!"
I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I'm even more determined to get that book now, I've quoted the author (he was on radio) here before and I remember one of the numbers - a family of four illegals causes a net loss in our economy of 2,600 dollars per year. The book obviously goes into the specifics on how that number is arrived upon.
Anyone whom disagrees with enforcement first (in all its aspects: fence, more personnel, steep fines, REMOVAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES, and ICE raids routinely and very public) is allowing their "emotion" to overwhelm basic common sense and sense of fair play. And guess what - new immigrants, legal ones, get that. A new poll (it was on the radio but I'll find it) says that 72% of newly naturalized citizens (asked right after they took their oath) tend to agree with the GOP's hard line on illegal entry. Wanna guess why? I think I can.
FR
US Citizenship Status* (optional): U.S. Citizen ( ) Undocumented Alien ( ) Qualified Alien with Legal Immigration Status ( )
*Information received on adults' citizenship status is not reported to INS.
CAN YOU BELIEVE THAT??? Optional! Your legal status is optional! Then if you "opt" to answer you can still check "undocumented!" And don't worry - we won't snitch!
I don't EVER want to EVER hear how much illegals "contribute" again. Those are my tax dollars! I am incensed at this! Perhaps if the 12-20 million illegals weren't here, soaking up these social benefits, then maybe the extended SCHIPS program that the PoTUS vetoed would be feasible! The jobs illegals do - manual labor, etc - do not include health benefits, they're just not those type of jobs. So I'm sure the vast majority are accessing these type of programs. Now if Titus wants to focus solely on cracking down on companies that hire illegals - they only portion of Jambo & my plan he could bring himself to agree with - on the basis of "removing the "magnet" for illegals to come here, then he MUST also agree that services such as these are just as big of a magnet as employment! You must COMPLETELY REMOVE these attractions as well if you're going to be intellectually honest about what draws them here!
Not to mention, here's a state agency blatantly announcing to the nation - "we will further enable you to break the law", not to mention it equates to saying "FU** the feds!"
I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I'm even more determined to get that book now, I've quoted the author (he was on radio) here before and I remember one of the numbers - a family of four illegals causes a net loss in our economy of 2,600 dollars per year. The book obviously goes into the specifics on how that number is arrived upon.
Anyone whom disagrees with enforcement first (in all its aspects: fence, more personnel, steep fines, REMOVAL OF SOCIAL SERVICES, and ICE raids routinely and very public) is allowing their "emotion" to overwhelm basic common sense and sense of fair play. And guess what - new immigrants, legal ones, get that. A new poll (it was on the radio but I'll find it) says that 72% of newly naturalized citizens (asked right after they took their oath) tend to agree with the GOP's hard line on illegal entry. Wanna guess why? I think I can.
FR
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Let me say this again
Maybe my last wasn’t as clear as I’d hoped…
Far be it from me to advocate policy from an administration that is ambiguous in its design or presentation. I don’t think we should push “environmentalism” with the sole goal of “energy independence”. I just think that a party like the GOP, which is currently under the gun to maintain any degree of control in American politics, could make a lot of ground by taking a “pro-environment” stance with clean and alternative fuel development and lower reliance on fossil fuels (which we get the bulk of from unreliable sources like OPEC or South America or Russia).
I simply don’t understand why the GOP would hesitate to make this kind of play in a political and social climate (pardon the pun) that is obsessed with environmental issues… there are NO down-sides. With little to no outlay of funds, the Government can promote lower dependence on oil with incentives for small “carbon footprints” in industry and the private sector. Where the Government CAN take a page from the past (as demonstrated by Ryan, most recently… but by ME in ‘01) is to spend whatever it takes to fund a new “Manhattan Project” geared at a viable, renewable and affordable source of energy… be it cold fusion, massive development of existing geo-thermal, solar, marine or wind energy, or some kind of hybrid of any of the above.
Simply diverting funds to a national program of converting existing production, transportation and distribution of gasoline to hydrogen fuels would solve 59% of all national transportation and infrastructure energy needs in less than 20 years… more than enough time for the automotive industry to begin production of hydrogen-fuel vehicles. This innovation alone would eliminate 9 to 12 MILLION barrels of oil that we MUST import into the country EVERY DAY, and it could be done in less than a generation! No magic formula needed, no elusive new technology to discover, no new science or theoretical hocus-pocus required.
The US would, once again, be ON TOP of the global rush to utilize this technology and commercial developments, and as such, we could (initially, at least) lead the world in the production and EXPORTATION of hydrogen to the world markets (as was the case with helium during the Age of Dirigibles in the 1930’s). It has been patently shown that H2 is no more dangerous than gasoline as far as the consumer use of it as a fuel (hydrogen is flammable, but not explosive, unlike oxygen and gasoline fumes), and it is FAR less toxic or poisonous to people and the environment. There are NO residual pollutants resulting from the combustion of H2, the only results being PURE water and heat… NOTHING ELSE!
Where is the flaw in this agenda as a national energy directive? Where is the downside to this as a national security action to reduce our dependence on foreign fuels? Where does this compromise the GOP platform as I understand it to read?
Far be it from me to advocate policy from an administration that is ambiguous in its design or presentation. I don’t think we should push “environmentalism” with the sole goal of “energy independence”. I just think that a party like the GOP, which is currently under the gun to maintain any degree of control in American politics, could make a lot of ground by taking a “pro-environment” stance with clean and alternative fuel development and lower reliance on fossil fuels (which we get the bulk of from unreliable sources like OPEC or South America or Russia).
I simply don’t understand why the GOP would hesitate to make this kind of play in a political and social climate (pardon the pun) that is obsessed with environmental issues… there are NO down-sides. With little to no outlay of funds, the Government can promote lower dependence on oil with incentives for small “carbon footprints” in industry and the private sector. Where the Government CAN take a page from the past (as demonstrated by Ryan, most recently… but by ME in ‘01) is to spend whatever it takes to fund a new “Manhattan Project” geared at a viable, renewable and affordable source of energy… be it cold fusion, massive development of existing geo-thermal, solar, marine or wind energy, or some kind of hybrid of any of the above.
Simply diverting funds to a national program of converting existing production, transportation and distribution of gasoline to hydrogen fuels would solve 59% of all national transportation and infrastructure energy needs in less than 20 years… more than enough time for the automotive industry to begin production of hydrogen-fuel vehicles. This innovation alone would eliminate 9 to 12 MILLION barrels of oil that we MUST import into the country EVERY DAY, and it could be done in less than a generation! No magic formula needed, no elusive new technology to discover, no new science or theoretical hocus-pocus required.
The US would, once again, be ON TOP of the global rush to utilize this technology and commercial developments, and as such, we could (initially, at least) lead the world in the production and EXPORTATION of hydrogen to the world markets (as was the case with helium during the Age of Dirigibles in the 1930’s). It has been patently shown that H2 is no more dangerous than gasoline as far as the consumer use of it as a fuel (hydrogen is flammable, but not explosive, unlike oxygen and gasoline fumes), and it is FAR less toxic or poisonous to people and the environment. There are NO residual pollutants resulting from the combustion of H2, the only results being PURE water and heat… NOTHING ELSE!
Where is the flaw in this agenda as a national energy directive? Where is the downside to this as a national security action to reduce our dependence on foreign fuels? Where does this compromise the GOP platform as I understand it to read?
Six of one is NOT a half dozen of the other.
First off, I fully acknowledge that the national security argument was first broached, and discussed within the Bund. In specific I remember that angle being brought up at Jambo's house - although I don't recall whether it was you or he - perhaps it was simultaneous, as sometimes occurs within our group. I also remember, and have acknowledged since, that I saw the logic in this - energy independence - being an issue of security. I was sold on that from the beginning, and have posted on it during our email threads. That show, after all, did not take the angle we do, so I couldn't have got it from them - they of course, were working on the "global warming" angle as to why renewable energy independence was necessary. So for the record, you guys saw this angle, which I subsequently agreed with, back in 2001. This show simply got my attention by pointing out that we were once exporters of oil, and so I combined the Bund angle of national security into one post last night. I hope the "hurt" is thus removed.
Secondly - perhaps my disdain for the champion's of the "global warming fanaticism", such as Al Gore, seeped into my last and overwhelmed the one line that dealt with your examples of man's impact on the environment such as the Exxon Valdez, Chernobyl, etc. And that line was this: As you know, "environmental" concerns are not a concern of mine. Pollution, smog, yes I can get behind stopping that - but man induced global warming due to the expenditure of fossil fuels, we've dealt with that farce.
I fully admit that pollution via man's actions occurs on a 1:1 ratio. I'd have to be as insane as the global warming wackos not to. And from now on I will separate "environmental concerns", since that by definition includes tragedies like Chernobyl, and more accurately refer to the "AlGoreians" (not to be confused with Algerians) as "global warming alarmists" whom "believe", absent hard science, that man is altering the climate of earth through Co2. In fact I viewed a program on HBO not long ago that would interest you - no doubt you are already familiar with this, but the name of the documentary was "My Heart's in Chernobyl", or something to that effect. And it tracked and interviewed the birth defects in babies in the surrounding areas. Oh my goodness! One must have a strong constitution to watch this in its entirety. These weren't cleft pallets and the like - we're talking the brain stem protruding out of the back base of the head, thus causing the brain itself, enveloped in some sort of sack, to grow independent of the skull - on a two year old. It was horrific.
As for holding out the possibility that man's actions may one day cause global climate change - that defies common sense to me. Is it possible that it may occur "one day?" I guess so, in so much as "anything" is possible. But my reasoning tells me that if nothing we've done thus far has altered the climate, and fossil fuels have a finite supply, then it's highly unlikely. Furthermore, to say "maybe in the future" man may cause this, lends a level of credibility to Al & co that they certainly do not deserve.
At any rate, I think we've found (outside of moral issues) the single largest policy platform that we can agree upon - renewable energy independence is a matter of national and economic security, AND Al Gore's amazing hair tonic is actually warm soda.
FR
Secondly - perhaps my disdain for the champion's of the "global warming fanaticism", such as Al Gore, seeped into my last and overwhelmed the one line that dealt with your examples of man's impact on the environment such as the Exxon Valdez, Chernobyl, etc. And that line was this: As you know, "environmental" concerns are not a concern of mine. Pollution, smog, yes I can get behind stopping that - but man induced global warming due to the expenditure of fossil fuels, we've dealt with that farce.
I fully admit that pollution via man's actions occurs on a 1:1 ratio. I'd have to be as insane as the global warming wackos not to. And from now on I will separate "environmental concerns", since that by definition includes tragedies like Chernobyl, and more accurately refer to the "AlGoreians" (not to be confused with Algerians) as "global warming alarmists" whom "believe", absent hard science, that man is altering the climate of earth through Co2. In fact I viewed a program on HBO not long ago that would interest you - no doubt you are already familiar with this, but the name of the documentary was "My Heart's in Chernobyl", or something to that effect. And it tracked and interviewed the birth defects in babies in the surrounding areas. Oh my goodness! One must have a strong constitution to watch this in its entirety. These weren't cleft pallets and the like - we're talking the brain stem protruding out of the back base of the head, thus causing the brain itself, enveloped in some sort of sack, to grow independent of the skull - on a two year old. It was horrific.
As for holding out the possibility that man's actions may one day cause global climate change - that defies common sense to me. Is it possible that it may occur "one day?" I guess so, in so much as "anything" is possible. But my reasoning tells me that if nothing we've done thus far has altered the climate, and fossil fuels have a finite supply, then it's highly unlikely. Furthermore, to say "maybe in the future" man may cause this, lends a level of credibility to Al & co that they certainly do not deserve.
At any rate, I think we've found (outside of moral issues) the single largest policy platform that we can agree upon - renewable energy independence is a matter of national and economic security, AND Al Gore's amazing hair tonic is actually warm soda.
FR
Let's get someting straight...
Not only do I agree with your last post, Ryan... but both James and I have been spouting the same thoughts since 2001, and you are only JUST now getting the idea. AND you get it from an undoubtedly "biased" TV program... that hurts, man.
However, I feel it is important to make a point here.
As stated numerous times, I do not buy into the whole "global warming" panic as it is promoted by Gore and the far-Left. There simply isn't enough hard science to back up the claims of impending doom and gloom.
That does not mean, however, that I think you are correct in making blanket generalizations concerning mankind's ability to alter the environment in catastrophic ways. I really think you need to stop "pooh-poohing" the possibility that man's industrial labors might someday have an impact that could be felt globally.
I am unable to argue with the fact that events in Earth's natural history... even in our recorded history... have managed to produce more carbon dioxide in one year than we as a civilization have created in the last 75 years (the years when our CO2 production was highest). Eruptions of volcanoes like Etna, Ida, Mauna Loa, the Kamchatka, Krakatoa... all have thrown millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere with each eruption. Hekla, on Iceland's southern shores, has been erupting nearly continuously since 1100 A.D. These events have produced MORE sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen carbide the we have EVER produced... surely THAT says something, right? The litany of evidence that clearly shows that the Earth has gone through periodic and sometimes extreme temperature changes is also long and accepted. All of this does (in my eyes) tend to negate much of what the "global warmers" are screaming about.
That is all well and good, and any opinions to the contrary of Gore's (et al) based on these facts are valid and stand alone very nicely.
I still hear, however, your tone of disdain and contempt whenever anyone brings up ANY kind of environmental concern... as if your doubts and concerns about global warming eliminate the possibility that man could alter the environment in some other manner. That is naive in the extreme, and does you argument no good at all.
Exxon Valdis, the Union Carbide leak at Bhopal, India (which killed nearly 5,000 people in 6 hours), the PPL contamination of groundwater in CA (which has cost PPL and the American taxpayer in excess of $1.2 billion in clean up) are all excellent examples of man effecting vast and vital areas of the environment through industrial contamination.
However, let's look at just one incident as an example of just how impacting our modern industry can be on the environment...
Chernobyl.
In 1986, the fire at Chernobyl effected 32 European and Asian nations, and has contaminated no less than 600,000 sq/km of central Asia (roughly 1.5 times the size of Texas). In fact, in the area immediately around the plant, arable land was rendered unusable in tracts that are larger than the State of Rhode Island. 780,000 people have been permanently displaced by the event, and 4 moderate sized cities and towns have been abandoned due to radiation. The really amazing thing about Chernobyl is that the fire started in April of 1986 (just months before I graduated high school) and is still burning to this day! It will continue to burn the nuclear fuel (an estimated 180,000 kilograms of the rods were in the reactor) for the next 25,000 years... requiring that every 4 to 8 years another layer of concrete (or something else) be added to the containment vessel for roughly 2.5 times longer than human civilization has existed. The slag that results from the fire (called "lava" I think) is so toxic that 1 minute of exposure to dust or steam from this crap will kill a healthy man in less than 12 hours.
This is the kind of industrial impact that I think anyone can see as unquestionably measurable in its effect on the environment. Of course, this doesn't take into account the 15,000 nuclear warheads which constitute the US arsenal alone... taking the estimated number of all the worlds weapons, the number is nearly 100,000 warheads... and we will leave the possibility of any of those global weapons being unaccounted for (meaning "on the market") for another discussion.
So, please, Ryan... do me a favor and stop dismissing each and every possible environmental concern as irrelevant to any and all political discussions. I am just as much a realists as the next person, and the term realpolitik has its place in debate and discussion... but if the "environment" is a top 5 concern of as many as even 10% of the voting public in America, who could argue that it is NOT something that anyone can afford to ignore?
However, I feel it is important to make a point here.
As stated numerous times, I do not buy into the whole "global warming" panic as it is promoted by Gore and the far-Left. There simply isn't enough hard science to back up the claims of impending doom and gloom.
That does not mean, however, that I think you are correct in making blanket generalizations concerning mankind's ability to alter the environment in catastrophic ways. I really think you need to stop "pooh-poohing" the possibility that man's industrial labors might someday have an impact that could be felt globally.
I am unable to argue with the fact that events in Earth's natural history... even in our recorded history... have managed to produce more carbon dioxide in one year than we as a civilization have created in the last 75 years (the years when our CO2 production was highest). Eruptions of volcanoes like Etna, Ida, Mauna Loa, the Kamchatka, Krakatoa... all have thrown millions of tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere with each eruption. Hekla, on Iceland's southern shores, has been erupting nearly continuously since 1100 A.D. These events have produced MORE sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and hydrogen carbide the we have EVER produced... surely THAT says something, right? The litany of evidence that clearly shows that the Earth has gone through periodic and sometimes extreme temperature changes is also long and accepted. All of this does (in my eyes) tend to negate much of what the "global warmers" are screaming about.
That is all well and good, and any opinions to the contrary of Gore's (et al) based on these facts are valid and stand alone very nicely.
I still hear, however, your tone of disdain and contempt whenever anyone brings up ANY kind of environmental concern... as if your doubts and concerns about global warming eliminate the possibility that man could alter the environment in some other manner. That is naive in the extreme, and does you argument no good at all.
Exxon Valdis, the Union Carbide leak at Bhopal, India (which killed nearly 5,000 people in 6 hours), the PPL contamination of groundwater in CA (which has cost PPL and the American taxpayer in excess of $1.2 billion in clean up) are all excellent examples of man effecting vast and vital areas of the environment through industrial contamination.
However, let's look at just one incident as an example of just how impacting our modern industry can be on the environment...
Chernobyl.
In 1986, the fire at Chernobyl effected 32 European and Asian nations, and has contaminated no less than 600,000 sq/km of central Asia (roughly 1.5 times the size of Texas). In fact, in the area immediately around the plant, arable land was rendered unusable in tracts that are larger than the State of Rhode Island. 780,000 people have been permanently displaced by the event, and 4 moderate sized cities and towns have been abandoned due to radiation. The really amazing thing about Chernobyl is that the fire started in April of 1986 (just months before I graduated high school) and is still burning to this day! It will continue to burn the nuclear fuel (an estimated 180,000 kilograms of the rods were in the reactor) for the next 25,000 years... requiring that every 4 to 8 years another layer of concrete (or something else) be added to the containment vessel for roughly 2.5 times longer than human civilization has existed. The slag that results from the fire (called "lava" I think) is so toxic that 1 minute of exposure to dust or steam from this crap will kill a healthy man in less than 12 hours.
This is the kind of industrial impact that I think anyone can see as unquestionably measurable in its effect on the environment. Of course, this doesn't take into account the 15,000 nuclear warheads which constitute the US arsenal alone... taking the estimated number of all the worlds weapons, the number is nearly 100,000 warheads... and we will leave the possibility of any of those global weapons being unaccounted for (meaning "on the market") for another discussion.
So, please, Ryan... do me a favor and stop dismissing each and every possible environmental concern as irrelevant to any and all political discussions. I am just as much a realists as the next person, and the term realpolitik has its place in debate and discussion... but if the "environment" is a top 5 concern of as many as even 10% of the voting public in America, who could argue that it is NOT something that anyone can afford to ignore?
The Four Horsemen
There's a program on the History Channel as I write this, as part of the Mega Movers series, entitled Oil Apocalypse. It's a quasi-documentary presentation focusing on expert predictions of not when (everyone seems to agree it's 100-150 years) oil supplies will run out, but rather what will happen globally when it does.
Quite interesting. I was unaware that in the 1950's we supplied half of the worlds oil supply. WE were exporters. In 1956 we consumed 7 million barrels a day, but produced 10 million, meaning we exported the remaining three. In that same year the lead geologist for Shell Oil Company made an ominous prediction - he noted that American oil production would peak in 1970, and decline each year there after. He was right. We peaked in that exact year until currently we produce 8.3 million barrels daily, but consume 20 million - obviously meaning we import the other 11.7 million - per day. Now here's why the geologist's accuracy in that prediction is so important, and scary. He also said that world oil production would peak in the first half of the 21st century. And the GAO - in documents they presented in the program - has confirmed that world wide peak production will be reached between 2007 and 2040. Is everyone aware what "peak production" means? The world's collective ability to drill oil will level off at a certain number, on a certain date, even though the demand will continue to grow as populations, manufacturing, transportation, and cities all grow larger. Every car, heated home, jet plane that is built after that will not be part of the peak production equation. Oil supplies 99% of our transportation, and 50% of our home and business enrgy. And that's just our obvious uses. Asphalt, plastics, tires, cosmetics and many pharmaceuticals are all petroleum based. Even worse, not only will it "peak", but as with all things that hit their ceiling, it will begin to fall. You'll have the simultaneous events of dropping supplies and growing demand. So the "apocalyptic" scenarios won't begin the moment the last drop is sucked out of the ground, rather as soon as it is publicly acknowledged by business and government leaders that peak world production has been reached. The price will spike, 100$ a barrel will be a distant memory, and we will very likely hit a world wide recession the likes of which we have never seen.
Now, back to that GAO report. They also noted that at present we (the US government) have "no clear alternative to avert or delay the repercussions of world wide peak production." Now, as one expert pointed out, if you're the leader of any given 1st or 2nd world nation -let alone third - and you're looking at an economic disaster in in 6 months because of a drastic cut in oil supplies, and you've got this huge army sitting there, what do you think that formula will produce? War. Greeks fought Trojans over shipping lanes (despite how hot Helen was). War over vital supplies is as old as man himself. And even before war, for any environmentalists out there, kiss ANWAR and unobstructed gulf coastlines goodbye. The prohibitions on that drilling will join the legendary Dodo asap, of that you can be sure.
As you know, "environmental" concerns are not a concern of mine. Pollution, smog, yes I can get behind stopping that - but man induced global warming due to the expenditure of fossil fuels, we've dealt with that farce. There are two other, real concerns that should have us pushing towards new technologies. First, and most immediate, the homeland of our current enemy is also the homeland of the worlds richest oil supplies. The moment oil is no longer needed from the house of Saud and it's neighbors is the moment Islamic terrorism gets dealt it's death blow. Secondly, we will face shortages once we hit peak production. The economic ramifications of this hitting us while unprepared boggles the mind - it's incalculable. Deep water drilling - 5 miles deep and below - may delay it, but eerily enough that has already begun, meaning the necessity of it has been recognized. And "delay" is failing to plan, which inevitably translates into planning to fail.
So my point is this - Titus lamented over this administration's lack, or clear absence, of any new energy plan for the US. And he's right. One might argue that 9/11 changed their focus entirely, but if the Bund can recognize the two are related in the long term, then they should have also. So, what must the next president do? First, move off the "global warming" argument as the need for new energy. Currently all the hybrids and conservation attempts are fueled (pardon the pun) by this, and in most circles (deservedly so) it's a punch line. That captures the attention of about only a third of our population, and probably less than 10% of the voting populous (not to mention it's a farce). Move towards reality - national security. You can add in that the discovery or invention of new energies will avoid a future catastrophic world wide depression, but focus on national security - now you've got the attention of at least 75% of the nation. Everyone outside of the "Move On" crowd recognizes we face a current threat, and moreover, the region of the world from which it comes.
Along with border security I would say this is the single greatest failing of the current administration - no alternative, independent energy plan. And what astonishes me is if I can learn this over the course of one program, then surely the high clearance level of information they are privy to has made them aware.
So it's simple. You do two things simultaneously. As president you commission a "Energy Manhattan Project" with a mandate that entails all the urgency of defeating the Japanese. And then you go on TV, recite succinctly what I have written about here - defeating terrorism and averting a future world wide catastrophic recession, and announce that the US government will award a multi-trillion dollar contract to the company or individual that comes up with the best, most renewable, home grown alternative to oil. And it has to be original and cost effective. We know about nuclear and clean coal. I doubt many communities will welcome "nuke stations" on the corner in order to some how fill up the family car, let alone ride around in "nuke mobiles"- it's just too taboo. Make Hydro, cold fusion, or something entirely new, feasible, cost effective and efficient, and you win. And your company's stock price is guaranteed for eternity. Then you have turned lose the genius of the private sector, and given yourself a back up plan with the Manhattan Project.
When properly articulated as vital to national security and global business, rather than the cause of "tree huggers" and global warming, middle America will come on board, and that's when it will happen. Who in the current crop of candidates is talking like that? Answer: no one.
FR
Quite interesting. I was unaware that in the 1950's we supplied half of the worlds oil supply. WE were exporters. In 1956 we consumed 7 million barrels a day, but produced 10 million, meaning we exported the remaining three. In that same year the lead geologist for Shell Oil Company made an ominous prediction - he noted that American oil production would peak in 1970, and decline each year there after. He was right. We peaked in that exact year until currently we produce 8.3 million barrels daily, but consume 20 million - obviously meaning we import the other 11.7 million - per day. Now here's why the geologist's accuracy in that prediction is so important, and scary. He also said that world oil production would peak in the first half of the 21st century. And the GAO - in documents they presented in the program - has confirmed that world wide peak production will be reached between 2007 and 2040. Is everyone aware what "peak production" means? The world's collective ability to drill oil will level off at a certain number, on a certain date, even though the demand will continue to grow as populations, manufacturing, transportation, and cities all grow larger. Every car, heated home, jet plane that is built after that will not be part of the peak production equation. Oil supplies 99% of our transportation, and 50% of our home and business enrgy. And that's just our obvious uses. Asphalt, plastics, tires, cosmetics and many pharmaceuticals are all petroleum based. Even worse, not only will it "peak", but as with all things that hit their ceiling, it will begin to fall. You'll have the simultaneous events of dropping supplies and growing demand. So the "apocalyptic" scenarios won't begin the moment the last drop is sucked out of the ground, rather as soon as it is publicly acknowledged by business and government leaders that peak world production has been reached. The price will spike, 100$ a barrel will be a distant memory, and we will very likely hit a world wide recession the likes of which we have never seen.
Now, back to that GAO report. They also noted that at present we (the US government) have "no clear alternative to avert or delay the repercussions of world wide peak production." Now, as one expert pointed out, if you're the leader of any given 1st or 2nd world nation -let alone third - and you're looking at an economic disaster in in 6 months because of a drastic cut in oil supplies, and you've got this huge army sitting there, what do you think that formula will produce? War. Greeks fought Trojans over shipping lanes (despite how hot Helen was). War over vital supplies is as old as man himself. And even before war, for any environmentalists out there, kiss ANWAR and unobstructed gulf coastlines goodbye. The prohibitions on that drilling will join the legendary Dodo asap, of that you can be sure.
As you know, "environmental" concerns are not a concern of mine. Pollution, smog, yes I can get behind stopping that - but man induced global warming due to the expenditure of fossil fuels, we've dealt with that farce. There are two other, real concerns that should have us pushing towards new technologies. First, and most immediate, the homeland of our current enemy is also the homeland of the worlds richest oil supplies. The moment oil is no longer needed from the house of Saud and it's neighbors is the moment Islamic terrorism gets dealt it's death blow. Secondly, we will face shortages once we hit peak production. The economic ramifications of this hitting us while unprepared boggles the mind - it's incalculable. Deep water drilling - 5 miles deep and below - may delay it, but eerily enough that has already begun, meaning the necessity of it has been recognized. And "delay" is failing to plan, which inevitably translates into planning to fail.
So my point is this - Titus lamented over this administration's lack, or clear absence, of any new energy plan for the US. And he's right. One might argue that 9/11 changed their focus entirely, but if the Bund can recognize the two are related in the long term, then they should have also. So, what must the next president do? First, move off the "global warming" argument as the need for new energy. Currently all the hybrids and conservation attempts are fueled (pardon the pun) by this, and in most circles (deservedly so) it's a punch line. That captures the attention of about only a third of our population, and probably less than 10% of the voting populous (not to mention it's a farce). Move towards reality - national security. You can add in that the discovery or invention of new energies will avoid a future catastrophic world wide depression, but focus on national security - now you've got the attention of at least 75% of the nation. Everyone outside of the "Move On" crowd recognizes we face a current threat, and moreover, the region of the world from which it comes.
Along with border security I would say this is the single greatest failing of the current administration - no alternative, independent energy plan. And what astonishes me is if I can learn this over the course of one program, then surely the high clearance level of information they are privy to has made them aware.
So it's simple. You do two things simultaneously. As president you commission a "Energy Manhattan Project" with a mandate that entails all the urgency of defeating the Japanese. And then you go on TV, recite succinctly what I have written about here - defeating terrorism and averting a future world wide catastrophic recession, and announce that the US government will award a multi-trillion dollar contract to the company or individual that comes up with the best, most renewable, home grown alternative to oil. And it has to be original and cost effective. We know about nuclear and clean coal. I doubt many communities will welcome "nuke stations" on the corner in order to some how fill up the family car, let alone ride around in "nuke mobiles"- it's just too taboo. Make Hydro, cold fusion, or something entirely new, feasible, cost effective and efficient, and you win. And your company's stock price is guaranteed for eternity. Then you have turned lose the genius of the private sector, and given yourself a back up plan with the Manhattan Project.
When properly articulated as vital to national security and global business, rather than the cause of "tree huggers" and global warming, middle America will come on board, and that's when it will happen. Who in the current crop of candidates is talking like that? Answer: no one.
FR
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
