Actually, I am from under the bridge...the Mackinaw Bridge....so I am a troll in Yooper speak. My clan is Yoopers doh. Swedes from Iron Mountain. And I spent a couple of great college years in dah UP at NMU.
You need to get out of the Left--Right paradigm. Both the Repubs and Demos are the bought and paid for idiots of a group of people (international bankers) that are running this country into the dirt.
Check a dollar vs. Euro graph. The dollar is being destroyed by design.
To find out what's really going on check out Alex Jones at:
RB wrote in news:g65ki3$4lv$1 @registered.motzarella.org:
It was the same with the "Dot Com" implosion during the Clinton regime.
This time it was the Housing Market - again - just as it was with the S&L meltdown 20 years earlier.
It'll probably happen again 20 years from now as a new crop of lenders and borrowers make the same old mistakes (fradulent applications and "baloon" mortgages) again.
We'll be lucky to have fully recovered from what's happening now even twenty years from now and when we do our place in the world will be very different.
With a little luck, we will be 100% powered by nuclear, the windmills will be abandoned as being too expensive, your electric car will have a decent battery and a hydro or hydro carbon powered apu for range. We will still have oil.
I think T. Boon went for wind because he figured he could get it done in his lifetime. If he could have got nuclear plants up quick I bet he would have invested differently. Part of the art of politics is recognizing the doable and working inside that framework. In the world of the future, a nuclear facility will be located on that wind farm, after all, the power lines are there.
Electric heat will be the norm, since due to nuclear power plants, it is now the cheapest least polluting form of energy on the planet.
Our national debt will have been erased since we and Canada are the only countries with hydrocarbons to sell to the now depleted world market at prices that make $140 a barrel oil seem cheap.
Some bitter clingers will cling to their photocells and home windmills but the rest of us will get to enjoy what the "environmentalist's" denied us for decades. CHEAP CLEAN ENERGY.
GLOBAL VIEW By BRET STEPHENS Al Gore's Doomsday Clock July 22, 2008; Page A17
Al Gore gave a speech last week "challenging" America to run "on 100% zero-carbon electricity in 10 years" -- though that's just the first step on his road to "ending our reliance on carbon-based fuels." Serious people understand this is absurd. Maybe other people will start drawing the same conclusion about the man proposing it.
The former vice president has also recently disavowed any intention of returning to politics. This is wise. As America's leading peddler of both doom and salvation, Mr. Gore has moved beyond the constraints and obligations of reality. His job is to serve as a Prophet of Truth.
In Mr. Gore's prophecy, a transition to carbon-free electricity generation in a decade is "achievable, affordable and transformative." He believes that the goal can be achieved almost entirely through the use of "renewables" alone, meaning solar, geothermal, wind power and biofuels.
And he doesn't think we really have any other good options: "The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk," he says, with his usual gift for understatement. "And even more -- if more should be required -- the future of human civilization is at stake."
What manner the catastrophe might take isn't yet clear, but the scenarios are grim: The climate crisis is getting worse faster than anticipated; global warming will cause refugee crises and destabilize entire nations; an "energy tsunami" is headed our way. And so on.
Here, however, is an inconvenient fact. In 1995, the U.S. got about
2.2% of its net electricity generation from "renewable" sources, according to the Energy Information Administration. By 2000, the last full year of the Clinton administration, that percentage had dropped to 2.1%. By contrast, the combined share of coal, petroleum and natural gas rose to 70% from 68% during the same time frame.
Now the share of renewables is up slightly, to about 2.3% as of 2006 (the latest year for which the EIA provides figures). The EIA thinks the use of renewables (minus hydropower) could rise to 201 billion kilowatt hours per year in 2018 from the current 65 billion. But the EIA also projects total net generation in 2018 to be 4.4 trillion kilowatt hours per year. That would put the total share of renewables at just over four percent of our electricity needs.
Mr. Gore's argument would be helped if he were also willing to propose huge investments in nuclear power, which emits no carbon dioxide and currently supplies about one-fifth of U.S. electricity needs, and about three-quarters of France's. Britain has just approved eight new nuclear plants, and the German government of Angela Merkel is working to do away with a plan by the previous government to go nuclear-free.
But Mr. Gore makes no mention of nuclear power in his speech, nor of the equally carbon-free hydroelectric power. These are proven technologies -- and useful reminders of what happens when environmentalists get what they wished for.
Mr. Gore's case would also be helped if our experience of renewable sources were a positive one. It isn't. In his useful book "Gusher of Lies," Robert Bryce notes that "in July 2006, wind turbines in California produced power at only about 10% of their capacity; in Texas, one of the most promising states for wind energy, the windmills produced electricity at about 17% of their rated capacity." Like wind power, solar power also suffers from the problem of intermittency, which means that it has to be backed up by conventional sources in order to avoid disruptions. This is especially true of hot summers when the wind doesn't blow and cold winters when the sun doesn't shine.
And then there are biofuels, whose recent vogue, the World Bank believes, may have been responsible for up to 75% of the recent rise in world food prices. Save the planet; starve the poor.
None of this seems to trouble Mr. Gore. He thinks that simply by declaring an emergency he can help achieve Stakhanovite results. He might recall what the Stakhanovite myth (about the man who mined 14 times his quota of coal in six hours) actually did to the Soviet economy.
A more interesting question is why Mr. Gore remains believable. Perhaps people think that facts ought not to count against a man whose task is to raise our sights, or play Cassandra to unbelieving mortals.
Or maybe he is believed simply because people want something in which to believe. "The readiness for self-sacrifice," wrote Eric Hoffer in "The True Believer," "is contingent on an imperviousness to the realities of life. . . . All active mass movements strive, therefore, to interpose a fact-proof screen between the faithful and the realities of the world. They do this by claiming that the ultimate and absolute truth is already embodied in their doctrine and that there is no truth nor certitude outside it. . . . To rely on the evidence of the senses and of reason is heresy and treason. It is startling to realize how much unbelief is necessary to make belief possible."
And when you grow up you will too. All on your own! In the mean time, you will settle for having other people think for you. No wonder our schools have such trouble producing useful talent. The parents they deal with look just like you. Their kids turn out exactly as yours has.
That's a lot cheaper than keeping those old, overweight politicins on the dole for the rest of their lives, and lets them finally do something for the people.
HAHAHA! . It was my joke. I was making a Daily Show segment in my head one night, and the idea popped up. I pictured McCain as Ahab, with clips from those old whale-blubber slicing and rendering scenes shot in the 1920s. Did you ever see that movie? It was something else. I saw it in a film class I took 40 years ago.
The reason I'm laughing is that the very fact you could ask if it was serious tells me how good a Daily Show segment it could have made. d8-)
It just cracks me up to hear these guys bad mouth the Clinton years. As if it wasn't measurably better in his administration than it is now, and as if the people who made tons of money then really didn't do that well. Because when you look at the stats you see that during Clinton's terms the economy and the financial well being of the public was a lot better than now or under the first Bush. While some may say it was a house of cards, the money in people's pockets and in their homes and investments was real. Just like today's losses are real. I just chalk it up to the right wing guys not being able to face reality. They can't accept that the current conditions, brought about by a republican president they had too much faith in, are rotten and that they were so much better when a Democrat was in the White House. If we are lucky we will have the same thing again if Obama becomes president.
The price of a kilowatt of power generated by wind is four cents. Nothing else is close to that, wind never runs out, and it produces no nuclear waste. That's why Pickens is for it. Nuclear power has more negatives to it than wind and it's more expensive.
Remember that Gummer is a product of the American education system, which people like him and his republican pals are always saying is so bad. After hearing his thinking process I now see how lousy his education is. Either that or he's just got a low mental capacity. The other thing is that for a fairly young man he sounds and thinks like someone much older. His views sound a lot like my Dad's and he'll be 85 this spring. Why is it that right wingers sound like such old timers? Why are they young, old farts?
LOL I've seen the movie and McCain would be perfect for the part. Sheesh
Did you notice today that little Andy Cuomo filed against UBS? He says he thinks the 50 thousand folks that are holding auction rate securities sold them by UBS need their 37 Billion dollars back. That's a lot of dough even for UBS. You could probably buy Ford and GM for less than that.
So am I. The difference is that my parents didn't treat the public school system as a baby sitting service. I was expected to learn something while I was there and I did. I screwed around for half a year once and my father gave me the choice of getting with the program or a year at the Manlius School which was just across town.
My grades and attitude improved remarkably. We didn't need to have that little "talk" twice.
Which brings up a question. How does one measure the motor fuel qualities of an oil? If a small quantity of whale oil could be...found, would anyone on the board have an interest in characterizing whale oil as Diesel fuel and becoming enshrined in the halls of science? Yes, I am half serious.
Kevin Gallimore (soon to be whale aquaculture magnate)
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
formatting link
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.