...After all, back in '79 everybody and their brothers thought wind power was here to stay, and countless doctors and lawyers invested in pinwheel farms all over Collie-fornia, mainly as a tax loss, and a lot of them ain't spinning anymore. The bottom line is that total energy costs, as a percentage of US household income, are lower now than at any time in history while at the same time consumption rises unabated... all with scant contribution by wind, solar, manure or cow farts combined.
It could easily be another two decades before fossil energy costs remain consistently high enough to draw massive alternative investment, and there again it could be just two years. Who knows? New micro-power and CHP (combined heat and power) technologies that burn fossil fuels, the increased use of the virtual workplace over commuting and other macro trends in behavior and choice could make both wind power and grid congestion non-issues for many, many decades, and don't think that "big oil" is going to just sit back and let a bunch of spinning lawn ornaments put them out of business. As just a modest example of the differences between the two energy storage and delivery systems, just look at the wide disparity of the costs of "batteries" for the storage of intermittent demand supply or surplus energy between an electric car and a fossil fuel vehicle, the former requiring exotic design and materials with unknown long term disposal issues, and the latter needed little more than a simple tank.
If the oil and gas companies can find the technology for you to save money and increase reliability by going off grid, they will, and frankly I think the odds of success in such developments are about equal to those of wind power garnering as much as even 15% of our electric utility generating capacity. But what do I know that we didn't all know two decades ago? Like Shultz, I know nothing, I see nothing, I hear nothing. Come to think of it, I've got an old Beckett oil burner I should graft into my wall oven so I can get those kilowatts off-grid. Then, in addition to "bake" and "broil", I'll be able to "cremate".
Thursday, March 29, 2007
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
On Iraq war and terrorism
[Left-wing nutcase attacks Bush, Cheyney and Rumsfeld for invading Iraq]
You're right. It is much better to just sit back and wait for the enemy to invade over here than to ever try to do anything about it over there.
[Left wing nutcase cites death toll, cost and the fact that now the Muslim world hates us as high prices to pay for "keeping Bush's cronies happy"]
I said you're right, Left-wing nutcase, what more do you want? I think we should just ignore the problems of the rest of the world, let the Jews be annihilated and wait until they take out a couple more buildings, a stadium or shopping mall full of Americans right here. Then we can set up the Nazi state that you really want anyway... having storm-troopers checking zee papers every time you cross between PA and NJ, etc. Or maybe we just pledge our lives to Allah and change our wicked ways so they won't want to kill us any more.
It's always so easy to say what you would not have done, the question is, if you were the President and charged with first and foremost protecting the American people, what would you do? Simply saying that you would make them like us is naive, saying we deserved it is cruel, and blaming it on "Bush" is illogical because your Slickmeister hero and Madeline Unbright tried making nice for eight years and they blew us up over and over again anyway. How do you deal with maniacs who believe you should either convert or die? You either kill them first, give up your liberty or just pass the buck to your children, it's that simple.
[Left-wing nutcase replies that he is neither left nor right, and that Pat Robertson is as much a bloodthirsty killer as any Arab terrorist. Further replies to another poster that 700 million Arabs were not mad at us before 911, maybe 20,000, but now that we invaded a weak, isolated soverign country that had not attacked us on "trumped up lies" may lead to our own downfall. Rome fell because it spent itself poor paying for foreign adventures it could not afford.]
That's not exactly true about Rome. The great Roman Empire and culture fell because of the unfettered hiring of barbarian mercenaries into the Legion and importation of immigrants, slave labor and bounty to artificially raise the standard of living in the short term and degrade the culture in the long term. All the same, the impact upon the advancement of human-kind was and has been, like the British Empire centuries later, felt to this day.
If the President's big play... trying to establish the first state in the Arab world where the people have liberty and self determination so that 21st century values can take root in a 7th century world, the impact on many future generations of our children will be enormous, just as it will be if we allow such a strategy to fail or simply decide that losing a few thousand, or tens or hundreds of thousands of American citizens every decade or so in a major terrorist attack is a price worth paying for minding our own business. I know the latter sounds sick, but I know many who actually feel that way, especially if they feel that they are not likely to be the victims of such attacks anyway.
[Another Left-wing nutcase chimes in that thousands a day are being killed and Daddy Bush gave Saddam the WMD he used against the Kurds, etc.]
First of all, we are not losing "1000's a day" in Iraq, and America never "gave" Hussein WMD to use on Iran, only stood by as he developed and deployed them in his ten year war with Iran, which was the greater threat to the west back then just as they are today. Are you saying we "gave" Hussein weapons that are banned by the Geneva Convention? Anyway, WMD aside, what WOULD (not wouldn't) you do to prevent another 911? What would you do about Iran? They WILL get their nukes because nobody has the stones to stop them, and what will you do then, surrender? Talk? Personally, I would tell them they have 24 hours to release those British hostages they are holding and hope they didn't, then take out every possible nuke site on the precedent of their act of war. But all we're going to get is a bunch of talk, and our children will have to deal with the fallout... literally.
As to the early '80s, I remember the late '70s, 444 days of American hostages in Iran and only the fear of the incoming Ronald Reagan leading to their release within hours of him taking the oath of office. To listen to the left, everything is always and only the Republican's fault, for example some tell us that it was Nixon who got us into Viet Nam, too. Oh well, that's enough on this out of me. The left will have to come forth with realistic plans for dealing with those who saw peoples' heads off and blow up innocents and children around the globe; they never have, and that's why they cannot, and never can be trusted to protect American lives and liberty. They just hate Bush, and some day he'll have been gone for a few decades and they'll have to find some other Republican to hate and blame for everything.
[Another poster brings up the topic of Ron Paul running for President]
Fascinating, he is definitely an equal-opportunity iconoclast, and the moniker "Dr. No" is richly deserved. But I fail to see how he proposes to stop the terrorists from carving living victim's heads off and blowing Westerners to atoms whenever they get the chance, or how he will change the world such that our children and grandchildren do not have to live with this threat until CTC reaches $18, in other words, forever.
We are members of the 21st century human race, not a herd of wildebeest on the Serengeti Plain, and I reject the idea that it is somehow a beneficial force of nature for a 7th century terrorist lion to periodically leap from hiding in the brush and drag off the weak or the slow in order to strengthen the species. If that were the case, I could argue that we should simply let the homeless die in the streets as well, and I am sure all the anti-war crowd would be opposed to that... they believe you should only kill them in the womb or let them be killed by serial murders on parole.
[A conservative suggests that democratization in the Arab world is impossible and only nuking one of them to make an example of them will stop terrorism]
Your's IS my plan "B", and ultimately that WILL occur if plan "A" fails and that nuke inevitably goes off in an American city... green glass parking lots being stamped one by one across the entire Arab world, and killing on a scale that would make the liberals most prized accomplishment, the millions who had pink plastic bags pulled over their heads in Cambodia, seem insignificant by comparison.
[Left wing nutcase suggests that with such a policy he can't blame Iran for wanting their own nukes]
It's not my policy. It will be the unforgiving policy of the American people if the terrorists use a nuke here first, and they will use one if they can get their hands on one and sneak it in. And yes, it will make us insane and perfectly willing to send them all to Allah. And all of that needless death and destruction will be because callous leftists decided that the Arab people prefer dictatorship and terrorism to freedom, and are incapable of comprehending what liberty brings to the advancement of man. Thus, leftists are willing to simply observe from afar with the indifference of a cosmetic researcher injecting nail polish into a rabbit's eyes. It is simply amazing how little the folks on your side care about what slaughter and oppression occurs around the globe... as long as America isn't trying to stop it.
Polar bears swimming in the Arctic Ocean? Disaster! Get rid of your SUV immediately! Slaughter in Rwanda? Who cares? Saddam invading his neighbors, launching Scud missiles into Tel Aviv and killing a couple hundred thousand Kurds? None of our business. After all, since we supposedly created that monster, why would we ever have any obligation to the rest of the world to destroy it?
You're right. It is much better to just sit back and wait for the enemy to invade over here than to ever try to do anything about it over there.
[Left wing nutcase cites death toll, cost and the fact that now the Muslim world hates us as high prices to pay for "keeping Bush's cronies happy"]
I said you're right, Left-wing nutcase, what more do you want? I think we should just ignore the problems of the rest of the world, let the Jews be annihilated and wait until they take out a couple more buildings, a stadium or shopping mall full of Americans right here. Then we can set up the Nazi state that you really want anyway... having storm-troopers checking zee papers every time you cross between PA and NJ, etc. Or maybe we just pledge our lives to Allah and change our wicked ways so they won't want to kill us any more.
It's always so easy to say what you would not have done, the question is, if you were the President and charged with first and foremost protecting the American people, what would you do? Simply saying that you would make them like us is naive, saying we deserved it is cruel, and blaming it on "Bush" is illogical because your Slickmeister hero and Madeline Unbright tried making nice for eight years and they blew us up over and over again anyway. How do you deal with maniacs who believe you should either convert or die? You either kill them first, give up your liberty or just pass the buck to your children, it's that simple.
[Left-wing nutcase replies that he is neither left nor right, and that Pat Robertson is as much a bloodthirsty killer as any Arab terrorist. Further replies to another poster that 700 million Arabs were not mad at us before 911, maybe 20,000, but now that we invaded a weak, isolated soverign country that had not attacked us on "trumped up lies" may lead to our own downfall. Rome fell because it spent itself poor paying for foreign adventures it could not afford.]
That's not exactly true about Rome. The great Roman Empire and culture fell because of the unfettered hiring of barbarian mercenaries into the Legion and importation of immigrants, slave labor and bounty to artificially raise the standard of living in the short term and degrade the culture in the long term. All the same, the impact upon the advancement of human-kind was and has been, like the British Empire centuries later, felt to this day.
If the President's big play... trying to establish the first state in the Arab world where the people have liberty and self determination so that 21st century values can take root in a 7th century world, the impact on many future generations of our children will be enormous, just as it will be if we allow such a strategy to fail or simply decide that losing a few thousand, or tens or hundreds of thousands of American citizens every decade or so in a major terrorist attack is a price worth paying for minding our own business. I know the latter sounds sick, but I know many who actually feel that way, especially if they feel that they are not likely to be the victims of such attacks anyway.
[Another Left-wing nutcase chimes in that thousands a day are being killed and Daddy Bush gave Saddam the WMD he used against the Kurds, etc.]
First of all, we are not losing "1000's a day" in Iraq, and America never "gave" Hussein WMD to use on Iran, only stood by as he developed and deployed them in his ten year war with Iran, which was the greater threat to the west back then just as they are today. Are you saying we "gave" Hussein weapons that are banned by the Geneva Convention? Anyway, WMD aside, what WOULD (not wouldn't) you do to prevent another 911? What would you do about Iran? They WILL get their nukes because nobody has the stones to stop them, and what will you do then, surrender? Talk? Personally, I would tell them they have 24 hours to release those British hostages they are holding and hope they didn't, then take out every possible nuke site on the precedent of their act of war. But all we're going to get is a bunch of talk, and our children will have to deal with the fallout... literally.
As to the early '80s, I remember the late '70s, 444 days of American hostages in Iran and only the fear of the incoming Ronald Reagan leading to their release within hours of him taking the oath of office. To listen to the left, everything is always and only the Republican's fault, for example some tell us that it was Nixon who got us into Viet Nam, too. Oh well, that's enough on this out of me. The left will have to come forth with realistic plans for dealing with those who saw peoples' heads off and blow up innocents and children around the globe; they never have, and that's why they cannot, and never can be trusted to protect American lives and liberty. They just hate Bush, and some day he'll have been gone for a few decades and they'll have to find some other Republican to hate and blame for everything.
[Another poster brings up the topic of Ron Paul running for President]
Fascinating, he is definitely an equal-opportunity iconoclast, and the moniker "Dr. No" is richly deserved. But I fail to see how he proposes to stop the terrorists from carving living victim's heads off and blowing Westerners to atoms whenever they get the chance, or how he will change the world such that our children and grandchildren do not have to live with this threat until CTC reaches $18, in other words, forever.
We are members of the 21st century human race, not a herd of wildebeest on the Serengeti Plain, and I reject the idea that it is somehow a beneficial force of nature for a 7th century terrorist lion to periodically leap from hiding in the brush and drag off the weak or the slow in order to strengthen the species. If that were the case, I could argue that we should simply let the homeless die in the streets as well, and I am sure all the anti-war crowd would be opposed to that... they believe you should only kill them in the womb or let them be killed by serial murders on parole.
[A conservative suggests that democratization in the Arab world is impossible and only nuking one of them to make an example of them will stop terrorism]
Your's IS my plan "B", and ultimately that WILL occur if plan "A" fails and that nuke inevitably goes off in an American city... green glass parking lots being stamped one by one across the entire Arab world, and killing on a scale that would make the liberals most prized accomplishment, the millions who had pink plastic bags pulled over their heads in Cambodia, seem insignificant by comparison.
[Left wing nutcase suggests that with such a policy he can't blame Iran for wanting their own nukes]
It's not my policy. It will be the unforgiving policy of the American people if the terrorists use a nuke here first, and they will use one if they can get their hands on one and sneak it in. And yes, it will make us insane and perfectly willing to send them all to Allah. And all of that needless death and destruction will be because callous leftists decided that the Arab people prefer dictatorship and terrorism to freedom, and are incapable of comprehending what liberty brings to the advancement of man. Thus, leftists are willing to simply observe from afar with the indifference of a cosmetic researcher injecting nail polish into a rabbit's eyes. It is simply amazing how little the folks on your side care about what slaughter and oppression occurs around the globe... as long as America isn't trying to stop it.
Polar bears swimming in the Arctic Ocean? Disaster! Get rid of your SUV immediately! Slaughter in Rwanda? Who cares? Saddam invading his neighbors, launching Scud missiles into Tel Aviv and killing a couple hundred thousand Kurds? None of our business. After all, since we supposedly created that monster, why would we ever have any obligation to the rest of the world to destroy it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)