[Shinrei]

Oh.

....


....


I dont get it. :'(

[Obdigore]

I am quite Glad that the law against offshore drilling (where not permissable) is not revokable by the president Because Bush is Revoking the Executive Order against it

[Terez]

The whole motivation for doing offshore drilling is the price per barrel, so it seems silly to think that it will lower prices any.

[Shinrei]

http://www.pickensplan.com/

[HoosierDaddy]

Shinrei no Shintai;351434 said:

http://www.pickensplan.com/

Buy into wind power, don't buy into natural gas. Wind power is being used in northeastern Indiana to good effect.

When I saw this commercial on tv I kept thinking, why in the Hell is an oil man doing this. After reading the first section of his plan, I was excited about what he had to say.

Then I got to natural gas. Of course he has to look out for #1, but to present himself as "anti-oil" and then shill most of his anti-oil message as using natural gas as a supplement for gasoline is a little inappropriate.

However, the wind power I'm all for. If we harvested wind, solar, and hydro power we could do away with coal and oil for industry and home usage. It's the cars that are the problem. Give me a hydrogen fuel cell please

[Optimus Prime]

Obdigore;351135 said:

I am quite Glad that the law against offshore drilling (where not permissable) is not revokable by the president Because Bush is Revoking the Executive Order against it

How shocking, given all his oil ties.....I think he's just trying to do stupid shit his last few months in Office. Unlike other crappy presidents who have found positive roles after their reign, I really hope that dope just goes riding off into the sunset and we never have to hear from him again.

[Raymond Luxury Yacht]

I had a conversation once with a coworker who insisted that she had read something about wind turbines.

Coworker: When the wind was not blowing they used solar power to turn them, then the windmills are still producing power

Me: You must have read it wrong, because it makes no sense to use solar power to turn wind power generators. It would be much easier to use the solar power directly. You must have misunderstood.

Her: No, I'm sure. When the wind isn't blowing, they turn on the solar cells, and use that power to turn the windmills.

Me: Um, no. That would be a waste. Why use that power to turn windmills, instead of just using the power directly? I think they use solar INSTEAD of wind if the wind isn't blowing.

Her: Because the windmills produce more power than the solar cells.

[HoosierDaddy]

Raymond Luxury Yacht;351480 said:

I had a conversation once with a coworker who insisted that she had read something about wind turbines.

Coworker: When the wind was not blowing they used solar power to turn them, then the windmills are still producing power

Me: You must have read it wrong, because it makes no sense to use solar power to turn wind power generators. It would be much easier to use the solar power directly. You must have misunderstood.

Her: No, I'm sure. When the wind isn't blowing, they turn on the solar cells, and use that power to turn the windmills.

Me: Um, no. That would be a waste. Why use that power to turn windmills, instead of just using the power directly? I think they use solar INSTEAD of wind if the wind isn't blowing.

Her: Because the windmills produce more power than the solar cells.

America Fuck Yeah!

However, I can understand how this would confuse most. Took drunk intelligent person a few seconds to get it, thus it would take non-intelligent person possibly forever to get it.

[Morgoth]

I think I've mentioned this in the past, but it is even ore viable now.

A democracy can only function properly when the Government fears the people. Lately in the US (and this is not entirely limited to Bush's reign) the government have shown less and less fear of the people. They do what they want and don't seem to give a rats ass about polls. They can do this, I think, because american politics have become so polarized that most wont even consider voting for the other party anyways.

Also because of the apathy shown by most americans regarding bills such as the one mentioned above. This however, I think is a result of what I mentioned in the above paragraph

[relentless]

The reason the government doesn't fear the people is because they don't have anything to fear from the people. You look at Bush, he is just about as unpopular as any president ever, but are there any negative consequences in that for him? Nope. Even if people were to give a damn (and many don't) they couldn't really do anything about it.

If there was some mechanism to remove a government, when it's doing a really bad job, politicians would be a lot more careful.

Quote

election, n,

1. A political competition where two parties try their best to fool the guilible. Whoever does a better job gets to post a dictator until the next election.

[Urb]

Also, the propaganda machine is doing quite well for itself.

[Shinrei]

HoosierDaddy:

I think what Picken's plan shows though, is the necessity of taking steps forward to solve our problem but it is not suggesting we stop there.

The way I understand it, it isn't feasible to just set up wind and solar and hydro to take care of our electricity issues (especially within a short time frame) and say "there, it's done, whaddya think?". We need to take a step in the right direction, then another one, then another one. And it's ok to take several steps at the same time.

[Dolorous Menhir]

relentless;351591 said:

The reason the government doesn't fear the people is because they don't have anything to fear from the people. You look at Bush, he is just about as unpopular as any president ever, but are there any negative consequences in that for him? Nope. Even if people were to give a damn (and many don't) they couldn't really do anything about it.

If there was some mechanism to remove a government, when it's doing a really bad job, politicians would be a lot more careful.

You're missing the obvious mechanism - the 2004 presidential re-election. Bush won that (although the world had hoped he would not) and since then he's been free from the need to win re-election.

I once read that the most important objective of any (democratic) government is to be re-elected. I believe that, and overall this is probably a good thing in terms of keeping them in check. But the US political system weakens this - once a president is in his or her second term, he doesn't have to worry about it. There's still his party and his agenda to protect, but that's not the same as the personal threat of losing office.

There's also impeachment, but I don't think that could ever successfully happen in America (and by successfully I mean "without being or becoming a purely partisan tactic").

[HoosierDaddy]

Shinrei no Shintai;351702 said:

HoosierDaddy:

I think what Picken's plan shows though, is the necessity of taking steps forward to solve our problem but it is not suggesting we stop there.

The way I understand it, it isn't feasible to just set up wind and solar and hydro to take care of our electricity issues (especially within a short time frame) and say "there, it's done, whaddya think?". We need to take a step in the right direction, then another one, then another one. And it's ok to take several steps at the same time.

I wasn't saying the opposite of this, maybe I was confusing. I was merely pointing out that what originally came off as a purely neutral campaign to free american from it's oil addiction by a self confessed "oil man" turned into a less than pristene neutrality with the addition of natural gas. He could have backed hydrogen fuel cells, electric battery power, but instead used natural gas as the solution to the car exhaust problem.

I agree that multiple steps are needed and that it will be an evolutionary not a revolutionary process.

Dolorous Menhir

Quote

I once read that the most important objective of any (democratic) government is to be re-elected. I believe that, and overall this is probably a good thing in terms of keeping them in check. But the US political system weakens this - once a president is in his or her second term, he doesn't have to worry about it. There's still his party and his agenda to protect, but that's not the same as the personal threat of losing office.

This is, however, offset by a very large lame duck factor as the term proceeds. Most presidents realize that if they don't get it done in the first term, likely it won't get done.

[Shinrei]

I think the idea is, this transition to natural gas could happen much more efficiently and in a much shorter time frame than anything else, and we can pursue hydrogen etc. during that time as the next logical step since it would take longer to change that entire infrastructure. And, of course electric battery stuff is continually improving and can be implemented at the same time so more than just that 22% could be moved off oil.

The concensus should be that no one solution can take care of all of our energy needs, and discarding natural gas just because it's not as clean as the others would just make things unnecessarily painful and difficult.

[relentless]

Quote

You're missing the obvious mechanism - the 2004 presidential re-election. Bush won that (although the world had hoped he would not) and since then he's been free from the need to win re-election.

Which just goes to show that it doesn't really matter how badly you do your job, you might get re-elected anyway. Since voters have such a short memory, you pretty much just have to watch out the last six months before the election.

Just looking at the invasion of Iraq, that was at least criminal negligence, by most any standards I can think of. If an employee at a company were to screw up on that scale, they'd boot him out instantly. Yet, when the government does it, they're able to keep going until the next election.

[HoosierDaddy]

Shinrei no Shintai;351912 said:

I think the idea is, this transition to natural gas could happen much more efficiently and in a much shorter time frame than anything else, and we can pursue hydrogen etc. during that time as the next logical step since it would take longer to change that entire infrastructure. And, of course electric battery stuff is continually improving and can be implemented at the same time so more than just that 22% could be moved off oil.

The concensus should be that no one solution can take care of all of our energy needs, and discarding natural gas just because it's not as clean as the others would just make things unnecessarily painful and difficult.

We're speaking at cross-purposes here . I agree that multiple solutions are necessary. I agree that natural gas has a place in those solutions. I was merely pointing out that it was less philanthropic than I originally thought it would be due to the natural gas thing. That does not mean that I think the entire plan is therefore suspect.

Evolutionary, not revolutionary

[Optimus Prime]

DM is right. Bush, since winning re-election, has had no need to pander for public favor. America has grown complacent. We have this "proud" history of being revolutionary and active in our own country's doings, but lately....we've been lazy. Maybe the coming economic and social troubles will toughen us up again.

Another poking of the "sleeping giant", if you will.

[HoosierDaddy]

Optimus Prime;351931 said:

DM is right. Bush, since winning re-election, has had no need to pander for public favor. America has grown complacent. We have this "proud" history of being revolutionary and active in our own country's doings, but lately....we've been lazy. Maybe the coming economic and social troubles will toughen us up again.

Another poking of the "sleeping giant", if you will.

I disagree with the laziness part. I think that most Americans didn't really think that it mattered. I mean most people thought there wasn't a difference between the Democrats and Republicans so why vote?

However, after 8 Bush years Americans got slapped in the face and realize that the next election will count. This will not last long however, this historical pendulum of political participation swings back and forth.

[Shinrei]

Hmm, I guess I wasn't thinking it as anything philanthropic to begin with, just an interesting plan. I wasn't trying to argue that he's a great guy because I don't know anything about him. I think that's why I didn't know what you were trying to say right away.

Anyways, isn't he an "oil man"? Or does he do natural gas too?