Catsailor.com

Political Science

Posted By: fin.

Political Science - 02/15/06 12:03 PM

Another "domestic variety Southern redneck" said it far better that I ever could. The name of this song is "Political Science", but I've renamed it:

"Ballad for Wouter"

No one likes us-I don't know why
We may not be perfect, but heaven knows we try
But all around, even our old friends put us down
Let's drop the big one and see what happens

We give them money-but are they grateful?
No, they're spiteful and they're hateful
They don't respect us-so let's surprise them
We'll drop the big one and pulverize them

Asia's crowded and Europe's too old
Africa is far too hot
And Canada's too cold
And South America stole our name
Let's drop the big one
There'll be no one left to blame us

We'll save Australia
Don't wanna hurt no kangaroo
We'll build an All American amusement park there
They got surfin', too

Boom goes London and boom Paris
More room for you and more room for me
And every city the whole world round
Will just be another American town
Oh, how peaceful it will be
We'll set everybody free
You'll wear a Japanese kimono
And there'll be Italian shoes for me

They all hate us anyhow
So let's drop the big one now
Let's drop the big one now

- Randy Newman

Whattya think o' that Wouter!

Those of you interested in more of the genius of Randy Newman can go here:

http://www.sing365.com/music/archiv...Reviews/0C62BA2F3BFC539248256ED4002934EF


Posted By: pitchpoledave

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 01:01 PM

yup, typical republican... anyone who doesn't agree with them they threaten violence..
Posted By: fin.

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 01:06 PM

The song is supposed to be satirical! Come on! Laugh a little!
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 03:37 PM

And they are trying to convince us that a nuclear Iran is an unacceptable risk.

Wouter

(lets see how you come back on that one)
Posted By: Mary

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 03:41 PM

Wouter,
Do you think that a nuclear Iran IS an acceptable risk?
Posted By: fin.

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 03:59 PM

Wouter:

Try the Randy Newman link I provided; I think you will find his wit nearly as acerbic as your own. If you go there, look up the lyrics to "Lousiana", they are particularly apropse and wrtitten by "domestic variety Southern redneck".

In the U.S. we have laws protecting freedom of speech; in Iran I think they just cut off your head! And with nuclear weapons who knows!?

I fear that in a short time you may have reason to ask the Danes there opinion in these matters.
Posted By: scooby_simon

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 04:22 PM

Perhaps this might be better discussed outside a sailing forum.

How about going over to www.web.co.uk ? Catsailor.com is a sailing forum where we talk about sailing, and cat sailing in particular.

(Rick, if you don't approve of me linking off site, please remove it, or let me know and I'll remove it.)
Posted By: fin.

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 04:44 PM

Who is this "we" you speak of!?


...thanks for the great link Scooby!
Posted By: NCSUtrey

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 05:07 PM

Yeah, I also don't want this crap on a sailing forum. If I wanted to hear of one's political agenda or opinion, I'd turn on CNN or the like. You guys are really starting to piss off quite a few of us that come here for sailing. Let it go, or get out!

Attached picture 67037-worst topic ever.jpg
Posted By: Mary

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 05:21 PM

Political debate doesn't bother me as long as it is on a thread like this that specifically states the intention. Threads are like radio stations, and if you don't like a station's content, you just don't tune in. Personally, I find it kind of interesting to hear how sailors in various parts of the world feel about political situations.

What annoys me is politics sprouting up in the middle of a thread about sailing.

P.S. I don't have a clue how the forum administrator feels about it.
Posted By: jbecker

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 05:30 PM

Iran is the worlds fourth largest oil producer. Globally, there is very little spare oil production capacity. Any action against Iran which caused Iran and/or countries sympathetic to Iran to reduce oil production would send oil prices sky high. As with the Saudi oil embargo in the 70's, this would be very disruptive to world economies. Iran knows this, which is why they are feeling so bold about the nuclear issue.

So, when talking about acceptable risk consider: Is our extreme dependence on imported oil an acceptable risk? Let's hope President Bush means what he said in his State of the Union Address and does something about it.

More info at - http://www.energybulletin.net/12751.html
Posted By: fin.

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 05:34 PM

My apologizes to Matt and any others disturbed by any posts I placed in the "monohull/mutihull" thread.

But not in this one!
Posted By: fin.

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 05:46 PM

Quote

So, when talking about acceptable risk consider: Is our extreme dependence on imported oil an acceptable risk?


I think this is a double-edged argument that may be our salvation.

We have a significant domestic reserve, if we act NOW, rather that later in developing energy alternatives, that reserve can see us through! At this time a kind of parity exists, we need their oil, they need our money. That will not be so much longer, particularly in view of growth in the Chinese economy.

btw- this is very sailing related, you can't drive to the beach if there ain't no gas!
Posted By: Catius

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 07:09 PM

Quote
Let's hope President Bush means what he said in his State of the Union Address and does something about it.


Of course he doesn't mean it. If he meant it, he would talk about energy conservation as a priority first, not just about alternative ways of domestic production, wouldn't he?
Lipservice to voters in the conservative base who are genuinly concerned with energy dependence / global warming.
Posted By: fin.

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 07:34 PM

Catius:

Indeed, everything will be alright! Ol' W maybe counitng me as part of his "conservative base", but I see nothing conservative about paying lipservice to this energy problem and allowing the Country to go down the drain!

We can, and should, do much more than conserve, lots of hope here: http://www.eere.energy.gov/RE/solar.html

This is only part of the solution, but it is a significant part.
Posted By: jbecker

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 08:02 PM

Catius:

Even lipservice can be helpful when it's the president talking: (Investors are Tilting Towards Windmills - http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/15/business/15electric.html)

The gist of the article is that GE is actually making a profit in its wind energy business (wind energy - another weak link back to sailing), and that investors are starting to take alternative energy more seriously.

It doesn't constitute the crash program for energy independence that some would like to see, including Representative Bartlett (R. Maryland), but it's a start.
Posted By: Tiger

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 08:09 PM

****.
Posted By: MauganN20

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 08:19 PM

Are you talking about increasing the minimum MPG requirement for new cars to 40? (Because you'll have to pry the keys of my 12mpg baby out of my cold, dead hands buddy )

What do you suggest the detroit auto makers do to increase the mileage on their trucks and SUV's to 40mpg? Hybrid? Diesel?

Either way, its going to cost *someone* a lot of investment to implement that change in such a short amount of time.

I don't see any reason to NOT tap domestic resources for oil while new measures are planned and implemented for auto makers to prepare for. I'm all for oil rigs off the coast of NC! They make things interesting for navigation
Posted By: fin.

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 08:23 PM

Quote
the crash program . . .a start.


Good words to hear! Maybe we should all start writing, congressmen, Presidents, City Councilmen, the whole schmere and tell them to get on the stick.

Very soon, I will be sending a letter to my local Republican Party stating that if I don't hear "national security" and "energy" linked in a significant way I will be sitting home on election day or voting for Hilary! I think it's that important.
Posted By: PTP

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 08:28 PM

"What do you suggest the detroit auto makers do to increase the mileage on their trucks and SUV's to 40mpg? Hybrid? Diesel?"

The politicians just pandered to oil and car companies. If they did not do that and realize that in giving us cheap oil the mideast was basically making us "addicted" to it 20 years ago we WOULD be driving cars (and trucks) that got 40 mpg (or alt energy)

"I don't see any reason to NOT tap domestic resources for oil while new measures are planned and implemented for auto makers to prepare for."

I believe the "Strategic oil reserve" is so that if OPEC did decide to cut us off completely then we would have some time to get our sh-- together. If you get rid of the reserve (or use a lot of it) then we could be in trouble when the mid east makes its play.

"I'm all for oil rigs off the coast of NC! They make things interesting for navigation"

Until there is a problem and turns your launching ramp into slime.
Posted By: Catius

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 08:29 PM

hey - I am all for alternative energy sources. I read through the transcript of the State of the Union, and there's mention of funding for research cleaner technology. Good. Calling for more innovation on a voluntary basis is painless though. Why there is no demand for legislation that forces better gas-mileage on car manufacturers (just an example of a "hard" measure)? It's not like market forces will make drivers massively shift to fuel efficient cars anytime soon, unless fuel prices really oo through the roof. But that would cause our economy to collapse pretty much - so not an option to let that happen.
Posted By: fin.

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 08:49 PM

<****.


Hell yes! You go Tiger!

Brainstorm! How 'bout we sail a letter demanding action, all the way from Texas to the Statue of Libery, in time for their regatta! I'll take the leg from here to Naples, further if need be!

"you'll have to pry the keys of my 12mpg baby out of my cold, dead hands buddy" - no way! We need your heart, wallet, and vote! I know you won't give it up willingly, but would you sell it? And for how much? If we can wage a war with deficit money in the name of National Security, Why can't we buy up all the gas hogs!

Speaking of deficits, what happens to the economy if all the money we send out of the Country to buy imported oil is reinvested in jobs and industrial capacity here!(big American Flag Graemlin)
Posted By: Catius

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 08:58 PM

Quote
How 'bout we sail a letter demanding action, all the way from Texas to the Statue of Libery, in time for their regatta!


eh...can you just make a stop on the way and drop off that letter in Washington? We'd rather keep politics as far away from our race as possible...
Posted By: fin.

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 09:01 PM

Catius:

No guts, no glory!
Posted By: Robi

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 09:06 PM

How about you all, that are complaining about gas/oil production blah blah, get off your lazy buts and do something about it.

Instead of driving how about riding a bike. I sure do it. It hasnt killed me yet. Goin onto a month now.

Although lets be realistic, I wont tow my cat with my bike blah blah, so save yourself those type of comments. But commuting to and from work is an awesome way to save over $100 of gas every week and a half. Plus the health benefits are off the charts. And a very effective way of helping the environment by having ONE less car on the road. AND NO I am not a tree hugger either.
Posted By: jbecker

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 09:06 PM

Quote
What do you suggest the detroit auto makers do to increase the mileage on their trucks and SUV's to 40mpg? Hybrid? Diesel?

Remember that such things are generally in terms of fleet averages, so some vehicles will do better and some worse. There have been some recent breakthroughs in Lithium ion battery technology that are very promising for plugin hybrids. Such vehicles would charge their batteries overnight and would have a range on battery power alone compatible with a typical commute, thus replacing gasoline with electricity. Toyota and Honda are already on track. American car markers may be slowly catching on (Ford Freestyle and maybe a hybrid Saturn this year). But none of them have got a plugin hybrid just yet. Average together practically no gas usage for plugin hybrids with more efficient trucks and the results start to look pretty meaningful.

Quote
unless fuel prices really oo through the roof. But that would cause our economy to collapse pretty much - so not an option to let that happen.

We might all be very unpleasantly surprised in the not too distant future just how little our govenment can do to prevent that from happening. Remember the Arab oil embargo? That's why the "oil addiction" problem is real and urgent.
Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 09:09 PM

Look to Norway..(or Europe really, we are lagging behind due to horrendous taxes on new cars)


Fuel effciency technology is already happening, as is public transportation or even *gasp* cycling and walking.. I know, it's alien, but the technology is available. You just dont want to let go of what you are used to.

I tow our Tornado behind a Ford Focus 1.6litres (yes, yes, please spare me the jokes) when going to regattas. Fuel efficient, cheap and we get there fast enough as it is powerful enough to keep well above the speed limits. But it is not just about cars and transportation, diverse industries lean heavily on oil as basis for their products. Weaning them over to other raw materials will be far tougher. If you look around your home, 75% of your things are probably somehow containing oil derivatives. The same goes for your boat and sails, oil is everywhere as it so, relatively, inexpensive.

I commute to work on my cycle spring/summer/fall, it's a nice 12km tour each way.
When my sister was in Miami last winter, she was walking from the beach to her apartment. It was about a 4km walk. She only did it once, becouse she was stopped twice by cops driving by. Why was she stopped? Becouse they could not imagine someone walking 4kms voluntarily and they wanted to help if she had trouble with her car or something. My family which is very sports oriented had a real laugh when we heard this. But if our western society has come as far as that, perhaps we need a new energy crisis to start using new technology (or old, like they bicycle). A new energy crisis might be just around the corner, as the chineese also want to drive cars and consume like we do.

The dutch have some great cycling technology (it's a flat country) and have come a long way in developing what's called HPVs.
http://www.ihpva.org/
http://www.recumbents.com/home.asp
I really want one of those recumbent cycles with an aerodynamical fairing for commuting!

Cotton or flax sails anybody?
Posted By: fin.

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 09:19 PM

Rolf:

Well said! But, the industrial use of petroleum just makes the need for alternative fuel that much more important.

If I remember correctly, an oil field barrel is 41 or 42 gallons and yields only 17 gallons of gasoline. Add that to poor mileage and it is not a very efficient use of a valuable raw material.

Posterity may well be incredulous that we burned the stuff up instead of making things out of it!

Also, I think bikes are great, but I just don't want to ride to work in 96 degrees F. and 96% humidity! Lord bless all who do!

Posted By: Wouter

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 09:48 PM



Still waiting for that Hydrogen car he promised us several years ago.

Wouter
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 09:57 PM




Ahhh, those annoying Dutch people again !

Wouter
Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 09:59 PM

Pete, put a battery and a electric motor on the bike, and you can ride to work without breaking a sweat. Might be hard to get the air conditioner to run on the battery tough.. Upside is that electric motors dont make any noise. We have some electric cars over here, and they are eerie when they pass you without a sound (and a bit dangerous if you rely on hearing when crossing a road)!

http://www.think.no/


Norway is a net exporter of oil and gas, but even we fear what the middle east regimes might do. We do not have the refinery capacity to produce for our own needs, so if OPEC stopped pumping things would grind to a halt here as well.
Bush is an oil man, bought all the way to the white house (I know this is rude, but it's how he is percieved by me and many others here). He would be very carful not to do any harm to his sponsors and friends in the oil business.

You are probably right in that we will be harshly judged by our grandchildren. Making shopping bags and other things we just throw away is wasteful when we could as easily use recycable materials instead. Some of the worst waste I see is the flame towers at oilfields. They burn off gas coming out of the underground reservoars in such huge quantities that you could probably supply New York with all the energy they need just from what we norwegians burn in the north sea. Taking it on-shore and using it to produce electricity and heating is a big political no-no becouse it would go on our Kyoto quota. Talk about double morals..

I must sound like a tree hugger, but I believe we will see the end of the "oil-age' in our time (I am 35), and possibly witness whatever comes after it.
Posted By: ccat

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 10:12 PM

would you all kindly take this discussion here
Posted By: hobie1616

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 10:21 PM

I've got a hybrid on order. It's a cross between a Hummer and a Escalade
Posted By: fin.

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 10:26 PM

Rolf:

I'm glad to see some younger people taking this seriously, I'm 57 and have no children so my stake is much smaller.

On the optimistic side, I once read an article about an island off Denmark that went completely off the power grid. I wish I could remember where I read it!

Anyway, it was expensive at about $14,000 per person, but they did it. They rely heavily on bicycles, mass transit and use solar, wind and I think some geothermal energy.

That should be a piece of cake here in Florida! It would be one hell of a cake with 3 million people, but we get about 500,000 btu's of energy per square foot, annually! Combine that with our struggling citrus and sugar industry ( as a source of ethanol) and I think you can see that we don't need any imported oil at all.

Also, we have three(?) nuclear plants and the President's brother, our Governor, wants to fast track more!

For those of you in Europe (this is embarrassing, do Scandinavians consider themselves European- I honestly don't know!?) who feel that they are dependant on oil should take heart in the progress being made in photovoltaics. There is a small German company that is doing some very impressive things. I'll try to get the link to you.
Posted By: Mary

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 10:34 PM

Quote
would you all kindly take this discussion here


I guess you're right. It never works out well when friends start talking about religion or politics.

But I do want to say that we are trying to keep our 15-year-old Honda Civic forever, because it does get 40 mpg, and it is the only car we drive except when we are towing something.
Posted By: bullswan

Re: Political Science - 02/15/06 10:54 PM

Here is one part of the whole alternative fuels lobby that makes me NUTS.....
We have a proposal for a very small windfarm to be located about 5 -10 miles offshore where you would think the fewest number of people would ever be effected by it and STILL it attracts the attention of every protesting minority group from 200 miles around.....those that say the clams will be sterile to those that worry about the spoiled view (from shore you will see about 1/2 an inch sticking up). Did I mention this farm is to be located off the coast of the Peoples Republic of Massachusetts? Can you say NIMBY? I liken the discussion of alternative fuels vs. oil to the polls when a candidate runs against "unknown". Everyone likes the unknown candidate till he/she are named and everyone likes alternative fuels till it is named and in your backyard.

Keep sailing till they tax the wind.......
Greg
Posted By: Mike Hill

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 12:01 AM

My theory is that Iran is simply sabre rattling to drive the price of oil up. Iran is suffering under a tremendous deficit right now. If oil goes up $10 a barrel they will be able to pay off their deficit by next year. I've known quite a few Iranian's. They've always been smart people. My guess is they are: 1. trying look tough which is good for their image politically. 2. Driving up the price of oil to be richer. 3. Getting their country out of a bad debt situation.

Mike Hill
Posted By: hobie1616

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 12:50 AM

Quote
On the optimistic side, I once read an article about an island off Denmark that went completely off the power grid. I wish I could remember where I read it!
Tiki,

Maui is finally getting a wind farm as we speak. It's located above the pali on the way to Lahaina and should generate about 10% of the island's needs. Take a look at the map. It's in what's called a "Supurb" area. Basically, it blows like stink there almost year around.

http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/images/windmaps/hi_50m_800.jpg

I looked at getting solar cells installed, but for a 6 KW per day system the ROI would be 15 years. I may not be alive that long!
Posted By: fin.

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 12:57 AM

Quote
I looked at getting solar cells installed, but for a 6 KW per day system the ROI would be 15 years. I may not be alive that long!


Some states, Florida isn't one of them, will pony up a big chunk of the going-in-cost. It might be worth checking with your local power company, any incentive would come through them.

btw- where'd you get the cyclops! He's great!
Posted By: Jake

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 02:45 AM

Quote
Until there is a problem and turns your launching ramp into slime.


Or you get tarballs in your sandy beaches. Those things are *#$$% nasty! My drysuit still has some left on it from Long Beach. Oh crap...did I just participate in this thread?
Posted By: Timbo

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 03:32 PM

I just did two alternative energy science fair projects with my kids, one on solar, the other on wind. In my research what I found was for wind, using technology availble off the shelf today, you need a location with an AVERAGE of 14 mph winds, year round. There were only a few USA locations that fit that description, mostly in areas with little or no population, in North Dakota, way up on the Canadian Boarder or up high in the Rockies. I thought the offshore wind farm thing in Mass. was a great idea and would be prefferable to oil rigs, but the same tree huggers who don't want oil/coal fired plants don't want anything else either!

On the Solar, the only place in the US that had "enough" sunshine to make it cost effective was again a place where there is very little population, the high deserts of AZ, NM and Nevada. Florida, the Sunshine State, has too many clouds (the experts told me). So obviously we need some R+D to develop more efficient wind generators that will produce more power in lighter wind (the average in Florida is only 5 mph!) and better PV Cells that will produce more power in less light. Current PV Cells are only 14% efficient, then there is the whole AC/DC conversion thing, and battery back up, etc. I was told that a PV system to take my 2,700 sq. foot house "off grid" would cost in the range of $40,000). Today my electric bills average nearly $400/mo. so the payback time would be 100 months or 8yrs. 4 mos....exactly the amount of time I have been living in this house!

So, where does the money come from to do the R+D? How about a 100% oil/gas tax like they have in Europe already? That would be a very strong motivator to park the SUV and take the Bus! Or buy a sailboat instead of a Jet Ski!!

Also, the state of NJ offers a 70% rebate to those who purchase solar systems! Florida is just now (2006) offering a 30% rebate. I tried to buy some solar panels from BP Solar, they are sold out! NJ's got them all because of the rebates!

Still, why is there not more development of alternative auto fuels, such as bio-diesel, ethanol, etc? Seems we could solve two problems at once; put American Farmers back to work growing soy beans, corn and sugar, and lessen our dependance on the Middle East.

It won't happen without LEADERSHIP in WASHINGTON, and those guys are bought and paid for by the OIL INDUSTRY and MIDDLE EAST LOBBIEST, so don't hold your breath waiting for any new developments. What's it been since our first "Arab Oil Crisis", about 32 years? Seen any -less- dependance on Arab Oil? We were supposed to be driving 40 mpg autos by now, but 8 years of Reagan + 4 of Shrub #1 repealed those laws.

It's all about money, paid to politicians, there is no lobby money in "Alternative Energy" The Sun and Wind are free, so no kickbacks, compared to the all-mighty Oil Lobby. Do you really think Bush 2 meant a word of it?? It's all about the money!

Posted By: Mary

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 04:22 PM

Why is it that we can't generate power from the tides and/or the major currents, like the Gulf Stream?
Posted By: PTP

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 04:29 PM

Mary-
I remember seeing something on maybe the Discovery Channel about using long sections of basically metal logs that float off of England. They would be lined up perpendicular to the waves and the wave motion would flex at the joints generating electricity. Thought that was interesting, but obviously complicated and probably not very stable.
Posted By: Jake

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 04:44 PM

I've seen wave generator concepts that have a float in a cage. The float goes up and down in the waves and through some mechanical leveraging, turns a wheel/generator. Seems relatively simple but the scale would have to be large to get any significant power out of it. Added to that the fact that the distance near shore where the waves stand up high vs. break can change dramatically from day to day.
Posted By: jbecker

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 04:45 PM

Timbo - things are looking up for solar. There are now triple-junction cells that are over 35% efficient, and bigger gains in the works. These cells work in conjunction with a concentrator, so maybe not a good solution for the average homeowner's roof, but a step up for big solar facilities. More info at - http://www.spectrolab.com/prd/terres/cell-main.htm There is indeed a shortage of silicon need to make solar cells, but some manufacturers have committed to increasing capacity. This is an indication of real demand.

Mary - just google "tidal power" and you'll find more than you ever wanted to know about it. There are tidal power plants in operation, and more under consideration. It's all about choosing the right locations.
Posted By: Tiger

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 04:48 PM

Quote
Why is it that we can't generate power from the tides and/or the major currents, like the Gulf Stream?


I am afraid it is a little bit too late for this. According to scientific reports and because of the global warming melting the artic ice, there is a serious chance to see the gulf stream shut down, which would be a catastrophe.
But, I know, some people here thinks that global warming does not exists (the same who do not want to spare oil). Wishfull thinking I guess...
Posted By: Mary

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 05:50 PM

Okay, Jeff, I googled tidal power, and it sounds like they are trying to use traditional hydroelectric power technology, adapted to tides. In that case, Mexico should harness the Sea of Cortez, which has a huge tidal range.

But I was thinking that since most of the Earth is covered by water, and since most of that water is constantly in motion of some kind, there should be a way to harness all that incredible power without creating artificial waterfalls.

And in addition to the motion of the ocean, there is also the weight factor of the water that could somehow be used to generate power. No?

I don't think enough resources are being applied to thinking out of the box to come up new ideas.

As far as cars, I don't know why we can't have electric cars (or hybrids) that are self-recharging by having a small, efficient (and aerodynamically-styled) wind turbine on the roof. Seems like it would generate a lot of electricity for the batteries when it is going through the air at 60+ mph, and, therefore, extend the driving range of an electric car.

Maybe all this has already been considered, but I don't have time to google everything.
Posted By: MauganN20

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 05:53 PM

Mary, the drag caused by such a device would probably negate any benefits it could provide.

Meaning, it would cause more electricity to be consumed due to drag than it could produce.
Posted By: Mary

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 05:56 PM

I KNEW somebody was going to say that, but I think there are ways to overcome the drag problem.
Posted By: Jake

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 06:04 PM

Quote

I KNEW somebody was going to say that, but I think there are ways to overcome the drag problem.


There is and it's called the "fourth mode".
Posted By: jbecker

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 06:13 PM

The problem with diffuse energy sources such as waves and gentle currents is that the more diffuse the source, the bigger the machine you need to capture a useful amount of energy. Same as sailing - small sails in heavy wind, big sails in light wind. In the energy biz, bigger equipment is almost always more expensive, and that means a poor return on investment. There's a huge amount of energy freely available in the world, but most is spread out too much to capture efficiently. Even the more concentrated sources such as sunlight in the southwest and winds in some of the northwestern states are not constant so they can only supplement a baseline generating capacity. Sometimes this can be advantageous such as in the southwest where peak sun corresponds to peak air conditioning, but in other cases the energy would have to be stored so it can be released when needed, which is another big expense. All of these things are doable, at a cost. There's a lot of work going on to figure out how to make just about any energy source you can think of cost effective.

Unfortunately, the propellor on the roof of a car makes no more sense than mounting a fan on the transom pointed forward at the sails to drive a sailboat - the push backwards from the fan would balance the push forward from the sails.
Posted By: hobie1616

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 06:18 PM

Quote
Some states, Florida isn't one of them, will pony up a big chunk of the going-in-cost. It might be worth checking with your local power company, any incentive would come through them.

btw- where'd you get the cyclops! He's great!
There is some incentives in Hawaii but it's still not enough to make the pricing and ROI attractive.

Wind power is an alternative but I live in an area that's controlled by a homeowners association. They are death on any type of tower. Plus, the county has an absolute height limit of 30 feet for anything. I'd mount the wind generator on the roof but I understand all of them generate a lot of vibrations that drive people nuts. Oh well.

The cyclops is one of the main characters from the movie Monsters INC.
Posted By: Brian_Mc

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 06:20 PM

OK I'll jump in! I happen to be one of the people that supports Cape Wind. I totally agree with Timbo and Greg that it's a far preferable idea than the current alternatives(Coal + oil). We had been fighting to get EPA compliance at the Somerset(?) power plant for many many years. The EPA and Feds finally put their foot down and it looked like we'd won the battle. Then our president stepped in and "pardoned" the power company, saying compliance would create undue financial hardship! How about all the thousands of people with asthma downwind of the plant? I'd say they suffer considerably more hardship! That doesn't include the dirty soot that everyone downwind has to contend with...He then found some way to withhold federal funding from states who don't meet EPA standards! Sweet revenge on the Peoples Republic of Mass! As for Tar Balls, you guys should've been in Buzzards Bay after the drunks ran aground for our last oil spill! It was nasty!Remember President Carter signing into law the requirement for oil tankers to be double hulled? Too bad the Republicans scrapped that. It would've saved a lot of oil, and a lot of wildlife. These problems are the result of two things, lack of personal responsibility, and greed. Somehow they manage together quite well. As for "viable alternatives", I have mentioned in the past the use of vegetable oil to run diesels, and now my friend heats his Diner with it! It is real and it is now!
Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 06:24 PM

Hybrid cars exist. The regular (gas) engine also charges the battery when it's running.
Having a windmill on top of the car would not be very efficient, but an alternator/generator attached to the engine is quite efficient. You still need to charge the batteries overnight, but they last longer this way. Gas engine shuts down automatically when the electric drive engages, and I have heard that the car is actually nice to drive.

http://www.toyota.com/prius/

Harnessing wave power has been tried with land installations, but without much success so far. Taking advantage of currents can be risky, you dont want to change them. Also, the fishermen dont like large underwater installations..
The latest plans I read about, was to put some large underwater 'windmills' on the bottom.. Wonder how they will maintain them and keep seaweed off them.

Please dont shut off the gulfstream yet, that would mean a new ice age here in Norway.

Posted By: Timbo

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 06:41 PM

Mary, re. the wind turbine on the roof, why not some very high tech, super efficient solar panels on the roof, the hood and trunk lid instead? All power, no drag, and keeps the batterys charged up while parked in the lot all day. That's what we need. And could one of you guys from Europe post some info on those cute little "Smart Cars" I see over there?

Like; what do they cost, how fast are they and what kind of gas millage do they get? I have heard there is someone about to import them to the US. I'm ready! Are they made by Mercedes Benz? Thanks.

Also, I thought I read that in Brazil they are building sugar refineries to ethanol and runnning their cars on it, 100%, not a blend. Anyone from Brazil know more about that?
Posted By: Dan_Delave

Politically Correct? - 02/16/06 06:55 PM

Alternatives:

[color:"red"]Hybrid cars with battery packs[/color] that can be charged overnight. There is an added option for hybrid cars. It is not manufacture approved. You put a bank of batteries in a hybrid with a management and charging system. You can plug the car in over night and do not have to charge the battery using gasoline. The amount of energy used to charge the batteries on the grid is way more efficient and cost effective. There is still pollution involved as you are taking it from a power plant but much less. You will still have the Hybrid capability for places that you find not extension cord.


[color:"red"]How about a car that runs on vegetable oil?[/color] Take a diesel automobile, any of them. Add a second gas tank that can be switched into the fuel flow. Use the cooling system to heat the second gas tank so you can get the oil thin enough to run through system. Start and end the running of the engine on the diesel fuel but in the middle switch the thinned oil. Make it switch automatically so you do not have to think. Vegetable oil in bulk is less than $1 per gallon and gets the same mileage per gallon. This system already exists and can be about $1000 or less to install.


[color:"red"]How about Thermal (not solar) Voltaic Cells?[/color] I have not heard of getting 35% efficiency out of Solar Voltaic Cells. Most of them you will see at about 8%. Military is up to 12% maybe more by now. 35%! Wow, love to see it! Thermal Voltaic is same principle as Solar but uses heat differences to instead of catching suns rays. These will work anywhere, even at night. They are cheap to make and can be stacked. Today they are not available. I was trying to put a group of people together to buy the patent but was too slow. I think it went to someplace like Korea. The inventors live in Texas and talked with them on the phone at length about it. I am still trying to find them.

Just a couple of thoughts.

Later,
Dan

[color:"red"] [/color]
Posted By: Mary

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 06:57 PM

Quote
Unfortunately, the propellor on the roof of a car makes no more sense than mounting a fan on the transom pointed forward at the sails to drive a sailboat - the push backwards from the fan would balance the push forward from the sails.


I am in no position to argue with people who have engineering knowledge, but I don't think that analogy applies, since a car is not being driven by wind as a sailboat is. (Again, I know I am going to be shot down on this.)

I was visualizing a flat (horizontal), and very efficient wind turbine in a very low-profile, aerodynamic casing, maybe molded into the roof. Or it could even be contained within the front of the car itself, rather than on the roof. Isn't air going into the engine compartment through the grill anyway?

What I am thinking about shouldn't increase drag any more than a side rear-view mirror. So eliminate one of those to compensate.

Some inventions would never have happened if the inventors listened to the people who said, "It can't be done."

Here's another one. You could have pedals inside your electric car so the passengers could pedal while you are driving and keep adding electricity to the battery. And get exercise at the same time.

Sorry, but it's fun for me to think about all these things.
Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 07:00 PM

Timbo,

I can only point you to the norwegian electric car "Think": http://www.think.no/
Is this the one you are thinking about?

The city model had a 85km range, and cruised in 80km/h (our speed limit). All electric. Cost, about 120.000NKr, or US$18.000,-
Ford bought the company, but pulled out again after a while. They tried to market them in the US, but was not succesful. I dont think they build anything just now, but are looking for capital.


Experimental cars have driven across australia just on solar power. Clouds, dust and general lack of sunlight are the major problems.
Ethanol (yes, the stuff you can drink) can power cars easily, as can lots of biological oils. Oil from boiled fish livers was used in car during WW2.. Most modern cars can run on ethanol with small modifications. Just need the infrastructure to support gas stations and farming for potatoes and sugar. As most western countries are shutting down their farming capacity, this could save a lot of jobs. Wonder what the price pr. mile will be on pure alcohol. I know they use ethanol as a 50/50 substitute in Sweden for their cars, and the ethanol is cheaper than gas.. (about US$2 pr liter I think, same as here)


While going trough technical checkout/qualifications on the norwegian main battle tank (Leopard) we was tought that in need we could run the engine on everything from the aforementioned boiled fish liver to soya oil. Engine was a 70's Mercedes marine diesel. It would not be as efficient/powerful, make lots of soot and stink. But it would propel the tank. Never had to try it, fortunately.
Posted By: Tiger

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 07:30 PM

Check this:
a tidal powerplant

http://www.edf.fr/html/en/decouvertes/voyage/usine/retour-usine.html

"In November 1996, the tidal power plant celebrated its thirtieth anniversary of operation. The unique forerunner project that started in the 1950's has turned out to be a technical, industrial and economic success.

For 30 years, the 24 turbines of the Rance facility have shown outstanding reliability. The power plant has operated without major incidents or breakdowns for 160,000 hours and generated 16 billion kWh at the price of 18.5 centimes per kilowatt-hour, a highly competitive price and one that is lower than Electricité de France's average generation costs."
Posted By: Jake

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 08:16 PM

Quote
I am in no position to argue with people who have engineering knowledge, but I don't think that analogy applies, since a car is not being driven by wind as a sailboat is. (Again, I know I am going to be shot down on this.)


Mary,

It breaks down like this: a vane driven wind generator creates power by redirecting / slowing down air as it passes through the vanes. It literally takes energy from the moving air and transfers it to mechanical motion and then generates electricity from it. Conservation of Energy (physics term) is a physical property of any closed loop energy system. It's just like pouring water between two buckets where you can't pour 1 gallon into the second bucket and get 2 gallons. You can only get 1 gallon in a perfect pour - you'll probably get a little less because of a drop or two spilled or evaporation.

If you divert X amount of energy from the moving air, you can only create "X-losses" amount of energy in electricity. The losses (which can be pretty signifiant) mechanical and mechanical/electrical energy leaks ... i.e. "spillage" that mostly comes from friction and is the energy lost by converting it to heat. The heat generated from the moving parts is energy lost from the vanes in the generator and the electrical energy that comes from the system is actually less than the energy being pulled from the moving air. There are other losses associated with the conversion of the mechanical motion to electrical energy.

Looking at the big picture of the closed system, in order for the blades to spin on a wind generator, they slow down the passing breeze by redirecting it's flow. There is a backwards push on the generator roughly equal to the amount of energy that it's extracting. This backwards push is creating drag on the car moving down the road that is at best, equal to the amount of energy being pulled from the moving air - the bucket thing again. If we could figure out how to extract MORE energy from the air than is lost in drag, you would have created the equivalent of a perpetual motion machine in that it actually has found a way to make 1+1 = 3. (which is thusfar proven impossible). Now that I made that really confusing...any questions?
Posted By: jbecker

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 08:19 PM

Mary - Yes, you absolutely can generate electricity by a fan driven generator on a car. What you can't do is get more energy out than the extra energy consumed by pushing the fan through the air. That would be getting something from nothing, and there are basic laws of physics ruling that out. Better to make the vehicle more efficient in some way, such as making it lighter, more aerodynamic, recovering energy during braking, etc.

I like the idea of pedals for passengers. How about something like this: http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003142.html
Posted By: Mary

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 08:37 PM

Man, it is so frustrating and depressing talking to engineers. You guys take all the fun and creativity out of life for those of us who are less educated about what can and cannot be done.

It's like my father discouraging me from driving across Canada and camping along the way because he told me a bear would tear down my tent and kill me.
Posted By: jbecker

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 08:45 PM

This reminds me a little bit of the "downwind faster than the wind" discussions that have been going on over the past year in the Amateur Yacht Research Society. Very smart people on both sides of the argument would come up with very detailed explanations of why it was or was not possible, both equally certain of their position. Somebody recently built a small machine with propellor driven wheels and sent it downwind - any guesses? - yes, faster than the wind. He promises to report on additional tests.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 08:47 PM

There it is! That's the Smart Car I was talking about. You have to click on Jbecker's link a couple posts up, then click on the word "Smart" in the first paragraph and it will take you to the Smart car. I've seen lots of them all over Europe. Looks like fun, any of you guys have one?
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 10:54 PM



Quote

... We were supposed to be driving 40 mpg autos by now, ...



I still can't get over this. 40 mpg a good mileage ? I'm driving a 13 year old car that does 39 mpg. When I had two boats I would tow both of them (300 kg of boat + 150 kg of trailer) simultaniously at 75 mph and still do 30 mpg.

You betcha that the technology to do 40 mpg has been available for many years now. It is not technology that stands in the way but human nature. Which macho guy wants to drive a fuel efficient car ? Doesn't match well with the image.

Wouter
Posted By: Mary

Re: Political Science - 02/16/06 11:14 PM

Of course, it's possible. As I said, our Honda Civic is now 16 years old, and it gets 40 mpg.

Our Honda Odyssey (minivan) gets 30 mpg without a tow and 24 when towing two boats double-stacked -- even up and down over mountains.

For some reason, auto manufacturers (at least in the U.S.) do not seem to be highly motivated.

As I think somebody mentioned earlier, this is very relevant to sailing, because the high price of fuel, combined with low mpg for towing vehicles, is hurting regatta attendance.
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/16/06 11:22 PM



One of my pet topics :

Computer controlled high speed road trains.

By this I mean, normal plain cars that have an electronic control cirquitry linked to their brakes and cruise control and use that to drive only 1 to 2 feet behind the car in front of them. Length of these road trains could be 2 cars to tens of cars. All slip streaming.

The technology required would be darn inexpensive (how much does a sound cart for your PC cost or a mobile phone) and most cars are fully prepared to take cruise control anyway.

Immediately savings would be 40 % in fuel consumption by cars and an immediate 5 fold increase in the capacity of roads.

Joining and leaving such a road train would be as easy speeding up to the rear of it or just slowly steering to side and move out from the train. The gap would then be filled but the rear part of the train speeding up a little.

No chances in infrastructure are needed and even accidents will be alot less severe if any happen. Why, because you really can't create much speed difference when you are only 1 foot behind the guy in front of you. So a head tail collision would only bend your bumper out of shape a little.

As with these thigns always it needs a group of politicians with gusts.

Wouter
Posted By: Mary

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 12:17 AM

Quote
...high speed road trains...normal plain cars that...drive only 1 to 2 feet behind the car in front of them. Length of these road trains could be 2 cars to tens of cars. All slip streaming.


Wouter, sorry about the creative editing, but from what I have heard, we already have this in Los Angeles.
Posted By: MauganN20

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 01:00 AM

I forsee two problems with the "road train"

1) What happens when a car has a blowout or other mechanical failure.

2) People are not going to want to turn over control of their very lives to a computer.

That being said, Trey and I spent over $600 in gas to get to and from Tradewinds in January.
Posted By: Jake

Re: Political Science - 02/17/06 01:59 AM

Quote
For some reason, auto manufacturers (at least in the U.S.) do not seem to be highly motivated.


Your damn skippy...and I don't understand it either. I drive a vehicle that gets crappy mileage (although I went with a small truck with a V6 instead of V8 to try and save a little...turns out to be just as bad). Will you just LOOK at how many Hummers are out there getting 9mpg - it's rediculous. Even with the gas prices nearly doubling they're STILL selling these bahemouths. I just don't get it. If I were in the market for another vehicle you bet fuel mileage will be on the top of this list. However, I think we're going to have to get to 3 or 4 dollars per gallon before the rest of America will wake up.
Posted By: fin.

Re: Political Science - 02/17/06 02:10 AM

Quote
Today my electric bills average nearly $400/mo. so the payback time would be 100 months or 8yrs. 4 mos....exactly the amount of time I have been living in this house!


Timbo:

Since I've been living in my house for 18 years, does that mean I would have been saving $400 per month for the last 10 years!

Stated another way, if you were selling your house in today's market, how much would that $40,000 investment be worth?

Sounds to me like the technology is effective today, and with the 30% the State is willing to put up, it's pretty well affordable.

Using the numbers you gave us, can someone do this math for me:

I've heard citrus canker has destroyed 70,000 acres of citrus here in Florida. If you put all that land into photovolaics, how much would that amount of electricity be worth in the energy market? There is a market to buy and sell electricity isn't there?
Posted By: fin.

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 02:43 AM

Quote

2) People are not going to want to turn over control of their very lives to a computer.


But, what if you took (all,or most, or some) of the eighteen wheelers and put them in the interstate median. That would free-up a lot of road for passenger traffic.

Given that their cargo would only need to be delivered "just in time" you might want to slow them down, realizing a fuel savings.
Posted By: catman

Re: A LESSON IN POLITICAL SCIENCE - 02/17/06 03:07 AM

It's a open forum



DEMOCRATIC
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
You feel guilty for being successful.
Barbara Streisand sings for you.

REPUBLICANISM
You have two cows.
Your neighbor has none.
So?

SOCIALIST
You have two cows.
The government takes one and gives it to your neighbor.
You form a cooperative to tell him how to manage his cow.

COMMUNIST
You have two cows.
The government seizes both and provides you with milk.
You wait in line for hours to get it.
It is expensive and sour.

CAPITALISM, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
You sell one, buy a bull, and build a herd of cows.

BUREAUCRACY, AMERICAN STYLE
You have two cows.
Under the new farm program the government pays you to shoot one, milk the other, and then pours the milk down the drain.

AMERICAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You sell one, lease it back to yourself and do an IPO on the 2nd one.
You force the two cows to produce the milk of four cows. You are surprised when one cow drops dead. You spin an announcement to the analysts stating you have downsized and are reducing expenses.
Your stock goes up.

FRENCH CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You go on strike because you want three cows.
You go to lunch and drink wine.
Life is good.

JAPANESE CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You redesign them so they are one-tenth the size of an ordinary cow and produce twenty times the milk.
They learn to travel on unbelievably crowded trains.
Most are at the top of their class at cow school.

GERMAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You engineer them so they are all blond, drink lots of beer, give excellent quality milk, and run a hundred miles an hour.
Unfortunately they also demand 13 weeks of vacation per year.

ITALIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows but you don't know where they are.
While ambling around, you see a beautiful woman.
You break for lunch.
Life is good.

RUSSIAN CORPORATION
You have two cows.
You have some vodka.
You count them and learn you have five cows.
You have some more vodka.
You count them again and learn you have 42 cows.
The Mafia shows up and takes over however many cows you really have.

TALIBAN CORPORATION
You have all the cows in Afghanistan , which are two.
You don't milk them because you cannot touch any creature' s private parts.
You get a $40 million grant from the US government to find alternatives to milk production but use the money to buy weapons.

IRAQI CORPORATION
You have two cows.
They go into hiding.
They send radio tapes of their mooing.

POLISH CORPORATION
You have two bulls.
Employees are regularly maimed and killed attempting to milk them.

BELGIAN CORPORATION
You have one cow.
The cow is schizophrenic.
Sometimes the cow thinks he's French, other times he's Flemish.
The Flemish cow won't share with the French cow.
The French cow wants control of the Flemish cow's milk.
The cow asks permission to be cut in half.
The cow dies happy.

FLORIDA CORPORATION
You have a black cow and a brown cow.
Everyone votes for the best looking one.
Some of the people who actually like the brown one best accidentally vote for the black one.
Some people vote for both.
Some people vote for neither.
Some people can't figure out how to vote at all.
Finally, a bunch of guys from out-of-state tell you which one you think is the best-looking cow.

CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
You have millions of cows.
They make real California cheese.
Only five speak English.
Most are illegals.
Arnold likes the ones with the big udder

Don't some of you have more of a life than this????
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 03:14 AM

Quote


One of my pet topics :

Computer controlled high speed road trains.



At the company I used to work for, we had an automatic highway system. The problem was it could not pass by the legal department. So, it still sits on the self.
Posted By: fin.

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 03:18 AM

Matt:

I hate to digress from my favorite genre, but is your club as nice as it looks?

How many sailing days do you have per year?
Posted By: fin.

Re: A LESSON IN POLITICAL SCIENCE - 02/17/06 03:24 AM

Quote
Don't some of you have more of a life than this????


Yes, I work for a French corporation, or at least it seems French

Welcome, and be careful or you could end up like Jake, at last count he had posted here 4 times!
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Political Science - 02/17/06 12:24 PM



To give you a comparison; In many European nations the fuel goes for 1 to 1.3 Euro's per liter = 5 to 6.5 USdollars per Gallon

Wouter
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 12:26 PM



And what was the reason that it could not pass the legal department ?

Wouter
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 12:35 PM




Quote

1) What happens when a car has a blowout or other mechanical failure.


Not much else then what already happens now. You get an adrenalline rush while the cars around you slow down. Then you steer to the side of the road while the remaining traffic steers around you and speeds up again.

What do you think would happen. The beauty of the system is actually that it is safer as well even during major breakages. Because the traffic is so much closer together you don't get high speed differences which lead to major collision damages. Think about it.



2) People are not going to want to turn over control of their very lives to a computer.

You mean computer systems like traffic lights, nuclear reactors, fligh by wire airplanes, cruise control, medicine production and what not else in our computer controlled societies. Our lives are already turned over to many many many computer controlled system; this is just illogical fear of the unknown by the common man. Or does anybody believe that a computer glitch on a road crossing with traffic lights will lead to anything but very serious harm ?

Wouter

Posted By: Wouter

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 12:36 PM



Yep , but now imagine this at 50 mph instead of that leasurely pace of 1 mph

Wouter
Posted By: Jake

Re: A LESSON IN POLITICAL SCIENCE - 02/17/06 01:07 PM

Quote

Welcome, and be careful or you could end up like Jake, at last count he had posted here 4 times!


Pete, stop making me participate!
Posted By: waterbug_wpb

Alternative energy - 02/17/06 02:10 PM

A few thoughts:

- hybrid vehicle on electricity and biodiesel/ethanol mix. Could drop fossil fuel component to less than 30%

- hydrogen vehicle. Unfortunately, hydrogen is most cheaply produced from fossil fuel. Perhaps someone can develop a better solar cell to allow for electrolysis to be more efficient. Caution with this approach is that byproducts of electrolysis of H2O include extremely caustic (pH 14+) solution that has heavy water component (i.e. radioactive duterium). I'm not a chemist, so I can't really explain the stoichiometry of it....

Coincidently, I believe it was Norway that was using electrolysis heavily in the 1940's to produce hydrogen (from water) to be used in fertilizer (ammonium nitrate). Apparantly, as the story goes, the Nazi party had begun informal experimenting with the heavy water byproduct to develop atomic energy (and possibly weapons). History could have been re-written (and not for the better) had they placed this research (and jet power) on a high priority.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: Alternative energy - 02/17/06 02:35 PM

Yeah....what he said. But on the whole solar thing...the state of Florida just this year started with the 30% rebate for adding solar panels, up to a maximum of about $3,000. So not much help for doing a whole home system and as I said before, they are sold out of PV panels.

The idea to do it came to mind right after the 3 hurricanes of 2004. After each one the weather was beautiful, lots of sun, no electricity. Generators need gasoline but all the stations were closed, no electricity to pump it. It also would have been nice to have a wind generator as soon as the power went out, while it was blowing 80-120! But will solar panels stay attached to your roof in 120 mph winds?

Most of you now in your 40's, who grew up in the US, remember the oil shortage of 1974. We were told then that by now (30+ years later) we would all be driving electric cars, or little 100 mpg diesels, like they do in Europe. We were also forced to learn the metric system because we were going to be using that by the 1980's...don't get me started.

My parrents bought a VW Diesel Rabbit back in 1978, for $8,000. It got 50 mpg. Wish I could find one today! The new Diesel Jetta gets about 48 mpg, but costs $21-23,000. A Toyota Carola gets 41 mpg on gasoline, for about $13-16,000. Diesel is about $.20 more expensive than gas (why is that? It used to be twenty cents cheaper. Taxes?)

Still, I would rather ride the train the 85 miles to work, like most do in Europe, but we don't have them in rural US, only in a few major cities, like Chicago, NY and Boston. That way I could read or sleep.

Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 02:36 PM

Pete,

I feel it is a beautiful pace to sail. To me, there is nothing more beautiful than looking out toward the water and seeing no land, but Pultneyville is a really nice town. There is some farm land, lots of trees and parks. There are no buildings or anything like that, just well maintained houses. It is not too developed. When ever I take someone out for the first time they are always astounded by the view.

Our sailing season runs from May to November. I keep saying, "Rochester is the new Florida if this 'global warming' keeps up!"

I am always thinking, I wish I had a camera so I could remember this view forever. This year I will be taking a camera out to get some good shots.

Matt
Posted By: hobie1616

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 02:39 PM

Quote
2) People are not going to want to turn over control of their very lives to a computer.
It's too late, they already have.

Cars - No more points in the ignition system or carburetors. Computers now control everything in cars. In some cases, over control. Look at the horrible implementation with BMW’s iDrive and Mercedes drop in quality caused by their on board computers.

Banks/Finance – When’s the last time bank tellers hand entered info into a bankbook? 30 years ago? Any company in this area that isn’t using more and more IT systems is a non-player.

Manufacturing – IT systems tell you what/when/how to build. Humans are peripheral equipment.

Engineering – If you aren’t using CAD systems for design you’re taking way too long to bring products to market.

Internet – You’re reading this aren’t you?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 02:40 PM

Quote


And what was the reason that it could not pass the legal department ?

Wouter


Liability, fear of litigation. My understanding was that the system was one of the most promising systems developed and was close to completion, but all funding was cut after the lawyers could not work around the liability issue.

I like the train idea.

Matt
Posted By: fin.

Re: Alternative energy - 02/17/06 02:50 PM

Quote
they are sold out of PV panels.


Timbo:

That's true but someone will make more!

The thing to do is send Jeb a message saying $3k isn't enough!

Anybody wanna work on a group project to get the Gov's attention? Something fun,envolving sailing?
Posted By: Timbo

Re: Alternative energy - 02/17/06 03:18 PM

If there's Grant money to be had, I'm in! Every day I read in my local paper about another (needles, idiotic) project being funded by "Grant Money" usually around $250,000 or more. So, yeah, let's put together a project for Solar/Wind Powered boats, get Jeb to "grant" us $250,000 and have a regatta! "Look Ma, no imported oil!" Saving the world, one regatta at a time!

How about an Education Grant to teach kids to sail instead of ride jet skis? $250,000 would buy a lot of Waves!
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 03:19 PM


Thanks for the answer

In effect, the laywers were afraid for the unknown and preferred the inferiour performance of a known situation rather then risk improving things by introducing a relatively unknown situation.

Also for some reason people are expected to sooner litigate a company whose "trained" car was involved in an accident then a car company that produced an "untrained" car, even while the latter situation is most likely a more dangerous situation. As in most applications; human controllers are pretty mediocre. Alot of accidents happen because a human controller made a error or intepretated the situation the wrong way.

I'm sure that "trained" cars will add a few new error and accident modes, but the reduction in human induced accidents could be much more significant.

But it is the same thing ago; alot of world problems could have been solved already if not everybody was paying so much attention to protecting their own backsides.

Wouter
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 03:19 PM



Matt, can you give me the name of the company who did this work and development ?

Wouter
Posted By: fin.

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 03:27 PM

O, ye of little faith.
Posted By: Tiger

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 03:33 PM

NY Times 02/16


A Way to Cut Fuel Consumption That Everyone Likes, Except the Politicians



By ROBERT H. FRANK
Published: February 16, 2006
SUPPOSE a politician promised to reveal the details of a simple proposal that would, if adopted, produce hundreds of billions of dollars in savings for American consumers, significant reductions in traffic congestion, major improvements in urban air quality, large reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and substantially reduced dependence on Middle East oil. The politician also promised that the plan would require no net cash outlays from American families, no additional regulations and no expansion of the bureaucracy.

As economists often remind their students, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is. So this politician's announcement would almost surely be greeted skeptically. Yet a policy that would deliver precisely the outcomes described could be enacted by Congress tomorrow — namely, a $2-a-gallon tax on gasoline whose proceeds were refunded to American families in reduced payroll taxes.

Proposals of this sort have been advanced frequently in recent years by both liberal and conservative economists. Invariably, however, pundits are quick to dismiss these proposals as "politically unthinkable."

But if higher gasoline taxes would make everyone better off, why are they unthinkable? Part of the answer is suggested by the fate of the first serious proposal to employ gasoline taxes to reduce America's dependence on Middle East oil. The year was 1979 and the country was still reeling from the second of two oil embargoes. To encourage conservation, President Jimmy Carter proposed a steep tax on gasoline, with the proceeds to be refunded in the form of lower payroll taxes.

Mr. Carter's opponents mounted a rhetorically brilliant attack on his proposal, arguing that because consumers would get back every cent they paid in gasoline taxes, they could, and would, buy just as much gasoline as before. Many found this argument compelling, and in the end, President Carter's proposal won just 35 votes in the House of Representatives.

The experience appears to have left an indelible imprint on political decision makers. To this day, many seem persuaded that tax-cum-rebate proposals do not make economic sense. But it is the argument advanced by Mr. Carter's critics that makes no sense. It betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how such a program would alter people's opportunities and incentives.

Some examples help to illustrate how the program would work. On average, a family of four currently consumes almost 2,000 gallons of gasoline annually. If all families continued to consume gasoline at the same rate after the imposition of a $2-a-gallon gasoline tax, the average family would pay $4,000 in additional gasoline taxes annually. A representative family with two earners would then receive an annual payroll tax refund of $4,000. So, if all other families continued to buy as much gasoline as before, then, this family's tax rebate would enable it to do so as well, just as Mr. Carter's critics claimed.

But that is not how things would play out. Suppose, for example, that the family was about to replace its aging Ford Explorer, which gets 15 miles per gallon. It could buy another Explorer. Or it could buy Ford's new Focus wagon, which has almost as much cargo capacity and gets more than 30 miles per gallon. The latter choice would save a whopping $2,000 annually at the pump. Not all families would switch, of course, but many would.

From the experience of the 1970's, we know that consumers respond to higher gasoline prices not just by buying more efficient cars, but also by taking fewer trips, forming carpools and moving closer to work. If families overall bought half as much gasoline as before, the rebate would be not $2,000 per earner, but only $1,000. In that case, our representative two-earner family could not buy just as much gasoline as before unless it spent $2,000 less on everything else. So, contrary to Mr. Carter's critics, the tax-cum-rebate program would profoundly alter not only our incentives but also our opportunities.

A second barrier to the adoption of higher gasoline taxes has been the endless insistence by proponents of smaller government that all taxes are bad. Vice President Dick Cheney, for example, has opposed higher gasoline taxes as inconsistent with the administration's belief that prices should be set by market forces. But as even the most enthusiastic free-market economists concede, current gasoline prices are far too low, because they fail to reflect the environmental and foreign policy costs associated with gasoline consumption. Government would actually be smaller, and we would all be more prosperous, if not for the problems caused by what President Bush has called our addiction to oil.

At today's price of about $2.50 a gallon, a $2-a-gallon tax would raise prices by about 80 percent (leaving them still more than $1 a gallon below price levels in Europe). Evidence suggests that an increase of that magnitude would reduce consumption by more than 15 percent in the short run and almost 60 percent in the long run. These savings would be just the beginning, because higher prices would also intensify the race to bring new fuel-efficient technologies to market.

The gasoline tax-cum-rebate proposal enjoys extremely broad support. Liberals favor it. Environmentalists favor it. The conservative Nobel laureate Gary S. Becker has endorsed it, as has the antitax crusader Grover Norquist. President Bush's former chief economist, N. Gregory Mankiw, has advanced it repeatedly.

In the warmer weather they will have inherited from us a century from now, perspiring historians will struggle to explain why this proposal was once considered politically unthinkable.

Posted By: fin.

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 03:48 PM

Quote
NY Times 02/16 Suppose, for example, that the family was about to replace its aging Ford Explorer, which gets 15 miles per gallon. It could buy another Explorer. Or it could buy Ford's new Focus wagon, which has almost as much cargo capacity and gets more than 30 miles per gallon. The latter choice would save a whopping $2,000 annually at the pump. Not all families would switch, of course, but many would.


Bless you Tiger! This is a fantastic idea! I will be talking this idea up to anyone who will listen, and a few who would rather not!

Posted By: Jake

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 04:23 PM

Quote
Diesel is about $.20 more expensive than gas (why is that? It used to be twenty cents cheaper. Taxes?)


I've been told that it's because of the war and the fact that most of the heavy equipment over there uses Diesel causing a burden on the system.
Posted By: PTP

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 04:24 PM

I think diesel is taxed more than gas.
Posted By: Boudicca

This punishes the poor - 02/17/06 04:33 PM

Sounds like a great idea, until you think about this:

Unless there is constructed a DIRECT corollary between gas consumption and payroll tax return, or some sort of end-of-year deduction scheme, all this will do is make rich people richer and the poor, poorer.

Low and middle-income people don't go out and buy new cars. They can't afford to. They put $5 in their tanks at a time and go to work. And face it, for the most part, it's the lower-incomers who drive the lower-mileage vehicles.

So these low and middle-incomers see an IMMEDIATE knock to their cash flow but a VERY gradual and probably unbalanced recompense, since the payroll tax 'repayment' would be a national average. And payroll tax is proportional to income, right? So Joe Bubba is laying out hundreds of dollars more in gas costs and seeing only a few dollars return every week. Keep in mind, Joe Bubba is living week to week...

It's only the upper mid and upper income people who will go out and buy that new Explorer with the better mileage. And then see a greater profit, because they're paying the higher tax, but they're getting more back and expending less on gas. The lower brackets will suffer it out and take a beating.

One other possible corollary to make the scheme work would be if there was some sort of subsidization, tax incentive, whatever, to allow lower-income people to go and buy those lower-mileage automobiles.

baa baa, United Sheep of America, it ain't gonna happen, there's too much stroke and too little incentive, especially culturally, against conservation. Ask yourselves why don't we have more mass transportation, for instance?

Posted By: hobie1616

Guyness Quiz - 02/17/06 04:50 PM

Question 1 from the Guyness Quiz

1. Alien beings from a highly advanced society visit the Earth, and you are the first human they encounter. As a token of intergalactic friendship, they present you with a small but incredibly sophisticated device that is capable of curing all disease, providing an infinite supply of clean energy, wiping out hunger and poverty, and permanently eliminating oppression and violence all over the entire Earth. You decide to:

a. Present it to the President of the United States.
b. Present it to the Secretary General of the United Nations.
c. Take it apart.
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/17/06 05:32 PM

Quote
end-of-year deduction scheme,
Why end of year, I think "food Stamps" are actually credit cards, so why not a gas card?

Also, middle incomers (like me ) can basically buy any car they want. The auto industry has very sophisticated lending practices, they aren't leaving anyone out!

This program would make the consumer think: "do I really want the most expensive thing I can afford". I believe the net result would be reduced fuel consumption.

Remember too, that GM's financial problems are exacerbated by the drop in SUV sales.

The price of fuel is going up, you can manage the rise and keep some of the money at home, or keep sending more and more to the middle east.
Posted By: dacarls

Re: Guyness Quiz - 02/17/06 05:36 PM

Oop- you haven't been watching Hollywood movies/Live TV lately:
After 1. as you say....
a. Swat Team, FBI, Federal Secret Police, NSA, CIA, US Army are pointing 1000 guns at you and screaming, "GET ON THE GROUND, GET ON THE GROUND!"
b. They confiscate the device and take it apart.
c. You are jailed secretly forever as a subversive, no options or choices.
Posted By: fin.

Re: Guyness Quiz - 02/17/06 05:40 PM

Green Guy:

Quote
c. Take it apart.


I'd email you and asked what made it tick!
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 06:35 PM

Quote

Thanks for the answer

In effect, the laywers were afraid for the unknown and preferred the inferiour performance of a known situation rather then risk improving things by introducing a relatively unknown situation.

Also for some reason people are expected to sooner litigate a company whose "trained" car was involved in an accident then a car company that produced an "untrained" car, even while the latter situation is most likely a more dangerous situation. As in most applications; human controllers are pretty mediocre. Alot of accidents happen because a human controller made a error or intepretated the situation the wrong way.

I'm sure that "trained" cars will add a few new error and accident modes, but the reduction in human induced accidents could be much more significant.

But it is the same thing ago; alot of world problems could have been solved already if not everybody was paying so much attention to protecting their own backsides.

Wouter


Wouter,

I am with you. I am sure that the engineers were devastated.

Matt
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 06:42 PM

Quote


Matt, can you give me the name of the company who did this work and development ?

Wouter


The name of the company was Calspan and now more recently Veridian Engineering. The Transportation Division had a grant from the U.S. Department of transportation. I did not see too much of it as I was in flight research, but my boss did contract work for the Transportation Division on that project.

The model was in my vehicle dynamics textbook, so I am sure the design is out there somewhere on the internet.

Matt
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 06:47 PM



What you describe is exactly what has been done in many European countries. Over halve of the price of gasoline is government tax and indeed it has kept fuel efficient cars on the road, kept smog down and stimulated industry to keep working and more efficient tecnhologies.

I don't see Europe doing any worse then say USA economically. So apparently the tax-rebate scheme works.

It is not the solution to everything, from from it as several traffic problems we still have, but it has kept things more manageable.

Wouter
Posted By: Wouter

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/17/06 06:54 PM


Are you telling us that Joe Bubba, who is too poor to feed his family or whatever, can still justify owning a 10 mpg (money guzzling) car ?

Hell if the guy was so poor and pittyful he would be driving a ford pinto or any smaller toyota and save a bundle by doing 40 mpg or more.

But apparently his need for a manly car outweights any money considerations. Is there any reason to have a V8 deep throat 6 liter 200 hp engine to do commuting or pick up Daisy-May at the diner ?

Wouter
Posted By: Wouter

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/17/06 07:00 PM



Quote

The price of fuel is going up, you can manage the rise and keep some of the money at home, or keep sending more and more to the middle east.



Has anyone considered it from this perspective.

we can either keep the prices low till we are about to run out and then see a major price increase that will hit us like a meteor or when can make the chance more gradual and softer by raising the prices much earlier and stimulate a staged conversion.

Wouter
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 07:09 PM



I think I remember that project now. Thanks for the info.

Wouter
Posted By: Boudicca

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/17/06 09:15 PM

Wout, I think the poor people in Europe are better off than the poor in America. (At least the more western/northern parts of Europe (excluding the Eastern bloc). Remember, we're not socialists.

And you are right about the cultural 'manly car' issue, but in a lot of cases I don't think it's even that. I'm speaking from some experience, I'll admit my background is pretty white trashy. Keep in mind, also, that as much as I hate to admit it, Americans are not taught to think. Look how we handle debate, you see it right here on the Internet. And the lower down on the income scale (for the most part) the less thought process there is. Boy am I gonna catch it for that remark, but that's how I see it.

I digress...

Joe Bubba doesn't think as far ahead as 'justifying' anything. He's living week to week and like I said he's putting $5 in the tank at a time so he sees his cash flow as being OK. He isn't saving for a rainy day or making investments, every bit of his check is gone every week. I didn't say Joe was sensible, that's just how it is. Kinda like when Joe buys furniture by renting. He's seeing that week-to-week cash outlay and he can handle that, but he doesn't realize he's paying a whole buttload of interest on that furniture and doubling his price. He affords it best he can.

It's not even so much as a manly-man thing. You can buy used gas-guzzlers for cheaper than you can buy used economical cars. Joe Bubba's got that old clunker paid for, OK? He sees that he can kinda make ends meet, and the car is running more-or-less ok. Remember he's living week-to-week, and if he gets into more debt for a new car, because he won't get decent trade-in for the clunker, he ain't gonna do even as well as he's doing.

Joe Bubba's got too many kids, too. And he's bought a vehicle with the same room as that economical SUV for a whole lot less.

I'm not saying that taxing gas is a bad idea, but it's gonna have to be worked out a lot better than just 'taxing the gas and refunding it back by payroll.'

Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/17/06 09:24 PM

What cat would the typical Joe Bubba sail then?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/17/06 09:30 PM

He would probalby sail one of them there "HOBBY CATS" as they are cheap!!!
Posted By: grob

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/17/06 10:07 PM

When I’m not designing and building boats with way too many hulls, I design engines and have been doing so for nearly 20 years. You wouldn’t believe the amount of good ideas that I see that can make engines better/cheaper/more fuel efficient. What kills most of them is the complexity of economics. Its way to easy to kill off any good idea with bad economics. Wouters idea may be a good one. But it’s the start up economics that would kill it, you would need an initial critical mass to get it going, that’s going to need government backing. He may be right but no ones going to fund it.

A good analogy would be getting us (UK) and Japan to drive on the same side as the rest of the world. Think how much money it would save us in the long run, but think of the chaos it would bring to start with!

The big complexity is life cycle costs (or the real cost of things). Life has become too complicated to define real costs. At what point do you start counting the cost. This is a really big source of bad economics, that and subsidies.

If I was going to put my money into something to save fuel it would be regenerative braking, instead of wasting energy to slow a vehicle down, use it to create energy that can be used later. There is lots of technology around to do that, the flywheel being the simplest. And as the traffic volume increases we all have to hit the brakes so much more often.

Gareth
www.fourhulls.com
Posted By: grob

Re: Alternative energy - 02/17/06 10:11 PM

Quote
If there's Grant money to be had, I'm in! Every day I read in my local paper about another (needles, idiotic) project being funded by "Grant Money" usually around $250,000 or more. So, yeah, let's put together a project for Solar/Wind Powered boats, get Jeb to "grant" us $250,000 and have a regatta! "Look Ma, no imported oil!" Saving the world, one regatta at a time!


I built my boat with an innovation grant from the UK government.

Gareth
www.fourhulls.com
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: Alternative energy - 02/18/06 12:23 AM

Guys:

The BIG problem is whenever a 200 mile per gallon carburetor is invented she/he either gets $10,000,000 to junk it or he/she gets cement overshoes in the river!!!

Doug Snell
Posted By: PTP

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/18/06 12:48 AM

Quote
I think the poor people in Europe are better off than the poor in America. (At least the more western/northern parts of Europe (excluding the Eastern bloc). Remember, we're not socialists.

And you are right about the cultural 'manly car' issue, but in a lot of cases I don't think it's even that. I'm speaking from some experience, I'll admit my background is pretty white trashy. Keep in mind, also, that as much as I hate to admit it, Americans are not taught to think. Look how we handle debate, you see it right here on the Internet. And the lower down on the income scale (for the most part) the less thought process there is. Boy am I gonna catch it for that remark, but that's how I see it.

I digress...

Joe Bubba doesn't think as far ahead as 'justifying' anything. He's living week to week and like I said he's putting $5 in the tank at a time so he sees his cash flow as being OK. He isn't saving for a rainy day or making investments, every bit of his check is gone every week. I didn't say Joe was sensible, that's just how it is. Kinda like when Joe buys furniture by renting. He's seeing that week-to-week cash outlay and he can handle that, but he doesn't realize he's paying a whole buttload of interest on that furniture and doubling his price. He affords it best he can.

It's not even so much as a manly-man thing. You can buy used gas-guzzlers for cheaper than you can buy used economical cars. Joe Bubba's got that old clunker paid for, OK? He sees that he can kinda make ends meet, and the car is running more-or-less ok. Remember he's living week-to-week, and if he gets into more debt for a new car, because he won't get decent trade-in for the clunker, he ain't gonna do even as well as he's doing.

Joe Bubba's got too many kids, too. And he's bought a vehicle with the same room as that economical SUV for a whole lot less.

I'm not saying that taxing gas is a bad idea, but it's gonna have to be worked out a lot better than just 'taxing the gas and refunding it back by payroll.'


Now I know I'll catch crap for this... What amazes me is that the guy living day to day and driving that same old beat up pick up that gets 12 mpg is exactly the one who has the W sticker on the bumper!!!!
About American's not thinking- Republicans can, for the most part, count on the "rich" vote (unless you're a trial attorney). What amazes me is that they get so much of the poor vote (poor lower class with no money who need the social programs that republicans love to cut like programs to feed their kids, have barely decent healthcare.. etc. )!! I call this stupid.
Posted By: hobie1616

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/18/06 01:57 AM

Quote
What amazes me is that they get so much of the poor vote (poor lower class with no money who need the social programs that republicans love to cut like programs to feed their kids, have barely decent healthcare.. etc. )!! I call this stupid.
Who said fear, uncertainity and doubt mixed in with some bible thumpin' doesn't buy votes? At least now with Cheney shooting the Texas lawyer we finally have someone at the top who has combat experience.
Posted By: PTP

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/18/06 02:02 AM

[/quote] At least now with Cheney shooting the Texas lawyer we finally have someone at the top who has combat experience. [/quote]

Nice point
Posted By: Jake

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/18/06 03:09 AM

Oh dear lord.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/18/06 05:06 AM

Don't worry about the lawyer, he's got a second face...
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Politically Correct? - 02/18/06 12:49 PM



Quote

Wouters idea may be a good one. But it’s the start up economics that would kill it, you would need an initial critical mass to get it going,



Exactly right. Just yesterday we discussed these problems over a beer at my faculty with my collegeas of the deparment of control system. I said myself that making the road train idea work would require a team of many phsygo-analists, social scientish, lawyers, marketeers and promotors and only 2 to 3 technical engineers. The project would be devoting 80 % of its time and efforts to designing and implementing the introduction and general acceptence and only about 20 on hardcore technical aspects.

Actually, it seems that one avenue is being succesfully implemented at this time. Our control systems deparment is part of a European wide effort of Universities and car manufactures to design and implement an intelligent cruise control.

This system will not only maintain speed at a given value but also adjust this value to the required minimum distance to the car in front. The car companies want to sell this as an extra benefit in top of the line cars; thus making a status symbol out of it just like they did with GPS driven routing aids. I expect that in time everybody wants one because it is cool now ! From then onwards it is indeed only a very small step to go to full train-forming. Afterall, you only need a control system to maintain your car at about 1-2 feet behind the one in front. The steering can still be done by the human driving the car. This will also negate some of the confidence issue that plain humans may have with new technologies. Of course they can always decide to leave the train by steering their car to the side and out of the train. Of course this is a pretty useless thing to do but most people won't understand it that way and just feel more secure because they think that they have a meaningful control in the whole setup. Just like passengers in a fly-by-wire-auto-piloted airplane were they feel the pilot can safe the day when need be. Of course most of the time he can't in the case of a serious control system failure.

Wouter
Posted By: Wouter

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/18/06 01:04 PM



This thread is making an interesting turn actually.

Your comments are exactly why I call myself a socialist but not a communist. I communism the ideal is to support everybody to an average living standard nt matter how dumb they are or how bad their work is. As there is hardly any improvement in living standards when performing quality work or being smart you end up with a society of losers. As a socialist I believe so should provide ample opportunity for everybody to improve on their living standard and status/position in society, but this doesn't mean that anybody refusing to be smarter or more active in bettering himself should get anymore then the bare minimum to keep himself alive and out of crime.

So I'm not shedding any tears for Joe Bubba. I would support any state program to buy his junky car at a higher value then markt price so he CAN buy a fuel efficient car that he couldn't do earlier, but only one time. Or any program that allows Joe to bridge the gap in investment that he will pay for in small weekly terms and see he earn money (not spending it) in the long run. But Joe decides that a V8 6 liter fuel pump matches his self image better then I say let him take the full 5- 6 dollar per gallon hit.

Actually such a society is the only way to maintain a minimal of smart thinking among the populace; a critical and strategic necessity if you ask me. Or do you really want all the better paying jobs to be outsourced to foreign nations ?

Wouter
Posted By: Boudicca

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/18/06 02:55 PM

Sorry Wout, I guess my point was too subtle. Personally, I don't feel sorry so much for Joe Bubba either, but I can see the politicians are gonna jump on that one with BOTH feet.

My suggestion re: Mr. Bubba illustrates the reality in the US that we have to undergo CULTURAL change in order for any conservation-minded programs to succeed. Good luck...

I think you're hung up on that 'image' thing, and I'm trying to illustrate to you that it's not just that.

Sure, in some cases it is, but that would be more likely seen in the middle-class than with the very poor, eg Mr. Middlebubba with the big triple-outboard powerboat and the Hummer to pull it, house way larger than he needs, his kids (too many) have JetSkis to play with. Middlebubba's in debt up to his eyeballs (eg the TV commercial, for those who have seen it.) Now, that's image.

The poor, on the other hand, don't have any concept of forward thinking. They only see week-to-week: what can I afford with my paycheck THIS week? There ARE state programs out there, but they don't seem to do any good. It's behavior they learned from their upbringing, and what they've seen in people around them, etc. Again, gotta go after it with 'cultural change.'

If the US wasn't half-assed socialist, we could see capitalism at work. These people would be cut off at the knees (oooh, the Democrats won't have THAT) and they'd learn the lesson a lot more quickly. Instead, they're 'sort-of' subsidized (food stamps, Medicaid, housing and school vouchers, disability-now THERE'S a racket, disability) and thus there's no incentive to improve. What little money they do make can be spent on dumb things like rental furniture, and they don't learn about smart money handling.

I'm broadening the subject here but then I think everything's pretty interconnected.

and for PTP:
NO I AM NOT A DEMOCRAT. US Politics is the very BEST arena demonstrating how Americans DON'T think. In a REAL democracy, we'd have more than two parties, and this partisan bantering wouldn't even exist. But then, it's just too easy for us to say, "yeah Rush (or whoever), you're right!" instead of just watching the news and deciding for ourselves. In a REAL democracy, talk radio and the like would be superfluous. Sorry, I'm changing the subject...
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/18/06 03:26 PM

Wouter:

Most Americans think of themselves as capitalists, but of course there are many social programs here, the Interstate Highway System not the least of them.

Regarding energy prices, not just gasoline, I'd like to see them regulated by the Federal Reserve System to reflect future needs. The current free market system just reflects demand of the moment and very near future. Surely we should be planning much further ahead.

This link was posted by jbecker earlier. I think you should give it a look.

http://www.energybulletin.net/12751.html

Posted By: Wouter

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/18/06 03:33 PM


I see your point.

I also beleive that there isn't much potential to avoid the hardship. Afterall, this turn around is going to happen. Either in a gradual way of after a major upset. The energy crisis is going to be one of such upsets.

Politicians of course figure that the storm will not arrive till after the time they need to clear out. Seems the really poor and politicians think alike. Week-to-week.

I'm just happy that in my area we already had the transition; so we will not be hit as hard.

Wouter
Posted By: Tiger

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/18/06 03:39 PM

Quote

My suggestion re: Mr. Bubba illustrates the reality in the US that we have to undergo CULTURAL change in order for any conservation-minded programs to succeed. Good luck...


Of course. But it seems that there is little time left to do that, better hurry or that will happen by force.
The current system is NOT SUSTAINABLE: cheap oil will become not available in a short time.
Other wars will not solve the problem at all (worldwide demand vs worldwide offer).
So, US has cornered itself in this bad position and a lot of people (not only Mr Bubba but also lawmakers and politicians) do not seem to grasp the gravity of the situation and the need to act quickly.

I am personally very worried about a financial crash triggered by a jump on oil prices (>100$/barrel).
And I am only talking economy here, not environment. But actually everything work together.
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/18/06 04:10 PM

Quote
. . .I think everything's pretty interconnected.


I'm just guessing, but probably the only cure for poverty is work, which is why we need a sound energy policy!

Bubba doesn't have to be smart or well "edikated" to be greedy. As long as there are jobs available he'll go to work, for the most part, and snoop around for the best pay. In this way he progresses from Bubba to Middlebubba (that would be me )where he finds social programs stop and he's more or less on his own as a bona fide working American!

Wouter:

I don't know how things work in Europe, but here we are merchandised from birth to believe we need everything under the sun, I call it "capitalistic brainwashing"! So, we go in debt up to our eyeballs and work like hell to pay it all off, I call that the "great American indenture". Well, somewhere around age 50, while we are at our maximum earnings, we get it all paid off and I call that "the great American dream realized"!

All this works very well, as long as jobs are plentiful. Heretofore, we've had an abundance of cheap energy to fuel this rosey little scenario, but those days are rapidly growing to a close, which brings us full circle to why we need a sound energy policy! I'm sorry to be obtuse, but down here in bubba-land that's just how things are.

Posted By: scooby_simon

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/18/06 04:30 PM

Re the Oil thing. Do a search on Google for "Peak Oil" and there are massive discussions about it.

Oil is a resource that we are using up. As the price per barrell increases on the market; Brent / NY then then oil that was not economic to extract becomes so. The industry is now talking about moveable "ship based" platforms that can tap into fields that may only have a life of a few years instead of looking to fields with 10's of years.

There is a supply vs demand problem and this will continue until fuel consumption becomes a criteria for the choice of vehicle. In most of the EU, MPG is a criteria for the purchase of a car. I don;t feel that is is so in the USA.

In the past I was shocked to read about the import duty's on EU cars in the US. Is this to protect the US motor industry. I believe that the US does not see MPG (yet) as a criteria for the buying of cars.

In the UK (and I assume the rest of the EU) any car that is returning an average 8 MPG would be a super car. Our Petrol (and Drv) prices are such that such a car would not (and could not) be considered as a "every day driver".

Perhaps high fuel prices in the USA would "help" to move the US motor market to move to a more MPG driven choice.
Posted By: Boudicca

Europe/older societies - 02/18/06 04:39 PM

I have a theory that the US is going through things that Europe (and other countries) went through many years ago. It's just that the US is a younger country. I'm simplifying my theory, but I think y'all will get the point.

I'm afraid we'll just have to get the sh!t whaled out of US to learn the lesson. I mean, it doesn't seem to be bothering nearly enough people over here that our boys are getting killed to protect our oil resources (she says, ducking). My husband is in the oil biz, and he told me that at a company planning meeting he was given to understand that Iraq is estimated to possibly hold something like 25% of world oil, if I recall. I'm not sure on that total. I do remember being surprised at the amount, but then of course I made the connection as to exactly why Bush went in there. The cynicism of our politicians just freaks me out.
Posted By: Tiger

Re: Europe/older societies - 02/18/06 04:54 PM

A noticeable thing:

All of the forum members who were very active (and nasty) at selling Bush policies these last years are suddenly absent.

Is it because they feel like us that the [censored] is going to hit the fan shortly?
Posted By: fin.

Re: Europe/older societies - 02/18/06 05:35 PM

Quote
A noticeable thing:

All of the forum members who were very active (and nasty) at selling Bush policies these last years are suddenly absent.

Is it because they feel like us that the [censored] is going to hit the fan shortly?


I didn't vote for him, but at least there was an election. Though I doubt the result will be pro American! Might even be more terrorist oriented. Time will tell.

I think we are our own worst enemy regarding energy, and the solutions are to be had domestically. If you believe, as I do, that terrorism is funded with oil money; then witholding that money is imperative! It is a sickening thought that buying up old gas burners here might be even more effective than dropping bombs there!

Buying middleeast oil is sort of like selling scrap metal to Japan . . . after Pearl Harbor!
Posted By: Wouter

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/18/06 06:57 PM


Quote

I don't know how things work in Europe, but here we are merchandised from birth to believe we need everything under the sun, I call it "capitalistic brainwashing"! So, we go in debt up to our eyeballs and work like hell to pay it all off,



I'm not too sure that European is way down that road as well. At least in the Netherlands there is a noticeable change if you compare current times with those of the early 90's. I personally hope we can avoid the greater excesses but I'm not very confident about that. We're still doing better but not really do well in this respect.

Wouter
Posted By: davidn

Re: Europe/older societies - 02/18/06 08:22 PM

If I may jump into this long non-sailing discussion late, I would like to make a couple of points that seem to have been left behind in the flurry of thoughts going off into numerous interesting directions.

Capitalism versus Socialism: I don't think you can get away from a basic truth that the more you want someone or something (government, for instance) to do for you, the more freedom of independent action you will give up. Any good society will take care of its vulnerable citizens; even barbaric societies did this to differing extents. But the more these support programs proliferate, the more people will be happy to depend on them; not everyone is motivated by the work ethic. Way back, Benjamin Franklin said that we should help the poor, but not make them so comfortable that they want to stay in that condition (I'm paraphrasing). The beauty of Capitalism is that it appeals to human being's self interest, which is more reliably stronger than human being's altruistic instincts. Since Capitalism is basically amoral, it must be coupled with a strong rule of law to reign in excesses. In support of the above very brief theme, I offer some general statistics. US economic growth rate is consistently higher than Europe's. US unemployment rate is way below Europe's (Europe varies from 6 to 9% while the US is under 5%). Opinion poles show Europeans much less optimistic about their future than US citizens. This attitude may be why Europe's birth rate (among ethnic Europeans) is not sustaining itself. The gowing social support payments necessary from years of social welfare and the aging baby boom generation is creating an impending economic crisis more dangerous than our "boomer" social security crisis.

If government gets out of people's way (except for enforcing proper rules of fair play, so to speak), one sees the inventiveness of people unleashed. Ireland's economic boom over the last 20 years serves as a good example. In the US, I am constantly amazed at seeing how people will find the smallest need and find a way to make a living filling that. The inventiveness of these entrepeneurs never ceases to amaze me. Now, before I get slammed with examples of how this idea is perverted or corrupted in the US, I didn't claim it was perfectly functioning here, just better than in many other places in the world. We have many distortions of the free market here and some lead to real economic problems. In general, though, barriers to entrepeneurism are much lower in the US than in Europe and that's a good thing.

Regarding oil: The Alberta (Canada) oil sands contain more oil reserves than currently exist in Saudi Arabia. At $2.50 a gallon, it is now becoming economically viable to extract and market. We have in the US vast deposits of shale oil under ground. It can't be accessed by open pit mining like the oil sands, but there is a commercial test operation (to test on a commercial scale) going on out west whereby steam is injected into these deposits and the oil is "cooked" out of the shale. When deleted, the deposit is back filled with water and the whole operation occurs underground. These deposits are vast, close to the level of Saudi Arabia. Last, but very much not least, we have, at current consumption rates, enough coal in the US to fuel our fleet of vehicles for 500 years. This is from methanol extracted from coal.

The US should mandate that the auto makers achieve flex fuel capability on their fleet within 2 to 3 years. It takes only a sensor to determine the composition of the fuel and adjust the mixture accordingly and a protected fuel system (methanol and ethanol are corrosive). This mandate should require flex capability for both methanol (from coal) and ethanol (from corn, etc) which is harder to accomplish, but well within current technology. By now everyone's seen the E85 ads, so the ethanol lobby is in full swing, but we need full flexibility.

The point of all this is to not have a world economic crisis regarding the oil economy while the world economy has transitions beyond its complete dependency on petroleum. We need 50 to 100 years for this process and its readily available. The other, maybe more important point, is that we need to stop funding the Islamic terrorists. Much of the money all countries send to the mid east is used to fund Islamic fundamentalism which is the source of inspiration for Islamic terror activities. As a business man I marvel at cost of goods for a barrel of oil, $5; selling price fob mid east, $60; profit $55 or 1100%. This dependency also coops the western world from properly reacting to terror activities or terror supporting states.

To summarize (and therefore, oversimplify), we should support the vulnerable; create a minimum safety net for the poor, but not one that makes them too comfortable; drive the poor back into productivity, get government out of people's lives as much as possible; enforce fair laws; unleash the inventiveness of humans in the economic sphere; develop alternative fuels quickly, especially the technologies with good return-on-investment capabilities; send less money to the mid east and keep it in our own countries; and sail more rather than burn fossel fuels.

Davidn
H20 781
If Winter's here, can Spring be far behind?
Posted By: PTP

Re: Europe/older societies - 02/18/06 08:32 PM

Quote
The gowing social support payments necessary from years of social welfare and the aging baby boom generation is creating an impending economic crisis more dangerous than our "boomer" social security crisis.

yes, this is all getting out of hand BUT...
The larger problem is not our boomer crisis... it is the healthcare crisis that will screw the US long before oil or soc security does.
Posted By: Tiger

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/18/06 08:39 PM

Quote
there are many social programs here, the Interstate Highway System not the least of them.



In what the highway system is a social program???
Posted By: Wouter

Re: Europe/older societies - 02/18/06 11:01 PM



I'm sure many can tell from my posts that I'm aging a little bit. I've seen all western nations just throw away 25 years of development time since the first oil crisis. Nor did the magical free (capitalist) market or private entrepeneurship do what the public sector (state) avoided doing. If anything it did the direct opposite, in the 70's we didn't have SUV or hummers. I'm sceptical, very sceptical. I never had much faith in the private sector I admit but in those 25 years I've seen nothing to rock my earlier conviction, this scares me. The private sector will do a few things well and development for public good is certainly NOT one of them. Often there is simply no (good) money in it and share holders don't like companies balancing on the bankruptcy line. Most often only the state can take the risk or make the expenses; afterall the state can not go bankrupt and has a garanteed income by virtue of taxes.


Quote

Capitalism versus Socialism: I don't think you can get away from a basic truth that the more you want someone or something (government, for instance) to do for you, the more freedom of independent action you will give up.



Personally I think that "freedom" and "freedom of independent action" are in themselfs overrated. I can't eat it, it won't keep me warm and it won't clean up the environment around me of pollution or other health risks like crime.

It is a nice rallying cry and by God a decent minimum of freedom is definately worth dying for but total freedom or even something close to it is pretty meaningless and often just alot of hard work for a meger existance. Ask any settler.

In the end it all comes down to a balancing act of freedom versus public good. Neither should be subservant to the other, that is simply not healthy.



Quote

Way back, Benjamin Franklin said that we should help the poor, but not make them so comfortable that they want to stay in that condition (I'm paraphrasing). The beauty of Capitalism is that it appeals to human being's self interest, which is more reliably stronger than human being's altruistic instincts.



The problem with any system is when it assumes that everybody and anybody will react the same to similar situations. This simply does not hold. A great example are the drugs problems. Sure drug should be banned and thus kept out of general society. But there will always be a group of persons that will fall down in excessive drug use and thus "freedom" themselfs into a life or endless poverty and suffering. Some people simply don't have enough sense of self interest to keep the out of trouble. Nearly always these people end up in crime as their enslavement to the drug is a great leverage. One of the best things done by the (socialist) Dutch government was to setup up state controlled methodon distribution points were these addicts got their daily shot. The had to report themselfs to local shelters and generally were checked up. Both in activities and for contagious deceases. A hinderance of personal freedom. In these shelters they were given continious opportunity for rehabilitation and they could walk in and out when they wanted. If you walked out then no Methodon for you. Sure it kept these people addicted but then these were never going to kick the habit anyway. It was better to prevent them from allowing an epidemic from developping and keeping them out of the criminal circles really helped getting petty crime down.

Is this an eternal dance with the devil ? You bet, but as long as you kept counting the step and payed attention to the tune then everybody was better off. I like to see entrepeneurs develop a similar program. These things can only be done by the state. And only by one that understands that one size doesn't fit all.



Quote

Since Capitalism is basically amoral, it must be coupled with a strong rule of law to reign in excesses.



And that is the way that you end up with a prison system that incarcerates more people than all other nations per captita and I even believe that it is more than all other nations combined.

Sure it will work. It is like "the system works of only we allow it to kill" but your society will in general by alot more harsh and agressive.

Being soft in a whimpy thing to do but the statistics may actually endorse such an approach.



Quote

In support of the above very brief theme, I offer some general statistics. US economic growth rate is consistently higher than Europe's.



This is a conviction, not a fact. Both blocks showed better growth rates at times. I think over the last few months EU grew better than US and before that it was the other way around. So what is "consistently"

In addition ; what does it matte that one area scores 9 % growth while another scores 5 % ? Growth is growth and having more sex also does mean it is better as well ! In many situations it is the quality that counts not the quantity.


Quote

US unemployment rate is way below Europe's (Europe varies from 6 to 9% while the US is under 5%).



How about you guys counting also the employed persons after 6 months ? There is alot of hidden unemployment in the USA, everybody knows this. In europe ALL person are counted not just the ones who are still on government unemployment benefits.

In addition, how bad is it really to have a few % more unemployment ? It is certainly not keeping the Euro exchange rate to the dollar down. Sure, lower will be better, but that doesn't mean that higher is bad.



Quote

Opinion poles show Europeans much less optimistic about their future than US citizens. This attitude may be why Europe's birth rate (among ethnic Europeans) is not sustaining itself.



Opinion poles, PFffww. Highly overrated in my opinion. Opinion poles also show that people believe nuclear wapons were found in Iraq, while this is patently untrue. These things are often better as a measure of general intelligence if not common sense.

The birth rate among ethnic Europeans and it not sustaining itself have far more potent economic and cultural causes; this has been developping over the last few decades. You can't tell me that Europeans have been gloomy about the future ever since, 1960's.

Besides, thank good we have negative population growth overhere. It was beginning to get a little crowded. Population growth would not have been sustainable much longer either.


Quote

If government gets out of people's way (except for enforcing proper rules of fair play, so to speak), one sees the inventiveness of people unleashed.



This is just another utopia. Check the inventiveness in "the projects" for example.


Quote

Ireland's economic boom over the last 20 years serves as a good example.



And Ireland is not a social democracy ? Also it didn't get billion of aid from the European union, a socialist project if there is one. This is not an example of a nation getting on top by being left to their own devises and being subjected to pure capitalism.

Remember ; having free markets is not the same as being capitalist.



Quote

In the US, I am constantly amazed at seeing how people will find the smallest need and find a way to make a living filling that.



Ask snoop dog how he started his path to weath.

Before we get into another touch the flag and cry a tear over opportunity and personal responsibily moment here, allow me to state that for each succes story I can point you to many stories showing the opposite. Can it happen, Sure ! Will it happen to everyone or even the majority ? Hell no ! And we all know that.



Quote

I didn't claim it was perfectly functioning here, just better than in many other places in the world.


Yes well we are all doing better then Bangladesh, Dominican republic, Kazachstan, Algeria and what not else. Doing better than many other places in the world still doesn't mean that you are doing better then Europe in general.


Quote

We have many distortions of the free market here and some lead to real economic problems. In general, though, barriers to entrepeneurism are much lower in the US than in Europe and that's a good thing.



You keep telling us, but why exactly ? Cuban victums of Katrina are already back in shape. Poor families in North-Eastern US get heating fuel support form Venezuela instead of their own government. You are one of the few nations to even hand out food stamps, you are the only one doing so in the group of "western nations". Must I go on ?

I'm also a sucker for Bill Gates succes stories and the freedom to start you own business and risk a 67 % failure rate, but how exactly do a handful of great stories help out the larger group of people who fail ? They can't eat these stories, they won't keep them warm, and it certainly doesn't help their kids break out of poverty. Lets face it, if you drop out of high school then you chance at being a succesful entrepeneur are not really promising.


Quote

Regarding oil: The Alberta (Canada) oil sands contain more oil reserves than currently exist in Saudi Arabia. ... We have in the US vast deposits of shale oil under ground. ... These deposits are vast, close to the level of Saudi Arabia. Last, but very much not least, we have, at current consumption rates, enough coal in the US to fuel our fleet of vehicles for 500 years. This is from methanol extracted from coal.



We have enough deuterium in the sea water to fuel fusion reactors for millenia. However, this doesn't mean it is going to be here in time or that it is a solutions to our global energy problem. Also these new deposits will be significantly more expensive to exploit, ergo high fuel prices. And exploitation of these deposits will not solve any problems related to waste.

I never understand how government and even companies are willing to spend billions in development of such new deposits, hoping for future benefits, while the same investments could have created inmediate gains if spend on efficiency improvements.

A great example, How much would it cost to to buy every house hold high efficient lambs ? 100 million homes in the USA ? 10 lambs per house hold ? Cost per lamb, at these quantities, 5 bucks per lamb ? Total investment 5 billion dollars.


Quote

The US should mandate that the auto makers achieve flex fuel capability on their fleet within 2 to 3 years.



Hey, this is government interference ! Something a true capitalist and free market thinker should despise.


Quote

We need 50 to 100 years for this process and its readily available.


35 years has passed since the first oil crisis (political motivated) and absolutely NO gains were made in the USA. Why do still convince ourselfs that this time will be magically different ?

Somebody has to stand up and make a difference. My claim is that only the state can be that somebody.



Quote

To summarize (and therefore, oversimplify), we should support the vulnerable; create a minimum safety net for the poor, but not one that makes them too comfortable; drive the poor back into productivity, get government out of people's lives as much as possible; enforce fair laws; unleash the inventiveness of humans in the economic sphere; develop alternative fuels quickly, especially the technologies with good return-on-investment capabilities; send less money to the mid east and keep it in our own countries; and sail more rather than burn fossel fuels.



I think nobody disagrees on that. Our goals are the same, we are actually differing on the way to implement it.


regards,

Wouter


Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 12:24 AM

Quote
In what the highway system is a social program???


It isn't privately owned. It is owned by the Federal Government.
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 12:36 AM

Wouter:

Whew!! Stop and breathe buddy!
Posted By: fin.

Re: Europe/older societies - 02/19/06 01:14 AM

Davidn:

There is significant difference of opinion regarding the total reserves contained within the tar sand and shale deposts. See below.

http://www.energybulletin.net/12751.html

That being said, I'm in virtual agreement with you. My question is how do we take action? Or, should we just wait for the good and bright peoople in government ( there are a great many of them )to do their jobs?
Posted By: hobie1616

Re: Europe/older societies - 02/19/06 01:35 AM

Quote
My question is how do we take action? Or, should we just wait for the good and bright peoople in government (there are a great many of them )to do their jobs?
Dealing with any government is the same as dealing with committees; if anything gets done it takes forever and will probably be wrong anyway. Take the initiative and go get it done. Since oil shale and tar sand are a huge investment of time and money, invest in the companies that have a good shot at getting it to market.

Oh yeah, after you've gotten whatever it is successfully completed, someone else will try to take the credit.
Posted By: Tiger

Re: Europe/older societies - 02/19/06 05:27 AM

Quote
Since oil shale and tar sand are a huge investment of time and money, invest in the companies that have a good shot at getting it to market.


I am personality not excited at all by the tar and sand solution. Again, it is about getting more oil, not sparing it. And above all, what is the environemental cost of extracting this oil? It must be nasty, with huge holes and machinery.

Not a solution.

By the way, good post Wouter.
Posted By: Wouter

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 10:40 AM



Following this reasoning the US has the biggest and most expensive social program in the World, The US military !

Wouter
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 01:11 PM

Quote


Following this reasoning the US has the biggest and most expensive social program in the World, The US military !

Wouter


And, the very best in the whole wide world!!
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 01:26 PM

Wouter:

I recently received this "plan" from a friend. For ill or nil, it is an increasing sentiment here at home.

Despite its assertion to the contrary, arguing the logic is simple. But, this is an emotional outpouring, nothing rational about it. Thing is, for the most part, I agree


The Plan!

Robin Williams, wearing a shirt that says "I love New York" in Arabic.



You gotta love Robin Williams......
Even if he's nuts! Leave it to Robin
Williams to come up with the perfect
plan. What we need now is for our
UN Ambassador to stand up and
repeat this message.

Robin Williams' plan...(Hard to
argue with this logic!)

"I see a lot of people yelling for peace
but I have not heard of a plan for
peace. So, here's one plan."

1) "The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Tojo, Noriega, Milosevic, Hussein, and the rest of those "good ole boys", we will never "interfere" again.

2) We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea, the Middle East, and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one allowed sneaking through holes in the fence.

3) All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave.We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered u p and deported immediately, regardless of whom or where they are. They're illegal!!! France will welcome them.

4) All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit!!!! No one from a terrorist nation will be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available
to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5) No foreign "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.

6) The US will make a strong effort
to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing nonpolluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7) Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go someplace else. They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

8) If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.

9) Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island someplace. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10) All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way , no one can call us "Ugly Americans" any longer. The Language we speak is ENGLISH...learn it...or LEAVE...Now, isn't that a winner of a plan?

"The Statue of Liberty is no longer
saying "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses." She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'you want a piece of me?' "




Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 01:53 PM

Pete,

I have read (and heard) this before, and it's not true that Robin Williams wrote it.
Ref:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/williams.asp


What probably is true, is that many in the US feel this way. It fits very well with the view that the US _is_ the world, or at least the part of it that matters.

What I think of when I read that piece, is the kids who will take their toys with them home and end play, if you dont do as they like.

Amazing how well playing on fear and creating external enemies works in politics, on both sides.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 02:08 PM

Along the same lines, here's some soldiers in action. I think they are Dutch attacthed to the UN Peace keeping forces in Kosovo? Anyone know who these guys are?

http://www.break.com/index/kosovo.html

I hope that link works for you.

PS. I was a pilot in the US Air Force for 8 years, I got to particpate in Desert Storm I, in 1991-2. (the Rescue of Kuwait) I got out shortly after that, because I didn't like being pimped out all over the world, to support our forign policy, which I strongly disagree with.

When I joined in 1983, the "Threat" was Russia and a nuclear war. I was all for defending America from that threat. After that threat went away, you could see the Generals madly scrambling to find another "Threat", so their budgets wouldn't get cut and their bases wouldn't get closed.

Thus began the effort to "Install Democracy Around the World". That should keep the Generals busy for many years to come! Seen the movie "Team America" yet? Fk-Yeah! Dirka Dirka...
Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 02:25 PM

I dont know them personally, but they are norwegians from our NATO rapid response contingent "Telemark Bataljon".
http://www.tmbn.no/

Easily recognizable both on their uniforms and equipment.
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 02:26 PM

Rolf: Congratulations on Norway's gold in the Olympics, and thanks for setting the record straight, regarding Robin Williams.

Quote

What I think of when I read that piece, is the kids who will take their toys with them home and end play, if you dont do as they like.


Sorry, but that's how I feel! America is villanized for all that we do wrong, and scoffed at for all that we do right.

I'm not an isolationist, yet. But, I do think we should prioritize domestic need and rethink our role in "globalization".

You might feel differently if Norway was subject to terroist attack to the same level the U.S. is. If memory serves, this ( Muslims killing Americans ) has been going on since the '70s. I'm ready to take off the gloves!
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 02:33 PM

Timbo; Haven't seen "Team America", but I will.

btw- Not that it's the same as being shot at, but I spent a couple of years in a tank in Germany. I'm not terribly impressed with U.S. foreign policy either.
Posted By: Tiger

Pete's plan - 02/19/06 02:35 PM

So, first trying to globalize the world. Then discovering that there are some problems attached, deciding to back off, the heck with the rest of it (and sorry for the damages associated...).

What about building a big wall around the country? it is very trendy lately...

IMHO, pretty lame... and for sure the perfect recipe for decadence and decaying.
Posted By: Boudicca

Disclaimer - 02/19/06 02:37 PM

To those outside the US reading this thread:

Please note that the opinions offered by Tikipete and DavidN are NOT representative of all opinions in the US nor of all US opinions on this particular website.
Posted By: pitchpoledave

Re: Disclaimer - 02/19/06 02:44 PM

Thanks, I was getting worried.
Posted By: fin.

Re: Pete's plan - 02/19/06 02:49 PM

"No one likes us-I don't know why. . ."

Posted By: Tiger

Re: Pete's plan - 02/19/06 02:59 PM

Quote
"No one likes us-I don't know why. . ."



This where the problem lies. Bullying the rest of the world like we are doing now does not bring friends.

Basically it is not "nobody likes us", but "nobody likes our foreign, energy & environemental policies and the associated global mess".

Unfortunately, because of the 2004 elections it looks from the outside that the american people approves it.
Posted By: pitchpoledave

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 02:59 PM


Guys, I don't think this is the place for a political discussion, and I am really surprised it hasn't turned into a flame war.. But the fact is that the US has interfered in many places that it really shouldn't have such as panama, grenada, Veitnam, Nicaragua, Cuba (I mean bay of pigs) etc, etc. And ok, Desert storm seems legit, but this latest Iraq war is completely ridiculous. Absolutely no way that Sadam was any threat, even the Israelies publicly stated this and questioned the US reasons for going to war. In fact Sadam was keeping the place together. Bush knew this, that's why he wouldn't let Hans Blix finish the job and a formal report. But the US has done a number of great deeds, such as WW2 and others which the world really is greatful. Where we REALLY have a problem now is Iran, and north korea and now the US is already caught up in another war and can't do anything about them..
Watch what happens to Hugo Chavez..He will either have an "accident" or the cia funded "rebels" will overthrow him..Why? just because Bush doesn't like what he is saying? The US media is already conditioning the US people that Chavez is a"Bad Guy"...

Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 03:12 PM

[quote] Absolutely no way that Sadam was any threat, /quote]

Gassing the Kurds was sufficient reason for me! Forget American foreign policy, why wasn't the UN more involved. Isn't that why we have the UN! Someone should have done something about Rwanda and God knows how many other places around the world.

My disagreement with the America bashers is that you are always willing to do nothing, and then scream bloody murder when someone says enough! For you folks nothing is sacred, nothing is worth dying for.

I have to go look at a trailer now, but. . .
"I'll be back!"

btw- has anyone seen "Hotel Rwanda"?
Posted By: Wouter

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 03:13 PM


Quote

Along the same lines, here's some soldiers in action. I think they are Dutch attacthed to the UN Peace keeping forces in Kosovo?



Could well be, we were part of that. Another NATO action that the UN didn't approve and later turned out to be one big smoke and mirrors excersize. KLA staged massacres and such to get Nato in and drive the Serbs out for them. Lets not go there now.

Wouter
Posted By: Timbo

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 03:26 PM

Dave, I'm affraid you give our CIA way too much credit, they can't even find Osama Bin Laden! There is no way they can do anything about Hugo Chavez! Hey, come to think of it, Castro is still around, right? See?

If you want to see how they operate (poorly) pick up a copy of "Killing Pablo" about the CIA trying to catch and kill Pablo Escobar, the Columbian Drug Lord. It took them years of trying and the guy was living in downtown Bogata! He was finally shot dead by Columbian troops, with some help from the CIA, but talk about a F'd up mission! It's no wonder they can't find Osama.

In the days immediately after the 9-11 terrorist attacks which killed about 3,000 civilians, I was all for putting a couple NUKES into Saudi Arabia. Why? Because 15 of the 19 Hi Jackers were Saudi. Osama is a Saudi. They are all receiving financial aid from Saudi's. Why we went into Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia is way beyond me....but you know Bush is best buddies with the Saudi's, it's all about the oil. The Saudi's don't like us, they like our money. We are funding terrorism every time we fill up at the pump.

On Iraq, you are right, Sadam was holding the place together. That's why Bush's Dad didn't take him out in 1992!

And to you outside the US, you know that Bush DIDN'T get more of the people's votes than Al Gore in 2,000. He won on the "Electoral College" technicality and 3,000 Florida old ladies voted for Pat Buchanan by mistake, becuase they couldn't read the ballots! In 2004 he only got 52% of the vote, which means 48% of us (very nearly half) did NOT vote for him so please do not think that we all support his actions. His "aproval rating" is down to 42% I think.
Posted By: Wouter

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 03:33 PM


Don't give us this "gassing Kurds" nonsense Pete.

That happened halveway during the 1980's when US support for Saddam was on its peak and even remained so for a while after.

Pretty bloody late to do something about this some shy 20 years later. Or can we expect the US to invade Rwanda somewhere around 2015 in order to stop any more hutu's being slaughtered ?

One reason why US receives some flak from the outside is its enduring practice of providing complete unbelievable justifications and pretty much insulting everybodies intelligence.

Wouter
Posted By: pitchpoledave

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 03:41 PM

Yes I agree that that the Saudi problem is also a big one. I guess the US can't lean on them too much..They buy a lot of F16s..
Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 03:51 PM

Pete: I can comfort you with that we and the danes are probably the next big-time targets. Seems like two of our smaller (5000copys a day) newspapers has pissed off the united muslim world by printing some caricatures of Mohammed. Count is now up to three burned embassies and they are making flags to burn like it was toiletpaper.

I agree with you that you should think more domestic. You are about to be passed by China and India if you dont get your economy and politics together.
When you take a high-profile, you will also get the attention that comes with it. Especially so when you let your military visit other lands "in force". Doing humanitarian aid is a far cry from pre-emptive invasions. If you did not strike out on your own, but went trough the UN instead, you would not be in the position you are today. But your political leadership obviously can not accept that.
As for taking the gloves off, the US has had gauntlets on for a good while now.

If you are getting tired of hearing about muslims killing americans, how tired do you think muslims are of having their family members killed by americans? What do you belive the body count is on both sides since the 70s? I dont know for sure, but I think you have ended a couple of more muslim lives than they have killed americans. From an outside viewpoint, it is your heavy handed and rough shoed dealings with the arab world that have brought you in the position you are today.
You have had one muslim terrorist attack in the US (am I wrong?), and a terrible one at that. It was executed by extremists, the same ones that are just now whipping the muslim world into beliveing that danes and norwegians hates muslims. You have lots of muslims in the US, even Mike Tyson converted to Islam while in prison, and they dont bother you much, do they? It's the extremists you need to watch and catch, but not muslims in general. Whats happing today is the extremists dream come true.
If Martin Luther had not started the reformation within the church, and we had missed the renaissance, we could be where the muslim world is today. Just look at muslim women and how they strive for change every day. Historically, christians and jews could find a safe haven in muslim countries (not today). The muslim world missed both reformation and the renaissance, two outmost important parts of our history. Then their leaders became more fundamental and their interpretation of Islam change for the worse. Effectively, they never left the middle age.
I wonder if they are so angry becouse they see how we westernes live, and they dont understand why they dont have the same rights and opportunities (beeing f*ked over by europeans and others for the last 200 years dont help). Instead they are beaten around the head by their mullahs if they dare to think different. Working for a reformation or renaissance would probably get the average muslim killed.

Sorry for rambling on and being long winded. I see for myself here in little Norway how many muslim immigrants fail to integrate with us ethnic norwegians. Instead they gather in what I would call ghettos and try to change everything around them to be similar to what they left when they escaped their countries. That is really a problem, and who do I blame? Our government who failed to demand from them that they learnt our language and customs so they at least had a chance to integrate. Now they are going after our freedom of speech and free press..
Feeling victimized when getting critique for your own foreign policy is turning things on its head and really should make a lot of questions come to mind. Besides, if you go abroad you will experience that you are welcome most places on the globe. Just leave the weaponry at home and do business instead (or dont do business if you dont like the guys).

A question. How is it possible for a guy who need daily dialysis to run around the mountains in Pakistan/Afghanistan and escape the collective special forces community, intelligence community, satelittes and the military with a large reward on his head? Why have you not caught bin Laden and let him meet justice yet? I supported the invasion of Afghanistan fully, and would like to see him in front of a court in Haag or even Nurnberg.

Pete: What tank did you drive in Germany. M48 or something earlier? I have two years on the upgraded Leopard I (bet you saw it while in Germany) with gyro stabilized fire-control. Always cool to meet a fellow cavaleryman
Posted By: Timbo

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 04:20 PM

Hey, I just thought of something after reading your post on Muslims in Norway. I have read a book called "Death of the West" by our own right wing politician/news comentator, Pat Buchanan. (the same who was running for US President in 2000 from post above). In that book he talks about the eventual take over of all of Europe, then the US, by Muslims, without ever firing a shot. How? Birth rates. According to his research, since the advent of the birth control pill in the 1960's, European and US women have basically shut down the production of babies. They entered the work force and stopped having kids. Their birth rate is well below 2.0, more like 1.2 I think is what he said. That won't sustain the population.

Meanwhile the European/US Muslim Immigrant birth rate is more than double that. 2.9 or 3.4 depending on which country you are looking at. Spain had the highest Muslim birth rate (and Muslim imigran population), France was second I think... but he says that by the year 2050, the Muslims will have more than 50% of the population of the traditional western European countries and have a very big impact on the US population as well, like 1/3. Think about that!

Hey, I'm doing my part, I have 4 kids, but the rest of you SLACKERS need to get busy and start pushing out some kiddies! And more than 2! Wouter, why isn't that female crew of yours knocked-up yet?? Get on it! You can still race your F16 Solo! And I want to see the video.

Now you know why the Catholic Church has always opposed birth control. There is much security in numbers!

And, we are selling the Saudi's F15's, but they don't fly them very well!

The Israeli's get the F16's and they also get Nukes. The Palestinians and Iranians are lucky the US has not allowed Isreal to use them yet but it's going to happen "by mistake" pretty soon, with the new Palestinian Hammas Government and the Iranians, telling the World they are going to wipe Isreal off the planet. The truth is, the Israelie's have the weaponry to wipe both Iran and Palestine off the map in about 10 minutes...Get ready, it's coming!
Posted By: Tiger

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 06:32 PM

Quote
Now you know why the Catholic Church has always opposed birth control. There is much security in numbers!

And, we are selling the Saudi's F15's, but they don't fly them very well!

The Israeli's get the F16's and they also get Nukes. The Palestinians and Iranians are lucky the US has not allowed Isreal to use them yet but it's going to happen "by mistake" pretty soon, with the new Palestinian Hammas Government and the Iranians, telling the World they are going to wipe Isreal off the planet. The truth is, the Israelie's have the weaponry to wipe both Iran and Palestine off the map in about 10 minutes...Get ready, it's coming!


Not exactly a pacifist point of view!!! Sounds like civilization clash.

You seem happy to see this coming. Fight, fight. Some are really starving for fighting and killing ---> I call them extremists (west side and arab side as well).

Some others like me just see the absolute madness going on with the thousands killed as collateral damage. It is simply disgusting.

By the way IMHO, Hamas got there because of the Bush/Sharon tandem handling the palestinian problem.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 06:49 PM

Slow down there Tiger, you are putting words in my mouth. I said I got OUT of the US military because I didn't agree with our forign policy. I'd rather sail and drink beer than blow up other countries, trying to force democracy down their throats. By the way, why isn't Bush trying to force Democracy on the Saudi Royal Family?? And anyone who has not served in our military is not qualified to critisize it because you have no idea how it really works, you only know what you see on CNN, which is usually 180 out from reality. John Kerry had every right to critisize it, Bush however, only used it to duck Viet Nam and never really served! When is Bush going to send his two daughters to Iraq?

http://www.break.com/index/presidential.html

Here's our fearless leader now!

But I digress... It would not make me cry to see Isreal defend themselves from the Arabs, with nukes if need be. If Iran and Hammas say they will not allow Isreal to exist, what do you think it's going to come to?
Posted By: scooby_simon

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 07:33 PM

Quote
It would not make me cry to see Isreal defend themselves from the Arabs, with nukes if need be. If Iran and Hammas say they will not allow Isreal to exist, what do you think it's going to come to?


Do you really believe that any country throwing nukes around is a good idea. One nukes the other, they hit back. Radition posioning for a vast area.

Not a good idea.

Posted By: Timbo

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 07:35 PM

They just have the little nukes. We have the big ones... And...I said DEFEND themselves, as in retaliate, after Iran shoots their one nuke.

But, it could always end up like this: http://funnyjunk.com/pages/world.htm

Sorry about those Kangaroos...
Posted By: PTP

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 07:45 PM

it would get really complicated if they used nukes and I don't think they would unless they were under direct threat of invasion with a strong chance of losing the war. But, we would never let that happen anyway so it is a non-issue for them to use nukes.
I for one, sort of agree that it might be interesting to see a big knock down drag out fight though to settle the whole thing (but this probably wouldn't happen and wouldn't "settle" anything anyway)

BTW- do you realize that this is the 2nd most "replied-to" thread in the catsailor forum.. and it doesn't have anything to do with sailing..
Posted By: Timbo

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 08:21 PM

Yeah, it's amazing everyone can get whipped up into a frenzy over politics and we aren't even politicians! Too bad we can't get Politicians whipped up into such a frenzy over Sailing!
Posted By: Tony_F18

German humour - 02/19/06 08:28 PM

Lets cool down with some german humour (yes they have humour!).
http://jm.slove.org/gc/
Posted By: David

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 08:33 PM

Whew! Another lengthy Wouter post; this time I must respond, since it is a rebuttal to my post. Mary is right, if you don't want to read political discussion, go to another post. I also find it interesting to read the views of others around the world.

As you often do, Wouter, you rebut by taking away any nuance from another's point and recasting it in a absolutist light before stiking it down. You re-create the argument into a caricature in order ot set up an easy target.
Quote

Personally I think that "freedom" and "freedom of independent action" are in themselfs overrated. I can't eat it, it won't keep me warm and it won't clean up the environment around me of pollution or other health risks like crime.

It is a nice rallying cry and by God a decent minimum of freedom is definately worth dying for but total freedom or even something close to it is pretty meaningless and often just alot of hard work for a meger existance. Ask any settler.

In the end it all comes down to a balancing act of freedom versus public good. Neither should be subservant to the other, that is simply not healthy.

First of all, I never referred to any absolute freedom; I'm not an anarchist and I certainly understand that individuals have a compact with each other to live together in society and such a compact involves giving up some level of "absolute" freedom. It is obvious that absolute freedom would create a situation that results in generally less personal freedom for most.

The settlers you mention did live hard lives and for the most part chose them for greater freedom and greater economic opportunity. Most of them were quite committed to independence and self reliance; they wouldn't have made it on any frontier without such attibutes.

We differ in degree; you prefer to give up more freedom for a greater sense of security(?) or support and I prefer a greater degree of freedom because that allows me to accomplish more in my personal and economic life. [Personal note; I am in business for my self and have been so for my whole career.] My truism remains true in spite of you're attempt to caracturize it to knock it down. The more centralized one's economy, the less individual freedom one has. Let me add another one (the famous Lord Acton quote), power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Decentralized power and less central planning (all to a point, not to anarchy, dear Wouter) are better than the opposite. A last thought is, have you ever really examined the typical politcian and the bureaucracies they form? I don't think anyone would seriously want more of that.

Quote
The problem with any system is when it assumes that everybody and anybody will react the same to similar situations. This simply does not hold. A great example are the drugs problems. Sure drug should be banned and thus kept out of general society. But there will always be a group of persons that will fall down in excessive drug use and thus "freedom" themselfs into a life or endless poverty and suffering. Some people simply don't have enough sense of self interest to keep the out of trouble. Nearly always these people end up in crime as their enslavement to the drug is a great leverage. One of the best things done by the (socialist) Dutch government was to setup up state controlled methodon distribution points were these addicts got their daily shot. The had to report themselfs to local shelters and generally were checked up. Both in activities and for contagious deceases. A hinderance of personal freedom. In these shelters they were given continious opportunity for rehabilitation and they could walk in and out when they wanted. If you walked out then no Methodon for you. Sure it kept these people addicted but then these were never going to kick the habit anyway. It was better to prevent them from allowing an epidemic from developping and keeping them out of the criminal circles really helped getting petty crime down.

Is this an eternal dance with the devil ? You bet, but as long as you kept counting the step and payed attention to the tune then everybody was better off. I like to see entrepeneurs develop a similar program. These things can only be done by the state. And only by one that understands that one size doesn't fit all.


So are you using the Dutch methodone support program as your example/argument against less government control over our lives? I am not familiar with your program, but we have similar ones here in the US that work to varying degrees (I am not familiar enough with them to argue the point). That example is not what I would call a refutation of my point. There has always been and always will be drug addicts in society. One could make a good argument that they need more than a drug maintenance program coupled with some counseling. Do any of these people get better (get off their drug addiction and become productive members of society) even in some small way? They may not commit crimes and that's a benefit, for certain, but the program may be only limited to ,that. AA adherents will tell you that counseling will only go so far; true release, or just protection from addiction must come from a change within. This thought will lead, inevitably to a theological discussion which won't serve our purposes here.

Quote

And that is the way that you end up with a prison system that incarcerates more people than all other nations per captita and I even believe that it is more than all other nations combined.

Sure it will work. It is like "the system works of only we allow it to kill" but your society will in general by alot more harsh and agressive.


First. We may incercerate more per capita than any other nation but absolutely not more than all other nations combined. I'm surprized that you would express such an obviously false claim; you're smarter than that. Just put China into the equation and you can't make that claim.
Second. This fact you state has very little to do with my point about the rule of law used to reign in capitalistic activity and keep it reasonable fair (mind you, nothing in a competitive situation is completely fair).
Third. You should take more time to visit our country; its not as ruthless as you might imagine. It is full of economic activity, even among the poor. You comments below re: "the projects" and "Snoop Dog" are examples of entrepeneurship, unfortunately outside the law and most don't make the transition to legal activities like Snoop. Most end up dead by their peers as they don't follow the rule of law I talked about and include killing as a method to gain competitve advantage. I think they make my point.

Quote

Being soft in a whimpy thing to do but the statistics may actually endorse such an approach.[
/quote]

Wouter, this is such a fuzzy comment. Please, its just too "feel good". Its like people saying we should all be nice. Its true, but what does that comment do to advance the argument?

Quote

This is a conviction, not a fact. Both blocks showed better growth rates at times. I think over the last few months EU grew better than US and before that it was the other way around. So what is "consistently?


Overall, since WWII on the average.

Quote

In addition ; what does it matte that one area scores 9 % growth while another scores 5 % ? Growth is growth and having more sex also does mean it is better as well ! In many situations it is the quality that counts not the quantity.


Higher % of home ownership. Higher per captia income. Higher level of discretionary income. All on an average over the whole society. A true measure of "quality of life"? Maybe not, but that goes to a more theological discussion again. It is an objective measure of the elusive "quality of life" concept.

Quote

How about you guys counting also the employed persons after 6 months ? There is alot of hidden unemployment in the USA, everybody knows this. In europe ALL person are counted not just the ones who are still on government unemployment benefits.


Wouter, all measures on unemployment show the US rate consistently lower than that of Europe.
Quote

In addition, how bad is it really to have a few % more unemployment ? It is certainly not keeping the Euro exchange rate to the dollar down. Sure, lower will be better, but that doesn't mean that higher is bad.

If you're sure "lower will be better" than logic dictates higher will be something other than better...worse?

Quote

Opinion poles, PFffww. Highly overrated in my opinion. Opinion poles also show that people believe nuclear wapons were found in Iraq, while this is patently untrue. These things are often better as a measure of general intelligence if not common sense.


Maybe highly overrated, but one of the only ways to measure, overall, the thoughts of a large group of people. The opinion poles about weapons in Iraq prove my point. My comments were about the beliefs of Europeans, not some objective point of fact. If opinion poles about WMDs were wrong, they still were right in that they reflected what people believed. That is what the polls I referred to show.

Quote

The birth rate among ethnic Europeans and it not sustaining itself have far more potent economic and cultural causes; this has been developping over the last few decades. You can't tell me that Europeans have been gloomy about the future ever since, 1960's.


Birth rates have been declining in the West for decades. My point is that in Europe they are declining faster. Anthropoligist will tell you that a culture that doesn't replicate itself, is going downhill. Maybe Europe is just ahead of the US; I hope not. Declining birth rates, coupled with polls showing the opinions of many Europeans to negative about the future, should be cause for some alarm and reflection. I'm not throwing stones at Europe; most in the US consider Europe part of our cultural history (I'm German and Scotch). I bring these points up as an argument that perhaps our more free, capitalistic society may have benefits in the long term as evidenced by these points.
Quote

Besides, thank good we have negative population growth overhere. It was beginning to get a little crowded. Population growth would not have been sustainable much longer either.

Than why have you imported so many mid east immigrants to help supply your diminished labor force? You haven't helped your overcrowding, but, as pointed out in other posts on this thread, created great assimilation problems.

[ My general comment on government getting out of people's way to let them unleash their potential.]
Quote

This is just another utopia. Check the inventiveness in "the projects" for example.

It proves my point about the inventiveness of human beings, their creativity and self interest drive. Thankfully, most humans have these drives or the human race would nevere have gotten this far. The drug addicts or lazy people who will not strive are a minority. The projects only prove the point and emphasize the need for following rules.

Quote

And Ireland is not a social democracy ? Also it didn't get billion of aid from the European union, a socialist project if there is one. This is not an example of a nation getting on top by being left to their own devises and being subjected to pure capitalism.

Remember ; having free markets is not the same as being capitalist.

Wouter, you are probably right here. Ireland is more an example of how lowering taxes and freeing up markets created an economic boom. It may have been helped by grants, but couldn't be sustained without the tax and regulation reform.

Quote

Before we get into another touch the flag and cry a tear over opportunity and personal responsibily moment here, allow me to state that for each succes story I can point you to many stories showing the opposite.

Sarcasm doesn't add to the discussion. To be sarcastic, I might reply that your above comments are mean spirited and therefore unbecoming of an all-caring socialists; you might hurt my feelings and cause me to take up an addiction. [End of sarcastic reply.]
Wouter, you can always find a counter example to any proposition. I am not arguing from individual example but from thoughtful ideas, backed by some statistics which support them on the whole
Quote

Can it happen, Sure ! Will it happen to everyone or even the majority ? Hell no ! And we all know that.

If you mean by "it", greater economic good from individuals less fettered by government, I agree and I submit that the economic statistics of the US indicate that it is working for a large majority of our society here in the US. In support I mention the history of Communism here in the US. The Soviets tried very hard to develop a workers revolution here in the US. They infiltrated the labor unions and had US citizens working very hard on their agenda, believing that they could create the same worker's "paradise" here in the US. The fatal problem they encountered is that although workers resented their rich bosses, they wanted to be rich themselves. Instead of a revolution to bring down the rich class, the workers wanted help to get themselves into that class. And history has proven that for the vast majority in the US, this dream came true (at least getting to the middle class).

Another thought, when talking about poverty, one forgets that it, in the US, it is transient for most people. People who are poor in their teens and twenties, generally work themselves out of that state and become middle class (economicaly) as they get older. In our country it is a very small number of the total poor, that remain in that state for long parts of their lives.




Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I didn't claim it was perfectly functioning here, just better than in many other places in the world.

Quote

Yes well we are all doing better then Bangladesh, Dominican republic, Kazachstan, Algeria and what not else. Doing better than many other places in the world still doesn't mean that you are doing better then Europe in general.

Don't make stupid comments. Either stupid or stupidly mean. My argument is that we are doing better than the European example.


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


We have many distortions of the free market here and some lead to real economic problems. In general, though, barriers to entrepeneurism are much lower in the US than in Europe and that's a good thing.

Quote

You keep telling us, but why exactly ? Cuban victums of Katrina are already back in shape. Poor families in North-Eastern US get heating fuel support form Venezuela instead of their own government. You are one of the few nations to even hand out food stamps, you are the only one doing so in the group of "western nations". Must I go on ?

A weather disaster has nothing to do with the argument. Your statements near the end of my post begin to border on a rant. As I said before, very unbecoming of such a cultured socialist European in response to such an uncivilized, violent American. There I got the two sterotypes out on paper for you. Regarding Venezula, I guess if you're not from the US you can be forgiven for not recognizing political theater when you see it. Food stamps? part of our social welfare program, which is total is less than your European example. Have you been paying attention?

Quote

I'm also a sucker for Bill Gates succes stories and the freedom to start you own business and risk a 67 % failure rate, but how exactly do a handful of great stories help out the larger group of people who fail ? They can't eat these stories, they won't keep them warm, and it certainly doesn't help their kids break out of poverty. Lets face it, if you drop out of high school then you chance at being a succesful entrepeneur are not really promising.

Here we go again, setting up an extreme example in order to knock it down. Its not only about Bill Gates. Yes, most small businesses fail in the fist two years. Many people who start up businesses do so repeatedly until they are successful. Education is important, but doesn't really reflect on the core of this discussion.

Quote

We have enough deuterium in the sea water to fuel fusion reactors for millenia. However, this doesn't mean it is going to be here in time or that it is a solutions to our global energy problem. Also these new deposits will be significantly more expensive to exploit, ergo high fuel prices. And exploitation of these deposits will not solve any problems related to waste.

Again, the extreme to discredit my point. This is so laborious, but, I hope, in the end somewhat instructive. Deuterium from the sea to fuel fusion is in the same category as the Alberta oil sands? Ridiculous and you know it. Don't lose credability by making such statements. One has yet to be accomplished except for brief moments in a lab the other is occurring in an economically profitable way already. Wouter!
My point is that there are reserves to get us to the next technologies. And the flex fuel technologies I'm talking about are at our doorstep, so to speak. They are not theoretical concepts that are not yet feasible, such as fuel cells.
Quote

A great example, How much would it cost to to buy every house hold high efficient lambs ? 100 million homes in the USA ? 10 lambs per house hold ? Cost per lamb, at these quantities, 5 bucks per lamb ? Total investment 5 billion dollars.

Not a bad idea; along with the mandated flex fuel cars.



Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The US should mandate that the auto makers achieve flex fuel capability on their fleet within 2 to 3 years.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Quote

Hey, this is government interference ! Something a true capitalist and free market thinker should despise.

Ah, you caught me! Actually government can play a limited role (remember not to take my points to an extreme like you have done above). Government should create some incentives, mandate some directon and let business make it happen. The mandated fuel averages are an example of this (and also an example of our progress contrary to your assertion), however, they had an unintended consequence the government planner didn't plan on and that was an increase in highway fatalities due to smaller, lighter cars being put on the roads.
Quote

35 years has passed since the first oil crisis (political motivated) and absolutely NO gains were made in the USA. Why do still convince ourselfs that this time will be magically different ?


See above reply

In the end, we discussed at length Capitalism versus Socialism where we do disagree to a large extent.

We can all agree that a multifacited approach to the energy crisis is necessary. Large problems are not solved with simplistic solutions. Conservation, new oil resources exploited, nuclear power, new fuels used for the world's fleet of vehicles, new energy alternatives continued to be developed to the point they are economically feasible and somewhere, down the road, a transition to a post, oil fueled world. This all has to happen. Yes, our government and many of the world's governments have not faced the impending crisis. Our government, in spite of its problems however, is not entirely immune to the will of the people. When enough people make energy solutions an issue, our governments will begin to address the issue. Each one of us must keep clamoring and making our demands heard by our legislators. This crisis of radical Islam is going to add incentive to find solutions, if for no other reason than to lessen the transfer of wealth to the mid east.

I promise (to myself as well as everyone else) to avoid such lengthy posts. Wouter, I agree with Timbo; get a girlfriend or wife and make some babies. The more babies, the shorter teh posts. I've done my part, now its up to all of you younger guys. Sailing and making love; what a combination!

DavidN
H20 781
Spring will be here soon.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 08:39 PM

David, you lost me at Hello.
Posted By: PTP

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 08:45 PM

Quote
David, you lost me at Hello.


HAH!!
Posted By: scooby_simon

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 08:55 PM

How about we talk about sailing now
Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 09:10 PM

We are almost at 200 posts.. How many other threads have gone as far, this fast?
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 09:15 PM

OK Guys;

Record set. BACK TO SAILING PLEASE !!!!!

Doug
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 09:56 PM

Quote

. . . "gassing Kurds" nonsense. . .


Wouter:

When is gasing any civilian population nonsense!? The act is so barbaric it is outlawed even on military targets.

This last post of yours supports my premise that nothing America does is acceptable to you.

If you can, please name one thing America has done that you consider acceptable.
Posted By: Tiger

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 10:22 PM

Pete:

Wouter's point what that the kurds were gassed with the US support (US was providing Saddam with money and weapons at this time). So invoking the kurds gas episode to justify iraq invasion is hypocritical.
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 10:29 PM

Quote
Pete: I can comfort you with that we and the danes are probably the next big-time targets. . .

You are about to be passed by China and India if you dont get your economy and politics together.

As for taking the gloves off, the US has had gauntlets on for a good while now.

If you are getting tired of hearing about muslims killing americans, how tired do you think muslims are of having their family members killed by americans? What do you belive the body count is on both sides since the 70s? I dont know for sure, but I think you have ended a couple of more muslim lives than they have killed americans. From an outside viewpoint, it is your heavy handed and rough shoed dealings with the arab world that have brought you in the position you are today.

You have had one muslim terrorist attack in the US (am I wrong?), and a terrible one at that. It was executed by extremists, the same ones that are just now whipping the muslim world into beliveing that danes and norwegians hates muslims. You have lots of muslims in the US, even Mike Tyson converted to Islam while in prison, and they dont bother you much, do they? It's the extremists you need to watch and catch, but not muslims in general. Whats happing today is the extremists dream come true.
If Martin Luther had not started the reformation within the church, and we had missed the renaissance, we could be where the muslim world is today. Just look at muslim women and how they strive for change every day. Historically, christians and jews could find a safe haven in muslim countries (not today). The muslim world missed both reformation and the renaissance, two outmost important parts of our history. Then their leaders became more fundamental and their interpretation of Islam change for the worse. Effectively, they never left the middle age.
I wonder if they are so angry becouse they see how we westernes live, and they dont understand why they dont have the same rights and opportunities (beeing f*ked over by europeans and others for the last 200 years dont help). Instead they are beaten around the head by their mullahs if they dare to think different. Working for a reformation or renaissance would probably get the average muslim killed.

Sorry for rambling on and being long winded. I see for myself here in little Norway how many muslim immigrants fail to integrate with us ethnic norwegians. Instead they gather in what I would call ghettos and try to change everything around them to be similar to what they left when they escaped their countries. That is really a problem, and who do I blame? Our government who failed to demand from them that they learnt our language and customs so they at least had a chance to integrate. Now they are going after our freedom of speech and free press..
Feeling victimized when getting critique for your own foreign policy is turning things on its head and really should make a lot of questions come to mind. Besides, if you go abroad you will experience that you are welcome most places on the globe. Just leave the weaponry at home and do business instead (or dont do business if you dont like the guys).

A question. How is it possible for a guy who need daily dialysis to run around the mountains in Pakistan/Afghanistan and escape the collective special forces community, intelligence community, satelittes and the military with a large reward on his head? Why have you not caught bin Laden and let him meet justice yet? I supported the invasion of Afghanistan fully, and would like to see him in front of a court in Haag or even Nurnberg.

Pete: What tank did you drive in Germany. M48 or something earlier? I have two years on the upgraded Leopard I (bet you saw it while in Germany) with gyro stabilized fire-control. Always cool to meet a fellow cavaleryman


Rolf:

I would not be comforted if you, the Danes or anyone else were the victims of terror attacks. My local paper printed similar cartoons just this morning. I get this sinking feeling we're spiraling into an abyss of bloodshed of historic proportions. . .

I couldn't care less if we are surpassed by India and China; then maybe everyone would be mad at them.
btw- a lot of Indian trained MDs are leaving the U.S. and going home. That is their right, but we'll be hard pressed to replace. They'll be missed! I know one of them, a fine decent man.

You can't really believe our military response has been as harsh as it could have been!

I'll get back to the rest of your post anoter time, I'm too tired right now! ( Had lunch with a really great sailor! This guy has seen and done it all! Gave me lots of good tips related to the A cat. Nice, nice man. I really have A cat fever now!)

48s!! How old do you think I am? Hell, the M-48 was. . .the tank I trained on at Ft. Knox. I left Germany in January '70 we were using the M-60, the Leopard had just come out, only saw a few of them.



Posted By: hobie1616

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 10:29 PM

Quote
OK Guys;

Record set. BACK TO SAILING PLEASE !!!!!

Doug
This thread actually serves a good purpose. It keeps most of the political discussions, flame wars, nonsense and ideas, good and wacky, in a single place. If you don't want to read it, don't click on the thread.
Posted By: Anonymous

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 10:31 PM

Pete, I, for one , think the best thing America did for us is giving us Hobie Alter. His boats changed my life!

Arend

(isen't this a nice bridge going back to sailing?)
Posted By: David

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 10:42 PM

Quote
David, you lost me at Hello.

I agree; parsing to the extreme. Winter does strange things to people. My apologies to everyone.

It should be noted that this thread has been surprisingly polite for a political discussion.

DavidN
H20 781
Come on springtime!
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 10:48 PM

Quote
Pete, I, for one , think the best thing America did for us is giving us Hobie Alter. His boats changed my life!

Arend

(isen't this a nice bridge going back to sailing?)


My God! That loud cracking sound is Hell freezing over! Someone has finally said something good about America, or more precisely, one American.

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

Does this mean we should all become California surfer/sailor dudes . . . I'm in!
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 11:20 PM

Quote
hypocritical.


Nonsense! I'll have to see irrefutable proof before I believe that!
Posted By: Opher

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/19/06 11:33 PM

Quote
If Iran and Hammas say they will not allow Israel to exist, what do you think it's going to come to?

Both Hammas and Iran are IMHO just symptoms of the great clash arising between the Western and Muslim cultures, as are the riots against Danish caricatures (If we Israelis demonstrated against every anti-Semitic caricature in an Arab newspaper we'd never have time for sailing ) and the riots in France a few months ago.
While the U.S. has finally realized the strategic danger and taken action, most of Europe is still reluctant to admit a problem exists, and must be tackled seriously. This is not to say that only a military solution exists, quite the contrary, only to point out that sticking ones head in the sand will probably not work.
As for Hammas, whilst definitely a setback for peace prospects in our volatile neighborhood, I don't believe anyone knows where we're going so early in the game. Optimistically, they may turn out to be better situated, coming from extreme ideology, to take the painful steps required for peace - After all, two of our tougher leaders, Begin and Sharon, gave up more than others. More realistically, we’ll continue battling it out militarily, economically and politically for a few more rounds .
Iran is a significantly more dangerous threat, regionally and globally. Once an advanced, almost Western country, they now lead the radical Muslim world in its fight against much that we hold dear - freedom, equality, and democracy. Armed with nuclear weapons and the will to use them, and joined by radical Muslims the world over, Iran endangers much more than Israel and Middle East stability.
Most Israelis are closely following the growing (albeit slowly) international efforts to stop Iran, hopefully before we reach a nuclear standoff, which would probably not end as peacefully as the cold war did.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 12:25 AM

Opher, good to hear from someone actually living there! Were those Inter 20 pictures posted a couple months back yours? It looked like a nice place to sail.

As for the sailors, this thread was initialy titled Politics, so if you only want to talk about sailing, go to another thread! We are here to talk politics.

So, what's up with New Zealand these days anyways??? Can an American still get a beer there or do they hate us too?

http://funnyjunk.com/pages/world.htm
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 12:59 AM

Quote
would probably not end as peacefully as the cold war did.


Shudder!

btw- Where do you folks get your gas? Doin' anything special with solar or wind power?

I'm guessing nuclear power is out: too big a target, to politically inflammatory.
Posted By: Tiger

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 04:30 AM

Quote

Nonsense! I'll have to see irrefutable proof before I believe that!



Pete: search and you will find.
US was helping Iraq in the eighties because of their war against Iran. The famous pic of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam...
Posted By: Timbo

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 01:46 PM

And we were supporting Osama Bin Laden and the Afgan Army when Russia was invading.

The current problem started right after the first Gulf War, after we drove the Iraqi Army out of Kuwait, we stayed there and in Saudi Arabia. This upset Osama and his boys, he wanted the US Infidels OUT of HIS country, OFF his Holy Land. We wouldn't leave, so the Muslim Extremeists, (with financial support from Saudi Patriots) started blowing our stuff up. The same applies right now in Iraq. The Insurgents want the Infidels OUT of their country.

Like Colin Powel said, "You can win the war, but it will be very difficult to win the peace."
Posted By: pitchpoledave

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 02:22 PM

Yes its true. In fact, Sadam asked the US if it was ok to invade Kuwait and he got the nod that it was ok..
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 03:25 PM

The U.S. is not responsible for Iraq gasing the Kurds or invading Kuwait. Your saying it (collectively) doesn't make it so.

I'm still waiting for proof to the contrary.
Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 04:19 PM

Pete, a few comments.

Quote
I couldn't care less if we are surpassed by India and China; then maybe everyone would be mad at them.


Today, after the fall of the Soviet union, the US is _the_ superpower of the world. You are a known quantity and are reasonably predictable. I much prefer status quo than having China, India or others rise to be superpowers while you falter (or even fall). If you dont stop spending your money on adventures abroad, you will fall, your economy is not that strong. Go to a hardware store (or any store) and check where things are buildt, and look at your trade balance. I would be very concerned about China and India. Not military wise (yet), but economicaly.
Being mad at the chineese dont help much, they dont have freedom of speech. You do, for the time being (that is ment as a compliment).

Quote
You can't really believe our military response has been as harsh as it could have been!


I was not really thinking about your military actions in Iraq when I wrote that. I was thinking more on keeping prisoners without allowing them their rights or putting them on trial. Or worse, torturing them or sending them to torture under other regimes that endorse torture. But yes, your actions in Iraq has not exactly been benign. Use of WP, bad intelligence leading to smart-bombing of civilians, troops getting really jumpy and firing too soon. Lots of mistakes done due to not being prepared for what to do after the fall of Saddam. I guess the Pentagon strategist now have learnt what can happen when you invade a country with
the "swarm" strategy and dont take control over the areas you have cleaned. I dont see much you can do now in Iraq, military wise, that you have not already done? Keeping to the Geneva convension is a good thing after all.

If you think everybody hates the US, that is not true. You have lots of friends both as a nation and as a people. If I did not like you, why would I stay on this US dominated forum and even visit the US from time to time? But as friends, you must be able to hear that we dont agree or even oppose your policies. I think your current administrations foreign policy is the reason you are feeling victimized today. You had the worlds sympaties after 911, but all the scandals since.. I remember the end of the cold war with Reagan, I remember Bush Sr. and Clinton, none of them managed to break as many ties as Bush Jr's administration has.

Saddam gassed kurdi villages in the 80's. Nobody said you in the US was responsible for that. At the same time, the US supplied Saddam with weapons and supported him in the war against Iran.
Gas (or NBC) is a weapon all armed forces hope to not meet on the battlefield, but train rigorously for. I dont think gas is outlawed (but WP is).

The M-48 was in service here in Norway til 92, now replaced by Leopard I and II's. Do you still remember how to recognize the T-51's and T-72's?

Timbo: The danger of "them" outbreeding is under public debate here. With a population of 4.5mill, it doesn't really take that much. Fortunately, many of "them" integrate and start thinking as norwegians. It's the ones who can not leave the old behind, build fanatic sects etc. we must do something about. Just look at the british bombings done by 2nd generation immigrants.
God forbid _anybody_ start flinging nukes about, even the israelis!

Opher: Good to hear a voice of sanity from Israel. The news coverage we get up here is quite pro-palestinian, but I think you are dead-right on all your points.
Posted By: Timbo

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 05:58 PM

Rolf, we can "debate" it all day, but what can we do to STOP it? There is no stopping it, unless you live in China and are limited to a single child.

The fact is that immediately after 9-11 there was NO public outrage expressed by our own Muslim population. I think alot of them were secretly thinking "Good, it's about time..."

When push comes to shove, who's side do you think they will be on? Take a look at the riots in France.

Here's a hint, they will be on which ever side is winning. If they won't stand up and fight for their own countries, do you really think they will fight for yours? That's not their "culture". They will however, continue to out-breed the rest of us. Pick up a copy of "Death of the West." it's very interesting reading.
Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 06:18 PM

I'll see if I find a copy Timbo.

One thing that has been suggested (not here, but in Italy I think), is that they (where they are muslims), dont get the benefits we get when we have children. Problem is, that is discrimination..
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 06:28 PM

Rolf:

It is always good to hear rational discourse.

Rightly or wrongly, I'm just not concerned with China and India. When they were very poor, their problems were relatively straight forward. As they become wealthier and more powerful, they will find the road less clear, and filled with potholes!

There is one school of thought, economically, that considers trading increasingly less valuable U.S. dollars for hard goods a very good deal. Afterall, if the U.S. falls into oblivion and you have a trove of green backs, whatta ya got!

One thing I'm very skeptical about is the term "Superpower" in my opinion it is illusory at best

Frankly, I feel pretty good about our domestic situation. Everyone who wants a job has one and there is a concensus that we have an energy problem; even if the solution is contentious.

Previously, I was refering to the devastation of WWII. Iraq hasn't suffered nearly so badly, although I expect the maimed and dying will disagree. Grieving parents surely will make no such distinction.

I almost used the phrase "collareral damage", refering to the killing and maiming of innocent people during wars. That is always regretable and glossing it over with a catchy phrase doesn't mitigate the loss or suffering, but it does dehumanize it!

While I don't condone the abuse of prisoners and absolutely despise torture, I'm not entirely sure the Geneva Convention applies in this case. I suppose I should apologize for that- it is at best a legal nicety that won't matter much to someone who's testicles are being crushed. ( please see "slippery slope" below ) { I can't describe how I feel when I see the "towers" falling and, most of all, people falling to their deaths justs before the collapse. Something reptilian crawls up out of my brainstem and I want blood,lots of it! Muslims are angry over a cartoon! I don't think they understand anger!!}


My biggest disagreement with American foreign policy ( it might better be considered domestic policy ) is the "War Powers Act" which, in essence, allows the President to wage war without a declaration of war from Congress. Once you start down that "slippery slope" things have a way of getting out of hand. Vietnam being the best or worst example.

I don't remember much about Eastern bloc armor, we did a lot of cross-traing because of chronic shortages of men and equipment (Vietnam). I was assigned a variety of tasks, not the least of which was aircraft identification and trainging with the Redeye missle, the precursor to the Stinger. And, truthfully, I was far more interested in drinking beer and chasing women!

More importantly, what the hell happened to your cross-country team!? I expect our over-rated "golden boys and girls" to collapse occasionally, but this?!

Posted By: Wouter

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 06:43 PM



Well, I'm happy to agree to disagree.

And there is nothing I can say that I haven't said already.

Regards,

Wouter
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 06:49 PM

Wouter, if you can't think of anything good to say about Ameica,you haven't seen Yellowstone!

Oh! I forgot, it may blow-up at any moment and bring an end to ciivilization as we know it! My bad
Posted By: Rolf_Nilsen

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 07:13 PM

Yellowstone? Give me Yosemite any day..


Our cross country team has let their best ski-preparers go, and pay for it now. Wrong preparation of the skis last time (no wax, but traction) and wrong athlete for the relay.
Personally, I suspect there is a lot of misuse of medicals and other techniques to enchance performance artificially. That goes for both the norwegians and others. Cycling, cross country and other endurance sports are very suspect for me.


Seems like we can go back to talking about sailing now
Any hope of you getting an A-cat this season?
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 07:34 PM

Quote

Seems like we can go back to talking about sailing now
Any hope of you getting an A-cat this season?


I hope to have it by mid-March just in time for the Gulfport, FL (St. Petersburg area) regatta.

But, you're not gonna believe this, I'm considering an F-16! Everything is so expensive, I just have to consider all options! Until I get an "out the door" price, all options are open!
Posted By: Mary

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 07:38 PM

What does that have to do with political science? Pete, you started this thread, and now you are hijacking it back to sailing. Make up your mind.
Posted By: Wouter

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 07:47 PM


I really liked the big sky over the flat lands when I was over there. I really looked like a deeper kind of blue. I put it down to less moisture in the higher layers of the atmosphere.

But having said this, let me note one thing.

Why is it that Americans always need foreigners to express "Love" and "appreciation" for America and American values or what ever. I have been in many discussions with persons of a different nationality then myself but never once did I hear any of them (Americans excluded) ask (or cry) if they were loved/appreciated as a people or system. Never did I do so in return. It is quite probable that more then a few people hate my guts. I NEVER asked why and I really do not loose any sleep over it. I never feel scorned for it or even resent it. Somebody has a different opinion then I have, and does so passionately; BIG DEAL ! In the sweeptakes of life we'll see soon enough was wrong or right. Besides I must rather have such a world then one were everybody agrees with everybody in a machine like fashion.

So what is up with that ?

Wouter


P.S. Did you even hear me ask what you Americans like about the Netherlands ? Do you love us (Hate us) and why ?

Posted By: Wouter

Good one Mary ! (nm) - 02/20/06 07:50 PM

.
Posted By: Wouter

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 07:52 PM



Solution :

Have them develop themselfs into properous nations. Did the trick for us and the Catholic chruch was every bit as influencial as the Imans are right now.

Mind you Iraq had one of the lowest birth rates in the middle east. Another proof that we went after the wrong target.

Wouter
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 07:58 PM

Quote

Did you even hear me ask what you Americans like about the Netherlands ? Do you love us (Hate us) and why ?


This probably all began with Khruschev(?) pounding his shoes at the U.N. and screaming that he would bury us.

But, I'm drained, you win. Did you see my new post " A cat vs F-16"?
Posted By: Wouter

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 08:14 PM


Quote

But, I'm drained, you win. Did you see my new post " A cat vs F-16"?


Me too, so lets get back to catamaran topics. I'm composing the post right now.

Wouter
Posted By: Timbo

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 08:34 PM

Not so fast you two! There will be no hijacking of this thread! Wouter, here are some things I LOVE about the Netherlands:

1. No Fat Chicks!
2. Lots of Bicycles!
3. Lots of Heineken!
4. Texel!
5. Lots of windmills!
6. Nice guys like Wouter who will take you to their Cat club, show you boats and buy you Heineken, on draft, at the club!

Things I don't like about the Netherlands: The summer is too short and not nearly warm enough. If it weren't for that, I'd move there. I spent my first 30 yrs. freezing my butt off in the North East of the US, dreaming of summer, which up there is only June, July and August. So now I'm in Florida and on those few days it doesn't get to at least 80 (27C), I think I need to move further south! I hate wearing long pants and a jacket, and sailing in a Dry Suit? Please, let's not even talk about that!!

Could we please get back to talking Politics??

Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 08:40 PM

Quote
Not so fast . . .


Do you know that place in London, Speaker's Corner? It would be nice if we had a place like that!

Posted By: Mary

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 09:11 PM

Wouer,
How tall are you?
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 09:16 PM

Quote

Could we please get back to talking Politics??



Ask Mary to designate an officially sanctioned "speakers Corner". I'm beginning to feel like the guy who won't shut off his cell phone in the theater!
Posted By: Mary

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 09:58 PM

I think height is relevant.
Posted By: fin.

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 10:27 PM

Quote
I think height is relevant.


Dare I ask why!
Posted By: Opher

Re: This punishes the poor - 02/20/06 10:50 PM

Quote
Opher, good to hear from someone actually living there! Were those Inter 20 pictures posted a couple months back yours? It looked like a nice place to sail.


Timbo, the I20 pictures were taken on the Sea of Galilee, about an hour inland from our club at Sdot Yam, on the Med coast. I’ve attached a picture from last Saturday of our N6.0 off the 2000 year old Roman city and port of Caesarea, less than a mile North of us.

But back to politics…
Quote
Good to hear a voice of sanity from Israel. The news coverage we get up here is quite pro-palestinian,

Rolf, It never ceases to amaze me how, with hundreds of millions of Muslims surrounding us, many of whom are quite radical and would love to have all Israelis take a very long swim, we still come out the oppressors. Maybe that’s the same press busy blaming America for attacking “innocent” countries instead of urging European leaders to find creative but effective ways to protect our way of life from a rapidly growing threat.

Because I do agree with Wouter in theory:
Quote
Have them develop themselves into prosperous nations. Did the trick for us and the Catholic church was every bit as influential as the Imans are right now.

I just think their leaders may need some “convincing” before they relinquish unlimited power to a thriving, secular, democratic lifestyle, and happily join the West.

And speaking of Hammas, their leader Haled Mash’al was warmly received in Teheran today. Wonder what that does to my optimistic scenario from yesterday?


Attached picture 67533-Caesarea.JPG
Posted By: bullswan

Re: Europe/older societies - 02/21/06 01:42 PM

Quote
A noticeable thing:

All of the forum members who were very active (and nasty) at selling Bush policies these last years are suddenly absent.

Is it because they feel like us that the [censored] is going to hit the fan shortly?


Nope. It's because it gets tiring hearing the same crap from the Kool-aid drinking crowd. Bush lied about wmd, oil conspiracy, Iraq is only about oil......blah, blah,blah.

(Dammit, they've drawn me into this mud..... )

Greg
Posted By: bullswan

Re: Europe/older societies - 02/21/06 01:58 PM

Quote
If I may jump into this long non-sailing discussion late, I would like to make a couple of points that seem to have been left behind in the flurry of thoughts going off into numerous interesting directions.

Capitalism versus Socialism: I don't think you can get away from a basic truth that the more you want someone or something (government, for instance) to do for you, the more freedom of independent action you will give up. Any good society will take care of its vulnerable citizens; even barbaric societies did this to differing extents. But the more these support programs proliferate, the more people will be happy to depend on them; not everyone is motivated by the work ethic. Way back, Benjamin Franklin said that we should help the poor, but not make them so comfortable that they want to stay in that condition (I'm paraphrasing). The beauty of Capitalism is that it appeals to human being's self interest, which is more reliably stronger than human being's altruistic instincts. Since Capitalism is basically amoral, it must be coupled with a strong rule of law to reign in excesses. In support of the above very brief theme, I offer some general statistics. US economic growth rate is consistently higher than Europe's. US unemployment rate is way below Europe's (Europe varies from 6 to 9% while the US is under 5%). Opinion poles show Europeans much less optimistic about their future than US citizens. This attitude may be why Europe's birth rate (among ethnic Europeans) is not sustaining itself. The gowing social support payments necessary from years of social welfare and the aging baby boom generation is creating an impending economic crisis more dangerous than our "boomer" social security crisis.

If government gets out of people's way (except for enforcing proper rules of fair play, so to speak), one sees the inventiveness of people unleashed. Ireland's economic boom over the last 20 years serves as a good example. In the US, I am constantly amazed at seeing how people will find the smallest need and find a way to make a living filling that. The inventiveness of these entrepeneurs never ceases to amaze me. Now, before I get slammed with examples of how this idea is perverted or corrupted in the US, I didn't claim it was perfectly functioning here, just better than in many other places in the world. We have many distortions of the free market here and some lead to real economic problems. In general, though, barriers to entrepeneurism are much lower in the US than in Europe and that's a good thing.

Regarding oil: The Alberta (Canada) oil sands contain more oil reserves than currently exist in Saudi Arabia. At $2.50 a gallon, it is now becoming economically viable to extract and market. We have in the US vast deposits of shale oil under ground. It can't be accessed by open pit mining like the oil sands, but there is a commercial test operation (to test on a commercial scale) going on out west whereby steam is injected into these deposits and the oil is "cooked" out of the shale. When deleted, the deposit is back filled with water and the whole operation occurs underground. These deposits are vast, close to the level of Saudi Arabia. Last, but very much not least, we have, at current consumption rates, enough coal in the US to fuel our fleet of vehicles for 500 years. This is from methanol extracted from coal.

The US should mandate that the auto makers achieve flex fuel capability on their fleet within 2 to 3 years. It takes only a sensor to determine the composition of the fuel and adjust the mixture accordingly and a protected fuel system (methanol and ethanol are corrosive). This mandate should require flex capability for both methanol (from coal) and ethanol (from corn, etc) which is harder to accomplish, but well within current technology. By now everyone's seen the E85 ads, so the ethanol lobby is in full swing, but we need full flexibility.

The point of all this is to not have a world economic crisis regarding the oil economy while the world economy has transitions beyond its complete dependency on petroleum. We need 50 to 100 years for this process and its readily available. The other, maybe more important point, is that we need to stop funding the Islamic terrorists. Much of the money all countries send to the mid east is used to fund Islamic fundamentalism which is the source of inspiration for Islamic terror activities. As a business man I marvel at cost of goods for a barrel of oil, $5; selling price fob mid east, $60; profit $55 or 1100%. This dependency also coops the western world from properly reacting to terror activities or terror supporting states.

To summarize (and therefore, oversimplify), we should support the vulnerable; create a minimum safety net for the poor, but not one that makes them too comfortable; drive the poor back into productivity, get government out of people's lives as much as possible; enforce fair laws; unleash the inventiveness of humans in the economic sphere; develop alternative fuels quickly, especially the technologies with good return-on-investment capabilities; send less money to the mid east and keep it in our own countries; and sail more rather than burn fossel fuels.

Davidn
H20 781
If Winter's here, can Spring be far behind?



David,
You are my new hero. WORD.
Greg
Posted By: Mary

Re: Alternative energy - 02/22/06 01:02 PM

Quote
My parrents bought a VW Diesel Rabbit back in 1978, for $8,000. It got 50 mpg. Wish I could find one today! The new Diesel Jetta gets about 48 mpg, but costs $21-23,000. A Toyota Carola gets 41 mpg on gasoline, for about $13-16,000. Diesel is about $.20 more expensive than gas (why is that? It used to be twenty cents cheaper. Taxes?)


Around 1980-1982, we had a Volkswagen diesel pickup truck that got 62 mpg. We used it to tow our Hobie 18 to regattas.

Apparently, the problem is that we used to have the technology, but somebody lost the recipe.
Posted By: Tiger

Re: Alternative energy - 02/22/06 01:32 PM

Quote
Apparently, the problem is that we used to have the technology, but somebody lost the recipe.


Wake up, the technology is there and used somewhere else: Avg fuel consumption in Europe: 40mpg. All these diesels are very efficient (and are cleaner now). American manufacturers have been sleeping for a looong time.

It is all about promoting efficiency and taxing glutony (as they do in Europe since the 70's). Only the govt can do that. Be smart.
© 2024 Catsailor.com Forums