I'm no fan of Limbaugh and listen only rarely, but to be fair he has absolutely crushed President Bush on a number of issues.
Rob,
Have you picked up Nixonland? I'm about one quarter the way through it and it's a terrific book. I've just been getting through the parts on the rioting in the cities leading up to the 1968 Democratic Convention.
Best wishes,
Doug
That's a great book Doug. I really enjoyed it. Shocking stuff.
Jack,
I was shocked (perhaps I shouldn't have been) by the amount of resistance to blacks moving into white neighbourhoods in the north. But I was absolutely astonished when I read Martin Luther King's statement that Missippians should come to Chicago if they really wanted to learn how to hate.
I was in Chicago just a month before 9/11 and me and my wife (then girlfriend) ended up getting off the EL on the South Side of Chicago at the wrong stop - we were trying to get to the Chicago Museum of Science but ended up about two miles away. There seemed to be a lot of vacant lots between apartment buildings and after reading about the riots I wonder whether they were the remnants of structures that had either burnt down during the riots or had been torn down afterwards.
BTW, just got back from vacation in Montreal and some great music at the tail end of the Jazz Festival.
Best wishes,
Doug
"Every major sport has come under the influence of organized crime. FIFA actually is organized crime" - Charles Pierce
TheHiddenTrack wrote:To say the least this is short sighted thinking but I understand why it's coming up, gas prices are on the mind.
To me, it's the epitome of short-sighted thinking to say 'well, we won't see benefits for several years, therefore we should never do it.'
It unequivocally will help americans to lift the ban, and thinking in absolutes like 'it will hurt the environment' isn't much of a counterpoint. Now if people want to say this type of development typically yields X damage to the environment and will produce X amount of oil, I am all for that discussion.
The problem is that on one side of the debate we hear projected facts about oil yields and timelines, and the other side just refers to the general refrain 'no, we have to protect environment.' That's not much of a discussion.
dougb wrote: There seemed to be a lot of vacant lots between apartment buildings and after reading about the riots I wonder whether they were the remnants of structures that had either burnt down during the riots or had been torn down afterwards.
Probably not to do with riots as that same situation is common in many areas. Many...TOO MANY neighborhoods are like that.
Naples39 wrote:To me, it's the epitome of short-sighted thinking to say 'well, we won't see benefits for several years, therefore we should never do it.'
It unequivocally will help americans to lift the ban, and thinking in absolutes like 'it will hurt the environment' isn't much of a counterpoint. Now if people want to say this type of development typically yields X damage to the environment and will produce X amount of oil, I am all for that discussion.
The problem is that on one side of the debate we hear projected facts about oil yields and timelines, and the other side just refers to the general refrain 'no, we have to protect environment.' That's not much of a discussion.
Naples39 wrote:
The problem is that on one side of the debate we hear projected facts about oil yields and timelines, and the other side just refers to the general refrain 'no, we have to protect environment.' That's not much of a discussion.
That's not true.
The estimated reserves are very modest.
T Boone Pickens himself said last week that the "geology" doesn't support the idea of increasing global supply enough through increased domestic drilling.
Inuyasha wrote:Alternative Fuel/Engery has been talked about since Ford and Carter. I don't think it's ever going to happen since the oil companies are making so much money w/ the status quo.
Ding-ding! Winner.
The oil industry is one hell of a powerful lobby in D.C., and it will do everything possible to delay the momentum and development of alternative energy unless it diversifies into that business.
There's also another culprit in this situation that never gets any blame -- the American public. We all drive too much, don't consolidate trips, don't carpool, barely use public transportation, don't ride trains, grumble while we continue to fill our SUV's at $4.30 per gallon despite living 200 miles from the nearest snowflake, don't walk places, don't ride bikes for nearby chores, etc., etc.
Americans are as addicted to their vehicles as heroin addicts are to fresh smack. Until that changes, the oil companies have us by the balls because they know we can't give up instant-gratification usage of our cars.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
Naples39 wrote:
To me, it's the epitome of short-sighted thinking to say 'well, we won't see benefits for several years, therefore we should never do it.'
I agree. That's like me telling my son to quit school now as an eighth grader and get a job. Why go after an education that's going to take another 8 years,including college. It won't benefit him right now.
If we all thought that way, nothing including alternative sources of energy will ever be worth waiting for.
WCO. I am in the land of White Castle Sliders again. For a fee, T Boone can have access to my personal wind farm. After eating 10 of those cheesburgers I am full of wind power. Add my son into that mix and my wife will happily pay for us to be removed from the house and flown to Pickens.
Inuyasha wrote:Alternative Fuel/Engery has been talked about since Ford and Carter. I don't think it's ever going to happen since the oil companies are making so much money w/ the status quo.
Ding-ding! Winner.
The oil industry is one hell of a powerful lobby in D.C., and it will do everything possible to delay the momentum and development of alternative energy unless it diversifies into that business.
There's also another culprit in this situation that never gets any blame -- the American public. We all drive too much, don't consolidate trips, don't carpool, barely use public transportation, don't ride trains, grumble while we continue to fill our SUV's at $4.30 per gallon despite living 200 miles from the nearest snowflake, don't walk places, don't ride bikes for nearby chores, etc., etc.
Americans are as addicted to their vehicles as heroin addicts are to fresh smack. Until that changes, the oil companies have us by the balls because they know we can't give up instant-gratification usage of our cars.
Take care,
PK
You are almost right. While we are solely dependent on the car. Since the introduction of the interstate system our cities have moved from pedestrian cities to vehicle cities.
We have a dependence that goes far beyond buying gas hogs. The entire American landscape is dependent on the car. We have no rail system, few cities have decent bus systems and then you add how American cities are layed out and you have cities that require its citizens to use motor vehicles.
[url=http://sensiblecoasters.wordpress.com/][b]Sensible Coasters - A critique of sports games, reviews, gaming sites and news. Questionably Proofread![/b][/url]
JRod wrote:
You are almost right. While we are solely dependent on the car. Since the introduction of the interstate system our cities have moved from pedestrian cities to vehicle cities.
We have a dependence that goes far beyond buying gas hogs. The entire American landscape is dependent on the car. We have no rail system, few cities have decent bus systems and then you add how American cities are layed out and you have cities that require its citizens to use motor vehicles.
All these things are no accidents.
Ike didn't push through billions in spending for interstates just for the hell of it. These and other decisions ensured the continued health of the auto and oil industries. Detroit especially was a big part of the national economy.
There was more public transportation infrastructure and railroads. Fortunes were made in the late 19th and early 20th centuries -- e.g. the former Gilded Age had the railroad barons.
But to encourage adoption of personal car ownership, many of these transit systems and railways were bought and mothballed.
Not that anyone complained. Cars embodied aspirational dreams of the postwar boom.
JackDog wrote:
Instead of whining and blaming, Congress needs to take some practical steps now to stop the insanity at the pumps, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, open up some temporary energy production avenues for economic relief (like shale development) and focus more of their taxpayer work time into establishing further alternative ways of producing energy for everything (from coal, electrical, natural gas, hydrogen, solar, nuclear, wind, etc.) Being the wealthiest nation on Earth, there is simply no reason or justification for us to be dependent on fuels that we can't produce in our country.
I agree with the above 100%. "Practical Steps NOW". Now, being the key word here. Lowering or temporarily suspending fed gas taxes would go a lot further than offshore drilling in 3-5 years. The frustrating thing is you know we have the technology to develop cars that run on something other than petrol. Every day, we are becoming weaker and weaker as a country, as we become more and more reliant on other countries for all our goods and services. Sooner or later, the rest of the world will figure out that they can bring our economy to it's knees if they so desire.
TheHiddenTrack wrote:
All of these factors don't even take in account the environmental issues that come up when you drill. But nobody wants to be bothered by that when they are feeling it in the pocketbook. To say the least this is short sighted thinking but I understand why it's coming up, gas prices are on the mind.
It's the same mentality that wants to ignore the impending and already occuring costs of global warming.
Inuyasha wrote:Alternative Fuel/Engery has been talked about since Ford and Carter. I don't think it's ever going to happen since the oil companies are making so much money w/ the status quo.
Ding-ding! Winner.
The oil industry is one hell of a powerful lobby in D.C., and it will do everything possible to delay the momentum and development of alternative energy unless it diversifies into that business.
There's also another culprit in this situation that never gets any blame -- the American public. We all drive too much, don't consolidate trips, don't carpool, barely use public transportation, don't ride trains, grumble while we continue to fill our SUV's at $4.30 per gallon despite living 200 miles from the nearest snowflake, don't walk places, don't ride bikes for nearby chores, etc., etc.
Americans are as addicted to their vehicles as heroin addicts are to fresh smack. Until that changes, the oil companies have us by the balls because they know we can't give up instant-gratification usage of our cars.
Take care,
PK
Paul, I hear what you are saying, but I just dont think all these alternatives to driving are practical. Here in Atlanta, we have a rail system called M.A.R.T.A., but most folks are reluctant to ride it due to all the crime and low police presence on it. Plus you need a way to get from the train stop to your final work location. Carpooling is a viable option, but you need everyone to be along the same route, which is rare in large cities. Walking places? Maybe to the corner store...but then how much can you carry back in your arms? Bicycles are great, but the cars here in Atlanta are dangerous enough to each other, let alone a bike sharing the road with SUV's and drunk drivers weaving into the bike lanes.
These alternatives need to be made safer and more viable for people to start using them.
JackB1 wrote:
I agree with the above 100%. "Practical Steps NOW". Now, being the key word here. Lowering or temporarily suspending fed gas taxes would go a lot further than offshore drilling in 3-5 years. The frustrating thing is you know we have the technology to develop cars that run on something other than petrol. Every day, we are becoming weaker and weaker as a country, as we become more and more reliant on other countries for all our goods and services. Sooner or later, the rest of the world will figure out that they can bring our economy to it's knees if they so desire.
Why do these 2 things need to be mutually exclusive? Why not do things that will help us both now AND in the future? I'm getting sick of the argument against drilling being made like if we do that we can't do anything else.
I'm all for lowering gas taxes, but out government (i.e. congress) has an issue with it. They don't want to give up any of their money. They are just as bad, if not worse than the "big bad oil companies" when it comes to money.
Yes, we have cars that can run on things other than gasoline, but if you want a "right now" solution, that's not it. The ones that already in production (like th Prius) are already sellinig out faster than they can be made. Upping production takes time, just like drilling for oil. Other new technologies may be possible right now, but are not practical. That's why we need to drill now as ONE (not the only) way of helping ourselves in the near future.
We still waste (in many ways, not just fuel) way too much in this country. We have become the spoiled brats of the planet in a lot of ways. That said, the high fuel prices are having the positive effect of altering the way people live. SUVs are no longer viewed as the "cool" vehicles to have. Heck, boat traffic on our lake has noticeably declined this year. The sad part is that we only seem willing to change when we are forced to.
I don't think there is an easy answer for everyone though. I live far away from work. I did live closer, but I was laid off, and the job I found was farther away from home, so now I burn more gas. We can't all work from home, and I don't want to be constantly moving as my jobs change. And job change is unfortunately something many of us will go through quite often as the global economy sorts itself out.
JackB1 wrote:Paul, I hear what you are saying, but I just dont think all these alternatives to driving are practical. Here in Atlanta, we have a rail system called M.A.R.T.A., but most folks are reluctant to ride it due to all the crime and low police presence on it. Plus you need a way to get from the train stop to your final work location. Carpooling is a viable option, but you need everyone to be along the same route, which is rare in large cities. Walking places? Maybe to the corner store...but then how much can you carry back in your arms? Bicycles are great, but the cars here in Atlanta are dangerous enough to each other, let alone a bike sharing the road with SUV's and drunk drivers weaving into the bike lanes.
These alternatives need to be made safer and more viable for people to start using them.
You mean as safe as five lanes of traffic each way at 70 mph, and as viable as spending $100 per week on gas?
It starts locally. I understand that riding a bike to work might not be practical for most. But there are no basic errands that you can't do on foot or bike in your area? There are no parties or other events that you attend with friends for which you can't carpool, at least part of the way? There aren't five trips to local shopping areas per week that can be consolidated into one? That trip to Best Buy or Gamestop to buy a game on the hour of its release can't be delayed for a day and combined into a comprehensive errand run?
Sorry, but moaning about the high price of gas and the environmental impact of oil exploration and drilling while finding any excuse to stay in your vehicle reeks of delicious irony, at the very least.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
matthewk wrote:
Why do these 2 things need to be mutually exclusive? Why not do things that will help us both now AND in the future? I'm getting sick of the argument against drilling being made like if we do that we can't do anything else.
I never said they couldn't. I just said that offshore drilling isn't THE ANSWER.
Anything that will also help us in the long run in fine, but we also need to access the consequences and weigh that against the minimal gains we might see.
Bush, in his speech yesterday, was "selling" offshore drilling as a way to give the American public some relief from the current gas prices and that just isn't what will do it. It's another false "sell job" from this administration and I'm not buying it.
pk500 wrote:
But there are no basic errands that you can't do on foot or bike in your area? There are no parties or other events that you attend with friends for which you can't carpool, at least part of the way? There aren't five trips to local shopping areas per week that can be consolidated into one? That trip to Best Buy or Gamestop to buy a game on the hour of its release can't be delayed for a day and combined into a comprehensive errand run?
Sorry, but moaning about the high price of gas and the environmental impact of oil exploration and drilling while finding any excuse to stay in your vehicle reeks of delicious irony, at the very least.
Take care,
PK
I already do a lot of these things, but even if we all did them, it would do very little to reduce gas prices. Oil companies will still be making record profits and they will figure out other ways to keep screwing us. The general publics habits pale in comparison to airlines, power plants, etc. oil/energy consumption.
Also, like a previous poster stated...we won't change until we "have to". Even with gas prices over $4, I haven't heard any carpooling talk at my company or ideas of working more from home or anything like that.
JackB1 wrote:I already do a lot of these things, but even if we all did them, it would do very little to reduce gas prices.
So what will in the short term, then? Temporarily removing the Federal tax from fuel, which is about as much of a Band-Aid as the economic stimulus check?
Investing more in alternative energy? That will take as long, if not longer, to come to fruition as offshore drilling.
The bottom line is simple, Jack: If you're using less gas by staying out of your car more often, YOU are paying less for fuel, regardless of the price at the pump. If you're not using gas, you're not paying for it.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
The blog is called "next generation energy" and there has been articles on biofuels, electric vehicles, global distribution of energy resources, and a discussion on energy alternatives. The blog will run for three months and is an easy way to become more informed on this topic.
The blog is called "next generation energy" and there has been articles on biofuels, electric vehicles, global distribution of energy resources, and a discussion on energy alternatives. The blog will run for three months and is an easy way to become more informed on this topic.
I seriously question the objectivity of this blog. It's sponsored by Shell. It's irrelevant that the editors are from Seed: If Shell is writing the checks, copy that pleases Shell and promotes its vision of biofuels will appear in this blog.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
The blog is called "next generation energy" and there has been articles on biofuels, electric vehicles, global distribution of energy resources, and a discussion on energy alternatives. The blog will run for three months and is an easy way to become more informed on this topic.
I seriously question the objectivity of this blog. It's sponsored by Shell. It's irrelevant that the editors are from Seed: If Shell is writing the checks, copy that pleases Shell and promotes its vision of biofuels will appear in this blog.
Take care,
PK
I see your point, however I've been reading the individual blogs of the people who are part of this project (before they signed up for this) and they aren't corporate hacks. I've also read the magazine for some time and they print quality science. I appreciate the skepticism (and it is warranted considering the amount of disinformation that is spread in order to confuse) but I'd venture to guess that this is an example of a big company throwing a tiny bone to a group of scientists in order to put something on their "green" resume. These particular people aren't on a propaganda campaign. If you read the information I'd be surprised if you actually think the information is slanted in a way to make shell or any other corporation look good.
European oil companies, like Shell and BP, have accepted the science on global warming and are taking a more proactive approach to what they see as inevitable actions to curb emissions.
It's the Exxon mobiles which are funding the junk science and think tanks to try to resist taking measures.
wco81 wrote:European oil companies, like Shell and BP, have accepted the science on global warming and are taking a more proactive approach to what they see as inevitable actions to curb emissions.
It's the Exxon mobiles which are funding the junk science and think tanks to try to resist taking measures.
