First, to clear something up: This isn’t foreign aid. It’s a $20 billion arms sale, ostensibly to curb against Iranian aggression, the wisdom of which should be questioned. It turned out so well last time we decided to arm a dictator to counter Iranian aggression and all.

But I’m certainly willing to table that discussion.

The difference is that the United States Government does not hand money over to the Latino gangs you talked about. And the Saudi government gave a lot of money to al Qaeda in the decade preceding 9/11.

Bin Laden, contrary to common myth, is not Donald Trump with religious-based psychosis. His total inheritance was around $30 million, paid out at the rate of a little over a million per year, and nothing since 1994. Still a lot of money, but only about 1/3 the amount Paris Hilton got on her 18th birthday. (Source: 9/11 Commission Report)

But his organization has burned through much more than that. Combining direct payments (Which, depending on who you’re listening to was either a donation or payoff in a protection racket) and contributions to charities that act as middle men for al Qaeda financiers, the Saudi royal family contributed between $300 million to half a billion to the operating budget of al Qaeda.

Protection racket? Maybe. But given the Saudi royals’ strict embrace of the Sharia ideals advanced by OBL, I find the idea difficult to swallow.

It’s also important to note that, although we asked while rescuers were still searching the smoking rubble, the Saudis did not lift a finger to cut off the financing for the group until after al Qaeda attacked them in 2003, ostensibly for their “cooperation” with us (And considering that they did nothing until after their own attacks, I would say that the “cooperation” amounted to not telling us to take a long walk off a short pier).

Glen,
We are sending arms to an area of the world that is unstable. We hope that we can secure the Saudis as valuable allies because they have oil. The logic here is that history often repeats itself. We armed bin Laden and he turned against us, as did Saddam. If the Saudi royal family were overthrown by a Saudi Islamic military general, these weapons could be used against us. That is not a particularly far fetched scenario given the dynamics in the region. Musharif’s control of Pakistan is even more tenuous. There is an undeniable wave of Islamic jihad in this region fueled largely by the war.

It would seem to me that there would be better ways to stabilize the region instead of pouring weaponry into an Islamic monarchy neighboring a war zone where we are fighting insurgents from that country. Does that seem illogical?

Illogical being one of the biggest understatements of all times! But then … so is “The long-term solution for your grandkids’ sake is to defeat their ideology of hate with an ideology of light, and that’s called liberty and democracy.” (Jul. 19, 2007)

No they were not acting on behalf of that country, but were criminals working alone.

WRONG! If you actually read any of the posts referenced, including mine, you’d have found a link to information showing the GOVERNMENT of Saudi Arabia supported the 9/11 terrorists.

And another point: a $20 billion arms sale to curb “Iranian aggression” — well, now, how do you know those Iranian aggressors aren’t — how did you put it? — “criminals working alone. In fact, these criminals were actually enemies of the [Iranian] government.”

Come on, Glen, even you are not that stupid. The Middle East governments talk out of both sides of their mouths. The Saudis are in an especially tight spot, as they are the founders of the radical Islam that we are supposedly fighting, but the royal family is tight with the Bushies. They are dancing on a razor’s edge trying to curry favor with the Bushies while preventing revolution at home. And here we come throwing gasoline on the fire. Smart move? I don’t think so.

I’d like to see some verification for the claim “for all the Americans Mexican gangs have killed.”

MS-13 hasn’t killed enough people for you, Mack?

Mack is a one-trick coyote.

Mack are you serious? That’s like asking me to provide you with a link that proves the sky is blue. Heh.
-
Once again guys, I am not commenting on whether or not these arms sales were a good idea. This post is about the reasoning for William’s opposition, which is that the 9/11 terrorists came from there. Seems like a little bit of populist fear mongering to me.
-
These people who committed these crimes were religious nutjobs and criminals. They were terrorists, not military men acting on behalf of any government. Timothy McVeigh came from the US, the Klan came from the US, should we apply that type of logic to ourselves?
-

Ok, then, Glen. Provide me that link, if it’s that easy. I lived around gangs most of my life, and they tend to target their own people, so, I’d love to see some statistics proving your assertion that Hispanic gangs are killing Americans.

Seems like a little bit of populist fear mongering to me.

It is. And William, Beale, JP, and the other usual suspects apparently can’t get enough of it. Each one has their own blog. They have taken over NiT. Now there pack seems intent on KOS’ing up posts here.

We get it. We got it last week and the week before and the week before that. Bush is Hitler. We should get out of Iraq. Rich white men are the source of all evil. You guys are way smarter than the rest of us.

Rather than being a broken record, just tell us what the solution is. How exactly do we surrender our way out of the troubles in this world? Just tell us what you think this country should do. Why do I think it will just be KOS talking points? If you are trying to bore us into submission…Zzzzzz…it might be working.

I’d like to see some verification for the claim “for all the Americans Mexican gangs have killed.”
I was going to say that too but I forgot.

We’ve taken over NiT? Really? How do you figure? OK, maybe William.

I think #9 needs to check his meds. Then again, in my post on the Saudi Arms deal, I did say that wingnut heads would be exploding over this one. Seems I was right.

Here’s a solution. The only reason we’re selling arms to the Saudis and other Sunni Arabs is because of oil. Let’s get off the oil tit, people.

Instead of spending $200 million a day to secure control of the world’s last supply of an obsolete fuel source, let’s invest that money in developing the world’s NEW fuel source. Then the Sunnis and Shia can blow each other up and we won’t give a damn.

Oh right, I forgot, the people in power in Washington are in the oil business. That explains a lot.

Go to this website called Google and type in Americans killed by illegals or Americans killed by Mexican Gangs, then hit search.
-
I’m not going to engage in this stupidity.
-
Also, if you are interested in reading about how the sky is blue, go to that same website known as Google and type in sky is blue.

How about we drill for oil in Alaska, oil in the Rockies, and oil in the Gulf of Mexico. How about we build more refineries. How about we build more nuclear power plants.
-
You want to know why we need foreign oil, look in your DNC mirror.

Let’s get off the oil tit, people.

Do you ride your bike to the grocery store? I guess you have a little cart behind your bike to haul the vegetables home. I’ll stick with my car.

I am not commenting on whether or not these arms sales were a good idea.
.
I’m not sure the two can be separated like you are trying to do. If you’re asking in some abstract fashion whether or not a country should be penalized simply because criminals exist inside their borders, then the answer is of course not. All countries have criminals.
.
But in this case, we’re talking about a government that has been resistant to aiding in “the war on terror” at every turn. When a government takes every opportunity to defend and protect it’s criminals, it becomes a bad thing to further encourage them.
.
What you’re doing is taking one sentence (a headline at that) and trying to strip all context from it. Reading the post makes it clear that his reasoning against giving $20 billion worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia isn’t simply because Saudi criminals exist but rather because the very government we’re giving these weapons to supports the criminals that wish to hurt us.

Dolphin, you actually makes some sense when you say, “If you’re asking in some abstract fashion whether or not a country should be penalized simply because criminals exist inside their borders, then the answer is of course not. All countries have criminals.”
-
The rest of what you said is also pretty rational. I think certain individuals within the Saudi govt. do indirectly fund the type of Islam that spreads hate in American mosques and others. So I agree with you, in a way.

But the Saudi govt. is very much afraid of these people. Remember they have attacked them also. It may be because the Saudi royal family is more greedy or religious, but Bin Laden hates them and seeks to destroy them.

How about we drill for oil in Alaska, oil in the Rockies, and oil in the Gulf of Mexico.

Great and when that’s all gone in 16 months, what then?

Glen, you type a stupid statement like “all the Americans killed by MS13 and other gangs.” Then I ask you to support it, and you refuse. I think you realized how inflammatory and dangerous that statement was, or, you were unable to find any support for the claim. Which was it?

You want to know why we need foreign oil, look in your DNC mirror.

The problem with liberals is that they want their cake and to eat it too. They won’t allow domestic oil or refineries and then they yell “War for Oil.” They refuse to allow nuclear plants but then complain about air pollution.

Their solutions are solar power, corn based ethanol, and electric cars. If this county listens to the liberals and follows that advice you will have power brownouts and blackouts, a devastated economy, and soaring food prices. You don’t wean a nation off of oil in a generation. The physics of energy and the laws of distribution won’t allow it. These fantasises are dangerous. There is too much irrationality in the modern liberal mind. The answers we need are based on science not feelings.

How is it that liberals are blind to the mess they have created?

Mack I told you how to do a Google Search. If you don’t want to take those instructions, then that is your problem. If you want to prove that absolutely no Americans are killed by Mexican and Central American gangs, then you prove it.
-
As for that statement being dangerous and inflammatory, do you really think I give a rat’s ass? What am I now, racist against Mexican and Central American gangs?
-
Number 9, ditto.

You don’t wean a nation off of oil in a generation.
.
No, but if you never start the weaning process it can’t happen. You don’t wean a baby off of mother’s milk in a day, but if you don’t at some point begin introducing solid food into the mix it will never happen (much to the baby’s detriment, I might add).
.
It’s incomprehensible to me how one can argue for nuclear power and reject solar power. The sun is a giant nuclear reactor billions of times more powerful than anything we have the technology to build on earth, yet it’s too weak to run a TV? C’mon.

It’s NOT UP TO ME to prove or dis-prove YOUR statement. If you had any integrity, you would support your claim. Don’t you think took the time to “google” myself? I couldn’t find anything to substantiate your claim. Perhaps you have some secret info that you gleaned that tidbit from, ala Terry Frank?

As for you not “giving a rat’s ass” if something you say is dangerous or inflammatory”, well, thats about the irresponsible position I’ve ever seen from you. Pity.

I’m gonna have to go with Mack on this one.. You can’t just say something and then tell someone to “google it” — particularly when it’s something as contentious as a claim that latin american gangs are killing a statistically significant number of US citizens.

Oh hell, I Googled it. I got one story, and it doesn’t seem to be pertinent to the topic anyway. About Mexican gangs in America, supposedly financed by Mexican organized crime in Mexico, killing blacks in Los Angeles. “Racial cleansing” thing. Even if it’s true, it’s one story.

Guys, do you really think that no Americans are ever killed by Mexican gangs? I will go ahead and humor you with some links. Of course the span filter will probably eat it, due to all of the links Hopefully Kat or Ivy will release it though and satisfy you. Geez.

Here is a story about Mexican gangs killing blacks in LA.
Here is another.
This article, which references a TV report, talks about how MS13 plans to kill police officers.
This article discusses how Mexican drug gangs are targeting American journalists.
Here is another.

Tis released.

Chris, Mack, and SB, the point of this post was not about the example I provided. And my point was not about a “significant number”. It was about any number, even a few. I could have used Canada as an example, but I would suspect that their are more Mexican gangs than Canadian gangs.
-
The post was about the idea of holding countries and governments responsible for the behavior of a few citizens who are criminals. Would any of you like to comment on that? I figured you would be all over something like that Chris, being principled and all. Btw, I left some links and the comment is awaiting moderation.

It’s incomprehensible to me how one can argue for nuclear power and reject solar power.

Because I have researched doing it for my home. Anyone else on this blog take a serious look at the cost? A 15 year breakeven doesn’t cut it. Also, there is little information on how resistant the solar panels are to hail.

Someday yes, but not today. I live in the here and now, not in the future. When people vote in November 2008 they will think about what that vote will do to their family. The Democratic party needs to leave fantasy land or they have no future. The “feel good” strategies of Howard Dean, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Barry Obama, and John Edwards will not serve you well. But what do Democrats want? To push the party further left. Do what you have to do. But don’t be surprised when people tell you that you are more than a little nuts. Democrats could win many elections if they would consider conservative ideas instead of trying to copy England, Germany, France, and Sweden.

He runs restaurants, he lives around gangs… what doesn’t Mack do?

Because I have researched doing it for my home. Anyone else on this blog take a serious look at the cost? A 15 year breakeven doesn’t cut it.
.
Well if you’ve researched it, then you already know that today’s solar panels only harvest about 3% of the energy that strikes them (and there we are talking about the best of the best). Can you imagine if we got them up to 30%? 50%? At 50% efficiency you could throw up a 6 square foot solar panel on your roof (attached to a battery of course to store up that power for night time or rainy days) and completely disconnect your house from the grid. Just the tiny bit of money that has been thrown that direction has seen an dramatic drop in price (now you can get solarcell shingles for your house that, in most US climates, pay for themselves within 7 years.
.
I live in the here and now, not in the future.
.
Fortunately not all of us do. There are those among us who aren’t content to just live with what we have now and are always seeking to improve things for the future. People like you owe people like us because all the things you enjoy now (from zippers to automobiles) are the result of somebody thinking about the future.

The post was about the idea of holding countries and governments responsible for the behavior of a few citizens who are criminals.

Oh come on Glen that is incredibly stupid. First of all, we DO hold governments responsible for the behavior of their criminal citizens — it’s called FOREIGN POLICY. Mexico hasn’t been enough of a problem for it to be a blip on the radar. In other parts of the world it’s a different story.

Jeebus it’s like you forgot Bush’s whole argument for invading Iraq. Mushroom clouds! Remember?

And the second point is, the government of Saudi Arabia does support Al Qaeda, they were the primary financier of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Use your Google skills and check it out. Oh hell, here’s a nice story from the Cato Institute, a nice conservative organization, dated 2001:

http://www.cato.org/dailys/11-16-01.html

The Saudi government may be afraid of these people NOW— But the fact is that the group would likely have bankrupted and washed out years before 9/11 without the direct financial contributions of the House of Saud.

The Tim McVeigh analogy does not fit— The US Government did not had money hand over fist to the Michigan Militia. Nor does the Bush Administration hand over money to Mexican gangs, unless individual public servants within that administration are buying drugs from them (Which, frankly, would explain a lot).
You don’t even have to brush up on the Googling skills to find that— It’s in the 9/11 report. And frankly, I’d love to see what was in the redacted pages dealing with Saudi Arabia’s links to al Qaeda.

The post was about the idea of holding countries and governments responsible for the behavior of a few citizens who are criminals. Would any of you like to comment on that? I figured you would be all over something like that Chris, being principled and all

I have no real problem with this contention. Obviously the extent to which you hold a state responsible for policing its populace is a difficult issue and one that is pretty contentious in the world of international relations.

I was just commenting on your nonsequitur about mexican gangs, which struck me as inaccurate.

Thanks Chris. I agree, things are really complicated. The fact is though, that these individuals who committed the terrible crimes on 9/11 were acting alone. They were not agents of the Saudi govt. This discussion reminds me of the populist uproar over the Dubai ports deal. The fact that a few of the terrorists came from the UAE should not have caused us to punish Dubai investors and the country that had nothing to do with those criminal actions.
-
About the other, I don’t understand how linking to something really makes anything valid. For example, I found some stuff from World Net Daily and Newsmax.com, but would providing a link to either of those sights prove my point to you or Mack? Links have become a lot like statistics. Anybody can produce them to prove a point. Do you think SB’s suspect links prove anything to me.
-
Still though, my point was that just as we shouldn’t hold the Mexican govt. responsible for crimes committed by a few criminals who come from there, we shouldn’t hold the Saudi govt. responsible for criminals who come from Saudi Arabia.
-
The form of Islam taught in Saudi schools and mosques and how it may lead to violence against Americans is a different issue altogether.
-
Hopefully none of you will ask me to provide links proving that Mexican gangs really exist or if they do exist that they deal drugs and engage in criminal activity.

No, but what I WILL ask of you is evidence that any government provided money to the Mexican gangs or Timothy McVeigh. Considering the massive amounts of money the House of Saud gave to al Qaeda in the decade preceding 9/11 and their reluctance to shut down the charities that funneled money to them until after AQ attacked Saudi Arabia, it is proper to question the wisdom of selling them advanced weapons. Particularly the quarter ton and one ton JDAMs.

The JDAM is a satellite guided bomb. While they certainly have the money to send up air defense satellites a few years from now, the only way they’ll be able to guide a JDAM between now and then is to piggyback it on our satellites. How comfortable are you with them getting access to our aerial surveillance given their tendency to condemn terror publicly while handjobbing it under the table?

Not comfortable and I am not at all fond of the House of Saud or any Muslim based government for that matter, including Pakistan. But these things are really complicated. For example, I don’t regret funding a group of people in Afghanistan who were fighting the Soviets in the late 70’s. I can understand why the Saudis did also. That doesn’t mean we like those people. Things are complicated. But this is not a Republican Democrat thing. Both sides have subscribed to that policy in the past and most still do. It is called realism.

[…] a post that got WAY off topic over at Music City Bloggers, #9 (the same nutcase I mentioned in this post) responds thusly to […]

Glen’s original point was valid, although he fell victim to a most unfortunate analogy.
-
However
-
If you REALLY thought that the Saudi government was literally behind 9/11 (or even knowingly financed it), you’d be calling for total war. (Liberals and conservatives agreed shortly after 9/11 that if a government were directly responsible, a war with said country would be totally justifiable).
-
Therefore, I really don’t think the people putting forth this premise REALLY believe it; they’re just tweaking conservative noses, because it’s fun. And we make it so danged easy.

Hey Ron, for clarification, I OWNED restaurants. Big difference.

But your point was?

“For example, I don’t regret funding a group of people in Afghanistan who were fighting the Soviets in the late 70’s. ”
-
How well did that turn out? We midwifed al Qaeda so we could prevent the Soviet Union from getting what has to be the single most wretched, valueless patch of real estate on earth. It held no strategic value for us. There are no oil reserves under the ground. There are no significant mineral reserves. The ground is so wrestched that the only significant agriculture that can survive there is a plant so resilient that, unchecked, it grows on its own in nature— The poppy.
-
So tell me why you’re glad that we midwifed these guys. Was preventing the spread of a political ideology that we disagreed with (And sadly, was more benign than anything in Afghanistan since) worth it?
-
This is the cog that drives the military industrial complex. We go through constant cycles of creating tomorrow’s enemies through today’s foreign policy blunders. As it happens, there was no greater practitioner of retarded foreign policy than the Reagan Administration, which not only midwifed al Qaeda, but helped to arm a guy named Hussein.
-
There is not a single stated goal of the Bush Administration that is not undone by this transfer. Want to promote democracy? Then transferring heavy arms to a nation with a cruel, corrupt monarch that allows no elections for any office higher than minuicipal— Probably not the smartest thing to do. Stamping out Islamic extremism? The Kingdom is the birthplace of Islamic extremism.
-
The enemy of our enemy is not our friend. We have to accept that premise.

Slartibartfast,

“If you REALLY thought that the Saudi government was literally behind 9/11 (or even knowingly financed it), you’d be calling for total war. ”

I think you put some words into my mouth. Nowhere did I say they knowingly financed the 9/11 operation. That’s an important distinction to make.
-
While I know without a shadow of a doubt that they financed the organization, I don’t believe they had specific knowledge of any single plot.
-
However, we knew for a fact that it was al Qaeda that bombed the USS Cole. That did nothing to stop the flow of money from the House of Saud into AQ’s coffers. Nor did the fact that we knew of their attempts to kill Israeli tourists going to Jordan to celebrate the millenium and of their attempts to bomb LAX the same day. We knew they were responsible for the Khobar Towers bombing (Killing Americans on Saudi soil, no less). Everyone knew they were responsible for the embassy bombings.
-
None of this stopped the royal family’s dogged determination to make sure these guys didn’t run out of money.
-
After 9/11, we asked them repeatedly for their help shutting down the financial networks. In the time that the House of Saud continued to drag its feet, AQ attacked a synagogue in Tunisia, attacked a tourist resort in Mombasa, fired shoulder launched missiles at an airplane returning to Israel from Mombasa the same day, and killed over 200 in Mali.
-
All this was not enough to get them to help shut down the financial networks. When AQ finally struck Riyadh in 2003, the Saudis finally decided they were enough of a problem to shut down the financial networks.
-
So as much as conservatives like to pretend this is about “conservative nose tweaking”, it’s not. If it was a Democrat proposing this deal, I would oppose that too. Ironically, if it was a Democrat, this would be the top story on Fox— “Next on the O’Reilly Factor- Why are Democrats arming America’s enemies?” Coming up on Hannity and Colmes - “Why are Democrats traitors?”
-
But it’s a Republican that’s selling us out this time.
-
The Iranian government isn’t powerful enough to make this kind of arms transfer necessary. Remember the government we reduced to dust in about three weeks four years ago? They fought Iran for a decade and ended in a stalemate.

Rick, let’s wave our magic wand and say a Democrat is now president.
-
What do you feel should be official US policy toward Saudi Arabia?

Dmanit, I have to type all this again. One accidental doubletap on my touchpad and it all went away.
-
1. Higher fuel economy standards. This encompasses a few things.
a) A 10MPG increase in fuel economy across the board, phased in over the next decade. Ten for Ten.
b) And the Humvee tax break.
c) Apply the Humvee tax break to hybrid technology so we can encourage the purchase of fuel eficient vehicles with regenerative breaking just as we’ve encouraged the purchase of 12 MPG gas guzzlers.
-
2. No arms transfers to Saudi Arabia. If they want to protect that cesspool, let them develop a military that serves as more than a place to warehouse royal cousins too stupid to serve in government. Not just this purchase— Not so much as a bullet. I don’t feel like having it end up in the back of the next guy to ask for a democracy.
-
3. Repeal, at least in part, the tax cuts for the top brackets and capital gains. Not just for giggles, but because if we are to break our ties with the Saudis, we need to pay down the national debt. They’ve underwritten enough of it that they can launch a major broadside against our economy with it. The Saudis (Along with the Chinese) underwrite our national debt to keep from losing us as an export customer. As long as we’re in their debt, they can hurt us.
-
4. Change the sources we import oil from. The Saudis are now our #2 source of crude. If you don’t count Iraq, which I don’t think is stable enough to generate much more oil than we get from them now, 13 of our top 15 oil import countries have never, to my knowledge, given money to people that want to kill us. Say what you will about Hugo Chavez, but he never gave money to people that want us destroyed and continued to do so after multimple attacks on our interests. We increase our puchasing from the others by five percent and lower our puechasing from the Saudis a matching amount, and we can make a huge dent in their cashflow, perhaps even allowing us to purchase back some of our debt at a “fire sale” rate.

There is no one policy to change. There are many. But the ultimate goal should be washing our hands clean of not just the Saudis, but the entire Middle East. Our entire association with them has been dictated by our need for what is under their sand. And the sooner we break away from it, the better off we’ll all be.
-
Once WE’VE broken our oil jones, the world follows suit. That’s why the Saudis keep exports to us cheaper than they do the rest of the world. They know this.

Typos galore. The worst one, since it changes the intent, is 1 b) should read “END the Humvee tax break”.

Once WE’VE broken our oil jones, the world follows suit.

What kind of car do you drive Rick?

I see we’ve reached the point of the program where some retard crawls out of the woodwork long enough to insinuate that goals are not worth pursuing if people who hold them up as an ideal have not yet successfully implemented them.
-
My eventual goal is to end human stupidity. How much longer can we reasonably expect you to live so I know when to start bringing it up again?

Rick, good points, but I’d have to disagree with the 10 for 10 idea, it is way too conservative. We can, and should, insist on much more MPG than that. Or tax gasoline so high it forces people to limit their consumption. Naturally, that hurts the poor the most. But it’s too cheap to be as mobile as we want to be. We continue to build suburbs further and further out from business hubs, and this causes even more consumption. I think we need to move on this, and move quickly.

Slarti, isn’t it nice when someone takes the time to write you back a thoughtful response?

I see we’ve reached the point of the program where some retard crawls out of the woodwork long enough to insinuate that goals are not worth pursuing if people who hold them up as an ideal have not yet successfully implemented them.

I am guessing from your response you do not have a fuel efficient vehicle? But you want others to have them?

Why is it not a fair question? Each vehicle I have owned has at least a 21/27 MPG. Even the 3500 pound sedans.

My eventual goal is to end human stupidity.

Let us know how that works out. Will you be the first candidate?

If the .gov were to follow your advice the result would be at best an economic recession, at worst a regional war in the Middle East.

So you would capitulate to Hugo Chavez? Brilliant. I can hardly wait for your first bestseller.

Doin’ my part, ridin’ the bus, and soon enough, the scooters, too. 90+mpg, baby.
.

Rick:
-
Wow. Thank you for taking my question seriously. I’m bolting out the door right now, but I’ll try to digest all of this when I get back.

Not as much of one as I’d like, #9. I get 23/29. I needed something larger than a car for equipment, but the Escape hybrid wasn’t out yet.
-
“So you would capitulate to Hugo Chavez”
-
This is the point in our program where a little research couldn’t hurt you. The Saudis are our #2 source. Venezuela is #4. Only 300,000 barrels per day separate that big scary menace that uses a form of government we don’t like from the guys that actually gave money to al Qaeda. We’ve already started importing 100,000 more per day from Venezuela than this time last year.
-
So take it up with the oil companies and the president that’s in their pockets if you prefer getting oil from AQ supporters to getting oil from friends of Castro’s. ‘Cuz, you know, those Cubans have killed so many Americans.

Why don’t we use our own oil? Do you know why?

Is this going to turn into some ridiculous ANWR spiel about how we shouls crew up Alaska to get, at best, 16 months of oil? I’m looking for self sufficiency, not bandaids. We can put a derrick on every piece of flat land in this country and still have this same problem five years from now.

Slartibartfast,
-
Thank you. I look forward to hearing back.
-
Mack,
I would prefer to go higher than 10 for 10. Drain away too much from the Saudis all at once though, and they start shortselling our currency. The current administration hasn’t just dug us into a hole— They’ve allowed a nation that has too much to gain from keeping us in that hole to mine all the handholds.
-
I see taxing gas more heavily as a last resort, as that cuts into the spending power of the working poor. The price of gas has gone up over 300% since the last hike in the minimum wage, and I fear the effect that would have on us.

No, not an ANWR spiel. A friend explains a common practice in the oil business. You drill a hole, find oil, and then declare it a dry hole. And you wait. For the price to go up. You may wait for decades.

I won’t tease you. Oil companies pay taxes on oil in the ground. You might call this institutional stupidity. But do you expect Congress to change? Because big oil is bad and the people demand they be punished, er taxed.

It doesn’t matter where the oil comes from, Exxon still makes good money. I am not trying to give you a hard time. This is much more complex than you may know. It is called the law of unintended consequences. Repeal one law and imagine how much oil would be found overnight. But that will never happen.

I would be happy if oil was branded as to its source of origin. I will never buy Citgo oil because it comes from Chavez. I wish I knew were the Saudi oil went.

Big oil has never had it better. They can cry me a river over them paying taxes on property that they have not yet bothered to extract from the ground, but the simple fact is that thereis nothing intrinsically unfair about taxing them on it, particularly given the negative environmental impact. They do not wreck the land by turning on the pump sticking out of the ground. They wreck it by building the derrick, so there’s nothing at all outrageous about making them pay.
-
It has nothing about “good”, “bad”, or any other abstract notions. It has to do with negative impact on quality of life for the people in the area.
-
Exxon makes incredible money, and on top of that, not a highway bill, not an energy bill was passed through the old congress (And unliely through the new one, given our slim majority and the Blue Dog Coalition) that doesn’t grant the oil companies massive tax incentives for doing what is in their best interests anyway— Exploration. Meaning that for every derrick they put up and declare to be a dry hole, we’re footing the bill for, at a bare minimum, 40% of the construction.
-
That’s a pretty significant inestment we’ve got tied up in them declaring a hole dry until it’s in their best financial interests to actually start extracting.
-
If you’ve got Excel, you can click to see which companies are buying from which sources here. That opens in Excel.
-
At a glance, BP buys from everyone. Chevron is a massive Saudi customer, although they buy a little from everyone. Conoco is a safe bet, as they get the majority of theirs from Canada. Exxon mixes it up, although over half is from Saudi Arabia. Marathon probably gets 70% out of Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
-
Shell doesn’t look like they picked up anything from either Saudi Arabia or Venezuela in the month we’re looking at here. Safe bet.
-
Sinclair is almost all Canada, and Sunoco gets very little from Venezuela, although they get a lot out of South America.
-
The answer though is never as simple as “repeal one law and find more oil”. First of all, I don’t think the US government should be in the business of rewarding duplicity, and that’s precisely what we would be doing.
-
The biggest problem though, would be that we’re still dealing with a finite resource, and anything that doesn’t take us away from being reliant on a finite resoure is no solution at all. It merely delays the crisis.

The answer though is never as simple as “repeal one law and find more oil”.

You are correct. It is a very complex problem. It is a domino effect. My point was inventory taxes on oil in the ground encourages big oil to just be a distributor, which means more foreign oil. Should Congress have thought of that?

I purchase Shell exclusively. I had heard it met my purchase requirements but I was not completely sure. Glad to hear a second source confirming that. Care to share your sources? Others might be interested.

Rick, you might be interested in this:

http://www.technologyreview.com/Biztech/18119/?a=f

It is far from perfect but could you imagine natural gas from coal where you could fill up your car in your garage? Of course the people at Pilot would make sure that would never happen. There are solutions. But no easy ones. It isn’t the technology, it is the politics that is the real problem.

Sure, I linked it in the last post, but it’s easy enough to overlook.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/company_level_imports/current/data/import.xls
You can view it online, although you can do more with it if you download it and open it in Excel. When I did that, I could isolate it by country. Once I did, I was able to confirm it— Exxon and Chevron are the two biggest customers of Saudi Arabia.
-
Inventory taxes are here to stay and that’s as it should be. The infrastructure leading to the derrick has to be built whether a drop is pumped out of the ground or not. The roads are still worn down by tanker trucks whether they pump a drop out of the ground or not. The oil company still has destroyed the natural environment around the derrick whether they pretend it’s empty or do something honest and turn on the pump.
-
And I refuse to reward duplicity. This nation bends over for the oil industry often enough as it is.
-
I’m not too big on the natural gas/ coal solution. Just about everyone in my Mom’s part of the country dies with a layer of thick, black soot in their lungs from coal contamination. And even in areas without coalmines, coal pollution is so heavy in the air that pregnant women and children have to avoid shellfish to avoid elevated mercury levels. So I don’t really think that’s much of a solution.
-
The ultimate solution is something that GM had, but never put into enough circulation for the economy of scale to kick in— The electric car.
-
They refused to sell the EV-1 outright. The price listed on the lease was $34,000-44,000 depending on year model. It ran silently. It ran clean. There wasn’t even much in it that would need repair (The biggest reason I believe they killed it). There were no concerns over speed— In 1994, one ran 183 MPH. A later version, a hybrid with a tiny diesel tank, went 550 miles on one tank of diesel in hybrid mode, with a fuel economy of 80 MPG. That’s astounding.
-
It certainly puts more strain on the electrical grid, but there really are very few problems associated with nuclear power plants, which create a cleaner energy than coal.
-
I can’t even imagine what the EV-1 could do now— They killed the program before the rise of the lithium ion battery, and the regenerative braking found in EVERY hybrid was still a new concept.
-
Energy policy and defense policy are a long game. And by ending our reliance on finite resources, particularly finite resources found more reaily under the ground of unstable nations than anywhere else, we could improve both. The time to start is twenty years ago.

Rick Maynard: You do realize most of the gas companies don’t buy from Venezuela because Venezuela has its own state-owned gas station chain here in the US, yes?

Ron,
Yes. Citgo. I’m well aware of that.
-
Download the spreadsheet, and you’ll see that they sell to Sunoco, BP, Marathon, Total, and Targa.
-
The oil industry does not have a problem buying from them. In fact, they’d be pretty stupid to put all their eggs in one basket.

PS: Just pulled it up on the spreadsheet. Even Citgo buys oil from more than one source. Algeria, Angola, Brazil, Ecuador, Kuwait, Mexico, Russia, and the Virgin Islands.

Well yeah, but that’s because they’ve got contracts with those countries to harvest their oil and buy it. I’ve also read where, in July last year, Citgo was going to cease selling to independent agents, thought that might mean independent gas stations rather than selling processed gas to the competition.

I suspect it will mean independent stations— Citgo isn’t so much the Venezuelan national company as it’s a subsidiary of it, so even if Citgo quits, there’s no reason Hovensa (Another subsidiary operating in the US) would quit as well.

Rick, I know this is late. I was gone all night. But actually the funding of the rebels in Afghanistan started with the Carter administration. Zbigniew Brzezinski said that seeing the Soviets defeated in Afghanistan was one of his proudest accomplishments. The CIA under the Carter administration and Brzezinski was actually there working with the rebels before the Soviet invasion.
-
I am not criticizing them for this, just stating historical fact and trying to show you that foreign policy realism has dominated the intellectual thinking of both parties, at least up until Bush 43 and neoconservatism. But if you notice lately, Bush, who has hired guys like Gates to run the Defense Department, has reverted back to realism. It is as if he has admitted that neoconservatism was too idealistic.
-
You asked if I thought that worked out well. My answer is yes. The money and time the Soviets spent in Afghanistan was critical to their downfall. Millions are free today in the former Soviet bloc countries. Communism was not merely some ideology we did not agree with, it was totalitarianism. I am glad it was defeated.

Glen ,
It’s quite all right. I made the mistake of checking (Send replies to my inbox”, which I will not make again. I should be writing something else, so as intellectually challenging as it is, this is my way of goofing off.
-
Concerning your point on the Carter Administration, you’re close to correct, but not quite there. Starting a few months before the operation, Carter authorized CIA cooperation with the Afghan government and a propaganda campaign. Their assistance was limited only to the Afghan government, and not the rebel groups that were operating outside of Afghan authority.
-
When Reagan came to power, the ciurcumstances had shifted. Almost half the Afghan army had defected to one rebel militia or another.
-
So he shifted away from a policy of assisting a government to one of providing financial and materiel assistance to several rebel groups, one of which happened to have been led by Osama bin Laden.
-
Now, you say we ended a totalitarian regime. That much, to one degree or another, is true. The horrors of the Stalin regime were gone, but the framework for its return existed.
-
Now, to keep that regime from gaining a piece of land so worthless that most Americans wouldn’t crap in it, there were some consequences:
1) The rise of the world’s most dangerous terror network.
2) Since the downfall of the Soviet Union, they’ve been unable to safeguard the nuclear materiel they had built up. The Nunn-Lugar Amendment came about because of a trip they took to the former Soviet Union where HEU was unguarded because they couldn’t afford a new padlock. It helped, but only so much.
-
You may call that progress. I do not. I certainly have no love of the old Soviet regime, but America has far more to fear from the assymetrical warfare of today than we have to fear from a nuclear stalemate with the USSR. We went from forty years of pointing missiles at one another to a state of affairs where missiles are really of limited use, as our greatest enemies today are men without countries.

Well at least you recognize the terrorist threat. Got to give you credit for that.

Pretty interesting interview with Brzezinski about this subject. Brzezinski, Kissinger, not a dimes worth of difference really.
http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html

Glen,
Thank you, but I’m not sure there’s as great a difference between liberals such as myself and conservatives when it comes to recognizing the threat of terrorism. We’re certainly not the caricatures we’re made out to be on Fox News.
-
The average hardcore liberal such as myself saw the invasion of Afghanistan as necessary and just, but saw a huge flaw in the game plan that guaranteed its failure. And of course, we accurately predicted the absence of WMDs and the lack of operational ties to al Qaeda.
-
Brzezinski was definitely a little more Kissinger than he’s recognized as being, but the difference between them is a key ne— Brzezinski and kissinger were both the ultimate foreign policy chess players, but Brzezinski lacked the malevolence of Kissinger.

I don’t know if I would say that about Kissinger. I am definitely not a fan though. I don’t think he was evil though, just wrong.

Rick,
Finally saw your SA (actually your energy policy). Except for number 3, you could almost pass for a Buchannanite. I’ve seen lots of “let them eat their oil” sentiments at Free Republic. But, I digress.
-
I actually think all of them are reasonable, EXCEPT for #3, because I am a firm believer in Laffer, (and I have history on my side). But, we can save that discussion for another thread - Lord knows this one doesn’t need to go on ANOTHER tangent.
-
I’m an optimist when it comes to oil dependency. When America sets its mind to something (and, how rare is that?), it is simply an unstoppable force. I offer up to you the early space program.
-
The people of the US are slow to move en masse, but when they do, they have an incredible power in their unity (dwarfing Europe). The “can do” spirit is almost dead, though, and needs to be revived soon, lest we lose it forever.
-
The reason I say this is that I’m probably more optimistic on eliminating oil dependency than probably most liberals. Yes, if we put our collective mind to it. We most certainly could wean ourselves off of oil in a generation.
-
We only lack the will. It would cost a fortune, and take a singleness of mind that the US hasn’t had since WWII. Nevertheless, it IS possible.

The reason I say this is that I’m probably more optimistic on eliminating oil dependency than probably most liberals. Yes, if we put our collective mind to it. We most certainly could wean ourselves off of oil in a generation.
-
Ommm… he said collective, so he obviously hates the free market, rugged individualism and Our Precious Bodily Fluids!
.

Yes, if we put our collective mind to it. We most certainly could wean ourselves off of oil in a generation.

That is not possible. It is technically possible but politically it is impossible. It is one thing to think positive but that is science fiction.

Electric cars and trucks, hydrogen economy, switchgrass, corn ethanol, solar power, many new nukes, and everyone riding bikes. Cannot be done in 18 to 20 years. Even if you do all of those things.

Take Rick for example, likes nukes but doesn’t like coal. Give him credit for nukes. There is no way to get enough people in this country to agree. I am not crazy about coal mining either. But you have to get power from something. The distribution system we have now didn’t just happen, it evolved over a century. There was a lot of give and take during that process.

Is being dependent on foreign oil a really stupid idea? Yeah, no doubt. But what other options are there? Do you want to repeal the inventory tax on crude in the ground? I could care less. If it got us more domestic oil I would see a benefit. But Rick won’t go for it. He wants the oil companies to pay those taxes.

We will use all the oil first. Because it is the easiest way to get the energy. And we are used to it. This nation we always have power. The only question is who do we buy it from and how much will it cost. And how will it affect our national security.

9, what you say is true (even using every alternative resource available we could not power our country for any amount of time).
-
But I think the answer is out there; there’s a kid in a basement as we speak, who has within him a NEW way that we haven’t yet thought of.
-
I am no scientist, and I am no businessman. I am, as you can tell, an extreme optimist.
-
If our nation had a single purpose of mind concerning this issue, the kid in his basement would be encouraged like a young Edison. We don’t produce Edisons anymore.
-
As it is, we discourage the kid by always listing the reasons his idea won’t work.
-
As things are now? I’d agree with you. Personally, it’ll probably take another large-scale terrorist attack, combined with a dynamic, optimistic, visionary leader to get the entire country motivated to solve this problem.
-
I know many get tired of me saying this, but we are the nation that, when it is motivated, can find a way to fit this into that, using only this.
-
Mark Steyn once said America is an optimistic country because that’s where all the optimists went.
-
Nobody else can do this, only the United States. Everybody else is in maintenance mode, and has been for centuries. We, the United States, must encourage not one, but thousands of kids in thousands of basements.
-
There is an answer out there - we won’t find it if we aren’t looking.

It is one thing to think positive but that is science fiction.
.
There’s another post (I think on this site) discussing the fact that in less than a single person’s lifetime (58 years), we went from marveling at the Wright brother’s 12 sec flight to landing a manned spacecraft on the moon. Is it really so impossible to believe that today’s technology will not also continue to advance and even leap forward in unexpected ways that will continue to amaze us all?
.
I’m really trying to understand where you’re coming from here. It sounds like you’re saying technology has ceased to advance so we just have to live with what exists today for the rest of eternity. How can someone make that kind of a statement in 2007?

If history is any indicator, science fiction inevitably becomes science fact.

That is not possible. It is technically possible but politically it is impossible. It is one thing to think positive but that is science fiction.
-
In 1960, landing on the moon was science fiction. In 1969, it was reality.
-
But you’re right — politically, we have to first separate the conjoined twins of politicians and BigPetrochemical before this century’s Apollo project can hit the launch pad.
.

Apollo and the space race was really the arms race wearing a disguise.

When or if America is hit again, then maybe the political barrier will be breached. Remove the politics and we can solve problems. It is a shame it has to be that way. But that is the reality we live in.

In another thread nm writes about the fallacy of corn ethanol. At least people are wising up. There is hope. A pragmatic optimist is not a pessimist. But they don’t have rose colored glasses either.

Dolphin, some science fiction becomes fact. Some doesn’t. I speak as an avid consumer of the genre, but you know it ain’t so.

Either that or someone’s going to have to do some fancy tapdancing to make both Asimov’s Foundation world and LeGuin’s Hainish universe true at the same time.

Slartibartfast,
-
Thanks for the response. The Saudis are so entrenched in the lives of America that I don’t see a way to distance ourselves from them without touching on not only defense, but energy policy and even fiscal policy. You kind of have to mentally wargame what their countermove is going to be and wargame accordingly.
-
If we stop buying oil from them, be it from developing a renewable fuel source or, as #9 says, repealing one law that miraculously turns all dry holes into gushers, their countermove will be an economic broadside. Years of an unrealistic fiscal policy involving massive, top heavy tax cuts and a very expensive war have taken our national debt from $4 trillion to $9 trillion since 2001. About 1/3 of that is currently held by Saudi Arabia, who, to tell you how sad our state of economic affairs is, buys massive amounts of our currency to help the dollar retain its value as they trade with us. If they release it into the wild at even fair market value, the effects will be devastating. If they shortsell it, America goes into depression. Any frive for energy independence has to be built upon a foundation of fiscal independence. Believe in the Laffer curve if you will, but a massive influx of money will be necessary to buy back the currency before we can even comfortably make a move. You can hold $3 trillion worth of bake sales, or you can restore a logical tax code, but it’s got to be done. The poorest of the poor get about $4.30 per week out of the Bush tax cuts. We can go after that $4.30 per week if you really wish, but their purchasing power is already low enough, and we’ll need every penny of it pumped back into our economy. There are a lot more of them than there are of the top tiers.
-
Personally, I think the best design for transportation has already been out there, at least the rough draft of it. I’d certainly rather plug up than go to the gas station. The later versions of the EV-1 in hybrid mode got 550 miles on seven gallons of diesel. Battery technology and regenerative braking were in their infancy when that came about. Just try to imagine how much more efficient the lithium ion batteries would be than the nickel metal hydrides used in the later versions (Lead acid in the originals, which was a terrible technology compared to Li-ion).
-
With the strength of li-ion, we could probably finally get a four seater up into that distance range. Could your car now go that long without a refill?
-
It would require some adaptation, but hey, even Sony started out as the seller of a failed rice cooker in the WWII era. They eventually figured out the radio market was more friendly. A gas station would eventually become a quick charge station (With li-ion, quick charging capabilities are available like never before. I bought a charger with my Digital Rebel that allows the battery to charge in less than 10 minutes), and existing infrastructure would still be used for the distribution of diesel for those vehicles that would still need to work in hybrid mode and large vehicles that we’re still decades away from powering with electricity over any substantive differences.
-
It’s a long term change, but you’re right. We can make it happen. Furthermore, OPEC knows this, and it’s why we get a lower rate on crude than European nations. Automotive innovation does not originate in Milan. When the technology comes along that makes them irrelevant, it will come from here, so it’s in their best interest to keep us complacent. The last six years of gas rarely dipping below $3 a gallon has been enough to spur at least a little bit of change.

nm,
May I challenge you to produce 5 items from science fiction works written at least 50 years ago that were mere advancements to technology that already existed at the time of the writing, that have not either come to pass or had a more effective alternative developed?

You may be able to pull it off (though I’d be surprised), but even if you do, I’ll stand by the notion that anyone who thinks today’s solar panels are the most efficient that solar panels will ever be is a moron.

#9,
You’re right. I don’t care to have an industry with record profits continuing its free ride. We have no business amending tax policy so that tax cheats get to come in from the cold any more than we have any business subsidizng their exploration, which is in their best interests anyway. This nation’s information systems are built largely upon technology that conmes out of Redmond, but the taxpayer does not pay them $6 billion per year to write new code. The energy industry needs incentive to explore for new oil? How about those record breaking profits? Let’s call it what it is— Corporate welfare. A few years back, a guy from my side of the fence stole the thunder of the guys from your side of the fence and said “It’s time to end welfare as we know it”. It’s time again.
-
The switch will be a generational one to be sure. Within the next three years, we can expect the first generation of widely available hybrids to make their way into the used market as more efficient hybrids become available.
-
Once upon a time, the car market was filled with gigantic 70’s cars that fot about the same mileage as a Humvee. Eventually, more efficient vehicles filtered their way into the market and those 70’s cars are harder to find now. If we start within the next couple of years, our entire nation can be driving a more efficient vehicle within the next twenty years.
-
And by that time, the vanguard, the early adopters, will likely have found a new form of transportation. Perhaps an electric, probably not hydrogen. And within five to seven years, those will start filtering their way through the used market as well.
-
You’re kind of being pessimistic about it because we have remained on fossil fuel vehicles for as long as we have. But it’s important to note that those vehicles have evolved from regular gast to unleaded, and have reached mileage that a consumer in the fifties would have believed impossible.

Dolphin, NM,
All I can say is “I want a lightsaber”.

Rick, what would happen if the Congress dropped the tax on oil in the ground and placed the same amount of tax on gasoline?

Think domestic oil production would increase?

BTW, is this the hybrid design that will change everything? It is a locomotive on wheels.

http://www.gm-volt.com/about/

Dolphin:

May I challenge you to produce 5 items from science fiction works written at least 50 years ago that were mere advancements to technology that already existed at the time of the writing, that have not either come to pass or had a more effective alternative developed?

-
Ah, if that’s the definition of ’science fiction’ you’re using, then I see where you’re coming from, and I largely agree with you. Science fiction writers have often been fantastically good at understanding how existing technologies could be improved. Gregory Benford wrote a great essay about a fiction writer who was investigated during WW II for writing stories about atomic power. I am, on the other hand, still waiting for Larry Niven’s ramscoop engine or anyone’s generation ship. And especially (though it hasn’t been 50 years yet) for Maureen McHugh’s maglev buses with sections that split and rejoin so that passengers don’t have to get out to transfer.
-

I’ll stand by the notion that anyone who thinks today’s solar panels are the most efficient that solar panels will ever be is a moron.

-
Not a moron necessarily, but not all that imaginative. I remember when the first Honda Civics came out, and how we all thought that that was the best mileage anyone could ever get.

I’m with Rick. I want a lightsaber too. And one of those brown cruiser thingies Luke drove in the first, well, fourth Star Wars.

I really think those buses are cooler than any old lightsaber. And they ought to work, given current technology….

#9,
In other words, soak the consumer instead of the company with the record profits.
-
I’m interested in hearing more about the Volt, as I certainly think it’s a step in the right direction. But I don’t think 40 miles on pure electricity is all that aggressive after a switch to Li-ion batteries. That’s just a little over half the distance the EV-1 managed to go on lead acid. This is less a solution than it is an attempt to move toward a long term solution while keeping the energy industry from grumbling too much. I know without a doubt they can do better on that battery.
-
Looking at my own rechargeable batteries around the house (A photographer with a flash can go bankrupt using disposables), my Li-ions have 1/3 more power than NiMh in the same dimension, charge in 1/4 of the time, and last 100% longer. I only even carry the NiMh in case I take a lot of pics and run my second set of Li-ions down before the fifteen minutes required to charge the first set are up. This battery is not even close to what it’s capable of.

That’s a landspeeder, Ivy.
-
I want the Futurama system of tubes.

Ah, if that’s the definition of ’science fiction’ you’re using, then I see where you’re coming from, and I largely agree with you.
.
My statement on science fiction was entirely a response to #9’s assertion that solar panel technology could not be developed to the point of being useful (and affordable), and that to suggest that it could was “science fiction.”
.
People tend to take sunlight for granted and don’t realize just how much raw energy is pounding down on us every day and just is reflected back into space. Solar power is something I’ve really looked into because I think it’s the best hope for completely sustainable clean energy. There are already a fair number of theories on ways to advance solar panel efficiency out of the 2-3% range and into the 20-30% range. If we threw just a little money in that direction I think the results might be well worth the investment.

NM,
Nothing on earth is cooler than smiting thine enemies with a lightsaber. Except maybe force choking them, which I’m not even sure science could make possible.
-
“I find your lack of faith disturbing…”

Hey Ivy,

If you’ve got an extra million dollars laying around, you can reserve yours today!

Rick, you don’t use public transportation much, huh? Not even the smitingest of smites (smotes? blows? whatever) can cool the warrior if s/he gets caught in traffic on the way to the fight.
-
And, I have plenty of faith. Wanna see me forcechoke you?
-
Dolphin, sorry, I was skimming.

NM, I’m afraid public transportation is a long way from functional here in Memphis. But if you’ve gotta take public transportation, I would recommend taking a lightsaber. Particularly if you’re a woman.
-
Force choking me? I usually have to pay extra for that kind of thing.

In other words, soak the consumer instead of the company with the record profits.

Rick, did I write that? You are letting your prejudice interfere with your reading comprehension. The point was to tax the oil companies but at a different point in the process. The point was not, as you write, to tax the consumer. Work with me a little?

My statement on science fiction was entirely a response to #9’s assertion that solar panel technology could not be developed to the point of being useful (and affordable), and that to suggest that it could was “science fiction.”

Again, prejudice interferes with your reading comprehension Dolphin. You may have thought I did not believe the efficiency and breakeven would improve but you would be wrong. As I have written many posts on KnoxViews, Lean Left, and Say Uncle that would document that. But you really don’t care do you Dolphin? Because it is easier to keep your prejudice. Ew, conservative, icky.

The point was it is not cost effective now. Do you know what “early adopters” are? You may see them as brave pioneers, I see them as people who do not understand economics. Alternatives work only when the breakeven makes sense. One of the topics in this thread is the “feel good” practices of environmental evangelists.

I submit these pioneers make things worse. It is much better to have a savvy marketplace where products come to market for reasons other than altruism. The EV-1 would have doomed California to power brownouts and blackouts. But the current hybrids work quite well.

Do you understand? We are lucky the EV-1 was not mass produced. If only a few thousand people had them, no problem. A few hundred thousand could have caused problems. A few million EV-1’s could have been very serious.

I wonder, were either of you Sony Beta-max purchasers? They were better quality than VHS video recorders, but they cost much more and did not hold as much recording.

I am sure someday these technologies will improve. But the late adopters get the best value.

f you’ve gotta take public transportation, I would recommend taking a lightsaber. Particularly if you’re a woman.

If you say so, but I never needed one in 20 years in NYC or here in Nashville. I think the awfulness of public transportation is greatly exaggerated by those who don’t use it. The inconvenience, in places like Nashville, are not debateable. But it’s a comfortable and friendly way to get around.

Um, is not debateable.
-
Too hot. Can’t think.

nm, if the Music City Star passed through Bellevue, I would be so there. Save my van for vacations.

Because it is easier to keep your prejudice. Ew, conservative, icky.
.
Other than my thinking solar power is a viable option for future clean energy, you know nothing about me (or has the day come when being pro-technology automatically makes someone anti-conservative?). Seems I’m not the one writing from a prejudiced viewpoint.
.
The point was it is not cost effective now.
.
And my point is that there ARE options available that ARE cost effective for some people NOW, and if we allow research to continue (better yet, encourage research to continue) there will more options that are cost effective for more people.
.
I am sure someday these technologies will improve.
.
If I were viewing the world through your eyes, I’m not sure how you see these things improving. If you believe (a) they are not yet cost effective, (b) no one should develop new technology out of altruism, and (c) nobody should adopt new technology early, that pretty much WOULD end all advancement.

Rick, did I write that? You are letting your prejudice interfere with your reading comprehension. The point was to tax the oil companies but at a different point in the process. The point was not, as you write, to tax the consumer. Work with me a little?

It’s the only thing that made sense. If the tax on a gallon of gas works out to the same as the tax on leaving it in the ground, what incentive would they have to deceptively call a functional well a dry hole? They would simply pump it out and get it to market.
-
As the former buyer for an electronics store, I understand the concept of early adopters incredibly well. I was the guy saying “buy light on the first generation of plasmas, but we’ll sell all of them to (What I called) vanguard buyers. The next generation will cost 1/3 less and go out to early adopters, etc”. Every single prediction I made was right on the money. So I understand the economics of scale pretty well. I know that the more a product makes it into circulation, the less it costs. I understand that the first generation of buyers are paying for the R&D and establishing the manufacturing means. So do the first generation of buyers.
-
They deserve credit, not derision. It is on the backs of their purchasing that you are able to roll into Best Buy and get a 42″ flat panel TV for $1500.
-
I personally was one the early adopters of HDTV. Although there’s certainly not as much HD programming as I would like, I feel good about my purchase.
-
The EV-1 would certainly have put more of a drain on the electrical grids across the nation— That much is true. But when you talk about the blackouts and brownouts of California, you’re not discussing a real pheonomnon— You’re discussing an artificial energy shortfall created so Enron could charge more for energy, thereby making up the shortfall created by their management sinking every penny the company had into buying up bad investments and Republican politicians.
-
Power grids have always adjusted to accomodate the needs of the people served by the utilities. Some are certainly more responsive than others. California’s population has more than tripled over the last fifty years, so they are not unaccustomed to having to change to cope with higher demand.
-
The BetaMax was more than a little before my time. But I know enough from my time in the electronics industry to tell you that you’ve got its failure wrong.
1. Where JVC licensed VHS out to other manufacturers to offset their development costs, Sony tried to corner the Betamax market. JVC was able to recoup all R&D and production costs immediately.
2. Sony refused to license Betamax technology out to the porn industry. It was that act more than any other that sealed their fate. People love seeing porn, and they didn’t want to go to a theater to do it. Ironically, this aspect of it is playing itself out all over again— Sony is refusing to license Blu-Ray technology to the porn industry, and that’s the only reason Toshiba’s HD-DVD format has been able to remain in the game. They ARE licensing out to porn, and they’ll soon see a payoff. The only thing that will still keep Blu-Ray on top (My opinion here, but my electonics predictions have been solid) is them anchoring the Playstation 3 to it.

Rick, Sony has circumvented its own rules (at least in Japan). They’ve sold a Blu-Ray press to a Taiwanese DVD manufacturer. The Japanese porn industry sends their titles to Taiwan, and then re-import them. That won’t work in America, because our porn industry has thrown itself behind HD-DVD.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/212150/Sony_and_Blu_ray_Get_Down_and_Dirty_With_Porn_Biz_in_Japan

NM, I’ll have to take your word for that. Public transportation is incredibly inconvenient here. I live in a pretty decent working class neighborhood, and I’d still have a hald mile to 3/4 mile walk to get to the nearest bus stop I know of. I’m not as familiar with Nashville, but I think Memphis’s sprawl would make for some ridiculous navigation to get across town. Get on the 7, get dropped off at point B, wait 20 minutes for the 23 to come by, etc.

I live in a pretty decent working class neighborhood, and I’d still have a hald mile to 3/4 mile walk to get to the nearest bus stop I know of.
-
Mine is twice that far away, and I live in Charlotte Park. Fortunately, it’s the #10, which, on weekdays, runs every 20 minutes.
.

Ron, I wasn’t aware of the Asian porn deal. I’ve been out of the business for a few months now. So thanks.
-
The porn industry in America got behind the Hd-DVD standard not out of choice, though. Sony (Sony America, at least) announced, if memory serves, somewhere around three years ago that they would not seek or accept a deal with the entertainment industry. I think that announcement helped Toshiba get Hd-DVD to market, considering that almost every other manufacturer got behind Blu-Ray.

“a deal with the entertainment industry” should have read “adult entertainment industry”.

Rick, that’s the inconvenient part. Although I don’t see anything wrong with walking half a mile or so at each end of the commute — that’s an 8 or 10 minute walk, and not a big deal. But a real public transportation system doesn’t make you wait that long between buses. The #10 ought to be running every 5 or 10 minutes, except overnight; the #26 ought to run every 5 minutes during rush hour, etc.

I think the internet will really lessen the porn industry’s impact on the adoption of a new DVD format. There’s no doubt the porn industry was a major player in the VHS - Beta war, but I think it’s potential effects on the BluRay/HD-DVD battle are being overstated a bit.

I do however think Sony got a big boost by getting BluRay in the PS3

They deserve credit, not derision. It is on the backs of their purchasing that you are able to roll into Best Buy and get a 42″ flat panel TV for $1500.

.

Aren’t early adopters wealthy people? The same people that liberals don’t think are taxed enough? So if early adopters are crucial, as you say, to fund r&d so average Americans can have necessities like 42″ Plasma TV’s, then for the good of the country, shouldn’t we all hope they keep their money so their altruism can help the rest of us?

And my point is that there ARE options available that ARE cost effective for some people NOW, and if we allow research to continue (better yet, encourage research to continue) there will more options that are cost effective for more people.

.

So Dolphin, first you write that even the best solar panels convert only 3 % of sunlight to electricity, then you write that there are breakevens today. Is a 15 year breakeven a good deal to you? Or is it you just want other people to purchase these solar panels? My guess is you do not have one on your apartment.

.

Thank goodness for rich people and their altruism.

So Dolphin, first you write that even the best solar panels convert only 3 % of sunlight to electricity, then you write that there are breakevens today. Is a 15 year breakeven a good deal to you?
.
Actually were I to buy them, I’d prefer the newer ones that breakeven at approximately 7 years and last about 25. That’s a good 18 years of free electricity.
.
And no, I don’t have them on my rented townhouse. Shame on me. Maybe I should just violate the lease (and the law) by doing construction on property I don’t own.
.
As for what I want other people to do. I want other people to do whatever they want, I just want people to be aware that options are out there.

Aren’t early adopters wealthy people?

Some are the wealthiest people paying the current 35% top rate. Others were the middle and upper middle class, who, thanks to the changes in the AMT structure, are now facing a real reduction in their buying power.
-
The peak years of both the plasma TV and EV-1 early adoption were in the Clinton era with a 4.6% higher top rate than we have now. We did quite well.
-
My guess is you do not have one on your apartment.
-
Wow. Sure didn’t take you long to revert to the “If the people proposing an ideal haven’t yet been able to implement it, it’s hypocritical to even mention it” meme, as we saw during the ridiculous Al Gore rants from the right a few months ago. You’re quite effective when you break away from the talking points.
-
Dolphin, you may well be right. It’s difficult to gauge the internet’s impact— We really don’t have a lot to compare it to. Only time will tell.
-
I do think you’re right in that I expect Blu-Ray to be standing atop the heap. I was a little concerned a couple of weeks ago when Sandra Bullock was on leno to promote some crappy movie of hers coming to DVD. Jay said “Available on DVD and Blu-Ray”. She asked him what Blu-Ray was.
-
NM, a coworker of mine took the bus for a few weeks. He kept giving me good reviews of it, but he also kept having problems. He would have to have someone pick him up because a connecting bus never showed up, etc.

If there had been another bus in 5 minutes, it wouldn’t have mattered. As someone who does use the bus to get to work in Nashville, I’m very aware of the problems with a service that isn’t really intended to get much use. I consider myself an early adopter, in local terms.

We interrupt this comment thread for the following announcement:
-
THIS IS GREATEST COMMENT THREAD EVER!
-
One day, commentologists will study it - it will take years to pour over its nuances.
-
All we’re missing now are Monty Python references and the invocation of Godwin’s Law.
-
We went, seamlessly, from Saudi Arabia and Mexican gangs to ASIAN PORN???
-
Now, please proceed. This is incredible.

A thread without end.

“We interrupt this program to annoy you and make things generally irritating.”