Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

Dook · 2004-12-07 20:21:17

I need to move on to other things, today. This may be my last word for a while.
= = =
Any discussion of fighting "Islam" that does not include ending our cash transfers to Saudi Arabia in exchange for oil is a waste of time.
We CANNOT defeat Islam without kicking the petroleum habit.
Therefore, any strategy that does not include ending our dependence on petroleum simply is not a serious strategy.
To the extent the Right rallies us to fight Islam and does not include getting off oil as a critical element of the strategy, I immediately suspect "fighting Islam" is mere subterfuge for another agenda altogether.
= = =
A call to build 100 new fission plants and terminate ALL imports of foreign oil would go a long way towards convincing me GWB is serious about figting "global Islam"
The cute thing is this can be done under the pretense of Kyoto compliance. :;):
Otherwise, I believe "fighting Islam" is what Rove tells the yahoos while he and Bush dine with Prince Bandar.

I do not believe that paying for Saudi oil is akin to supporting terrorism. What are we supposed to do, steal it?

President Bush is basic. He doesn't have a single futuristic idea, in fact, I doubt he has any ideas other than ones his advisors have told him. Blame them, not the fool who follows them.

The fight is not against Islam, it's against radicals who choose violence over dialogue.

But I completely agree with your opinion that we need to reduce and end our dependance on foreign oil.

About the fission plants, I wasn't aware that we had figured it out yet. Last I read it took much more energy to get the process going and maintain it than the amount of power it produced. So 100 fission plants would increase our need for energy.

What we could and should do is pass legislation that requires vehicle manufacturers to only make fuel cell, bio-diesel, propane, and electric powered vehicles. Most of our energy comes from coal so what foreign oil we use is almost entirely burned by our vehicles. Also the legislation should require any business that sells gasoline to make hydrogen and bio-diesel fuel available as well within a certain timeframe (5yrs?).

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-08 06:21:46

About the fission plants, I wasn't aware that we had figured it out yet. Last I read it took much more energy to get the process going and maintain it than the amount of power it produced. So 100 fission plants would increase our need for energy.

That would be fusion. We've got old dirty fission worked out quite well. Just need a place to bury all that sludge.

What we could and should do is pass legislation that requires vehicle manufacturers to only make fuel cell, bio-diesel, propane, and electric powered vehicles.

Only there's a problem. Fuel cell, bio-diesel, propane and electric vehicles are either unproven or require nationwide infrastructure that doesn't exist, aside from the fact that Americans don't want those vehicles unless they can be made to perform comparably to current vehicles at less cost. As is so often the case, legislation is not the answer.

If we build nuclear plants for all municipal electric power that leaves us with vehicles as the primary source of oil consumption. We have hybrid cars today that can reduce gasoline consumption and are marketable to the American consumer. It buys us time to develop fuel cells and all these other goodies without relying on a breakthrough. Further, with enough fission plants kicking out cheap electricity just watch the use of natural gas decline for cooking and heating.

It is better to sell energy reform to the public than to dictate it to them.

Unless we want to nationalize the automotive and energy industries, but that's a rather drastic step for a country that prides itself on free markets.

BWhite · 2004-12-08 07:53:13

It is better to sell energy reform to the public than to dictate it to them.

Yup. We need a "conservation is patriotic" meme.

clark · 2004-12-08 10:00:02

Why 2010?

China. Of course we could always give up on Taiwan. 2008-2015 will see some sort of resolution, one way or the other, there.

If we're still fighting the war on terror as now, we have few options.

Yup. We need a "conservation is patriotic" meme.

Put it on the back of SUV's as a bumper sticker.

Capitalism dosen't seem to lend itself to conservation

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-08 10:06:30

Capitalism dosen't seem to lend itself to conservation

Sure it does, but not when it's billed as "sacrifices we must all make for the good of ...." blah blah blah. Build a fuel-cell Ford Excretion (or whatever the really big one is called) that accelerates faster, runs quieter and just happens to use no gasoline; and do it for the same price or less and your work is done.

Give Americans what they want but better and you can't lose. Try to go the "conservation because we have to" route and short of total war the motivator just isn't going to be there, and even that may be a stretch these days.

clark · 2004-12-08 10:10:04

Build a fuel-cell Ford Excretion (or whatever the really big one is called) that accelerates faster, runs quieter and just happens to use no gasoline; and do it for the same price or less and your work is done.

Yet as you so aptly point out, no manner of alternative can compete with the exsisting gasoline infrastructure. Not without some form of massive subsidy and artifical social intervention. Both things which are anthema to our capitlism mantra.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-08 10:20:11

Yet as you so aptly point out, no manner of alternative can compete with the exsisting gasoline infrastructure. Not without some form of massive subsidy and artifical social intervention.

Create a demand. Market that Hydrogen SUV, if the technology is all it's hyped as you'll have all sorts of people lining up to buy it (many of them liberals who just can't accept driving an electric box), if it helps sales then set up your own fueling stations in key markets. If you can get the government to offer tax breaks for driving them more power to you, but subsidies aren't necessary. Before long "competitiors" to those fueling stations crop up, after all you're a car maker and don't know beans about running service stations. As the infrastructure grows, fueled by basic capitalist money-seeking forces, your sales also grow, leading to more infrastructure and increased sales, on and on. In a decade or two only weirdos and hotrodders drive petroleum-fueled cars at great expense. Like leaded gas now.

The key is to find out what people want and set it in front of them. Create a market and you'll lose control of it, which is precisely what we want in this case.

clark · 2004-12-08 10:32:35

Create a demand? By building an alternative fueled vehicle that is better or comparable to current vehicles, for the same, or less money, and by building your own servicing stations?

Not enough tea in China to pay for it.

Where is the advantage for the current auto makers? They would undercut their own market, and risk untold amounts of capital on "creating" demand. American business is awash with failed ventures that have all tried to create demand.

Small start ups? Sure. The big automakers are able to offer lower priced vehicles through control of raw material prices, which they can buy in bulk- and build cars in bulk. Smaller companies can't compete.

Then you have each automaker pursuing their own propriety engine and alternative, each with their own propritey fueling station. It's a mess and you can't move forward without society getting in and telling them what to do on some level.

BWhite · 2004-12-08 10:58:22

A gasoline tax which is openly proclaimed to be for paying the salaries of soldiers in Iraq; and for paying

a subsidy to those who drive electric or hydrogen cars.

clark · 2004-12-08 11:05:20

Iraq isn't about oil, it's about freedom.

How about a fat tax on Whoppers and super size anything to subsidize those who eat their veggies?

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-08 11:26:32

Create a demand? By building an alternative fueled vehicle that is better or comparable to current vehicles, for the same, or less money, and by building your own servicing stations?
Not enough tea in China to pay for it.

Not nationally, all at once. Already the automakers are working on hydrogen cars, some of them already produce hybrid vehicles. They all know which way the wind is blowing, it's only a matter of how long. None want to be left behind, which motivates development that will take years to payoff.

Now, say you're Bill Ford and you have a big honkin' Hydrogen truck. You may not be able to make production runs equal to more traditional vehicles for awhile, but you can still make a significant number. Build hydrogen, hybrid, and petrol vehicles concurrently, many of the parts are identical. Build chasis and drop in whatever engine and powertrain you have based on production.

You end up with a fairly small number of hydrogen cars, not enough to sell economically nationwide. So target the release, sell them in California, sell them in Detroit for the hometown PR. If to be competitive you need to sell them at no profit, do it. It's only a small chunk of the market, you can make up for it while establishing market dominance. Dell does this in the PC market already, it works if part of a larger strategy.

Blow some more money on fueling stations in those markets. Not many of them, but enough to keep it going. Once you get to that point, assuming the technology isn't garbage to start with momentum takes over.

American business is awash with failed ventures that have all tried to create demand.

As well as business that became rich and successful trying the same. There are no guarantees.

Small start ups? Sure. The big automakers are able to offer lower priced vehicles through control of raw material prices, which they can buy in bulk- and build cars in bulk. Smaller companies can't compete.

Best of both worlds, a large automaker can create a subsidiary company to build those specific vehicles. It gets the buy-in-bulk pricing and doesn't even need to use Union workers. Build the damn things in Korea if that's what it takes.

Then you have each automaker pursuing their own propriety engine and alternative, each with their own propritey fueling station.

Unless one company establishes market dominance early, then they become the de facto standard. Incentive to do it big.

A gasoline tax which is openly proclaimed to be for paying the salaries of soldiers in Iraq; and for paying
a subsidy to those who drive electric or hydrogen cars.

Which creates problems. One, gasoline is already too expensive. Some people will grab that subsidy and go buy a hydrogen car, meanwhile poor people get screwed paying for the subsidy. Unless you're going to give them cars, in which case we've just skipped into a magical commie land of free stuff, green grass and benevolent government that f's over people you never have to see.

A tax to pay for soldiers salaries? Defense is one of the prime duties of government, if you tell people they have to pay a new tax to cover it a whole mess of people are going ask "what the hell are you doing with the money you're already taking?" Guaranteed recipe for electoral defeat if nothing else.

Subsidizing people for buying hydrogen cars sets a precedent we may not want. It's okay for government to tell people how to live as long as they pay for it? It has a seed of great abuse inherent within it.

BWhite · 2004-12-08 11:35:28

Nice sentiments, Cobra, but I have a question;

Can you spell "oil depletion allowance" or "highway construction spending"

Yup, the government never distorts the free market, unless it chooses to distort the free market.

BWhite · 2004-12-08 11:38:03

Why 2010?
China. Of course we could always give up on Taiwan. 2008-2015 will see some sort of resolution, one way or the other, there.
If we're still fighting the war on terror as now, we have few options.

Speaking of http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/Swissinfo. … 2850]China - - the EU might lift it's arms embargo.

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-08 11:49:40

Can you spell "oil depletion allowance" or "highway construction spending"
Yup, the government never distorts the free market, unless it chooses to distort the free market.

Highway construction, "building roads" is another of those government functions that goes way back, transportation infrastructure.

The oil depletion allowance is another matter, yet giving tax breaks is not the same as subsidies. The one is taking less from those whose behavior you seek to alter, the other is taking more from everyone to alter behavior of the few. Add in that such schemes rarely work out as planned, give a big tax break for doing X and it will be milked for all it's worth with no real regard for accomplishing X, just maximizing deductions. The purpose of government is not to bribe people to do what it thinks is best.

Oh, but it's been tried before so I guess that makes it okay.

Dook · 2004-12-08 12:26:37

Yet as you so aptly point out, no manner of alternative can compete with the exsisting gasoline infrastructure. Not without some form of massive subsidy and artifical social intervention. Both things which are anthema to our capitlism mantra.

Congress gave $1 billion to the major car manufacturers about 10 years ago to research electric vehicles. Where are our electric vehicles?

The gas is going to run out in 50 years and the cost of it is going to continue to rise. Third world nations are moving up to become second world nations and their thirst for fuel is going to continue to drive up the price.

The government passed laws making 55 mph the speed limit, they passed laws requiring environmental controls on vehicle emissions, there are laws for fuel efficiency. They can certainly pass a law requiring all newly manufactured vehicles to be powered by fuel cells, bio-diesel, electric, or propane.

Pass legislation with a time frame, give auto manufacturers and fuel suppliers 6-8 years to meet the requirement. Maybe also provide low interest rate loans to businesses to help them comply. Assess fines for any that do not meet the 8 yr timeframe. The cost of these new vehicles will come down as more are produced. The air quality will improve greatly and our dependance on foreign oil will drop to almost nothing.

Palomar · 2004-12-08 12:39:08

*Just thought I'd mention that this thread is getting "heavy"; over 210 posts so far. Usually a new thread is started at this point. Just a suggestion.

Now back to my regularly scheduled marveling at the wonders of the universe....

--Cindy

::EDIT:: (Just now saw this, couldn't pass it up)

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to uparmor our vehicles?" Wilson asked. A big cheer arose from the approximately 2,300 soldiers in the cavernous hangar who assembled to see and hear the secretary of defense.
Rumsfeld hesitated and asked Wilson to repeat his question.
"We do not have proper armored vehicles to carry with us north," Wilson said after asking again.
Rumsfeld replied that troops should make the best of the conditions they face and said the Army was pushing manufacturers of vehicle armor to produce it as fast as humanly possible.
And, the defense chief added, armor is not always a savior in the kind of combat U.S. troops face in Iraq, where the insurgents' weapon of choice is the roadside bomb, or improvised explosive device that has killed and maimed hundreds, if not thousands, of American troops since the summer of 2003.
"You can have all the armor in the world on a tank and it can (still) be blown up," Rumsfeld said.

*Thanks for that reassurance, Mr. Rumsfeld! Not.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u … 14]Article

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-08 13:48:33

The government passed laws making 55 mph the speed limit, they passed laws requiring environmental controls on vehicle emissions, there are laws for fuel efficiency. They can certainly pass a law requiring all newly manufactured vehicles to be powered by fuel cells, bio-diesel, electric, or propane.

There are two ways to look at this problem. One is to find a way to make people do what you want them to do, this way takes care of itself once it gets going and everyone is happy. The other is to compel them to do what you want, which breeds resistance and greatly increases the effort required. Legislation forces grudging compliance, marketing creates willful cooperation.

But far be it from me to stop the American government from doing things the hard way, I come off as a malcontent loon otherwise.

On the armor comments, a few points to consider. Heavy armored vehicles are suitable for certain tasks, APC's deliver troops and provide some cover, both physical and through firepower. Tanks are heavier, meant mainly to fight other tanks in modern designs. Heavy armored vehicles aren't really useful for fighting terrorists and insurgents within a city, unless you simply want to level the place and move on in which case you don't need forces on the ground at all.

What we have now is a situation with a slew of lighter vehicles in those operations, notably the Stryker, essentially an armored car. It's part of the "lighter, faster" military that's been in vogue since the fall of the Soviet Union, rapid response to troublespots with forces sufficient to defeat third world armies in vintage Russian tanks. So we can carry more in a C-5 Galaxy but they haven't the same punch or protection.

Further still, many people (most outside the military, but not all) have voiced complaints about the light armor of the Humvee, which was never meant to be an "armored vehicle" in the strict sense to start with. It's the new Jeep, a utility truck that often has weapons mounted on it. It's not meant to be used like a tank.

So the question we then have to ask before we can determine why we have insufficient armor is what are we trying to do?. If we're putting an Abrams tank against any Russian model (yep, even the much-vaunted "black eagle") my money's on the Abrams. But the Iraqi army isn't what we're facing now, no Republican Guard T-72's, not so much as a conscript in a rusted T-55. Our tanks are reduced to moving bunkers in the streets and artillery pieces. Strykers and Humvees aren't much more versatile, it's grunts on the ground we're currently relying on. It just happens to be the form of combat that negates most of our technological advantages.

In short, the "push button" war has been revealed as the fantasy it always was. Short of personal shields, we're back to grunts with guns slugging it out. The military culture isn't yet acclimated to this, it's the product of decades of preparation for a showdown of epic proportions with the red menace, "toe to toe nuclear combat with the Russkis" to borrow a line. Now we're occupying deserts and trying build democratic states... we're new to this, but we're going to have to get good at it.

I'll lock this thread shortly, continue in "Political Potpourri II"

Cobra Commander · 2004-12-08 13:53:26

Okay, closed down. I'll leave it up for awhile for reference, sooner or later one of us will dump it. Anything you want to burn people with later, copy it now.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2004-12-07 20:21:17

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#202 2004-12-08 06:21:46

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#203 2004-12-08 07:53:13

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#204 2004-12-08 10:00:02

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#205 2004-12-08 10:06:30

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#206 2004-12-08 10:10:04

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#207 2004-12-08 10:20:11

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#208 2004-12-08 10:32:35

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#209 2004-12-08 10:58:22

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#210 2004-12-08 11:05:20

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#211 2004-12-08 11:26:32

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#212 2004-12-08 11:35:28

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#213 2004-12-08 11:38:03

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#214 2004-12-08 11:49:40

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#215 2004-12-08 12:26:37

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#216 2004-12-08 12:39:08

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#217 2004-12-08 13:48:33

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

#218 2004-12-08 13:53:26

Re: Political Potpourri - ...anything political goes.

Board footer