Who dare call it fascism? Jeffrey Lord does:
…when faced with a disagreeable problem (in this case the lack of jobs) the answer for Obama always seems to get back to the manipulation of the political process to achieve the desired result.
Are Obamalanders uncomfortable with the free-market driven success of talk radio? Then they will “figure out ways to use the political process” to shut it down. In the case of talk radio, how else to explain the threatening Reid-Obama letter to Rush Limbaugh’s business partner? How else does one explain the attempt to retrieve the “Fairness Doctrine” from the dustbin of history? These are nothing more or less than the “use of the political process” to subvert someone else’s freedom. Period.
Are Obamaland followers hostile to oil? Do they hate SUVs? Do they think you have no right to heat or cool your own home beyond what they consider politically correct? Do they think you should pay $5 — or $6 or $7 or $8 or more — for gas at the pump to ensure you conform to the Obamaland world-view? Yes, they do think all of this and their Obamaland answer is inevitable. They will “use the political process” to stop drilling off shore in its tracks. So too with stopping the use of oil shale or ANWR or anything else that even hints at allowing average Americans their basic freedom to drive whatever vehicle wherever they damn well please whenever they damn well please. In Obamaland it is not only perfectly acceptable, it is gospel from the secular bible that they must use the political process to stop refineries from being built, to keep nuclear power plants from being built, to keep coal from being burned. Use the political process to forcibly mandate the temperature inside every single American home. As a matter of fact, why not just go all the way and nationalize the oil companies — this actually being suggested by Obamaland’s New York Congressman Maurice Hinchey.
He also has the full quote from Obama that I’d missed part of the first time around:
“We can’t drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we’re living in the desert or we’re living in the tundra, and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world’s energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we’ll be fine. Don’t worry about us. That’s not leadership.”
This is economic idiocy. Why in the world would energy consumption be expected to correlate with population? Yes, we have much higher per-capita energy usage than much of the world (e.g., Africa). But we also produce much greater wealth per capita than much of the world, and much of that wealth goes to make the world wealthier, in many ways. The notion that we should only use energy in proportion to our population is economic ignorance of the first rank. In other words, it’s exactly what I would expect from a Democrat, and particularly Obama. Though to be fair, there are a lot of economically ignorant Republicans as well, including their current standard bearer, by his own admission. But unlike Obama, he at least admits it.
Better a candidate with some idea what he doesn’t know than a candidate infested with backwards ideas, willing to use any means necessary to cram those wrong ideas down all our throats.
Who is Peter supporting?
You know, I went over to climate progress. whatever…. (I think I got there from here), and I stated my position in the various comments.
Basically, I stated that at best, their policies of cutting off energy production ahead of alternative energy technology maturation was a policy of “Managed Decline”. A term I think I first heard here.
None of them refuted it, as a matter of fact, they seem to rejoice in the coming lower quality of life.
In another thread, where a Georgia judge found that CO2 is a pollutant, I posed the idea that if CO2 is a pollutant, then EVERY human activity can be constrained. Up to the local utility controlling your thermostat, and your own personal travel limited.
While I was polite, I made the mistake of saying Gore should lead by example.
I guess their computers run on the static electricity generated by their hairshirts. I don’t know where else energy is going to come from.
I need to sharpen my debating skills.
…if CO2 is a pollutant, then EVERY human activity can be constrained. Up to the local utility controlling your thermostat, and your own personal travel limited.
Thermostats and travel? Hell, they can tell you how much you’re allowed to exhale.
Years ago when Algore was starting on his crusade, I told friends he should lead by example, and cut his own CO2 emissions by 25 percent. He could easily do this by only exhaling 3 out of every 4 breaths…
OK. These people have me worried.
They’re willing to inflict hardship and change on me now, because they say the coming “predicted” Gorebal Wormening will do worse.
They’re going to do this to me for my own good.
They’re going to have help from either candidate.
The amount of “Green” crap spewed out at me from the TV, from companies trying to prove their enviro-creds annoys me.
This whole thing is reaching the level of a religion.
With the fever pitch of this whole thing, what defense does the average conservative have against “watermelons” and thier useful idiots????
” Captain Nerd wrote:
He could easily do this by only exhaling 3 out of every 4 breaths…”
Maybe that’s why he’s gotten so portly.
Global warming, if it is a problem, or even human caused is irrelevant because we simply cannot reduce CO2 emissions enough to make a difference. I mean, regulating cattle feed to decrease sheep methane fart emissions (it was proposed in New Zealand)? Please…
I agree, however, that all oil and gas products should be taxed and the money injected into DOE and DARPA projects promoting alternative technologies, namely in energy generation, storage, transmission, enact tax cuts for clean tech, and so on.
“Leland wrote:
Who is Peter supporting?”
Conidering his consideration against “Backward Ideas”, he is certainly not supporting Obama. Dysfunctional backward ideas are all he has.
Actually, the ratio of GDP to energy used also matters; this very roughly measures the energy efficiency of a country’s economy.
The USA does very poorly indeed at this – for example, the USA uses roughly twice as much energy for the same dollar value of production as does Japan. It would be an interesting exercise to find out how much difference it would make to the overall total if, for example, the energy efficiency of a typical American car was raised to the typical European value.
In any case, there is no excuse whatsoever for wasting an irreplaceable resource (and arguably mucking up the world’s climate in the process) just for the sake of it. I’ve asked this before and I’ll probably ask it again; just what is an American, who insists on driving a 2-ton pile of steel with a 4-litre engine to collect a couple of bags of groceries, compensating for?
If there was a cheap, clean, abundant source of energy that could be used (even indirectly) for automotive uses, this entire discussion would be irrelevant. But there isn’t.
just what is an American, who insists on driving a 2-ton pile of steel with a 4-litre engine to collect a couple of bags of groceries, compensating for?
A luxury SUV offers plenty of advantages. More space and comfort, doodads, better safety, and the usual advantages of owning a car like point to point driving and the ability to carry cargo.
Better safety for whom? Certainly not for any unfortunate pedestrian, or lesser vehicle (like perhaps a bicycle?) you might hit. Never mid, though; after all, cyclists and pedestrians are lower than the dirt under your tyres, right?
Mind you, I take the point about “more space”. Probably needed, given that the USA is the obesity capital of the world.
I’ve asked this before and I’ll probably ask it again; just what is an American, who insists on driving a 2-ton pile of steel with a 4-litre engine to collect a couple of bags of groceries, compensating for?
Yes, you do have a penchant for asking foolish pop-psychology questions, so we do expect you to ask it again, despite the stupidity of it.
If there was a cheap, clean, abundant source of energy that could be used (even indirectly) for automotive uses, this entire discussion would be irrelevant.
Move to California, buy a house near the El Diablo nuclear plant, and buy a Honda FCX Clarity with a home energy station. Admit the availability of the FCX is not quite abundant yet, but the nuclear power is… well maybe not in California.
So Fletch writes we’re arrogant, fat and lazy. I am extremely qualified to demostrate to you that’s not true in my case, well, the fat and lazy part.
Fletcher Christian wrote:
“…how much difference it would make to the overall total….the energy efficiency of a typical American car was raised to the typical European value”
If it was, then the cities would probably start to smog over. Keep in mind that in the U.S. efficiency is often lost as the result of the engine management systems working to find the lowest emissions produced rather then the greatest efficiency. This is why many people with 4-bangers get ECU “chips” to boost power and efficiency to defeat the emission controls. Otherwise, there is no replacement for displacement.
I just marvel at how these Euro types who live in concentrated regions, have different emission standards, and don’t produce as much wealth as the U.S., come off trying to tell us how to live. America is a big place and our cities are sprawling regions. We could put together all the pavement of U.S. highway infrastructure and coat the entire surface of Great Britain.
“safety for whom? Certainly not for any unfortunate pedestrian, or lesser vehicle (like perhaps a bicycle?) you might hit.”
Reality check…Does a pedestrian reallly fair that much better against a Mini over a Hummer. Don’t you think trying to legitimize your claims using such propositions is a bit of red herring? We all can agree that getting run over by a vehicle is bad for a pedestrian. Then, to turn around and say, so SUV’s are evil is a bit of stretch.
Fletcher Christian wrote:
“Better safety for whom? Certainly not for any unfortunate pedestrian, or lesser vehicle (like perhaps a bicycle?)”
Yesterday I took a bike ride out to a job interview. The road I took most of the distance was very bicycle friendly despite a 45-50MPH speed limit. As long as I had the bike lane and traffic was orderly, no problem. Had there been a collision, I don’t expect 500lbs vs. 2000lbs. would have made much difference.
Our European friend is almost asking the right question.
THe right question isn’t “why is America and Americans so flawed?”. It’s “Why is the rest of the world inferior?”
Since he probably can’t understand the answer, we can safely tell him without endangering our supremacy. The ability/option to take off the hairshirt, to “live large”, lets us try things that occasionally work out better than “economizers” can predict. These “black swan” more than pay for the “waste”.
It must really suck to know, as Mr. Christian does, that the fat and stupid Americans that he dispises are demonstrably superior.
It’s not unlike Churchill’s observation about democracy as a form of govt.
“Reality check…Does a pedestrian reallly fair that much better against a Mini over a Hummer.”
Actually, yes he does. Especially if said pedestrian is a child. The basic reason is that the pedestrian has a chance of going over the top of the vehicle rather than being hit square-on, or worse still going under it. Sensible-sized vehicles usually also have bumpers and engine compartment covers designed to minimise damage to the pedestrian in the event of an accident. The evidence for this comes from traffic accident statistics and also from tests with dummies. A similar, but much more extreme, difference, is the reason why “bull-bars” are now illegal in most of the EU if not all.