|
Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount Administration Split On Europe Invasion Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan Pot, Kettle On Line Two... Allies Seize Paris The Natural Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff A New Beginning My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds) Tim Blair James Lileks Bleats Virginia Postrel Kausfiles Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman) Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson) Samizdata Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle) Pajamas Media Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC) Space Politics (Jeff Foust) Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey) NASA Watch NASA Space Flight Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust) Rockets And Such Hyperbola (Rob Coppinger) Hobby Space A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold) Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore) The Flame Trench (Florida Today) Orlando Sentinel Mars Blog Space Cynic Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington) Selenian Boondocks Tales of the Heliosphere Spaceports (Jack Kennedy) Out Of The Cradle Robot Guy (Ed Minchau) Parabolic Arc Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar) Space Revolution (Ferris Valyn) A Babe In The Universe (L. Riofrio) Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher) Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer) True Anomaly Space Law Probe (Jesse Londin) Planetary Society (Emily Lakdawalla) Space Solar Power (Colonel Michael "Coyote" Smith) Back Off Government Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement) Space, What Now (Tom Hill) Life At The Frontier (Joe Gillin) Troubadour (Brian Swiderski) Space Prizes Spacearium Saturn Follies JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell) Science
Nanobot (Howard Lovy) Lagniappe (Derek Lowe) Geek Press (Paul Hsieh) Gene Expression Carl Zimmer Turned Up To Eleven (Paul Orwin) Cowlix (Wes Cowley) Economics/Finance
Asymmetrical Information (Jane Galt and Mindles H. Dreck) Marginal Revolution (Tyler Cowen et al) Man Without Qualities (Robert Musil) Knowledge Problem (Lynne Kiesling) The Funny Pages
Cox & Forkum Day By Day Iowahawk Happy Fun Pundit Jim Treacher IMAO The Onion Amish Tech Support (Lawrence Simon) Scrapple Face (Scott Ott) Regular Reading
Quasipundit (Adragna & Vehrs) England's Sword (Iain Murray) Daily Pundit (Bill Quick) Pejman Pundit Daimnation! (Damian Penny) Aspara Girl Flit Z+ Blog (Andrew Zolli) Matt Welch Ken Layne The Kolkata Libertarian Midwest Conservative Journal Protein Wisdom (Jeff Goldstein et al) Dean's World (Dean Esmay) Yippee-Ki-Yay (Kevin McGehee) Vodka Pundit Richard Bennett Victory Soap (Andrea Harris) Random Jottings (John Weidner) Natalie Solent On the Third Hand (Kathy Kinsley, Bellicose Woman) Patrick Ruffini Inappropriate Response (Moira Breen) Jerry Pournelle Other Worthy Weblogs
Ain't No Bad Dude (Brian Linse) Airstrip One A libertarian reads the papers Andrew Olmsted Anna Franco Review Ben Kepple's Daily Rant Bjorn Staerk Bitter Girl Catallaxy Files Dawson.com Dodgeblog Dropscan (Shiloh Bucher) End the War on Freedom Fevered Rants Fredrik Norman Heretical Ideas Ideas etc Insolvent Republic of Blogistan James Reuben Haney Libertarian Rant Matthew Edgar Mind over what matters Muslimpundit Page Fault Interrupt Photodude Privacy Digest Quare Rantburg Recovering Liberal Sand In The Gears(Anthony Woodlief) Sgt. Stryker The Blogs of War The Fly Bottle The Illuminated Donkey Unqualified Offerings What she really thinks Where HipHop & Libertarianism Meet Zem : blog Space Policy Links
Space Future The Space Review The Space Show Space Frontier Foundation Space Policy Digest BBS AWOL
USS Clueless (Steven Den Beste) Media Minder Unremitting Verse (Will Warren) World View (Brink Lindsay) The Last Page More Than Zero (Andrew Hofer) Pathetic Earthlings (Andrew Lloyd) Spaceship Summer (Derek Lyons) The New Space Age (Rob Wilson) Rocketman (Mark Oakley) Mazoo Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing) COTS Watch (Michael Mealing) Spacecraft (Chris Hall) Kevin Parkin Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers) Quark Soup (Dave Appell) Site designed by Powered by Movable Type 4.0 |
The View From ObamalandWho 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. 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. 0 TrackBacksListed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The View From Obamaland. TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/9823 19 CommentsLeave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
|
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.