Powell on the National Guard

"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:flyZb.9566$Ru5.1155@okepread03...
"ArtKramr" wrote

Until we get the last drop of oil. Then they can burn in hell.

Right now Freedom runs on oil. We tried nuclear, and bio-fuels, and
until we get a Congress willing to go Hydrogen in 10 years, (instead of
another wasted trip to the Moon, or Mar's), then we will all burn in hell.

We have an energy policy that is based on depletion.

Really? In that case, you won't have any problem explaining to those of us who
still don't get it why, when our oil supply is recognizably being depleted
without replenishment, we are (1) still manufacturing and selling gas-guzzling
SUVs and (2) why we haven't required every vehicle on our roads to be able to
get 40 or 50 mpg as a prerequisite for getting a license plate.

In any case, our current energy policy was put together by a commission
appointed by the President and chaired by the Vice President, whose membership
seems to be a secret, along with the minutes of the meetings they may have had
that evolved into our national policy. It's not even clear what the policy
actually is, much less the reasons for it, since everything about that
commission has been kept secret by the Vice President, who is now or shortly
will be defending himself against a lawsuit before the Supreme Court which was
filed to force the administration to make public the details of the commission's
proceedings.

It's entirely possible that, in the light of day, we may learn that our energy
policy is aimed at the protection of certain economic interests first, rather
than the nation's best interests. We may find out one of these days.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote
"D. Strang" wrote
"ArtKramr" wrote

Until we get the last drop of oil. Then they can burn in hell.

Right now Freedom runs on oil. We tried nuclear, and bio-fuels, and
until we get a Congress willing to go Hydrogen in 10 years, (instead of
another wasted trip to the Moon, or Mar's), then we will all burn in hell.

We have an energy policy that is based on depletion.

Really? In that case, you won't have any problem explaining to those of us who
still don't get it why, when our oil supply is recognizably being depleted
without replenishment, we are (1) still manufacturing and selling gas-guzzling
SUVs and (2) why we haven't required every vehicle on our roads to be able to
get 40 or 50 mpg as a prerequisite for getting a license plate.

We are at the top of the production curve. While it seems there is no end to the
fossil fuel, our rate of consumption, and there being a fixed quantity of reserves,
means depletion. We can slow production, but as the population increases, then
consumption increases. SUV's sales are based on cheap credit, not oil. I don't
know of any neighbor who owns their vehicle. No one knows what a dollars
worth, but we know that as the Euro goes up, the dollar goes down, and 70%
of our dollars are overseas. We are about as set-up as we were before the
depression hit.

It's entirely possible that, in the light of day, we may learn that our energy
policy is aimed at the protection of certain economic interests first, rather
than the nation's best interests. We may find out one of these days.

The energy policy is a compromise between investment in the future, and
the status-quo.

We could really put a dent in oil imports, if we invested in non-fossil based
deployment. Such an investment would be a 30% tax write-off for home
developments that have generation facilities (solar, thermal, biodiesel, etc).

"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:FAIZb.9588$Ru5.192@okepread03...
"George Z. Bush" wrote

Right now Freedom runs on oil. We tried nuclear, and bio-fuels, and
until we get a Congress willing to go Hydrogen in 10 years, (instead of
another wasted trip to the Moon, or Mar's), then we will all burn in hell.

We have an energy policy that is based on depletion.

Really? In that case, you won't have any problem explaining to those of us
who
still don't get it why, when our oil supply is recognizably being depleted
without replenishment, we are (1) still manufacturing and selling
gas-guzzling
SUVs and (2) why we haven't required every vehicle on our roads to be able
to
get 40 or 50 mpg as a prerequisite for getting a license plate.

We are at the top of the production curve. While it seems there is no end to
the
fossil fuel, .....

You must be pretty young to forget that, while Jimmy Carter was president, the
fragility of our oil supply was recognized to the point that the addition of
ethanol to gasoline was initiated in an effort to stretch our resources. It's
disingenuous to suggest that our shrinking oil supplies come as a shock to us.
We've been aware of it for a long time, if you count a quarter century or so a
long time.

.......our rate of consumption, and there being a fixed quantity of reserves,
means depletion. We can slow production, but as the population increases,
then
consumption increases. SUV's sales are based on cheap credit, not oil. I
don't
know of any neighbor who owns their vehicle......

Yours must indeed be an unusual community where neighbors discuss whether or not
they buy their cars for cash or on credit. Where I live, that's considered
personal, and the only way you can find out is to specifically ask, at risk of
offending a neighbor by your nosiness and being told to MYOB.

........No one knows what a dollars worth, but we know that as the Euro goes
up, the dollar
goes down, and 70% of our dollars are overseas. We are about as set-up as we
were before the depression hit.

I'm not sure I follow the relevance of all this. I guess my noodle is running
on fumes, because I haven't read your explanation of why, with an apparently
dwindling oil supply, we still haven't yet adopted the two conservation measures
I suggested above.

It's entirely possible that, in the light of day, we may learn that our
energy
policy is aimed at the protection of certain economic interests first,
rather
than the nation's best interests. We may find out one of these days.

The energy policy is a compromise between investment in the future, and
the status-quo.

How do we know it's a compromise when we don't know which alternatives, if any,
were investigated and evaluated while the policy was being formulated?

We could really put a dent in oil imports, if we invested in non-fossil based
deployment. Such an investment would be a 30% tax write-off for home
developments that have generation facilities (solar, thermal, biodiesel, etc).

Our ethanol experience suggests much wishful thinking on your part,
unfortunately for us all.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote

Our ethanol experience suggests much wishful thinking on your part,
unfortunately for us all.

Ethanol is a welfare program. It has nothing to do with future energy.

What I'm talking about is the DOE funded Algae program. The NREL
is creating exciting Hydrogen fuel-cell ideas, and studies:

http://www.nrel.gov/

This organization can do real research with the money that NASA is
blowing, and no people were killed in the upper atmosphere over Dallas
to do it.

Algae feeds on CO2, an Algae pond at every fossil power plant would
jump-start this oil producer.

http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs...m_algae_es.pdf

There is a point where the production of biodiesel is profitable, and I believe
it has been stated that if diesel prices reach $2.00 a gallon, that the
current technology in algae production would be able to match that price,
with future prices going lower as production increases, and technology
improves.

ArtKramr wrote:

"ArtKramr" wrote

we still don't have Iraq under control.

We're still deployed in Germany, Korea, Colombia, Bolivia,
and the Sinai, etc...

We marched into Germany and got the entire country under control in about 15
minutes. Why can't we get Iraq under control? What thehell is going on here ?

I don't think the techniques used in 1939-45 on Germany
(or Japan) would go over too well today.


SMH

George Z. Bush wrote:

"D. Strang" wrote in message
We have an energy policy that is based on depletion.

Really? In that case, you won't have any problem explaining to those of us who
still don't get it why, when our oil supply is recognizably being depleted
without replenishment, we are (1) still manufacturing and selling gas-guzzling
SUVs and (2) why we haven't required every vehicle on our roads to be able to
get 40 or 50 mpg as a prerequisite for getting a license plate.

In any case, our current energy policy was put together by a commission
appointed by the President and chaired by the Vice President, whose membership
seems to be a secret, along with the minutes of the meetings they may have had
that evolved into our national policy. It's not even clear what the policy
actually is, much less the reasons for it, since everything about that
commission has been kept secret by the Vice President, who is now or shortly
will be defending himself against a lawsuit before the Supreme Court which was
filed to force the administration to make public the details of the commission's
proceedings.

It's entirely possible that, in the light of day, we may learn that our energy
policy is aimed at the protection of certain economic interests first, rather
than the nation's best interests. We may find out one of these days.

You think this is new to GW Bush???

Get real! It's been our policy almost since we became an
oil driven economy.

How many miles do you put in on the bicycle, or on foot?
How many mpg does your vehicle get? Have you bought an
electric car yet? Modified your car to run on propane or
cow manure (methane)? Converted your oil run house heat?

Talk is cheap.


SMH

"D. Strang" wrote in message
news:gXJZb.9592$Ru5.1337@okepread03...
"George Z. Bush" wrote

Our ethanol experience suggests much wishful thinking on your part,
unfortunately for us all.

Ethanol is a welfare program. It has nothing to do with future energy.

You don't know what you're talking about. When you pour a gallon of it into
your gas tank, that's one less gallon of gasoline that you're going to need,
because it's supposed to burn just about as good as gasoline does. That has to
do with reducing gasoline consumption, the way I see it. Unfortunately, for
some reason, it never caught on with consumers.

What I'm talking about is the DOE funded Algae program. The NREL
is creating exciting Hydrogen fuel-cell ideas, and studies:

http://www.nrel.gov/

This organization can do real research with the money that NASA is
blowing, and no people were killed in the upper atmosphere over Dallas
to do it.

Algae feeds on CO2, an Algae pond at every fossil power plant would
jump-start this oil producer.

http://www.ott.doe.gov/biofuels/pdfs...m_algae_es.pdf

There is a point where the production of biodiesel is profitable, and I
believe
it has been stated that if diesel prices reach $2.00 a gallon, that the
current technology in algae production would be able to match that price,
with future prices going lower as production increases, and technology
improves.

That's all well and good, but 25+ years after they started looking into the
possibilities, there is still nothing available that is cost-effective enough to
put on the market. Since no one denies that we ought to be able to rub our
bellies and scratch our heads at the same time, why haven't they created greater
demand on vehicle manufacturers to produce engines capable of simultaneously
reducing fuel consumption and expanding the life of our petroleum reserves and
stocks while, at the same time, continuing to explore alternative sources?
That's a rhetorical question, and I'm sure you know the answer as well as I.

George Z.

"George Z. Bush" wrote

Ethanol is a welfare program. It has nothing to do with future energy.

You don't know what you're talking about. When you pour a gallon of it into
your gas tank, that's one less gallon of gasoline that you're going to need,
because it's supposed to burn just about as good as gasoline does.

For every Gallon of Ethanol, you pay for it twice. Once for the subsidy to
farmers (in the form of welfare), and once again from the retail chain.

...why haven't they created greater
demand on vehicle manufacturers to produce engines capable of simultaneously
reducing fuel consumption and expanding the life of our petroleum reserves and
stocks while, at the same time, continuing to explore alternative sources?

It's called an unfunded mandate. Think about it this way. If we gave GM and
Ford the same amount of money we ****ed away on the Shuttle and Space Station,
we would be floating in biodiesel, and no one would know who the Bin Laden
family was.

On 21 Feb 2004 00:55:35 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

We marched into Germany and got the entire country under control in about 15
minutes. Why can't we get Iraq under control? What thehell is going on here ?



Arthur Kramer

Might want to reconsider that statement with a look at some history
books. First, we marched into Germany in about a year from D-Day to
the fall of Berlin. Then, it took nearly two years before the country
was stabilized and functional again. Follow that with about four more
years of occupation before it was self-governing (although divided).
Then, the reunification only took another forty years.

Conversely, we marched into Iraq and got the country under control in
three weeks. We lost less than one percent of the casualties we had in
the march into Germany in '44-'45. Now, we are less than one year from
the start of hostilities in Iraq, we less than a third of the troops
involved that were participants in the occupation of Germany and the
country is within four months of establishing a democratic
legislature. That's a pretty remarkable achievement.

It will take time to truly democratize the country, but failure to do
so will destabilize the Middle East and simply mean that we will have
to shed a lot more blood against a much more vigorous enemy in the
region at some future date.

I shouldn't be quoting to you what the effort was to take control of
Germany or what the conditions of the occupation were. You were there,
but our post above seems to indicate that you've forgotten the
magnitude of the effort.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
George Z. Bush wrote:

"D. Strang" wrote in message
We have an energy policy that is based on depletion.

Really? In that case, you won't have any problem explaining to those of us
who
still don't get it why, when our oil supply is recognizably being depleted
without replenishment, we are (1) still manufacturing and selling
gas-guzzling
SUVs and (2) why we haven't required every vehicle on our roads to be able
to
get 40 or 50 mpg as a prerequisite for getting a license plate.

In any case, our current energy policy was put together by a commission
appointed by the President and chaired by the Vice President, whose
membership
seems to be a secret, along with the minutes of the meetings they may have
had
that evolved into our national policy. It's not even clear what the policy
actually is, much less the reasons for it, since everything about that
commission has been kept secret by the Vice President, who is now or shortly
will be defending himself against a lawsuit before the Supreme Court which
was
filed to force the administration to make public the details of the
commission's
proceedings.

It's entirely possible that, in the light of day, we may learn that our
energy
policy is aimed at the protection of certain economic interests first,
rather
than the nation's best interests. We may find out one of these days.

You think this is new to GW Bush???

Get real! It's been our policy almost since we became an
oil driven economy.

How many miles do you put in on the bicycle, or on foot?

I don't own a bicycle, and hardly get out of my yard without a cane. What;s
that got to do with anything?

How many mpg does your vehicle get?

My 92 Taurus gets 27 and my 01 Buick gets 28. I wish they could both get more,
but I don't build cars, I just use what's available.

Have you bought an electric car yet?

No, and I live in a town with some 400 other residents, and I haven't seen a
single one around. I think it's safe to conclude that they aren't what you
would call on the market yet.

Modified your car to run on propane or cow manure (methane)?

Not yet. I'm waiting for all those people whose vehicles get them 10 or 13 mpg
to get theirs up to 27 or 28 mpg before I start looking into it.

Converted your oil run house heat?

My house heat runs mostly on electricity, and partially on natural gas. I think
we were talking about cars before you changed the subject, undoubtedly hoping I
wouldn't notice.

George Z.