Billmon:
|
|
|
|
Back to Main
|
||
|
April 26, 2006
WB: Blessed Addiction
Billmon:
Comments
Sticker Shock – Popular Science Posted by: PeeDee | Apr 26 2006 23:00 utc | 3 Flippity Flop… Posted by: galloping cat | Apr 27 2006 2:40 utc | 4 whoops…I see below that Bernhard has already captured the relevant quotes. Posted by: galloping cat | Apr 27 2006 2:53 utc | 5 @PeeDee: Be careful what you wish for; after the “War on Terrorism” started, worldwide terrorism went up 300%. It’s been said before, but: maybe we should encourage Bush to declare a “War on Jobs”. Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Apr 27 2006 3:09 utc | 6 Just like Reagan’s 1980’s crack pipeline, (that began the collapse of the American Dream), ol’ George Bush is the pimp for the Big Oil Cartel, buying oil in US$’s, underproducing gasoline for US demand. When Saddam dumped too much ‘crack’ crude on the market in 1990, and again in 2000, George’s Cartel rounded up his militia. $15 a barrel?! Not on my watch! Off they rode to make the “hit”, no different than the Kali Cartel. Posted by: Periwinkle White | Apr 27 2006 4:45 utc | 7 Periwinkle, could you please elaborate on this: Posted by: jonku | Apr 27 2006 6:56 utc | 8 re gas – Peri is referring to huge amounts of nat gas burned off in Alaska and Africa because there is no means to transport. The amounts are staggering. sorry no time for a link. However, it is not easy to transport. Posted by: correlator | Apr 27 2006 16:53 utc | 9 I still can’t get over the mentality that equates a nation’s economic strength to the rate at which it consumes fossil fuels. Posted by: ralphieboy | Apr 27 2006 17:11 utc | 10 wapo: Going a Short Way to Make a Point
sure, pick on the legislators by all means, but funny how milbank failed to mention the 14-vehicle motorcade that the guy playing the role of the president travels around in to make speechs acknowledging that the u.s. has an addiction to oil & he’s looking for ways to do something about it. Posted by: b real | Apr 27 2006 18:28 utc | 11 I’m totally serious: I haven’t been in a car, not once for any reason, in 13 years. buses, yes. cars, no. Posted by: slothrop | Apr 27 2006 18:52 utc | 12 There is plenty of oil in the world, plenty of gas, (so much so that they’ve been burning it off at the wellhead), and plenty of gasoline, except in the US, where, instead of making investment in reliable, competitive, been around for twenty years low-sulfur fuel process, Big Oil chose to bid up the price of sweet crude and reward investors with the profits. And … they were right! Kill off Saddam, get rid of cheap crude, don’t build refinery processing capacity, and you can get any price for gasoline you want. Posted by: Noisette | Apr 27 2006 19:49 utc | 13 one chracteristic of bourgeois madness reproduced endlessly by car culture is the manic compulsion to travel. why do we always need, a need so deep it drives us to suicide, to leave where we are? why isn’t our home a site of continuous discovery and surprise? Posted by: slothrop | Apr 27 2006 20:10 utc | 14 I haven’t been in a car, not once for any reason, in 13 years. Posted by: annie | Apr 27 2006 21:54 utc | 15 @sloth — wish I could match your record… can’t quite, due to employer requirements and occasional taxi rides. hope to spend the last 1/3 of lifespan w/o any more air travel and hardly any car travel. it is possible. people just don’t want to believe it, or don’t want to accept the idea of “trade off”, i.e. when budget (be it money or energy) is limited you cannot have cake and eat it too. Posted by: DeAnander | Apr 27 2006 22:00 utc | 16 @sloth an afterthought: doncha love “organic” produce flown 1500 miles from the S Hemi? might as well be marinated in jet kerosene. and how about “eco tourism” — if you use a plane to get there, wtf does the “eco” mean? Posted by: DeAnander | Apr 27 2006 22:02 utc | 17 Problem is all the decisions about transport, were decided in favor of the individual, internal combustion engine, over the last 40 years. Posted by: Groucho | Apr 27 2006 22:21 utc | 18 I haven’t been in a car, not once for any reason, in 13 years. Posted by: dan of steele | Apr 27 2006 22:27 utc | 19 catch 22 Wow! I myself have not been in a car in say, oh, I don’t know, about 13 seconds. (<---not proud just truthful). I blame the system. No really, the urban system.
I can't for the life of me figure out why amtrac is not fully funded and extended to meet so many local, semi-local and long distance needs. Only in a sane xMerica right?
When I was in Thailand in 2000 they had just opened their metro and light rail electric tram system. It was a beautiful thing, with the exception that the majority of Thai's could not afford to ride it. Irony, no?
At that time they had also opened and passed a referendum of a “None of the above vote“ which meant, –to my summation– that if the parties lost to a ‘none of the above vote’ then the whole process stated afresh. Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 27 2006 23:33 utc | 21 Addendum:
However, there are serious pro’s and cons to my original post of the ‘none of the above’ideal. Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 27 2006 23:46 utc | 22 Uncle, Nevada tried to implement a none of the above option, but since that might result in actual citizens being able to elect someone who represents their interests, it was ruled “unconstitutional”! Posted by: jj | Apr 28 2006 0:49 utc | 23 in australia you have to vote, i think. Posted by: annie | Apr 28 2006 1:54 utc | 24 @Uncle $cam: I’ve been thinking about the idea of a U.S. tax on non-voters for a while. Given the American tendency to put the pocketbook before everything else — see the way gas prices have made the war unpopular? — this is probably the only way to definitely raise voter turnout. Despite the obvious benefit, this approach has some serious problems, at least in the U.S.: — In order to pass such a law, lawmakers would either have to be more concerned with good representation than with reelection or would have to be convinced that a system with high turnout would still allow them to get reelected. — In order to avoid changing such a scheme into a tax on the disenfranchised, a serious effort would have to be made to enforce the 15th amendment, or possibly it would have to be made possible to vote at ANY polling place (which would either require a vastly slower vote count than ever before, in order to avoid counting it when one person votes several times in different locations, or a huge injection of technology — and who is trustworthy to create said technology?) — Is there any way to raise the odds that people who would vote only to avoid a tax would do so in a rational, informed manner? Posted by: The Truth Gets Vicious When You Corner It | Apr 28 2006 3:40 utc | 25 @Vicious Truth Posted by: Monolycus | Apr 28 2006 4:04 utc | 26 Vicarious [addiction] Posted by: Uncle $cam | Apr 28 2006 4:13 utc | 27 Given that the debate in the JackAss Party is how to manipulate the masses into voting for someone who will destroy them, I cannot imagine what relevance requiring voting has. Unless it’s preceded by a measuring requiring representatives to represent the interests of their constituents, it’s akin to requiring people to be hit by a truck. Posted by: jj | Apr 28 2006 5:08 utc | 28 Obligatory voting? Like for Saddam? Posted by: Noisette | Apr 28 2006 19:19 utc | 29 |
||