Analysis and rationality in a nonrational world

June 13, 2006

We will get fooled again

Filed under: Government — analysis @ 7:53 pm

Certain Democrats should be ashamed of themselves for rising to the bait yet again. At a time when most Americans have apparently realized that the White House and Congress are doing very little for national security or the economy, but are instead breaking the law of the land to enrich themselves on a scale never before seen in this country – not even during the Gilded Age – the Republicans have brought out those tired old gags of constitutional amendments to ban things nobody does anyway, and the Democrats have responded predictably.

I would have liked to see nary a liberal / leftist / centrist debate these ideas. Truly, I would have. If the Republicans really feel we need a Constitutional amendment to prevent flag-burning, bringing down the number of annual flag-burnings from none to zero, let them do it. (Of course they’d have to be careful how they wrote it because when we refer to “flag-burning” we mean the public, non-respectful kind. Flags are supposed to be destroyed by burning when they become tattered or faded. I can see a cottage industry in flag destruction starting up in China, Mexico, and Canada.)

Likewise, since there are only a handful of states that allow gay marriages, and those states are working to end them, a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages is not a priority for me. Let the Republicans have their fun.

The reason for these amendments is not because they care deeply about these issues. If they really cared enough to change the Constitution, they would have acted years ago. It’s really a way to get Democrats and liberals into that wonderful position they are so often in, that is, looking as though they are all a bunch of pro-gay, pro-flag-burning hippies. Then the Republicans can look like the law and order party.

Let’s look at the two parties for a moment.

George Bush claims in his little law-signing-notes to be exempt from nearly every law passed by Congress; and he neatly exempted himself and his followers from the Geneva Convention as well as American anti-domestic-spying laws. Likewise, he “won” two elections through clear fraud which has been documented, complete with confessions run on BBC television by the people involved in vote miscounts, voter roll tampering, and other such illegal activities. (And that’s not to mention those lovely electronic voting machines that are so easily tampered with.) Then we have the easy case of treason for outing an entire CIA operation, just to punish a single Congressman. Then we have breaking into Democratic Congressional computers and monitoring Democrats’ e-mail correspondence without a court order. We could probably dig up a lot more dirt but you get the idea.

Oh, and then there’s also the creation of lots and lots and lots of terrorists through the mis-handling of the war in Iraq. Saudi Arabian terrorists (the leader was trained and funded by the CIA, for what it’s worth) attacked the US; in response, we attacked … Iraq, which had absolutely no link to 9/11 or Al-Quaeda. First we did a nice widespread bombing attack which wiped out essential services throughout the country, killing thousands of civilians, then started a program of torture-on-suspicion which Saddam Hussein would have been proud of. Generals protested and continue to protest, but they have to resign first, and then the news media ignores them as has-beens. Intelligence people protest. Antiterrorism experts protest. The problem is that the bad publicity and bad experiences (like death) cause more terrorists to spring up and paint a huge target on our face, one which would not exist had we entered as liberators (without quite so many bombing runs) and quickly left, or had we run the occupation as we did in Afghanistan, or for that matter in Italy and Germany after World War II. While building the largest, most irresponsible deficit in the history of the country, giving tax cuts to themselves and other people who did not need them, these people completely ignored domestic security, leaving chemical and nuclear plants, not to mention borders and incoming cargo shipments, largely as they were – and even restoring airplane security rules back so that you can carry serious weaponry onto planes.

Now let’s look at those rotten hippy liberals in the Democratic party. They’ve pushed for stronger border protection, inspection of all incoming sea cargo, deficit reduction, an end to the war in order to re-balance the budget (remember Clinton’s surplus?), more cops on the beat, and the rule of law to be applied to the White House. What’s more, they’d be investigating all those cost overruns, no-bid contracts, buddy-system contracts, and other causes of the Iraq war’s great expenses, except that the Republicans have not allowed them to hold meetings or issue subpoenas.

So by all means, let the more radical Republicans toss out Constitutional amendments left and right. But the real Republicans – not the neocons, but the real conservatives – can I think be depended on to reject such immature nonsense. (Unfortunately they have shown they cannot be relied on to prevent massive budget deficits, expansion of government power, setting the presidency above the law, or excessive corruption, but that’s another story, and one reason I am sorely disappointed in a group I’d normally be voting for.) And the Democrats should simply step aside and ignore it, keeping debate focused where it should be – not on side issues but on the real question of whether the United States will survive as an economically viable democracy. Four more years of the same leaders may well make that impossible – we cannot stand the continuing deficits, nor can we stand the increasing loss of our rights and our leaders’ setting themselves above the law.


May 31, 2006

The simple list of ways to reduce our reliance on oil

Filed under: Energy — analysis @ 1:36 am

1. Forget corn-based ethanol. It takes too much energy to grow.
2. Heavier taxes on gasoline and petrodiesel (but not biodiesel) to pay for ALL road and bridge building. No more property taxes going for roads!
3. Untaxed biodiesel.
4. Relaxed diesel emissions standards (except for sulfur.)
5. People, for God’s sake, start thinking about power consumption when buying computers, air conditioners, refrigerators, and washing machines.
6. More replacement of incandescent bulbs with fluourescent lights.
7. Fewer lights where they’re not needed.
8. Shut off the lights when you leave the room.
9. 68 degrees and a sweater in winter.
10. Take away the black windows from SUVs and minivans so people can see through them.
11. Require special licenses for vehicles over 4,500 pounds to reduce the number of big SUVs and MPVs.
12. …which will make people feel safer when buying cars, so they buy cars, which get better mileage.
13. More emphasis on population reduction. Fewer people, fewer cars.
14. Buying a house? Get a smaller one, not a bigger one.
15. Central air – more efficient than window units!
16. Insulation
17. SHUT OFF THE FREAKIN’ TELEVISION!!!! In the bar, the restaurant, the department store, the waiting room.
18. LCD screens – $250 now!
19. Laser printers. Use more power when printing, but toner carts last much longer and are less energy intensive overall. They pay for themselves.
20. Use the Energy Saver feature in your computer.
21. Front-loading washing machines. You’d be SHOCKED. Not just 1/3 or less of the water (including HOT water of course) – but also HALF the drying time. Oh, and it’s better for your clothing.

May 16, 2006

George Carlin nails it simplistically

Filed under: Government — analysis @ 7:46 pm

“They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq. Why don’t we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, it’s worked for over 200 years, and we’re not using it any more.”

George Carlin is sometimes very incisive and sometimes just goofing off. “Send them where the food is,” for example, was funny but wholly impractical; many people took it far too seriously, blaming poor Africans (and others) in areas of drought and famine for living where they did instead of, presumably, hopping into their cars and zooming to other nations. The fact of the matter is that the solution of migration has often been tried and has usually ended up with poverty, terrorism, and mass deaths (or worse) in refugee camps. Only in a few cases has mass migration to where the food is worked well – various groups coming to America being the prime example of success. [To be fair, it wasn’t George Carlin who said that, now that I’ve had time to ruminate, it was the fat guy with the hat who screamed a lot.]

In this case, well, giving our constitution to Iraq would not work, because of national pride, religious fundamentalism – the same kind the Christian Right has, that is, a certain belief that they are right, their religion is best, and this is THEIR country and not the country of some foreigners. Of course that statement will be disputed by those who see no resemblance between the two; after all, Christianity is terribly civilized and only terrorists are Muslems. That must be why Christians never, say, blow up abortion clinics or shoot doctors, and why the Crusades were immediately laughed down as insane instead of becoming a bloodbath where Christians murdered Jews and Muslems for being non-Christians, and murdered other Christians because, well, they were there at the time.

That said, our Constitution is pretty darned good, and it’s a shame so many people in the White House and Congress think it doesn’t apply any more.

May 13, 2006

Stick to your guns

Filed under: Business — analysis @ 9:26 pm

Allpar has an interesting editorial on the costs of compromise and the value of sticking to your guns. There’s a fine line between responding to market needs and being wishy-washy and all-things-to-all-people. I really resonated with that editorial and think it’s worth your time, too. But come back when you’re done!

May 12, 2006

Mass transit is the best thing for the hard-core driver

Filed under: Driving, Energy — analysis @ 1:44 pm

Though Americans are always ready to spend billions on highways and bridges, outside of a few sparsely populated states, most of our roads are jam-packed with drivers, day and night, making spirited driving difficult or dangerous; car insurance starts expensive and quickly rises to a small fortune after a ticket or two. Meanwhile, out in Europe, with higher population density, there seem to be a lot more enjoyable highways and byways.

To intensify the irony, European cars are generally small; we Americans, with our many V-8 trucks and V-6 sedans, guzzling fuel, usually cannot achieve the speeds of a lowly Fiat Punto (65 hp) on a French, German, or Northern British road!

One of the funny things in life is that, often, when you do something you think should result in more A, you get less A. When you try to make life easier for drivers, you end up with heavy traffic and bad roads. Indeed, highway planners (the honest ones, at least) have long admitted that traffic increases to fill any available capacity.

To reduce congestion, don’t build highways. Build rails.

To raise highway speeds, don’t add lanes. Add buses.

To make your drive more satisfying, don’t support road building, new bridges, or bypasses. Support mass transit, trolleys, buses, and trains.

To make gasoline cheaper, don’t ask for cuts in the gas tax. Ask for car-pooling lanes, reduced tolls for car pools and buses, and mass transit.

In short, if you want a more satisfying driving experience – support mass transit and car pooling. Anything else leads to a dead end.

Highways cost more than rail or buses in the long term. They must be maintained and repaired regularly. Rail is the cheapest way to move people, once you have put down the tracks. Yet, we have removed many of the tracks that once criss-crossed our land and let us ride from place to place. While our Federal government pours billions into highways and airports, Amtrak is supposed to pay its own way; thus, it is cheaper to drive (or fly) most places than to take the train, in those rare cases when the train still runs. (Ever so slowly, we are building local train systems, and they usually end up with far higher ridership than politicians had predicted.)

In New York City, we have three area airports: one in New Jersey, one in Flushing, and one out beyond Flushing. None are convenient by rail or bus. Ironically, all are NEAR major commuter lines – the subway for both NYC airports and PATH and NJ Transit for Newark Airport. (Newark, for some reason, added a new monorail instead of simply extending PATH. Cheaper in the short run but darned inconvenient and very unreliable compared with PATH!).

The past five decades have seen growth in the need for mass transit in New York City – and a decline in the number of subway lines. The past three decades have seen almost no expansion of the subway system. Even when they changed the system to allow more than one ride per swipe (replacing the tokens), they did not add trains to carry the extra load.

When we compare the United States to European nations, we find a major difference in attitude. Here, where everyone is an individualist with freedom of choice, we usually cannot “choose” to live without a car. In Europe, where gasoline is unsubsidized (or less subsidized), there are more options. Most people can live without a car; the buses run frequently, there are more options for paying fares, and there are trains heading out to rural areas. Many more people feel free to have no car. Ironically, the “more free” Americans find themselves without as many choices as the government-controlled West Europeans.

The true motoring enthusiast does not enjoy sitting in bumper to bumper traffic. A single bus can carry 30-60 people, enough to take 30-60 cars off the road. A single train can carry hundreds or thousands of commuters. Put enough trains and buses out there, and the driver can start using their engines again. The only down-side is that those who own a Toyota Prius will see their gas mileage fall by 10 mpg with the increase in speed, but that’s a small price to pay.

May 10, 2006

Out of control at Congress

Filed under: Government — analysis @ 2:08 pm

One would have thought, to hear the rhetoric of the past fifty years, that state’s-rights advocates, libertarians, and conservatives would be rejoicing to have the Republican party in control of every branch of government, but it seems that personal freedoms are disappearing almost as quickly as honesty and truth in government.

First, we have the new theory on the “unitary executive,” which some would have us believe simply means that there is a single president. Hey, we don’t need a theory for that; it’s obvious and has been the case since the nation was founded. The unitary executive theory holds that the president has unlimited powers in times of crisis – such as, say, the Cold War, which started in 1917 or so (if you count from the earliest justification of suspending law and order because of the real threat of communist revolution in the United States – no, I can’t believe anyone ever believed that could happen, either!), or the threat of terrorism, which has justified all sorts of nasty things since 9/11, and will continue to be loads of fun for people who like to do dark, nasty, illegal things for years to come. In short, the unitary executive theory can be used to convert republic into empire, if the Congress and Supreme Court don’t object – and it doesn’t look as though they will. I’m not saying it will happen, but already G.W. Bush has been using a nonexistent authority to write little comments into the margins of laws he signs – things like “doesn’t apply to me.” The law should always apply to presidents…

Second, we have the suspension of civil liberties for many suspected terrorists. It’s been four or five years for hundreds or thousands of people held without any appeal or trial now. At some point, people have to be charged, slaughtered, or released. The laws of this country do not allow for unlimited jail without access to lawyers or trials. For some reason, Fox News, which gets all worked up over things that later turn out to be fictions or hoaxes, has never pursued this story.

Third, we have the G.W. Bush first saying that he would pursue the chain of torture in US facilities until he found the leader, no matter how far up that leader was. The people who wrote the infamous memo stating that the US is not subject to the Geneva Convention, at least insofar as terrorism is concerned – which covers the war in Iraq, though Iraq was completely uninvolved in 9/11, which was carried out mainly by Saudi Arabians – have been rewarded and promoted, not jailed.

There are dozens of other incidents of varying importance, but now I’d like to move on to states’ rights, a subject near and dear to Ronald Reagan’s speeches if not his actual deeds. On this Thursday, March 2, Congress will vote on a bill to gut food safety and labeling laws. H.R. 4167, the National Uniformity for Food Act, would eliminate current state or local laws and prevent the enactment of future laws that impose stricter requirements for food safety than current federal standards. In short, the states will have absolutely no control over the safety or labeling of the food eaten by their citizens. Congress does have the power to do this, as part of its power to regulate commerce; but it seems an odd thing to do, given that 30 states (a majority) have laws that empower citizens to find out what’s in their food—such as toxic chemicals, mercury, potential allergens, and genetically engineered ingredients.

Congress held no public hearings on this issue; it was like the energy bill, designed in consultation with big companies that paid for access.

For the moment, I’d like to ask people to contact your representatives and tell them to VOTE NO on H.R. 4167. Phone calls are remarkably quick and easy. In the long run, I’d like to ask you to seriously consider not what candidates and officials say, but what they do. Are you really for state’s rights if you wipe them out in so cavalier a fashion? Are you really for small government if you reserve the right to wiretap any citizen, without any court order, trial, or evidence at all? Are you really for small government if you keep on boosting the budget? And can anyone who is really conservative go from paying off the deficit to increasing it so that each and every person in the country owes well over $20,000, putting the nation’s promissory notes into the hands of Saudi Arabia, China, and other countries we’d probably be better off maintaining a more distant relationship with? Think about that when you vote – and ignore all the talk, the slander of opponents, the lies of unreliable news networks, and the inflammatory e-mails. Or check the facts and see if your news sources really are reliable when investigated with the BBC, CBC, and various trustworthy (read: not partisan think-tanks that have a web of cross-funding, and all come to the same conclusions 90% of the time) sources.

(Why do we need state and local food rules, liberterians and Republicans may ask? Because the Food and Drug Administration is understaffed, underfunded, and like many such agencies, led by people who don’t seem to support the core mission of protecting the public. Relevant state and local laws cover labelling of food additives, potential allergens, shellfish, and more. Some local laws are truly local in need, such as catfish labeling in Mississippi and Arkansas. This law would also strike down California’s Proposition 65, which requiring warning notices on products that contain ingredients known to cause cancer or birth defects.

At one time, before the FDA, food and drug claims and labels were not required. At that time, you could get cocaine and alcohol in heavy doses in kids’ medicines, poisons in regular foods, and any claim that someone wanted to make – cures cancer, prevents kidney damages – they could and did make. I believe the libertarian creed is that anyone should be able to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn’t hurt others; the FDA and various state laws are often needed to make sure that the unprincipled truly do not hurt others. These are not generally laws of the insane-and-inane or do-we-need-it? variety – third brake lights and always-on headlights come to mind – these are often laws caused by deaths that were the result of long and bitter battles.)

Blame for high energy prices

Filed under: Energy — analysis @ 12:36 pm

It was pointed out to me recently that China is buying up all the energy resources it can, dealing with even oppressive regimes (like Libya, Saudi Arabia, Iran, former-Iraq, and Syria?) to establish a foot-hold. Of course today China uses, per capita, a fraction of the energy of the US, but they’d like to establish a different balance.

I thought I’d go around and list some areas where I see massive wastes of energy today…

(Technorati Profile)

1. School fliers – our school doesn’t believe in putting more than one item on each single-sided page. There are fliers that have ten or twenty words. My favorite: Cinquo de Mayo will be held on May 5. I bet next year, the Fourth of July will be on July 4!

2. Cars. Well, duh, and yes, I’m guilty. After years of driving efficient cars – 38 mpg Corolla, 35 mpg Neon, etc., – I regressed and got a sorta-kinda-minivan, the PT Cruiser, with a stick-shift. 22 city, 27 highway in my case. But then, that’s far better than the average American, who commutes with a Suburban, Explorer, etc., getting even lower mileage and carrying a single person around. I got this for the cargo/passenger space – and it still gets better mileage than any minivan or large SUV. Most SUV buyers buy ’em for the image, not the utility, which for most SUV buyers is no more than a minivan (OK, an AWD minivan for those in the Snow Belt.) Not my opinion – market research. Same goes for big pickups, which are even more wasteful than big SUVs. Mind, I don’t have a problem with muscle cars – at least there you’re getting something for the fuel spent.

3. TVs. Every pizzeria, every waiting room, every store needs lots and lots of TVs, blaring all the time, using up scads of power. Department stores like to have displays with dozens of TVs all at once.

4. Lights. They stay on.

5. Computers. As AMD says, the power wasted by inefficient servers can light entire cities. Me? I got a Mac Mini that uses a peak of 60 watts, but normally uses less than half that. Also, an LCD monitor. At least in the land of computers, I’m energy efficient. But even with standard machines, most people and institutions don’t shut ’em off or let them sleep. I went around and changed settings on each computer in my daughter’s school but they got changed back, and the password was changed so I couldn’t do it any more. So we have about 50 computers running 24 hours a day, and being used 2 hours a day. They ONLY buy Windows machines for some reason (hint: the guy who gets paid for maintenance makes the purchasing decisions), so that’s about 300 watts per machine x 50 x 24 hours. Server farms … have many energy efficient choices now that save power directly, and also save air conditioning (through lower heat.)

6. Unnecessary trips. I biked to the bank today, I work at home, I don’t go out to the mall as recreation. I don’t spend a lot on gas, can you tell? Not everyone can get away with that. Most people can however save trips. If we had a leader in the White House we’d be saving tons more energy just by following the WWII slogan, “is this trip really necessary?”

7. Plastic crap. Toys for tots, gadgets for guys, etc., etc. Takes energy to make, ship, and dispose of, and adds to landfills. Just say no to crap. Kids grow up MORE healthy with a small number of good toys than with a large number of lousy ones. (Psychological research, not opinion).

8. Alternative energy. Yup, I’m paying extra to support wind and solar power (and methane recovery from landfills.) I can afford $5 a month for that.

9. Night football games. Darn, those lights cost the town a lot of money in energy!

10. Landscapers/lawn folk. Yes, they drive me crazy. Everything is gas powered, and they spend hours raising huge clouds of dust to move six leaves to one pile, making noise like an airport while they do it. None of those gas powered gadgets are designed for efficiency, as far as I can tell, and they’re largely unregulated in terms of pollution, noise, and gas mileage. For God’s sake, people, get a freakin’ reel mower and pay a kid to mow your lawn if you can’t do it yourself. I was shocked by the state of reel mowers today. Buy the second-cheapest (NOT the cheapest) from Sears and you get a lightweight, sturdy, self-sharpening mowing machine that’s quiet, efficient, EASY to use, and apparently never needs to be repaired. It takes less time to mow and it self-fertilizes. Oh, and it’s cheaper than a power mower of similar quality, never needs gas, and can go for ten years without a tune-up.

11. Buying stuff made in China. Support an oligarchy with a lousy human rights record, while spending all that fuel to ship it here and destroy our balance of payments. Doesn’t make sense to me but I have to admit like just about everyone else, I end up with lots of stuff made in China because sometimes there’s no choice (or no indication). Wal-Mart, by the way, is probably the worst place to shop if you disagree with “communist” China’s nasty ways. Of if you love America (or Canada) since our economy cannot survive a continued and ever-larger trade debt to China; Wal-Mart has been accused by companies of practically forcing them to move factories to China (as in telling them if they did not, they would lose the world’s largest retailer as a distributor).

12. Bad technologies – using write-once CDs or DVDs for backup, buying lots of floppies, non-rechargeable batteries (purchased by the score), etc. You’re paying one way or another for those. Unfortunately this country doesn’t believe in taxing according to real cost, so you pay a fixed tax for garbage collection (in most towns) and the other costs of getting rid of rubbish and toxic waste are hidden in other tax bills. Make less trash, pay less cash – in the long run. The sensible way would be to put a surcharge onto disposable batteries, razors, etc. to make those who make the trash pay the cash. (The same goes for roads – I believe ALL road building should be paid for by gas taxes.)

13. Driving to work when it’s not needed. I take the bus when I go to the city – the bus carries up to 60 people (as I recall) who would all be driving an individual car. That’s about 90 gallons of gas saved in a short trip for a single bus. (Of course not all are full but you get the idea.)

14. Excessive heating and cooling – that just came to mind from ritzy hotels. They like rooms to be 90 degrees in winter so you’ll be impressed by how they spend your money, I guess.

That’s all I have time for. I guess you could think of a dozen more. But you know, I know I’m not perfect. I try to reduce my impact. But I don’t think you can really complain about high fuel bills if you’re not trying to reduce – those who have Expeditions shouldn’t throw stones. It’s not ONLY a political problem, it’s largely supply and demand. The Alaskan oil reserves would be good for about six months of full American demand; and then it would be gone forever leaving us with nothing (and by the way, we’d sell it to Japan in all likelihood!). What’s more, though they belong to the US government, I doubt much of the cash would flow back into the Treasury. Likewise, I have no time for conspiracy theories telling me that environmentalists have caused the energy prices to spike. Intelligent conservatives know that’s a load of rubbish. Environmentalists have darned little power, and there’s a finite supply of oil going against an ever increasing demand with China and India both coming into the energy age. So I’m not in the mood to hear that. The rest of the world will have no sympathy for our gas prices as long as we’re using double what most people do, and I don’t see why we expect them to. Bring down our energy usage, and then I think we can all talk.

The liberal tree-huggers did it

Filed under: Energy, Government — analysis @ 12:36 pm

Here is what I’ve been told: Democrats and environmentalists (collectively known as the “liberal tree-huggers,” or “Hollywood hypocrites” or, simply, “Easterners” though Hollywood is, I think, out West) caused the shortage of gas in two ways: by not letting oil companies drill in the US, and by not allowing new refineries to be made.

Here is what Bill Cawthon said: “There has been no new refinery construction in the U.S. since 1976. In fact, according to testimony presented to Congress in September 2000, the Environmental Protection Agency received only one application for construction of a new refinery from 1975 to 2000.”


Also, of course, there are the capped oil wells, which I’m told were shut down by environmentalists. Well, it’s true that in the Alaskan wildlife refuge and some offshore areas, environmentalists and others DID manage to stop drilling. On the other hand, Alaskan oil largely goes to Japan, and there are only six months’ supply there anyway. Rather than burning it quickly in our SUVs, perhaps we SHOULD be saving that for future use – you know, in case of war or national emergency or something. And, just to remind everyone, a wildlife refuge is a refuge for wildlife, not a great big corporate bonanza area.

Traditionally, the government has not profited much from mining or drilling on Federal lands; indeed, it often costs us quite a bit. I don’t recall anyone offering us a fair profit from Alaska; it’s a gimme, gimme situation. Even if I was for drilling there, I wouldn’t approve of the economic terms.

As for the capped oil wells, they cap oil wells when they run dry. Of course they are not completely dry; it’s just not worth the money to squeeze out the remaining oil at today’s prices. I am sure that, no matter what the Sierra Club says, and I really don’t see them objecting to opening up already-used oil fields again, if the price of oil climbs enough to make it worthwhile, those wells will be re-opened.

Dare I even get into the usual tired arguments about the liberal press (you know, like Rupert Murdoch’s Fox / newspaper chains) which is now so afraid of appearing liberal (save for the NY Times editorial section and Boston Globe) that it’s bent far in the other direction, or about how liberals are running the country even though last time I looked, neocons ran the White House, Congress, Senate, judiciary, and all government agencies? No, there’s no point, I won’t convince anyone who isn’t willing to stop and think, but just parrots some lying pundit on the TV (and yes, there are some who lie without compunction) or some improbable e-mail hoax or gets really upset over something blown way out of proportion (like singing the Star-Spangled Banner in Spanish, y’know, like George W Bush did when he was campaigning … or like some store not putting out a model of the baby Jesus at Christmas … or like a cashier saying “happy holidays” instead of “merry Christmas.”) Anyway, that’s all besides the point. I feel pretty safe in believing that we do have a finite supply of oil with increasing demand from China and India as well as the United States itself, and as long as people continue to act as though there IS an infinite supply, we will continue to run up against the wall now and then, prices will adjust until demand goes down or supply goes up, and off we go, like we have no memory at all. Which we really don’t, since people are using the same tired arguments now that they always did. (By the way, in one comment that was accidentally erased, I was told Fox News must be right because they’re the most popular news channel. Following that logic, communism must be right because there are more people in Communist China than the US, Danielle Steele must be a better writer than John Steinbeck, Ford must be better than Dodge, and Access must be better than FileMaker or MySQL.)

I don’t really know where some people get the idea that oil is inexhaustible. Nothing is available in infinite supply, though I will admit we have more sea-water than we will ever be able to use, since it isn’t particularly useful.

Of course, there’s always nuclear power. That can work out well for companies that figure out a way to shift the burden of paying for the plants and the security and the waste disposal to the taxpayer without letting them know. It’s hardly a perfect solution, though, given the problems of security (think about suicide terrorists aiming small planes into that nice protective dome – those of us who know how poisonous plutonium is, quite aside from the radiation, will understand the problem that poses) and long-term disposal of nuclear wastes, and the headaches they give ethical powerplant folk, who care about safety, not to mention the fact that a uranium shortage is not unlikely given Chinese interest in nuclear power as well as oil and gas.

The most economical solution is using less, pure and simple. But our cars use the same gas they used in 1980, on average – rather shameful given the technological changes that happened at the same time, such as solid-state computer controls, sequential multiple port fuel injection, 5-speed automatics, materials technology advances, direct injection, coil on plug ignition, etc., etc.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, anyone who drove a big car was laughed at for having a boat. That’s the way people thought. Maybe today we should de-cool the Navigators, Suburbans, and, yes, the 300Cs, and start to play up the coolness of the Calibers, ‘rollas, and SRT-4s.

(By the way, I’m still waiting for a public apology or at least an admission of wrong-thinking from the people who insisted we have a shortage of oil because environmentalists blocked the construction of refineries.)

__This is the most popular post in my blog by a considerable margin.__ It seems people like to look up the terms oil refineries and tree-huggers for some reason. Can you leave a comment saying why you came?

« Newer Posts

Create a free website or blog at