Powell on the National Guard [Archive]

Mike Marron

February 21st 04, 01:22 AM

> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>>From: "D. Strang" wrote:

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

Exactly.

>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 ?

Old age clouding your memory again hard guy? Does the term
"Berlin Airlift" three_full_years AFTER the end of war in Europe mean
anything to you?

Post-war Germany...

At least 39 U.S. servicemen were killed by the Nazi "Werwolf"
resistance movement in the fisrt few months of the occupation.
Additionally, Werwolves weren’t the only problem. Violent crime,
thievery and black-marketing were rampant. Germans incessantly
complained to U.S. military officials about inadequate public safety.
And these threats paled in comparison to the physical privations. Many
feared masses of Germans would freeze or starve to death in the first
winter after the war. To suggest that the first year of occupation was
anything less than a dreadful, harrowing experience for many Germans
is just bad history.

[Heritage Foundation]

BUFDRVR

February 21st 04, 02:53 AM

>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
>?

Hmm, really? Now I'm beginning to believe you may not know much about events in
*your* time either....

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

George Z. Bush

February 21st 04, 12:37 PM

"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.

D. Strang

February 21st 04, 12:57 PM

"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).

George Z. Bush

February 21st 04, 01:42 PM

"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.

D. Strang

February 21st 04, 02:29 PM

"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/biodiesel_from_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.

Stephen Harding

February 21st 04, 03:22 PM

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

Stephen Harding

February 21st 04, 03:34 PM

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

George Z. Bush

February 21st 04, 03:44 PM

"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/biodiesel_from_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.
>

D. Strang

February 21st 04, 04:01 PM

"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.

Ed Rasimus

February 21st 04, 04:03 PM

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

George Z. Bush

February 21st 04, 04:23 PM

"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.

ArtKramr

February 21st 04, 04:32 PM

>Subject: Re: Powell on the National Guard
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/21/04 8:03 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>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

I have forgotten nothing. Don't believe everything you read. We moved into
Germany days after VE day and we walked the streets unarmed without the
slightest fear of being attacked. The entire country was crawling with MP's
and everything was under control right off. Don't mix political and economic
issues with getting the military under control. These are totally unrelated
concepts. BTW, did you get to Nam via the National Guard? And if not why not?

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Al Dykes

February 21st 04, 04:44 PM

In article <dhLZb.9601$Ru5.5073@okepread03>,
D. Strang > wrote:
>"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.
>

For "farmers" substitute "ADM, Inc" ("Archer Daniels Midland"), far
and away the single biggest beneficiary of the subsidies, and a huge
campaign donor to both parties. See Cato Institute's

"Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare"
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html

Cato describes itself as a conserviative think tank, which they
indeed are.

ADM has been CONVICTED AND FINED in what was at the time the biggest
antitrust fine in history. Corn-related in that there is a byproduct
of corn-ethanol production a valuable industrial byproduct; Lecithin.
Because of the subsidies ADM was able to produce and lecithin for
free, and undercut all the competition. See

http://www.lecithin.com/info/p2.html

>> ...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.
>
>

--
Al Dykes
-----------

Ed Rasimus

February 21st 04, 04:52 PM

On 21 Feb 2004 16:32:22 GMT, (ArtKramr) wrote:

>I have forgotten nothing. Don't believe everything you read. We moved into
>Germany days after VE day and we walked the streets unarmed without the
>slightest fear of being attacked. The entire country was crawling with MP's
>and everything was under control right off. Don't mix political and economic
>issues with getting the military under control. These are totally unrelated
>concepts. BTW, did you get to Nam via the National Guard? And if not why not?
>
>
>Arthur Kramer

I don't understand your statement, "don't mix political and economic
issues with getting the military under control". If you mean getting
the military of the enemy defeated or under our control, then that has
been done in Iraq in much less time at much less cost than the
invasion, defeat and occupation of Germany. If you mean that there is
not a relationship between political and economic goals and the use of
military force, then I must vigorously disagree. The concepts are
inextricably intertwined.

As for you question of how I got to Vietnam, you already know that I
went by the active duty USAF route. Why? One, I wanted to fly
fighters. I only knew of the USAF as a route to pilot training and
then fighters. I knew that there was a Guard and Reserve air
component, but I didn't know that they had direct training slots. My
knowledge at the time was limited to the belief that Guard and Reserve
pilots came from active duty after an initial service commitment.

Second, I wanted to fly fighters (I know, I'm being redundant). I
lived in Chicago. The only Air Guard or Reserve unit I was aware of
was at O'Hare, flying KC-97s. Not my goal at all.

Third, I went into the AF with little or no knowledge of hostilities
in Vietnam. I was commissioned in June of '64 after four years of
AFROTC. The first deployments of F-100s were going to Thailand/Vietnam
about that time. Some of those units were ANG!!!!!!

Fourth, by the time I was in pilot training, my goal was more
specific: to fly F-105s. I still didn't know that there was a rapidly
intensifying combat operation going on. I did know that F-105s were
incredibly exciting aircraft and like all of the Century Series
fighters (including the F-102) could kill you quite nicely without the
benefit of an additional enemy.

Fifth, I didn't volunteer for combat. It came and got me. By the time
I was completing F-105 training, the entire production (nine every six
weeks) from the training course was going to Thailand and flying into
N. Vietnam. Within weeks of completing my training, the F-105 course
was modified to double the capacity (fifteen per class) and half the
duration (60 hours vice 120 flying hours). No more Lt's were
taken--only "experienced" pilots, although many were bomber, airlift,
training command and staff types.

Sixth, I did volunteer for my second combat tour in the F-4, nearly
six years later.

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

Peter Stickney

February 21st 04, 06:11 PM

In article >,
"George Z. Bush" > writes:
>
> "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.

It's certainly not the case that a gallon of Etanol would displace a
gallon of Gasoline - Ethanol has an energy content much
lower than gasoline. (Roughly 55% of gasoline)
So, for an equivalent amaount of power, you have to burn twice as much
Ethanol. It's got some other problems as well - it doesn't atomize as
well in a fuel injector or carburator jet, and it tends to suck up
water, which leads to more problems with clogging injectors & jets.

It does have the advantage of having the detonation resistance of
about 150 Octane gasoline.

There are also heavy demands on energy in the agricuture producing
Ethanol. I don't have the numbers at hand, but I wouldn't be
surprised if it took more energy to make a gallon of Ethanol than it
does to make a gallon on gasoline.

It also has a tendency to eat various plastic components in many fuel
systems.

Hydrogen, BTW, is much, much worse. It takes a lot of electricity to
electrolytically separate it. That electricity has to come from
somewhere. If it's not going to be Nukes (Politically unpalatable,
especially to the Greenies), we're talking about comventional means,
with the concominant, inevitable environmental damage that that
causes. When was the last time a big hydroelectric dam was built in
the U.S. or Canada? I don't want to even think about the negatice
impact of the so-called Green Techs, Solar & Wind - on a partacal
commercial scale, you're talking all sorts of nasty effects.

>>
>> 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.

In the Packaged Power business, we used to refer to them as Fool
Cells. Again, you require something to feed it - you don't get
anything for nothing. WHile you may be able to convert Hydrogen &
Oxygen into water & electricity, (And the ones that aren't directly
using Hydrogen are cracking it out of something else, like Ethanol or
Methanol) you will still be requiring that the total cycle of, say,
making a vehicle move a mile will require more energy than is required
by using gasoline. There are some applications where thay are useful,
but they aren't going to be the magic bullet that some people believe.

>> 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/biodiesel_from_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.

The answer is, actually, simple economics. The alternatives exist,
but they are too expensive at this point, and for the forseeable
future.All teh wonderhype and proclamations of "If we're so clever..."
can't change the Laws of Physics that govern how energy prodiction and
consumption work.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Emmanuel.Gustin

February 21st 04, 06:21 PM

Kevin Brooks > wrote:

: "Then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell stated
: shortly after the war that it "...could have not been fought without the
: Guard".

Isn't that army policy? I seem to remember reading that
the US Army is deliberately organized in such way that
any major conflict requires calling in the National Guard.
In part because this allows the professional regular troops
to concentrate on the more hich-tech tasks, and in part to
create a political hurdle the politicians have to jump
over first. Sending National Guard units into combat
requires a clear commitment, so this prevents the army
from being slowly dragged into a full-scale war -- no more
Vietnams.

Emmanuel Gustin

Al Dykes

February 21st 04, 06:30 PM

In article >,
Peter Stickney > wrote:
>In article >,
> "George Z. Bush" > writes:
>>
>> "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.

I just read something that said that Ethanol production on Iowa
returned about 35% more energy than that it took to make. It went on
to say that Iowa needed little irrigation, and in a dry state like
Nebraska artificial irrigation would require more energy input. I
think I read it in Economist.

Ethanol subsidies is pork barrel politics of the highest order, and
that's saying something given the obsecne subsidies we give Big Sugar
(mostly in Flordia). Remind me, what's the Fla Govener's name again ?
We also protect Peanut and Tobacco growers. There are only a handful
of companies that get Peanut money. Tobacco is more of a small
indy-farmer business, I'm told. ADM gets most of the ethanol
subsidy and lots of other agricicultural pork.

>
>It's certainly not the case that a gallon of Etanol would displace a
>gallon of Gasoline - Ethanol has an energy content much
>lower than gasoline. (Roughly 55% of gasoline)
>So, for an equivalent amaount of power, you have to burn twice as much
>Ethanol. It's got some other problems as well - it doesn't atomize as
>well in a fuel injector or carburator jet, and it tends to suck up
>water, which leads to more problems with clogging injectors & jets.
>
>It does have the advantage of having the detonation resistance of
>about 150 Octane gasoline.
>
>There are also heavy demands on energy in the agricuture producing
>Ethanol. I don't have the numbers at hand, but I wouldn't be
>surprised if it took more energy to make a gallon of Ethanol than it
>does to make a gallon on gasoline.
>
>It also has a tendency to eat various plastic components in many fuel
>systems.
>
>Hydrogen, BTW, is much, much worse. It takes a lot of electricity to
>electrolytically separate it. That electricity has to come from
>somewhere. If it's not going to be Nukes (Politically unpalatable,
>especially to the Greenies), we're talking about comventional means,
>with the concominant, inevitable environmental damage that that
>causes. When was the last time a big hydroelectric dam was built in
>the U.S. or Canada? I don't want to even think about the negatice
>impact of the so-called Green Techs, Solar & Wind - on a partacal
>commercial scale, you're talking all sorts of nasty effects.
>
>>>
>>> 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.
>
>In the Packaged Power business, we used to refer to them as Fool
>Cells. Again, you require something to feed it - you don't get
>anything for nothing. WHile you may be able to convert Hydrogen &
>Oxygen into water & electricity, (And the ones that aren't directly
>using Hydrogen are cracking it out of something else, like Ethanol or
>Methanol) you will still be requiring that the total cycle of, say,
>making a vehicle move a mile will require more energy than is required
>by using gasoline. There are some applications where thay are useful,
>but they aren't going to be the magic bullet that some people believe.
>
>>> 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/biodiesel_from_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.
>
>The answer is, actually, simple economics. The alternatives exist,
>but they are too expensive at this point, and for the forseeable
>future.All teh wonderhype and proclamations of "If we're so clever..."
>can't change the Laws of Physics that govern how energy prodiction and
>consumption work.
>
>--
>Pete Stickney
> A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
> bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

--
Al Dykes
-----------

ArtKramr

February 21st 04, 06:55 PM

>Subject: Re: Powell on the National Guard
>From: Ed Rasimus
>Date: 2/21/04 8:52 AM Pacific Standard Time

>If you mean getting
>the military of the enemy defeated or under our control, then that has
>been done in Iraq in much less time at much less cost than the
>invasion, defeat and occupation

In Iraq it still isn't under control. Or even close.

>As for you question of how I got to Vietnam, you already know that I
>went by the active duty USAF route. W

Of course you did. So did I. So did we all who wanted to get into it fast.

The F 105 could kill you quite nicely without the
>benefit of an additional enemy.

Same for the B-26 Marauder. But never underestimate the power of the enemy.
which I know you never would.

>Fifth, I didn't volunteer for combat. It came and got me.

I wasn't so smart. I volunteered and went after it. And got it fast.

>Sixth, I did volunteer for my second combat tour in the F-4, nearly
>six years later.

Of course you did. I would never think otherwise. But you didn't duck out and
join the guard did you? You went right back in. There are those who want to
fight, and those who don't want to fight. But I certainly don't need to tell
you that do I? ((:->)).

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Mike Dargan

February 21st 04, 09:53 PM

D. Strang 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 are out of control then, right?

Speak for yourself.

>
> Freedom costs money, and lives.

Perhaps. But in this case, "oil" costs money and lives.

Without it we would have someone like
> Sadaam's son's shooting us and raping our relatives just for fun.

Or, in this case, we would be driving Tercels rather than Explorers.

>
> If you have a problem with freedom, then vote Democrat, and join the
> Communist goal of serfdom.

Normally, one pursues a goal. Are you a native speaker of English? If
not, you're doing quite well.

Cheers

--mike
>
>

Cub Driver

February 21st 04, 10:53 PM

>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

In 1975, Aristotle Onassis wanted to build an oil refinery in the town
in which I live. We believed, and went around saying, that this was
utterly stupid because in 25 years we would have run out of oil (and
this wasn't something we made up, but was a serious forecast) and we
would be stuck with a rusting shell.

So here it is, four years after the apocalypse, and there are more
proven reserves in the world today than there were in 1975.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver

February 21st 04, 10:57 PM

>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.

Huh?

The euro goes up, the euro goes down. It's been down for years and is
now up a bit from its day-of-issue exchange rate.

The Great Depression was mostly brought on by beggar-thy-neighbor
tariffs, notably the Smoot-Hawley trade bill. In other words, if you
want a depression, you're more likely to get one if you vote for one
of the current crop of Democratic contenders.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver

February 21st 04, 10:59 PM

>Unfortunately, for
>some reason, it never caught on with consumers.

Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that ethanol is caustic
to rubber? You can't put gasahol into an airplane engine, even if it's
STC'ed for automotive gasoline.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver

February 21st 04, 11:01 PM

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver

February 21st 04, 11:05 PM

On 21 Feb 2004 18:21:37 GMT, "Emmanuel.Gustin"
> wrote:

>Isn't that army policy? I seem to remember reading that
>the US Army is deliberately organized in such way that
>any major conflict requires calling in the National Guard.
>In part because this allows the professional regular troops
>to concentrate on the more hich-tech tasks, and in part to
>create a political hurdle the politicians have to jump
>over first. Sending National Guard units into combat
>requires a clear commitment, so this prevents the army
>from being slowly dragged into a full-scale war -- no more
>Vietnams.

Yes, that is exactly the case.

It's also an economy measure. Not every military engagement requires a
civil affairs or a bridge-building unit, for example. So why not
train reservists or Guards in those offbeat specialties?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver

February 21st 04, 11:06 PM

On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 21:53:23 GMT, Mike Dargan >
wrote:

>Perhaps. But in this case, "oil" costs money and lives.

Horseplop. How many barrels of oil could we have purchased for $87
billion?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Brian

February 22nd 04, 12:32 AM

"Mike Marron" > wrote in message
...
> Post-war Germany...
>
> At least 39 U.S. servicemen were killed by the Nazi "Werwolf"
> resistance movement in the fisrt few months of the occupation.
> Additionally, Werwolves weren't the only problem. Violent crime,
> thievery and black-marketing were rampant. Germans incessantly
> complained to U.S. military officials about inadequate public safety.
> And these threats paled in comparison to the physical privations. Many
> feared masses of Germans would freeze or starve to death in the first
> winter after the war. To suggest that the first year of occupation was
> anything less than a dreadful, harrowing experience for many Germans
> is just bad history.

Remember, Art flew over Germany and didn't stay. Once the war was over, they
got to go home. There was no CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. to update us daily
on what was happening. Talk to the people coming back from Iraq and they all
say things are going well. Do we have problems? Of course but it's not as
bad as the news makes it seem.

ArtKramr

February 22nd 04, 12:41 AM

>Subject: Re: Powell on the National Guard
>From: "Brian"
>Date: 2/21/04 4:32 PM Pacific Standard Time

>Remember, Art flew over Germany and didn't stay. Once the war was over, they
>got to go home. There was no CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. to

I did an 16 month stay in the Army of occupation once the war was over. I was
in the streets and spoke to the people on a daily basis. I'll take my first
hand experience over what you saw or read in the news.

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Brian

February 22nd 04, 02:10 AM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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.

Not really one less gallon because you have to factor in how much total
energy it took to make a gallon of ethanol. I'm guessing it takes a lot more
energy to produce than it's worth.

Brian

February 22nd 04, 02:13 AM

Kevin Brooks

February 22nd 04, 02:28 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Powell on the National Guard
> >From: Ed Rasimus
> >Date: 2/21/04 8:52 AM Pacific Standard Time
>
<snip>

> >As for you question of how I got to Vietnam, you already know that I
> >went by the active duty USAF route. W
>
> Of course you did. So did I. So did we all who wanted to get into it fast.

You had no choice in the matter--remember, you just recently told us that
all the folks were going where they were told, when they were told?

<snip>

>
> >Fifth, I didn't volunteer for combat. It came and got me.
>
> I wasn't so smart.

We have already figured that out.

> I volunteered and went after it. And got it fast.

You had no choice, remember?

Brooks

<snip>

> Arthur Kramer

Kevin Brooks

February 22nd 04, 02:31 AM

"Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
> : "Then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell stated
> : shortly after the war that it "...could have not been fought without the
> : Guard".
>
> Isn't that army policy? I seem to remember reading that
> the US Army is deliberately organized in such way that
> any major conflict requires calling in the National Guard.
> In part because this allows the professional regular troops
> to concentrate on the more hich-tech tasks, and in part to
> create a political hurdle the politicians have to jump
> over first. Sending National Guard units into combat
> requires a clear commitment, so this prevents the army
> from being slowly dragged into a full-scale war -- no more
> Vietnams.

Correct. It actually became DoD policy (Total Force), but the Army was the
biggest supporter (Total Army); credit Creighton Abrams for that during his
(short) tenure as C/S after he left MAC-V. Cancer took a good one away
before his time.

Brooks

>
> Emmanuel Gustin

Kevin Brooks

February 22nd 04, 02:36 AM

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> >Subject: Re: Powell on the National Guard
> >From: "Brian"
> >Date: 2/21/04 4:32 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
> >Remember, Art flew over Germany and didn't stay. Once the war was over,
they
> >got to go home. There was no CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, etc. to
>
> I did an 16 month stay in the Army of occupation once the war was over. I
was
> in the streets and spoke to the people on a daily basis. I'll take my
first
> hand experience over what you saw or read in the news.

That is the problem with depending solely upon one individual's "first hand
experience"--it is not statistically representative of the whole. One would
think that someone who made his living trying to dupe people into paying
money for products they may very well not need would understand the concept
of a "representative sample"...

Brooks

>
>
> Arthur Kramer
> 344th BG 494th BS
> England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
> Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
> http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
>

ArtKramr

February 22nd 04, 03:59 AM

>Subject: Re: Powell on the National Guard
>From: R. David Steele
>Date: 2/21/04 7:54 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>|>> 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
>?
>
>It took over two years to get Germany under control. And longer
>to rebuild. And we are still occupying Germany today.
>
>Plus we had loyalists to the Nazi party doing hit and runs on our
>troops for most of that two years.
>
>

Guess you weren't there, right?

Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

Al Dykes

February 22nd 04, 04:10 AM

In article >,
R. David Steele > wrote:
>
>|>> "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed
>|>managed to
>|>> wangle slots in the Army Reserve and National Guard units." -- Colin
>|>Powell, My
>|>> American Journey, 1995
>|>
>|>Colin Powell quoted regarding the Guard after ODS:
>|>
>|>"Then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell stated
>|>shortly after the war that it "...could have not been fought without the
>|>Guard".
>|>
>|>www.calguard.ca.gov/250thmi/AboutUs/history_usarng.htm
>|>
>|>Brooks
>|>
>|>>
>|>> Arthur Kramer
>|>
>|>
>|>
>|
>|Of course not. It was being fought on the cheap and there weren't enough
>|regular troops to do the job and so the guard had to be called in.
>> It is still
>|being fought on the cheap and we still don't have Iraq under control.
>
>Thank Clinton for gutting the military in the '90s. He basically
>cut the military in half.
>
>In graph form, for those who can not read (ie grad students)
>http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms8.pdf
>In table form
>http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms9.pdf
>
> Army Navy Marines Af
>1990 732,403 579,417 196,652 535,233
>2000 482,170 373,193 173,321 355,654
>
>1990 2,043,705
>2000 1,384,338
>
>this was a 46% reduction in force over 10 years. The famous
>"peace dividend" which was taken out of Army and AF for the most
>part.
>

And a bunch of the headcount was contracted out to KBR. I suspect
that the budget didn't go down in proportion to headcount. I know
that the budget did a steep uptick in Clinton's last year.

Remember that The Afgani war was fought with Clinton's military.
Even in the best of circumstances Rummy's changes couldn't
have kicked it by late 2001.

--
Al Dykes
-----------

BUFDRVR

February 22nd 04, 04:23 AM

>I stand corrected. Talked to anyone returning from Iraq?
>

Art doesn't need to, he saw it on TV or read it in the newspapers....which is
only acceptable if you're Art Kramer.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

George Z. Bush

February 22nd 04, 05:06 AM

R. David Steele 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.
>>
>> 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.
>
> Because the UAW has a huge influence on such policies. I gather
> that you want millions of common folks without jobs?
>
> Those SUVs put money in the common man's pocket.

I guess that non-sequitor is about as much as I could expect by way of an
answer.

George Z.

BUFDRVR

February 22nd 04, 05:17 AM

>Guess you weren't there, right?

And you haven't been to Iraq, yet you feel fully qualified to spout off. Your
"I've been there so I'm always right" crap really makes you look like a
desperate, foolish old man...it's sad, really, you have my pity.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Grantland

February 22nd 04, 05:21 AM

R. David Steele > 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.
>|
>|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.
>
>Because the UAW has a huge influence on such policies. I gather
>that you want millions of common folks without jobs?
>
>Those SUVs put money in the common man's pocket.
>
Stupid pig. Stupid, fat, careless, reckless, feckless yankee Pig.
All too typical. May Amerika fall soon, God most Willing.

Grantland

Stephen Harding

February 22nd 04, 01:00 PM

George Z. Bush wrote:

> "D. Strang" > wrote in message
>>
>>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.

I like ethanol. My car does that is. Seems to run a little smoother
when I'm cruising across Iowa where "gasohol" can be found in
abundance.

But from an energy conservation point of view, it really isn't very
good sense. How much energy does it take to create ethanol from
corn? How much energy do you get back from burning it with gas?

It's a net energy loss IIRC.

>>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.

Because oil is what drives the economy, and because no satisfactory
alternative is anywhere on the horizon, with the possible exception
of hydrogen driven fuel cell technology in perhaps 20 years.

The infrastructure is set up for oil and whatever replaces oil should
fit that same infrastructure for best effect.

The idea you're going to "stick it" to oil companies with some new
technology is naive. The oil companies will become the "hydrogen
companies", or "solar companies" or "wind companies" of the future.
They're not going away and until fusion nukes come along, energy is
always going to be a hard to come by, costly resource.

SMH

Stephen Harding

February 22nd 04, 01:20 PM

George Z. Bush wrote:

> "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?

Much of the world does meets its transportation needs by bike
or foot. No Buick required.

These vehicles get *exceptionally* good oil based fuel economy,
and have the added benefit of being health promoting, reducing
longer term medical costs.

>>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.

There are those who might say you're driving the wrong car then.
There are cars getting well into the 40 mpg range and above. A
real purist would not own a Buick or Taurus if it doesn't regularly
carry more than a couple people or "stuff".

>>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.

Yes they're out on the market, but outrageously expensive. There
are hybrids starting to appear though. They can get towards 60 mpg.

>>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.

Not certain you'll find too many vehicles under 10 years old getting
10-13 mpg unless it's a pickup truck towing something or hauling a
heavy load. Mid sized sedans are pretty close to 30 mpg (highway)
and smaller cars up into the 30's and even a Cadillac DeVille is
listed at 27.

> 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.

No we were really talking about energy policy and energy in the
form of oil! Did you forget?

Cars are only a part of that.

SMH

Stephen Harding

February 22nd 04, 01:27 PM

Al Dykes wrote:

> For "farmers" substitute "ADM, Inc" ("Archer Daniels Midland"), far
> and away the single biggest beneficiary of the subsidies, and a huge
> campaign donor to both parties. See Cato Institute's
>
> "Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate Welfare"
> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa241es.html
>
> Cato describes itself as a conserviative think tank, which they
> indeed are.
>
> ADM has been CONVICTED AND FINED in what was at the time the biggest
> antitrust fine in history. Corn-related in that there is a byproduct
> of corn-ethanol production a valuable industrial byproduct; Lecithin.
> Because of the subsidies ADM was able to produce and lecithin for
> free, and undercut all the competition.

Actually, I think there are three primary companies farmers
sell their crops to. ADM is one, the names of the other two
elude me at the moment.

Big agribusiness companies that increasingly, don't even own the
huge amount of land they "farm". The farmer owns the land, takes
all the risks in producing the crop, then hands it over to company.
No shopping around for a best price.

Farming: It's a tough business!

SMH

Stephen Harding

February 22nd 04, 01:40 PM

Cub Driver wrote:

> In 1975, Aristotle Onassis wanted to build an oil refinery in the town
> in which I live. We believed, and went around saying, that this was
> utterly stupid because in 25 years we would have run out of oil (and
> this wasn't something we made up, but was a serious forecast) and we
> would be stuck with a rusting shell.
>
> So here it is, four years after the apocalypse, and there are more
> proven reserves in the world today than there were in 1975.

The popular environmental "prediction" of the mid/late 60's was
over population.

Your concerns over a refinery with no oil to refine by 2000
was unnecessary, since the earth would already be wrecked from
human over-population!

Who cares about keeping the tank of their Buick filled when
there's nothing to eat?

SMH

Leslie Swartz

February 22nd 04, 05:53 PM

George:

You are aware that the only self -sustaining (better than break even)
energy source other than fossil fuels is Helium-3 Fusion, right?

And you are also aware that the best (most cost effective) place to
harvest the quantities of He-3 required to power this planet is on the
surface of the moon, right?

You certainly must be aware that *all* of the alternatives you mention
require more energy to produce than they provide, right?

"Wasting our money going to the moon" indeed!

Steve Swartz

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> R. David Steele 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.
> >>
> >> 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.
> >
> > Because the UAW has a huge influence on such policies. I gather
> > that you want millions of common folks without jobs?
> >
> > Those SUVs put money in the common man's pocket.
>
> I guess that non-sequitor is about as much as I could expect by way of an
> answer.
>
> George Z.
>
>

George Z. Bush

February 22nd 04, 06:23 PM

"Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
...
> George Z. Bush wrote:
>
> > "D. Strang" > wrote in message
> >>
> >>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.
>
> I like ethanol. My car does that is. Seems to run a little smoother
> when I'm cruising across Iowa where "gasohol" can be found in
> abundance.
>
> But from an energy conservation point of view, it really isn't very
> good sense. How much energy does it take to create ethanol from
> corn? How much energy do you get back from burning it with gas?
>
> It's a net energy loss IIRC.

Maybe it's because I don't fully understand how it works, but if, as you say, it
runs as smoothly in your car as does gasoline and if the stuff is made of
surplus corn not otherwise needed to nourish human beings, why doesn't its
manufacture in far larger quantities than presently help to extend the life of
our oil reserves? For every gallon of ethanol-containing gasohol that is burned
(made of stuff that otherwise would likely rot and be of no value to anyone),
would that not represent at least a portion of a gallon of gasoline that won't
be burned in its place, therefore extending the life of our petroleum reserves?
How can that be an energy loss?

Is the fact that there might not be as much profit in a gallon of gasohol as
there is in a gallon of gasoline what inhibits an expansion of the amount of
ethanol manufactured?

If so, should our national energy policy be based on the profitability of the
fuel used by our nation's consumers, or should that factor have any influence at
all?

> >>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.
>
> Because oil is what drives the economy, and because no satisfactory
> alternative is anywhere on the horizon, with the possible exception
> of hydrogen driven fuel cell technology in perhaps 20 years.
>
> The infrastructure is set up for oil and whatever replaces oil should
> fit that same infrastructure for best effect.
>
> The idea you're going to "stick it" to oil companies with some new
> technology is naive.

As I recall, they said just about the same thing way back when most cars could
only get 10 or 15 mph, and the federal government mandated that they needed to
improve dramatically as their contribution to our national energy policy. It
took a few years, but after that, just about every vehicle on the market was
capable of getting 25-30 mpg from our existing fuel supply. I don't think
anyone is claiming that the efficiency of existing auto engines have reached any
sort of pinnacle. I suspect that, if pushed, the manufacturers will again
produce, just as they have in the past. Call it naive if you will, but many
people think it possible.

> .....The oil companies will become the "hydrogen companies", or "solar
companies" or "wind
> companies" of the future.
> They're not going away and until fusion nukes come along, energy is
> always going to be a hard to come by, costly resource.

Kevin Brooks

February 22nd 04, 07:44 PM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
> > George Z. Bush wrote:
> >
> > > "D. Strang" > wrote in message
> > >>
> > >>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.
> >
> > I like ethanol. My car does that is. Seems to run a little smoother
> > when I'm cruising across Iowa where "gasohol" can be found in
> > abundance.
> >
> > But from an energy conservation point of view, it really isn't very
> > good sense. How much energy does it take to create ethanol from
> > corn? How much energy do you get back from burning it with gas?
> >
> > It's a net energy loss IIRC.
>
> Maybe it's because I don't fully understand how it works, but if, as you
say, it
> runs as smoothly in your car as does gasoline and if the stuff is made of
> surplus corn not otherwise needed to nourish human beings, why doesn't its
> manufacture in far larger quantities than presently help to extend the
life of
> our oil reserves? For every gallon of ethanol-containing gasohol that is
burned
> (made of stuff that otherwise would likely rot and be of no value to
anyone),
> would that not represent at least a portion of a gallon of gasoline that
won't
> be burned in its place, therefore extending the life of our petroleum
reserves?
> How can that be an energy loss?

If the amount of fossil based fuel required to create and process the
ethanol is greater than the quantity/energy value of the ethanol that is
yielded. At least one source claims that the use of corn as the biomass for
the process yields a net gain in terms of energy yielded, but without
providing any specifics of how that conclusion was reached. Other sources
indicate ethanol production is still a net energy loser.

>
> Is the fact that there might not be as much profit in a gallon of gasohol
as
> there is in a gallon of gasoline what inhibits an expansion of the amount
of
> ethanol manufactured?

See above. And:

"...most ethanol is currently made from corn and the process involved has
matured to the point that further significant declines in production costs
seem unlikely. Ethanol's economic viability as a gasoline blending component
also depends in part on Federal and States subsidies, and the Federal
subsidy (54 cents per gallon) is slated for slow reduction over the next few
years and expiration at the end of 2007."

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/plugs/plbioeth.html

>
> If so, should our national energy policy be based on the profitability of
the
> fuel used by our nation's consumers, or should that factor have any
influence at
> all?

Got any idea how much CO2 is generated by the ethanol manufacturing process?
A lot, which is unrecovered. That is a "greenhouse gas"--a good Al Gore man
like yourself ought to be upset over that. Ironically, one of the big
drivers of the use of ethanol as a fuel additive is as an oxygenating agent
to improve air quality in metropolitan areas with poor air quality, ignoring
the CO2 issue.

Brooks

D. Strang

February 22nd 04, 07:53 PM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote
>
> ...and if the stuff is made of surplus corn not otherwise needed to nourish
> human beings,

Whoa now!

This isn't surplus corn. The corn is a contract to the government. The farmers
sell it to the buyer, and the buyer sells it to the distiller. The buyer and the
distiller are then subsidized by Congress. There is no Capitalism involved.

This may answer your other questions. The cost of manufacturing Ethanol is
wired-in to the taxes you pay to the Revenue Service. The Revenue Service
puts it in the general fund, and no accountant on Earth can decode it for at
least 10 years, in which case a completely different administration is in
power, and the previous ones are millionairs on retirement.

Bottom line, oil is in depletion until alternatives (Capitalist ones) reach the
break-even price, and then oil reserves (while still in depletion) will last for
centuries longer. Conservation is one-half of the equation, if you want to
play with that equation. Many of us want our Revenue spent on an
alternative engine, or an alternative fuel, and not get Ethanol and a God
Damned trip to Mars for no purpose.

Leslie Swartz

February 22nd 04, 09:09 PM

It's called a "net energy loss" because the energy required to *make* the
ethanol has to come from somewhere . . . like a coal burning plant . . . and
the joules required to make the ethanol is MORE than the joules the ethanol
itself releases.

Same for all the "hydrogen" type boondoggles.

Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh
gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the "top
off" electricity to the vehicle and the extra energy required to manufacture
the hybrid side of the vehicle in the first place. Well, o.k., the newest
hybrids are probably right at break even now. The only reason they exist
now is some jackboot sticks a gun in our faces and steals our money to
subsidize the program. Try buyign a hybrid at "full price" and you'll see
what I mean.

If it takes more energy to make it than it releases, that just means you
have to burn more fossil fuels (or atoms, but that's pretty much out) than
you would have in the first place.

Oh yeah, and I love being lectured by our "Green" friends in Europe about
how great Diesel is . . .

Steve Swartz

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Stephen Harding" > wrote in message
> ...
> > George Z. Bush wrote:
> >
> > > "D. Strang" > wrote in message
> > >>
> > >>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.
> >
> > I like ethanol. My car does that is. Seems to run a little smoother
> > when I'm cruising across Iowa where "gasohol" can be found in
> > abundance.
> >
> > But from an energy conservation point of view, it really isn't very
> > good sense. How much energy does it take to create ethanol from
> > corn? How much energy do you get back from burning it with gas?
> >
> > It's a net energy loss IIRC.
>
> Maybe it's because I don't fully understand how it works, but if, as you
say, it
> runs as smoothly in your car as does gasoline and if the stuff is made of
> surplus corn not otherwise needed to nourish human beings, why doesn't its
> manufacture in far larger quantities than presently help to extend the
life of
> our oil reserves? For every gallon of ethanol-containing gasohol that is
burned
> (made of stuff that otherwise would likely rot and be of no value to
anyone),
> would that not represent at least a portion of a gallon of gasoline that
won't
> be burned in its place, therefore extending the life of our petroleum
reserves?
> How can that be an energy loss?
>
> Is the fact that there might not be as much profit in a gallon of gasohol
as
> there is in a gallon of gasoline what inhibits an expansion of the amount
of
> ethanol manufactured?
>
> If so, should our national energy policy be based on the profitability of
the
> fuel used by our nation's consumers, or should that factor have any
influence at
> all?
>
> > >>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.
> >
> > Because oil is what drives the economy, and because no satisfactory
> > alternative is anywhere on the horizon, with the possible exception
> > of hydrogen driven fuel cell technology in perhaps 20 years.
> >
> > The infrastructure is set up for oil and whatever replaces oil should
> > fit that same infrastructure for best effect.
> >
> > The idea you're going to "stick it" to oil companies with some new
> > technology is naive.
>
> As I recall, they said just about the same thing way back when most cars
could
> only get 10 or 15 mph, and the federal government mandated that they
needed to
> improve dramatically as their contribution to our national energy policy.
It
> took a few years, but after that, just about every vehicle on the market
was
> capable of getting 25-30 mpg from our existing fuel supply. I don't think
> anyone is claiming that the efficiency of existing auto engines have
reached any
> sort of pinnacle. I suspect that, if pushed, the manufacturers will again
> produce, just as they have in the past. Call it naive if you will, but
many
> people think it possible.
>
> > .....The oil companies will become the "hydrogen companies", or "solar
> companies" or "wind
> > companies" of the future.
> > They're not going away and until fusion nukes come along, energy is
> > always going to be a hard to come by, costly resource.
>
>

Kenneth Chiu

February 22nd 04, 09:25 PM

In article >,
Leslie Swartz > wrote:
>Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh
>gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the "top
>off" electricity to the vehicle

You mean like the Toyota Prius? The mileage figures include the
gas required to generate the electricity.

George Z. Bush

February 22nd 04, 10:57 PM

"D. Strang" > wrote in message
news:MM7_b.9908$Ru5.9336@okepread03...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote
> >
> > ...and if the stuff is made of surplus corn not otherwise needed to nourish
> > human beings,
>
> Whoa now!
>
> This isn't surplus corn. The corn is a contract to the government. The
farmers
> sell it to the buyer, and the buyer sells it to the distiller. The buyer and
the
> distiller are then subsidized by Congress. There is no Capitalism involved.

Hold it just a minute, please. You lost me there. I know you'll straighten me
out if I have it wrong, but I thought that the way it worked was that the
government established a production level for corn and, for whatever amount
above that level that was produced, the government bought it up at a set price
in order to keep it off the market, thereby maintaining the price on corn at a
level that would keep the farmers economically viable.

I thought that the stuff the government bought and kept in silos against the day
when the annual supply might drop below the level needed to satisfy demand
without resulting in raised prices is what I called surplus. That corn was
bought and paid for by the taxpayer and intentionally withhelf drom the market
against the day when what was produced wouldn't be enough to satisfy public
demand.

I think one of us must have the process wrong.
>
> This may answer your other questions. The cost of manufacturing Ethanol is
> wired-in to the taxes you pay to the Revenue Service. The Revenue Service
> puts it in the general fund, and no accountant on Earth can decode it for at
> least 10 years, in which case a completely different administration is in
> power, and the previous ones are millionairs on retirement.

Here, too, I think it works another way. I thought that the way it worked was
that the government owned corn was sold to a distiller for a mutually agreed
upon price and, from that point on, the corn was in the capitalist system
pipeline. It belonged to the distiller, who processed it into ethanol, did his
cost accounting to establish his costs, and distributed it into the gasoline
distribution net to be retailed, presumably at a profit of some sort at every
level where it was handled before it ended up in somebody's gas tank. Not so?
>
> Bottom line, oil is in depletion until alternatives (Capitalist ones) reach
the
> break-even price, and then oil reserves (while still in depletion) will last
for
> centuries longer. Conservation is one-half of the equation, if you want to
> play with that equation. Many of us want our Revenue spent on an
> alternative engine, or an alternative fuel, and not get Ethanol and a God
> Damned trip to Mars for no purpose.
>
It may come as a shock to you, but here I agree with you, from top to bottom.
There's a helluva lot more we can do with our money, much less than that we'd
have to borrow from banks, than to pour it into a relatively useless trip to
Mars at our expense while we have so many unfulfilled needs in our own country.
First things ought to come first, and Mars will be near the bottom of the list,
where it belongs.

George Z.

Pete

February 22nd 04, 11:26 PM

"Kenneth Chiu" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Leslie Swartz > wrote:
> >Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh
> >gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the
"top
> >off" electricity to the vehicle
>
> You mean like the Toyota Prius? The mileage figures include the
> gas required to generate the electricity.

The comparisons are even worse that that.

The extra price with hybrids makes up for a LOT of gas.

Using figures from edmunds.com:
A Honda Hybrid retails for $20,650, a regular LX Sedan for $16,160

highway mileage:
Hybrid = 47, Sedan = 38.

At $1.60 for gas, that extra $4000+ buys 1/2 million miles of gas at the
9mpg difference.
Even at $2.50/gal, it doesn't equal out til 300,000+ miles.

Using City mileage figures, it evens out at 200,000 miles.

Now...factor in the fuel and chemicals used to make that bigass battery
pack.
Now...factor in the maintenance and environmental price for the expected
battery replacement/disposal at 100-150,000 miles.

Is the Hybrid 'better'? Yes, if gas mileage is the only factor you're
looking at.

Pete

Steve Hix

February 23rd 04, 12:03 AM

In article >, (Al Dykes)
wrote:

> In article >,
> R. David Steele > wrote:
> >
> >|>> "I am angry that so many of the sons of the powerful and well-placed
> >|>managed to
> >|>> wangle slots in the Army Reserve and National Guard units." -- Colin
> >|>Powell, My
> >|>> American Journey, 1995
> >|>
> >|>Colin Powell quoted regarding the Guard after ODS:
> >|>
> >|>"Then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Colin Powell stated
> >|>shortly after the war that it "...could have not been fought without the
> >|>Guard".
> >|>
> >|>www.calguard.ca.gov/250thmi/AboutUs/history_usarng.htm
> >|>
> >|>Brooks
> >|>
> >|>>
> >|>> Arthur Kramer
> >|>
> >|>
> >|>
> >|
> >|Of course not. It was being fought on the cheap and there weren't enough
> >|regular troops to do the job and so the guard had to be called in.
> >> It is still
> >|being fought on the cheap and we still don't have Iraq under control.
> >
> >Thank Clinton for gutting the military in the '90s. He basically
> >cut the military in half.
> >
> >In graph form, for those who can not read (ie grad students)
> >http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms8.pdf
> >In table form
> >http://web1.whs.osd.mil/mmid/military/ms9.pdf
> >
> > Army Navy Marines Af
> >1990 732,403 579,417 196,652 535,233
> >2000 482,170 373,193 173,321 355,654
> >
> >1990 2,043,705
> >2000 1,384,338
> >
> >this was a 46% reduction in force over 10 years. The famous
> >"peace dividend" which was taken out of Army and AF for the most
> >part.
> >
>
> And a bunch of the headcount was contracted out to KBR. I suspect
> that the budget didn't go down in proportion to headcount. I know
> that the budget did a steep uptick in Clinton's last year.
>
> Remember that The Afgani war was fought with Clinton's military.
> Even in the best of circumstances Rummy's changes couldn't
> have kicked it by late 2001.

Frankly, the fighting done in Afghanistan was done largely by Afghan
troops, and remnants of the Bush I military.

Kenneth Chiu

February 23rd 04, 12:12 AM

In article >,
Pete > wrote:
>
>"Kenneth Chiu" > wrote in message
...
>> In article >,
>> Leslie Swartz > wrote:
>> >Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh
>> >gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the
>"top
>> >off" electricity to the vehicle
>>
>> You mean like the Toyota Prius? The mileage figures include the
>> gas required to generate the electricity.
>
>The comparisons are even worse that that.
>
>The extra price with hybrids makes up for a LOT of gas.
>
>Using figures from edmunds.com:
>A Honda Hybrid retails for $20,650, a regular LX Sedan for $16,160
>
>highway mileage:
>Hybrid = 47, Sedan = 38.
>
>At $1.60 for gas, that extra $4000+ buys 1/2 million miles of gas at the
>9mpg difference.
>Even at $2.50/gal, it doesn't equal out til 300,000+ miles.
>
>Using City mileage figures, it evens out at 200,000 miles.
>
>Now...factor in the fuel and chemicals used to make that bigass battery
>pack.
>Now...factor in the maintenance and environmental price for the expected
>battery replacement/disposal at 100-150,000 miles.
>
>Is the Hybrid 'better'? Yes, if gas mileage is the only factor you're
>looking at.

I'm only pointing out that _if_ the OP is talking about cars
like the Prius, he is mistaken if he thinks the mileage
figures do not include the gas to generate the electricity.

Leslie Swartz

February 23rd 04, 01:50 AM

Hey Kenneth:

That's a moot point. You only includes the gas burned by the *onboard* ICE.
I specifically said "topoff electricity" which most certainly is NOT
included in the mpg figure. The mpg figure is worthless anyhow, as others
pointed out. The energy required to *make* the vehicle and vehicle systems
above and beyond a comparable vehicle (delta energy, not net energy) makes
the Prius a loser.

OBTW, if you are comparing the price of the Prius to the LX sedan, try
$37,000+ which is the true price of the Prius (before the jackbooted thugs
et al subsidize the vehicle at someone else's expense).

Steve Swartz

"Kenneth Chiu" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Pete > wrote:
> >
> >"Kenneth Chiu" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> In article >,
> >> Leslie Swartz > wrote:
> >> >Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh
> >> >gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get
the
> >"top
> >> >off" electricity to the vehicle
> >>
> >> You mean like the Toyota Prius? The mileage figures include the
> >> gas required to generate the electricity.
> >
> >The comparisons are even worse that that.
> >
> >The extra price with hybrids makes up for a LOT of gas.
> >
> >Using figures from edmunds.com:
> >A Honda Hybrid retails for $20,650, a regular LX Sedan for $16,160
> >
> >highway mileage:
> >Hybrid = 47, Sedan = 38.
> >
> >At $1.60 for gas, that extra $4000+ buys 1/2 million miles of gas at the
> >9mpg difference.
> >Even at $2.50/gal, it doesn't equal out til 300,000+ miles.
> >
> >Using City mileage figures, it evens out at 200,000 miles.
> >
> >Now...factor in the fuel and chemicals used to make that bigass battery
> >pack.
> >Now...factor in the maintenance and environmental price for the expected
> >battery replacement/disposal at 100-150,000 miles.
> >
> >Is the Hybrid 'better'? Yes, if gas mileage is the only factor you're
> >looking at.
>
> I'm only pointing out that _if_ the OP is talking about cars
> like the Prius, he is mistaken if he thinks the mileage
> figures do not include the gas to generate the electricity.

Leslie Swartz

February 23rd 04, 01:56 AM

Glad to see you gave up on characterizing the Moon as a "worthless" trip.

Now- would you be willing to let your tax dollars go to Big Oil to help
payoff the startup costs of private-sector harvesting of lunar He3?

How about tax dollars to develop the technology (not invent the process, but
develop the existing technology) for He-3 fusion reactors here on earth?

The alternative is to wait until this becomes economically feasible, and
rely on the private sector 100% for start-up capital.

Remember, that won't happen until the oil begins to run out . . . if you
want to support the cleanest, most abundant source of energy for the future,
you must either cough up the tax dollars or go buy the biggest SUV you can
find.

Steve Swartz

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
>
> "D. Strang" > wrote in message
> news:MM7_b.9908$Ru5.9336@okepread03...
> > "George Z. Bush" > wrote
> > >
> > > ...and if the stuff is made of surplus corn not otherwise needed to
nourish
> > > human beings,
> >
> > Whoa now!
> >
> > This isn't surplus corn. The corn is a contract to the government. The
> farmers
> > sell it to the buyer, and the buyer sells it to the distiller. The
buyer and
> the
> > distiller are then subsidized by Congress. There is no Capitalism
involved.
>
> Hold it just a minute, please. You lost me there. I know you'll
straighten me
> out if I have it wrong, but I thought that the way it worked was that the
> government established a production level for corn and, for whatever
amount
> above that level that was produced, the government bought it up at a set
price
> in order to keep it off the market, thereby maintaining the price on corn
at a
> level that would keep the farmers economically viable.
>
> I thought that the stuff the government bought and kept in silos against
the day
> when the annual supply might drop below the level needed to satisfy demand
> without resulting in raised prices is what I called surplus. That corn
was
> bought and paid for by the taxpayer and intentionally withhelf drom the
market
> against the day when what was produced wouldn't be enough to satisfy
public
> demand.
>
> I think one of us must have the process wrong.
> >
> > This may answer your other questions. The cost of manufacturing Ethanol
is
> > wired-in to the taxes you pay to the Revenue Service. The Revenue
Service
> > puts it in the general fund, and no accountant on Earth can decode it
for at
> > least 10 years, in which case a completely different administration is
in
> > power, and the previous ones are millionairs on retirement.
>
> Here, too, I think it works another way. I thought that the way it worked
was
> that the government owned corn was sold to a distiller for a mutually
agreed
> upon price and, from that point on, the corn was in the capitalist system
> pipeline. It belonged to the distiller, who processed it into ethanol,
did his
> cost accounting to establish his costs, and distributed it into the
gasoline
> distribution net to be retailed, presumably at a profit of some sort at
every
> level where it was handled before it ended up in somebody's gas tank. Not
so?
> >
> > Bottom line, oil is in depletion until alternatives (Capitalist ones)
reach
> the
> > break-even price, and then oil reserves (while still in depletion) will
last
> for
> > centuries longer. Conservation is one-half of the equation, if you want
to
> > play with that equation. Many of us want our Revenue spent on an
> > alternative engine, or an alternative fuel, and not get Ethanol and a
God
> > Damned trip to Mars for no purpose.
> >
> It may come as a shock to you, but here I agree with you, from top to
bottom.
> There's a helluva lot more we can do with our money, much less than that
we'd
> have to borrow from banks, than to pour it into a relatively useless trip
to
> Mars at our expense while we have so many unfulfilled needs in our own
country.
> First things ought to come first, and Mars will be near the bottom of the
list,
> where it belongs.
>
> George Z.
>
>

D. Strang

February 23rd 04, 03:39 AM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote
>
> Hold it just a minute, please. You lost me there. I know you'll straighten me
> out if I have it wrong, but I thought that the way it worked was that the
> government established a production level for corn...

It's way more complicated than that, and not really worth the energy to type my
reply. Here's a funnier scam:

"Dealing with California's water shortage can be solved by growing more orange
trees in the desert and then distilling the water out of the orange juice."

First we need a tax incentive to the farmers, and then the middlemen, and then
we will be water independent. We won't even need snow anymore...

George Z. Bush

February 23rd 04, 05:54 AM

"D. Strang" > wrote in message
news:BBe_b.9947$Ru5.7935@okepread03...
> "George Z. Bush" > wrote
> >
> > Hold it just a minute, please. You lost me there. I know you'll straighten
me
> > out if I have it wrong, but I thought that the way it worked was that the
> > government established a production level for corn...
>
> It's way more complicated than that, and not really worth the energy to type
my
> reply. Here's a funnier scam:
>
> "Dealing with California's water shortage can be solved by growing more orange
> trees in the desert and then distilling the water out of the orange juice."
>
> First we need a tax incentive to the farmers, and then the middlemen, and then
> we will be water independent. We won't even need snow anymore...

OK! OK! The horse is obviously dead, so we can stop kicking it. Thanks for
your water shortage cure.....imaginative as well as amusing. (*-*)))

George Z.
>
>

Cub Driver

February 23rd 04, 10:38 AM

One of the Wall Street Journa'ls pet peeves is corporate welfare for
Archer Daniels Midland through the ethanol subsidies. That ought to
tell you something.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver

February 23rd 04, 10:39 AM

>First we need a tax incentive to the farmers, and then the middlemen, and then
>we will be water independent. We won't even need snow anymore...

Unfortunately, you'll have to subsidize snowmaking for the ski resorts
in that case.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver

February 23rd 04, 10:42 AM

>Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh
>gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the "top
>off" electricity to the vehicle and the extra energy required to manufacture
>the hybrid side of the vehicle in the first place. Well, o.k., the newest
>hybrids are probably right at break even now.

I understand that the battery bank in the gas-electrics like the Civic
have to be replaced at five years, so that's a measure of what the
hybrid side costs. (The car itself is really rather inexpensive.)

Could it possibly be true that it's not worth doubling your gas
mileage for five years at the expense of a battery bank? (Perhaps it
is. Math was never my strong point.)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver

February 23rd 04, 10:47 AM

>Yes we had barely enough. And it taxed the manpower. Now we
>have that mission, Bosnia and Iraq. Plus a potential war with
>China in the near future for control of the far East.

Well, we could shuck Bosnia any day. We don't have a dog in that
fight.

And we can't prepare for a war with China. We could not prevail in
such a war. In this respect, it is the United States that is the
second-rate nation. We must get along with China, and China to prosper
must get along with the U.S. Fortunately both countries seem to
understand that.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Kevin Brooks

February 23rd 04, 02:52 PM

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> >Yes we had barely enough. And it taxed the manpower. Now we
> >have that mission, Bosnia and Iraq. Plus a potential war with
> >China in the near future for control of the far East.
>
> Well, we could shuck Bosnia any day. We don't have a dog in that
> fight.
>
> And we can't prepare for a war with China. We could not prevail in
> such a war.

Really? While I agree the likelihood of such a conflict is not that great at
present (provided the PRC does not go stupid over Taiwan), I don't really
see how we "could not prevail" in a military conflict with the PRC. It is
not as if prevailing requires us to to put boots-on-the-ground in Beijing.
The PRC is quickly growing to rather like its foreign trade, and its people
are becoming more and more enamored of materialistic possessions. Turning
off their power grid, chunking up their communications systems, and denying
them any viable foreign trade (i.e., naval blockade) would seem to offer a
reasonable chance for us to "prevail" against them. I don't think the PRC
cares to risk finding out the hard way.

In this respect, it is the United States that is the
> second-rate nation.

I don't think so. Remaining bound to the Lanchesterian attrition model is
not a very good basis for assessing the capabilities of the modern US
military. China's PLA indeed has oodles of men with rifles; unfortunately,
it has yet to demonstrate a keen ability to operate as an effective joint
combat force, their PLAAF (despite its gain of some Su-27 and Su-30 mounts)
is nowhere near being able to confidently confront US airpower, they are
newcomers to the field of using space operations as a source of leverage in
military operations, and their PLAN would provide little more than target
practice for the USN.

We must get along with China, and China to prosper
> must get along with the U.S. Fortunately both countries seem to
> understand that.

I like the view posited by some national security wonk a couple of years
back: he described our strategy vis a vis the PRC as "congagement", with us
both containing and engaging the PRC. Engagement generally seems to be
working, but if the PRC *really* thought that the US could not confront them
militarily all bets would be off and they'd be a lot more antagonistic to
their neighbors.

Brooks

>
> all the best -- Dan Ford

Ed Rasimus

February 23rd 04, 03:22 PM

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:52:33 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> >Yes we had barely enough. And it taxed the manpower. Now we
>> >have that mission, Bosnia and Iraq. Plus a potential war with
>> >China in the near future for control of the far East.
>>
>> Well, we could shuck Bosnia any day. We don't have a dog in that
>> fight.
>>
>> And we can't prepare for a war with China. We could not prevail in
>> such a war.
>
>Really? While I agree the likelihood of such a conflict is not that great at
>present (provided the PRC does not go stupid over Taiwan), I don't really
>see how we "could not prevail" in a military conflict with the PRC. It is
>not as if prevailing requires us to to put boots-on-the-ground in Beijing.
>The PRC is quickly growing to rather like its foreign trade, and its people
>are becoming more and more enamored of materialistic possessions. Turning
>off their power grid, chunking up their communications systems, and denying
>them any viable foreign trade (i.e., naval blockade) would seem to offer a
>reasonable chance for us to "prevail" against them. I don't think the PRC
>cares to risk finding out the hard way.

The Nov/Dec issue of Foreign Affairs focussed on the "New China" and
offered some rather interesting economic insights. Thinks like more
than 40,000 Nationalist Chinese companies having offices, plants,
branches on the mainland and more than 400,000 Nationalists working on
the mainland. The economic integration of the PRC and ROC is
considerable and despite the political posturing of the leadership,
probably dominant.

The final straw in the PRC coffin of political control will come when
the country is forced to open up for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games
which they fought so strenuously to gain. With literally millions of
visitors from outside the Communist paradise, the leadership will be
forced to be on their best behavior and the masses will be exposed to
the magical world of democracy, free press, information and idea
exchange. "How you gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen
Paree???"

As for military force, China certainly has manpower and they
definitely have men under arms, but they don't have offensive force
projection capability. They don't have a blue-water navy, they don't
have a meaningful offensive air force and they don't have the
necessary airlift capability to fight a mobile war even within their
own borders.
>
>We must get along with China, and China to prosper
>> must get along with the U.S. Fortunately both countries seem to
>> understand that.
>
>I like the view posited by some national security wonk a couple of years
>back: he described our strategy vis a vis the PRC as "congagement", with us
>both containing and engaging the PRC. Engagement generally seems to be
>working, but if the PRC *really* thought that the US could not confront them
>militarily all bets would be off and they'd be a lot more antagonistic to
>their neighbors.
>

Amazingly enough, it was the enlightened foreign policy of
Kissinger/Nixon with regard to China (hold the flames regarding other
errors of that administration), that opened the door to dialogue with
China. Precisely the policy of containing militarily without
threatening while engaging economically which inevitably undermines
the shortages and failures of central planning as compared to a free
market.

The poor Chinese leadership never saw K-Mart coming!

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

Kevin Brooks

February 23rd 04, 03:57 PM

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:52:33 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >> >Yes we had barely enough. And it taxed the manpower. Now we
> >> >have that mission, Bosnia and Iraq. Plus a potential war with
> >> >China in the near future for control of the far East.
> >>
> >> Well, we could shuck Bosnia any day. We don't have a dog in that
> >> fight.
> >>
> >> And we can't prepare for a war with China. We could not prevail in
> >> such a war.
> >
> >Really? While I agree the likelihood of such a conflict is not that great
at
> >present (provided the PRC does not go stupid over Taiwan), I don't really
> >see how we "could not prevail" in a military conflict with the PRC. It is
> >not as if prevailing requires us to to put boots-on-the-ground in
Beijing.
> >The PRC is quickly growing to rather like its foreign trade, and its
people
> >are becoming more and more enamored of materialistic possessions. Turning
> >off their power grid, chunking up their communications systems, and
denying
> >them any viable foreign trade (i.e., naval blockade) would seem to offer
a
> >reasonable chance for us to "prevail" against them. I don't think the PRC
> >cares to risk finding out the hard way.
>
> The Nov/Dec issue of Foreign Affairs focussed on the "New China" and
> offered some rather interesting economic insights. Thinks like more
> than 40,000 Nationalist Chinese companies having offices, plants,
> branches on the mainland and more than 400,000 Nationalists working on
> the mainland. The economic integration of the PRC and ROC is
> considerable and despite the political posturing of the leadership,
> probably dominant.
>
> The final straw in the PRC coffin of political control will come when
> the country is forced to open up for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games
> which they fought so strenuously to gain. With literally millions of
> visitors from outside the Communist paradise, the leadership will be
> forced to be on their best behavior and the masses will be exposed to
> the magical world of democracy, free press, information and idea
> exchange. "How you gonna keep 'em down on the farm, after they've seen
> Paree???"

Exactly. They are finding that modern capitalism, which they have
increasingly embraced out of economic necessity, has an inherent tendency to
engender individual independence. I think you are also right in noting that
the Party's biggest "threat" is currently from within as a result of this
increased openess.

>
> As for military force, China certainly has manpower and they
> definitely have men under arms, but they don't have offensive force
> projection capability. They don't have a blue-water navy, they don't
> have a meaningful offensive air force and they don't have the
> necessary airlift capability to fight a mobile war even within their
> own borders.

Dead on target. Even the PLA realizes this, and did as early as after the
first Gulf War, after observing the devastating effects of US precision
engagement against the Iraqis. They are trying to redesign their forces
accordingly, but they have a lot of institutional inertia to overcome, and
it will be some time before thay have both the tools and the expertise to be
considered a first-rate military power.

<snip>

>
> The poor Chinese leadership never saw K-Mart coming!

Ugh! They can keep K-Mart. That is a prime example of a large company that
forgot its fortunes depended upon customer satisfaction; gimme WallyWorld or
Tar-shay anyday!

Brooks

>
>
>
> Ed Rasimus

Cub Driver

February 24th 04, 11:39 AM

>Remember, that won't happen until the oil begins to run out .

People don't seem to understand the concept of pricing. Oil will get
more expensive in this discade, not in some distant future, because
China will be importing more of it.

(Assuming that China keeps prospering, and I do hope so. Europe and
Japan both seem permanently mired; China seems likely to become the
world's second economy, and for the first time since the 1980s there
will be another economy beside the U.S. that is vibrant enough to
export prosperity. It is very tiresome for America to have to keep
dragging the rest of the world around like an anvil.)

As oil (gradually) becomes expensive, alternatives will make their
appearance.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Cub Driver

February 24th 04, 11:41 AM

>>The PRC is quickly growing to rather like its foreign trade

We rather like it as well :)

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

George Z. Bush

February 24th 04, 12:56 PM

R. David Steele wrote:
>>> Yes we had barely enough. And it taxed the manpower. Now we
>>> have that mission, Bosnia and Iraq. Plus a potential war with
>>> China in the near future for control of the far East.
>>
>> Well, we could shuck Bosnia any day. We don't have a dog in that
>> fight.

Easier said than done. We got into that one because the Serbs were practicing a
little genocide against their former Moslem neighbors and we decided to break it
up, good guys that we are. How's it going to look if we pull out and let them
resume their blood bath? When it comes to something like genocide, aren't we
supposed to stop it and see that it stays stopped? Or would looking the other
way make the practice palatable?

George Z.

Kevin Brooks

February 24th 04, 02:19 PM

"George Z. Bush" > wrote in message
...
> R. David Steele wrote:
> >>> Yes we had barely enough. And it taxed the manpower. Now we
> >>> have that mission, Bosnia and Iraq. Plus a potential war with
> >>> China in the near future for control of the far East.
> >>
> >> Well, we could shuck Bosnia any day. We don't have a dog in that
> >> fight.
>
> Easier said than done. We got into that one because the Serbs were
practicing a
> little genocide against their former Moslem neighbors and we decided to
break it
> up, good guys that we are. How's it going to look if we pull out and let
them
> resume their blood bath? When it comes to something like genocide, aren't
we
> supposed to stop it and see that it stays stopped? Or would looking the
other
> way make the practice palatable?

Have you been hiding under the same rock that Art inhabits? Noticed any
changes in terms of how things are these days in Bosnia and Herzegovina?
SFOR was down to 12K troops total (not just from the US) in 2002; MNB-N, for
which the US has been the major contributor, is down to 2,700 troops total.
The situation has largely stabilized, and the question of why we have to
continue to contribute troops to this task is a viable one. After all,
Georgie, your man Clinton told us when he sent our IFOR contingent into the
region back in late 1995 that we would be out of there in 1997...which would
seem to weigh against your whining about the continuing troop requirement in
Iraq today.

Brooks

>
> George Z.
>
>

BUFDRVR

February 24th 04, 10:41 PM

>When it comes to something like genocide, aren't we
>supposed to stop it and see that it stays stopped? Or would looking the
>other
>way make the practice palatable?

Correctly, Clinton took no direct action in a far worse genocide in Rwanda,
just prior to our involvement in Kosovo. As horrible as ethnic violence is, if
its not in your national interest to get directly involved, you don't. The
Clinton administration thought our involvement in a European issue was in our
national interest (and, for the most part, I agree) however there comes a time
when you need to re-evaluate the situation. In my opinion, we're no longer
needed in the the Balkans, and if trouble reappears, we evaluate that situation
again.

BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

Michelle Vadeboncoeur

February 26th 04, 04:59 PM

"Leslie Swartz" > wrote in message >...
> Hey Kenneth:
>
> That's a moot point. You only includes the gas burned by the *onboard* ICE.
> I specifically said "topoff electricity" which most certainly is NOT
> included in the mpg figure. The mpg figure is worthless anyhow, as others

You obviously know nothing about the currently-available
gasoline/electric
hybrids. In the US, that's the Toyota Prius, the Honda Insight, and
the Honda Civic Hybrid (and hopefully more in the next year). With
the exception of 1 or 2 people who have been doing some serious
hacking/modding on their car to make a gridable hybrid, there IS NO
PLUG for any "topoff electricity."
ALL electricity for the car is either directly generated by excess
power from the gasoline engine, or through regenerative braking (when
coasting or braking, the otherwise lost kinetic energy (which would
convert to heat in brake pads) is tranferred by the electric motor
to the battery pack into kinetic energy). The hybrids are
self-sufficient
with charging or "topping off" the battery. The EPA MPG figures are
just for the gasoline, because that is the only fuel that you can put
into the current hybrids (no electric plug).

The only plug my 3-year-old 2001 Prius has seen is the same one that
most
people use on their traditional cars - the gas pump at the service
station.

Michelle Vadeboncoeur

February 26th 04, 05:08 PM

Cub Driver > wrote in message >...
> >Same for the "new" gas-electric hybrids. Yes, you get 60 miles to teh
> >gallon as long as you don't count teh energy stream required to get the "top
> >off" electricity to the vehicle and the extra energy required to manufacture
> >the hybrid side of the vehicle in the first place. Well, o.k., the newest
> >hybrids are probably right at break even now.
>
> I understand that the battery bank in the gas-electrics like the Civic
> have to be replaced at five years, so that's a measure of what the
> hybrid side costs. (The car itself is really rather inexpensive.)

Where did you hear that?

Just because the warranty on the battery pack runs out in 8-10 years,
doesn't mean that the battery automatically needs replacing. (I'll
skip over that you can just replace a bad cell, rather than the entire
pack...) I have not heard of massive battery replacements for the
1998 Prius (originally sold only in Japan, now showing up used
elsewhere), but the battery technology has greatly improved from that
older model. (2004 Prius is on the 3rd generation)

Just because a bumper-to-bumper warranty expires, it doesn't
automatically mean that the bumpers will fall off or stop protecting
you in an accident either...