home

Wednesday Open Thread

By Jeralyn, Section Blog Related
Posted on Wed Jun 29, 2005 at 08:40:40 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Your turn. Have fun.

< Bloggers Testify at FEC Hearing on Regulation | The Pre-War Period and Downing St. Memo >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Wednesday Open Thread | 29 comments (29 topical)
    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#1)
    by Darryl Pearce on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    Juan Cole points to this site and says:
    An interesting Flash presentation on Coalition casualties can be found here, demonstrating their geographical extent throughout the country
    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#2)
    by unbill on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    Here are two bloggers talking on c-span yesterday about the FEC and other stuff. Here's the lead from c-span: Jerome Armstrong, MyDD.com, and Patrick Hynes, anklebitingpundits.com. Discussion on Federal Election Commission hearings on proposed regulations of the Internet and political blogging. 6/28/2005: WASHINGTON, DC: 45 min.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#3)
    by DawesFred60 on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    More on how Bush and business plans to get into a war with china, and why our government ok deals with china for 100s of billions of dollars knowing it would cost millions of jobs and the third world war. But also say something about how we can put most of the government in prison, it would help to show the world we the people still have the power in our hands, and if the Red Government of china wants to fight we will fight the Red Rats and win, not bush and business. death to all enemies of the USA. "Oh yes can we also have the woman after the war?" all joking a-side, we "our" all in big time trouble and it is looking like 1939. I love it.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    Any diesel car can run on vegetable oil. So where are the soybean oil stations? Check out my buddy's blog about his experience running his 2005 VW Passat Diesel on B100, otherwise known as 100% soybean oil. Get Off Oil

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#5)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    And one more link, about the current situation in Iraq, from the perspective of indie journalist on the scene Christopher Allbritton. A serious counterpunch to Bush's pie in the sky speech. Back-To-Iraq

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#6)
    by kdog on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    We should show the world we the people have the power, Fred. Every American, left and right alike, should put their pet issues aside in the next elction and vote out every single incumbent. Every damn one, regardless of party. Corruption and petty politics as usual has reached an all-time high. That would show the world that the good people of America will no longer tolerate the corruption, pettiness, misdeeds, and outright falsehoods coming out of the executive and legislative branches. By, of , and for the people forever! A radical change must be made now before its too late. Send the bastards to the unemployment line, where they can dismantle our great nation no longer.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#7)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    Dadler - Back in the 60's they had a car they could run off perfume. But at $50.00 an ounce no one could afford it... It did, however, smell good. Your link was interesting, and $3.15 a gallon is not that far off for regular petro gas... Question is, how much energy is consumed in creating a gallon of B100? Because if more is consumed than produced, the solution isn't there. Shouldn't be too hard to figure. How much oil can you get from a bushel of soybeans, then how many bushels can you expect per acre, and how much gas was used in producing the acre. Then the next question is, how many acres must be grown to produce X amount of B100. You may discover that there isn't enough available land... I just don't know. But, if we could reasonably cut gas demand by 25% it would send tremors through the ME and other oil producers.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:41 PM EST
    "So where are the soybean oil stations?" Dadler, well, get some investors together and set one up.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#10)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    Another example of 'compassionate conservatism" from the LA Times via skippy the bush kangaroo
    this proud old seaport, whose sons and daughters have fought in every american war, was grieving for army staff sgt. christopher piper. the 43-year-old green beret died after his humvee hit a roadside bomb june 3 in afghanistan. when word got out that demonstrators from kansas planned to disrupt piper's funeral monday, residents vowed not to let them interfere with the tribute to their hometown hero.
    ... The followers of the Rev. Fred Phelps, who blame American tolerance of homosexuality for the Sept. 11 attacks and the resulting U.S. military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan, have targeted Massachusetts for protests because it is the only state where same-sex marriage is legal.
    Shirley phelps-roper, a lawyer for the kansas church, said monday that the funeral demonstration was nothing personal against piper, who was not gay."we are protesting the sins of this nation," phelps-roper said. "that doesn't exclude him.

    ...on the corner of a narrow street lined with colonial-era buildings, the kansas contingent tried shouting its anti-homosexual message at mourners who overflowed from the church. ...


    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#11)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    Jim, B100 requires, from what I recall, taking the glycerin out of the soybean oil, so it thins out. My buddy has figured his effective cost per gallon, and even if he might be paying more now, he's getting equal to slightly better mileage, he's using a homegrown (as in the USA) renewable resource, emitting a fraction of the pollutants and toxins that gas does. And as a non-toxic renewable, processing it is cheaper in the long run, since nothing even close to the toxic stew of refining gasoline has to be done to it. What appeals to me about this is the ease of it, the logic of it, and the imagination of it. To me it's forward looking and potentially immediate in its positive impact on the nation's fuel needs like no other thing right now.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#12)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    Add Jim, You make a valid point about available land, but we all, or at least most of us, consume too much of EVERYTHING, fuel especially, and effective conservation and more disciplined consumerism are obviously a logical components of any long-term energy plan intended to work. Use less, you need less. Land to cultivate included. Just my two cents, but unlike you I wouldn't as quickly move to doubting we had enough land to grow the stuff. I also think, since he gets almost 30 mpg driving around LA freeway and street traffic -- in a car that isn't small -- that we could send fuel efficiency into unknown realms IF WE GENUINELY FOCUSED ENOUGH ATTENTION THERE. Propping up dictators for cheap oil ain't gonna work anymore, I think we'd both agree on that.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#13)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    Use less, you need less.
    Since B100 is a more valuable resource than diesel (hence the higher price), it's not clear to me that he's actually using "less" in the grand scheme of things.
    ...we could send fuel efficiency into unknown realms IF WE GENUINELY FOCUSED ENOUGH ATTENTION THERE.
    Even if 100,000,000 drivers switched to B100 today, it wouldn't help advance more efficient technologies. It would just create a new market for inefficient fuel. There's something to be said for limiting our dependence on any one resource (like oil, especially foreign oil), but "efficient" it ain't.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#14)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    Roy, while I would prefer other fuels, you have to admit the statement "Since B100 is a more valuable resource than diesel " is incorrect. Bio fuels are renewable, oil, in our time frame, isn't.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#15)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    "There's something to be said for limiting our dependence on any one resource (like oil, especially foreign oil)" roy, Dadler, PPj, what are the goals of reducing our dependence on foreign oil? I mean, it sounds good and all, but what are the specific benefits we should receive? If any of our economy is foreign oil dependent, aren't we still at the mercy of the FO producers? Say we cut our FO dependence 50% and go from about today's 60% FO, to only 30%, or whatever. Which part of our economy would you sacrifice to that 30% if the FO producers felt like sticking it to us by raising prices? Would not a drag on 30% of our economy be debilitating to all of us? Personally, I'm not sure there are any real benefits...unless we become 100% self-reliant. Ok, we may not need to be completely 100% domestic energy to protect us from FO producers, but it seems to me we'd have to be darn close to it.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    In case it wasn't clear, my point is that as oil, a finite resource (see peak oil) and it's cost will continue to rise. At some point renewable fuels and technology will be cheaper. As we perfect them and develop others the price will go down.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#17)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    Sailor - my sentiments exactly...and that reasonable alternative fuels and/or technologies won't be developed until the price of oil gets high enough.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#18)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    ...you have to admit the statement "Since B100 is a more valuable resource than diesel " is incorrect. Bio fuels are renewable, oil, in our time frame, isn't.
    I'm using market cost as an estimate for true value. B100 costs more, which indicates that it's worth more. That's not the only way to estimate a product's value, but in a reasonably free market it works pretty good for somebody without a serious background in economics (which I don't have). More generally, "renewable" and "cheap" aren't the same thing. If a product based on plants takes 100 man hours to produce, and a similarly-useful product based on non-renewables resources take 10 man hours to produce, which is more valuable? And labor isn't the only resource being tied up to create the product. There's the question of land use (as Jim said), education for the laborers, and always an opportunity cost. Renewable vs. non-renewable is only one variable. To argue that all non-renewable resources are more valuable than all renewable resources leads to absurdity. Look at granite tiles and fine wine.
    At some point renewable fuels and technology will be cheaper. As we perfect them and develop others the price will go down.
    Sure. Pre-emptively researching technologies to replace use of a non-renewable resource with use of a renewable resource (or perhaps just a less scarce non-renewable resource) makes sense. Putting valuable vegetable oil into an unmodified diesel engine isn't research.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#19)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    sarc,
    If any of our economy is foreign oil dependent, aren't we still at the mercy of the FO producers?
    Let's look at worst case scenarios. Every other country in the world cuts us off completely. No more foreign oil coming into the U.S., ever, in either raw or refined form. If 60% of our usage is foreign oil, it will be quite difficult to adjust to that scenario. If it's 50%, it'll still be darned hard, but somewhat easier than the 60% case. If it's 1%, maybe we just carpool a little more and thumb our noses at the rest of the world.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    roy - we are in agreement. A 25, or 50 or 75% reduction in FO - while massive - really won't help us much. It's gonna take some seriously heavy lifting to get us to single digits - and if we're at anything significantly less than low single digits we're just fooling ourselves.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    The terrorists love George Bush.
    The cell leader trained with terror leader Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and told them the insurgents supported a Bush presidency because they believed it meant that "there will be confrontation, occupation and radicalisation of the Iraqi people," Malbrunot said.
    This is a symbiotic relationship. The terrorists need Bush and he needs the terrorists. Without one, the other will atrophy and die. Together they flourish and the world suffers. We must break the cycle by deposing Bush.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#22)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    Ernesto writes:
    This is a symbiotic relationship. The terrorists need Bush and he needs the terrorists. Without one, the other will atrophy and die. Together they flourish and the world suffers. We must break the cycle by deposing Bush.
    And why don't you consider getting rid of the terrorists? Hmmmm? After all, Bush will be gone in 3 years and 7 months. The terrorist, per your plan, won't.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#23)
    by Sailor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    While I don't recommend waiting until it's a crisis (and it's not like we haven't seen the oil dependency problem since the 70's) we managed to do just fine w/o natural rubber during WWII. Having oilmen in the WH really doesn't reassure me as to their support of anything but invading countries with more oil than we have. (Tho I'm sure the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions had nothing to do with their oil and pipelines;-) I'm going to log off for awhile for a reason I think PPJ can support; The WPT championship is on!

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#24)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:42 PM EST
    And why don't you consider getting rid of the terrorists?? After all, Bush will be gone in 3 years and 7 months. The terrorist, per your plan, won't.
    Oh yeah they will. They came in with Bush and they will follow him out. And the sooner the better.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#25)
    by roy on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    (Continuing from another thread)
    Blaghdaddy will compare his government with yours if you want to take potshots...
    Be warned, I am woefully uneducated about Canadian politics. Any nastiness which happens to be false is more likely due to ignorance than malice. So, three things I think my government does better than yours. A: Free speech. You can be fined for an anti-gay ad like this in Canada. If I were to place such an ad in America, I would have no legal trouble. My boss would put me in a headlock and fire me, and I think that's a better system. B: Gun rights. If this somewhat dated resource is accurate, you are basically not allowed to keep a gun in a manner useful for self defense. American law varies wildly (Washington D.C. is actually more strict than Canada) but most citizens can at least keep a plain ol' handgun loaded in the nightstand. Down here in Texas, I can walk down the street with a pistol hidden under my shirt. I consider the right to self defense a fundamental human right, so I like our way better. (quick concession: you have much less crime, so guns are less useful) C: Legislative process. I'm basing this on how you described it, so if I'm off base, blame my teacher.
    So going against the party on a legislative issue that could topple the government (imagine if the U.S. gov't fell every time the Congress or Senate over-rode a Presidential veto, and you've got the same concept)is grounds for expulsion from the party
    That has to breed groupthink like crazy. Will a legislator be able to speak his mind if he can't back it up with a vote? Plus, you've got about 33 million people up there; how can a handful of parties represent them in a meaningful without the ability to effectively deviate from the party line? Down here, we have a big giant mess of viewpoints in our legislators, which is great because we have a big giant mess of viewpoints in our population. We can vote for a Republican who will cut taxes to "stimulate growth" or one who will raise taxes to pay down the debt. We can vote for a Democrat who will add benefit to the health care system, or one who will reform the existing system to increase efficiency. So, where am I wrong?

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#26)
    by MikeDitto on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    Dadler - Back in the 60's they had a car they could run off perfume. But at $50.00 an ounce no one could afford it... It did, however, smell good.
    Hehe I imagine most cars would run on perfume since it's mostly alcohol! But since the bottom line rules the day, they'd never run on Chanel No. 5. Instead it would be Old Spice, or worse... We'd all gag to death on the tackiness. One point I think that's been missed on the soybean fuel and other bio-diesel--it emits no greenhouse gasses. Or more accurately, it emits the same amount of carbon that the soybean plants absorbed during growth, and since not all of the soybean plant gets burned as fuel, it's actually a net consumer of CO2, as opposed to fossil fuels, which only add CO2 to the atmosphere.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#27)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    the Heretik could use a word of congratulations from his TL associates on the Slate.com mention of his site on the Pakistani Honor Rape Case...well done, Joe...

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#28)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    I'm amazed at how immediately and reflexively doubters will pooh-pooh biodiesel without any kind of genuine info. Check out this link, sent by my buddy actually doing this, that will address some of the doubters' concerns. BioDiesel Info

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#29)
    by ppjakajim on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:43 PM EST
    Sailor writes:
    we managed to do just fine w/o natural rubber during WWII.
    Uh, actually automobile tires were rationed. BTW - You can blog and watch the WPT. It's as slow as golf. ;-) Ernesto writes:
    Oh yeah they will. They came in with Bush and they will follow him out. And the sooner the better.
    Hmmm, so the attacks between WTCI and WTCII never happened? That's so wild I don't know what to say. Michael D - That was my comment to Dadler.... And they did. It was a turbine engine. I saw it on the Today show.. Never went anywhere because it was noisy, hard to start and a fuel hog. Not to mention poor acceleration.. And it had a helluva exhaust pipe....;-) Interesting point re CO2.... BTW - You can also get oil from cottonseeds, flax, etc., so we may be throwing stuff away that would have better use. JL - To continue on.... I am perfectly consistent in my views. I condemned Churchill and said he should be fired, but I defended his right to say what he said. I think your position is that he shouldn't be fired, and I can't remember you condemning his comment. I also condemn the teacher's comments, but also defend his right to say them. You condemn the comments, and deny the right to say them. I think my way is best. BTW - Your comment re the number of comments has been made before, on other subjects. I say again, I see no reason to make an "I'm okay-you're okay" comment once I have stated my position. I mean, what should we do? Scream that we agree? So, I'll just say again. I don't care about people's sexual orientation, who they marry, etc. It is of no concern to me, and I worry about people who are concerned. I think we should have better legal protection, re discrimination, but "hate speech laws" are not my cup of tea. The slope is too slippery, and I think Canada is well down the slide.

    Re: Wednesday Open Thread (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ernesto Del Mundo on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:00:44 PM EST
    Hmmm, so the attacks between WTCI and WTCII never happened? That's so wild I don't know what to say.
    Let me clarify...U.S. policy has been hijacked in response to 9/11 and we invaded a country that had nothing to do with it, destabilized it and made it a hotbed of anti-U.S. sentiment. It's a policy that will make us less safe and increase the odds of another 9/11 rather than decrease it. The terrorists love George Bush, he helps them gain converts. You understand that simple concept don't you?

    Wednesday Open Thread | 29 comments (29 topical)