| 06/23/08 04:38 PM |
#522
|
|
Brendhan Pelot (Pelot)
Well, I don't really want to call Wallace’s ass out....not that it's not a cute ass Wallace, it most definitely is, BUT I gotta go with Lee on this. I remember you telling a couple of us that your dad gave you the advice just to rub it out when you needed to. Hey, it's not like we all didn't, your Dad just said it. Thinking about it now, I'm not sure if you said it was your dad or Fred....probably Fred. :-)
Congrats on the 68.
As for the energy debate, it's really pretty simple, it's about population control. Basically the earth cannot sustain anymore humans (in fact we have too many already and there will be a major population correction, if not in our lifetime, then certainly in our grandchildren's). The energy crisis is worse than you think. Go to Wikipedia and search peak oil. Even if we (the USA) drilled everywhere that we believe has oil it would only be enough to supply 2.5 years of demand (assuming no imports).
Nuclear is a short term solution, because like fossil fuels, it uses a non-renewable resource. Uranium is becoming more and more scarce. The future is in solar, wind and possible oceanic wave power production.
We have spent a $ Trillion in Iraq to secure our access to a dwindling resource. Had we spent that same amount on alternative energy resources and started at the same time we entered the Iraq war, we would have had energy independence by the end of the next decade. That decision by Bush will haunt our children (if not us). Having said that, Clinton had great economic times when there was money to burn and he did nothing about alternative energy to speak of either.
A couple of books to check out:
Peak Everything
-Focuses on Peak Oil, but talks about other peaks that will occur in this century, including population growth and food production (surprise, they are related)
The Coming Economic Collapse
- This guy predicted $100 a barrel oil by the end of the decade and said it was not out of the question that it would hit $200 by the end of the decade. The price of a barrel of oil when he wrote it in 2005...$60.
I'm not even going to get started on the environmental aspect.
And yes, I agree with Walter today just as I did then about the 2 party system. I'm not ashamed to admit I voted for Ross Perot, twice. Not because I thought he was the savior, but because I thought he represented a real opportunity to break the Dem/Rep. stranglehold on politics. Had it not been for his last minute backing out and then backing in to the race in 1992 I believe he would have won. If only he had had one less screw loose.
Now what do we have? A "maverick" who kowtowed to his leader and party in 2004 after they used every dirty trick in the book to make sure Bush got the nomination in 2000. I registered as a Republican (though I'm an unashamed Liberal on MOST issues) just to vote for him in the Rep. primary in 2000. I lost my respect for him when he kowtowed in 2004.
And on the other side? An entirely empty vessel without a shred of a new idea who is "all about the positive message." I'm all for a positive message, but that is all there is, a lot of "positive", but there is no real message.
Soooooo, another election with no real decent choices, what a shock!
This will be my LAST politically oriented post. :-)
|
|
This kind of gas?
This was my laugh out loud moment of the morning:
