Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Ohmygod!

I've heard it stated many times, that we should all drive more fuel efficient cars, and that development of hybrid cars, fuel-cell, etc. would be in our national interest.

I don't understand what effect improved gas milage has on terrorism.

None, of course, it's a red herring. The reason why we don't confront the Saudis at this point is not because we need their oil (they need our petro dollars more) it's because it is not necessary to do so. They (the Saudi government) are not developing terror weapons to use against us even though they are openly sponsoring terrorism. It is much better to take down the really bad (and more directly dangerous to ourselves) apples first. The house of Saud should develop an entirely new perspective with a change of government in, say, Iraq.

That's right. whenever policies that flow from the left turn out to be ill-conceived, we are never supposed to remember who conceived of them in the first place.

I agree with every word of this. The problem is that, though there are no end of suggestions on how to conduct airport security from Democrats and Republicans. In order to be implemented they must get the blessing of Norman Mineta who is, yes, a Democrat and very enamored of the whole anti-profiling cause. I am irritated with the Bush administration for not standing up to this PC nonsense. But while we are arguing about which way to go let us not forget how it was that we got here in the first place.

I was referring to Lewinsky-the-scandal. Why on earth would you think otherwise. No I don't think America is looking for a president to be a moral leader in the Billy Graham sense (another straw man, by the way) but I think the American people would like for their president to be moral. I grow weary of being told that Clinton should not have been impeached for adultery or lying in court or saying stupid things. He was impeached because he lied in court (crime called perjury) and suborned the perjury of others. We may not expect our president to be a Billy Graham but we do insist that he, at minimum, obey the law.

This is fairly obvious. However, are we to assume that your strategy to fight these terrorists is to squeeze off the oil revenue to Saudi Arabia? That this is to be accomplished solely through conservation? (heaven forbid that we should produce our own oil) Let's just say that hybrid cars, which are currently in production by the way, are either mandated (foolish) or made acceptable enough to the American consumer to be more desirable than current technology automobiles (wishful thinking). Just how long would it take to get enough of these hybrid cars on the road at the current rate of automobile replacement to really put the squeeze on the Saudis. Ten years? Twenty years? In the meantime we just sit back and (try to) secure ourselves against one terrorist attack after another. I am assuming that you are ruling out any military options. nothing that you have posted thus far even hints at any support for the use of military power.

Even if we could, after a very painful process, entirely wean ourselves from Saudi oil we would very likely impoverish the Saudis and wreck our own economy (upon which we will be told not to bring up the subject of who got us there) and there sits Sadam Hussein in an even better position than before. If you are not ruling out military action against Iraq then why bother with the Saudis. With the really bad 'uns gone in the middle east the Saudis will surely "get religion" anyway.

I recall back before the Gulf War that we were being implored by those on the left not to use military action against Iraq and to "give sanctions time to work". Now, of course, what we hear today from those same people is what a mistake we made in leaving Hussein in power. We are not supposed to remember the fact that it was like pulling teeth to get them to go along with doing anything at all. But let's not bring up how we got here.

It might be in our national interest to pursue this, but why always the fixation on automobiles? In California there was a move to tax SUVs because of their gas consumption. I just saw an add for a little 2 seater Mercedes sports car. It gets (quoted) 15mpg city, 20 highway. That's what half the SUVs achieve. Then all the comments on the disdain in Germany for American gas mileage. Does anyone really think a Mercedes driving at 90 mph is achieving good gas mileage? (not trying to pick on Mercedes, they're all the same). Half the people driving Hondas aren't getting the quoted gas mileage - they keep the pedal floored from the light. I have no desire to sit in some hybrid car for 6 hours in 110 degrees while driving to Vegas if I don't have to. Hybrid cars have their place but they shouldn't be legislated on everyone as all oure needs are different.

Electric cars have to be recharged. Power stations might be more efficient at using oil, but they are still burning oil, gas and coal. Don't preach that you are reducing the countries oil reliance because you have an electric car. The difference ain't that great and now you're producing the problem of disposal of spent batteries (lot's of nasty metals).

I live in a 1,350 sq foot townhouse and it's more than adequate for a family of four. Why is there not a move to tax large houses. They take an abudance of energy to heat in the winter and cool in the summer? What about houses with 16 foot ceilings. Anything over 10 feet should be taxed because all the heat sits up there in the winter, wasted. Not to mention all the extra trees that had to be used to frame the "too large a house" and the energy it took to transport the extra building materials. What about all the extra paint it takes to paint it.

What about boats. They aren't called plaesure craft for nothing. Hauling them from house to water takes energy. They burn fuel worse than cars. And the 2 stroke engines are dumping oil into the water. Would the world be any worse off if there were no jet skis?

Another pet peeve is the amount of wrapping material used in the US. If you buy a DVD it is double wrapped in plastic with a large cardboard carrier in between. CDs are often wrapped in a similar fashion. Stuff is way overwrapped - what a waste of material (and energy to manufacture them) and the landfills are filling to capacity.

As I've said before, this country lacks a long term energy plan (and don't preach Al Gore - the Clinton era had no plan either). If we really want to get rid of the oil problem we need to find other ways to generate electricity. Do this well enough and we can produce cheap alcohol for auto fuel (Brazil had a pilot program in this but the alcohol was too expensive to make). For a while the US was a world leader in electricity produced by wind. It no longer comes close. There are no incentives because there is no plan. Frankly the politicans won't get around to making a plan until they are slapped in the face with a real problem. At that point it will be too late. What it needs is some strong leadership from industry to quietly start working together towards a common goal. You know, invest in some good old fashioned R&D that might make some money down the road.

When one uses words such as "uninformed" and broad statements about people being unable to intelligently make a decision, you are swinging a dead cat in the middle of a crowded room. Do not be surprised when someone (me) sees this as less than flattering. You received exactly the response you were seeking.

Now I'll make a broad sweeping statement - I've forgotten more about politics than you'll ever know.

My experience has been a lifetime spent in the most political state of the union. A lifetime spent working in, and observing political campaigns. I've known bad politicians, mediocre politicians, good politicians and master politicians. My job currently entails dealing with politicians at the local and state level every day. And yes, you will see some members of my family on Capitol Hill any given day.

So when I say that the American people will not countenance being treated as dumb or stupid, I base it on more than a Cambridge paper. I base it on the knowledge of what it takes to deliver a vote on Election day. People will tolerate lies if they believe they were done in the best interest of the people. They will tolerate graft or corruption, if they feel that "their" guy was stealing for them, or if they thought it was the only way a worthy goal could be accomplished. Heck, I know of a parish that re-elected a Sheriff, while he was serving a jail term for malfeasance in office! But what they will not tolerate is elitism or the appearance of it. They do not want, and will not support someone who pulls the wool over their eyes for personal agrandizement. Yes, politics is an ego trip. But the politician can never forget who is the master. Remember Nixon?

Well, I may be a rather dumb American, but I do know a good American invention when I see it!

Instead of swinging dead cats, try one of these:
[IMG]http://attach.prospero.com/strictly...p;check=94B749CA88BDFBA7223D642A7C162654[/I MG]

If the above image does not work, just ignore my attempt at sick humor.

Rvaga,

There is a space between the I and the M in your final [/IMG]. remove that and it may work.

To say that Democrats and Republicans support this policy misses the point. It is a policy that comes from the left (I know of no ideological Conservatives who support it). Many Republican politicians as politicians are basically spineless and will jump on any bandwagon that will ensure their favorable coverage by the press and their continued reelection. It is interesting to note that if you are a Democrat politician you better have your left wing (dare I say it, Liberal) bona fides in good order unless you enjoy considerable popular support or want to find yourself serving on the Capitol Grounds Landscaping Committee. Republicans tolerate much more ideological diversity among their ranks than do Democrats.

Once again, adultery is not the issue. Perjury and subornation of perjury (not only did he do it but he tried to get others to do it as well) are crimes for which, if committed by you or I, would land us in jeopardy of serving time in jail. The President of the United States as the man who swears an oath to see that the laws are faithfully executed should actually be held to a higher standard. To say that he is too busy and important a man to be held responsible for his acts turns the concept of accountable government on its ear. How this matter ended up in court in the first place is irrelevant. The Supreme Court ruled that it should be so and that is really the end of it whether we like it or not.

If Bush were to be found to be committing adultery, I would find it disappointing and if he were carrying on with one of the staff in the White House (I would be fired for that, BTW) even more so. But this in and of itself is not an impeachable offense. Committing felonies should be.

By "in procduction", I meant they are available. My point is that they are not exactly catching fire with the American public. They have their downsides and, for the foreseeable future, their disadvantages will weigh heavily against their advantages in the minds of the consumers. I am not against hybrid cars. I am against the left finding every crisis to be an imperative to advance their agenda no matter how tangentially that agenda impacts the actual crisis at hand. You say you want to, instead of using military action to fight terrorists (I still detect no support from you on this), cut off the money we send to the Middle East as an alternative. I am saying that that plan will not work. Conservation is all well and good but, by itself, is not a panacea. I am all for reducing our dependence on Middle East oil but that is not a solution to the problem at hand. That is, dealing with the current problem of terrorism against us and terrorist groups out to destroy us.

In reading this thread, it seems that all of you have fallen into the trap. You all espouse an agenda that demands that others either agree with you, do what you think they should do or whatever. Both major parties pass laws and write regulations doing this as well. It is not just the liberals, as asserted above, but the so-called conservatives too. Both have agendas and both agendas are meant to enslave us. And each of you have simply spouted the party line of one of the two major parties, even if some of you are better wordsmiths at covering it up. This is why the US is losing its heritage of freedom, because even intelligent and gifted people like you have actually been drawn into doing this as well.

Dear B.Alden,

I started working in political campaigns when I was 16 years old, nailing up signs, passing out literature, running errands. I have been politically active ever since.

My current job precludes many activities that I use to engage in, but as I stated, it does involve dealing with many politicians on a daily basis. Including a few weeks ago with John Breaux, D-Louisiana. My brother-in-law lobbied intensely on Capitol Hill for the Farm Bill (which he and I disagree on). I have relatives that hold political office in everything from statewide office to water board. I have been approached to run for public office and have turned the opportunity down. And while I will agree whole-heartedly, not to have a better grasp on large nation-wide macro-political issues than the next guy, at a more basic level I do have expertise.

The only statements challenging anyone's intellect have been made by you, however, I am perfectly willing to take you on your word about the substance of your own.

Does common ground exist about reforms needed for post-911? Yes, I think it does, particularly in regards to intelligence gathering, grading and dispersal. And I am more than willing to discuss what we as a people need to change in order to bring about a safer country.

But as I stated, if you walk into the discussion swinging a dead cat, don't be surprised if your persuasive powers fall on deaf ears.

Have a nice day.

Jolly

B.Aldens profile indicates that they are a student. Don't you know that students are all knowing. There knowledge dosn't come from confusing experience, they got it from a book.


lb

I have been traveling for a week (love those Attorney Generalissimo Ashcroft security arrangements!) so I have not been able to keep up. Interesting where this has gone since I left. <g>

So, since you all think that Bush2 could not be expected to order an quick and thorough analysis of all information the CIA and FBI had last summer of a possible imminent attack, do you think he will take any action now?

With all of the information that is now coming out, especially with the letter from the FBI attorney about the FBI's incompetence that was reported yesterday and her detailing the continuing FBI coverup, will Bush2 fire those responsible? Will he take decisive action to change the top management and entire culture of the FBI? Maybe to even try to make sure that information gathere din the field offices is listened to?

Or will he simply ask for a study and delegate this, like he did last summer which, you all argue, was about all he could have done last summmer?

I expect the latter unless and until he sees a blatant personal political advantage to doing otherwise.

Hello George, nice to have you back.

The FBI has major problems. Waco, Ruby Ridge and now this. Free was notorious for not running a very tight ship, and I do not envy the job of his successor, Moeller. To outside eyes, it appears that a communication problem exists between the upper echelons and the field agents.

The CIA also has problems, especially in the area of HUMINT. We no longer have an adequate network of human spies where we need them. Although you can't have someone infiltrated into every organization, some is better than none.

Some have called for merging of all intelligence forces. I disagree. I think the FBI should concern itself with it's primary mission, acting as the criminal investigation arm of the Justice Department. I do think that the NSA and the CIA could do a better job if their capabilities were merged under one director. The new agency would be tasked with providing intelligence, domestic or foreign.

Good decisions are based upon good intelligence, no matter which political party occupies the White House.

I think Bush will have all in the FBI and CIA shot and replaced with the all-knowing types that can be found in any newsroom or ivy league graduate school. :p

George W. Bush was out walking when he saw Moses. "Hey, Moses! STOP!!" he yelled. But Moses walked on, ignoring him. After a few blocks, Bush caught up with him. "Moses, why didn't you stop and talk to me?" asked Bush. "Well," Moses replied, "the last time I talked to a Bush, I wandered the desert for 40 years."

LOL!!! VERY good!