|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 107 responses total. |
rcurl
|
|
response 68 of 107:
| 
Feb 3 17:31 UTC 2006 |
Doesn't the "Road Map" have Palestine nationhood as the final result?
|
klg
|
|
response 69 of 107:
|
Feb 3 17:33 UTC 2006 |
Yeah. But the Arabs still haven't gotten to the on-ramp, let alone
reached the final negotiations stage.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 70 of 107:
|
Feb 3 17:33 UTC 2006 |
Re: 68. That was my understanding.
|
tod
|
|
response 71 of 107:
|
Feb 3 17:40 UTC 2006 |
That's okay though..blame the Jews cuz the Arabs can't agree on which dictator
works best for Palestine.
|
klg
|
|
response 72 of 107:
|
Feb 3 17:45 UTC 2006 |
re: 43 - Surprise - Curl is a liar. According to the Bureau of Labor
Statistics, the increase in the US labor force during the term of
President Bush has been as follows. (I added the approx 2005 # based
on other BLS reports) When do we get the apology?:
http://www.bls.gov/fls/flslforc.pdf
Table 2. Civilian Labor Force, Employment, and Unemployment
Approximating U.S. Concepts, 1960-2004
Civilian Labor Force (thousands)
United
Year States
2001 143,734
2002 144,863
2003 146,510
2004 147,401
2005 149,000
chng 5,166
This is a far cry from Curl's 9.6 million!!
|
nharmon
|
|
response 73 of 107:
|
Feb 3 18:33 UTC 2006 |
5,166 is in thousands, so it is 5,166,000. About half of Curl's 9.6
million, but still within an order of magnitude.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 74 of 107:
|
Feb 3 18:52 UTC 2006 |
In #43, Rane didn't say that the labor force grew by 9.6 million. He
said that it would have had to grow by 9.6 million in order to keep up
with population growth.
|
johnnie
|
|
response 75 of 107:
|
Feb 3 20:11 UTC 2006 |
That's about right. Roughly speaking, it takes 150,000 new jobs per
month to keep up with population growth. Table 1 ["Civilian Working
Age Population"] in the report klg references demonstrates this
(actually, it seems to indicate the 150K figure is a bit low). 150K
times 12 months in a year equals 1.8million times Bush's 5 years in
office (Jan 01 - Jan 06) equals 9million. Note that Bush crowed about
creating 4.6million jobs over 2.5 years, a rate that just barely keeps
pace with population growth.
|
klg
|
|
response 76 of 107:
|
Feb 3 20:22 UTC 2006 |
VH is correct. Which makes Curl's lie even worse. How do you increase
employment by 9.6M "just to keep pace" if the labor force grew only by
5.6M??
|
tod
|
|
response 77 of 107:
|
Feb 3 20:34 UTC 2006 |
The labor force grew by less than 2.5 million. GW didn't take into account
all the job loss from his economy crash in 2001. 2.5 million burger flippers
can't be wrong!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 78 of 107:
|
Feb 7 06:39 UTC 2006 |
Addiction
February 6, 2006
By now, President Bush's wildly irresponsible remarks on energy in
his state of the union speech may have already vanished down the memory
hole, but the damage will linger on. "America is addicted to oil," Mr.
Bush began, failing to mention that underlying this addiction was a
living arrangement that required people to drive their cars incessantly.
A clueless public will continue to believe that "the best way to break
this addiction is through technology . . ." and that "we must also
change how we power our automobiles."
Mr. Bush recommended ethanol. As one wag put it after the speech:
"America's heroin is oil, and ethanol will be our methadone." The
expectation will still be that everybody must drive incessantly.
It is hard to believe that Mr. Bush does not know the truth of the
situation, or that some of the clever people around him who run his
brain do not know it, namely that ethanol and all other bio-fuels are
net energy losers, that they require more energy to grow and process
them than they produce in the end, and that the energy "inputs" required
to do this are none other than oil and natural gas, the same fuels we
already run engines on.
The president also said that "breakthroughs on this and other new
technologies will help us reach another great goal, to replace more than
75 percent of our oil imports from the Middle East by 2025."
In point of fact, our oil imports from anywhere on the planet will
be reduced by more than 75 percent because by that time worldwide oil
depletion will be advanced to its terminal stage, and nobody will have
any oil left to export -- assuming that the industrial nations have not
ravaged each other by then in a war to control the diminishing supply of
oil.
The key to the stupidity evinced by Mr. Bush's speech is the
assumption that we ought to keep living the way we do in America, that
we can keep running the interstate highway system, WalMart, and Walt
Disney World on some other basis besides fossil fuels. The public
probably wishes that this were so, but it isn't a service to pander to
their wishes instead of addressing the mandates of reality. And reality
is telling us something very different. Reality is saying that the life
of incessant motoring is a suicidal fiasco, and if we don't learn to
inhabit the terrain of North America differently, a lot of us are going
die, either in war, or by starvation when oil-and-gas-based farming
craps out, or in civil violence proceeding from failed economic
expectations.
I hate to keep harping on this, but Mr. Bush could have announced
a major effort to restore the American railroad system. It would have
been a major political coup. It would have a huge impact on our oil use.
The public would benefit from it tremendously. And it would have put
thousands of people to work on something really meaningful. Unlike trips
to Mars and experiments in cold fusion, railroads are something we
already know how to do, and the tracks are lying out there waiting to be
fixed. But the reigning delusions of Hollywood and Las Vegas prevent us
from thinking realistically about these things. We're only into wishing
for grand slam home runs and five-hundred-million-dollar lottery
jackpots. Anything less than that makes us feel like losers.
Meanwhile, the official Democratic Party response to Mr. Bush's
fucking nonsense was the stupendous fatuousness of newly-elected
Virginia Governor Tim Kaine's rebuttal, a saccharine gruel of platitudes
and panderings that made me want to shoot members of my own party on
sight.
History will look back in wonder and nausea at the twitterings of
these idiots as the world they pretended to run lurched into darkness.
James Kunstler
Read a well-written intro to the problem of "peak oil" here
http://www.energybulletin.net/primer.php Yahoo! Groups Links
|
gull
|
|
response 79 of 107:
|
Feb 7 07:15 UTC 2006 |
The National Review published another blistering review of Bush's
speech, where they accused him of going green and becoming another Al
Gore.
|
happyboy
|
|
response 80 of 107:
|
Feb 7 09:23 UTC 2006 |
thank god ther aint a-gunna be no chickenmen hybrids
oh wait...HE IS ONE!
|
klg
|
|
response 81 of 107:
|
Feb 7 11:42 UTC 2006 |
So, Curl. Have you picked out the cave you plan to move to?
|
sholmes
|
|
response 82 of 107:
|
Feb 7 11:56 UTC 2006 |
What's the difference between the cost of public transport and hiring a cab
in US ? or does it vary wildly from state to state ?
|
jep
|
|
response 83 of 107:
|
Feb 7 13:46 UTC 2006 |
re resp:78: The president should have reversed the basis of modern
Western civilization by giving a different speech? Wow, that guy is
not just a fan of the president, he thinks George W. Bush is a god or
something. We've used oil for a hundred years, more and more and more,
and people in America and other places seem to like it that way. I
don't think any president has the kind of leadership influence needed
to make people give all of that up. I don't think anyone who tried
would be able to stay in office. No one who is so inclined would be
able to get into office in the first place.
I tend to agree with the president that alternatives to oil need to be
developed or we *are* eventually going to decline into a non-
technological abyss. Most of the people in the world can't and won't
survive if we run out of oil and there's no alternative to keep the
technology going. It's not a matter of choosing to go back to the
technology of 1300 A.D., with almost everyone in Europe living by
farming their fiefdom with ox-drawn plows, and most of the few hundred
thousand people in America hunting in boundless forests. We use
technology now or almost all of us die, horribly, of disease and
starvation.
|
bru
|
|
response 84 of 107:
|
Feb 7 16:13 UTC 2006 |
There are things I would like to see. Things like a requirement that all new
housing include energy conservation methods. Tax breaks for adding same to
old housing.
Railroads? Do you realize how much material already moves by rail? Yes, they
could add some lightrail passenger systems ver already abandoned tracks, but
would they use less oil than current methods?
|
tod
|
|
response 85 of 107:
|
Feb 7 17:08 UTC 2006 |
re #84
Lightrail runs electric in most places.
What ticked me off was that GW mentioned dependence on oil and then spun it
into alternative home heating instead of coal. What he should have been
focusing on was initiatives for better mass transit in urban areas.
|
klg
|
|
response 86 of 107:
|
Feb 7 17:10 UTC 2006 |
Why do you think that the government has to get involved (and, most
likely, screw things up) when the market will accomplish the same ends
in a much more rational and less disruptive way??
|
tod
|
|
response 87 of 107:
|
Feb 7 17:17 UTC 2006 |
re #86
What makes you think there is any distance between the Administration and the
businesses that control the "market"?
You know what the White House's response is to investing in our energy
infrastructure? By expanding refining capacity
They've flat out rejected the most sane idea I've heard thus far which was
presented by Senator Grassley: Major oil corporations voluntarily hand over
10 percent of their vast windfall profits towards saner energy investments
for America.
It won't happen. Why? Major appointees of this Administration are former
major oil executives
|
mcnally
|
|
response 88 of 107:
|
Feb 7 17:23 UTC 2006 |
When are we going to have a president who announces a "Manhattan Project"-
style initiative for fusion power?
|
tod
|
|
response 89 of 107:
|
Feb 7 17:40 UTC 2006 |
When we elect one.
|
kingjon
|
|
response 90 of 107:
|
Feb 7 17:46 UTC 2006 |
Wasn't the Manhattan Project's goal to develop *weapons* before the enemy got
them? For that to fly you'd have to have some extremely effective military
technology that required it, I'd think.
|
keesan
|
|
response 91 of 107:
|
Feb 7 17:51 UTC 2006 |
I would like to see a requirement that all new housing be within 1/2 mile of
public transportation, rather than a requirement for parking. And that all
businesses be within a 5 minute walk of public transportation, and have
sidewalks (unlike many on Washtenaw Ave, which are linked by mud paths, which
also link the bus stops). I would also like to see people who own cars use
them less, including Rane. And stop using power mowers and power clothes
dryers, and stop cooking in air conditioned kitchens, and other obvious energy
wasters.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 92 of 107:
|
Feb 7 17:52 UTC 2006 |
Fusion power does not, of course, address "Peak Oil". As Kunstler also put
it "We're only into wishing for grand slam home runs". There is a lot that
could be done now with what we know to forstall the consequences of the
end of the era of oil.
KLG doesn't know that caves serve poorly as habitats, except partly as
defensive sites against attacks with bows and arrows.
|