You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   63-87   88-107      
 
Author Message
20 new of 107 responses total.
mcnally
response 88 of 107: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 17:40 UTC 2006

When we elect one.
kingjon
response 90 of 107: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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: Mark Unseen   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. 
tod
response 93 of 107: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 17:52 UTC 2006

I think the threat of oil shortages being used as a weapon against the US
economy should be enough of a requirement for such a project.
kingjon
response 94 of 107: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 17:57 UTC 2006

Re #91: Hear, hear!

mcnally
response 95 of 107: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 17:58 UTC 2006

 re #92:  Fusion power (or any other sort of cheap alternative power) doesn't
 create more oil, true, but it could substantially reduce the consumption of
 remaining oil, giving us a longer transition time.  And working now to find
 an eventual oil alternative isn't in any way incompatible with also working
 to reduce current oil consumption.
klg
response 96 of 107: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 18:02 UTC 2006

"And everyone must wear their underwear on the outside"


We have already had some big projects from the Government, for example, 
(1) a war on poverty and (2) a war on cancer.

Did we win those yet??
tod
response 97 of 107: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 18:06 UTC 2006

The war on nouns is always a blank check.  Just look at the war on terror.
Instead of a war on OPEC or war on Saudi Arabia, its a war on terror.
GW's solution is to expand refineries and drill more.
This country needs to kick the Big 3's ass to the curb and take their bus and
train technologies back which were dismantled by the Big 3 during Operation
Suburbia of the 50's and 60's.
rcurl
response 98 of 107: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 18:06 UTC 2006

Add (3) a war on terror.
tod
response 99 of 107: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 18:09 UTC 2006

A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with
Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected
by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials
testifying before Congress.

The document, obtained this week by The Washington Post, shows that officials
from Exxon Mobil Corp., Conoco (before its merger with Phillips), Shell Oil
Co. and BP America Inc. met in the White House complex with the Cheney aides
who were developing a national energy policy, parts of which became law and
parts of which are still being debated.

In a joint hearing last week of the Senate Energy and Commerce committees,
the chief executives of Exxon Mobil Corp., Chevron Corp. and ConocoPhillips
said their firms did not participate in the 2001 task force. The president
of Shell Oil said his company did not participate "to my knowledge," and the
chief of BP America Inc. said he did not know.

Chevron was not named in the White House document, but the Government
Accountability Office has found that Chevron was one of several companies that
"gave detailed energy policy recommendations" to the task force. In addition,
Cheney had a separate meeting with John Browne, BP's chief executive,
according to a person familiar with the task force's work; that meeting is
not noted in the document.

The task force's activities attracted complaints from environmentalists, who
said they were shut out of the task force discussions while corporate
interests were present. The meetings were held in secret and the White House
refused to release a list of participants. The task force was made up
primarily of Cabinet-level officials. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club
unsuccessfully sued to obtain the records.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who posed the question about the task force,
said he will ask the Justice Department today to investigate. "The White House
went to great lengths to keep these meetings secret, and now oil executives
may be lying to Congress about their role in the Cheney task force,"
Lautenberg said.

Lea Anne McBride, a spokeswoman for Cheney, declined to comment on the
document. She said that the courts have upheld "the constitutional right of
the president and vice president to obtain information in confidentiality."

The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not
vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the
decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the
executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for
making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or
representation" to Congress.

Alan Huffman, who was a Conoco manager until the 2002 merger with Phillips,
confirmed meeting with the task force staff. "We met in the Executive Office
Building, if I remember correctly," he said.

A spokesman for ConocoPhillips said the chief executive, James J. Mulva, had
been unaware that Conoco officials met with task force staff when he testified
at the hearing. The spokesman said that Mulva was chief executive of Phillips
in 2001 before the merger and that nobody from Phillips met with the task
force.

Exxon spokesman Russ Roberts said the company stood by chief executive Lee
R. Raymond's statement in the hearing. In a brief phone interview, former
Exxon vice president James Rouse, the official named in the White House
document, denied the meeting took place. "That must be inaccurate and I don't
have any comment beyond that," said Rouse, now retired.

Ronnie Chappell, a spokesman for BP, declined to comment on the task force
meetings. Darci Sinclair, a spokeswoman for Shell, said she did not know
whether Shell officials met with the task force, but they often meet members
of the administration. Chevron said its executives did not meet with the task
force but confirmed that it sent President Bush recommendations in a letter.

The person familiar with the task force's work, who requested anonymity out
of concern about retribution, said the document was based on records kept by
the Secret Service of people admitted to the White House complex. This person
said most meetings were with Andrew Lundquist, the task force's executive
director, and Cheney aide Karen Y. Knutson.

According to the White House document, Rouse met with task force staff members
on Feb. 14, 2001. On March 21, they met with Archie Dunham, who was chairman
of Conoco. On April 12, according to the document, task force staff members
met with Conoco official Huffman and two officials from the U.S. Oil and Gas
Association, Wayne Gibbens and Alby Modiano.

On April 17, task force staff members met with Royal Dutch/Shell Group's
chairman, Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Shell Oil chairman Steven Miller and two
others. On March 22, staff members met with BP regional president Bob Malone,
chief economist Peter Davies and company employees Graham Barr and Deb
Beaubien.

Toward the end of the hearing, Lautenberg asked the five executives: "Did your
company or any representatives of your companies participate in Vice President
Cheney's energy task force in 2001?" When there was no response, Lautenberg
added: "The meeting . . . "

"No," said Raymond.

"No," said Chevron Chairman David J. O'Reilly.

"We did not, no," Mulva said.

"To be honest, I don't know," said BP America chief executive Ross Pillari,
who came to the job in August 2001. "I wasn't here then."

"But your company was here," Lautenberg replied.

"Yes," Pillari said.

Shell Oil president John Hofmeister, who has held his job since earlier this
year, answered last. "Not to my knowledge," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/15/AR200511150
184
2.html
gull
response 100 of 107: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 18:57 UTC 2006

Re resp:96: I'd argue we've made a lot of progress towards curing 
cancer.  Many cancers that were once a sure death sentence now have 
pretty high remission rates.  What we're finding, though, is looking 
for a "cure for cancer" is like looking for a "cure for infection" -- 
there are many different kinds of cancer, each of which needs its own 
type of treatment. 
 
We do have a bad habit of declaring war on abstract concepts -- 
terrorism, poverty, drugs.  It's a rhetorical cliche, but these aren't 
real "wars."  There's no way to win a victory against these concepts; 
no one is going to sign a peace treaty on behalf of terrorism or drugs.  
We have to be especially careful about arguments that we need to 
"temporarily" give up some civil liberties because of these "wars," 
because they will never end. 
tod
response 101 of 107: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 19:01 UTC 2006

Is there a cure for Lou Gehrigs?
gull
response 102 of 107: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 19:05 UTC 2006

Not yet.  Maybe we need to declare war on it. ;) 
marcvh
response 103 of 107: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 19:09 UTC 2006

We pretty much won the war on smallpox.  But most things have a way of
biting back.
rcurl
response 104 of 107: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 19:32 UTC 2006

Best to call it "smallpox eradication" or at least "smallpox amelioration".
Invoking the idea of "war" in these regards is misleading. 
marcvh
response 105 of 107: Mark Unseen   Feb 7 19:42 UTC 2006

I'm not disagreeing with you, but there have been at least some things
which were popularly termed as wars on concepts which have gone well.
The War on Polio is another example, although I suppose kludge will
argue that it's just another example of the federal government screwing
up something that should have been fixed by the free market.
twenex
response 106 of 107: Mark Unseen   Feb 12 13:22 UTC 2006

Re: #3. And into it he poured his Cruelty, his Malice, and his Will To
Dominate All Life.
wilt
response 107 of 107: Mark Unseen   May 16 23:52 UTC 2006

HACKED BY GNAA LOL JEWS DID WTC LOL
 0-24   25-49   50-74   63-87   88-107      
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss