Answering the Great Peter
I'd like to quickly address a few statements and questions that my good friend Peter presented in the commentary to Thank You, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.
I agree with you on every point, Peter. There are a couple of things to clarify. As I noted in a post from two years ago, A Big Oily Mess, one of the things that most Americans don't realize is that electricity is more of an issue when it comes to fossil fuels than automobiles are. If you were to eliminate all automobile petroleum usage in the United States, the impact on global oil markets would be relatively minor; however, if you eliminated all American petroleum usage with respect to generating electricity, the resulting impact would be much more profound. Now, all of that slack in American demand could be picked up by China (which is one of the real causes of the recent rise in oil prices), but importing the same or slightly less petroleum from foreign nations and putting it all toward automobile usage and the production of industrial lubricants would allow America to greatly bolster the strategic petroleum reserve while simultaneously taking more control over the global petroleum market (while making our need for oil less critical). If America were to make a concerted push to convert a major portion of our electric consumption from fossil fuel plants to nuclear plants, this shift would be possible.
I'll also agree with you that solar and electric vehicles are currently unreliable, and don't have much longevity on the road. However, I think we can both agree that the rise in petrol prices over the last three to four years has resulted in a huge push in research and development among the major auto manufacturers. Our fuel prices are still relatively (and somewhat artificially) low compared to the rest of the world, but the spike in prices (again, caused increasingly by Chinese industrial and consumer usage, among other factors), but the price surge has become an economic issue, which has made it a political issue for both politicians and car companies. All of this rambling is to say that, while electric vehicles aren't reliable now, it's not out of the realm of possibility, or even the realm of probability, to see a future of reliable and high-performance electric cars in the next several decades. Just think of how quickly hybrids swept the market a few years ago.
I'm with you on most of that, Peter. I personally use air conditioning, in both my house and my car. (Interesting side note: the entire first year I lived in the desert, I didn't use the air conditioner in my house at all - that includes days that were 115° or higher.) I make up for it by not using heat in the winter. I can tolerate high temperatures, but when I don't have to, I avoid the misery; it comes from living in the Pacific Northwest for most of my life. On the whole, though, I'm with you, and my truck, even though it's an evil SUV, gets fairly good mileage. (It helps that the move to Old Dominion cut my daily commute literally in half.)
That's part of the reason why I've linked to, and continue to both read and promote Michael Totten and the truly outstanding Michael Yon, two great independent journalists who are reporting what's really happening on the ground in Iraq.
Honestly, my opinions haven't changed much since this post about the subject from February. There have been a few noteworthy incidents, my favorite being the claim by Senator Obama that he'd invade Pakistan if he were president (link, link, link) - personally, I think he was taken out of context, though what I think he actually meant was still a startling indication of his complete lack of understanding of international relations and foreign policy.
Also, the Clinton campaign is starting to show cracks; my favorite item was when she took Fred Thompson out of context on his statements about illegal immigration and spying out of Cuba. To his credit, I think that Thompson ably lobbed the rhetorical grenade back at her, though our unfortunate media culture of the "news cycle" and sound bytes probably caused his response to be largely ignored. I still don't think Senator Clinton is a serious contender. For all of the money she's raised, women don't like her, most men and all conservatives (and most moderates, I think) loathe her. She may be using the Bill Clinton political play book, but that play book requires that a candidate be immensely likable - Senator Clinton isn't likable, at all, and her proposed policies are devoid of any real substance, reminiscent of Senator Kerry's nebulous "plan" from the 2004 election. (In that case, Kerry actually had an advantage because his "plan" was never really defined in public, while Senator Clinton's plans are.) I could keep going into more and more detail, but the bottom line is that Senator Clinton isn't an engaging or dymanic person, her policies are devoid of substance, and she has baggage from both President Clinton's era and her own era as a member of the U.S. Senate (most notably having been "duped" by President Bush into voting for the Iraq War; many in the Democrat base won't ever forgive her for that). I don't think her receipt of the Democrat nomination is by any means assured, and if she does get it, I think Republicans retake the advantage despite the current disadvantage as a result of President Bush's controversial standings.
Aside from that, the only thing noteworthy about the remaining Democrat candidates is how ridiculous most of them are. I've always been colossally unimpressed with Senator Biden, who I believe to be a complete and total charlatan. Also, Senator Edwards has said some truly bizarre things lately; he was ridiculous in 2004 as both a presidential and vice presidential candidate (particularly during the debate with Vice President Cheney, in which the Vice President absolutely thumped him), and even if he weren't a charlatan in the same league as Senator Biden, his history as a medical liability lawyer will remain a huge political issue for him (particularly in the age of rising medical costs due to medical liability lawyers). I would have loved for Senator Lieberman to have run, because when he's not tied to an Al Gore campaign he's actually one of a handful of Democrats I would be comfortable voting for.
As far as Republican candidates, if I had to make a guess I'd say that Mayor Giuliani is currently the most likely to get the nomination. I personally favor Senator McCain; although I've had political differences with him over the last few years, I think he's actually the strongest candidate in the group (and I've been a fan of his for years, I even read Faith of my Fathers during the 2000 election), but he's become more and more of a long shot. I've grown more comfortable with the idea of Governor Romney. I'd love to see Speaker Gingrich throw his hat in the ring, and I have no issues with Fred Thompson.
As I stated in the previously linked post, Republicans would be in their best interests to nominate a moderate like Mayor Giuliani or, arguably, Senator McCain. I don't think Republicans will do that, but that's what they ought to do, because a moderate Republican following the (relatively-)conservative presidency of President Bush would lessen the difficulty of getting a Republican elected; and as far as I'm concerned, almost any Republican (save for Congressman Ron Paul) is better than almost any Democrat. For the Republican side, I think it's still far too soon to tell, though there are obviously indicators. To their credit, most of the Republicans are still relatively unknown because they continue to show tact and decorum in their proceedings - maybe they're letting the Democrats tear each other limb from limb prior to really trying to weed each other out?
A final note on this subject (I'm already going to be a half hour late to work - thank God for flexible hours!): I've heard many people, including a retired Special Forces major (who was a total jackass, but that's another story) claim that the next President of the United States is going to be a Democrat; in his words, "It's gonna happen." The election isn't for another thirteen months. The word is finally getting out, even through mainstream media outlets, that the Iraq War is starting to really swing in our favor. Afghanistan remains a bit of an issue due to a Taliban resurgence, but that campaign has always garnered popular support from Americans (particularly those Americans who actually vote, vice conspiracy theorists and anarchist types who generally don't). Despite the recent market corrections on Wall Street and abroad, the Dow Jones Industrials set another record high a day or two ago. While massive setbacks in Iraq and a major market crash on Wall Street are remote possibilities in the next thirteen months, a more likely outcome is that American/Multinational forces and Iraqi security forces will have made tangible, undeniable progress in securing that country and standing up a successful government; and that the stock market will still be on the up-swing. Not only do I think that a Republican victory in 2008 is a real possibility, I think that there's a strong chance - particularly if Democrats in Congress keep wasting their time on things like censuring Japan for World War II. Also, every time Democrats don't unequivocally denounce asinine far-left moves like MoveOn.org's "General Betray-us" advert in the New York Times, the Republican position gets stronger - that is, if there aren't any more scandals like those perpetrated by the likes of Congressman "Duke" Cunningham and Senator Larry Craig.
Thanks for the questions, Peter! Now I'll have to be at work until at least 16:45!
Fly, I agree with you that biofuels come with unintended negative consequences. I also agree that nuclear power is an outstanding alternative to many of our current needs for foreign oil. However, I don't see nuclear powered vehicles being mass-produced anytime soon, and that leaves few attractive options to replace gasoline. Diesel is simply a by-product, ethenol causes egg prices to go up (less corn to feed the chickens!), and solar and electric powered vehicles lack the power and longevity to be popular. Extrememly efficient vehicles seem to be the best move at the moment.
I agree with you on every point, Peter. There are a couple of things to clarify. As I noted in a post from two years ago, A Big Oily Mess, one of the things that most Americans don't realize is that electricity is more of an issue when it comes to fossil fuels than automobiles are. If you were to eliminate all automobile petroleum usage in the United States, the impact on global oil markets would be relatively minor; however, if you eliminated all American petroleum usage with respect to generating electricity, the resulting impact would be much more profound. Now, all of that slack in American demand could be picked up by China (which is one of the real causes of the recent rise in oil prices), but importing the same or slightly less petroleum from foreign nations and putting it all toward automobile usage and the production of industrial lubricants would allow America to greatly bolster the strategic petroleum reserve while simultaneously taking more control over the global petroleum market (while making our need for oil less critical). If America were to make a concerted push to convert a major portion of our electric consumption from fossil fuel plants to nuclear plants, this shift would be possible.
I'll also agree with you that solar and electric vehicles are currently unreliable, and don't have much longevity on the road. However, I think we can both agree that the rise in petrol prices over the last three to four years has resulted in a huge push in research and development among the major auto manufacturers. Our fuel prices are still relatively (and somewhat artificially) low compared to the rest of the world, but the spike in prices (again, caused increasingly by Chinese industrial and consumer usage, among other factors), but the price surge has become an economic issue, which has made it a political issue for both politicians and car companies. All of this rambling is to say that, while electric vehicles aren't reliable now, it's not out of the realm of possibility, or even the realm of probability, to see a future of reliable and high-performance electric cars in the next several decades. Just think of how quickly hybrids swept the market a few years ago.
An idea to consider is the taxation of citizens proportionate to MPG and communte distance. I personally refuse to use air conditioning in my vehicles because it's an unnecessary waste of fuel. (I also live in dry and mild Colorado, so it's not too much of a sacrifice to make. Still, most crank the AC consistently.) I drive my 40 MPG Hyundai to/from work to save fuel, and reserve the 12 MPG Jeep for short errands around town. Education on such issues could go a long way, I optimistically believe.
I'm with you on most of that, Peter. I personally use air conditioning, in both my house and my car. (Interesting side note: the entire first year I lived in the desert, I didn't use the air conditioner in my house at all - that includes days that were 115° or higher.) I make up for it by not using heat in the winter. I can tolerate high temperatures, but when I don't have to, I avoid the misery; it comes from living in the Pacific Northwest for most of my life. On the whole, though, I'm with you, and my truck, even though it's an evil SUV, gets fairly good mileage. (It helps that the move to Old Dominion cut my daily commute literally in half.)
I wish more people would dig into the unsung good news out of Iraq and be encouraged.
That's part of the reason why I've linked to, and continue to both read and promote Michael Totten and the truly outstanding Michael Yon, two great independent journalists who are reporting what's really happening on the ground in Iraq.
Fly, I'm curious. Have you or do you have plans to give some commentary on a few of the presidential candidates for 2008? I'd be interested in hearing your opinions on a few of the big names.
Honestly, my opinions haven't changed much since this post about the subject from February. There have been a few noteworthy incidents, my favorite being the claim by Senator Obama that he'd invade Pakistan if he were president (link, link, link) - personally, I think he was taken out of context, though what I think he actually meant was still a startling indication of his complete lack of understanding of international relations and foreign policy.
Also, the Clinton campaign is starting to show cracks; my favorite item was when she took Fred Thompson out of context on his statements about illegal immigration and spying out of Cuba. To his credit, I think that Thompson ably lobbed the rhetorical grenade back at her, though our unfortunate media culture of the "news cycle" and sound bytes probably caused his response to be largely ignored. I still don't think Senator Clinton is a serious contender. For all of the money she's raised, women don't like her, most men and all conservatives (and most moderates, I think) loathe her. She may be using the Bill Clinton political play book, but that play book requires that a candidate be immensely likable - Senator Clinton isn't likable, at all, and her proposed policies are devoid of any real substance, reminiscent of Senator Kerry's nebulous "plan" from the 2004 election. (In that case, Kerry actually had an advantage because his "plan" was never really defined in public, while Senator Clinton's plans are.) I could keep going into more and more detail, but the bottom line is that Senator Clinton isn't an engaging or dymanic person, her policies are devoid of substance, and she has baggage from both President Clinton's era and her own era as a member of the U.S. Senate (most notably having been "duped" by President Bush into voting for the Iraq War; many in the Democrat base won't ever forgive her for that). I don't think her receipt of the Democrat nomination is by any means assured, and if she does get it, I think Republicans retake the advantage despite the current disadvantage as a result of President Bush's controversial standings.
Aside from that, the only thing noteworthy about the remaining Democrat candidates is how ridiculous most of them are. I've always been colossally unimpressed with Senator Biden, who I believe to be a complete and total charlatan. Also, Senator Edwards has said some truly bizarre things lately; he was ridiculous in 2004 as both a presidential and vice presidential candidate (particularly during the debate with Vice President Cheney, in which the Vice President absolutely thumped him), and even if he weren't a charlatan in the same league as Senator Biden, his history as a medical liability lawyer will remain a huge political issue for him (particularly in the age of rising medical costs due to medical liability lawyers). I would have loved for Senator Lieberman to have run, because when he's not tied to an Al Gore campaign he's actually one of a handful of Democrats I would be comfortable voting for.
As far as Republican candidates, if I had to make a guess I'd say that Mayor Giuliani is currently the most likely to get the nomination. I personally favor Senator McCain; although I've had political differences with him over the last few years, I think he's actually the strongest candidate in the group (and I've been a fan of his for years, I even read Faith of my Fathers during the 2000 election), but he's become more and more of a long shot. I've grown more comfortable with the idea of Governor Romney. I'd love to see Speaker Gingrich throw his hat in the ring, and I have no issues with Fred Thompson.
As I stated in the previously linked post, Republicans would be in their best interests to nominate a moderate like Mayor Giuliani or, arguably, Senator McCain. I don't think Republicans will do that, but that's what they ought to do, because a moderate Republican following the (relatively-)conservative presidency of President Bush would lessen the difficulty of getting a Republican elected; and as far as I'm concerned, almost any Republican (save for Congressman Ron Paul) is better than almost any Democrat. For the Republican side, I think it's still far too soon to tell, though there are obviously indicators. To their credit, most of the Republicans are still relatively unknown because they continue to show tact and decorum in their proceedings - maybe they're letting the Democrats tear each other limb from limb prior to really trying to weed each other out?
A final note on this subject (I'm already going to be a half hour late to work - thank God for flexible hours!): I've heard many people, including a retired Special Forces major (who was a total jackass, but that's another story) claim that the next President of the United States is going to be a Democrat; in his words, "It's gonna happen." The election isn't for another thirteen months. The word is finally getting out, even through mainstream media outlets, that the Iraq War is starting to really swing in our favor. Afghanistan remains a bit of an issue due to a Taliban resurgence, but that campaign has always garnered popular support from Americans (particularly those Americans who actually vote, vice conspiracy theorists and anarchist types who generally don't). Despite the recent market corrections on Wall Street and abroad, the Dow Jones Industrials set another record high a day or two ago. While massive setbacks in Iraq and a major market crash on Wall Street are remote possibilities in the next thirteen months, a more likely outcome is that American/Multinational forces and Iraqi security forces will have made tangible, undeniable progress in securing that country and standing up a successful government; and that the stock market will still be on the up-swing. Not only do I think that a Republican victory in 2008 is a real possibility, I think that there's a strong chance - particularly if Democrats in Congress keep wasting their time on things like censuring Japan for World War II. Also, every time Democrats don't unequivocally denounce asinine far-left moves like MoveOn.org's "General Betray-us" advert in the New York Times, the Republican position gets stronger - that is, if there aren't any more scandals like those perpetrated by the likes of Congressman "Duke" Cunningham and Senator Larry Craig.
Thanks for the questions, Peter! Now I'll have to be at work until at least 16:45!
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home