Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity
Posted at 12:00 AM ET, 03/ 9/2011

Legal limbo

By Tom Toles

c_03092011.gif
Waste not, want not. Not

Small-car sales are picking up in response to higher gas prices! There's a surprise. But people don't WANT small cars, we were told, until they do. Depends on what you really want.

But people only want small cars when gas is expensive! And it wasn't expensive before! Of course, we could have raised gasoline taxes and reduced the deficit. Reducing the deficit is the thing that everybody says they want more than anything else in the whole wide world. Except cars that waste gasoline. They want cars that waste gasoline just a little bit more than reducing the deficit that they say will bankrupt the nation into Third World status and ruin the lives of their very children and grandchildren. That's a worthy concern, too, to be sure, except when compared to a car that wastes gasoline.

Oh, and not wasting gas would also help curb climate destruction. Whoa, there, pal! Not so fast! You going to put THAT up against a car that wastes gasoline?? Where are your VALUES, dude? --Tom Toles

sketchicon_ver1.jpg

s_03092011.gif

By Tom Toles  | March 9, 2011; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  International, National Security, Obama White House  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Knots landing
Next: Complex revolutions

Other Syndicated Editorial Cartoons:

Comments

By the way, I don't remember anyone suggesting that any of these people be released, especially if they are indeed dangerous criminals. What was being discussed was the right to a trial.

Posted by: jonroesler | March 10, 2011 3:50 PM | Report abuse

So, Ranger, the people who are locked in GITMO are there because we already KNOW they are terrorists? No need for a trial anywhere, in that case.

Funny how we made it from the signing of the first Geneva Convention in 1949 until part way through the Bush presidency, when the rules suddenly needed to be changed.

Before Bush/Cheney, there were basically two classes of people comitting murder: criminals and warriors. After, there were also "illegal combatants." After all, it's only legal to kill innocent people, according to some people, if the act is at least implicitly sanctioned by a government somewhere... oh, and unless that government isn't later convicted of war crimes... something Americans are less worried about because we don't actually submit to the authority of the ICC.

Convoluted? Yes.

Are every one of the people in GITMO guilty? How would we know? Because they were scooped up based on someone (we don't know who) having accused them? maybe the person who coveted their house or land, for all I know.

The point is that assuming that a person
"must be guilty" of a crime because they were detained by "the authorities" for committing said crime is definitely NOT a road we should be going down, either here in the U.S. or in territories we control.

Further, just as we claim the right to apprehend people in foreign countries (Noriega, for example) in order to bring them to justice, I would submit that, once apprehended, EVERY person apprehended by us, whether criminal or warrior or what Bush/Cheney so creatively labeled "illegal combatants," are subject to both to the penalties and protections guaranteed to every other person on U.S. soil. (Naval vessels, embassies, military outposts, etc. being considered U.S. soil for purposes of protection under the Constitution.)

Either we have the courage of our convictions, is what I'm saying here, or we don't. What I wrote above may not be the law, in fact it clearly is not, but a truly courageous nation would insist on it being so.

Posted by: jonroesler | March 10, 2011 3:46 PM | Report abuse

@dalyplanet

"Predictions of future change are only just predictions..."

So your approach to predictions of future environmental damage is that we shouldn't do anything about them, because we can't know they'll happen for certain, because they'll occur in the future?

"The earth does not function as a greenhouse per se as there is no physical boundary like a glass greenhouse."

Yes it does exactly that, what do think the greenhouse effect is supposed to mean? Gases in the atmosphere slow the loss of heat to space, keeping the inside of the 'greenhouse', i.e. the rest of the earth, warmer than it otherwise would be. Adding gases that do this (e.g. methane, CO2) will increase this effect. Gas can still act as a physical barrier, like the wind can push things over; it doesn't need to be solid.

"There are too many variables and unknowns presently to positively identify that humans few percent addition of CO2 from combustion to natures own natural carbon cycle to state authoritatively that we are changing the climate."

Yes there are lots of factors that affect the climate, and a fair bit of research has been done about their relative effects, e.g. http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html
Scientific statements are based probability. How certain you have to be to state things "authoritatively" is a matter of personal preference - climate science only gives us the odds. At the moment we're over 90%; i.e. less than 10% chance that if we do nothing everything will work out fine.

Posted by: pauljgrayson | March 10, 2011 3:00 PM | Report abuse

~~Why do you call me a rube? What do you mean?~~

Because Gyp Stack impoundment is much better than pumping effluent into the river, and aluminum from bauxite is recyclable and uses less energy than glass or steel for food containers and is lighter than steel and glass to transport. Humans adapt and we are perhaps even evolving as our understanding grows. We are living in a period of unprecedented change and there is going to be some uglyness due to incomplete knowledge but overall more people with improved sanitation and acess to basic necessities means more brainpower to solve problems and adapt.

I will agree we are very spoiled and rich in the US but over time hopefully all the world will experience some of our standard of living. One guy here states repeatedly "the science of evolution" and that is the key really. We are evolving\adapting on a scale never experienced before in human history. Much of the land and nearly all the oceans are relatively untouched by humans. There is awareness of our footprint and efforts to tread lighter especially compared to our past. We humans make mistakes but we are not a cancer on the earth.

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 9, 2011 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Why do you call me a rube? What do you mean?

The pictures are just a more visual illustration of the lack of sustainability of our course.

FYI I will die (statistically speaking) before the crisis of earth's environmental degradation takes its full toll.

But I know what I have seen in 64 years.

And I love this planet earth. It is being depleted and despoiled at an alarming rate.

Wisdom would evoke an emotional response if denial was rampant. And I think it is.

Posted by: rowens1 | March 9, 2011 9:17 PM | Report abuse

rowens1

I looked at your pictures. You are a rube

Just how far back in time should we humans regress till you might be satisfied?

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 9, 2011 8:38 PM | Report abuse

pararanger- you get the respect you give- just sayin'.

Regarding Constitutional matters, where is it written that we have reserved special Constitutional rights for Americans, but the government is unrestrained by the Constitution in dealing with others we accuse?

How do you know who is left at Gitmo or what they did? Is it too horrible to be brought into the public institutions of the COURTS?

How long can someone be held without charges?

Tell me about the Constitutional "limits" of "enemy combatants". Explain hgow the Constitution allows this kind of imprisonment.

I know for a fact the founders did not like the idea of never being charged and held indefinitely, and their writings prove it.

Posted by: rowens1 | March 9, 2011 8:16 PM | Report abuse

hmmmm. a MOUTHY coward, too.

It doesn't matter who we torture or where, WE are signatories to the Geneva Accords.

Where's your Constitutional rights, oh mouthy one? Is due process only for certain Orwellian pigs that are "more equal than other pigs"?

Posted by: rowens1

------------------

Well, I know rowens1 is still here. Some village just called looking for an idiot...

So, I get it. The American Constitution applies to ALL people on the planet. Gotta love Liberals. Most never doing a single thing to earn the right to be an American (other than being born) but readily want to give the country away to anyone - even terrorists! [I note with respect that Liberals OckamsRazor & ptgrunner served, thus, are noteworthy exceptions]

Haven't said a word to you but I'm 'mouthy?'

oh that's right - we torture the terrorists - ALL the terrorists. Turn off the lights - TORTURE! No umbrella in their fruity drink - TORTURE! Kleenex toilet paper instead of Charmin - TORTURE! "This tea was microwaved instead of heated in a pot" - TORTURE!

Coward? Let's see, don't think that's permitted in the Ranger Creed...I did manage to jump out of all those airplanes...fought in Desert Storm - don't remember surrendering...nah - don't think I'm a coward. Dumba__ (Dave called me that), opinionated, Robert Redford look-a-like, yep - lots of names but not 'coward.' I've met a few in this blog but I'm pretty sure I'm not in the coward bin.

But I digress - when you get into a discussion with a pig - you always get muddy.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 9, 2011 7:59 PM | Report abuse

Fresh water and inventories of our nations (the world's) aquifers is in order. I think AGW/climate change is just a small piece of the unsustainable trajectory humankind is facing.

The link below shows an artist's observations of a few startling
photos of earth and human processes.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/standard/display/slideshow.php?ftr_id=89302

Believe me, the earth is straining under our weight. It is worthy of discussion and observation. I hope for a better approach.

Posted by: rowens1 | March 9, 2011 7:45 PM | Report abuse

~~I mean, it is OBVIOUS this human trajectory is too consumptive to sustain indefinite generations. Isn't that the real issue?~~~

I do believe that this is one of the underlying issues that drive the AGW debate.

That said, we have been told by experts for fifty years that what we are doing is unsustainable yet by all metrics humans are better off than 50 years ago. As long as we continue to adapt and the Earth doesn't get too cold we may be a long way away from capacity.

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 9, 2011 7:34 PM | Report abuse

bertzel- "surely you jest : )"

thanks.

Posted by: rowens1 | March 9, 2011 7:21 PM | Report abuse

dalyplanet

nice post.

We should agree that further observation will help in the endeavor to understand the changes taking place in the seas becoming more saline and many glaciers retreating and some all but "disappeared".

The world is running on diesel. Food and water crises will foretell a harsh possibility. Maybe we should focus on aquifers, and some way to run machinery and transport, rather than squabble over earth science.

I mean, it is OBVIOUS this human trajectory is too consumptive to sustain indefinite generations. Isn't that the real issue?

Posted by: rowens1 | March 9, 2011 7:17 PM | Report abuse

~~Where's your Constitutional rights, oh mouthy one? Is due process only for certain Orwellian pigs that are "more equal than other pigs"?

Posted by: rowens1 | March 9, 2011 6:35 PM

surely you jest : )

Posted by: bertzel | March 9, 2011 7:11 PM | Report abuse

rowens1

I would argue the marks humans leave on the earth are largely transitory and will be considerably erased during the next age of ice.

As to ~~ If we also surmise that digging up and pumping vast quantities of sequestered carbon fossil fuels also has had a profound effect on our planet,~~

I would surmise rather that carbon fuel has had a profound effect on humans and little on the planet. Humans have flourished and there is only a barely perceptible change in climate to date even accepting the theories of the most ardent supporters of AGW.

Predictions of future change are only just predictions and there are many that would argue the worries are exaggerated. The earth does not function as a greenhouse per se as there is no physical boundary like a glass greenhouse. It is rather a dynamic system that is influenced by the entire solar system and even the location in the galaxy over time. There are too many variables and unknowns presently to positively identify that humans few percent addition of CO2 from combustion to natures own natural carbon cycle to state authoritatively that we are changing the climate.

I do not deny any scientific point of view but look to all who study the issue to draw my own conclusions. This issue has many political aspects that have NOTHING to do with science and lines do get drawn in the sand. The IPCC is a political body that employs scientists to further their agenda. The media generally favors selling worry and fears over more calming and balanced considerations.

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 9, 2011 7:06 PM | Report abuse

hmmmm. a MOUTHY coward, too.

It doesn't matter who we torture or where, WE are signatories to the Geneva Accords.

Where's your Constitutional rights, oh mouthy one? Is due process only for certain Orwellian pigs that are "more equal than other pigs"?

Posted by: rowens1 | March 9, 2011 6:35 PM | Report abuse

OchamsRazor- Yep, I'd agree, Republicans are still in charge of obfuscation, obstruction and misdirection in all things "Obama".

It sure looks disingenuous to forbid moving any Gitmo prisoners (the "accused") to a court of law or *gasp* the mainland, where every other convicted prisoner serves their time.

Legal limbo is a place for cowards to put people they do not wish to be allowed due process.

Posted by: rowens1

-----------------------

A dopey post.

NY, Dems and GOP, didn't want to try AQ in their town. Duh - who wants the terrorist scum that killed so many innocents in NYC allowed to touch their soil.

I wonder why Liberals so easily want to grant non-US citizens (that aren't part of the Armed Forces of any country, thus, should be covered by the Geneva convention; that plan/target/kill Americans and our Allies) the same rights of American citizens? How do you honestly come to that freakishly devoid of common sense and common decency conclusion? These guys aren't 'every other convict' dude!

Legal limbo? Cowards? I'm sure the folks in GITMO are there illegally - hey they were probably just picking flowers for their grandmother in central Afghanistan when they were 'wrongfully' picked up for killing our folks, right? Here is the 'coward' test for you, rowens1: for every terrorist (aka 'every other convict') that we try at GITMO that is found innocent, we'll send him to your city, your street, your neighborhood, and see what happens. That is the SAME prospect facing neighborhoods in Yemen, Afghanistan, and Iraq, where these guys go straight back to and begin their terrorist acts anew. Everyone in THOSE neighborhoods is just as excited as you would be to have one of these monsters on your street.

POTUS and Congress are getting beat up by the media - but they're doing us a favor.

Stay off your ethical high horse and live with it.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 9, 2011 5:54 PM | Report abuse

OchamsRazor- Yep, I'd agree, Republicans are still in charge of obfuscation, obstruction and misdirection in all things "Obama".

It sure looks disingenuous to forbid moving any Gitmo prisoners (the "accused") to a court of law or *gasp* the mainland, where every other convicted prisoner serves their time.

Legal limbo is a place for cowards to put people they do not wish to be allowed due process.

Posted by: rowens1 | March 9, 2011 2:42 PM | Report abuse

dalyplanet- You must be talking to me!

I struggled through some scientific link yesterday that spoke to entropy and "the greenhouse effect".

I won't engage you in b.s. The math proofs were difficult to follow for me, but the "disproofs" belied the same insulting and flip response that stops engagement and inquiry (with me anyway).

If we surmise, as observant ordinary people, that the enormous and ever-increasing activity by human beings on this planet has had an effect on the planet itself, that could be confirmed from simple observation, No?

If we also surmise that digging up and pumping vast quantities of sequestered carbon fossil fuels also has had a profound effect on our planet,

THEN, the question that rises to the front is "what IS the effect?"

Climate change deniers seem content to discredit the very science itself, apparently in order to make the subject appear to be some Democratic Party conspiracy. For the life of me, I cannot understand why Al Gore is so hated and keeps coming up in the dialogue.

Just to clarify my use of entropy was to say that any theory or idea that contradicts it is FALSE. Radiant and convective processes are not static, but occur in a larger environment of systemic degradation.

How could that small truth be anything but helpful? This subject needs focus and enlightenment that sometimes comes when opponents will concede the laws governing the process.

In other words, entropy needs to be accepted as the physical law at play in this AGW/climate change by all parties, or else we can't even talk constructively about it.

Fair enough?

Posted by: rowens1 | March 9, 2011 2:32 PM | Report abuse

"...You still complain about energy stuff but never offer a plan. It's a typical Liberal tendency. Harken back to the early days of the current administration when they kicked the stimulus bill to Congress instead of writing their own plan..."

"...Liberals: 24/7 whining. No policy. No plan. No budget (oh - that was last year when Pelosi decided she would skip that little item)..."

------------------

No apology for gratuitous insults? What would your English teacher do to you for THAT?

"Shrill"? An eye for an eye, perhaps?

You of all people should tell us what you think is a good energy policy, or lacking that, what is wrong with our current (Cheney) policy.

But alas, you have tired. I understand as I am old and tire, too.

Posted by: rowens1 | March 9, 2011 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Legal limbo
By Tom Toles

My comment...
Good Characterization of why President Obama is not able to produce his agenda that he promised to get voted into office.

The Republicans are still in charge and undermining the best interests of our nation so that they can support their own evil agenda.
Dave

Posted by: OchamsRazor | March 9, 2011 2:09 PM | Report abuse

Ranger

Thanks for the excellent link. There are many here that cannot consider an energy policy that is not the status quo plus more taxes. I especially liked the quote, "A goal without a plan is just a wish." as this applies to other issues discussed here.

Posted by: dalyplanet

-------------------

Too many folks 'wish away' problems in energy policy, so true.

Well, my energy diminishes. Dark as a coal mine here in SW UK already - cold too. Time to put on the sweater and create something refreshing to consume. Blog Baton passed to you daly - courage brother.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 9, 2011 1:31 PM | Report abuse

Got other ideas about energy policy? Spit 'em out!

Posted by: rowens1

-------------------

Interesting post. Gives me a couple of interesting policy areas to think about regarding carrots and sticks vis a vis the oil companies outside of the usual 'raise their taxes' recommendation.

Nice work.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 9, 2011 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Got other ideas about energy policy? Spit 'em out!

Posted by: rowens1

-------------------

Interesting post. Gives me a couple of interesting policy areas to think about regarding carrots and sticks vis a via the oil companies outside of the usual 'raise their taxes' recommendation.

Nice work.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 9, 2011 1:26 PM | Report abuse

I keep seeing rather incorrect reference to laws of thermodynamics, here are the first two

1. First law of thermodynamics:

~~ In all cases, when work is transformed into heat, an amount of heat in proportion to the produced work is used up, and vice versa, the same amount of heat can be produced by the consumption of an equal amount of work.

~~ Work can be transformed into heat and vice versa, where the amount of one is
in proportion to the amount of the other.

This is a de finition of the mechanical heat equivalent.

2. Second law of thermodynamics:

~~ Heat cannot move itself from a cooler body into a warmer one.

~~ A heat transfer from a cooler body into a warmer one cannot happen without compensation.

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 9, 2011 1:13 PM | Report abuse

Taxes on gasoline should come after taxes have been collected on the profits of oil corporations.

Arguably, it was $4 gas and the credit collapse that destroyed this economy in the first place. Gasoline is a necessity to the majority of workers, just to GET to work.

An good U.S. energy policy would comprehensively enforce higher percentages of sustainable energy sources, even if subsidies to the oil companies needed to be continued but diverted to those renewables.

Sorry for the previous subtlety. What I meant to say was that taxing consumers on gas is putting an additional burden on a sector we need to expand (consumers). I was being sarcastic (sorry again) about the policies our Foreign policy has followed that actually hurt the citizens in those despotic regimes even more.

An enlightened Energy Policy would conform to the realities we face- depletion, pollution, over-reliance on fossil fuels. It would require more from those who profit in those sectors at taxpayer expense.

Got other ideas about energy policy? Spit 'em out!

Posted by: rowens1 | March 9, 2011 12:34 PM | Report abuse

Ranger

Thanks for the excellent link. There are many here that cannot consider an energy policy that is not the status quo plus more taxes. I especially liked the quote, "A goal without a plan is just a wish." as this applies to other issues discussed here.

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 9, 2011 12:33 PM | Report abuse

PrairieDog60 wrote: "...the cost of lost fishing revenues in Prudhoe Bay (still not recovered from Exxon Valdez)..."

---------------------

Very accurate statement. The accident should never have happened; but regardless, the effect was too severe. Absolutely devastated Cordova and Valdez.

It's no secret I'm for more oil exploration, opening of ANWR, etc. But with it must come more stringent regulations, safety enforcement, and hooks that force the oil companies to pay BIG and FAST if there are any more accidents.

pararanger22: Alaska resident and fisherman, 85-89

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 9, 2011 12:21 PM | Report abuse

I'd say we already have an energy policy. An apt slogan might be: "Fleece the public until the last drop".

Posted by: rowens1

-------------------
A mostly incoherent and shrill post. What exactly was the meaning of the first paragraph again?

"It is attractive to think of consumers paying higher gas taxes in the same way we would create more horrible conditions in despotic regimes- in hopes that the pain and suffering would motivate the sufferers to rise up."

Let's see, this paragraph compares:

Consumers paying higher gas taxes

to

Creating more horrible conditions in despotic regimes

The goal: suffering motivates rebels to rise up.

Your message must be paying higher gas taxes will cause us to suffer so we'll rise up in rebellion against the oil companies, check?

Man, that was a lot of work deciphering.

Too bad you weren't with me in eighth grade english class. Mr. Engelhardt was a very large body builder. If you wrote a paragraph like the one you presented you would end up in the back of the class holding a very large rock over your head (worked on kids who slept in class too).

You still complain about energy stuff but never offer a plan. It's a typical Liberal tendency. Harken back to the early days of the current administration when they kicked the stimulus bill to Congress instead of writing their own plan.

Liberals: 24/7 whining. No policy. No plan. No budget (oh - that was last year when Pelosi decided she would skip that little item)

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 9, 2011 12:10 PM | Report abuse

ranger

~~~"Today's U.S. economy, in fact, consumes less than half as much petroleum and natural gas per dollar of economic output as it did when an Arab oil embargo nearly crippled the West in 1973, according to Energy Department figures~~~

Oil consumption in million barrels per day of crude has risen from 16.4 in 1972 to 20.4 today. A significant factor in slowing the rise is the phase out of oil consumption for heating and electrical production. The statistic is accurate but misleading. Change all vehicles to compressed natural gas and ethanol and the number improves even more but consumption does not change. But essentially oil and nat gas consumption has been fairly flat for more than a decade.


jbierst
You are correct, it was Professor Alfred Schack cited in the posted paper.

"Schack discussed the CO2 contribution only under the aspect that CO2 acts as an absorbent medium. He did not get the absurd idea to heat the radiating warmer ground with the radiation absorbed and re-radiated by the gas."

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 9, 2011 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Tom (and the repetitious pararanger),

ENERGY POLICY! It is attractive to think of consumers paying higher gas taxes in the same way we would create more horrible conditions in despotic regimes- in hopes that the pain and suffering would motivate the sufferers to rise up.

But we have witnessed the socializing of all kinds of financial sector, health sector, and energy sector COSTS, while those who have made the messes continue to rake in exorbitant (and immoral?) profits.

Does it not make sense to first fix the system that allows hedge fund managers billions in profits taxed at dividend rates? Doesn't it make sense to collect the fair taxes on oil company profits and royalties while these same companies announce record profits quarter after quarter?

How is it that oil corporations' income taxes (for example of Exxon Mobil) are zero, while stockholders and management of these users of our DoD and military enjoy this fleecing of the public treasury that enriches the fleecers?

Is this the defacto "energy policy" Cheney has already instituted for the benefit of Big OIL? IS this why taxpayers settle lawsuits in which oil companies have defrauded American Indians of their royalties in the southwest, and defrauded taxpayers by failure to pay royalties for public land extraction?

Isn't this the essential cause championed by the Koch's- to burden us with the true costs of pollution, depletion, and millions of tons of CO2 while their privateering continues unabated?

Maybe taxpayers deserve a wee bit more from those whose profits are fattened by leaving the true cost burden to U.S. taxpayers who drive.

I'd say we already have an energy policy. An apt slogan might be: "Fleece the public until the last drop".

Posted by: rowens1 | March 9, 2011 11:37 AM | Report abuse

Unfortunately it's not easy to calculate the indirect costs of burning products derived from crude oil. If it was easy (and if any US administration had the guts to do it), these fuels would be considerably more expensive.

Imagine including in the cost of fuel things like; the cost of destruction of vast areas of the Gulf of Mexico; the cost of the number of asthma cases attributable to particulates from diesel exhaust; the number of illnesses and deaths of people living near refineries because of the air and water pollution; the cost of lost fishing revenues in Prudhoe Bay (still not recovered from Exxon Valdez); the cost of climate change effects exacerbated by the burning of gas, oil, and diesel; the cost of destroying cultures like the Ogoni people of Nigeria, whose land has been spoiled and culture modified by companies like Royal Dutch Shell (and all the other native cultures that have suffered because, silly people, they lived atop OUR oil); etc.

Gasoline is artificially cheap. Other countries have made some progress in pricing it more accordingly. But we Americans love our cars, and we can't have anyone messing with that!

Posted by: PrairieDog60 | March 9, 2011 10:40 AM | Report abuse

I agree that some social conscience should come into play regarding gas guzzlers.

I can't agree about higher gas taxes, however. This has a big effect on everyday expenses like groceries. It also punishes those that drive for a living.

Ya' gotta think these things through.

BTW, natural gas powered vehicles pollute by half of gas and diesel powered vehicles. Not to mention it is abot half the cost to operate.

Washington, get a clue.

Posted by: primegrop | March 9, 2011 10:19 AM | Report abuse

A Tahoe will make a more impressive planter in the front yard than a Smart Car when you can't afford to drive to work anymore.

Posted by: Capn0ok1 | March 9, 2011 9:44 AM | Report abuse

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703386704576186622682563228.html

Mr. Saleri, WSJ, underpins my position on the consequences of our lack of a coherent energy policy. It is a consice bit, just right of center, that both sides of the Toles-blog-aisle can appreciate.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 9, 2011 9:11 AM | Report abuse

~~Bertzel

I am curious about your opinions regarding the "certainty out there" you mentioned in the uncertainty there is today.

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 9, 2011 12:01 AM~~

call me. we'll talk : )

Posted by: bertzel | March 9, 2011 9:00 AM | Report abuse

@pararanger22 | March 9, 2011 7:44 AM

You should not be lecturing ANYONE on Blog. You are the perfect example of how not to behave in a blog.

Posted by: ptgrunner | March 9, 2011 8:13 AM | Report abuse

Can't you give up being right and really take the right's side, instead - no worries, just happy ignorance - what a life. Oh, you do have to listen to fake news to get your lie's ... I mean facts, but think about it, no more thinking for yourself! What a happy life, until you get really ill, or lose your job or face reality ...

Posted by: dennispbrown1

---------------------

Blog etiquette 101: it is easier for your readers to understand your point, and engender a response, when you identify who 'you' is in your post (see above).

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 9, 2011 7:44 AM | Report abuse

Again, I got to point out that there are more options than Mr. Toles has considered. Higher gas prices means it is best to have a smaller car. OR it means it is best to live next to the work place and the shopping centers. One or the other will do.

A person who dos not drive all tha much will be fine when gas is expensive. I am.

Posted by: GaryEMasters | March 9, 2011 7:40 AM | Report abuse

1. Large gas guzzlers colliding with small cars (car size) were the reason for 2000 more accident fatalities last year?

Fixed it for ya.

Posted by: wireman65 | March 9, 2011 7:36 AM | Report abuse

Tom-
Typical knee jerk talk about small cars being the answer to our prayers. Did you know that-
1. Small cars (car size) were the reason for 2000 more accident fatalities last year?
2. What people do not spend on gas they will spend on other energy consuming ( to make and to use) items making the net energy/global warming savings probably close to Zero?
3. Oh, never mind... your mind is made up.

Posted by: jackhorst1 | March 9, 2011 7:19 AM | Report abuse

Can't you give up being right and really take the right's side, instead - no worries, just happy ignorance - what a life. Oh, you do have to listen to fake news to get your lie's ... I mean facts, but think about it, no more thinking for yourself! What a happy life, until you get really ill, or lose your job or face reality ...

Posted by: dennispbrown1 | March 9, 2011 7:15 AM | Report abuse

From today's WP Editorial on the Strat Petrol Reserve:

"Today's U.S. economy, in fact, consumes less than half as much petroleum and natural gas per dollar of economic output as it did when an Arab oil embargo nearly crippled the West in 1973, according to Energy Department figures. And, for the past five years, oil imports have been falling as a percentage of total U.S. consumption. If the nation adopted sensible long-term conservation measures, especially modestly higher gasoline taxes, it would encourage those trends. Indeed, by reducing global demand, a higher U.S. gas tax would not only moderate oil prices over time, it would also ensure that more of the money Americans pay at the pump flows to the U.S. Treasury rather than the treasuries of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and the rest."

-----------------------

dalyplanet: do you agree with the first sentence above? I'm not sure that's accurate.

A higher US gas tax would moderate oil prices? Sure. One only has to look at UK petrol prices TODAY. £1.39 per liter; .80 pence of that is for tax and the UKG is seriously trying to raise the tax!? We pay nearly $9 USD per gallon already over here - where is the moderation? The rest of Europe isn't much better.

Just another case in point of why Liberals can't be trusted to run our government.

Their internal, twisted instinct is to tax first, ask questions later, regardless of how outrageously STUPID the tax plan is for the country.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 9, 2011 6:58 AM | Report abuse

@Posted by: OchamsRazor | March 8, 2011 8:19 PM

Whenever pararanger dismisses someone like this, he also fails to make any sensible point whatsoever. The joke is really on him.

Posted by: ptgrunner | March 8, 2011 8:49 PM | Report abuse

HA HA hahahaha stop it... - you're killing me dude :) heeheehee....
Whenever I need a good belly laugh, I just read one of Eyore Dave's happy posts.
Chicken Little Lives!
Posted by: pararanger22

Para; By Jove, you do have a sick sense of humor.
There is nothing brave about being a dumb ass who does not know when he is getting shafted.
Self-destruct is not a pretty sight.
Dave

Posted by: OchamsRazor

-------------------

I'm not sensible? I have a sick sense of humor? Let's review Dave's post again/key quote:

'But like dead fish; they continue to float down stream into the pits of hell.'

That was Dave's political analysis of Republicans. That kind of writing takes a sick mind to assemble. Not to mention the whole 'point' of Dave's post is a looney-tune, incoherent fabrication. So yeah, Dave thinks he is SO serious SO philosophically on point - just makes me laugh that he believes in the ludicrous drivel that comes out of his keyboard.

Whenever you 2 Twinkies think you have the stones to write something useful, we'll be here waiting. From my view, we'll be waiting here a very long time.

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 9, 2011 3:52 AM | Report abuse

"Brayton was cited several times in the link\paper I posted two threads back regarding CO2 properties in the atmosphere. Brayton appears to be THE expert regarding heat transfer and storage in CO2 but appears to be amongst the 'deniers' when considering the warming affects of the trace amounts in our atmosphere."
Posted by: dalyplanet

Excuse me? The Brayton cycle is named after George Brayton, who was a mechanical engineer who died in 1892.

Posted by: jbierst | March 9, 2011 12:14 AM | Report abuse

Bertzel

I am curious about your opinions regarding the "certainty out there" you mentioned in the uncertainty there is today.

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 9, 2011 12:01 AM | Report abuse

bushidollar

Very interesting post. Significant improvements in thermal efficiency. I am sure this loop functions better by requiring a smaller energy differential between the work side of the loop and the condensing side.

Brayton was cited several times in the link\paper I posted two threads back regarding CO2 properties in the atmosphere. Brayton appears to be THE expert regarding heat transfer and storage in CO2 but appears to be amongst the 'deniers' when considering the warming affects of the trace amounts in our atmosphere.

Posted by: dalyplanet | March 8, 2011 11:45 PM | Report abuse

~~Just ask Sheen if he believes in manmade climate change.

Posted by: jornolibist | March 8, 2011 9:10 PM~~~

Another stupid remark. Hope you feel superior there jorno....

Posted by: bertzel | March 8, 2011 10:34 PM | Report abuse

~~~But people only want small cars when gas is expensive! And it wasn't expensive before! Toles~~

Bull! I don't want a small car. I have and
need a larger vehicle. I want the vehicle(vehicles) I have. Just want to be able to afford to drive those vehicles!
Gas has been noticeably over priced and climbing since 9-11. I will always remember the lines at the gas stations and the 'fear' of gas shortages. The fact of that the uncertainty (I am sure there is certainty out there tho) should tell you something. But it doesn't.
I think your rant today is just that Toles...a rant...well, we all have to blow off steam once in awhile, don't we.
Perhaps if you weren't so sheltered in your city life, and rely on public transit, to get you everywhere you have to go, on a daily basis, you would have a different view.
I thought, once, about buying a 'smart car'...yeah, that was going to be the new fad...what happened to that small car mentality? I can tell you. It is the same reason I decided not to buy one!

Posted by: bertzel | March 8, 2011 10:28 PM | Report abuse

You know when cartoonists and NPR start calling people deniers they themselves are the ones in denial. Manmade climate change propagandists are just like alcoholics in the fact that everyone else can see how foolish they look. Just ask Sheen if he believes in manmade climate change.

Posted by: jornolibist | March 8, 2011 9:10 PM | Report abuse

People voted last November about what they thought of the hoax of manmade global warming.

Posted by: jornolibist

Is that what we are saying it was about today? I was still on the deficit thing. Or was it the health care law? Wait, no! Sorry it was anti-union sentiment somehow. When is it all about gay marriage again? That was a good one a few years ago. Let's make it about that one again.

Posted by: jhnnywalkr | March 8, 2011 8:51 PM | Report abuse

@Posted by: OchamsRazor | March 8, 2011 8:19 PM

Whenever pararanger dismisses someone like this, he also fails to make any sensible point whatsoever. The joke is really on him.

Posted by: ptgrunner | March 8, 2011 8:49 PM | Report abuse

HA HA hahahaha stop it... - you're killing me dude :) heeheehee....
Whenever I need a good belly laugh, I just read one of Eyore Dave's happy posts.
Chicken Little Lives!
Posted by: pararanger22

Para; By Jove, you do have a sick sense of humor.
There is nothing brave about being a dumb ass who does not know when he is getting shafted.
Self-destruct is not a pretty sight.
Dave

Posted by: OchamsRazor | March 8, 2011 8:19 PM | Report abuse

I'm due for a new car. It will be a small car as always. It won't be U.S.-made. The U.S. can't design/engineer/build good small cars and they can't build high-quality larger cars. It's been that way for 30+ years. Why reward incompetence?

My car will be a Japanese or German car. Competent, reliable, economical. I'd also do well with a South Korean built car.

People who buy SUV do themselves a disservice. Car manufacturers only plan for such vehicles, so that when they temporarily become unpopular, car companies cannot switch production as needed quickly.

Prices at the pump is going up rapidly. But the crude oil for that gasoline was purchased before the Middle East disruptions. And the run-up in prices that we are seeing is due to price manipulation, not do to Middle East uncertainties. Capitalism works, just not for everyone.

Not that gas prices matter all that much. Bottled--the new essential of life in the U.S.--water costs far more.

Lot's of reasons to ween ourselves off petroleum as a fuel source. Price uncertainties, finite quantities, and last but not least, AGW.

Posted by: ptgrunner | March 8, 2011 8:11 PM | Report abuse

This country was founded so we could elect representatives who would artificially raise energy prices because of a hoax? Only Socialist Democrats are buying small cars now. People voted last November about what they thought of the hoax of manmade global warming. The drill baby drill and coalmine baby coalmine part will happen in 2013.

Posted by: jornolibist | March 8, 2011 7:52 PM | Report abuse

Right Bertzel...
You would think people would understand that they are being made a fool of by the Republicans too.
But like dead fish; they continue to float down stream into the pits of hell.
The Republican Party is not based on Plato's Republic because they are not based on what is good nor are they "conservative" because they squander money on their rich contributors and malicious wars.
To make things worse, they are destroying our manufacturing capacity and leaving people without jobs to support their families.
There is no joy to poverty; it is demeaning and corruptive.
Dave

Posted by: OchamsRazor | March 8, 2011 4:01 PM

------------------

HA HA hahahaha stop it... - you're killing me dude :) heeheehee....

Whenever I need a good belly laugh, I just read one of Eyore Dave's happy posts.

Chicken Little Lives!

Posted by: pararanger22 | March 8, 2011 7:32 PM | Report abuse

Tom,

I found this little gem earlier in the day. Seems like the busy beavers at Sandia have been up to some good. The potential for cleaner energy.

https://share.sandia.gov/news/resources/news_releases/brayton-cycle-turbines/


Interesting, no?

Posted by: bushidollar | March 8, 2011 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Post a Comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.




characters remaining

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company