Why is it when someone is pictured with an Obama poster over their head . . .
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-06-10-ohio-lethal-injection_N.htm?csp=34
Do you get a free Che Guevara poster with every Obama poster?
I keep seeing photos of people in Obama campaign headquarters with Guevara posters. Why is this?
Makes you think.
I don't think Obama would like to be pictured next to one of the most brutal killers in history?
Must be some kind of Right-Wing media conspiracy. Yeah that's it.
This is his Houston office.
(http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/20080211ObamaCheHouston2.jpg)
I do like the new posters though. . . I mean from an artistic perspective!
(http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/changeobama.jpg)
I thought Obama was more Maoist than Marxist, but then the proof is in the puddin. Wonder how many Reagan posters are up in McCain offices? Goldwater? Lincoln? Uncle Ho? Even if the Obamites do not know exactly what they mean, at least they are idealistic.
In my campaign offices, I would want to show support for gun rights:
(http://www.ticketreports.com/images/zombieszombieszombies.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
I thought Obama was more Maoist than Marxist, but then the proof is in the puddin. Wonder how many Reagan posters are up in McCain offices? Goldwater? Lincoln? Uncle Ho? Even if the Obamites do not know exactly what they mean, at least they are idealistic.
In my campaign offices, I would want to show support for gun rights:
(http://www.ticketreports.com/images/zombieszombieszombies.jpg)
Good flick!
quote:
Originally posted by tim huntzinger
at least they are idealistic.
Hitler was an idealist too... I didn't share his ideals, but he had a strong vision. (half in jest, half to show that just having ideals is not always a good trait of itself)
The vast majority of people who espouse the greatness of Che, have no idea what they are talking about. Take the idiot who Gas talked about when starting this thread:
(http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2008/06/10/burgex.jpg)
First, he is wearing a pretty designer shirt. tie in a nice clean office while wearing a gold watch. The legendary Marxist Che would walk up to this man and rip out his throat. (the real Che would rob him and put his treasure in his Villa or on his yacht).
Second, the guy is whining about the death penalty laws in Ohio. Saying they are cruel and unusual. Che "the Butcher" Guevara tortured people, some sources say for pleasure (he was ruthless enough to get booted from Cuba!). He executed political dissidents. He even ran internment camps for undesirables. But this guy has a poster of Che on his wall while complaining death in Ohio "can cause pain?"
It is a bit disturbing how often Che and Obama posters turn up together. I don't hold it against him on a personal level but still...
Houston campaign HQ:
(http://patriotroom.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/che.JPG)
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I don't think Obama would like to be pictured next to one of the most brutal killers in history?
Wow, that's pretty ripe. I have to ask, where can I read about his place in history as one of the most brutal killers on the globe, ever?
Guevara's legacy isn't all roses, but, I mean, c'mon. There's been lots of killing and lots of brutality through the ages, and if you're gonna put him up on that stage, please help me to understand better by providing me with some solid sourcing.
But I think it's also worth looking at Che Guevara in popular culture, (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara_in_popular_culture%22) which might help explain some of the resonances Obama campaigners feel with Che. In other words, I can pretty much guarantee you that the Obama campaign isn't much into executing political prisoners, though I have to admit I haven't been to Obama's Houston offices yet, and as we all know, people DO do things differently down there in Texas.
FWIW, my problem is that they are presenting a flag of another country in a campaign office for some one running for the President of the UNITED STATES.
I just don't like seeing the Cuban flag in the same shot with the US flag. I don't care if it has a picture of Che on it or not, it's just not right.
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
I don't think Obama would like to be pictured next to one of the most brutal killers in history?
Wow, that's pretty ripe. I have to ask, where can I read about his place in history as one of the most brutal killers on the globe, ever?
Guevara's legacy isn't all roses, but, I mean, c'mon. There's been lots of killing and lots of brutality through the ages, and if you're gonna put him up on that stage, please help me to understand better by providing me with some solid sourcing.
But I think it's also worth looking at Che Guevara in popular culture, (//%22http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara_in_popular_culture%22) which might help explain some of the resonances Obama campaigners feel with Che. In other words, I can pretty much guarantee you that the Obama campaign isn't much into executing political prisoners, though I have to admit I haven't been to Obama's Houston offices yet, and as we all know, people DO do things differently down there in Texas.
OMG in 1959 Castro put him in charge of La Cabaña prison where he was dubbed the butcher. He executed 179 people that year. Most for simply being capitalists. Some because they had family in the US. Some for pleasure.
Javier Arzuaga was a chaplain at the prison who has been quoted in several texts saying that Che grew fond of the execution of prisoners and that the staff at the prison "We called him the butcher because he enjoyed giving the order to shoot."
By the time his reign at La Cabaña was over, nearly 800 prisoners had been executed.
Félix Rodríguez, a CIA agent who was part of the team in charge of the hunt for Guevara in Bolivia, wrote that after his capture Che proudly admitted to about 2,400 executions for which he was responsible during his lifetime.
There dozens of books that account for his murderous deeds. But if you want to defend him. Go right ahead. I would stay away from this one! [;)]
If people campaigning for Obama wanted to put up a symbolic likeness of an agent of change, why not pick FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Lincoln?
I can't believe how glib people are when it comes to Che Guevara.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
If people campaigning for Obama wanted to put up a symbolic likeness of an agent of change, why not pick FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, Lincoln?
I can't believe how glib people are when it comes to Che Guevara.
I have a photo of Johnny Cash next to my picture of Obama.
Both are men in black, you see. [;)]
Isn't this issue, like, so February?
WTH?!! WHY, please tell me WHY Obama supporters would like to associate their candidate with a brutal murderer?
Seriously, this disturbs me to no end. I actually LIKE Obama personally. Although I don't line up with him politically, he's proven himself an intelligent person that is hard to dislike.
But WHY (and I'm seriously asking this) would his supporters allow such things?
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas
WTH?!! WHY, please tell me WHY Obama supporters would like to associate their candidate with a brutal murderer?
Seriously, this disturbs me to no end. I actually LIKE Obama personally. Although I don't line up with him politically, he's proven himself an intelligent person that is hard to dislike.
But WHY (and I'm seriously asking this) would his supporters allow such things?
Remember, you vote for the candidate, not the supporters. If you dismissed a fellow because of a few crackpots, nobody'd be getting any votes.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
There dozens of books that account for his murderous deeds. But if you want to defend him. Go right ahead. I would stay away from this one! [;)
Thanks for inviting me to not participate in this discussion. Very cool of you.
For the record, I'm not defending Che Guevara's communist legacy or his prison killings or his torturings or his little black beret or his egregious facial hair. To me, this has very little to do with his historical legacy, and mostly to do with him being an emblem of change and political rebirth. And believe it or not, Gaspar, he works really well as the latter two, as well. But if you want to insist that yours is the only way to interpret a figure like Guevara then go right ahead and get your moral outrage on.
I agree, Conan, that I'd rather see an American up there. But I'm assuming this isn't part of the Obama Campaign Headquarters Starter Kit, and is an unofficial sign of overenthusiasm, or maybe just fad behavior.
I'd think, as the candidate, I'd distance myself and my official campaign offices from anything to do with a man who was joined at the hip with Fidel Castro and who was the poster boy for communism in the '50's and '60's.
Sure, our stance on Cuba has softened some since 1960, but not enough that I'd want any association with it in my campaign.
Cuban flags with Che on them and no sight of the American flag in the offices. That would have never flown 20 to 30 years ago.
I'm not judgemental about your monikers and avitars. So, why do that with what could be manipulated internet images?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
I'm not judgemental about your monikers and avitars. So, why do that with what could be manipulated internet images?
No one has come forward to dispute the images so far.
The Che flag brings out as much sentiment in me as the Confederate flag or German Nazi flag- which is zero. [B)]
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
I'm not judgemental about your monikers and avitars. So, why do that with what could be manipulated internet images?
The picture is a screen shot from a video from the Houston Fox affiliate.
You can veiw the video on Glenn Becks website. Click on the link: http://www.glennbeck.com/content/clips/featured.php (//%22http://%22)
and look for the link that says "Notice the flag on the wall.....
Glenn Beck would cause my computer to explode.
Right wingnut smear cam pain.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
I'm not judgemental about your monikers and avitars. So, why do that with what could be manipulated internet images?
No one is disputing these images. Apparently the Florida campaign offices displayed Che images as well.
As we can see from some of the other Obama supporter posts in this thread, Che is a revered cultural figure among them, and a revered "symbol of political rebirth". He has a "historical legacy" bla bla bla.
Face it! If Carlos Santana hadn't worn the Che shirt at the 2005 Academy Awards, most of the young mush heads wouldn't' even know who he is. I'm glad his "rich historical legacy" has been resurrected. It's another opportunity for people to learn, and that's what's important.
We run the risk of repeating so much of history's dark days unless people really learn about them.
Get to know Che. He's a hero on most leftist blogs, so start there. Then read the actual history of his actions, written by his generals and the people around him.
He was a revolutionary, and an agent for change, I will admit that, but that does not make him a great man, not even a good man. History is dappled with the blood spilt by such men.
Gawd, Gaspar. You are so full of yourself and a bag of turds on the side. Were you ever young? Or did you just materialize fully condescending and self righteous?
Did you know that Time put Hitler on its cover as "man of the year" back in the thirties? Didn't mean they were fascist and revered his policies. Meant he instituted change within his country which had been ravaged by war reparations and inflation. Lindbergh was impressed and so was Churchill. Were they fascist too? And for butchery how about Idi Amin? You think Che was a butcher? Read up some more dude. We made a movie about that prick.
Like it or not, accurate history or not, Che's figure has become a generic icon for struggle, revolution and change. Like "have a coke", or "cancer sucks". A coke could be any soft drink and cancer doesn't perform bj's but each has become acceptable and understood.
Chalk it up to naive, enthusiastic youth who live by icons. Just like the youth of the fifties who didn't know Elvis was a druggie or that Mongomery Clift was gay.
Memo to workers from the big O: trash those damn Che flags asap and focus on real change.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Gawd, Gaspar. You are so full of yourself and a bag of turds on the side. Were you ever young? Or did you just materialize fully condescending and self righteous?
Did you know that Time put Hitler on its cover as "man of the year" back in the thirties? Didn't mean they were fascist and revered his policies. Meant he instituted change within his country which had been ravaged by war reparations and inflation. Lindbergh was impressed and so was Churchill. Were they fascist too? And for butchery how about Idi Amin? You think Che was a butcher? Read up some more dude. We made a movie about that prick.
Like it or not, accurate history or not, Che's figure has become a generic icon for struggle, revolution and change. Like "have a coke", or "cancer sucks". A coke could be any soft drink and cancer doesn't perform bj's but each has become acceptable and understood.
Chalk it up to naive, enthusiastic youth who live by icons. Just like the youth of the fifties who didn't know Elvis was a druggie or that Mongomery Clift was gay.
Memo to workers from the big O: trash those damn Che flags asap and focus on real change.
+1
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
Like it or not, accurate history or not, Che's figure has become a generic icon for struggle, revolution and change. Like "have a coke", or "cancer sucks". A coke could be any soft drink and cancer doesn't perform bj's but each has become acceptable and understood.
I didn't mean to offend. I had no idea that Che meant so much to you guys.
Still am still young as far as I'm concerned. I just never traveled in any circles that EVER idolized Che.
I will speak no more of it.
I do agree that Obama needs to focus on real symbols of change. I think he is still being defined by his followers, and many of his followers don't really understand the definition they are trying to portray.
I never idolized him either though I thought the image on smoking papers was cool. BTW if you're over 27, you are no longer young!
Now your last remark is interesting. What do you base it on though? I have seen nothing that indicated he has been forming policy or creating stands based on those young supporters. They may think that. What I see is a yearning for a change in the way we do things, see things, plan things. A yearning for thoughtful consideration of issues rather than a lockstep narrow view most likely promoted by special interests. Cuba is a good example.
Someone around here threw out the assertion that China was going to drill for oil offshore of Cuba and that we would be in the humbling situation of having to buy oil from them because we won't drill offshore. Guess what? It isn't true. Did anyone rush to post a thread retracting these posts? No. Did Glen Beck rush to enlighten his hordes? No. This is electioneering and governance by innuendo, half truth and hearsay. We need to move away from such nonsense.
The issue is that by the time this cycle is over McCain will be portrayed as sucking the marrow from starving babies and Obama will be portrayed leading the charge crucifying anyone with money while he drinks their blood.
Anything that can be used to emphasize those typifications will be passed around the nets and make their way into the echo chambers. Especially when the offensive item is in an official HQ.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
I never idolized him either though I thought the image on smoking papers was cool. BTW if you're over 27, you are no longer young!
Now your last remark is interesting. What do you base it on though? I have seen nothing that indicated he has been forming policy or creating stands based on those young supporters. They may think that. What I see is a yearning for a change in the way we do things, see things, plan things. A yearning for thoughtful consideration of issues rather than a lockstep narrow view most likely promoted by special interests. Cuba is a good example.
Someone around here threw out the assertion that China was going to drill for oil offshore of Cuba and that we would be in the humbling situation of having to buy oil from them because we won't drill offshore. Guess what? It isn't true. Did anyone rush to post a thread retracting these posts? No. Did Glen Beck rush to enlighten his hordes? No. This is electioneering and governance by innuendo, half truth and hearsay. We need to move away from such nonsense.
Damn! I guess I'm old then. As for China, it was originally reported on CNN. http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/economy/oil_cuba/index.htm
The details of the drilling contracts by both India and China were also covered this morning (caught it on my drive to work) on The WSJ news network on XM. I also just heard them talk of it this morning at work on KRMG.
So if it's a hoax, it's a really good one!
You can also download the maps from CNN.
1) Cuba is already doing low-level drilling closer to Florida than we are.
2) The story is partially true, but over stated. There is an agreement to drill between China and Cuba. BUT, it has been postponed until 2009.
A brief Google News search will shed light on it for you. It wasn't a "hoax," just people with incomplete information on both sides.
Thing is, nobody's going to care in November about a handful of Obama supporters flying Che flags, especially when 80 percent of Americans think the country's on the wrong track.
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
Thing is, nobody's going to care in November about a handful of Obama supporters flying Che flags, especially when 80 percent of Americans think the country's on the wrong track.
He shoots.......HE SCORES!
It was being reported on MSNBC last night that the story was not true. If they are drilling closer to Florida than we are then its in international waters. We should be scared because of China's history of catastrophic public works failures, not whether they will beat us in the race towards peak oil. Given the whole story it appears it has some truth but is being tossed around the net like it proves we need to drill in these protected areas.
A reminder folks. Supply is not the problem in this oil crisis. It will be a problem in the long term but then everything is. Domestic energy consumption, global demand, sinking dollar value and the failure to invest in alternative energy are more important than offshore drilling to our future.
These stories and McCain's sudden flip on longstanding support of protecting these areas is tied to Bush's opportunistic ploy to get drilling exemptions for his pals before he exits. They feel they can get dual use by blaming limited supply as the reason for the higher gasl. prices and use it against the Dems to get traction. Corn and its derivatives is next on the list.
It is exactly what I pointed out is wrong with the Bush style of governance and electioneering. Win at all costs, innundate the public with half truths and fall in line behind the "decisionmaker". McCain is more of the same.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
It was being reported on MSNBC last night that the story was not true. If they are drilling closer to Florida than we are then its in international waters. We should be scared because of China's history of catastrophic public works failures, not whether they will beat us in the race towards peak oil. Given the whole story it appears it has some truth but is being tossed around the net like it proves we need to drill in these protected areas.
A reminder folks. Supply is not the problem in this oil crisis. It will be a problem in the long term but then everything is. Domestic energy consumption, global demand, sinking dollar value and the failure to invest in alternative energy are more important than offshore drilling to our future.
These stories and McCain's sudden flip on longstanding support of protecting these areas is tied to Bush's opportunistic ploy to get drilling exemptions for his pals before he exits. They feel they can get dual use by blaming limited supply as the reason for the higher gasl. prices and use it against the Dems to get traction. Corn and its derivatives is next on the list.
It is exactly what I pointed out is wrong with the Bush style of governance and electioneering. Win at all costs, innundate the public with half truths and fall in line behind the "decisionmaker". McCain is more of the same.
That's amazing! I mean that MSNBC is still around. [}:)]
Our energy independence shouldn't be a political issue. We cannot remain a sovereign country if we are beholden to others for sustenance.
I understand where you are coming from wheyou say supply isn't the problem, yet it is WB. It's the image of peak oil and how much there really is or is not left in reserves around the world. That's what is driving speculators is a finite supply which has stalled out at about 83mm bbl/day.
Granted more exploration for oil does nothing more than hasten depletion of the supply by increasing output, but if you look at the enormous infrastructure of machinery and vehicles which rely on petroleum or natural gas, the conversion to alt fuels is daunting.
I would assume with pump prices at the levels they are at now that from a price competition perspective, ethanol and bio-diesel should be stand-alone fuels, and therefore should drive more private investment in manufacturing them.
Only problem as we are learning now about alternatives to petroleum is that we have farmers who have missed their window of getting corn and soy crops in due to the wet spring and attendant flooding. Couple lower supply with competition for feed stocks, and present alternative fuel sources just aren't registering all that well.
Most of the people who want us to cut our dependence on foreign oil don't want us to drill for new oil closer to home, so we continue to have this dependence and the price gets higher. It is going to take a good 20 to 30 years to finally iron-out wrinkles in fuel alternatives and to obsolete out existing vehicles and machinery which depend on petroleum and won't run on present alt fuels. So it should make sense that we could be producing more oil closer to home whilst still researching and developing better alternatives.
This is the point I think a lot of people miss- we have to keep the machines and vehicles running long enough and economically enough until something better and sustainable can make sense and be affordable for everyone.
Development of alt fuels AND new drilling is the only thing which makes sense. Denying new drilling opportunities only exascerbates the problem because good alternatives are not at market stage yet and won't be for some time.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I understand where you are coming from wheyou say supply isn't the problem, yet it is WB. It's the image of peak oil and how much there really is or is not left in reserves around the world. That's what is driving speculators is a finite supply which has stalled out at about 83mm bbl/day.
Granted more exploration for oil does nothing more than hasten depletion of the supply by increasing output, but if you look at the enormous infrastructure of machinery and vehicles which rely on petroleum or natural gas, the conversion to alt fuels is daunting.
I would assume with pump prices at the levels they are at now that from a price competition perspective, ethanol and bio-diesel should be stand-alone fuels, and therefore should drive more private investment in manufacturing them.
Only problem as we are learning now about alternatives to petroleum is that we have farmers who have missed their window of getting corn and soy crops in due to the wet spring and attendant flooding. Couple lower supply with competition for feed stocks, and present alternative fuel sources just aren't registering all that well.
Most of the people who want us to cut our dependence on foreign oil don't want us to drill for new oil closer to home, so we continue to have this dependence and the price gets higher. It is going to take a good 20 to 30 years to finally iron-out wrinkles in fuel alternatives and to obsolete out existing vehicles and machinery which depend on petroleum and won't run on present alt fuels. So it should make sense that we could be producing more oil closer to home whilst still researching and developing better alternatives.
This is the point I think a lot of people miss- we have to keep the machines and vehicles running long enough and economically enough until something better and sustainable can make sense and be affordable for everyone.
Development of alt fuels AND new drilling is the only thing which makes sense. Denying new drilling opportunities only exascerbates the problem because good alternatives are not at market stage yet and won't be for some time.
+1
I dig your wisdom!
I never was a big fan of ethanol as an alternative fuel, mainly because the United States is dependent on one source -- corn -- for it domestically.
(On an aside, I wouldn't be too presumptuous about the lack of corn this fall. The last time there were conditions like these -- 1993 -- the corn crop in the Midwest was still huge because the fields that drained well saw enormous yields. What can be one farmer's misfortune can be another's fortune. It's not fair, but Mother Nature is seldom fair.)
I think it behooves the country to diversify its sources of ethanol because you never know when massive crop failures will kill your ability to make the stuff.
I think EV-hybrid vehicles are going to be the way to go in the coming decades. Most cars would be charged overnight, when there's plenty of capacity in the grid. Plus, you got guys like me who could hook it up to solar panels and thus lessen the need for coal and natural gas.
I think there will be some softening of oil prices, but barely below $100 a barrel, if it goes below that at all. Frankly, with humongous populations like India and China developing big middle classes, I don't see the supply problems with oil going away anytime soon.
That said, I think we really are on the cusp of big breakthroughs with alternative energy in the next decade or so. There's nothing like the high cost of oil and gas to spur honest and urgent research into cleaner-burning energy. I'm quite optimistic, actually.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
I understand where you are coming from wheyou say supply isn't the problem, yet it is WB. It's the image of peak oil and how much there really is or is not left in reserves around the world. That's what is driving speculators is a finite supply which has stalled out at about 83mm bbl/day.
Granted more exploration for oil does nothing more than hasten depletion of the supply by increasing output, but if you look at the enormous infrastructure of machinery and vehicles which rely on petroleum or natural gas, the conversion to alt fuels is daunting.
I would assume with pump prices at the levels they are at now that from a price competition perspective, ethanol and bio-diesel should be stand-alone fuels, and therefore should drive more private investment in manufacturing them.
Only problem as we are learning now about alternatives to petroleum is that we have farmers who have missed their window of getting corn and soy crops in due to the wet spring and attendant flooding. Couple lower supply with competition for feed stocks, and present alternative fuel sources just aren't registering all that well.
Most of the people who want us to cut our dependence on foreign oil don't want us to drill for new oil closer to home, so we continue to have this dependence and the price gets higher. It is going to take a good 20 to 30 years to finally iron-out wrinkles in fuel alternatives and to obsolete out existing vehicles and machinery which depend on petroleum and won't run on present alt fuels. So it should make sense that we could be producing more oil closer to home whilst still researching and developing better alternatives.
This is the point I think a lot of people miss- we have to keep the machines and vehicles running long enough and economically enough until something better and sustainable can make sense and be affordable for everyone.
Development of alt fuels AND new drilling is the only thing which makes sense. Denying new drilling opportunities only exascerbates the problem because good alternatives are not at market stage yet and won't be for some time.
quote:
Originally posted by dbacks fan
FWIW, my problem is that they are presenting a flag of another country in a campaign office for some one running for the President of the UNITED STATES.
I just don't like seeing the Cuban flag in the same shot with the US flag. I don't care if it has a picture of Che on it or not, it's just not right.
(http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/obama%20flag%20twn.jpg)
(http://www.newsweek.com/media/39/071005_ObamaYouth_vl-vertical.jpg)
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thenewswire/archive/2007/06/25/BarackatHammerstein-thumb.JPG)
(http://mkmeyer.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/2342709399_c2fffc5844_b.png)
(http://www.barackobama.com/images/obama_dm_sidebar.jpg)
There. all better? [;)]
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
{Various Obama pics}
There. all better? [;)]
Hilarious, Ruf [:D]
Obamanation is a disgrace.....
You forgot this one Ruf [:D]:
(http://obamawho.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/harkin_steak_fry_08.jpg)
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
I never was a big fan of ethanol as an alternative fuel, mainly because the United States is dependent on one source -- corn -- for it domestically.
(On an aside, I wouldn't be too presumptuous about the lack of corn this fall. The last time there were conditions like these -- 1993 -- the corn crop in the Midwest was still huge because the fields that drained well saw enormous yields. What can be one farmer's misfortune can be another's fortune. It's not fair, but Mother Nature is seldom fair.)
I think it behooves the country to diversify its sources of ethanol because you never know when massive crop failures will kill your ability to make the stuff.
I think EV-hybrid vehicles are going to be the way to go in the coming decades. Most cars would be charged overnight, when there's plenty of capacity in the grid. Plus, you got guys like me who could hook it up to solar panels and thus lessen the need for coal and natural gas.
I think there will be some softening of oil prices, but barely below $100 a barrel, if it goes below that at all. Frankly, with humongous populations like India and China developing big middle classes, I don't see the supply problems with oil going away anytime soon.
That said, I think we really are on the cusp of big breakthroughs with alternative energy in the next decade or so. There's nothing like the high cost of oil and gas to spur honest and urgent research into cleaner-burning energy. I'm quite optimistic, actually.
Farmers were saying two months ago they were planting less corn and soy this season before the flooding. Ag Department charted the production as 8% less this year at that point.
The enormity of the alt fuel dilemma really hit me in the face when I was out in eastern New Jersey a couple of months ago on business. Looking around at the population density and all the transportation needs, it really drove the point home to me of how much fuel is consumed daily in the U.S.
Contrary to this area, many homes are heated by steam or hot water in the northeast. Many of those boilers are heating oil fired (basically non-road use diesel). In order to convert them to natural gas, for the average-size home, it would be about $10 to $12K installed, probably even higher than that in some areas. That's a huge pinch on work-a-day folk.
Ethanol is not a good heating fuel choice. Diesel is about 130,000 Btu per gallon ("average" home heating system back east is going to be about 60,000 to 200,000 Btu) Ethanol has about 80,000 btu per gallon. That would require larger storage capacity and it absorbs water readily.
Debunking the myth that someone was spouting from a Wiki article a week or so back about a gallon of ethanol containing 1.5 times "energy units", a gallon of gasoline is about 115,000 Btu.
A lot of people are going to be faced with a tough choice about what to do to heat their home when it's costing about $2.25 an hour to heat it. I see another huge government program on the horizon to pay for new heating systems which would be compatible with different alt fuels and emission guidelnes.
People are acting like there is no on-going research into alt fuels, nothing could be further than the truth. Great things are around the corner, but it takes time and we need to take care of the existing infrastructure of machinery, vehicles, and heating devices until something else more viable comes along.
FWIW, I really like the new Honda FCX Clarity. The first one was supposed to roll off the line on Tuesday according to Honda's web site. One thing I do like about Honda is they can build a hybrid or fuel cell vehicle and it doesn't look like a dorkmobile.
They are going to start leasing them in California and I guess spread out from there. They've worked out a lot of the kinks and inefficiencies of the last generation FCX.
http://world.honda.com/FuelCell/
There are so many factors to this "crisis" that it is indeed daunting. I'm not confident that drilling offshore is anything but politics. Energy companies already have offshore rights they aren't exploiting. That is not really what they want to do when this crisis is, among other things, speculator driven. We may not figure it all out till it forces us into decisions.
Isn't the biggest consumer of energy the automobile? If we were to seriously flatten that curve there would be more fuel oil/ industrial fuel available for the equipment and machinery you refer to, which would allow them more time to convert to other sources like ng, solar etc. What I'm saying is that our dependence on fuel is driven by our sloth with transportation.
I for one do not believe that energy independence is even feasible, much less desirable. It continues the existing paradigm of the last century and stunts our economic growth in a new world economy. Much of the rest of the world realizes that we are interdependent on all resources and are responding appropriately. Indications are, we are following a route that relies on expropriating other countries' resources by force if necessary.
As long as we dwell on silly issues like flags, gay marriages, cookie recipes, etc. we are doomed to have the solutions to more important decisions on energy thrust upon us.
quote:
Originally posted by waterboy
There are so many factors to this "crisis" that it is indeed daunting. I'm not confident that drilling offshore is anything but politics. Energy companies already have offshore rights they aren't exploiting. That is not really what they want to do when this crisis is, among other things, speculator driven. We may not figure it all out till it forces us into decisions.
Isn't the biggest consumer of energy the automobile? If we were to seriously flatten that curve there would be more fuel oil/ industrial fuel available for the equipment and machinery you refer to, which would allow them more time to convert to other sources like ng, solar etc. What I'm saying is that our dependence on fuel is driven by our sloth with transportation.
I for one do not believe that energy independence is even feasible, much less desirable. It continues the existing paradigm of the last century and stunts our economic growth in a new world economy. Much of the rest of the world realizes that we are interdependent on all resources and are responding appropriately. Indications are, we are following a route that relies on expropriating other countries' resources by force if necessary.
As long as we dwell on silly issues like flags, gay marriages, cookie recipes, etc. we are doomed to have the solutions to more important decisions on energy thrust upon us.
One thing for certain: higher fuel prices are getting individuals to think about more fuel-efficient alternatives whether it's human-powered vehicles, riding mass transit, or buying more fuel-efficient vehicles.
I know that was one consideration for me when I bought a motorcycle a few weeks ago (aside from the fact I just love motorcycles). 40 MPG vs. 16 or so MPG for me is a pretty good savings. It's just not as practical when it's raining or I need the lugging capacity of a car or truck.
High oil prices will continue to drive consumer demand elsewhere, but until the alternatives are on a better scale of economy, there's a lag period.
I was thinking last night there's usually a secondary and tertiary market for every vehicle and I'm guessing the average car these days has a life span of up to 20 years, so it's going to be a good long while before hybrids, flex, and fuel-cell vehicles trickle down to the tertiary market. I'm still amazed at a lot of the beat up older, bigger gas guzzlers running around our streets. I guess the replacement cost is just too high or options are limited for what I consider folks in the tertiary vehicle market.
He really needs to get a handle on his Volunteer staff!
USA Today
At a rally for Senator Barack Obama in Detroit on Monday, two Muslim women said they were prohibited from sitting behind the candidate because they were wearing head scarves and campaign volunteers did not want them to appear with him in news photographs or live television coverage.
The Obama campaign said it quickly called the women to apologize after learning of the incident. "It doesn't reflect the orientation of the campaign," said Anita Dunn, a senior adviser to Obama. "I do not believe that mistake will be made again."
quote:
Originally posted by we vs us
quote:
Originally posted by USRufnex
{Various Obama pics}
There. all better? [;)]
Hilarious, Ruf [:D]
Thanks Ruf, I needed that.
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
He really needs to get a handle on his Volunteer staff!
USA Today
At a rally for Senator Barack Obama in Detroit on Monday, two Muslim women said they were prohibited from sitting behind the candidate because they were wearing head scarves and campaign volunteers did not want them to appear with him in news photographs or live television coverage.
The Obama campaign said it quickly called the women to apologize after learning of the incident. "It doesn't reflect the orientation of the campaign," said Anita Dunn, a senior adviser to Obama. "I do not believe that mistake will be made again."
Hillary-ous! McCain should immediately find some hijabbing womyn and get them in background shots.