idrankwhat

Problem solved http://www.tshirthell.com/store/product.php?productid=734

I don't think that comments on a man-rack are typically considered a desirable thing.

You and AWL71 are still thinking in idealized capitalism terms. When you have a marriage of government and big business you get something else entirely. What gives you the impression that the oil companies don't like the arrangement? The get to keep their profits overseas, get a dollar for dollar tax credit for the money that they give China, have their facilities improved, borrow money for those improvements from US banks, write off the interest that they pay further reducing their liability and then take additional direct subsidies from the taxpayer to expand their business. In addition they have over 500 elected federal officials and their employees making sure that they have the resources that they need to exploit oil rich countries including the largest military in the world to use as a hammer. And the best part of all is that they have unfettered dominance over the lifestyle of the most voracious consumers on the planet.

ExxonMobil's profit margin is 7% overall. That's what it looks like when you bury your profits overseas. Oil companies do things like request that China tax them so that their tax liability over here is lower. I believe that the money that Exxon pays to China goes to improve Exxon's facilities in China, not into any sort of a general fund.

I have no idea if this is correct but my macbook says that in traditional Han Chinese it's: 小姐我當我去 真實的愛 edited to add: Looks like DZ doesn't recognize the characters. How about Portuguese? Senhorita mim quando eu for ido Amor verdadeiro

I agree pretty much with all that you wrote, except the implication that the market will sort it out. When the government gets involved as they did with regard to California's zero emission mandate, and the auto manufacturers snatch up all the leased vehicles and won't let people buy them at premium prices, then those are not market forces making the decision. In my opinion the next President should advocate for a national zero emission mandate. If California can get most of the car manufacturers to build ZE vehicles by demanding 3% in 8 years, then think of what a national mandate could acheive.

Funny, I think I've heard some of them say exactly the same thing about us. How constructive. True, probably more like hundreds of thousands if you look at the bigger picture.

I agree. Originally I wasn't going to go with the Prius. I would consider the Civic or I'd possibly go with a Jetta Diesel or the Toyota Yaris. But I'm seriously considering the Hymotion conversion which, with my commute, should get me an average mpg in the low 90's. My other option was a full electric conversion but I'd have to add solar panels to get the range I need. That may change if the Li-ion batteries become more available. Still researching.......

I was indeed started 20 years ago. Well, actually I think it was 18 years ago. It was killed by anti-market capitalists and those with more "free speech" than most of us.

....and the sources of his campaign money, and his willingness to use diplomacy, and his consistency of message, and his desire to talk about issues of substance and his desire to sling less mud......

All he has to do is pull the trigger. I guess he's waiting for one more stupid move, like maybe the results of the November elections. http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1878?page=2

Maybe we should just tack on eduction to the defense budget. Seems to work for $billions worth of other less important pork. Then no one will complain because the DoD budget is always sold as "money for the troops".

I'm in a similar boat. My wife's car will need to be replaced within the next year. I was seriously considering converting it to all electric but it's going to be a little more expensive than I originally thought. Where I'm leaning at the moment is buying a used Prius (2004-2008) and going with the $10,000 Hymotion plug-in conversion.

I read yesterday (somewhere) that if everyone in the US were to switch immediately to EV that our current capacity (he he) could support 75% of those vehicles. That's primarily because most of the recharging would occur at off peak hours. Secondly, regarding the source concern, even with a worst case scenario of 100% electrical supply from coal you'll come out ahead due to the greater efficiency. Here's a clip from the EV world website. For starters, in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, they generate a fraction that expelled by a normal gasoline engine car. For every gallon of gasoline burned, approximately 22 pounds of CO2, an important global warming gas, are created. If a car gets 25 miles a gallon it will emit 22 pounds of carbon dioxide over that distance, as well as other pollutants. By comparison, an electric car may travel the same distance consuming 5 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electric power at a rate of 200 watt hours/mile. Assuming the local grid is 100% coal-fired, roughly 5 lbs of coal would be consumed to create that 5kWh. Depending on the grade and carbon content of the coal, one kilowatt hour creates approximately 1.4 pounds of CO2. That's 7 pounds of CO2 vs. 22 pounds to travel the same 25 miles. But recall that the power grid isn't entirely coal-fired; it includes hydroelectric, natural gas, nuclear and a small, but growing segment of renewables. But what about other pollutants, aren't today's cars significantly cleaner? Yes they are and getting more so all the time, which is good. But so is the power grid, at least in terms of many criteria pollutants, if not CO2. And as more wind and solar electric power is added to the grid, and older, more polluting power plants are decommissioned, the grid can get cleaner, though it will still take citizen awareness and pressure, especially in the light of the fact that hundreds of coal-fired plants plan to be built around the world in the come decades, to ensure the very best technology is used, including carbon sequestration if we plan to continue to utilize coal. Electric Car Economics If you can travel 25 miles on 5kWh of electric power, that means it cost you something like 40 cents to cover the same distance (@ 8 cents/kWh) it takes a gallon of gasoline at $2 and $3 a gallon at current (2006) prices. And if you recharge your electric car from solar panels, like many EV owners in California do, your per mile costs are even less and the payback period on your solar panels dramatically shorter because now you're replacing not relatively cheap grid power, but increasingly expensive gasoline. In the process, you're helping the environment and saving yourself a lot of money for decades to come.

It's relatively expensive to make, storage issues, the technology is not fully developed and most of all, we don't have the infrastructure to support it. IMO all electric is the answer. We already have the infrastructure AND the technology. edited to add: Going all electric would also provide new jobs and would damn near solve our foreign policy problems.

People love America because of the contests posted in Bonfire by Thanatos340.

Even after opening up RMHigh's bonus pic and staring at it, hoping to burn it into my retina, I'm afraid drastic measures are in order.......

I was there for both of them, both C-sections. I felt like I was in a 3-D, smell-a-vision episode on the Discovery channel! Very surreal. When they handed me the child to carry to the recovery/nursery room, I know I gave them the wide eyed "isn't there someone better qualified for this fragile operation?" look. I'll admit, I still see that look in the mirror occasionally.

That would be seriously problematic for the Democrats. It would hand McCain the win IMO. I think the super delegates know that. I could see that. It won't happen because of the obvious rupture to both parties. I don't think that they could pull a centrist party together in such a short time. But I'll admit that it would be fun to listen to talk radio. Rush et al. would poop all over themselves.

I think that this quote is most imperative. "The key success factor in confronting violent extremism is the commitment by governments to work with each other, with the international community, with private sector organizations, and with their citizens and immigrant populations." I hope that the next administration puts a much greater emphasis on diplomacy.

you can't take things out of context. you can't ignore the fact that the buldozed house belongs to a suicide bomber or that a sniper was hiding in it while shooting at farmers across the border. In the minority of cases that is true. But many more home destructions were either for punitive reasons, supposed building permit violations or for "military purposes". In addition to the homes the IDF has destroyed three thousand year old orchards as well as squash and tomato fields. That's collective punishment. You can't expect to live in peace with your neighbor if you create a system of oppression and second class citizenry. Then what would be the purpose for not letting a farmer get to his land on some days but not on others? What would be the purpose of beating up the family members of a little girl who touched the separation barrier with her finger? What would be the purpose of repeatedly harassing the Palestinians living in towns such as Hebron to the point that the residents have to put up metal gates on the windows and doors to keep the settlers out? What would be the purpose of keeping a Palestinian farmer's produce stuck at a roadblock until it rots? What would be the purpose for the west bank settlers repeatedly attacking Palestinians with stones? Apparently quite a bit is done in an effort to make the Palestinian life harder.

so you accept the possibility of it being an accident? I do think it's possible that the driver didn't know she was right in front of him at that moment. Due to the blind spots on the machines the IDF often uses spotters to help guide the equipment. well shields of all sorts are likely to get hurt sometimes. if she chose to jump in front of a working bulldozer, she can only blame herself. True, but the machine operator also knew that there were protesters trying to stop the destruction and that there was the possibility that he could kill someone. It was his decision to continue. since you weren't there, I dont see how you can be so sure. but, does it really matter if she got hurt by debris or by the bulldozer that was working there itself? I can be sure because it's obvious that she was run over by a bulldozer. That's not "debris". And I think it matters because if this had happened in Iran then we would have started "Corrie's war" and bombed the crap out of the country. When an "ally" does it we get a small write up in a couple of local papers.

So you acknowledge Israel's right to exist within pre-1967 borders? Yep. I have a reservation or two on how the state of Israel was created but there has to be some sort of framework established if there's going to be any chance of peace. And part of that framework entails keeping Jerusalem as an international city. You have three religions which lay claim to its importance and we all know that religions don't play well together, no matter how closely related.

By the way, I'm not ignoring the rest of your earlier post. It's just that it's getting late and it's obvious that our last conversation on this issue had absolutely no impact. I'm getting the same old rhetoric again. I'm glad you're doing well and I'll admit that I do get a little concerned when you disappear from discussions on the topic for months at a time. However, we will never see eye to eye on this issue. You think that land outside of Israel's border is "in dispute" and that by not taking more that Israel is making a compromise. I think, as does most of the world, that the green line is your border and that by continuing to take more land and Israel's policy of apartheid that you threaten our national security. Israel violates our own official policy on the issue and I wish it to be held accountable. I also understand that by living with this conflict for so many years that you are willing to accept a certain degree of inhumane treatment of your neighbors. I understand it but I don't accept it. But regardless of how either of us feels about it, it really doesn't matter. The human rights abuses are illegal. Which means that I also understand why people would want to hold both you and me accountable for it.

I think you would probably benefit more from the trip. I'm already willing to acknowledge the conditions. I'm also not certain that Israel would let me in. Israel wouldn't let a high profile guy like Carter in so what chance does little old me have?