Please continue

Rather than start a new thread, I’m going to let the one from yesterday run another day.  The conversation is the most important one we could possibly have here, and it appears to just be gaining momentum.  I invite everyone reading this to read the comments to that post and add your own fresh ideas.   Goodness know, the Republicans have not succeeded and the Democrat leadership seems to have no idea at all what to do.  It’s time for all of us to talk seriously about what American should be doing to deal with those who would destroy her.  Thanks in advance for your contributions to the discussion.

Be Sociable, Share!

Comments

  1. Mike says

    DQ, I do a lot of reading at British and European Blog spots because I feel that what is happening there will happen here. They stumbled on a solution that the Muslims themselves couldnt argue about or riot over.Simple immigration enforcement netted them 70 illegals in Britain that where all likely terrorist suspects but were caught as illegals.
    To fight this radical form of Jihad more pressure need to be put on the one country that does more to export it as it does prevent it namely our great ally Saudi Arabia.According to our oil imports we could just shut them off but we would also need to open Mexico for exploration and change their policy of Nationalization.(I believe they should also be forced to watch the border more).
    Cutting the funds of terrorist nations such as Saudi would bring an end to much of the terrorist activities around the world. That should be No.1 priority.
    We need to bring Russia and China in line. Much tougher nuts to crack partly because Russia clings to Cold War supremacy and China to new supremacy ambitions.Russia has a growing Muslim population as does China and if they are to stay who they are they one day will need to face that challenge. How soon will depend on how the Muslims act in these countries.
    Again my approach is cut funding to radical nations.

  2. says

    Something of note to that.

    http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/us_federal_rd_b.html

    First, it appears that President Clinton trimmed R&D each year he was in office, until R&D fell from 1.2% to just 0.8% of GDP. The brief budget surplus he took credit for near the end of his term was largely at the expense of R&D expenditures. Had he maintained R&D expenditures at the same percentage of GDP throughout his Presidency, he would not have achieved a budget surplus. Now tell me, which outcome would you have rather had?

    President Bush increased R&D funding and got it back to historical levels in his first term. However, his second term has brought another slight downward trend, which I hope is reversed in the next few years. He is still keeping it higher than it was for most of the Clinton years, however.

    Some have argued that funding should gradually become an increasingly larger percentage of GDP, as technological changes continue to affect a greater share of the US economy. I might agree, but I also feel that since US scientific innovations lead to products and services that benefit every nation in the world, other prosperous nations should also be obligated to fund basic research in their own countries. Europe and China spend much less than the US, as a percentage of GDP, and it is time they they contributed more to the advancement of human knowledge, rather than simply benefit from US resources.

  3. BigAL says

    Best way to beat the Saudis is to stop buying their oil. Best way to stop buying their oil is to develop cheaper alternatives.

    Comment by Danny Lemieux | February 22, 2007

    Best way to develop cheaper alternatives is to quit fighting with each other over which is the perfect alternative and develop all of them. Let the market sort out which ones are the best.

    Comment by Don Quixote | February 22, 2007

    I like those answers.

    Best way to let the market sort out which ones are best is by actually getting more of these alternatives onto the market. Does anyone actually believe the electric car wasn’t a viable alternative to the internal combustion engine that would be selling like hotcakes right now?

    The first electric car was developed and popular in the early 1900’s. Other alternatives to oil have been available for years and decades.

    http://www.whokilledtheelectriccar.com

    The billions in profits from products associated with the internal combustion engine are the only reason why we are so dependent on foreign oil…which is threatening our national security and funding these radical nations.

    So why, even though we know we give these radical countries power by giving them so much business (and make ourselves dependent upon them) have we not developed alternatives ALREADY?

    Exxon Mobile just finished the year as the most profitable company known in the history of America.

    If it is important that America do WHATEVER IT TAKES to win this war….who is going to have to make sacrifices?

    Isn’t it scary that we have a President, a Vice-President, and a bunch of people in their administration that have devoted large parts of their careers advocating for industries and operating companies that stand to gain from America’s continued dependence on the internal combustion engine?

    Who is making sacrifices?

    Please watch the documentary whokilledtheelectriccar?

    And wake up!

  4. JJ says

    Al, you been telling us about that link for almost as long as you’ve been mentioning Black Soot (which I think must be the name of your dog). Got it – but it isn’t really an answer. When you pull the thing into the garage at night, what do you do with it? Plug it in to recharge. This equates, more or less, to plugging in another heavy appliance in every house in the land, and in fact it’s an especially power hungry heavy appliance, that draws a large load all night charging up.

    This doesn’t eliminate the need for power, it just does what environmentalists refer to as “shifting the load.”

    Okay, we’re not burning up the world’s finite supply of oil to go get kleenex, but the power station is burning a hell of a lot more of it to keep all those cars charged. The net difference in oil consumption is not vast, though admittedly economies of scale come into play, and it’s more efficient for the power generators to burn more than it is for each individual household to consume it. But there’s not a whole huge gain there.

    That said, however, I quite agree that shifting so much of the wealth of the western world into the hands of a bunch of bandits is not a good thing. And maybe the electric car is a step along the road to getting away from that, as is replacing incandescent lightbulbs in your house, as is setting down the thermostat a bit and rediscovering those things Grandma used to knit called “sweaters.”

    But those are all steps. And they only work at all when combined, and they’re going to take time to pick up the slack, and they probably aren’t going to work really effectively in our lifetimes.

    I know you think that the oil companies are the fonts of all evil, but the decision was made 140 years ago to go with oil on this planet, and the result has been 140 years of infrastructure established with that as the basis. It isn’t going to stop tomorrow.

  5. Danny Lemieux says

    I don’t fault oil – I read somewhere that early settlers in New England chopped and burned 80 cords of wood per household per winter. Imagine that in a country of 300 million. Cheap oil has been an environmental and economic godsend. However, it’s time to move on and the market is the best place to sort it out. I, for one, hope that the price of oil never falls below $70 per barrel – it seems that this is the price that makes all the alternatives viable.

Leave a Reply