IN OBAMA'S OWN WORDS ON ISSUE # 1

[Harlan Huckleby]

What was the reason they stopped using nuclear? (caveat: it's a real question, not rhetoric)

I think nuclear power plants stopped getting licensed after the 3 Mile Island incident. That happened back when you were in diapers (sorry to remind you of those painful Junior High School years.)

There was a political reaction or overreaction, hard to say which. I think power plants are a lot safer today.

The hard problem is dealing with the nuclear waste. My sense is that putting the stuff in lead containers and stashing it within the Yucca Mountains does not present a HUGE environmental risk. Of course I don't live in the area. But compared to releasing massive pollutants into the atmosphere, its got to be less harmful to the earth. I think disposing of the waste is a tough political issue. A lot of nuclear plants around the world are just wharehousing the radio active waste.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

2. Aids...are you kidding me. RR didn't even acknowledge AIDS. He underfunded it. He left appointments open. Give you enough rope and you hang yourself everytime. Aids...i can't stop laughing.
LOL

Keep laughing. I wasn't addressing energy policy. I was addressing your faith in government to solve problems through research. You specifically mentioned that Reagan cut funding for solar and ethanol. My point is simply that the government can't mandate discoveries. Reagan's views on AIDS had nothing to do with my point, which was that billions have been spent on HIV research, with no vaccine (But 'underfunding' as you suggest is a matter of opinion). You implied that with more money spent on ethanol research , similar in form to when Obama suggested with his "Iraq war money for magic engine speech" that the investment of money itself is some sort of guarantee. Government policy does influence what is studied/explored or not, of course, but my point was specifically that government funded research is no guarantee of results.

No, my faith was in giving money or tax breaks..like they do for numerous industries will lead to advancements. Pretty common.

There are no guarantees, but there are certainly strong bets. Ethanol..wow, you just keep making it easy. Guess those countries running on it or biodiesel..prove your point.

As for Aids..you might wanna choose a better example..as it doesn't work at all. Poor funding and all..hardly classifies as one of the examples. BTW, people are living with AIDS for a long time now...do you think that is by accident. Is your proof of gov't working..only in a vaccine..do you not think the drugs we have today are not a result of those efforts. Yikes.

Might wanna think a bit more about your examples. Take your time.

World Health Organization is against you tyrone:
============================================

The head of the World Health Organization’s HIV/AIDS department has officially admitted for the first time that there will be no global epidemic of the disease among the heterosexual population outside Africa, The Independent reported.

Kevin de Cock said global prevention strategies to address AIDS as a risk to all populations, among the WHO and major AIDS organizations, may have been misdirected. It is now recognized that, with the exception of sub-Saharan African, it is confined to high-risk groups.

These groups include men who have sex with other men, drug users who inject with needles, and sex workers and their clients, The Independent reported.

“It is very unlikely there will be a heterosexual epidemic in other countries,” de Cock is quoted in The Independent. “Ten years ago a lot of people were saying there would be a generalized epidemic in Asia — China was the big worry with its huge population. That doesn't look likely. But we have to be careful. As an epidemiologist it is better to describe what we can measure. There could be small outbreaks in some areas.”

However, AIDS still kills more adults than all wars, and is winning against current efforts to address it, The Independent reported. A WHO/U.N. AIDS report published in June shows less than a third of people in developing countries who need anti-retroviral drugs are receiving them. There were 33 million people living with HIV in 2007.

Some AIDS organizations, including the WHO, U.N. AIDS and the Global Fund have been blasted for inflating estimates of the number of people infected, taking much-needed funds from other diseases like malaria, spending it on the wrong efforts such as abstinence programs rather than condoms.

One result of the WHO’s admission may be that the vast sums of money spent on AIDS education for people who are not at risk may now be concentrated on high-risk groups.

=============================================

HOw is that against me?

I've never been one that thought it would be worldwide epidemic. In fact, Tyrone is very hip to the facts of Aids..especially in this country.

1. It is primarily a disease that affects specific pops...IV drug users, gay, etc.
2. Female to male transmission is..well...not really even worth worrying about.
3. It was created by conservative's to wipe out liberals.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

As for Aids..you might wanna choose a better example..as it doesn't work at all. Poor funding and all..hardly classifies as one of the examples. BTW, people are living with AIDS for a long time now...do you think that is by accident. Is your proof of gov't working..only in a vaccine..do you not think the drugs we have today are not a result of those efforts. Yikes.

Might wanna think a bit more about your examples. Take your time.

I see. So you say that even with poor funding for AIDS, great advancement has been made. I'll certainly keep that in mind. Also, you say that great advances have been made in ethanol, particularly in Brazil where they use sugar - but you say that ethanol research was underfunded as well. Sounds like perhaps the correct research got done in the correct place. I'll remember that too. At last I agree with you that the government can get out of the way of companies that are doing research by decreasing business taxes. I like that ideas - but across the board.

Poor funding..um, nice try...subsequent presidents werent' the same.

Ethanol: Right. Far be it from us to dominate and control an emerging technlogy. Yikes. Guess we should get out of the pharm, tech, etc.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

you guys "debated" with tyrone for 4 pages without him ever stating what he stood for....I have learned my lesson and quickly try to get away from such nonsense.

RR did have an energy policy, its why we stopped waiting in lines for gas. His policy was "use what we have that is cheap and effective and wait for the other sources to catch up"

Bush has the same policy...but we are much closer to those other sources catching up and thanx to extremists we are having trouble using what we have atm. Nuclear has been far better than any source of energy we can come up with for over 30 years, but we refuse to expand and use it.

RR brought down the solar panels cuz in 1980 the cost effectiveness was a not very funny joke.

Now tyrone...without pointing out the abject failure of the republicans what would you do as an energy policy right now?

One more thing, did you know that all the nuclear waste we have created in this country...ever...can fit into a high school gymnasium? I heard that on CNN, can't say its absolute fact, but I tend to believe it based on what I know (I know that the tip of your pinky in fissile material is more powerful than a full truckload of coal.)

I actually addressed this in an earlier post, on a differerent thread. I'll try and find it.

Edit: Couldn't find it, but here goes..off the cuff.

1. Make a national electric grid...similar to what we did with internet. This should be priority #1 as it effects everything i propose.

2. Solar

a. How about solar powered thermal energy.

Ausra has a peer reviewed paper that says they can power 90% of the grid on solar-thermal and have energy left over for electric cars. Eliminates 40% of greenhouse gases. Footprint of around 10K sq. miles. About the size of Vermont. Basically throw it up in NM.

b. Solar in homes. Ridiculous that new homes in NM, AZ, Nev, etc. aren't being built with it.

3. Wind Power. More than enough wind in the midwest. Or other areas. P.S. this isn't an open invitation to go after a certain senator...let's try to keep this just about the policy...not about stupid idiots.

4. Look up: Cradle to Cradle, William McDonough or Lewis center. More energy efficient buildings and better usage.

5. Fuel efficiency. Better MPG mandated. Ties in with better built buildings, etc.

6. Mass Transit. More needed.

7. Prizes. Similar to X prize.

8. Nuclear.

[mraynrand]

Ethanol: Right. Far be it from us to dominate and control an emerging technlogy. Yikes. Guess we should get out of the pharm, tech, etc.

That's all government run too, right?

are you saying there's not enough ethanol research or, not? Or could it be that ethanol worked in Brazil because they have more sugar cane. Are their ethanol technologies really more sophisticated than ours?

And, the major AIDS treatment breakthrough was in 1992 or 1993 - BEFORE Clinton was elected or at least before his first budget. So effectively, the drug cocktail treatment was discovered on 'the cheap.' or under a 'anti-research' Republicans.

And about 'controlling' emerging technologies - that isn't the liberal thing to do is it? Shouldn't we be sharing all our technology with the world? You're not suggesting we have some sort of proprietary rights to invention and discovery are you?

[texaspackerbacker]

What was the reason they stopped using nuclear? (caveat: it's a real question, not rhetoric)

I think nuclear power plants stopped getting licensed after the 3 Mile Island incident. That happened back when you were in diapers (sorry to remind you of those painful Junior High School years.)

There was a political reaction or overreaction, hard to say which. I think power plants are a lot safer today.

The hard problem is dealing with the nuclear waste. My sense is that putting the stuff in lead containers and stashing it within the Yucca Mountains does not present a HUGE environmental risk. Of course I don't live in the area. But compared to releasing massive pollutants into the atmosphere, its got to be less harmful to the earth. I think disposing of the waste is a tough political issue. A lot of nuclear plants around the world are just wharehousing the radio active waste.

To some extent, Ziggy, Harlan beat me to the answer. I will add that in the infamous 3 Mile Island incident, nobody whatsoever was killed or even injured.

Another major factor was the movie, China Syndrome--a totally fictitious bogus representation of nuclear power.

You obviously are NOT receptive to the intentional harming of America by the leftist slanted media and entertainment community, but THIS--the several decade long irrational disparaging of nuclear power would seem to be just another golden example of the anti-American agenda of these forces. Could you possibly disagree with that?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ethanol: Right. Far be it from us to dominate and control an emerging technlogy. Yikes. Guess we should get out of the pharm, tech, etc.

That's all government run too, right?

are you saying there's not enough ethanol research or, not? Or could it be that ethanol worked in Brazil because they have more sugar cane. Are their ethanol technologies really more sophisticated than ours?

And, the major AIDS treatment breakthrough was in 1992 or 1993 - BEFORE Clinton was elected or at least before his first budget. So effectively, the drug cocktail treatment was discovered on 'the cheap.' or under a 'anti-research' Republicans.

And about 'controlling' emerging technologies - that isn't the liberal thing to do is it? Shouldn't we be sharing all our technology with the world? You're not suggesting we have some sort of proprietary rights to invention and discovery are you?

As usual you spin. When did i say anti research repubs. I said RR. Let's try to stick with the facts, please.

Ethanol: once again you change what i said. I never said gov't run. I noted that cuts were made. I noted that by promoting cheap oil, it devastated a market.

Controling: Who is talking about liberal. I'm making your argument. C'mon, you aren't that slow.

[mraynrand]

Ethanol: once again you change what i said. I never said gov't run. I noted that cuts were made. I noted that by promoting cheap oil, it devastated a market.

But not in Brazil, where the source is cheaper. Plus, who kept Oil prices low - OPEC, that's who - at least through two plus decades.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ethanol: once again you change what i said. I never said gov't run. I noted that cuts were made. I noted that by promoting cheap oil, it devastated a market.

But not in Brazil, where the source is cheaper. Plus, who kept Oil prices low - OPEC, that's who - at least through two plus decades.

Cheaper...you'd have to have some proof...that in the 80s sugar, corn or some other source wasn't as cheap. THe point was that as a country we needed R&D money into alternative energy. Now, you focus strictly on gov'ts role..as if it was strictly and econ issue. But, that was never the point of carter and his policies.

THe point, which you have conveniently dropped in regards to alternative energy was the relation of oil to national security.

You have conveniently focused one one thing..the ethanol part..of course dropping coal, nuclear, natural gas, etc.

As part of making us more secure...i'm sure you can tolerate a little gov't intervention.

You can argue all day long...but, let's look at some words from Mr. Carter..and, ask yourself..who was smarter or prescient...and prescribing something good for this country..April 18, 1977.

"We can't substantially increase our domestic production, so we would need to import twice as much oil as we do now. Supplies will be uncertain. The cost will keep going up. Six years ago, we paid $3.7 billion for imported oil. Last year we spent $37 billion -- nearly ten times as much -- and this year we may spend over $45 billion.

Unless we act, we will spend more than $550 billion for imported oil by 1985 -- more than $2,500 a year for every man, woman, and child in America. Along with that money we will continue losing American jobs and becoming increasingly vulnerable to supply interruptions.

Now we have a choice. But if we wait, we will live in fear of embargoes. We could endanger our freedom as a sovereign nation to act in foreign affairs. Within ten years we would not be able to import enough oil -- from any country, at any acceptable price."

"We will not be ready to keep our transportation system running with smaller, more efficient cars and a better network of buses, trains and public transportation.

We will feel mounting pressure to plunder the environment. We will have a crash program to build more nuclear plants, strip-mine and burn more coal, and drill more offshore wells than we will need if we begin to conserve now. Inflation will soar, production will go down, people will lose their jobs. Intense competition will build up among nations and among the different regions within our own country.

If we fail to act soon, we will face an economic, social and political crisis that will threaten our free institutions.

But we still have another choice. We can begin to prepare right now. We can decide to act while there is time."


P.S. Must really gall you that McCain, while kowtowing to the u.s. oilman, is now basically extolling Carter's points. McCain emphasizes how our economic and national security are undermined by an overreliance on imported oil, especially from autocratic regimes hostile to the US.

[Freak Out]

Charlie Black, McCain aide, stirs a flap with a frank comment

Charlie Black has had his moment of straight talk ... and chances are he's not going to let it happen again.

Longtime Republican strategist and operative Charlie Black reflected on how a terrorist attack would help the candidacy of presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain A recent Washington Post piece on Black aptly described him as "John McCain's man in Washington," a "longtime uber-lobbyist" and "political maestro" who hopes "to guide his friend, the senator from Arizona, to the presidency this November."

Now comes a Fortune magazine article that, even more aptly, notes the "startling candor" with which Black discussed how a spotlight on national security would serve McCain's political purposes.

First, he provided some background.

The assassination of Pakistani political leader Benazir Bhutto in late December was an "unfortunate event," Black told Fortune, but it boosted McCain's stock in the fast-approaching New Hampshire Republican primary that he absolutely, positively had to win. The candidate's "knowledge and ability to talk about it reemphasized that this is the guy who's ready to be commander in chief. And it helped us," Black said.

Then, the longtime political pro got a bit too honest. Asked about the political impact of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Black replied: "Certainly it would be a big advantage to him."

Black may be correct, but he's not supposed to be quite so blunt in coldly calculating the upside for McCain of harm coming to Americans. Others -- unconnected with the campaign -- could offer such an assessment, but he should have dodged the question.

He knows it, and The Times' Maeve Reston reports that outside a McCain fundraiser today in Fresno, Black said: “I deeply regret the comments — they were inappropriate. I recognize that John McCain has devoted his entire adult life to protecting his country and placing its security before every other consideration."

McCain, for his part, did what he's supposed to do -- stressing his lifelong commitment to protecting America and flat out disputing Black's premise. "It's not true," he said when asked in Fresno about his aide's remark.

Barack Obama's campaign played its role, taking great umbrage to Black's comment while using it to stress one of its talking points.

Spokesman Bill Burton said, "The fact that John McCain's top advisor says that a terrorist attack on American soil would be a 'big advantage' for their political campaign is a complete disgrace, and is exactly the kind of politics that needs to change."

But Burton also said Obama "welcomes a debate about terrorism with John McCain, who has fully supported the Bush policies that have taken our eye off of Al Qaeda, failed to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, and made us less safe."

[bobblehead]

you guys "debated" with tyrone for 4 pages without him ever stating what he stood for....I have learned my lesson and quickly try to get away from such nonsense.

RR did have an energy policy, its why we stopped waiting in lines for gas. His policy was "use what we have that is cheap and effective and wait for the other sources to catch up"

Bush has the same policy...but we are much closer to those other sources catching up and thanx to extremists we are having trouble using what we have atm. Nuclear has been far better than any source of energy we can come up with for over 30 years, but we refuse to expand and use it.

RR brought down the solar panels cuz in 1980 the cost effectiveness was a not very funny joke.

Now tyrone...without pointing out the abject failure of the republicans what would you do as an energy policy right now?

One more thing, did you know that all the nuclear waste we have created in this country...ever...can fit into a high school gymnasium? I heard that on CNN, can't say its absolute fact, but I tend to believe it based on what I know (I know that the tip of your pinky in fissile material is more powerful than a full truckload of coal.)

I actually addressed this in an earlier post, on a differerent thread. I'll try and find it.

Edit: Couldn't find it, but here goes..off the cuff.

1. Make a national electric grid...similar to what we did with internet. This should be priority #1 as it effects everything i propose.

2. Solar

a. How about solar powered thermal energy.

Ausra has a peer reviewed paper that says they can power 90% of the grid on solar-thermal and have energy left over for electric cars. Eliminates 40% of greenhouse gases. Footprint of around 10K sq. miles. About the size of Vermont. Basically throw it up in NM.

b. Solar in homes. Ridiculous that new homes in NM, AZ, Nev, etc. aren't being built with it.

3. Wind Power. More than enough wind in the midwest. Or other areas. P.S. this isn't an open invitation to go after a certain senator...let's try to keep this just about the policy...not about stupid idiots.

4. Look up: Cradle to Cradle, William McDonough or Lewis center. More energy efficient buildings and better usage.

5. Fuel efficiency. Better MPG mandated. Ties in with better built buildings, etc.

6. Mass Transit. More needed.

7. Prizes. Similar to X prize.

8. Nuclear.

See tyrone, you are with me....except I realize that solar isn't viable yet. A national power grid...sounds a lot like infrastructure spending, you know, the actual role of gov't. If we just stopped pissing away our resources on transfer of wealth programs and socialist promises we might be able to afford such a project.

At this point solar is still I believe, 15 times more expensive than coal/petroleaum ect, and like 50 times more expensive than nuclear. You should have stuck with power grid and nuclear while we continue to blaze forward with benchmark prizes for solar advancement. (wind is still more expensive than solar)

As far as energy efficient buildings that is being done very aggresively in everything new.

Instead of MANDATING better MGP, how about benchmark awards for creating higher MPG engines.

Incidentally did you, or anyone here mccain come out with a proposed 300 million dollar reward for an auto battery to leap past current technology in life and storage? Sounds like some of our voices are being heard.

You sound an awful lot like a lot of consevatives/republicans in your ideas here, wonder what the hell we are all arguing about?

[bobblehead]

Black is supposed to be smarter than that...how about "that would be bad for EVERY american, I don't want to speculate on the political impact."

Christ, I'm nobody and I'm smarter than to answer that loaded question.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

you guys "debated" with tyrone for 4 pages without him ever stating what he stood for....I have learned my lesson and quickly try to get away from such nonsense.

RR did have an energy policy, its why we stopped waiting in lines for gas. His policy was "use what we have that is cheap and effective and wait for the other sources to catch up"

Bush has the same policy...but we are much closer to those other sources catching up and thanx to extremists we are having trouble using what we have atm. Nuclear has been far better than any source of energy we can come up with for over 30 years, but we refuse to expand and use it.

RR brought down the solar panels cuz in 1980 the cost effectiveness was a not very funny joke.

Now tyrone...without pointing out the abject failure of the republicans what would you do as an energy policy right now?

One more thing, did you know that all the nuclear waste we have created in this country...ever...can fit into a high school gymnasium? I heard that on CNN, can't say its absolute fact, but I tend to believe it based on what I know (I know that the tip of your pinky in fissile material is more powerful than a full truckload of coal.)

I actually addressed this in an earlier post, on a differerent thread. I'll try and find it.

Edit: Couldn't find it, but here goes..off the cuff.

1. Make a national electric grid...similar to what we did with internet. This should be priority #1 as it effects everything i propose.

2. Solar

a. How about solar powered thermal energy.

Ausra has a peer reviewed paper that says they can power 90% of the grid on solar-thermal and have energy left over for electric cars. Eliminates 40% of greenhouse gases. Footprint of around 10K sq. miles. About the size of Vermont. Basically throw it up in NM.

b. Solar in homes. Ridiculous that new homes in NM, AZ, Nev, etc. aren't being built with it.

3. Wind Power. More than enough wind in the midwest. Or other areas. P.S. this isn't an open invitation to go after a certain senator...let's try to keep this just about the policy...not about stupid idiots.

4. Look up: Cradle to Cradle, William McDonough or Lewis center. More energy efficient buildings and better usage.

5. Fuel efficiency. Better MPG mandated. Ties in with better built buildings, etc.

6. Mass Transit. More needed.

7. Prizes. Similar to X prize.

8. Nuclear.

See tyrone, you are with me....except I realize that solar isn't viable yet. A national power grid...sounds a lot like infrastructure spending, you know, the actual role of gov't. If we just stopped pissing away our resources on transfer of wealth programs and socialist promises we might be able to afford such a project.

At this point solar is still I believe, 15 times more expensive than coal/petroleaum ect, and like 50 times more expensive than nuclear. You should have stuck with power grid and nuclear while we continue to blaze forward with benchmark prizes for solar advancement. (wind is still more expensive than solar)

As far as energy efficient buildings that is being done very aggresively in everything new.

Instead of MANDATING better MGP, how about benchmark awards for creating higher MPG engines.

Incidentally did you, or anyone here mccain come out with a proposed 300 million dollar reward for an auto battery to leap past current technology in life and storage? Sounds like some of our voices are being heard.

You sound an awful lot like a lot of consevatives/republicans in your ideas here, wonder what the hell we are all arguing about?

why do you think solar isn't viable. Ausra disagrees. And, why are they buidling those plants in CA?

Solar figures: I would need to see evidence. I highly doubt solar thermal is more expensive. Geothermal runs Iceland...doubt that we can't do the same here.

social programs: Just can't leave out your little digs can you. Or, maybe we should layoff giving tax breaks to business, make businesses pay their taxes..not letting them set up outta country, and stop with foolish drilling,etc.

MGP: Because..where are you getting the money? Surely, you aren't suggesting the gov't give some of MY MONEY to corps. But, realistically, prizes etc. don't do it for corps...they won't do it unless there are significant reasons..and a prize isn't significant. What is wrong with mandating...we already do it. Is it hurting anyone?

Buildings: Leeds, etc. isn't what i'm referring to. But, it is a start.

Try: www.mcdonough.com

Sound like: I would say you sound like a liberal. Welcome aboard. We've been waiting for you. Don't worry, i'll only introduce to white folks..we'll keep the scary minorities and eco freaks away from you.

[MJZiggy]

This one's viable, they just need the funding. http://bluehgroup.com

[bobblehead]

I'll do a little research after work to back it up, but to the best of my knowledge solar is still very expensive compared to dirty fuels and is only used due to huge tax credits (read subsidy). If I'm wrong on that and it is cost efficient there is no reason we shouldn't be making it a national innitiative to quickly turn the power grid and the country into a solar power nirvana.