Contributors

Saturday, January 07, 2012

Positively Brilliant!

35 comments:

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

So speaking of obstructionists - how 'bout that Keystone XL pipeline? You going to call out the folks in your party?

Mark Ward said...

Well, the president and the Democrats in Congress are really caught between a rock and a hard place on this one. On the one hand, they have the unions who would like to see the project go forward for the jobs. On the other, the enviro crowd as well as some others see the pointlessness of oil. I'm not sure I have an answer on this one but I guess I'd like to see some data on how having this oil will positively affect the world demand for oil...so much so that the prices drops. In tandem with this, I'd like to know how many jobs and what sort of effect this have on the economy?

juris imprudent said...

A major new source of supply, and you can't figure out how that will impact the market? Here's the other thing (the eco-weenies can suck on) - Canada will develop, transport and sell that oil to someone. They aren't going to stop because a bunch of over-indulged Luddite assholes in this country have their panties in a bunch. We can either participate, or watch someone else profit from this.

Mark Ward said...

The supply won't impact the price of gas at all, juris. As we have discussed previously, being a net oil exporter doesn't mean that you are magically free of the shackles of the world market. Canada is a net oil exporter and even if you subtract the higher taxes they pay for gas, they still pay high prices for a gallon of gas if demand and/or the oil cartels dictate it to be so. The demand out there for oil as well as other factors determine what we pay at the pump unless, of course, you want more government control on oil as Iran has.

Interestingly, we recently become a net exporter of petroleum products (thanks, in part to the EPA:)) and prices have stayed the same, not counting the recent spike due to the Straight of Hormuz worries.

But I do like this line of yours

We can either participate, or watch someone else profit from this.

as it exactly summarizes how I feel about renewable energy.

Yet, if the number of jobs that are gained from the pipeline are significant enough that they boost consumer spending and positively effect the health of the economy, that certainly needs to be considered and weighed with the general waste of time that oil brings.

juris imprudent said...

I've got no beef at all with R&D of alternative fuels. But that doesn't mean the govt should foolishly dump money into that*. Let private investors take the risk, and if it pays off reap the rewards.

Any new major source of supply of crude is going to move price down - at least somewhat. Major supply outside of OPEC will have even more impact. Any price drop is welcome in my book.

* speaking of foolish money - what in the hell happened to the half billion dollars that went to Solyndra? That is a lot of money to blow in a short period of time. Aren't you the teensiest bit concerned with fraud, with fatcats slinking away with your money?

rld said...

If it was profitable there would be no need to subsidize it.

Mark Ward said...

Which, rld, the oil or the renewables? Both are subsidized.

juris, some good points. I think the president would like to see the playing field leveled with no subsidies for anyone and the free market working it all out. That's a tall order considering that Congress will likely never give in on their pet subsidies. Sure, Solyndra was a mistake but it's a much smaller one than the pundits are currently making it. Half a billion dollars? Really? How about 80 trillion dollars of unfunded Medicare liability? Solyndra has unfortunately become a dog whistle now because it's climate change related and it's a little something that can be used to make the president look bad (see: winning the argument, proving him wrong). Discussing it within the framework of our economic woes is honestly small potatoes when you think about all the other issues out there.

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

Solyndra a dog whistle? Well, I guess that's all Halliburton was too then huh? No wonder the fuckers in DC figure they can get away with that kind of shit when people like you excuse blowing half a billion dollars cause it was "your guy" - and any criticism must be just partisan carping.

Mark Ward said...

I think the issues of Solyndra are different than the issues of Haliburton. To begin with, Solyndra was part of a loan process that started under George W. Bush in 2005 and expanded under President Obama. It's also a small part of a larger program as you can see by this list.

https://lpo.energy.gov/?page_id=45

Take a look at how the program did with the other companies and then juxtapose those figures with Solyndra. How come we don't hear about companies like Exelon, for example, which had a similarly priced loan? Or Brightsource Energy which got a 1.6 billion dollar loan?

Now compare this list with the amount of subsidies the fossil fuel industry.

http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/energy/25545/

http://www.eli.org/pdf/Energy_Subsidies_Black_Not_Green.pdf

So, we're comparing 39 billion to 557 billion. Really? Total dog whistle, dude. I know it's exciting to be able to prove both the president and green tech wrong at the same time but the facts don't merit the accusations when you look at all of this in a larger context.

Haliburton brings in a whole other set of issues. We can start with the fact that, under Dick Cheney, they violated the Trading With the Enemy Act in 2001 by opening up an office in Tehran. There's all the other Dick Cheney stuff which I really don't want to go over again but that's markedly different from Solyndra. Did Joe Biden serve as Solyndra's CEO and make shitloads of money in government contracts.

There's this.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7444083.stm

And then there's the St. Mary's fund experiment thing which is just plain weird, the Deepwater Horizon incident, the Texas and New Mexico toxic release issues, and the Jamie Leigh Jones incident that I have talked about previously.

In comparing these issues with Solyndra, I hope you can see that the parallel just isn't there. Haliburton was (and is) a whole other level of problems and it doesn't matter who was in the White House, I'd still call them out on it. In fact, I still think that Lyndon Johnson was our nation's worst president because of his relationship with the MIC. Vietnam was largely caused by the incestuous nature between government officials and defense contractors...just as it was with Iraq. People died, juris, and that's certainly not the case with Solyndra.

don said...

The Jones case? Where you accused republicans of supporting rape even though there was no case because she was a lying moron who did the same stuff several times before? yeah that was one of your bright spots on here.

Mark Ward said...

That's it? No other comments on the rest of my points?

Regarding Jones, how exactly does her losing the case translate into "she is a lying moron?" Recall that the doctor who examined Jones turned over the rape kit to the US government in 2005. In 2007, the US State Department stated that both the photographs and doctor's notes were missing from the kit. So, obviously they couldn't be admitted as evidence. Also missing from the trial was information about Charles Bortz (the defendant) and his history of abuse as well as other evidence. I'd also like an explanation as to what the difference is between being locked in a storage container and being placed in a "secure location."

By your logic, don, Casey Anthony must have been telling the truth, right? Jones' case is another sad example of how corporations make it very difficult for individuals to use the justice system. I'd recommend the film "Hot Coffee" for a deeper look at how ridiculously warped it is.

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

Or Brightsource Energy

Oh, that company the eco-weenies are trying to hold up from devastating the Mojave Desert.

http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2236
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/21/feinstein-seeks-to-block-_n_177646.html

The left hand doesn't seem to know what the other left hand is doing.

...and it doesn't matter who was in the White House, I'd still call them out on it

Except of course you don't. Which makes you a liar on top of being a hypocrite. Oh, and a partisan hack. Can't ever forget the partisan hack now can we? Somebody walked off with a shit-load of money in the Solyndra debacle - and I will not overlook it because your fucking dreamboat is the President.

rld said...

How about that brightsource energy!

Mark Ward said...

I'm not an "eco-weenie," juris. Nuclear power supporter, remember? But, like your voice on targeted assassinations, we do need to hear their's on the environment.

What about all those other companies that took out loans? Are they all bad as well like Solyndra? And isn't the fact that these subsidies are temporary in comparison to oil subsides give you pause to maybe back off a little?

When you put all of this stuff in context, Solynda is seen for just what it was...a minor mistake blown up to biblical proportions by the mouth foamers. They weren't a major supplier of solar energy and, given the facts about their non-silicon solar panels and the resulting market factors that doomed them (China being a part of that), your cries of partisan hackery are quite silly.

GuardDuck said...

Most oil 'subsidies' are subsidies.

http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/politics/2011/05/most-oil-subsidies-are-not-really-oil-subsidies

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2011/05/09/wasting_time_on_oil_company_taxes/?page=full


You can't call what Exxon writes off in their taxes - like every other company does - a subsidy. Unless you also want to start calling your own deductions on your form 1040 to be a subsidy.

juris imprudent said...

I've pointed you to information that Solyndra is part of a long line of govt failure. Your response is classic - first ignore what I said, then mischaracterize what I said, then cheerily talk about how govt is so successful dismissing any possibility otherwise.

Why it's almost like you were predictable or something.

Mark Ward said...

Predictable indeed. "A long line of government failure"...even after all we've accomplished. It's two very different realities we live in, juris.

juris imprudent said...

Yes, your reality doesn't include things that don't accord with your beliefs. I try to learn, to stay grounded in reality and you just preach your gospel.

For example, I'll bet you've still got a soft spot for high speed rail. Even the most ardent California liberals are realizing it won't work. And they are almost as immune to reality as you are.

Mark Ward said...

I try to learn, to stay grounded in reality

From my view, I don't think you do. Can you name any president or leader of this country that you thought did a good job? You seem to hate everyone and have very little faith in government. Your gospel is that of the malcontent and skeptic on steroids about the benefits of government. I sit back and look at what our country has accomplished with government as a partner and see very clearly that we wouldn't have gotten there without it. These are facts, not beliefs.

Why won't high speed rail work? Is this just a California thing? My best friend of 30 years owns a railroad parts company and knows the business inside and out. Obviously he has a stake in seeing it happen but his argument makes a great deal of sense when you consider how well other countries have done with it. I guess I've never understood why conservatives hate choo choos.

GuardDuck said...

These are facts, not beliefs.

You make a statement, a conclusion. You have not supported it with any facts. Yet you characterize it as a fact.


Why won't high speed rail work?

Economics.

juris imprudent said...

From my view, I don't think you do.

Can't say I'm surprised. You are a man of faith, not reason. There isn't anything necessarily wrong with that, except when you don't realize it. It is why you liked the conclusion of Lost and I didn't.

You seem to hate everyone and have very little faith in government.

Yes, me of little faith. Thank you for illustrating my point.

And I don't hate everyone, I only hate stupidity. It isn't my fault that stupidity is so abundant.

Can you name any president or leader of this country that you thought did a good job?

Coolidge for starters. I could give it some more thought and produce a whole list (historical and contemporary), but one suffices to rebut your assumption.

The problem with HSR at least in California. Though any thing he says about this state is true for most of the country. The only plausible exception is the NE corridor (Boston-NYC-Philly-DC).

I guess I've never understood why conservatives hate choo choos.

Perhaps because we outgrew our childish fascination with them? I have nothing against trains any more than I hate alternative energy. What I despise are idiots masquerading their moral imperatives as national interests that have to be forced on people. If trains made sense economically there would be train service everywhere. What is so funny is that you don't seem to know one of the biggest causes of the demise of passenger rail in this country. You should because you think it was a great act of govt that created it.

GuardDuck said...

Wow, can't believe I missed this.

I guess I've never understood why conservatives hate choo choos.



Reading comprehension? Nobody said anything about trains - in fact you were told months ago that conservatives were not against freight trains. The actual subject was high speed rail - which means passenger transport.

Of course your intellectually dishonest and snidely smug remark was cute - in the 'Mark is deliberately mis-characterizing the argument' way.

Mark Ward said...

GD, which statement did I make that was not supported by facts? It seems to me that I'm not allowed to use any facts that portray government in a positive light.

And one word ("Economics") is not a statement supported by facts. Why won't high speed rail work here as it does in other countries?

juris, it's always Coolidge with you guys, isn't it? There are many that argue that his laissez faire style led directly to the crash in 1929. I take it you don't agree with this? Nevertheless, you have inspired me to write a post about Coolidge at some point in the future.

juris imprudent said...

Why won't high speed rail work here as it does in other countries?


Did you bother to read my link? It was to WaPo, so there was no right-wing bias.

it's always Coolidge with you guys

You guys? Who else responded other than me? See how you instantly transposed my personal point into some tribal thing. That really fucking pisses me off because I don't hang every last bit of lefty idiocy around your neck. I understand when you state an opinion as your own, not just proggy orthodoxy. Why can't you do the same - why?

There are many that argue that his laissez faire style led directly to the crash in 1929.

Gotta love the passivity of that aggression. Are you arguing that? On what evidence? What has "style" got to do with law and economics?

What I admire most about Coolidge was his modesty as President. He didn't want hero worshipping, boot licking sycophants. He didn't run around as though he was king of the fucking world. More than most other presidents, he understood that American life is not all about the Great Leader.

Now you just love you some Great Leader. Can't get enough, can you? I really should try to understand that better about you - why you and so many people are so willing to be led around by the nose.

GuardDuck said...

And one word ("Economics") is not a statement supported by facts. Why won't high speed rail work here as it does in other countries?


OK. Density. Population density. Urban population density. Urban density.

Read this:

http://political-pulse.blogspot.com/2011/02/high-speed-rail-no-thank-you.html


The NE corridor, NY-DC is the only place we have that has dense cities of large populations, served by public transportation networks that are close enough together for high speed rail to even approach economic success.

Mark Ward said...

See how you instantly transposed my personal point into some tribal thing.

juris, either you are pulling my leg or don't get out much. To begin with, Glenn Beck devoted an entire show to Calvin Coolidge.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhNUQkrlZ0Y

Check out all the clips at the side as well. And there's this...

http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/silent-cal-speaks-why-calvin-coolidge

and this

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/07/026665.php

Oh, and check out this fantasy land...

http://aconservativeteacher.blogspot.com/2011/11/calvin-coolidge-one-of-best-presidents.html

I can't count how many times Laura Ingraham, Rush, and many others bring up Coolidge on their respective shows. This don't include all my conservative friends that pine for him as well.

juris imprudent said...

Funny thing isn't it M that you have to tell me about all those sites/shows. I would never have known as those aren't venues I spend any time at at all. Anyway, I gave you my reason - I certainly don't speak for why anyone else does or doesn't like ol' Silent Cal. And you might recall that you asked me, not them.

Not that any of it matters to a Big Hero worshipper like you.

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

Oh, and check out this fantasy land...

I take it you disagree with Coolidge's view on education? Or that there could be such a thing as a "conservative teacher"?

Mark Ward said...

I know plenty of conservative teachers. My problem with the link above is the flat out falsehoods of some of his statements. For example,

For example, most lists put FDR at the top of the list, but he pushed through unconstitutional policies, dropped our nation into another Great Depression, didn't respond early enough to the rising fascism in the world, and then did the only thing I'll give him great credit for and won WWII.

I've always loved how right wingers set themselves up as being the "Keepers of The Constitution." As I've shown previously, just because it's not in the Constitution doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done (Washington, Hamilton, the first national bank). We didn't fall into "another Great Depression." It was a recession and there's plenty of evidence that says it was because we didn't spend enough money. But we all know where this debate will go...of to fantasy land.

It was actually the Republicans at the time that didn't want us to get into the war in Europe, not FDR, so that's just a lie. And it was actually Truman, not FDR, that won the war if you want to brutally honest as the war with Japan didn't end until after FDR was dead. FDR did beat Hitler, though, but the decision to drop the bomb on Japan was Truman's.

I'd have to delve deeper into Coolidge's view on education. Perhaps you can enlighten me? But this (from the same blog above) is completely ridiculous given what happened in 2008.

Coolidge believed that the role of the government was to step out of the way and allow the market and business to prosper.

Really? Good grief...

juris imprudent said...

As I've shown previously, just because it's not in the Constitution doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done (Washington, Hamilton, the first national bank).

You do realize that was a great controversy in the day. It isn't like everyone went "oh, okay, the Constitution doesn't matter". You might as well talk up the Alien and Sedition Act - except that doesn't quite make the point you want (about ignoring the Constitution/BoR).

We didn't fall into "another Great Depression."

OK, and that Depression was not caused by laissez-faire policies of the '20s either.

I'd have to delve deeper into Coolidge's view on education.

It was right there in that blog. I would think you and that conservative teacher would be in full agreement with Coolidge. Perhaps you can't open your mind that much.

Really? Good grief...

All glory now and forever, to the govt, for without govt no good thing can ever come into being - is that about right M? How ridiculous are you going to go? How stupid can you be to say that what happened wasn't at least in part the fault of the govt?

Mark Ward said...

It was right there in that blog.

I'd rather read a source that is less biased and more rooted in critical analysis. Any suggestions?

juris "bully weasel" imprudent said...

I'd rather read a source that is less biased and more rooted in critical analysis.

You are so retarded. He quoted Coolidge on education. Either you agree with what was quoted or you believe Coolidge was wrong. Is that just too fucking difficult for you oh great Critical Thinker?

Anonymous said...

Is that just too fucking difficult for you oh great Critical Thinker?

Apparently, Yes.

Mark Ward said...

I'm surprised, juris. I'm asking you for more depth and all you've given me is quote? That's pretty shallow considering I'm asking for a more thorough explanation of his education policies. Although, we'd still have to take into account how applicable they would be to today.

juris imprudent said...

Oh weasel-boy, was the quote something you agree with or not.

Once we know that then we could discuss it in more detail, if necessary.

I'm guessing you read the quote and agree with it but are afraid it is some kind of trap. At least that reaction makes more sense than any other explanation for your squirming.