Mike,
You may have stated your opinion on capitalsim, but I missed it. Are you in favor or unagainst the free market system?
You said -
"And in fact, it is heavily designed to improve the value of his investments.
He is of course entitled to do that, but not at taxpayer’s expense. And presenting a plan for your personal gain as a patriotic piece of public service is, well, sleazy in my opinion."
Isn’t that what all the “grants” are, that college professors and grad students apply for?
Ric Golding said:
Mike,You may have stated your opinion on capitalsim, but I missed it. Are you in favor or unagainst the free market system?
You said -
"And in fact, it is heavily designed to improve the value of his investments.
He is of course entitled to do that, but not at taxpayer’s expense. And presenting a plan for your personal gain as a patriotic piece of public service is, well, sleazy in my opinion."
Isn’t that what all the “grants” are, that college professors and grad students apply for?
For example, we got a grant from NEH to produce “zotero,” a note taking database that works in firefox (http://www.zotero.org/). We’ve had I think nearly a million downloads. We give it away for free. The labor that went into creating it was paid for by NEH, and also foundation money, specifically the Mellon Foundation
No one is making any profit on Zotero, although some people’s salaries (not mine) were paid for by the grant.
Or our other project, “Omeka,” (http://omeka.org/) a free software program that small historical societies and local museums can use to keep track of their collections an present them on the web. Also grant funded, although again by a mix of public and private money and also free
What Pickens is proposing is to use taxpayer dollars to fund a set of proposals that he has, behind the scenes, a direct investment stake in. Now Pickens’ plan may indeed be an excellent one. It just seems worth pointing out that he is not motivated simply by patriotic concern for the USA.
If he wanted to apply to the taxpayers for a grant, and the grant would merely pay his costs and the costs of the people involved in the project, it would be exactly like what professors and grad students do.
Am I in favor of the free market? Why, yes I am! Or maybe I should say, as you put it. I’m not “unagainst it.” Surely pointing out that Pickens has a profit making stake in this idea is part of the operations of the free market, is it not?
Jerry said:
Absolutely not so. Electricity is one of the most versatile forms of energy. While it's true it is hard to store in its native state, it can be used to very efficiently do all kinds of work. That work can be applied to either create direct storage of (potential) energy, or to make other forms of energy that are easier to store.Just a couple of currently available examples:
Pumped (water) storage. Very large amounts of potential energy can be stored in pumped storage complexes as the electricity is generated. The same pumps that are driven by electricity during the storage phase are then used as generators to convert the potential of the stored water back into electricity as it is needed. The storage medium (water) can be used over and over, never wearing out. The storage reservoirs can have recreational uses in addition to their primary purpose. This winds up being a very efficient system for storing huge amounts of electrical energy.
Another use for electricity is the electrolysis (electrical decomposition) of water, creating Hydrogen and Oxygen. This is an all natural process, and the resulting Hydrogen is an extremely efficient, very clean burning fuel. Using some more of the available electrical energy to cool and liquify the Hydrogen allows large amounts to be stored in relatively small spaces.
There are lots of ways to store or convert electrical energy, especially if that electrical energy is low cost when it is created. The wind plants would supply this relatively low cost power, thus allowing for conversion and conversion losses without sacrificing much of the initial efficiency.
More ways to store the electrical energy will certainly be developed as the need emerges.
Now here is an interesting twist. Let’s use wind power to generate electricity to break the water molecule into Hydrogen and Oxygen. We can then use the hydrogen in fuel cells. The exhaust from fuel cells is water vapor. Water vapor makes up 98% of so-called “green house gasses.” We’ve just added to “pollution.” So, tell me, just what problem have we solved?
TANSTAFL There Ain’t No Such Thing As A Free Lunch. L. Long, ca 2342.
I doubt very much that wind generators will be extensively used because of the coalition of the greenies and the NIMBYs. The greenies say that birds commit suicide on the twirling blades, and the NIMBYs don’t want to look at them. Once the folks figure out just how expensive those things really are, the ones that are installed will be left in place to rot.
Please don’t misunderstand. I am sure that we will be able to figure this thing out. I am just not convinced that wind power is the way to go. Hydro-electric is about used up. I don’t see any more major dams being built. Heck, there is even a movement afoot to remove some of the dams on the lower Snake River, a movement that has my tacit support, BTW. (I like whitewater. It gets my adrenaline pumping, and the flooded Snake is full of Class III and Class IV runs.)
Nuc-u-lear Power seems a viable option for power generation, as does coal. Just think of all the unit trains we will see coursing across this country if we open up the coal fields (See, there is a railroad connection 
). Bury the waste, and let our grandchildren figure out a way to use the energy stored there. They will. Just as they will figure out how to harness sub-space power generation, or something else that is now considered science fiction.
In the meantime, we will have to drill for our own oil, or we slip back into a 3rd world economy. Or, we won’t be able to afford all the “green” solutions that we have found. Take your pick.
Ric Golding said:
Mike,You may have stated your opinion on capitalsim, but I missed it. Are you in favor or unagainst the free market system?
You said -
"And in fact, it is heavily designed to improve the value of his investments.
He is of course entitled to do that, but not at taxpayer’s expense. And presenting a plan for your personal gain as a patriotic piece of public service is, well, sleazy in my opinion."
Isn’t that what all the “grants” are, that college professors and grad students apply for?
Mike,
I have to say one word in defense of Mr. Pickens. While I don’t know the man nor can I read his mind I certainly think his word would be at least as good as that of another billionaire, the darling of the far left and major supporter of leftwing media, George Soros. Seems there’s a lot of very wealthy individuals supporting left wing media. Are their motives in question?
I think whether you trust a billionaire or not just might depend on how far left or right he’s leaning?
Richard Smith said:
[b]Mike,[/b]I have to say one word in defense of Mr. Pickens. While I don’t know the man nor can I read his mind I certainly think his word would be at least as good as that of another billionaire, the darling of the far left and major supporter of leftwing media, George Soros. Seems there’s a lot of very wealthy individuals supporting left wing media. Are their motives in question?
I think whether you trust a billionaire or not just might depend on how far left or right he’s leaning?
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
Ralph,I consulted “Machiavelli” (he’s our cat), here’s what he said.
"Machiavelli" the cat said:
Sure the USA is now in favour of a currency union. When that happens the Canadian $ (formerly the Northern Peso) will tank in relation to all other currencies; BINGO the US gets the same terms they had when the Can$ was at US$-.66! That would be one sweet deal! And we would get to pay for all imports with the new NA Dollar which, if we're lucky, won't go much below 0.50 Euro. Then the Smart Guys around the globe will decide that oil will be pegged to the Euro and the Euro will be pegged to a gold or platinum standard (there were suggestions of brass, too). Floating is good for boats and stiffs that didn't merit a set of concrete boots.Translators note: Machiavelli has a bit of an Italian background. Very shrewd at seeing the big picture, doesn’t bother with hummingbirds if there are quails for the taking!
What should we do about it? Ship more of our finest BC Bud, make sure it gets to Washington - DC that is, dummy - that’s where it’s needed the most!
I don’t know, sounds like “Machiavelli” is on to something.
Richard Smith said:
[b]Mike,[/b]I have to say one word in defense of Mr. Pickens. While I don’t know the man nor can I read his mind I certainly think his word would be at least as good as that of another billionaire, the darling of the far left and major supporter of leftwing media, George Soros. Seems there’s a lot of very wealthy individuals supporting left wing media. Are their motives in question?
I think whether you trust a billionaire or not just might depend on how far left or right he’s leaning?
No, I would not trust George Soros anymore than I’d trust T. Boone Pickens. Especially if Soros was trying to sell me a plan that involved his core business. I would suspect–as I suspect with Pickens–that the veneer of public spiritedness conceals a core of greed. I might be wrong in either case, but my first impulse would be, as I mentioned, to watch my wallet very closely. And I’m more than happy to questions Soros’s motives,
My first assumption–which may be wrong–is that anyone who becomes a billionaire is driven by a desire for money and power that far outstrips my own, and that that person is not like me in a pretty profound way. That doesn’t make the billionaire evil–far from it. But it makes me skeptical of his motives.
But then I’m professionally skeptical–the primary requirement for a historian is skepticism–is this version I’m seeing true?
Mike,
quote:“Geez–do I have to be made to stand for every cartoon stereotype of the left that Rush Limbaugh puts out? Because I criticize Pickens I hate the profit motive, don’t like the free market, have no energy plan of my own, am a disloyal welfare loafer with no common sense, an enviro whacko,” etc etc."
Once again you place these labels on yourself. I didn’t make any such accusations.
As to Rush Limbaugh; sometimes funny, often entertaining, at least everyone knows him for what he is and that he makes no attempt to hide. He is a spin artist and wears blinders just as confining to vision as any far left loon. I’d call him the Michael Moore of the right except Moore cloaks his spin in the guise of fact and is therefore far less honest than Limbaugh.
Beware of too much skepticism. Doubting everything can be as bad as believing everything and can lead to a very depressing and cynical view of life.
You are right of course that to become a billionaire your focus must be on making money often to the exclusion of most other things. I on the other hand have been most successful in avoiding such focus. I do hope though there’s enough in the sugar bowl to repair that back porch step come next Spring. Hmmm!
mike omalley said:Well, he did say it! :lol:
I hate the profit motive, don't like the free market, have no energy plan of my own, am a disloyal welfare loafer with no common sense, an enviro whacko
I have 'way too much time on my hands!
mike omalley said:Of course it's not! Remember, the winner writes the history.
But then I'm professionally skeptical--the primary requirement for a historian is skepticism--is this version I'm seeing true?
Never mind.
Ok, So maybe I was being a little cranky. Sorry!
Richard Smith said:Very true, Richard, and precisely Mike's point. People who make their fortunes out of manipulating the stock market, or speculating on currency fluctuations, deserve all the skepticism they get when they propose their visions of a Brave New World.
You are right of course that to become a billionaire your focus must be on making money often to the exclusion of most other things.
I am not inveighing against wealth, and I’m sure Teddy Roosevelt didn’t consider all rich people “malefactors.” I am saying proposals put forward by the wealthy deserve the closest scrutiny lest the public interest be confused with personal pecuniary gain.
A person doesn’t have to be rich to be greedy. However, your observation that the focus on making money often blinds people to what’s truly important tallies with my experience.
Dave,
Greed is a human thing, not exclusively the sin of the rich and applies to power as well as wealth. My point was that a person, any person whether billionaire or not, whether left, right or center, is capable of both selfishness or altruism. Most of Mike’s skepticism seems predominately directed at one side of the aisle in a negative manner while the other side is glossed over in the same way as all the wonderful things this country does every day. If a billionaire is suspect as to his motives or integrity it has nothing to do with his political beliefs except in so far as one party might better serve his agendas otherwise.
Further there are two sides to every person as well as to every issue and good points and bad points. No government will ever be above reproach until people themselves are above reproach but to dwell only on the negatives, and especially concentrating on them on only one side, paints a very false and wrong picture of reality. This posture is especially wrong when teaching young people or those in other nations that may not know the full story. If the sins of a nation are to be spotlighted then so to must its virtues if truth is to be served. It’s called balance. There is no nation or person on earth that can be viewed favorably if only its wrongs are revealed. Not every action is self-serving or with hidden motives.
A jingle that used to be on a sign outside of Mayflower Donuts in Oakland, California (this really dates me) illustrates what I’m saying…
On the sign are two page boys, one on the left and one on the right and one is fat holding a fat donut and the other skinny holding a skinny donut. Between them the lines…
“As you got through life brother
whatever be your goal.
Keep your eye upon the donut
and not upon the hole.”
Okay so I’m an optimist!
Richard Smith said:Richard most of the time I'm posting in response to what others post here, which happens to be generally conservative. Take a look--most of the threads here are posted in a flat declamatory way designed to provoke response or assent from a right wing perspective. That's fine. If someone posts some internet hoax about McCain here, I'll be happy to be skeptical about it. My wife, who drank the Obama kool-aid, is always mad at me for being skeptical of Obama.
Most of Mike's skepticism seems predominately directed at one side of the aisle in a negative manner while the other side is glossed over in the same way as all the wonderful things this country does every day. If a billionaire is suspect as to his motives or integrity it has nothing to do with his political beliefs except in so far as one party might better serve his agendas otherwise
You seem to be implying some kind of anti-american bias. Most historians tend to be very skeptical people–not because they hate the US or want to “blame America first,” but because historical research always produces another side–whatever X is saying you can be sure that Y and Z are saying something opposite. It’s an ingrained habit for historians–here’s this account, what were the author’s motives, what is he/she concealing, what other possible explanations are out there, etc etc. I’m just as skeptical of other countries, but I’m not a citizen of those countries and bear no responsibility for what they do/did. Japan, for example was atrociously racist during WWII, far worse than the US. But I’m not a citizen of Japan or a historian of Japan and I don’t teach Japanese history or even know all that much about it. But I do now that Powell was simply wrong to be saying (as he said in the original, email based quote–his actual speech was more precise and more careful) tat the US has never engaged in imperialism. I suppose I could just ignore the post, rather than saying anything critical?
Also it’s a little annoying for me, who spent the best years of his life sitting in libraries reading intensely into American history, living on 3-7000 dollars a year, to be told that I have some kind of anti-American bias. If a guy gets a PH.d. in Engineering, then makes his living as a bridge inspector, pointing out problems, would you say he hates bridges?
You might think of it in terms of G scale trains–there are a great many threads bashing, say, Bachmann, for bad quality control. Does that mean that the critics hate Bachmann? I’d say no, it means they are annoyed that Bachmann isn’t living up to its potential.
Mike,
I don’t think there are more Conservatives here than Liberals. I think it’s pretty evenly matched. It just seems so to you I think because you like to play with explosives. I have no party affiliation and am conservative on some things and liberal on others.
I don’t mean to imply that you are knowingly anti-American but rather that you come across, to me at least, as overly negative and even cynical. Thus since most of what you say is about the US it is the US taking the blows.
When studying military history, specifically WWII, I read everything from the West Point Atlas to The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, to memoirs of generals and others on both sides. I never found it neccessary to be overly skeptical as the cumulative information and the candor of most of the participants when weighed in together gave a pretty clear picture of the whys and wherefores of what actually happened.
You certainly have every right to criticize Colin Powell or whomever you want but it is rather curious that you have little to say about anyone on the left. This too may be unintentional. In Pelosi we finally have a Speaker worthy of being included with Jimmy Carter and Nixon as being the worst we’ve ever had in government in modern times. I will qualify my feelings towards Carter. I think he was one of the nicest men but worst Presidents ever.
I come from a different era obviously. I believe that the country should come first and political direction umpteenth last! In Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and JFK I never doubted this at least when the chips were down. Even LBJ for all his errors and wheeler dealings was patriotic I believe as was Reagan. Yet the mere mention of some of the Republicans amongst them raises the ire of many of today’s modern Democrats. Unfortunately none of the aforementioned Democrats (Roosevelt, Truman, JFK) would stand a chance of getting nominated by the Democratic Party of today.
I apologize for ranting against the Dems but it was merely to make the point that the country should always come first. Left or right makes no difference at all compared to the “right” to be left or right. To allow the other fellow his say without shouting him down is the American way that I grew up with. That’s not to say that what is said won’t be challenged. That is legitimate. I’m sure the Pelosi lovers will jump to her defense. It won’t change my mind about her but they have a right to explain their side too.
A famous American said (paraphrase) “While I disagree with what you said I will fight to the death for your right to say it.” That’s honor. That’s integrity. And for all its many faults that’s America and it deserves to be said and heard every bit as much as the negatives. So when you’re exposing the many flaws of our nation you can expect me to come to her aid even though I may agree with many of your statements. I have many complaints as well. It’s really nothing against you personally but too much sacrifice has been made in this country’s history to allow only one side to be heard.
Lastly not directed at Mike, I have not bashed any other country through all of this and I will thank others not to bash mine. Disagree on policy, etc., yes. Discuss issues where we disagree, yes. Tell us how stupid we are, sure, I can’t deny the truth hehe! But bash, no. If those conditions make you dislike me…so be it!
Hey Richard, you’re right. There aren’t more Right Wingnuts on here than Left Wingnuts, it’s just that the Right Wingnuts are a bit louder.
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:Hehe! Well HJ for a left wingnut you're a very loud whisperer! ;) You're as much fun as ol' Rush too! :D
Hey Richard, you're right. There aren't more Right Wingnuts on here than Left Wingnuts, it's just that the Right Wingnuts are a bit louder. ;) :)
I think I should get me a copy of this book to read what a real liberal is all about.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Society/GoreVidal_quotes.html