America’s consciousness has shifted. We live in a predominantly unstable and unpredictable world, a situation long accepted as the norm, however, we also live during the first period of history in which America’s prominence in the world and its own vision and notion of itself, has been blurred. A majority of Americans have adopted self doubt and the confidence America has held through much of its story has been dissipated.
Through the fog of apprehension Americans plucked an unknown to take the helm of their governance. The fog did not lift, and in fact with the unknown’s propagation of envy, the opacity and anxiety intensified and the unknown was reelected.
Unease and apprehension rarely if ever translate into positive decisions. For the Nation, this retrenchment of confidence will not lead to growth where it is most necessary and where it would be most felt — in that part of the population not employed by government and not part of the economic 1%ers.
America was not built on coveting the neighbour’s wealth nor on wealth seizure and redistribution. America was built by the work of many, and it flourished majestically on the grand ideas and on the creativity of a few. Those few were all those creative minds who advanced innovation in their businesses. Those few have been our entrepreneurs who enabled breakthroughs in all areas of human endeavour, lifting the whole to ever greater levels in quality of life.
The self hatred of socialism, that deplorable consequence and tendency of a lazy mind, condemns the independence of thought and heart. It condemns entrepreneurialism and reviles it as a blight on society along with capitalism. As this pernicious socialism creeps toward communism, it imposes stifling taxes and regulations on the very engines which prosperity depends on. We currently have schismatic leadership which has followed the socialist playbook for five years, in attempt to build a society controlled by a self serving political elite.
The disintegration of the single greatest human experiment is accelerated by a complicit mainstream media, unable to find common sense as it drowns in the debris of stupor oiled with the insanity which comes when you believe in your own intellectual superiority. With few exceptions, the liberal media covers for an out-of-control Administration, and lies about the economic conditions of a Nation struggling with stratospheric levels of public and private indebtedness. But don’t stress over your monthly debt payments, after all, statistics indicate that collectively we hold many times more in asset values than the size of our personal debt, so just keep working those two jobs and you’ll survive, . . . OK, three jobs. And when interest rates rise, well, . . . nevermind, you’ll figure it out, really, don’t worry.
Economic literacy is not a prerequisite to grasping the obvious financial realities flooding the neighbourhoods across the Nation. That the Federal Reserve has played a major role in the disintegration of the dollar, in the indebtedness of all Americans and in the disintegration of ‘savings’ is not a secret, and yet the Nation is numbed. The Nation is accepting of an invisible, all-wise, and all-knowing group placing it in a permanent vat of destructive debt, washing an unwilling economy with hundreds of billions of cash it cannot and will not use.
The stupefied populace accepts the government’s insinuation into all areas of life, social, personal, economic and spiritual — it has become the norm that Bernanke and Obama will tell the world anything they politically need no matter how absurd, or prevaricative. Whatever they lay on the Nation, the Nation accepts in its slide into lethargy. For some obscure reason America does not wonder why a small band of unenlightened, uncreative, and ignorant economists wield so much Control, and manipulate markets that natural laws tell us should be Free. Do any of these people understand the entrepreneur? They can’t. The Fed, just as with this Administration, is led by pontificating ideologues and academics splashing around in a confused theoretical quagmire of manipulation.
Two incomes per household has become a necessity whether in marriage or in combination of incomes by two or three friends under one roof, as purchasing power of the dollar has been brutalized by a vapid, self serving, pariah — The Federal Reserve, serving its owners and bountifully satisfying a willfully harmful and oblivious Administration. The days when savings were encouraged have become eclipsed by endemic propagation of debt and the breeding of pervasive risk-taking with our cash. In our indolence, we succumbed.
The two income necessity places an especially vile pressure on single parents, particularly single mothers, literally forcing them into the arms of the government. The majority of them want jobs, want to go to work and would rather not be wholly dependent. It would flow against the grain of human nature for them to feel otherwise, however, the age of massive and invasive government is upon us, and the more people the government can corral into its paddock, and the more difficult the government can make it to escape, the greater the support for the socialist mindset.
We read and hear about a fading “middle class” and that without it, society will slide into feudalism. What middle class? That middle 95% of the population? That’s not the middle class. That’s America. A very few bankers and “Wall Streeters” at the top of the fiat-currency financial food-chain are firmly in control. And you, the middle class — don’t you believe your lying eyes as you witness the legions of unemployed and underemployed in every neighbourhood around you, desperately looking for jobs. Your eyes, your common sense, and your intuition are wrong. Just plain wrong. Everything’s fine. Ignore the fact that for over two generations your wealth has been drained by The Fed, and coagulated into the imperious pockets of its caretakers. The stock market is frothing with exuberance, can’t you see how wonderful things are? Just go meditate yourself into a continued euphoric indifference, or better still, just go back to sleep.
For five years now, we have regularly been provided with a constant flow of evidence pointing to the a politicization of government bureaucracy that now enforces ideologically-sprung mandates. That kind of orchestration and direction can only have come from one place — the White House. Unfortunately, that arrogant, hubristic, and sanctimonious attitude permeated so many of the federal government departments, that a reversal of this monopolistic calcification will prove impossible once any new Administration takes over. Anything and anyone not stepping in line with the socialist ideology and rustling any leaves in political opposition, will find the powers of the DOJ, or the FBI, or the NSA, or the CIA, or the IRS, launched against them.
We are living in an age when the democratic process has been thwarted by ideological bureaucracies stoked by political ambitions. At the same time we have allowed laws to be trampled without regularity of enforcement, and we have stood-by as capitalism became corrupted without recourse.
From the heights of bold confidence led by entrepreneurs forging new paths toward flourishing prosperity where the claim to opportunity was distruted more broadly than ever in its history, America has dissolved into a state of confusion and indecision, with apathy as its next stop to being overrun by the self-hate which embraces and implements the socialist dicta.
A constituent of the vast baby boomer generation with a career which has been fortunate to know the ponderous corporate worlds, as well as the intimately pressurized, and invigorating entrepreneurial domains of high tech and venture capital, I have harvested my share of mistakes meandering through corridors of enterprise from Silicon Valley, to London and endless, colourful, sometimes praetorian points in between. The voyage has provided an abundance of fodder for a pen yielding to an inquisitive keyboard, a foraging mind, and a passionate spirit.
Whether political or business or social or economic or personal, is it not all political? It is a privilege to write, and an even greater privilege to be read by anyone, and sometimes with the wind at my back the writing may occasionally be legible. I do not write to invite scorn, nor to invite respect, but if I get really lucky the writing can stimulate thinking. I also write for the very selfish purpose of animating my own processes, and engaging the best of what life offers. Above all, whether biting fire or swatting shadows, I am grateful to be gifted the freedom to write and publish whatever flows down to the keyboard. To all those who enabled this freedom, and to all those standing guard to preserve it, I am indebted.
@retire05 #46:
“Can you prove that “a large number” of those babies would have suffered from neglect and abuse?”
No, of course I don’t have a crystal ball, and you already know that. But Just as you reasonably deduce that children raised by a single parent or any combination of parents other than the baby’s own biological parents will develop in a less-than-optimal environment (Republicans make this argument to justify their opposition to gay marriage), I can deduce that a similar disadvantage conveys from being raised poor or unwanted. That doesn’t mean that poor folk shouldn’t have babies any more than the point about biological parents means that gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry. It simply means that the demographic you wish to burden with an additional 40,000,000 children is ill-prepared to take on the responsibility of raising them.
@Tom #47:
So much more eloquently stated WITHOUT calling someone a “slut.” Your demonstrated proficiency in the language proves that, unlike Retire05, you do not need to employ bare-naked insults to make your point. As Retire05 probably relished your digression, I would advise that you rise above using such expressions of contempt in the future.
@George Wells:
So referring to my mother as a “slut” was not a bare-naked insult?
@retire05 #53:
I was making the point that it WAS a bare-naked insult, you dingbat! I have been biting TOM for making that remark, not agreeing with him. I’m on your side here – back off and re-read.
@George Wells:
Well, I thank you for that. While you and I have had our differences, I would never insult one of your family. That’s just over the line.
Dingbat? Hardly.
@George Wells:
George, I think you may be operating under a mistaken impression, which I take full responsibility for, because – looking back now – my sentence structure is a bit muddled and ambiguous. When I wrote “Even when Retire5 thinks her mom is a slut.” I was not referring to Retire’s mother. I was referring to the hypothetical mother of the child born past Retire’s “limit”. The child who would not, if Retire had her druthers, receive public assistance. If you read back on Retire’s commentary on this subject, she’s clearly injecting moral judgement into the equation when she assumes a lack of responsibility, etc., is at the root of the issue. Obviously, clear thinking, non-judgmental people know that’s only one reason why someone might find themselves in dire financial straights.If you want to take something away from a person or group, one common amoral tactic is to demonize that person or group with a broad brush, for example, Retire’s less than subtle slut shaming (is it any different than her painting all gays as promiscuous, ass-baring, chaps wearers?) . I find it comical that Retire picked up on our misunderstanding to play the victim card. So transparent. She doesn’t have a sterling reputation for honestly around here, in case you haven’t noticed.
@retire05 #55
“Dingbat? Hardly.”
Well, I couldn’t make it ALL gushy, now could I? Wouldn’t want to start rumors. At least I picked something comic – Edith Bunker, anyone?
@Tom #56:
I will grant that your explanation is a plausible one, and I do agree with the rest of your comment. However, when using as inflammatory and judgmental a term as “slut,” great care should be taken to avoid setting unintended fires.
I am guilty of linear thinking. I had great difficulty with differential equations, as the use of algebraic equations (my forte) in their solution was forbidden. It is possible that Retire05 suffers from the same handicap. Jumping to the worst possible conclusion may not be wise, even here.
@George Wells:
George, points well taken. And thank you for your candor. You should know these opinions of mine aren’t the products of hasty conclusions based on a few back and forths. This person is well know to me. I typcially avoid interactions with her, but I guess i fell off the wagon 🙂 Based on what I’ve seen, you’re a good guy. What I think you’re trying to do – looking for common ground, seeking the good under the cantankerous exterior, trying to forge a connection – it’s noble. I’ve seen good people like you try it before, a half dozen times at least – it never ends well. Maybe it will be different this time. Just thought you deserve the heads-up.
@George Wells: #49 No, George, I don’t believe that is true. Some programs can probably be wiped out completed (or at least no longer government funded) such as Planned Parenthood. But I don’t think buying into the liberal mantra of conservatives and Republicans hating minorities and the poor is a wise thing to do. After all, to have a Republican that actually thinks that way, Pelosi has to invent an imaginary friend.
A healthy economy without any governmental “leveling the playing field” would benefit those in poverty much more than a monthly check that keeps people tethered to their mail box. When forced to take some responsibility by welfare reform, the welfare rolls dropped and more entered the work force. When the economy was booming after World War II, we had the lowest poverty rates. Since the War on Poverty began, we have spent $17 trillion and have more (MORE) living in poverty, both in numbers and, now, as a percentage of the population, than in 1965.
Your views on abortion of children to be born into poverty sounds a lot like eugenics. Is that what you promote? Rather, we should stop paying a bonus for children born into poverty and, through economic incentives, promote responsibility.
@George Wells:
So it really was a point that was moot. Why make that statement? Did you think you would throw it against the wall to see if it would stick?
Scientific, documented study after study has shown that children raised in households of two, opposite sex parents fair better than any other study group, including children of divorced parents, children of a single parent with one absentee parent, and yes, children of same-sex parents.
You can deduce till the cows come home. That doesn’t make you correct. In fact, our own national history has proven that being raised in poverty was not necessarily a contributing factor to failure. Poor people in the ’20’s and ’30’s were actually poor, not the pseudo poor of today with their cars, their microwaves, their Air Jordans and their large screen TVs. Many times they did not have enough to eat, and there were no welfare checks in their mail boxes or food stamp coupons handed to them. Yet, in spite of the hardships they endured, without government assistance, they produce what we now call “The Greatest Generation.” This country produced men from poor, barely literate families like Jonas Salk who literally wiped out the most dreaded disease in America at the time; polio. Men who lived, and were reared, in poverty like Walter Williams, Clarence Thomas and others. This nation, without welfare checks, managed to raise those that not only put a man on the moon but also walked on it.
How did they do it? How did those poor families raise children without government handouts? How did they manage to create a generation that would defeat Nazism and free millions?
Welfare is an evil thief. It steals a person’s ambition and desire to achieve. It takes away self respect and a desire to work out of that poverty. It reduces people to being nothing more than a generator of one vote, that entitles the self indulgent politician to remain in his/her cushy job. It creates a victim mentality, blaming those who made better decisions for their lousy lot in life. It rewards bad behavior and punished good behavior.
Has welfare reduced any of the things we were promised? Unwanted children? Children raised in poverty? Child abuse? Stronger, more responsible parents? None of those things have come to pass. In fact, those statistics have gotten worse, not better, even with the 50,000,000 children destroyed by the genocide called abortion.
Then the question becomes: what has changed in America? Why are people so irresponsible now when they were more responsible 80 years ago and could produce those men who brought freedom to most of Europe?
Social engineering never works, George. Never. And now the proof is in the [welfare] pudding.
@Bill Burris:
Bill, in regards to the abortion question, I think we can all agree that reducing abortions is everyone’s goal. The question is how. The Right seems to approach the abortion question the same way they approach the drug question – attack supply. In both cases, this has proven to be an impossible solution. The goal should not be how do we stop everyone from having access to abortion. It should be how do we decrease the number of people who want (or believe they need) an abortion. Abortion is at a 30 year low, and it’s not because access (supply) has been limited. It’s because demand has been reduced. Part of reducing demand is giving women access to health care, information and alternatives – and in certain instances, contraception. Planned Parenthood is often demonized on the Right, but they have prevented more abortions through demand reduction than everyone picketing outside their offices combined. We spend billions of dollars trying to eliminate access to drugs every year and it doesn’t work. Likewise, if someone really wants an abortion, they are going to find a way to get one. This is the practical viewpoint, and demand reduction has been working. The right of a women to control her own body and her own destiny, rather than the State, is another argument that is equally compelling. And certainly, those who oppose abortion shouldn’t be incentivizing it by pushing indigent single mothers into a punitive financial corner. That’s my take. Curious to hear your thoughts.
@Tom: First, there is a distinct difference between wanting to make abortion a person’s personal responsibility and wanting to eliminate it. I agree that reducing the numbers of abortions are desirable, but funding an organisation that promotes abortion as its primary product does not contribute to that goal. I would appear more that the left prefers to promote irresponsible social life and readily available abortions to clean up the mess.
My personal feelings is that none of that is my business (though I disagree with abortion as a means of birth control), but I don’t feel I should have to pay for it and, aside from situations of health threat, there is NO excuse for late term abortions.
A woman’s right to control her own body begins with personal responsibility. It seems more that many want to act irresponsibly, then have someone else take care of the nasty details. Planned Parenthood traffics in abortion and the left likes using abortion as a political issue to “protect” a “right” of women. In Texas legislation to assure abortion clinics meet minimum standards and prohibition of abortions (but for the usual allowances) after 20 weeks. Yet the left creates a “war on women” out of regulation, the very thing the left just loves to impose on everyone else.
@retire05 #61:
(My post:)
“But Just as you reasonably deduce that children raised by a single parent or any combination of parents other than the baby’s own biological parents will develop in a less-than-optimal environment” (My post) followed by (Your post:)
“Scientific, documented study after study has shown that children raised in households of two, opposite sex parents fair better than any other study group, including children of divorced parents, children of a single parent with one absentee parent, and yes, children of same-sex parents.”
Almost the same thing, but not. Nice of you to have omitted the fact that legally adopted children of any stripe don’t do as well as children who are raised by their own biological parents, as admitting THAT fact would mean by your gay-parent-excluding logic that heterosexual couples shouldn’t be allowed to adopt EITHER (Leaving a net zero in the eligible-to-adopt category). Once children have lost the option to be raised in the optimum environment (their own two biological parents), they are ALREADY disadvantaged, regardless of which options are left. The implication that being raised by two, loving, same-sex partners would some how necessarily be worse than remaining in an orphanage from birth until the age of majority is patently ridiculous, and by your argument you ARE making that implication.
The rest of your post was a fun read, but it more closely resembled a pre-suicidal lamentation than a prescription for improving the social condition that has you so upset. I’ve already agreed that we have a huge problem, and I PARTICULARLY agree that the failure to take individual responsibility is a large part of the problem. But then our ideas on how to fix the problem diverge. I want everybody – including gay people – to take on more responsibility, but you won’t have THEM do that, will you? If they are allowed to marry, they might develop a fondness for monogamy, and absent the promiscuity you love to trumpet, they might settle down to productive family lives and not kill themselves off with sexually transmitted diseases. THEN what would you condemn them for?
Your prescription for economic growth and the resulting economic emancipation of the poor really isn’t as simple to achieve as it might have been immediately after WWII. The War caused an explosion of productivity in our industrial base, and that industrial infrastructure is what fueled the booming post-war economy. That industrial base has to a great extent been exported abroad – largely to China, if you haven’t noticed – leaving us with a sadly service-oriented economy. Small wonder we struggle so hard to pull ourselves out of recession without a healthy base of industrial jobs to fill.
“Social engineering never works, George. Never.”
EVERYTHING is social engineering. Even given NO top-down direction or influence, a society continues to evolve in a less-than-totally random direction, being influenced by all of the other things that sway people one way or the other. Choosing NOT to do ANYTHING is still making a choice. When a state votes into their constitution an amendment forbidding gay marriage, THAT is engineering the society along historically traditional lines. YOU are only willing to call something “social engineering” when you object to it, as if you have somehow made “social engineering” a bad word. Curious why you think that.
@Bill Burris:
In Texas, abortion clinics must a) meet the same standards as any out patient surgery center (which are not all located in hospitals) and b) the doctor must have hospital privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the abortion facility.
The left jumped up and down about the clinic standards, yet not once did they mention that Houston has its own Kermit Gosnell, who was just let off by a far left wing judge for murdering babies born alive. The left’s excuse that requiring abortion clinics to be up to par was a “war on women”. Did it matter to them that women were receiving substandard care and medical procedures? Hell, no. Abortion is the “sacred cow” of the left.
Texas also banned abortions past 20 weeks, the period that has been determined fetuses feel pain. And every woman is required to have a sonogram.
The result? Out of the 44 abortion clinics in Texas in 2011, 24 have closed due to substandard medical facilities. (So much for caring about the health of a woman by Planned Parenthood), with another estimated 13 to close by September.
What bothers me the most is the disastrous effect abortion laws have had on the black population. In 1860, black Americans were 20% of the entire population. Now, 80% of all black pregnancies in New York end in abortion, and the black population has decreased to a little over 9%. Margaret Sanger would be thrilled. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. weeps.
@Bill Burris #60:
“#49 No, George, I don’t believe that is true.”
Because I’m a polite guy, I went back and re-read #49 right after reading your post, and I cannot for the life of me figure out exactly what you are taking exception to.
You SURELY are not disputing my agreement that “the numbers of Americans who use – and abuse – assistance are staggering, and a large portion of our economic malaise is directly linked to our inability to get the problem under control,” and that “the problem DOES need fixing, but not with a hammer.”
I’m guessing that what you are objecting to was my revelation that it is by making across-the-board tax cuts that Republicans effectively choke off funding for social programs. (But you DID know that was the strategy, right? YOU guys published it…) But since your post was directionally vague, I’m really left with nothing to comment on.
Oh, the last part: Eugenics.
My post had nothing to do with “eugenics”. My discussion focused on an attempt to statistically improve the social plight of disadvantaged children. Retire05 and I argue about how best to do that, but neither is involving an attempt to improve the gene pool, and that was Eugenics’ purpose.
@George Wells:
I purposely left adopted children out. I knew you would jump on that like a june bug, and you did not disappoint. Adopted children, as a whole, do as well as the children of opposite sex couples for two main reasons; financial stability and the stability of the parents. Other factors play into an adopted child’s development, such things as Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, crack addiction at birth, etc. But now adoptive parents are made aware that these issues could arise, and adoption agencies have prepared them for the possibility. Early diagnosis of such disorders, as is now available to adoptive parents, have lessened the problems immensely. Thanks for not staying on top of the current research and walking into my trap.
I know, George, I know. It’s all straight people’s fault that some gays act like animals. Sorry, even gays don’t really buy into that.
Sorry, George, but you seem to be a bit behind the times. The United States has the opportunity to have a economic boom not seen since the days of Spindle Top and the Mexia fields. But Democrats have decided that fracking is not a good thing, although they seem to think that buying our oil from nations that would like nothing better than to destroy is. We can have another industrial boom, added to the technology boom that we are already experiencing. The possibilities are there. The government just needs to get out of the way and let Americans do what they do best; invent and create.
No, George. That is a state’s attempt to conserve what has been an American, nay, a civilized nation’s tradition for millenniums. How sad that you don’t understand the difference.
No, social engineering is what the left does when they want to change the norm by trying to “engineer” society into something it is not. But like most things done by the left, the effects are deleterious.
@retire05 #65:
“What bothers me the most is the disastrous effect abortion laws have had on the black population. In 1860, black Americans were 20% of the entire population. Now, 80% of all black pregnancies in New York end in abortion, and the black population has decreased to a little over 9%.”
Census statistics prove nothing of the sort. Look at the tables found at Census.gov/population and discover these percentages of blacks in the population, by year:
1800 18.8%
1860 14.1%
1900 11.6%
1950 9.98%
1970 11.1%
1980 11.7%
2010 12.3%
2012 13.1%
The decline seen after the mid 1800’s is attributed to the end of slave importation and has nothing to do with abortion rates. Additionally, the black proportion of the population has risen in spite of the legalization of abortion, largely due to the higher rate of pregnancy among blacks than among whites.
It is of value to note that as of 2013, 72% of black births in America are out of wedlock. This, not abortion, presents the greatest challenge to our fellow black citizens.
@retire05 #67:
“some gays act like animals.”
Never denied that, just as YOU have never denied that some straights act the same way. Problem is: You want to hold (that) against ALL gays, while I don’t make the lazy demand that ALL straights be punished for the indiscretions of a few.
“The United States has the opportunity to have a economic boom not seen since the days of Spindle Top and the Mexia fields. But Democrats have decided that fracking is not a good thing, although they seem to think that buying our oil from nations that would like nothing better than to destroy is. We can have another industrial boom, added to the technology boom that we are already experiencing. The possibilities are there. The government just needs to get out of the way and let Americans do what they do best; invent and create.”
Priceless! Your prescription for economic revitalization is for the United States to plunder its irreplaceable natural resources – the economic model forced upon third-world nations that are rich in raw materials and little else. By historic design, colonization must be right around the corner.
“That is a state’s attempt to conserve what has been an American, nay, a civilized nation’s tradition for millenniums.”
Yeah, just like the Confederate states attempted to conserve slavery, which was a tradition for millenniums. Wave the flag all you want, Retire05, but “Old” doesn’t equal “Right”.
@Tom #59:
Thank you for your protective words. I am confident that Retire05 is as you suggest –possessing of an intellectual inertia that is planetary in scale and correspondingly immovable. A wise person recognizes that SOMETHING may be learned from even the stupidest among us, but Retire05 is not such a person. She has accumulated SO much DATA that the maintenance, the STORAGE of it has become her sole priority, losing along the way any capability of putting it to meaningful use.
I really don’t expect to change anyone’s mind. Flopping Aces has a severely limited audience. For me, arguing here is simply an exercise for an aging mind that is otherwise too idle for its own good. Other seniors prefer crossword puzzles or Sudoku.
But thanks for the complimentary heads-up!
@George Wells:
Perhaps you could give me the year that Mother Nature stopped producing those natural resources? If not the year, how about the century?
Gee, the Confederate states practiced slavery for millenniums? Who knew? Never mind that it was Virginia, along with the Eastern seaboard states that first introduced slavery to the United States. The largest harbor for slave ships was Boston Harbor.
Please, provide me with a copy of your degree in psychology, otherwise you have no authority to diagnose me.
@George Wells:
Perhaps you should get out more, and meet new people. Expand your number of friends. Study. Research. Expand your mind which seems to be quite narrow.
@retire05 #71:
“Perhaps you could give me the year that Mother Nature stopped producing those natural resources? If not the year, how about the century?”
Whether the coal and oil I am referring to were deposited from hydrocarbon rains that occurred from earths primordial, non-oxygen-rich atmosphere or as the result of accumulated organic deposits from an abundance of Precambrian vegetation, the processes that produced those deposits took tens – if not hundreds – of millions of years to complete. Those processes are not occurring to any significant degree or in any significant amount today. At the same time, Man is in the process of burning up in either a few hundred or a few thousand years (depending on how conservative we are in their use) the Earths entire reserves of those FOSSILE FUELS.
This hurried exploitation of OIL AND COAL is analogous to the hasty and messy exploitation of mineral reserves world-wide, and often the third-world countries where they are located are more the victims than the beneficiaries of that extraction. Neither coal nor petroleum is a renewable resource in any practical sense (and neither are mineral resources, FOR THAT MATTER, excepting on a geologic time scale) at least not here on Earth. Where did you say you were from?
@retire05 #71:
I said:
“Yeah, just like the Confederate states attempted to conserve slavery, which was a tradition for millenniums”
A: Confederate States attempted to conserve slavery. True statement.
B: Slavery was a tradition that has been around of millenniums. True statement.
You said:
C: “Gee, the Confederate states practiced slavery for millenniums?” False statement.
You said:
“Please, provide me with a copy of your degree in psychology, otherwise you have no authority to diagnose me.”
as if to suggest that YOU have provided similar credentials to justify YOUR diagnosis of ME? LOL.
@George Wells:
a) Do you have a degree in geological engineering which allows you to speak as an expert as to when the Earth stopped producing fuels that are currently being used? You simply parrot what you have read, not what you have made a career of studying.
b)
And the United States resembles those nations how? In third world countries, it is their government that controls the exploration of fuels. Here, at least in my state, the land from which those fuels are extracted, are privately owned. You’re trying to compare apples to asparagus.
c) I have never “diagnosed” you. I hold no degree in psychology or psychiatry. I can, with some fair amount of expertise, speak to your political philosophy, as you exhibit it here daily. As to your mental status, I cannot diagnose that with any amount of legitimacy.
Conflicting points: i.e. slavery in the Confederacy vs. slavery through the millenniums. Two totally different subjects.
@retirer05 #75:
I took multiple college courses in geology (and got A’s in them), and the subject has been a pet of mine my whole life. My work in the chemical industry also kept me close to petrology.
I would venture that if you are preparing to dispute ANY of my discussion on the natural history of oil and gas, then you must be basing your disagreement on the literal interpretation of Genesis. You have no other basis – and certainly no SCIENTIFIC basis – for disputing what I said.
Your demand for professional credentials is intellectually corrupt. If you want peer-reviewed scientific corroboration of the information I provided, ask for it. But why make a bald claim that the career chemist you are talking to must suddenly provide you with personal proof of authority before you take HIS word? Look the crap up yourself, BOZO! Do YOU have a doctorate in Geology?
“And the United States resembles those nations how? In third world countries, it is their government that controls the exploration of fuels.”
You’re straining yourself. It doesn’t matter a lick whether it is governments, or private industry, or individuals who exploit renewable resources – once they’re gone, they’re gone.
Slavery versus slavery? You are splitting semantic hairs. You know exactly what I mean. If I spell it out, it’ll just make you look more the fool. I’ll save me the trouble and you the embarrassment.
@George Wells:
You seem to be off just a tad today, George. I did not ask for professional credentials. I asked for educational credentials. You do know the difference, right?
So says you, and Al Gore.
Well, aren’t you special? Can you prove you got “A”s in geology? Does that mean that you have a BS in geology and are a qualified geologist? Nope. You are making an “educated” guess.
Well, since the slavery of the 1860 Confederate states (well, that is along with Delaware) no longer exists. Slavery still exists in many nations around the globe. So…………American slavery vs. slavery thru the millenniums, are in fact, two different subjects. So you is you who is obfuscating. And when it comes to splitting semantic hairs, you da man.
Any rational thinking person would assume that the topic was slavery in the Confederate states (what did the Confederate states do and for how long). Perhaps you just didn’t word it correctly since the Confederate states did not attempt to conserve slavery for millenniums.
@retire07 #77:
“Well, aren’t you special? Can you prove you got “A”s in geology? Does that mean that you have a BS in geology and are a qualified geologist? Nope. You are making an “educated” guess.”
“prove A’s”? Yes. Stuff is up in the attic, but I didn’t throw it away. Yes, what I told you WAS educated (did YOU take geology?) and the nice thing about science is that it ISN’T guess work. (Before you drag Global warming into this, PLEASE lets keep this confined to the can of worms we’ve already opened.) No, I don’t have a BS in Geology. But neither have I read anything in the past month on this subject, so I didn’t just Google fossil fuels or renewable resources before I wrote what I wrote. Not only is this stuff KNOWN, but it’s logical.
Where do YOU think coal and oil came from? When do YOU think it got there? How do you imagine it might be being deposited somewhere on Earth right now, especially in quantities sufficient to replace the reserves that are currently being depleted? Answer: It isn’t. You don’t have to be Al Gore to figure that out. The usage figures are not in dispute, and neither are known reserves in dispute. Only the unknown reserves are in question – essentially begging the question, since how COULD unknown reserves be known? But, as I alluded to earlier, you cannot find ANY peer-reviewed scientific argument that FOSSIL fuels are renewable. They are FOSSILS. Ethanol is renewable, because you can distill it from fermented corn, and fire-wood is renewable because you can grow more trees. What crop is going to get you to coal? To petroleum? None. At least not until oil hits about $10,000 per barrel. Then you can synthesize small batches of the various component hydrocarbons individually and mix them together to get synthetic crude, but you’ll never be able to afford an asphalt road that way. Fracking (hydraulic fracturing) doesn’t MAKE new gas – or oil – it just squeezes out of the ground fuels that won’t come out on their own or be pumped the way they are.
“”renewable resources – once they’re gone, they’re gone”
So says you, and Al Gore.”
Actually that was a typo. I meant to say UN-renewable resources, as in fossil fuels. As written, it really WAS a nonsensical oxymoron. If THAT was what had you confused, I’ll grant that your confusion was my fault.
You should stick to your social science history. You know a lot about Antonio Gramsci, I’ll stipulate. But your logic is shaky and your science is nothing but uninformed, thinly veiled political rhetoric. If you’re going to talk science, you’d better do your homework.
@George Wells:
I will admit that sciences like Geology are not my forte. But one thing I do know is that science progresses. The world was once thought to be flat, it’s not.
I would venture that we have enough “fossil” fuels to sustain humanity until a better method is developed. One thing for sure, it will not be wind power (the Dutch abandoned their windmills 400 years ago). But just as light was once provided by whale oil, and heat was provided by wood or peat, we will find the answers to replace fossil fuels.
In the meantime, the Chicken Little greenweenies run around screaming “The end is coming, the end is coming” and global warming (which is being loudly disputed by many scientists now) is going to kill us all. Oh, well, they once claimed we were all going to die because of the depletion in the Ozone and that global cooling was going to kill us all.
@retire05 #79:
Thank you for your honesty.
You might notice that I did not cry any of the “green” stuff you referenced at the bottom of your post. I agree that we will find alternatives, and I agree that the BIG one will not be wind. I have visited the “wind farms” between Kingman, AZ and Bakersfield, CA, and also the ones at the tip of the big island Hawaii, and while they are impressive in scope, I doubt that they will ever pay FOR THEMSELVES. The ones in Hawaii are already getting old, are rusting badly, and a significant fraction of them are inoperative. When you talk gigawatts, you pretty much rule out everything except nuclear. Green? No. (Ask Japan.) But nothing really is. Every energy source has its consequences, most of which are problematic. We’ll just have to solve them or suffer the consequences. We’ll stumble along.
Hey! Just for grins… That ozone thing is real enough, and we contribute to the problem, but it really IS trivial compared to the NATURAL phenomenon of Earth’s periodic magnetic pole reversals. Every few hundred thousand years, the North and South Poles change places, with some unknown number of years at the change-over when there is essentially NO magnetic field. (It all has to do with the movements of the Earth’s somewhat fluid metallic core and the magnetic fields that result from it.) The neat thing that what THEN happens is that the diversion of solar radiation by the Earth’s magnetic fields stops, and all of the Sun’s harmful high-energy particle radiation that was diverted by the magnetic field into “storage” in the Van Allen belts instead comes crashing straight in. We fry. Well, not literally. We don’t even boil. But it does a lot of genetic cooking, (much more than the increased sunburn from the ozone hole) and probably accounts for a majority of genetic mutations that occur over time. Lots and lots of mutations. A veritable steam-engine of evolution. Proof is found in sedimentary magnetic minerals that deposit very slowly over time. The areas of magnetic reversal are measured as easily as the rings on a tree. Besides the Sun going nova about 10 billion years from now (and the occasional mass-extinction-producing asteroid strike) this is about as big as they come, AND! MAN has absolutely nothing to do with it. AND! Since it has been happening periodically for the past 4 billion years, Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps won’t be able to argue (well, at least not with any EVIDENCE) that the calamity is God’s way of punishing America for tolerating gays! Cool, right?
@George Wells:
T. Boone Pickens was building a wind farm up in the Texas panhandle. He invested well over $2 mil in it when he decided that he really wanted the tax payers to pay for it. So he trotted on over to D.C. and started lobbying. One of his
donation recipientsgo to Congress critters wrote money for old T. Boone into a bill. But unfortunately for T. Boone, we found out about the deal, and also learned that T. Boone had already cut a contract with Dallas to provide them with the power generated by his wind farm, after he had convinced a five panel made up of Texas Dems who support “green” energy to provide him with the additional power lines that would be required, at the cost of $2 billion, and tacked that on to the monthly bill of every Texan with electricity.It was a sweetheart deal; the American taxpayer would be on the hook for the cost of the wind farm, and T. Boone would rake in the bucks from the sale of electricity sent over power lines paid for by Texas utility users.
But his deal failed to make out of a Congressional committee and never made it to the floor of Congress for a vote.
And what did T. Boone do? He shut construction on the wind farm down. No more T. Boone on TV pushing his “green” energy. Couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy. He’s just Billy Sol Estes with better manners.
@retire05 #’s 80 and 81:
See? It’s just like I told you: I know science and you know history. We both are in possession of a great wealth of detail.
Your T. Boone Pickens story is probably analogous to a great number of tales-mostly-true regarding rich folk and their wealth. No, I’m not disparaging the acquisition of wealth – there are plenty of fine and clever folk who got rich through fair and honest means. Unfortunately, it’s VERY hard to get there by simply working hard. (Not criticizing that either.)
The REAL problem is that money and the power it so often buys has a tendency to corrupt, and corruption is a pathogen that preys on members of both political parties. Interesting that you chose a lifetime Republican to feature as your example of that corruption, as there are plenty of Democrats who would also have made excellent examples. Your fair-minded sportsmanship is to be commended.
P.S. I did not miss your point that without mischief or unwarranted subsidy, many green “projects” are nothing more than money pits. But with big oil buying up competitive ideas and sitting on them, I’m not sure how the “next big energy source” is going to get a chance without at least SOME (unfair, and doubtlessly costly) advantage being given it by the government (taxpayer).
@George Wells:
If one were to spend the time to look, all through our national history, there have been those people who made unimaginable wealth who were NOT selfish or devious. The problem is there are no headlines to be had for those people. The crooks make for much better copy. One of the most devious men alive today is Bill Gates, who is trying to change our entire educational system with Common Core, yet he is heralded by the left because he funds their campaigns. In my mind, Gates is truly evil.
The billions of taxpayer funded $$ that this current Administration has poured down the “green” rabbit hole is a prime example of that, yet your side of the aisle continues the farce all in the name of
global warmingclimate change. Solyndra is but one example.But you mistake the intentions of the petroleum industry. If, as you say, we will run out of oil at some period in time, totally discounting the “abiotic” oil theory, those industries will have to take a new turn and it is to their benefit to invest in alternate sources of energy. And who better to do that with little, or no cost, to the American taxpayer. Those companies already have R & D departments set up, they already hire some of the finest scientists in the world, they have the facilities, the man power and the capital to make the transition from “fossil” fuels to energy alternatives without pandering politicians spending taxpayer funds. It just makes sense for them to do that. Edison knew there was a profit to be make in the electric light bulb. He invented the light bulb without funding from the taxpayer, instead using private investors, especially J. P. Morgan.
So no, I do not believe the oil industry is sitting on ideas for “the next big energy source” out of greed or evil intentions. In order to produce any product, it must be cost effective and right now other energy sources are not, i.e. the disaster that is wind energy production.
Austin, Texas is a town that is full of left wing greenweenies. The city offered businesses the ability to use nothing but “green” produced electricity. The city council just knew that businesses would jump on that like a june bug. And they did. But those businesses learned that “green” produced energy was double in cost and most of them went back to what they had before because they could not justify the cost to their owners and shareholders. The profit they lost, spending it for “green” energy, prevented expansion and jobs that could have been created, were not. That is but one example of the current march to green energy that is not affordable.
Just as the automobile came in its time, so will alternate sources of energy.
retire05 #83:
I am agreeing with you, in case you missed it. We just have a bit of a different way of “judging” the crooks and the victims. For you, the Democrat rich dudes are “truly evil” for funding the causes they support, while the Republican ones are simply guilty of taking a bit of an unfair advantage from time to time.
They’re ALL guilty! Money is the root of all evil. Not so much little amounts, but an obscene pile of it sure is. The Koch brothers fund THEIR causes, and SOME Democrats cry about it, but that’s just how OUR system works. In a capitalism, money talks.
Ethanol from corn, solar power, wind power, tide power, cold fusion, hydrogen-operated cars, electricity from clouds, gas from manure – all seemingly green and possibly viable on a limited scale. But so far we have nothing at all promising as a substitute for fossil fuels as an energy source, not even on the distant horizon. Nothing but nuclear. And the greenies are scared to death of that, because of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and Fukushima. (There will be others to add to this list.)
Government assistance to companies looking for an ALTERNATIVE to irreplaceable fossil fuels AND messy nuclear would not be such a bad idea if there was a rational reason to believe that a viable alternative source of energy really exists and can be exploited. The problem is that if there IS such an energy source, it isn’t right under our noses or else we’d have tripped over it by now, and the possibilities that remain after the low-hanging fruit have all been tasted are outrageously difficult and expensive to even LOOK at. FUSION reactors: clean, but technologically beyond our ability to control, and far more complex than getting people to Mars, so far more expensive. Deep into Sci-Fi: inter-dimensional entropy accumulators: wishful thinking, way beyond interstellar ion drives, which are at least being hypothetically designed. Out on such remote fringes, where it takes HUGE amounts of money just to THINK, progress, if any, will come with government financial assistance. Private industry didn’t invent the atomic bomb, the Manhattan Project did, and it was largely from the government-sponsored work on that project that the nuclear industry sprang. As long as such sponsored ventures fail – like Solyndra – it will be the government’s fault. But when one succeeds – like the Manhattan Project did – we’ll all be patting ourselves on our backs, pleased that we beat out the competition.