Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bush-The Mastermind behind 9/11? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: sea_urchin who wrote (8611)	10/21/2004 6:20:12 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20039

Debunking the Oil Myth ()--part 5 <g> The Bottomless Well: The Twilight of Fuel, the Virtue of Waste, and Why We Will Never Run Out of Oil Peter Huber, Mark P. Mills* amazon.co.uk Synopsis A myth-shattering book that explains why energy is not scarce, why the quality of energy is more important than quantity, and why "waste" of energy is both necessary and desirable. The sheer volume of talk about energy, energy prices, and energy policy on both sides of the political aisle suggests that we must know something about energy. But according to Peter Huber and Mark Mills, the things we "know" are mostly myths. In The Bottomless Well, Huber and Mills debunk the myths and show how a better understanding of energy will radically change our views and policies on a number of very controversial issues. They explain why demand will never go down, why most of what we think of as "energy waste" actually benefits us; why greater efficiency will never lead to energy conservation; and why the energy supply is infinite-it's quality of energy that's scarce and expensive. The Bottomless Well will also revolutionize our thinking about the automotive industry (gas prices don't matter and the hybrid engine is irrelevant), coal and uranium, the much-maligned power grid (it's the worst system we could have except for all the others), what energy supplies mean for jobs and GDP, and many other hotly debated subjects. ___________________________ (*) Message 20454841

To: sea_urchin who wrote (8611)	10/21/2004 8:16:47 AM
From: sea_urchin	Respond to of 20039

The opinion of John le Carre: . commondreams.org >>Maybe there's one good reason — just one — for reelecting George W. Bush, and that's to force him to live with the consequences of his appalling actions and answer for his own lies, rather than wish the job on a Democrat who would then get blamed for his predecessor's follies. Probably no American president in history has been so universally hated abroad as Bush: for his bullying unilateralism, his dismissal of international treaties, his reckless indifference to the aspirations of other nations and cultures, his contempt for institutions of world government, and above all for misusing the cause of anti-terrorism in order to unleash an illegal war — and now anarchy — upon a country that like too many others around the world was suffering under a hideous dictatorship but had no hand in the events of 9/11, no weapons of mass destruction and no record of terrorism except as an ally of the United States in a dirty war against Iran. <<

To: sea_urchin who wrote (8611)	10/25/2004 11:02:44 AM
From: Don Earl	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20039

Searle, (mostly off topic) I took a look at some of the pieces on the link you posted, and no offense, but most of them looked equally silly to me. I've looked at the so called "Constitutional Party" program in the past, and as close as I can tell, it should be called the Baptist Party. On the other hand, the Libertarian Party program looks like a system to turn America into a corporate state where a doped up work force exists at the poverty level, but are too stoned to care. As odd as it might sound, if a person is looking for a conservative platform, based on democratic principals as outlined in the Constitution, the Communist Party comes closer than most. Unfortunately, they also endorse the lunatic principals of Karl Marx in the process. As a classic example of doing the right things for the wrong reasons, it's pretty hard to top. The sad fact of the matter is, to the best of my knowledge, there isn't a single organization in existence which embraces an unadulterated version of the principals of those who founded this nation.