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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (256024)	6/28/2008 4:07:18 PM
From: KLP	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793838

Here's some ideas: How U.S. can solve the energy crisis June 27, 2008 suntimes.com STEVE HUNTLEY shuntley.cst@gmail.com Today's political debate over energy is, to put it mildly, uninspiring. Republicans want to drill for more oil in environmentally sensitive places such as the oceans or the Arctic, only underscoring our reliance on a fuel of which we have limited reserves. Democrats, believing the world is divided into villains and victims, seek to penalize U.S. oil companies with a "windfall profits tax" and scapegoat free markets by saying speculators drive up gas prices, ignoring the realities of supply and demand in the energy-gulping economies of China and India. New ideas are few and far between from the political class. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, stands out by proposing the government establish a $300 million prize for the development of a break-through battery to revolutionize hybrid-vehicle technology. I and others have written the country needs a Manhattan Project to free us from a dependence on overseas oil that only enriches countries that wish us ill, like Iran and Venezuela, and funds hostile ideologies such as fanatical Islamism. In short, energy is a national security issue requiring government intervention in the economy of the type that conservatives like me normally don't like. The Manhattan Project was the World War II effort to produce an atom bomb before the Nazis could. Another example was the 1960s program to put a man on the moon before the Soviet Union could. These required new technologies, and my thinking on energy tended to focus on finding new technologies. Others with better minds have come up with a Manhattan Project for energy that requires no scientific breakthroughs and uses current infrastructure. Those are the guiding principles of "A Blueprint for U.S. Energy Security" from Set America Free. It's a coalition of individuals and organizations across the political spectrum ranging from social conservatives to environmentalists, or, as one of them puts it -- "tree huggers, do-gooders, sodbusters, cheap hawks and evangelicals." Its four-year blueprint calls for the government to spend: • • $2 billion to pay half the cost for automakers to make 40 million cars flexible-fuel capable, meaning they can burn alcohol, gasoline or any combination of the two. It costs $100 per vehicle to do this. • • $1 billion to place alcohol fuel pumps in at least a quarter of the nation's gas stations. • • $2 billion in tax breaks for consumers who buy hybrid autos. • • $4 billion for loan guarantees to help automakers develop for the marketplace fuel-cell battery technology and plug-in hybrid vehicles. The coalition says a combination flex-fuel/plug-in hybrid electric car running on an 80 percent alcohol, 20 percent gasoline fuel could get up to 500 miles per gallon of gas. Since plug-ins can be recharged overnight when electricity use is down, current power plants could support up to 30 percent of U.S. cars being plug-in hybrids. • • $3 billion for public-private cost-sharing projects to build 25 commercial-scale demonstration plants to make non oil-based liquid fuels. It notes America has hundreds of years in supplies of coal, and a Department of Energy project showed "clean coal" technology can produce methanol alcohol for less than 50 cents a gallon. That comes to $12 billion -- compared with the $20 billion in today's dollars spent on the original Manhattan Project and $100 billion on the Apollo moon program. Set America Free asserts that switching American drivers to hybrid autos by 2025 could reduce oil imports by 8 million to as much as 12 million barrels a day. Currently, the United States imports 11.6 million barrels a day, and that's projected to reach almost 20 million by 2025. Transforming what Americans drive in 17 years sounds like a tall order. Yet, the surge in popularity of SUVs began about that long ago. Set America Free's blueprint is limited, short-term government intervention to push the marketplace toward energy security. It merits a look from our political class. Comment at suntimes.com.

To: LindyBill who wrote (256024)	6/29/2008 4:15:33 AM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793838

The age of unreliability is a silly idea. Passenger aircraft very rarely crash these days. A new car is guaranteed to start and run for years without being a "lemon". Most things seem to me to be a lot MORE reliable than in decades gone by. He's wrong here too, those type of charges cause me to feel SATISFACTION, not dissatisfaction. I have always objected to subsidizing others: <The ticky-tack fees that the airlines are now hitting you with for checking extra bags are another way to pass on costs - with the price of jet fuel today it makes no sense to subsidize a passenger with more bags relative to someone with a carry on. These types of charges cause passenger dissatisfaction, but that isn't very relevant to the airlines now since most competition is on price.> Most problems I experience are as a result of the ever-increasing depredations of governments. What's weird is that people vote for more of the same every election, but then moan about governments. Libertarian votes remain near zero. That baffles me. Mqurice

To: LindyBill who wrote (256024)	7/9/2008 1:27:08 PM
From: goldworldnet	Respond to of 793838

EMD Safety Bracelets for Airlines? Want some torture with your peanuts? By Jeffrey Denning washingtontimes.com Just when you thought you’ve heard it all... A senior government official with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has expressed great interest in a so-called safety bracelet that would serve as a stun device, similar to that of a police Taser®. According to this promotional video found at the Lamperd Less Lethal, Inc. website, the bracelet would be worn by all airline passengers (video also shown below). This bracelet would: • Take the place of an airline boarding pass • Contain personal information about the traveler • Be able to monitor the whereabouts of each passenger and his/her luggage • Shock the wearer on command, completely immobilizing him/her for several minutes The Electronic ID Bracelet, as it’s referred to, would be worn by every traveler “until they disembark the flight at their destination.” Yes, you read that correctly. Every airline passenger would be tracked by a government-funded GPS, containing personal, private and confidential information, and would shock the customer worse than an electronic dog collar if the passenger got out of line. Clearly the Electronic ID Bracelet is a euphemism for the EMD Safety Bracelet, or at least it has a nefarious hidden ability (thus the term ID Bracelet is ambiguous at best). EMD stands for Electro-Musclar Disruption. Again, according to the promotional video, the bracelet can completely immobilize the wearer for several minutes. So is the government really that interested in this bracelet? Apparently so. According to this letter from DHS official, Paul S. Ruwaldt of the Science and Technology Directorate, office of Research and Development, which was written to the inventor whom he had previously met with, Ruwaldt wrote, “To make it clear, we [the federal government] are interested in . . . the immobilizing security bracelet, and look forward to receiving a written proposal.” The letterhead, in case you were wondering, is from a U.S. Department of Homeland Security office at the William J. Hughes Technical Center at the Atlantic City International Airport, or the Federal Aviation Administration headquarters. In another part of the letter, Mr. Ruwaldt confirmed, “It is conceivable to envision a use to improve air security, on passenger planes.” Would every paying airline passenger flying on a commercial airplane be mandated to wear one of these devices? I cringe at the thought. Not only could it be used as a physical restraining device, but also as a method of interrogation, according to the same aforementioned letter from Mr. Ruwaldt. Would you let them put one of those on your wrist? Would you allow the airline employees, which would be mandated by the government, to place such a bracelet on any member of your family? Why are tax dollars being spent on something like this? Is this a police state or is this America? * * *