( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

People who hate America are flush with money from oil sales -- we should
stop subsidizing them by becoming more energy independent.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By James P. Pinkerton



June 15, 2004 | When I think about Ronald Reagan's legacy, one question
haunts me: Was his national energy policy also, inadvertently, a
terror-subsidy policy? A quarter-century later, it appears that Reagan's
presidency helped bring to America a plentiful supply of energy -- and also
oil-financed terrorists.

In 1973, during America's first energy crisis, brought on by the Arab oil
embargo, President Nixon declared a national goal of "energy independence"
by 1980. For the rest of that decade, Republican and Democratic presidents
alike emphasized such independence, to be achieved by a combination of
statist means -- price controls, conservation decrees, Uncle Sam-funded
ventures such as the Synthetic Fuels Corp. But they didn't work. In 1973,
oil imports accounted for 26 percent of U.S. consumption; seven years later,
in 1980, imports had risen to 38 percent of the national total. In the
meantime, oil prices had soared 1,300 percent.

Enter Reagan, a free marketeer and avowed opponent of "utopian schemers." On
July 17, 1980, as he accepted the Republican Party's presidential
nomination, he declared, "Those who preside over the worst energy shortage
in our history tell us to use less, so that we will run out of oil, gasoline
and natural gas a little more slowly." The Gipper continued, "Well, now,
conservation is desirable ... But conservation is not the sole answer to our
energy needs. America must get to work producing more energy." Reagan's idea
was to liberate the oil companies from controls, as part of his belief in
"getting government off our backs." In my role as a low-level staffer on his
campaign, I cheered those libertarian words.

And I cheered more as the newly inaugurated 40th president swept away all
the Nixon-Ford-Carter-era rules and regulations -- although he also helped
kill off solar-power programs, a legacy of the loathed Carter presidency.
Yet at that time, few complained. Indeed, what came next was a miracle of
the marketplace: During Reagan's two terms, oil prices fell by
three-fourths, and the real output of the U.S. economy grew by a third.

Lower prices? More wealth? What's not to like? Only this: The market
produces miracles, but it's nonetheless blind; it makes no distinction
between a barrel of oil pumped in Oklahoma and a barrel pumped in Saudi
Arabia. If the foreign crude is 1 cent cheaper, that's what Adam Smith's
"invisible hand" selects. Oil, said the Reaganites, is just another
commodity; it doesn't matter where it comes from. So while the economy
boomed, the vision of energy independence withered.

And thus the catch: The free market lowered the price of energy, but since
the United States was a high-cost producer, domestic production was a big
loser. And the long-term decline in U.S. oil production -- accelerated, too,
by environmental concerns -- continued through the Reagan years and has kept
on ever since. Today, the United States imports 59 percent of its oil; it
has gone from being one-quarter dependent on foreign sources to three-fifths
dependent.

And what happens to the dollars we export in return for this oil? Many of
them go to our mortal enemies. New York Gov. George Pataki, referring to the
trillions that the United States and the West have sent to Arab
"oilocracies" over the past 30 years, has spoken of a "terror tax." That is,
we send them money and they send us al-Qaida. And the problem could get
worse. Even assuming that Saudi Arabia follows through on its plan to
increase production, the desert kingdom could easily take in $100 billion in
the coming year, around a quarter of that from the United States.

Yet despite -- or perhaps because of -- all that money, Saudi Arabia is
becoming "Osama Arabia." In light of the continuing attacks on Americans and
other foreigners working in that nation, it is worth taking a closer look at
what it is doing with its petrodollars. The desert kingdom recently
announced a crackdown on "charities" caught funding terror, but the targeted
groups were relatively small. The just-dissolved Al-Haramain Islamic
Foundation, for example, distributed a mere $50 million a year. Meanwhile,
the Saudis are promising to set up a new, "transparent" philanthropic
entity, the Saudi National Commission for Charitable Work Abroad, which is
to give away $100 million a year. Even assuming that that $100 million is
all "clean," one is left wondering what the Saudis will do with the other
$99.9 billion they'll receive for oil over the next 12 months. A Washington
source told me that Saudi Arabia has in fact given an average of $4 billion
a year in "foreign aid" over the past decade.

Where's all the money going? Nobody really knows. And nobody -- at least in
the United States -- seems very interested in finding out. On Saturday, the
New York Times reported that a task force on Saudi terror funding at the
Council on Foreign Relations is about to announce that Riyadh has "not fully
implemented its new laws and regulations, and because of that, opportunities
for the witting or unwitting financing of terrorism persist." But, the Times
notes, one sentence was deleted from the task force's final document -- "The
Bush administration has done very little to push the implementation of the
rules and regulations" -- possibly at the behest of the Bush White House.

Thus even after 9/11 and the resulting war on terror, the U.S.-Saudi
relationship appears fundamentally unchanged. Saudi Arabia sells us oil
while telling us -- via high-priced P.R. spokesmen and lobbyists -- that it
is our ally. In return, America offers the Al-Saud family a geopolitical
security blanket and a cloak for financial transactions.

The consequences of the free market's "invisible hand" are now visible:
People who hate America are engorged with American money. Having worked for
the Gipper for five years, I believe that if he were in office today, he
would concede that blind fealty to the free market has brought unintended
consequences -- big-time. And so he would take a second look at renewable
energy. Although Reagan believed in free markets and limited government, he
was pro-science; he strongly supported the space program, for example, and
the never-built superconducting supercollider. Reagan also would understand
what was required to win the war on terror -- the de-funding of those who
are funding terrorists, even at the risk of upsetting big GOP
constituencies.

It's time for a geostrategic shift -- and a return to the idea of energy
independence. It's time to revisit energy conservation; we must get serious
about hydrogen, solar, wind and other renewable-energy sources.

It won't be easy to gain complete energy independence from the oilocratic
foes we are financing, but at least we can start reducing the terror tax.
After a long detour -- and after realizing that the free market is
paradoxically aiding our worst enemies -- we can get back on the path to
energy independence.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:45:18 GMT, "Jim" wrote:


People who hate America are flush with money from oil sales -- we should
stop subsidizing them by becoming more energy independent.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By James P. Pinkerton



June 15, 2004 | When I think about Ronald Reagan's legacy, one question
haunts me: Was his national energy policy also, inadvertently, a
terror-subsidy policy? A quarter-century later, it appears that Reagan's
presidency helped bring to America a plentiful supply of energy -- and also
oil-financed terrorists.

In 1973, during America's first energy crisis, brought on by the Arab oil
embargo, President Nixon declared a national goal of "energy independence"
by 1980. For the rest of that decade, Republican and Democratic presidents
alike emphasized such independence, to be achieved by a combination of
statist means -- price controls, conservation decrees, Uncle Sam-funded
ventures such as the Synthetic Fuels Corp. But they didn't work. In 1973,
oil imports accounted for 26 percent of U.S. consumption; seven years later,
in 1980, imports had risen to 38 percent of the national total. In the
meantime, oil prices had soared 1,300 percent.

Enter Reagan, a free marketeer and avowed opponent of "utopian schemers." On
July 17, 1980, as he accepted the Republican Party's presidential
nomination, he declared, "Those who preside over the worst energy shortage
in our history tell us to use less, so that we will run out of oil, gasoline
and natural gas a little more slowly." The Gipper continued, "Well, now,
conservation is desirable ... But conservation is not the sole answer to our
energy needs. America must get to work producing more energy." Reagan's idea
was to liberate the oil companies from controls, as part of his belief in
"getting government off our backs." In my role as a low-level staffer on his
campaign, I cheered those libertarian words.

And I cheered more as the newly inaugurated 40th president swept away all
the Nixon-Ford-Carter-era rules and regulations -- although he also helped
kill off solar-power programs, a legacy of the loathed Carter presidency.
Yet at that time, few complained. Indeed, what came next was a miracle of
the marketplace: During Reagan's two terms, oil prices fell by
three-fourths, and the real output of the U.S. economy grew by a third.

Lower prices? More wealth? What's not to like? Only this: The market
produces miracles, but it's nonetheless blind; it makes no distinction
between a barrel of oil pumped in Oklahoma and a barrel pumped in Saudi
Arabia. If the foreign crude is 1 cent cheaper, that's what Adam Smith's
"invisible hand" selects. Oil, said the Reaganites, is just another
commodity; it doesn't matter where it comes from. So while the economy
boomed, the vision of energy independence withered.

And thus the catch: The free market lowered the price of energy, but since
the United States was a high-cost producer, domestic production was a big
loser. And the long-term decline in U.S. oil production -- accelerated, too,
by environmental concerns -- continued through the Reagan years and has kept
on ever since. Today, the United States imports 59 percent of its oil; it
has gone from being one-quarter dependent on foreign sources to three-fifths
dependent.

And what happens to the dollars we export in return for this oil? Many of
them go to our mortal enemies. New York Gov. George Pataki, referring to the
trillions that the United States and the West have sent to Arab
"oilocracies" over the past 30 years, has spoken of a "terror tax." That is,
we send them money and they send us al-Qaida. And the problem could get
worse. Even assuming that Saudi Arabia follows through on its plan to
increase production, the desert kingdom could easily take in $100 billion in
the coming year, around a quarter of that from the United States.

Yet despite -- or perhaps because of -- all that money, Saudi Arabia is
becoming "Osama Arabia." In light of the continuing attacks on Americans and
other foreigners working in that nation, it is worth taking a closer look at
what it is doing with its petrodollars. The desert kingdom recently
announced a crackdown on "charities" caught funding terror, but the targeted
groups were relatively small. The just-dissolved Al-Haramain Islamic
Foundation, for example, distributed a mere $50 million a year. Meanwhile,
the Saudis are promising to set up a new, "transparent" philanthropic
entity, the Saudi National Commission for Charitable Work Abroad, which is
to give away $100 million a year. Even assuming that that $100 million is
all "clean," one is left wondering what the Saudis will do with the other
$99.9 billion they'll receive for oil over the next 12 months. A Washington
source told me that Saudi Arabia has in fact given an average of $4 billion
a year in "foreign aid" over the past decade.

Where's all the money going? Nobody really knows. And nobody -- at least in
the United States -- seems very interested in finding out. On Saturday, the
New York Times reported that a task force on Saudi terror funding at the
Council on Foreign Relations is about to announce that Riyadh has "not fully
implemented its new laws and regulations, and because of that, opportunities
for the witting or unwitting financing of terrorism persist." But, the Times
notes, one sentence was deleted from the task force's final document -- "The
Bush administration has done very little to push the implementation of the
rules and regulations" -- possibly at the behest of the Bush White House.

Thus even after 9/11 and the resulting war on terror, the U.S.-Saudi
relationship appears fundamentally unchanged. Saudi Arabia sells us oil
while telling us -- via high-priced P.R. spokesmen and lobbyists -- that it
is our ally. In return, America offers the Al-Saud family a geopolitical
security blanket and a cloak for financial transactions.

The consequences of the free market's "invisible hand" are now visible:
People who hate America are engorged with American money. Having worked for
the Gipper for five years, I believe that if he were in office today, he
would concede that blind fealty to the free market has brought unintended
consequences -- big-time. And so he would take a second look at renewable
energy. Although Reagan believed in free markets and limited government, he
was pro-science; he strongly supported the space program, for example, and
the never-built superconducting supercollider. Reagan also would understand
what was required to win the war on terror -- the de-funding of those who
are funding terrorists, even at the risk of upsetting big GOP
constituencies.

It's time for a geostrategic shift -- and a return to the idea of energy
independence. It's time to revisit energy conservation; we must get serious
about hydrogen, solar, wind and other renewable-energy sources.

It won't be easy to gain complete energy independence from the oilocratic
foes we are financing, but at least we can start reducing the terror tax.
After a long detour -- and after realizing that the free market is
paradoxically aiding our worst enemies -- we can get back on the path to
energy independence.


When driving through France, one can see a nuclear power plant around every
curve, it seems. France has not, to my knowledge, had a nuclear incident. Why do
we not use more nuclear power? Is it politics?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have been
built since.

"Jim" wrote in message
...

People who hate America are flush with money from oil sales -- we should
stop subsidizing them by becoming more energy independent.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By James P. Pinkerton



June 15, 2004 | When I think about Ronald Reagan's legacy, one question
haunts me: Was his national energy policy also, inadvertently, a
terror-subsidy policy? A quarter-century later, it appears that Reagan's
presidency helped bring to America a plentiful supply of energy -- and
also
oil-financed terrorists.

In 1973, during America's first energy crisis, brought on by the Arab oil
embargo, President Nixon declared a national goal of "energy independence"
by 1980. For the rest of that decade, Republican and Democratic presidents
alike emphasized such independence, to be achieved by a combination of
statist means -- price controls, conservation decrees, Uncle Sam-funded
ventures such as the Synthetic Fuels Corp. But they didn't work. In 1973,
oil imports accounted for 26 percent of U.S. consumption; seven years
later,
in 1980, imports had risen to 38 percent of the national total. In the
meantime, oil prices had soared 1,300 percent.

Enter Reagan, a free marketeer and avowed opponent of "utopian schemers."
On
July 17, 1980, as he accepted the Republican Party's presidential
nomination, he declared, "Those who preside over the worst energy shortage
in our history tell us to use less, so that we will run out of oil,
gasoline
and natural gas a little more slowly." The Gipper continued, "Well, now,
conservation is desirable ... But conservation is not the sole answer to
our
energy needs. America must get to work producing more energy." Reagan's
idea
was to liberate the oil companies from controls, as part of his belief in
"getting government off our backs." In my role as a low-level staffer on
his
campaign, I cheered those libertarian words.

And I cheered more as the newly inaugurated 40th president swept away all
the Nixon-Ford-Carter-era rules and regulations -- although he also helped
kill off solar-power programs, a legacy of the loathed Carter presidency.
Yet at that time, few complained. Indeed, what came next was a miracle of
the marketplace: During Reagan's two terms, oil prices fell by
three-fourths, and the real output of the U.S. economy grew by a third.

Lower prices? More wealth? What's not to like? Only this: The market
produces miracles, but it's nonetheless blind; it makes no distinction
between a barrel of oil pumped in Oklahoma and a barrel pumped in Saudi
Arabia. If the foreign crude is 1 cent cheaper, that's what Adam Smith's
"invisible hand" selects. Oil, said the Reaganites, is just another
commodity; it doesn't matter where it comes from. So while the economy
boomed, the vision of energy independence withered.

And thus the catch: The free market lowered the price of energy, but since
the United States was a high-cost producer, domestic production was a big
loser. And the long-term decline in U.S. oil production -- accelerated,
too,
by environmental concerns -- continued through the Reagan years and has
kept
on ever since. Today, the United States imports 59 percent of its oil; it
has gone from being one-quarter dependent on foreign sources to
three-fifths
dependent.

And what happens to the dollars we export in return for this oil? Many of
them go to our mortal enemies. New York Gov. George Pataki, referring to
the
trillions that the United States and the West have sent to Arab
"oilocracies" over the past 30 years, has spoken of a "terror tax." That
is,
we send them money and they send us al-Qaida. And the problem could get
worse. Even assuming that Saudi Arabia follows through on its plan to
increase production, the desert kingdom could easily take in $100 billion
in
the coming year, around a quarter of that from the United States.

Yet despite -- or perhaps because of -- all that money, Saudi Arabia is
becoming "Osama Arabia." In light of the continuing attacks on Americans
and
other foreigners working in that nation, it is worth taking a closer look
at
what it is doing with its petrodollars. The desert kingdom recently
announced a crackdown on "charities" caught funding terror, but the
targeted
groups were relatively small. The just-dissolved Al-Haramain Islamic
Foundation, for example, distributed a mere $50 million a year. Meanwhile,
the Saudis are promising to set up a new, "transparent" philanthropic
entity, the Saudi National Commission for Charitable Work Abroad, which is
to give away $100 million a year. Even assuming that that $100 million is
all "clean," one is left wondering what the Saudis will do with the other
$99.9 billion they'll receive for oil over the next 12 months. A
Washington
source told me that Saudi Arabia has in fact given an average of $4
billion
a year in "foreign aid" over the past decade.

Where's all the money going? Nobody really knows. And nobody -- at least
in
the United States -- seems very interested in finding out. On Saturday,
the
New York Times reported that a task force on Saudi terror funding at the
Council on Foreign Relations is about to announce that Riyadh has "not
fully
implemented its new laws and regulations, and because of that,
opportunities
for the witting or unwitting financing of terrorism persist." But, the
Times
notes, one sentence was deleted from the task force's final document --
"The
Bush administration has done very little to push the implementation of the
rules and regulations" -- possibly at the behest of the Bush White House.

Thus even after 9/11 and the resulting war on terror, the U.S.-Saudi
relationship appears fundamentally unchanged. Saudi Arabia sells us oil
while telling us -- via high-priced P.R. spokesmen and lobbyists -- that
it
is our ally. In return, America offers the Al-Saud family a geopolitical
security blanket and a cloak for financial transactions.

The consequences of the free market's "invisible hand" are now visible:
People who hate America are engorged with American money. Having worked
for
the Gipper for five years, I believe that if he were in office today, he
would concede that blind fealty to the free market has brought unintended
consequences -- big-time. And so he would take a second look at renewable
energy. Although Reagan believed in free markets and limited government,
he
was pro-science; he strongly supported the space program, for example, and
the never-built superconducting supercollider. Reagan also would
understand
what was required to win the war on terror -- the de-funding of those who
are funding terrorists, even at the risk of upsetting big GOP
constituencies.

It's time for a geostrategic shift -- and a return to the idea of energy
independence. It's time to revisit energy conservation; we must get
serious
about hydrogen, solar, wind and other renewable-energy sources.

It won't be easy to gain complete energy independence from the oilocratic
foes we are financing, but at least we can start reducing the terror tax.
After a long detour -- and after realizing that the free market is
paradoxically aiding our worst enemies -- we can get back on the path to
energy independence.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"John H" wrote in message
...



When driving through France, one can see a nuclear power plant around
every
curve, it seems. France has not, to my knowledge, had a nuclear incident.
Why do
we not use more nuclear power? Is it politics?

John H

Perhaps they haven't begun thinking about what to do with the waste yet.
Neither have we. Or you. I suspect you don't think about it because you
don't feel the problem will become critical until you're dead. I, on the
other hand, give a damn about the world my son and his children inherit. I'm
funny that way.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"John H" wrote in message
...



When driving through France, one can see a nuclear power plant around
every
curve, it seems. France has not, to my knowledge, had a nuclear
incident.
Why do
we not use more nuclear power? Is it politics?

John H

Perhaps they haven't begun thinking about what to do with the waste yet.
Neither have we. Or you. I suspect you don't think about it because you
don't feel the problem will become critical until you're dead. I, on the
other hand, give a damn about the world my son and his children inherit.
I'm
funny that way.



Then you better worry about the excess radiation releases and mercury
release (major source for mercury in pelagic fish) from coal use. Much more
nasty than Nuc plants. We can bury the waste, which is not very much cubic
meter wise in the middle of a mountain in the desert, or in an old salt
mine, or in an underground nuclear explosion cavern.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 20:19:18 -0400, John H wrote:

When driving through France, one can see a nuclear power plant around
every curve, it seems. France has not, to my knowledge, had a nuclear
incident. Why do we not use more nuclear power? Is it politics?


Several reasons, the first being nuclear power is expensive power.
Reactors are expensive to build, maintain, and decommission. Secondly, we
still do not have an adequate solution to the nuclear wastes produced.
Much of it is stored on site, clearly a temporary solution when the wastes
will be radioactive for thousands of years. Also, I believe I read
somewhere that uranium supplies are running short.

Some interesting (and depressing) reading on the energy situation can be
found at:

http://dieoff.com/

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

John H wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:45:18 GMT, "Jim" wrote:


People who hate America are flush with money from oil sales -- we should
stop subsidizing them by becoming more energy independent.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By James P. Pinkerton



June 15, 2004 | When I think about Ronald Reagan's legacy, one question
haunts me: Was his national energy policy also, inadvertently, a
terror-subsidy policy? A quarter-century later, it appears that Reagan's
presidency helped bring to America a plentiful supply of energy -- and also
oil-financed terrorists.

In 1973, during America's first energy crisis, brought on by the Arab oil
embargo, President Nixon declared a national goal of "energy independence"
by 1980. For the rest of that decade, Republican and Democratic presidents
alike emphasized such independence, to be achieved by a combination of
statist means -- price controls, conservation decrees, Uncle Sam-funded
ventures such as the Synthetic Fuels Corp. But they didn't work. In 1973,
oil imports accounted for 26 percent of U.S. consumption; seven years later,
in 1980, imports had risen to 38 percent of the national total. In the
meantime, oil prices had soared 1,300 percent.

Enter Reagan, a free marketeer and avowed opponent of "utopian schemers." On
July 17, 1980, as he accepted the Republican Party's presidential
nomination, he declared, "Those who preside over the worst energy shortage
in our history tell us to use less, so that we will run out of oil, gasoline
and natural gas a little more slowly." The Gipper continued, "Well, now,
conservation is desirable ... But conservation is not the sole answer to our
energy needs. America must get to work producing more energy." Reagan's idea
was to liberate the oil companies from controls, as part of his belief in
"getting government off our backs." In my role as a low-level staffer on his
campaign, I cheered those libertarian words.

And I cheered more as the newly inaugurated 40th president swept away all
the Nixon-Ford-Carter-era rules and regulations -- although he also helped
kill off solar-power programs, a legacy of the loathed Carter presidency.
Yet at that time, few complained. Indeed, what came next was a miracle of
the marketplace: During Reagan's two terms, oil prices fell by
three-fourths, and the real output of the U.S. economy grew by a third.

Lower prices? More wealth? What's not to like? Only this: The market
produces miracles, but it's nonetheless blind; it makes no distinction
between a barrel of oil pumped in Oklahoma and a barrel pumped in Saudi
Arabia. If the foreign crude is 1 cent cheaper, that's what Adam Smith's
"invisible hand" selects. Oil, said the Reaganites, is just another
commodity; it doesn't matter where it comes from. So while the economy
boomed, the vision of energy independence withered.

And thus the catch: The free market lowered the price of energy, but since
the United States was a high-cost producer, domestic production was a big
loser. And the long-term decline in U.S. oil production -- accelerated, too,
by environmental concerns -- continued through the Reagan years and has kept
on ever since. Today, the United States imports 59 percent of its oil; it
has gone from being one-quarter dependent on foreign sources to three-fifths
dependent.

And what happens to the dollars we export in return for this oil? Many of
them go to our mortal enemies. New York Gov. George Pataki, referring to the
trillions that the United States and the West have sent to Arab
"oilocracies" over the past 30 years, has spoken of a "terror tax." That is,
we send them money and they send us al-Qaida. And the problem could get
worse. Even assuming that Saudi Arabia follows through on its plan to
increase production, the desert kingdom could easily take in $100 billion in
the coming year, around a quarter of that from the United States.

Yet despite -- or perhaps because of -- all that money, Saudi Arabia is
becoming "Osama Arabia." In light of the continuing attacks on Americans and
other foreigners working in that nation, it is worth taking a closer look at
what it is doing with its petrodollars. The desert kingdom recently
announced a crackdown on "charities" caught funding terror, but the targeted
groups were relatively small. The just-dissolved Al-Haramain Islamic
Foundation, for example, distributed a mere $50 million a year. Meanwhile,
the Saudis are promising to set up a new, "transparent" philanthropic
entity, the Saudi National Commission for Charitable Work Abroad, which is
to give away $100 million a year. Even assuming that that $100 million is
all "clean," one is left wondering what the Saudis will do with the other
$99.9 billion they'll receive for oil over the next 12 months. A Washington
source told me that Saudi Arabia has in fact given an average of $4 billion
a year in "foreign aid" over the past decade.

Where's all the money going? Nobody really knows. And nobody -- at least in
the United States -- seems very interested in finding out. On Saturday, the
New York Times reported that a task force on Saudi terror funding at the
Council on Foreign Relations is about to announce that Riyadh has "not fully
implemented its new laws and regulations, and because of that, opportunities
for the witting or unwitting financing of terrorism persist." But, the Times
notes, one sentence was deleted from the task force's final document -- "The
Bush administration has done very little to push the implementation of the
rules and regulations" -- possibly at the behest of the Bush White House.

Thus even after 9/11 and the resulting war on terror, the U.S.-Saudi
relationship appears fundamentally unchanged. Saudi Arabia sells us oil
while telling us -- via high-priced P.R. spokesmen and lobbyists -- that it
is our ally. In return, America offers the Al-Saud family a geopolitical
security blanket and a cloak for financial transactions.

The consequences of the free market's "invisible hand" are now visible:
People who hate America are engorged with American money. Having worked for
the Gipper for five years, I believe that if he were in office today, he
would concede that blind fealty to the free market has brought unintended
consequences -- big-time. And so he would take a second look at renewable
energy. Although Reagan believed in free markets and limited government, he
was pro-science; he strongly supported the space program, for example, and
the never-built superconducting supercollider. Reagan also would understand
what was required to win the war on terror -- the de-funding of those who
are funding terrorists, even at the risk of upsetting big GOP
constituencies.

It's time for a geostrategic shift -- and a return to the idea of energy
independence. It's time to revisit energy conservation; we must get serious
about hydrogen, solar, wind and other renewable-energy sources.

It won't be easy to gain complete energy independence from the oilocratic
foes we are financing, but at least we can start reducing the terror tax.
After a long detour -- and after realizing that the free market is
paradoxically aiding our worst enemies -- we can get back on the path to
energy independence.


When driving through France, one can see a nuclear power plant around every
curve, it seems. France has not, to my knowledge, had a nuclear incident. Why do
we not use more nuclear power? Is it politics?

John H


Good question. I'd think that we would have the ability to provide
safe, economic nuclear energy. I think the reason is in the back
pockets of a certain group of politicians, where the big oil companies
reside. They have a big bargaining tool, money!

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:45:18 GMT, "Jim" wrote:


People who hate America are flush with money from oil sales -- we should
stop subsidizing them by becoming more energy independent.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By James P. Pinkerton



June 15, 2004 | When I think about Ronald Reagan's legacy, one question
haunts me: Was his national energy policy also, inadvertently, a
terror-subsidy policy? A quarter-century later, it appears that Reagan's
presidency helped bring to America a plentiful supply of energy -- and
also
oil-financed terrorists.

In 1973, during America's first energy crisis, brought on by the Arab oil
embargo, President Nixon declared a national goal of "energy
independence"
by 1980. For the rest of that decade, Republican and Democratic
presidents
alike emphasized such independence, to be achieved by a combination of
statist means -- price controls, conservation decrees, Uncle Sam-funded
ventures such as the Synthetic Fuels Corp. But they didn't work. In 1973,
oil imports accounted for 26 percent of U.S. consumption; seven years
later,
in 1980, imports had risen to 38 percent of the national total. In the
meantime, oil prices had soared 1,300 percent.

Enter Reagan, a free marketeer and avowed opponent of "utopian schemers."
On
July 17, 1980, as he accepted the Republican Party's presidential
nomination, he declared, "Those who preside over the worst energy
shortage
in our history tell us to use less, so that we will run out of oil,
gasoline
and natural gas a little more slowly." The Gipper continued, "Well, now,
conservation is desirable ... But conservation is not the sole answer to
our
energy needs. America must get to work producing more energy." Reagan's
idea
was to liberate the oil companies from controls, as part of his belief in
"getting government off our backs." In my role as a low-level staffer on
his
campaign, I cheered those libertarian words.

And I cheered more as the newly inaugurated 40th president swept away all
the Nixon-Ford-Carter-era rules and regulations -- although he also
helped
kill off solar-power programs, a legacy of the loathed Carter presidency.
Yet at that time, few complained. Indeed, what came next was a miracle of
the marketplace: During Reagan's two terms, oil prices fell by
three-fourths, and the real output of the U.S. economy grew by a third.

Lower prices? More wealth? What's not to like? Only this: The market
produces miracles, but it's nonetheless blind; it makes no distinction
between a barrel of oil pumped in Oklahoma and a barrel pumped in Saudi
Arabia. If the foreign crude is 1 cent cheaper, that's what Adam Smith's
"invisible hand" selects. Oil, said the Reaganites, is just another
commodity; it doesn't matter where it comes from. So while the economy
boomed, the vision of energy independence withered.

And thus the catch: The free market lowered the price of energy, but
since
the United States was a high-cost producer, domestic production was a big
loser. And the long-term decline in U.S. oil production -- accelerated,
too,
by environmental concerns -- continued through the Reagan years and has
kept
on ever since. Today, the United States imports 59 percent of its oil; it
has gone from being one-quarter dependent on foreign sources to
three-fifths
dependent.

And what happens to the dollars we export in return for this oil? Many of
them go to our mortal enemies. New York Gov. George Pataki, referring to
the
trillions that the United States and the West have sent to Arab
"oilocracies" over the past 30 years, has spoken of a "terror tax." That
is,
we send them money and they send us al-Qaida. And the problem could get
worse. Even assuming that Saudi Arabia follows through on its plan to
increase production, the desert kingdom could easily take in $100 billion
in
the coming year, around a quarter of that from the United States.

Yet despite -- or perhaps because of -- all that money, Saudi Arabia is
becoming "Osama Arabia." In light of the continuing attacks on Americans
and
other foreigners working in that nation, it is worth taking a closer look
at
what it is doing with its petrodollars. The desert kingdom recently
announced a crackdown on "charities" caught funding terror, but the
targeted
groups were relatively small. The just-dissolved Al-Haramain Islamic
Foundation, for example, distributed a mere $50 million a year.
Meanwhile,
the Saudis are promising to set up a new, "transparent" philanthropic
entity, the Saudi National Commission for Charitable Work Abroad, which
is
to give away $100 million a year. Even assuming that that $100 million is
all "clean," one is left wondering what the Saudis will do with the other
$99.9 billion they'll receive for oil over the next 12 months. A
Washington
source told me that Saudi Arabia has in fact given an average of $4
billion
a year in "foreign aid" over the past decade.

Where's all the money going? Nobody really knows. And nobody -- at least
in
the United States -- seems very interested in finding out. On Saturday,
the
New York Times reported that a task force on Saudi terror funding at the
Council on Foreign Relations is about to announce that Riyadh has "not
fully
implemented its new laws and regulations, and because of that,
opportunities
for the witting or unwitting financing of terrorism persist." But, the
Times
notes, one sentence was deleted from the task force's final document --
"The
Bush administration has done very little to push the implementation of
the
rules and regulations" -- possibly at the behest of the Bush White House.

Thus even after 9/11 and the resulting war on terror, the U.S.-Saudi
relationship appears fundamentally unchanged. Saudi Arabia sells us oil
while telling us -- via high-priced P.R. spokesmen and lobbyists -- that
it
is our ally. In return, America offers the Al-Saud family a geopolitical
security blanket and a cloak for financial transactions.

The consequences of the free market's "invisible hand" are now visible:
People who hate America are engorged with American money. Having worked
for
the Gipper for five years, I believe that if he were in office today, he
would concede that blind fealty to the free market has brought unintended
consequences -- big-time. And so he would take a second look at renewable
energy. Although Reagan believed in free markets and limited government,
he
was pro-science; he strongly supported the space program, for example,
and
the never-built superconducting supercollider. Reagan also would
understand
what was required to win the war on terror -- the de-funding of those who
are funding terrorists, even at the risk of upsetting big GOP
constituencies.

It's time for a geostrategic shift -- and a return to the idea of energy
independence. It's time to revisit energy conservation; we must get
serious
about hydrogen, solar, wind and other renewable-energy sources.

It won't be easy to gain complete energy independence from the oilocratic
foes we are financing, but at least we can start reducing the terror tax.
After a long detour -- and after realizing that the free market is
paradoxically aiding our worst enemies -- we can get back on the path to
energy independence.


When driving through France, one can see a nuclear power plant around
every
curve, it seems. France has not, to my knowledge, had a nuclear incident.
Why do
we not use more nuclear power? Is it politics?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

It is a combination of 3 things: the expense; the red tape it takes to go
through before construction can even begin; and lastly, the NIMBY
principle.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have been
built since.

Horse****! Big oil doesn't want nuclear energy. What group of
politicians cozy up to big oil, and their money?

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

basskisser wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have been
built since.

Horse****! Big oil doesn't want nuclear energy. What group of
politicians cozy up to big oil, and their money?



The "liberal left" is dumb Bill's rationalization for everything in his
life he doesn't like.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have
been
built since.

Horse****! Big oil doesn't want nuclear energy. What group of
politicians cozy up to big oil, and their money?



The "liberal left" is dumb Bill's rationalization for everything in his
life he doesn't like.

Pot-Kettle-Black.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

jim-- wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have
been
built since.

Horse****! Big oil doesn't want nuclear energy. What group of
politicians cozy up to big oil, and their money?



The "liberal left" is dumb Bill's rationalization for everything in his
life he doesn't like.

Pot-Kettle-Black.



Not at all, my nearly illiterate friend. I don't blame the left or the
right for many of the things in life that annoy me. Or don't annoy me.

As an example, take nuclear power plants. I live near one. I knew it was
there when I moved to this area. I don't blame the left or the right for
its construction or continued operation, nor do I blame the left or the
right for the problem of nuclear waste disposal. I am not necessarily
opposed to the construction of new nuke plants; it depends upon the
safeguards and how they are enforced. I *am* concerned about the
enactment and enforcement of safeguards when you have an idiot like
Dubya in the White House, but that doesn't mean I oppose nuclear power.
It's a very complex issue, and not one you simple-minded righties are
equipped to handle.

As far as I am concerned, all nuclear waste should be dumped somewhere
in Texas. It seems the appropriate place for it.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have been
built since.

It must be the very liberal left who's sworn to nip at the heels of General
Electric until they finally clean up the mess they've made of the Hudson
River. Same liberals who got all over Hooker Chemical/Occidental for their
little adventure at Love Canal. Damn hippies.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant
construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have
been
built since.

Horse****! Big oil doesn't want nuclear energy. What group of
politicians cozy up to big oil, and their money?



The "liberal left" is dumb Bill's rationalization for everything in his
life he doesn't like.

Pot-Kettle-Black.



Not at all, my nearly illiterate friend. I don't blame the left or the
right for many of the things in life that annoy me. Or don't annoy me.

As an example, take nuclear power plants. I live near one. I knew it was
there when I moved to this area. I don't blame the left or the right for
its construction or continued operation, nor do I blame the left or the
right for the problem of nuclear waste disposal. I am not necessarily
opposed to the construction of new nuke plants; it depends upon the
safeguards and how they are enforced. I *am* concerned about the
enactment and enforcement of safeguards when you have an idiot like
Dubya in the White House, but that doesn't mean I oppose nuclear power.
It's a very complex issue, and not one you simple-minded righties are
equipped to handle.

As far as I am concerned, all nuclear waste should be dumped somewhere
in Texas. It seems the appropriate place for it.

It's already being dumped there, Harry. You can tell by the results.

And, sorry about snapping at you the other day. I was having my period.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant
construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have
been
built since.

Horse****! Big oil doesn't want nuclear energy. What group of
politicians cozy up to big oil, and their money?



The "liberal left" is dumb Bill's rationalization for everything in his
life he doesn't like.

Pot-Kettle-Black.



Not at all, my nearly illiterate friend. I don't blame the left or the
right for many of the things in life that annoy me. Or don't annoy me.


You are indeed a fool who has no clue.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

jim-- wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant
construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have
been
built since.

Horse****! Big oil doesn't want nuclear energy. What group of
politicians cozy up to big oil, and their money?



The "liberal left" is dumb Bill's rationalization for everything in his
life he doesn't like.

Pot-Kettle-Black.



Not at all, my nearly illiterate friend. I don't blame the left or the
right for many of the things in life that annoy me. Or don't annoy me.


You are indeed a fool who has no clue.




Oh...so I should be a simple-minded doof like you, and blame either the
left or the right for everything in life?

Naw, I'll pass on that. You may have that rice bowl in its entirety..

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:17:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

And, sorry about snapping at you the other day. I was having my period.

God, I'm glad you came clean with that. It's been bothering me ever
since your outburst. group hug.

bb

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

bb wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:17:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

And, sorry about snapping at you the other day. I was having my period.

God, I'm glad you came clean with that. It's been bothering me ever
since your outburst. group hug.

bb



Thank you both for sharing. I'm leaving for a moment, to go puke.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
bb wrote:

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 13:17:50 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

And, sorry about snapping at you the other day. I was having my period.

God, I'm glad you came clean with that. It's been bothering me ever
since your outburst. group hug.

bb



Thank you both for sharing. I'm leaving for a moment, to go puke.

:-)

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant
construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have
been
built since.

Horse****! Big oil doesn't want nuclear energy. What group of
politicians cozy up to big oil, and their money?



The "liberal left" is dumb Bill's rationalization for everything in his
life he doesn't like.

Pot-Kettle-Black.



Not at all, my nearly illiterate friend. I don't blame the left or the
right for many of the things in life that annoy me. Or don't annoy me.

As an example, take nuclear power plants. I live near one. I knew it was
there when I moved to this area. I don't blame the left or the right for
its construction or continued operation, nor do I blame the left or the
right for the problem of nuclear waste disposal. I am not necessarily
opposed to the construction of new nuke plants; it depends upon the
safeguards and how they are enforced. I *am* concerned about the
enactment and enforcement of safeguards when you have an idiot like
Dubya in the White House, but that doesn't mean I oppose nuclear power.
It's a very complex issue, and not one you simple-minded righties are
equipped to handle.

As far as I am concerned, all nuclear waste should be dumped somewhere
in Texas. It seems the appropriate place for it.

Bull-****. You believe in saying anything to support those who pay you.
You only care for Harold. No frigging morals whatsoever when it comes to
beliefs. Was the very liberal left here in California that got the law
passed against Nuclear power plant construction. Big oil is going to make
money even with many nuc plants. All those plastic boats, plastic grocery
bags, nitrogen fertilizers, and fuel for trucks and tractors. They all
require oil. and the oil companies are not prohibited from building Nuclear
plants. they may be more qualified to run a nuc plant than a lot of
businesses. Experience running a refinery will count more than writing
books on bricklaying.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have been
built since.

It must be the very liberal left who's sworn to nip at the heels of
General
Electric until they finally clean up the mess they've made of the Hudson
River. Same liberals who got all over Hooker Chemical/Occidental for their
little adventure at Love Canal. Damn hippies.


Actually I am for cleaning up the enviromental mess. And coal is one of the
major mess makers. A lot more than Nuclear. And as to the Love Canal
disaster, was not Hooker Chemicals fault that the housing development was
built on the toxic waste dump. Was the local politicians. They got the
land from Hooker, with the knowledge that it was a toxic chemical waste dump
and then they later sold the land for development. Hooker should have been
made to clean up the canal, but the local pols should have gone to jail for
selling the land for housing!

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
basskisser wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have been
built since.

Horse****! Big oil doesn't want nuclear energy. What group of
politicians cozy up to big oil, and their money?



The "liberal left" is dumb Bill's rationalization for everything in his
life he doesn't like.

As it becomes more and more obvious, even to the blind right wingers,
that Bush is failing miserably, Bill's rants are getting more and more
ridiculus.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

basskisser wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
basskisser wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have been
built since.

Horse****! Big oil doesn't want nuclear energy. What group of
politicians cozy up to big oil, and their money?



The "liberal left" is dumb Bill's rationalization for everything in his
life he doesn't like.

As it becomes more and more obvious, even to the blind right wingers,
that Bush is failing miserably, Bill's rants are getting more and more
ridiculus.


Bush's failures do seem to be piling up. Unfortunately, people are dying
as a result.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
Harry Krause wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant
construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have
been
built since.

Horse****! Big oil doesn't want nuclear energy. What group of
politicians cozy up to big oil, and their money?



The "liberal left" is dumb Bill's rationalization for everything in his
life he doesn't like.

As it becomes more and more obvious, even to the blind right wingers,
that Bush is failing miserably, Bill's rants are getting more and more
ridiculus.

And it is even more obvious you are getting stupider as time passes. Your
crops must be getting better. My complaint is with the choice of the Dem's.
Kerry? this is even worse than the Repub's choice of Dole!

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

Calif Bill wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
Harry Krause wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant
construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have
been
built since.

Horse****! Big oil doesn't want nuclear energy. What group of
politicians cozy up to big oil, and their money?



The "liberal left" is dumb Bill's rationalization for everything in his
life he doesn't like.

As it becomes more and more obvious, even to the blind right wingers,
that Bush is failing miserably, Bill's rants are getting more and more
ridiculus.

And it is even more obvious you are getting stupider as time passes. Your
crops must be getting better. My complaint is with the choice of the Dem's.
Kerry? this is even worse than the Repub's choice of Dole!



Perhaps you ought to run, Bill. You might capture 5% of the mentally
challenged vote.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 03:49:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .



When driving through France, one can see a nuclear power plant around
every
curve, it seems. France has not, to my knowledge, had a nuclear incident.
Why do
we not use more nuclear power? Is it politics?

John H

Perhaps they haven't begun thinking about what to do with the waste yet.
Neither have we. Or you. I suspect you don't think about it because you
don't feel the problem will become critical until you're dead. I, on the
other hand, give a damn about the world my son and his children inherit. I'm
funny that way.


Do you sincerely feel that placing yourself on a pedestal while demeaning others
lends value to your posts, Doug?

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message
nk.net...

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
Harry Krause wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant
construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have
been
built since.

Horse****! Big oil doesn't want nuclear energy. What group of
politicians cozy up to big oil, and their money?



The "liberal left" is dumb Bill's rationalization for everything in
his
life he doesn't like.

As it becomes more and more obvious, even to the blind right wingers,
that Bush is failing miserably, Bill's rants are getting more and more
ridiculus.

And it is even more obvious you are getting stupider as time passes.

THat is for sure........lets see, taxes have been cut, the econmy is
booming, Control of Iraq will sortly be turned over to the people.....

Your
crops must be getting better. My complaint is with the choice of the
Dem's.
Kerry? this is even worse than the Repub's choice of Dole!

Both Dole and kery's stance is to vote 'against' the incumbent......a
surefire way to lose.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 03:49:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .



When driving through France, one can see a nuclear power plant around
every
curve, it seems. France has not, to my knowledge, had a nuclear
incident.
Why do
we not use more nuclear power? Is it politics?

John H

Perhaps they haven't begun thinking about what to do with the waste yet.
Neither have we. Or you. I suspect you don't think about it because you
don't feel the problem will become critical until you're dead. I, on the
other hand, give a damn about the world my son and his children inherit.
I'm
funny that way.


Do you sincerely feel that placing yourself on a pedestal while demeaning
others
lends value to your posts, Doug?

John H

When you ask a silly question like "is it politics?", it sort of begs for a
slap in the face. As far back as a year ago, you explained that you
sometimes enjoy baiting the assembled masses here. By now, you may have
refined it to an art form. How do I know you didn't fall off your chair
laughing after you wrote that question?

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:

Harry Krause wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant
construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have
been
built since.

Horse****! Big oil doesn't want nuclear energy. What group of
politicians cozy up to big oil, and their money?

New Nuclear power plants haven't been built because the regulations imposed
on them make it economically a bad investment. This has been true for 20
years. Only those plants that were in constuction were finished. Most
Nuclear power plants are MORE THAN 20 YEARS OLD. Big oil, horse**** to use
your words. Most powerplants during that period didn't use oil, they used
coal.

How old are you guys? Gesh.... we are 25% Nuclear Power to France's 80%.
France supplies electricity to most of western Europe. France wanted the
Kyoto treaty so that it could have a stronger hand in Europe's future. All
the countries around it would have to cut back on their coal fired power
plants and buy energy from France at greatly increased rates. FRANCE WOULD
THEN BE in a position to control the EU.

Since we are apx. 60% dependant on fossil fuels for electricity our
industrial base would have been crippled. We would then have been a third
world country (massive unemployment, disruption of our transportation
system). Think about double your electric bill and three times your gas
bill, when you can find gas. Who would have been hit the hardest, the poor.
Who cares about the poor...Bush. All for a .5 degree rise in the global
temperature due to the last 20 years fossil fuels have been used.

The seas will not rise due to polar ice melting. It seems that the
temperature at the poles is minus 50 degrees F. To get a polar meltdown
would require a world temp increase of 82 degrees. One senator out of
Wyoming (I think) mentioned that they were having a tremendous drought
because of global warming. Turns out that his region was 2 degrees cooler
than normal and that the pattern of weather in that area was normal for a 25
year cycle.

Bush did the right thing.

I'm bringing up Kyoto because it's one of the things that the democrats use
as a talking point. Pointing out that Bush has alienated Europe by not
signing the treaty. Cutting our throat economically to make France happy is
STUPID. I'm sure that if Gore had been elected in 2000 he would have done
the same (he's not stupid even though he sometimes sounds like he is).

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:36:35 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 03:49:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .



When driving through France, one can see a nuclear power plant around
every
curve, it seems. France has not, to my knowledge, had a nuclear
incident.
Why do
we not use more nuclear power? Is it politics?

John H

Perhaps they haven't begun thinking about what to do with the waste yet.
Neither have we. Or you. I suspect you don't think about it because you
don't feel the problem will become critical until you're dead. I, on the
other hand, give a damn about the world my son and his children inherit.
I'm
funny that way.


Do you sincerely feel that placing yourself on a pedestal while demeaning
others
lends value to your posts, Doug?

John H

When you ask a silly question like "is it politics?", it sort of begs for a
slap in the face. As far back as a year ago, you explained that you
sometimes enjoy baiting the assembled masses here. By now, you may have
refined it to an art form. How do I know you didn't fall off your chair
laughing after you wrote that question?


Why does the question beg a "slap in the face" from you? Are you sure I stated
an enjoyment in 'baiting the masses"? I don't recall that.

There have been several literate responses to my question. Few pedestal
climbers.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
Harry Krause wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant
construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants
have
been
built since.

Horse****! Big oil doesn't want nuclear energy. What group of
politicians cozy up to big oil, and their money?



The "liberal left" is dumb Bill's rationalization for everything in
his
life he doesn't like.

As it becomes more and more obvious, even to the blind right wingers,
that Bush is failing miserably, Bill's rants are getting more and more
ridiculus.

And it is even more obvious you are getting stupider as time passes.
Your
crops must be getting better. My complaint is with the choice of the
Dem's.
Kerry? this is even worse than the Repub's choice of Dole!



Perhaps you ought to run, Bill. You might capture 5% of the mentally
challenged vote.

I don't think I could represent you or basskisser.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:36:35 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 03:49:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .



When driving through France, one can see a nuclear power plant
around
every
curve, it seems. France has not, to my knowledge, had a nuclear
incident.
Why do
we not use more nuclear power? Is it politics?

John H

Perhaps they haven't begun thinking about what to do with the waste
yet.
Neither have we. Or you. I suspect you don't think about it because
you
don't feel the problem will become critical until you're dead. I, on
the
other hand, give a damn about the world my son and his children
inherit.
I'm
funny that way.


Do you sincerely feel that placing yourself on a pedestal while
demeaning
others
lends value to your posts, Doug?

John H

When you ask a silly question like "is it politics?", it sort of begs for
a
slap in the face. As far back as a year ago, you explained that you
sometimes enjoy baiting the assembled masses here. By now, you may have
refined it to an art form. How do I know you didn't fall off your chair
laughing after you wrote that question?


Why does the question beg a "slap in the face" from you? Are you sure I
stated
an enjoyment in 'baiting the masses"? I don't recall that.

There have been several literate responses to my question. Few pedestal
climbers.

John H

You're preparing for a major remodeling project. Your contractor of choice r
eminds you that your normal garbage truck will not haul away the debris, and
that you must make special arrangements. On the day the contractor returns
with his crew to begin work, you have not rented a dumpster. You tell him
"I'll deal with it later, somehow, probably".

Is that about right?

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

On 16 Jun 2004 05:01:26 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants have been
built since.

Horse****! Big oil doesn't want nuclear energy.

Neither do environmentalists. And it was those environmental concerns
which pretty much put the kabosh to nuke power in this country.


What group of politicians cozy up to big oil, and their money?

Irrelevant. If nuclear power was predominate, those same phantom group
of politicians would be cozying up to them....

Dave

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
Harry Krause wrote in message
...
basskisser wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net...
Was the very liberal left who got new nuclear power plant
construction
prohibited. Look at both Japan and France for how many plants
have
been
built since.

Horse****! Big oil doesn't want nuclear energy. What group of
politicians cozy up to big oil, and their money?



The "liberal left" is dumb Bill's rationalization for everything in
his
life he doesn't like.

As it becomes more and more obvious, even to the blind right wingers,
that Bush is failing miserably, Bill's rants are getting more and more
ridiculus.

And it is even more obvious you are getting stupider as time passes.
Your
crops must be getting better. My complaint is with the choice of the
Dem's.
Kerry? this is even worse than the Repub's choice of Dole!



Perhaps you ought to run, Bill. You might capture 5% of the mentally
challenged vote.

I don't think I could represent you or basskisser.

I KNOW you couldn't represent me. Far too stupid, and far too narrow
minded to ever come close to any type of progressive thought that I'd
demand in someone chosen to represent me.

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:36:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:36:35 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 03:49:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .



When driving through France, one can see a nuclear power plant
around
every
curve, it seems. France has not, to my knowledge, had a nuclear
incident.
Why do
we not use more nuclear power? Is it politics?

John H

Perhaps they haven't begun thinking about what to do with the waste
yet.
Neither have we. Or you. I suspect you don't think about it because
you
don't feel the problem will become critical until you're dead. I, on
the
other hand, give a damn about the world my son and his children
inherit.
I'm
funny that way.


Do you sincerely feel that placing yourself on a pedestal while
demeaning
others
lends value to your posts, Doug?

John H

When you ask a silly question like "is it politics?", it sort of begs for
a
slap in the face. As far back as a year ago, you explained that you
sometimes enjoy baiting the assembled masses here. By now, you may have
refined it to an art form. How do I know you didn't fall off your chair
laughing after you wrote that question?


Why does the question beg a "slap in the face" from you? Are you sure I
stated
an enjoyment in 'baiting the masses"? I don't recall that.

There have been several literate responses to my question. Few pedestal
climbers.

John H

You're preparing for a major remodeling project. Your contractor of choice r
eminds you that your normal garbage truck will not haul away the debris, and
that you must make special arrangements. On the day the contractor returns
with his crew to begin work, you have not rented a dumpster. You tell him
"I'll deal with it later, somehow, probably".

Is that about right?


If that has something to do with the previous posts in this thread, then you
*do* belong on your pedestal. You're way over my head!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

( OT ) Abolish the terror tax
 

"John H" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 10:36:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:36:35 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"John H" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 03:49:43 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"John H" wrote in message
.. .



When driving through France, one can see a nuclear power plant
around
every
curve, it seems. France has not, to my knowledge, had a nuclear
incident.
Why do
we not use more nuclear power? Is it politics?

John H

Perhaps they haven't begun thinking about what to do with the waste
yet.
Neither have we. Or you. I suspect you don't think about it because
you
don't feel the problem will become critical until you're dead. I,
on
the
other hand, give a damn about the world my son and his children
inherit.
I'm
funny that way.


Do you sincerely feel that placing yourself on a pedestal while
demeaning
others
lends value to your posts, Doug?

John H

When you ask a silly question like "is it politics?", it sort of begs
for
a
slap in the face. As far back as a year ago, you explained that you
sometimes enjoy baiting the assembled masses here. By now, you may
have
refined it to an art form. How do I know you didn't fall off your
chair
laughing after you wrote that question?


Why does the question beg a "slap in the face" from you? Are you sure I
stated
an enjoyment in 'baiting the masses"? I don't recall that.

There have been several literate responses to my question. Few pedestal
climbers.

John H

You're preparing for a major remodeling project. Your contractor of
choice r
eminds you that your normal garbage truck will not haul away the debris,
and
that you must make special arrangements. On the day the contractor
returns
with his crew to begin work, you have not rented a dumpster. You tell him
"I'll deal with it later, somehow, probably".

Is that about right?


If that has something to do with the previous posts in this thread, then
you
*do* belong on your pedestal. You're way over my head!

John H

Is IS connected with the nuclear power issue, and you don't see the analogy.
Think about it over the weekend, grasshopper.