Third Party & Independents Archives

David,

It would be nice if principles ruled the day, but I don’t see much of it coming from Washington these days.

If you are going to have immigration rules, abide by them. If it hurts the economy, tough. Isn’t that the whole point of a ‘free, self correcting market’, it will correct itself once this issues is taken care of. Current profiteers will have to change their way of doing business, which is their real fear, they don’t want to alter what they know is working already.

We have been fighting this issue for too long, it makes no sense. Make a law, stick with it and execute the law as it is written AND intended. Or get rid of the law. Having it both ways is a time honered tradition in Washington though…

As I see it Bush has really busted his hump to carry out the NAFTA regulations his daddy helped put in place. He did good in secretly putting the North American Union together. A year ago it was all about comprehensive immigration. After a couple of failed attempts at that and right about the 9 month point before Bush leaves office the strangest things have started to happen. One year ago Chertoff was dead against local police being involved with immigration. He was against REAL ID. Dragging his feet on the fence, etc. Around Feb/Mar the fence started to get built, some arrest and deportation acts were carried out, some attempt to enforce REAL ID is being made, The FDA and Consumer Affairs are being funded and staffs are increasing. What IS going on? The Dems are solid for NAFTA but the GOP seems busted up over it. I could see a delay tactic by Bush to take the heat off those in the GOP for the upcoming election. But why would he need to actually do something of a 180 on some NAFTA issues? Perplexing to me.

The Boeing border barrier is a disaster, right? Or is there something new on this?

CBS was actually claiming today that the Bush administration has been tough on illegal immigrants, when they are asking them to turn themselves in voluntarily.

I would think that more Rpblcns would be switching to Libertarian than Democratic.
The CATO institute must love those USCOC guys, or maybe it’s another Koch family foundation. Delenda est CATO.

Roy, your comments confuse me so I will ask a few questions if you don’t mind.

1) Isn’t NAFTA something that Bill Clinton put in place, one of his first acts as president I seem to remember…

2) The Dems are solid ‘FOR’ NAFTA? I thought they were all against it?

3) Real ID is another violation of individual rights, why do you think it has something to do with immigration? Are we, as citizens, expected to carry around papers proving so to our government, papers that can be used to track our movement within the country?

BTW, Real ID is dead, as I’ve previously noted, and thank gawd. Unless the federal government start encroaching more upon the states than is constitutionally allowed…

david

as a republican i can tell you it makes no difference to me who takes a stand to enforce our borders, and immigration laws, as long as SOMEONE DOES! so far the people have made it clear they want an end to this disaster, but washington seems to have shit in thier ears, or has forgotten who it is they actually answer to, the american people, or la raza. illegal aliens bring down the wages for american blue collar workers, and overburden our public assistance programs. thanks for putting this one back in the spotlight. there are many who are hoping to push this under the rug, and hope everyone is distracted and forgets about it. we can’t let that happen, we need to force this issue.

Rhinehold,
I believe Walker Bush began negotiations in 91 and concluded in Aug 92. Clinton signed off in Dec 92 and Bush jr. has since worked to fill in the blanks. You may think Hil doesn’t agree with NAFTA but I have a different opinion.
Convert REAL ID to whatever database it is that business uses to check the status of workers as to citizenship. Sorry for the confusion.

Lou had an article on tonight that the Chamber of Commerce and ACLU is trying to kill E-verify which was just approved by Bush which expires this November unless revalidated. Interesting that most of time security works against the public, ‘the Jihadi’s will get you, we need REAL ID’, etc. But in this case the best weapon the public has to support the continuance of E-verify is that it helps protect us against plots by non-citizens to enter the country and the workplace illegally. 99.5% correct in functionality. No one seems to know why Bush is lightening up on NAFTA in his final year.??

Neither party is gonna do a thing about illegal immigration. The Republicans want the cheap labor. And the Democrats want the potential votes.
Bush has signed a bill that helps keep illegals form getting a job and good to him for it. He’s finally got something right in dealing with this problem.
Now the question is how well will it be enforced?
If it’s like they enforce other laws we’re in same heap of mud we’ve been in. Except now we’ll have another unenforced law on the books.
But to answer your question David. What’s a Republican to do? The same thing the Democrats need to do. Vote all them incompetent, arrogant, money grubbing politicians in both parties out of office. And replace them with folks that will be accountable to their bosses, the citizens of this country.

Rhinehold

We have been fighting this issue for too long, it makes no sense. Make a law, stick with it and execute the law as it is written AND intended. Or get rid of the law. Having it both ways is a time honered tradition in Washington though

Couldn’t agree more. We don’t even make a half assed attempt at enforcing current law. What makes anyone think we would be any better with a new one. This is one of those areas that politicians would rather endlessly discuss because neither party truly wants definitive action on the matter. Enforcement is not in the best interests of those who have any say in the matter.

In 2042, whites will be a minority. The fence will not be completed by then, and will no longer be an popular issue.

If a facist regime overtakes our government before then, the fence will keep us in our iron curtain.

Rhinehold, yes, enforcement of existing laws was the prophylactic that Congress and this President would not don. Now we must wet nurse their bastard children numbering some 20 million more or less with social program spending and services as the recession looms over us all.

dbs, yes, they are trying to push this under the rug. And we should not let them. But, the only power the American people have over their government is through the power of the vote to remove them from office and replace them with challengers with the threat of voting them out too if they don’t comply with the best interests of the American people.

How likely is that? My guess is more likely than in any election in recent memory, but, (there’s always a but) unless the anti-incumbent losses are shared between both parties and approach a 20% turnover rate in the U.S. Congress, the remaining incumbents will not have any fear of continuing as they have been on this and all other issues.

Bottom line is this: The current Congress acts as if they don’t believe the voters have any power to force their hand. And action speaks louder than words, as we all know.

Roy Ellis said: “No one seems to know why Bush is lightening up on NAFTA in his final year.??”

That one is simple. Business profits are falling which means the business lobby on the GOP and Bush is growing to keep wage costs as low as possible. The GOP and Bush are, and always have been, the traders with business, campaign donations for favorable government treatment.

Bush knows his legacy is in the toilet for all except die hard GOP partisans. Favoring them at this time preserves some favorable legacy with the last remaining constituency willing to suspend disbelief.

David,
I see this as a problem for both political parties, not just the Republicans. For why many Businesspersons are Conservative by Nature, I am clearly aware that many others are Democratic. However, name caling is not going to solve the problem of illegal immigration or Emplorers who wish to break the Law.

Therefore, I hope to come up with a few ideas over the next few weeks that I do believe that both sides of the Market can use to address the fear of the Members of the Chamber of Comerce and those who say they support the Individual Illegal Immigratant.

For why E-Verify may be a good start to the problem of the American Consumer demanding low prices, the idea of Mr. Corporation climbing into bed with Mr. Establishment does leave a very bitter taste in my mouth. So I ask, can “We the People” make it were the Local and State Employment Commission does the E-Verifying for the Employer?

Because why I personal support using Birth Certificates, I do see the future advantage of not allowing “Sweat Shops” and others abuse any Human in order to make a Profit. Especially when their only defense is said to be Ignorance.

Ron Brown, you nailed it, my friend.

Birth Certificates are easily forged, and useless unless checked against a national database of all Certificates registered in all locales, updated and verified.

I don’t have a problem with a national ID, since the government can track anyone of us at any time it chooses if the intent is there to do it.

My only concern with the Gov’t. using ID’s to target individuals by whatever ID system, is that they make mistakes. I see that as the heart of Rhinehold’s argument, and it has merit. On the other hand, our society would collapse overnight if Identification methods were to be abandoned. Identification prevents astronomical fraud, waste and abuse of others private assets, funds, and way of life.

My privacy is invaded and life turned upside down if an ID thief is able to impersonate me. That is the other side of the coin, that Rhinehold’s position fails to take into account.

Yes, there will be abuses with any ID system. But, ID’s also protect individual’s quality of life, private property, and privacy from ID theft and abuse.

There simply is no way to run a society of 300 million people without verifiable Identification. ID does far more good than harm, and the best that can be accomplished is the enforcement of laws against ID theft and misrepresentation to the best of our ability as a nation.

That or live the life of the UniBomber for Libertarian purists.

I don’t have a problem with a national ID, since the government can track anyone of us at any time it chooses if the intent is there to do it.

Good logic!

I don’t have a problem with ID systems, I have a problem with a national government database containing as much data about me as Real ID has in one location *AND* for it to be a requirement for me to carry on my person at all time. And furher, having it readable by remote machines that do not have to actually identify themselves or ask for identity, they just get the information without your knowledge (thankfully that was eventually removed from Real ID but it is still part of the Passport system).

I am not advocating NO identification methods, I object to the collection of data from those methods that they are not designed for and open up abuse.

But confusing my position with that of what you THINK my position is is not a new occurance…

Libertarian purists

I know you meant to say Anarchists, not Libertarian purists, but your proven lack of undestanding of Libertarian principles and what they mean blind you to the vast differences between the two so we’ll let it pass with qualification…

David,
I may be addressing it by the wrong name, but I thought Birth Certificates had the infants “Paw Prints” on them. However, having never had a child I could be mistaken. Yet, it does seem to me that it would be almost impossible for anyone to change the State Record. So why I do not argue that the copy of ones birth certificate can be forged, I do see the Local and State Governments being able to use the information gathered at the hospital to verify that the person was born here in the United States of America. For if you give me your date of birth, the hospital you was born in, and the county of your first residence than would not a quick check of Local and State Records be enough?

Or should we go as far as to require finger printing and DNA profiles for a Citizen to work for the Establishment? True, positive Id to prove you are an American can come at the end of an Iron Fist or we could use Common Sense and utilize the Local Employment Commission to take the burden of finding out the legality of an Employee off the Employer. Because if I am not mistaken the Intent of the Agency is to help business find the qualified Citizens needed to fill the positions made available.

Yes, the idea of Mr. Corporation having to use the Government to screen their potential employees for immigration status may upset a few in the Chamber of Commerce. However, seeing that is a small price to pay for covering your six I do not see how the Left or Right can object. Given that the only way they can be charged for hiring illegal immigrants is if they try and step around the Law.

Henry, how do the other 49 states verify a birth certificate from one? Therein lies the rub. There is no efficient system in place to make that functional for timely verification for employment. People apply, and often go to work within a couple days of having applied. The states have no system in place for verifying each other’s birth certificates in such a fashion. Criminals know this, and that is why there is a black market in birth certificates for illegals and other criminal activity.

Rhinehold, leave it to what appears to be a reading deficiency and defensiveness for you to misconstrue the written word.

First, my reference to Libertarian purists was not, in any way, aimed at you. In fact, I said what I thought the heart of your argument was, had merit.

But, if you need to go all paranoid and defend against comments that weren’t made about you, feel free, as a good libertarian aspires to.

It is good that we agree that ID is not inherently evil. Perhaps we can build on that.

David asks “how do the other 49 states verify a birth certificate from one? Therein lies the rub. There is no efficient system in place to make that functional for timely verification for employment. People apply, and often go to work within a couple days of having applied. The states have no system in place for verifying each other’s birth certificates in such a fashion.”

What is the rush? If it takes two weeks to verify a birth certificate because you have to get with another state so be it. The person starts works as soon as possible and if it is determined that the identification provided is false then a state police officer can arrest the individual at work.
The feds and the DHS reeks of Hitler and his “Office of Fatherland Security”. They continue to use the Patriot act and DHS to draw the noose tighter aroung our necks. Boot the TSA out of the airports and replace them with the state police. The current administration has shown us that the feds are incompetent to develop a terrorist watch list and to actual protect us from any real danger. I recently saw a TV program where 3 people with the same name were denied the ability to travel on an airline because their name matched a suspect on the terror watch list. One of these people was 9 years old. They all got aroung it by slightly modifing their names when ordering tickets , making the list, the DHS, and TSA a farce.
To control the illegals, a 2 weeks or 1 month period to check the out of state ID out will allow the illegal to get comfortable, and allow law enforcement the opportunity to arrest them for the crime they just committed once the ID has been verified.

Keeping the power to have a national ID out of the hands of the feds will slow down the creeping fascism perpetrated by the authoritarians in this country as well as the loss of national sovereignty to the NAU.

David,
A quick e-mail or phone call to the State Records and hospital in question should do the trick. However, I do see your point. Yet, if the E-verify is 99.5% accurate and Commerce still complains than could it be that Mr. Corporation and his Lawyer would have no wiggle room based on my idea?

Yes, even though I am in NC and was born in Ohio I can go online and get a copy of my birth certificate within 15 working days. So, if a person should or would have a problem obtaining proof that they were born in the USA than even obtaining their real ID or SSN would also present the same problems. Would they not?

j2t2, the law prohibits HIRING illegal workers.

Change the law, or abandon slow snail mail outdated measures for verification. It is not just for laws to make criminal the normal healthy activity of people in a society, such as hiring folks for work.

Employers have a legitimate beef with the current law. And Day Labor organizations, who provide an enormously beneficial service to the unemployed, are jeopardized by the law as well.

The bottom line here is that this country got along fine without all this criminalization of employers hiring illegals UNTIL the White House and Congress abdicated their responsibility to enforce immigration laws for the last couple decades.

The solution is simple and straightforward. Secure our borders so that employers don’t have to be concerned with whether they are hiring illegals or not, and implement a national employee card, to be used ONLY for employment purposes. We, of necessity, give employers an enormous amount of private information to get hired, and employee verification card obtained through a government office which verifies legal status just as births are registered with the government, does not infringe upon any rights to privacy by government.

The problem is getting government to follow and abide by its own laws. The problem is not the people, but, the government politicians abandonment of rule of law and enforcement of that law.

Henry, see my reply to j2t2 above. In general, I agree with you. Thanks.

David,
Why I agree that Congress has failed to keep the borders secure, I also see that Mr. Corporation has taken advantage of the two-tier economic system created by President Regan. And why it is very important for the Lawyers of the Establishment to protect the majority of corporations that in Spirit keep the Law. The expression “One Bad Apple” does play a major role in me wanting the Local and State Government to do the E-Verifying of All Commerce.

True, my idea would harm Industries with high turn over rates and Day Labor, but is it servere enough to stop them from conducting their daily business. Therefore, since you say “the government politicians abandonment of rule of law and enforcement of that law” and j2t2 says “What is the rush? If it takes two weeks to verify a birth certificate because you have to get with another state so be it” how does making a Compherehensive Boder Security Plan sound.

Because why the Government, Employer and Employee are at fualt in this subject, as “We the People” is it not Our JOB to tell Our Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders the way things are going to be in America?

David you are right, the problem is getting the feds to abide by the rules and not use databases created for this use only, to be used to track “terrorist”. One of the problems is the feds cannot be trusted to manage this information correctly and cannot be trusted to protect the information from ID thieves. The second problem is once a new form of identity is developed the forgers will do their thing and we will have spent the money to no avail. Make the forgers have to duplicate 50 employment ID’s not one.
Ive lost faith in the ability of the feds to do much of anything correct, thanks GWB for that, and have seen the states pick up the slack much better than the feds. Until such time as government can work again we shouldnt trust them to do the right thing. With so much corporate control of the feds its hard to believe this ID will get implemented correctly anyway.

j2t2 said: “One of the problems is the feds cannot be trusted to manage this information correctly and cannot be trusted to protect the information from ID thieves.”

Therein lies the solution. It is not government that is failing, it is the politicians running it that are failing us. Government is only as good or bad as the people we elect to run it.

Therefore, the only logical, rational thing for voters to do, is to vote out the ineffective and corrupt politicians responsible for the government we now so distrust and disapprove of.

Eventually, their replacements (the challengers we vote in, instead of reelecting the incumbent), wanting to avoid experiencing the same fate as the incumbent they just replaced, will secure their job with good, responsible government that voters can vote for, instead of against.

In other words, if voters would do the common sense thing, our government and nation would see dramatic improvements. But, common sense is now distorted by all the billions of dollars of advertising trying to steal common sense away from voters. Still, it is up to the voters.

And right now, this democratic republic as implemented in America is rapidly looking like a failed experiment in government, as this century unfolds. Not unusual for poorly designed governments to fail. History is littered with evidence.

Truth, honesty, and causes greater than oneself, have been increasingly lost in the shuffle since the Viet Nam War and Nixon era. The voters themselves no longer expect it. That has become a self-fulfilling prophecy for government as we know it and as it is evolving. The future of our government is to become ever more corrupt, unable and unwilling to respond appropriately, and ineffective in delivering solutions to meet the nation’s challenges.

One only need look at Republicans grandstanding on drilling as a means of lowering today’s gas prices at the pump, to see it happening before our very eyes. More than 50% of Americans have lost their common sense and now agree with these Republicans even though what they are saying is totally erroneous, bankrupt of any logic, and devoid of any truth.

Democracy is always up to the voters. In America, it is the voters who are not up to Democracy. They prefer being spectators to political sports teams scoring on each other in the halls of government, rather than using and exercising their common sense in solving the nation’s problems by removing those in elected office who won’t.

Henry, again (sorry), see my next reply to j2t2 above.

David,

I disagree that voters have lost common sense, and think drilling will affect today’s gas price. What they DO know and understand, is that you increase supply by more drilling not less. True both candidates present false arguments here, but voters aren’t completely stupid. It’s real simple. When supply is short you drill. Period.

Goo, drilling won’t produce additional supply for many years. Ergo, like voters, your opinion is ignorant of the facts, and common sense depends upon having accurate common information.

Thank you for proving my point.

googlumpugus “When supply is short you drill. Period.”

Another solution would be to conserve the supply you have so the need to drill isnt a crisis situation and it can be done to the benefit of the American people. Lowering demand of a diminishing resource makes much more sense both long term and short term than giving leases to lord knows who.

Another solution as you stated would be to drill. Not to wait for leases to be let for areas not already leased to drilling companies such as off the coast of California or ANWR. The oil companies have the option to drill on existing leases and to explore for new wells on other areas that are currently leased. Where is the cry by the repubs for the oil companies to drill on currently leased land? All we hear is open Offshore and ANWR to the oil companies. It rings false because it is false.

David, and j2t2, what you are missing is basic common sense. Sorry, the details of what you state may well be accurate, but in the big picture, it’s equivocating. No one ever said or is saying don’t pursue all the alternatives, but when in a crisis, you use what you have, not preserve it for tourism or snail darters. It’s so basic, I guess it eludes you.

Googlumpugus says “what you are missing is basic common sense. Sorry, the details of what you state may well be accurate, but in the big picture, it’s equivocating.”

Goog the details are accurate but in the big picture its misleading? Let me tell you what is misleading, its the repubs telling everyone its a supply problem. Its the repubs telling everyone the answer is to drill offshore as if the only place we can drill is offshore and as if we could start drilling offshore anytime soon. That is misleading and ambiguous in both the big picture and in the details. Why because the facts remain that today, immediatly, right now the oil copmpanies can drill in locations that have pipelines already in place. They can drill in places where they have already been issued leases. Why if this “crisis” is so immediate would the big oil companies not insist that all resources at their command be put into drilling in the places they have ready? The little guys are pumping again why cant the big oil companies start exploring and drilling on leased lands. What could be more common sense than that.

“but when in a crisis, you use what you have, not preserve it for tourism or snail darters. It’s so basic, I guess it eludes you.”

So the real issue is on the table. Its not about the need to drill is it goog its about showing the environmentalist who is boss isnt it? Its the big oil monopolies telling Teddy Roosevelt that they have the last laugh. How telling, your comment about tourist and snail darters. I appreciate your honesty as most others on your side of this issue wont say it even though they think it.

Its not that the point you make eludes me goog, its more that the points you and the big oil companies make is just an attempt to delude me. I just dont beleive this is a “crisis” that will be solved by drilling offshore. If as you say we should use what we have at hand why is it the repubs are not getting up off of the national oil reserves. That could be done immediately and would increase supply thereby lowering prices. Yet the repubs are against it, go figure, in the middle of this “crisis” that needs immediate relief the repubs give us a long term answer yet I have no common sense. Get real dude.

Drilling offshore now isnt reality and you know it. When the dems belly up next month and give the oil companies what they want, because the repubs raised the issue close to election time, do you really believe they will start drilling within the following 90 days? How then do you think drilling offshore will solve this “crisis”?

Goog look into oil leases and think about why the oil companies want the leases now instead of waiting for the moratorium to end. Look into leases that expire if not used and what the leases are now and who benefits, follow the money for the real answers. Dont swallow this line of crap being perpetrated by the repubs hook line and sinker.

Wrong. Yes idiot McCain and others have said it’s an immediate fix. Everyone knows that’s a lie.

The reason this has resonance is because it’s blindingly simple. It’s nice to help out the elk and tourists in Florida and millionaire homeowners in California with their million dollar views, but when the crunch comes, it’s time for the spoiled whiners to stand down.

The problem is foreign oil, and cartels and cash flow to terrorist states. The republicans don’t have to sell that. It’s well understood. Again, don’t pretend it’s about only drilling offshore. Americans aren’t that dumb. Give them a little credit. That’s why Obama has moved on this issue.

” but when the crunch comes, it’s time for the spoiled whiners to stand down.”

Goog the crunch hasnt come yet, in time if we continue to follow the energy plan put into law by the oil companies and repubs we will be in a real crunch. Its time to kick the habit not to look for a new dealer.

“The problem is foreign oil, and cartels and cash flow to terrorist states. The republicans don’t have to sell that. It’s well understood.”

And they dont sell that. They sell the misleading solution of opening up ANWR and Continental shelf drilling as the immediate solution to the high cost of gas to the American consumer.
Lets look at this as if we were an OPEC member, just for a second. What do you think we would do once the Americans sart pumping their offshore and ANWR oil? Do you think we would continue production at our current levels so the price of oil will come down or do you think we will cut back on production to allow prices to remain where we want them to be? Yeah me to.

Now lets take off our OPEC hat and put our thinking cap on. If the demand for oil was down due to the emergence of viable green technologies such as wind and solar power and electric vehicles what happens to our cash flow to terrorist states? The more they cut production the less it hurts us under this scenario.

” Again, don’t pretend it’s about only drilling offshore. Americans aren’t that dumb. Give them a little credit. That’s why Obama has moved on this issue.”

Goog I am not the one pretending. This envy you exude against those fortunate enough to have million dollar views will eventually be satiated, as the moratorium ends, but for now lets solve the “crisis” with intelligent policy not knee jerk reactionism as the conservatives would have us do. Americans respond to what effects their pocketbook so with Fox and the talk radio conservatives dispensing fiction as fact its easy to see why half of us actual believe there is a “crisis” not an opportunity. Its easy to see why half of us think the answer is to drill when the question is ” Are you in favor of drilling offshore to help lower gas prices” the problem is it wont help. Why do you pretend it will?

Obama and the dems are saying they are willing to consider drilling due to the pressure put forth by the repubs in misrepresenting the quick fix solution. Its election time and pandering is an effective vote getter, but that doesnt make it right. Hopefully they attach some worthwhile strings to any energy policy agreements involving leases they work out with the oil company representatives… er um repubs.

J2t2,

Yea, sure, it’s all the Republicans fault. I’m certainly no Republican supporter, but you continue to say it’s their influence and it’s about lowering gas prices. That’s your phoney framing of the issue. People just aren’t falling for your phoney argument.

Yes, people are more aware of the energy crisis because of high energy costs, but the public is not a stupid as you apparently think they are. They just don’t share your elitist view.

You may call it envy, but last time I checked buying an ocean front view does not entitle you to offshore rights. I live in Texas. The beaches are public here. The view is fine. A tiny rig on the horizon doesn’t bother me, and I suspect, most people. Ted Kennedy’s stupid refusal of wind turbines for preserving his view is equally elitist. No envy, just tired of the privileged thinking they own more than there own property.

They’ll just have to sacrifice with us lowlifes.

Your position pretends somehow we can become oil independent in the near future. That’s completely naive. It’s not going to be one thing or the other that solves American dependence on foreign oil, it’s going to be a lot of things at once. Hell, even Paris knows that.

“but you continue to say it’s their influence and it’s about lowering gas prices. That’s your phoney framing of the issue. People just aren’t falling for your phoney argument.”

I just read the papers goog,

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080729/ap_on_el_pr/mccain_energy

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aY0vK5vbqcQA&refer=home

“Yes, people are more aware of the energy crisis because of high energy costs, but the public is not a stupid as you apparently think they are. They just don’t share your elitist view.”

My elitist views of conserving energy and using alternatives and making homes more energy efficient? Im hardly elitist and its a shame you have to resort to these tatics instead of presenting facts. Explain to me how we benefit from opening up these areas now. Spend some time and respond to my previous posts and show me where my framing is warped and my facts incorrect googlumpugus

“Your position pretends somehow we can become oil independent in the near future. That’s completely naive.”

My position is we need to wean ourselves off of both foreign and domestic oil. The logical place to start is foreign oil. I know it will take time but by opening up more places to drill in this country it will just take longer to accomplish our goals. I favor drilling on lands currently leased and when the moratorium is up consider our progress and options at that time. I favor setting goals for the utilitity companies. I am all for stopping the oil speculators.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/05292008/business/montana_governor_is_sitting_on_an_oil_mi_113005.htm

“It’s not going to be one thing or the other that solves American dependence on foreign oil, it’s going to be a lot of things at once. Hell, even Paris knows that.”

And so do the dems goog unfortunately the repubs dont like to set goals for achieving energy independance. They want more of the same.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/washington/15energy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Goo, Thank you for the McCain tactic mirroring his flaws back on his adversary. You have learned Rove’s tactics well.

But, the fact remains, more drilling will not lower prices this year or next as you erroneously stated.

In addition, finding and producing more oil will, in 7 to 10 years, lower the cost of oil, and weaken incentives and motivation to get off fossil fuel energy through alternative energy sources, which will no doubt temporarily be higher in cost. This is classic economics. Lowering the price of fossil fuels breeds greater dependence upon them. Higher fossil fuel pricing lowers the difference between fossil and alternative energy development, and thus adds incentive to invest in alternatives.

One cannot grasp the energy situation looking only at this year’s gasoline prices. The situation requires a much longer term evaluation based on comparative costs and benefits of remaining a fossil fuel based economy vs. not. And when grasped in this manner, the only logical and rational response to our future is to seek alternative energy replacements for fossil energy. Because this will hasten the day that alternative energies dramatically lower the cost of energy permanently, freeing up that capital and economic boost from the savings to sustain our future economic solvency, as well as independence from the dictates of foreign oil producers.

I remind you that Japan’s primary incentive for entering WWII was their dependence upon foreign oil imports at a time when exporters refused their demands. Do we really have to repeat history in order for new generations to learn its lessons? God, I hope not.

Right on Daid. There is no oil shortage. We won’t reach peak oil until around 2016. Want to know why gas prices were up a little this summer? Was in yesterday’s Wash Post about hedge fund speculator’s having an adverse effect on the oil market by holding oil contracts rather than lining up buyers. Said one Swiss based conglomerate, Vitol, had in July purchased contracts for 11% of all the oil on the NY-MEX. By June 7 Vitol had acquired contracts equal to 57.7M barrels of oil or about three times the amount the U.S. consumes daily. That day the price of oil spike up $11. Vitol may have been required to put down as little as $1B to finance the trades. Investment funds in the commodities market went from $13B in 03 to $260B. Financial firms account for 81% of all oil contracts on the NY-MEX. Swap dealers don’t take control of the commodity, just a paper/money swap. Used to be only operations such as farms, airlines, manufacturers, and their middle-men were allowed to buy nearly unlimited quantities to limit the effect of price swings. Beginning in 1991 the regulatory framework began to change. With the help of congress in 2002 (commodity futures modernization act) the Commodities Future Trading Commission also saw to it that ENRON got their loophole for energy trading. I don’t think I need to go any further with this.

Would just like to state that whomever the culprits were they will sail along in congress, unaffected by the price of oil or anything else and we citizens can do nothing about it. NOW, if we had one or more political parties with built-in citizen oversight for elected government officials, appointees, Supreme Court Justices, and Ambassadors we could identify and get terminate the corporacy sponsored careers of these people. Reform is not possible until we have a clean 3rd party established to provide a path for party members to effectively compete against the duopoly, and provide a means to put accountability into the political equation. To see how this can be done visit www.demreps.com

Otherwise, we have the very government we deserve!

David, where exactly did I say that drilling would lower gas prices? Thanks for fighting both sides of this, apparently, with yourself.

If Rove or McCain use reality to beat up Obama, it could be why he changed his position. Maybe his position was wrong. I hate Rove and and am no fan of McCain, but sometimes truth is independent of favorites. I watched Ralph Reid on C-span today and nearly puked.

I doubt additional drilling in the US will lower oil prices. Not enough additional reserves or output. I doubt we’ll see oil below $100 again in our lifetime. Reducing American consumption may drop the price. T.Boone has a good means for that. Now if we could just stop the manipulation of the US natural gas market.

jt2t2,

You continue to put words in my mouth. I have no problem with conservation or the thousand other tactics to get us off foreign oil. That’s not elitism. My ONLY point is the public doesn’t buy that drilling will make NO difference in this task. It’s that unwillingness to compromise on some people’s part, that other people find disingenuous. That’s elitist. Inflating tires will help. Not a great deal, but it will help. So will drilling, eventually, perhaps not long term, perhaps not a lot, but it’s another stop gap to allow us time to find alternatives. T. Boone Pickens may have a vested interest in wind, but he understands and is communicating the issue quite well. I don’t understand how this precludes other means. AS I’ve said, I’m not a Republican cheerleader.

Roy, I think the decline in price, proves what you are saying. It was nothing but speculation and manipulation.

Roy, this Time article might be of interest

Goog you are confusing me, what words have I put in your mouth? Ive taken exactly what you have written and commented on it.

The whole drilling issues, because in fact there are 2 issues, is political manipulation on the part of the repubs. Issue #1 is the immediate ability of the oil companies to drill for more domestic oil. The fact is they have leases and can start any time they choose to start. This fact is muddied because the repubs claim that there is no oil on the leased lands. The Govenor of Montana of course disagrees with them. So in reality for those that think the answer is more domestic supply the solution is available without any action required of the government. However issue #2 is the oil companies want to get their hands on the leases for ANWR and Offshire. The drilling cannot start there for some time as the moratorium is in effect. So the repubs want to get this moratorium cancelled by falsely claiming that the dems are against drilling. It is the issue they intend to use to beat the dems this fall. So they obfuscate the issues and combine them into 1 issue.

If 67% of the American people think that the dems are obstructing drilling then the repubs have confused them with their rhetoric. If 67% of the American people believe that drilling offshore will lower gas prices in this decade they are mistaken. You will notice the polls always seem to ask about offshore drilling while failing to mention the land available for drilling.

If the repubs were not obstructing the energy bills proposed by the dems that includes various methods to address long and short term needs, but doesnt include lifting the moratorium, this could have already been resolved. The problem is the repubs dont want the issue to be solved. So they continue to play politics with the issue while we continue to pay out the nose for gas and most other items.

When was it I supported Republicans again?

It’s not an issue of Rep. or Dem. It’s an issue of common sense.

“When was it I supported Republicans again?”

Goog I am sorry to have offended you if you have thought I have been associating you with the repubs/conservatives in these posts. I have spoken of the repubs and conservatives but have not meant to say you are one of them. I am not saying you support them , Im not saying you are one of them , Im not saying you are a closet repub/conservative. I didnt mean to imply any guilt by association .

“It’s not an issue of Rep. or Dem. It’s an issue of common sense.”

Unfortunately it is a political issue and unfortunately it therefore becomes and issue of dems and repubs as they are the only game in town at this point. Common sense has nothing to do with manipulation deception and oil company lobbiest. What is happening here is an attempt by the dems to get our energy policy back into the realm of common sense after Bush/Cheney and the oil companies corporatized the countries energy policy in secret 7 years ago and after Reagan dismantled any forward thinking energy policy almost 3 decades ago.

j2t2 says, “I am all for stopping the oil speculators.”

Would that just be for U.S. investors or the entire world. If so, how would that work? Who would enforce American legislation overseas?

Since many food crop prices have also risen rapidly in recent months, would you extend your speculator ban to encompass corn, sugar and soybeans? How about stopping currency and precious metals speculation as well. If banning speculation in one commodity is good, would it not follow that banning speculation in all traded commodities would also be good?

And then, you could extend the ban to the bond and equity markets. And, while you’re at it, ban insurance as well since many libs hate insurance companies and believe they are just speculating on death, accident, illness and natural catastrophes.

One could also eliminate all lottos and legal gambling as one could say they are merely speculation.

Oh wait, I forgot, this is just a ploy to take the eye off the real problem…supply and demand.

Let’s suppose I am a corn farmer and my crop is in the ground and I want to ensure a minimum price for my crop of $5 per bushel by selling at that contract price. If corn drops to $4 per bushel I still have my price of $5 as some speculator bought my corn for that price. If corn increases to $6, I still have my price of $5 and the speculator sells my $5 corn for $6. If not for speculators willing to buy my $5 contract I couldn’t ensure a minimum price on my corn. By using the commodities market I have locked in a price on my corn that I believe is fair to me and passed the risk of market fluctuation to someone else.

Now, let’s say that I am Kellogg and I need to ensure that the cost of the raw material (corn) for my flakes doesn’t rise above $5 to ensure my profit margin. I could negotiate contracts with thousands of corn farmers about the world to achieve my goal or simply buy on the commodities market. Works well for my business and for the farmer as long as there are thousands or millions of buyers and sellers. Since there may not be exactly the number of sellers to match exactly the number of buyers a commodities market was developed that has served the world very well indeed in keeping prices relatively stable.

Now, throw in an unexpected (or expected) event such as bad weather, crop failure (or in the case of oil, a hurricane that may threaten the gulf oil platforms. The farmer will still make his $5 per bushel and Kellogg will still have corn for its mill at $5 per bushel. What changes is the speculation of the value of those contracts in light of new (or perceived) information since the contracts were made.

In the case of oil, the contract sold by the oil producer has provided the producer a price at which he was willing to sell and the contract purchased by the oil refinery will provide him oil at the price he was willing to pay. Neither the producer or refiner controls the contract once it has been agreed upon and neither had to enter into direct negotiations with the other. They both enjoy the price upon which they agreed and have sold the risk of that price being stable to speculators.

j2t2,

I never get offended here, it’s about being honest in debate and that is sometimes rough and tumble.
What I continue to believe is that despite spinning from either side, the reason that this has legs and resonance is good ole’ common sense. Americans sometimes turn out to be pretty shrewd.

We’ll have to agree to disagree. Thanks for the discussion, though. I always learn something here.

David,
I am not sure how E-verifying turned into a debate about energy, but that is one of the reason that I do believe the Left and Right of Society needs to come up with a Viable Political Solution to the Issues facings America. For why I have yet to hear a single solution that would immediately solve the Energy Problem and put America back on top of the Economy Game, I have to ask you how many Wind Mills can I put into a Wind Tunnel?

For why I know that the NIMBY Clause of the debate over the Pickens Plan is over the 75 foot towers, but seeing that a 8 x 12 building can house the force of 200 mph winds. I wonder how many America can build to supply the Children of the 21st Century with the energy they need. Yes, Mr. Corporation needs to stand up and accept the fact that Times are Changing and the Status Quo that came out of the 60’s and 70’s is going to have to advance in order to keep in check the Unnamed Beast of the Forest. So, why I do not believe that it should be the job of big brother to be in the pockets of big business. I do see the need for the States to use their Powers to ensure that the Citizens living in their borders are equally protected by the Law having grown up listening to the excuses of “The Good Ole Boys” political opinion of the 90’s.

Jim M says “Would that just be for U.S. investors or the entire world. If so, how would that work? Who would enforce American legislation overseas?”

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878

“Oh wait, I forgot, this is just a ploy to take the eye off the real problem…supply and demand.”

Jim M I’m sure the oil companies appreciate your mis leading comments but far to many knowledgable people know better. Why even Fox has managed to blurt out the truth, guess the oil companies didnt advertise enough to suit Rupert.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166038,00.html

Back in the ‘70’s we had supply problems. We had gas stations that ran out of gas because there wasnt enough to go around. Have you noticed anywhere in this country that this situation has occurred recently? Now we have free market manipulation problems. We have a moral issue Jim M. which causes the free market and capitalism to become very ugly when not dealt with.

Your explanation of the futures market is all well and good but has little to do with those that cannot take delivery, such as hedge funds, yet drive the cost of oil and basic foods up without justification.

j2t2, sorry you missed the point in my explanation of commodity markets. I tried to make it simple and understandable and to point out why speculators are needed in the commodities market to make it work. Please tell me how the commodity markets would work if they were limited to just the producer and end user of the commodity.

Let’s suppose j2t2 that you are employed at company A earning $20 per hour. Both you and your employer believe it is a fair wage and you have a contract that protects both you and your employer at that wage.

Without notice, Asian flu strikes your community and one-half of company A’s work force dies. With no binding contract you could go to your employer and demand $40 per hour knowing that your labor has become worth more. Your employer has two choices, pay you $40 per hour or close the factory knowing that he can’t double his price to his customers who live all over the country and aren’t all affected by the flu.

On the other hand, you have no contract for a set wage with your employer and suddenly cheap trained labor shows up from some other area. Your employer can replace you with a laborer costing him $10 per hour. You have two choices, accept the pay cut or leave the company.

The contract protects both you and the employer from unexpected changes affecting what you are paid. Your contract is sold to a third party, who is neither an employee or employer, for $20 per hour worked. Should you be the one who died from the flu the third party would be responsible for replacing you with the same quality worker for $20 per hour. Should your employer hire another person to replace you for $10 per hour the third party would be responsible for paying you your $20 per hour.

Should merely the threat of the flu appear the third party might sell your labor for $25 per hour to another party who thinks labor will rise to $30 per hour. You and your employer are no longer dictating the price of your labor having agreed to a set figure. The speculators are taking all the risk in buying and selling your labor based upon what they see happening days, weeks, or months after you have signed your contract. And, the speculators are guaranteeing that the employer will have a work force at a known cost and that the employee has a job paying a known wage. And, in this fashion, the speculator has helped to stabilize wages.

Does this help you understand how a viable commodities market helps stabilize prices for both the employee and employer? Any rise or reduction in the cost of your labor is determined by events occurring sometime in the future upon which you have no control.

“j2t2, sorry you missed the point in my explanation of commodity markets. I tried to make it simple and understandable and to point out why speculators are needed in the commodities market to make it work. Please tell me how the commodity markets would work if they were limited to just the producer and end user of the commodity.”

Jim M and Im sorry you didnt bother to read the simple article I linked to that points out a little history of why the oil futires markey has recently ran amok. In a word deregulation.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8878

and from this link

“In the most recent sustained run-up in energy prices, large financial institutions, hedge funds, pension funds, and other investors have been pouring billions of dollars into the energy commodities markets to try to take advantage of price changes or hedge against them. Most of this additional investment has not come from producers or consumers of these commodities, but from speculators seeking to take advantage of these price changes. The CFTC defines a speculator as a person who “does not produce or use the commodity, but risks his or her own capital trading futures in that commodity in hopes of making a profit on price changes.” “

“The report pointed out that the Commodity Futures Trading Trading Commission, a financial futures regulator, had been mandated by Congress to ensure that prices on the futures market reflect the laws of supply and demand rather than manipulative practices or excessive speculation. The US Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) states, “Excessive speculation in any commodity under contracts of sale of such commodity for future delivery … causing sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in the price of such commodity, is an undue and unnecessary burden on interstate commerce in such commodity.”

Further, the CEA directs the CFTC to establish such trading limits “as the Commission finds are necessary to diminish, eliminate, or prevent such burden.” Where is the CFTC now that we need such limits?

They seem to have deliberately walked away from their mandated oversight responsibilities in the world’s most important traded commodity, oil.”

goo asked: “David, where exactly did I say that drilling would lower gas prices?

It’s real simple. When supply is short you drill. Period.

The shortage is today. Drilling today will not increase supply today. It will increase supply in 7 to 10 years from today. And if we move to rid ourselves of dependence upon fossil fuels NOW, demand in 7 to 10 years will vastly outstrip what new supplies will become available then if we start drilling now.

Common Sense, goo. Drilling more today just delays the transition to non-fossil fuel alternatives tomorrow. One does not invest in a future that should not ever come to be. And a future dependent upon fossil fuels is a future which should never come to be. It is choking our cities, and melting the polar ice caps as we type. It is a future we do not want. Only McCain and other multi-millionaires with huge income streams from fossil fuels are intent on preserving that income stream, the planet and people be damned. (And of course, their followers who follow in ignorance of the big picture and foresight.)

David,

Common Sense, goo. Drilling more today just delays the transition to non-fossil fuel alternatives tomorrow.

Riiiight. Just like voting democrat this year means it just delays electing a third party, therefore we should vote republican. Therefore not drilling expedites non-fossil fuels like eating potato chips on my couch expedites exercise.

God knows we can’t possibly do more than one thing at a time.

With that kind of logic, perhaps common sense isn’t all that common.

Goo,
Drilling an oil well cost X amount of dollars with no guarantee of return, but building a windmill generator has an immediate return on the dollars invested. So, from a Pure Capitalistic Point of View which one is more profitable to the Stockholders?

Yes, America may need oil for some products; however, to invest Billions in an effort to burn a Finite Resource does open the question of Intelligence. So, unless the Republicans can ensure that the Drilling for Oil will not go up in smoke than how can an Independent Pundit like myself take the idea seriously?

Especially, when a car create more than enough wind to power an Electric Car for free. Or does the Republicans believe that paying for fuel is more profitable for the Consumer?

Henry,
No free market venture has any guarantee of return.

AS to Republican policy, ask a Republican.

car creates wind to power an Electric car? See circular argument, perpetual power machines and consult a physics book.

If you wish for a sensible answer, make some sense.

Goo,
Google “Man-Made Wind.” For like water, the airflow through the front end of your car can produce more than enough power to spin a pinwheel especially if it is put into a two inch pipe.

Maybe, the Learned of Society might want to go back to school and learn Reality. Because why has it taking Society over 15,000 years to learn that increased CO2 Levels make plants produce more?

Gee, Henry, that genius!!!

Wanna take a stab at what generates that wind?

If everybody drives really fast in one direction, perhaps the world will spin faster, too.

err that’s genius.

Henry, To put it simply, the “wind” is the motion of the car through the air. It creates friction. A wind turbine would generate more friction and resistance. It takes energy to move the car, either a gas engine or electric. Energy out = Energy in. You can’t produce more energy by burning it to produce the effect to start with.

You clearly don’t have a basic understanding of physics. You are not alone in that. I don’t mean to insult you, but that idea is laughable.

goo, Henry is more up to date than you on technology. Superconductors now permit spinning objects without friction. Henry is right. The wind already being produced by a car’s movement can spin a free floating turbine suspended over a superconductor to produce electricity WITHOUT the usual drag of friction. The spinning turbine is not attached to the vehicle, but free floating - hence no additional drag on the vehicle. The output of electrical current by the turbine in a winding, is a free product gratis the wind already created by the vehicle’s movement.

Stay up, Goo. And don’t be so quick to judge others simply because your information base has failed to keep up with the times. It deprecates credibility.

Your response to Henry reminds me of the Church insisting the earth is the center of the universe. So sure of that, they were. So wrong about that, they were. And so late to catch up because of authoritarian prejudices. Stay open to new information and ideas, and allow learning to replace pontificating. It can be better for everyone.

David,

So fluid dynamics is your expertise. Which sci-fi book did you derive this from? You really want to proffer this as a viable energy source? Go forth and explain.

BTW, Thanks for the chuckle.

I did a google search and apparently there are some people who actually believe this.

I’m not at all sure what you mean by a “free floating” turbine not attached to the car…please elaborate.

I should warn you, in physics, nothing is “free”. How do you operate your superconductor? What about drag from turbine turbulence, and of course let’s not forget the ever present energy conversion losses and torque issues in a generator.

I always love the optimism of perpetual motion inventors.

I’m hoping at least you are referring to turbines mounted alongside or above freeways….at least that would make some sort of sense. There is the little side issue of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

actually, I meant the 1st law.

goo, research superconductor magnetism. It will help get abreast of cutting edge research. I am not here to be your teacher, only your guide.

It never ceases to amaze me how some are so quick to accept science fiction as reality. But then, I realize these are the same folks who deny a creator and explain the universe with a simple “big bang” theory. They never consider where all the matter comprising the big bang might have come from. Oh well, it was just there…and some day science will explain how something was created out of nothing.

These same folks have already explained how we can solve our energy crisis thru taxes, not drilling. And, they are at the head of the class in explaining how the democrat majority elected in 2006 have solved our problems.

Also, goo, you may want to research infra red spectrum nano antennas. They develop electrical current from infra red radiation. Think about the implications of capturing radiant energy for up to 4 hours after sunset and converting it to electrical current. Or, even absorbing body heat on summer days to power your cell phone or other low power gizmo currently operating on batteries harmful to our underground water systems and land fill areas for future generations.

Quantum mechanics, I might remind you defies the Newtonian laws of physics. The day scientists accepted the dual nature of light, the potential for breaking down the limitation of traditional laws of physics was thrown wide open.

Take for example the invisibilty technology resulting from new atoms found nowhere on the Periodic Chart because we are now creating matter that does not exist naturally in the universe. One such artificial substance being researched has the potential to bend light around itself and reform it intact on the other side of itself.

David,

Nice dodge.:)

Yeah, I love the invisibility headlines. We can now hide nano-objects, well sort of. Woo! Hoo! I mean those things were always so easy to spot. Time travel is also possible. Dream a little dream for me.

Yes, Goo, dodging becoming your teacher gratis was infact, well executed. I agree. Do the research next time before discrediting another’s comments from a position of ignorance, and you can avoid such effective dodges in the future.

BTW, invisibility technology is not headlines, it is fact based research already demonstrated. If you wish to continue to display your ignorance of such topics, that’s fine. But, I recommend googling the topic as a better course of action. Then you too, can speak from a position of informed authority in research, rather than from a position of uninfomed active ignoring of published reality and fact.

Jim M,

I love when someone doesn’t understand things like infinity and then explains it with a magical Voila!! God did it. Thanks. Who knew we didn’t need science.

I had a math teacher in seventh grade who told me infinity doesn’t exist. It’s impossible, she explained, to have a number be infinitely divisible, it would leave a hole in the number system.

I like it even more when someone doesn’t understand the concept of peak oil and thinks we can drill our way out of diminishing fossil fuels and the drain foreign oil has on our economy.

When was it the Republicans solved our problems? Oh, oops, they create problems. Sorry.

A lot of people mistake research for application, but at least their not quite into miracles, at the appropiate tithe of 10%, of course. Patent Pending.

Sorry David, I was still imagining those perpetual motion cars with floating turbines…..

and Tangerine skies…….

When you invent them I’m sure you’ll be rich, but take my advice, don’t invest in the company.

David, I have no doubt that marvelous things await the future, but the science of today is what those of us on earth have to deal with. Dreaming is important for inventors, and yes quantum physics is opening many doors that we don’t yet fully understand. For your information, my major in college was Physics. I keep up on technology fairly well.

The consequences of this so called invisibility are not a straight forward as you seem to think, and as to your cars….I don’t know any physicist who wouldn’t giggle a little.

Goo,
Nature has been using compost and dung to create warm moist air and supply the soil with the nutriants required to grow the foilage required by the Inhabitants of Earth for thousands of year, yet Mordern Man cannot explain through their Knowledge and Wisdom how and why that matters. So, are we to believe the Elders of the 70’s and say that it does not happen?

David,
Thanks, I working on a letter to Mr. Pickens that my help Goo and others understand why I believe in Americas’ Political System.

David,
So we understand each other. You cannot generate more energy than there is in a system within the system. A moving car does have kinetic energy created by the friction of the wheels on the pavement. It also looses energy thru the resistance of air turbulence. A superconductor would not reduce this friction. When traveling downhill the car would generate more energy than used by a motor to propel it forward. When climbing up a hill it could store some potential energy. The basics of thermodynamics applies here. You may capture a portion of the lost energy with a wind turbine, although the turbulence it creates may negate that, and that’s only one loss. The point is, the best you could ever do is to capture some loss and reduce the decay of energy. Perpetual Motion isn’t possible, not even with quantum mechanics, in this instance.
My physics 101 teacher taught us to look at energy to understand most physics problems. It keeps you from making silly blunders.

Henry,

Ok, Compost seems an appropriate subject.

The Elders of the 70’s…did they play at Woodstock? What did they say didn’t happen?

Goo, I am talking about actual research discussed on channel programs like SciQ and discovery channel, and in Scientific American.

If you want to remain ignorant by arguing the education you recieved years ago, fine. But, don’t accuse others who stay abreast of current research and techonological developments of anything based on your ignorance of what is in the body of research journals and readily available in scientific public programming on cutting edge research.

If you don’t know, it is rather foolish to flaunt it as you have here. Do the research, and then critique the research you find. But, denying the research exists when it does and is available for public review, is the height of arrogance and ignorance.

goog -

Just a little non-political question: what do you think of David Deutsch’s “Many-Worlds Interpretation”, or MWI? I understand Hawking agrees with it, and I think I read that Feynmann agreed, too (but I’m not sure of that last one). I understand that this is used to explain both the double-slit experiment and the impossibility of paradox.

As I understand the MWI theory, every time a quantum particle changes state, it changes to every possible state…but only one state per reality. Every other state exists in a new (or at least a different) reality.

What’s your opinion here? In case you’re wondering, I’ve written a story and I’m meeting with a writers’ group tomorrow for criticism - but I don’t think any of them are up on MWI or its implications. That’s why I wanted to hear what you thought of MWI.

David,

I guess my arrogance and ignorance are just too grounded in reality, and physical laws for some.

Glenn,

I do believe that there are likely dimensions or parallel realities that we cannot perceive and in that sense many realities may exist. There are many phenomena that point to this. But I will add this proviso. We don’t really know. We simply know there are incongruities in the data. The extrapolations of the mathematical models is highly subjective. I’m O.K. with waiting until something more conclusive comes along and simply knowing our understanding is incomplete.

I’m certainly no expert on these subjects, but I do read articles about these subjects and it certainly sparks one’s sense of wonder.

Goo,
Why you may want to read more than books of others Self-Knowledge and Wisdom. To deny the fact that Man does not have all the answers to the questions of the Universe is to go against the Ignorance claimed by the Elders of the 70’s you claim as your source of Wisdom. So, go buy a pinwheel at your local five and dime general store and get into a car. Than drive that car down the road above the speed of 35 mph and see if you can count the number of revolutions per minute. For if Man of Ancient Times understtod this Argument of Logic and Reason, I want to see the Learned of Society say they cannot grasp the Logic and Reason of My Personal Argument.

For I am sure that even Bill Nye does not want to get into a debate over the Knowledge of Nascar on Air Brakes (Flap on the Roof of a Car).

henry,

Somehow a beanie with a propeller on top seems more appropriate to this conversation.

For those interested in invisibility cloaks, I offer this link:

http://www.physorg.com/news137649366.html

The closing paragraphs are significant and often missing from mainstream publications.

While the researchers welcome these new developments in metamaterials at optical wavelengths, they also caution that they are still far off from invisibility cloaks and other applications that may capture the imagination. For instance, unlike the cloak made famous in the Harry Potter novels, the metamaterials described here are made of metal and are fragile. Developing a way to manufacture these materials on a large scale will also be a challenge, they said. Nevertheless, the researchers said achieving negative refraction in an optical wavelength with bulk metamaterials is an important milestone in the quest for such devices

Thus my comment about cloaking on a nanometer scale.

The knowledgeable comment in my opinion is this one:

The invisibility cloak is a tired headline to grab attention to a step-wise improvement. This particular step is more visible than glass.

The sub-wavelength microscopy is where the real juice is.

At least for a while, illegals will have to hide the old fashioned way.

At least the illegals haven’t figured out how to get ‘executive privilege’ yet - that’s the best invisibility cloak of all, ‘cause it comes with a ‘cone of silence’ included and can be used by anyone even if the president doesn’t know them! The only requirement is hyperactivity in the newly-discovered Rove/Cheney region of the hypothalamus.

Goo,
Thanks for proving my point. For why an Invisible Cloak was not even conceivable 40 years ago, it seems that the Scholars of Society have listened to folks like me. And why perfected to the stage of “Idiot Proof” I do believe that if you keep up with the technology one day soon Man may discover why light only shows up under certain conditions.

Or maybe, the Establishment already has the Knowledge and Wisdom to cloak a plane or a tank and like the F 117 is keeping it from the eyes of the public. For if I would of asked you in the Late 70’s if Stealth Planes existed in Mans’ Reality what would your answer have been?

No, I will not do the math or explain the existence of Knowledge and Wisdom beyond the Learned of Society. However, if you have access to a computer from MIT or NASA find out why a pinwheel may need a large surface area to get started in motion, but can maintain the same speed of rotation with very little surface area exposed to the direct wind. So, why America can keep its collective head in the sand and deny the fact that the Children of the 21st Century can build a Better World than their Parents. I do not believe that one learned such as yourself wants me to have to build you a car powered by the wind just to settle this debate. For I know that others learned in the Knowledge and Wisdom of Man will not be kind to you.

Actually, Henri, 40 years ago the road to nanotechnology was started in the development of computer chips. Electron microscopes had been developed. Stealth technology was also being developed as radar attenuation. My father worked on such things in the research department of the University of Dayton. Quantum Physics has been around since the 1920’s

It’s important to have the math to understand many of these concepts. These concepts exist because of the mathematics. It isn’t as arcane as many people think. It is as important now to understand the world around you as it was in the time of Socrates. Without that sound base of knowledge, people tend accept nonsense as equal to well known phenomena. You don’t have to become a physicist to have an appreciation of it. There are many well written lay books. I do think a good grasp of Newtonian mechanics is essential to understanding the world in a better light than Socrates did.

Understanding the science keeps one from believing that there are big secrets being kept from you. If you have a grasp of what is being discovered and what is possible, you are less gullible.

The difference between starting a pin wheel and keeping one moving, is the result of two Newtonian concepts. Static Friction and Sliding friction (which has a lower coefficient) and inertia.

I wish you luck on your quest to prove me wrong. I sincerely hope you make many discoveries. That is how we all learn.

goog -

You’re right that a good grasp of Newtonian mechanics is essential, but, for those of us who want to conceive the possible, so is a basic understanding of quantum physics; for as you know, Newtonian mechanics is to quantum physics as eighth-grade economics and geography is to doctorates in business and political science. Newtonian mechanics is fine for most people…but at its most basic level, some of Newton’s precepts are wrong - such as gravity, for instance.

As I said, you already know this. I’m sure I know less than I think I do…but I am aware of that probability.

If anything, the gist of where the discussion on this thread has gone should be on the need for a better educational system for the nation.

What ‘No Child Left Behind’ did was place unrealistic expectations on schools, punish them for not meeting those expectations, and then the Bush administration refused to provide funding where it has been promised to encourage greater achievement by the successful schools.

Instead of cutting education to the bloody bone as the Republicans seem to want to do, we should use a significant fraction of the half-trillion-dollar ‘defense’ budget and pay teachers what they’re worth.

After all, do you realize that what we’re spending in Iraq for just one month would fully fund four-year educations at premium Ivy League universities for a hundred thousand students?

THAT, sir, would go much further towards ensuring America’s long-term security than the Iraq war (as the G.I. Bill after WWII so eloquently proved).

goog says, “love when someone doesn’t understand things like infinity and then explains it with a magical Voila!! God did it. Thanks. Who knew we didn’t need science.”

Yes goog, I don’t understand infinity or where matter originated although why in the world you would love my not knowing is beyond me. Please explain to us uneducated your concept of infinity and where and how matter originated. Thanks! And by the way, I am curious why you believe I am cynical of science? Are all scientists atheists or just the good ones? Why are our politicians falling all over themselves proving they are not atheists if your position is so prevalent, informed and educated?

Jim M.

I am an atheist, because I think (in particular Christianity, since that is what I am most familiar with) that religion has been detrimental to education and progress.

While some argue it has a civilizing influence, I really think it has mostly been a means of control and power much like Machiavelli’s ideas.

I don’t think it is my place to tell anyone what to believe. I simply explain the way my mind sees things and let the chips fall where they may.

Earlier in my life, I was more hesitant to state this, but care less about what people think of me as I get older. I think the truth, as I see it, is more important.

I think infinity is a fairly intuitive concept, if you understand numbers and mathematics. I see mathematics as another language able to express ideas succinctly that words don’t always capture. It is a human trait to think about these things. I have some facility for it, though many are better at it than I. I don’t know where matter originates, nor does anyone else. I know it has properties that I can observe. Why does it have to originate?

I also play music because that is another facet of the human condition. I suck at it. Some find it easy and intuitive. Even though it is hard for me, I continue to work at it. It has value in itself for me.

I never said you were cynical of science. I dislike the illogical leap from I don’t know to God must have done it. It goes against man’s natural curiosity and defies analytical thought.

I think religion is imbued in children at a young age. It becomes part of their emotional make-up. The Jesuits understood this and expressed it in the famous “Give me a child until the age of seven, and I’ll give you the man”. It has little relationship to their analytical skills. I do think as people in the sciences grow older, they often do become more questioning of religious dogma.

Being an atheist in this country means many people see you as evil and an outcast. I think that is slowly changing, however.

Glenn,

I think being aware of what is happening in the world and having context and framework is essential to sanity and intelligence. It is why I come to Watchblog.

There is a wide variety of intellectual people here, and I learn from them all.

David has taught me a lot over the years that I’ve read his pieces, as I find your positions illuminating more recently. I could not do what he does. Sometimes I am a bit harsh and less accomodating than I’d like to be, but I always try to be sincere and have sense of humor about it.

Unfortunately math does not come easy to everyone.
Some musicians, like me, are Johnny One-note for a long time. Some musicians will tease the less adept, but most I’ve met are open to applauding small accomplishments.

It seems many mathematicians are less communicative and less accomodating. I think that is a big hindrance in this country. I would like to see math treated more as something desirable, romantic, and natural… like poetry or a suave raconteur. I think the way it is an Alpha male trait makes it more intimidating than it should be.

Goo,
Maybe someday the so-called Learned of Society will learn how to explain that which exists outside the Letters and Numbers of Man, but until than the old saying that if Man can concieve the idea than we can build it holds more Authority than the best proof of the day.

Otherwise, explain the advancements of Society over the last 100 years without assigning it a name given by the Scholars of Society. For why we say we see things using an Electron microscope, the Reality is that we see the pictures of program. For show me an atom or a cell with a naked eye. Or does Man say that they do not exist?

Yes, I hear your argument; however, it is not I that have to prove you wrong. Because if Society really wants a car powered by wind, than it is up to your Democratic and Republican Leadership to build not me.

Goog says, “I don’t know where matter originates, nor does anyone else. I know it has properties that I can observe. Why does it have to originate?”

Goog, I really appreciate your honest attempt to explain your cherished views. And the origin of the universe and matter has occupied the mind of man for centuries. My God-centered beliefs are simple and logical. The fact that the universe and matter do exists suggests a creator or creation event just as the fact that we have laws imply a lawgiver, or the fact that we have an electric light bulb implies an inventor.

As a mathematician, you understand relationships, cause and effect, and certain immutable laws of physics much better than I do. However, unlike you, I believe all came from the mind and action of God, and are not mere unexplainable and haphazard events. Which is easier to believe, matter and the universe came from nothing, or was created by God?

Some day Goog, we will all die. If my belief in a creator God who loves me is unfounded, what have I lost? Does my love of God make me a lessor person while alive, less able to think, deduce, examine, experiment, and love? Of course not. It does mean, for me, that I must try and live my life according to His written word, to love Him and my brother, the two great commandments. God loves us equally Goog, you just don’t accept His love at this point in your life and perhaps never will. That will be your loss.

Jim M,

If it works for you, who am I to tell you different?

I’m not a mathematician. I work in civil engineering.

If my belief in a creator God who loves me is unfounded, what have I lost? Does my love of God make me a lessor person while alive, less able to think, deduce, examine, experiment, and love?

It makes at least a portion of your life a lie.

But, again, I’m not here to say you are wrong. It is wrong for me. It’s a lie I cannot tell myself.