...or, borrowing from your previous post, "a blunder of congresscritters"

While the "corruption of politicians" is brilliant, we need a better word than swarm for the candidates. It simply does not reflect negatively enough to accurately portray how I feel about most of the candidates. So put your mighty intellect to work and come up with a better word that accurately reflects their worth. I can only regret that there is not a specific word for the plural of rat, which simply adds an S. I don't think coven will work either as it does not separate out the so-called good witches, and craven, while it is quite accurate, is not a plural.

As to your bigger point, don't hold your breath. Few candidates have underlying beliefs that they will hold fast to and support. Instead they will sell their souls if they think it will get them one vote. Look at McCain for example. He was more than happy to sell out any belief in free speech because he thought it would enhance his political future.

I can vote for someone I disagree with provided I know that person has principles that he will not violate, but when there are no principles, I don't like voting for him even if I agree with his current position. Reagan was such a person, and before that you will have to go back to Truman. Ike didn't articulate his principles enough to say about him, but the rest are all the same. Sadly I don't see any Truman's or Reagan's in the current crop running.

Looks like your candidate has stepped forward:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010611.php

Looks like your candidate has stepped forward:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/010611.php

One needs to chose goals that are not only desirable, but achievable. Energy independence doesn't look achievable in the foreseeable future. Even with fusion, replacing oil derived fuels in the transportation sector will be hard. All of the non-oil based alternative fuels have serious scaling issues. Like displacing big chunks of food production.

M. Simon has been writing about fusion projects for some time, his favorite horse is the Bussard reactor which fuses hydrogen and boron-11 (the most common isotope of boron).

Btw, Capt. Ed reports that Rudy tried to fulfill your wish on a campaign stop in San Fran.

Great point. Energy independence need not be the goal. Striving for a substantial REDUCTION in current dependance would be a start. And the 9/11 Generation's greenie weenies (and there are a lot of them) will LOVE this too because it is "green" or at least "greener" than past policies AND they will throw in with the candidate who proposes to actually fight / face / beat down the evil of our time rather than declare defeat and retreat. Americans love a winner and they HATE losers. Let's not be losers.

As if on cue, Rudy G has taken your advice to heart...

Giuliani Says His Energy Plan Would Aid Planet, Fight Terror

Ending America's dependence on energy from abroad "would be a major factor in our being able to defuse dramatically the reach and the power of Islamic terrorism," the former mayor said.

[...] Mr. Giuliani backed ending the 26-year-old moratorium on new oil drilling off America's coasts. "We have to expand the use of the oil that's within our control," he said. "In environmentally sound ways, we should take advantage of that oil."

See:
http://www.nysun.com/article/58980?page_no=1

Great post! Great idea! My younger brother lives on the California Central Coast and pays practically nothing for his electricity bills, even in the winter when it gets pretty chilly there. Why? (after all, this is CA--everything costs a fortune) Nuclear energy!

Want some real class warfare? How about those who are fortunate enough to live close to a nuclear power plant and save hundreds or even thousands of dollars a year because their energy is so affordable and clean vs. the entire rest of the country! (If this is not the case around the country, please correct me! It has been my understanding that nuclear generated electricity is far more affordable than other means and this is passed onto consumers.) This could be an extremely successful issue if framed correctly!

Oh and as for the other thing...does anybody else like "a quagmire of candidates"? Admittedly, it is a stretch in usage, but it just feels right to me.

I'd prefer "quagmire of journalists", myself.

Re. your idea - long over due. Read Victor Davis Hanson on this subject sometime.

What else can we do? How about mandated efficiency standards for light bulbs? Increased CAFE standards? Maybe more solar research? Battery technology manhattan project? Mix and match some conservation stuff into a coherent, comprehensive package.

The point is to make this a comprehensive program aimed at moving us toward energy independence. I don't think we can drop our imported oil bill to zero, but we can reduce the price for imported oil significantly.

But please, no ethanol. Ye Gods that would be stupid.

Big D, why get the government involved at all? Mandated energy efficiency standards? You want to pay $10 a bulb? Besides, the vast majority of electricity doesn't even come from oil. Most electricity is generated by coal or natural gas.

The government doesn't need to waste taxpayer dollars monkeying with a commodity market. Energy has a certain market value. The market will determine when (and if) things like solar panels will become viable.

Open up for drilling to reduce oil prices (ie gasoline, not electricity) and let the market alone.

Oh easier said than done great lizard, although I agree with the premise. I do know from a recent visit to Fort Yukon, Alaska which is in the ANWR region that the local Native Americans are against drilling in that area or offshore in the Arctic Ocean. They are now aligned with an anti-drilling environmental group. That sentiment will be hard to overcome just as Mr. Kennedy’s opinion that his view will be impacted during his sailing has almost shutdown the development of off shore wind power in his state. And per congress drilling off Florida is off limits; however the Cubans have contracted the Chinese to do so in their portion of the sea off of the Keys. The reaction to Cuban crude washing up on the Florida beaches will be entertaining. Don’t even talk about drilling off the California coast since congress has exempted it. Its is so much better to have human waste flowing into the San Diego area from Mexico than the possibility of a spill from American oil wells. But there are 30 new nuclear power plants, the tested and very safe pebble bed design, being proposed mostly on existing sites that are licensed for additional units. And I can’t wait for the environmental impact discussions for recovering oil from our shale deposits.

The Chicago area BP proposed refinery shows the problems associated with constructing new facilities. One possible policy change could help in the short term alleviate the shortage of refining capability, and possibly lower the price of gasoline by easing distribution and production. We reportedly have 42 or more blends of gasoline being produced in this country to satisfy environmental concerns. We now have an artificial government mandated market which should be modified to allow one environmentally approved blend for the entire nation.

Some collective nouns I like for things political. A fretwork of candidates, an infestation of politicians, an implantation of elected officials, a fog of conservatives, a zephyr of liberals, a schism of libertarians, a torpor of Republicans and a bray of Democrats.

I am sympathetic to k2aggie07's point that the government should just leave the market alone and let it deal with the energy problem. But that said, from a political point of view a platform based on that policy would, to the bulk of the voters, be indistinguishable from a dictatorial government-sponsored energy program. The voters have so internalized the politicization of energy that that questions "Should we allow drilling for oil in ANWR?" and "Should we drill for oil in ANWR?" sound exactly the same.

They have finally started to drill in the Dakotas, high time.

They should drill in ANWR and build refineries as well. After all, without more refineries, the price of oil will stay higher simply because it can not be utilized.

And AMR, the Mexicans are human beings not human waste. This is exactly the kind of crap that helped the Democrats win. It is needlessly nasty and has nothing to do with the topic.

Fritz:

While the "corruption of politicians" is brilliant, we need a better word than swarm for the candidates.

It's not swarm, it's smarm. A smarm of candidates.

Terrye:

I suspect AMR literally meant "human waste," as in raw sewage dumped into the ocean without treatment. No need to assume he/she/it meant it metaphorically to mean illegal immigrants.

AMR, et al:

Naturally, all of this would require legislation; and the legislation would have to include "not withstanding any other law" language, to prevent projects being held up indefinitely by lawsuit after lawsuit over environmental impact statements and suchlike.

Whether it could be passed is open to question; but there is no question that a GOP candidate should take it up.

And no, Giuliani has not done as I suggest here. All the Republican candidates have some sort of energy-independence plan (as do the major Democratic candidates), and all more or less vaguely tie it into terrorism, as Giuliani does here.

But none has truly made the national-security case the core of the argument for energy independence. And I'm not even restricting it to energy; I want to see a Republican candidate say "the heart of my campaign is national security... and here is how that impacts --

• Military policy;
• Foreign aid;
• Energy independence;
• Immigration policy;
• Economic policy;
• Traditional American values;
• Communications policy;

...and so forth.

I want to see a comprehensive worldview, where at any point, you can stop the candidate in the middle of an interview, ask "how does this health-care policy you advocate relate to national security?" And he can immediately answer with a clear connection that everyone can follow.

It's really not that difficult: You must deduce your policies from your principles, rather than try to fudge some retroactive rationalization.

For example, that is why I did not mention anything about raising CAFE standards: National security means security for the American people, making their lives both safer and freer.

The only way to raise Corporate Average Fuel Economy is to build lighter and lighter cars... thus flimsier and flimsier. How does it help American security to slightly reduce our demand for gasoline -- while increasing the annual number of highway deaths? Soccer moms would not find that tradeoff particularly secure.

Too, putting a massive tax on gasoline to drive down demand would reduce our freedom to use cars... and freedom is an essential component of security (we're not just talking about bare survival). And such a tax would also cause huge price inflation for everything that must be trucked from one place to another... and security also means economic security.

But here is a good way to dramatically reduce demand for gasoline here while actually strengthening national security: Offer a huge X-prize to the first person, group, or company that demonstrates a workable high-temperature ceramic engine that can get more than 80 mpg (or whatever number you pick). The prize could be something really enticing, such as $1 billion, tax free.

It can only be good for national security for us to develop vehicles that have just as much power, are just as strong, yet get much better mileage via a technological advance.

Dafydd

Dafydd, my apologies for not doing a better job of proofreading my post this morning. While smarm does quite accurately reflect their behavior--that of ingratiating or servile flattery--it does not sufficiently convey the lack of moral character displayed by those seeking the White House. As for my mistyping, I can only plead I was in a hurry as I had to get ready to travel and take part in that American joy known as jury duty this morning and flat missed it.
I would add that if you could raise the level of integrity and honesty of the candidates somewhat, you would have the perfect word in smarm, but as it stands I still think that we need a word with a more negative connotation. Alas, the words that come to my mind, which would accurately reflect my views of said candidates, are not refined enough for the genteel readers of this blog.

If I misunderstood what AMR said, I apologize. I guess I have just heard that kind of thing of so many times here of late, that I jumped the gun. I guess.

But your point via energy is a good one.

Great Post! Drill, new refineres, experimental ethenol, whatever it takes to get us off of foreign oil and energy independent.

California to Fund Bussard Fusion

It appears the Governor of California may be leading the way to affordable Fusion power - in a 10 year time frame.

Quick - some one tell Rudy.

How about we just keep buying their oil till it's all gone, and then start drilling ANWR and working the Colorado oil shales. Ethanol is nothing but another farm subsidy, mostly for the benefit of Archer-Daniels-Midland, and it's already driving up the price of corn used for food all over the hemisphere. I am mightily pleased to see that the Governator has decided to put some money into Dr. Bussard's fusion experiments (M. Simon's link above), as the tokamak approach does not seem to be working out after years of trials.

M.Simon:

I don't know whether the Polywell reactor will work, but it illustrates a critical point regardless: The Arabs are one fundamental breakthrough away from eating sand sandwiches.

It doesn't much matter whether that breakthrough is a functioning Bussard Polywell fusion reactor, solar-power satellites, or ceramic automobile engines (in 20 years, we'll have all three).

Those whose only economy is decayed Jurrasic plant life are in the unenviable position of betting against American ingenuity.

Dafydd

It is difficult to understand how Dayfdd could miss an opportunity to explain the meaning of the swarm of Democrat Presidential candidates. First their are 8 and Santa has 8 reindeer. Santa identifies with giving presents to everybody and so do Democrats. But what if the number drops to seven. Well then there are Walt's 7 dwarfs, happy socialists. "The Magnificent Seven" you say. I don't think so.
But wait; 2 candidates were overheard whispering about reducing the number of candidates invited to the debates, 3 perhaps. Do the "3 Stooges" come to mind? "The 3 Muskateers"? You're kidding. Then 2, "Dumb And Dumber" maybe. Certainly not the "Dynamic Duo." Themes are important for Democrats because they can't reveal who they really are or they wouldn't get elected.

Terrye:

I wrote: Don’t even talk about drilling off the California coast since congress has exempted it. Its is so much better to have human waste flowing into the San Diego area from Mexico than the possibility of a spill from American oil wells.

Obvious you don’t know about the stream that crosses the border and carries the human waste from the million (said the report) of Mexicans who use the streets/stream as their sanitary drain. Some Americans are proposing that we build a sewage plant for them. A country with proven oil resources (15% of the US imports), gasoline prices slightly less than ours and a national monopoly on oil products at every level including filing stations. I guess it wouold be non-PC to complain about THAT actual pollution.

Er.

k2aggie07, I'm normally against government intervention. But the purpose in this case is to properly fight a war, and would therefore be justified.

As example, I'm against government sponsored research into solar cells, but I was in favor of the Manhattan project to end WWII. In this case government diddling may be warranted.

Dafydd - way off on CAFE standards. You talk about raising CAFE standards resulting in less safe cars, then in the next post talk about ceramic engines getting 80 mpg being 20 years away. Cognitive disconnect. The idea of raising CAFE standards and get those engines on the road in 10 years instead of 20.

I'd also add that an armored personnel carrier is safer than a minivan in the event of an accident, but the mileage sucks. So we make compromises. Big deal. I'd also say that a light car hitting a light car is much safer than light car hitting heavy car. So don't kid yourself, buying a big car transfers (in some measure) the risk to your life and limb to someone else.

How about the simplest solution of them all: A $1 per barrel tax on imported oil, increasing by $1 per year. Let the market sort out the rest of the details. Well, that and remove drilling restrictions, and standardize designs for quick nuclear power plant approval.

Daffyd,

You hit the nail on the head. These times call for strong leaders who give voice to the real issues and put forth the outline of a plan to deal with them. FDR also faced two profound problems during his administration - the Depression and, later, WWII. His campaign rhetoric and subsequent actions in response to the former, unfortunately, resulted in the practical removal of the 10th Amendment from the Constitution and a flood of ineffective and costly government programs.

Currently, national security is just as important an issue as the Depression was for FDR and one around which an effective campaign message can be built. But it has to emphasize, beyond the military's role, coordinating and incentivizing the private sector for enhanced security.

Another important, and broadly useful, campaign issue should be tax reform. Within that theme the candidate could discuss the third rail issue of the approaching bankruptcy of Medicaid and Social Security and their needed reform, the size and intrusiveness of the government tax and regulatory burdens and the real value and cost, or lack thereof, of public sector control of education and health.

I agree with Big D comments, especially that an excise tax on gasoline would depress demand. Although the use of the $1 per gallon revenue would have to be directly and transparently allocated for research and development of alternatives. The problem is how is a policy like that going to win a candidate any votes? All voters are not economics majors.

AMR:

I am sorry, I have heard Mexicans called so many names lately that I just took the wrong meaning from your words.

Hector:

I don't think it is fair to say that ethanol is just another subsidy. A subsidy is a deficiency payment, that it is the difference between market price and cost of production, the idea being to avoid shortages and maintain stable prices. If the prices go up then the subsidy goes down.

We have the problem now that people complain about subsidies because they say it keeps the third world poor by keeping prices down and they can not compete with the subsidies, if the prices go up then people complain it will cause higher food prices etc.

I was a farmer for years and it was my experience that consumers liked the market when there was a lot of something, but when that changed all of a sudden they were not so fond of capitalism.

I suppose we could just abandon the whole system and let the markets control agriculture all together, much the same way the market controls the price of oil.

Big D:

You begin by saying, "I'm normally against government intervention;" then you proceed to argue that, since the market is completely incapable of solving energy problems, we need the invisible foot of government to step in and fix everything.

We can tax ourselves into greater prosperity!

Your reasoning is very subtle; I shall have to ponder it a while...

You also seem to argue thus:

I'd also say that a light car hitting a light car is much safer than light car hitting heavy car. So don't kid yourself, buying a big car transfers (in some measure) the risk to your life and limb to someone else.

Therefore, we have a constitutional duty to put our kids' lives in danger by driving light cars, for if we drive heavy cars, the lives of kids whose parents decide to drive light cars may be endangered.

Ergo, we institutionalize altruism, the philosophy that teaches that a person should take food from his own starving child to give to the starving child of a stranger.

Interesting; I shall have to think on this some more...

JohnSal:

I agree with Big D comments, especially that an excise tax on gasoline would depress demand.

And a $10 per gallon tax would reduce it even more. Of course, all such taxes would disproportionately hurt lower-income people, distort the market, vastly increase inflation, and accumulate massive new funds for the government to spend (which it can do more wisely than those who create the wealth); but you can't make an omlet without breaking a few legs.

Another idea in this area would for the feds to set the price at which gasoline could be sold, as well as the wages that are paid people who work in the oil sector. Of course, to avoid unfairness, we would have to extend that to setting the price of every good and service and controlling the wage of every worker.

Sure, some people might say that Richard Nixon already tried this and failed; but that was back in the 1970s, and we're so much smarter now. Think of the earnings inequities -- the "wage gap" between office boy and CEO -- we could thereby overcome!

You know, I think we should approach this scientifically with a longer view: we need something like a five-year plan.

Dafydd

Terrye:

I'm inclined to think of the current ethanol program as a subsidy for big agribusiness, ADM is doubtless not the only beneficiary, because 1) gasoline producers are required to buy it. 2) there is a hefty tariff (51%) on imported ethanol, which is produced much more cheaply, and with less impact on the environment and food prices, from sugar cane, in Brazil and India. Here's a recent article on the food-fuel-fertilizer nexus. The author says:

Meanwhile, the U.S. government has yet to discover whether its 51-cent-per-gallon ethanol subsidy is efficiently stimulating production of the fuel. One thing the bureaucrats know for sure: It cost the U.S. Treasury $2.7 billion last year with possibly more subsidies on the way.

We need nukes, and we need oil. Some oil from Iraq would be good. Turning food crops into fuel, not so good, IMHO.

Oh boy, it's complicated. 51 cents (not percent, sorry) tax credit, 54 cents tariff. Here's another article:

When the energy bill reached the floor last month, Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., proposed an amendment to do away with the 54-cent tariff on ethanol from Brazil, where it is made cheaply from sugar cane. The U.S. would have more alternative fuel, cheaper gasoline and fewer greenhouse gas emissions, he said.

"This tax, and that is what it is, on American consumers on a product we should be using is totally inappropriate and cannot be justified on the basis of protecting a domestic industry, corn production, which is doing extraordinarily well," Gregg said, noting the recent doubling of corn prices.

The ethanol industry leapt into action. The Renewable Fuels Association warned in a letter signed by a half-dozen allies that lifting the tariff would let Brazil tap into the lifeblood of the American ethanol industry — government subsidies.

The letter said refiners in the U.S. get a 51-cent tax credit for every gallon of ethanol blended into gasoline — regardless of where that ethanol comes from. Congress imposed a roughly equivalent tariff "to prevent U.S. taxpayers from subsidizing foreign ethanol companies," the letter said.

In a procedural vote June 23, Gregg's amendment was crushed, 56-36.

Oops, forgot the link.

Oil demand will rise for another decade or so; then oil demand will simply collapse.

Just because you don't see the problem solution yet, does not mean it hasn't already happened. Mr. Reagan could for see the Communist collapse coming in a decade or so, but few others did in 1980.

Why do many see this happening?

Because petroleum is almost singularly dependent on but a single market. That market is fueling transportation. There just has been no adequate substitute for Ground transport and Air transport and few attractive ones for Maritime applications. (US Navy Nuclear, return to Coal, and Sail)

But product substitutions is gathering support due to the non-economic and cartelistic monopoly pricing in place off and mostly on, since the early 1970's.

Substitutes from electricity are gaining ground and now being produced in quantities approaching a million vehicles per annum. This Tsunami wave is building; it will be driven by cost per gallon equivalent of $.75 cents per gallon for electricity.

In addition, Efficiency gains of 25-40% in Transport applications cutting demand by that amount not including electricity substitution are occurring. When there is no longer a need for half the Maritime business to move massive quantities of hydrocarbons, maritime demand will decline by half as well.

Air transport applications do not have ready substitutes; but the composite technology incorporated in a new generation of civil aircraft such as the Boeing Dreamliner (787), will increase efficiency by 25%, cutting petroleum demand there as well.

Eventually a self limiting business, manufactured fossil substitutes, such as Bio ethanol, and Bio-diesel will displace an additional 10-15% or more of petroleum demand.

Nuclear electrical generation is returning with a vengeance. There are 251 nuclear Gen III+ plants building outside the USA; and 29 pending applications to build Nuclear generation plants in the USA. From zero to 29 applications,supplementing the 102 plants running today, in just the last two years, with more to follow, will remove the growth or demand for additional fossil coal electric generation too.

So its easy to see fossil and petroleum demand just collapse by the beginning of the 2020s.

When this happens so does the Energy crisis, the CO2 nonsense, if has not been scientifically buried by then;, and the End of the World hysteria of Oil Peakists. Fusion power will be coming on-line about then, and end the Energy problem permanently.

What will socialists scare us with then?

Dafydd

Re. the car issue - we regulate nearly every single aspect of driving except the weight of the vehicle. But the weight of the vehicle, or rather the disparity in weight between vehicles, is a significant factor in the severity in accidents. Of course down this road is all of us driving around in identical foam eggshells at a max speed of 25 mph. A joyless world I'm not sure I want to live in.

Again, we tax gasoline (no matter where it is produced) at 50 cents per gallon (money to be spent as politicians see fit), but a tax exclusive on imported oil would be...wrong? With the money devoted to say....nuclear plant research and permit streamlining? Come again?

The power to tax is the power to destroy, so why not use taxes (for once) for something good, to destroy demand for imported energy and permanently defund terrorist groups and rogue states? Want to overthrow Achmedinijad and Chavez without firing a shot? Defund and defang Hamas, Al Queda, and Hezbollah? This is how you do it. Terrorism costs money, an lot more money than you might think, and the main source of funds for these otherwise failed philosophies is oil.

As I see it, you do all sorts of things during a war (especially if you want to win)that you might not normally condone. Like fund massive research projects. Perform domestic spying. Control certain commodity prices. Heck, KILL and imprison people! But, by golly, new taxes are against your principals! Here you draw the line in the sand! This far and no further!

As I see it, we will win this thing no matter what. But reducing imported oil demand quickly will reduce the final butcher's bill. But that is the problem, really. We will win, we are winning, so we can afford the luxury of dragging this thing out.

What I see is everyone wanting to win the war on terror, but exclusively on their own terms. Dems want to win, but you know, without all the icky fighting and killing and imprisoning people. Repubs want to win, but you know, without having to make any sacrifices at home or looking too much like mean guys or Democrats.

Big D:

Again, we tax gasoline (no matter where it is produced) at 50 cents per gallon (money to be spent as politicians see fit), but a tax exclusive on imported oil would be...wrong?

Yes, because the specific purpose of your proposed tax is to interfere with the market: You don't like people's buying patterns; you'd prefer that everybody were forced to buy from domestic sources... or pay through the nose.

In fact, the most likely result would be that gasoline refineries and distributers would continue to buy foreign oil (since there isn't enough domestic production to meet needs) -- and would jack up the prices at the pump to maintain their profit... which is, after all, the only reason anyone gets into business in the first place. Say, that would make things better!

In the meanwhile, the Arabs would just preferentially sell to China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Europe -- places that don't put punitive tariffs on foreign oil.

What you suggest is exactly the same as when we used to put enormous tariffs on imported automobiles... to "protect" American iron, of course. Say, that worked so well to bring quality cars to American consumers at low prices, didn't it?

Markets are not so easily stymied; the collapse of Japan's "bubble" economy should teach us that, as well as our own experience.

With the money devoted to say....nuclear plant research and permit streamlining? Come again?

Oh, even better: Let's put Congress in charge of deciding whose nuclear research is most promising! I'm sure that Pat Leahy won't give an unfair advantage to research done in Vermont, and that Arlen Specter won't favor research facilities in Pennsylvania. No no, they'll allocate the billions upon untold billions of dollars in tax revenues strictly on the basis of actual scientific advance.

The power to tax is the power to destroy, so why not use taxes (for once) for something good, to destroy demand for imported energy and permanently defund terrorist groups and rogue states? Want to overthrow Achmedinijad and Chavez without firing a shot? Defund and defang Hamas, Al Queda, and Hezbollah? This is how you do it. Terrorism costs money, an lot more money than you might think, and the main source of funds for these otherwise failed philosophies is oil.

Oh for heaven's sake. You're giving me the "terrorists need oil money" lecture? Did you even read this post?

The problem with your scheme to tax us into victory is that what you really end up doing is devastating the national economy -- which, incidently, would drive anti-war sentiment to staggering levels, probably resulting in veto-proof majorities in both houses to shut down the war. I assume this is not what you want.

Instead of trying to out-Roosevelt Roosevelt, why don't we play to America's strength's, instead of our weaknesses? We have had only bad experiences with punitive tariffs; we have had mostly good experiences relying upon Yankee ingenuity. Let's play to our strengths, not Europe's.

Like fund massive research projects.

If you're talking about a huge scientific breakthrough that you must have in just a few years, that might make sense. But we already know the science behind drilling for oil; we even know the science behind ceramic engines -- we're only wanting the engineering details.

This is the kind of applied research that private companies do much better than the federal or state government: Let's offer an X-prize, instead of putting Congress in charge of engine research.

But, by golly, new taxes are against your principals!

No, Ace; new taxes whose entire purpose is to preempt the market and create a National Department of Innovation, run by our own version of Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, to do all the inventing for us.

What I see is everyone wanting to win the war on terror, but exclusively on their own terms. Dems want to win, but you know, without all the icky fighting and killing and imprisoning people. Repubs want to win, but you know, without having to make any sacrifices at home or looking too much like mean guys or Democrats.

And Big D wants to win... but only if he also gets to nationalize American industry and put all scientific decision-making in the hands of the people who currently believe that global warming is the gravest threat the United States of America has ever faced.

Thanks but no thanks; there are better ways to win this war.

Dafydd

Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)