Vanagon EuroVan
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (March 2005, week 1)Back to main VANAGON pageJoin or leave VANAGON (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Sat, 5 Mar 2005 14:35:00 -0700
Reply-To:     Gnarlodious <gnarlodious@EARTHLINK.NET>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Gnarlodious <gnarlodious@EARTHLINK.NET>
Subject:      Re: A message from White House Spokesperson Scott McLellan:
              CAUTION POLITICAL CONTENT
In-Reply-To:  <422A1BBA.10701@adelphia.net>
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"

I can connect the dots and the big picture emerges. In a world of dwindling petroleum supplies controlling that supply and keeping us dependent on it equals political power. Therefore Jimmie Carter's ideas were a threat to the economic tyranny of Corporatism because it forced money to flow upward from the local producer.

Contrast that to "Trickle down economics" which is nothing more than a euphemism for Corporate Welfare.

That's why I burn biodiesel.

-- Gnarlie

Entity Marc Perdue uttered this profundity:

> I grant you that we were never promised cheap oil as a result of our > incursion into Iraq and its continued occupation. > As far as political parties whining when their candidates lose, they > both do the same thing. Remember when Clinton won and all of a sudden > everybody's sporting bumper stickers saying "Don't blame me. I voted for > Bush"? Waahh! Who cares? Neither party has offered up anything really > useful for making America the great place and great global citizen it > can and should be, with respect from the rest of our brethren throughout > the world. > Regarding the rest of your comments about energy, what a crock! During > the first Arab oil embargo in 1973, we were importing 6 million barrels > of oil a day. Over the course of the next 7 years, and through the next > Arab oil embargo in the late 70s, we reduced our energy consumption > through the development of more fuel efficient cars, incentives to > reduce energy consumption in the home through conservation, > weatherproofing, and newer, more efficient windows and energy consuming > appliances. Jimmy Carter developed and implemented a sane "National > Energy Plan" in 1977 that addressed national energy demand and supply > and proposed paths to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources. > He took a personal stance on the matter and had solar hot water panels > installed at the White House to reduce the cost of producing hot water. > It worked. We reduced our national energy consumption by, get this, *6 > million barrels of oil per day*! Then Reagan got in the White House, > dismantled the solar water heaters and the National Energy Plan and > implemented supply-side economics. As an economics major, at the time, > I understood what that new economic policy meant; it meant that if I had > money already, I could get rich during Reagan's tenure as president. > Unfortunately, like most Americans, I didn't have "disposable income" > that I could use to take advantage of that policy. The other thing that > resulted from his economic initiatives and other policies was an > increase in energy demand. That did NOT happen under Clinton, but under > Reagan and G. H. W. Bush, who, BTW, is an oilman. Does that not strike > anybody here as a conflict of interest? I didn't complete a major in > Economics; I designed an Interdisciplinary Major in Solar Engineering > that combined the disciplines of Economics, Engineering, Physics, and > Architecture. I spent 7 or 8 years after college on my own studying > various aspects of energy use and production, both renewable and > non-renewable forms of energy. I helped build and ran an ethanol fuel > plant for several years. Am I taking shots at things I don't > understand? Not likely. > Marc Perdue > Brian Hughes wrote: >> Gnarlie spoketh: >> >> >> >>> We spent 160 billion dollars in Iraq and the price of gas went UP? That's >>> not what I was promised! >>> >>> >> >> Get over it. Your party lost the House, the Senate and the White House. >> You were never promised cheap oil or cheap energy. The rising use of >> foreign energy started un Clinton. Now, if the "let's all scream together" >> political party that is becoming ever more unhelpful (and unelectable in the >> US) suddenly came to their senses and allowed a sane energy policy to be >> enacted, we wouldn't be in this mess. But it's easier to take shots about >> things we don't understand. Such is the cost of ignorance. >> >> Mondosubmerso >>


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main VANAGON page

Please note - During the past 17 years of operation, several gigabytes of Vanagon mail messages have been archived. Searching the entire collection will take up to five minutes to complete. Please be patient!


Return to the archives @ gerry.vanagon.com


The vanagon mailing list archives are copyright (c) 1994-2011, and may not be reproduced without the express written permission of the list administrators. Posting messages to this mailing list grants a license to the mailing list administrators to reproduce the message in a compilation, either printed or electronic. All compilations will be not-for-profit, with any excess proceeds going to the Vanagon mailing list.

Any profits from list compilations go exclusively towards the management and operation of the Vanagon mailing list and vanagon mailing list web site.