waitforufo

The water they drink, the air they breathe, the way their waste and trash are disposed of, the amount they recycle. No more crying indians on the side of the interstate. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4ozVMxzNAA) Those day-to-day measures of the environment. I don't care how many pictures they see of polar bears desperately clinging to an ice cube, they know that the environment that they personally live in is better and getting better still.

Okay then, back to Sarah Palin. When judging whether or not Palin is a good VP candidate, you have to look at issues that are important to large groups of people. To judge issues effectively each individual should set aside to last those issues that cause an artery to pop on their forehead. Obviously your atheism is very important to you. But face facts, almost every one who thinks that the words "under God" in our pledge or "In God We Trust" on our money are great violations of the first amendment to the constitution is already voting for Barack Obama. Have you ever met anyone who claimed they had a conversion experience because of words in our pledge or on our money? If you ask people what the words "In God We Trust" on our money means, most will say it means from all others we need cash. Great religious incite there. Ask the next stranger you speak to if they are interested in the history of how these words entered our pledge (Knights of Columbus) or were printed on our money (Civil War). They will likely think you are a Jehovah's Witness. Ask if they care if Palin knew the correct answer. This issue will not turn the election so don't blow a gasket over it. The 2006 Eagle Forum Gubernatorial Questionnaire Question 11) Are you offended by the phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance? Why or why not? Sarah Palin) Not on your life. If it was good enough for the founding fathers, its good enough for me and I’ll fight in defense of our Pledge of Allegiance. In my opinion, this is just a flip answer geared a pulling the chain of those that think these phrases are a big deal. Looks like it worked. The answer probably got her a lot of votes. Did you expect her to write a complete history on the origins of these phrases in this questionnaire? Abortion. Everyone all ready knows that this is a litmus test issue with both parties. Republicans pro-life, Democrats pro-choice. Bring this issue up with a swing voter and their eyes will glass over. They have heard about it forever. Most are actually smart enough to know if the Supreme Court throws out Roe v. Wade, that those old state laws that made it legal before Roe v. Wade will still be in effect or that their states will just pass laws making it legal. Perhaps with a few restrictions similar to our friends in Europe. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6235557.stm) Again, this issue will not turn the election. Teaching Creationism in public schools. (http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/story/8347904p-8243554c.html) Sarah Palin -- "I don't think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be part of the curriculum." She added that, if elected, she would not push the state Board of Education to add such creation-based alternatives to the state's required curriculum. So what is your beef? (Bascule - I have now, as promised, read all of iNow's citations. Happy? By the way I very much liked your post #114. Madison is one of my favorite original dads.) Guns. Americans love guns. See Madison and Jefferson. Big winner for McCain / Palin. Knocked up daughter. Just won the single mom swing vote. And all the moms and aunts of girls that get knocked up. Obama admitting his mother was 18 when he was born was just a bonus. Energy. Americans love consuming energy and hate spending money. Also in their lifetimes the environment has gotten nothing but better in any day-to-day measurable way. Palin a big winner for the McCain ticket.

So are you saying that most democrats are pandering or just your favorite christian democrat, Barack Obama? Wikipedia defines pandering as follows. Pandering may refer to: In politics, portrayal of one's views to fit in line with a certain crowd of voters the candidate is attempting to impress, when often, these are not the candidate's true beliefs. A candidate may engage in pandering out of desperation if s/he is already losing a race, or if polls taken prior to an election show others as being in the lead. I take a man for his word, but obviously you don't think too much of this Barack Obama fellow. Are you sure you are not a stelth John McCain supporter?

I did not say that I would not get to them eventually. I just did not have time at the moment. Also, the two I did check were so weak I just had to point it out. Thank you for correcting my homonym errors. iNow, Back to you're "In God We Trust" national motto issue. Me thinks you protest too much. Our founders did sign a document stating that the origin of our rights was the Creator. They also signed the document pledging fidelity to it with their sacred honor. By pledging with their sacred honor whey were inviting eternal damnation if they did not defend the document. So I do think there is strong evidence that they publicly trusted in God.

(I'm an patriot, and am confident in my views, so definetly had my bullshit detectors ringing pretty quickly in the above)

Perhaps you should read that quote again for yourself. What she is saying is that those in attendance should pray that the task our leaders are sending our service men and women on is in fact God's will. Her implication is that if the task is not God's will, it will fail. So I guess your favorite Christian, Barack Obama, prays that our leaders have no plan, but if they do have a plan that their plan is against God's will? Believing that you should sign up for the McCain campaign. Not even McCain has been quite that hard on Obama. By the way, your favorite Christian, Barack Obama, believes that God created all things seen and unseen, invisible and visible. I guess you're comfortable with that as well?

iNow I have not had a chance to look at all of your reverences but the two I did look at did not impress me much. First the book banning. Complete hearsay. One librarian said another librarian told her that the Palin asked a question about how to ban books. The original librarian could not be reached for comment. Again, any speech or bill where she promoted book banning? Second I watched the YouTube video. What she said was "we have to pray that there is a plan and that the plan is God's plan." How do you reconcile that quote with your comment "Did I mention that she supports … wars with Iraq because Jesus told us to?" Why should anyone pay attention to you if that is the best you can come up with.

We live in an adversarial society. It was created to function that way. Look at our three branches of government. Look at how our courts function. Look at our freedom of speech. We derive great benefits from the adversarial nature of our society. All views get heard. All costs get weighed. It's not always friendly but it forces all of us to consider the opinions of others. I have no problem with partisans. I have no problem with single issue voters/politicians getting their full rant on. Sometimes it takes that to be heard. Sometimes we are just not listening. I'm convinced that politics were much more partisan in the past. The difference today is that it is just not socially acceptable to hurt anyone's feelings under any conditions. I think the greater problem with our politics today is that our two main parties are both fractured coalitions of single issue voters. Step on any member of your own coalition and they boycott the voting booth or throw there vote to some no chance third party candidate. Examples? For Republicans it's pro-life, guns, property rights, taxes …. For Democrats it's pro-choice, environment, unions … Nothing gets done because both of the parties are paralyzed. Again, neither Democrats nor Republicans can afford to hurt any ones feelings within their coalitions or they will stay home an pout. So instead both political parties point at each other and say they are partisans, we need more reaching across the aisle.

She wants creationism taught alongside evolution Can you site a bill she supported or a speech she gave where she said creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools? She doesn't believe in man-made global warming Many people on Science Forums are in this camp. She frames the energy crisis as a purely economic one and not an environmental one, and thinks drilling more oil and coal will solve everything The energy crisis is an economic one and countries with poor economies pollute more than those with robust economies. She is against personal choice in matters of abortion Many Americans would like more restrictions on abortion. Most liberal western countries have more restrictions on abortion than the US. Name those that do not. She tries to ban books from libraries Can you site a bill she supported or a speech she gave where she said books should be band in libraries? Also what types of libraries? For example are all books appropriate for elementary school libraries? When people don't give her what she wants, she tries to leverage her power to get them fired. Are you really sure of this? Could these complaints just be sour grapes from incompetents she fired in Alaska. Most agree that she has put an end to a lot of corruption in Alaska. Perhaps some of those she purged are just looking to poison her well. She thinks our founding fathers decided to put "In God We Trust" on our money and also that they all said the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Can you site a speech or interview she gave where she said such things? In God We Trust is the official motto of the United States. Is ignorance of the origin of this motto really that big of a deal for you? Did I mention that she supports Intelligent Design and wars with Iraq because Jesus told us to? Can you site a speech or interview she gave where she said such things? Palin may turn out to be an incredibly strategic choice for VP. Lot of news minutes and headlines have focused on her since she was selected by McCain. Last night she proved to be quite an orator. If she can extemporize as well as she can give a prepared speech you could end up seeing a lot more of her. You may not like her opinions, but many Americans hold the same opinions.

I have to agree with ParanoiA regarding discouraging the ignorant vote. Compulsory voting inforced with fines would do just the opposite. I do believe that low voter turn out reflects the fact that most people who are ignorant politics & government know that they are ignorant and choose not to vote. Back to the tax issue. I have spoken to may people who think you should just never look at the big number on your pay stub. They think you should only look at the bottom line. Why pay attention to a make believe number? Everone I know who holds this position tends to have liberal views.

Only if you tried to aggressively inforce it criminally. I'm thinking of it more as a civics lesson. People often talk about how everyone should vote and how poor voter registration and voter turn out are. Going throug the process of paying taxes would make everone more engaged with the government.

I'm curious if anyone besides me feels that every able bodied adult should have to pay at least some minimum federal tax regardless of income. Let's say we set the minimum federal income tax at $10. Too high, how about $1.

The first Google search hit for Cobasys and I found this web site. http://www.cobasys.com/company/markets_served.shtml This page states they serve the transportation market… ---------------------------------------------- TRANSPORTATION Cobasys has the ability to produce and package energy storage systems using differentchemistries including NiMH and Li-Ion. NiMHax Energy storage system solutions for Transportation applications Plug-In Hybrid Electric Vehicles (PHEV) Hybrid Electric Vehicles (HEV) Electric Vehicles (EV) Heavy Duty Vehicles (HDV) ------------------------------------------------ So they claim to sell to the EV market. Also I am certain Cobasys would be in violation of anti trust laws if they refused to sell their products to electric vehicle manufacturers. That would be particularly true if they were selling batteries to all the markets listed on the web page provided. My guess is if you contacted them they would sell you any battery they manufacture. That's their business.

ParanoiA, CPL.Luke responded so well in his post #23 I have little to add. Perhaps I am a bit more optimistic than CPL.Luke in that I don't think the infrastructure obstacles are all that high. The basic electrical grid infrastructure exists, but we will have to provide the extra fuel for that grid when everyone plugs their car into it. This forum topic has discussed on several posts just how hard people, particularly in the auto industry are working to produce practical electrical vehicles. Yes, success will be very hard. Making the shift will be made more difficult by dropping or stable fuel prices as people make the transition. I just laugh out loud every time I here someone say practical electric vehicles are being held back by evil big corporations. Such vehicles would print money for anyone who provided them to the market. You also paint me as a pessimist. Not so. Capitalism constantly shows me an optimistic future. For example, this forum topic tells me that as energy prices increase, we will build more nuclear, solar, wind, hydro power plants and electrical vehicles will be there to fill much of the personal transportation gap. All that new infrastructure construction will pay people wages producing a prosperous future. Same with the construction of all those new electric vehicles. All sounds good to me. Also, I know Capitalism will bring it to me quicker than any bunch of governmental meddlers. Why? Because Capitalism rewards those people that perform all that really super duper hard work you mention.

Phi for All, Can you please provide a patent number for this super battery? iNow, GM is going broke. Do you really believe that they could produce a car that everone would want to buy, and nobody has, but somehow it is not in their business interest to build and sell such a car?

This locking up of technology with a patent is a myth. Anyone can go to http://patft.uspto.gov/, look up a patent, create exactly the invention described in that patent, build it, market it, and sell it. The person that owns the invention so patented, can then, if they choose, sue for damages. During court proceedings, in front of a jury, the inventor has to describe how they were damaged and the financial value of those damages. What jury is going to award Chevron damages for lost oil revenue because someone stole there battery invention? Now if Chevron was building the battery and marketing the battery for the same purpose, they would have real damages. But then they wouldn't be locking the technology up would they.

If the age is lowered, I hope it is done nationally. Idaho once had a drinking age of 19 while Washington had a drinking age of 21. This lead to a lot of DUI's issued, and drunk driving accidents on I-90 between Coeur d'Alene ID. and Spokane WA. Currently the driving age is only held to 21 nationally because federal highway funds will be withheld from states that have drinking ages below 21.

Washington State passed a similar law but hydroelectric cannot be considered renewable. Wind yes, Hydro no. Go figure.

The Southern US is also most impacted by US military and foreign policy. The following site, http://www.southernstudies.org/news/fs20050825.htm provides the following information (not sure how accurate it is.) *** The South provides a disproportionate share of the nation’s troops. An analysis of Department of Defense state reveals that 35% of the nation’s active-duty military personnel come from 13 Southern states. Of the top 15 states where those serving in the military are born, the South accounts for seven. *** The South especially dominant in stationing troops. 51% of active-duty U.S. military personnel based in the continental U.S. are stationed in the South. Four of the top states for stationing troops are in the South: Virginia, Texas, North Carolina and Georgia. *** The South has been the region most highly impacted by the loss of soldiers in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Of the U.S. troops that have died in Iraq, 38% were based in the South. 47% of those killed in Afghanistan were based in Southern states. *** Southern states draw a substantial share of military contracting and production. An analysis of prime defense contracts reveals that 32% of the contracts granted in 2005 have gone to companies operating in Southern states, led by states rich in defense production such as Virginia, Texas and Florida. *** Southern leaders play a critical role in promoting a unilateral and aggressive foreign policy. An analysis of voting records reveals the critical role played by the South’s Congressional delegation in promoting military investment and foreign wars. For example, in the latest scorecard by Peace Action, 58% of Southerners in the U.S. House and Senate scored in the bottom quarter of the peace group’s ratings on key votes for the Iraq war, arms sales, and support for the United Nations. When I lived in Atlanta, I found that southerners had strong support for the military regardless of race. This perhaps is another reason the democratic party has soft support in the south. Obama's Iraq withdrawal plans are quite likely another issue with the redneck set.

The purpose of books like Corsi's is to keep the public's attention focused on embarrassing moments in a candidate's life. The purpose of "Unfit for Command" was force or permit the media to show ad nauseam John Kerry's winter soldier testimony before congress and the Dick Cavitt debate with John O'Neill. How many times did people watch John Kerry say… "They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country." Did Kerry think the Genghis Khan reference would never come back to haunt him. Corsi's book made sure it did, and that it stuck. The video showed him ill kept, wearing a ragged uniform, yet still doing his best Thurston J. Howell, III imitation. Every time it was shown people remembered or were directly reminded about how poorly GI's returning from Vietnam were treated. At the same time GI's are fighting in Iraq. The purpose of "The Obama Nation" is to keep media attention focused on Wright. Every time this book comes up the media will be able to remind people how Obama compared Wright to his grandma in his now famous speech. In that compared to MLK speech he said that like his grandmother he could never abandon Wright. Then he did abandon him. This book provides media a reason to keep a focus on that event. You will see it time and again up to election day.

IEEE Spectrum has in interesting article on solar power which in part includes a discussion on grid parity. http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/aug08/6464 I would tend to believe IEEE on this subject over others. SkepticLance, I don't think it is bad that you are true to your handle, but perhaps you are a bit too pragmatic about solar power. Even if a few percent of grid power generation was from solar, it would be a significant contribution. Also, this seems to be one of the few topics that the all too common pessimists contributing to science forums can see a future with hope. Don't burst there small bubble. Perhaps it will grow

This resistance is generally referred to as Equivalent Series Resistance (ESR). See http://wiki.xtronics.com/index.php/Capacitors_and_ESR

Okay, I think you two (Pangloss and iNow) are misunderstanding me. Pangloss, I was not trying to suggest that the articles I posted supported my speculation regarding the NYT as the source of the Drudge the Op/Ed rejection story. iNow asked for articles that supported my position that the story was widely reported the same day the story broke on the Drudge Report. That is why I began that part of my post with "For iNow." iNow confirms that all but the LA Times story were available the same day, which is all that I said. I included the LA Times story because the LA Times properly attributed the original news break to the Drudge Report. The LA Times should give Drudge attribution even if they were independently working on this same story. That is simply good journalism from the LA Times. In my first post on this topic I ask if there was any evidence that McCain or is campaign went directly to Drudge. No one has provided such evidence. I suggested that perhaps the McCain campaign made the information widely available and the Drudge was just the first to report it. I still believe that could be the case. Since all of us are speculating about how this story became available let me suggest the following. Perhaps the McCain campaign has a news release email list. When the NYT rejected the Op/Ed they sent an email to all on that list expressing their frustration with the NYT along with a copy of the Op/Ed. Reputable news agencies (not Drudge) would still want to verify the story. This would mean contacting someone in the McCain office to make sure they really officially sent the email, and contacting the NYT to make sure they really did reject the Op/Ed. Most reputable news agencies (not Drudge) would want to make sure that the Op/Ed sent to them by the McCain campaign was really the one rejected by the NYT. All that verification takes time. Would Drudge wait until all that verification took place? I think not. Once Drudge did break the story, most good news agencies will want to provide more than a "me to" story. Second place is first looser. Providing more information than the news break takes time. Hence the other stories are a few hours later. Now let's further speculate. Say you’re the NYT and your phone starts ringing off the hook by news agencies around the country wanting to confirm the information they received in a McCain email. Perhaps you decide that this rejection, when reported by other media will make you look bad, so you go into damage control mode. Perhaps you think you could discredit the Op/Ed and McCain campaign by leaking the story to Drudge. Now if you leak the story to Drudge some, particularly NYT readers, will discount the story. The NYT readers will simply say "You know that Drudge guy is just a right wing hack… yada yada…" As I said, the above is speculation. Plausible speculation. As plausible as the McCain campaign went directly to Drudge.

Okay, but how do you know that someone at the NYT did not send the story to Drudge? Also, even if McCain or his campaign did decide to use the Drudge Report to get this story out, how is that a partisanship play? For iNow CNN Monday July 21 http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/21/mccain.nyt/?iref=mpstoryview Huffington post July 21 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/21/emnew-york-timesem-reject_n_114079.html LA Times July 22 http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-trailnyt22-2008jul22,0,2438754.story This one is interesting in that they say "as first reported on the Drudge Report." I see this as simply properly attributing the scoop to Drudge. Fox News July 21 http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/07/21/mccain-campaign-says-new-york-times-blocked-op-ed-response-to-obama/ Many more, just search Google "New York Times Rejects McCain"

Is there a major corporation today that doesn't have a credit card branch or affiliation? They all seem to make a significant portion of their revenue from credit cards. Then they have all those incentives to use their cards. Use your Costco Amex and get cash back and you can by their discount gasoline. Airlines give frequently flyer miles. And so on. How many credit card offers do you get in the mail? I have young adult children at home or just recently moved out, and between my children, wife, and myself, I must get at least two every day. Try to rent a car or stay at a hotel without a credit card. I'm in my late forties. I recall my parents sitting at the kitchen table debating if a purchase should be made on credit. Regardless of the necessity, I always got the impression that my parents felt that credit purchases were a moral failing. Good people didn't buy things on credit. This extended to their mortgage. I got the impression they felt like slaves to the bank. My parents kept there credit cards locked up at home for emergencies use only. My mom wrote checks. My dad always used cash. I do often use plastic, but I pay the bill in full at the end of every month.