Pangloss

I think that's actually been discussed in the past. I believe the consensus is that it's too expensive with current technology, but it's possible that the advent of private, commercial space development could produce a reasonable avenue in the not-too-distant future. Of course low earth orbit isn't enough here -- obviously you'd prefer to do something more along the lines of tossing it into the sun. Note that the key here is not so much what the cost of solar-dumping, but rather the cost of solar-dumping as compared with the cost of current dumping, which of course is fairly expensive compared with something like normal trash, since you have to build containment vessals and monitor seepage over time, etc.

Sure, but I think that's the *existing* history. Gas has been cheap up until fairly recently, and it's hard to imagine automobile traffic exploding even faster than it has. But the air hasn't gotten dirtier, it's gotten cleaner. (Mind you, I'm not saying it's clean now, or that we shouldn't improve it further, so please don't read a Rush Limbaugh argument into my post here.) The point is that it didn't get cleaner because of flucuations in gas prices. It got cleaner because people got tired of air pollution and demanded that something be done about it. So in the 1970s, even though gas prices were going up, the EPA was created, and emissions standards were set. So it doesn't stand to reason that lower gas prices would result in higher air pollution, or greater overall damage to the ecology. It's reasonable to speculate in a push in that direction, but as I've just demonstrated, we already had a push in that direction, and we did something about it. There's no reason to think that people would sit idly by and let it happen, unless someone can give me a reason why people would do that. Put another way, the premise of Ecoli's argument is that higher gas prices equals cleaner air. I think that premise is flawed. If anything the current situation is proof -- gas today is three times what it was 30 years ago, and consumption isn't decreasing or even leveling off -- it's increasing. But hey, if you can tell me how cheap gas is more pollutive than expensive gas, when people are consuming the same amount of expensive gas or more, then hey, I'm all ears.

The US was self-sufficient until the 1970s. It's still the one of the largest oil producing nations (fourth?). Since consumption and production have both gone up, and the environment has improved, the above statement is not logical. In fact arguably our coal consumption would be less in that scenario, which would cause an improvement in the environment. And automobile consumption would be exactly the same as it is now, which is what causes most air pollution. (I.E. the actual drilling of oil doesn't cause the air pollution.) But your last sentence seems logical enough.

If you're looking for a reference on the history of the oil industry and how each generation has viewed the future and what dangers it contains, I recommend Daniel Yergin's "The Prize".

Running out the door at the moment but I appreciate the reply and clarification Jim. I hope I wasn't too stern above. I'll drop by later on.

I don't think he's proven anything, Jim, I think he's made an interesting point which I happen to agree with. It strikes me as something that's "demonstrable" in the sense that we're seeing aspects of it right here in this thread, and it's "foundational" in the sense that it's an underlying thing rather than a surface, superficial thing (i.e. that all human beings make faith-derived logical errors, even scientists and atheists). Please don't shoot the messenger.

I don't know of any other examples of Iran playing the politics game better than the US recently. Nor does that refute my point. If you like I'd be more than happy to give you examples of other countries that have, which would support my statement. Please tell me you're not deliberately misconstruing my point. I'm going to be very disappointed if you did that on purpose. That's a Rush Limbaugh or RevPrez thing to do, not a Jim thing to do.

This is the second time in two threads that you've questioned my statements of opinion based on an inaccurate assumption, and you're making me increasingly uncomfortable here.

I don't understand your question. Depending on how I parse that, I seem to have either answered it already in my earlier post, or it seems like you're asking me to defend something I haven't claimed. Maybe I'm just not following you, though.

"We hold this truth to be self-evident, that all men were created equal."

I actually agree with this point, but this is actually a perfect opportunity to me to refresh the underlying subject of this thread, which is realpolitiks. It's important to keep in mind that we didn't just beam down from a spaceship in 2003. Iran has been intimately familiar with US foreign policy as a primary and central point of focus for all of their government policy-making decisions (foreign and domestic) for nearly three decades. They probably understand the motivations and goals of US foreign policy better than our somewhat scatterbrained State Department does, at least in terms of how it pertains to them. So this is actually a perfect example of what I meant by the "realpolitiks" of Iran -- the fact that many foreign governments, such as Iran, "play the politics game" a LOT better than the US does these days. They've made a huge investment not only in nuclear technology, but in a protective infrastructure, as well as socio-political analysis. We're only just now coming to see the fruition of a project that probably dates back most of that three decades. It's quite a coup, really. They've completely bearded the lion. Heck, Tom Clancy's probably irate for not having thought of it himself.

Altruism by force is not altruism, IMM. Don't volunteer my tax money for your personal socialist projects. Yeesh! ;-) But serially, we already DO take in millions of "refugees" and provide them with comfort and sanctuary. I'm not sure what we would do with half a billion Africans suddenly showing up on our doorstep. "I will work harder," said Boxer.

Well there's certainly nothing wrong with making suggestions. I'm not sure if you're really training them to be good presidents, or just training them to be good at public speaking and debate.

Well doggon it, I remain unilaterally opposed to people who are unilaterally opposed to things! So there! (grin)

I think if you limit the lessons you allow yourself to learn from history to exact representations only, then you'll never learn the lessons of history at all.

Hmm... so the act of leaving the state with the intent to murder would constitute the local crime. Interesting.

Agreed.

Gonna have to agree to disagree with you on that one, but I respect your opinion on it.

I don't mean to speak so definitively, by the way, it's just been a rapidly developing conversation. I don't pretend to be a lawyer and I certainly wouldn't place a bet on anything I've said in this thread. (grin)

"Conspiracy to commit murder" isn't a crime. The crime is "conspiracy to commit a crime". Murdering Oklahomans (in Oklahoma) is not a crime in Florida.

The federal domain over interstate commerce is pretty well grounded, Jim. It's Article 1 material, guy. I don't see this as having much to do with commerce myself, but maybe that's just me.