Re: Losing control of the fuel efficiency debate

The Iphone is a rather bad example since there most certainly were devices that do *everything* an Iphone can do years before the Iphone came out. Of course they were not produced / marketed by the great Apple so to the great Apple's loyal minions they didn't exist.

I guess you live in a different US than I do. Bush and Co. are total morons (as are all our current potential replacements), but during the past half dozen years:

My fuel costs have decreased My salary and bonuses have increased substantially My health insurance coverage has remained good and the cost has been relatively stable.

I don't really expect to ever be able to retire, but that is not a huge concern since I expect to drop dead at about 70 anyway.

While I don't have any grandchildren to worry about, the claimed "massive war debts" are no bigger than any of our previous wars which we recovered from financially just fine while also covering the costs of rebuilding the countries we blew up and/or defended.

I'd also be a lot more concerned with protecting my grandchildren from some insane theocracy (of any persuasion) than some mythical "war debt", since it's abundantly clear from all the examples around the world that Theocracy = Poverty for the masses.

So does corporatism which is what the Bush gang is *really* all about. The church leaders and their sheeple will be (already started) kicked to the curb like a one night stand when the corporate boys have the power they are after. Follow the money.

Problem #1: Too many people

Problem #2: How to increase fuel economy going forward:

Intelligent traffic light systems that know how many cars are passing through their intersection and relay that information to neighboring traffic lights for them to decide how to manage their own intersection. They learn traffic patterns for their own intersection over time, and can adjust immediately for drastic changes caused by construction or accidents.

Instead we have urban traffic management systems based on 1920's technology and ideology. Big deal that we have LED traffic lights.

(I had to strip a newsgroup from this post, so I chose to strip the ford group)

And they have to WANT to get better mileage. The CAFE can be increased tomorrow by using smaller engines, building smaller cars, but the buyers still want the performance of the 200+ hp sedan.

We can save oil by eliminating the Sunday drive, cruise ships, pleasure boats, snowmobiles, vacations, etc. It does not matter how much we gripe, as long as we continue to buy the same vehicles and willingly pay $3.50 a gallon, we are sending a message.

Very true, Ed. We are trying to reduce the total consumption of petroleum products because we are on a collision course with depleting American oil reserves.

We should be reducing consumption because our money is funding corruption and terrorism in Saudi Arabia, the country we should have invaded.

So you can afford to buy the gas for the boat? What boat?

WOW, good job! Witfall went silent on that one! I'm ready for anyone who will take the republiturds out of office.

Part of any politician's challenge surrounding this issue is that there are very few solutions left. The best solutions cause a kneejerk reaction among the stupidest members of the population.

Example: No more federal funding for widening or maintaining urban highways unless mass transportation has been developed as far as possible in a particular city. Some cities haven't even tried. Or, to put it another way: Sorry, folks, but you need to consider taking a train of a bus, even if it means you have to sit next to..you know...those kinds of people. The ones who clean hotel rooms and wash dishes in restaurants. The ones you'd rather not have to see.

How about improving the technology for getting the thick, dirty oil out of the ground in Oklahoma and Texas? Half of the oil ever there is still there, because it takes to much effort to get it out of the ground. And its full of sulphur. Improving the MPG of vehicles is only half the battle. And if the Iraq war WAS all about oil (which I believe it was), then those oil reserves will be sunk into industry, and the military forces protecting the oil fields, shipping lanes, pumping stations, etc etc etc. I think John Q Public is going to pay out the ying yang for gas, and will be driving the 4 wheel equivalent of a motor scooter in the near future. Gas at $20 a gallon sounds about right, what with the dollar in freefall and all. Good job BushCo!

I had the KR 200 when I was a kid. It was fun.

Mine was red.

ROFLMAO

Now that will solve the problem......

Elect Hillary.

She wants the government that can't take care of people that can't take care of themselves to take care of everyone....LOL

We're already being "taken care of". $3.29 a gallon yesterday.

She has you fooled. She is simply Corporate Mild. Same road, same destination, little slower speed and less mayhem along the way.

I can afford gas for a boat. I used to own a Triton, so the first thing I thought of was towing with an underpowered truck.

Not gonna happen.

You're getting off easy. $3.69.

The "no solution" rhetoric does nothing but lead those same stupid people. For some odd reason, the weak-minded are so easily led to vote for candidates who merely point out problems, but never offer solutions. As though some magic will occur to address the issues when they're fair-haired candidate takes office.

I remember Gore in 2000 ranting about how we "need" to address the problems in the public schools. This from a guy in that administration for eight years. What the hell did he or they do for the school system, for eight years, that left it with "needs"?

Some areas or states simply have no public systems to enable taking mass transit. In California, for example, it's common for people to live fifty or more miles of freeway away from home. They have no choice but to drive.