Prius gets 100 MPG

Well, that's true; and one has the potential for learning even more when surrounded by bright people. OTOH, one can learn even when surrounded by not-so-bright ones - how *not* to do things.

Cathy

And where will the green come from to pay for Bloomberg's green-mandated construction? It makes good economic sense to build new buildings to be as cost efficient as possible. But don't stifle inventiveness by mandating a certain type of construction. Let the market place decide how much and what kind of green makes good economic sense. You will end up with what you want, you just won't be able to feel good about making someone do as you wish.

Don't ask me, ask the enviro-nuts in California. Why won't they let power generating companies build new plants? I don't know, their stated reasons don't make sense. The coal industry has built pilot generating plants that run cleaner than the EPA requires but the EPA still won't issue permits to build new plants.

Maybe it's something to do with the enviro-nuts having very deep pockets for lawyers and law suits but being destitute when it comes to funding research to find ways to do what needs to be done to keep the lights on.

Jack

Good plan, but things like "global warming" are scams.

I don't equate living on earth with destroying it.

I don't think we have to go back to the caves to avoid destroying it.

I'm all for that.

I hate fossil fuel burning, for example, not because I hold "global warming" as my religion, but because I see pollution as the initiation of force against others.

I'd love to find clean alternatives to fossil burning, but it seems that the same people who claim to be with me on this, also don't want to allow any viable alternatives, like safe clean nuclear, for example.

difference.

ourselves

I can't argue with you on that, you're right on.

Translation: You disagree with me, so you use personal attacks.

It could be argued that it was unnecessary to become involved in WWI, which led to WWII.

Germany took about 12 years to pacify after WWII.

Hindsight being 20/20 you're right about Iraq, but let me remind you that all the Democrats agreed on the necessity when they approved the war, and all our allied intel agencies agreed.

Personally at the time, I agreed that Saddam was a threat, but figured a $2 bullet could have done the job a lot easier and cheaper than an invasion.

But our past administrations outlawed that kind of regime change strategy.

Aside from the fact that my comment was satire? :)

Why should we foot the bill to defend countries that have become rich in the last 60 years, and don't want to pay to defend themselves?

There was the small matter of the invasion from China and N Korea?

It was a global response at the time, I understand. ( U.N.? )

If it costs too much, there won't be any buyers, duh!

Is it your contention that you know better what people need than they do? Do you have some magic instruction book that is always right?

Build a house that is completely independent of the power grid that costs $2,000.00 per square foot and you will find out that people DO care.

Cheaper or easier?

snip

I wouldn't say global. China was definitely not in favor of the UN action (That island nation to the East of China was a Security Council member at the time, IIRC) . And, IIRC, the Soviet Union wasn't in favor, but learned a lesson about abstaining in Security Council votes.

So it was a multinational response, but not a truly global response. And while Japan was a major staging area for the US and presumably other UN forces, it did not send troops, I think because of the Japanese laws that the US made them put in place about about military action outside Japan.

Jeff

Jeff

Sadly, you're mistaken. There is plenty of evidence to back global warming.

You can read more about it here:

Jeff

We can do better at doing things in ways that work with the planet instead of against the planet. Options exist or are waiting to be discovered. The trick is to put them into practice. Tomes

Some politicians say that, but scientists know better (as usual) and will tell you there's about 30-35C worth of global warming.

Iraq is Bush's fault and only Bush's fault, unlike the other wars, which were the faults of the fascists and communists. Our occupation of Japan, Germany, and Korea has lasted so long because it's a remnant of our fight against communism, but now it's mostly just a strategic military advantage.q

Liberals have actually protested our continued occupations of Japan, Germany, and Korea, and, in the case of South Korea, many of the protests were aimed against our support of their dictatorship, a dictatorship that consisted of, amazingly, the Koreans who cooperated with the Japanese fascists in WWII and fought on their side against the Allies.

That is an amazingly ignorant statement. We were so involved that we created modern, liberal, and free Japan and Germany.

I'm with you, as long as we can survive, and hopefully prosper economically while we do it. Win-win.

I'm not with the humanity haters who don't think that I have as much right to live in this world as the caribou.

Japan was run by a military cult that may have been more pervasive than the Nazi party had been in Germany, and General Douglas MacArthur knew Japan had to be radically changed and its warrior ways diverted into commerce and pacifism. There was simply no way Japan could have been allowed involvement in the Korean war so soon after WWII without stirring up that fascism again, not even under the leadership of Japan's anti-fascist prime minister, Yoshida. It's also likely the responses from China and the Soviet Union would have been much more severe if their historical and just-defeated enemy, Japan, had gone into Korea.

LOL!

Back in the 70's I was reading Omni Magazine, and they claimed that just

2 degrees of GW would cause the oceans to rise 300 feet above present sea levels, wiping out half the global population. ( demagogue Al Gore's scenario )

Now they say it will be 10 inches in the next 100 years. Some people even say global cooling is starting.

Whatever...

But like I said, I'm all for a cleaner environment, and electric cars were feasible years ago and were killed off.

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them." - President Clinton, State Of The Union Speech, Jan. 27, 1998.

"What if [Saddam] fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? ... Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal." - president Bill Clinton, 1998.

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of an ilicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." ? Former Klan Grand Dragon Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years .. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10,

2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members.. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

They had access to the same intel briefings that Bush did. Get it?