Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Scott Hedrick" wrote:

:"jonathan" wrote in message
...
:But the National Guard is just to
: put pressure on Sensenbrenner to compromise with the
: Senate on the immigration bill. Nothing else.
:
:It's Bush's perogative. If the National Guard is going to be there, then
it
:should be able to take action. Essentially, they will be acting as
:Federalized Minutemen.

Once they're 'federalized' they no longer have legal standing to take
action. That would be using Federal troops for law enforcement
duties, which is illegal.

That is why I referred to them as Federalized Minutemen- the Minutemen do no
more than stand and watch, contrary to what some would have you think.

IF the National Guard were limited to patrol duties, except when
specifically called in to assist by the Border Patrol, I don't have a
problem with it. As inefficient as it is, they should *not* be allowed to
initiate any action other than observation and tracking without the
immediate presence of the Border Patrol.

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...
And we'd be figuring out ways to conserve, which would actually help
decrease demand in the long run.

WHich we should be doing anyway, even if gas were fifty cents a gallon, or
even free.

I find the concept of putting motor oil in an oil-derived can amusing. And
wasteful.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...
But unless it had X-ray vision it couldn't see that day my pants fell down
while I was standing at the WalMart checkout line.

Thereby making all the ladies swoon...

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
:: :
:: :: "jonathan" wrote in message
:: :: . ..
:: :: Don't get too upset, Bush managed to push it off the front page with
:: :: his 'emergency' deployment of National Guard troops to the
:: :: Mexican border. Whew! I sure hope they get there in time.
:: :
:: :: It's about time.
:: :
:: :: I wonder what he'll do with the troops just before the next election?
:: :
:: :: Whatever he deems necessary as Commander in Chief. Thank God the voters were
:: :: intelligent enough to not let Kerry be President.
:: :
:: :Given W's performance thus far, Kerry would undoubtedly have done better.
:: :Surely we wouldn't be pay $3 for a gallon of gas.
:
:: No, we wouldn't. We'd be paying $6 for a gallon of gas.
:
:We'd be using the overly large reserve that W won't touch due to the fact
:that he's owned by Big Oil. Kerry isn't and would use the reserve to
ffset the high profit margins the gas companies are now enjoying.

Except it wouldn't. All it would do is perhaps provide a momentary
blip, at which point you have to REFILL that Reserve again. It's not
'overly large', you see.

:Even the smart Republicans realize Bush isn't great. Too bad you're
:blinded by party.

What's too bad is that folks like you are unable to realize that "I
Hate Bush And So Should You" simply isn't a convincing argument, much
less a good policy prescription for what you'd change.

By all means, you keep it up. It pretty much guarantees that you'll
be singing the same song in 2009 that you're singing right now, with
only the names changed.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
:: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
:: :
:: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:
:: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
:: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
:
:Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
:taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.

You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
this one, right?

:: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:
:No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
:it's a new concept for you.

The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Tue, 23 May 2006 14:22:58 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
McCall made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

:Caring about gas mileage does decrease demand.

But only if it lasts for a relatively long time. Decreased demand due
to gas mileage tends to be a very laggy phenomenon, since people don't
immediately throw away their cars and rush out to buy new ones.

:Six bucks a gallon
:would have the economy seriously in the tank.

Why do you think that? Prices in Britain are currently over $7/gallon
and they don't seem to be "seriously in the tank".

Because they're long used to it, and have much more fuel-efficient
vehicles. They're past the lag that you note above. And much of
Europe's economy is in fact in the tank (though not just because of
high fuel prices).

It's more like they have a tiny little country, and a relatively static
population.
In Englandland, it takes about 2 hours at most to drive from East Coast to
West Coast, and 10-12 hours to cover the distance N-S. (Including
Scotland)
With a higher level of built-up areas, and a much more urban population,
combined with the very short stage lengths, Rail travel is more or less
economically viable,
(It's one of the reasons that the Brits were never, ever able to build a
world-beating airliner, or a long-range fighter.)
Since the same situation pertains on the Continent, with the exception of
the Former Soviet Union, (Which is much too big) you're dealing with an
entirely different population and transportation model.
Driving in Europe is a luxury for the Leisure Class to enjoy, not the
necessity it is here.

I do agree with you about European economic performance. My key index is
Battery sales. (Used to be in the Battery Business, and people with spare
dosh buy things that tend to have batteries in them. European market
growth in that area has underperformed projections by about 30-50% since
the mid 1990s. China, on the other hand... (Of course, it's easy to spot
up 10% growth, when it's 10% of a fairly small number)

--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion

"Scott Hedrick" wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
:
: :"jonathan" wrote in message
: ...
: :But the National Guard is just to
: : put pressure on Sensenbrenner to compromise with the
: : Senate on the immigration bill. Nothing else.
: :
: :It's Bush's perogative. If the National Guard is going to be there, then
: it
: :should be able to take action. Essentially, they will be acting as
: :Federalized Minutemen.
:
: Once they're 'federalized' they no longer have legal standing to take
: action. That would be using Federal troops for law enforcement
: duties, which is illegal.
:
:That is why I referred to them as Federalized Minutemen- the Minutemen do no
:more than stand and watch, contrary to what some would have you think.

You're confused. They wouldn't be 'federalized' for this duty.

:IF the National Guard were limited to patrol duties, except when
:specifically called in to assist by the Border Patrol, I don't have a
roblem with it.

Except if they were Federalized they would not be permitted to assist
the Border Patrol, called upon or not.

:As inefficient as it is, they should *not* be allowed to
:initiate any action other than observation and tracking without the
:immediate presence of the Border Patrol.

And why is that?

--
"Then tomorrow we may all be dead. But how is that different
from every other day?"
-- Morpheus

On Tue, 23 May 2006 19:42:38 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Regardless of the timeline, it doesn't affect my main point: that US
ratification of Kyoto would require gasoline taxes to be raised to
European-style levels. Thus either a Gore victory in 2000, or a Kerry
victory in 2004, would have resulted in gasoline prices in the US being
higher now, not lower.

Seems like the bigger issue is whether the US ratifying Kyoto might
help the planet. I don't mind paying higher gas taxes, if there is a tangible
return. I'm not too excited about paying higher prices and seeing oil
companies recording record profits.

The irony is that the people in the US most likely to be complaining
loudest about how Bush drove up the price of gasoline are also the most
likely to favor Kyoto.

How exactly is it alleged that Bush drove up gas prices? Seems to me
increased demand (particularly from China) is doing that. Bush just isn't
doing much in response. Gas taxes may be high in Europe and Japan,
but they also have excellent alternative transportation (well developed
rail networks). Probably financed in large part by gas taxes. Many people
in much of the US have no alternative but to drive. On the bright side, the
Hummer has been downsized...

Dale

Stuck in the middle again

On Wed, 24 May 2006 00:15:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, Dale
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to
indicate that:

On Tue, 23 May 2006 19:42:38 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

Regardless of the timeline, it doesn't affect my main point: that US
ratification of Kyoto would require gasoline taxes to be raised to
European-style levels. Thus either a Gore victory in 2000, or a Kerry
victory in 2004, would have resulted in gasoline prices in the US being
higher now, not lower.

Seems like the bigger issue is whether the US ratifying Kyoto might
help the planet.

No particular reason to think it would.

I don't mind paying higher gas taxes, if there is a tangible
return. I'm not too excited about paying higher prices and seeing oil
companies recording record profits.

So they should be losing money? They make record profits because they
have record demand. What is the appropriate profit level, Commissar?

Dale wrote in
:

On Tue, 23 May 2006 19:42:38 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

Regardless of the timeline, it doesn't affect my main point: that US
ratification of Kyoto would require gasoline taxes to be raised to
European-style levels. Thus either a Gore victory in 2000, or a Kerry
victory in 2004, would have resulted in gasoline prices in the US
being higher now, not lower.

Seems like the bigger issue is whether the US ratifying Kyoto might
help the planet. I don't mind paying higher gas taxes, if there is a
tangible return. I'm not too excited about paying higher prices and
seeing oil companies recording record profits.

Independent of whether ratifying Kyoto will actually help, accepting (for
the sake of argument) that it will...

If you're really concerned about helping the planet, you shouldn't care
where the money goes. The purpose of the gas tax is to depress demand,
not to raise revenue. From a supply/demand point of view, the market
doesn't care where the money goes; a given price point (whether it goes
to a gas tax or the oil companies) will result in a given amount of
reduction in demand.

To put it more crudely, if I'm getting raped at the pump, the identity of
the rapist doesn't particularly matter to me. Oil companies may be making
record profits but their actual profit margins are actually quite slim,
less than 10%. Compare that to Microsoft some time...

The irony is that the people in the US most likely to be complaining
loudest about how Bush drove up the price of gasoline are also the
most likely to favor Kyoto.

How exactly is it alleged that Bush drove up gas prices? Seems to me
increased demand (particularly from China) is doing that.

The rational people have already noticed that. :-)

Gas taxes may be high in Europe and
Japan, but they also have excellent alternative transportation (well
developed rail networks). Probably financed in large part by gas
taxes. Many people in much of the US have no alternative but to drive.

Right. The solutions that work for Europe won't necessarily work here,
due to the large area and low population density of the US. I somehow
doubt Europe funded their entire public transit system with gas taxes;
their consumption was lower than ours to begin with so their gas taxes
are probably not a big source of revenue for them.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.