Politics vs. Reality.

[FoolKiller]

My feeling is that this thread has drifted off-track into some-what personal attacks on how members word their posts instead of discussing the underlying issue of the danger or non-danger of oil spills from offshore drilling. Or the second issue (and less important) about politician's use of simplistic slogans during the discussion of complex issues (whether the issue is offshore drilling or any other).

Well, at one point the conversation did begin discussing energy policy. Biggles was not a part of that.

But he did begin making excuses, blaming Republicans, for why President Obama signed off on plans to expand off-shore drilling.

 

[Dotini]

I ran into this at another forum this morning:

"Pastor Lindsey Williams, who has been telling the world for years that oil is abiotic in origin, was on the radio last night, and says he believes that they drilled into a region where the oil pressure was way above anything previously encountered, and this blew out all their safety equipment, but I don't see any info on actual values.
I think they will have to use the 'nuke' option eventually, seems the Russians have used the method a number of times to seal blowouts. And the USA has no shortage of unused nukes..."

I have no idea of its validity, but if true it could change the situation from an industrial accident towards something akin to what Texas Governor Rick Parry called "an act of God".

The idea of abiotic is an interesting one, though a side issue here.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Joel]

I ran into this at another forum this morning:

"Pastor Lindsey Williams, who has been telling the world for years that oil is abiotic in origin, was on the radio last night, and says he believes that they drilled into a region where the oil pressure was way above anything previously encountered, and this blew out all their safety equipment, but I don't see any info on actual values.
I think they will have to use the 'nuke' option eventually, seems the Russians have used the method a number of times to seal blowouts. And the USA has no shortage of unused nukes..."

I have no idea of its validity, but if true it could change the situation from an industrial accident towards something akin to what Texas Governor Rick Parry called "an act of God".

The idea of abiotic is an interesting one, though a side issue here.

Respectfully,
Dotini

The generally accepted theory is that Hydrocarbons are from dead plant and animal matter, right?

 

[Dotini]

The generally accepted theory is that Hydrocarbons are from dead plant and animal matter, right?

Right! Dr Thomas Gold, in The Deep Hot Biosphere, posits that another, older biosphere exists deep within the Earth's crust, where dwell primitive heat loving bacteria. He joins this argument to another, even more controversial theory that so-called fossil fuels originate not from compressed biological matter but deep within the Earth, being present there since the planet's formation. I don't really buy in to this, despite the fact that geologists have drilled test wells (in Norway, I believe) through 20,000 ft of solid granite, and found oil.

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Joel]

Right! Dr Thomas Gold, in The Deep Hot Biosphere, posits that another, older biosphere exists deep within the Earth's crust, where dwell primitive heat loving bacteria. He joins this argument to another, even more controversial theory that so-called fossil fuels originate not from compressed biological matter but deep within the Earth, being present there since the planet's formation. I don't really buy in to this, despite the fact that geologists have drilled test wells (in Norway, I believe) through 20,000 ft of solid granite, and found oil.

Respectfully,
Dotini

I'm mostly just trying to make sure my Science textbook isn't total garbage

 

[Dotini]

I'm mostly just trying to make sure my Science textbook isn't total garbage

Noob616, are you currently enrolled in a science course?

Respectfully,
Dotini

 

[Joey D]

Apparently, according to Sarah Palin, environmentalist caused the oil spill. I'm trying to figure this one out.

From Palin's Facebook page:

This is a message to extreme “environmentalists” who hypocritically protest domestic energy production offshore and onshore. There is nothing “clean and green” about your efforts. Look, here’s the deal: when you lock up our land, you outsource jobs and opportunity away from America and into foreign countries that are making us beholden to them. Some of these countries don’t like America. Some of these countries don’t care for planet earth like we do – as evidenced by our stricter environmental standards.

With your nonsensical efforts to lock up safer drilling areas, all you’re doing is outsourcing energy development, which makes us more controlled by foreign countries, less safe, and less prosperous on a dirtier planet. Your hypocrisy is showing. You’re not preventing environmental hazards; you’re outsourcing them and making drilling more dangerous.

Extreme deep water drilling is not the preferred choice to meet our country’s energy needs, but your protests and lawsuits and lies about onshore and shallow water drilling have locked up safer areas. It’s catching up with you. The tragic, unprecedented deep water Gulf oil spill proves it.

We need permission to drill in safer areas, including the uninhabited arctic land of ANWR. It takes just a tiny footprint – equivalent to the size of LA’s airport – to tap America’s rich and plentiful oil and gas up north. ANWR’s drilling footprint is like a postage stamp on a football field.

But it’s not just ANWR; it’s our Petroleum Reserve, too. As Governor Sean Parnell noted today in the Wall Street Journal:

“Federal agencies are also now blocking oil development in the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska.

Although familiar with ANWR, most Americans are less likely to know about NPR-A and how vital it is to our energy security. Given recent developments, it’s time to elevate the position this area holds in our national discourse.

NPR-A, a 23 million acre stretch of Alaska’s North Slope, was set aside by President Warren Harding in 1923 for the specific purpose of supplying our country and military with oil and gas. Since 1976 it has been administered by the Department of the Interior, and since 1980 it has been theoretically open for development. The most recent estimates indicate that it holds 12 billion barrels of oil and 73 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.

In addition to containing enormous hydrocarbons, NPR-A is very close to the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which means that there would be relatively little additional infrastructure needed to bring this new oil to our domestic market.

But even here, progress has been stalled.”



Radical environmentalists: you are damaging the planet with your efforts to lock up safer drilling areas. There’s nothing clean and green about your misguided, nonsensical radicalism, and Americans are on to you as we question your true motives.

- Sarah Palin

I can't believe this women was almost a heartbeat away from running this country.

 

[Joel]

Apparently, according to Sarah Palin, environmentalist caused the oil spill. I'm trying to figure this one out.

(ASCII Facepalm removed because on re reading the comments by Sarah Palin aren't facepalm-worthy)





@ Dotini

Yes, I'm in Grade 10 Academic (the "advanced" program) Science class at my High School (Canada)

 

[Duke]

Actually, what she's saying makes some sense, if you would get past who's saying it.

 

[DK]

I just have to say this. I honestly hate Sarah Palin. There, I said it. It's my full and honest opinion, maybe because my opinions are on the left of the political spectrum.

 

[FoolKiller]

Apparently, according to Sarah Palin, environmentalist caused the oil spill. I'm trying to figure this one out.

At least she is using a roundabout policy discussion as her reasoning, instead of Rush Limbaugh's suggestion that maybe it was environmental terrorists that actually caused the explosion.

Actually, what she's saying makes some sense, if you would get past who's saying it.

It makes sense if you take her statements at face value and follow her reasoning, but don't take into account that those same environmentalists are also opposed to offshore drilling due to the risk of this kind of incident.


I also find that her argument solely attacking environmentalists is slightly off the mark, as NIMBYs play just as large of a role in holding up energy development in areas where this sort of incident could be more quickly contained.

 

[Danoff]

It makes sense if you take her statements at face value and follow her reasoning, but don't take into account that those same environmentalists are also opposed to offshore drilling due to the risk of this kind of incident.

Yes it's quite easy for them to be against any kind of drilling anywhere for any reason. Palin is missing the point badly, but I don't think it makes environmentalists look any better to be against offshore drilling in addition to onshore drilling.

 

[Dotini]

Yes it's quite easy for them to be against any kind of drilling anywhere for any reason. Palin is missing the point badly, but I don't think it makes environmentalists look any better to be against offshore drilling in addition to onshore drilling.

Many environmentalists, often also being liberals, are prone to leave a certain amount of common sense behind in their haste to embrace an idealized future.

 

[FoolKiller]

I don't think it makes environmentalists look any better to be against offshore drilling in addition to onshore drilling.

They look even worse when they are placing ads on my TV trying to get me to call my senator (McConnell) to tell him to vote for some green energy bill because every gallon of gasoline gives Iran a billion dollars or some such nonsense.

Basically, their stance at this point is basically "no oil." And then they look even worse when they whine about local ecological effects of alternate fuel sources. Hydroelectric destroys wetlands. Wind kills birds. Honestly, I doubt they will be happy until we are stuck in the dark ages.

 

[Duke]

Many environmentalists, often also being liberals, are prone to leave a certain amount of common sense behind in their haste to embrace an idealized future.

SSSSSHHHHHHHHHH! Biggles will hear you!

 

[Keef]

Basically, their stance at this point is basically "no oil." And then they look even worse when they whine about local ecological effects of alternate fuel sources. Hydroelectric destroys wetlands. Wind kills birds. Honestly, I doubt they will be happy until we are stuck in the dark ages.

As far as I can remember National Geographic wrote that battery production tends to kill everything in the general vicinity. I can't find the article online for the life of me, but in the magazine they talked about a particular smelter and had an image of it at light, lit up brightly in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Biggles]

SSSSSHHHHHHHHHH! Biggles will hear you!

Wha …? Who…? Me?

No. I’ve been in hiding since Famine fingered me as the one responsible for blowing up the rig & killing those workers.

Yes, Palin & Limbaugh have got it right: moving right along from merely chanting “Drill, baby drill!” they have enthusiastically embraced the philosophy:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Yes, you betcha: environmentalists are responsible for the Deepwater Horizon disaster - in the same way that the Jews were responsible for Germany’s defeat in the First World War.

Not surprisingly, it’s becoming apparent that the government agencies responsible for regulating safety & environmental standards for big oil & gas industry, have been in bed with companies they’re supposed to be overseeing. Nevertheless, you can bet that the standards in place on the rigs in US coastal waters are far higher than in most other oil-producing areas of the world.

There’s a rough justice in the fact that this environmental disaster, by taking place in local waters is directly effecting the US, the largest user & importer of oil, rather than the people of some distant, impoverished third world nation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zalqYjcjA2Y&NR=1&feature=fvwp


Of course, we in Canada have got our own environmental mess in the making:

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/09/20/TarSands/

Many environmentalists, often also being liberals, are prone to leave a certain amount of common sense behind in their haste to embrace an idealized future.

Honestly, I doubt they will be happy until we are stuck in the dark ages.

I'm not sure how much common sense is involved in, for instance, creating a fad in the US for massive gas-guzzling SUVs for people to drive to the local supermarket. I'm not sure how much common sense is involved in fighting hugely costly & brutal wars to ensure access to foreign oil supplies, & spending a trillion dollars a year on "defense". But I'm sure you must be right, that there's no way that human ingenuity could come up with any alternative to this entirely logical, 21st century way of going about things ...

 

[DK]

I'm not sure how much common sense is involved in, for instance, creating a fad in the US for massive gas-guzzling SUVs for people to drive to the local supermarket.

I know, what's wrong with driving a VW Golf to the supermarket instead of an SUV? SUVs suck. "Oh, they were built for off-road!" Yeah, but Mr. Middle Class Tool uses them to drive to work when he can just as easily trade it in for an efficient hatchback that does 5 times as many MPG. And Ms. Middle Class Tool uses them to take her regular shoe-sized dog to - not the vet - but the beautician. If you want an SUV, please, for God's sake, use them for the purpose they were designed for. I'm pretty sure your weekly grocery needs do not equal the space in the boot/trunk of your common-or-garden-variety SUV, but can just as easily fit in the boot/trunk of a VW Golf, a Honda Civic, or a Toyota Corolla hatchback (not the AE86, of course). Instead of taking a big SUV with a 5 litre V8 to work, use an efficient hatchback or saloon with an engine less than half the size, but the car can still kick the SUV's ass in an acceleration contest. I rest my case, the only fuel inefficient car I will ever dream of owning is a Nissan Skyline GT-R.

 

[Max Powers]

Seems to me that people have a right to spend their money that they worked for on any type of car that they please. I didn't realize there were qualifications for owning a SUV.

 

[Famine]

I’ve been in hiding since Famine fingered me

There are many things I'm capable of and for which I'd claim responsibility. Fingering you is not on my list.

 

[ROAD_DOGG33J]

If you want an SUV, please, for God's sake, use them for the purpose they were designed for.

Yeah except most SUVs now aren't really built for going off-road.

 

[DK]

Yeah except most SUVs now aren't really built for going off-road.

You have a point. Now they're designed for making you a target for Greenpeace tyre-slashers.

 

[FoolKiller]

Yes, Palin & Limbaugh have got it right: moving right along from merely chanting “Drill, baby drill!” they have enthusiastically embraced the philosophy:

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."

Yes, you betcha: environmentalists are responsible for the Deepwater Horizon disaster - in the same way that the Jews were responsible for Germany’s defeat in the First World War.

First, assuming they are using that philosophy, they stole it from Obama's approach to the economy. But he doesn't play those games, right?

Second, I think we are all in agreement here that Palin and Limbaugh are not making complete sense on this issue.

Not surprisingly, it’s becoming apparent that the government agencies responsible for regulating safety & environmental standards for big oil & gas industry, have been in bed with companies they’re supposed to be overseeing. Nevertheless, you can bet that the standards in place on the rigs in US coastal waters are far higher than in most other oil-producing areas of the world.

Never fear, President Obama wants stricter regulations, because more regulations are guaranteed to work when they aren't enforced to begin with. Maybe we can give these guys another safety award.

There’s a rough justice in the fact that this environmental disaster, by taking place in local waters is directly effecting the US, the largest user & importer of oil, rather than the people of some distant, impoverished third world nation.

It is statements like this that make me wonder if you are happy this happened. Would it be equally just if an equivalent percentage of the damage affected Canada? They do supposedly consume more oil per capita than the US, afterall.

Of course, we in Canada have got our own environmental mess in the making:

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2007/09/20/TarSands/

I am curious if that carbon footprint takes into account the transportation of oil from the Middle East. I am pretty sure the point of tar sands usage, as with offshore drilling, was the reduce imports, not necessarily being cleaner.

I'm not sure how much common sense is involved in, for instance, creating a fad in the US for massive gas-guzzling SUVs for people to drive to the local supermarket.

Because meeting a business responding to consumer desires is a stupid idea. Why worry with that when you can just get a government bailout, right?

I'm not sure how much common sense is involved in fighting hugely costly & brutal wars to ensure access to foreign oil supplies, & spending a trillion dollars a year on "defense". But I'm sure you must be right, that there's no way that human ingenuity could come up with any alternative to this entirely logical, 21st century way of going about things ...

I didn't say that, and you know it. You have to know that wasn't my point, unless you were wearing blinders, because you quoted a sentence at the end of a paragraph talking about how they seem to be opposed to any energy sources for some reason or another. My point was that they do want to shut down oil, but then they also complain whenever human ingenuity does attempt to come up with an alternative.

I know, what's wrong with driving a VW Golf to the supermarket instead of an SUV? Oh, yeah, it's German.

I know how much you love your false stereotypes, but since Biggles was, in part, responding to me with that statement perhaps you should check my profile picture. You might realize how far off the mark you are.

Actually, I will just post it.

 

[Ibonibo]

Isn't the question:
Bush and Dicks ease politics on petrol caused this?
The question can not be answered for probably a 20 years until the whole world sees and is given the truth.

Fact is that both have petol companies and that they favor for drilling more in Us Territories for independance reasons (EGO).

Mr Obama is now the suckeee who is beaten on...

The biggest question for me is : was this platform damaged by Catrina?? What was done to repair? Or was it schedueled to be repaired but still operating to get profit(EGO)??
Fact is a lot of these platforms where damaged by catrina and are repaired in New Orleans.

This problem is global as all fishes will suffer heavymetal intoxication in different concentrations. It's just like DFF?(chemical used in the 70's and forbidden short after), which is still in the foodchain all over the world after 30 years, and probably will never go away because of some darn greedy americans who want total freedom even for unmoral , develish people.

Do americans know that bush will enter history as worse Political leader in the US till date? No the don't! I now will get beaten on. Maybe towmorrow the Cia will come to my house, kidnap me and torture (honestly, they wanted to make this leagal(EGO), but hey what do you want when you name is bush and your best friend is Dick) me and put me in Cuba


America Look at your history and start listening to the rest of the World. The greater good as you call it is not a bad thing. We are social beeing as are rabbits or ants. We need each other. THe world is global, and for everyone.

best exemple companies like google, facebook or many other, who simply won't care about our leagl system because the are in America. They are free they can do what they want... (mazanto,....i could go on and on...)

Sorry for all those fellow Americans who are not like that. The last generations are beginning in a different menatlity. Thank you for that. hopefully in a few years, you will be more social

(see social can be positive thing)
(EGO = egoistic little hores)

Just saw Canada talking. Don't : you're sandy oil in the north is not green either you pollute a lot of water to get the oil out of the sand, and the water after is surly not healty, so don't trow with rocks if you sitting in a glashouse. i saw Candians dumping their trash in lakes semilegaly. i won't say we are better, like the germans pretending buring carbon is better than fusion energy,...
Just don't be so happy this happend. It will affect all of us. You see all the oceans are conected, and the oil will be everywhere as will be the bizarre chemicals they trow in the see to "dillute" the oil.

 

[Famine]

Errr...

What?

 

[Max Powers]

Stop using all petroleum based products if you hate oil drilling so much, you're part of the problem too if you're justifying that way. All of those poisoned fish are just as much your fault as they are mine.

 

[Biggles]

Do you have any point at all to make Foolkiller ... other than disagreeing with me?

You won't get an argument from me that the Democrats, as a political institution, are subject to the same kind of influence peddling, corruption, short-sightedness & stupidity as the Republicans. However, the GOP, thanks to the increasing influence of people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck & Palin have raised (or lowered) the bar to a whole new level.

You may fundamentally disagree with the President's economic position, but there are many economists who do not. That is not a "big lie", but a legitimate difference of opinion on policy. "Drill, baby drill" was an idiotic slogan, because it misrepresented the economic significance of increased drilling in American waters, while dismissing the environmental risks - (which have now become readily apparent). Going on to try & pin the "blame" on environmentalists is beyond the pale, & really is in the best tradition of Goebbels.

As far as SUVs are concerned - freedom of choice for the consumer is all very well, but the US auto makers pinned their whole financial strategy on promoting the SUV - a relatively impractical, fuel-inefficient, expensive & unsafe vehicle. The advertising successfully imprinted itself on the American public so that sales soared, until oil prices went up & the the SUV market collapsed. Good marketing ... not good common-sense.


(I didn't really picture you driving around in a Chevy Suburban. Incidentally, I drive a Toyota Sienna, which I use extensively, often heavily loaded, for business, as well as for my family. I see other people using SUVs for the same purposes, even though it is quite obvious to me, & to them, that a minivan is a more functional vehicle in practically every way ...)

 

[FoolKiller]

This problem is global as all fishes will suffer heavymetal intoxication in different concentrations. It's just like DFF?(chemical used in the 70's and forbidden short after), which is still in the foodchain all over the world after 30 years,

Do you mean DDT, the pesticide once widely used to kill mosquitoes?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT

EDIT:

Do you have any point at all to make Foolkiller ... other than disagreeing with me?

Well, I was agreeing with you about Palin and Limbaugh. I was just making sure your snarky comments at their expense weren't directed to anyone participating in this thread.

You won't get an argument from me that the Democrats, as a political institution, are subject to the same kind of influence peddling, corruption, short-sightedness & stupidity as the Republicans.

Really?

I don’t believe this is true at all. The Democrats (whatever you may think of their actual policies) have always advocated a more nuanced, complex approach to policy-making.

However, the GOP, thanks to the increasing influence of people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck & Palin have raised (or lowered) the bar to a whole new level.

I think that you first have to determine if these people, none of which are serving in office right now, speak for the party. They are professional commentators and they don't represent the GOP any more than Matthews, Olberman, or Maddow do the DNC. Oh, hang on. I forgot a former office holder: Tom Daschle. They might be able to, via their media influence, control the direction of the public discussion, but none of them are some form of official spokespeople, despite how it may look at times.

You may fundamentally disagree with the President's economic position, but there are many economists who do not.

And many that do disagree, publicly, with full page ads in national newspapers.
http://www.cato.org/special/stimulus09/alternate_version.html
The version that made it in papers (PDF)

That is not a "big lie", but a legitimate difference of opinion on policy.

Claiming that spending nearly a trillion dollars would keep unemployment below 8% is not a difference of opinion. After that fails, continuing to say stimulus is working as we went well beyond that 8% mark is not a difference of opinion. Touting the May employment numbers of 431,000 new jobs and saying, "this report is a sign that our economy is getting stronger by the day," when 411,000 of them are temporary Census government jobs, is not a difference of opinion.

Sure, it may have been bad economic science on their part, and not a lie, but the constant repeating that it is working now is a lie. Claiming that jobs that they know won't exist in August is growth is a lie. They should have just paid them to go dig holes for no reason for all the good it has actually done.

"Drill, baby drill" was an idiotic slogan, because it misrepresented the economic significance of increased drilling in American waters, while dismissing the environmental risks - (which have now become readily apparent). Going on to try & pin the "blame" on environmentalists is beyond the pale, & really is in the best tradition of Goebbels.

I agree with all of the above, but I will call the Obama Administration out on similar tactics.

As far as SUVs are concerned - freedom of choice for the consumer is all very well, but the US auto makers pinned their whole financial strategy on promoting the SUV - a relatively impractical, fuel-inefficient, expensive & unsafe vehicle. The advertising successfully imprinted itself on the American public so that sales soared, until oil prices went up & the the SUV market collapsed. Good marketing ... not good common-sense.

Would you have suggested that during the multi-year boom for SUVs, which gained popularity because soccer moms found them cooler than minivans, that automakers not have sold and marketed SUVs?

(I didn't really picture you driving around in a Chevy Suburban.

I actually despise SUVs. When my mom bought a Lexus SUV she got a long and drawn out lecture about the uselessness of a car designed as if it were going off road, but built with the intention of always staying on pavement.

But I understand the appeal to people trying to avoid the mom-mobile stigma. Granted, I don't get it as I rode many years in the back of a Beetle and Chevette, and personal experience has taught me that two child seats can fit in the backseat of a Golf.

 

[Biggles]

Really?

Yes. I still believe:

The Democrats (whatever you may think of their actual policies) have always advocated a more nuanced, complex approach to policy-making.

I think that you first have to determine if these people, none of which are serving in office right now, speak for the party. They are professional commentators and they don't represent the GOP any more than Matthews, Olberman, or Maddow do the DNC. Oh, hang on. I forgot a former office holder: Tom Daschle. They might be able to, via their media influence, control the direction of the public discussion, but none of them are some form of official spokespeople, despite how it may look at times.

There is no one on the “left” that wields anything like the amount of influence that Rush Limbaugh does on the right. In my opinion, that is what has helped create such a massive polarization of opinion in the US – there is a significant percentage of the population who follow Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck etc. & believe what they say, no matter how extreme & unfounded it is. These commentators are playing a large political role, while having absolutely no responsibility to anything other than maintaining their ratings.

And many that do disagree, publicly, with full page ads in national newspapers.

Again, I acknowledge that there is a a legitimate difference of opinion on economic policy.

Would you have suggested that during the multi-year boom for SUVs, which gained popularity because soccer moms found them cooler than minivans, that automakers not have sold and marketed SUVs?

I would suggest that the concept of SUVs being “cooler”, in spite of actually being more impractical, fuel-inefficient, expensive & unsafe, was the result of millions spent on advertising. Smoking also used to be seen as “cool” because hundreds of millions was spent on promoting that image. Remember that what initiated this digression was: “common sense”.

 

[FoolKiller]

There is no one on the “left” that wields anything like the amount of influence that Rush Limbaugh does on the right. In my opinion, that is what has helped create such a massive polarization of opinion in the US – there is a significant percentage of the population who follow Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck etc. & believe what they say, no matter how extreme & unfounded it is. These commentators are playing a large political role, while having absolutely no responsibility to anything other than maintaining their ratings.

So, what were your thoughts when prominent Democrats and democratic supporters attempted to create their own public commentators via Air America Radio?

I personally don't have a problem with opinionated commentators existing, even though I find most of them to be annoying wind bags. I have a bigger issue with the general public not looking into information on their own. I do think it is a bit silly to accuse Limbaugh of some sort of current divide when I remember my babysitter listening to him. He has been one of the most popular shows in America for decades and if there is a massive polarization in recent times then there must be another influence that has played into it.

Of course, when I look at polarizations in politics on an individual voter level I still remember my grandfather who would declare that he would always vote for a Democrat, no matter what they stood for. It makes me believe that the polarization has always been there and that it is the 24 hour news cycle that makes it obvious.

All you have to do is look at past forms of media to see it always existed.


Two different generations.

My take is that these guys are just this generation's version of Archie Bunker.

Again, I acknowledge that there is a a legitimate difference of opinion on economic policy.

So, I just have a legitimate difference of opinion that he was wrong on how stimulus would work, that his administration's report met none of its predictions, and that 411,000 temporary jobs equals growth? Or might they be spreading a little mistruth when the administration claims the stimulus is working and calls a jobs report based on temporary jobs a good sign for the economy?

I would suggest that the concept of SUVs being “cooler”, in spite of actually being more impractical, fuel-inefficient, expensive & unsafe, was the result of millions spent on advertising.

Must explain why a 2006 study by the Center for Market Research surprisingly found soccer moms wanted a bigger SUV.
And later that year, according to Businessweek, is when Ford and GM were getting out of the market. Of course, part of the issue seems to be an inability to compete in the market. Failing at one market would lead marketing departments to play it up that you are moving on to the newer and cooler thing.

Remember that what initiated this digression was: “common sense”.

I never said consumers are using common sense, but I see plenty of evidence that points at US automakers getting away from minivans and moving toward SUVs and Crossovers as a necessity at the time. If we want to discuss how they went about doing that, there is a whole different story, and one in which we likely agree.