Posted on 12/05/2003 6:42:00 AM PST by FlyLow
Five months after President Bush issued an executive order to allow oil and gas drilling in some Western federal lands, NBC found it suddenly newsworthy -- just as soon as they located a single Republican guy in Montana upset about it. If it passes as written, it could open up some pristine Rocky Mountain areas to oil and gas drilling, NBC anchor Tom Brokaw warned before noting how NBCs Jim Avila found that has stunned even some of the Presidents supporters in those areas. Avila showcased a lifetime Republican, one of the Westerners who helped George Bush win all but five Western states who is now changing parties because of Bush energy policies.
Brokaw introduced the December 3 story, as transcribed by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth: The administrations energy bill, which is now bottled up in Congress, is another flashpoint between environmentalists and the Presidents supporters. If it passes as written, it could open up some pristine Rocky Mountain areas to oil and gas drilling. As NBCs Jim Avila reports tonight, that has stunned even some of the Presidents supporters in those areas.
Avila found a disillusioned Republican: Raw, untamed Montana. The Rocky Mountain front where flat plains crash into Americas highest peaks. Not a national park, no distinct boundaries. Just harsh land and wildlife from grizzlies to wolves, unchained since Lewis and Clark first saw it 200 years ago. Carl Rappold, rancher: This is wild country here. Avila: The Rappolds homesteaded here a generation later, now fighting to protect their Montana homeland from natural gas drilling. Energy companies want six to eight wells along the front. Rappold: Im really mad about it. We need some of these places left just the way they are, just the way nature created them. Avila: Rappold is a lifetime Republican, one of the Westerners who helped George Bush win all but five Western states. Rappold: My family has always voted Republican. Avila: Now changing parties because of Bush energy policies. Rappold: I think its going to have a big impact on the presidential election. Avila: In fact, the August presidential order lifting environmental restrictions against drilling in seven Western areas, including the Rocky Mountain Front, has angered and now linked three very different interest groups: environmentalists, ranchers, and hunters. Bill Orcello, hunter: The first environmentalists, as they say, were hunters. Avila: Bill Orcello and Eric Grove, two of 47 million hunters in the United States, roaming the Front for pheasants. Eric Grove, hunter: If youre going to support hunters, then you need to support wildlife habitat. Avila: The Bush administration and energy companies argue the nation can have its gas and wildlife, too, claiming wells cause no harm to wildlife. And unlike this Canadian gas field just across the border, will use new technology to leave just a small footprint. Gail Abercrombie, Montana Petroleum Association: Energy production and wildlife habitat can coexist. There are protections in place in the regulatory framework to protect the wildlife habitat. Energy production can be done so that the wildlife is protected. Avila: But for Carl Rappold, wilderness, by definition, is no longer wilderness when altered by roads, drills and wells. Rappold: If were this short of gas that we have to ruin every last piece of ground, its time we found a new source of energy. Avila concluded: The words of a former Republican now voting with environmentalists because he feels the land is threatened. Jim Avila, NBC News, Chicago.
Yer mind still ain't right. If a single windmill could power the entire country half the time, and predictably due to weather forcasting, you still seem to be willing to write off the source completely. Me, I'd just as soon see that source of clean power used and conserve on the other sources of fuel need for the other plants when the wind is blowing.
Guess what, the wind is always blowing somewhere, therefore 3 such imaginary windmills could power the whole country all of the time. As it turns out, coal isn't really that horrible for the environment and hydro produces 10 percent of our needs pretty handily so we don't have to spend all of our money replacing them right now. But I and about 80 percent of the people anywhere near a windmill are very willing to see wind power start taking up more and more of the load.
Very interesting!
I suspect that you may be aware that wind provides 18 percent of all the power consumed in Denmark and that number is still growing. In Germany which has the weakest winds in europe they produce, I believe, about 4 percent of their power from wind, and they use a lot of power.
Using todays technology we could produce all 3 quads of electricity that this country uses from Texay, N Dakota, and Nebraska. Yes this is equivalent kwhrs but not necessarily as demanded. Still the point is clear that the potential of wind to produce vast amounts of power for less than we pay for gas fired power is there.
Not knowing of you understand the concept of 'forcing function', I'll give you a couple of examples:
WWI & WWII were forcing functions for advances in medicine and aviation. We would not have the petroleum industry today, had Henry's Ford not been so popular.
The manned space program was a forcing function for the technologies needed to make it work. The computer was not invented by the space program, but its development was heavily pushed by the need for greater computing power. I'm sure a true conservative will grasp the entrepenurial picture.
NASA has a technology utilization program. There are many processes and patents essentially 'free for the taking' to someone enterprising enough to develop a business from them. That is just one way we can reap the benefits of billions of 'foolishly spent' dollars. You really ought to keep up with things.
The government has tax policies on just about everything. The purposefully manipulate the free market every minute of the day to control it. Referring to the Pharisees is clever but not the least bit honest.
I don't believe in letting the almighty dollar make all of our nations decisions. I leave that to people that want to legalize and tax prostitution and let our steel industry go overseas if they can do it cheaper. I'm not willing to let the dollar decide our morality, or national defense strategies, or our energy policy. There are bigger factors to consider.
As for the rest of your blather,
I can't have been that unclear. I was making an analogy that allowing the cost of electricity to be the only deciding factor as to the source is analogous to allowing the financial value of taxed prostitution be the only factor in deciding if it is the right thing to do.
I actually don't believe in global warming and wrote the editor of windpower monthly magazine that I thought it was a big mistake mentioning it all the time. I stated that wind power should be promoted on it's real value as clean, limitless, cost effective energy. Lyn didn't agree with me and thought global warming was/is a real problem.
Hmmm, Ok, but why would you compare wind power with a semi?
Shouldn't you compare wind power to a coal burning power plant or a nuke plant?
No we don't stop driving cars because there is no viable alternative to moving about our country with out using some form of fast moving vehicle.
However, there are a number of viable alternatives to Wind Mill Power production that do not chop up birds in the process.
LOL. Why would I bother? Among other things, it appears you just might be saddled with (as you so deftly termed it) a "lower-capacity comprehension."
I guess my first clue should have been that it seems you failed to grasp even the simplest point, where my use of the term "armchair Captain Kirks" referred to fans of (such as yourself) not participants in (such as your example, Neil Armstrong) the manned space program!
Live long and prosper, Cap'n.
What you said:
manned space program amounts to precious little more than publicly-funded, pork-barrel joyrides for a lot of so-called "conservative," armchair Captain Kirks.
Again, to keep it within the bounds of your comprehension, the essence of your sentance was:
manned space program amounts to.......joyrides for a lot "armchair Captain Kirks.
You might have said 'proxy joyrides', or 'voyeuristic joyrides, but, failing to comprehend the meaning of the word joyride, you wrote what you wrote.
Point is, you can't refute any of the examples I offered. You cant point to any market forces that would have given us the computer as rapidly as the space program. So dont bother, it would just give you a headache anyway.
Nice try, but "armchair" Captain Kirks means they're not participants. Look it up.
Believe it or not, I had initially typed, "vicarious joyrides for ... armchair Captain Kirks." However, I decided that was redundant. I just now looked up "armchair" and, by golly, it turns out I was right.
But, as it turns out, due to your own (as you put it yourself) failing to comprehend the meaning of the word "armchair," you seem to be one for whom redundancy is necessary. My bad for giving you too much credit.
("voyeuristic"?! LOL!)
As for refuting your "examples", they have nothing to do with my point, which has always been to say your initial statement -- that we WOULD NOT HAVE the PC if it weren't for the manned space program -- was so much smoke-blowing ("b*llsh*t," if that helps you understand). "Heavily pushed" or not, if you have something to back up your b*llsh*t that we WOULD NOT HAVE the PC if not for manned space flight, bring it on.
Face it, you're not as smart as you think.
Well, Rosebud, I've made my case. I did comprehend 'armchair' but your misuse of it with 'joyride' caused some confusion. You're not as literate as you think.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.