I think Friedman is upset with Bush 18

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 8:05 am
   22 Jun 2008

   Links for thoughtLinks for thought
   1) A large part of the increase in oil price has to do with the falling value of the dollar.
   
   http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121296660160455703.html
   
   http://seekingalpha.com/article/72651-oil-would-be-65-if- ...
   
   http://greyfalcon.net/oilchart4.png
   2) Even if we did drill like crazy, it wouldn't change the price at the pump more than a few pennies per gallon.  If at all.
   
   http://theoildrum.com/node/4174
   
   http://climateprogress.org/2008/06/04/opening-anwr-cuts-g ...
   3) They already got 68 million acres leased which they aren't drilling
   
   http://journals.democraticunderground.com/thoughtanarchis ...
   4) There's a big shortage of offshore drilling boats.  And since this is a supply-rate issue, not just a raw supply issue that bottleneck prevent a supply-RATE increase.  Even if we did have enough oil to go after.
   
   http://desmogblog.com/cool-it-george-they-just-cant-float ...
   4) McCain was opposing offshore drilling 3 weeks ago
   
   http://huffingtonpost.com/2008/06/18/mccains-offshore-dri ...
   5) Florida's Mayor was opposing offshore drilling 1 week ago
   
   http://www.nbc6.net/news/16666650/detail.html
   6) Cheney and various Republican Senators keep insisting that the Communists are drinking our milkshake!  Even though Cheney admits it's false.
   
   http://motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/06/8678_gop ...
   7) Obama obviously opposes this gimmick
   
   http://boston.com/lifestyle/green/greenblog/2008/06/obama ...

   Permalink

2. 

   intimidavid Posted 12:37 pm
   22 Jun 2008

   BADASSWhen I read Pieface's article, one thing quickly came to me: this guy is a motherfucking badass.
   One lady on another blog wrote "Friedman for President" as her only commentary. Honestly, I was thinking it for a second, too.

   Permalink

3. 

   intimidavid Posted 12:38 pm
   22 Jun 2008

   Very NiceIt was very nice of you to compile all this.

   Permalink

4. 

   Biodiversivist Posted 1:21 pm
   22 Jun 2008

   'A massive, fraudulent, pathetic excuse for a president' would be more appropriate.
   
   
   
   In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world

   Permalink

5. 

   Nucbuddy Posted 2:08 pm
   22 Jun 2008

   Do people believe that solar has to do with oil?The Tom Friedman article says that all oil use in the United States can be economically replaced "tommorrow" with "wind and solar power [...] on your roof."
   Now we have the new Bush energy plan: "Get more addicted to oil."
   
   [...]
   
   People forget, wind and solar power are here, they work, they can go on your roof tomorrow. What they need now is a big U.S. market where lots of manufacturers have an incentive to install solar panels and wind turbines -- because the more they do, the more these technologies would move down the learning curve, become cheaper and be able to compete directly with coal, oil and nuclear, without subsidies.
   
   Are you all (David Roberts and the previous commenters in this thread) endorsing that statement? If you are, please:
   
   Be explicit.
   
   Show your math.

   Permalink

6. 

   GreyFlcn Posted 2:26 pm
   22 Jun 2008

   HehHrmm, so how do we get plugin-hybrids ASAP?
   Probably something along the lines of this:
   
   http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/1649/

   Permalink

7. 

   Nucbuddy Posted 2:31 pm
   22 Jun 2008

   nWhat would plugin-hybrids have to do with this thread, GreyFlcn?
   Please show your math.

   Permalink

8. 

   Ron Steenblik Posted 4:21 pm
   22 Jun 2008

   Floor price?Thomas L. Friedman writes:
   [H]ere is how we're going to break our addiction: We're going to set a floor price of $4.50 a gallon for gasoline and $100 a barrel for oil.
   So, creating a massive bureaucracy to monitor and administor adherence to a floor price -- ensuring that huge amounts of money are transfered to the oil industry (and to biofuel producers, if their costs manage to come down) should the world price of oil drop below $100 per barrel -- is preferable to simply raising the federal excise taxes on transport fuels to something closer to what we have here in Europe?
   Please explain, Mr. Friedman.
   
   These are only my personal opinions.

   Permalink

9. 

   Ashley Braun Posted 5:09 pm
   22 Jun 2008

   wordmy fave part comes when Friedman taps his inner-Millennial while calling out Bush:
   [A real president] certainly wouldn't be using his last days in office to threaten Congressional Democrats that if they don't approve offshore drilling by the Fourth of July recess, they will be blamed for $4-a-gallon gas. That is so lame. That is an energy policy so unworthy of our Independence Day.
   Investment in renewables that will power plug-in hybrids = real independence.
   
   

   Permalink

10. 

    GreyFlcn Posted 9:47 pm
    22 Jun 2008

    detailsThe Tom Friedman article says that all oil use in the United States can be economically replaced "tommorrow" with "wind and solar power [...] on your roof."
    NucBuddy:
    
    What would plugin-hybrids have to do with this thread, GreyFlcn?
    I guess it's not an exact parallel.  However if we wanted to.  Would could displace a hell of a lot of oil with electricity with plugin-hybrid-retofits.
    And it's certainly not "tommorow".  However relatively quickly.
    And while thats not "all" oil, it does account for almost all of it.

    Permalink

11. 

    johnthetreehugger Posted 10:30 pm
    22 Jun 2008

    massive, fraudulent, pathetic excuse for a punditum, excuse me, but y'all can fawn over Friedman all you want... But some of us might do well to remember that he was a cheerleader for the War on Iraq and a proponant of corporate globalization (so called free trade in the form of NAFTA and the WTO).
    so his little shifting with the political winds act is kinda cute, but he really is a corporate lapdog who is given too much credit and influence by people who ought to know better.
    thanks and have a nice day.

    Permalink

12. 

    John former Marine Posted 10:44 pm
    22 Jun 2008

    I agree with Friedman on only one point...He sed we shud build a lot more nukular power, which I like.  Everything else he sed is garbage.  Nukular energy is good.
    Also, he didn't address abortion, which is mah number one issue.  I think the Prezudent should git them Sawdies to give us more oil because once gas gits above $4 a gallon and the economy dumps, abortion rates will go up, which I em against.  The ansur to this prawblem is more nukular, more cole, and more gas.  Them Sawdis prey on the same Gawd that we do so they shud be happy to help us keep abortion rates low by bringing down the price of gas.
    I mainley distrust solar power because didn't them pagan Egyptians worship some sun gawd or sumthin?
    
    Shu pas a vende.

    Permalink

13. 

    christophersj Posted 3:30 am
    23 Jun 2008

    John The Tree HuggerJohn The Tree Hugger,
    You're not alone. All of my lefty friends cant get over his hawk positions.  I don't pay them attention.  His past 4 years of national television specials and columns, and now a book, about the US not being in touch with reality around energy and the environment, make him a needed tool in our utility belt.  People of a different persuasion than you or I listen to him -- that's important.
    The more religious, hawk, conservative commentators chiming in supportively on the Great Green Energy Transition, the better!
    Did you really think that a societal movement this large wont include people you disagree with?  Really?
    -Christopher S. Johnson

    Permalink

14. 

    MAD MAC Posted 3:42 am
    23 Jun 2008

    Chris, very good pointCouldn't have said it better myself.
    
    Victory in Pattani

    Permalink

15. 

    Wolverine Posted 4:49 am
    23 Jun 2008

    Alliances & Guilt By AssociationI am also strongly opposed to Thomas Friedman's positions on war and trade.  But that doesn't mean we can't ally ourselves on energy policy IF HE TAKES GOOD POSITIONS.  We should be willing to make alliances with those with whom we normally disagree where those alliances would benefit our causes.

    Permalink

16. 

    christophersj Posted 7:21 am
    23 Jun 2008

    WOW!
    
    WOW!  MAD MAC, Wolverine, and Christophersj just agreed on the same thing!  That should be a Grist-blog post in and of itself!
    Now who is it that said the WE campaign sucked?
    :-)
    I tell you now, it may not look exactly like any of the three of us would want it to be in a perfect world, but I am thoroughly convinced that by somewhere in the 2040's we can get society's energy needs into a relatively sustainable position.  Imperfect, but sustainable.
    -Christophersj

    Permalink

17. 

    intimidavid Posted 11:17 am
    23 Jun 2008

    Hmm?I endorse that statement.
    He never says it can economically be replaced, tomorrow. Is that what you read?
    Solar has everything to do with oil in the sense that they are competing forms of energy. If there's more financial incentive to install solar, of course it would compete better with oil.
    I don't understand your confusion.

    Permalink

18. 

    intimidavid Posted 11:27 am
    23 Jun 2008

    lolJfM, I'm  a literal redneck right now...I hope I'm not your target audience. Were you roleplaying?
    "Also, he didn't address abortion, which is mah number one issue.  I think the Prezudent should git them Sawdies to give us more oil because once gas gits above $4 a gallon and the economy dumps, abortion rates will go up, which I em against."

    Permalink