"CRUDE" oil, an absolute must see program !!!

Ron Paul is interesting to listen to, he seems to be the only one that gets the true nature of a nations money and the effects of managing it correctly (positive and negative). Get it right and you solve so many down stream issues, however his message and its significance is not readily understood by the voters, alas he has a snowflakes chance.

 

Here in the US, candidates outside the perceived mainstream have little chance to get their message across. National TV networks decide whom to invite to take part in "debates" (one of the more inaccurate terms used in our election seasons). In response to a question about TV influencing the outcome of elections by withholding coverage from certain candidates, a TV host and commentator for whom I actually have some respect said recently that it is a legitimate function of news agencies to make judgements as to the "electability" of candidates and to reduce or withdraw coverage of those judged not to have much of a chance. My problem with that is that premature judgements become self-fulfilling prophecies. Ironically, John McCain was on the verge of being written off by the news media six months ago. There began to be noticeably less detailed coverage of his campaign; what there was was punctuated with comments like, "Out of money and nearly out of gas, the McCain campaign limps along as we all wait for the inevitable announcement that it's all over". Milt Romney's shoulders were being measured for the mantle of the Republican nomination. They all deny it, but reading back through past stories proves that nearly all the major news outlets wrote McCain off.

Unfortunately, Ron Paul's message on economic reform won't be heard by more than 1 - 2% of the voters; few of them will understand it.

 

That is just terrifying, what happened to reporting without fear or favour... you know, just the facts not the opinion, talk about a long lost ideal. That means the old newspaper boy from South Australia is truly one of the most powerful men in the US, not that they direct news on the big issues..... hmmmmm, things that make you go, that is. King makers?

 

Yes the Ex pat Ozzie has just announced that the Wall Street Journal, which he promised not to compromise, will becomea general newspaper, including sports and entertainment section, with the financial relegated to an interior section.

http://www.foxbusiness.com/article/...-journal-set-challenge-new-york_569897_1.html

 

The dumbing down process almost seems to be unwritten policy across the board these days. You have to ask... what is happening here?

Where is my tin foil hat?

 

A seminal event in the race to crappy news coverage, IMHO, was the declaration in 1977 by Roone Arledge, new president of ABC News, that the newsroom was to be a profit center like the sports and entertainment divisions. Arledge had no background in news coverage; he was chosen to run the news operation because he had been the producer of the very successful "Wide World of Sports". He was named president of the news division while retaining his titles of head of the sports division. Once ratings take precedence over journalism, it's all downhill for quality reporting.

There is an interesting article on this subject here: http://smartpei.typepad.com/robert_patersons_weblog/2006/08/the_long_tail_a.html

 

The parallels between present day USA and Rome in the latter days of the Empire are scary: a majority of the populace demanding simplistic but novel entertainment and unwilling to learn or think about important issues; an ever self-enriching wealthy class wanting to control but unwilling to make sacrifices for the good of the nation; a chief of state who, "concealing, or at least attempting to conceal, from the public knowledge the misfortunes of his arms, ... indulged himself in a vain confidence, which deferred the remedies of the approaching evil without deferring the evil itself." Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, pg 363, Edward Gibbons

 

Don't worry, be happy

"We're not in a recession, we're in a slowdown," US President George W. Bush, today.

 

If you slowed down any faster the airbags would be tickling your nose.

Ben sez its a "growsession" WTF?

 

Its stunning isn't it? The same basic tactics work and the same result will occur. Whats that saying about history and doomed to repeat? {sigh}

 

Sound three blasts Mr Mate!

 

ships as moveable nuclear power plants

I just found this proposed alternative energy source. 30 - 50 MW is a small utility plant, but that's 100 times the size of a Nimitz Class carrier powerplant.

Ship would not be quite as large as I thought at first scan, but still veeeerrry big. 1500' L x 200' beam (455 m L x 60 m beam) minimum size.

http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070716/69015156.html

 

Nuclear power is seriously the cleanest, and fastest way to get off of fossil fuels. But then again, Russia and nuclear power plants always rears up the thoughts of Chernobyl...

 

Chernobyl was not actually as bad as the western press made it seem. The total death toll ran out to something like 55 and the life now in the so called "dead zone" is amazing. People have lived there since the bang refusing to move, stubborn eh? There is a biker gal who rides the zone regularly, I think daddy is a nuclear scientist, from memory, so she knows what she is doing and has the right gear.

Look see..

There is alot to consider there, not the least that there is no comparison between the tech used in Chernobyl and say those in France, it was reactor 1.0 tech. What of maintenance and repair? The impression is that the Russians where running it on a shoe string.

I learned the other day that a coal fired power plant releases more radio active material into the environment than a nuclear one does, that caused pause for thought.

Another interesting subject is the effect of low level radiation on human health. Early research started at a certain level (equipment limitations?) and the effects above that level where quite linear, i.e. they got worse in a very predictable fashion. It seems it was assumed that below that level the effects regressed to 0 in a similar fashion. It now seems that's possibly not the case and that the is actually some benefit to be had up to a certain point. One study in Europe found that areas with higher background radiation levels and populations with better immunity and general health, much to their surprise. It does stand to reason, the world is a radio active place its just a matter of degree. It often seems to be the case that a little of something is good for you but a lot of the same thing is toxic... maybe we have been to scared of the Nuclear bogyman?

Food for thought?

 

i aint against nuclear power,,,and know bout the coal crap spouters,,,,but,,,why should we waste our valuable time and what LITTLE money we have on that,,,when stuff that wont kill ya if theres an accident,,( well,,not kill a town or city,,,,people at "whatever" plant is bummin)i,,,or something that we dont need to worry about the WASTE, is so close nows,,,oh ya,,,,have i mentioned their gonna put in a "nuclear waste" site near me,,,,how great huh,,,,like i dont have enough abnormalities hehe