French and American relations

[Milton]

As for saving Western Europe from Germany, most Germans were tied up on the Eastern Front for the vast majority of the war (at least the part of it when the Germans were losing), non-precision bombing did not have a decisive effect on German industrial production (taking out the V-weapons was significant), the Italian front was no success and Normandy came long after Russia had started beating back the German army. It is rare to hear Russians caliming the Europe owes them even though it is far more accurate to say Russia beat the Germans than America.

I was speaking of the US keeping massive numbers of troops in Western Europe to prevent the Soviets from sweeping in and taking control of West Germany, France...  And It's very easy to dismiss the threat of the old Soviet Union.  We very easily forget things like the Berlin Air Lift and we have a tendency to forget how real the Soviet threat to Europe was throughout the cold war.  America acted as a deterent.  That was, by the way, the rationale behind the Marshal plan.  Not for America to reap economic reward, but to allow West Germany, France and Japan to become viable, industrialized countries that were capable of contributing to their own defense.  Democries that wouldn't give in to Soviet pressures.

Also, this notion that America is totally selfish and only looks for petrolium.  Where the hell is the oil in South Korea?  Yet we have a massive troop deployment there.  If North Korea slips a Nuke into Tokyo or starts shelling Seoul (Kim Jong Il is an insane bastard, by the way), then everyone is going to expect us to do something about it.  We will beat the piss out of the North Koreans, lose thousands of lives, spend billions of dollars and in the aftermath Europe will criticize the way in which we conduct the war.

Face it, the US can't win, no matter what they do.

[rvs]

Milton: The US started the Marshall plan to make sure communism/socialism wouldn't expand over Europe, which would now probabably be open for anything. Let's not forget there was actually a deal about this between the allied leaders at Potsdam, if I remember corrently, even before Germany was actually defeated.

And really, you're comparing the Irak with North Korea situation? Then why hasn't Bush invaded North Korea yet? They even SHOWED they have a nuke, while for Irak, it obviously was forged evidence, if anything was available at all. Let's not put our heads in the sand eh?

[Bram]

All of those countries will come to depend on those oil reserves more and more in the next twenty years, and it will be very easy for the United States to dictate economic terms to those countries if we have the ability to deny oil to them.

I don't think so. It's more a question of having access to cheap fuel for themselves. If the US would be cut off from the rest of the world, it could theoretically be autarkic, but the most challengeing problem would be that of power generation as the US has only a very limited fossil fuel stock. A forced and complete switch to alternative power sources in combination with the other limits an autarkic society faces, would most likely collapse the US economy. Securing oil reserves like the ones in Iraq assures the long-term survival of the US as a superpower and reduces their own dependancy on foreign countries with massive oil wells.

Even the Netherlands has the ability to generate its own power, using the enormous natural gas reserves we have. France's power is almost exclusively generated using nuclear fission. In Germany, experimental nuclear fusion reactors show promise for the future and are expected to be viable within a couple of decades. Most european countries have successfully sought and found reasonable alternatives after the crippling fuel crisis in the seventies. It is unlikely that the US would be able to dictate terms to us, even if they did control most of the earth's oil reserves.

[dandan]

Don't be hard on the Yanks!

From the English point of view it is good that the world has another 'Imperialist' to bitch about. It makes people forget about Old European colonisation.

Luckily Russia has a pragmatic leader who is content to turn a blind-eye to America's little adventures (with UK support to show they are international coalition forces) in return for IMF loans and no interference in Chechyna.

Personally I think the disagreement between France and the US is far healthier than a world where only one opinion is tolerated. Remember the last time the Yanks agreed with the French was over the need to keep Vietnamese nationalism in check!

[Milton]

Milton: The US started the Marshall plan to make sure communism/socialism wouldn't expand over Europe, which would now probabably be open for anything. Let's not forget there was actually a deal about this between the allied leaders at Potsdam, if I remember corrently, even before Germany was actually defeated.

You are somewhat correct if you are speaking of pre-determined spheres of influence.  The Soviets had a sphere, the Americans, French and British had a sphere.  No one really knew, though, how brutal the Communists were going to treat Eastern Europe.  Really, Stalin just took those chunks of Eastern Europe that he conquered from Hitler and, instead of giving Poland or Hungary their soverignty back Stalin raped those countries.  They were his "buffer" agaisnt Western aggression.

The US didn't just leave Europe.  It stayed, helped and tried to re-build so those countries could help in their own defense.  That's the purpose of the Marshal plan.  To see the difference of American and Soviet spheres of influence all you have to do is compare the per-capita GDP of Poland with that of Germany or France.

Now, I'm not saying that the US wasn't selfish in instituting the Marshal Plan.  The US wanted to slow Soviet aggression.  But, the US certianly was somewhat benelovent towards it's allies following the war.  Wasn't it?

None of this changes the fact that it has become very, very trendy to hate the US.

Oh, and Bram, the US has massive coal reserves and coal is the resource that is most widley used for power generation.  The US just needs oil.  

By the way, I have a solution to the oil problem.  The US needs to get together with Canada, Argentina and Australia and create OFEC (organization of FOOD exporting countries).  We then use food as a trade weapon, creating artificial shortages and jacking up prices for countries that are forced to import food (how's that desert working for growing food, Saudi Arabia?).  Then, we use our leverage to get oil at reduced rates.  Wouldn't that be great?

[kirdape3]

Only about 15% of our oil supply is from Arab countries.  45% of it comes from domestic supplies, and the other chunk comes from places like Venezuela, Canada, Mexico, and Nigeria.  If it were just about ensuring the supplies of that 15%, I doubt we'd go through all the trouble.  There has to be something bigger than just ensuring a fairly small chunk of oil supplies - whether it's making the world safe for Israel, cutting the other superpowers off from their access to a large chunk of oil supplies, or even just flexing the military muscle abroad to increase the ability to flex it at home.

I personally believe the first two are more accurate than the last - it's the straight-out geopolitical solution to the problem of a potential erosion of American economic might.

[Bram]

I forgot about the coal supplies, yeah. The US has one of the largest economically revoerable coal reserves in the world. Even so, only about 50% of US power is generated using coal. De test is accounted for by nuclear, natural gas, oil-fired stations and (to a very small degree) renewables.

But keep in mind that over 85% off ALL of the US coal extracted is used for power generation. See where I'm going with this? Almost ALL the coal you can extract is only enough to 'fuel' slightly more than HALF of your power requirements.

I'm not saying the US would collapse when faced with being autarkic (in fact, I said they would be able to pull it off, as one of the few countries in the world) but the power generation would definitely become an issue.

[Dr. Sylvan]

We don't get more coal because other power is more economic. We could generate all of our power for 200 years on known coal reserves, IIRC.

However, this is likely an underestimate. For instance, (from pg. 121-122, 128 of this)

In 1914 the US Bureau of Mines estimated that there would be enough oil left over for only ten years' consumption. In 1939 the Department of the Interior projected that oil would last only 13 more years, and again in 1951 it was again projected that oil would run out 13 years later. [....] The US Energy Information Agency estimates that today it will be possible to produce about 550 billion barrels of oil from tar sands and shale oil at a price below $30, i.e. that it is possible to increase the present global oil reserves by 50 percent. And it is estimated that within 25 years we can commercially exploit twice as much in oil reserves as the world's present oil reserves. [...] It is estimated that globally there is about 242 times more shale oil than the conventional petroleum resources. There is more than eight times more energy in shale oil than in all other energy resources combined - oil, gas, coal, peat, and tar sands. This stunning amount of energy is the equivalent of our present total energy consumption for more than 5,000 years.

Reserves are constantly growing, and we will never run out in the foreseeable future. Lol @ environmentalists. (In case anyone is wondering, that quote is interspersed with an insane number of citations. It's my favorite nonfiction book ever.)

[Bram]

That's a very technocratic statement. As a student of energy technology, let me reassure you there is no right answer. Evironmentalists claim that resources are depleting. This is both true and untrue. Lemme explain:

Our rate of consumption of fossil fuels exceeds the rate at which new fossil fuels are created. Since the supply is a given (albeit unknown) absolute amount, it WILL eventually run out.

But this is relatively unimportant. What counts, is the amount of economically viable resources. If it costs more energy (or money) to extract the stuff than it nets, it's useless. Obviously, the economically viable resources are way (WAY) smaller. These resources are a function of our extraction techniques. If these improve, the available resources grow. This is the crux of the problem.

Environmentalists argue that our rate of consumption is higher than the rate of technological progress. Ergo: we will run out in a given period of time (there's hundreds of different scernarios for this).

Technocrats will argue that technogical progress is a given and that extraction techniques will improve constantly over time. According to them, the economically viable resources (over time) minus the consumption (over time) is a positive number. Ergo: no problems (other than increased CO2 production.)

The truth is: there's no real evidence for either statement. We'll just have to wait and see. The environmentalist view has the added bonus of reducing CO2 emissions, which will become a real problem in the future, and of being the 'careful' way of going about things.

The accepted definition of 'renewable' is 'maximising our wealth while not reducing future generation's abilities to do the same'. The statement you made does not accomplish this. It's just a question of how MANY generations down the line the real problem arises.

[Dr. Sylvan]

I agree: we're using more energy than the ground is accumulating. No contest. However, I think that 5,000 years is enough to revise our energy infrastructure and increase the efficiency of renewable energy technology such that it is economically competitive. Assume we continue to increase the rate of consumption and drop it to 1,000 or even 100 years, and we're still fine. Solar cells taking up an area 2.5% the size of the Sahara could power the entire planet's current consumption of energy (same book as above). I think that if we ever start running out of fossil fuels, we can switch over pretty smoothly. I'm not worried in the least about running out of anything, and I'm happy to let the free market decide when it's best to put photovoltaic panels on the roof.

[Azhrei]

I'm a firm believer that any catastrophe that can be predicted probably won't happen.

If we run out of oil, we'll have a replacement or improved extraction by the time it happens.

[Bram]

Solar cells taking up an area 2.5% the size of the Sahara could power the entire planet's current consumption of energy (same book as above).

Yes, but if you analyse a solar panel's complete life cycle, you'll find out that in many cases, it actually costs more energy to produce them per unit from raw materials than they produce before they break down. And that's not even looking at the toxicity of the materials used. It costs additional heaps of energy to break down the more toxic components. You can't just throw a busted cell on some heap

I'm not worried in the least about running out of anything, and I'm happy to let the free market decide when it's best to put photovoltaic panels on the roof.

Cool. Then it will never happen. And we'd be forced to find ways of making them viable at the point where it will be too late.

However, I think that 5,000 years is enough to revise our energy infrastructure and increase the efficiency of renewable energy technology such that it is economically competitive.

One can only hope You're completely ignoring the fact that burning fossil fuels for another 5,000 years will render our planet all but uninhabitable. That said, I do believe the future lies in nuclear fusion. Experimental reactors have even achieved a very slight positive output (whereas in the past, it cost more energy to keep the reaction stable than it netted. Which was a significant improvent on the situation before, where they could't keep it going at all). If they can get it work economically in a couple of decades, our collectove asses are saved.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Yes, but if you analyse a solar panel's complete life cycle, you'll find out that in many cases, it actually costs more energy to produce them per unit from raw materials than they produce before they break down. And that's not even looking at the toxicity of the materials used. It costs additional heaps of energy to break down the more toxic components. You can't just throw a busted cell on some heap

I'll defer to your knowledge; I was unaware that this was a potential concern. Do you have a website/easy reference with some stats on how often this is the case? I'm also under the impression that some solar energy collection is used to grow fuel for biomass power plants, and I know that these are much less efficient than straight-up batteries (plants collect 1-3% of the energy, solar cells get 15-20%). Perhaps this affects the energy input:output ratio?

Cool. Then it will never happen. And we'd be forced to find ways of making them viable at the point where it will be too late.

I will dispute this point, though. In the nineteenth century, there were fears of exhausting the coal supply, so the mechanics of the market naturally spurred us to use current reserves more efficiently, find new reserves, and seek alternative fuels. In that time period the shift was to oil, and for our own the shift will gradually be to a new abundant resource. Whether that's something based on wave power, solar, nuclear breeder reactors, or something impossible to predict, I think I trust the market to know when it's most profitable to make the change, and I don't think we need to worry that it will suddenly come upon us a millennium from now and all the lights will go out simultaneously.

You're completely ignoring the fact that burning fossil fuels for another 5,000 years will render our planet all but uninhabitable.

If you're talking about CO2 emissions and global warming, page 263 of my favorite nonfiction book ever has something to say. (Please excuse me if you're referring to some alternative way in which fossil fuel emissions will destroy the world.)

The development in the instrumental global temperature record from 1856-2000 is shown in Figure 135. On the whole, the temperature since then has increased 0.4-0.8 C. Closer inspection reveals that all of the twentieth century's temperature increase has occurred abruptly within two time periods, from 1910 to 1945 and again from 1975. till today. While the second period fits well with the greenhouse concern, the temperature increase from 1910 to 1945 is harder to align with the human emission of greenhouse gases, since the concentration and increase in the early part of the last century was slight (Figure 133). The IPCC finds that some of the increase can be explained by a substantial and natural increase in solar irradiation from 1700 onwards, which however is still only poorly quantified.

So while there is some potential temperature increase from human activities, I am similarly unconvinced that it is dramatic, or dangerous. I linked to some articles on page two of this thread which further flesh out my skepticism of global warming science.

[Bram]

Just because you've got it written in a book, doesn't mean it's true. Always remember that. I look upon the figures I provide with the same skepsis (but offer them anyway as a counterweight to yours). There's entire libraries of conflicting research on the subject of the effect increased CO2 emissions have on global warming. Some scientists believe there's a connection, and some don't. Independant metaresearch shows that many more scientists believe they ARE related than there are scientists who DON'T. So since I've never done any actual empirical research into the subject myself, I'm inclined to believe the former.

Here's a page you might want to read. They use IPCC data and come to this conclusion:

Applying the above simple procedure to EPA's no response scenario gives an estimated temperature rise of 4.32°C in 2100.

What do you suppose that will mean if you add another 3000 years to it?

Also, from an ediucational site:

Through the study of ancient ice cores from Antarctica both the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and Global Mean Annual Temperature can be determined for the past 160,000 years of the earth's history.  A rise in the carbon dioxide levels and the mean annual global temperatures has been observed since 10,000 years ago. This is a concern, because the most recent increases are occurring at rates not observed since the last ice age and have only previously been observed in association with dramatic shifts in climate. The dramatic increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere over the past 150 years (from about 280 parts per million to about 360 parts per million) is largely due to anthropogenic (human-caused) effects. After several years of investigation and the consultation with thousands of scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC; a United Nations task force examining the plausibility of human induced climate change), concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."  The hottest years in the past 100 years have all  occurred in the last decade.

Effects of global warming will be seen in all ecosystems. Some (most)  wil be able to adapt, some will not. The rising sea level (due to the polar caps melting and the sea water expanding) is the major concer as it will lead directly to floods and thus major loss of life throughout the world.

On the solar cell issue, from a CISS report:

All renewable energy technologies with the exception of hydro (see below) have low total emissions, although all have some emissions associated with certain stages of their life cycle. For example, the production of solar panels is the highest emission point in solar electricity generation. Emissions from photovoltaic systems depend on cell life and the technology used to produce the wafers.

The Life Cycle Analysis technique is extremely difficult to execute as it encompasses many different stages of the proces, namely mining and refining, manufacturing, transportation, installation, operation and maintenance, decommissioning, and disposal and recycling. If you have a given photovoltaic element in your hand, it's all but impossible to figure out where and how most of these processes took place, and even if you can find out, you'll have to make do with educated guesses. Estimates are that a negative net gain is true for most mono and polycristallyne silicium cells, and not so much for amorphous silicium, plastic and organic (dye-sensitized) units (the latter types are also cheaper and easier to produce and have a lower efficiency). Since the toxicity of the cells is a separate problem, research focuses on these latter types of cells since they provide fewer problems in this area.

[Dr. Sylvan]

On the subject of reliability of my book, Bjorn Lomborg is a professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus, Denmark (not the most free-marketeering of surroundings), who wrote his book by having a class of grad students compile up every statistic they could find for a semester. He also used to work with the environmental movement, but has changed his positions since his research. I still treat his information with skepticism, but going to his citations, I found this (all from that last paragraph on pg263):

2146. There has been an extensive discussion about adjustments for urban heat (almost all temperature gauges are close to large cities which have grown ever larger over time and therefore emit and attract more and more heat), which I will not embark upon (see e.g. Burroughs 1997:114), since the margin of error does not seem to be that great. Peterson et al. (1999) showed essentially the same global temperature series for rural stations only. IPCC estimate the error to be less than 0.05 C over the past century (2001a:2.2.2.1).
2147. IPCC 2001a:2.2.2.3.
2148. Barnett et al. 1999:2,637, IPCC 2001a:2.2.2.4.
2149. Tett et al. (1999) find "attribution of the warming early in the century has proved more elusive," and Delworth and Knutson (2000) find an "unusually large" natural variation is needed to model the temperature curve. Typically, the simulations just simply do not handle the 1910-45 temperature increase; see Barnett et al. 1999:2,634; IPCC 1997c:30. This way of interpreting the temperature data has given rise to criticism and wonder. Aksel Wiin-Nielsen, professor emeritus in meteorology and former director-general of the UN World Meteorological Organization, argues that since the early part of the temperature increase was natural, it is implausible that the last temperature increase could not also have natural causes (Christenson and Wiin-Nielsen 1996:58-9).
2150. IPCC 2001a:6.12.1, 12.2.3.1.figure 12.7, 8.6.4. IPCC 2001a:6.11.1.1.2 finds that the level of scientific understanding of past development in irradiance is "very low."

I find that kind of documentation difficult to doubt, particularly with reputable magazines like The Economist featuring his work (though I guess it's possible there's something unreliable in there somewhere).

The rising sea level (due to the polar caps melting and the sea water expanding) is the major concer as it will lead directly to floods and thus major loss of life throughout the world.

I linked to it earlier, but I'm not too worried about this issue in part due to this.

That said, here's what I think we've managed to agree on:
(1) CO2 causes some warming.
(2) Fossil fuel use can't continue forever.
(3) "There's entire libraries of conflicting research on the subject of the effect increased CO2 emissions have on global warming. Some scientists believe there's a connection, and some don't."

Disagree:
(1) Something should be done to force reductions sooner vs. We should let the market determine when it's time to switch.

I think our disagreement is smaller than it might appear to be, since you're still using the thousands-of-years estimate. I fully expect better renewable technologies to take over in large part by 2100 without any government coercion. We didn't shift from coal to oil due to any shortage of coal, and we won't quit oil only when we run out; it will be much, much sooner. I simply point out that concerns about running out are not a justification for policy changes. Most importantly, the price of producing very renewable energy is falling faster than the price of fossil fuel, and already renewable sources constitute 13.6% of global production (including hydro-power). I think we can rely on the economic incentives of the market to bring about the last few steps needed to obsolete fossil fuels, and that the economic costs involved in forcing these reductions sooner are greater than any benefits from the marginally shorter period of nonrenewable-dependency.

Since we're essentially trying to predict the future based on incomplete engineering knowledge of what obstacles remain in producing viable renewable energy, I don't think we can really make much more progress on our point of disagreement barring the appearance of dazzling, irrefutable evidence that all parties can agree is truth--which never happens. However, this was a most enlightening debate, and I'll be sure to use some of your points the next time I mix it up. :)

[Bram]

I too greatly enjoyed this discussion. It was as I believe any discussion should be: an open exchange of ideas, with each person trying to convince the other of his views, stating and restarting them without flaming eachother Both persons learn something from a good discussion; I believe this was the case here.

As a sidenote, I just recieved my lastest copy of 'De Ingenieur' (a dutch technology magazine) which contained several interesting, far-fetched and rather odd snippets I'd like to share.

On the US position in the energy market:

In one article, it is postulated that the US may have a 'hidden angenda' concerning their proposed lunar exploits. A continued presence on the moon could (in time) lead to an American monopoly for the isotope Helium-3, which is abundant in the higher layers of earth on the Moon. This substance will significantly improve nuclear fusion techniques as it releases far less neutrons during the fusion step (which means its less radioactive) and it produces alpha-particles and protons which can be utilized directly as electrical current (as opposed to the current techniques involviong more radioactive deuterium, where the fusion energy is used to heat water which powers a generator, meaning more exergy losses). A monopoly on this would place the US firmly ahead of the rest of the word in the energy market of the future.

On the C02 problem:

It has been seriously discussed by Cambridge scientists to shoot hunderds of tons of small mettallic particles into space, saturating the atmosphere with them, should the global warming problem get out of hand. This will decrease the intesity of the sunlight hitting the earth by about 1%, resulting in a significant temperature reduction on the surface. Also, plans are being discussed to stimulate the growth of certain algae in the ocean, to the same end.

[Saucemaster]

On the subject of reliability of my book, Bjorn Lomborg is a professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus, Denmark (not the most free-marketeering of surroundings), who wrote his book by having a class of grad students compile up every statistic they could find for a semester. He also used to work with the environmental movement, but has changed his positions since his research. I still treat his information with skepticism, but going to his citations, I found this (all from that last paragraph on pg263) [....]
I find that kind of documentation difficult to doubt, particularly with reputable magazines like The Economist (though I guess it's possible there's something unreliable in there somewhere).

I would probably identify myself as heavily sympathetic to environmentalism (and gladly self-identify as a liberal, if a sometimes-moderate one), but I am certainly quite aware that the environmental movement has its fair share (and then some) of overstatement and blind faith.  Which is why I personally applaud Lomborg's effort to develop a countervailing position using actual research.  Nevertheless, he's not entirely without controversy: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-1CEB-93F6809EC5880000&catID=2

That's the now-famous Scientific American article wherein Lomborg is blasted pretty hard.  I would also be remiss if I didn't say that that article *itself* is also subject to much debate.  I'm referencing it just to provide a counterweight for Bram and anyone else interested in the thread.

It was as I believe any discussion should be: an open exchange of ideas, with each person trying to convince the other of his views, stating and restarting them without flaming eachother  Both persons learn something from a good discussion; I believe this was the case here.

Hear hear!  It's so rare to hear any discussion of environmental issues without both sides descending into name-calling and blind hostility.

[kirdape3]

To offer one note:

Even if fossil fuels are continued to use, there is an ENORMOUS reduction in the amount of power required if room-temperature superconductors (RTS) are discovered.  Right now I believe the current golden standard for superconductivity is 180 K, with a magnesium borate crystal.  While that's pretty warm by superconductor standards, we still need another 100 K at least to be able to fashion power lines out of the stuff.  That will cut at least 20% of our electricity demands - what's lost heating up the power lines by Joule heating.

[Bram]

Superconductivity was a 'power word' a while ago. If you did anything that had anything to do with it, you were the man. Right now, people have become desillusioned with it and nanotechnology is the Next Big Hype.

That said, yes, an eventual breakthrough is expected and would make a lot of difference. This is also true for the quest for the white LED, which may reduce global electricity consumption by some 10%.

[Azhrei]

http://www.theonion.com/4005/news1.html

I think this is but the tip of the iceberg.

Someday, I think we may be able to harness human stupidity for energy.

Granted, this may be as low-tech as having known idiots push a giant cog all day, but we're not socially at that point yet.

[dandan]

Someday, I think we may be able to harness human stupidity for energy.

Granted, this may be as low-tech as having known idiots push a giant cog all day, but we're not socially at that point yet.

Getting them to push in the same direction is the challenge.

Speaking of stupidity, when will Bush get re-elected due to the inability of voters to vote properly (again)?

[Dr. Sylvan]

Speaking of stupidity, when will Bush get re-elected due to the inability of voters to vote properly (again)?

First Tuesday of November.

However, I'm personally hoping that through some kind of grassroots chain reaction, the Libertarian is elected. Either that or a spontaneous constitutional amendment that says "Dude, Condorcet is ten times more fair as a voting method!"

I'm fundamentally optimistic, which is why I don't shoot myself every time someone defends Bush. That and The Daily Show. I love Jon Stewart in a way those of you who are not his viewers cannot understand.

[thorme]

Speaking of stupidity, when will Bush get re-elected due to the inability of voters to vote properly (again)?

I say we make the ballots a little tougher to figure out.  Seems like a decent way to keep the idiots from determining the nation's direction.


I've voted in the last several elections, and even I'm not sure I can bring myself to the polls this November.  No wonder voter turnout is so bad these days....look at the choices.  Looks like I'll be writing someone in and/or voting for someone without a chance again.

[Milton]

However, I'm personally hoping that through some kind of grassroots chain reaction, the Libertarian is elected.

Is Harry Browne running again?  Man, he sucks.  He has the personality of Ralph Nader and the communication skills of Bush.  

Personally, I think it should be a little harder to vote.  Same day registration, no questions asked, just a drivers liscence to vote.  Hell, in Minnesota you don't even need a drivers lisence to vote.  You can have a voter "vouge" for you at the polling place.  Anyone see a problem with that?  

What's wrong with forcing voters to register at least a week before the election?  What's wrong with creating a ballot that an average fourth grader can figure out?  A democracy cannot placate to the fringe minority of ultra idiots.  You should have to know how to read in order to vote.  But, with current laws people don't even have to know how to read.  Literacy as a requirement for voting rights is technically discriminatory.

Participation in a democracy should be accessable, but not cheap and easy.

And I'll bet right now that Bush will win with over 300 electoral votes.

[Dr. Sylvan]

Is Harry Browne running again?  Man, he sucks.  He has the personality of Ralph Nader and the communication skills of Bush.

Much as I like Browne, he is not running. The current frontrunners are Michael Badnarik and Gary Nolan.

Personally, I think it should be a little harder to vote.  Same day registration, no questions asked, just a drivers liscence to vote.  Hell, in Minnesota you don't even need a drivers lisence to vote.  You can have a voter "vouge" for you at the polling place.  Anyone see a problem with that?

What's wrong with forcing voters to register at least a week before the election?  What's wrong with creating a ballot that an average fourth grader can figure out?  A democracy cannot placate to the fringe minority of ultra idiots.  You should have to know how to read in order to vote.  But, with current laws people don't even have to know how to read.  Literacy as a requirement for voting rights is technically discriminatory.

The only problem with creating any kind of test for voting rights is that you have no way of preventing it from perpetuating the power of the test's designers. The best way to keep idiots from influencing the election (that I've thought of at least) is to gimmick the system to gridlock itself after the election with a multicameral legislature divided by income. This way no economic group can approve anything that the other groups don't. In order to increase accurate representation, my two favored reforms are Condorcet voting and Proportional Representation legislature (like the Dutchies if I understand their system correctly).

And I'll bet right now that Bush will win with over 300 electoral votes.

Nope. Watch this:

222 Bush - 239 Kerry - 73 Undecided

185 KERRY
55 California
31 New York
21 Illinois
17 Michigan
15 New Jersey
12 Massachusetts
10 Maryland
7 Connecticut
4 Hawaii
4 Rhode Island
3 Delaware
3 District of Columbia
3 Vermont

54 Probably KERRY
21 Pennsylvania
11 Washington
10 Minnesota
7 Oregon
5 West Virginia

73 UNDECIDED
27 Florida
20 Ohio
10 Wisconsin
7 Iowa
5 New Mexico
4 New Hampshire

16 Probably BUSH
11 Tennessee
5 Nevada

206 BUSH
34 Texas
15 Georgia
15 North Carolina
13 Virginia
11 Indiana
11 Missouri
10 Arizona
9 Alabama
9 Colorado
9 Louisiana
8 Kentucky
8 South Carolina
7 Oklahoma
6 Arkansas
6 Kansas
6 Mississippi
5 Nebraska
5 Utah
4 Idaho
3 Alaska
3 Montana
3 North Dakota
3 South Dakota
3 Wyoming

There's no way Bush is getting 300 electoral votes. Ev4r. American elections are always close unless you get a Dukakis-style crash-and-burn, which will not happen unless Kerry punches a baby on camera. My current estimate is Kerry wins President, and the Republicans gain more seats in both houses. This is the gridlock model which made Clinton look so good, and I heartily hope it is the case so that the government does as little as possible for the next four years. Republicans are much better at being tightwads with a Democrat in the Oval Office, and that same Democrat is generally able to keep them from shoving a Bible up inappropriate parts of my body.

If I can't have a Libertarian, I'll take UBERGRIDLOCK as the next best thing.

[jpmeyer]

Oh oh oh oh oh, is Gus Hall still running?!??!?!?!  Or is he dead?

[Dr. Sylvan]

Oh oh oh oh oh, is Gus Hall still running?!??!?!?!  Or is he dead?

Wikipedia - Gus Hall

He's been dead for four years. Dirty commie, serves him right. :)

[Saucemaster]

54 Probably KERRY
21 Pennsylvania
11 Washington
10 Minnesota
7 Oregon
5 West Virginia

Last I heard, West Virginia and Pennsylvania were still very much in play.  Did I miss something?

If I can't have a Libertarian, I'll take UBERGRIDLOCK as the next best thing.

Oh man, I like you Dr. S, so I won't say anything here beyond the fact that I think that "Libertarian" is really an eleven-letter word for "naive".  (I know, poke poke poke.)

[Dr. Sylvan]

Last I heard, West Virginia and Pennsylvania were still very much in play.  Did I miss something?

AFAIK, those states have large blue-collar unemployment, so I lean them Democratic, even if they could potentially go the other way. Bush removing his protectionist steel tariff will likely neither win nor lose him points, so I would yield to any more convincing evidence than my "look at last time, think about what's different" plan.

Oh man, I like you Dr. S, so I won't say anything here beyond the fact that I think that "Libertarian" is really an eleven-letter word for "naive". ;)  (I know, poke poke poke.)

Nothing my mother/father/sister/teachers/roommates/classmates hasn't/haven't told me a million times. :)

However, I'll take this opportunity to officially admit that I lost a debate about regulations and have since decided that requirements of information transparency (e.g., food and pharmaceutical ingredient labels, public accounting records for corporations) are a-okay in my book as pragmatic preventative measures, so I'm a "moderate Libertarian". I use the term because it best embodies my combined hatred of welfare-statism, corporate-government entanglement, imperialist military action, and government intervention into freedom of conscience.

[Milton]

I take Arizona out of the Bush camp and put it in with Kerry.  

I take Michigan out of Kerry and put it in undecided.

I take Pennsylvania and West Virginia out of the probabally Kerry and put it in undecided.

I take Tennessee into the Bush category.

Other than that, I agree with your numbers.

Of course, all of this can change dependant on Vice Presidential nominees, an improving economy, a worsening war in Iraq, a new catastrophic terrorist event in the USA...

It looks like the economy will decide this election.  Christopher Hitchens recently said that character should be the biggest issue.  I agree.  Most Americans are very ignorant as to the role of the president in regards to economic management.  They blame the president when things are bad, and credit him when things are good.  Most economic cycles are independent of presidential influence.  The Dem's are chanting "unemployment", trying to make the American people believe that Bush has a big red button in the white house that is marked "push to create jobs" and Bush just isn't pushing that button.  He is doing everything he can to keep his rich cronies in wealth by keeping the working man down.  It's overly simplistic and it's a horrible argument  Personally, I'm distrustful of any presidential candidate that has an easy solution to structural or cyclical unemployment.  "When I'm president I'll create 2.5 million jobs!".  How?  How the hell does the president do that?

Anyway, my take is this.  The unemployment rate will drop four or five tenths of a percent as the election nears.  It could possibly drop below 5% by October, as the seasonal holiday hiring starts up again.  Most of our cyclical unemployment will drop due to continuing decreases in productivity rates.  I am distrubed by the outsourcing of tech jobs in America, but I don't think it will be much of an election issue.

As the unemployment rate drops Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania will decide the election, along with Flordia.  Wisconsin will also play a role, but it's only 10 votes.  I see Ohio and Pennsylvania going to Bush.  Florida will go to Bush also.  Wisconsin will follow Minnesota and go for the Democrat.  Michigan?  Who knows.  But if Bush gets Ohio and Flordia and Pennsylvania, then it really won't matter.

But, it's still very, very early.  The Republicans haven't even started campaigning, and they have a ton of money.  The Democrats are still busy beating up on eachother.  The Republicans and just waiting, licking their chops.