Conservative, yes. Dittohead, oh hell no.

Can both the Democrats and the Republicans lose this fall?

We can only hope....

If Mark Davis (for the uninitiated....meaning those of you who still believe in thought and knowledge being a plus in opinion writing....Wednesday Dallas News columnist and talk show host) and Rush Limbaugh could have a baby, it would have Paulie Shore's intellect. Except that being inbred, it would be suggested at doctor level that this should be the exception sanctioned aborted fetus.

Nothing like nationalist socialism (ahem) to make a man feel like a man, I guess.

That's a good point that needs emphasis, Rod. Rush Limbaugh is openly praising a big government giveaway in the People's Republic of China and implies we should do something similar. It's a kind of welfare, and Rush likes it because it would allow the upper middle class to afford its SUVs again. I'll keep this in mind next time they ever want to fool around with AFDC subsidies again.

It's difficult to square Rush's comments, and the oil-industry-friendly nature of the Republican Party, against those jaunty Reagan quips the GOP likes to pull out about government being our biggest problem.

Pure doublethink on Rush's part.

DU

Agreed with John E. Zhang Linsen has a big Hummer with nine speakers blaring is just a prole. The fact that he is a comfortable player in the prole empire that is Red China doesn't require respect from me. Either way, Zhang is just a vulgar piece of crap, whether fom conservative Christian standards of analysis or those from advanced Western thinkers.

Max, don't waste your time trying to explain anything related to conservatism on this blog. Knee-jerk anti-cons, including our pseudo-conservative host, will hear what they want to hear. Their civility, fairness and reason go missing at the mere mention of Rush Limbaugh.

Pack hatred is an ugly thing to see on display. It's a form of bullying.

The problem with limited powers, small government and avoiding foreign entanglements, Manfred, is that small governments with limited powers don't provide the protection that big business needs against the vicisitudes of the market and avoiding foreign entanglements doesn't protect multinationals from harm. For all his cant, Linbaugh is a shill for Big Business conservatism to make the world safe for the corporations. Free markets and enterprise are fine on a small scale, but the larger you grow, the more you need government and quasi-government entities to take away the uncertainity that mega-capital demands. What was it Adam Smith said about two businessmen meeting in the street only to conspire to fix prices and divide markets?

Wow, I'm going to have to talk to the leadership cabal at the Homosocialist Conspiracy if we're handing out memberships to good-hearted traditionalist folk like Rod. We're never going to advance our insidious agenda of fabulous world domination if we're letting anyone with a taste for organic asparagus join the movement. I mean, really. We have to think about what it does to our Affirmative Action for Arborophiles programs if valuable conspiracy positions are being held by someone like Rod. I mean, Rod's a great guy, but we can't let him stand between our plans for total freedom for a man and his ficus to pursue their own happiness.

China knows that growth needs energy.

Max - I agree that economic growth requires energy. OTOH, growth & increasing energy efficiency are not necessarily incompatible; see, e.g., US energy intensity over the past couple decades. See also a recent McKinsey report (*); apparently, there are many cost-effective opportunities for increasing US energy efficiency. I do agree that the potential for increased efficiency at a given standard of living is limited; beyond a certain point, further reductions in energy consumption will require not merely decreased energy intensity, but a decreased standard of living. But I don't think America's anywhere close to that point yet.

Note also that there's a difference between conspicuous consumption on the one hand, and necessity on the other. A Hummer or pickup might be necessary in order to haul tons of stuff for one's job (e.g., in construction). I suspect that most people don't need one to commute to & from work, or run errands, or pick up groceries, however.

I don't have a problem with wasted energy per se. I think it foolish, but people do many foolish things. My concern about energy efficiency is contingent: Given the possibility of peak oil (on the one hand), and our continued dependence upon foreigners for an essential economic input (on the other), weaning ourselves off imported energy sources strikes me as prudent. If energy were available in, effectively, unlimited quantities from solely domestic sources, I probably wouldn't much care about Hummers.

As for China...perhaps I'm wrong, but I suspect their energy subsidies are less about growth and more about bread & circuses.

Wind, Solar, and other alternatives are NOT viable alternatives yet.

Solar is indeed (still) too expensive for baseline power. OTOH, wind is, if not already there, certainly close to being cost-effective. Intermittency can be dealt with via networked turbines. My preference is nuclear - a proven technology - but it's nice to know other options exist....

Everyone seems to think this is about the gas pump and what kinda car to buy. // It's about jets, and trains, and trucks, all the industry that needs the energy to go.

Well, it _is_, in large part. In 2005, cars, motorcycles, & "other 2-axle 4-tire vehicles" (mainly vans, SUVs & pickups (**)) accounted for ~69% of US transportation energy consumption, with cars alone at 36.5%. All other highway vehicles were 17%. Air, rail, & maritime transport were 7.5%, 2%, and 4%, respectively (***).

(*) mckinsey.com/clientservice/ccsi/greenhousegas.asp

(**) See note for Table 4-12 in BTS's "National Transportation Statistics".

(***) See BTS, "National Transportation Statistics", Table 4-5. Conversions from volumetric units to joules were my calculations (available upon request).

"OTOH, wind is, if not already there, certainly close to being cost-effective. Intermittency can be dealt with via networked turbines"

if it were cost-effective then why the high government subsidies. Even TBoone has said that if it weren't for the subsidies he wouldn't be getting into the business

as for intermittency all wind turbines are found on giant wind farms subject to the same wind, wind does not AFAIK blow in concentrated streams

as for government subsidization of fuel one, there was an article (I believe in the WSJ) just the other day examining how countries like China and Indonesia to name just two are heavily subsidizing fuel to spare their citizens. Because the government is protecting their citizens from high prices the citizens are not concerned with conservation.

read between the lines of what Limbaugh said and I suspect his point is that if not for subsidization the Chinese economy would not be growing the way it is. Remove the subsidies and it might start to slow down.

another example of government cluelessness is in Indonesia which apparently has high coal reserves and yet the government is unable to purchase coal because they refuse to pay the market rate.

"Agreed with John E. Zhang Linsen has a big Hummer with nine speakers blaring is just a prole. The fact that he is a comfortable player in the prole empire that is Red China doesn't require respect from me. Either way, Zhang is just a vulgar piece of crap, whether fom conservative Christian standards of analysis or those from advanced Western thinkers."

Whoever posted this comment (twice) this isn't me. I'm not sure why someone else is posting comments using my name.

The problem with intermittent sources is that electricity is basically supplied on-demand, just like oil only more so. Storage capacity is basically nil, no matter the source, unless you're charging some d**n big batteries.

A combo of sources-wind, active solar, geothermal, nuke, passive solar siting-- is probably better than the One Big Plan.

if it were cost-effective then why the high government subsidies.

So it can compete with oil and gas industries with long histories of overt and covert subsidies. Energy is one area where we simply do not have the time to sit back and let the "invisible hand" do its thing.

It is possible to store electrical power by pumping water uphill in an existing hydro power plant.

True. However, there are energy losses on both the uphill (pumps) and downhill (turbines) ends. Still, it's worth considering.

I am so thrilled, after my absence from these boxes from an almost superhuman ascetic discipline, to meet up again with my old friend Elmer Fu-, I mean Cleveland, who's never cuter than when manning the burning Dittohead Deck whence all but he and the Fifteen Million had fled, and who I can see is still blushing from the last wet one I planted from behind my wig and rubied lips. But then, I've never hidden my true nature, and remain

Your ever-lovin', carrot-stealin' hoppin' homosocialist homie,

Bugs

"Saying 'the economy' is a tricky conservative way of pretending to say 'society' while actually saying 'large businesses'. Or even 'existing large businesses'."

Oh, so liberals don't believe in 'the economy?' That goes a long way in explaining their ignorance as regards economics.

And by the way, there are loads of conservatives who are no fans of big business.

It's comments like this that really make me love this place.

"Either way, Zhang is just a vulgar piece of crap, whether fom conservative Christian standards of analysis or those from advanced Western thinkers."

I was unaware that anyone could simply be called a "vulgar piece of crap" by any kind of Christian analysis.

The problem here isn't pseudo-conservatism. It's pseudo-Christianity.

...will hear what they want to hear.

It's ironic, Cleveland, that I sometimes have that exact reaction to your posts... it's a one-size fits all shoe, wouldn't you say, my friend?

Can both the Democrats and the Republicans lose this fall?

I sometimes wonder, Rod, what it would be like to live in a world in the aftermath of a "kill all the lawyers" revolution. No offense meant to the many professionals out there who deserve neither that nor to be the brunt of the many jokes, but there is something rotten in Denmark, DC, and with the many legislators with legal backgrounds... it just makes me wonder.

Mark in Houston, whoever took over your name also took over your computer; the comment posted under your name that you disavow was made from the same IP as all your other comments.

Rob G
Oh, so liberals don't believe in 'the economy?' That goes a long way in explaining their ignorance as regards economics.

As opposed to conservatives who think lowering taxes results in more tax revenue, despite that not actually happening? :)

But, no, liberals believe in 'the economy', or at least the set of measurements actually exist. What we don't (Or at least, shouldn't) think is that it's actually useful to raise the GNP if the average standard of living is going down, or people are losing their houses, or out of work, or a dozen other things that 'the economy' measures only indirectly.

I mean, we could have, in theory, a great economy, where all companies buy goods from Mexico and Asia and resell them to Europe, making a small fortune, without any Americans working for them at all. This does not appear to, in any way, help Americans, who would be starving in the streets. (Except the few operating those companies, and people working for them.)

Stop talking about 'the economy'. Stop talking as if how much money companies earn should be actually even slightly relevant to government policy. Start talking about how policies affect homelessness or joblessness or standards of living. People matter, companies only matter to the extent they affect people.

Now, I understand that conservatives think that helping companies helps people, and I don't really have an issue with that. The problem is that that has turned into 'helping the economy', and that often is weighed against 'helping people'. Um, no. The long-term goal is not to help the economy, even at the expense of the people. The long-term goal is to help the people, using companies.

Helping companies does not necessarily help people, although some conservatives seem to take that view. And I'd argue that it's more beneficial to the economy as a whole to privilege small business over large corporations (try getting Washington to do that, no matter which party is in power). There is a certain amount of truth to the "rising tide raises all boats" idea, although the equation of the rising tide with corporate America is highly suspect.

In other words, I don't at all buy the notion that what's good for big business is good for America. My suspicion of big business is at the same level as my suspicion of big government, and I'm especially suspicious when the two arrange to work together, even when it's supposedly for my good.

That's very strange. I genuinely don't remember typing that comment, I must have done so just before going to bed and I genuinely forgot about it. It's really over-the-top and I'm sorry I wrote it.

While I don't have much regard for the communist dictatorship that is China, that was an utterly inappropriate comment on my part. I apologize for posting it and for mistakenly stating that it wasn't me who wrote it.

"No, Rod, while you are a pseudo-conservative..."

Cleveland, what, specifically, about Rod's views lead you to this conclusion?

Can both the Democrats and the Republicans lose this fall? I'm just asking.

Heh. I second that motion.

"Cleveland, what, specifically, about Rod's views lead you to this conclusion [that he's a pseudo-conservative]"? Rob G

Your first clue, Rob, should have been that Rod and Rush (Mr. Conservative) are not only poles apart, but that Rod subjects this great American to undeserved contemptuous ridicule. As my homosocialist admirer, Scott Lahti, would put it, Rod does not man the Dittohead Deck, viz. :

"I am so thrilled...to meet up again with my old friend Elmer Fu-,I mean Cleveland, who's never cuter than when manning the burning Dittohead Deck...and who I can see is still blushing from the last wet one I planted from behind my wig and rubied lips. But then, I've never hidden my true nature"

Hello, Scott. I don't wonder that you find my charming handcuffing and whipping of homosocialism on this blog attractive. It would be the same for me trying to stay away from an Ann Coulter in a Pam Anderson body.

"It would be the same for me trying to stay away from an Ann Coulter in a Pam Anderson body."

So you're admitting you've got collagen lips, silicone "tips" and body-checking hips to match your stilleto quips - AND a year-round tan?

I'm in wuv aweady...

"Your first clue, Rob, should have been that Rod and Rush (Mr. Conservative) are not only poles apart, but that Rod subjects this great American to undeserved contemptuous ridicule."

Yeah, so? Are you saying that if you're not a dittohead you're not a conservative? Hey, I'm just as much against homosocialism as the next guy, but Rush fan I ain't.

**I'm saying that if people don't agree with the majority of signature social and economic positions championed by Rush/Ron Reagan/Hannity/Beck/Newt/Cheney/Romney and their ilk, then they probably are not "Conservatives".**

Russell Kirk not a conservative? Richard Weaver? Mel Bradford? Paul Gottfried? George Panichas? Thomas Fleming? Clyde Wilson? Almost everyone at ISI and the Rockford Institute?

Basically what you're saying is, if you're not a neo-conservative, you're not a conservative at all, which, I'm afraid is nonsense.

We now return you to Can a' Tea and Holmes, Already In Infantile Regress, where, as the thuggish "conservative" co-host, who looks more and more like Lou Costello every day, introduces for the 366th time the past year "Our good friend Ann C___er", all decent patriots head for the sink as though they had just swallowed a vat of rat poison...

The 12:46 post is mine.