WWTBAM Bored

Paris Hilton has responded to the use of her image in a John McCain campaign ad by starring in a video of her own, in which she shows McCain's photo next to the Crypt Keeper and the Golden Girls and explains her own energy policy.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26044888/

That was pretty funny -- the best work Paris Hilton ever has done.

I wonder if she asked the director the meaning of some of those big words, like "hybrid" or "technology," or if she cared.

I can't stand Paris Hilton, but I loved that ad. Whether or not she even knows what hybrid technology means, her energy plan makes more sense than the wrinkly white-haired guy's.

See you at the debate, bitches!

I loved it.

Way more effective than having mommy whine about using her daughter like that.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:I can't stand Paris Hilton, but I loved that ad. Whether or not she even knows what hybrid technology means, her energy plan makes more sense than the wrinkly white-haired guy's.

See you at the debate, bitches!

But is it better than making sure your tires are properly inflated?

Jeemie wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:I can't stand Paris Hilton, but I loved that ad. Whether or not she even knows what hybrid technology means, her energy plan makes more sense than the wrinkly white-haired guy's.

See you at the debate, bitches!

But is it better than making sure your tires are properly inflated?

Inflating my tires reduces my gas consumption by 4-8% immediately, and that information comes directly from car manuals, car dealers, auto service stations, NASCAR, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charlie Crist, and Bush's own NHTSD. How many cars are on the road in the U.S.? 100 million? 150 million? If each one of those cars uses 4-8% less gas, then that's a buttload of gas that we're saving every day.

I check my tires once a month and get a tune-up every three months. That keeps my car getting 450 miles per tank, which is a hell of a lot better than 300-350 miles.

So until Big Oil uncaps all of their oil wells on the 60 million acres of land that they already have and until the Republicans in congress who have been sucking off the Big Oil tit for years stop obstructing bills that will encourage the development and use of alternative sources of energy, I'll stick with inflating my tires and getting tune-ups, TYVM.

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:I can't stand Paris Hilton, but I loved that ad. Whether or not she even knows what hybrid technology means, her energy plan makes more sense than the wrinkly white-haired guy's.

See you at the debate, bitches!

But is it better than making sure your tires are properly inflated?

Inflating my tires reduces my gas consumption by 4-8% immediately, and that information comes directly from car manuals, car dealers, auto service stations, NASCAR, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charlie Crist, and Bush's own NHTSD. How many cars are on the road in the U.S.? 100 million? 150 million? If each one of those cars uses 4-8% less gas, then that's a buttload of gas that we're saving every day.

I check my tires once a month and get a tune-up every three months. That keeps my car getting 450 miles per tank, which is a hell of a lot better than 300-350 miles.

So until Big Oil uncaps all of their oil wells on the 60 million acres of land that they already have and until the Republicans in congress who have been sucking off the Big Oil tit for years stop obstructing bills that will encourage the development and use of alternative sources of energy, I'll stick with inflating my tires and getting tune-ups, TYVM.

Boy- you had your talking points ready to go- I'll give you that.

But, as is usual, you completely misunderstand why Obama is getting ridiculed for what he said...and show you are no more informed on energy issues than you have been on others.

And I suppose we can put in a failure to understand statistics as well.

Jeemie wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:

Jeemie wrote: But is it better than making sure your tires are properly inflated?

Inflating my tires reduces my gas consumption by 4-8% immediately, and that information comes directly from car manuals, car dealers, auto service stations, NASCAR, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charlie Crist, and Bush's own NHTSD. How many cars are on the road in the U.S.? 100 million? 150 million? If each one of those cars uses 4-8% less gas, then that's a buttload of gas that we're saving every day.

I check my tires once a month and get a tune-up every three months. That keeps my car getting 450 miles per tank, which is a hell of a lot better than 300-350 miles.

So until Big Oil uncaps all of their oil wells on the 60 million acres of land that they already have and until the Republicans in congress who have been sucking off the Big Oil tit for years stop obstructing bills that will encourage the development and use of alternative sources of energy, I'll stick with inflating my tires and getting tune-ups, TYVM.

Boy- you had your talking points ready to go- I'll give you that.

But, as is usual, you completely misunderstand why Obama is getting ridiculed for what he said...and show you are no more informed on energy issues than you have been on others.

And I suppose we can put in a failure to understand statistics as well.

Here's what confuses me.

I have been hearing Republicans say for decades that government is a lousy means for solving problems- or words to that effect- and that what we really need to do is encourage individual responses to problems which responses will be less expensive and more effective than governmental activity.

Here are two examples of things people can do to cut gasoline consumption (tires, tune up) which doesn't even include stuff like carpooling or just driving less- and we have Republicans pooh-poohing them.

I find this confusing.

nitrah55 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:

NellyLunatic1980 wrote: Inflating my tires reduces my gas consumption by 4-8% immediately, and that information comes directly from car manuals, car dealers, auto service stations, NASCAR, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Charlie Crist, and Bush's own NHTSD. How many cars are on the road in the U.S.? 100 million? 150 million? If each one of those cars uses 4-8% less gas, then that's a buttload of gas that we're saving every day.

I check my tires once a month and get a tune-up every three months. That keeps my car getting 450 miles per tank, which is a hell of a lot better than 300-350 miles.

So until Big Oil uncaps all of their oil wells on the 60 million acres of land that they already have and until the Republicans in congress who have been sucking off the Big Oil tit for years stop obstructing bills that will encourage the development and use of alternative sources of energy, I'll stick with inflating my tires and getting tune-ups, TYVM.

Boy- you had your talking points ready to go- I'll give you that.

But, as is usual, you completely misunderstand why Obama is getting ridiculed for what he said...and show you are no more informed on energy issues than you have been on others.

And I suppose we can put in a failure to understand statistics as well.

Here's what confuses me.

I have been hearing Republicans say for decades that government is a lousy means for solving problems- or words to that effect- and that what we really need to do is encourage individual responses to problems which responses will be less expensive and more effective than governmental activity.

Here are two examples of things people can do to cut gasoline consumption (tires, tune up) which doesn't even include stuff like carpooling or just driving less- and we have Republicans pooh-poohing them.

I find this confusing.

This is what Obama said “Making sure your tires are properly inflated — simple thing. But we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires, and getting regular tune-ups. You could actually save just as much.”

The debate is the accuracy of the bolded portion of that quote, nobody disputes that inflating tires properly is a good idea.

And I note that many new cars have tire inflation sensors.

So as to keep all this from geting bigger and bigger, I'm responding to, but not quoting, SuitGuy.

From, egad, the New Yorker:

…The Department of Energy estimates that there are eighteen billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in offshore areas of the continental United States that are now closed to drilling. This sounds like a lot, until you consider that oil is a globally traded commodity and that, at current rates of consumption, eighteen billion barrels would satisfy less than seven months of global demand. A D.O.E. report issued last year predicted that it would take two decades for drilling in restricted areas to have a noticeable effect on domestic production, and that, even then, “because oil prices are determined on the international market,” the impact on fuel costs would be “insignificant.” Just a few months ago, McCain himself noted that offshore resources “would take years to develop"....

Since the US uses 25% of the world's oil, I think, that means that offshore drilling will, in 20 years supply 28 months of US consumption, assuming US consumption stays the same as now, with no appreciable effect on the price.

Oh, and I forgot to mention:

I have never heard Paris Hilton speak before I watched this "ad." She is smarter than she lets on.

This is what happens when amateurs (McCain) try to be funny- they get trumped by the professonals (Hilton).

Republicans are trying their hardest to "Jimmy Carterize" Obama. I doubt if it works. And I'm really really glad that T. Boone Pickens has enough money left, after Swift Boating John Kerry, to hep me build a windmill.

nitrah55 wrote:From, egad, the New Yorker:

…A D.O.E. report issued last year predicted that it would take two decades for drilling in restricted areas to have a noticeable effect on domestic production, and that, even then, “because oil prices are determined on the international market,” the impact on fuel costs would be “insignificant.” Just a few months ago, McCain himself noted that offshore resources “would take years to develop"....

I've heard this "twenty years to develop" figure a lot. And it very well may be true. But what is equally true is that it will always be "twenty years to develop" if we don't start doing something about it now. The same, BTW, could be said for any alternative energy concept - it will take "x years to develop".

We need more nuclear power plants. And we need to start building them yesteday.

I'm glad Paris finally acknowledged her desire for me, but unfortunately for her, she will have to "take a number"!

Two questions that pop into my mind right away.

What ever happened to oil shale?
What about coal?

I also agree with tennisdude on nuclear. NIMBY is a lot less defensible when rolling blackouts begin.

nitrah55 wrote:So as to keep all this from geting bigger and bigger, I'm responding to, but not quoting, SuitGuy.

From, egad, the New Yorker:

…The Department of Energy estimates that there are eighteen billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in offshore areas of the continental United States that are now closed to drilling. This sounds like a lot, until you consider that oil is a globally traded commodity and that, at current rates of consumption, eighteen billion barrels would satisfy less than seven months of global demand. A D.O.E. report issued last year predicted that it would take two decades for drilling in restricted areas to have a noticeable effect on domestic production, and that, even then, “because oil prices are determined on the international market,” the impact on fuel costs would be “insignificant.” Just a few months ago, McCain himself noted that offshore resources “would take years to develop"....

Since the US uses 25% of the world's oil, I think, that means that offshore drilling will, in 20 years supply 28 months of US consumption, assuming US consumption stays the same as now, with no appreciable effect on the price.

I don't want drilling allowed because I think it will lower price- it most likely will not...for the reasons stated.

I want drilling allowed because to switch to an alternative energy base (which I agree we will have to do), we will neeed fossil fuel inputs.

So every little bit helps mitigate the transition (don't forget, where there's oil, there's usually also natural gas, which is, IMHO, even more vital than petroleum to find).

So to deliberately shortchange ourselves of any supply- whether through supply expansion or through wasteful practices- is ridiculous.

The energy issue requires a systems approach- I don't ridiculue Obama's notion of tire inlflation because tire inflation is bad....I ridicule him because it's a tiny idea that relies on dubious statistics, and even if everyone behaved the way they're supposed to (which they won't), it's not enough to make a difference.

Both the Dems and GOP have acted in a lamebrained manner to what is an extremely serious situation- if we do not get this right- do not manage this transition properly, we are in serious, serious trouble.

And neither side instills a sense of confidence in me that they can get it right.

ne1410s wrote:We need more nuclear power plants. And we need to start building them yesteday.

I couldn't agree more, I've lived most of my life near a nuclear power plant and I'm better off for it.

eyégor wrote:Two questions that pop into my mind right away.

What ever happened to oil shale?

Ask the Canadians, our Congress has banned the U.S. Military from buying oil produced from Canadian Oil Sands.

eyégor wrote:Two questions that pop into my mind right away.

What ever happened to oil shale?
What about coal?

I also agree with tennisdude on nuclear. NIMBY is a lot less defensible when rolling blackouts begin.

First- oil shale is oil like sand is glass. It's not oil at all- it has to be cooked- if done in situ for THREE YEARS- to change from kerogen into oil.

The current methods for getting it require copious amounts of heat and water- after many years, it's still not viable. There is an experimental microwave method which is supposed to require less water and is more environmentally friendly, but that's still experimental.

As for coal, turning coal to oil is the most pollution-producing method there is, and if we start a run on coal, experts believe IT will peak in production in as little as 10 years.

So there are the drawbacks to those two- people need to keep in mind that simply quoting reserves doesn't tell us anything.

How much will it cost? What is the production flow rate? What is the net energy of the process? THESE are the important factors when discussing an energy source.

There really isn't one answer. It's simple to promote one idea and one idea only and dismiss all the others because of their flaws, but there is never going to be one straightforward answer. And I knew that BEFORE I rode the Universe of Energy attraction (sponsored by Exxon-Mobil, so I'll get back some of that $1500 per second profit this week while I'm there!).

When someone comes up with a common-sense solution for how you can do some small part yourself, why do you dismiss it? Of course it's not going to be the whole solution! But it does help and you can do it yourself. And we always check the tires before we go on a road trip after one of my husband's partners had a blowout on the road with his wife and twins.

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

ne1410s wrote:We need more nuclear power plants. And we need to start building them yesteday.

I couldn't agree more, I've lived most of my life near a nuclear power plant and I'm better off for it.

So that's why you've sprouted wings and turned blue.

ulysses5019 wrote:

themanintheseersuckersuit wrote:

ne1410s wrote:We need more nuclear power plants. And we need to start building them yesteday.

I couldn't agree more, I've lived most of my life near a nuclear power plant and I'm better off for it.

So that's why you've sprouted wings and turned blue.

and I'm better off for it.

minimetoo26 wrote:There really isn't one answer. It's simple to promote one idea and one idea only and dismiss all the others because of their flaws, but there is never going to be one straightforward answer. And I knew that BEFORE I rode the Universe of Energy attraction (sponsored by Exxon-Mobil, so I'll get back some of that $1500 per second profit this week while I'm there!).

When someone comes up with a common-sense solution for how you can do some small part yourself, why do you dismiss it? Of course it's not going to be the whole solution! But it does help and you can do it yourself. And we always check the tires before we go on a road trip after one of my husband's partners had a blowout on the road with his wife and twins.

But that's the thing- it isn't being dismissed because it's a bad idea.

It's being dismissed because of the way Obama presented it- making it sound like a bigger idea than it actually was.

And this is probably the main problem I have- that we are in a political era where our leaders present small ideas and pretend they are big ones.

Which is great for padding your resume to get elected, but hopelessly inadequate to solve generally big problems.

Doesn't this thread illustrate what the most viable course of action is?

Americans are looking for the quick fix. Of course we are not alone in this, but here is, and should be, our immediate focus. The problem with energy, and has been since the first gas 'crisis' is that there is no one simple solution.

But politicians never want to present a solution this way, so they have you inflate your tires, just as we were stocking up on duct tape, saying No!, or wearing our WIN buttons to 'solve' the problem du jour.

So, everyone is right. So much effort is expended on trying to see who is more right we only get anything done slowly. This approach equals failure.

What we need to do is, indeed, to inflate those tires and change those air filters. AND return to building nuclear power plants. I too live near a nuclear plant, one run by the feds, who, because of budget cuts, have to cut back on monitoring personnel. I still feel safe.

But as our fellow BB Billy Mays says, but wait, there's more. We need to open up the off shore reserves, as a stop gap. We need to increase r&d in oil shale development. We need to exploit our coal reserves, utilizing pollution control techniques already available. We need to encourage T Boon to build his windmills. We need to ignore the complaints of Nantucket residents about their view, and build the wind generations farm off shore. We need to explore more efficient means to harness solar. We need to move ethanol production away from corn, and toward switchgrass, so people won't be starving to death in those houses we are busy keeping warm.

AND more. We have passed the point where we can dismiss an option because it may be difficult to develop.


With so many fronts to move forward upon, it is apparent that the road to energy sufficiency is not going to be a smooth one. But it is a road we must travel. We need to focus on the more pressing issues, for, if we don't, it isn't going to matter if the oceans rise 4-5 inches from global warming.