It appears that I missed out on some genuine fun these past few months.

The board has become educated as of late in more than just what horses asses Stanton and Mullins are.

Apparently, not only do the AM Authority sportswriters read and take stuff from this board, but now Robert Houk does, too, if you read his column in today's (Sunday's) edition (unfortunately, not available online).
Although I don't think I've brought up Jimmy Carter's energy initiatives on this board (or maybe I did?), I certainly have on others I post on, along with Congress's failure to buy into his pleas for alternative energy research, which culminated(?) in ronnie's abandonment of that whole quest.

Summary: Carter - good; ronnie - bad.

Moderators - when do we get our royalty checks?

That's kind of interesting that people do take ideas for stories from here in some regard, but I have to wonder if that's also a statement on the lack of talent some of our members of the media have. What, they aren't creative enough to garner up their own story ideas so they pull from a message board? That's not good.

It's a well-documented phenomenum. Just ask Pittiful (and of course he'll take all the credit). For a while there back on the old board it was happening at least weekly, if not more often than that. A couple of times, someone (Trey?) even vaguely referred to us as "internet message boards", as I recall. Been going on for years..........

Although I do disagree with Pittiful's claim of the *degree* of importance of this board, it is true that when you have such a diverse group of posters, many of whom have connections of various types at/to the university, then good information is bound to be forthcoming from time-to-time. Part of the problem that's created this "system" is the secretive nature of mullins, breedlove, white and co., along with the inability (or unwillingness, more truthfully), of the local media to ask the hard questions. Thank goodness for Brian Smith to at least get the (foot)ball rolling..........

Uh, actually I got the ball rolling five years ago. Remember?

But, as usual, you will try to give the credit I deserve to others.

Now, I want to go back to this Carter alternate fuel thing. I didn't post then because I didn't want to waste my time with the Pens in the Stanley Cup.

Let's see what those alternate fuels got us.

Three Mile Island.

Gasahol.

Rising gasoline prices akin to what we have now.

Turn your thermostat to 65 degrees.

Intentions of Carter aside, you have to wonder why he wasn't able to sell alternative fuels to the American people, especially since people then were being met with a pinch in the pocketbook the same way they are now.

I'd like to submit the idea that the reason wasn't because of evil right-wing business interests trying to keep oil companies fat and happy, but rather many of the people one would think would be supporting Carter failed to embrace such ideas.

Even before Three Mile Island, many on the left were opposing nuclear power. Jane Fonda's "The China Syndrome" was released before the incident ever happened in 1979.

Remember how all the old hippie protesters of the '60s tore their peace stickers off their Volkswagens and instead put up NO NUKES? Remember all the sandal wearers going door to door protesting nuclear power?

Where were they when Carter was pushing alternate fuel sources?

Answer- either going absolutely off the deep end (at the age of 12 my family once brought me to some sort of event put out by the Mother Earth or Mother Jones or something like that. I remember distinctly having to go to the bathroom in an outhouse as they warned us how INDOOR PLUMBING was bad for the environment. Had literature printed up about it. Interesting reading as you're gasping for air around all the methane and sitting in feces. These were the people who put NO NUKES up everywhere) or trying to poo-poo the death of Mary Jo Kopechne in the 1980 Democratic Primary.

It seems quaint now, because nobody has built a nuclear power plant in this country since that time. A reference to the danger of nuclear power plants seems dated.

So, while we won't get everyone to agree on how good or bad a president Bush or Carter is/was, perhaps we can start a movement on this board of something far, far more important.

Cancelling "The Simpsons."

Update data on drilling in ANWR and offshore:

Time article on this subject

Partial part of the article:

Quote:But there's a flaw in that logic: even if tomorrow we opened up every square mile of the outer Continental Shelf to offshore rigs, even if we drilled the entire state of Alaska and pulled new refineries out of thin air, the impact on gas prices would be minimal and delayed at best. A 2004 study by the government's Energy Information Administration (EIA) found that drilling in ANWR would trim the price of gas by 3.5 cents a gallon by 2027. (If oil prices continue to skyrocket, the savings would be greater, but not by much.) Opening up offshore areas to oil exploration — currently all coastal areas save a section of the Gulf of Mexico are off-limits, thanks to a Congressional ban enacted in 1982 and supplemented by an executive order from the first President Bush — might cut the price of gas by 3 to 4 cents a gallon at most, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. And the relief at the pump, such as it is, wouldn't be immediate — it would take several years, at least, for the oil to begin to flow, which is time enough for increased demand from China, India and the rest of the world to outpace those relatively meager savings. "Right now the price of oil is set on the global market," says Kevin Lindemer, executive managing director of the energy markets group for the research firm Global Insight. President Bush's move "would not have an impact."

The reason is simple: the U.S. has an estimated 3% of global petroleum reserves, but consumes 24% of the world's oil. Offshore territories and public lands like ANWR that don't allow drilling may contain up to 75 billion barrels of oil, according to the EIA. That may sound like a lot, but it's not enough to make a significant difference in a world where global oil demand is expected to rise 30% by 2030, to nearly 120 million barrels a day. At best, greatly expanding domestic drilling might eventually lower the proportion of oil the U.S. imports — currently about 60% of its total supply — but petroleum is a global commodity, and the world market would soak up any additional American production. "This is a drop in the bucket," says Gernot Wagner, an economist with the Environmental Defense Fund.

............Even as Democrats and Republicans squabble over a relatively small amount of petroleum, we're missing out on the opportunity to truly break our addiction to crude. This week the Senate again failed to renew the tax credit for renewable energies like solar and wind; the credit, which expires at the end of the year, is key to the healthy growth of low-carbon alternatives.

Pittiful:

Quote:Uh, actually I got the ball rolling five years ago. Remember?

Oh - yeah. Thanks. We must have forgotten that it was your idea to have football at ETSU. Gosh, how could I/we have let that fact slip? I simply can't believe that Doc Robertson didn't think of that before you. In fact, I suggest that we name any new venue "PittsburghBucs Stadium", or similar. Yeah, and if we get baseball back on campus, how about "Marky Parky"? Nice ring to it, dontcha think?

Teeheehee........

Now, about your "alternative fuels" post......

I don't think most around the world, or even in the U.S., consider nuclear to be "alternative". Sure, it's an alternative to fossil, but since it's a proven, reliable, 50+-year-old technology, in use for about that long, it's hard to call it "alternative". I know I never have, nor most who study this issue.

"Alternative" usually means things like solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, and hydrogen. Without a proper way to dispose of nuclear waste for 10,000 or so years, nuclear is a VERY risky bet for future generations. Breeder reactors so far have proven too difficult to engineer safely. Fusion reasearch is essentially nil in the U.S. (thank you, ronnie). So, your diatribe against nuclear energy is misplaced. In most people's books, that's not "alternative". There is a role for distilling ethanol from switchgrass and/or hemp, and that's moderately "renewable", but ultimately, as the Time article correctly points out, we've got to move on and get away from petroleum fuels.

Sorry about your poor potty experience. I'm sure there's more trauma in *that* closet.

Well, if there is, the trauma was brought on by wack-jobs like you.

Now, a rundown of your last three posts-

A- Pulled ANWAR out of the air. Yes, everyone else was discussing ANWAR.

You do that. You like to say "Look at me! An article!" when the articles have nothing to do with the subject at hand.

B- Tried to change the definition of "alternative" fuels.

I don't know. Nuclear ain't oil. Seems rather alternative to me.

C- Once again, tried to slight me.

D- Did that Rosco laugh of yours.

Well, at least you're trying to get some culture.