I think we ought to be out there talking about ways to reduce energy consumption and waste. And we ought to declare that we will be free of energy consumption in this country within a decade, bold as that is.
Energy-Free by 2017!
Mike Huckabee's ambitious energy plan:
Comments to "Energy-Free by 2017!":
sage | December 12, 2007, 9:24am | #
And we ought to declare that we will be free of energy consumptionWould that be a "Huckism?"
And why don't we just declare that we're free of energy consumption now? He can say he got it done ten years ahead of plan.
madmikefisk | December 12, 2007, 9:25am | #
Wow. There are some things I just have a hard time wrapping my head around... this just about takes the cake. I mean, we've been kept abreast of most every verbal foible of GWB, and Huck, with far less exposure, seems to be one of those souls put on this Earth to remind us that, you know, we could always do worse.Pro Libertate | December 12, 2007, 9:29am | #
Fools! Huckabee is positioning himself as the entropy candidate!Elemenope | December 12, 2007, 9:35am | #
Pro Libertate, you bastard, I just spewed mint tea all over my keyboard!madmikefisk | December 12, 2007, 9:45am | #
Reading his whole quote, though, the inanity does do a pretty good of distracting people from his love of the idea of a cap-and-trade system, a clumsy chimera of market forces and ham-handed government intervention if there ever was one.And people want this man to be President... why?
Urkobold&trade | December 12, 2007, 9:48am | #
We will harness all the energy we need from Huckabee's taint. (Huckataint?)Evangelical Tool | December 12, 2007, 9:54am | #
And people want this man to be President... why?Because he's a genuine and good Christian and Jesus talks to him! He won't let the secularists take over our schools and will restore the status of our Christian Nation! He will not let us fail in Iraq because it is important to save our honor! We're winning and the Democrats want you all to believe that we've already lost the war!
(did I miss anything?)
Tym | December 12, 2007, 9:56am | #
So we will go back to living in trees and eating berries and bugs like chimps...Warren | December 12, 2007, 10:01am | #
Because he's a genuine and good Christian and Jesus talks to him! He won't let the secularists take over our schools and will restore the status of our Christian Nation! He will not let us fail in Iraq because it is important to save our honor! We're winning and the Democrats want you all to believe that we've already lost the war!Damn! I was hoping we'd learn from the last time we tried that.
mike | December 12, 2007, 10:04am | #
Fred Thompson is way ahead of Huckabee on this.Do you mean in terms of being an idiot? Or not using energy? I know Thompson is a lazy, monotone SOB, but I don't think he's advocating not using energy at all. :]
I can't tell whether Warren is baffled by Huckabee's statement or impersonating Fred Thompson.
And we should raise the minimum wage to $1,000,000/year so everyone can be rich!
Perhaps Huck was referring to just the lights on Broadway (Miami 2017).
Reinmoose | December 12, 2007, 10:11am | #
And we should raise the minimum wage to $1,000,000/year so everyone can be rich!And everyone should go to college so everyone can make more money!
(no really, I actually heard someone say this, for serious).
Wayne Dumond | December 12, 2007, 10:14am | #
And people want this man to be President... why?Because he'll let you rape Clintons 'til the cows come home, and get off scot free!
Didn't realize he was a member of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
Russ 2000 | December 12, 2007, 10:20am | #
And we ought to declare that we will be free of energy consumption in this country within a decade, bold as that is.Well if it means starting with government eliminating all of its energy consumption, then I prefer Huck over Ron Paul.
Bronwyn | December 12, 2007, 10:36am | #
Wait, so he's planning on having all of us dead within a decade?Hm. How's he planning to do that, I wonder?
Elemenope | December 12, 2007, 10:39am | #
Can someone refresh my memory...was or wasn't Huckabee one of the candidates who said he didn't dig evolution? After I saw that snippet, everything went blurry, and I have no clear memories other than that more than one hand went up.Urban_Achiever | December 12, 2007, 10:41am | #
I believe the Huckster has just become unbeatable!Hugh Akston | December 12, 2007, 10:45am | #
So we will go back to living in trees and eating berries and bugs like chimps...Not so fast, Tym, plants change solar energy into chemical energy, and bugs contain chemical energy as well. If we consume those, we're acting contrary to Mr. Huckabee's "ten years-everybody dies" plan.
Crushinator | December 12, 2007, 10:48am | #
I have already put my mitochondria on notice. Either they leave or I need to purchase some carbon offsets.Neu Mejican | December 12, 2007, 10:50am | #
As much as it is fun to poke fun at verbal foibles like this...I think, maybe, if being generous, that Huckabee is trying to say that he has a goal of 100% renewable energy production in a decade. In other words, no consumption of non-renewable energy resources.
If being generous.
Elemenope | December 12, 2007, 10:55am | #
I don't think it takes much generosity; people misspeak all the damn time...the only people whose spoonerisms we really remember are those who have a camera trained at their heads every waking hour.He either meant what you said, NM, or that he meant eliminating wasteful energy consumption. Either way, that's quite a thing. Not at all feasible, but still.
This all makes sense. If Huckabee is elected, he'll take office in Jan. '09. Assuming that that soon after his ascension to the Presidency the Tribulation begins, and assuming a President survives a second election during the times of Tribulation, then Huck must mean that in 2017, at the sunset of his administration, the Rapture will occur and we won't need no stinking energy, since we'll all be powered by God's love.
Pro Libertate | December 12, 2007, 10:59am | #
Sure, laugh it up, libertoids. But Dr. Huckmeister will have the last laugh in 10ˆ100 years.Elemenope | December 12, 2007, 11:11am | #
"I am convinced that Huckabee shall overcome because the arc of the universe is long but it bends toward heat death."Hee hee. Five fake dollars to the one who recognizes the (doctored) source.
R C Dean | December 12, 2007, 11:16am | #
I think, maybe, if being generous, that Huckabee is trying to say that he has a goal of 100% renewable energy production in a decade.An electron microscope would be needed to discern the difference in stupidity levels between this plan and the zero energy use plan.
Pro Libertate | December 12, 2007, 11:18am | #
Using my psychic powers. . .is it someone who has a street named after him in every city in the country? I have a dream about something, but it's not clear what.Seitz | December 12, 2007, 11:22am | #
An electron microscope would be needed to discern the difference in stupidity levels between this plan and the zero energy use plan.Yeah, but it takes energy to use one of those.
joe | December 12, 2007, 11:24am | #
You are exactly right, Pro Lib.That is a quote from Doctor Main First.
Pro Libertate | December 12, 2007, 11:24am | #
My children are agents of entropy, so maybe Huck is on the right track.Pro Libertate | December 12, 2007, 11:25am | #
joe,Dr. Buffalo in Tampa. Curiously, I'm about to leave work to go to a hospital on that street to visit my new niece for the first time. Kismet?
Elemenope | December 12, 2007, 11:26am | #
And Pro Libertate wins FIVE FAKE DOLLARS!!!You know, as much as I don't care for MLK's politics per se, I liked his theology a great deal (shades of Tillich, the closet existentialist Nietzsche-loving Atheist who remains the most important theologian of the 20th century), and his writings sure are interesting, if for no other reason than that the dude used language in downright fascinating ways.
Neu Mejican (RC COLA drinker) | December 12, 2007, 11:29am | #
RC Dean,An electron microscope would be needed to discern the difference in stupidity levels between this plan and the zero energy use plan.
Well, not really.
The difference being:
1)worthy goal, with a ridiculous time-line;
2)a ridiculous goal.
pilight | December 12, 2007, 11:31am | #
The Huckster says: "I mean, the honest answer for me, scientifically, is I don't know"This, coming from someone who doesn't believe in evolution but does believe AIDS can be spread by casual contact, is even funnier than making us "free of energy consumption".
. | December 12, 2007, 11:32am | #
1)worthy goal, with a ridiculous time-line;All we would have to do is immediately put the entire federal government's budget towards building solar panels in Nevada. I don't see how that's unrealistic at all.
highnumber | December 12, 2007, 11:39am | #
Aw, congratulations to you and your sister, Pro Lib!joe, just cuz he's a southerner doesn't mean you have to go for the incest jokes.
Low blow.
Uncalled for.
Pinette | December 12, 2007, 11:40am | #
anyone RTFA and get pissed off that she interviewed Biden and Richardsen but not Ron Paul?His answer would have been something that upset their very simple dialog.
the truth is there is an alternative energy boom coming. It will be bigger than the tech boom, and, interestingly, it is going to come out of silicone valley.
ChicagoTom | December 12, 2007, 11:45am | #
OK,I just came across this "Mike Huckabee for President" video.
It is fucking hilarious -- i had to share it
ChicagoTom | December 12, 2007, 11:46am | #
whoops.. here it ishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cuWUdUDUIDQ
Elemenope | December 12, 2007, 11:50am | #
pilight --As bad as it sounds, "I'm too ignorant to have an informed opinion on Evolution" is a much, much better answer than "But the Bible sez...". IMO.
Still, you'd think he'd have read up on it. Seeing as how the theory has been around for only a century and a half and isn't, excuse the phrase, exactly rocket science.
Pinette --
Yeah, but the biotech boom is going to make the energy realignment look like a market correction. I don't think you'd like Paul's answer on the moral fuzzy areas of that techno-mess nearly as much.
BakedPenguin | December 12, 2007, 11:53am | #
ChicagoTom - that was awesome. And I can't think of a more deserving person to get that kind of treatment.Pinette | December 12, 2007, 11:54am | #
Is Ron Paul against gmod?I wouldn't be suprised if he were against federal funding for the research, but against it on moral grounds?
J sub D | December 12, 2007, 11:56am | #
the Rapture will occur and we won't need no stinking energy, since we'll all be powered by God's love.Uh, only 144,000 of us. You get to repeat Revelation 101.
J sub D | December 12, 2007, 12:00pm | #
You are exactly right, Pro Lib.That is a quote from Doctor Main First.
IIRC, accoprding to USPS the most common street name in the country is Second. It makes sense when you ponder it for a moment.
Chuck | December 12, 2007, 12:01pm | #
It will be bigger than the tech boom, and, interestingly, it is going to come out of silicone valley.Silicone valley...you mean cleavage? Is that going to be some sort of anti-gravity system?
And i don't see biotechnology having a large immediate impact on wall street. The alternative energy boom - assuming it includes the shift from oil to electricity for transportation as well as the shift to solar energy for everything else - will be much bigger and will make a lot of people a lot of money. The infrastructure that has to be replaced is so enormous....
YHWH's Witneess | December 12, 2007, 12:05pm | #
[quote=J sub D]Uh, only 144,000 of us. You get to repeat Revelation 101.[/quote]No, you repeat it. I'm goin' to Glory!
Elemenope | December 12, 2007, 12:06pm | #
Pinette --He hasn't said peep about it, really, and I wouldn't want to speak for the man...but if it came to a Heinlein-ian vision of the future with manufactured persons et al., I am willing to bet that Dr. Paul's Christian moral instincts would start to rub up against his Libertarian stance, much as they have with abortion (which, frankly, he's weaseling on his Federalism position).
I just don't see him being too keen on a Posthuman future. I could be wrong. Maybe I'm underestimating the man based on his age. In my experience, after a certain amount of time passes, even political instincts smack up against long-held prejudices. My grandfather was fairly Libertarian, but I could not have one sensible conversation with him about drug liberalization. Something about "damn reefer addicts".
Dangerman | December 12, 2007, 12:07pm | #
Huckabee will lead us to the Singularity! Prepare for Sublimation!5...
4...
3...
2...
1...
[discontinuity]
joe | December 12, 2007, 12:09pm | #
I get it, Pro Lib.There are towns that have Main Street, then Second Street.
I always thought that was just a screw-up.
. | December 12, 2007, 12:09pm | #
Well, considering how willing people are to allow someone to cut them up in an attempt to make them look better, I would imagine that cosmetic genetic modification will eventually be HUGE.I will say this -- I would probably take out a loan of any size at any interest rate to pay for whatever it costs to cure aging. Because, hey, I'd pay it off eventually (even if 100 years of normal inflation were required).
Hell, fuck paying it ever. What are they gonna do, give me life in prison?
Elemenope | December 12, 2007, 12:10pm | #
re: the economic impacts. At first, sure. But ultimately infrastructure readjustments, no matter how large, have a practical and fairly close endpoint. e.g. Rural electrification, the Interstate Highway System.Compare that to the economic impact of computers. Sure, slow at first, but growing at a juggernaut's rate. And is not likely to stop--ever. So it will be, I think, with bio-modication and manipulation.
Pinette | December 12, 2007, 12:16pm | #
Elemenope,so your comment that i would not like Dr. Paul's hypothetical response to a question about the moral fuzziness of biotechnology was... basically complete bullshit.
thanks.
though you may be right about the economic impact of new energy sources vs. biotechnology.
Elemenope | December 12, 2007, 12:22pm | #
No, Pinette. Not bullshit, just speculation. Not particularly wild speculation at that. Most resistance to posthumanism comes from religious thought; Paul is a committed and deeply thoughtful Christian. He has on occasion bucked his Libertarianism on issues like, for example, Abortion, where similar ethical issues such as the definition of human life and worth come into play.Until a candidate says aloud something contrary to what they say their guiding ethical stars are, it is legitimate to hypothesize based on those ethical systems in general terms.
Are you telling me you don't see a conflict between libertarianism and Christian ethics in the biorevolution? Until Paul says otherwise, I am comfortable assuming that his publicly stated beliefs inform his thoughts. It's certainly safer than just saying "well, I dunno" and leaving it at that.
Gilbert Martin | December 12, 2007, 12:27pm | #
"And we ought to declare that we will be free of energy consumption in this country within a decade, bold as that is."Well that's easy.
All we have to do is commit mass suicide.
Pinette | December 12, 2007, 12:29pm | #
hmmm. something aloud. How about his stance on the war on drugs?I don't think his federalist stance on abortion is posturing either. I think the federal government has exerted far too much power over all sorts of issues and should be states rights. i think a lot of libertarians feel that way.
And i also don't have a problem with a state that decides to ban late term abortions or even semi-late term abortions. I don't think a fetus should have rights until at least a month, but after that, arguing that it is a person and has full human rights is not inherently un-libertarian.
T | December 12, 2007, 12:42pm | #
Pro Lib, you have to admit, it's a smart move to position yourself as the entropy candidate. Entropy always wins.Besides, what's the problem? I'm perfectly willing for politicians to declare they are going to be free of energy consumption. In fact, sooner is better for most of them. Huckabeast should prove his bona fides on the issue by starting now.
Franklin Harris | December 12, 2007, 12:43pm | #
And we ought to declare that we will be free of energy consumption in this country within a decade, bold as that is.Guys, you're being too hard on the Huckster. Obviously, he just thinks Jesus will have come back by then, and all of our cars will run on peace, love, and the blood of smited sinners.
Elemenope | December 12, 2007, 12:51pm | #
re: WoD, even he doesn't frame it (and I doubt really thinks of it) as much of a moral issue...at least, not with the same stakes as an issue that includes thousands of dead almost-babies.I agree he isn't "posturing", exactly, on Abortion, and I do believe he is sincere in that the fed has exerted too much of a role in this area. He has been, shall we say, uneven, however, on the extent to which he believes that Abortion should be allowed at all (as you brought up, the late term stuff). All I'm saying is, that's an example of his moral code overriding his hands-off ethos.
I agree that arguing that a fetus is a human being is not un-Libertarian, but arguing that a fetus is a human being past some arbitrary point before birth and then allowing the federal government to enforce that line is, at the very least, un-Federalist. Even murder is a state issue; it makes no sense for abortion in any sense to be federal.
That dithering (which, IMO, sometimes approaches political weaseling) makes me worry that his moral sense will override his commitment to federalism and/or libertarianism on some equivalently sticky moral issues.
Me, I'm inclined to argue that a fetus isn't a human being with full moral rights until it starts communicating in full sentences...but that may be just me. ;)
(Yes, I'm kidding. Sort of.)
Reason #513 why charismatic but underbright theocrats shouldn't stray from their talking points.
R C Dean | December 12, 2007, 1:23pm | #
As bad as it sounds, "I'm too ignorant to have an informed opinion on Evolution" is a much, much better answer than "But the Bible sez...". IMO.Like the former isn't an insultingly sanitized version of the latter.
John Galt | December 12, 2007, 1:27pm | #
If Huckabee is elected, I'm dismantling my static electricity powered engine and I won't share it with the world!J sub D | December 12, 2007, 1:29pm | #
"I'm too ignorant to have an informed opinion on Evolution"Translation - "I slept through high school biology."
Elemenope | December 12, 2007, 1:31pm | #
Like the former isn't an insultingly sanitized version of the latter.Perhaps it is. But it sends, I think, a better message overall. It doesn't much matter whether Huckabee honestly believes himself unqualified to comment on evolution, or is merely trying to sound like "not another nut" as the words that come from the bully pulpit often matter more; America doesn't do subtext.
Besides, I'm willing to give Huckabee slightly more credit on this one since he's gone "I am another nut" on so many other issues, reticence for the sake of sanitizing his evangelical image doesn't make much sense to me here. It would be like polishing the fender on a car wreck.
Elemenope | December 12, 2007, 1:33pm | #
If he was taking biology in an Arkansas high school forty years ago...it very well may have not been covered.Seriously.
. | December 12, 2007, 1:40pm | #
If he was taking biology in an Arkansas high school forty years ago...it very well may have not been covered.It probably wasn't. I don't think evolution was taught anywhere in the US for years after the Scopes Trial.
. | December 12, 2007, 1:42pm | #
by "anywhere" I am referring to public grade/high schoolsMatt | December 12, 2007, 1:47pm | #
Spoken like a true conservative: repeal tax laws, gun laws, the laws of thermodynamics...Pro Libertate | December 12, 2007, 1:54pm | #
joe,Brother. I have no sister, unless my wife's dad is Darth Vader, too.
But thank you, anyway! We're all excited, though the years ahead will be dominated by my daughter and two nieces. Must've lost some Y chromosomes in our youth.
J sub D | December 12, 2007, 2:03pm | #
If he was taking biology in an Arkansas high school forty years ago...it very well may have not been covered.Your point is graciously conceded.
Pro Libertate | December 12, 2007, 2:17pm | #
Just kidding, Dad, if you're reading this. My dad's not really Darth Vader or in any way like a wielder of Dark Side powers. I was about to say, "but that would be cool", but then I remembered the whole chopping off the hand thing.cgee | December 12, 2007, 2:48pm | #
FUCK HUCK!ENTHALPY 2008!
Pro Libertate | December 12, 2007, 3:00pm | #
Silly question, Aresen. If I were, say, a Jedi or Jedi-in-Training, I'd just use the Force to manipulate the keyboard. Maybe that's what I'm doing now.From now on, I'm going to refer to Huckabee as Huck Fine, playing on "Huck Finn" and the Italian word for end, fine. To reflect his huckleberriness and his love of entropy and the heat death of the universe.
joe | December 12, 2007, 3:29pm | #
Some say the world with end in fire.Some say ice.
Me, I don't really know enough about the science to say, one way or the other.
That guy wears magic underwear.
R C Dean | December 12, 2007, 3:52pm | #
If I were, say, a Jedi or Jedi-in-Training, I'd just use the Force to manipulate the keyboard.I suspect the keyboard wouldn't be a Jedi's first choice for, erm, manipulation with the Force.
Pro Libertate | December 12, 2007, 4:02pm | #
R C,I suspect that VM will arrive shortly to expand upon your implications.
Sitcom husband | December 12, 2007, 5:31pm | #
I did not know that Jedis had to be married.Urkobold™ | December 12, 2007, 7:26pm | #
THE URKOBOLD IS REMINDED OF CHEVY CHASE'S MODERN PROBLEMS FOR SOME STRANGE REASON.OH, GOD! YES!
The "Free Energy by 2017" slogan refers to Charles E. Nergy, a mass murderer notorious for eating infants in front of their parents. His appeals run out in 2017, so that's how long Huck has to pardon him.
M. Simon | December 13, 2007, 1:23am | #
And people want this man to be President... why?Because he is obviously not qualified to be a rocket scientist.
M. Simon | December 13, 2007, 1:36am | #
Yep. There is an alternative energy boom coming. Except it is not the alternative every one is familiar with.Bussard Fusion Reactor
Easy Low Cost No Radiation Fusion
It has been funded:
Bussard Reactor Funded
The above reactor can burn Deuterium which is very abundant and produces lots of neutrons or it can burn a mixture of Hydrogen and abundant Boron 11 which does not.
The implication of it is that we will know in 6 to 9 months if the small reactors of that design are feasible.
If they are we could have fusion plants generating electricity in 10 years or less depending on how much we want to spend to compress the time frame.
Clearly Huckabee is proposing that we reduce the planet to absolute zero, -273 degrees Celcius, the theoretical state where energy is neither consumed nor produced. It's a bold masterstroke against the menace of global warming.
Steve Hooker | December 14, 2007, 11:08pm | #
Huckabee...President "Shazaam"Porky Schaeffer | December 16, 2007, 1:22pm | #
Huck is a tool-shed. He's nothing but a tax & spend liberal who wants to send all the children of illegal immigrants to college on our dime.