Are the new revolutions in the ME and Africa really in the U.S.'s best interest?

[PieIsAwesome]

The only thing that really needs to come out of these revolutions is that an overwhelming % of the population get to chose their representation. Even if that representation is the Taliban/al-Queda/Liberals(Haha), it doesn't matter, as long as they chose it.

Yep, one step at a time. Then they can move on to not hating Jews and stoning women.

 

[zinfamous]

Rome was actually quite tolerant of countless religions and Caesar couldn't have cared less about every crazy in the empire claiming to be God. What made Jesus a target was that he was considered a cult leader with a growing following. His whole idea that you could commit any sin and just ask for forgiveness was considered especially crazy and dangerous to society. It was like encouraging people who did evil to feel ok about themselves. Some to this day claim that's why its so compatible with capitalism.

no, not everyone claimed they were the son of God--that was very novel. It essentially made Caesar a liar. You are right that the multitude of cultists were everywhere and Caesar couldn't be bothered to worry about this crud--hell, he was basically just another Jewish guy to Caesar.

but claiming that he usurped Caesar's role as divine representative on earth was far more insulting to Caesar than it was to the Jews. established with Juilius Caesar, Rome had become a bit of a personality cult during the reign of the emperors. Hell, the pharisees essentially had little no power, even within the Jewish community, at the time of Jesus. (It was not until 50 or so years after his execution that they became the big boogey men of the community, and is why, the gospels being written during that time, they appear as boogey men in the NT.)

bottom line: Jesus pissed off Caesar. If taking this one guy to task could be used as a means to discipline the impoverished cultists, send a message to as many as possible with very little effort, then all the better. The story being written as a judgment at the hand of the Jews is a political maneuver that could not have possibly made any sense, historically, until several decades after his death.

 

[wuliheron]

no, not everyone claimed they were the son of God--that was very novel. It essentially made Caesar a liar. You are right that the multitude of cultists were everywhere and Caesar couldn't be bothered to worry about this crud--hell, he was basically just another Jewish guy to Caesar.

but claiming that he usurped Caesar's role as divine representative on earth was far more insulting to Caesar than it was to the Jews. established with Juilius Caesar, Rome had become a bit of a personality cult during the reign of the emperors. Hell, the pharisees essentially had little no power, even within the Jewish community, at the time of Jesus. (It was not until 50 or so years after his execution that they became the big boogey men of the community, and is why, the gospels being written during that time, they appear as boogey men in the NT.)

bottom line: Jesus pissed off Caesar. If taking this one guy to task could be used as a means to discipline the impoverished cultists, send a message to as many as possible with very little effort, then all the better. The story being written as a judgment at the hand of the Jews is a political maneuver that could not have possibly made any sense, historically, until several decades after his death.

Every petty king in the world at the time claimed divinity and the Caesars had never had to prove they were gods. These were people would screw all the wives of the most powerful men in the kingdom and kill whoever they wanted on a whim just because they could. In contrast, Jesus was a nobody who was beneath their dignity and never would have appeared on their radar in the first place if his cult hadn't angered a few people lower down the food chain first.

 

[chucky2]

Yep, one step at a time. Then they can move on to not hating Jews and stoning women.

I'd really just prefer if first they could get a system of government that represented Everyone in their country fairly (even to the point of splitting the current country up), and that system could accomplish basic government services without excessive (higher than US levels lets say) corruption. If they could pull that off for like 20 years, I think maybe they'd have a legit shot of their fundi's not getting the idea that blowing themselves up in a crowded marketplace of civilians is a proper way to protest just whatever they're protesting. And yes, just maybe, maybe, they could progress some and not throw rocks into womens faces for the inhuman crime of allowing themselves to be raped. Or kicking a dog just for the hell of it. Or........

Chuck

 

[Blitzvogel]

I can't wait to see gas go $5+ a gallon from the current ~$3.40 here. We deserve it for being so damn dependent on it, driving SUVs and trucks, not pushing public transportation, especially the kinds like electricity powered trains, where the electricity can come from hydroelectric, solar and wind sources. It surprises me that more people don't invest in private wind generators for their homes.

 

[chucky2]

How are you going to power an entire metro area like Chicago on hydro (non-existant), solar (not in any way practical here), or wind (ditto for when it's not windy)? The entire rest of the time, which would be - almost all the time - you'd need a backup that was instantly online and available. Which in the Chicago area is nuke backed up itself by gas turbine.

I'm all for renewable energy, but, it's decades away from being feasible. Better to get going on a couple of nationally standard nuke designs and get building. They only take 10 years, last for 40-50 or so. By then, hopefully we'll have something better...

I'd like to see gas go to $6 a gallon though. At least then maybe we could get rid of these F'ing rediculous reg's against Clean Diesel, and start getting some true viable high mpg offerings here in the US...

Chuck

 

[Blitzvogel]

How are you going to power an entire metro area like Chicago on hydro (non-existant), solar (not in any way practical here), or wind (ditto for when it's not windy)? The entire rest of the time, which would be - almost all the time - you'd need a backup that was instantly online and available. Which in the Chicago area is nuke backed up itself by gas turbine.

I'm all for renewable energy, but, it's decades away from being feasible. Better to get going on a couple of nationally standard nuke designs and get building. They only take 10 years, last for 40-50 or so. By then, hopefully we'll have something better...

I'd like to see gas go to $6 a gallon though. At least then maybe we could get rid of these F'ing rediculous reg's against Clean Diesel, and start getting some true viable high mpg offerings here in the US...

Chuck

I think we could make it happen (clean power). In a place like Chicago, why not place Turbines offshore? Solar panels could be put on the south facing sides of house roofs and flat top buildings (facing south of course, but lacking auto-aligning). It surprises me that homeowners do not invest in private wind generators and solar panels themselves so much. Also, we could look to see where we are wasting energy the most and work on that too (our love affair with cars). Of course this costs money both for researching, investing and implementing, but I think it is possible. We live very spoiled lives already and I'm sure there is plenty we could shave off. People hate change of course. There are interesting ideas in modern building design like sod roofs that could lower energy consumption in regards to cooling a building (of course the building would have to support the enormous weight). Houses could more often be made of compacted dirt or like in Germany, many made with unwanted hay/straw bales that are readily available and quite excellent for insulation. Houses here in the US are incredibly big too. It seems that young couples (like my bro and his wife) can't seem to get over the idea that you have to have a big house from the get go. While yes, it gives you some value and property, it's also a huge energy drain on your own pocketbook and requires energy transfer from another source that creates pollution.

I wouldn't have too much of an issue with nuclear power if it wasn't for the waste that has to be sealed away and dealt with. My brother is a nuclear engineer in fact and I'm sure he's all about the US building more nuclear plants.

 

[Blitzvogel]

Oh and I forgot one of the biggest problems in electrical grids - back up power storage, though I hear there are a number of ideas for storing mass amounts of electricity on the drawing board. Being able to store means the ability to create more energy than the needs though, which itself is already a problem.

 

[chucky2]

That's great and all, but...

1.) When I say turbines I mean fixed wired to the grid gas powered turbines, that kick on to fill energy needs as needed. You're talking about turbines of a different sort, like wind and/or sea powered. First, you need to get through all the lawsuits, which means first getting through all the environmental studies. Then, once those are all done, you might have a shot. Maybe. In the meantime, a decade or two, where does all the needed energy come from?

2.) The storage mediums to store that much power are no where as far as availability, they're years away, if that (meaning: more).

3.) Even if they were here, that doesn't help when you've got multiple sustained days of "green" energy shortage. Once they're exhausted, and if they're exhausted that means you're still not keeping up with current demand, which means, you're not putting energy back into these storage mediums, what then? Now you still need something that can power a whole metro area.

4.) You (We) could work on changing the social value of a larger house, however, having a large house is nice. No rational couple with 2 kids is going to want to stay in some cramped EU/Japan like POS when they can get a 2400 sq. ft. house that gives them breathing room and their own personal space.

5.) Storing nuclear waste from a modern reactor I don't believe (from past discussions on here) is really an issue given our needs, timescales, and emerging green technologies. It's possible we need only 1-2 more rounds of nuke power, and then we'll be green/mostly green. The amount of nuke waste those 1-2 rounds generate is inconsequential given our needs (including availability and reliability) and the timeframe needed.

Chuck

 

[Blitzvogel]

I'm pretty well aware of the research-development issues (or should I say costs?) that plague the adoption rates of such systems, but it might be the only way out in the end. One thing you fail to consider (and it's something I think very few do) is what kind of waste does the actual manufacturing of said "green" components create. Plastic components and composites could have hazardous chemicals involved or left over from creating these parts necessary so that would have to be addressed too.

And yes, I was referring to wind turbines and pretty much any tech that involves using natural sources, not gas turbines that will need some sort of chemical fuel. I do wonder how hydrogen could fill this void, but I already know that hydrogen by volume carries much less energy potential than gasoline and obtaining the vast amounts of hydrogen wanted would require energy from another source.

Stirling Engines are pretty cool BTW. They are also worth looking at.

 

[werepossum]

Oh and I forgot one of the biggest problems in electrical grids - back up power storage, though I hear there are a number of ideas for storing mass amounts of electricity on the drawing board. Being able to store means the ability to create more energy than the needs though, which itself is already a problem.

One thing TVA does for demand power is to make storage reservoirs on mountaintops. When demand is low, they take generating capacity that would otherwise go unused and pump water up into these storage reservoirs, then at peak demand periods they use that water to generate power. It's a net energy loss but a wise use of resources and actually provides a more stable downstream riverine environment as well. Those can easily be used for backup power as well.

Personally I think extreme insulation and energy efficiency should be incorporated more heavily into the building codes. Far too often I see clients making decisions based on two to five year paybacks for forty to sixty year life buildings. And I love sod roofs; for that matter I think much more of our construction should be underground or earth-sheltered.

 

[JTsyo]

My hope is that what we're seeing is an awakening of the normal folks in the middle east who are tired of dictators and other such crap, people who want some form of freedom.

My fear is that generally when there's a power vacuum, especially unexpectedly, it tends to get filled with the group that is most organized and ready to quickly take advantage. In many of these places (like Egypt), it seems like the group most ready and organized are Islamo-wackos like the "muslim brotherhood" and other terrorists.

While the Brotherhood seems to support a theocracy, they don't seem to be extremists. I haven't really heard of them until the recent events in Egypt though.

 

[Zebo]

I don't think it will be. Oil makes world go around. It's our whole economy and modern way of life. You can basically send us back to 1870 without oil. They will use oil weapon to spread Islam and get their way about a whole host of issues that are against our national security and way of life.

We'll probably end up taking it tho.