@Maxrot: you are a riot! :D "Side A" and "Side 1" :D

"Tea Pary Sign:

Side 1: Bring the manufacturing jobs back home!

Side A: Secure the ports, inspect every container!"

This reminds me of the old Aggie (Texas A&M University) joke. "How do you keep an aggie (or a T partier) busy for hours?" On one side (side "A"), you write "OVER".

On the other side, ("Side 1") you write "OVER".

@Gene Hear! Hear!

Maxrot,

Your argument sounds logical enough, but there are other circumstances that would change the outcomes.

1) Here's an example from life. My father was a dentist serving a small rural community that was the number one poverty area in Wisconsin. Often, his patients had little money to pay their bills. My dad frequently took payment "in kind" (home-grown vegetables or other items in place of cash.) Also, for years, my dad never raised his prices to his patients (even tho HIS costs --- lab bills, office assistant salary, etc. --- continued to go up.) Believe me, this drove my mother crazy. But my dad considered himself priviledged to be a dentist and he believed in "giving back."

2) Businesses run as co-ops generally do not operate without thought to their future health. Unfortunately, this is not the standard model in this country.

I see these things as glimmers of hope, tho certainly not ubiquitous.

Say WHAT???!!!

Even though I live on the East Coast, I listen to Thom's Show via the Web, on KTLK out of Los Angeles, because that is one of very few stations that carry Stephanie's, Thom's and Randi's shows, all live as they happen. Sad fact is that vey few stations on the East Coast carry more than one of those 3 shows, live or delayed. :(

During their "news" broadcast at the top of the hour, they quoted a report (I missed the source - will have to listenm to next newscast more carefully) stating that "Tea Party members are wealthier and MORE EDUCATED than non-members." WTF??????????

Was that report issued by Fox News, or by Glenn Beck himself?

Tea Party T-Shirt:

I went to a Tea Party and all I got was this lousy T-shi_t

(Wish I could draw an 'r' above and to the side of the underscore... please use your imagination to visualize my intent)

Harry Ashburn,

I agree --- Sarah Palin's major redeeming attribute is that she inspired such wonderful Tina Fey bits. Video from last Saturday's SNL:

http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/sarah-palin-network/1217966/

@quark, I think you and your husband are overlooking the obvious (note I used the disclaimer "I think"), more often than not humans act in their own narrow view of their self interests. Consider this, a farmer produces more food than his family can eat, so he sells the product at the best price he can get for it, the farmer is all to happy if the price pays more than his overhead costs. Can anyone begrudge him his profit, would it not be foolish for him to drop his price to just what he needed. Sure in the long run if he dropped his price to just what he needed, then his buyers could then drop their mark-up to just what they needed, and so on and so forth. This is the basic concept behind trickle down economics right, once you make enough money you give up the extra amount you're making voluntarily (except that rarely if ever happens). Think about it, if you make enough money to pay all your expenses and live comfortably, and your boss offers you a 10% raise, do you reply "Thanks, but I'm already making enough, please just reinvest that money back in the company it'll be better for everyone in the long run." It would be noble, evolved, intelligent to do so would it not, but on the other hand why should I take that noble, evolved, intelligent step that I'm not seeing anyone else taking, besides with that raise I can now afford that Sea Cruise I've dream't about taking.

We're humans, that's our nature. If our society thought and acted like an ant colony or bee hive it might work for the better of the whole, but on the other hand who wants to work as hard and thanklessly as an ant or bee. I'm not trying to make excuses for what seems to be the inherent selfishness of the human condition, I'm just trying to point out one of our most poignant universal weaknesses that impedes much of our social evolution. If it was our human nature to be so magnanimous, the hippie communes of the late '60's (heck state sponsored Communism like Russia or China) would have been successful.

I can only think that most tea-partiers are willfully ignorant, and I have a rather limited patience for that. The historical facts remain that without the socialist/labor movements of the 20th century there never would have been social security, overtime pay, child labor laws, etc., ad infinitum.

Facts can be like stones which you've stubbed your toes on. Tea-partiers seem to think their toes are spontaniously swollen and throbbing...

@harry ashburn, the other day you mentioned that you didn't buy the possibility of the twin towers (and WTC 7) being brought down by controlled demolition. I'm just curious as to whether you came to that decision after watching Richard Gage's presentation, or just because the thought is so preposterous or disturbing?

To follow through on my wonder if percent coal as consumption by source had decreased...surprise, EPA pie chart showing 50% coal, however in communication this morning with EIA- and my 2005 Physical Geology Text are both showing 23% coal and not from a decline, but from an increasing amount! EIA Industry Economist wonders if the EPA pie chart was showing per electricity, or a specific consumption. So now, the next step is to find the data for that famous pie chart the people keep quoting. In the meanwhile, here is the data the EIA is showing. At any rate, most of the coal we mine, does go for electricity

I have provided several links below to show how coal consumption fits into the total U.S. energy picture.

Historical consumption of coal by end-use sector shows that between 1970 and 2008 U.S. coal consumption steadily increased from 523.3 million short tons to 1,121.7 million short tons:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec7_9.pdf

In 2008, 93.4 percent of U.S. coal consumed was for electric generation :

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/quarterly/html/t32p01p1.html

Primary energy consumption by source (1949-2008 data) shows that in 2008, 22.421 Quadrillion Btus of the total 99.304 Quadrillion Btus (22.6 percent) consumed in the U.S. was coal:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_9.pdf

Primary energy consumption by source (graph) shows a visual interpretation of 1949-2008 data:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/pdf/pages/sec1_8.pdf

Aha! Thx to the groovy edit feature, I am able to add this link yet another agent from the EIA just sent to clarify what we must be seeing from the EPA- it was for electricity source consumption pie:

The following information on electricity usage is available in this Energy Explained page -- http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_home#tab2
I hope this answers your question.

At least she reminds me ot Tina Fay...Fey..?

Sarah Palin makes my eardrums bleed.

@Maxbot: I read you. I, myself, have a phobia about "colons", myself. I even hesitate to use semi-colons.