Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Energy-Free by 2017!
Mike Huckabee's ambitious energy plan:
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.
|12.12.07 @ 9:24AM|#
And we ought to declare that we will be free of energy
consumption
Would 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.
|12.12.07 @ 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.
Elemenope|12.12.07 @ 9:35AM|#
Pro Libertate, you bastard, I just spewed mint tea all over my keyboard!
|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 9:48AM|#
We will harness all the energy we need from Huckabee's taint. (Huckataint?)
|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 9:56AM|#
So we will go back to living in trees and eating berries and bugs like chimps...
|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 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. :]
|12.12.07 @ 10:04AM|#
I can't tell whether Warren is baffled by Huckabee's statement or impersonating Fred Thompson.
Marcvs|12.12.07 @ 10:04AM|#
And we should raise the minimum wage to $1,000,000/year so everyone can be rich!
|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 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!
Ben Rast|12.12.07 @ 10:20AM|#
Didn't realize he was a member of the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
Russ 2000|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 10:48AM|#
I have already put my mitochondria on notice. Either they leave or I need to purchase some carbon offsets.
Neu Mejican|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 10:57AM|#
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.
|12.12.07 @ 10:59AM|#
Sure, laugh it up, libertoids. But Dr. Huckmeister will have the last laugh in 10ˆ100 years.
Elemenope|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 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)|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 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".
.|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 11:45AM|#
OK,
I just came across this "Mike Huckabee for President" video.
It is fucking hilarious -- i had to share it
Elemenope|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 11:53AM|#
ChicagoTom - that was awesome. And I can't think of a more deserving person to get that kind of treatment.
|12.12.07 @ 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?
|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 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?
|12.12.07 @ 12:05PM|#
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|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 12:07PM|#
Huckabee will lead us to the Singularity! Prepare for
Sublimation!
5...
4...
3...
2...
1...
[discontinuity]
|12.12.07 @ 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.
.|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 12:18PM|#
though you may be right about the economic impact of new energy sources vs. biotechnology.
Elemenope|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 12:32PM|#
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|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 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.)
|12.12.07 @ 12:52PM|#
Reason #513 why charismatic but underbright theocrats shouldn't stray from their talking points.
|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 1:27PM|#
If Huckabee is elected, I'm dismantling my static electricity powered engine and I won't share it with the world!
|12.12.07 @ 1:29PM|#
"I'm too ignorant to have an informed opinion on
Evolution"
Translation - "I slept through high school biology."
Elemenope|12.12.07 @ 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|12.12.07 @ 1:33PM|#
If he was taking biology in an Arkansas high school forty
years ago...it very well may have not been covered.
Seriously.
.|12.12.07 @ 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.
Matt|12.12.07 @ 1:47PM|#
Spoken like a true conservative: repeal tax laws, gun laws, the laws of thermodynamics...
|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 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.
|12.12.07 @ 5:07PM|#
R C Dean
Jedi do not have sex.
Which explains why, as with Shakers, there are so few of them.
Urkobold™|12.12.07 @ 7:26PM|#
THE URKOBOLD IS REMINDED OF CHEVY CHASE'S MODERN
PROBLEMS FOR SOME STRANGE REASON.
OH, GOD! YES!
TallDave|12.13.07 @ 12:09AM|#
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|12.13.07 @ 1:23AM|#
And people want this man to be President... why?
Because he is obviously not qualified to be a rocket scientist.
M. Simon|12.13.07 @ 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.
|12.13.07 @ 11:22AM|#
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.
|12.16.07 @ 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.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245