The price of a Chevy Volt is estimated to be $40,000 (including the subsidy). My estimate is extremely fair considering we're talking about both passenger vehicles and trucks.

True. And I'd add my previous point, that if we're doing a complete turnover, the price would go up based on shortages caused by that mandated turnover.

And should we make mention of the fact that the volt only works for singles or couples without kids? Nah. Facts only make things that much more complex in our attempts to sell the mantra to the masses.

You are talking a load of nonsense here...if I say I would want talks from both sides how does that make it an advantage to my view!!!!

(Sigh... there is none so blind...)
Fine. Let's look at your own words. (How else but these would I draw any conclusion at all on your position?)

talking to both parties is essential and it can't be on our terms or the Israeli terms!!

Whose terms do you suggest?
Ah. The side you've been arguing for, hmmm?

FAIL.

Posted by Bithead | December 23, 2008

You are talking a load of nonsense here...if I say I would want talks from both sides how does that make it an advantage to my view!!!!
I'm not advocating one side or the other here in that case, it has to be fair hearings on both sides and an agreement by both sides.
So any notion of this point of view making it an advantage to my view is plain stupid.

Dave --- $40,000 per vehicle --- really?

Well, I'll tell you my Rainier went for $44 and change, new a few years back. It's no Caddy, but I get by.

But by definition, newer technology tends to cost more for a while, particularly if you're going to do a whole fleet replacement ina short period of time, thereby creating artificial shortages of the product. So even for minimally equipped vehicles, yeah, $40k isn't all that far out of line.

Well put, and exactly right.

I'm not neutral in this matter

Yes, so I have observed. You suppsoedly see value in talking to both sides, so long as you only listen to one. Yet, you complain about the supposed lack of an 'honest broker'.

Thus, my dig at you vis a vie neutrality... You apparently value neutrality, but only so long as it advances your view. Past that, it's unfair, and a roadblock to peace.

Posted by Bithead | December 23, 2008

I'm not neutral in this matter, I do think Palestine get the short end of the stick and I have always thought that.
So let's put that to rest....I still do believe however that if any kind of peace is to be achieved, talking to both parties is essential and it can't be on our terms or the Israeli terms!!
We have to talk with whomever the Palestinian leader may be...whether we or the Israeli government like them or not....that's my whole point here...the US and Israel can't dictate who we will or won't talk to, if that is the chosen leader of that country.

This sort of black-and-white logic is what has failed us the last eight years. You're either with us or against us, right?

and...

Maybe, just maybe these women see that act as awful as it their only way of getting revenge in some way....the rest of the world turn a blind eye to their plight.

Hmm. So much for 'open discussion' You appear to have made up your mind, having made a choice and yu're quite willing to use strong words to make your point. Makes one mindful of another thread we had here just recently.

and it's as I said yesterday:

Because in the end, an honest person will have to pick a side as being the right one

I'd like to give you points for being honest, here, but I cannot, since you seem to think yourself 'neutral' in the matter.

Eric Blair, white courtesy phone please.
Eric Blair, white courtesy phone please.

I think you are analytically reaching with unsound methods on your cost estimates here to make a fairly weak point.

Posted by Bithead | December 22, 2008

The Jewish women don't need to wear bombs as you put it, they have all the help they need with us condoning every attack they make on Palestine and condemning right away away any retaliation from Palestine.
Maybe, just maybe these women see that act as awful as it their only way of getting revenge in some way....the rest of the world turn a blind eye to their plight.

First, the trivialization of the short and long term goals of Islam and Islamic leaders appears to remove what many see as the prime motivation for the conflict between Israel and the Islamic nations surrounding them. As Dave Schuler pointed out, and Bernard Finel repeated, there have been many significant hostilities in the area from 1948 till today.

The reality is that we are doomed to repeat this pattern because of the complex but religiously driven hate memes on both sides dating far back in history, and reinforced in successive generations by the more recent conflicts. Also, because of the aggressive motivations of Islamic leaders, who have considered cease fires and treaty arrangements as temporary rest and rearm periods, and opportunities to tap the US treasury for “protection money”, or Russia for more equipment.

I assert, then, that the US is not a primary cause for these periodic battles between Israel and their neighbors, and that Islam and its ambitious leaders are a primary cause. Such attacks were initiated despite any large, small, or no US military, diplomatic, civilian or business presence and attempts at mediation in the area, and despite their certain knowledge that the US would indeed support Israel logistically, if not militarily. Further, without our intervention with needed military equipment and supplies, Israel may well have been overrun on at least one occasion: the Egyptian/Syrian attack of 1973, which was a close call.

Second, the facts and history seem to support the idea in the ME that the US will come to the aid of Israel if they need the help. Israel is considered a major US ally by the nations of Islam. At this time, lowering our profile in the area would not, in my opinion, have any significant effect on this perception on the part of Islamic nations. We have proven our support for Israel many times.

It is my opinion, then, that the current US involvement in the ME is now, and can be an improved stabilizing factor in the future, especially as long as we have a strong military presence nearby on land, sea, and air. An agreed, permanent military presence in Iraq or Kuwait and in the UAE in particular is, or would be, very important because of their central, strategic, geographical placement in the area. This would ensure a more rapid military response time to flare-ups in the region, or, conversely, would act to deter adventures by ambitious and deluded Islamic leaders. There seems to be a goodly supply of such leaders and aspiring leaders in Islamic nations and ad hoc groups.

Third, is the treatment of the possibility of a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel. The concept of mutually assured destruction or MAD assumes that both parties will act rationally and humanely. Those in leader positions in Islamic nations do not convince me that they meet these conditions now, or that they ever will, because of Islamic goals. Thus, we are by definition involved in a major way in the case of Iranian nuclear weapons development.

It is my opinion that Israel will act on this development in the near future, and that the US will be forced to come into the conflict, if only because of possible or actual Iranian retaliation against US assets and citizens worldwide. Here again, the image in the Islamic world, and in Iran in particular, is that the US has given Israel significant help in acquiring a substantial number of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. Thus, we are complicit in their eyes with Israel if Israel attacks Iran’s nuclear facilities. To reduce our footprint or fingerprint in this situation is, to put it mildly, foolish, IMO.

Increased commercial and cultural exchanges are absolutely worthwhile objectives, but to trade increasing those for decreased US military presence, which is what would be asked for, is a bad deal, if only because we will most probably have to return in force a few years downstream, thus negating the good things instantly and at a much higher cost.

Because in the end, an honest person will have to pick a side as being the right one.

This sort of black-and-white logic is what has failed us the last eight years. You're either with us or against us, right?

The fact is, it's just a wee bit more complicated than either you or caj can seem to admit. But hey, instead of studying the reams of history on the subject, let's just pick one side and bomb the crap out of the other.

Let’s dispense with the oil issue first since it’s the easiest. The spreadsheet of oil prices that Bernard produced is highly informative but rather than proving his case it proves mine. Policies aren’t arrived at by averages but by events. The price spike of 1979-1980 was produced by the deteriorating security situation in the Middle East I sketched in my argument. The price spike of 1986 was caused by the so-called Tanker War during the Iran-Iraq War. That each of those was followed by an increase in U. S. military involvement in the Middle cannot mean that they were caused by that involvement although that increased involvement may have had increased hostility to the United States as a secondary effect. I think the message is rather clear: if the states of the Middle East want us to reduce our military engagement

What's your point, Dave - that instability in the Middle East raised oil prices, which increased harm to the US and necessitated US involvement? I don't really see an argument here as to whether or not the US is playing a positive role in stabilizing oil prices - some, including Joseph Stiglitz, have actually been arguing the latter, that recent US involvement in the Middle East (read: Iraq) caused increases in oil prices. I'm skeptical of Stiglitz's argument, but nonetheless, you need to really make an argument that the US involvement has been stabilizing oil prices and preventing economic harm.

There is currently no way for us to avoid dependence on oil. Even if we produced every single drop of oil that we consumed, since oil is fungible, the Gulf states are major oil producers, and they are the lowest cost producers we would still be dependent on Gulf oil. An oil price shock would affect us under those circumstances as much as it would now. The quantified effects of closing the Straits of Hormuz are estimated to be around $200 billion per year, i.e. more than the cost of the military engagement that Bernard has cited.

This is a bit of a misrepresentation of the argument, in my opinion. The point is not that we're going to suddenly reduce our dependence on Middle East oil - rather, the point is that we can take steps, like raising gas taxes significantly and promoting alternative fuels (an investment in natural gas refueling stations would go a long ways towards stimulating a market for those cars, if I recall correctly), that will reduce gasoline consumption (one of the major sources of demand for oil in the United States), and therefore make us less vulnerable to an oil shock. We already know that gasoline consumption is elastic, to some degree; it declined in 2007 and 2008 because of high gas prices.

There’s little reason to believe that disengagement from the Middle East will result in a reduction of the threat from terrorism. As my good friend Mark Safranski put it, that’s not merely counter-intuitive, it’s lacking in real world evidence. Terrorists have their own intrinsic motivations; they aren’t merely responding to our actions although those may be among the explanations they present for their actions.

But do those motivations alone lead them to attack the US or American interests when we aren't poking our nose directly into Middle East political affairs? That's the key question, and I've argued that generally speaking, no, they won't. They don't generally bother the Chinese, for example, even though the Chinese are actively repressing a large group of muslims in their own territory. Safranski didn't really present any examples or proof of that - he simply argued it as if it were intrinsically true.

You brought up the Belgium example, but I can point out the Chinese example, as well. Furthermore, there are a whole host of complications with the Europeans, who are much closer to the Middle East with very large muslim populations.

I'm not denying that there are some fanatics like Qutb out there who see things in the "Clash of Civilizations" format and act accordingly. I'm pointing out that the general support for these types of actions, in the form of people supporting them and giving them funding, is heavily exacerbated by heavy US involvement. If weren't so involved, then we could simply use intelligence and police work to crack down on the few whackjobs, who would have little support for attacks on outside powers from the Middle East population as a whole (or the muslim populations in the Developed World).

In particular I don’t see how major disengagement from the Middle East would motivate the Israelis to arrive at a settlement with the Palestinians nor do I see how relinquishing our strongest bargaining chips—our engagement with the Middle East—would strengthen our hand in achieving such a settlement.

I don't necessarily agree with this part of Finel's argument, but from what I've read of it, the argument is basically that without the US holding their back, the Israeli government would be forced to pull back to a more secure position in the pre-1967 borders, and take measures to both cut-off and ameliorate the Palestinian population in the Occupied Territories.

I totally disagree with Israel thinking they are the keepers of the castle, they have planted themselves onto land that does not belong to them

Actually, it was provided them by the UN.
Odd thing; It seems we're supposed to trust the rulings of the United Nations, in all but this.

Of course we see Israel as the "right" choice to use your words, simply because we never want to talk to the other side....as they are always deemed as terrorists.

Tell you what; When you hear of Jewish women wearing bomb belts to blow themselves and as many Palestinians as they can with them, get back to us.