How to Lower Gas $'s

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
248

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Don’t know if this would help end it, but even as one of Hspder’s frequent sparring mates, I personally don’t doubt his claims.

I know many academics who continually collect PhDs in lieu of a real job. (sorry, Hspder, couldn’t resist ;> )[/quote]

He said he’s a faculty member at Stanford. This means that, while keeping his job (publish or perish), he had the wherewithal to earn two more Phds. Its wonderful if he’s able to do that. We need brilliant people like that. But he calls ME a liar and psycho for wanting to see his credentials. Doesn’t that make ANYONE besides me a little suspicious?

249

H2, you are a retard for working in a Hitler reference.

You are also a retard for lecturing me on what it takes to be a prof as I posted the same issues you were trying to lecture me on.

However, to inject a tiny amount of reality, I’d suggest some/most/all the PhD’s would probably be earned prior to being hired as a professor, that is generally the way it works.

Finally, other than going through the credentials of everyone at Stanford, I have no way of knowing whether the claims are true or not… although with your promise to shut up forever, I really hope they are and I really hope he proves it.

Alas, I now have doubt, because I am never that lucky.

250

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
So this man claims to have earned 3 phds and to have also continually produced work in his original field. Do you realize how rare such an individual is? This is someone on the order of Leibniz or Goethe – a universal genius.
[/quote]

This is the second time, in recent memory, that you’ve mentioned an accomplishment as being relegated to the realm of universal geniuses (both time using Leibniz and Goethe as your examples… why no love for da Vinci?) I think you give “universal geniuses” too much credit, and the rest of us not enough. Without getting into my theories about great accomplishments by Renaissance men, I’ll just say that it is possible for people to do a lot more than we might normally think probable, especially when given drive and a suitable amount of leisure time in which to pursue goals.

251

[quote]vroom wrote:
H2, you are a retard for working in a Hitler reference.

You are also a retard for lecturing me on what it takes to be a prof as I posted the same issues you were trying to lecture me on.

However, to inject a tiny amount of reality, I’d suggest some/most/all the PhD’s would probably be earned prior to being hired as a professor, that is generally the way it works.

Finally, other than going through the credentials of everyone at Stanford, I have no way of knowing whether the claims are true or not… although with your promise to shut up forever, I really hope they are and I really hope he proves it.

Alas, I now have doubt, because I am never that lucky.[/quote]

All I want is to see a little proof that someone has this kind of credentials. Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary proof.

I actually respect the man’s intellect. He is brilliant. He didn’t need to wave his credentials (if they exist) in my face while calling me a liar and mentally ill. That’s just wrong. That is NOT an argument.

252

In regards to hspder’s credentials, I’ve done a little digging. Out of the 37 current faculty members in the Economics Dept. at Stanford, 10 of them either already have more than 1 PhD or are earning an additional PhD to the one they already have. Out of respect for his privacy, I didn’t dig any further, nor will I reveal any names.

I don’t know how current the information on the web pages are but this does show some things. One, it is possible to earn more than one PhD in that environment. Two, it took me about 30 min. to find this out, so it was not hard to do. And three, if hspder is one of these people, he doesn’t want to comply with HH’s demands because he wants to continue to irritate the shit out of him by not playing his game.

253

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
So this man claims to have earned 3 phds and to have also continually produced work in his original field. Do you realize how rare such an individual is? This is someone on the order of Leibniz or Goethe – a universal genius.

This is the second time, in recent memory, that you’ve mentioned an accomplishment as being relegated to the realm of universal geniuses (both time using Leibniz and Goethe as your examples… why no love for da Vinci?) I think you give “universal geniuses” too much credit, and the rest of us not enough. Without getting into my theories about great accomplishments by Renaissance men, I’ll just say that it is possible for people to do a lot more than we might normally think probable, especially when given drive and a suitable amount of leisure time in which to pursue goals.[/quote]

Very true, just those two ‘troubled’ geniuses come to mind first.

254

Ah cmon guys, cant we get back to how bush is continuely milking Iraqi oil while gas prices continue to rise here?

:slight_smile: hopefully that helped.

256

[quote]BoxBabaX wrote:
Ah cmon guys, cant we get back to how bush is continuely milking Iraqi oil while gas prices continue to rise here?

:slight_smile: hopefully that helped.[/quote]

Agreed.

257

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
In regards to hspder’s credentials, I’ve done a little digging. Out of the 37 current faculty members in the Economics Dept. at Stanford, 10 of them either already have more than 1 PhD or are earning an additional PhD to the one they already have. Out of respect for his privacy, I didn’t dig any further, nor will I reveal any names.

I don’t know how current the information on the web pages are but this does show some things. One, it is possible to earn more than one PhD in that environment. Two, it took me about 30 min. to find this out, so it was not hard to do. And three, if hspder is one of these people, he doesn’t want to comply with HH’s demands because he wants to continue to irritate the shit out of him by not playing his game.[/quote]

I am embarrased to say checked it out too last night. I wanted to see if I could see what he looks like and I was bored. I blame doogie for suggesting it.

I did not see any in the Econ Dept. that matched his credentials.

I suspect he is not in the Econ Dept because of the tangential way he linked himself to teaching classes to MBA students.

Or the website is not current.

Or he is a lying sack of shit. I doubt this because he is clearly well versed in the fields he claims his degrees.

Gotta love a good mystery.

258

[quote]ALDurr wrote:
In regards to hspder’s credentials, I’ve done a little digging. Out of the 37 current faculty members in the Economics Dept. at Stanford, 10 of them either already have more than 1 PhD or are earning an additional PhD to the one they already have. Out of respect for his privacy, I didn’t dig any further, nor will I reveal any names.

I don’t know how current the information on the web pages are but this does show some things. One, it is possible to earn more than one PhD in that environment. Two, it took me about 30 min. to find this out, so it was not hard to do. And three, if hspder is one of these people, he doesn’t want to comply with HH’s demands because he wants to continue to irritate the shit out of him by not playing his game.[/quote]

I did this too and randomly found none had two, much less 3. I simply looked at credentials, not their whole blog.

I am sorry I started this. If the man has three, God bless him and I’m a fucking idiot. I will now STFU about all this. Yeah, I should have done that long ago…

259

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:

I am embarrased to say checked it out too last night. I wanted to see if I could see what he looks like and I was bored. I blame doogie for suggesting it.

I did not see any in the Econ Dept. that matched his credentials.

I suspect he is not in the Econ Dept because of the tangential way he linked himself to teaching classes to MBA students.

Or the website is not current.

Or he is a lying sack of shit. I doubt this because he is clearly well versed in the fields he claims his degrees.

Gotta love a good mystery.[/quote]

The first, last and only thing I will say on this is that I believe him, have never doubted it after reading his posts, and that there are different types of faculty positions, including adjuncts, that may or may not be listed on a particular website.

But maybe Professor X will be happy that someone else is getting his credentials questioned… (For the record, I believe Professor X’s credentials wholeheartedly).

At any rate, concerning gas prices, how much of the current problem is directly Congress’ fault?

From a WSJ editorial on Congressional meddling with gasoline additives on March 28, or right before prices took off again:

[i]Drivers can send their thank-you notes to Capitol Hill, which created the conditions for this mess last summer with its latest energy bill. That legislation contained a sop to Midwest corn farmers in the form of a huge new ethanol mandate that began this year and requires drivers to consume 7.5 billion gallons a year by 2012. At the same time, Congress refused to include liability protection for producers of MTBE, a rival oxygen fuel-additive that has become a tort lawyer target. So MTBE makers are pulling out, ethanol makers can’t make up the difference quickly enough, and gas supplies are getting squeezed.

It didn’t take an economics degree to see this coming. The MTBE industry’s defense in the many lawsuits claiming its product has contaminated water supplies is that since 1990 the government has required use of oxygenates like MTBE. But with that requirement expiring in May, producers and refiners will face far greater liability, which has set off a race to exit the market. Valero, one of the largest manufacturers, has already announced plans to phase out production. Even the pipeline operators that carry MTBE to high-use areas in the Northeast are backing away.

This abrupt cut-off of a product that makes up some 1.4% of the nation’s fuel supply – and far greater percentages in some places – is certain to wreak price havoc. According to a February EIA report, ethanol production is already running near its capacity of 283,000 barrels a day. Yet “about 130,000 barrels per day of additional ethanol may be needed to replace the MTBE currently used” in gas.[/i]

260

And this, also from the WSJ editorial:

[i]The bigger question is whether all this newly mandated ethanol – the subsidized profits of which are funneled to Midwest farmers and agribusiness giants like ADM – will even make it to its destinations. Unlike MTBE, ethanol can’t be shipped ready-made through pipes. Instead it must be trucked or carried by rail from the Midwest to terminals near its ultimate selling point, where it then must be blended with a special unfinished fuel that is shipped separately through pipelines.

This is creating a logistical nightmare, forcing refiners to add blending facilities at their terminals, convert tanks to hold ethanol, and switch over retail outlets. To give a sense of this experiment, consider that only about one-third of all reformulated gas used on the East Coast is currently blended at terminals; the rest is produced or delivered as finished product. That now must change, in a matter of months, and at a time when refiners face a blizzard of separate new regulations. An ultra-low sulfur diesel program begins June 1, another gift horse from Congress.[/i]

261

Just wanted to let people know, I did not doubt hspder’s credentials at all. I never thought about it until someone on here mentioned that it would be easy to find out if he was lying or not by checking Stanford’s website. I did it purely out of seeing if I could do it. The man is way too intelligent and too well read for me to doubt his credentials. I just liked the idea of the challenge.

In all honesty, I have never doubted anyone’s credentials on here. It was never really that important to me to discredit anyone’s credentials in their chosen profession. I would only question anyone’s credentials if they tried to tell me that I didn’t know anything about my own chosen career. I would like to know where they got their frame of reference. Other than that, i could care less.

263

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
If it ran out tommorow, we would have another source in less than two years. Probably one that was cleaner too. It’s frustrating that shit has to go COMPLETELY wrong in order for Congress to consider looking at it (see Iraq also). Maybe they should stop voting on raises for themselves and look at some real problems…[/quote]

I couldn’t agree more.

Unfortunately, today, it’s all about winning the next election. Working on long-term solutions usually doesn’t help that. People want to see effects NOW and if they don’t, it’s not worth (politically) working on – it won’t help you win elections, especially because if it takes too long the “other guys” can either take all the credit or ruin it completely…

It’s sad to see the death of the long-term investment… It’s ironic: we are living longer and longer but thinking shorter and shorter…

264

[quote]hspder wrote:

I couldn’t agree more.

Unfortunately, today, it’s all about winning the next election. Working on long-term solutions usually doesn’t help that. People want to see effects NOW and if they don’t, it’s not worth (politically) working on – it won’t help you win elections, especially because if it takes too long the “other guys” can either take all the credit or ruin it completely…

It’s sad to see the death of the long-term investment… It’s ironic: we are living longer and longer but thinking shorter and shorter…
[/quote]

Now, Hsdpr - damn fine post. Couldn’t agree more.

265

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Gentlemen,

I was asked to show that I teach hs physics. I produced the text, the topics, chapter, and how I would present these ideas. Since the questioner had called me a liar about this, I responded as you would: “Let’s see yours.” He demonstrated that he is not a teacher because a teacher would know what incoming students had been taught. He also said that I should be teaching, to hs students, topics as if they were advanced physics students at a university. None of what he says rings true.

Is he intelligent? Of course. Is he well-read? Sure. But he is passing himself off as more to give credence to his ideas. He wants to win arguments by waving his credentials in my face and calling me mentally ill. An honorable man would find that objectionable.

In my view, it is not enough to be intelligent and well-read. So was Adolf Hitler.
[/quote]

What?!

267

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

So when it comes down to it, we all agree that Congress, regardless of party, is just about getting the power, and keeping themselves in power. Bastards.

If there wasn’t so much potential locked up in this country, I would lose hope completely. But, as I said, when it happens, we’ll be the ones that come up with the alternative source, and quickly too.

You know, it just seems odd to me. If we weren’t reliant on oil, the Middle East would have no strategic importance to us whatsoever, and would probably save us tons of money and lives worrying about keeping them stable.

[/quote]

As time goes on, I think most people will give up on the major parties. They’ll be seen as simply the same crock, which I’m beginning to believe more and more. The terrifying part is that we may turn into the Weimar Republic, with Nazis and Comms battling it out in the streets. If we have an economic depression, I think we may indeed see just that.

268

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
As time goes on, I think most people will give up on the major parties. They’ll be seen as simply the same crock, which I’m beginning to believe more and more. The terrifying part is that we may turn into the Weimar Republic, with Nazis and Comms battling it out in the streets. If we have an economic depression, I think we may indeed see just that.
[/quote]

I had given up on the major parties a long time ago. With corporate interest and intervention into politics and everyday life, I saw both parties selling out for the almighty dollar. This is why I never could understand the fanaticism for one party or the other.

270

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Like I said, if the Democrats get back to their core ideals, I’ll vote for them with a clear conscience.[/quote]

…too bad you don’t live in California…