…Well, what was left of it, anyway.
Up next for the once proud Germans? A Toureg hybrid, a Mercedes Benz that runs on Rauchbrau, and a German Army that, when it next marches into Poland, will literally be asked to march the entire way in uniforms made from hemp fiber.
And the V2 rocket? Propelled by a giant air pump and, upon impact, releases millions of superballs (all of which were made from recycled tires and rubber bands and reconstituted Kraut condoms).
— Which, when you think about it, ain’t such a bad idea. I mean, superballs released with that kind of velocity could probably put out a few British eyes.
So take that, you Limey Churchillian punks!
So drink diesel you whiny bunch o’ fuckin’ strudel-munchers.
The mind reels at what Brussels will cook up in terms of policies to combat this threat.
To beer.
Or the climate.
Or French milk farmers who, as we all know, riot at the drop of a hat whether they are directly involved or not (sort of the South Korean students of the new millenium).
In addition to some readings on the effects of the big honkin’ star 93 million miles away on the little blue speck, FVPOTUS Tubby McLightBill also needs remedial lessons in the “Law of Unintended Consequences.”
wishbone – You give them a lot of credit by calling them “unintended” consequences. There are, at the very least, known and predictable consequences. They just ignore them, or were part of the overall goal to begin with. Unintended, not so much.
Genetically modified hops are the future. This one’s easy cause I sure as hell wouldn’t want to be the guy in charge of marketing on the organic beer account.
HAH! I say to your puny German superballs.
Release your balls if you dare, but they will be no match for our defensive wall of Polish migrant workers.
Blightey 2 – Krautland 0 and don’t you forget it!
Dam you, Al Gore! DAM YOU TO HELL!! (sobs bitterly)
Oh admit it Jeff, you drink too much beer anyway. You do, I do, and this trend probably hold for most of your readership. Shelling out a little more for beer – and drinking a bit less of it – would be a small price to pay for the development of a sustainable and environmentally friendly fuel source (and for a smaller pants size!). In fact, there are probably a lot of similar (yummy, but socially irresponsible) indulgences that we should be ready to pay more for. I’m confident that the government will be able to come up with investments in our nation’s future that will make these small sacrifices worthwhile.
The remarks above are an exercise intended to mentally prepare myself for the possibility of life under a Democratic administration. It’s not working.
The idea that ethanol is a viable alternative to gasoline on a large scale (even as an extender, mixed at 10%) is really quite uninformed. Sure, it will work as a fuel, but generating vast quantities is really quite impossible, and the problems aren’t going to go away even with advances in technology. It’s already causing the price of food to rise, since it’s subsidized. Plus, the energy put in, both in manufacturing and transportation, is incredibly high.
It’s the boondoggle of the global warming age.
Using grains for ethanol is retarded. Unless they’re like surplus or something. Chuck Grassley also thinks SCHIP would only cost $35 billion. He’s stupid and old.
J Brenner,
I fear that your preparations for a democratic, fuck it – let’s quit parsing words, Hillary presidency are inadequate. I don’t think the level of discourse will be quite as reasonable and conversational as yours seems to be. As of Feb 09, I expect to be hit with a massive, full-throated, guilt trip not unlike a psycholesbo 6th grade teacher might lay on one of her alphamale students for daring to scratch his nutsack while waiting in the lunch line.
baby steps, Sticky B, baby steps
It’s the boondoggle of the global warming age.
Sugar to ethanol would be the way to go, like Brazil. But that means bucking the sugar and the corn lobbies. Bucking the sugar lobby two ways: on subsidies and on their import bans on less-expensive Mexican sugar.
Barney Frank got up in Congress a few months back and pointed out that lots of rural Republicans are good capitalists and into government non-interference–until it came to agriculture. He asks why that industry should be so manipulated all the time? He was right to ask!
Using ethanol for fuel is brain-dead, period. There’s no process that I know of that yields net energy without accounting practices that would make a Hollywood studio executive blush, Brazilian sugar cane or no.
Methanol would make sense if we had atomic power plants. I’m a big booster of nukes, but not even I would like to see Aunt Ethel’s Lincoln loaded with U235. (I’m not really happy with the prospect of Chevy’s new hybrid pickup, for that matter. “Hey, Dub, hold my beer and watch this…”) Using nuclear energy to convert coal to methanol yields a net energy loss, but it’s a relatively safe way to provide vehicle fuel.
Regards,
Ric
The current population of China is 1.321 billion, the US is 303 million, and Germany is 82 million. Do you realize what this means people? Yes, the verdamnt Germans drink 130 liters of beer per person and we only drink 77 liters per person. Drink up Shriners!
I am saving for a big ass S-class, so algore better leave the Daimler folks alone until my dream is realized.
I think developing an amount of ethanol infrastructure makes sense from a national security perspective, which is why I’m inclined to ignore some of the math. I’m real open to being wrong on that though, and the national security thing is my thing not Chuck Grassley’s. He’s stupid and old.
Gerhard Ilgenfritz? Somebody made that up.
Shit.
This probably means Sam Adams is gonna start costing more. This shit keeps up and I’m gonna be back to drinking Miller High Life
Gorezilla Stomps Berlin!