[quote=exEJIR]

It all stems back to the gluttony (sp?) of your avg American. 

[/quote]

That's sort of a call on morality via spending, isn't it? I'm not willing to make that call.

[quote=exEJIR]

How many people on this forum drive Lexus, Acura, BMW, etc. just because we can? 

[/quote]

It's that danged freedom thing again. It's just spoiled the country 

[quote=exEJIR]

 And how many of us have homes twice the size of our parents houses, while raising fewer children?

[/quote]

How is that anyone's business than mine?

[quote=exEJIR]

I spent some time in Europe years ago.  One day I was talking to a young German gentleman, and he couldn't believe the spending habits of Americans.  If he were to buy a new car, he drove his old one until he had enough money saved up  to buy a new one. 

[/quote]

We do rely on credit, but don't let your German pal fool you, so do they, just to a smaller extent.

[quote=mikebutler222]

mikebutler222
Sorry, no sale. You started with "available selection" (which clearly has a higher mpg than what was available 20 years ago) and moved to an average, which if even true, is dependent on what consumers CHOOSE to buy.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

I originally started with BOTH by stating:

As our vehicles depreciate and wear out, the available selection out of <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Detroit averages less mpg now than 20+ years ago.
- what I should have stated was “of cars sold”, which would point to the lack of fuel efficiency in cars Joe-public actually wants to purchase-

So you acknowledge Joe consumer actually drives the train. Progress is being made...

which AGAIN, is my main point: That Washington/Detroit could have/should have collaborated...

The fact remains that fuel mileage IS better, much better than 20 years ago for similar cars. Joe consumer, otoh, has wanted bigger vehicles. I'm still trying to figure out how you blame anyone but Joe.

Or is it you're suggesting there's a technology that could make a Suburban with "much better" mileage? If that's the case, two questions 1) what evidence to do have that it's possible  2) why wouldn't car makers offer it if it was possible?

mikebutler222
Interesting. Joe consumer shows he doesn't want it, but Detroit (and I don't want to be in a position of defending them completely) should have led the way. BTW, just who produces what Joe wants AND has 25+ mpg. Be specific.

Again, from my original post:
”…don’t blame it all on Joe consumer or Detroit--- plenty of Demo’s and Repub’s in between…”
What part don’t you understand?

Part missing part. The part where you don't admit that consumers buy what they want and that no union of politicos/car makers could change that by any means other than taking away that choice.

And could you answer my question? Who produces what Joe wants with the mileage you claim is possible?

 I originally stated that the worth of GM/Ford would be “….. worth even more had they been able to develop those (the one’s they want) vehicles using a technology which made 20+ mpg all but obsolete and 50+ the norm…”

It seems pretty much a cheap shot to me to claim that car makers have failed because they haven't produced a technology that you haven't even proved is possible. I could use the same approach to attack airplane makers for not offering me a private plane I could deflate and store in my closet.

mikebutler222
You're either joking or have no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing "gerri rigged" about the Escape. In fact much of it's core technolgy is leased from the gods at Toyota.

Have you driven it? Have you towed with it? Has it been battle tested enough to warrant the expenditure of $20,000+ on?

Yes, I've driven it. The fact is it's every bit as good as a Toyota. Just what did you eventually buy?

would you suggest that Joe-consumer who cannot afford to be upside down on a vehicle 5 years from now, take a flyer on what this “..core technolgy leased from the gods at Toyota..” will be worth in 2011?

Now your point seems to have completely vanished. You bash Detroit for not producing a high mileage car (and Detroit alone, I should add) and when one's offered to you, you won't buy.

mikebutler222
Your post ignored that consumers dictate what the car makers produce...

Really?
”…  don’t blame it all on Joe consumer or Detroit--- plenty of Demo’s and Repub’s in between..”

Ohhhh, so "don't blame it all" translates to Consumers buy what they want?

mikebutler222
who foolishly suggested this? You and Dilbert were the only two to believe where you buy oil from is material or debatable- not i.
Again, you can't be serious.

Totally.

Obviously you weren't an econ major....

mikebutler222
And if frogs could fly.... do you have any idea what would be required to lower US oil use 25%?  Gasoline amounts to a tiny, tiny fraction of our oil usage.

From http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp

Wait a sec, you're quoting the NRDC?????  Gee, bias-free there...

BTW, note they're talking about GAS PRICES, not OIL PRICES. And note their conclusion, 10% is all the cars in the US consume of total world  oil demand. A whopping 90% goes to other uses, and that demand continues to expand. Even if you DOUBLED US fuel mileage, you'd affect a miniscule amount of total oil usage.

 And again, all this supposition  is all based on a technology you can’t even prove is possible.

mikebutler222
Even if you could triple the average mileage of US cars, the growth of the economy alone would keep demand right where it is. Furthermore, lower prices would simply encourage MORE demand from nations other than the US.

From http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp
”…According to the U.S. DOE, monthly average gasoline prices hit an all-time high in March 1981..

Note again, OIL PRICES, and they moved up because of SUPPLY THREATS. Also remember back just a few months ago to when gas prices hit near $3 again. While there was a heightened interest in high mileage vehicles, total oil consumption barely moved. Why? Because oil consumption is very inelastic.

In response, the United States and other oil importing nations radically reduced their demand for OPEC oil through fuel efficiency, fuel switching and new production.

Note how “NEW PRODUCTION” slipped in their last. The fact is world consumption is no where near as elastic as these people would have you believe. New production made up for the decline in OPEC sources.

http://www.mees.com/postedarticles/oped/a46n42d01.htm

Note the chart at the bottom of the page. World oil output actually increased while OPEC production plummeted.

BTW, here’s something you might find interesting. OPEC is about 45% of world oil production. Cut out of OPEC, Persian Gulf nations make up only 27% of the world’s total production. IOW, this “Detroit didn’t offer the high mileage cars they could, which in turn funded terrorists” nexus accounts for an entire 27% of the oil being discussed and a “possible” change in 10% of total world oil consumption.

mikebutler222
Let's assume you could waive that magic wand. Suddenly there is this technology and just as suddenly the entire world adopted it, you'd barely make a dent in the price of oil (if at all) because the OTHER uses for it dwarf what's used in cars.

Cite the data.

See above

mikebutler222
Clearly the reality of the economics of the issue escape you.

Whose reality?   Dilbert’s?   Genius.

Yes, the economic reality clearly on display in a cartoon. You’d think it was spelled out there simple enough for anyone to grasp.

[/quote]

Holy Sh*t MikeB.  What planet are you from?  The point by point argument in technicolor now?  I think I counted 5 different shades of green, not to include red and an interesting shade of blue.  Man you've turned the rebuttal into an art form.

We should have a contest to see who can get the longest, most intricate, colorful and detailed point by point rebuttal from MikeB.

[quote=dude]

Holy Sh*t MikeB.  What planet are you from?  The point by point argument in technicolor now? 

[/quote]

Yeah, once he started the color response, there was no easy way to go back to the easier to read quote method.

BTW, I had to "re-select" the color everytime I wrote a line, thus the many shades of green 

 I think I counted 5 different shades of green, not to include red and an interesting shade of blue.  Man you've turned the rebuttal into an art form.

We should have a contest to see who can get the longest, most intricate, colorful and detailed point by point rebuttal from MikeB.

I think it's kinda funny how one of the links you posted contained the following paragraph:

http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp

Although drilling proponents often say there are 16 billion barrels of oil under the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, the U.S. Geological Service says the amount that could be recovered economically -- that is, the amount likely to be profitably extracted and sold -- is roughly 3.2 billion barrels. That amounts to only a six-month supply of oil, based on U.S. consumption. Simply put, there is not enough new oil recoverable from domestic sources at reasonable cost to influence the world price for oil or to substantially displace imports.

In addition the whole tone basically pulls the rug out from underneath the Bush administrations approach to energy independence.

It's not like you to be posting material that challenges your hero MikeB.

No doubt the task of increasing energy independence is unimaginably challenging, problem is that the consequences of not changing our habits will probably be much more catastrophic than tightening the belt, seeking alternatives and changing how we fundamentally operate as a society.

BTW MikeB, Thanks for the links, very informative.

[quote=dude]

I think it's kinda funny how one of the links you posted contained the following paragraph:

http://www.nrdc.org/air/transportation/gasprices.asp

Although drilling proponents often say there are 16 billion barrels of oil under the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, the U.S. Geological Service says the amount that could be recovered economically -- that is, the amount likely to be profitably extracted and sold -- is roughly 3.2 billion barrels.

[/quote]

Dude, dude, dude, don't quote the NRDC as some sort of unbiased source. It just makes you look silly.

The USGS was guessing at the price of oil AND the reserve's size. More to the point, don't pertend it's just Bush that thinks drilling in ANWAR to lessen US reliance on foreign oil is a good idea.

[quote=dude]

BTW MikeB, Thanks for the links, very informative.

[/quote]

I didn't supply the NRDC link, dude. That was Tex...

Not implying that the NRDC is unbiased.  Got confused as to who posted the link.  Never the less, drilling in the artic is a fools game in my opinion, just postpones the inevitable. 

We must change our consumptive habits, localize (de corporatize) food production (to reduce the need for shipping), change how we builld structures (to encompass lower embodied energy construction materials and increase usage of thermal gain principles from the sun for heating) and utilize more renewable energy sources to even begin to put a dent in our need for oil. 

I know it sounds blasphemous but we could actually learn a lot from Cuba, who has made incredible strides in becoming self sufficient after the fall of the Soviet Union.  Although I'm definitely no fan of Communist ideals, I will say that the achievements Cuba has made are worth learning from since they had to make a radical change in a very short period of time.  In addition, contrary to popular belief, Cuba has a very high quality of life to boot.

I also get inspiration from Brazil, which has converted the majority of it's cars to ethanol and has done it in a very short time span.  It's amazing how the countries with so much less than us, who have a real need to address these issues are at the forefront of developing solutions.  Unfortunatley, I am not so optimistic about our cultures' ability to change, we are far to obsessed with the convenience and comforts our artificially high standard of living has provided.  We'll pay the price someday though.

[quote=dude]

Not implying that the NRDC is unbiased.  Got confused as to who posted the link.  Never the less, drilling in the artic is a fools game in my opinion, just postpones the inevitable. 

[/quote]

An opinion, no matter how wrong, that's you're entitled to 

We must change our consumptive habits, localize (de corporatize) food production (to reduce the need for shipping), change how we builld structures (to encompass lower embodied energy construction materials and increase usage of thermal gain principles from the sun for heating) and utilize more renewable energy sources to even begin to put a dent in our need for oil. 

[quote=dude]

I know it sounds blasphemous but we could actually learn a lot from Cuba, who has made incredible strides in becoming self sufficient after the fall of the Soviet Union.

[/quote]

Ahhh, the wonders of a top-down dictatorship where consumers have no choice, and little else, for that matter. 

[quote=dude]

    In addition, contrary to popular belief, Cuba has a very high quality of life to boot.

[/quote]

That would explain the 1950s era Chevies everywhere. "High quality of life" ROFLMAO....

[quote=dude]

 Unfortunatley, I am not so optimistic about our cultures' ability to change, ...

[/quote]

It's a shame that you know so little of our history that you doubt our abilities. Then again, there's no greater article of faith on the left than the doubts of America....

pls delete from the above post the paragraph that starts with “We must change…”

MikeB said:

That would explain the 1950s era Chevies everywhere. "High quality of life" ROFLMAO....

Reply:

You have a very shallow definition of quality of life, which I expected.  If you're equating automobiles and satisfation with life I pity you.

Actually, most of the people I know who were alive during the 50's say that the quality of life was much better then than today.

Mike B said:

It's a shame that you know so little of our history that you doubt our abilities. Then again, there's no greater article of faith on the left than the doubts of America....

Reply:

Yeah all you Bush B*tches were so optimistic during the Clinton years.  In fact your avatar, Rush Limbaugh and his cronies were a foutain of good vibes in th 90's . 

Also, your predictable response about Cuba is illustrative of your ignorance and narrow mindedness.  You know, our best teacher is usually our enemy.  As long as the problem is being solved, who cares where the solution comes from?

You probably think the Vietnam War was a worthwhile cause. 

[quote=dude]

MikeB said:

That would explain the 1950s era Chevies everywhere. "High quality of life" ROFLMAO....

Reply:

You have a very shallow definition of quality of life, which I expected.  If you're equating automobiles and satisfation with life I pity you.

I find it hard to call a place with crumbling infrastructure and a complete lack of consumer goods (not to mention FREEDOM) a "high quality of life". People usually don't risk their lives to ride rafts to escape a "high quality of life"....

Actually, most of the people I know who were alive during the 50's say that the quality of life was much better then than today.

Mike B said:

It's a shame that you know so little of our history that you doubt our abilities. Then again, there's no greater article of faith on the left than the doubts of America....

Reply:

Yeah all you Bush B*tches were so optimistic during the Clinton years.  In fact your avatar, Rush Limbaugh and his cronies were a foutain of good vibes in th 90's . 

There you go again...ascribing views to me I've never expressed. Here's a hint, take a look at America HISTORY which is what I mentioned, to see how we've managed adversity in the past.

Also, your predictable response about Cuba is illustrative of your ignorance and narrow mindedness.  You know, our best teacher is usually our enemy.  As long as the problem is being solved, who cares where the solution comes from?

Is that you way of defending using a example from a consumer-choice free, top-down driven economy that's in the pits as something that could be done here? Geezze dude, how clueless can you be? What you're saying is that dictators can make the trains run on time. BFD...

You probably think the Vietnam War was a worthwhile cause. 

You probably think that was a rational response....

BTW, who cares what my view on that is, ever consider the views of the people sent to reeducation camps?

[quote=dude]

I know it sounds blasphemous but we could actually

learn a lot from Cuba, who has made incredible strides in becoming self

sufficient after the fall of the Soviet Union. Although I’m definitely no fan

of Communist ideals, I will say that the achievements Cuba has made are

worth learning from since they had to make a radical change in a very

short period of time. In addition, contrary to popular belief, Cuba has a

very high quality of life to boot.

I vote for MikeB also. Dude is smart, but my friends from Dominican and Haiti (similar to Cuba) want to be in America. They know making 5$ an hour with the opportunity to get paid for 2 - 45 hour jobs is awesome! Food on the table and shelter over head.

Talk to anyone under the USSR and learn that until democracy rolled in they got fruit once a year (New Years). Of course some planted fruits, but a vision of anything more then waiting in lines for hours to get beef was more then a dream.

America is the land of opportunity, but Americans are obsessed with debt. Maybe Bush, pork and congress can be to blame... Although I think the national debt has incrased 2.5 tril since Bush took over. Meaning there was 4 or 5 trillion before. So its a trend and once again not only GW's fault!

[quote=dude] 

We must change our consumptive habits, localize (de corporatize) food production (to reduce the need for shipping), change how we builld structures (to encompass lower embodied energy construction materials and increase usage of thermal gain principles from the sun for heating) and utilize more renewable energy sources to even begin to put a dent in our need for oil. 

Unfortunatley, I am not so optimistic about our cultures' ability to change, we are far to obsessed with the convenience and comforts our artificially high standard of living has provided.  We'll pay the price someday though.

[/quote]

That is were I was going with my post.  MikeB, I'm not saying that you or anyone else is not entitled to the comforts that we have been afforded in our line of biz. (h*ll, I'm right along with you)  I was merely speaking about the general population trying to keep up with the "Jones".  Energy (oil) consumption is just the tip of the iceberg.

mikebutler222
So you acknowledge Joe consumer actually drives the train. Progress is being made...<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Wrong again..

mikebutler222
Or is it you're suggesting there's a technology that could make a Suburban with "much better" mileage? If that's the case, two questions 1) what evidence to do have that it's possible  2) why wouldn't car makers offer it if it was possible?

This has been my (admittedly) conspirator theory all along—can I prove it? Of course not but when I wrote: “ …. meanwhile our technology has us 24/7 in a space station, shooting robot rockets at comets to analyze their cosmic dust, dune buggy-ing on Mars, ect….” My take was that our technology has spectacularly advanced; yet we are still getting less avg mpg than we did 20+ years ago in CARS THAT WE WANT TO DRIVE--

mikebutler222
Part missing part. The part where you don't admit that consumers buy what they want and that no union of politicos/car makers could change that by any means other than taking away that choice.

Or… if the technology which achieved the afore mentioned feats were channeled into this area and equally spectacular results were had.

mikebutler222
And could you answer my question? Who produces what Joe wants with the mileage you claim is possible?

You are off your rocker.

 mikebutler222
It seems pretty much a cheap shot to me to claim that car makers have failed because they haven't produced a technology that you haven't even proved is possible. I could use the same approach to attack airplane makers for not offering me a private plane I could deflate and store in my closet.

Well if it blows your skirt up, attack the airplane makers…at least it’s something your good at.

mikebutler222
You're either joking or have no idea what you're talking about. There's nothing "gerri rigged" about the Escape. In fact much of it's core technolgy is leased from the gods at Toyota. Yes, I've driven it. The fact is it's every bit as good as a Toyota. Just what did you eventually buy?

You must be insane, or you have never taken your Ford back to the dealer and dealt w/ their tech’s in the tool shed.
I would no more trust that these guys could consistently repair my hybrid electro/conventional engine than I would if it were a nuclear reactor – that you would is great for you, and time will tell if this technology and the way Ford is applying it works out—I honestly hope that it does- what I would prefer to see is an engine which can perform as we are used to, AND get 25+ mpg or more IN VEHICLES THAT WE WANT.

mikebutler222
Now your point seems to have completely vanished. You bash Detroit for not producing a high mileage car (and Detroit alone, I should add) and when one's offered to you, you won't buy.

I applaud Detroit, et al for producing anything which stretches out a gallon of gas—I just won’t be the guinea pig who spends my money on their gerri rigged prototype using technology that they leased from another company— but my issue was (as if you care) that 20+ years went by before we started getting something produced along these lines—
How would have developing this technology, or technology better than this, and offering it and improving upon it every year for the past 20+ years hurt the manufactures or the public? If they were not profitably produced, then Washington should have stepped in with incentives/subsidies to keep the technology advancing for the greater good, and by now (crisis looming) we’d have proven vehicles and tech’s who know how to work on them.
As far as buying the Escape, no – the negatives are just too great and I’m unwilling to compromise performance to that extent, nor do I feel confident that this technology is as good as we’re are going to get.

mikebutler222
Ohhhh, so "don't blame it all" translates to Consumers buy what they want?

Exactly.

mikebutler222
You can't be serious. Dilbert is exactly right and anyone who makes a living in finance should be able to recognize that fact. If we could wave a magic wand and stop buying oil from centers of terrorism (a link, btw, that's vastly exaggerated. We get a much smaller percentage of our oil from the middle east than most Americans know) someone else WOULD buy that oil. It wouldn't sit in the ground, and the supply/demand forces you seem to not understand would STILL move than fungible asset throughout the world. China and India would still buy that oil.
who foolishly suggested this? You and Dilbert were the only two to believe where you buy oil from is material or debatable- not i.
Again, you can't be serious.
Totally.
Obviously you weren't an econ major....

If we (and others who will benefit from this better technology) decrease our consumption, prices will go down- who buys the oil that we don’t buy is not material- the price they pay is, and the price will be less, if we can exploit technologies which allow us and the world to consume less petro-fuels.  Thus, a shrinking terror-profit margin.
(I bet you and Dilbert secretly already knew this)

mikebutler222
BTW, note they're talking about GAS PRICES, not OIL PRICES. And note their conclusion, 10% is all the cars in the US consume of total world  oil demand. A whopping 90% goes to other uses, and that demand continues to expand. Even if you DOUBLED US fuel mileage, you'd affect a miniscule amount of total oil usage.

It’s a start- and don’t you think when them there foreigners catch wind that we are saving all this cash using these new machines here in the USA, they’ll want ‘em too?

mikebutler222
And again, all this supposition  is all based on a technology you can’t even prove is possible.

Correct- but like you I have a supreme confidence in the US system of capital enterprise and our ability meet a challenge if properly motivated and compensated.
Washington has collaberated with other sectors to motivate technology towards the greater good and should be working double time now w/ auto et. al.-

mikebutler222
Even if you could triple the average mileage US cars, the growth of the economy alone would keep demand right where it is. Furthermore, lower prices would simply encourage MORE demand from nations other than the US

 And if we allow blacks and women to vote the world will end, as we know it.
(P.S. I heard that the whole “ hair is gonna’ grow on your knuckles if you masturbate” thing was a myth)

mikebutler222
Note how “NEW PRODUCTION” slipped in their last. The fact is world consumption is no where near as elastic as these people would have you believe. New production made up for the decline in OPEC sources. Note the chart at the bottom of the page. World oil output actually increased while OPEC production plummeted.

Did you miss the part where it says “Raising fuel economy performance to 40 mpg over the next 10 years alone could cut passenger vehicle oil demand by about one-third or 4 million barrels per day by 2020. By 2015, increased fuel efficiency would save 2 million barrels of oil each day (see Figure 5, below) -- about equal to current daily imports from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait (see Table 1).” ?   (BTW, before you grab your “new word of the day” and start on your “fungible” hobby horse again,  no one is insinuating that anyone can cut-out OPEC’s global market contribution of oil)
Is your position – “don’t bother, the facts are in, go on doing what you’ve been doing, it won’t matter anyway”??
Your entitled to that, if it is- but I think it’s asinine.

mikebutler222
BTW, here’s something you might find interesting. OPEC is about 45% of world oil production. Cut out of OPEC, Persian Gulf nations make up only 27% of the world’s total production. IOW, this “Detroit didn’t offer the high mileage cars they could, which in turn funded terrorists” nexus accounts for an entire 27% of the oil being discussed and a “possible” change in 10% of total world oil consumption.

We’ve gone over this already- production from Arab nations is used as a “backstop” after other nations compete and sell their oil- this keeps the non-Arab influenced price as high as possible in the market, basically, OPEC “makes-up” the global supply that is additionally needed.
As for our challenges in the future, its not production that matters, it’s reserves, and OPEC holds 69% of them.
From eia
PROVEN CRUDE OIL RESERVES
It is generally agreed that the location of proven world crude oil reserves is far more concentrated in OPEC countries than current world oil production. Note that estimates of reserves vary; EIA does not assess oil reserves, but does list several independent estimates.  According to one independent estimate (Oil and Gas Journal), of the world's 1.28 trillion barrels of proven reserves, 885 billion barrels (69 percent) are held by OPEC, as of January 2005.

mikebutler222
Let's assume you could waive that magic wand. Suddenly there is this technology and just as suddenly the entire world adopted it, you'd barely make a dent in the price of oil (if at all) because the OTHER uses for it dwarf what's used in cars.Cite the data.See above

I see no data in the “above” which answers this question.
What I did see was your Dr Chalabi refute your “Even if you could triple the average mileage US cars, the growth of the economy alone would keep demand right where it is. Furthermore, lower prices would simply encourage MORE demand from nations other than the US” with:
”CGES projects a much lower rate of demand increase:  less than 1% per year, or about 0.8-0.9% per year, in which case an incremental demand until the year 2010 would not exceed 3mn b/d. Under such sluggish world demand growth and increasing oil supplies, OPEC’s ability to maintain the present price band would be inconceivable.”
and
”However, these projections of world demand cannot be considered realistic if we take into account present and future trends, which lead to a much lower rate of increase. In the last 10 years, the average annual increase of world consumption has been 1.2%, falling to 0.9% over the past five years. Predicting a higher growth rate for future world demand, despite huge technological advancements, environmental pressure, government policies, etc., is hardly conceivable.”

mikebutler222
Clearly the reality of the economics of the issue escape you.
Whose reality?   Dilbert’s?   Genius.
Yes, the economic reality clearly on display in a cartoon. You’d think it was spelled out there simple enough for anyone to grasp.

The difference?
Dilbert knows that no idiot would ever really believe dogbert---- whoops, he stands corrected.

Whoa here boys...... It's easy to take my point out of context.

My whole point originally was revolving around the concept of energy independence.  I would not compare Cuba economically with the US in any way.  i know some people who went to Cuba and their reports of Cuba were nowhere close to all the negative propaganda we get here in the US (and no they didn't have a government minder with them).  Sure there are infrastructure issues, but the main point is that quality of life is highly subjective and doens't necessarily coorelate to wealth and material posessions.  The report I got was that there was no widespread squalor, crime or "poverty" (from the perspective of the Cubans).  Yeah, the infrastructure sucked, but there were many redeeming factors.  Apparently the healthcare system is world class and many students from around the world go to Cuba to get trained as doctors. 

Look, what I heard was that the quality of life was very high when judged by measures such as satisfaction, crime levels, time to spend w/ family and persue personal interests.  What was most suprising was that there weren't the droves of people who wanted to have a mass exodus that I always hear about in the news. 

I don't have the time to detail for all of you the many things I learned about Cuba from some folks who were there that don't support alot of the negative press that Cuba gets.  Sure, it's not a place I'd want to live, I like having electricity.

I hate to break it to you but the US is not the beacon of freedom and quality of life a lot of you think.  We have by far the worlds highest incarceration rates, see:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0818/p02s01-usju.html

To give you some perspective  we jail 5 to 8 times as many of our citizens than other leading industrialized countries (we even beat Russia) see:

http://www.sentencingproject.org/pdfs/pub9036.pdf

About a quarter of all incarcerations are due to non violent drug crimes!  Note the chart that shows the INCREDIBLE leap in prison population shortly after the War on Drugs was initiated.  Funny thing is that if you take some college kid who get's busted for pot and put him in jail, when he gets out he's now got a criminal record and will have a hard time getting a good wage job so whats he to do?  Well how about all that sh*t he learned in prison.  The prison system is one of the most effective criminal schools in our country.  Anyway I'm getting a little off topic, I just can't stand idiocy.

What's also interesting is that we are about average as far as crime rate goes (although at a higher risk of violent crime).  Other countries with exponentially lower incarceration rates do not suffer from higher crime rates than us.  Jailing more people does not reduce crime.

Look, I'm not an anti-US guy.  I just passionately believe we can do much much better and I don't think Bush is doing the job right.  If we are to live up to the hope of being the MOST FREE country on the planet like we get hammered into our heads by the media, there is room for a lot of improvement.

You all may want to hate on me because I'm not a red blooded, apple pie patriotic American, that's fine.  I'd suggest that anyone who is curious about the truths of "quality of life" and freedom in the US do some research on their own and quit listening to the domestic media.  What you find will be facinating (I know it was for me). 

Peace. 

I’ll add that I know that the US places between #6 and #10 on various quality of life studies.  I’ll note that many of the various studies out there are primarily weighing GDP, per capita income, life expectancy and a lot of factors that clearly advantage more industrialized and developed nations.  I’m hoping that the majority of you who have an interest in the above info are open to the idea that people can be very happy and satisfied with life without a lot of luxuries.  Some of the most satisfied people I’ve known live off the power grid and live very minimalist lives. 

Doing a quick search on the internet I cam across an article by someone who has been to Cuba who reflected the same conditions that my friends experienced.  Here is an excerpt:

Cuba's universal, free, high-quality health care, is the best in the Third World. The island country has produced the lowest infant mortality rate in this hemisphere and life expectancy rates better than in the United States. Cuba has the highest number of both physicians per capita and health teams serving the global poor, in the world, along with the most complete infant immunization coverage and a national health and nutrition education program that has led to urban (mostly organic) gardens that produce 3 million tons of fresh produce per year for 11 million people. (Cuba expects to feed its population on organic food in the coming decade.)

Most of the problems that everybody hears about concerning Cuba has to do with Cuba having to change radically after the fall of the Soviet Union as well as continued economic sanctions by the US.  Any country who had to face those kinds of changes and obstacles would be a hard place to be for a while at least.

Although finding good info on Cuba on the net is a little difficult here are some articles which I found that backed up my friends experiences in Cuba

http://www.cuba-solidarity.org/news.asp?ItemID=671 : talks about energy progress in Cuba

http://www.counterpunch.org/morris06032004.html

Note that I don't necessarily support the overall view of these authors.  I'm just using these articles as a validation of the info I've heard from folks on the ground.

Here's another interesting excerpt which I have found to be true:

The latest UN vote opposing the U.S. embargo was 179-3 (last year it was 173-3). The world opposes U.S. policy on Cuba, but the United States pummels the world into submission, in an all-too-familiar, and increasingly dangerous, exercise of the unilateral "rule of force."

There is a joke about Cuba and Fidel Castro that suggests that if Fidel could walk on water, the United States would report that he is too old to swim, i.e., here, everything about Cuba receives a negative spin.

Anyway, I have nothing more to say on this issue.

I lied.  I'll finish by saying that most of Cubas problems are actually due to the US embargo, which is soooooo necessary because Cuba is such a major threat (rolls eyes).  I think it's BS that we restrict any companies that do business with us from doing business with Cuba. 

Yeah, let's hit 'em on the head and then criticize and demonize them for being hurt. Great logic guys/gals.  Keep it comin' America, you never cease to amaze.