They painted my parking spot Handicapped, and then Towed away My CAR !!!

The USAF and the RCAF/CFAC also had some nuclear-tipped air-to-air weapons in their inventories, such as the AIR-2 Genie.  Canada had them as late as 1984; they were carried by CF-101 Voodoo interceptors.  They were officially under US control, but they could be released for use by Canada as circumstances warranted.

In addition to the two big components of the nuclear triad that have already been mentioned – the land-based ballistic missiles and the manned SAC bombers – there was also the third component, the US Navy’s ballistic missile subs.  At the opposite end of the scale, the US nuclear inventory includes – if I’m not mistaken – man-portable nuclear demolition charges, designed for things like special commando-type operations.  I think a weapon of this type is featured in the 1977 motion picture thriller Twilight’s Last Gleaming.

Yea him. The official hot pocket spokesperson

Actually, the issue in Philly was a late change in the EPA fule requirements as they transition from MTBE as an oxygenation additive to Ethanol.

The MTBE was there, but no longer able to be used.

And Ethanol demand is up, so there are not just tankers of it sitting around waiting to be added to gasoline to replace MTBE.

And thus once again, the actual SHORTAGES of fuel are caused by government regulation NOT actual shortages.  Same thing we had several years ago when the MTBE requirement was first imposed…  SSDD, your government inaction (pun intended)

Haven’t watched South Park in a while, but I heard about this.  I wonder what the response will be.

Makes me pity Isaac Hayes - what the hell is he thinking?

Eh, I’ve got no particular take on ‘em. I suppose they could be cool, but I’ve never liked the whole atmosphere of collectable stuff. Give me good ol’ Diplomacy any day :D.

@Janus1:

… stupidity is unreasoned thinking.  …

You should look up the latest results of neuro-biologists. It seems like all reasoning we do (for all decisions) happens after the decision has been made (without you “knowing” that it has been made). That would mean, either all thinking is “reasoned, but unconscious”, or all thinking is “unreasoned because unconcious”.

@F_alk:

Good thing. More of that.

Another liberal who runs away to fight his battles??

@Grigoriy:

well, it seems as though they’re doing the right thing to me, even though I am a conservative (don’t want to say Republican necessarily) but the real issue here is
“In a showdown with national implications, 11 Democrats from the Texas Senate accused Republicans of trying to ram through a CONGRESSIONAL redistricting plan that could get them seven more seats and add to their narrow majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.”

That’s like allowing the foxes to build the chicken coop. Someone else ought to be doing that job.

Okay, it’s been done this way for about 15 decades. How about we allow the redistricting with a net gain for the Republicans of 3(below the average and not the SEVEn seats they could gain. Then pass an ammendment that redistricting would only be necessary when the states # of US Representatives changes.

I’ve finally got around to reply to you (granted it’s at 5 am, but still . . .@TG:

From USA,

It’s the right thing to do in the efforts/battles to be more environmentally sound. Gov’t must set an example in this regard. Particularly if they are going to support Kyoto (Canada) - they need to be more forward looking then simply applying fines and penalties. They must lead the charge to cleaner air.

Yes, I’m for the environment (just as long as TM doesn’t find out)… however there is a BIG Difference between task that should be done in the public and private sector. When there are profits to be made, than it should be the job of the private sector (as in FCVs). However, environmental dollars should be going to fund such initiatives as protecting the wildlife habitats (which if you read, Mr. Bush isn’t too keen on) which make no return profit.

well, profits will at some time be made. It is not the gov’ts role to say “whoops, the auto industry may be making a profit if we help them convert to environmentally friendly cars - maybe we shouldn’t help”. I’ll stand by my point that it is a moral issue for gov’ts to get involved regardless of whether they help the auto-manufacturers out inadvertantly. Besides, if they did, and Canada were to become a great leader in this market, you can bet that the gov’t would soak up a lot of tax money on this technology - just because they can :P

They need to remove excuses from the auto industry and supply industries. When there are roadblocks, gov’t should help remove them.

It is not that there are “roadblocks,” it’s just that car companies don’t want to make an effort. How much have are CAFE standards increased within the past decade. In most cases they have actually come down… :-?

I think i’ve dealt with this . . . .

Gov’t (at least in Canada) is too heavily involved in the energy sectors as it is. For them not to be involved in these kinds of options would be hypocritical. Also it levels the competition playing field - more incentive for industry to get involved if gov’t is too.

Competition will help ensure advances in these fields. I am afraid that the government will unlevel the playing field (as they did in their bail out of Chysler)… :-?

This happens all the time. It does not appear fair, but at the same time when/if this happens out here, i just close my eyes and pretend that they are doing this for the benefit of the people they govern. Pending legislation regarding not accepting corporate donations will help me sleep easier in this regard.

They are already involved to some degree. Vancouver has public transport running on these fuel cells. It would be great to get these into every bus across the country.

Yes, that would be a good idea. However, this should be made available by the private sector which can do things at more affordably

ahhhhh . . . a capitalist after my own heart :D
at the same time, this is a moot point. Gov’ts fund/grant academic research which is seized by industry, and applied. I’d rather this in the hands of the academics initially anyway. Also with due regard to all the chirping about the auto manufacturers desire to be more enviro-friendly, i don’t buy them flowing along with the winds of change. These people are as old school as tobacco, smith&wesson, etc. Don’t tell them how to build cars . . . .

Gov’t does not have to merely shell out money. In Canada it dearly needs to give more grant money to academic institutions to forward this research, but it needs also to find ways to reward businesses with tax incentives etc. who push research and development in these areas.

Yes, as I mentioned before, gov. rebates on LEVs or ZEVs are a good thing. :)

Gov’t needs to stop the flow of cash outside the country to the Middle East, etc. Canada is one of the most sparsely populated countries in the world requiring a significant amount of money to be spent on transport energies. Much of this leaves the country. If it could stay in the country, be allocated to productive means instead, we’d be much further ahead of the game and be more competitive on a globel scale.

The simplist way to reduce dependacy on oil is to hit it at the consumer where it counts - his wallet. The minute this happens, there will be a rapid turnaround to support FCVs, which will in turn move us away from the Middle East.

i don’t know. The consumer many times takes a while. I don’t see changes in auto demand based on gas prices - we all need cars, and we all need to drive. I walk anywhere within 30-45 minutes of my home - even in -30 (celcius) temperatures despite owning a 2002 Nissan Sentra (very fuel efficient). At the same time, i’m trying to not be fat and not drive unless i have to. This does not apply to middle aged, middle income guys who need to drive it to work daily.