I've had people here say that talk radio (Limbaugh) and the like simply don't matter any longer. I disagree.
The lies, inconsistencies and propaganda on conservative talk radio, virtually unopposed by progressives in that medium, are extremely important. Also, Mr. Limbaugh just had his contract renewed, so unless he drops dead soon we can look forward to him being around for another decade.
Why aren't liberals and progressives better in the radio format? I'm not sure. Maybe today's neocons and conservatives are simply good at lying with a straight face and getting people to believe them. Certainly they like to repeat themselves endlessly...
In any case, today, one of our local talk radio hosts, Greg Garrison, blathered on all morning about how great the internal combustion engine is, and actually replied back to me via email.
--
From:
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 10:03 AM
To: Greg Garrison (WIBC)
Subject: Greg, what is it with you?
You really have lost it when you say that the internal combustion engine is the greatest thing since sliced bread. If computers had progressed as slowly as the IC engine, which is, frankly, inefficient as hell, then our PCs would have metal gears and cranks instead of microprocessors.
How much does big oil add to your salary every year, Garrison? Must be a good chunk of change.
>>>
From: Greg Garrison (WIBC)
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 11:43 AM
To:
Subject: RE: Greg, what is it with you?
_, aside from the insult about my salary source, you raise good questions; however, the conversation about internal combustion engines is much less the proper place for insult than it is for objective examination. There is a reason for the huge domination of these engines worldwide for nearly a century as our almost exclusive source of locomotion, energy production and even indirect support for all the other sources you probably think you prefer. The cost per unit of measure of energy created by these engines is still lower than all other sources of such energy, when we take time to factor in the amount of oil-produced energy it takes to generate ABSOLUTELY EVERY OTHER FORM OF ENERGY that folks like you appear to favor. The cost of manufacturing NiCad batteries includes a huge cost in petroleum and high-pollution-generating Nickel and other components that EPA will not even permit to be produced in the US. So they start with the process in Canada, then ship the components to China for fabrication. Then the batteries come BACK to the US for installation in cars—or go to Japan, etcc—all of which is accomplished via—guess what—internal combustion engines. Likewise, all these "alternative" fuels and energy sources, no matter how "friendly" they appear to be, rely hugely on petroleum and gas/diesel engines for both production, transportation and even installation and maintenance. The IC engine is still here because it works so well. Simple. Sorry you see me as such a simpleton, corrupted by oil money. Hard to have a conversation with someone who sees you that way, but these are the facts as I see them.
Greg
J. Gregory Garrison
Talk Host - "Garrison"
93.1 WIBC - Indianapolis
>>>
From:
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 3:32 PM
To: 'Greg Garrison'
Subject: Thank you for your reply, 7-7-2008
Thank you for your reply. Please note that as "one of those people" (you are stereotyping) I've had two Porsches, a Ducati, two Trans Ams, a Shelby Charger, a 383 Sport Fury, a Cosworth Vega, and several other cars (and I really, really want a Pontiac Solstice turbo), but I am more than willing to give cars up. They aren't worthy of all the problems they cause in bulk.
"The cost per unit of measure of energy created by these engines is still lower than all other sources of such energy, when we take time to factor in the amount of oil-produced energy it takes to generate ABSOLUTELY EVERY OTHER FORM OF ENERGY that folks like you appear to favor."
Again, you are lumping me into a stereotypical lump with
"folks like you"
.
Problem one with your argument... You aren't (are NOT) counting the amount of energy it took, over millions of years, to make the oil and coal that are in the ground, which we are currently in the process of using up at an accelerating rate.
Problem two, oil is of much more use in making plastics, pharmaceuticals and other items than in burning it up. You want to drill and drill and drill, to get oil for fuel. We can live without cars, but we can't live without the things that are made out of petroleum which is pretty much everything in this technological society. We can't get by without petrochemicals in manufacturing, but we can reduce the amount used to turn motors.
Problem three. The people you have on your show to discuss energy are almost exclusively from or associated with big oil or their lobbying spin-offs. Now, it may be that other people outside of that lobbying effort have been invited but have refused to play because they suspect that they will be treated like fools by you (and forgive me but your background does not qualify you to play with people who actually know the subject). Your attitude is one of complete and utter childishness when it comes to actual discussion of the issues. It might make somewhat entertaining radio, but your attitude does extreme disservice to people who actually want to have unbiased information.
Problem four, you have a tendency to simply throw out info without the means to back it up. In your college years you would have been docked for gratuitous lack of references and footnotes. For example:
"The cost of manufacturing NiCad batteries includes a huge cost in petroleum and high-pollution-generating Nickel and other components that EPA will not even permit to be produced in the US."
Where in the world do you get this? Garrison, the Bush EPA allows for pretty much anything including destroying entire mountains to get coal, so what in the world makes you think that batteries aren't made here because of pollution? If I were a teacher of yours I'd flunk your paper and demand you resubmit with proper references.
"The IC engine is still here because it works so well. "
Again, this is your OPINION. Actually, as anything but a generator of heat it is a very primitive beast, and the engines only work as well as they do now because we've hooked computers up to them to try and squeeze as much efficiency as possible out of dinosaur tech. Do you know what is really efficient (the railroads have used them for years)? Yes Greg, the answer would be electric motors. Electric motors used in a hybrid arrangement with diesel engines (which can be made to burn practically anything) are why diesel-electric locomotives are so efficient. Yes Greg, the technology you and Limbaugh lambaste at every opportunity has been used quite successfully since the 1940s on rail lines.
"Sorry you see me as such a simpleton, corrupted by oil money."
I know you and your on-air help, Todd (?) have said that you are personal friends with big-oil lobbyists, what's his name, that you have on every week who writes entire books about global warming being a fraud. You brook no opposing POVs (even though your WIBC could certainly have a bigger audience if you were not alienating half the population). You postulate that anyone who believes the environment to be at risk (to people) is a commie pinko Marxist. What SHOULD we think of you, Garrison? Please elucidate. As a lawyer (retired?) you should perhaps be able to come up with better arguments that the rote, repetitive and technically poor little things that you repeat day after day, and week after week, but the arguments you espouse do fit neatly into the big oil talking points...
---------------------
These people can, to a limited degree, be engaged, but they are (despite being labeled as simple entertainers and harmless lovable fuzzballs) Believers. They may laugh at the Christian Right, but all else considered, they think they are the Voice of God.
More from Greg:
From:
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:57 AM
To: Greg Garrison (WIBC)
Subject: The "homeless" aren't the problem
The PROBLEM is a city that can spend 750 million on a stadium, but whine and complain about how much schools, free medical care, mental health care and libraries cost.
What the city needs, instead of another stadium, is a decent light rail system (hey, the tracks are still under Washington Street). What we NEED is to fix schools, once and for all. What we need is to stop WIBC from blabbing your lousy program all over the Circle.
From: Greg Garrison (WIBC)
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 9:59 AM
To:
Subject: RE: The "homeless" aren't the problem
Thanx for your thoughtful—albeit clueless—comments. Boy do you need some information.
Greg
J. Gregory Garrison
Talk Host - "Garrison"
93.1 WIBC - Indianapolis
If you don't agree with them, you are clueless, or a godless commie pinko Marxist. That's the attitude of the Republican Party. That's what has to go down in flames this fall.
Agree with Barack Obama or not, don't you DARE vote for John McCain or Nader or the Bobster or sit out the vote. We have to reboot this system, and everyone needs to be involved.
http://www.barackobama.com/...
We aren't, of course, going to be able to get rid of internal combustion engines any time soon. Despite their serious antiquated design flaws (they are a steam engine with the pistons inside sleeves instead of being on the outside), their inefficiency and their high failure rates, we need them.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/...
Only about 15% of the energy from the fuel you put in your tank gets used to move your car down the road or run useful accessories, such as air conditioning. The rest of the energy is lost to engine and driveline inefficiencies and idling. Therefore, the potential to improve fuel efficiency with advanced technologies is enormous.
We have to make them as efficient as we can and rapidly change the technology to all electric and non-petroleum based hybrids.