I've been thinking a little more. Presumably Saudi Arabia will have to work on any weapons they want under the table, and with decades of head start in the field Iran should be able to beat them to the punch. So I'd downplay the short term military significance of this move.

I'm also not sure why a second local nuclear power would make one feel safer. I stopped fearing and learned to love the bomb, but it seems to me the US or Israel are at least as ready willing and able to annihilate a nuclear aggressor as Saudi Arabia.

What's the alternative to cushion time between top level economic changes and local change? I think it's a fact of life in large complex systems.

I think generally steps toward a goal get you there faster than standing still. You can't do everything at once, but you can do something at once.

A couple of thoughts.

As far as I know there are no restrictions on the export of solar tech. I think I heard a few years ago (before my local hardware store started carrying panels) that the Saudis have a solar industry. The point of international trade is to give the other guy something he doesn't have. Also it is traditional to give allies better treatment than enemies, and the Saudis are our allies.

Giving away nukes is huge, and I'd hope we got some thing good back, but I can't think what would be big enough to make this happen, but have no pr angles for the whitehouse. Maybe the RNC is waiting for the right time to share what we got, but I really hope that's not the answer.

About CATO
Libertarians have a stated bias that taxes don't work, but would they fudge the estimates of someone else by /10? I didn't check the tax policy center website but it'd be pretty ballsy to assume no one would. 50billion in expected revenue doesn't strike me as a good way to fix a 1/2trillion dollar shortfall. As I understand it Iraq and Afghanistan don't add up to half that, which is the only place I've heard democrats even talking about cost control. Am I missing something?

jpn--What does political polarization mean here? And how is it measured? I looked about the site you linked, but couldn't find the context of the image.

I've been following kinda half heartedly for a while, so forgive me if I'm backtracking. Has the rights infringed on by gay marriage been explained? Because I'm not clear on what they are.

Sorry to backtrack, but what's the difference between national independence and a right to national existence?

Opportunities always benefit the rich more than everyone else, but progressive governments should then redistribute those benefits in a more progressive way. The opportunities are not the problem. The way I read that article Mexico got pillaged by a new political group that made nafta. I can see how nafta helps them pillage, and even if nafta isn't the source of the problem stopping it is a way to hurt the people that are hurting Mexicans. I don't think it is an ideal way to end the problem, but I do see how it is a step in that direction thanks.

Restricting trade to promote the growth of the other side's industry? Are you talking about reverse protectionism? I've never heard of tariffs as aid to developing countries, I was under the impression it worked the other way. I'd like to hear more about how it's in Mexico's interests to abandon nafta. I thought the giant sucking sound was real.

I agree we have an interest in breaking up underground economies wherever they are. And since fence hoppers have proven they can dodge our cops we have to go upstream and punish employers.

I don't understand why illegal immigration and international terrorists haven't teamed up either, but they haven't yet, and I'd think making the border proof against the money and determination terrorists have shown would be quite a feat, our money is probably better spent elsewhere.

I'm not sure I believe in such a thing. I'll accept human rights to stuff that extend to children, but I think of most rights to freedoms as being only for independent people. The idea being that responsibility and power should be linked as closely as possible.

Specifically I'm thinking about privacy. I hear that the state of California extends a right to privacy, via doctor privilege, to children in prejudice to their parents. I think protecting the freedoms of the non-responsible from those responsible for them is a bad plan. I can understand protecting a victim from their attacker while establishing justice, but in the absence of any suspicion of wrong doing I would think children should be fully ruled by their parents.

I'd like to hear about how bigoted/stupid/evil I am, if it's accompanied by an explanation.

I think both ways this uncertainty plays out someone forces beliefs on someone else. Either everyone must acknowledge gay marriage or officials are forbidden from doing so.

I understand he does not call anyone a liar. But I agree this administration should deeply fear close scrutiny, and someone should get sacked for not giving them that scrutiny.

I think I agree with Godot. I don't see what this really does. A few million dollars or little more face time for news anchors doesn't seem like a big deal. So why did he do this, and why did someone resign over it?

What about Putin? Russia seems to be taking care of him alright too.

I agree bio fuels are a bad plan, but I'm not so sure solar is unmanageable.

I read that a gallon of gas has about 10^8 joules, so 800million gallons a day is 10^12 watts. My local solar store sells 11x21" 4.5 watt panels for $100 that's about 14million per mi^2 at 62726400 watts. To supply the whole country at that rate would cost 18000 square miles and $25 trillion dollars, not counting land value.  I'd figure any accumulation of capital and structure would apply similarly to terrestrial work as interplanetary work. Also it is important to note 10^8 joules is the theoretical limit while 4.5 watts is output, and presumably those small ones are not the most efficient.

Now 18000 square miles is a lot of space, about 20% of our irrigated land, so there may be some issue with food, but I understand solar panels don't need as much rain or as good of soil as most crops so there many be land unsuitable for farming that would work for power. And we're richer than 4 billion other people, so I figure if people starve it won't be us.

This plan is clearly not practical, but not on the same scale as mining Titan.

Using napkin math and public domain figures I come to a very different conclusion. With one 5Mg probe having touched titan at a cost of ~3billion dollars, we use like 800million gallons of oil a day so that's $700,000,000,000,000 a day to ship the weight of oil we use to titan. Now let's say the cost of shipping oil here from there is 1% of that cause titan doesn't have as much gravity or atmosphere, and knock off another 50% for inefficiency in the probe's design, we would still be spending the net worth of everything in the country every year. Perhaps I did the math wrong or used the wrong numbers, can you point me to the estimates you used to come to your conclusion?

I thought we had coal for a few hundred years but that we have used about half the oil in the last 200 years so presuming growth we have less than that remaining.