Yeah, I'm afraid things will get a little worse for Auburn.  LSU is just nasty this year and Alabama and Arkansas both looked pretty good.  But Tuberville will get things back in order before long. 

So, as a member of IEEE for some 8 years now, I found this article and thought it was something worth sharing:

It may be a first: an office building with a net electricity use of zero or less, that burns no fossil fuels for heating and produces no greenhouse gas, and that makes the people working there at least as comfortable as those in conventionally heated and cooled buildings.

While there have been buildings created that use zero electricity from the grid and produce no CO₂, this has apparently never before been done with an office building. 

So it begs the question - if this sort of thing works, should the government be attempting to entice other builders to follow suit.  It may be some time before it becomes a break-even investment, but would some sort of tax benefits be in order to help push companies in a similar direction?

I love the new IAP - Chovy has certainly hit a home run.

I do miss one thing though; the little "joined on" date was always helpful to gauge how long someone had been around.  There were a few times that I didn't recognize posters who had been here longer than me - but they seemed to know some of the old souls on the board.  It was sort of neat to see how long some of us had been around - especially the real old-timers!

Other than that though - I like it a lot.

Welcome Xentil......

If IAP 2.0 seems a little vacant, we all just switched over from our old home.  As the next few days and weeks tick by, most of the folks will make it over. 

And then.....look out!

Notre Dame's offense is deplorable.  I've never seen this from the Domers - ever.

Michigan has defensive issues, but they seem to be able to score (though nobody told Oregon that). 

Still, it may be completely irrelevant anyways.  I've seen USC and LSU simply distance themselves from most of the other teams out there.  Oklahoma and Florida look pretty solid as well.  Then there are a lot of teams that look good, but I'm not sure of yet.

College football does seem to be a mess right now.  Auburn, like you said, should probably be 0-3 right now and they haven't even seen the brunt of SEC play.

A great topic.

I agree that as a nation, we have a right to arm whoever we choose.  But, I also believe that we have to take responsibility if we are arming a nation and we know their intentions to be hostile or destabilizing.

We can think of it a number of different ways.  First, arms deals are not exclusively one-to-one mapped between buyer and seller.  We sell to many nations that buy from China, Russia, European nations, and others.  So, it is rarely the case that the US is the sole provider of weapons to a state.

Second, how do you know who is good and who is bad?  For instance, the US used to sell weapons to Iran.  After 1979, that stopped (for the most part) after we deemed them a threat to our interests.  As far as I know, almost everything Iran has in terms of military equipment is from Russia, the Chinese, or a few European nations.  Just like the Mujahadeen of Afghanistan, we can arm people to defend themselves and drive away invaders but end up being at odds with them as soon as the invaders leave.  It is impossible to predict who will be a friend in 5, 10, 20 years time.

Third, what about nations that have no defense industry to speak of?  How do they keep up with the pace of the rest of the world?  If we don't sell weapons to a nation - where will they get them assuming nobody else sells them?  And on the same note, if others are willing to sell (like the Chinese and Russians), do we actually harm our image with nations that we won't sell to?  Assume Russia and China are arming country X - if country X is made to chose sides, they are going to chose their "friends" who have been arming them without fail.

So it seems to me that just shutting down military aid may actually hurt us politically.  And thus, if we decide to sell - it is really impossible to know how nations will use our weapons in the future.

I suggest we split this topic if you can do it as we are getting off-topic from the original post.  I think it would be a good discussion - should we sell arms to another country?  If so, who should we sell to, etc.?


Well, my opinion is that a half-trillion dollars is way too much to "control" oil.  I mean, if we are controlling oil, why isn't it free?  The price keeps going up, so now we have a huge war debt to pay and we have to pay 5 times more than the stuff (oil) is actually worth.  If gasoline was 22 cents/gallon, I could see that point of view.  But apparently, controlling oil doesn't make it cheaper which begs the question: "Why do we need to control it?"


But again, foreign oil is already ensured, is it not?  I mean, as long as they keep producing it and selling it on the world market, it is available to us.  Unless someone blockades us, we are going to get their oil.  Embargos can happen for sure, but that requires that they cut production.  It seems like this cannot be contained to just one nation, but that the entire world feels the sting.  In other words, we can't really control the oil and OPEC cannot keep it from us exclusively.  If the Arab states don't want to sell it, then we are in trouble - but of course, there goes their #1 economic asset as well.

Lastly, and this has to do with Israel and the original post:  If oil is so incredibly important and we would get along great with Arab states without Israel in the mix - why do we still support Israel?  I mean, if America is as greedy and terrible as everyone thinks we are, why not throw the Jews to the wolves to help quench our thirst for Middle Eastern oil?  We've been accused of far worse.  Why not make nice with the Arabs, cease all support for Israel, and buy oil at a cheap price?


Well, you said it - if there isn't goint to be coexistence, there will be bloodshed.  I think bloodshed is the only way to get to that coexistence unfortunately.  Obviously, the stakes haven't become high enough to convince both sides that violence is no longer desirable.  I sure do hope it doesn't come to a nuclear event, but nothing would surprise me now. 

Entirely?  No.  We arm our allies in many cases.  Europe had been armed by the US for the last 60 years in some way or another.  We also supply arms to many nations in the Middle East.  Iran still has American F-14s sitting on the ground somewhere but defunct because we don't supply parts.  This is something that we do.  The Russians do it, the Chinese do it, the Europeans do it.  

What I disagree with is the continuous arming with no strings attached.  Israel, as I said before should feel secure from outside, uninstigated threats.  But the US should be very clear that we don't arm Israel so Israel can do what she wishes.  If Israel turns aggressive, support from us will dry up.


Could be.  But somehow I just don't see us gaining much from this.  Outside of oil, there is no strategic interest in the area.  And, we can buy all the oil we like.  It is far cheaper to do that than to prosecute a war (or multiple wars).  On the flip-side, my post was to point out how we should continue if we insist on arming Israel.  Your first sentence is "Israel attacks Syria" which to me is aggression.  As such, the US should stay out of the fight and leave Israel to the consequences of its own actions.  I know that isn't happening now, but it needs to.


Nope.  You are speaking to the realities of the situation.  That is why I put "maybe" in all capital letters.  To be honest, the quicker the rest of the world gets out of the affairs of Israel and Palestine, the faster the situation will resolve itself.  Each side can inflict a lot of pain on the other, and at some point they will equilibrate.  It will probably be bloody, but we'll have end-game.

I knew that.  I was just making the point that women's rights were a sure-fire way for a country to increase their prosperity.


17 years?  Wow, I didn't know that.  Change is never fast, but KSA is certainly moving at a snail's pace. 

Well spoken, Zee.

I've always been hopeful of peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestinian crisis.  In some ways I agree that the US should stay out of it and not support either side, but in other ways I don't.  I know you didn't bring that up, but it has to be talked about.

Israel does have the right to exist, and so does Palestine.  Peis brought up that the real issue is borders - and I tend to agree.  On the other hand, I think the biggest obstacle is the lack of moderates on either side.  These forums are a perfect microcosm of that very problem.  We've all seen posts that are just filled with hate or complete distrust and disgust for the other side.  I think that exists to a large extent in the Middle East.  Israel has its nut-jobs, and so does its neighbors. 

Israel, in my mind, should be assured that it will be defended from outside aggression.  That does not mean however, that Israel should feel invulnerable due to its own aggressive actions.  Pre-emption should be redefined as aggression and it should be known that it is completely unacceptable.  In other words, you reap what you sow.  If Israel goes out and starts picking fights, well, good luck with that.  The US has to be stern in warning Israel that aggression will erode our support, but the rest of the world should offer that same warning to Israel's neighbors. 

In time, MAYBE enough trust can be built to start making some progress.

It certainly is trivial, but I suppose change has to start somewhere.  If you think about it, it could be more important than it first appears.  Giving women the right to drive (to be honest, I didn't realize they were prohibited in the first place) gives them a bump up when it comes to independence.  Who knows where this might lead as the years tick by.  Maybe, as it becomes accepted, other things like voting rights may be just around the corner.  I'm not suggesting it will happen in six months, but change like that does take time.

I've said from the day I joined IAP (the old one, back in 2005) that the single most important movement in American history was the Women's movement.  It was more important than any war, any piece of legislation, or any technological revolution.  In fact, I'll guarantee that without women being treated as partners (and not property), the US would have never become a superpower. 

If you want to really know how to kick-start an economy and improve a nation's status in the world, you need look no further than your mothers, sisters, and daughters.