I liked the way Obama blocked building the keystone pipeline to supposedly placate the greeny types. So instead of shipping the Bracken crude in a fairly non-polluting pipeline, we have trains pulling it to where it can be processed and polluting and sometimes exploding along the way. Same amount of oil gets burned plus you have the pollution from the trains plus a few exploding trains. Real enviromentalism in practice.

Cheers,
Dave

To me, it doesn't help things to have prep material for students be primarily available on the internet - that doesn't really seem to be leveling things with people that may not have good internet access.

Not that the SAT was great, but at least there were a ton of prep materials you could get and use from anywhere.

People don't live in tanning beds under power lines, so it doesn't lend much credence at all.

You may sometime want to look up the definition of "rhetorical question", which that plainly was... quite obviously the cost is far more than the sum mentioned.

Since I didn't care to know the exact answer, your looking up a figure was more to your benefit than mine. So why thank you for something I didn't ask for?

Yeah, how'd that work out for banking?

Pretty well until government protection of giant banks along with imposition of regulations smaller banks could not keep up with, meant all of the smaller banks got bought up or shut down.

Meanwhile, instead of competition we have Obamacare mandating that very expensive insurance plans be bought from a handful of providers, reducing competition further.

No. First you buy the coal stocks and then, after the stock price runs up from the artificial demand created by this goofy scheme to buy out all of coal companies, you sell the coal stocks and then buy natural gas stocks. The coal stocks will go up as soon as the scheme starts buying. Natural gas stocks won't go up that much until the scheme actually starts limiting the coal supply.

My bet is that there are enough unexploited coal deposits that this scheme will mainly result in a bunch of coal mining start ups and will never seriously impact the supply of coal. Same thing happened when Standard Oil tried to create an oil monopoly back in the 19th century. Lots of people got rich starting and selling oil companies.

Cheers,
Dave

There is no such thing as economic security. I recognize that and work for a society that lets me keep what I earn.

Your idea of economic security comes at my expense with me at the wrong end of the tax collector's gun. All of the mass murders of the 20th century (Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.) promised economic security if only their subjects gave them enough power and relinquished their real liberty. You know. The old, "From each according to his abilities to each according to his needs." If those are your idea of "civilized standards", I'll pass.

Cheers,
Dave

They are talking about shutting down an order of magnitude more coal plants. Four nuclear reactors is not going to cut it.

No, Thatcher and Reagan got it the most wrong of all. Not as wrong as Mao, but incredibly wrong by liberal standards.

Fixed that for you. You seem to assume that your liberal leanings are Western standards. Not.

Cheers,
Dave

And how many "modern" coal fired plants are being built? Not many due to pollution limits. On the other hand, there are lots of old coal fired plants that were located close to population centers. I usually pass a couple of coal trains each day hauling Wyoming coal down to Colorado Springs (where I work) and points south like Pueblo and on into New Mexico. Quite a few only make it as far as Denver. Not many power plants up near the mines in Wyoming (also not many people).

Another funny thing about that. Recently had a local political flap about plans to build some new high tension transmission lines where there hadn't been any before. You should have heard the outcry against building "ugly power lines". Nobody seems to notice a couple more coal trains on the same tracks though.

Other point... That's "several million new tons of domestic coal". You apparently missed the "new". Can't find a number for how much domestic coal they haul but they ship about 30 to 35 million tons a year for export. Just one railroad.

Cheers,
Dave

You may want to familiarize yourself with the concept of rubber hose cryptography.

Granted, the United States Federal Government won't literally beat you with a hose, but they will take away your freedom until you comply with the lawful orders of the courts. The Government will go over your finances with a fine toothed comb, accounting for any and all assets you currently or previously owned, including bitcoin. If you obtained any of those assets via fraud you're going to be on the hook for repayment, plus criminal and civil penalties on top of the fraudulent earnings.

Want to play the "I lost them" card? You can try, but you're still going to be on the hook for the full amount Uncle Sam thinks you owe your victims, plus the aforementioned penalties, and you're not wiping any of that away with a bankruptcy. It will follow you until the day you die.

Bitcoin doesn't spend at the prison commissary, nor am I aware of any reputable criminal defense attorneys that accept payment in bitcoin.

Bitcoins are just an asset, like any other, and if you think the US Attorney's Office can't build an asset paper trail you're in for a rude surprise.

Liberals hate conservatives but they REALLY hate conservatives like Thatcher and Reagan who got it right. Conservatives like Bush Jr. and Palin are easy targets and ad hominem attacks that discredit the person rather than the ideas. Thatcher and Reagan put their ideas into operation and both countries benefited. That's what really pisses off the liberals. They'd rather have the country going down a rat hole the way GB was under Labour governments than admit a conservative like Thatcher was right.

Cheers,
Dave

Have fun serving an indefinite sentence in Federal prison for contempt of court if you're ordered to turn over your bitcoin and decline to do so.

Bzzzzzzzzttttttttt Wrong.

From a CSX press release today (13 March 2014):

"The company said the reduced operations will be partly offset by higher demand for coal to warm homes and businesses, as it carried "several million new tons of domestic coal" during the quarter."

Other railroads such as Norfolk Southern, Union Pacific and BNSF have all said about the same thing. There is an engineering tradeoff between transportation costs of coal (surprisingly cheap) and transmission losses. The solution seems to be to ship the coal to someplace relatively close to where the power will be needed.

Cheers,
Dave