That radical Communist, Dwight D. Eisenhower, first warned of it. WWII may (or may not) have been the "Good War,"* but the defense spending cured the Depression, and war-profiteering was so awful that then-Senator Harry Truman led an investigation of it post-war. Then we entered the Cold War, and the MIC just steamrolled forward.

Some here think libertarians are mindlessly pro-corporation, but I assure you many (if not most) of us have long seen the sickness of the cozy relationship of defense contractors and the federal govt, with revolving doors in which folks sit on corporate boards, then in Congress, and then back to the boardroom - or some permutation of that dynamic. Free markets are one thing; a federal govt corrupted by the defense industry is quite another, and the Founders would be horrified.

Ron Paul may be a kook on things like the Gold Standard and such, and I disagree with him on gay issues (but would have no problem seeing abortion removed from federal law and sent back to the states). He is well aware, however, as are (or should be) all real libertarians, of the corrupt relationship between Big Business, including the defense industry, and the federal govt. So. Depending on who the Democrats nominate, I may well cast a protest vote for Paul.

*I tend to think our problems with Japan were all about control of resources. The Nazis, of course, were another heinous problem altogether. But for good or ill, WWII institutionalized a large defense industry in bed with the govt, and in FDR's own Administration control of resources considered critical to U.S. business were identified as part of the "national interest" for purposes of foreign policy and reason to go to war.

No, LWM has been doing the alter ego anon thing for a long time, way back at Glenn's old blog. Not to disparage him -- we have a love/hate comments relationship -- but that is just a fact. Generally, I recognize him as well; it is one of my talents. Once familiar with anyone's writing style, it is very hard to fool me. I'm dumb about a lot of things, but that just happens to be one of my idiot savant abilities. Ask Nabblfuckwtz, or any of his many avatars.

No, it isn't a democracy on a pvt message board. But Mr. Sugarman, I dislike you. I think the tilting point was the bit about Glenn's supposedly being a "faggot Jewish leftist." I disagree with GG sometimes as well, on a few occasions strenuously, on board and off.

That LWM resorts to the Anon thingie rather often does not redeem your commentary.

And I can't understand why anyone would usually do that. But I've not done it, and have an aversion to doing so -- except in the very first few weeks of Glenn's old blog after which I declared a name and identified myself as the prior anons -- before there really were any others.

I found it degrading and untenable, and hated it so much it didn't last for much more than 2 weeks. (My initial reason for the choice was that I knew Glenn, and didn't want that interfering in the give and take in comments, including by some who might recognize my name.)

That very brief period is the only time I've ever posted anon, anywhere.

Yes, but it is the only reason I've ever posted anon, and quite briefly. I could not honestly say I had never done so.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not arguing that calling someone a "pussy" isn't offensive. On the contrary, I absolutely intended to be offensive. However, I intended to be offensive by virtue of having called someone a coward, not by demeaning women as women.

Look, I call people pussies: as well as dicks and pricks. So am I both a self-hating female and a man-hater? This "pussy" idiocy has been a topic here and elsewhere, and I say it is silly. Pussies, dicks and pricks are what they are, and I intend (within reason, and not wanting to overs-use scatological terms), to continue to judiciously employ all three terms, whenever one is the mot juste.

Not to be in the position of siding with saintlucid, but you can't seriously think the U.S. is going to convert to any style of rickshaw! He is right that at this point, every feasible solution to auto pollution pollutes a lot. For example, with hydrogen cars, the electricity needed to produce hydrogen pollutes mucho.

Gasoline fuel cells are closer, but you really weren't looking for a solution were you? Justification for stasis is much easier.

Why do you attribute to me such bad faith? You admit that even if gasoline fuel-cells could someday do the trick, they haven't been able to do so yet. My point is that so far, all alternative to gasoline-fueled cars still generate a good deal of pollution. It surely doesn't make me evil for acknowledging that.

Liberals traffic in reality and empirical fact, right? So let us do so. Geez.

But the article you linked to was all about them. So I reasonably assumed you meant that was some sort of feasible solution.

If I missed or misunderstood part of your discussion (and I haven't totally followed it), I apologize.

And I'm no expert, but from what I've read we don't have the land to allocate to those sources, among other problems, for providing all the vehicle fuel we need.