Now here is a great chance to have a vision, either candidate, I will vote for the one who proposes it, you heard it here first. If fuel cell technology continues to be as promising as it is now then instead of proposing missions to Mars why not develop the re-fueling infrastructure for hydrogen, like a new version of rural electrification? This infrastructure needs to come first if a real demand for fuel cell vehicles is to be realized. Work with the big oil companies, but provide public seed capital to get the project moving.

It is not the end of the world to still be dependent on fossil fuels, but that doesn't mean that there couldn't be a better way. We may only get about 30-35% (last numbers I heard) of our oil from the Middle East, but as JohnGalt says, 30% of a gazillion is still a big number.

What does it matter what Kerry's stated policy on anything is? How could anyone possibly believe that he means a single word he says? (I know that you don't, John.) If he can't be counted on for all words he can't be counted on for any words.

To me, this leads directly to the larger question of why so many people seem eager to support a known liar. I mean this post to start discussion on the topic, so I'll start with this: Far too many people combine moral relativism with a reluctance to examine concepts carefully and with a lack of recognition that specific words mean specific things.

Silence -- your liberal cred is hereby re-established.

Private industry will develop fuel-cell cars faster, better and cheaper than the Government will. And, if hybrid, cold-fusion, baking-soda, or magnetic cars are better than fuel-cell, they will develop those.

I can support the Mars mission -- it's not a big thing for me either way, but like Ferdinand & Isabella, there is precedent for state funding of exploration.

But please, please, please, let private industry develop cars (see Corvette vs. Yugo...)

JK - Having watched JPL chief engineer Gentry Lee on Dennis Miller last night, I've tempered my enthusiasm for a manned mission to Mars. What's he gonna do when he gets there? Lee says, "Never send a human to to a robot's job" and I agree. (It costs 60-80 TIMES more to send humans than machines.)

Silence - Before you reply to JK's excellent point about private vs. public investment in new initiatives, would you first address the issue of where the hydrogen that your infrastructure will distribute would come from? My understanding is that the most efficient and economical source of hydrogen is currently - drum roll - crude oil! (And the economics of crude-based hydrogen fuel aren't as good as gasoline is.)

Macho - You are absolutely right that Kerry's word means nothing because, as Groucho Marx used to say, "Those are my principles and if you don't like them, I have others." As for a discussion about moral relativism and specific meaning of things, refer to the long comment threads on ANTI-GAY MARRIAGE (Feb. 18) THE LAST WORD ON GAY MARRIAGE (Feb. 25) and ANDREW SULLIVAN (on Mar. 19). We've been banging our heads against that wall quite a bit.

Here's a question: How do you explain the ideas of absolute vs. relative morality and Aristotle's identity theorem (or any other rational ideas) to people who've convinced themselves (with absolute certitude) that there are no absolutes and we can never be sure of anything?

John, you have nailed *the* question in practical philosophy. This refusal to accept absolutes is the equivalent of a child covering his ears and yelling, "La la la la la I'm not listening to you!" There's nothing to be done with these individuals, at least not using reason.

Thanks for the re-establishment of my liberal cred JK, but I think I have been misunderstood. (hey that might re-re-establish my liberal cred) I don't mean for the government to develop the cars, but the refueling infrastructure. Right now the car companies are doing a fine job on the cars, and the oil companies know how to set up a distribution system, but you have a chicken and egg problem - which comes first? Can't sell cars in quantity without refueling infrastructure and can't economically build infrastructure without sufficient demand. Thus the rural electrification reference, have the government support the building of the infrastructure then turn over the management to private industry.

John, I realize that at the moment one of the easiest ways to get hydrogen fuel is from fossil fuels (burns clean, but is less thermodynamically efficient than gasoline), but we are quite literally surrounded by sources of hydrogen, others methods will be found. That is why it is a "vision". Doesn't have to be a practical reality now.

John, Macho, how do you argue against an absolute belief?

Consider yourself re-established. I did take the direction sideways, as you charge, but my point works either way.

Government has to step in to solve this Catch-22? Balderdash! People wanna buy H2, people gonna wanna sell H2 (I agree that the better question is "where does it come from?") Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand” will prevail and time the distribution to the demand with much greater efficacy.

The phrase "water, water everywhere but not a drop to drink" comes to mind. Water contains both hydrogen AND oxygen, two elements that in the right proportion of their gaseous forms become explosively combustible. And yet, water doesn't burn.

The plan that we are "surrounded by sources of hydrogen" and "other methods will be found" makes a good sound bite but until other methods actually ARE found there's not much use for an infrastructure to distribute it. When there's a commodity to be bartered over then the means of distribution will be built, privately, as JK explains. (Then we get to hear campaign attacks on people connected to "big hydrogen.")

Silence, the only meaningful way to argue against ANYTHING is using reason and our knowledge of objective reality. The absolute belief we're talking about arguing against here is the belief that there are no absolutes (i.e. there are ABSOLUTELY no absolutes) which reason tells us is self-contradictory but that's not a problem for adherents to relativism. "Since there are no absolutes there is no absolute definition of the concept of absolute so it can mean different things at different times, or even at the same time," they (relativists) tell us. If you don't understand this they just pat you on the head and reply, "don't fret, it's a very advanced form of thought and you just aren't bright enough to think about these things."

Reason is impotent in the face of such utter nonsense, so in the case of THIS PARTICULAR absolute belief, you DON'T argue against it.

Anyone know where I can read up on more info on this