More on my fiction writing

« Republicans in retreat? | Main | The continuing crisis »

December 24, 2012


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Phoenix space needle to be in the shape of a Sajuaro with two arms. Arpaio plans on an office at the top. The better to keep an eye on the help at the revolving Cactus Candy restaurant featuring Americas Tacos. With a signature, Mucho Grande Burro called the Hendershott.

I clicked on "lets call it an aspiration"
And was unable to read the article without paying money. Do people actually pay money to get that site, AZCentral?

According to the Danish architect who designed the thing, it will have an open-air area outside of the glass walls that enclose the interior space.

Not sure if I like the design, but I like the concept. Surprised that some developer isn't touting this thing for far East Mesa or similar exurb to help create the next new downtown.

Happy Holidays!

This building looks like the one Ed Abbey destroyed in the "Good News"

I don't do holidays, but I'm feeling Rogue-ish, so...

Happy Day, everyone!

Petro, May THEIR GOD dump greyish empty Hollow Days upon your SOUL.
I'll buy you coffee sometime day. As soon as I get moving. Starbucks is OPEN

Just what do they plan being "viewed' ?????
J,M & J - - they can call it "Disappointment Heights."

Effective 1/1/2013

This blog will be renamed - Grumpy, Grumpier, Grumpiest Old Men.

"A pen warmed up in a heating pad"

The Seattle Space Needle was built fifty years ago at a time when space-age imagery occupied the imagination of the nation and tallness in architecture was regarded as a thing of value in itself, an expression of man vs. nature engineering prowess. It fit in perfectly with the futuristic 1962 World's Fair it was built for, and has no doubt served as a minor if enduring attraction for those visiting Seattle for other reasons.

Too many city leaders in Phoenix and vicinity confuse gimmicks with development. They pay irresponsible sums to public relations firms to develop "branding" schemes involving little more than a silly, forgettable name or motto for the downtown or some other area, and a few color-coordinated street signs. This fools nobody except the pointy-haired bosses who spend their leisure hours reading motivational "leadership" books on their Kindles (or more likely, listening to condensed audio versions of them).

I nominate "cal Lash" for the title of "Grumpiest".

I second that nomination.


BTW, if we're going to change the blog motto, how about: "Take your stinking paws off me, you damned dirty Kooks!"

I'll open the nominations for Dr. Zeus with Elliott Pollack, not because I have anything against him personally, but because he seems to be the bete noir of many commenters.

Or, "bete noire" if you fussy types insist on correct grammar and stuff.

My apologies for the brief hijack but I keep reading in the newspapers that the United States is poised to overtake Saudi Arabia in oil production, so I did a little Internet research and thought I'd share my results.

Here's a graph from the EIA showing U.S. crude oil production over the years:

Isn't the little uptick at the end just adorable? Note that the peak was in 1970 at 9,637 thousand barrels of oil. In 2011 the output was 5,647 thousand barrels.

Saudi Arabia's output of crude is shown in a graph here:

The source is the same (EIA) but the EIA's own webpage on Saudi Arabia was stubbornly offline at this time. The output in 2011 was 9,475 thousand barrels.

So, obviously, the United States increase in crude production is both tiny and unlikely to bring it anywhere near Saudi Arabia anytime soon.

This means that the headlines are trumpteting something else: not crude oil production but crude oil plus other things.

Another EIA graph and discussion of the subject shows that the United States narrows this huge gap through "natural gas liquids", "other liquids", and "refinery processing gain" rather than crude oil production. Saudi Arabia has a smaller output of natural gas liquids and almost no output of other liquids, and no refinery processing gain (which is substantial for the U.S.). The graph:

This blog will be renamed - Grumpy, Grumpier, Grumpiest Old Men.

"A pen warmed up in a heating pad"

Ah haha!!

I nominate "cal Lash" for the title of "Grumpiest".

Oh christ...bwahaha! (Am I at least in the running?)

Another EIA graph and discussion of the subject shows that the United States narrows this huge gap through "natural gas liquids", "other liquids", and "refinery processing gain" rather than crude oil production.
Bingo. Anything to help catapult the propaganda...

This was my take on the oil hype:

"Where is the outrage?" indeed.

I'm at least heartened that most of the commenters to your ST article seemed to get it, Jon (and the ones that didn't exhibit pretty obvious logical deficiencies.)

From an oil engineering professor:

After doing away with the new oil independence myth, he says this:

In 2011, we consumed 18.8 MMbpd of petroleum products, less by 1.6 MMbpd than our consumption of petroleum products in 2005. With less cash in pocket, less driving, and more efficient cars, we have destroyed demand for almost as much of real crude oil as all other imaginary "oils" quoted by EIA and dutifully propagated through the clueless mediadom.

Why isn't this achievement front-page news? We finally use less crude oil! We are more efficient! This incredible news is evidently not as sexy as making up imaginary "oil" to be on par with the Saudis. Have we gone mad?! I take it back: Have we stumbled even deeper into the destructive imperial madness that has infected us for the last 11 years?

Also, the latest IEA report that somehow projects the US to be the top oil producer in 2030 or what not also assumes that Russian and Saudi production will fall - a not so pleasant assumption.

More graphs and pictures:

My favorite commenter's name came on a recent post for Phoenix 101: Sky Harbor — Alwaysabride'smaidneveradonette

If you went to Coronado High School, you get the joke.

Returning to the issue at hand and adding to Emil's post: 'outlandish' architectural proposals like this are regularly floated as a marketing device. Just head over to The Atlantic Cities or similar publications where renderings of such theoretical projects turn up every other day to stimulate the design-conscious bohemiate. The boosters probably don't understand any of this but they do sense that ideas like the above-mentioned floor lamp represent an important part of the bling-bling spectrum.

Sometimes those things actually get build. Nowadays mostly in parts of the world that have money to burn and want to climb the world's social ladder. Those projects are, in either imaginary or physical form, about attracting attention.

I remember as a kid the big to-do about the new Patriots Square downtown that was going to shoot laser beams into the sky. I think the laser worked for a few months, then busted - never to be repaired. I never got a chance to see it (my parents rarely took me downtown from Maryvale).

I saw what NYC did after 9/11 with the laser lights where the towers once stood. Breathtaking. Phoenix missed a chance with Patriots Square. When I grew up, I actually kind of liked the square. I sometimes went to the Wednesday farmer's market there when I worked downtown. Now the park is gone, replaced by charmless, hot CityScape. I'm probably one of the few who liked the little lawns, curving red brick paths & planters of Patriots Square better than I like CityScape. The garage under it was kind of creepy, though. Defendants, witnesses and victims in the same court cases would sometimes all end up parked down there. Talk about fright and tension!

I don't like this new tower concept. I think the proposed CanalScape ( project would do so much more for Phoenix than this silly tower.

The best views of Phoenix already exist from a prime and city-owned location; Tovrea Castle. 360 degree views, wonderful surrounding landscape. The tower idea sucks.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)