Fox News: US Solar Energy Investment Less Than Germany Because US Has Less Sun 644
Andy Prough writes "Apparently those wise folks at Fox have figured out America's reluctance to invest as much money in solar energy as Germany — the Germans simply have more sun! Well, as Will Oremus from Slate points out, according to the U.S. Dept. of Energy's Solar Resource map comparison of the U.S. and Germany, nothing could be further from the truth — Germany receives as much sunlight as the least lit U.S. state — Alaska."
Problem? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Funny)
To be fair, at 0800 UTC when they conducted their test, Germany was getting more sun than the US....
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Sun, vs sunlight (Score:5, Funny)
Not to nitpick, but no one said "US getting less sun than US". I feel a bit queasy when people substitute the word "Germany" for "US".
Re: (Score:3)
Damnit you bastard. I used up all my modpoints.
And you beat me to that point.
+1 funny psudomod...
Re:Sun, vs sunlight (Score:4, Funny)
Not to nipick but nobody substitued the word "Germany" for "US", the grandparent substituted "US" for "Germany". It was quite the opposite of what you say makes you feel queasy actually so I guess you are feeling really good right about now.
Re:Sun, vs sunlight (Score:5, Funny)
This is not meant to nickpick
I know "US getting less sun than US" means "US getting less sunlight than US", but I still feel a little bit queasy when people substitute the word "Sun" for "Sunlight"
Maybe that's just me ...
So, when people use the phrase, "fun in the sun", do you correct them with, "fun in the warmth and light of the Sun"? Do you tell people, "No, you are not getting some sun. You are receiving some sunlight!"
If only you had been around to prevent the Beatles from making fools of themselves by singing, "Here Comes the Sun", instead of, "Here Comes More Direct Sunlight".
Or maybe you are just a little too caught up in misplaced pedantry to notice the usage of the word "sun" has a common and accepted usage to denote the light or warmth of the sun.
Merriam-Webster.com: sun" [merriam-webster.com]
Re:Sun, vs sunlight (Score:5, Funny)
This is not meant to nickpick
I know "US getting less sun than US" means "US getting less sunlight than US", but I still feel a little bit queasy when people substitute the word "Sun" for "Sunlight"
Maybe that's just me ...
So, when people use the phrase, "fun in the sun", do you correct them with, "fun in the warmth and light of the Sun"?
No, I think the the Fox commentator meant that Germans are brighter than the Americans when it comes to solar energy policy.
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Funny)
"Really, Fox News? Everything Fox News says is a lie. Even true things, once said on Fox News, become lies." - Lois Griffin
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Funny)
Only if you don't also count Comedy Central as a news network.
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Funny)
Comedy Central: Best news channel that isn't a news channel.
Fox News: Best comedy channel that isn't a comedy channel.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Of course, for all I know, maybe that's controlled in ratings measurements. Beats me.)
Re:Problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
All that goes to tell you is that there are a lot of idiots.
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Funny)
Not all tragedy is humor yet, though.
For example, the holocaust still isn't funny.
Some things just need more time in the oven.
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Funny)
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open sewer and die." - Mel Brooks
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't care if you're a democrat or republican, that's extremely poor handling of our money.
Maybe, but what it really shows is that we are not spending enough. This technology is not cheap. A few million here and there is just a drop in the bucket. We as a planet (not nation) need to get off our collective asses and get serious about the future prospects of the human race. Of course a cheaper solution would be to limit population growth, but that argument is not going anywhere.
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually the problem is we are not spending it in the right places. The US in particular needs to be more like Europe and spend money on improving houses and appliances, as well as building a smart grid. That policy is too socialist for US tastes so all the money gets thrown at a small number of companies.
It is actually much, much cheaper to save 2000MW of consumption than to build a new power station to supply it. It increases quality of life too, and we get cool new stuff. Insulate houses, start installing a smart grid, fit some solar panels, upgrade appliances to be smarter. The problem is that looks like socialism, with the government paying to improve people's homes and gear. Well, it is, but ultimately the government will have to either subsidize new power plants that mostly benefit their owners or it can spend your tax money directly on you so that you get all the benefit.
In the UK we partially got around this by forcing energy companies to spend a certain percentage of their profits upgrading people's homes for free. That way the government isn't doing it, they are just forcing energy companies to do it for them. Not socialist at all.
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Back to the video, the REAL point that was being made was that billions of YOUR tax dollars have been flushed down failed companies who have far more talent in kicking back their government investments rather than actually producing energy."
I might believe that Fox cared about that if they had been as vigorously opposed to the multi-billion dollar fiasco that was the Iraq war, which included just as much corruption via-a-vis Hallibuton, et. al.
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Back to the video, the REAL point that was being made was that billions of YOUR tax dollars have been flushed down failed companies who have far more talent in kicking back their government investments rather than actually producing energy."
I might believe that Fox cared about that if they had been as vigorously opposed to the multi-billion dollar fiasco that was the Iraq war, which included just as much corruption via-a-vis Hallibuton, et. al.
I'd believe it if they rallied against the 10-54 billion (depending on how you count) subsidies we give to fossil fuel companies, who rake in trillions in profits. Half-billion to a failed solar company is bad, but not as bad as 10+ billion to already established, ridiculously-profitable industries.
One company failed, scrap the whole thing! (Score:5, Insightful)
I love how this seems to work. One company failed (Solyndra). And it was allowed to fail, not propped up endlessly (which I think is how this stuff should work). The poster was all for using government subsidy to jump start a newish industry. But now that ONE company failed, it magically gets extended to all of them, and it's government fraud, and we should stop everything.
One company fails = "As for direct investment into "Green" companies the government shouldn't be trusted on that ever again."
A few points:
Re:Problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I was all for government subsidizing of the clean energy industry to get that ball rolling. That was until Solyndra. It wasn't that it failed mind you. It was the fact that $500,000,000 in loan guarantees from the government were coming back to the very same politicians who were providing those guarantees!
Protip: You shouldn't be singling out clean energy or Solyndra for this.
Oh give them a break (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Oh give them a break (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder how many actually bothered to watch the video. That statement was stupid, of course, but it was just an added "fact" that really doesn't change the tone of the report that solar energy subsidies have resulted in very little output. We are throwing money away at failed companies.
I'm all for solar energy. But I'm not for throwing our money away. My thought: who is being held accountable for the money, and overseeing that it goes into productive use?
Re:Oh give them a break (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh give them a break (Score:4, Insightful)
Interesting, as this assumption worked for me as a child when I had to read books from "East Germany" (family circumstances) though living in "West Germany".
CC.
Re:Oh give them a break (Score:5, Insightful)
My thought: who is being held accountable for the money, and overseeing that it goes into productive use?
Because in private enterprise the return on investment is always 100% guaranteed?
Re:Oh give them a break (Score:4, Insightful)
Because in private enterprise the return on investment is always 100% guaranteed?
Because in actual private enterprise, not Facist crony capitalisim, investment isn't made at the point of a gun.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
The answer to your question is: DoE
http://energy.gov/mission [energy.gov]
I watched the video. (Score:4, Insightful)
But you've hit on the fundamental issue. If you just wait around for things to "get cheaper on their own" you wait a lot longer. One could argue that China has waited a bit too long for electric vehicles and over their densest cities they have "air you can chew." For the commuter vehicles for which they worked, electric cars in the US did not break even on the cost of electrics on the year the Volt was introduced. The $7,500 tax credit made them break even. Once they were justifiable to the consumer they sold like mad. This in turn causes the cost of manufacturing to drop and means that by the time the next generation of batteries hits, there will have been two generations of Volt working out all the bugs. If we get a 50 mile electric range out of the next gen (as opposed to 35 today), this will actually double the people for whom this technology is viable, if by then the cost of manufacturing the Volt had gone down 10% we might not need the subsidy to sell out of all the Volts GM can produce in a year.
Even with the subsidy, my commute didn't fall into the break even range. I bought one anyway because I thought it was the right thing to do.
So, I must disagree. We'll have better electrics on the road ~3 years sooner due to that "evil government subsidy." That was money well spent.
As for centralized solar, there are lots of viable-sounding technologies for making that work, the sooner we try 10 of them on a large scale, the sooner we find the clear winner. Paying for the 9 runners up, is part of that cost. If you can do this sort of science and have all your test results come out positive each time, you aren't actually doing science.
Re:I watched the video. (Score:5, Insightful)
I would be happy with 25 miles if the things were affordable. I can get a Cruze(the car the Volt is built from) for $17k, the extra $20k the Volt costs would buy me a lot of gasoline.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I watched the video. (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't let seeking a perfect solution get in the way of doing something better than what we have now.
Re:I watched the video. (Score:5, Informative)
Gasoline has to be transported as well.
Even if all electric power is coal it is still cleaner than an ICE car since that power plant is more efficient and has better scrubbers.
Re: (Score:3)
The easiest way to reduce pollution is to refrain from spending money, yours or anyone else's. This is why poor countries tend to have more wildlife and less pollution.
Re:Oh give them a break (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that in the cost for fossil fuels, the cost for the damage it does is not taken into account. Granted it is very hard to determine those cost, but usually people that point out that solar energy is not cost effective ignore the cost that we do have, but is not paid via the energy bill
Re:Oh give them a break (Score:4, Funny)
It's the very first time Fox has said anything that's factually incorrect.
... Said a Fox news reporter!
And it's factually incorrect.
Re:Oh, give Slashdot a break (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Oh, give Slashdot a break (Score:4, Funny)
But without mosquitoes and maple syrup.
Re:Oh, give Slashdot a break (Score:4, Insightful)
How Does Germany Beat Chinese Pricing? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, right, they have more sun
Re:How Does Germany Beat Chinese Pricing? (Score:5, Funny)
They mentioned briefly that the US tried to subsidize solar but the Chinese kept undercutting our manufacturers and we just couldn't beat their prices. What is Germany doing differently that allows them to beat Chinese prices? Tariffs? Import restrictions? Why does that kind of market manipulation work for Germany and why do we allow subsidies to happen in the states but not that sort of competition restriction? Oh, right, they have more sun ... which still doesn't answer how their solar products compete with the Chinese. I like how they named dropped 'natgas' several times because the US has so much of it! No problems worth mentioning about natural gas!
The only explanation is that China must get more sun than anyone else in the World.
Re:How Does Germany Beat Chinese Pricing? (Score:5, Funny)
The only explanation is that China must get more sun than anyone else in the World.
Of course you dummy. China is in the east and the Sun rises in the east.
They get it before anyone else.
Re:How Does Germany Beat Chinese Pricing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How Does Germany Beat Chinese Pricing? (Score:5, Insightful)
You left out another major factor, the Chinese don't have to worry about environmetal issues. Want to dump all the dirty water you made when you etched those panels? China says find your nearest river and have at.
Re:How Does Germany Beat Chinese Pricing? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:How Does Germany Beat Chinese Pricing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How Does Germany Beat Chinese Pricing? (Score:4, Informative)
What Germany is doing differently is subsidies. For many years, you could get a feed-in tariff of as much as EUR 0.65/kWh for providing solar electricity to the grid. Every sheep farmer in the country was covering his fields with PV. And, if you raised the panels up, you could still graze sheep because enough sunlight got around them to grow grass. The price of PV worldwide skyrocketed, leading to huge growth in production. That production bubble is now working its way through the marketplace and the price of PV panels has come from $4/W to under $1/W.
What Germany has that we don't is a strong enough environmental movement to provide political backbone to those who want to spend taxpayer dollars to subsidize solar.
Re:How Does Germany Beat Chinese Pricing? (Score:5, Informative)
Um German here. Actually the Chinese are undercutting us. Our solar panel industry has moved out of country, gone bankrupt or is close to the brink of going bankrupt. The part of the industry not building panels is fine though.
Whether that is a bad thing I can't say. Prices are very good now and they keep getting better. If the goal would have been local manufacture...well...that failed, if it was spreading solar power and making it viable it was a great success.
Re:How Does Germany Beat Chinese Pricing? (Score:5, Informative)
Actually Germany is one of the largest players in PV, both research and manufacturing.
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to keeping little projects like the F-35, SeaWolf, various carrier proposals and that giant money sink that is the Pentagon going?
This stuff isn't even a rounding error on the Pentagon's budget. Yes, we need a strong military and yes, we are not getting the best bang for the buck here. Plenty of room for real budget savings so we can do things like do R&D on solar.
Where's the accountability? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Where's the accountability? (Score:5, Insightful)
Audience...
Fox would qualify as a tabloid save for the fact that a large part of the US takes them seriously.
Re:Where's the accountability? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Busted ACORN and Planned Parenthood for what?
As far as I have been able to tell 99.9% of the allegations that Fox and their retarded viewers have made were false. In fact completely, totally and utterly false.
Re: (Score:3)
Also regarding ACORN, there was a criminal investigation which resulted in no charges being brought against them or any findings of wrongdoing on their part.
And as part of that same investigation they got Breightbart to hand over the unedited video which showed them applying for the housing subsidy wearing a suit/tie and acting normal, and another doing the whole Pimp/Ho routine which was denied. They just edited out the denial and spliced in the approval for the first one.
Re: (Score:3)
"The March of Tyranny" had it right.
Re:Where's the accountability? (Score:5, Informative)
Name one Marxist mainstream media outlet. I will wait. We have several center right ones, but no marxist news outlets are anything near mainstream in the USA. The Militant is not mainstream and I am not sure it even qualifies as Marxist, socialist yes but they do not limit themselves only to Marxism for their writers.
Nuclear is actually about as socialist as you can get, the loans for them are always government backed, they are highly controlled by the government and even insured by it. There is no more socialist form of power in the USA than nuclear.
Re:Where's the accountability? (Score:4, Insightful)
Implementation. Nasty little technical details. Like waste management. Like cost overruns. Like bad siting decisions. Like incredible up front costs.
The feds have been trying to get industry to start up nucs. They have billions in loan guarantees and other support packages. But it still takes so much up front money to get a nuc plant on line that the industry is passing. You can actually build out solar / wind for less.
For fission power to actually do something in the US, you have to do two things - figure out a long term waste storage system and make smaller, modular reactors that have some sensible price point. The former is basically a political football, the latter an engineering problem that seems to be mostly solved.
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Re:Where's the accountability? (Score:5, Funny)
Notwithstanding that this doesn't even sound remotely plausible. Anyone with just a basic idea of geography knows that Germany is on a much higher latitude, where the sun doesn't shine as brightly as on lower latitudes.
But then I guess that to some those deserts in southern US are best known for their dark, overcast winter days, and Germany is best known for their scorching hot summers.
Re:Where's the accountability? (Score:5, Funny)
Please don't insult tabloids.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Where's the accountability? (Score:4, Insightful)
We watch MSNBC every day. Saturdays and Sundays are the best with "Up with Chris Hayes" and the Melissa Harris Perry show. Rachel Maddow is a must during the week. These people are policy wonks and are not afraid to admit when they're wrong. The research is deep and strong.
And before the rightie nut jobs start blathering about MSNBC being "liberal", keep in mind that Joe Scarborough is on in the morning spewing his ridiculousness and the bride of Alan Greenspan, Andrea Mitchell is on soon after that. MSNBC is a business and they don't like people being "too" liberal, like Cjenk Uger who was asked to tone it down or leave.
Re:Where's the accountability? (Score:5, Informative)
I think maybe this question should be asked of slate.
Despite this being loaded with wording signifying it ai a political rant, I watched the video and it doesn't seem to say what the article says. In the video, the question was asked about why it works for Germany and not the US, the answer was, it's the sun it doesn't work as well on a cloudy day, it works well in California and not so good in the north east.
That is not an incorrect statement even though it skips the entire question of why it different in Germany.
Re:Where's the accountability? (Score:5, Informative)
Guess you didn't watch the video on the site then???
2:50+ into the video you get the offending statements
Here I made it easy for you:
http://youtu.be/jJN0B2RIIMI?t=2m50s [youtu.be]
Part of a series (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Part of a series (Score:4, Interesting)
During the early part of the Iraq war, Even before that, During the Clinton Administration we had belief that Iraq had a Mass pile of Weapons of Mass Destruction. The idea that wasn't the case seemed just naive at the time. That and combined with a fit of hyper-patriotism after 9/11, made both sides a bit hawkish, as well as any media bias.
What changed was the war still wen't on, and we found were no WMD, the threat was just so Iraq would look tough to Iran. The 9/11 never forget was soon put aside with normal daily issues. Then the economy stared to pop.
Most of the political disagreement from the left came from the far left the Anti-Bush conspiracies were just as baseless as the Anti-Obama ones are now.
Colbert's Law Of Physics (Score:5, Funny)
The sun has a well-known liberal bias, therefore the US gets less sunlight than a socialist European welfare state.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The sun has a well-known liberal bias, therefore the US gets less sunlight than a socialist European welfare state.
What sort of communist power source would give heat and light for free!
Re: (Score:3)
So the universe is communist? It's scattered literally billions of these potential free energy sources around.
Surely it owes someone royalties or something, how are we supposed to monetize a universe which provides all of this free stuff?
Those suntan flaunting Germans (Score:5, Funny)
I am envious of the deep suntans that most Germans flaunt in my face.
Morning Show (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Morning Show (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a morning show; they all suck. It doesn't have to be FOX News.
It does when both sides are so polarized and angry with each other. All the while we the sheeple keep believing whatever spews from either sides mouth. Both sides have their agenda, and both agendas suck in their own way.
I'm wondering how this is news for nerds? All news organizations repeat filtered facts, chock full of slanted opinion, with the purpose of keeping viewers to sell ad time. They all have become more entertainment then news.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Morning Show (Score:4, Interesting)
No they are not all the same. Fox News is the only news agency who has gone to court to defend their right to lie. That alone sets them apart.
Does anyone really know? (Score:5, Funny)
I would recommend that any residents of Arizona (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I would recommend that any residents of Arizona who want some more sunshine visit Bavaria!
Just in case someone doesn't get it: Bavaria climate [holidaycheck.com], and Arizona climate [holidaycheck.com].
Germany has had consistent policy (Score:5, Informative)
Germany has advanced its clean energy capacity because it has maintained a clear and consistent policy of incentivizing it for over a decade. It is paying off. Last year they set a record by generating half of weekend electricity demand with solar [inhabitat.com]. Denmark has managed something similar with wind power, getting 24% of its electricity that way [spiegel.de].
Of course, Germany and Denmark have strong green constituencies who support those policies, but there are realpolitik concerns at work too. A few years back Russia shut down the natural gas pipeline that ran through the Ukraine to Germany and central Europe because they wanted to play politics with the Ukrainians. Natural gas prices spiked in Europe overnight and put a serious crimp in its economy. The Germans, Danes, and many others got the wake up call and have been driving toward energy independence hard.
There are longer term benefits for those economies who move their energy base off fossil fuels: predictable energy costs. In economic terms, when you increase the predictability and stability of key inputs businesses can better plan and grow, in the same way that low inflation means businesses can better know what their borrowing costs and real revenues will be.
Installation Cost (Score:5, Informative)
According to a recent study by LBNL the soft cost associated with installing the panels are more than three times as high in the US compared to Germany.
http://emp.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/german-us-pv-price-ppt.pdf [lbl.gov]
Page 26: Costs that are not module costs. 4.46$/W in the US compared to 1.18$/W in Germany.
Higher cost results in lower volume.
wait (Score:5, Insightful)
So, fox news has turned into a joke over the years, and the worst of it is the morning show. The hosts are idiots, they do little research and make a lot of false claims. BUT... watched the video. The quote was taken completely out of context. She said "Germany has a lot more sun than us. You could do solar power in places like California and out west, but on the east cost here it's just not going to work well." That's a far cry from what Slates claiming. It's still probably wrong, but it's not nearly as idiotic as Slates claiming and it was clearly an off the cuff remark and not a statement of fact. The real direction the interview was taking was that China is undercutting our solar panel production, and the only way to compete is with subsidies. Which is true. Also, she went on to say our money would be better invested in developing cleaner methods of using Natural Gas, which is also true. My own opinion is that, we're going to use that natural gas, period, it's a fact. So lets make sure we at least use it in as clean a way as possible.
There are plenty of reasons to talk shit about Fox news. This single comment is not news worthy.
Just the numbers, Jack... (Score:5, Informative)
According to "Current Results", the total annual sunshine in Germany (hours):
Berlin 1625
Bremen 1483
Hamburg 1557
Hannover 1501
Kiel 1627
Magdeburg 1609
Potsdam 1692
Rostock 1687
Total annual sunshine in Alaska:
Anchorage 2061
No US city/state gets less sunshine than Anchorage AK, though Syracuse NY is close at 2120, Seattle WA at 2170, and Columbus OH at 2183.
Re:Just the numbers, Jack... (Score:5, Informative)
Hours don't have much to do with this. An entire month of sunlight in North Pole is going to generate next to no electricity. There's a reason why the articles use kWh/m/year.
Selective Indignation (Score:5, Interesting)
As an experiment, I just went to the Huffington Post to see if I could find any bad science on a site that leans towards the left. One headline reads "Scientists Say ETs May Be Much Closer To Us Than We Ever Before Thought". Going to the article shows that the only reference to life was added by the editors and half of it makes no sense (ET phoning home is closer than people think? Really? How close do people think it is? And I thought ET phoned a nearby ship, not his home planet, anyway) and even the article itself is woefully inaccurate; the comments themselves point out that "at a habitable distance and size" doesn't mean Earth-like, especially since planets orbiting close to red dwarfs would be tidally locked. (The astronomer used the phrase "potentially Earth-like", which is a nice way of saying "only a few of them are going to be Earth-like".)
This was the first scientifically-related article I found on the first left-wing site I picked. It may not be as dramatic an error as saying that the US has less sun than Germany, but I wonder how big a mistake I would have found had I tried for a month or two or however long it took to find the Fox News error.
The media and political commentators are horrible at science. Nothing to do with Fox News specifically, as the Slashdot headline and the absence of articles about other sites tend to imply.
Agree: Journalists are clueless (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to agree: The problem really has nothing to do with Fox news. It has to do with the entire profession of journalism. With very few exceptions, journalists have zero grasp of issues relating to science, engineering or technology. Too often, their idea of research is to talk to their equally clueless colleagues in the lunchroom. Alternatively, they just make up "facts" that sound right to them.
The entire profession is spiraling towards the drain. With the rise of the Internet, fewer people are willing to pay for news of any sort. Less income, budgets are cut, fewer journalists have to churn out more material, quality goes in the crapper, so even fewer people are willing to pay for news...
Just look at the quality of coverage on scientific/technical issues like nuclear power, health care, climate change. Find some specific bit of information, any factoid that seems fairly unique, and start searching. Most likely you will find a lovely merry-go-round: journalists copying from journalists copying from journalists. If you manage to find the original source of the factoid, likely as not it has been taken totally out of context and/or has been completely misunderstood.
Alternatively the entire article may be basically a copy of a press release. Companies and governmental organizations know the journalists are under time pressure, so they provide pre-written "articles" that can be used directly, no thinking required.
Still better than MSNBC and Slate (Score:3)
Magnets: how do they work? (Score:3)
I guess Fox business analyst Shibani Joshi is a juggalo.
Re:Oh well, shit in shit out... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Anyone think Fox doesn't know this? (Score:5, Funny)
Their followers, however...will be outraged that the USA has less of something (anything!) than some other country.
Re:Anyone think Fox doesn't know this? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I appreciate the 'murkin spin. I was feeling less exceptional for a moment.
Re: (Score:3)
Whoooooosh!
I'm Portuguese.