Is bush facing any important elections soon?
In the US we have the House of Representatives and the Senate, who have to agree on passing new laws, and after that the President and the Supreme Court, who usually don't play a part, but can veto or find unconstitutional (respectively) legislation if they feel strongly about it.

Right now the Republican party controls all four of these bodies - they have a majority in the house and the senate, the president is Republican, and most of the Supreme Court justices were appointed by Republicans.

All of the House and 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election in November 2006 - they're finishing up primaries(nominations) now.  Paradoxically, as the Senate cannot be gerrimandered, their races are much more competitive.  While Bush cannot be re-elected for a third term, the issue is whether the Democratic party gains control of the House and the Senate this year - it looks somewhat possible right now.  The fact that it's somewhat close is disappointing because this is probably the least popular president + Congress in history.

Bush could very well destroy the SPR (a really, really big oil drum supposed to hold a month's supply of our oil use for emergency + military reasons) for political reasons - his administration, to a degree unlike any in history, has politicized virtually all domestic policy.

I think we are fooling ourselves if we think that having the Democrats in power would make a real difference on this issue. Frankly, I think we are fooling ourselves if we think that any popularly elected politcal party will make a difference. The nation gets the government it deserves, and the American people simply do not want to deal with this issue on a rational basis. [feeling pessimistic today].
I think we are fooling ourselves if we think that any popularly elected politcal party will make a difference. The nation gets the government it deserves, and the American people simply do not want to deal with this issue on a rational basis. [feeling pessimistic today].

Perhaps you meant you were feeling REALISTIC today?

"The National parties and their presidential candidates, with the Eastern Establishment assiduously fostering the process behind the scenes, moved closer together and nearly met in the center with almost identical candidates and platforms, although the process was concealed as much as possible, by the revival of obsolescent or meaningless war cries and slogans (often going back to the Civil War). ... The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can "throw the rascals out" at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy. ... Either party in office becomes in time corrupt, tired, unenterprising, and vigorless. Then it should be possible to replace it, every four years if necessary, by the other party, which will be none of these things but will still pursue, with new vigor, approximately the same basic policies."
~Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan, 1966), pp. 1247-1248.]
So, the people only get to choose the visible faces of the government, and not the policies carried out.

This begs the question: ¿Who gets to chose the policies?

As Deep Throat said: "Follow the money"...

Yes follow the money:

"[T]he powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country, and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion, by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.
The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks, which were themselves, private corporations. The growth of financial capitalism made possible a centralization of world economic control, and use of this power for the direct benefit of financiers and the indirect injury of all other economic groups."
~Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time (New York: Macmillan, 1966) p.324

Who writes the policy?  An offshoot of the Round Table Group, of course, that was established in 1921, The Council on Foreign Relations.  This group states it is not part of the US government;

"Is the Council on Foreign Relations part of the U.S. government, the United Nations, or organizations such as the Royal Institute for International Affairs and the Trilateral Commission?
No, the Council is a nongovernmental, nonprofit, and nonpartisan organization."
http://cfr.org/about/faqs.html

Yet it is able to formulate policy such as the merging of the United States Mexico and Canada into a "North American Community".
http://tinyurl.com/ej63j

Lou Dobbs cover the story awhile back and it was on youtube but it has been removed.  You can find the transcript here:
http://tinyurl.com/e8xgn

Why would you need to be part of the government if everybody in the government is a member?
Check the link below to see the extent of the current administration's membership in the CFR;

http://tinyurl.com/etzkx

==AC

"The chief backbone of this organization grew up along the already existing financial cooperation running from the Morgan Bank in New York to a group of international financiers in London led bv Lazard Brothers. Milner himself in 1901 had refused a fabulous offer, worth up to $100,000 a year, to become one of the three partners of the Morgan Bank in London, in succession to the younger J. P. Morgan who moved from London to join his father in New York (eventually the vacancy went to E. C. Grenfell, so that the London affiliate of Morgan became known as Morgan, Grenfell, and Company). Instead, Milner became director of a number of public banks, chiefly the London Joint Stock Bank, corporate precursor of the Midland Bank. He became one of the greatest political and financial powers in England, with his disciples strategically placed throughout England in significant places, such as the editorship of The Times, the editorship of The Observer, the managing directorship of Lazard Brothers, various administrative posts, and even Cabinet positions. Ramifications were established in politics, high finance, Oxford and London universities, periodicals, the civil service, and tax-exempt foundations.

At the end of the war of 1914, it became clear that the organization of this system had to be greatly extended. Once again the task was entrusted to Lionel Curtis who established, in England and each dominion, a front organization to the existing local Round Table Group. This front or

{p. 952} ganization, called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each area the existing submerged Round Table Group. In New York it was known as the Council on Foreign Relations, and was a front for J. P. Morgan and Company in association with the very small American Round Table Group. The American organizers were dominated by the large number of Morgan "experts," including Lamont and Beer, who had gone to the Paris Peace Conference and there became close friends with the similar group of English "experts" which had been recruited by the Milner group. In fact, the original plans for the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the Council on Foreign Relations were drawn up at Paris. The Council of the RIIA (which, by Curtis's energy came to be housed in Chatham House, across St. James's Square from the Astors, and was soon known by the name of this headquarters) and the board of the Council on Foreign Relations have carried ever since the marks of their origin. Until 1960 the council at Chatham House was dominated by the dwindling group of Milner's associates, while the paid staff members were largely the agents of Lionel Curtis. The Round Table for years (until 1961) was edited from the back door of Chatham House grounds in Ormond Yard, and its telephone came through the Chatham House switchboard.

The New York branch was dominated by the associates of the Morgan Bank. For example, in 1928 the Council on Foreign Relations had John W. Davis as president, Paul Cravath as vice-president, and a council of thirteen others, which included Owen D. Young, Russell C. Leffingwell, Norman Davis, Allen Dulles, George W. Wickersham, Frank L. Polk, Whitney Shepardson, Isaiah Bowman, Stephen P. Duggan, and Otto Kahn. Throughout its history the council has been associated with the American Round Tablers, such as Beer, Lippmann, Shepardson, and Jerome Greene.

The academic figures have been those linked to Morgan, such as James T. Shotwell, Charles Seymour, Joseph P. Chamberlain, Philip Jessup, Isaiah Bowman and, more recently, Philip Moseley, Grayson L. Kirk, and Henry M. Wriston. The Wall Street contacts with these were created originally from Morgan's influence in handling large academic endowments. In the case of the largest of these endowments, that at Harvard, the influence was usually exercised indirectly through "State Street," Boston, which, for much of the twentieth century, came through the Boston banker Thomas Nelson Perkins.

Closely allied with this Morgan influence were a small group of Wall Street law firms, whose chief figures were Elihu Root, John W. Davis, Paul D. Cravath, Russell Leffingwell, the Dulles brothers and, rnore recently, Arthur H. Dean, Philip D. Reed, and John J. McCloy. Other nonle~al agents of llorgan included men like Owen D. Young and Norman H. Davis.

{p. 953} On this basis, which was originally financial and goes back to George Peabody, there grew up in the twentieth century a power structure between London and New York which penetrated deeply into university life, the press, and the practice of foreign policy. In England the center was the Round Table Group, while in the United States it was J. P. Morgan and Company or its local branches in Boston, Philadelphia, and Cleveland. Some rather incidental examples of the operations of this structure are very revealing, just because they are incidental. For example, it set up in Princeton a reasonable copy of the Round Table Group's chief Oxford headquarters, All Souls College. This copy, called the Institute for Advanced Study {ed. comment: the Australian National University in Canberra also has an Institute for Advanced Study. It's the leading research institute in Australia, and is staffed by Far Left academics in the Humanities, and by Economic Rationalists}, and best known, perhaps, as the refuge of Einstein, Oppenheimer, John von Neumann, and George F. Kennan, was organized by Abraham Flexner of the Carnegie Foundation and Rockefeller's General Education Board after he had experienced the delights of All Souls while serving as Rhodes Memorial Lecturer at Oxford. The plans were largely drawn by Tom Jones, one of the Round Table's most active intriguers and foundation administrators.

The American branch of this "English Establishment" exerted much of its influence through five American newspapers (The New York Times, New York Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, the The Washington Post, and the lamented Boston Evening Transcript). In fact, the editor of the Christian Science Monitor was the chief American correspondent (anonymously) of The Round Table, and Lord Lothian, the original editor of The Round Table and later secretary of the Rhodes Trust (1925-1939) and ambassador to Washington, was a frequent writer in the Monitor. It might be mentioned that the existence of this Wall Street, Anglo-American axis is quite obvious once it is pointed out. It is reflected in the fact that such Wall Street luminaries as John W. Davis, Lewis Douglas, Jock Whitney, and Douglas Dillon were appointed to be American ambassadors in London."
~Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope

We the American consumers feel utterly entitled - so much so that the idea of us having to think about whom to vote for (rather than pick one or the other based on mood or reaction to an ad) is almost offensive.  We expect to get something for nothing, including the best democracy, the best military, the best football, the best you name it, etc.  Whenever I want to criticize "that AHITWH" I stop myself and turn my ire toward us, the electorate.  We deserve our government a lot more than, say, the Iraquis deserved theirs.
Part of the problem is we have become "consumers" instead of Citizens.  Citizens have rights, comsumers just keep on consumin'.  Like baby birds...
Citizens have rights

and just as important, Citizens have responsibilities.

The American people themselves should not be blamed for not being engaged citizens. Being engaged citizens is logically irrational anyway. The logic of one individual going to vote or doing anything else as an engaged citizen does not make sense for that individual to do anything. Statistically, one person does not make a difference. (And in Florida, it didn't make a difference either. Bush was going to win no matter what, most likely because of the peak.) People care about their own lives. And that's what their minds are built for. Mass-scale thinking is unnatural for humans. All this political intrigue and storylines is merely entertainment anyway for people interested in it and background noise for those who don't. I envy people who are living their lives without thinking about this societal/political/environmental stuff. That is how a normal human should be living. However, seeing as it could put them at a disadvantage not knowing about the particular subject of peak oil in order to prepare is the only reason why I'm glad I did care. When peak oil happens though, people won't have to think as much about this mass-scale America because they will be involved and thinking about their immediate local area, which is how it naturally should be.

As for being consumers, that's how Americans were conditioned since they were born, Ronald McDonald and and Santa. It's hard to think out of that. Plus, this is a resource wasteful society for just the things you need like food, even without involving luxuries. And then, government sets up how the infrastructure is to suit the interests of corporations and results in the maximum consumption just to exist within it. This is just what happens when you put this technology and resources on a population of humans. It's nobody's fault. It's a phenomenon that happened and will end.

The American people themselves should not be blamed for not being engaged citizens. Being engaged citizens is logically irrational anyway.

I completely disagree. Thinking like that is what's gotten the US into this horrible mess in the first place. It isn't "irrational" to get involved in your country's governance; its the most rational thing in the world. What could be of more value to an individual than to have some part in the process of ensuring that he or she plays an active role in the voting process, and thus has some hand in bringing responsible persons into power. There is no more basic duty as a citizen of a given country. If people aren't concerned about this, then they'll get the government they deserve -- and it won't be the one they want.

Americans don't get involved because of a sort of national hubris that says that no matter who's in power, our 'democracy' is so strong that things will just carry on the way they always have. As we can see now, this is hugely incorrect assumption that has engendered truly tragic results.

Other countries have citizens that are much more involved in the voting process. Witness the voter turnout in the world - country by country. The top 30 all enjoy over 80 percent turnout... while the US, at #139 is at 48.3 percent.

In short, contrary to your statements Americans are to blame for not getting involved in the voting process. If people from other countries can do it, there's absolutely no reason why high voter turnout shouldn't happen here. If it did, there would be hundreds of thousands of less casualties all around the world, and America would be much less hated.

As I recall my basic American History, each of our Founding Fathers decided not to get involved.

Who was it that said, "If we hang apart, we hang like cool man"?

"Frankly, I think we are fooling ourselves if we think that any popularly elected politcal party will make a difference. The nation gets the government it deserves, and the American people simply do not want to deal with this issue on a rational basis."

This might be true, but unpopularly elected governments (aka dictators) have a much worse track record...

Not sure that's true anymore.  China sure seems to be a lot more proactive than the U.S. nowadays.
"This might be true, but unpopularly elected governments (aka dictators) have a much worse track record..."

Yes but the odds are very very good that the US and the rest of the Corporatocracy put the "unpopularly elected governments" into power for precisely that reason.  Class warfare, so the countries would always be in turmoil and much easier to exploit....

==AC
"Even men who were engaged in organizing debt-serf cultivation and debt-serf industrialism in the American cotton districts, in the old rubber plantations, and in the factories of India, China and South Italy, appeared as generous supporters of and subscribers to the sacred cause of individual liberty."
~H.G. Wells: The Shape of Things to Come

Good to have you back on TOD regularly again, AC.
Thanks fallout.  Unfortunately I'm sure that is the minority view here at TOD...
;-)

==AC

AC - I'm on board...
Nah, I like your postings too. :)
The cognitive dissonance that most Americans have regarding Peak Oil is analogous to the cognitive dissonance that emerges when you challenge them about the nature of their government.

Peakniks who understand very well the type of deliberate obfuscation the media and politicians have engaged in to hide the realities of peak oil should recognize that this level of deception is the rule, not the exception.

AC, thanks for posting the excerpts from Tragedy and Hope, maybe it will open a few eyes.

------------------------------

BTW, an interesting book on the history of the Fed Reserve is The Creature From Jekyll Island.

There are a lot good articles and books on the CFR, Roundtable, and Trilateralists - all well researched by historians and political scientists.  The leaders and active particants of such groups are not obscure academics, they are very much entrenched in our political systems and include the likes of Rockefeller, Brzezinski, Kissinger, Carter, Clinton, Cheney, presidential cabinet members, senators, etc.

not true AC, I'm glad to have you back.
No matter who is in power it won't make any difference.  They are determined to keep their heads in the sand.  It is up to us, acting as individuals, to do what we can.  Even if it is a lost cause we can at least show the flag.  All TODers should do what they can, every day, to reduce their energy use.  I'll be adding more insulation to my attic tomorrow.  I just finished doing some shopping on my bicycle.  Everyone can do something if they try.  There is no other way except market forces (and I would rather be proactive).
"They are determined to keep their heads in the sand."

The evidence is contrary to this notion.  Indeed, govt powers that be have known about the probabilities surrounding a declining fossil fuel base for decades.  You need to research the geopolitics of oil, there are many scholarly books on the subject.  Also, check out Michael Ruppert's article on the Pentagon's plans for the end of the grid.  He has unearthed some very telling documents written by the Army Core of Engineers for the DOD.

Just because the paradigm of what a reasonable solution should be looks much different from your view or my view as compared to the view of the power elites does not mean they are unaware of what is at stake or the consequences of their actions.

I personally go along with the perspective that people like Catherine Austin Fitts (former Asst Sec of Housing under Reagan) have regarding the strategy of the power elite.  In the words of Fitts, they appear to be using the "tapeworm economy" strategy to hollow out anything of real value or substance and then abscond with the loot when TSHTF.  It is a situation of keeping the economic house of cards propped up until they are satisfied with their plundering and then they will depart leaving rank and file Americans holding the bag.  

There are too many signs that something along the lines of what I have described is already in the making.  Consider the imponderable $8 Trillion debt plus trillions more in unfunded liabilities, the real possibility of a weakened or collapsed dollar, the enormous economic bubbles (housing, derivatives, etc.) representing tens of trillions of dollars, the decision in March by the Fed to stop releasing M3 data (can you say inflation and fiat money?), and on and on.

And for the icing on the cake, last week I read that the administration decided to fire half of the IRS staff of lawyers who pursue irregularities in the estate tax system.  If TPTB can't get congress to do away with the estate tax then they will do the next best thing.  Add to that the fact that the IRS has reported that upwards of $2 Trillion of personal assets has been moved offshore.  I understand that Cheney has been divesting himself of his American-based assets and buying foreign bonds/stocks.

Our best defense is to have a thorough understanding of what's happening and then share this information with others.

I don't think it's that bad. Realistically when the Republicans use their power to do what they want (enrich a small minority), they piss off so many voters that they lose power at the next election.
Look at what they did with the estate tax addon to the minimum wage bill. It wasn't enough to get an exemption for rich people bigger than the wage boost for poor people, they had to go farther and specifically exempt anybody who got tips from the minimum wage boost. See those tip jars? If you get tips you wouldn't get minimum wages anymore because of that addon. Thirty dollars a month in tips is what it takes to get exempted from minimum wage.
So everybody in the US is going to have a tip jar on their desk. If you go into the DMV and don't leave a tip, what's going to happen to your driver's license extension? Think about it.
In California we had an election where the Republicans got into office with the promise that they were going to screw over the blacks and liberals. They prompty got rid of overtime. All the blue collar conservatives without union contracts promptly lost their overtime, which means that the boss no longer had to worry about scheduling enough people to work so that he had the job covered because he could just hold you back from going out the door whenever he wanted with no overtime penalty.
Then they had an insurance commissioner who went into exile in Hawaii after the Northridge earthquake because he so favored the insurance companies that he had to skip town to avoid getting sued.
Know any poor people who had earthquake insurance in California, with our housing prices?
Republican corruption is a self correcting problem.
I don't see the ills of today merely stemming from corrupt Neocons.  Our govt suffers from a fulminant case of blind ambition and voters are never supplied a remedy, instead the electorate gets to choose from a pre-selected choice of neoconservatives (neofascists) and neoliberals (neosocialists).  This is particularly true at the level of POTUS, Senate, and Gov.

A dialectical method is used to steadily herd Americans down one path or another.  This is often in the form of a sort of 'good-cop, bad-cop' routine.  The neocons get power on the promises of leaner, more efficient govt then once in office plunder at will.  American swing voters get fed up and then rush into the waiting arms of neoliberals who pursue endeavors to expand ineffective programs.  After awhile frustration leads the country back to a GOP majority.  We are given false choices.

In modern times the term Republican has too much of a confused meaning because neoconservatives don't have traditionally conservative values such as fiscal responsibility, national sovereignty, and environmental protectionism.  Neocons are RINOs and a more appropriate term would be global fascists.  Mussolini properly noted that fascism is the merger of state and corporate interests.

IMO, grassroots activism is the most effective tool ordinary Americans have against the status quo.

BTW, I do not intend to bash Dem voters.  I was a lifelong Dem centrist until a few years ago when I was lucky enough to escape the political polarization vortex.  As a voracious reader I came to understand the history and political dynamics behind our current 'system' and that has given me a much better vantage point for understanding our govt's reaction to peak oil.