Before I get into it, let me provide some important personal background, so that I am not dismissed as some partisan spouting rhetoric: I have never belonged to any political party and most likely never will. Over the decades I have supported candidates of both major parties. I'm at the stage now in my life where I've moved past Democrat/Republican distinctions and and am focussing on what works in life, regardless of which party lays claim to the idea.
With that out of the way, here is the great mystery: why are Republicans seemingly incapable of acknowledging any problems? Ever. Global warming, oil depletion, over-population. You name it and they brush it off as the nonsense of hippie Chicken Littles.
It's gotten to the point where I find that I am distancing myself from Republican friends because we can't talk about these issues. If any of the above mentioned problems arise in conversation, they just dismiss all the data supporting them with out even taking a moment to consider it.
Since early March when the US army report on Peak Oil came out, I have heard three of them basically respond with, "What does the army know?" They stopped short of calling the army "hippies."
So can anyone explain this inability to comprehend any potential threats from our profligate ways? One would think that people who call themselves conservatives would be cautious and regularly evaluating potential risks as well as taking precautionary steps.
I just don't get this mindset. Perhaps from having lived too many years in other countries, I've missed something here.
The mind set you describe is simply the rationalization of short sighted selfishness.
If they acknowledged there was a problem it would require either guilt or sacrifice. It's easier simply to not believe that there is a problem; no guilt and no sacrifice required.
But the doomer mentality is also probably a rationalization of short sighted selfishness, so I wouldn't be too hard on them.
I'm liberal on some issues and conservative on others.
It's the conservative in me that drove me to start digging into Peak Oil a few years ago after Shell revised its reserves downwards by 25%. I have always equated conservatism with pragmatism in the past. A pragmatist is always scanning the horizon for possible threats.
But certainly not the people who call themselves conservatives today.
The current Republican party is just a photo negative of the Democrats. They both pander to special interest groups, just different ones. They both are heavily funded by corporate interests, just different ones. Both of them are into big government spending, just to different target constituencies. Neither organization is willing to stand up and address real issues. Look at the Democrats on peak oil.
Now this is not to say that there are people in both parties who are awake and thinking but the vast majority of both parties want to have their cake and eat it too. They only differ in their opinion of who gets the cake. The notion that there may not be any cake hasn't yet entered their stream of consciousness.
As for Republicans, they've bought into the false religion of endless growth. To challenge that challenges their core beliefs. Whenever you challenge someone's core religious beliefs you can expect fierce resistance, and the Republicans dedicated to endless growth are no exception to that rule.
First post here after lurking for a while...It's hard to tell where it comes from, but you must admit they have turned it into quite a political talking point (or just surly attack...) recently, concidently about the same time that things really started to go bad in Iraq, with gas prices, with Katrina, et al.
Now, they habitually call the democrats the 'doom and gloom' party, the party of attacks and no ideas, the 'depression' party...you have probably seen these and more. Not that it's all untrue, or that the retorhic is much better on the democrat side, but to say people are being horribily pessimistic when they are at least pretty close to the truth is just silly.
Of course the best is from Tom DeLay who has the balls to call democrats the 'party of personal destruction'.
I'm surprised. You usually post so many great things on this board, but now this.
With that out of the way, here is the great mystery: why are Republicans seemingly incapable of acknowledging any problems? Ever. Global warming, oil depletion, over-population. You name it and they brush it off as the nonsense of hippie Chicken Littles.
Your statement is an over generalization and, frankly, offensive.
I am a conservative, and a registered Republican. I voted for Bush. Now before everyone starts throwing tomatoes at me let me also say that I am one of the strongest advocates of the peak oil problems in my city, perhaps in my State. I share Roscoe Bartlett's words that "Being a Republican and a conservative doesn't mean I'm an idiot." And there are a lot of conservative Republicans that work with me, and many others across the country. The Peak oil Caucus in Congress includes: Roscoe Bartlett(R-MD), Virgil Goode(R-VA), Walter Jones(R-NC), Tom Tancredo(R-CO), Phil Gingrey(R-GA), Randy Kuhl(R-NY), Wayne Gilchrest(R-MD), and John McHugh(R-NY). I am a Republican, in part, because I utterly disagree with many of the "Robin Hood" principles of the Democratic Party (which, by the way, is moving waaaay Socialist.)
Why can't so-called members of the Democratic Party or liberals see any good in the current Administration? My assessment is that they simply don't want to see any good. And that's a pathetic shame.
From my point of view, our country and our planet are in very deep shit. This opinion is shared by a large number of my friends and associates, many of whom happen to be Republican, and conservative. We're going to have a hard landing (the CPI results yesterday are just another tick mark on the list) and I believe that the President knows it and has been doing everything he can to make life appear to be "business as usual" for Americans while they figure out what to do and initiate mitigation strategies.
Positive control over energy supply is one of the unfortunate, but necessary strategies on that agenda (which, sadly, means military action.) What would you have our Administration do instead?...announce to the American people (and simultaneoulsy to the world via CNN) that there won't be enough oil in the next five years to allow the global economy to function well and that the USA will be hit the hardest of any country and people can't drive their precious SUV's anymore? How would that play out? Mass panic?...immediate global stock market collapses?...rioting in the streets? That doesn't sound like a good way to mitigate risk to me. On the other hand, the Administration has regularly been meeting with other country leaders for well over three years on energy issues. I suspect they are quietly attempting to come to some resolution, maybe to be announced at the upcoming G8 meeting.
I would even suggest that they knew very well about the peak oil problem back in Clinton's Administration and some of the current policies are developments and building on actions started during that Administration. I certainly don't agree with everything the President does, and I get downright angry at some things, while some things I think are pretty good. That doesn't mean he is constantly breaking the law so he can create a police state, steal elections, become a king, plot to bomb the WTC, or practice genocide to further the interests of the U.S., as many liberals would have you believe. Oh, by the way, I also get pretty pissed off at things the Democrats do and say too. I just don't categorize all Democrats as stupid...more like, simple.
But today we have a very persuasive media and a pathetically ignorant society who believe that everything they hear from the media is well-researched truth without applying any discursive reasoning or attempts at validation to the information heard. They have been conditioned not to see the forest for the trees. It is obvious to even the most casual observer that the media also doesn't seem to want to find any good in the President -- and it's almost impossible to keep anything a secret. I believe the MSM, in many ways, is actually a threat to the security of our country.
When I find a disparity in understanding with another America, whether Democrat or Republican, instead of angrily debating points or whining to them about "what a criminal Bush is" I tend to attempt to educate them on the issue. I have taken the time to become well enough informed on the subjects to help them out. It seems to work better that way.
Peak oil and environmental issues won't be solved in a competition between Republicans and Democrats. We are all in this together, like it or not. Multiple points of view are what make America tick. And don't worry, you'll get your chances to get more elected officials that share your point of view again, and again, and again in the future....if in fact those points of view are shared by the majority. If they are not, then why not try to educate the majority rather than criticise them? Pull instead of push.
In the meantime, stick to discussing the data on oil depletion and options for preparation. That's what's important.
Why can't so-called members of the Democratic Party or liberals see any good in the current Administration? My assessment is that they simply don't want to see any good.
My guess is that there actually isn't any good to see.
They are looting this country. Either because they know the end is near, or just because they can.
the first President to recognize the Palestine state.
I don't think it was his idea. Israel took the lead there. Behind the scenes, maybe, but they were clearly ready to deal. Sharon promised an iron fist, came through...and it didn't work. They had to do something different.
the first President to start a meaningful AIDS program in Africa, albeit with weak teeth.
I don't buy it at all. All talk, very little money. And he's removed info on condom use to prevent HIV from the CDC Web site. He's been a big step backwards in the fight against AIDS.
"addicted to oil" will be one of the defining lines from his regime.
I disagree. Again, it's been all talk, little action. "Weapons of mass destruction" is the defining line from his regime.
I am a progressive Jacksonian Democrat, and would not lump all as bad and no good.
I am not lumping all Republicans as bad. I am saying the Bush administration is.
As for the Democrats...what I like about them is that they're too incompetent to do much damage. It took them 40 years to build the culture of corruption that the GOP built in only ten.
"addicted to oil" will be one of the defining lines from his regime.
That was certainly the take-away line from the SOTU, it was certainly the headline in the main stream media. It even gave my sceptical self an ember of hope.
The hope was extinguished days later when one of the Bush photo-ops was with a hulking SUV being fueled with "alternative fuels".
The image it brought to mind was the deck of the Titanic, with Captain George directing the loading of the lifeboats - with Escalades.
The Peak oil Caucus in Congress includes: Roscoe Bartlett(R-MD), Virgil Goode(R-VA), Walter Jones(R-NC), Tom Tancredo(R-CO), Phil Gingrey(R-GA), Randy Kuhl(R-NY), Wayne Gilchrest(R-MD), and John McHugh(R-NY).
We are all familiar with the work of Roscoe Bartlett. I'm curious about the other legislators you have named. What have they done to increase awareness of peak oil? What policies have the advocated to address the peak oil problem?
Republicans and Democrats. We are all in this together, like it or not. Multiple points of view are what make America tick.
plunsfo,
Thank you for coming out and stating your position even if the tomatoes are going to come flying your way.
I'm an ardent Bush-basher and yet I agree with you. No good is going to come from us monkeys flinging yet more feces at each other (R's at D's and vise versa) while Mother Nature's cage of reality closes in on us.
However there is one thing you say, "We are all in this together" which really rattles the emotions of the left leaning crowd. You see, Jenna and Barb did not sign up to make the "ultimate sacrifice". They did not run down to New Orleans to pitch in for those "who are doing as best they can for themeselves" (quoting grandma Bush).
Be that as it may, Roscoe Bartlett is still a hero for trying to air out our true problems. We are wasting time chasing after bogeymen "terrorrrrrists" while Mother Nature's trap door closes in on us from the Global Warming, Peak Oil and Global Dimming sidelines.
The problem is one of division of benefits and burdens. There are those who made great profits for themselves by encouraging everyone to pump CO2 into the atmosphere just like the cigarette companies made great profits by encouraging everyone to inhale from Mother Nature's leaves of luxory and by pretending they had plausible deniability. You see this plausible deniability BS being played with harps at the Enron trials. Suddenly the smartest guys in the room are also the dumbest and most innocent guys in the room and we should all cry for them because unnamed "others" hoodwinked them (Lay & Skilling) into signing off on Raptor deals. Right.
Peak oil is not just data points.
It's a debate about our whole way of life.
How did we get onto this gravy train to Helltown and how are we going to slow the train down enough to be able to safely jump off? How are we going to prevent this from happening again?
We are wasting time chasing after bogeymen "terrorrrrrists"
At least one pol needs to start saying that every gallon we don't burn takes money away from the terrorists. It would also lower prices, because the prospect of losing the market for gasoline would get all the producers to pump as fast as they can while they can still sell the stuff. Win/win.
How did we get onto this gravy train to Helltown and how are we going to slow the train down enough to be able to safely jump off?
From the evidence, with much difficulty. The first task before us is to get people to admit there's a problem, and that's not going well at the moment.
How are we going to prevent this from happening again?
I feel your pain. After decades of grass roots organizing, working the hustings, finding the right campaign issues: homosexuality, abortion, and now terrorism, the momentum is gone. All that work ruined by a foolish war and budget games.
Let's face it. It wasn't the media that covered the statues at the Justice Department. It was John Ashcroft. It wasn't left wing sympathy that made Terri Schiavo's death a circus. It was Jeb Bush. It wasn't liberal Democrats who proposed giving a $100 rebate to offset gasoline prices. It was Bill Frist.
You say we have a "pathetically ignorant society"... an interesting observation. Perhaps we should ask our leaders why.
A stiff carbon tax would be a great way to begin dealing with these problems.
But, of course, if people like you continue to vote Republican, this will never happen.
Now you say we are all in it together like it or not?
Well I DONT like it one bit.
The fat cats, their big cars and their Super-Sized lifestyles have already taken more than their fair share from the biosphere (and they are conituing to take take take). After decades of this behavior, these people should have to pay reperations in one way or another to atleast attemp to pay for the damage they have done.
like Barbara Streisand(?) who lives in like a 20,000 sq foot mega mansion - probably burns a couple of meagawatts of electricty a month - and then has all her little Dem minions talking about evil Repubs pilaging the environmment. hahahaha
Ok, here's my tomato! If fact, I'd like to dedicate this tomato at all politically partisan people! My view:
step 1) party X gets back into power and passes much needed reforms
step 2) after things work out favorably, party X then implements their "pet" policies (which generally stink)
step 3) once the second phase fails, politicians resort to some time honored populist ploys (which also stink)
step 4) we vote in a new party and proceed back to step 1
In other words the whole "red team" vs "blue team" thing is the root of a lot of problems. The public is to blame. Or perhaps the school system is to blame -- we only get taught our glorious past, not the actual unvarnished history. For an enteraining view of politics read Jim Rogers "Adventure Capitalist".
I cannot help but be reminded of waring nobility during the Middle Ages. It really matters not which lord wins or loses the battle, all their futile and fruitless plans stink to high hell and at the end of the day the average peasant's (Amurikan) life is exactly the same, regardless of which took (or retained) control of the manor.
"Positive control over energy supply is one of the unfortunate, but necessary strategies on that agenda (which, sadly, means military action.) What would you have our Administration do instead?..."
Unfortunately, seeking positive control over energy supply may also lead China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Britain, France, North Korea and/or Israel to military action. I'm sure you all recognize this list of countries known to have nuclear weapons. The fact is, the oil in the Middle East, in Asia and in South America does not belong to the United States any more than the coal in the United States belongs to them. Saying that the oil of the Middle East is a "vital strategic interest" does not give us the right to conquer the Middle East any more than saying that Germany needed the "living room" (lebenstraum) gave them the right to conquer Poland and Russia. It does not matter that this has been our doctrine since the Carte presidency. It just means that our doctrine has been wrong ever since the Carter presidency.
I would have us get our military out of the Middle East immediately, leaving no bases behind. I would have us start a crash program of energy conservation, from an immediate national speed limit to the long-term rebuilding of our cities and our farms on the basis of sustainability.
But of course, that could only be done by political leadership with the long term interests of our society in mind. If the goal of our political leadership - by which I mean both Democrats and Republicans - is to maintain the power and priveleges of the corporate elite regardless of the consequences to the ordinary person, restructuring the society isn't going to happen.
We're going to have to throw all the SOBs out of office, not just a few.
Maybe we should start a "Refuse to re-elect" campaign.
This November, such a strategy could effectively replace the entire House of Representatives and one third of the Senate in a single day. The following November a second third of the Senate, and the Administration, would be gone.
For those people who do not understand what is going on between the Repubs and the Demos regarding economic issues and the repubs seemingly insane outlook on how things should be done, I suggest reading the following:
Bill Clinton reversed Reagan's Supply Side policies, raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering them on the working and middle class. This Demand Side formula was fiercely resisted by Republican leaders in Congress who predicted a stock market crash and another Great Depression. Indeed, every single Republican member of Congress voted against it. It took a tie-breaking vote by Al Gore in the Senate to get the bill passed. What happened?
The economy produced the longest sustained expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 22 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Unemployment fell to its lowest level in over 30 years. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years. And overall economic growth averaged 4.0% per year compared to 2.8% average growth over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations.
Another tasty morsel:
The one thing the Supply Side revival did excel at -- not surprisingly -- is debt. Bush turned a $136 billion surplus from Bill Clinton into a $158 billion deficit in his first year. When he took office, the national debt stood at $5.8 trillion. It now stands at $8.1 trillion and is projected to hit $10 trillion by 2008 when Bush's second term is over. The ten-year cumulative deficit forecast by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has changed from a $5.6 trillion surplus in January 2001 to a $3.4 trillion deficit in March of this year--an almost inconceivable swing of $9 trillion to the worse in only six years.
After more than 17 years of experience with Supply Side economics, we now know beyond doubt that this is not an accident.
These mammoth debts are a huge boon to that rich "base" that Bush loves to coddle. It is they, the very rich, who loan the money to the government to fund its debts. And since more borrowing drives up interest rates, they get to do so at higher and higher rates of return. This is simple supply and demand. By increasing the demand for borrowed money in the economy as a whole, Supply Side deficits drive up the cost, not just of government borrowing, but of ALL borrowing--everything from credit cards and mortgages to car loans and municipal bonds.
In other words, Supply Side economics rewards the rich both coming and going. Higher government debt leads to higher interest rates for all borrowing -- or in their case, lending. And then, they get to pay lower and lower taxes on their higher and higher earnings. It is a magical two-fer worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
The next time some repub starts spouting off about supply-side this and trickle-down that, you can use these handy facts to make him or her look like the evil, yet somehow really stupid, cretin that he or she is.
That anyone supports these nation-destroying fascists is beyond belief. Unless you are rich, and I mean truly rich, you are like a Jew voting for Nazis, an American Indian voting for Custer, a lover of freedom voting for Stalin, or a roach voting for RAID.
People wonder why I feel that right wingers are spectactularly stupid -- read this article and find out why.
First rule of reality: If hitting yourself in the head hurts, quit doing it.
Tax breaks for the rich have NEVER worked, except for the rich. If you want your nation to be around for the next 200 years, I suggest you quit treating reality like an either/or, my team or the highway proposition.
US VS. THEM is not how you deal with reality.
Now, of course, the masters of ignoring the issues will immediately cry out, "But isn't that what you are doing you hypocrite?" NO, YOU RETARDS. I am saying it is republicans vs. the rest of the world in all its complexity. Don't let the Republican's rhetorical tricks of blame, divide and conquer, and nit-picking distract you from their crimes against America.
Read the article. It speaks the simple fact-backed truth.
You are calling your readers retards and signing your posts as a comic book character. I wouldn't say anything except that this is a regular thing with you. Some of the the things you say are true and deserve attention, but how can you possibly expect to win support from your neighbors by playing this game. You sounded more like Stalin the other day then Joseph himself. You actually got a few people to agree with you, as you always do. Scary.
One caveat to this line of argument is that during the Clinton years we had a stock bubble which inflated tax receipts. Consequently, politicians of both aisles adjusted upward their spending patterns. Subsequently of course, the politicians boosted borrowing rather than cutting back spending during the bursting period. Then after interest rate slashes, tax receipts have recovered due to the housing bubble, but this too will fade. I don't think that we've learned anything except that politicians will always try to take the easy way out! Eventually the public will learn that you can't have something for nothing, yet this is what politicians are constantly advertising.
First, the info presented in that article is pretty well aligned with my thinking, but I have to concur with CEO's comment on the presentation. I actually do see our conundrum as an us vs. them problem, except that the "us" is like 99% of the people, and the "they" are the 1% or so of the super rich and powerful who control the show. Ever notice who are the first ones to decry "class warfare"? The ones who so successfully dupe the rest of us into fighting with each other, while they reap the spoils. So the gist of Chernenkov's point is quite valid - if you buy all the fearmongering, trickle-down, bootstrap crap coming from the neocons, and vote for them, you're signing your own death warrant, or at least that of your kids, with respect to the effects of PO & GW. One last point, I'd not give Clinton quite the credit that the article does. There's a pretty good correlation between oil prices and economic vitality, and as we know, "it's the economy, stupid!" Reagan benefitted from falling and then low oil prices, Bush I suffered from the run-up in prices in spite of his war-won popularity, Billy benefitted from low prices, Bush II suffers from high prices - the rest of his actions notwithstanding.
Positive control over energy supply is one of the unfortunate, but necessary strategies on that agenda (which, sadly, means military action.) What would you have our Administration do instead?...
Diplomatic action instead.
The analogies between the current admin and pre-WWII Gemany are disturbing, to say the least. Our current course of action will convince the rest of the planet that they have to put a stop to US-istan first and then deal with the other (environment, population, energy) stuff.
The good news is we'll be energy-independent waaay before 2025. The bad news is um, the same thing as the good news.
Before I get into it, let me provide some important personal background, so that I am not dismissed as some partisan spouting rhetoric: I have never belonged to any political party and most likely never will. Over the decades I have supported candidates of both major parties. I'm at the stage now in my life where I've moved past Democrat/Republican distinctions and and am focussing on what works in life, regardless of which party lays claim to the idea.
With that out of the way, here is the great mystery: why are Republicans seemingly incapable of acknowledging any problems? Ever. Global warming, oil depletion, over-population. You name it and they brush it off as the nonsense of hippie Chicken Littles.
It's gotten to the point where I find that I am distancing myself from Republican friends because we can't talk about these issues. If any of the above mentioned problems arise in conversation, they just dismiss all the data supporting them with out even taking a moment to consider it.
Since early March when the US army report on Peak Oil came out, I have heard three of them basically respond with, "What does the army know?" They stopped short of calling the army "hippies."
So can anyone explain this inability to comprehend any potential threats from our profligate ways? One would think that people who call themselves conservatives would be cautious and regularly evaluating potential risks as well as taking precautionary steps.
I just don't get this mindset. Perhaps from having lived too many years in other countries, I've missed something here.
Welcome back home to the red state of denial.
If they acknowledged there was a problem it would require either guilt or sacrifice. It's easier simply to not believe that there is a problem; no guilt and no sacrifice required.
But the doomer mentality is also probably a rationalization of short sighted selfishness, so I wouldn't be too hard on them.
It's the conservative in me that drove me to start digging into Peak Oil a few years ago after Shell revised its reserves downwards by 25%. I have always equated conservatism with pragmatism in the past. A pragmatist is always scanning the horizon for possible threats.
But certainly not the people who call themselves conservatives today.
Now this is not to say that there are people in both parties who are awake and thinking but the vast majority of both parties want to have their cake and eat it too. They only differ in their opinion of who gets the cake. The notion that there may not be any cake hasn't yet entered their stream of consciousness.
As for Republicans, they've bought into the false religion of endless growth. To challenge that challenges their core beliefs. Whenever you challenge someone's core religious beliefs you can expect fierce resistance, and the Republicans dedicated to endless growth are no exception to that rule.
Now, they habitually call the democrats the 'doom and gloom' party, the party of attacks and no ideas, the 'depression' party...you have probably seen these and more. Not that it's all untrue, or that the retorhic is much better on the democrat side, but to say people are being horribily pessimistic when they are at least pretty close to the truth is just silly.
Of course the best is from Tom DeLay who has the balls to call democrats the 'party of personal destruction'.
I'm surprised. You usually post so many great things on this board, but now this.
Your statement is an over generalization and, frankly, offensive.
I am a conservative, and a registered Republican. I voted for Bush. Now before everyone starts throwing tomatoes at me let me also say that I am one of the strongest advocates of the peak oil problems in my city, perhaps in my State. I share Roscoe Bartlett's words that "Being a Republican and a conservative doesn't mean I'm an idiot." And there are a lot of conservative Republicans that work with me, and many others across the country. The Peak oil Caucus in Congress includes: Roscoe Bartlett(R-MD), Virgil Goode(R-VA), Walter Jones(R-NC), Tom Tancredo(R-CO), Phil Gingrey(R-GA), Randy Kuhl(R-NY), Wayne Gilchrest(R-MD), and John McHugh(R-NY). I am a Republican, in part, because I utterly disagree with many of the "Robin Hood" principles of the Democratic Party (which, by the way, is moving waaaay Socialist.)
Why can't so-called members of the Democratic Party or liberals see any good in the current Administration? My assessment is that they simply don't want to see any good. And that's a pathetic shame.
From my point of view, our country and our planet are in very deep shit. This opinion is shared by a large number of my friends and associates, many of whom happen to be Republican, and conservative. We're going to have a hard landing (the CPI results yesterday are just another tick mark on the list) and I believe that the President knows it and has been doing everything he can to make life appear to be "business as usual" for Americans while they figure out what to do and initiate mitigation strategies.
Positive control over energy supply is one of the unfortunate, but necessary strategies on that agenda (which, sadly, means military action.) What would you have our Administration do instead?...announce to the American people (and simultaneoulsy to the world via CNN) that there won't be enough oil in the next five years to allow the global economy to function well and that the USA will be hit the hardest of any country and people can't drive their precious SUV's anymore? How would that play out? Mass panic?...immediate global stock market collapses?...rioting in the streets? That doesn't sound like a good way to mitigate risk to me. On the other hand, the Administration has regularly been meeting with other country leaders for well over three years on energy issues. I suspect they are quietly attempting to come to some resolution, maybe to be announced at the upcoming G8 meeting.
I would even suggest that they knew very well about the peak oil problem back in Clinton's Administration and some of the current policies are developments and building on actions started during that Administration. I certainly don't agree with everything the President does, and I get downright angry at some things, while some things I think are pretty good. That doesn't mean he is constantly breaking the law so he can create a police state, steal elections, become a king, plot to bomb the WTC, or practice genocide to further the interests of the U.S., as many liberals would have you believe. Oh, by the way, I also get pretty pissed off at things the Democrats do and say too. I just don't categorize all Democrats as stupid...more like, simple.
But today we have a very persuasive media and a pathetically ignorant society who believe that everything they hear from the media is well-researched truth without applying any discursive reasoning or attempts at validation to the information heard. They have been conditioned not to see the forest for the trees. It is obvious to even the most casual observer that the media also doesn't seem to want to find any good in the President -- and it's almost impossible to keep anything a secret. I believe the MSM, in many ways, is actually a threat to the security of our country.
When I find a disparity in understanding with another America, whether Democrat or Republican, instead of angrily debating points or whining to them about "what a criminal Bush is" I tend to attempt to educate them on the issue. I have taken the time to become well enough informed on the subjects to help them out. It seems to work better that way.
Peak oil and environmental issues won't be solved in a competition between Republicans and Democrats. We are all in this together, like it or not. Multiple points of view are what make America tick. And don't worry, you'll get your chances to get more elected officials that share your point of view again, and again, and again in the future....if in fact those points of view are shared by the majority. If they are not, then why not try to educate the majority rather than criticise them? Pull instead of push.
In the meantime, stick to discussing the data on oil depletion and options for preparation. That's what's important.
My guess is that there actually isn't any good to see.
They are looting this country. Either because they know the end is near, or just because they can.
Not that the Democrats are any better, mind...
I was going to say aren't you being "a little black and white, aren't we?" But the last line made me think black and black or maybe black and gray.
Just three off the top of my head.
- the first President to recognize the Palestine state.
- the first President to start a meaningful AIDS program in Africa, albeit with weak teeth.
- "addicted to oil" will be one of the defining lines from his regime.
I am a progressive Jacksonian Democrat, and would not lump all as bad and no good.I don't think it was his idea. Israel took the lead there. Behind the scenes, maybe, but they were clearly ready to deal. Sharon promised an iron fist, came through...and it didn't work. They had to do something different.
I don't buy it at all. All talk, very little money. And he's removed info on condom use to prevent HIV from the CDC Web site. He's been a big step backwards in the fight against AIDS.
I disagree. Again, it's been all talk, little action. "Weapons of mass destruction" is the defining line from his regime.
I am not lumping all Republicans as bad. I am saying the Bush administration is.
As for the Democrats...what I like about them is that they're too incompetent to do much damage. It took them 40 years to build the culture of corruption that the GOP built in only ten.
And this from a prior Republican, turned Independent.
You are a purist (and a cynic). If you stay on this line much farther, Sainthood is in the offering. Saint Leanan might be a good moniker for you!
The other thought I had was, boy, "Leanan does not cut anybody any slack."
- I do not care whose idea it was, President Bush did it first.
- Just because he is hobbled by his 19th century Party, he still wanted to do this before 9/11.
- An oil guru/stooge buys into stuff after the last 30 years that says oil is on the decline, for a whole lot of reasons, that is something.
Saint Leanan, are you really trying to say he has not done anything right ever in the last 6 years? That is both silly and patent-ably absurd!Jack, go back to silent mode. It served you better.
That was certainly the take-away line from the SOTU, it was certainly the headline in the main stream media. It even gave my sceptical self an ember of hope.
The hope was extinguished days later when one of the Bush photo-ops was with a hulking SUV being fueled with "alternative fuels".
The image it brought to mind was the deck of the Titanic, with Captain George directing the loading of the lifeboats - with Escalades.
We are all familiar with the work of Roscoe Bartlett. I'm curious about the other legislators you have named. What have they done to increase awareness of peak oil? What policies have the advocated to address the peak oil problem?
plunsfo,
Thank you for coming out and stating your position even if the tomatoes are going to come flying your way.
I'm an ardent Bush-basher and yet I agree with you. No good is going to come from us monkeys flinging yet more feces at each other (R's at D's and vise versa) while Mother Nature's cage of reality closes in on us.
However there is one thing you say, "We are all in this together" which really rattles the emotions of the left leaning crowd. You see, Jenna and Barb did not sign up to make the "ultimate sacrifice". They did not run down to New Orleans to pitch in for those "who are doing as best they can for themeselves" (quoting grandma Bush).
Be that as it may, Roscoe Bartlett is still a hero for trying to air out our true problems. We are wasting time chasing after bogeymen "terrorrrrrists" while Mother Nature's trap door closes in on us from the Global Warming, Peak Oil and Global Dimming sidelines.
The problem is one of division of benefits and burdens. There are those who made great profits for themselves by encouraging everyone to pump CO2 into the atmosphere just like the cigarette companies made great profits by encouraging everyone to inhale from Mother Nature's leaves of luxory and by pretending they had plausible deniability. You see this plausible deniability BS being played with harps at the Enron trials. Suddenly the smartest guys in the room are also the dumbest and most innocent guys in the room and we should all cry for them because unnamed "others" hoodwinked them (Lay & Skilling) into signing off on Raptor deals. Right.
Peak oil is not just data points.
It's a debate about our whole way of life.
How did we get onto this gravy train to Helltown and how are we going to slow the train down enough to be able to safely jump off? How are we going to prevent this from happening again?
But I was all ready to go teepee this guy's house ... :)
From the evidence, with much difficulty. The first task before us is to get people to admit there's a problem, and that's not going well at the moment.
Repeal human nature. ;-)
Let's face it. It wasn't the media that covered the statues at the Justice Department. It was John Ashcroft. It wasn't left wing sympathy that made Terri Schiavo's death a circus. It was Jeb Bush. It wasn't liberal Democrats who proposed giving a $100 rebate to offset gasoline prices. It was Bill Frist.
You say we have a "pathetically ignorant society"... an interesting observation. Perhaps we should ask our leaders why.
But, of course, if people like you continue to vote Republican, this will never happen.
Now you say we are all in it together like it or not?
Well I DONT like it one bit.
The fat cats, their big cars and their Super-Sized lifestyles have already taken more than their fair share from the biosphere (and they are conituing to take take take). After decades of this behavior, these people should have to pay reperations in one way or another to atleast attemp to pay for the damage they have done.
Big time.
step 1) party X gets back into power and passes much needed reforms
step 2) after things work out favorably, party X then implements their "pet" policies (which generally stink)
step 3) once the second phase fails, politicians resort to some time honored populist ploys (which also stink)
step 4) we vote in a new party and proceed back to step 1
In other words the whole "red team" vs "blue team" thing is the root of a lot of problems. The public is to blame. Or perhaps the school system is to blame -- we only get taught our glorious past, not the actual unvarnished history. For an enteraining view of politics read Jim Rogers "Adventure Capitalist".
"Positive control over energy supply is one of the unfortunate, but necessary strategies on that agenda (which, sadly, means military action.) What would you have our Administration do instead?..."
Unfortunately, seeking positive control over energy supply may also lead China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Britain, France, North Korea and/or Israel to military action. I'm sure you all recognize this list of countries known to have nuclear weapons. The fact is, the oil in the Middle East, in Asia and in South America does not belong to the United States any more than the coal in the United States belongs to them. Saying that the oil of the Middle East is a "vital strategic interest" does not give us the right to conquer the Middle East any more than saying that Germany needed the "living room" (lebenstraum) gave them the right to conquer Poland and Russia. It does not matter that this has been our doctrine since the Carte presidency. It just means that our doctrine has been wrong ever since the Carter presidency.
I would have us get our military out of the Middle East immediately, leaving no bases behind. I would have us start a crash program of energy conservation, from an immediate national speed limit to the long-term rebuilding of our cities and our farms on the basis of sustainability.
But of course, that could only be done by political leadership with the long term interests of our society in mind. If the goal of our political leadership - by which I mean both Democrats and Republicans - is to maintain the power and priveleges of the corporate elite regardless of the consequences to the ordinary person, restructuring the society isn't going to happen.
We're going to have to throw all the SOBs out of office, not just a few.
Art Myatt
This November, such a strategy could effectively replace the entire House of Representatives and one third of the Senate in a single day. The following November a second third of the Senate, and the Administration, would be gone.
It would send a hell of a message to Washington.
A Tale of Two Theories
Here are a couple of exerpts:
Bill Clinton reversed Reagan's Supply Side policies, raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering them on the working and middle class. This Demand Side formula was fiercely resisted by Republican leaders in Congress who predicted a stock market crash and another Great Depression. Indeed, every single Republican member of Congress voted against it. It took a tie-breaking vote by Al Gore in the Senate to get the bill passed. What happened?
The economy produced the longest sustained expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 22 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Unemployment fell to its lowest level in over 30 years. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years. And overall economic growth averaged 4.0% per year compared to 2.8% average growth over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations.
Another tasty morsel:
The one thing the Supply Side revival did excel at -- not surprisingly -- is debt. Bush turned a $136 billion surplus from Bill Clinton into a $158 billion deficit in his first year. When he took office, the national debt stood at $5.8 trillion. It now stands at $8.1 trillion and is projected to hit $10 trillion by 2008 when Bush's second term is over. The ten-year cumulative deficit forecast by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has changed from a $5.6 trillion surplus in January 2001 to a $3.4 trillion deficit in March of this year--an almost inconceivable swing of $9 trillion to the worse in only six years.
After more than 17 years of experience with Supply Side economics, we now know beyond doubt that this is not an accident.
These mammoth debts are a huge boon to that rich "base" that Bush loves to coddle. It is they, the very rich, who loan the money to the government to fund its debts. And since more borrowing drives up interest rates, they get to do so at higher and higher rates of return. This is simple supply and demand. By increasing the demand for borrowed money in the economy as a whole, Supply Side deficits drive up the cost, not just of government borrowing, but of ALL borrowing--everything from credit cards and mortgages to car loans and municipal bonds.
In other words, Supply Side economics rewards the rich both coming and going. Higher government debt leads to higher interest rates for all borrowing -- or in their case, lending. And then, they get to pay lower and lower taxes on their higher and higher earnings. It is a magical two-fer worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
The next time some repub starts spouting off about supply-side this and trickle-down that, you can use these handy facts to make him or her look like the evil, yet somehow really stupid, cretin that he or she is.
That anyone supports these nation-destroying fascists is beyond belief. Unless you are rich, and I mean truly rich, you are like a Jew voting for Nazis, an American Indian voting for Custer, a lover of freedom voting for Stalin, or a roach voting for RAID.
People wonder why I feel that right wingers are spectactularly stupid -- read this article and find out why.
First rule of reality: If hitting yourself in the head hurts, quit doing it.
Tax breaks for the rich have NEVER worked, except for the rich. If you want your nation to be around for the next 200 years, I suggest you quit treating reality like an either/or, my team or the highway proposition.
US VS. THEM is not how you deal with reality.
Now, of course, the masters of ignoring the issues will immediately cry out, "But isn't that what you are doing you hypocrite?" NO, YOU RETARDS. I am saying it is republicans vs. the rest of the world in all its complexity. Don't let the Republican's rhetorical tricks of blame, divide and conquer, and nit-picking distract you from their crimes against America.
Read the article. It speaks the simple fact-backed truth.
V
Diplomatic action instead.
The analogies between the current admin and pre-WWII Gemany are disturbing, to say the least. Our current course of action will convince the rest of the planet that they have to put a stop to US-istan first and then deal with the other (environment, population, energy) stuff.
The good news is we'll be energy-independent waaay before 2025. The bad news is um, the same thing as the good news.