I think that most people would be surprised at the number of Americans who think that it is a swell idea for us to seize foreign oil fields--at least until they or their family members are sent to fight and die to keep the oil flowing.

A conservative editorial writer for the Dallas Morning News has been becoming more and more critical of the Bush administration--but he really started unloading on the Bushies after his brother-in-law, who is in the reserves, was recently sent to Iraq. I wonder if his wife "encouraged" his continued change in his position on Iraq.

You certainly hit that nail on the head. I don't like having a doomsday cult driving our foreign policy.

Beggar, I really think you've got a handle on it. You can see the constant probing for a narrative that will sell, as the excuses and explanations twist and change. There are plenty of people who would be fine with "look, we need the oil, it's us or them", but probably not quite enough - or it is still too soon. It either needs a tastier icing put on, or life will have to get a lot harder before enough people willingly take the final step (final step, because most of the changes are already complete). But I have no doubt we will. I just cannot see us turning back now - what could happen that would drive it?

Sounds like you've been reading "Myths America Lives By" by Richard T. Hughes.

There are always many threads in these big narratives. I wonder if one idea has been that nudging Americans along the path of heavy dependence on oil will make them more willing to back military action in the ME when the time comes. If we had viable alternatives (solar supported PHEVs, solar powered water heaters, solar and wind powered homes), even just enough to offset most of the oil imports, Americans might be inclined to look to those solutions rather than a military solution. By keeping solar, wind, tidal energy, etc. as future solutions it leaves us dependent on oil.

If we started getting a substantial portion of our energy from the sunshine landing on our rooftops and on our deserts their is much less need for adventurism in the ME. No war profits in that.

I had a coworker who's spouse was a beer salesman. During a recession or hard times, the sales of the more expensive brands went up.

You may not be able to buy a new car or tv, but pricey beer and coffee are a relatively inexpensive treat for those beat down by circumstance.

Of course, a recession is not a depression.

There are going to be both winners and losers. The losers will have guessed wrong. We are seeing lots of future losers in the process of guessing wrong now. Beware of making future forecasts based upon just a few data points.

The coffee and donuts are for all the additional police the US will need. ;)

Another truth respecting the vigilance with which a free people should guard their liberty, that deserves to be carefully observed, is this--that a real tyranny may prevail in a state, while the forms of a free constitution remain.

Coffee is probably an excellent investment. Workers who are exhausted and stressed out will be very unwilling to cut back on caffeine intake. There's a reason why it's the most given advice - it's also the hardest to take.

the coming police state will need lots and lots of donut shops. the latte is only a cover.

If I thought we would be reduced to eating rice and beans in 2020, I wouldn't make a big investment to sell more flavored lattes. Or is latte now the opiate of the masses?

Who knows, they may want to buy it, improve it, then sell it for a profit before TSHTF.

There is also a global market for these things that you may not know of. Dunkin Donuts recently opened their first stores in Taipei, Taiwan. Young Taiwanese are very eager to spend money on Dunkin Donuts because it is a cosmopolitan and worldly thing to do, comparatively speaking.

The "fast crash" that is possible by 2020 would relate to crashing oil exports as explained by westexas. This would be so horrible, that anyone who really grasps the idea today is likely to quit their job with TPTB and go live in the mountains. So even TPTB have a limited ability to comprehend the scope of the problem.

It worked in Germany, although the timing of events there was different.

If I remember correctly, that did not end well. All their cities turned into rubble, their women raped by Russians.

Another truth respecting the vigilance with which a free people should guard their liberty, that deserves to be carefully observed, is this--that a real tyranny may prevail in a state, while the forms of a free constitution remain.

This is where you end up when the philosophy of "the ends justifies the means" becomes dominant and unquestioned. Any means become justifiable in the pursuit of any ends.

It didn't used to be that way. I can remember a time when school children were taught that America isn't like that. "The ends justifies the means" was the mistaken philosophy of dictatorships like Nazi Germany and the Communist USSR, and that was why they did terrible things. The US was different. We were supposedly governed by laws rather than by men - laws based on an absolute standard of right and wrong. Thus, there were things that the US simply did not do, because they were wrong.

It was all a fiction, of course. We never were THAT good. There were plenty of counter-examples where we failed to live up to that standard.

My point is, though, that at a certain basic level the standard still held true. If you asked the average person on the street if the ends always justified the means, if that was a good way to run a society, they probably would have said "no". Thus, while we didn't always live up to that standard, the standard was still there.

Now, apparently, it is totally history. Now we are in a country that is totally governed by the principle of the ends justify the means. Poland/Iraq have territory and resources that you need? That end justifies the means of invasion and conquest. Need to eliminate people opposing your regime? That end justifies locking them up in concentration camps and torturing them. Need to keep a lid on people spreading disloyal and seditious thoughts? That end justifies spying on your own citizens by any technical means possible.

Makes one wonder why we even bothered fighting WWII and doing the cold war thing in the first place. We are becoming what our enemies were.