 | Rachel Nolan - Peak Oil Speech in Qld Parliament | The Oil Drum | Cogeneration At Home: Ceramic Fuel Cells And Bloom Energy |  |
Obama's New "Big Oil" Ad: Does He Have It Right or Wrong?
Posted by Prof. Goose on March 29, 2008 - 9:21pm
In his second new TV spot of the day — this one now playing in Pennsylvania — Barack Obama's campaign releases a 30 second ad that takes a strong stand against Big Oil, saying he “won’t let them block change anymore.”
My question to you is: Does he have it right? Is this the correct political frame? Is it a winning political frame?
[Hat tip: NY Times Political Blog: "Obama's Big Oil Ad Draws Fire"...go there and fly the TOD flag if you are so inclined.]
“We have only two modes—complacency and panic.”
—James R. Schlesinger, the first energy secretary, in 1977, on the country's approach to energy
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Seems partly progressive (alternative energy) and partly middle-of-the-road conspiracy mongering (Exxon profits). Unfortunately, no mention of the underlying fundamentals associated with peak oil and natural gas (though he probably knows all about it).
I had a similar reaction from one of our Alberta MLA's. He agreed that it made no sense to subsidize homeowners for the rising costs of natural gas heating (which our provincial government does). He also agreed that that money would be much better spent on subsidizing home energy efficiency retrofits (which our provincial government doesn't do). But he also said that it would be political suicide if he mentioned that to the electorate. So he had brains, but no guts.
The only high ranking official (above the local level) in Canada that has been speaking out (that I know of) is our former Governor General and former Premier of Manitoba, Ed Schreyer.
I don't believe that he is making any conspiracy theories here. He just has 30 seconds to get his message out. And his message is very different from McSame as Bush: alternative energy, a resistance to rolling over for hte energy companies, and a clean look at what has to happen next. Obama's people ARE aware of the issues with oil supply going forward.
On the Exxon profits dig: that is clearly shorthand for the redistribution of wealth that is occurring, from the middle class to IOCs and the NOCs. And that level of profit is is hard to defend, unless one admits that Exxon is now a tontine that refines and distributes oil as well. It is a factually true statement, and quantifiable in a way that Saudi Aramco's profits are not.
Expect an Obama presidency to take any increase in fossil fuel taxes and use those directly to reduce fossil fuel consumption going forward, sort of the same way that we now use gasoline taxes to encourage further gasoline consumption. Obama will have a better way of delivering the message that Americans need to hear, and to make them understand why what needs to happen needs to happen. As we saw in speech about race, he has a willingness to talk to Americans as if they are adults, and they are responding to that.
You'll have to back that up. His rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. How do I know? Look at his plan. 150,000,000,000 for research.
Bollocks. On the number and the plan. Show me 500,000,000,000 on implementing things we can do right now, today and another 250,000,000,000 for R&D.
Show me actions, not talk.
Cheers
The money is for research and implementation both. Might be a worth while read to look at his Energy plan in more detail:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/EnergyFactSheet.pdf
I'm a little leery of the biofuel section myself, but the rest of the plan seems reasonable.
http://www.bravenewleaf.com
I thought it would be of interest to see what Obama had written about energy in his book (which was copyrighted in 2006) “The Audacity of Hope”. The following is taken from pages 167 through 171. Any typos are mine not Obama’s.
“The Last Critical investment we need to make America more competitive is in an energy infrastructure that can move us toward energy independence. In the past, war or a direct threat to national security has shaken america out of its complacency and led to bigger investments in education and science, all with an eye toward minimizing our vulnerabilities. That’s what happened at the height of the Cold War, when the launching of the satellite Sputnik led to fears that the Soviets were slipping ahead of us technologically. In response, President Eisenhower doubled federal aid to education and provided an entire generation of scientists and engineers the training they needed to lead revolutionary advances. That same year, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, was formed, providing billions of dollars to basic research that would eventually help create the Internet, bar codes, and computer-aided design. And in 1961, President kennedy would launch the Apollo space program, further inspiring young people across the country to enter the New Frontier of science.
Our current situation demands that we take the same approach with energy. It’s hard to overstate the degree to which our addiction to oil undermines our future. According to the National Commission on Energy Policy, without any changes to our energy policy U.S. demand for oil will jump 40 percent over the next twenty years. Over the same period, worldwide demand is expected to jump at least 30 percent, as rapidly developing countries like China and India expand industrial capacity and add 140 million cars to their roads.
Our dependence on oil doesn’t just affect our economy. It undermines our national security. A large portion of the $800 million we spend on foreign oil every day goes to some of the world’s most volatile regimes -- Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Venezuela, and indirectly at least, Iran. It doesn’t matter whether they are despotic regimes with nuclear intentions or havens for madrassas that plant the seeds of terror in young minds--they get our money because we need their oil.
What’s worse, the potential for supply disruption os severe. In the Persian Gulf, Al Qaeda has been attempting attacks on poorly defended oil refineries for years: a successful attack on just one of the Saudis’ major oil complexes could send the U. S. economy into a tailspin. Osama bin Laden himself advises his followers to “focus your operations on[oil], especially in Iraq and the Gulf area, since this will cause them to die off.
....
A nation that can’t control its energy sources can’t control its future.”
Well George and Dick couldn't argue with that.
But I think it is safe to assume that Barack's policy would have less to do with getting our oil from under their sand, and more to do with getting our energy by mixing sun and water with our topsoil (aka biofuels) and getting our energy out of our coal mines.
The $64 question is how much will he and we reduce consumption and invest in solar/wind/wave instead of those two?
I'm willing to assume he'll try to do whatever he can... but I think that large structural forces in American politics and in the economy will lead to biofuel and coal substitution to a much greater degree than anyone who is concerned about global warming and global agriculture should be happy about.
I don't see that as conspiracy. He's not talking about profits, only "windfall profits". He's talking about redistribution of those profits in the public interest. He's also talking a bipartisan message of government illegitimacy - capture by the corporate lobbyists. It sounds good.
Redistribution is necessary. No more limitless growth means we have to address redistribution. And scale. Energy independence avoids the scale issue, but the scale issue cannot be avoided. As far as I'm concerned, he loses a lot of credibility there. [To be fair he phrased it loosely "free ourselves from foreign oil", and that could, after all, be done with LESS rather than more." To be more precise; it will be done with LESS rather than more - only a matter of time.
Were I an oil exec, I'd find Obama's message rather comforting. We can look forward to dithering over "what's a windfall" and how to reinvest it in my green energy subsidiary. That's the problem; everyone finds Obama's messages comforting - except maybe the Palestinians, Iraqis, Venezuelans and other non-citizens of our empire. But they don't count any more than the other species on the planet.
The implication of this ad is that everything will be ok again - Obama is going to fix it. Not only do I find that incredibily debilitating and offensive, but have to conclude either he's a liar or he doesn't know better. So our best hope is electing someone and hoping he's lying to us from the start and will turn out better than he promises to be.
Yeah, probably the right frame.
Time to start spreading the Jello over the floor now....
cfm in Gray, ME
Good comment.
Who is your MLA quixotic? I have David Swann, and have received similar comments from him and came to the same conclusions. It's very frustrating.
I also beleive that he is heading in the right direction. Realizing and mentioning the idea of energy sources is important. I believe it would of been effective to mention some of these alternative energy sources that he is planning to develop. By naming a few, the population might take it more seriously instead of just believing that it is somethign that must be said during a campaign. The budget he throws out needs to be justified. is it for nuclear development or other froms of energy. Something he says must be different than what exists already, as the GNEP during the Bush era indirectly claims to have the same aims; just focusing primarily on nuclear energy. The fact that he emphasizes how much consumers are paying and how much oil producers are making is effective. Becoming less dependent on foreign energy should also have been adressed. We must not forget that he does only have limited time to get his message across.
No, the oil companies are just the tradesmen. The bluebloods who disdainfully take a reasonable share of the proceeds of the trade are those on public payrolls. Literally, they have no oil on their hands, and they seem to think it is true figuratively also.
Because of this belief on their part, framing the issue in terms of wicked oil companies is excellent political framing for getting their votes. But they are a minority.
If he were to promise an equally divided repayment of federal oil and gas royalties and revenues, so that individuals who burn a lot of hydrocarbon would be helping out those who burn little, and government would be out of the deal, that would be good framing.
Let the baby light matches in the fuel storage room!
The oil companies are just tradesmen? They don't lobby, fight for tax breaks, cheat tribes and governments on royalties, fight every effort to stop catastrophic climate change, topple governments to control new fields?
But Obama did not call the oil companies evil. He did say that they are making a lot of money. And my tax rate last year was higher than Exxon's. Yours probably was too.
Remember, we have had seven years of government in the United States by oil industry people, whose solution to the decline in oil supplies was to invade Iraq. That solution was the swrong one. Obama's solution is not only different, it is more likely to work for America and for the planet.
The oil companies are just tradesmen?
Obviously
They don't lobby, fight for tax breaks,
Yes
cheat tribes and governments on royalties
mostly I'd say no.
fight every effort to stop catastrophic climate change
Not at all
topple governments to control new fields?
Not at all.
Let's review your points again and see who's doing what :
Trade in oil
Governments (esp. the wrong kind of governments e.g. saudis, russia, ...)
Oil companies
Rebels
Islamic terrorists
They don't lobby, fight for tax breaks
All companies do this, or try this. It's neither unexpected, nor wrong.
cheat tribes and governments on royalties
That would mostly be their own governments, not oil companies.
fight every effort to stop catastrophic climate change
That would be us "the people". Have you turned in your car yet ? (because moving more than, say 40 kilometers, daily is unsustainable, we don't currently have the (sustainably produced) energy for it).
topple governments to control new fields?
Again that would be us "the people". How much energy do you use ? What would you say to the government if that energy was cut (socialist policy) or priced out of your range (capitalist policy) ?
Exactly ... you'd scream bloody murder. Especially once people start dying because of heating issues.
So it is "us" who are doing it. Not just americans, not just europeans, not just ... but just about everybody everywhere, including the people living under these thuggish oil governments (which they sometimes have elected themselves). And it is you too. And me too. But you're too self-absorbed to see that you are part of the problem.
If the solution is energy conservation (as opposed to nuclear), then you're part of the problem.
Welcome to the Oil Drum Community. Some of us, like me, have been peak oil aware for nearly a decade, and have been working hard in that time to spread the word, and to reduce our own energy footprint.
To address some of your comments: I have turned in my car, for a bicycle, public transit, and an electric scooter, the EVT-168. Get one yourself; I love mine. I'll admit that I am self-absorbed, but my focus now is on reducing my carbon footprint to 20% of what it was not too long ago. I am fairly far along in that process, and without a significant reduction in the "American dreamness" of my lifestyle. I know exactly how much energy I use. And, with about 18 more months of work, I hope to be nearly energy independent, or at least within the confines of what my region of the country produces from renewables and nuclear.
One of the things about the Oil Drum is that you will be talking to people who walk the walk. Accusing someone of not knowing enough about petroleum geology, when that person is a profession of same, is gauche. Likewise, accusing someone of being part of the problem, and making ad hominem attacks, is also inappropriate.
But back to the point: Obama's energy policy, and energy advisors, are more likely than any of the other two candidates to work aggressively to reduce domestic fossil fuel consumption, not just because of the oil companies (IOC or NOC) but because of climate change. His short message is appropriate; his long messages have to wait for YouTube.
Yes, Obama was very critical of the fuel efficiency requirements in the last energy bill as being way too low. Like Westexas, I think it is much too late for Obama to mitigate much of the damage from Peak oil (and facism). We are sinking and I only hope we can at least elect a brave captain to go down with us.
But back to the point: Obama's energy policy, and energy advisors, are more likely than any of the other two candidates to work aggressively to reduce domestic fossil fuel consumption, not just because of the oil companies (IOC or NOC) but because of climate change. His short message is appropriate; his long messages have to wait for YouTube.
I think you're wrong here. McCain sees the oil consumption as a strategic problem. You can bet that he will be doing all that can possibly be done to reduce it.
But since he is a pragmatist, "doing all he can" might include stuff like liquifying coal.
To be honest, I really, *really* like the pragmatist approach. Especially since energy reductions would be so very invasive into people's personal lives. I *really* don't like how greens "want to modify everyone's way of doing things". That sounds a LOT like "the government's going to say how you spend your free time".
In addition there are other aspects of Obama which I consider beyond repair. I cannot forgive him for Wright, my grandparents were in WWII. I just cannot forgive him for Wright, and I believe listening to people like Wright (whether they're christians, muslims, atheists or communists or ...) will get us into WWIII before you can say cappucino. Obama only plays a person of reconciliation. However, he is a demagogue. And they *never* bring peace. They always bring war.
Furthermore, I cannot turn in my car. I work 72 miles from my place of residence, and the area I work in is more expensive than where I live (as in 20x more expensive for an equivalent, quite modest (80 m2) appartment, I mean for a family it's not that big). So much more expensive that even $300 oil would be preferable to moving. Public transportation is out because of the way it's organized here (besides, it's more expensive than paying for the fuel, and I already have the car). (I'd have to calculate when it starts making a difference, the govt. pays for it, so in reality I'm paying exactly $0 for transport oil, so it will not matter until the govt. repeals that specific way of doing things, which I believe will be when it goes bankrupt).
And I believe I'm hardly alone.
Gosh, tomc, open your eyes and get over your ideological blockade.
Wright: How does Wright relate to your grandparent's fighting in WWII? Did you watch Obama's speech on race and religion? How much more candid and grown-up and reasonable can you get as a politician than Obama?
And didn't you see McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb - bomb, bomb Iran" "funny" episode (amongst others)? This guy is out of his mind. Being a war hero alone does not make you presidentiable - you must have gut, wits and some experience with the (current) real world.
Yes? How do you know? Because otherwise he would be too good to not vote for him and you would have to swap sides? I haven't seen the slightest shred of evidence that he is not pretty much exactly what he claims to be - which is very different from both McCain and Clinton, who both are not only pragmatic, but opportunistic.
Well, like the duo infernale Bush/Cheney? Can't you see any positive difference between Obama and them?
Well, funny, we Europeans consume about half the energy Americans do - and have at least the same standard of living (some would say a better one, because of much more civil, less inequal societies, walkable cities, less violence, better social services etc.).
And while many Americans regards European governments as almost "socialist", our societies enjoy a degree of personal freedom, security and cohesion that is in fact unparalleled.
Maybe you should start looking beyond your own navel and study how the rest of the world lives?
Cheers,
Davidyson
I understand that Europeans are running out of jail space also these days.
Granted, Europe has a more laid back societal lifestyle, but, if they would shoulder their cost of the burden in dealing with terrorism they might not stack up so well, probably would have to build some jails too.
In fact, maybe they should build their own missile shield. We already have a partial shield called the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean.
Europe is shoulder to shoulder with Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, etc. Their only choices is to change their lifestyle to accommodate their neighbors or get wiped out.
The terrorist problem in Europe is far more explicit than in America.
If Europe looks down at their navel, they will probably find a bomb sitting there. Europe has nothing to brag about.
You are trolling, right?
Jails: The proportion of people in European jails to the rest of the population is far, far lower than in the US. If you have a jail for one person and get another criminal, you are running out of space.
Missile shield: What for do we need a non-functional, easily outmanoevered missile shield? You are out of touch with reality.
Terror: Every year, about 100,000 people are dying in traffic in Europe. As desastrous as terror is for the public psyche, the number of casualties is almost infinitessimally small in comparison.
Many American's fear of terror and the simultaneous preparedness to inflict terror on other people (latest showing: Iraq, 100,000-900,000 dead, millions of refugees) is totally out of proportion.
The best recipes against terror are peaceful relations with other countries and a good police system.
Cheers,
Davidyson
Tom,
I must admit I'm confused by you statement that
My father fought in the Battle of the Bulge in the winter of 1944... and I'm a big Obama supporter. In fact so is my father and many many other patriots. So I don't see the connection between WWII and supporting Obama.
But what really puzzles me is why you would need to forgive Obama for someone else's words. Is McCain responsible for all the beliefs of the Baptist church, or Hillary for all the beliefs of the Methodists (or her other right wing Christian group, the "Family"?) Were you going to hold Romney responsible for the Mormon church?
Furthermore, unlike any other candidate, Obama has specifically rejected the views of Wright. I don't even see what he needs to be forgiven for... could you explain that? What has he actually done or said... other than being part of a mainstream Black church... that you think he needs to be forgiven for?
Did you have a chance to listen to Obama's address on this subject? Here it is and it's worth your time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
There are plenty of sound policy reasons to prefer McCain or Hillary, but it would be a shame to reject policy positions that you might actually prefer because of a misunderstanding about Obama's position on his former Pastor's beliefs and remarks.
My father fought in the Battle of the Bulge in the winter of 1944... and I'm a big Obama supporter. In fact so is my father and many many other patriots. So I don't see the connection between WWII and supporting Obama.
Then you should know what caused that battle in the first place. And it was Wright's retoric. Not him personally, but the exact same statements about another semi-ethnic group.
I guess you simply won't believe it until someone else in your family dies in the next battle caused by a racist demagogue like Obama.
Furthermore, unlike any other candidate, Obama has specifically rejected the views of Wright. I don't even see what he needs to be forgiven for... could you explain that? What has he actually done or said... other than being part of a mainstream Black church... that you think he needs to be forgiven for?
Really ? He has given 2 examples he "mostly rejected but understood". Sorry. That's not "rejecting his views". At all.
I am not reassured. At all.
What do I want more ? I want him to take a stand at his church "either you reject this material, or you reject me". And he steadfastedly refuses to do so.
This is like the example of when the muslims conquered Jerusalem. They took some 3000 slaves. But they are against slavery, you see, because to celebrate victory, they gave 1 (ONE) slave her freedom (a little girl). That act, especially immediately after taking thousands of slaves, does not present their views.
You see, the one little straw does not make up a person's opinion/ideology. His actions do. Until he presents me with concrete actions against Wright, I will not accept him as anything other than a racist demagogue.
Besides I've heard enough of his speeches to see that you shouldn't pay attention to what he says, but to what he does not say.
Rejected but understood?
As a Jew, I understand Hitler's views, but I reject them. I understand where the Ku Klux Klan is coming from, but I reject them. I understand where Hamas is coming from, but I reject them.
I heard Obama put Wright's remarks in the context of Black history... which is exactly where they belong... that history includes both wisdom and ignorance. And that history, and Wrights views, are worth understanding even as, in some cases, they must be rejected.
Do I have to reject every nonsensical idea that pops up in the Jewish community, or else change the Jewish community, or else leave it? No, that's not how communities work. Likewise in families... sometimes you've got crazy old uncles who have ideas that are simply wrong, but you don't necessarily stop being part of the community.
I wouldn't want a African American president who wasn't connected to the authentic Black community of America, and I wouldn't want one who accepted everything that community believes.
It is reasonable to expect people to share our values if we are to elect them... it strikes me as a bit much to ask them to share our history and religion and personal community.
For my money, Obama has more than sufficiently distanced himself from the objectionable perspectives of Wright. I think Obama should be heard out on the merits of his ideas... not blamed for the ideas he has rejected.
Oh get over it! Who gives a flying fuck what Wright said? Go back to your Kool-aid.
Just a note, the official EVTamerica website is currently infected with malware, so I would recommend not going to it, or if you have, scanning your system if it happens to be a Windows box. (Well, according to Google)
http://www.google.com/interstitial?url=http://www.evtamerica.com/
A safe link to look at info for this scooter is:
http://www.scooterwiki.com/directory/electric_moped_motor_scooters/evt_e...
he doesnt take money from big oil but does take it from big ag and big ethanol
i think the political frame will win him votes but the misunderstanding that energy independence is impossible will give people false hopes. but what else is new? running on a 'limits to growth' platform would never work...;)
Looks like his standard stuff, all fluffy talk that produces no real action. Scary....so much is unknown about him. Would have actually voted for Hillary, but not this clown.
A bit about Obama's background:
First African-American president of the Harvard Law Review.
State Senator from Illinois, elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004.
Opposed the Iraq War from the beginning.
Has won more votes in the primaries than McCain and Huckabee combined.
Abides by campaign laws, and has fully disclosed all of his tax returns, including the schedules attached to them.
Has no gaps in his resume.
Accomplished author, speaker, professor.
I'm missing the clown part.
In my world, a clown is someone who doesn't know the difference between Sunnis and Shia, who thinks Purim is the Jewish Halloween, and doesn't know whether condoms can prevent the spread of AIDS.
Has he done anything meaningful other than make speeches? He is a senator after all, what is his signature issue? Change?!?!?!
Sounds like a clown, makes you amile but thats about it. Atleast Hillary and McCain have done something with their time in office.
Yes, they did something with their time in office, voting for Iraq is inexcusable. McCain and Clinton have damaged our country beyond repair. Why don't you go look up the bills Obama has authored instead of posting ignorant comments?
I totally agree with the statements made in the ad. Big oil has spent untold dollars destroying the environment to make bigger profits. Also, Big oil is lying and marketing oil as infinite.
Obama'solution to our energy crises is to burn more corn and "clean coal."
The man is all fluff and no substance.
by the way..., what does he mean by digitzing the electric grid?????????
Yeah, but does he understand science?
When he burst onto the presidential election stage he was half white and half black. Now he's African American. Even in his speech on race he said "we" when referring specifically to African Americans, but did he do the same when mentioning Caucasians?
And if race means nothing in the election, why the difference in identification? And the huge preponderance of A-A's voting for him?
So, is he African-Caucasian-American, or what?
My son, who is bi-racial, will someday be offended, I'm sure. I am.
Cheers
As Obama has pointed out, "African American" IS a multiracial identity, since almost all or all AA's are descended from Native Americans, Europeans and Africans.
I don't think Obama has referred to himself as "half white and half black"... that's something that others have said. He has pointed to his white mother and black father.
As far as I know he has always considered himself AA or Black. The misunderstanding that "black father and white mother" somehow implied that he was "half black and half white" was that of the media as far as I know.
I assume that he said "we" because, again, he has been consistent about being an African American... that is to say a person of mixed heritage whose heritage includes Africa.... and also a person who, through a process of growth, became rooted in the American Black community.
I'm not sure why you think race means nothing in this election. Obama represents, with his mixed heritage, the idea that Americans can overcome racial divides. That means that race means a great deal in this election. Some people believe (and hope) that race can be transcended... others believe that everyone must exist in their own private categories, white, black, etc. People like me who support Obama tend to focus on the possibility of transcending race, merging and blending categories, etc. I would think that as the father of a "biracial" child (your term), you might be encouraged by a politician who is succeeding as someone who transcends race through his AA identity.
Why shouldn't AA's vote for a man of mixed heritage, who also has a mixed heritage? How could they not be excited by that prospect. As Jewish white guy, I'm certainly excited by the prospect, so I can easily understand why AA's like the idea.
So what he is is "African American", as he has explained, and that means that he has a multiracial heritage.
How do you describe your son's ethnicity or race? How do you think he will describe it some day?
Cheers
First, I hope they shut down your electioneering here, and soon.
Second, "I'm not sure why you think race means nothing in this election."
I don't think that. It is what Obama has said. And it is obviously bull. What bothers me about this is not the actual vote, it is the spinning (lying) about it. When nearly 90% of a given ethnic group is voting for someone of the "same" ethnic group, that's a little too close to racism for my tastes.
This election is ALL about race, in certain quarters. I find it fascinating that the minorities are the ones showing the greater racial tendencies: the African-descended, Hispanics and Asians. (If you'd ever lived in Korea, that last wouldn't surprise you.)
Please. You are contradicting yourself. Is he self-identified as AA or not? He's overcoming nothing of the sort, nor does he really intend to. If he did, he would embrace his "mulatto" standing. (Mulatto is considered a normal term in other parts of the world. I use it here merely for clarity.) He is not doing that in this election. So, his "change" theme rings hollow, as does his call to unity.
Transcending? He's essentially denying one half of his heritage. Don't get me wrong: he has a right to identify himself as he wishes, but people are giving him a pass on this out of fear of being branded racist. He is using race as assuredly as any member of the KKK would, just prettied up as something supposedly non-racial.
Maybe because they should be voting for the best *person* for the job, and not the best African American.
BTW, I hope my son will identify himself as Conor. As should Obama, if his rhetoric is to match his actions.
Cheers
Look, I don't know if in one comment Obama expressed his hope that race wouldn't matter, but I do know that in this comment (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU )Obama was very clear that race is going to matter, in the sense that it SHOULD matter, not as a fear tactic, but as a serious discussion among adults.
You don't like AA's voting for Obama because it's racist. Hmmm, what is the race of candidates who whites have been voting for for the last 200 years? Oh right. Is that a little too racist for you too? Or is it only racist, when after 200 years of Presidential voting, African Americans are a little excited by an AA candidate? Have a heart!
You probably think it is a horrible thing if a woman gets excited at the prospect of voting for a female President. I'd certainly agree that shouldn't be the only consideration, but other things being equal, it is certainly understandable if a woman preferred to vote for a woman. I mean come on!
I'll bet you do! But if you have a vague awareness of the African American experience you'd find it a whole lot less remarkable.
You find this contradictory? "Obama represents, with his mixed heritage, the idea that Americans can overcome racial divides."
Perhaps you didn't understand when I explained that African American IS a mixed heritage.
I defy you to listen to this speech and assert that he is denying any part of his heritage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWe7wTVbLUU
You are free to attempt to see a contradiction between having a white mother and being an African American, but he does not, and I do not, and most open minded people do not.
African Americans are descended from people of many races. Obama is descended from Whites and Blacks. That's what it means to be an African American. If he tries to get a cab on the streets of NY he is treated as a Black man, so you can understand why he might not go around proclaiming that he is White. Plus, in America, Blacks and Whites would LAUGH at him... that was always considered "passing", and it is not generally associated with self respect as an African American. But while passing as White means (and has always meant) denying your African heritage, being African American has NEVER meant denying your white heritage. (If you don't know about why that is true, I'll be happy to fill you in on the history of the old South.)
Furthermore when he gives a speech he tells the truth: his mother is white, his father is black, he is an African American...which means a man of multiracial heritage. How hard can this be to understand? He could not possibly be more open or explicit about this
Obama's need to explain this to people like you... his need to talk about race as opposed to simply identify himself as "Barack Obama" is driven by the fact that people (like you) want to force the racial discussion into old boxes of Black versus White (which is he? why won't he tell? why is he forcing us to talk about race? why won't he talk about his whiteness? whatever!) People like you seem to want to force him to address dumb questions like "are you really biracial, or are you really Black" and then to play gotcha no matter how he answers.
Why not just ask him if he has stopped beating his wife?
I find it incredible that you as the father of a "bi-racial" son, haven't thought about how these issues will play out in your son's life, particularly, if your son is African American (descended from Europeans, American Indians and Africans.) Go ahead... wish those questions away. Let me know how that works for you, and for him.
Cheers
Then why does he not embrace being bi-racial and correct people who identify him differently?
Why does he not challenge AAs on why 90% of them are supporting him? Do you really think 90% of ANY group would follow any one politician solely on the issues? Fat chance. Thus people are voting their race, not their issues. Look at health care. Are AAs not one of the most disenfranchised in terms of access to health care? Hillary's plan is far and away better than Obama's. Why are they voting for him, then?
Is that not racism? If not, what is it?
Are you ignorant, or just unable to manage your emotions? How does arguing against racist actions of one group make me a supporter of racist actions of another? When did arguing one facet of an issue preclude arguing the same point with regard to a different group?
Ideology turns the brain to mush. I suggest you get off the ideology and go with the issues.
Oh, and did you just miss the part where I said my son is bi-racial?
/sarcasm
Other things aren't equal. That's why they are having an election. And I do understand it. But the subject is not the electorate, it is Obama. Nice spin here and above.
I'll bet you do! But if you have a vague awareness of the African American experience you'd find it a whole lot less remarkable.
You are an arrogant cuss, aren't you. Which of us is part of a bi-racial family? Again, ideology rots the brain. Your brain in this case. I said fascinating, not surprising. Try reading a little Paulo Friere (sp?).
Perhaps. You got the genetic studies to back up the claim that every AA is of mixed heritage? Even so, it changes the argument not at all. That Obama IS of mixed heritage does not = Obama overcomes racial divides. He has succeeded. His success is leading to racist actions by the people he identifies with. Where is the overcoming of racial divides? When have AA voted more along racial lines than now?
Sorry, I cannot at the moment. I'll trust that he says, "Gee, let's all just get along. Look at me! I'm an AA with a white mommy!"
What I want to see is action: where does he call his supporters on their reason for voting for him? Where does he say, "I'm an American" and leave the rest out? Etc.
Lordy, this is painful... It's like talking to the liberal version of Dumbya. Please go back and note where I said he is free to self-identify. That is not the issue. It is his use of race within the context of the election.
You are chock full of little generalities. Or, rather large ones. I call BULL. I call it on reality as there is no way you can claim every AA has embraced both aspects of their race. I also call it on the basis of the generally perceived meaning of the term. The general public, I am sure (but there is no way to guage this), hears AA and thinks "African" not "bi-racial." So, be careful when you start playing with words.
Again, when did I say he denied being half white? I didn't. About that ideology... As for what AA means, see above.
You're getting offensive now, son. First, it is *I* who said he should further embrace his heritage, not you. It is I who said he would better serve his agenda by stating simply that he is American, not you. It is I who stated his taking a bi-racial identity at all times would better support his rhetoric, not you. I am saying the opposite of what you snottily state above.
Mind your manners.
My point is that his rhetoric does not match his actions. This is true of his positions and race.
I really like the "People like you" as a pejorative. You are very good at this "unity" stuff. I'm sure Obama is thrilled to have you as a spokesperson. /sarcasm
Wrong, btw. I would applaud him identifying as bi-racial or just Obama. But that is clear. Again, your ideology. Or is it your worship? It's unclear, actually.
Are you intentionally trying to not make sense?
Cheers
Gee ccpo, you really hate the hype around Obama. I really doubt though that Obama is to blame about it, because in the US, I see that elections are treated as a SuperBowl and Entertainment, not exactly as it should be.
Be in mind that Obama could and should play that game, if he really wants to win it. There's no escape: if you don't play the media whore's game there is nowhere to go. And that ain't useful if your goal is to be the president.
OTOH, I think it is right for Obama to play the race card, as it was played by others against so many other candidates throughout the country for so many years, and it was played against him in the earliest stages, it is a necessary evil, in my view, to make race matter in this election, so that it won't matter as much in the next. Having passed through the novelty people will realise he's more than just an AA, he's an American, and then realise that an election is not about choosing the white male cowboy that smokes marlboro, but choosing the best person for the job. Likewise, I see people rallying up behind Hillary for the exact same reason and I don't blame them. It IS culturally relevant for the states, and the message of integration just for the sake of being black truly is powerful and changes subliminarly the people's minds.
About the racism you talk about. It is quite predictable, ain't it? They are such a repressed and opressed people, the AAs. Civil Rights are only 40 years old, meaning many of them didn't have their place on the bus when younger. It is still felt in many places and many situations today. No wonder they get over-enthusiast about an AA president. But while the USA gets matured in Civil Rights, people will just calm down about it. So I see no problems there.
People vote for those who feel that are like them. There is nothing new here. That's why there are so many white presidents. If people were "rational" and voted for the guy that had the "best plan" and the "best people" around him, etc, we would be living in paradise, not planet Earth. Grow up. Given the opressed past I understand the enthusiasm offered to blacks by Obama, and I think it is quite fair politically to use such enthusiasm. Obama has shown repeatedly that he has personally overcome those differences and I think he is a remarkable example to the black community, and if the most racist ones are enthusiasted (?) with the guy, it won't hurt them the example that he makes. They have a lot to learn with him.
... Women are aligning behind Hillary and yet Obama is gaining state after state. You can't really believe that there is that many blacks, now can you? The fact that both blacks and whites are voting for the guy may mean, just maybe, that he's the right guy for the job.
You got something shorter? That's too much of my day to listen to a bunch of hot air mixed with a little content.
Cheers
Edit: I watched this, but saw nothing of substance. Where is the policy? The plank? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_9al4IQOhk&feature=related
But you never saw him deny any part of his heritage, did you? I didn't think so. In fact, if you listened, you heard him embrace it. However, you did yourself a disservice (like a typical American) if you listened to 11 minutes of a 37 minute speech and think you "got it." Americans think that complicated ideas can be grasped through sound bites, but they are wrong. Unlike many politicians, if you want to know what Obama thinks you actually have to listen to whole paragraphs, and you may have to listen for 37 whole minutes. Most people don't have that attention span. Do you? Or since you believe you already know what he said from the sound bites, maybe you don't need to make the effort?
I learned a long time ago (or should have!) not to engage with people who don't want to have serious discussions, "son", so I should know better than to dignify your mix of insult and irrationality with further response.
However, I think that your belief that African American is NOT a multiracial identity is completely typical of non-AA's and the understanding that it is a multi-racial identity has been historically widespread in the AA community, and to an increasing extent in recent decades. Blacks have never forgotten, in cultural and historical terms, what went on at the plantation between masters and slaves. If you want to quibble about whether, somewhere, some AA's are pure blooded descendants of Africans, go ahead, but it will truly be a quibble. The vast majority have ancestors from 3 continents, and most AA's have understood this for a long time. It is White America and the America that thinks in terms of old style categories that imagines that Black is the opposite of White. That seems to include "people like you." The insult that you imagine in that phrase is entirely in your own mind.
There is another America that understands that AA is a more racially inclusive category. Obama represents that new understanding. Those who want to push him to be a Black candidate, OR as the candidate of Blacks, are really missing the point.
The point is (and we sort of agree here) African American is the inclusive identity as Obama has claimed in discussing his White and Black parents. When he is identifying as an African American he is telling you that he is what you call bi-racial (really, multiracial). The problem is that many people are so ignorant of AA history that they think that being AA means a person is claiming only one ethno/racial identity and not another.
Maybe you and I don't know anyone who thinks like that, but if you meet someone who has that misunderstanding you might let him know...
Nate:
Whether you know it or not, you and Jason were my companions on my dog walks today. You join Deffeyes and Simmons as people who get repeat plays on my MP3.
Apropos of your interviews with Jason, which of the three candidates, which one has (1) the ability to communicate complex ideas to the American people; (2) the ability to communicate hope and the desire to change, in the face the daunting challenges that are going to confront the president; and (3) a willingness to address long standing and difficult issues with Americans as adults?
America, as you know, has to move away from the bigger and faster is better concept; there has to be a shift in social norms, that horsepower and square footage define the man to an awarenes of our country as a community.
I do not think that Obama is promising energy independence in the ad. But you know that America will be forced toward substantial energy independence over the next fifteen years, if only because of ELM. It is one thing to begin to adapt NOW, and another to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.
Running on limits to growth will never work, because that is the wrong message: the right messages are that we must change ourselves, become more self-reliant, develop more local industries, work to preserve our planet for our children, and develop lifestyles that build communities and families. The policies of these messages are identical to the policies of "limits to growth." But one encourages people to work together, the other encourages us to hole up, buy ammunition, and build "lifeboats," whatever those mean in the age of automatic weaponry.
Thanks for all your work.
Can we get the campaigning off TOD?
Hillary and Obama are potato-potahto. Period.
In fact, when you look at the issues, and I hate to say this, Hillary is better. She's for universal health care, Obama isn't, for example. Really, I'm amazed this guy is running on "change" when he offers less change than Hillary does.
"But he can orate!"
Beautiful. So could Reagan. Look where that got us.
Cheers
I suspect that the Republicans prefer to run against Hillary, since she does such a good job of mobilizing the GOP base. However, if, as it now appears, Obama is the Democratic candidate, Hillary--IMO--prefers that McCain wins, so that she can run against him in 2012. So, the Clintonistas and the Republicans are united in trying to bring down Obama's positive numbers.
You may have something there. In a way, I agree. Not with Hillary running, but with Republicans taking the fall for what they've done. Unfortunately, I'm fairly certain the US will end up one big internment camp (I almost typed interment...) if McCain gets in.
Cheers
Interesting item regarding Hillary and healthcare:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9274.html
IMO, at this point a vote for Hillary is basically a vote for McCain.
Nate,
Do you have some numbers on how much this primary campaign has received from Big Ag and from where (individual donors as opposed to lobbyists)? Obama hasn't accepted money from lobbyists or PACs so I wonder where you are getting this (mis?)information from.
On another note, have you taken the time to review research papers on climate change? Have you found the peer-review process to be lacking and research to be biased?
Hi Nate,
I turned on the radio just long enough to hear Obama utter the phrase "sustainable growth". I am not kidding. The context was him talking about the economy - about how we shouldn't have bubbles but should have...
Anyway, I turned the radio back off.
As for adding TOD and other Peak Oil comments on the NY Times blog it looks like it's being drowned out by Clinton and Obama back and forth (campaign contributions and whatever else - really missing the point).
Unfortunately this is also probably what most news organizations will pick up on.
That and taking some stance on whether Exxon is evil or not.
Obama is either lying or he's been misled.
Reminds me of this old song (See the link for an annotation; the lyrics were slightly modified in 2003.)
Look away across the bay
Yankee gunboat come this way
Uncle Sam gonna save the day
Come tomorrow we all gonna pay...
And it's burn baby burn
When am I going to get my turn
Something dead under the bed
Local diplomats hang their heads
Never mind what the government said
They're either lying or they've been misled...
And it's burn baby burn
When am I going to get my turn
Vietnam was yesterday
Kabul and Baghdad today
How would they ever make the late news pay
If they didn't have the CIA?
And it's burn baby burn
When am I going to get my turn
Here it comes, the loaded gun
"Must keep the bad guys on the run"
You'd buy or bury everyone
For liberty and life
And just plain fun
And it's burn baby burn
When am I going to get my turn
http://cockburnproject.net/songs&music/burn.html
None of the candidates for POTUS have any intention of alienating "Big Oil" or "Big Health Care" or "Big Finance" or "Big Ag."
Get real. If Obama has any chance of causing "Big Trouble" he will not be "elected" as POTUS.
These candidates are already so prescreened for compliance with Corporatism/ Fascism that there is no chance for them to make change.
The so-called election is a sham. Sure, there are differences, but there is no chance for the kind of political change that we need. Obama and HC will comply with Fascism even while talking a different talk.
Better than McSame? Very likely.
Real change? Only possible from the grassroots. Likely to be snuffed out from the top down. As long as there is fuel to burn those who benefit from Fascism will prevent change.
Fascism has old roots in the USA, and support for Hitler and Mussolini came from very high up in the US business and political world pre-WW II. The support for fascism continued, and the Fascists have won in the USA today.
See former Vice President Henry Wallace's comments that fascism would take the USA by poisoning the stream of information and public discourse, and by playing upon ancient prejudices and fears amoung the populace.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0719-15.htm
I am always stunned by the way in which people carry on as though the USA is not a fascist nation. We have been thoroughly fascist since Ronald Reagan took office.
Reagan cultivated the overt and aggressive militarism that is a key component of fascism. Violent, aggressive militarism has been raised from a fact of life -- the military-industrial complex -- to the religious center of our nation.
The Corporatist narrative continues marry state and religion, rapacious consumerism and various Christian heresies, and Globalization with Manifest Destiny.
Obama and Hc do not challenge this in any way. They will approve more torture and prison camps, and more wars of aggression in order to maintain global hegemony.
The Democrats have people advising them who are a different brand of fascism than the Republicans have. But they follow the same militaristic pattern. "Full spectrum global dominance" through use of military might is still very much the goal for the Democratic Party.
Word.
Cheers
Obama's exact message. Seems like you are ignorant of his plans. To combat facism is the reason why I started campaigning for Barack after being apathetic in all prior elections. It is amazing to me that he is likely to be President of the United States.
goghgoner,
Hope springs eternal.
Democrats or Republicans.
No matter how you feel, the choice is limited. Democrats equal change; Republicans equal business as usual.
You only have one vote either way.
I choose change. I choose Democratic. If the Fascism continues, then we all know what has to be done. Sad but true.
The possibility that the best option is to simply lie down and die... should never be dismissed out of hand.
Here's another great idea: Vote for the worst fascist you can find so as to heighten the crisis of the system and bring about its collapse! Buy SUVs to hurry the process of global warming and the arrival of peak oil. Vote Republican to ensure the drain on the U.S. Treasury through foreign wars!
You think I'm joking? There isn't a day that doesn't go by when I don't consider the possibility that the worse things get, and the faster they get worse, the better off we'll be "in the long run." (Of course, there is the little detail of what it will be like until the long run finally gets here... but never mind, never mind.
Nonetheless, I do think that within the context of our contemporary fascist society Obama does represent an opening... the possibility of change. The world won't look all that different in 2016 if he is elected in 2008, but it might be marginally better, and it might set the stage for an even better and more progressive direction. We might (seems improbable!) even de-fascisize the system a little bit.
I have no doubt that Obama would like that. I do have doubts as to whether he will be able to overcome the structural constraints that will attempt to block him from moving in that direction. But, the alternative is a McCain, or even a Clinton, who are more than comfortable with working within those constraints... and in McCain's case, actually endorse those power structures as "the way the world ought to be."
Sure, Obama may, as communists said of socialists, just be "making the world safe for capitalism," rather than transforming the system. (That's a metaphor folks... please no accusations of communism) Sure it MIGHT be better to completely screw up the system with a John McCain to foment popular revolt or a new more radical leadership. I guess I view that strategy as having a low probability of success. Given that, even Obama's low probability of success seems like as good odds as we're gonna get. So Obama seems worth trying to me.
Any politician who says he wants to make us independent of foreign oil is disingenuous. This is an absolute impossibility; he would need to eliminate 60% of oil consumption in the US or find a substitute for 60% of what we use since we import, and are highly dependent on 60% of the oil we use. We have been hearing politicians use this line to hook voters for many years now. We should be thankful that there is for now foreign oil to feed our dependency, unless you are in favor of massive unemployment and starvation.
I think that oil companies should not be given special treatment by government such as the percentage depletion deduction, expensing of intangible drilling costs, special deals in passing out oil leases etc. But it is equally immoral and unproductive to impose a special tax on them because they are currently profitable. It is equally foolish to mandate that they invest in alternatives; if alternatives have value, they will attract capital investment and do not require government mandate or subsidy. Government mandated investments and subsidies are an admission that the alternative has little or no value and it is just a waste of precious resources to place them where no sane business would.
As far as taxing oil companies, ultimately you are taxing shareholders who consist of all sorts of people including little old lady widows and maybe your pension fund. By applying an extra tax on the oil company profits, all you are doing is shifting resources out of the hands of the more efficient private market, into the incompetent hands of politicians and bureaucrats, often to be squandered for the benefit of special interest, not you.
All of the major politicians will add to the train wreck just down the track. Some will do less damage than others, but it is delusion to think that government is the answer, has the answer, or can find the answer, if by answer you mean something other than a massive economic collapse and related die off. If you think the answer is fast population reduction, then maybe I would agree that government is the answer since they do seem to have a track record of massive human exterminations.
It is more of a delusion to think that the markets can provide. Lack of directed policy and the unregulated free markets priced finite resources way too low and that is the reason we have reached this point today.
I think you can roughly measure the amount of direction by the size of the federal government, since government is by its nature, force.
In the early days of the history of the US government, it consumed approximately 5% of the economy. Today that number is closer to 50%, so I don't see much lack of government interference in our lives, much of which is economic "direction". In those early days, there was a large middle class, where much of the wealth was held, a characteristic of a natural distribution brought about by free markets. We now increasingly see more and more a skewing of the wealth into the hands of the privileged few at the expense of the many. Then you blame free markets for this plunder of the middle class and poor instead of blaming the true cause, fascism, government control of private economic activity. And to boot, you then beg for and applaud more fascism, such as is proposed by Bush, McCain, Clinton, Obama, and their bedfellows.
If you look at the country by country evidence of what has created the most human suffering, you can only conclude that government directed economic activity is a culprit. It was the government directed economies of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, post WWII, that were the greatest industrial polluters ever known, and the greatest production was poverty. If you look in Africa where the human suffering is greatest, you see the hand of government control at work.
I think the free market, were the unlikely to happen and it was completely restored, would give us the least negative future. However, whatever happens politically I think will have small impact in relation to the forces in motion that will bring mankind back into balance with nature. Restoration of freedom will not stop the dieoff; it will just mean that an average person will have a equal chance of survival, depending on your own actions. Dependency on the fascist/communist slave systems means that the masters see to their own survival first and you are the least priority.
Those in government long ago discovered that creation of a foreign enemy causes fear among the population, and that fear makes it easy for government to convince that population to give up freedom in return for safety. "Foreign" enemies like big oil companies, global warming and peak oil work the same to get people to give up more control over their lives; indeed some even beg for greater enslavement. The reality is that the politicians and bureaucrats just use this greater power for themselves. If you have not yet figured it out, there is a whole class of people who have no regard for their fellow men. The masses are viewed as something to be manipulated, exploited, and controlled by these sociopaths.
Another reason to depend on individual, private, free market solutions is simply that as the economic pie begins to seriously shrink, it is very unlikely that the US government will survive the social unrest. Placing control of the economy more and more in the hands of an institution headed for extinction is a foolish move. We first face financial collapse from the disintegration of the debt based monetary system (originally instituted for the benefit of the banks and politicians/government). That economic depression will never be resolved, but just fold over into the even more powerful shrinkage of the economic pie for lack of energy to fuel the economy. My bet is that before 2020 the US will break up similarly to the failure of the USSR in the 1990's, but not likely peacefully.
There seems to be a willingness among a great many to hand over what remains of their freedom and power in order to make their problems go away.
You see it in the self flagellation of the pro-taxers on this site, asking the government to further penalize their energy use, as though our present and future tax dollars are being used to some beneficial purpose now!
The thinking seems to be that the problems of government exist only because we haven't elected the "right" people yet.
As if such creatures exist, or would seriously be allowed near the seats of power.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Henry.
Posts like yours are what keep me reading this site.
yes, but he also said this...
Yes... we keep hearing about the shareholders. But the shareholders didn't approve the last EOM chairman retiring with $180 million package plus the plane, the office and secretaries. The shareholders didn't approve the ridiculous full page ad in the NYT denouncing climate change and peak oil. The shareholders have never heard of Heartland Institute... which organized the latest science bashing in NYC.
EOM isn't run for the teacher pension fund, the widow, and "all sorts of people". Quit singing in the choir. Recognize that Capitalism needs to be repaired.
What logic! Management of a big corporation steals from the corporation at the expense of the shareholders, so lets penalize the shareholders some more with special taxes which ultimately they bear.
I doubt that you intend to repair capitalism. What you intend I suspect is to have more government control (fascism) instead of returning to free markets.
What the Hell? Shareholders can change their stocks, I couldn't care less of shareholders, they are responsible for their actions, and by actions I mean their choices. If those morons chose to support a company that makes such un human managements and litterally pillages the wealth of the poor to buy these new-lords of the world some jets and islands, let them eat cake!
Governments should not mess up with the free market, the role of the government is to regulate the free market. BUT Every market SHOULD have rules. And currently, such rules are lacking, with off-shore manouvers, foundations, fraudulent management and the likes.
Likewise I find it also true that oil companies have for decades barried the entrance of renewables and alternatives. "Free Market" sounds good until these guys spend your lifetime ripping you off with their "only" choice because of the monopoly they've created and mantained. Wise up. There's no Free Energy Market. And we need one.
True that many special interest have influenced government to pass laws that give them economic privilege.
The privilege of creating new money out of thin air and loaning it at interest it probably the greatest of these privileges. It is effectively legalized counterfeiting, both enslaving many to interest payments and simultaneously debasing the value of the dollar. Close behind is the medical and drug privilege where government licenses drugs and medical practitioners, effectively limiting supply and driving up prices. There are numerous others, but the oil business is a minor offender by comparison. Historically, margins in the oil industry have been below many other industries.
You assertion that government should regulate free markets is a proposal for fascism. It certainly is within the authority of government to punish fraud, theft, and other acts of aggression committed by one against another, but most of government economic regulation is not for this purpose, but rather to use force for the benefit of one to the detriment of another.
Throughout history most monopolies came into existence by force of government creating them; indeed earlier dictionaries defined monopoly by refers to a grant of privilege by government. One notable example was Alcoa which dominated the aluminum for years simply by out competing in the free market anyone who came along. Had they not been such an efficient producer, their dominant position could not have been maintained.
So what has the US government done to grant the oil industry favored position? They did give them some tax breaks in the form of percentage depletion and expensing of intangible drilling costs, really a pittance compared to some of the breaks other industries enjoy. They do lease land for drilling, mostly at auction or by lottery. I don't see most of this as rising to the level of "ripping you off". I see no grant of monopoly to oil companies by government; instead, oil companies have historically been under attack by government.
Outside of the US oil companies have been forced to operate under the local system, some of which involves grants of privilege, but even there, the companies compete to bribe the local politicians and bureaucrats.
If you listen to Matt Simmons, oil is still incredibly cheap compared to much of what we consume. I think you anger at the oil industry is misdirected, and should more legitimately be directed at politicians who have fooled you into supporting the current system of fascism under the guise that they are protecting you.
Your contention that the free market creates an inevitable middle class requires significant supporting arguments. Economist Paul Krugman's contention is that the middle class was created out of whole cloth [and extended by oil wealth] by the now-villainized-by-libertarians FDR using taxation, broad social programs, and wage-control policies, which ended the Gilded Age power of the industry mogul. In The Conscience of a Liberal, he explores the details of how this has happened, and suggests that we're in the process of constructing a new Gilded Age with much higher levels of inequality, via a unique arrangement wherein "conservative" politics influences economics, rather than the other way around.
One difference between now and then is that while we consider ourselves more humane, open, and civil-libertarian, we are also much more militarized, much more authoritarian, and much more corporatist. The other main difference is that far from the debt-doctrine back then (where they were mortally afraid to intervene in the market or run a deficit, and had loads of oil wealth and allies to aim at any problem), we find ourselves internationally friendless, with a currency on the verge of collapse from an acceleration of decades of abuse, and a military abused to the point of breaking.
Take as a microcosm a pre 1861 Southern plantation and calculate the distribution of wealth using standard statistical techniques, or just use your common sense. The plantation owner and his family posses almost all the wealth. The majority, the slaves, posses virtually nothing. The middle class might consist of a few hired overseers with a modest amount of wealth.
The test to see if there is a normal distribution of wealth is to compare the median with the mean. If they are nearly the same then the man standing in the middle of the line (the median position) also has an mean amount of wealth. If the man standing in the middle of the line has much less than an average amount of wealth, then something has interfered with the normal distribution of wealth, and shifted wealth out of the hands of the majority into the hands of the elite few.
If you travel around the world, and look at the distribution of wealth in each location, there is a direct correlation between the degree of economic freedom and the distribution of wealth. The former USSR was principally a socialist/communist economic system and the distribution of wealth reflected it. Those in power lived well while the masses lived near poverty. If you remember when the USSR broke up, Gorbachev was away at his seaside villa, while the average citizen was crammed in a small flat, possibly with mother-in-law also in residence. The typical South American banana republic likewise had a distribution of wealth in favor of a few elite. A small middle class existed, but the majority lived at or in poverty. How this happens is by force of government giving economic privilege to the few at the expense of the many, mostly through the system of government control of the economy, whether you call it fascism, socialism, or communism.
On the other hand, particularly in the early days of the US, the distribution of wealth was more or less a normal distribution. There was a large middle class. As the years have progressed government has increasingly interfered with the economy for the benefit of the few. Have you not ever heard in recent years the complaint that the US middle class is under pressure, being pushed toward poverty? Slavery eliminates most of the middle class and leaves a small privileged class with the majority living near poverty.
If you observe a society with a small middle class, then you should be able to logically conclude it is not a free market society. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, well you should get the picture.
Your assertion that we have become more militaristic, more authoritarian and more corporatist is accurate. You are describing fascism in action. Economic fascism is characterized by government control of private property.
Until there is a clear picture of the problem, it cannot logically be addressed. When you blame free markets for what fascism does and propose more government control of economic activity you are just proposing to intensify the problem. How many countries have rejected one slave system only to adopt another?
My view is that the only reason people have accepted the current system of exploitation is that energy has driven an expansion of the economic pie and those in power, while taking a disproportionate share of the expansion, have allowed the standard of living of the average person to improve. This of course will end when the pie begins to shrink and that shrinkage comes out of the pockets of those not in power. That point should be called the "revolution point" because for the majority the pain from social unrest will be less than the pain from continued exploitation.
Honestly, it's a rather profound/extraordinary generalization to suggest that an unregulated free market creates a strong middle class, and you haven't adequately supported it. There's plenty of data out there to talk about in comparing relatively similar governments (which approximate current ideals of different political ideologies) without resorting to the no-data hyperbole of using a slave society. What are your affirmative models, as opposed to the extreme negations you mention (where plantation owners made almost all their goods locally)? You need plenty of those, you need to answer for contradictions, and you need to prove causation.
Otherwise, your faith in the free market is just that - faith. One tenet of the libertarian religion (which was at first attractive to me, too, until I realized how little of it is backed by sound reasoning or data, as opposed to gut-level chauvinistic emotions or tribal affiliations), which appears to have been one of the several groups of "useful idiots" that's allowed fascism to begin to take hold. I've spent the last few months exploring the libertarian community; Arguing whether social security is an equivalent evil to torture, while being interrupted by bitchfests over "Don't tase me dude," "legalize hemp" monologues, and the ravings of the last white nationalists in the country, gets old fast.
A few sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Income_gains.jpg
The US' predicament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gini_since_WWII.gif
European socialism does quite well here. Do you consider the welfare state to be capitalism or fascism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Gini_Coefficient_World_Human_Developm...
Observe, say, the effect that the long reign of the pro-market, pro-privatization Conservative Party in the UK, from 1979 to 1997, had on income inequality. Same graph, observe the US since Reaganomics (and later neoliberalism) took hold. In 2005, the American Gini coefficient reached 0.469, similar to that of Malaysia and the Philippines, both at 46.1, and well-ahead of red China (44.0).
Another point:
You've redefined fascism (as is typical) to mean the opposite of historical norms.
Fascism is usually intended to discuss the subversion of state power by private interests to intervene in private affairs (eg: "I bought the IRS, so we get to audit you"), not the use of state power by public interests to intervene in private affairs - taken to the extreme that would be communism.
Let me reveal the full depth of my idealism. You want a perfect nation/society? Go Ghengis.
Supposedly, he had ten laws breaking any of them equaled death. I say bring it back in revised form.
1. Don't steal.
2. Don't hurt others.
3. Don't treat others unfairly.
4. Don't have affairs. Be married or don't. If not married, see #2.
5. Don't lie.
6. Follow the Constitution.
Leave the rest up to the jury.
I may need one or two more, but I suspect anything you could come up with would fit in these categories.
Ex.: Exxon and Global Warming. They have broken, at minimum, 2,3 and 5. They are well aware they are attmepting to skew the debate not based on science, but on the basis of lining their pockets. Let a jury at 'em with those simple laws they'd be toast.
Ex.: BuCheney on GW. They muzzled the science and brough in energy industry patsies to modify the science. Non-scientists. All to protect the oil industry and prevent action on GW. This will result in far greater damage to th environment than was necessary.
They have harmed virtually everyone and our ancestors. Let the jury decide what to do with them.
Ex.: Someone has a pre-marital affair. They have sexually a sexually transmitted disease or two. They give someone a sexually transmitted disease. The person takes meds for a week and are fine. A second person is damaged for life - they've got AIDS. A jury might fine the person in the first instance and have them pay lost wages and medical bills. In the second they might jail the person for an extended period (life?) as payment for their actions and to protect the public health.
Leave it up to the jury.
This would require an educated public, i.e civics taught throughout HS. It would also require a change in the legal system. Lawyer's jobs should be to determine the truth, not win. A defense lawyer's job should be to get a fair result, not a free pass.
Etc.
Don't forget the Constitution is also a set of rules. So there's more to it than the 6 rules you mentioned ;P
Ho ho ho that's a good one, it's only cheap because the the costs get passed on by other means, mostly taxes.
I just don't see a problem with ending imports of oil. If we cut back by 60% then we are going to be in much better shape. Plug in hybrids should to the job for transportation and it is beginning to look very silly to heat with oil. I didn't buy and this Winter. The only place where we really need it is for aviation fuel but that is still not 40% of consumption. The EIA is expecting growth in US production by 5% next year: http://www.eia.doe.gov/steo
So, reduced consumption combined with steady or increasing production looks like it would do the job.
Chris
Really? Not even a teensy, tiny one?
You really need to get out more.
Plug-in hybrids don't exist, not in any meaningful scale.
I'm sure all those that heat with oil do so just because they can.
Aviation is one industry we can do without.
So far as I know, GM still plans to introduce a plug in hybrid in 2009 called the Volt. If it turns out to be popular, and with current oil prices it might, then we could be on a path to eliminate oil imports within 15 years or so, ten if there are some incentives. It cost less this year to heat with electric space heaters than with oil. I doubt people will continue to use it unless prices fall back below $70/barrel. Two more heating seasons at these prices and I'd expect people to start going with heat pumps in droves.
I'm not quite sure what you have against aviation. For crossing water is does very nicely. It is less efficient than trians over land but more efficeint that cars, at least for business travel. Once the fuel is renewably sourced, the only difficulty I see is in overdoing it. http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/12/jet-fuel.html
Chris
2010 and they're driving their team like a pack of dogs to make it.
$50k msrp, for 10 miles a charge? Don't expect folks to be lining up to buy.
Electric heaters suck a lot of juice, you'd have to prove that one.
JHK says it much better than me concerning airline travel:
http://www.kunstler.com/
My problem with your original statement is that we(our economy) can do without 60% of its chief energy source.
Try doing without 60% of your air, food or water.
"Any politician who says he wants to make us independent of foreign oil is disingenuous. This is an absolute impossibility; he would need to eliminate 60% of oil consumption in the US or find a substitute for 60% of what we use since we import, and are highly dependent on 60% of the oil we use. We have been hearing politicians use this line to hook voters for many years now. We should be thankful that there is for now foreign oil to feed our dependency, unless you are in favor of massive unemployment and starvation."
Agreed.
You cant take Obama, Hilary or any polititian too seriously on the run up to an election. They will all bend the truth or outright lie to get themselves elected. Once they are in office things dont improve much.
If you take a good look at Tony Blair on his first election campaign it was very similar to Obama's. He was a good orator, promoting change, and was swept to victory with people dancing in the streets.
It wasnt long before he threw the nation headlong into the Gulf war and all those people who had high hopes based on his earlier speeches felt broken and cheated.
Personaly I take polititian speak with a pinch of salt. I dont vote, never have and never will.
It would be great if polititians could be held accountable for their broken promises but I cant see that happening any time soon.
The concept of not voting gives good feeling to the one who doesn't vote. They can claim it is not their fault. But in truth, if you don't vote, you automatically vote for the one who wins.
Somebody once said, "...all that is necessary for bad people to succeed is for good people to do nothing.." or something like that.
We are given only two choices. If we choose a new crowd and they fair no better than the old crowd, then, at this stage of the game, it is clear that we have to move to plan x..... and it will hurt greatly.
It will then be time to exercise our constitutional right to relieve this government of its duties and form another government.
OUCH!
Can that be done peaceably?
I think it was Edmund Burke that said that. Or Edward Burke, can never quite remember his first name.
This entire thread has given me a good chuckle tonight. Some of the posts are so far off topic I wonder if there aren't a bunch of trolls strolling about looking to drum up a Clinton - McCain - Obama argument.
Call me cynical but even if he was willing to take the difficult steps required to reduce dependence of foreign oil, as president he would not have the power to do it. The president actually has very little power to affect change in domestic maters, that requires congress and the senate. These two bodies are so thoroughly corrupted no bill makes it through without being so watered down and full of riders as to be useless or worse. The recent energy bill is a case in point, but so is every other major bill passed in the passed few decades.
5Y
REally?? I see that any president could call for the raising of CAFE standards and issues orders to reduce our national speed limits across the country.. I would hope if Obama is elected, he would do this in the first 100 days of his administration..
He can call for it all he wants, he can attempt to persuade congress to pass a bill. Here is how it would go down:
He calls for new café standards, congress and the senate bicker and dilute any proposal to uselessness and eventually pass some Frankenstein law bearing little resemblance to what Obama may have wanted and containing riders and provisions to enrich corporations who paid to have the congressmen and senators elected. Obama ends up not vetoing it because it is the best he is going to get and he doesn’t want to look ineffective.
5Y
I used to think this way until I read The Republican War on Science. This corrupt administration has stacked committees, suppressed real science and invented a partisan warped "sound science".
Thank you to whoever on this site recommended this book!
http://www.waronscience.com/home.php
I agree with this.
Our national legislative branch is very corrupt, by which I mean it responds more to power and money than reason in much of what it does.
So as much as I admire and respect Obama, if he becomes president, he's going to have a tough time, I think.
Obama is a politican and he's got a talent for it.
I don't care if he gets votes for beating on Big Oil( actually if he didn't beat on them a little--given their crappy ineptitude at investing and producing energy, entirely their fault-- I'd figure him to be the same suckup as the Republicans are; after all we do have $110 oil.
People are right to be mad about it.
Things are serious.
He probably should kick 'em again, HARD.
They have f--ked up.
THIS IS A VERY GOOD THING.
Why because it will lead to acceptance of the energy crisis, and needed government involvement.
Hofmeister is going about PLEADING for top-down energy nationalism.
Big Oil knows they will get a beating because it is the price you pay for an interventionist government policy that
will allow them to survive.
Better to take a beating now then later.
And really there is no 'later'.
Laizze-faire energy will doom Big Oil(and us all).
The thing I like about Obama is his courage to take on the lobbyists, and in particular big oil. How ever it might have happened, we the people currently have very little say in DC. The high powered money backed PAC's rule legislation by paying off Congressmen/women with advances to secure them for future positions. Then once they leave office, they go to work for the PAC's in DC. They get rich and then they get super wealthy while we get almost no representation. We the People are now We the Disinfranchised. The US is dead last amonst industrialized nations in healthcare for its citizens. Gore tried to get elected to take on special interest but lost to corrupt, lier Bush who represents the PAC's thinking that's what's best for America. So now we have another chance to get someone in to represent us and we either seize that opportunity or get some lip service. Its up to The People.
Whether that translates exactly to the way of thinking regarding Peak Oil remains to be seen, but at least he has the right attitude. We can try to educate him once he's in office. By the way, I love the ad. It's courageous!
It is never a good idea to think you can 'educate' natiabnlaly elected leader once thery get into office. The very act of electing them, convinces them of their own superior wisdom nd then the power goes to their head.
Is he? What, then, encourages him to pursue a Frankensteinish approach to health care instead of universal?
Cheers
He has it wrong. Oil companies spent the money,and developed their reserves,when oil was much cheaper. The oil companies didn't drive the price up. Speculators and/or OPEC did. Oil companies deserve the windfall/return on investment. I doubt he'd be running an ad about making up their losses if we had $10 oil.
It's a shrewd ad. The dig at the oil companies is designed to appeal to those who don't study the issue but are shocked by gas prices, and the $150 billion for renewables is designed to appeal to people like us who aren't shocked and think something needs to be done besides blame Exxon. I do admire his courage, it's been a long time since we've had a politician brave enough to say either thing.
What bothers me is that if you go to Obama's website and look at his Energy and Environment page, there's a LOT of emphasis on biofuels and barely a mention of solar, wind, conservation, or transportation. It doesn't convince me that he really understands the situation or has a well-thought out plan. It wouldn't help his presidency if food prices skyrocket.
One of my internet family members is from Chicago, and has friends with the campaign. I've been working on him for the last week to get somebody from the campaign to come over here so we can all give them our thoughts. Things like Alan's "Electrification 101."
Solar, wind, nuclear and geothermal will not help reduce oil consumption one bit. Liquid fuels are at crisis point, along with gas and noe of the list above will have much impact on that.
Obama comes across as intelligent and principled but doesn't know how to change a light bulb. The [oil supply/demand] problem is in the numbers which is not a strong point with lawyers.
The next president is going to be overwhelmed by events. You can't piss in a hurricane and keep your pants dry.
The more CO2 the better,and global cooling is coming. Just two of his whacky claims,backed up by charts and graphs.
http://ncwatch.typepad.com/dalton_minimum_returns/files/Solar_Arch_NY_Ma...
Thanks for that link Perry. The correlation shown between the length of the sun spot cycle and temperature is so good (0.7) that it blows the CO2 model away. This is a correlation between two easily measured variables with no intermediate parameter unlike the climate models that require a increase an increase of CO2 to, somehow, increase humidity which raises the temperature. The causation actually looks like shorter sun spot cycles giving higher ocean temperatures which causes more CO2 to come out of solution. So the T:CO2 correlation in the climate models is not causative. We will know which is right in the next 5 years.
Don't believe any of it, its bad science. Go to realclimate.org and do a site search for sunspots. These arguments have been made for years and proved lacking.
No it's not bad science. The correlation claimed is between the length of the solar cycle and temperature. I read the stuff at Realclimate.org. They are talking about the number of sunspots which is not the same thing. I don't believe the AGW people anymore because of what I've learnt about people and the way the talk. Sure they believe. Most people believe in god but Richard Dawkins will tell you they are wrong. Belief is what people do.
Correlation of 0.7 "good"???
HAHAHAAHAH!!!
ROFLMAO!
Get a life.
None of us are fooled for a second that Obama or Hilary or McC would actually do anything to upset Big Oil. (or jeopardize funding)
However, I would like to vote for a President who told Big Oil that the FINITE RESOURCE they were handling on humanity's behalf, were not infinite, and that Physics, Science and Mathematics indicated that if things did not change we were all facing a human disaster.
The reality of the problem is so serious that We should indict all the players and their decision makers in advance. If the disaster occurs as a result of their decisions they go upside down on the cross.
Most of these decision makers will still be around when the system goes wrong, so they had better smarten up or else.
Even though we all saw Bush Senior's lips moving we never held him accountable and then just to reinforce how stupid we really are we voted his son in as the ventriloquist's dummy.
Maybe we have precisely the government we deserve. Maybe it is even too good for us.
... Or not. But perhaps Obama will be better than the other two. And not choosing him will be worse than doing so.
So it goes.
Flying the Flag (as submitted):
The first rule of big politics is to get elected. High oil prices are something everybody can relate to. Do you think a message of drive less and conservation, i.e. doing with less, would win votes? Of course all of the things that will have to be done will not be popular with many. The oil issues are big, complex, and are reaching a critical point, but we must change our government first, and that means, in this Country, an election.
Big government is responsible for misplaced trust in ethanol as an energy solution. Since the congress of 2005 passed the EPact law requiring increased ethanol use by 2005 the price of rice is up three times. The proponents of enforced ethanol usage argued that using grain for ethanol would not have any impact on prices. An estimated one fifth of the United States grain crop is being used for ethanol production. Big government might take responisility when prices jump for summer formulation laws.
Rice prices in SE Asia tripled:
http://article.wn.com/view/2008/03/19/Surge_in_rice_price_may_trigger_un...
Oh yes, ethanol is the cause of all price rises. If ethanol were abandoned, everything would be just peachy. End of snotty remark.
If gas prices hit $4.50 and mega-projects do not significantly add to supply, I believe Peak Oil will be equated to the economy. Everything anyone fills their gas tank, they will be reminded that oil is finite and precious.
The first candidate that grasps this fact and explains how they can lead us through this trying time will capture the gas pump vote; which will be most of us.
I'm not so sure.
I believe the reason that only one congressman (Bartlett) has come out and told the truth about Peak Oil is because the obvious solutions are not politically popular. Calling for an end to the internal combustion engine wont go over well with the car driving masses.
What this add tells me is that Obama is aware of the energy situation, and considering who some of his supporters and advisors are, he is probably peak oil aware as well, but it would be politically unwise to talk about such things until after the election.
Peak Oil and Climate Change are civilization killers. They are the plague of our time. Like the plaque, the solution is local and simple.
Be clean and self-reliant. We need the Stockdale Paradox, "Unwaivering faith we will prevail while facing the most brutal facts of our current reality."
Leadership is needed in this class. Blaming someone, the oil companies, etc... takes away from the need to face the needs and benefits of self-reliance.
Waiting until after the election is cowardly and unnecessary. Americans are a lot more caring and willing to work than our current crop of politicians seem to think.
Wayne Gilchrist R-MD WAS a member of the House Peak Oil caucus and he was shit-canned by the Bushites in the primary.
Roscoe Bartlett gets to make a lot of long-winded speeches but he votes with Bush every time and gets an American Conservative Rating of 93.9%.
IMHO, that makes him a worthless hypocrite on peak oil.
There is nothing whatsoever admirable about Representative Roscoe Bartlett.
I wrote a letter to Congressman Bartlett asking him why he voted against H.R. 5351 a month or two back. He wrote me back saying that he agreed with everything in the legislation except for removing the tax subsidies to the oil corporations and instead use that money to scale up the renewable energy industry. He explained that doing so would hurt the average American consumer by raising gas prices for them.
I was shocked that he actually said that. I wrote him back saying that cheap gas got us into this crisis and only expensive gas would start to get us out of it. I also mentioned that I though he was pandering for votes in this election year since he knows better than to keep handing tax breaks to the oil companies. I told him that I was grateful for him spreading the gospel of peak oil, but that he lost my respect and my vote for the reason why he voted no on H.R. 5351.
As for Obama taking a stance against EOM, kudos to him. We're funding both sides of the war on terrorism with our gas purchases and I'm glad that he's doing his part to raise awareness of why our Troops are dying in Iraq right now. Although Energy Independence is impossible to achieve before the crash of our civilization, it at least gives the Patriots of this Country something to rally together toward the common goal against a slew of regimes.
Explaining to people that we're funding the regimes of Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran every time we fill our tank up really gets a lot of people's attentions.
Obama is not (I should think) trying to be “right.” He is trying to win allegiance, votes, and so in a very brief presentation, puts forward the few points on which a majority of ‘da people’ agree, or would certainly adhere to if proposed. Including The Insane Profits of Big Oil, windfall profits tax (implied I suppose is that the price of gas would come down?) - Investing in alternative energy - and creating jobs. In short, the status quo, business as usual, with added huge Gvmt. expenditure, a sharp jab at the oil cos whom everyone seems to blame. Fine.... In a way, he himself promises to ‘Block Change’ - the propositions are not ‘change’ but merely additions. What he left out is mention of the oil-hoggers or lousy-FF-producers, such as Saudi, Venezuela, Russia, and what ‘do about them.’ The issue is treated as if it was divorced from foreign or economic policy. Which again suits everyone fine, and has a nice Americano-centrist ring, as if the US could just solve its problems internally with a lot of ethanol and a bit of wind (lol). But what can one expect from such a clip?
I admit I have no high hopes concerning Obama, and view him with a very suspicious, jaundiced eye. Don’t like the others either. On this issue.
Noizette, Pedalpower and moonstroller have all hit upon a key aspect of the campaign.
Most Americans simply cannot handle the truth.
The famous line "You can't handle the truth!" ought to precede any political advertising or events, and ought to be placed on all political literature -- including bumper stickers -- like the Surgeon General's warning label on cigarette packages.
Politics is the art of weaving lies to seduce and manipulate people back into their chosen brands of Intentional Ignorance.
Be careful: mighty tongues tell mighty lies.
If the politicians wanted to be honest in their rhetoric about fuel prices, they could try paraphrasing Matt Simmons... "Hey it's only 15 cents a cup. Be happy it's so cheap."
I'm sure that would go over like a lead balloon.
Well you may be right, and what I didn’t say in my post, is that what Obama says is probably very close to his real intentions, and not just a frilly ‘mock up’ for a clip constructed out of surveys, ad hoc talking points from ‘advisors’, and focus groups. (As I imagine it to be.)
But... Americans are well known for being submissive, looking up to authority, adhering to leaders who pray or wave flags, influenced by the TV, and generally being good citizens, doing what their leaders (CNBC, ABC, Bush - ‘go shopping’, etc.) tell them to do. That is a stereotype of course, and rather an ugly one (sheeples, etc.) - that other countries aren’t better or different isn’t to the point here. (France? Brunei? Saudi? etc.)
If a US pres. came out and said it was the duty of all true blooded Americans to consume less and get to work on electrification (see Alan, just to mention one example and one direction) and so on, what with the impact of TV and all the goons, meaning a huge State apparatus with great reach, right down to the local sheriff level, as he depends on funding from x, etc.) it might work, I reckon. One could add that Jesus was a simple man and lived a parsimonious life, cut short of course, etc. No problemo...in fact it might energize ppl and give them a common purpose, which would be a thrill. The reason why this doesn’t happen, to put it simply, is that ppl at the top know realize the great power and advantage and superiority of FF, in the long run, and for them of course.
A couple of days ago, solardoc had a little rant that started, "I think I will puke if I hear the word "sustainable" again."
This is how I feel whenever I hear someone talk about energy independence and then complain about high prices in the same sentence. Americans demand that their oil be abundant, cheap, and discreet. Unless we're prepared to accept a major curtailment in use, these demands are mutually exclusive with 'energy independence.'
Obama wasn't talking to the Oil Depletion watchers community he was talking to voters. Most of these votes are at home, unable to ride around and shop, watching the campaign unfold on CNN and Fox.
He hit the nail on the head, hit the republicans where they are the weakest and positioned himself on one front of the political battle. There will be multiple fronts in this war of politics.
It will be the financial forces that dictate how we will approach the problem if the democrats win. But, at least we may limp along in the right direction. If the republicans win, it will be business as usual.
There is little Choice.
Obama wasn't talking to the Oil Depletion watchers community he was talking to voters. Most of these voters are at home, unable to ride around and shop, watching the campaign unfold on CNN and Fox.
He hit the nail on the head, hit the republicans where they are the weakest and positioned himself on one front of the political battle. There will be multiple fronts in this war of politics.
It will be the financial forces that dictate how we will approach the problem if the democrats win. But, at least we may limp along in the right direction. If the republicans win, it will be business as usual.
"Most of these voters are at home, unable to ride around and shop..."
Huh? What?? Most of them??? As ever, the roads are clogged with traffic.
I live at an apartment complex. When I moved in the parking lot was empty every weekend. The last 8 to 12 months it has been packed with cars every nigh, including weekends. Granted, if you look at the highways, it looks like little has changed.
I talk to the managers at all the supermarkets. They all say the same thing, people are coming in less often and buying less product.
It's the same at the home improvement stores.
Only walmart seems to still be busy but not late at night as they used to be.
"Does he have it right or wrong?" Wrong question. Does he perceive reality? Correct question.
Obama, as with all politicians, is not talking about limits or the population/resource balance -- that is, he is not talking about reality. More denial by those we trust to our future, but then the nation is in denial. Same worn world view -- same old stuff.
Obama puts on a good talk in this speach, but let us not forget his support for coal liqufication, which, contrary to some comments here McCain has opposed (allong with corn ethanol, even when he was campaigning in Iowa). And let us not forget who is giving Exxon all this money--you guessed it, me, you, and everybody else! If you think they make too much money, stop buying their product, or stop bitching.
I'll give you a little anecdote that makes me want to vomit every time I play it through my head. At my college, we had an energy saving competition between the dorms, and afterward we had a get-together to see what the results were, and had a professor to talk about sustainability issues. He talked over and over again about being a vegetarian and stupid crap that really doesn't help very much. I raised my hand and asked him what he thought about how Texas has the most aggressive wind power innititiative in the country, and he responded "well, they execute a lot of people, have a lot of cows that burp a lot, and have a lot of guns [and my thick head can't give credit where credit is due if that credit has anything to do with republicans at all]", and when we asked him what we/the college should do to make the school more sustainable, he told us to "write to newspapers to say you want more to be done". Meanwhile, I went home, weatherized my doors/windows, insulated hot water pipes, got CFLs, got a dryer heat redirector, etc, as well as new projects that I have planned. Moral of the story is until you do your part at home, quit bitching to everybody else that nothing's getting done.
A few points:
1) The markets are more powerful than any one politician - including the President of the United States.
2) Peak Oil and the Export Land Model are doing orders of magnitude more to move us away from oil than anything the United States government will do regardless of who gets elected President.
3) People who look to this or that charismatic figure for hope are deluding themselves. Now, maybe they happier feeling deluded. Though I'd personally prefer they stay focused on reality - no matter how ugly the facts might seem at times.
4) What a politician has to do to appeal to the ignorant masses means the candidates rarely are going to seem all that rational. If you think one of them is making enormous amounts of sense you ought to debug your own thought processes.
5) ExxonMobil is not responsible for the US dependence on foreign oil or for the high oil prices. The limited amount of extractable oil is at the root of the problem. It is easy to demagogue the oil companies. But the real problem is the limited supply of usable fossil fuels.
6) If you want to think rationally and understand the world then feel less partisan loyalty to the Republicans and Democrats. Feelings of partisanship get rewarded by brain circuits for tribalism. Partisan loyalty suppresses the mind's ability to do rational processing of facts.
1. True.
2. True
3. I think the media and the oil lobby have done their share to delude the masses. Most working people really don't have time to spend searching the Internet for facts, many don't have the experience or expertise. . For the common person, avenues for change arn't that plentiful. In this election they have two choices and the option of shrinking their own carbon footprint at home.
4. The person who throws themselves blindly on the bayonet of his oppressor is an ignorant mindless person. Again, you only have two choices.
5. ExxonMobile's responsibility is measured in profit dollars. Unrestrained economic growth and population are the real core problem. Less people doing less work would use less oil, hence, more oil available over time; less carbon in the atmosphere.
6. Again, it's not partisan politics, it choice options, there are only two choices. Thinking rationally and understanding the problem doesn't increase the choices (at this time).
Solely? No. But they are THE single greatest reason why serious action on has not already been taken on fossil fuels. They created a good ten years of delays. That's a huge debt and a huge degree of responsibility.
Cheers
Wow - that is a bold ad. In thirty seconds he just made a lot of enemies.. it doesn't matter what he does or doesn't plan to do if elected, just having the ExxonMobil name trashed so solidly by such a figure will have a lot of 'powerful' people working against him.
While his biofuel support hurts, the fact that he is prepared to take a strong stance against big oil is a good sign that he is not locked into the old ways. This is not just public pandering - making such a strong statement carries a lot of risk as well.
Phil.
Phil,
I think of Obama as Ronald Reagan for 2008.
Note that Reagan ran for small government, lower taxes, deregulation, "states rights" (ahem), and alleged conservative values.
What Reagan actually did was to greatly expand government , increase the debt, and to lay the foundation for aggressive unilateral US military intervention.
Reagan supposedly overcame the "Vietnam Syndrome" with his overt military interventions in Grenada and Panama. Reagan's administration was chock-full of illegal arms sales, drug dealing, and support of death squads in Central America (Iran Contra, Negroponte in El Salvador, etc.)
Obama will run as a progressive, but will continue the Neo-Liberal and NeoCon policies of Global hegemony, or else he will be an isolated and ineffective POTUS.
People who worry about Reverend Wright, BTW, ought to check out "American Fascists" by Chris Hedges. Or check out articles which note that Hillary Clinton participates with Santorum, Brownback, McCain, and the American Christo-fascist TV evangelists in "The Family" which is a global, cultish support group for the powerful which embraces extreme Christian Zionists and Reconstructionists, amoung other right-wing radicals. Obama's former pastor looks downright mild compared to the Bush-Clinton-McCain crowd.
http://ehrenreich.blogs.com/barbaras_blog/
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html
To get back to Obama's ad about oil and energy and public policy. Obama is being carefully packaged. His charisma make him the most dangerous candidate since Reagan. He, like Reagan in 1980, can appear as a change agent while propping up and expanding the old Establishment regime.
BTW, Hedges wrote an excellent article on March 24 describing why either Obama and Clinton will continue the War on Iraq indefinitely.
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/24/7858/
We have three candidates right now who are NeoLiberal, NeoCon, and able to spin "Full Spectrum Global Dominance" three different ways.
Would you like a Progressive Truism Salad to go with that Global Corporatist Hegemony, or would you prefer NeoCon Chicken or Triangulaton Toast on the side?
Hi to the intelligent.
This Blog site is above average intelligence. Every time we say this or that issue is not a popular one and this or that politician will not address certain issues, every time we say certain politicians are aware of certain issues but dare not go there, we are acknowledging just how stupid WE actually are and how little effort and intelligence we are prepared to accept from those we elect to represent us.
WE are the political problem because we only vote for those who will prostitute themselves, lie to us, and steal our money.
The samr theme appears again and again, where certain things cannot be discussed, let alone acted upon.
We are supposed to be the Mentors, the intelligentsia and the guides for the lesser intelligent voters, yet we always take the cop out route.
Why should politicians not be held TOTALLY responsible for every decision they make, and accountable for the rest of their lives.
When it was politically safe and expedient, we suddenly decided that we should show how noble we are by hunting down Pinochet of Chile, 50 years too late. We did not give a damn while he was doing his killing. Argentina, same story.
Is it because we think,"There but for the grace of God go I, so if I let THEM off now, they will not hold me accountable when my turn comes"?
This may be the single most important issue for the whole of mankind, yet we all keep making excuses for our Corporate Officers and their Political pawns.
We have lost our right to complain. WE are the problem. Either that or Democracy has become a sick joke.
WE are the political problem because we only vote for those who will prostitute themselves, lie to us, and steal our money.
and keep us comfortable in the status quo.
or ... Democracy has become a sick joke.
That sounds about right.
I doubt Obama has it right. No politician seems to have it right. But he is at least saying 'something' about what his energy policy will be about. I certainly would like to hear each candidate asked directly their view on peak oil. I can almost anticipate the responses. "America must invest in alternative energy sources", and "We must wean ourselves from our oil addiction" blah blah blah. And that seems to be the problem....it is all blah blah blah. Only reality wil force civilization to change it's ways I am afraid. And I am hopeful innovation can still win the day.
On a completely different topic...have you seen the new chevron ads touting their geo thermal leadership? Lighting up over 7 million homes with geo thermal energy
(apparently not in the US however, although the ads don't state that fact).
I haven't really studied geo thermal energy too much. What is the issue with tapping the mantle?
One thing Obama has going for him is youth (especially compared to Mc-Cane).
Perhaps he can be open minded.
Perhaps he can grasp that we (the "greatest" nation in the universe) did not win the war in Vietnam.
We did not win the war on drugs.
We did not build the Great Society.
We did not become energy independent.
We're not all we crack ourselves up to be.
And just maybe, we got into the mess we're in because we did not listen to those who warned us.
We were too smug.
We were too sure of our righteousness.
We were the smartest guys in the room and still are.
No question that the energy lobby has previously thwarted a lot of efficiency legislation, for many decades. The payoff, to energy-exporting state congress-critters is that energy severance taxes pay a big chunk of their respective states' cost of government, without direct taxes on their citizens. For example, Alaska pays over 80% of state expenditures with oil tax revenue. Per-capita state gov't. expenditures over $12,000/yr, with per capita direct taxes on citizens less than $4000/yr is a neat trick, if you're a pol. In fact, it's a politician's dream to spend but not tax voters. Big oil passes severence taxes along to consumers outside the state.
I think Obama's got the message right, politically and efficiency-wise. A wind-fall profits tax will sell well with voters that are convinced it's all a conspiracy by big oil. Seeing how John Kerry got mauled over a prior hint of increased gas taxes, the direct gas tax approach is a dead end during campaign season.
But you can bet that big oil will manuever to make any "windfall profits taxes" into a pass-thru cost to their customers. Voila! Big gas tax happens, without previously associated political flack to the politician making it happen. And we do need gasoline & diesel to be expensive, to encourage a more efficient fleet.
And since Obama's been known to work closely with Deval Patrick, he'll probably do something similar to what's happening in Cambridge, MA (see PBS NOW broadcast 3/28/08) to make the building stock more efficient. Public financing, using some of the $150 Billion (revolving loan fund, at low interest rates) could make a lot of efficiency retrofits and jobs happen, without actually spending those dollars - just using them as seed money.
This will buy time for investing in whatever alternative energy looks realistically feasible. Judging by what's happening to food prices, corn ethanol's not going to be a big item in Obama's program. He's politically astute enough to know that "let them eat cake" is a more Republican line.
Don't underestimate this guy, he's got his stuff together.
Les Lambert
No matter what Obama says,
I am going to say that McCain will win the election, for the following reason, that the US is now using computers for the elections, and the computers will be fixed to assure that McCain will win by a small margin so that it will look believable.
That is why the republicans want to use computers for the elections.
I feel confident that after the election, I will be able to link back to this post, to point that out again.
If I am wrong, someone else will have to link back to this post to point out that I was wrong.
You may well be right. It may come down, however, to what the Neo-Cons think they can get more mileage from: a supposed razor-thin win or a new 911 and martial law.
Let's hope sanity reigns and neither happens.
A different way to achieve the same thing: A McCain/Powell ticket? Balance the first minority/first femal thing and pull in a lot of independents and middle roaders?
What of an Obama/Powell ticket? Or Hillary/Powell?
Cheers
A fuel tax dedicated to alternative energy developement is probably a good thing, but the idea of windfall profits taxes is not. "Big Oil" ain't so big anymore; most reserves are property of nations now.
While the profit derived from the sale of oil over production cost may be high, the cost of replacing reserves is also very high. There are shortages of drilling equipment capable of doing deep sea drilling and frankly, only big oil or nation states are large enough to do that kind of thing in the first place.
I know of no way to ensure that "Big Oil" will liquidate--take profits from the sale of oil from proven reserves without bothering to try to replace those reserves--than legislation punishing them for making a profit.
However, he is saying what the people voting want to hear.
I agree
The oil companies own a small fraction of world oil and make a small fraction of the total profit.
http://www.energytomorrow.org/energy_issues/truth_about_oil_gasoline_pri...
I always thought it was crazy to pump our domestic oil while foreign oil was abundant and cheap.
I believe that genetic engineering will eventually develop relatively inexpensive technology to make renewable liquid fuel.
The U.S. should develop its offshore oil now to maximize their benefit by reducing the price of oil and the trade deficit, and making it independent of its enemies during this transition to renewable liquid fuel.
I like Obama on the whole, but the "change" required is clearly to immediately start moving away from dependence on cars, not finding other ways to run them, which is clearly insane to anyone who peeks TOD.
This involves foremost an abandonment of the incredibly shortsighted and increasingly stupid zoning rules that promote a trip in the Ford Expedition for every quart of milk.
That people cannot get a grasp on this is unbelievable.
But the expeditionary milk-fetchers pay special taxes that add up to several tens of cents per gallon. How much civil service headcount reduction are you recommending should be done by those who make the zoning rules?
How shall driving gain nuclear cachet?
I found it interesting to view this legal document covering the transport of crude oil and what is involved.
It looks like this document you link to, talks about transporting "CARBON DIOXIDE" , not oil.
I see your join history is one day old.
It would be helpfull if you had a contact email, in your profile , so that I could have emailed you to check this and make changes, istead of posting.