Sunday's Dilbert (or, talk about surreal...)
Posted by Prof. Goose on February 19, 2006 - 4:27pm
Check out the Dilbert cartoon today. I was reading it over breakfast and had this really strange surreal feeling... (link)
“Of all races in an advanced stage of civilization, the American is the least accessible to long views… Always and everywhere in a hurry to get rich, he does not give a thought to remote consequences; he sees only present advantages… He does not remember, he does not feel, he lives in a materialist dream.”
—Moiseide Ostrogorski (1902, 302-303)
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.
just another place trying to tell you that conservation doesn't work, will never work, so why don't you grow up and go out and buy a hummer like everyone else...
I do see their reasoning in that they find themselves having to struggle more to survive yet see others growing fat and consuming with abandon. It doesn't smell right to them, nor does it to me.
They crystallise that onto religion. OK, I have a problem with that, I think it bloody silly, but maybe that's my downer on monotheisms - they seem to lend themselves to such silliness.
Maybe this perceived disrespect for Islam is a proxy for our more fundamental disrespect for them as humans.
When humanity has the possibility and perhaps necessity to coalesce into a powerful wholeness, what I see is the accelerating opposite.
When asked: "But you depicted Muhammad with a bomb in his turban, armed with a knife and with a broken halo that resembled satanic horns."
Flemming replied: The cartoon with horns didn't arouse special criticism; it was the other two. The one with the bomb in his turban doesn't say, "All Muslims are terrorists," but says, "Some people have taken Islam hostage to permit terrorist and extremist acts." These cartoons do not treat Muslims in any other way than we treat other citizens in this country. By treating them as equals, we are saying, "You are equal."
...
Holocaust Cartoons
On 8 February 2006, Flemming Rose said in interviews with CNN and TV 2 that Jyllands-Posten planned to reprint satirical cartoons depicting the Holocaust that the Iranian newspaper Hamshahri planned to publish. He told CNN "My newspaper is trying to establish a contact with that Iranian newspaper Hamshahri, and we would run the cartoons the same day as they publish them". Later that day the paper's editor-in-chief said that Jyllands-posten under no circumstances would publish the Holocaust cartoons. [1] and Flemming Rose later said that "he had made a mistake".[2] [3]. The next day Carsten Juste, the editor-in-chief of Jyllands-Posten, stated that Flemming Rose was on indefinite leave.[4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flemming_Rose
Flemming Rose, cultural editor of Jyllands-Posten, who has "has clear ties to the Zionist Neo-Cons." Rose "traveled to Philadelphia in October 2004 to visit Daniel Pipes, the Neo-Con ideologue who says the only path to Middle East peace will come through a total Israeli military victory.
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=211
Secondly, let us examine the venue - a newspaper that today describes itself as "liberal" in the classical sense, but yesterday openly supported fascism - and particularly the man most responsible for starting this ruckus: Flemming Rose, the "cultural editor" of Jyllands-Posten, who commissioned the cartoons and now is at the center of a rapidly-escalating controversy.
The Iranians have come up with a novel answer to Rose and his fellow provocateurs: they have announced a contest for cartoonists to make light of the Holocaust.
"'It will be an international cartoon contest about the Holocaust,' said Farid Mortazavi, the graphics editor for Hamshahri newspaper - which is published by Teheran's conservative municipality. He said the plan was to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression. 'The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons,' he said."
Of course, the publication of such cartoons would be illegal in most states of the European Union, as well as Canada, and the publishers, as well as the artists, would probably be thrown in jail and forced to issue a groveling apology. Rose is supposedly against any religion demanding "special treatment," but apparently there is at least one exception.
http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8512
The hypocrisy is just too transparent:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060220/ap_on_re_eu/austria_holocaust_denial
I share your sentiments not Irvings.
My reason for posting the link was to show that the "Freedom of the Press" is routinely censored either by law or voluntarily; for reasons of decorum, politics, historic legacy or even domestic tranquility.
To say this cartoon episode is an exercise in freedom is nonsense. It's at least profiteering and possibly incitement. On all sides!
Would any main stream publication in America reprint scurilous cartoons -- printed in Denmark -- of say, Martin Luther King and purport to be acting in solidarity with press freedoms?
Back in the 30s it was another branch of the semitic family and another religion that was demonized. It too was demonized to a purpose, it was too was funded. It's so easy to see something after it has happened, so hard to see it while it is happening. But what is happening right now is a replay, mutatis mutandis.
Back in those days it was easy to find some unsavory financier or slumlord or whatever who happened to be Jewish and put the spotlight on that. Now it's easy to put the spotlight on extreme reactions to provocations to make a whole group seem humorless or worse.
It's completely wrong to fall for this created division. We are heading ever deeper into an endless war that has absolutely nothing to do with a war of civilizations, nothing to do with religion, nothing to do with anything but oil/gas, money, and hegemony. These incitements, these provocations are an absolutely integral part of the military and diplomatic campaigns that are unfolding in front of our very eyes. To think otherwise is very naive.
Tens, if not hundreds, of books have been written about the Holocaust, the anti-semitism that preceded it, and so forth. I've read many during my life, many on Hitler Germany. But I never really understood until now. It takes a great of money and effort to get people to hate other people, people they have no or little knowledge of, but who are no different from themselves, who just want to live, eat, reproduce, make jokes, etc.
The end result is that we are hardened to the fate of those who are bombed, detained, tortured, and killed. The end result is that we say, better them than me. The end result is we find outselves in the predicament Pastor Niemoller found himself in.
It is not only their religion that was insulted. You see in those countries, the "Islamic" Republics, there is no distinction between religion and state, nor is there any distinction between your personal life and religion. Its all in one and one and the same and all things together. It cannot be separated. You insult one and you insult them all. Solidly and wholely melded together. There is no distinction between what the law says and what the Koran say. There is no difference between what you think and what the Koran says, and they don't understand you no matter how many times you tell them. Its one, the same and all things together. You can't even speak of the concept of having anything different.
The number of times you hear something in language as it is spoken every day, is a direct indicator of the function that the idea of the word represents to the culture. How many times do Muslims say, "God willing"? or "if God wants", or "thanks to God". I'd give you a WAG of about 30-40 times each day. They say that every time, yes EVERY time they refer to an event that may happen in the future, or any possible event that they do not have direct control over. When they say, "it might rain today" it is followed by "God Willing". Anything. To me even saying it that many times is amazing, never mind actually believing it. How many times did you hear that phrase today in your office? And IMHO, when a Muslim tells you, or says this, he means exactly what it/he implies and he/she believes it. Really, I can't possibly tell you how different the concept and influence god has between them and "us". Now, I still don't understand the concept of jihad, and suicide bombing that goes with it, and a number of other things, so I'm not saying its all so fantastic... but I will say, we in the west don't "Get IT". When I say, "I'm going to cross the street", I don't say "God willing" at the end of it. And when I think you will read this, I don't say "God willing" either. If somebody drew the same cartoon with Jesus Christ, well I'd use my sense of humor, as would 850 million other people. He just doesn't have any influence on me anymore. Do you understand what I'm "getting at"? Well, I guess its just different. Get to know a moderate but devoute Muslim. If they live in the west, they're moderate, no matter what they say or think. You'll notice something different about them. Maybe you'll like whatever that difference is and you'll begin to understand a little more about Muslims and their religion. I don't mean to sound so NUTS by writing such a long response to such a short comment, but for some reason, I couldn't help myself. A sense of humor just has no relavence in this case. Should I post or not????... maybe... yes.
If such people then are willing to argue and fight for keeping that stupid religious nonsens out of their lives it could get tense. But its worth it, freedom of religion is very important and most important of all is to be able to choose to be free from religion.
"The Clintons started the mess"
I cannot even begin to fathom such historically ignorant statements. The present situation is the result of hundreds of years of history, but the animosities we see today stem mostly from Western actions of the 20th century.
Yeah, Bill never should have talked the British into invading Iraq in the early 1900's, and if he had only refrained from supporting the establishment of Israel, the sabotaging of the elected Iranian government, not had the CIA pay that punk Saddam to assassinate the Iraqi leadership, not meddle with the Iraq/Iran war, etc. Seriously, how can you post such nonsense on a public forum?
Yes, it will be hard to put the genie back in the bottle. So what the hell, they hate us now, lets just kill `em all.
;) :-((
Today there are problems wherever large Muslim minorities live: Kashmir, southern Thailand, southern Phillipines. Can you tell me why they Thai Buddhists, Indian Hindus and Christian Philipinos?
To see the real face of Islam go to: http://www.faithfreedom.org, a website created by an Iranian ex-Muslim named Ali Sina.
So even if there was no Israel, and even if there was no history of Western colonialism, we would have religious wars anayway.
Personally, I have no hope of ever reaching an accomodation with Muslims. I think this problem will solve itself in 30 years when the middle-eastern nations no longer have oil to export. Then their societies will collapse and they will destroy each other.
Funny, I get the feeling they think the same about us.
Anyway, the average person in the Islamic world isn't aware of peak oil. They are too busy debating whether it is permissible for men to shave their facial hair and what kind of clothes are needed to protect woman's modesty. And ofcourse, whenever something bad happens it is a "Zionist Conspiracy" :-)
Have you see that little quote that comes up in the upper right corner of this site?
They know about peak oil, and it just adds to their resentment. The Islamic radicals who are trying to overthrow the House of Saud specifically talk about peak oil, and how Saudi Arabia should not sell a precious, limited resource so cheaply.
Latin America is no different from the rest of the developing world. Its all going to remain FUBAR until the 5% of the people that own 95% of the countries down there start redistributing their wealth. One thing I've noted is that they are never gonna' do it voluntarily. Its not a pretty picture if you or your business interests, or your government leaders are connected into that 5%, but anything other than massive wealth distribution guarantees instability for eternity. Do you know that 28 families own 96% of Mexico? That 5 families own 88% of Colombia. How can that be stable? That's why Colombia has national police (read "army") guard every 5 miles along the only 2 major highways they have. The fact is that I left Venezuela when Chavez was the rising star. I knew he was going to go sky high, because even the Venezuelan engineers I was working with had to farm crops and build their own houses in their spare time to get by on their salaries. And they were the very lucky ones. No public institution other than PDVSA and MARAVEN was functioning, especially the legal system. Anybody with a buck could buy off anybody who didn't have one, or wanted another one. If you had to go to the hospital, you had to bring your own bandaids and get somebody to bring you your medicine and food from the outside. Nobody had anything they needed except gasoline at 15¢/gal. But the gasoline was better for you to drink than was most of the water. I wanted to stay there forever, but I knew his coming to power would not further my interests there at the time, as I just finished working on a Conoco-Maraven pipeline, so I skipped, but I can't say that he's not good for 95% of the Venezuelans. The other 5% will get used to it, or leave. At least Venezuela has some Cuban doctors and sports education now, and I'll bet they have a few bandaids now too. I hear he's working on land reformation and I hope that works. I think he's even trying to do it fairly, starting negotiating with some English Lord of all people that owns 300,000 HA (yes HA) or so and doesn't even live there. And I think gasoline is still about 20¢/gal or so, but not sure about that. But the people need cheap gas there. We can afford to finance it. They can't get fair credit. The word is that its getting better now such that even some ex-Maraven guy I worked with in Saudi thought it was time for him to go back. I'm still thinking about it now too (as ever). Spain is great, but South America... Puerto La Cruz and Barcelona are one of the nicest places you can find on this planet. Buy a ticket and check it out.
Go to Puerto la Cruz,
http://www.world66.com/southamerica/venezuela/puertolacruz
out to the Angel Falls
http://travelsense.igougo.com/photogallery/displayFeaturePhoto.asp?ID=141695
Canaima National Park
http://www.venezuelatuya.com/gransabana/canaima.htm
Cumana
http://www2.world66.com/southamerica/venezuela/cumana/gettingthere/lib/image/change?newimage=/southamerica/venezuela/cumana/gettingthere/cumana
I promise you that somewhere in the back of your head you'll think at least once before going back to Minnesota. You will definitely give up French women.
Now please excuse me.
<Sr. Presidente. Siga luchando por su gente! Hay muy pocos como ustd en esta mundo.>
This is a challenge. I maintain suyog was correct. Neither you nor Gets IT has replied regarding the issue at hand. Maybe it wasn't so important regarding the original point, but it is important now, for it regards one's grasp of reality.
The Ottoman Empire, from which today one finds Turkey, was founded by Central Asian invaders from the the general area of what is today is called "Turk"-ministan. All the Arabian arabs loosly semi-organized tribes fighting mostly individual battles against the Turkish Ottoman Empire and various rival factions amongst themselves until King Saud united several tribes and married as many women as he could possibly do to bond the tribes as solidly as he could. The Turks eventually left the area around WWI, only to be followed by our wonderful British and French friends, who promptly divided the area up into unstable districts. We still pay for their mistakes today. Lawerence of Arabia made his fame by actually uniting a small faction of a few of the western mideast Arab tribes for a very short time in an effore to fight "Ottoman oppression" during WWI, but we know he was just sucking in the Arabs to fight alongside the British against the German's Ottoman allies.
Today there are still rival factions amongst the many houses of Saud. Each tribe still retains its own power base and too much of its original independence in its traditional area of influence. It is not easy for a Saudi from Riyadh to live in Mekkah or the Asir Province. The Asiris don't like admitting that Sauds in Riyadh control that province to this day. This is the reason that there are so many Arabic states that have survived in the east all the Emerites city states, Qatar, Bahrain, Kewait, and the southern regions of Iraq to this day. The Empty Quarter made communication among the inland Arabic tribes impossible towards the southern coast.
The situation along the Med is a little different due to the more hospitible climate where it was not so difficult for outsiders to reach and Arab tribes were forces to unite from time to time to resist invaders, but the Turkish Ottoman Empire was more or less the masters of the area for several hundred years. Across the Sahara Desert, communication was difficult and only lose official relations between various Arabic nation states were maintained, until the Ottomans arrived, when some cohesion was reached.
Other than that, Moroccan "Berber" tribes, who IMHO are not Arabic, but are of Islam, invaded the Iberian Peninsula and held it longer than Spain and Portugal have had it 'till this day. They were finally thrown out in 1490 (?) only 2 years before Colon went to the USA.
TMALSS (to make a long story short.. ha. ha.) All the rest of the major battles of the area were fought by filthy diseased, cut-throat barbarian crusaders from Europe invading their long ago lost "Holy Lands".
Later, when the Ottomans were on their takeover bid for the world campaign, they reached the gates of Vienna, before being turned back. Turing that time there were hundreds of battles over several hundred years, but that was the Euros against the Ottomans...had nothing to do with Arabs.
So, that's the history of the mideast interactions with late western cultures as far as I ever needed to know about it and I lived there many years just fine with that limited amount of maybe wholely wrong information.
So if none of it is true, nothing I can do about it, or want to... so I'm dropping it.
My point was that Muslims (whether Turks or Arabs) have a long history of exterminating or persecuting other religions that predates western colonialism and crusades. Within the lifetime of Mohammed, non-Islamic religions were eliminated from Arabia (which includes S.A., Oman, Yemen, UAE).
So even if the crusades had not happened and even if there was no European imperialism and even if there was no state of Israel, religious conflict with Muslims was inevitable.
Do you agree or disagree?
As for the reference you so kindly supplied, I decided that, just as I do not take every word in the Christian Bible to be a litteral command and use my reasoning abilities to make certain "adjustments" in principles required for modern day applications, so should Muslims. I think the real danger to us all is being too "fundamental" to think for ourselves.
Times have changed much since when Mohammad began with the Quran, the Arabian Peninsula was a vastly different world than it was just a few hundred years later and who knows how his enemies actually treated his tribe at the time? Maybe drastic measures and biblical type commands of such severity was necessary to protect his tribe from them? Even today in many areas of the United States, the words you hear are "Shoot first and ask questions later". Is that really that much different than the words your reference to the Quran implies, when brought up to date to apply in modern times?
Basically, I think too much of anything does nobody any good. We should all learn tolerance and cooperation will get us much farther along than rabbid beliefs of one thing or another that forget all reason. So, no I don't tend to take these things so litterally that I see it as inevitable. We all just need to understand each other more as the world changes. The only thing I see as inevitable is change, death and taxes, so we'd better learn to deal with all of them very soon.
The history of Islam is full of blood right from the start.
India is a secular democracy with a large (second largest in the world after Indonesia) and growing Muslim minority. The president of India (a figurehead) is a Muslim; its Prime Minister is a Sikh. The leader of the ruling Congress party is a Christian of Italian origin.
- Oil, if available, is sold to anybody who has the money and desire to buy it at the current price. This is called demand.
- Efficiency is useless (Jevon's Paradox)? If we use less, somebody else will use more? I guess so in some cases but Dilbert wants to do the right thing. Powering down is the only ultimate solution. The problem is convincing everybody everywhere of this fundamental truth. Oil & gas are scarce resources looking into the future. Powering down means decreasing consumption.
- Oil is fungible, meaning one barrel from here is as good as (interchangeable with) another barrel from there. Even this is not strictly true. Heavy sour oil or potential oil from kerogen in marl rock or unprocessed tar sands are not interchangeable with light sweet crude (depends on the SPE API).
So, noting these fundamentals, nobody believes that buying a Prius to decrease consumption and increase efficiency deters financing of international terrorism regardless of oil's fungibility and the demand for it. It is despicable for Adams to set up a straw man and then have Dogbert knock it down. This straw man has nothing to do with efficiency, Jevon's paradox, demand or fungibility--all these concepts seem to be embedded in there somewhere. So when I read this cartoon, I just stared at it thinking what could this man possibly be thinking? And when I saw the intelligent design link down below, that just about sealed it for me.Adams' statement that "developing countries" will just buy the oil misses the point that they don't have as much money as we do, and thus wouldn't fund the terrorists at the same high rate as we are. As by far the largest buyer in the market, we're pushing the demand and the price up -- at our own expense!
The Dilbert strip is ridiculous, and will no doubt encourage all kinds of wrong thinking.
Dilbert's always about how there's no hope because people are just too stupid.
This strip is about how there's no hope because people are just too stupid.
It doesn't matter that there would be hope if people understood the problem and worked toward a solution - that's also true of every other thing that Adams pokes fun at. Unless you believe that that Adams shouldn't be allowed to poke fun at Peak Oil (and I doubt that you do believe that) then the subject is as fair game as is anything else.
I'm often very fond of Dogbert cartoons and my criticism of this one is that it's just not very funny.
Didn't know Scott Adams was a Creationist, though. :-(
As far as people being too stupid to solve their self-created problems in general, I agree with that. In fact, half the world makes a living off trying to solve the problems that the other half creates.
However, in this case, reducing consumption and the fungibility of oil have nothing to do with each other as regards financing Jihadist terrorism. I only vaguely remember a story about a physicist who was presented with a theory about something or other. Having listened to it, he said "Your theory isn't right. In fact, it isn't even wrong. It's just complete nonsense." That's how I felt when I read this cartoon. Adams should stick to making fun of corporate culture, which he understands, and lay off peak oil and evolution--which he clearly does not understand. I can't wait for that climate change cartoon now.
Yeah, but if we didn't create those problems, you wouldn't be able to make a living solving them.
The fact that we are discussing peak oil and climate change within the paradigm of current economic dogma highlights the precise way in which we manage to not talk about the real issues at all even while thinking that we are.
Climate change and peak oil have to do with the way we humans interact with our habitat. We do not think about ourselves that way at all, and so we intereact with our habitat as though it is an infinite source of energy (and other resources) and also a convenient infinite waste sink. That is the real economy. Economy comes partly from "oikos" meaning "household." Until we understand that, we will continue to burn up and poison our household while thinking that we've made progress.
Poor dilbert. Poor dogbert. Poor Friedman. Poor us.
The fungibility of oil has only to do with oil understood as an abstract commodity to be extracted and sold, bought, and consumed without reference to the real economy at all.
I'm glad the topic is broached in popular media. That alone is a kind of progress. Now we will see if new ways of thinking will make their way into such discussion.
We need to see ourselves in a whole new way. dilbert and dogbert --like nearly everyone --are stuck without the conceptual tools to work on the issue.
I'll repeat myself but... IMO people will be surprised to see how much they can do without.
http://dilberito.com/
Sweet energy deals
Fri Feb 17
http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20060217/cm_usatoday/sweetenergydeals
"This week came the disclosure, first in The New York Times, that energy companies won't have to pay a nickel for an estimated $66 billion worth of oil and gas to be taken from government-owned sites in the Gulf over the next five years.
That's right: Certain companies, currently enjoying record profits, will earn at least $7 billion more by not having to pay the usual royalty of 12% to 16% for pumping oil and gas from public property.
Thanks to a generous investment in Washington's pliant politicians, this heist is perfectly legal.
A decade ago, when oil prices were relatively low and exploration was slack, the industry got royalty relief written into law. With bipartisan support, Congress voted to waive royalties for a time as an incentive to spur potentially costly deep-water drilling in the Gulf. It seemed to many like a good idea."
Red State, Meet Police State
FEBRUARY 15, 2006
A federal employee gets hassled by Homeland Security for antiwar stickers on his car. Is it a mistake, a new rule, or the part of a trend of the First Amendment being bullied out of existence? Read the transcript, read the rules and decide for yourself
Dwight Scarbrough's idea of political dissent is one that rubs some people the wrong way. He likes to blame his compulsion for peaceful troublemaking on his birthday: October 2, the same as Ghandi. However, a few of Scarbrough's techniques are all his own--especially when it comes to his truck.
For instance, when the Iraq War was looking imminent, not long after September 11, Dwight attached a garbage bag to the back of his truck bed. He splattered the bag and the truck with ketchup and added a sign reading, "This veteran knows that our children are worth more than a $6.95 body bag." When he drove down the freeway, the bag would inflate and appear occupied.
"That one was a little in-your-face and on-the-edge," Scarbrough recalls. "It got a lot of response."
Snip ......
http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=158729
This is a website that shows historical US production going back for decades: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0502.html
(average US 2004 oil production, 5.43 mbpd)
This is a website showing top world oil producers and net exporters:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html
(average US 2004 oil production, 8.69 mbpd)
Note the "slight" discrepancy of 5.43 versus 8.69. I believe that the latter number reflects refinery gains and every possible form of liquid petroleum. It might be a good idea to do a post on the difference between the various types of oil production estimates.
's funny.
So some of the discrepancy is NGLs, but a significant amount of it appears to be straight error on the part of Infoplease.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/oilproduction.html
This is a list of the EIA's downloadable international production excel spreadsheets.
The files that will allow you to make the relevant comparisons are all labeled 'All countries 1980-2003'
There is one for the total barrels, from which they get the 8.69 number. Then there are three others for NGPLs, RPG, and 'Other Liquids'
The lower 5.43 number is straight crude including only lease condensate.
If you want the more recent monthly and yearly numbers they are also available on this page, but for only select countries, the US being one.
Our production of NGPLs,RPG, and 'other liquids,' the last time I checked has been growing as a percentage of our total production. Worldwide, it averages 13%. Ours is whatever that is -35%? My assumption is that that is due to both the large and highly efficient characteristics of out production/refining system. Only Canada, Saudi, and Brazil really compare.
I'll ask this of anyone who knows, what is RPG?
If my logic is correct. We produce 10 barrels of crude and we put those 10 barrels into a refinery. We get x amount of barrels of gasoline, diesel, and everything else - plus 1 barrel of RPG. This barrel of RPG is considered crude equivalent - so we then count this barrel as part of our "produced crude" for next year(or next month, or whatever). I still want to figure this out. Recursive production?
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/scott_adams_is_a_wally/
http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=%5EGOX&t=3m&q=l&l=on&z=m&c=%5EOIX&a=v&am p;p=s
I wasn't able to track it back to where the discussion was the other day but it certainly looks as if those that can afford gold are edgier than those of us who are forced to afford oil.
All the real America needs to do is turn away from "Amerika" and the Empire. Bring the soldiers home and close the bases. Reduce the Pentagon's vastly inflated budget and turn away from destructive militarism. It's incredibly wastful and your really don't need it. Use the money to re-build American industry, education and infra-structure. Give a billion to Africa for ten years without strings but controlled by the U.N. Americans would be richer, healthier and far, far safer. All this madness about creating an invincable Empire is doomed to failure anyway. Only fools and madmen dream of ruling the world, if history teaches us nothing else, it at least teaches us that much.
I would add, however, that Bush is not the only demon. There is too much willful ignorance amongst much of the US populace and media, they, to some extent, choose to not see what their country is doing 'on their behalf'.
As far as I can tell from what I've read, the UK is actually far more down the road toward a totalitarian state than the US, given its massive public surveillance program. Though the US is hardly far behind, and will probably catch up and pass the UK before too long, I think one must have to look to see how one's own house is in order.
I think this trend is global. The Powers that Be want to put in place mechanisms that will maximize their ability to control the masses when The Shit Hits the Fan.
This is not a good time for true democracy or personal liberty. Once it is gone, it is gone for good.
If we don't watch out, we will all become worker ants.
In some ways the UK (where I live) is further down the totalitarian road than the US, in other ways it lags behind.
We have much more CCTV surveillance, there is no evidence so far that is being abused by the state but it could be. Our government can be more secretive than the US's but it seems the US government has ways around that nowadays. It is always wise to keep an eye on one's government just in case they begin to seriously overstep the mark. I would say that it feels to me that the US govt has made more sweeping changes recently compromising individual freedom than has the UK govt, and that where the UK govt has tried to they have met more resistance.
I'm reminded of "The War Game" a film made for the BBC in 1963 but not shown on TV till 20 years later. It was about a nuclear attack on UK but the most important and chilling bits, to me, were the exercise of arbitrary state power and justice: summary shooting of presumed looters, billeting of displaced people in houses in safe areas (if you didn't comply you get displaced, LOL), and the like.
I still think it would be easier for the UK to evict or change its government should it so choose, but I am equally sure the UK government could rapidly exercise more draconian powers than just about any other democratic government. In the end it comes down to what the people think, how aware and informed they are, and how important they consider their freedom is compared with other considerations.
Perhaps I have just argued myself into a despondent corner, both for UK and US.
But I still note that even with all those CCTVs (that are always watching me whenever I go there it gives me the creeps) nobody stopped the Tube bombings. Makes me wonder what use they really are. Maybe they aided quick identification of the bodies of the terrorists and aided capture of any live associates still lurking around to do the next one, but still didn't stop the original act. Maybe we should all get one of those webcams for all our little heads issued to us when we get to HRW and wifi the signals them back to NSY in realtime, or JFK homeland and wifi to NSA-CIA-FBI as the case may be. Or ... gps satellite Nikes.
If not ahead already we'll soon be racing past the US down that totalitarian road.
On another subject: The lack of any serious mention of peak oil by the UK Green Party seems perverse to me. Before the last UK elections I checked out the political sites for any mention of PO. There was one very brief mention of it in a Green Party conference speech, other than that Michael Meecher (Labour, ex-environment minister) is the only politician who has spoken about PO that I could find at that time.
http://www.epolitix.com/EN/MPWebsites/Michael+Meacher/home.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/06111.i-ii.html
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/en/06111x--.htm
In its 'Preconditions' section, direct link:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/111/06111.1-4.html#j003
subsection (2) it states:
(2) Those conditions are that--
(a) the policy objective intended to be secured by the provision could not be satisfactorily secured by non-legislative means;
(b) the effect of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective;
(c) the provision, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it;
(d) the provision does not remove any necessary protection;
(e) the provision does not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise.
Under the notes to the bill relating to (2)(d) and (2)(e) :
- The fourth condition is that the provision made by the order does not remove any necessary protection. This condition is the same as one of the safeguards in section 3 of the 2001 Act. No order can be made unless the Minister is of the opinion that it would maintain any protections that the Minster considers to be necessary.
- The fifth condition is that the provision made by the order will not prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which he might reasonably expect to continue to exercise. This condition is also the same as one of the safeguards in section 3 of the 2001 Act. It recognises that there are certain rights that it would not be appropriate to take away from people using an order, and has certain parallels with the concept of 'legitimate expectation'.
- The Minister is also required to set out in the explanatory document (clause 12) laid before Parliament why he considers that these conditions are met.
This provides some reassurance, notably in (d) and (e), but it remains to be seen how "necessary protection" and "right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect" might be interpreted.Now, considering the phenomenon of regression to the mean, what would we consider the likely quality of the first Bush's children to be?
Mean. No, no, I mean closer to the mean than the first Bush.
BTW regression to the mean is one big reason why monarchy cannot work very well for very long. (Although, if you know a lot about population genetics, it could be argued that there are good reasons for aristocracies and monarchies to interbreed, despite problems with harelips and hemophilia.)
Anyway, I think bashing Bush, Cheney and Co. is a big waste of energy. There are far, far more important issues.
It's also true that oil is a fungible commodity (with the exception of some non-market treaty arraingements) and someone is going to buy it.
That said, I think there is still room for a couple arguments:
- at the group level, our society probably would be more wealthy and secure with a lower "energy intensity" in our economy.
- at the individual level, I know that it keeps bucks in my pocket to lower the "energy intensity" of my household.
So sure, Dilbert can buy a Hummer ... but he still might be a victim (in more ways than one) when he goes to fill it up.But if I buy less oil, the same conclusion doesn't follow. Dogbert is just confused. Not surprising, he's just a dog.
OTOH, I guess his point is that you can't selectively hurt one oil exporter by reducing demand, without hurting them all about the same. I guess that's true. Not that I care. I got a fuel efficient vehicle not to hurt anyone, but because I just like it and it saves me money. And pollutes less. I mean, not everything is about sticking it to someone. Lighten up, people!! (I mean dogbert.)
By coincidence I looked up "fungible" yesterday -- hey I knew what it meant but just wanted to check the official definition -- honest!
But I was amused to get this definition:
[edit: oops, I missed that there was another definition, which is what I was reallly looking for,]
While Scott Adam may be a bit off-base regarding peak oil, he is nevertheless an ally in the struggle against institutionalized aburdity. And we should all be grateful for that.
Love live Dilbert!
Dogbert is the worst in everything. He will rot in hell. And heck, Dilbert can not even get laid! This is not a bad cartoon, nor is it a bad statement.
Get real folks. Love live Dilbert!
More-efficient cars are not going to increase the carrying capacity of roads, so anyone whose commute is limited by time (which is many) is not going to increase driving distance in response to better economy. And if we cut back on our own consumption, the third-world economies which are no longer priced out will consume it instead but won't be paying the producers as much; a similar amount of oil will probably be produced, but less money will change hands.
Current popular arguments against hybrids are suspicious. Wired Magazine hurled specious ridicule about Hybrid technology in its recent issues. "Plug-in Hybrids won't achieve all they're cracked up to be", and, "GM demolishes hybrids" in research labs. An issue of Popular Science hypes the utterly preposterous hydrogen fuel cell car and the next issue asks, "Is your battery dead?"
The phenomenal promise of Plug-in Hybrids ought to be debated extensively, rather than let right wing shills and idiotic cartoonists frame the debate.
Do you know how many high-fuel-economy vehicles must be sold each year(in the US)to offset yearly growth in gasoline consumption?
Or is this a trick question?
But first. Do you know how many new vehicles are sold in the US each year? I don't, but just want to put the question and answer in scalable perspective. We are working off a vehicle base of about 230 million.
Also, and I should have said this before, a high-fuel-efficiency vehicle is one that gets approximately 25% better gas mileage that its equivalent counterpart. So if a pickup gets 20mpg, the h-f-e version would be like the Escape Hybrid or something that gets 25mpg.
One million is not the answer, but please try again.
The battery packs lower vehicle center-of-gravity, improving stability, handling and safety; a perfect application for top-heavy SUVs. The Plug-in Hybrid is applicable to every class of vehicle, from compact to heavy freight truck.
Perhaps most important, the owners of any weight class of Plug-in Hybrid gain an economic incentive to drive only the shorter distances which their limited battery packs provide, thus patronize and build local economies. In time, more destinations become accessible without having to drive. Walking and bicycling become practical alternatives. And, mass transit systems can be more practically arranged.
We don't need to hear about Hybrids being futile because the oil they save will be used elsewhere. The argument in their favor blows the doors off opposing argument.
Because that may well be negative. So it won't take any high-fuel-efficiency vehicles to offset it. :)
We waste so much now, we can reduce consumption without breaking a sweat.
http://joshreads.com/index.php?cat=54