Peace through strength

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Is the following a good philosophy by which to dictate a country's foriegn affairs?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

1. A significant amount of our energy needs are derived from Mid-East oil and we provide most of the technology and know how to make this happen. If the flow of oil is disrupted by the actions of some nation in the Persian Gulf (most likely Iran) we would be in a world of hurt if we could not intervene to clear the sea lanes for oil tankers, etc. Likewise, if western oil companies are not present much of their production and maintenance will be degraded, again leading to disruptions. While I hope that alternative solutions like Canadian tar sands or coal gasification will help eventually, realistically it would be several decades to wean ourselves off Mid-East oil even if we go full bore toward alternatives. I don't see how we can not be there.

We would be filling up our cars with vegetable oil by now if it were NOT for the Middle East.

The cold hard truth is, we have the resources available that would enable us to go energy self sufficient practically overnight. Solar, Wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, biofuel, and nuclear technologies have been around for decades (some of them thousands of years).

So why am I not typing on a solar powered computer as we speak?

Because politicians love money. Our great nation (land of the free, liberty and justice for all, spreader of democracy) is one in which "democratic" elections are sold off to the highest bidder. Litterally.

Consider this statistic: in the last election, 95% of winners were those who spent the MOST money on their campaigns. Know where most of the winners get their money? Yes, apparently anyone with cash and an agenda can get what they want in this country. It's okay Exxon, have faith in the system. It won't let mean old democracy get in your way.

Curious as to why rediculous legislation (e.g. tax breaks for rich, rejection of kyoto, refusal to up fuel economy standards, mininscule government provisions for alternative energy technology) gets passed? Now you know.

"We is addicted to oil". I wonder what was running through George's mind when he made that statement? "And I would have it no other way..."

The Bush family is, of course, inundated with upwards of 1.4 billion dollars of Saudi oil money. Gee, I wonder if that helped him out in the election any?

Oil has a monopoly on the economy. It's influence is so great that we would risk millions of foreign and American lives to keep it's hierarchy intact. There's American democracy for you. Is this really the system we want to pass on to the Iraqi's?

Anyway, back to the point. We need Middle East oil like New Orleans needs another storm surge.

2. How do we deal with the large wave of Muslim immigration (especially in Europe)? The western nations have no means to separate themselves from Muslims because they are already significant minorities in many of these countries. Perhaps if we were somehow able to extract ourselves from the Mid-East, these immigrants would have less motivation to engage in terror attacks, but the nations will still have to deal with a minority culture that will choose the dictates of Sharia over the laws and rules of conduct of the host nation. This is bound to lead to conflict, Mid-East or no Mid-East. So as concerns your statement about Christians staying on our side of the border, I say too late, they are already across OUR borders.

First of all, why do 99.9999999999% of Muslims move West?

Because, as you can imagine, the Middle East is f*****g miserable. Recent generations of young Muslims are looking to Europe and America; they see women with their faces uncovered, seemingly normal businessmen rising to riches, people free enough to enjoy the simple pleasures in life- and more. They immigrate not to spread fundamentalism or deploy shoe bombs, but to experience life beyond the abhorent Allah-infested stinkhole that Muslim royals dare to call a society. If they wanted to follow the dictates of Sharia law, they would have stayed at home.

So what is the other .00000001% doing there? Well, pretty much what Al Qaeda operatives are doing in New York and London. Unfortunately, this small minority and their rash actions overshadow the rest of the prominent (sane) Muslim community within our nations.

How do we deal with these guys? The same thing we do with all religious fundies. Back out of their homelands and let them sober up to Western ideals.

I'm not so sure that Africans or South Asians (India, Sri Lanka?) would be all that thrilled if we "meddled" there either. Most of the African nations are artificial constructs based on arbitrary lines drawn on some colonialist map that do not take into account historical tribal boundaries. As a result many of these countries have endemic civil war that really amount to big tribal rumbles. These are aggravated more by religion where, for example, you have Muslim and animistic tribes duking it out in both the Sudan and Chad and you have Christian and Muslim tribal conflicts in Nigeria. US intervention would basically be about picking winners and losers among tribes in a country.

No, I am pretty sure most of Africa is ready to move forward.

In Kenya, US senator Barak Obama is the biggest celebrity. In many countries, there are more pictures of Oprah hanging around than that of their elected leaders. Many primitive democracies all ready exist. Some African leaders have been lobbying for US companies to actually send sweat shops into their communities to provide jobs (is a new wave of globalization on it's way?). Western influence I feel would be largely welcome in Africa.

Religious extremism is not so much of an issue as it is in the Mid East (Somalia and Sudan aside). Religious practices are much more diverse. Christians and Muslims live side by side in many nations. The various tribal rites are never evangelical, and if left be, will never become an issue.

As far as South Asia, I suppose you could get involved in Sri Lanka and try to decide if the Tamil Tigers are terrorists or freedom fighters. Or perhaps intervene in Myanmar to kick out the authoritarian thugs that run this country. In all the places you would run into some of the same tribalism issues that also infect the Middle East.

Come on, South Asia is positively clamoring for US investment. You usually only hear about China and India, but I understand there are a number of operations in Thailand and Cambodia as well. I also think the aid recieved from the tsunami a couple years back may have helped quell much anti-foreign influence.

[Metatron]

The cold hard truth is, we have the resources available that would enable us to go energy self sufficient practically overnight. Solar, Wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, biofuel, and nuclear technologies have been around for decades (some of them thousands of years).

Uh, no. If you would care to argue that all of these have the possibility to make significant contributions to our future energy needs and deserve more funding, etc. then I'm with you. (Heck, I even own stock in a solar company called Evergreen Solar, so I'm certainly on board!) But energy self-sufficiency overnight, ain't happening no matter how gung ho the effort. Some of these like nukes and hydro-electric require billions of dollars and years of construction time. Solar, wind, and geothermal can help around the edges or within certain areas but are not currently viable as a major power source. The technologies are improving but not cost effective on the scale required. Even with the current $70 dollar oil, ethanol for instance requires a large government subsidy to make it cost effective, at least with corn as the feedstock. (Lifting import restrictions on Brazilian sugar cane might help.)

Energy self-sufficiency will, unfortunately, requires several decades, even if started in earnest right now. All of the above alternative energy sources could potentially make contributions (though we would have to overcome the objections of a lot of tree huggers to ever get nukes back off the mat), but even greater contributions, at least in the near term, will have to come from hydrocarbon resources closer to home including:
1. Alaskan oil drilling
2. Offshore drilling on the continental shelf
3. Canadian oil sands
4. Coal gasification
5.Expansion of the use of natural gas

All of these including a gradual ramp up of CAFE standards may eventually get us to that elusive energy independence. (Though if oil drops back to $35 a barrel, most of the above stops be economically viable and would require massive subsidies to keep going.)

Consider this statistic: in the last election, 95% of winners were those who spent the MOST money on their campaigns. Know where most of the winners get their money? Yes, apparently anyone with cash and an agenda can get what they want in this country. It's okay Exxon, have faith in the system. It won't let mean old democracy get in your way.

While I'm in full agreement that our current system of lobbyists and vote buying political contributions is seriously whacked, I do get tired of people jumping up and down on the "evil oil companies" as if there political contributions and influence were some how disproportionate to other lobbying groups. Let's just take a look at this.

Here are some numbers I pulled from the website PoliticalMoneyLine.
http://www.fecinfo.com/cgi-win/x_sic.exe?DoFn=

Top contributors PAC hard dollar contributions 2005-2006 partial:

1. Organized Labor $41,173,374
2. Finance, Insurance $38,040,513
3. Health Care $26,668,567
4. Communication, Technology $16,288,667
5. Transportation $16,122,191
6. Energy, Natural Resources $15,433,931

You'll note that those fiends the energy companies only make it to number 6 on this list and yet you seem to want to discuss evil Exxon without mentioning the AFL-CIO or Citigroup or maybe Pfizer. The government may be bought, but the energy industry is no more guilty of it than others.

Anyway, back to the point. We need Middle East oil like New Orleans needs another storm surge.

Until you present your instant energy self-sufficiency plan, I will consider this statement unproven.

2. How do we deal with the large wave of Muslim immigration (especially in Europe)? The western nations have no means to separate themselves from Muslims because they are already significant minorities in many of these countries. Perhaps if we were somehow able to extract ourselves from the Mid-East, these immigrants would have less motivation to engage in terror attacks, but the nations will still have to deal with a minority culture that will choose the dictates of Sharia over the laws and rules of conduct of the host nation. This is bound to lead to conflict, Mid-East or no Mid-East. So as concerns your statement about Christians staying on our side of the border, I say too late, they are already across OUR borders.

First of all, why do 99.9999999999% of Muslims move West?

Because, as you can imagine, the Middle East is f*****g miserable. Recent generations of young Muslims are looking to Europe and America; they see women with their faces uncovered, seemingly normal businessmen rising to riches, people free enough to enjoy the simple pleasures in life- and more. They immigrate not to spread fundamentalism or deploy shoe bombs, but to experience life beyond the abhorent Allah-infested stinkhole that Muslim royals dare to call a society. If they wanted to follow the dictates of Sharia law, they would have stayed at home.

So what is the other .00000001% doing there? Well, pretty much what Al Qaeda operatives are doing in New York and London. Unfortunately, this small minority and their rash actions overshadow the rest of the prominent (sane) Muslim community within our nations.

How do we deal with these guys? The same thing we do with all religious fundies. Back out of their homelands and let them sober up to Western ideals.

Well I sincerely hope you are correct about the percentages above. I agree that most Muslim immigrants are reasonable people who just want to get ahead in life. I also agree that the number of whackjobs willing to blow themselves up for Allah is small (but I probably think this number is larger than you do). However, I think there is a sizable and very assertive minority who are fundamentalist in favor of spreading sharia law and willing to provide financial and moral support to the crazies.

I'm not so sure that Africans or South Asians (India, Sri Lanka?) would be all that thrilled if we "meddled" there either. Most of the African nations are artificial constructs based on arbitrary lines drawn on some colonialist map that do not take into account historical tribal boundaries. As a result many of these countries have endemic civil war that really amount to big tribal rumbles. These are aggravated more by religion where, for example, you have Muslim and animistic tribes duking it out in both the Sudan and Chad and you have Christian and Muslim tribal conflicts in Nigeria. US intervention would basically be about picking winners and losers among tribes in a country.

No, I am pretty sure most of Africa is ready to move forward.

In Kenya, US senator Barak Obama is the biggest celebrity. In many countries, there are more pictures of Oprah hanging around than that of their elected leaders. Many primitive democracies all ready exist. Some African leaders have been lobbying for US companies to actually send sweat shops into their communities to provide jobs (is a new wave of globalization on it's way?). Western influence I feel would be largely welcome in Africa.

Religious extremism is not so much of an issue as it is in the Mid East (Somalia and Sudan aside). Religious practices are much more diverse. Christians and Muslims live side by side in many nations. The various tribal rites are never evangelical, and if left be, will never become an issue.

I agree that there are a few places in Africa that may be ready to move forward, the aforementioned Kenya and South Africa being the ones that come to mind. However, most African nations are tribal hellholes with frequent civil wars, little infrastructure, and a poorly educated base population. Perhaps if these countries can ever their political house in order (probably requiring re-alignment of borders to refect ethnic realities rather than the doodling of colonial administrators), maybe they can start making the slow climb to prosperity.

As far as South Asia, I suppose you could get involved in Sri Lanka and try to decide if the Tamil Tigers are terrorists or freedom fighters. Or perhaps intervene in Myanmar to kick out the authoritarian thugs that run this country. In all the places you would run into some of the same tribalism issues that also infect the Middle East.

Come on, South Asia is positively clamoring for US investment. You usually only hear about China and India, but I understand there are a number of operations in Thailand and Cambodia as well. I also think the aid recieved from the tsunami a couple years back may have helped quell much anti-foreign influence.

I believe this area is far more promising than Africa (aside from Sri Lanka and Myanmar). While a whole lot of development needs to happen in Indo-China (Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos), countries like Thailand, Malaysia, etc. have real potential and are about where Taiwan and South Korea were twenty years ago. Some like Indonesia and the Philippines have issues with Muslim terrorist which could still slow down their progress.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Energy self-sufficiency will, unfortunately, requires several decades, even if started in earnest right now.

As a matter of fact, we have been at it more than several decades; almost four. Since 1970 the US has been looking towards energy independence- only nothing has happened, as the oil companies have the energy industry in a chokehold, and the government is tied up in a number of corrupt dealings with foriegn regimes.

Brazil has recently achieved 100% energy independence after three decades of industry overhauls. I figure the US, with many times the means, technology, and incentive, could have this same feat accomplished in under ten years.

Of course, that being in a perfect world devoid of giant corporate trusts. In Brazil, where the government has more control over these conglomerates (and doesen't make cheap deals with evil regimes behind it's citizen's backs), this wasn't such a problem.

While I'm in full agreement that our current system of lobbyists and vote buying political contributions is seriously whacked, I do get tired of people jumping up and down on the "evil oil companies" as if there political contributions and influence were some how disproportionate to other lobbying groups. Let's just take a look at this.

......

You'll note that those fiends the energy companies only make it to number 6 on this list and yet you seem to want to discuss evil Exxon without mentioning the AFL-CIO or Citigroup or maybe Pfizer. The government may be bought, but the energy industry is no more guilty of it than others.

Why would I bash Citigroup and Pfizer in a discussion of Middle East affairs?

The whole system is screwed up; that goes without saying. What invites oil companies such a seemingly unproportionate share of the criticism are the grave moral ramifications they create in the shameless perpetration of their agenda.

Are the Labor, Insurance, and Transportation industries completely disabling our nation from preventing global warming? Are they responsible for the unchecked amounts of pollution dumped into our atmosphere, causing millions of premature deaths every year? Are they purposely giving the government incentives to invade foriegn nations, kill millions of innocent civilians, and support evil rulers and regimes all for the financial awards?

MORE people need to get mad about this. The American "free market" has our government in shackles. Politicians depend on corporations to buy them elections, and then in return allow insurance, health care, and energy costs go unchecked.

Until you present your instant energy self-sufficiency plan, I will consider this statement unproven.

Overnight? Not quite. However, the point was, in a truly free market, we could all ready be self-sufficient.

The movement started in the 70's. You'd think we would have made some progress by now. Brazil sure has.

I agree that there are a few places in Africa that may be ready to move forward, the aforementioned Kenya and South Africa being the ones that come to mind. However, most African nations are tribal hellholes with frequent civil wars, little infrastructure, and a poorly educated base population.

A common stereotype. Most African tribal relations are actually quite peaceful (but of course, you will never hear about those on the news- massacres are much more exiting). The conflicts that do exist are, as you said, because of the inaccurate borders, but also because of the scarcity of resources, which often drives groups to the ultimatem- kill or starve.

Providing the necissary foreign capital and infastructure will inevitably result in fewer conflicts. At any rate, losing millions of hours of potential manpower to malnutrition and AIDS is hardly an asset to the world market. There are numerous profitable (not to mention more ethical) enterprises beyond the Middle East that the US could currently be undertaking.

If we could just oust Exxon and Halliburton from behind the reigns of our insatiable military machine (itself a product of army contractor lobbyists), then perhaps we could actually accomplish something good for the nation (and the world), instead of stirring up more Islamic aggression.

[Metatron]

Energy self-sufficiency will, unfortunately, requires several decades, even if started in earnest right now.

As a matter of fact, we have been at it more than several decades; almost four. Since 1970 the US has been looking towards energy independence- only nothing has happened, as the oil companies have the energy industry in a chokehold, and the government is tied up in a number of corrupt dealings with foreign regimes.

Ah, yes. It's all the evil oil companies fault. How dare they drill in some of the most dangerous, inhospitable places in the world for fairly run of the mill profit margins (far less than in finance, pharmaceutical, or tobacco industries, for example) to provide the energy to keep America from becoming a third world country! Of course, it's all their fault!

Naturally, the "no nukes" crowd in the 70's who effectively killed all nuclear power plant construction in this country for the last 30 years had nothing to do with it.

Nor of course, the Sierra Club and pals who have stymied oil drilling in Alaska and the continental shelf all of these years.

Not the environmentalists who successfully lobbied Clinton to classify the Kaiparowits Plateau in Utah and it's 62 billion tons of coal as part of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument.

Not agricultural companies like Archer-Daniels-Midland who successfully lobby Congress to impose tariffs restricting Brazilian sugar cane which is a more efficient input for ethanol production than American corn.

Certainly not people like Ted Kennedy who block the building of wind farms in places like the coast of Cape Cod because it ruins the aesthetics of their million dollar beach houses or animal rights activists who block wind farms elsewhere because of the hazard of harming migratory birds.

Nothing to do with government regulators and "not in my backyard" protesters who have prevented the building of new oil refinerys in this country thus keeping refining margins unnaturally high.

Nah, it's all Exxon and Haliburton's fault despite the fact that they soldier through boom and bust cycles where they are excoriated for their "windfall profits" during booms and offered no solace during the busts.

Brazil has recently achieved 100% energy independence after three decades of industry overhauls. I figure the US, with many times the means, technology, and incentive, could have this same feat accomplished in under ten years.

While I find what Brazil has done quite commendable, there is a big difference between converting a relatively poor, developing country with the largest sugar cane crop in the world by a long shot over to ethanol versus converting the largest industrial nation on earth with less efficient feedstocks like corn.

While I'm in full agreement that our current system of lobbyists and vote buying political contributions is seriously whacked, I do get tired of people jumping up and down on the "evil oil companies" as if there political contributions and influence were some how disproportionate to other lobbying groups. Let's just take a look at this.

......

You'll note that those fiends the energy companies only make it to number 6 on this list and yet you seem to want to discuss evil Exxon without mentioning the AFL-CIO or Citigroup or maybe Pfizer. The government may be bought, but the energy industry is no more guilty of it than others.

Why would I bash Citigroup and Pfizer in a discussion of Middle East affairs?

Because your bashing of Exxon and other oil companies would give someone else the impression that they have "bought" the government even though they were only sixth on the list of PAC contributors. If you want to see who's trying to buy the government, how about the unions who contributed more than two and a half times the money that the energy industry did!

The whole system is screwed up; that goes without saying. What invites oil companies such a seemingly unproportionate share of the criticism are the grave moral ramifications they create in the shameless perpetration of their agenda.

What "shameless perpertration of their agenda" are you talking about? What evil, nefarious plans have the Dark Lords of Exxon, Chevron, et al. been concocting? Any proof of this sinister agenda outside of a Michael Moore movie?

Are the Labor, Insurance, and Transportation industries completely disabling our nation from preventing global warming? Are they responsible for the unchecked amounts of pollution dumped into our atmosphere, causing millions of premature deaths every year? Are they purposely giving the government incentives to invade foriegn nations, kill millions of innocent civilians, and support evil rulers and regimes all for the financial awards?

Hmmm.... maybe if environmental whackjobs hadn't killed of the nuclear power industry 30 years ago we wouldn't be so worried about greenhouse gases, air born pollutants, or having to protect the oil flow out of the Persian Gulf. Just imagine.

MORE people need to get mad about this. The American "free market" has our government in shackles. Politicians depend on corporations to buy them elections, and then in return allow insurance, health care, and energy costs go unchecked.

Agreed, but maintain that the energy industry is neither more or less to blame for this situation. The true culprit is our stagnated two party system where about the only thing the two parties agree on is the means to rig electoral advantages to incumbents and feed at the pork trough.

I agree that there are a few places in Africa that may be ready to move forward, the aforementioned Kenya and South Africa being the ones that come to mind. However, most African nations are tribal hellholes with frequent civil wars, little infrastructure, and a poorly educated base population.

A common stereotype. Most African tribal relations are actually quite peaceful (but of course, you will never hear about those on the news- massacres are much more exiting). The conflicts that do exist are, as you said, because of the inaccurate borders, but also because of the scarcity of resources, which often drives groups to the ultimatem- kill or starve.

Well, I may need you to point out some of these African countries where they are singing kumbaya. African nations that presumably would not qualify, at least based on conflicts over the last 20 years, include Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Liberia, Nigeria, Angola, the Congo, Ruanda, Burindi, Mozambique, Uganda, and suspect others if I cared to look into it.

If we could just oust Exxon and Halliburton from behind the reigns of our insatiable military machine (itself a product of army contractor lobbyists), then perhaps we could actually accomplish something good for the nation (and the world), instead of stirring up more Islamic aggression.

Okay, let's pretend I agree with you. So what do we do RIGHT NOW? Even if I agreed with your rather optimistic assumption of when we could achieve energy independence, even you acknowledge it would take most of 10 years. So how do we go about separating ourselves from these Islamic countries? Do we pull all of our troops out of Iraq and go ahead and let the full blown civil war start? Do we pull out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban and Al Qaeda take back control of the country? Do we order all of our oil companies out and let the oil infrastructure in these countries go to hell in a handbasket? Let Iran have a free hand in dominating the Persian Gulf? Renege on our commitments to Israel? What's the game plan?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Ah, yes. It's all the evil oil companies fault. How dare they drill in some of the most dangerous, inhospitable places in the world for fairly run of the mill profit margins (far less than in finance, pharmaceutical, or tobacco industries, for example) to provide the energy to keep America from becoming a third world country! Of course, it's all their fault!

.....

Nah, it's all Exxon and Haliburton's fault despite the fact that they soldier through boom and bust cycles where they are excoriated for their "windfall profits" during booms and offered no solace during the busts.

Yep, pretty much.

The Reagan administration cut federal funding for alternative sources by 90%. That amount had dipped another 50% by the early 90's, and Bush (the new one), despite all his renewable energy talk, is seeking to cut that funding even more. Have the hippy tree huggers done anything even remotely this signifigant in the haulting of alternative technology? Do you honestly think that the oil lobbyists are not contributing to such rediculous policy's?

The day following Bush's latest presidential victory, oil stocks alone boosted the Dow average up 101 points; A tell tale sign of the administration's distain for alternative energy companies. Smart investors knew the bulging oil profits that would inevitably follow Bush's victory. The Bush family gets 1.4 billion dollars a year from Saudi companies alone. Do you really think that has no effect on his policy's?

You mention anti-nuclear tree-huggers of the 70's. Know what also happened in the 70's? A number of cost efficient eco-friendly cars were in the last stages of development, and ready for production. Then along came the mainstream manufacturers in league with the oil industry. They bought up the prototypes and never let them see the light of day. My mom once knew a guy from the University of Arkansas (or somewhere in that area) who designed a highly fuel efficient motor. No one thought much of it at first. However, to everyone's surprise, the invention sold lightning fast. The lucky buyer? An oil company (she does not remember which one, sorry). Needless to say, that engine never entered production.

In 2004, following the US invasion of Iraq, ChevronTexaco Corp.'s second-quarter profit more than doubled, topping off the most prosperous stretch in the oil giant's 125-year history. Of course, The $255 million benefit from changes in income tax laws governing some of ChevronTexaco's international operations helped. How nice of the government to help them out (while most fledgling alternative industries are failing to get off the ground)? Did I mention Condolezza Rice was DIRECTOR of Chevron?

Around the end of last election, Bush had recieved 280 signifigant corporate donations. Kerry had 52. Want to bet which industry(s) made up the majority of George's donations?



I agree that a lot of environmentalists have their priority's skewed. However, the influence of the oil industry on this issue is unmatched.

Also, for clarification; although the industry's greed is cause for great moral retribution, for me the real nemesis in this issue- the root of all the problems- is in fact the very system that allows rich corporations to take such control. First and foremost I would like to see an overhaul of the nation's campaign contribution system, which currently serves as merely a tool for the rich. The staple of a successful capitalist economy is free competition. The government needs to do more to foster that. Then, and only then, may the alternative energy industry take hold.

Because your bashing of Exxon and other oil companies would give someone else the impression that they have "bought" the government even though they were only sixth on the list of PAC contributors. If you want to see who's trying to buy the government, how about the unions who contributed more than two and a half times the money that the energy industry did!

"Unions"? Of what?

I think you are getting a skewed perspective from this PAC contributer list. Most top contributers on that list (such as the unions) have few common goals; the only thing linking them is the nature of their business. Labor unions, therefore, have a relatively small effect on policy, given that they are throwing their weight around in such substantially different directions (as opposed to oil/pharmacutical/health contributers, who all have one goal- increase profits). In addition, their money is usually contributed in small increments, and to a wide array of canidates. Only corporations can afford to shelve out billions of dollars to single politicians in one go. This gives and their cause a great advantage, for obvious reasons.

What "shameless perpertration of their agenda" are you talking about? What evil, nefarious plans have the Dark Lords of Exxon, Chevron, et al. been concocting?

Those inflating their own profits, of course (all at the expense of consumers and the environment).

Well, I may need you to point out some of these African countries where they are singing kumbaya. African nations that presumably would not qualify, at least based on conflicts over the last 20 years, include Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Liberia, Nigeria, Angola, the Congo, Ruanda, Burindi, Mozambique, Uganda, and suspect others if I cared to look into it.

What kind of country (even peaceful ones) hasn't been involved in a war in the last 20 years?

What you may or may not realize, is that there are positively thousands of different tribes and ethnic groups in Africa. Now, count the number of tribes/political units in the country's you just named who are/have been perpetrating violence. What's the number come to? Ten? Twenty?

That leaves us to conclude that, at it's worst, there are 20 out of 1,000 African tribes who have recently gone to war.

Once again, you are never going to hear about peaceful tribal relations on the news. The violence in Africa is signifigant, but far overblown.

Okay, let's pretend I agree with you. So what do we do RIGHT NOW? Even if I agreed with your rather optimistic assumption of when we could achieve energy independence, even you acknowledge it would take most of 10 years. So how do we go about separating ourselves from these Islamic countries? Do we pull all of our troops out of Iraq and go ahead and let the full blown civil war start? Do we pull out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban and Al Qaeda take back control of the country? Do we order all of our oil companies out and let the oil infrastructure in these countries go to hell in a handbasket? Let Iran have a free hand in dominating the Persian Gulf? Renege on our commitments to Israel? What's the game plan?

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes (respectively).

There is positively nothing we can do in the Middle East at the moment that will improve anything. In fact, most of the adverse effects in the scenario's you posed are of a direct result of our unwelcome involvement. For example:

Do we pull all of our troops out of Iraq and go ahead and let the full blown civil war start?

Civil War would never have been an issue had we not needlessly intervened in the first place.

Let Iran have a free hand in dominating the Persian Gulf?

If the whole world (and the US in particular) wasn't so oil oriented, and operated solely on safe, sustainable sources, there would hardly be any incentive for them to dominate, would there?

There's a sure fire way to stop the bloody maylay over oil between Mid East nations. Stop buying it. When they start looking for another niche' to fill, globalized industry will be ready to swoop in to the rescue (and possibly help to civilize/westernize them without any blood-shed involved).

Renege on our commitments to Israel?

And eliminate perhaps the greatest contributing factor to anti-western violence? Hell yes.



Distancing ourselves from the middle east is perhaps the noblest thing we can do for the livelihood of their citizens. What funds the horrible regressive Islamic regimes? Oil money, of course. As their oil industry dries up (in the optimistic notion that most of the world switches to renewable sources sometime soon), they will have to look West in order to keep their economy afloat; the only viable opportunities will likely exist exclusively in the global economy. Cruel regimes will lose power, and more tolerant, democratic forms of government will eventually replace them in order to better accomodate the westernization of their economy's. That's the ideal scenario, at any rate. Regardless, I am sure that our influence can be more effectively utilized elsewhere (preferrably in a more ethical place and manner, as I have all ready expressed).


Can we make the switch? With over half the available federal funds going to the Pentagon, who would know?

I don't think you have an accurate perspective of just how little our government is doing in regards to alternative energy. However, even without the governments help, the biofuel industry is currently producing upwards of 10% of all our nation's electricity. If small businesses can accomplish this (even in the face of daunting opposition from the oil industry), just think of what can be done under a concerted nationwide effort, as what happened in Brazil thirty years ago?

Politicians like to make it sound as if energy independence is some impossible utopian ideal. In reality, the only impossible feat we need overcome is their perpetual love affair with the oil industry.

[Metatron]

Ah, yes. It's all the evil oil companies fault. How dare they drill in some of the most dangerous, inhospitable places in the world for fairly run of the mill profit margins (far less than in finance, pharmaceutical, or tobacco industries, for example) to provide the energy to keep America from becoming a third world country! Of course, it's all their fault!

.....

Nah, it's all Exxon and Haliburton's fault despite the fact that they soldier through boom and bust cycles where they are excoriated for their "windfall profits" during booms and offered no solace during the busts.

Yep, pretty much.

The Reagan administration cut federal funding for alternative sources by 90%. That amount had dipped another 50% by the early 90's, and Bush (the new one), despite all his renewable energy talk, is seeking to cut that funding even more. Have the hippy tree huggers done anything even remotely this signifigant in the haulting of alternative technology? Do you honestly think that the oil lobbyists are not contributing to such rediculous policy's?

1. I like how you hand waved everything I said about alternative factors concerning our energy dependence and went right back into your evil oil company rant. So let me expand on the most important of these factors, namely the snuffing of nuclear power in the 70's by the "no nukes" crowd.

Several times you have brought up Brazil as a model to follow. Well let me bring up another, France. Unlike the U.S. , the French continued the development of nuclear power through out the thirty plus years that our local nuke industry has been stymied by activists. The result?

Quoting from an article in Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power

United States

In 2006 in the United States, there were 104 (69 pressurized water reactors and 35 boiling water reactors) commercial nuclear generating units licensed to operate, producing a total of 101,289 megawatts (electric), which is approximately 20 percent of the nation's total electric energy consumption.

This is actually more than I would have imagined given that we haven't built a new nuke plant for over 3 decades. But let's compare this to France shall we?

In France, as of 2005, 78% of all billed electrical energy was generated by 58 nuclear reactors, the highest share in the world. France closed its last coal mine in April 2004, and currently relies on fossil energy for less than 10% of its electricity production.

Do you still think this is insignificant? Imagine if we had continued building out and presumably improving our civilian nuclear power infrastructure all of these years. Even if we had not succeeded in emulating these great numbers from France, nuclear energy consumption numbers that were even within shouting distance of them would have allowed the U.S. to power fossil fuel only items like automobiles from our OWN fossil fuel resources, allowing us to effectively thumb our noses at OPEC. (This would be even more true if some of the same nitwits had not also been blocking Alaskan oil and drilling on the U.S. continental shelf.)

2. Even assuming I accept your numbers concerning cuts in alternative energy research (a reference might be nice and, by the way, I'm not sure how a 22% INCREASE in the alternative energy research budget by Bush counts as a cut), these presumed cuts are largely irrelevant to the overall energy picture. I've heard no one (other than yourself) who has suggested that the alt-energy technologies, with the possible exception of bio-fuels, are close to being ready to replace large scale use of fossil fuels. The most optimistic plan I've run across put forward by a pro-alt-energy group (unfortunately I'd have to hunt around for the reference) was the 25 in "25 plan which proposes to move the U.S. to 25% alt-energy usage by 2025. Even this would be challenging to achieve but is not a pie-in-the-sky notion like converting everything over to alt-energy.

The day following Bush's latest presidential victory, oil stocks alone boosted the Dow average up 101 points; A tell tale sign of the administration's distain for alternative energy companies.

No, a tell tale sign that oil company shareholders were relieved that Kerry and the Democrats were not going to be able to steal all of their profits with an asinine "windfall profits tax".

The Bush family gets 1.4 billion dollars a year from Saudi companies alone. Do you really think that has no effect on his policy's?

Okay, this is the second time you've mentioned this utterly absurd figure.
According to Slate magazine, George W. Bush has a net worth of around $9 million to $26 million. I'm not sure what George Sr.'s net worth is, but nowhere near the incredible numbers your suggesting. If you would be so kind as to cite a reference (other than one of the many paranoid anti-Bush websites) supporting this number, I'd be obliged.

You mention anti-nuclear tree-huggers of the 70's. Know what also happened in the 70's? A number of cost efficient eco-friendly cars were in the last stages of development, and ready for production. Then along came the mainstream manufacturers in league with the oil industry. They bought up the prototypes and never let them see the light of day. My mom once knew a guy from the University of Arkansas (or somewhere in that area) who designed a highly fuel efficient motor. No one thought much of it at first. However, to everyone's surprise, the invention sold lightning fast. The lucky buyer? An oil company (she does not remember which one, sorry). Needless to say, that engine never entered production.

Even if true, this would only have put off the inevitable for a couple of years for the oil companies and would have been a terrible strategic mistake for the American auto industry. By the late 70's and especially the early 80's, Japanese automakers like Honda and Toyota were kicking Detroit's butt with fuel efficient econo-boxes. The free market corrects stupidity like this.

Also, for clarification; although the industry's greed is cause for great moral retribution, for me the real nemesis in this issue- the root of all the problems- is in fact the very system that allows rich corporations to take such control. First and foremost I would like to see an overhaul of the nation's campaign contribution system, which currently serves as merely a tool for the rich. The staple of a successful capitalist economy is free competition. The government needs to do more to foster that. Then, and only then, may the alternative energy industry take hold.

This sounds okay in general but as they say the devil's in the details. What would you consider to be a fair campaign contribution system? And what is your definition of free competition in a successful capitalist economy?

Because your bashing of Exxon and other oil companies would give someone else the impression that they have "bought" the government even though they were only sixth on the list of PAC contributors. If you want to see who's trying to buy the government, how about the unions who contributed more than two and a half times the money that the energy industry did!

"Unions"? Of what?

I think you are getting a skewed perspective from this PAC contributer list. Most top contributers on that list (such as the unions) have few common goals; the only thing linking them is the nature of their business. Labor unions, therefore, have a relatively small effect on policy, given that they are throwing their weight around in such substantially different directions (as opposed to oil/pharmacutical/health contributers, who all have one goal- increase profits). In addition, their money is usually contributed in small increments, and to a wide array of canidates. Only corporations can afford to shelve out billions of dollars to single politicians in one go. This gives and their cause a great advantage, for obvious reasons.

1. Unions give their money overwhelmingly to one political party.

2. Most of these unions are grouped together in large umbrella organizations like the AFL-CIO or the Teamsters and have unified direction to their funding.

3. The union leaders are not morons. They know, like any other lobbying group, to concentrate their funds stategically to Congressional committee chairs and other significant powerbrokers just like the corporate boys do.

What "shameless perpertration of their agenda" are you talking about? What evil, nefarious plans have the Dark Lords of Exxon, Chevron, et al. been concocting?

Those inflating their own profits, of course (all at the expense of consumers and the environment).

I think I was looking for something a little more meaty than a propaganda statement. Can you cite a specific instance of some immoral legislation that the oil companies were pushing so I know what you're talking about?

Well, I may need you to point out some of these African countries where they are singing kumbaya. African nations that presumably would not qualify, at least based on conflicts over the last 20 years, include Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Liberia, Nigeria, Angola, the Congo, Ruanda, Burindi, Mozambique, Uganda, and suspect others if I cared to look into it.

What kind of country (even peaceful ones) hasn't been involved in a war in the last 20 years?

What you may or may not realize, is that there are positively thousands of different tribes and ethnic groups in Africa. Now, count the number of tribes/political units in the country's you just named who are/have been perpetrating violence. What's the number come to? Ten? Twenty?

That leaves us to conclude that, at it's worst, there are 20 out of 1,000 African tribes who have recently gone to war.

Once again, you are never going to hear about peaceful tribal relations on the news. The violence in Africa is signifigant, but far overblown.

Eh? I didn't count the number of tribes in conflict, I counted the number of entire COUNTRIES who had experienced and/or are still experiencing civil war (and I suspect that I undercounted). Who knows how many tribes have been involved in all of these wars?

Okay, let's pretend I agree with you. So what do we do RIGHT NOW? Even if I agreed with your rather optimistic assumption of when we could achieve energy independence, even you acknowledge it would take most of 10 years. So how do we go about separating ourselves from these Islamic countries? Do we pull all of our troops out of Iraq and go ahead and let the full blown civil war start? Do we pull out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban and Al Qaeda take back control of the country? Do we order all of our oil companies out and let the oil infrastructure in these countries go to hell in a handbasket? Let Iran have a free hand in dominating the Persian Gulf? Renege on our commitments to Israel? What's the game plan?

Do we pull all of our troops out of Iraq and go ahead and let the full blown civil war start?

Civil War would never have been an issue had we not needlessly intervened in the first place.

I didn't ask whether or not it was a good idea to have entered Iraq. I was none too thrilled with the idea myself. I asked what do we do NOW? Do we pull out knowing that their will be a three way (at least) civil war and probable Iranian intervention? Are you okay with the even greater loss of life and the possibility of Iran controlling Iraq's oil fields?

Let Iran have a free hand in dominating the Persian Gulf?

If the whole world (and the US in particular) wasn't so oil oriented, and operated solely on safe, sustainable sources, there would hardly be any incentive for them to dominate, would there?

And if I had pixie dust, I'd be able to fly. The world doesn't operate solely on safe, sustainable sources nor is it likely to for the foreseeable future. Who cares what we wish were the case, we have to deal with reality.

There's a sure fire way to stop the bloody maylay over oil between Mid East nations. Stop buying it. When they start looking for another niche' to fill, globalized industry will be ready to swoop in to the rescue (and possibly help to civilize/westernize them without any blood-shed involved).

There's a sure fire way to start a global depression and that's to stop buying the oil that the world's industry needs to function!

Holy Cow! Do you think we are buying oil from these people because we like them and want to give them a leg up in life? NO! We're buying their oil because we NEED IT!

Renege on our commitments to Israel?

And eliminate perhaps the greatest contributing factor to anti-western violence? Hell yes.

And thus demonstrate our faithlessness to our allies for all the world to see! Not to mention abandoning the only functional democracy in the region.

Distancing ourselves from the middle east is perhaps the noblest thing we can do for the livelihood of their citizens. What funds the horrible regressive Islamic regimes? Oil money, of course. As their oil industry dries up (in the optimistic notion that most of the world switches to renewable sources sometime soon), they will have to look West in order to keep their economy afloat; the only viable opportunities will likely exist exclusively in the global economy. Cruel regimes will lose power, and more tolerant, democratic forms of government will eventually replace them in order to better accomodate the westernization of their economy's. That's the ideal scenario, at any rate. Regardless, I am sure that our influence can be more effectively utilized elsewhere (preferrably in a more ethical place and manner, as I have all ready expressed).

I basically agree. I'm just pointing out that this isn't happening any time soon. By all mean see if bio-fuels will work on a large scale here (still think your going to need to have the Brazilian sugar cane tariffs lifted to make ethanol a go) and try to get more juice out of alt-energy. Your still going to need more nuke plants and more North American hydrocarbon sources like the Canadian tar sands, coal, and natural gas. Put all of this together and you might get there in twenty years or so. But not soon enough to ignore the political and economic realities as they exist today.

[MagusYanam]

I like how you hand waved everything I said about alternative factors concerning our energy dependence and went right back into your evil oil company rant. So let me expand on the most important of these factors, namely the snuffing of nuclear power in the 70's by the "no nukes" crowd.

Several times you have brought up Brazil as a model to follow. Well let me bring up another, France. Unlike the U.S. , the French continued the development of nuclear power through out the thirty plus years that our local nuke industry has been stymied by activists. The result?

Well, from where I stand, it's the environmentalist types who want to bring back nuclear energy. (I wasn't around in the '70's, so I'm going to have to defer to your experience on that point.) Check out TrueMajority - these guys are pretty left-of-centre on pretty much all the issues, and one of their primary goals is dismantling the United States' nuclear armaments and using the by-products (and the proceeds) toward developing nuclear power and lessening dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Even if we had not succeeded in emulating these great numbers from France, nuclear energy consumption numbers that were even within shouting distance of them would have allowed the U.S. to power fossil fuel only items like automobiles from our OWN fossil fuel resources, allowing us to effectively thumb our noses at OPEC. (This would be even more true if some of the same nitwits had not also been blocking Alaskan oil and drilling on the U.S. continental shelf.)

Sorry, friend. There are other concerns besides energy autarky at stake. I don't care how many Alaskans say they want to drill - they shouldn't be able to, because the bottom line doesn't add up to the actual worth of the territory. The tundra and the Arctic waters are federal public territory to be disposed of as the American public (note, not the oil industry) sees fit. More importantly, they are part of a declining ecosystem these days the demise of which, if we were wise, we would do our best not to ensure or accelerate.

1. Unions give their money overwhelmingly to one political party.

2. Most of these unions are grouped together in large umbrella organizations like the AFL-CIO or the Teamsters and have unified direction to their funding.

3. The union leaders are not morons. They know, like any other lobbying group, to concentrate their funds stategically to Congressional committee chairs and other significant powerbrokers just like the corporate boys do.

Start following the news. The Teamsters in my home state (about as blue as blue gets in this country) were not endorsing the Democratic ticket in this coming election - they were endorsting a bunch of independent candidates in both state and federal offices. (I think that if it's true of the Rhode Island Teamsters, it's very likely true for the Teamsters in more conservative states.)

Do we pull out knowing that their will be a three way (at least) civil war and probable Iranian intervention? Are you okay with the even greater loss of life and the possibility of Iran controlling Iraq's oil fields?

Well, these (as always) are the hundred-billion dollar questions, aren't they?

But then again, it seemed from the start as though Bush hopped the country on a one-way train into a latter-day Vietnam. We have on our hands an artificial country with a decades-long history of sectional tensions, created after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after the first World War and dominated by Sunni Arabs since.

I'd have thought the reasonable thing to do in this case was to get all the leaders of all the factions to the table and tell them, 'Look - we all know we won't be able to get along under the same government, because one or more factions will walk away holding a grudge.' Then we would hammer out a deal by which every party would get, more or less, what they wanted. The Shi'ites in the east would be able to form their own government, the Sunnis in the west would do the same. And the Kurdish nationalists would get what they always wanted - Kurdestan. The U.N. would then be given the task of monitoring the relations between the new countries. Everyone won't walk away happy, but probably just a little less likely to break out in all-out war. If Czechoslovakia could do it, so can Iraq. And from what I can tell, the Slavic situation after the collapse of the Soviet Union was every bit as complicated and nearly as bloody as the Middle East is today.

We're buying their oil because we NEED IT!

With all due respect, this statement is pure, weapons-grade, precision-guided masculine bovine manure.

This summer, I walked to and from work every day, and drove only very occasionally to go shopping. And that was in a small Saturn station wagon that gets (easily) thirty-five miles to the gallon. And I didn't really even need to do that. The supermarket's within walking distance, if I'm willing to spend my afternoon that way.

Most Americans don't buy oil and gasoline because they need it. They buy it because they can't stand to walk further than two blocks to go anywhere, and they choose to drive in their brand-new Cadillac STS or Range Rover or Volvo XC-70. And they buy it because they can't stand to have their living space vary even in the slightest from twenty-five degrees Celsius.

Believe me on this one - I spent the last few weeks of my summer working in Oulu, Finland. The only SUV I saw over there was in downtown Jyvaeskylae - 350 kilometres to the south - and even that ugly thing had out-of-country plates. My apartment building was cooled to whatever temperature it was outside (and most of the time it happened to be fairly nice, for which I'm grateful).

Are we going to be completely independent of oil within the next fifty years? Probably not, but damn it, I hope so. We've already hit peak production and no number of public wildlife refuges in the chilly north is going to save our collective economic asses now. What we need to do is start altering our lifestyles to better resemble what the state of affairs in Europe is. That will at least soften the blow when it does come.

You worry about economic disasters? Well, allow me to be blunt here: continuing on our present course is not going to help us avoid one.

[Metatron]

Well, from where I stand, it's the environmentalist types who want to bring back nuclear energy. (I wasn't around in the '70's, so I'm going to have to defer to your experience on that point.) Check out TrueMajority - these guys are pretty left-of-centre on pretty much all the issues, and one of their primary goals is dismantling the United States' nuclear armaments and using the by-products (and the proceeds) toward developing nuclear power and lessening dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Well, you'll have to point out where they say this. I went to TrueMajority and could not find anything about it so I did a general search and found a list of TrueMajority's Ten Principles: http://www.venusproject.com/ethics_in_a ... ained.html

Assuming that they are accurate, these principles say nothing about using nuclear power to solve our energy deficiency. Their main principle on the issue is Principle #4.

4. Reduce our Dependence on Oil & Lead the World to an Age of Renewable Energy.

Oil holds us hostage to regimes hated by their own people; their hatred transfers to us. America is 5% of the world's people but we generate 25% of the pollution that causes global warming. It's our duty to lead. We will reduce our energy consumption 25% by 2010. Make a Moon Mission scale commitment to develop solar and wind power technologies. Set and meet a goal of generating 20% of our energy from renewable sources by 2010.

As you can see they wave their magic wands and reduce America's energy consumption by 25% and somehow ramp up solar and wind to take up 20% of our nations energy all by 2010 with nary a mention of nuclear power. They sound well within the mainstream of treehugger orthodoxy.

Even if we had not succeeded in emulating these great numbers from France, nuclear energy consumption numbers that were even within shouting distance of them would have allowed the U.S. to power fossil fuel only items like automobiles from our OWN fossil fuel resources, allowing us to effectively thumb our noses at OPEC. (This would be even more true if some of the same nitwits had not also been blocking Alaskan oil and drilling on the U.S. continental shelf.)

Sorry, friend. There are other concerns besides energy autarky at stake. I don't care how many Alaskans say they want to drill - they shouldn't be able to, because the bottom line doesn't add up to the actual worth of the territory. The tundra and the Arctic waters are federal public territory to be disposed of as the American public (note, not the oil industry) sees fit. More importantly, they are part of a declining ecosystem these days the demise of which, if we were wise, we would do our best not to ensure or accelerate.

1. The main thrust of my argument was that if the "no nukes" bunch had not killed off the growth of the nuclear power industry we would be far more likely to be able to eliminate foreign oil.

2. Part of my point had to do with exploring for oil/nat gas in the outer continental shelf.

3. My personal opinion is that the crunchy granola types are seriously overstating the environmental impact of ANWR. Here is a list of points in favor of ANWR provided by it's proponents at ANWR.org.
http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm

Their reasoning seems pretty persuasive to me, but feel free to find rebuttal material if you wish from the Sierra Club, etc.

1. Unions give their money overwhelmingly to one political party.

2. Most of these unions are grouped together in large umbrella organizations like the AFL-CIO or the Teamsters and have unified direction to their funding.

3. The union leaders are not morons. They know, like any other lobbying group, to concentrate their funds stategically to Congressional committee chairs and other significant powerbrokers just like the corporate boys do.

Start following the news. The Teamsters in my home state (about as blue as blue gets in this country) were not endorsing the Democratic ticket in this coming election - they were endorsting a bunch of independent candidates in both state and federal offices. (I think that if it's true of the Rhode Island Teamsters, it's very likely true for the Teamsters in more conservative states.)

Start following the news??? You think that I should know who all of the various Teamster locals are endorsing around the country? Give me a break!

As for Labor PAC contributions on a somewhat larger scale for 2005 - 2006. We have: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector. ... cycle=2006

Total Amount: $38,359,112
Total to Democrats: $32,646,914 (85%)
Total to Republicans: $5,335,100 (14%)
Number of PACs Making Contributions: 195

Do we pull out knowing that their will be a three way (at least) civil war and probable Iranian intervention? Are you okay with the even greater loss of life and the possibility of Iran controlling Iraq's oil fields?

Well, these (as always) are the hundred-billion dollar questions, aren't they?

But then again, it seemed from the start as though Bush hopped the country on a one-way train into a latter-day Vietnam. We have on our hands an artificial country with a decades-long history of sectional tensions, created after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire after the first World War and dominated by Sunni Arabs since.

I'd have thought the reasonable thing to do in this case was to get all the leaders of all the factions to the table and tell them, 'Look - we all know we won't be able to get along under the same government, because one or more factions will walk away holding a grudge.' Then we would hammer out a deal by which every party would get, more or less, what they wanted. The Shi'ites in the east would be able to form their own government, the Sunnis in the west would do the same. And the Kurdish nationalists would get what they always wanted - Kurdestan. The U.N. would then be given the task of monitoring the relations between the new countries. Everyone won't walk away happy, but probably just a little less likely to break out in all-out war. If Czechoslovakia could do it, so can Iraq. And from what I can tell, the Slavic situation after the collapse of the Soviet Union was every bit as complicated and nearly as bloody as the Middle East is today.

I actually pretty much agree with everything here. In an ideal world, Iraq would become the shining example of a Muslim democracy in the heart of the Middle-East. Unfortunately, this has been exposed as a neo-con pipedream. It may very well come down to a negotiated partition of the country. However, I maintain that a peaceful partition will not occur if there is a rapid pull out of troops. A phased withdrawal of coalition forces in step with progress at the negotiation table and the phase-in of UN peacekeepers might be possible but a rapid withdrawal would only induce a full blown civil war.

We're buying their oil because we NEED IT!

With all due respect, this statement is pure, weapons-grade, precision-guided masculine bovine manure.

This summer, I walked to and from work every day, and drove only very occasionally to go shopping. And that was in a small Saturn station wagon that gets (easily) thirty-five miles to the gallon. And I didn't really even need to do that. The supermarket's within walking distance, if I'm willing to spend my afternoon that way.

Most Americans don't buy oil and gasoline because they need it. They buy it because they can't stand to walk further than two blocks to go anywhere, and they choose to drive in their brand-new Cadillac STS or Range Rover or Volvo XC-70. And they buy it because they can't stand to have their living space vary even in the slightest from twenty-five degrees Celsius.

I'm stunned by the brilliance of your argument. You have cleverly extrapolated your own individual circumstances (working within walking distance, etc.) on the rest of the country and declared that no one else needs gasoline. Funny thing is, most people don't have that luxury.

For example, I live in Houston, Texas. Houston is a very spread out city with most of the middle class living in suburbs on the periphery of the metropolitan area of the city. People commute both to the downtown business district and various edge city business concentrations around the city. The result is that hour long commutes back and forth to work are far from unusual. Add in traveling to shopping areas, schools, etc. most of which are out of effective walking range and you have a very great need for a car.

Plus which you seem to be ignoring the point that oil is not only used to provide gasoline for cars but also diesel for long haul trucks, railroads, jetfuel for airplanes, and for industry in general.

Believe me on this one - I spent the last few weeks of my summer working in Oulu, Finland. The only SUV I saw over there was in downtown Jyvaeskylae - 350 kilometres to the south - and even that ugly thing had out-of-country plates. My apartment building was cooled to whatever temperature it was outside (and most of the time it happened to be fairly nice, for which I'm grateful).

Well, Oulu seems like a pleasant place. (For those who care Oulu's website is : http://www.ouka.fi/english/ They have some decent 360 panorama shots if you want to see what the place is like.)

But I'm not sure what the relevancy is. Am I supposed to equate living in a moderate sized city in Finland to living in a much larger, more congested American city? I not only have a far greater need for transportation but also need to be able to cool my home in the 95 - 100 degree fahrenheit summers. (Incidently, what do the citizens in Oulu do to warm their homes in winter?)

Are we going to be completely independent of oil within the next fifty years? Probably not, but damn it, I hope so. We've already hit peak production and no number of public wildlife refuges in the chilly north is going to save our collective economic asses now. What we need to do is start altering our lifestyles to better resemble what the state of affairs in Europe is. That will at least soften the blow when it does come.

You worry about economic disasters? Well, allow me to be blunt here: continuing on our present course is not going to help us avoid one.

I have not been advocating that we continue on our present course. As I have stated several times now, a combination of resources need to be brought to bear to achieve energy independence. Some will be alt-energy like bio-fuels, solar, etc. Some will be expensive infrastructure projects like nuclear reactors and hydroelectric plants. And some of it will be more local hydrocarbon resources including not only oil drilling in the Arctic and the outer continental shelf but also expansion of use of natural gas, coal gasification, and Canadian tar sands. There will also likely to be some regulatory changes like boosting of CAFE standards for automobiles and trucks.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

1. I like how you hand waved everything I said about alternative factors concerning our energy dependence and went right back into your evil oil company rant. So let me expand on the most important of these factors, namely the snuffing of nuclear power in the 70's by the "no nukes" crowd.

No, I have acknowledged that there are other factors contributing to our poor management of resources (refer again to previous post). It is you, it seems, that refuses to accept the fossil fuel industry and government's major roles in the process.

Now, regarding the no nukes hippys. You have neglected to consider the fact that the oil industry was, ironicly, right beside them in that little movement.

Big oil is big money. More competition means less money. Lobby the government to cut alternative energy spending (refer to Reagan's 90% cut- yes, that effected the nuke industry as well), and you get rid of the competition.

It is a vicious cycle; one that has been in motion even before the 70's. The fact that we as consumers are addicted to oil is only PART of the problem. Just as signifigant is the coal and oil industry's addiction to dominance. Something must be done to shake up the energy market, for if we can't get Exxon and co. to relinquish it's grip, change will remain slow in comming.

In France, as of 2005, 78% of all billed electrical energy was generated by 58 nuclear reactors, the highest share in the world. France closed its last coal mine in April 2004, and currently relies on fossil energy for less than 10% of its electricity production.

Do you still think this is insignificant?

Yes, actually. Don't get me wrong, nuclear power has great possibilities, but it is highly unlikely that it could ever serve as our one saving grace- even if we had continued to pursue it 30 years ago. Powering the United States of America is a whole different ball game compared to powering France.

France has achieved 78% of it's energy production with just 58 reactors. The US has twice that number, but only manages 20% of our needs. And that's just electricity- if I'm not mistaken, most of our consumption occurs in the transportation sector. What are we going to do about that?

The problems here are not limited to the anti-nuclear movement. Not even remotely.

I've heard no one (other than yourself) who has suggested that the alt-energy technologies, with the possible exception of bio-fuels, are close to being ready to replace large scale use of fossil fuels.

From what I gather, the technology is there. The only problem is implementing it. With enough incentive, I feel a giant concerted effort could reap astounding results.

Okay, this is the second time you've mentioned this utterly absurd figure.
According to Slate magazine, George W. Bush has a net worth of around $9 million to $26 million. I'm not sure what George Sr.'s net worth is, but nowhere near the incredible numbers your suggesting. If you would be so kind as to cite a reference (other than one of the many paranoid anti-Bush websites) supporting this number, I'd be obliged.

I can't seem to find any sources giving the true bush family wealth (whether higher or lower than I projected), so I will back off the 1.4 billion number for now (swear I saw it somewhere).

I would like to note, however, that George's net worth that you cited is by no means the amount of money he is LIMITED to.

Bush recieved substantially more campaign contributions than both Kerry and Gore, thanks to his low-tax ilk of corporate junkies. Of particular noteworthyness concerning the current topic is the 1.8 million he recieved from energy companies alone (not including the money his team had access to given their ties to the Bush companys, Cheny's Halliburton, and Rice's Chevron). You've got to be crazy to think he is not fossil fuel biased.

Also consider Cheny's net worth (36 million). Add Bush sr. and Condi Rice in, and I would be very surprised if the number did not top a billion.

Source= http://prorev.com/bush3.htm (scroll to "Cheny stats")

Even if true, this would only have put off the inevitable for a couple of years for the oil companies and would have been a terrible strategic mistake for the American auto industry. By the late 70's and especially the early 80's, Japanese automakers like Honda and Toyota were kicking Detroit's butt with fuel efficient econo-boxes. The free market corrects stupidity like this.

But consider what you just said. The competition that evened everything out came not from within our own borders; it took Japanese automakers to finally get fuel efficient vehicles on our roads.

America in particular has always had a need for fuel efficiency. Why did these innovations not come about in American companies? Is our market really as free as we are led to believe?

A true capitalist economy has never existed. No government is stupid enough to even attempt it. The result would be a rapid elimination of competition, Darwinian style (e.g. the Rockefeller/Carnegie/Vanderbilt/ era).

For a "capitalist" economy to function, therefore, a cursory amount of government interference is required. The US is currently failing to meet this quota.

If anti-trust legislation was enforced today, virtually no current corporation would survive. The American auto industry has long held a tight (albiet transparent) bond with the energy sector. Reasonably fuel efficient vehicles have only recently started exiting American factories, because before Honda/Toyota entered the maylay, it was much more profitable for auto companies to appease their oil company counterparts by making cars as gas-hungry as possible.

The American government does not guide the economy with the best interest of society in mind; they govern in the best interest of individual profit making. Because, hey, the more corporations make, the more campaign money/tax dollars they give to the system. Our market is only free for a select few.

This is perhaps the prime reason America is so behind in energy independence/pollution cutting measures, and is the main point I have been trying to make all along. Independent individuals and businesses must work harder towards these goals, but *true* change may only occur from the inside.

The longer it takes for this to occur, the longer we must remain in the middle-east ruining peoples lives, disrupting cultures, and fostering perpetual global instability. The longer it takes, the harder it will be on our dwindling resources, the more pollution related deaths will occur (both human and non-human), and the faster the atmosphere will heat up.

It's time for a change. I know you can at least agree with me on this point.

This sounds okay in general but as they say the devil's in the details. What would you consider to be a fair campaign contribution system?

Manage the economy as I suggested, and the contribution system may not need fixing.

However, assuming that is easier said than done, here is what I would advocate: Civilian money that is projected as ending up as campaign contributions will be converted to tax dollars, and at the beginning of each election period, is pooled into a whole and dealt evenly to each participating canidate. No candidate may use any personal wealth for campaign purposes.

The precise method of amassing the money without subjecting taxpayers to too heavy a burden will need some work. However, that is the general idea.

I think I was looking for something a little more meaty than a propaganda statement. Can you cite a specific instance of some immoral legislation that the oil companies were pushing so I know what you're talking about?

Their role in the rejection of Kyoto, for one. I love how the "scientists" employed by oil bastions can so conveniently find evidence contrary to that demonstrated by the other 99.9% of the scientific community. Not only that, but taking part in Kyoto would be a great way to help distance ourselves from foriegn oil; something Bush and co. only seem interested in accomplishing as long as the oil industry has the opportunity to continue raking record profits.

Also, in addition to the monopolistic practices I have been primarily ranting on, their shameless lobbying for upper class tax breaks. As if there arn't currently Americans living in poverty and a middle class on the verge of extinction; two groups who could actually use tax cuts.

I didn't ask whether or not it was a good idea to have entered Iraq. I was none too thrilled with the idea myself. I asked what do we do NOW? Do we pull out knowing that their will be a three way (at least) civil war and probable Iranian intervention? Are you okay with the even greater loss of life and the possibility of Iran controlling Iraq's oil fields?

I know that pulling out sounds much easier than it will actually be. I know we can't yank American influence from within fundamentalist Muslim culture overnight. However, we *must* begin taking steps towards distancing ourselves from them. How much strife has come about as result of our far-less-than-philanthropic advances upon Iraq and the surrounding region? It's a whole lot of friction that was entirely preventable.

A "westernized" middle east would not only be beneficial to us, but also to the Muslim community. However, as history shows, assimilation is rarely accomplished by force. The Middle East will progress when it is good and ready to.

[MagusYanam]

Their main principle on the issue is Principle #4.

Don't forget #5. I remember in an e-mail they sent me there was a link to one of their flash movies about how our vast arsenal of nuclear missiles were eating up our budget, and how they would be better applied to energy production. But perhaps I was reading more into their agenda than was actually there.

My personal opinion is that the crunchy granola types are seriously overstating the environmental impact of ANWR. Here is a list of points in favor of ANWR provided by it's proponents at ANWR.org.
http://www.anwr.org/topten.htm

Their reasoning seems pretty persuasive to me, but feel free to find rebuttal material if you wish from the Sierra Club, etc.

While you are fully welcome to your opinion, I would strongly urge you to use your good sense. I'm sorry, but the opinion that the extraction and refinement industries are fully compatible with native ecosystems is suspect at best and is refuted by most experts (i.e. forestry personnel and the vast majority of EEB scientists). Not only that, they want to drill along the coastline. Even though they pass it off as being only 8% of the refuge, drilling along the coastline will have a much broader impact on the ecosystem at large, particularly amphibious mammals such as polar bears (which den in fairly large numbers along the coastal plain) and marine wildlife (including the critically endangered bowhead right whale). Believe it or not, the quick oil fix is not the only thing to be considered here. The two questions that rise most quickly to mind when I read the ANWR.org website are:

1.) How long will the newly created wealth and jobs from the proposed ANWR drilling last?

2.) Will the oil supply (even given the optimistic measures listed there) last long enough to get us onto economically safer ground and

3.) Is it worth the ecological risk?

ANWR.org doesn't answer these questions to my satisfaction.

Start following the news??? You think that I should know who all of the various Teamster locals are endorsing around the country? Give me a break!

As for Labor PAC contributions on a somewhat larger scale for 2005 - 2006. We have: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/sector. ... cycle=2006

Total Amount: $38,359,112
Total to Democrats: $32,646,914 (85%)
Total to Republicans: $5,335,100 (14%)
Number of PACs Making Contributions: 195

It's not exactly a well-kept secret that unions are generally centrist in their politics, though they tend to be more hostile to the controlling business interests (hence, the smaller figures in the Republican column). But the numbers you list are indeed interesting.

Just for the record, I'm no friend of big labour, but that's only one strike against the Democrats. I also oppose big business, big religion and financial corruption - that's three strikes against the Repubs.

It may very well come down to a negotiated partition of the country. However, I maintain that a peaceful partition will not occur if there is a rapid pull out of troops. A phased withdrawal of coalition forces in step with progress at the negotiation table and the phase-in of UN peacekeepers might be possible but a rapid withdrawal would only induce a full blown civil war.

That's a wise plan. I'm in favour of getting it onto the table as an alternative to what both parties are arguing. However, the U.S. forces should start withdrawing troops immediately and hold only enough to ensure peaceful negotiation between the various factions. What we're doing right now is using them as riot police, work for which they aren't cut out, and if we keep using them that way, it could end up more of a quagmire than it already is.

I'm stunned by the brilliance of your argument. You have cleverly extrapolated your own individual circumstances (working within walking distance, etc.) on the rest of the country and declared that no one else needs gasoline. Funny thing is, most people don't have that luxury.

Let's take a look at the statistics, shall we? According to the official census, 79% of the U.S. population lives in urban areas. And, taking Providence, Rhode Island (not Oulu, Finland, note) as an heuristic model, walking distance to work and shops is a 'luxury', as you so quaintly put it, most inner city folks can very easily afford. (And if they can afford it, surely the wealthy lily-white suburbanites can as well. There is plenty of housing in the inner city to go around.)

And I quite frankly admire the chutzpah you demonstrate in extrapolating your own circumstances to every city in the United States after you flame me for doing something similar. I've visited Houston. No offense meant, but it's struck me as one of the most poorly-planned cities I've ever seen. What the hell kind of city needs that much strip-mall territory? If it's got the budget to maintain all that infrastructure, it's got the budget to make some well-needed adjustments to the residential planning.

My point stands. Even if you do need to commute to work or to the store, surely even Houston has at least one Honda or Toyota or Saturn dealership that will gladly sell fuel-efficient vehicles to do it. No urbanite should need a Volvo XC-70 to commute to work every day when any of various small wagons will work just as well. (For the record, I fully recognise the need for farm families to own minivans or four-wheel-drive wagons for various produce and other cargo.)

Plus which you seem to be ignoring the point that oil is not only used to provide gasoline for cars but also diesel for long haul trucks, railroads, jetfuel for airplanes, and for industry in general.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/aer/txt/ptb0201a.html

I'm not ignoring this. Industrial energy consumption still accounts for a sizeable portion of the whole bill (in fact, the second-largest). But I'm noticing how the residential and electric power sectors have been exploding over the past half century. Industrial energy use can be cut in various ways, but I think we can cut out a significant portion of the bill just by better managing residential energy use in the ways I described.

But I'm not sure what the relevancy is. Am I supposed to equate living in a moderate sized city in Finland to living in a much larger, more congested American city? I not only have a far greater need for transportation but also need to be able to cool my home in the 95 - 100 degree fahrenheit summers. (Incidently, what do the citizens in Oulu do to warm their homes in winter?)

Granted. But I think if funding was raised on the municipal and state levels for public transportation, the average American city would be neither so congested nor so wasteful. (The busses I've used in every city but L.A. and Oulu have left a good deal to be desired in cleanliness, punctuality and efficiency.)

In Providence we also have ridiculously hot summers (this last one got into the high 30s Celsius). And the house was cooled to around 28 degrees - cool enough to make living tolerable, if not quite perfectly comfortable. And our energy expenditure was fairly manageable. Also: fans. Great invention. Low power consumption.

And I don't know about Oulu, but in Providence our house was heated to about 15 Celsius. Not perfectly comfortable, again, but tolerable. Also: sweaters and long pants. Extremely low power consumption.

I have not been advocating that we continue on our present course. As I have stated several times now, a combination of resources need to be brought to bear to achieve energy independence. Some will be alt-energy like bio-fuels, solar, etc. Some will be expensive infrastructure projects like nuclear reactors and hydroelectric plants. And some of it will be more local hydrocarbon resources including not only oil drilling in the Arctic and the outer continental shelf but also expansion of use of natural gas, coal gasification, and Canadian tar sands. There will also likely to be some regulatory changes like boosting of CAFE standards for automobiles and trucks.

By 'continuing on our present course' I was speaking specifically in terms of energy consumption, not in terms of sources.

For the record, I'm agreeing with you on every point but the ANWR one, and particularly on the last point you're making. I actually think our difference of opinion (except where ANWR is concerned) is more about emphasis. I'm all for nuke development, and I grant that it will be expensive, but I'm guessing you also think it will pay off in the long run. At the same time, lifestyle change is also a part of the picture that needs to be emphasised. People living forty, fifty years ago bought what they needed, not what looked fancy and trendy. My grandparents could get by with their Mitsubishi Eagle until it broke down, and then with a Subaru Forester for their farm work in upstate Vermont. Why anyone would need a Range Rover in a big city is beyond me.