We breathe it out, so it must be OK
Posted by Yankee on May 18, 2006 - 1:15pm
Yesterday Treehugger (via Think Progress) noted that the Competitive Enterprise Institute is releasing two new 60-second ads aimed at countering scientific claims about global warming. This is, of course, timed to coincide with the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore's movie about global warming.
Today, Treehugger reports that they finally got around to watching the ads, and then they write:
we thought we would look at them to see if they could be parodied, but they cannot, they are already parodies. It is as if they hired Jon Stewart to put them together, because they are truly the funniest thing we have seen in weeks.I couldn't agree more (and apparently, neither can Gristmill.) I have to say that my personal favorite scene—featured in both ads—is when they show a shot of absurdly over-neoned Times Square at night while the voice-over explains how we need fossil fuels to "light up our lives". Oh yeah, this is good stuff. Go take a look.
And let us know if you've actually seen these ads on TV. The CEI website says they'll be airing in 14 U.S. cities from May 18 to May 28, 2006. I'd be curious to know which cities those are.
“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled.”
—Richard Feynman
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.
I probably should work on not taking this stuff too seriously.
In any case, they do a fine job supporting the view that peak oil would have bad consequences. To that end, they probably help more than they hurt anyway. I suspect the US public are nearing a significant tipping point with regard to GW. As shrub goes sour, so do the positions associated with him. Importantly, when he is seen as incompetent, positions that his side have argued are diminished.
Before I get into it, let me provide some important personal background, so that I am not dismissed as some partisan spouting rhetoric: I have never belonged to any political party and most likely never will. Over the decades I have supported candidates of both major parties. I'm at the stage now in my life where I've moved past Democrat/Republican distinctions and and am focussing on what works in life, regardless of which party lays claim to the idea.
With that out of the way, here is the great mystery: why are Republicans seemingly incapable of acknowledging any problems? Ever. Global warming, oil depletion, over-population. You name it and they brush it off as the nonsense of hippie Chicken Littles.
It's gotten to the point where I find that I am distancing myself from Republican friends because we can't talk about these issues. If any of the above mentioned problems arise in conversation, they just dismiss all the data supporting them with out even taking a moment to consider it.
Since early March when the US army report on Peak Oil came out, I have heard three of them basically respond with, "What does the army know?" They stopped short of calling the army "hippies."
So can anyone explain this inability to comprehend any potential threats from our profligate ways? One would think that people who call themselves conservatives would be cautious and regularly evaluating potential risks as well as taking precautionary steps.
I just don't get this mindset. Perhaps from having lived too many years in other countries, I've missed something here.
Welcome back home to the red state of denial.
If they acknowledged there was a problem it would require either guilt or sacrifice. It's easier simply to not believe that there is a problem; no guilt and no sacrifice required.
But the doomer mentality is also probably a rationalization of short sighted selfishness, so I wouldn't be too hard on them.
It's the conservative in me that drove me to start digging into Peak Oil a few years ago after Shell revised its reserves downwards by 25%. I have always equated conservatism with pragmatism in the past. A pragmatist is always scanning the horizon for possible threats.
But certainly not the people who call themselves conservatives today.
Now this is not to say that there are people in both parties who are awake and thinking but the vast majority of both parties want to have their cake and eat it too. They only differ in their opinion of who gets the cake. The notion that there may not be any cake hasn't yet entered their stream of consciousness.
As for Republicans, they've bought into the false religion of endless growth. To challenge that challenges their core beliefs. Whenever you challenge someone's core religious beliefs you can expect fierce resistance, and the Republicans dedicated to endless growth are no exception to that rule.
Now, they habitually call the democrats the 'doom and gloom' party, the party of attacks and no ideas, the 'depression' party...you have probably seen these and more. Not that it's all untrue, or that the retorhic is much better on the democrat side, but to say people are being horribily pessimistic when they are at least pretty close to the truth is just silly.
Of course the best is from Tom DeLay who has the balls to call democrats the 'party of personal destruction'.
I'm surprised. You usually post so many great things on this board, but now this.
Your statement is an over generalization and, frankly, offensive.
I am a conservative, and a registered Republican. I voted for Bush. Now before everyone starts throwing tomatoes at me let me also say that I am one of the strongest advocates of the peak oil problems in my city, perhaps in my State. I share Roscoe Bartlett's words that "Being a Republican and a conservative doesn't mean I'm an idiot." And there are a lot of conservative Republicans that work with me, and many others across the country. The Peak oil Caucus in Congress includes: Roscoe Bartlett(R-MD), Virgil Goode(R-VA), Walter Jones(R-NC), Tom Tancredo(R-CO), Phil Gingrey(R-GA), Randy Kuhl(R-NY), Wayne Gilchrest(R-MD), and John McHugh(R-NY). I am a Republican, in part, because I utterly disagree with many of the "Robin Hood" principles of the Democratic Party (which, by the way, is moving waaaay Socialist.)
Why can't so-called members of the Democratic Party or liberals see any good in the current Administration? My assessment is that they simply don't want to see any good. And that's a pathetic shame.
From my point of view, our country and our planet are in very deep shit. This opinion is shared by a large number of my friends and associates, many of whom happen to be Republican, and conservative. We're going to have a hard landing (the CPI results yesterday are just another tick mark on the list) and I believe that the President knows it and has been doing everything he can to make life appear to be "business as usual" for Americans while they figure out what to do and initiate mitigation strategies.
Positive control over energy supply is one of the unfortunate, but necessary strategies on that agenda (which, sadly, means military action.) What would you have our Administration do instead?...announce to the American people (and simultaneoulsy to the world via CNN) that there won't be enough oil in the next five years to allow the global economy to function well and that the USA will be hit the hardest of any country and people can't drive their precious SUV's anymore? How would that play out? Mass panic?...immediate global stock market collapses?...rioting in the streets? That doesn't sound like a good way to mitigate risk to me. On the other hand, the Administration has regularly been meeting with other country leaders for well over three years on energy issues. I suspect they are quietly attempting to come to some resolution, maybe to be announced at the upcoming G8 meeting.
I would even suggest that they knew very well about the peak oil problem back in Clinton's Administration and some of the current policies are developments and building on actions started during that Administration. I certainly don't agree with everything the President does, and I get downright angry at some things, while some things I think are pretty good. That doesn't mean he is constantly breaking the law so he can create a police state, steal elections, become a king, plot to bomb the WTC, or practice genocide to further the interests of the U.S., as many liberals would have you believe. Oh, by the way, I also get pretty pissed off at things the Democrats do and say too. I just don't categorize all Democrats as stupid...more like, simple.
But today we have a very persuasive media and a pathetically ignorant society who believe that everything they hear from the media is well-researched truth without applying any discursive reasoning or attempts at validation to the information heard. They have been conditioned not to see the forest for the trees. It is obvious to even the most casual observer that the media also doesn't seem to want to find any good in the President -- and it's almost impossible to keep anything a secret. I believe the MSM, in many ways, is actually a threat to the security of our country.
When I find a disparity in understanding with another America, whether Democrat or Republican, instead of angrily debating points or whining to them about "what a criminal Bush is" I tend to attempt to educate them on the issue. I have taken the time to become well enough informed on the subjects to help them out. It seems to work better that way.
Peak oil and environmental issues won't be solved in a competition between Republicans and Democrats. We are all in this together, like it or not. Multiple points of view are what make America tick. And don't worry, you'll get your chances to get more elected officials that share your point of view again, and again, and again in the future....if in fact those points of view are shared by the majority. If they are not, then why not try to educate the majority rather than criticise them? Pull instead of push.
In the meantime, stick to discussing the data on oil depletion and options for preparation. That's what's important.
My guess is that there actually isn't any good to see.
They are looting this country. Either because they know the end is near, or just because they can.
Not that the Democrats are any better, mind...
I was going to say aren't you being "a little black and white, aren't we?" But the last line made me think black and black or maybe black and gray.
Just three off the top of my head.
- the first President to recognize the Palestine state.
- the first President to start a meaningful AIDS program in Africa, albeit with weak teeth.
- "addicted to oil" will be one of the defining lines from his regime.
I am a progressive Jacksonian Democrat, and would not lump all as bad and no good.I don't think it was his idea. Israel took the lead there. Behind the scenes, maybe, but they were clearly ready to deal. Sharon promised an iron fist, came through...and it didn't work. They had to do something different.
I don't buy it at all. All talk, very little money. And he's removed info on condom use to prevent HIV from the CDC Web site. He's been a big step backwards in the fight against AIDS.
I disagree. Again, it's been all talk, little action. "Weapons of mass destruction" is the defining line from his regime.
I am not lumping all Republicans as bad. I am saying the Bush administration is.
As for the Democrats...what I like about them is that they're too incompetent to do much damage. It took them 40 years to build the culture of corruption that the GOP built in only ten.
And this from a prior Republican, turned Independent.
You are a purist (and a cynic). If you stay on this line much farther, Sainthood is in the offering. Saint Leanan might be a good moniker for you!
The other thought I had was, boy, "Leanan does not cut anybody any slack."
- I do not care whose idea it was, President Bush did it first.
- Just because he is hobbled by his 19th century Party, he still wanted to do this before 9/11.
- An oil guru/stooge buys into stuff after the last 30 years that says oil is on the decline, for a whole lot of reasons, that is something.
Saint Leanan, are you really trying to say he has not done anything right ever in the last 6 years? That is both silly and patent-ably absurd!Jack, go back to silent mode. It served you better.
That was certainly the take-away line from the SOTU, it was certainly the headline in the main stream media. It even gave my sceptical self an ember of hope.
The hope was extinguished days later when one of the Bush photo-ops was with a hulking SUV being fueled with "alternative fuels".
The image it brought to mind was the deck of the Titanic, with Captain George directing the loading of the lifeboats - with Escalades.
We are all familiar with the work of Roscoe Bartlett. I'm curious about the other legislators you have named. What have they done to increase awareness of peak oil? What policies have the advocated to address the peak oil problem?
plunsfo,
Thank you for coming out and stating your position even if the tomatoes are going to come flying your way.
I'm an ardent Bush-basher and yet I agree with you. No good is going to come from us monkeys flinging yet more feces at each other (R's at D's and vise versa) while Mother Nature's cage of reality closes in on us.
However there is one thing you say, "We are all in this together" which really rattles the emotions of the left leaning crowd. You see, Jenna and Barb did not sign up to make the "ultimate sacrifice". They did not run down to New Orleans to pitch in for those "who are doing as best they can for themeselves" (quoting grandma Bush).
Be that as it may, Roscoe Bartlett is still a hero for trying to air out our true problems. We are wasting time chasing after bogeymen "terrorrrrrists" while Mother Nature's trap door closes in on us from the Global Warming, Peak Oil and Global Dimming sidelines.
The problem is one of division of benefits and burdens. There are those who made great profits for themselves by encouraging everyone to pump CO2 into the atmosphere just like the cigarette companies made great profits by encouraging everyone to inhale from Mother Nature's leaves of luxory and by pretending they had plausible deniability. You see this plausible deniability BS being played with harps at the Enron trials. Suddenly the smartest guys in the room are also the dumbest and most innocent guys in the room and we should all cry for them because unnamed "others" hoodwinked them (Lay & Skilling) into signing off on Raptor deals. Right.
Peak oil is not just data points.
It's a debate about our whole way of life.
How did we get onto this gravy train to Helltown and how are we going to slow the train down enough to be able to safely jump off? How are we going to prevent this from happening again?
But I was all ready to go teepee this guy's house ... :)
From the evidence, with much difficulty. The first task before us is to get people to admit there's a problem, and that's not going well at the moment.
Repeal human nature. ;-)
Let's face it. It wasn't the media that covered the statues at the Justice Department. It was John Ashcroft. It wasn't left wing sympathy that made Terri Schiavo's death a circus. It was Jeb Bush. It wasn't liberal Democrats who proposed giving a $100 rebate to offset gasoline prices. It was Bill Frist.
You say we have a "pathetically ignorant society"... an interesting observation. Perhaps we should ask our leaders why.
But, of course, if people like you continue to vote Republican, this will never happen.
Now you say we are all in it together like it or not?
Well I DONT like it one bit.
The fat cats, their big cars and their Super-Sized lifestyles have already taken more than their fair share from the biosphere (and they are conituing to take take take). After decades of this behavior, these people should have to pay reperations in one way or another to atleast attemp to pay for the damage they have done.
Big time.
step 1) party X gets back into power and passes much needed reforms
step 2) after things work out favorably, party X then implements their "pet" policies (which generally stink)
step 3) once the second phase fails, politicians resort to some time honored populist ploys (which also stink)
step 4) we vote in a new party and proceed back to step 1
In other words the whole "red team" vs "blue team" thing is the root of a lot of problems. The public is to blame. Or perhaps the school system is to blame -- we only get taught our glorious past, not the actual unvarnished history. For an enteraining view of politics read Jim Rogers "Adventure Capitalist".
"Positive control over energy supply is one of the unfortunate, but necessary strategies on that agenda (which, sadly, means military action.) What would you have our Administration do instead?..."
Unfortunately, seeking positive control over energy supply may also lead China, Russia, India, Pakistan, Britain, France, North Korea and/or Israel to military action. I'm sure you all recognize this list of countries known to have nuclear weapons. The fact is, the oil in the Middle East, in Asia and in South America does not belong to the United States any more than the coal in the United States belongs to them. Saying that the oil of the Middle East is a "vital strategic interest" does not give us the right to conquer the Middle East any more than saying that Germany needed the "living room" (lebenstraum) gave them the right to conquer Poland and Russia. It does not matter that this has been our doctrine since the Carte presidency. It just means that our doctrine has been wrong ever since the Carter presidency.
I would have us get our military out of the Middle East immediately, leaving no bases behind. I would have us start a crash program of energy conservation, from an immediate national speed limit to the long-term rebuilding of our cities and our farms on the basis of sustainability.
But of course, that could only be done by political leadership with the long term interests of our society in mind. If the goal of our political leadership - by which I mean both Democrats and Republicans - is to maintain the power and priveleges of the corporate elite regardless of the consequences to the ordinary person, restructuring the society isn't going to happen.
We're going to have to throw all the SOBs out of office, not just a few.
Art Myatt
This November, such a strategy could effectively replace the entire House of Representatives and one third of the Senate in a single day. The following November a second third of the Senate, and the Administration, would be gone.
It would send a hell of a message to Washington.
A Tale of Two Theories
Here are a couple of exerpts:
Bill Clinton reversed Reagan's Supply Side policies, raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering them on the working and middle class. This Demand Side formula was fiercely resisted by Republican leaders in Congress who predicted a stock market crash and another Great Depression. Indeed, every single Republican member of Congress voted against it. It took a tie-breaking vote by Al Gore in the Senate to get the bill passed. What happened?
The economy produced the longest sustained expansion in U.S. history. It created more than 22 million new jobs, the highest level of job creation ever recorded. Unemployment fell to its lowest level in over 30 years. Inflation fell to 2.5% per year compared to the 4.7% average over the prior 12 years. And overall economic growth averaged 4.0% per year compared to 2.8% average growth over the 12 years of the Reagan/Bush administrations.
Another tasty morsel:
The one thing the Supply Side revival did excel at -- not surprisingly -- is debt. Bush turned a $136 billion surplus from Bill Clinton into a $158 billion deficit in his first year. When he took office, the national debt stood at $5.8 trillion. It now stands at $8.1 trillion and is projected to hit $10 trillion by 2008 when Bush's second term is over. The ten-year cumulative deficit forecast by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office has changed from a $5.6 trillion surplus in January 2001 to a $3.4 trillion deficit in March of this year--an almost inconceivable swing of $9 trillion to the worse in only six years.
After more than 17 years of experience with Supply Side economics, we now know beyond doubt that this is not an accident.
These mammoth debts are a huge boon to that rich "base" that Bush loves to coddle. It is they, the very rich, who loan the money to the government to fund its debts. And since more borrowing drives up interest rates, they get to do so at higher and higher rates of return. This is simple supply and demand. By increasing the demand for borrowed money in the economy as a whole, Supply Side deficits drive up the cost, not just of government borrowing, but of ALL borrowing--everything from credit cards and mortgages to car loans and municipal bonds.
In other words, Supply Side economics rewards the rich both coming and going. Higher government debt leads to higher interest rates for all borrowing -- or in their case, lending. And then, they get to pay lower and lower taxes on their higher and higher earnings. It is a magical two-fer worth hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
The next time some repub starts spouting off about supply-side this and trickle-down that, you can use these handy facts to make him or her look like the evil, yet somehow really stupid, cretin that he or she is.
That anyone supports these nation-destroying fascists is beyond belief. Unless you are rich, and I mean truly rich, you are like a Jew voting for Nazis, an American Indian voting for Custer, a lover of freedom voting for Stalin, or a roach voting for RAID.
People wonder why I feel that right wingers are spectactularly stupid -- read this article and find out why.
First rule of reality: If hitting yourself in the head hurts, quit doing it.
Tax breaks for the rich have NEVER worked, except for the rich. If you want your nation to be around for the next 200 years, I suggest you quit treating reality like an either/or, my team or the highway proposition.
US VS. THEM is not how you deal with reality.
Now, of course, the masters of ignoring the issues will immediately cry out, "But isn't that what you are doing you hypocrite?" NO, YOU RETARDS. I am saying it is republicans vs. the rest of the world in all its complexity. Don't let the Republican's rhetorical tricks of blame, divide and conquer, and nit-picking distract you from their crimes against America.
Read the article. It speaks the simple fact-backed truth.
V
Diplomatic action instead.
The analogies between the current admin and pre-WWII Gemany are disturbing, to say the least. Our current course of action will convince the rest of the planet that they have to put a stop to US-istan first and then deal with the other (environment, population, energy) stuff.
The good news is we'll be energy-independent waaay before 2025. The bad news is um, the same thing as the good news.
The outcome in Iraq was entirely foreseeable. In fact, our own State Dept. and the CIA predicted it, and as a result, the State Dept. was shut out of the postwar planning, and Rummy created his own private intelligence agencies to give him the intel he wanted rather than the truth.
Anyone who was aware of history - military history and/or the history of Iraq - knew that invading wouldn't work. And we did not have to do it.
We did not invade Libya, a country which actually did support terrorism and killed American civilians. We used diplomacy instead. And it seems to have worked out:
Analysis: U.S. eyes the promise of Libya's oil
Much better outcome than Iraq, wouldn't you say?
Once again, Lord Acton's words haunt us: Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The US political system is broken, our founding fathers did not intend for power-hungry individuals to become "career politicians", did not forsee corporations receiving supra-human rights, did not plan for lobbyists and special interests to direct the government, and did not intend for the checks and balances of the government to be bypassed, or the rights espoused in the Constitution to be degraded. If Jefferson or Washington or Franklin were alive today, they would appalled, be branded extremists and "unamerican", or just outright ignored.
What the heck happened to public policy, or public service, that actually aided the public, instead of a handful of vested interests?
I'm surprised. You usually post so many great things on this board, but now this.
With that out of the way, here is the great mystery: why are Republicans seemingly incapable of acknowledging any problems? Ever. Global warming, oil depletion, over-population. You name it and they brush it off as the nonsense of hippie Chicken Littles.
Your statement is an over generalization and, frankly, offensive.
* I agree that the statement is offensive as well as untrue ...
snip ... utterly disagree with many of the "Robin Hood" principles of the Democratic Party (which, by the way, is moving waaaay Socialist.)
* The congressional critters that are Democratic admit they are not only Socialist but favor Communism ...
Why can't so-called members of the Democratic Party or liberals see any good in the current Administration? My assessment is that they simply don't want to see any good. And that's a pathetic shame.
* the real shame is that both parties are just different wings of the same bird ... that is why Bush can not plug the southern border ... the one world globalism has both parties by the balls ...
From my point of view, our country and our planet are in very deep shit.
snip
We're going to have a hard landing (the CPI results yesterday are just another tick mark on the list) and I believe that the President knows it and has been doing everything he can to make life appear to be "business as usual" for Americans while they figure out what to do and initiate mitigation strategies.
* both parties have dumbed down the American youth - they know exactly what they have done and are doing and why ... that is why we are still in the UN ...
Positive control over energy supply is one of the unfortunate, but necessary strategies on that agenda (which, sadly, means military action.) What would you have our Administration do instead?...announce to the American people (and simultaneoulsy to the world via CNN) that there won't be enough oil in the next five years to allow the global economy to function well and that the USA will be hit the hardest of any country and people can't drive their precious SUV's anymore? How would that play out? Mass panic?...immediate global stock market collapses?...rioting in the streets? That doesn't sound like a good way to mitigate risk to me. On the other hand, the Administration has regularly been meeting with other country leaders for well over three years on energy issues. I suspect they are quietly attempting to come to some resolution, maybe to be announced at the upcoming G8 meeting.
* No, what I expected our leaders to have done was have mined our coal and made our own fuel ... other nations and we as well back our farmers why not the miners and fuel companies - look what hacks the congress has become in making corn fuel - a win fall if there ever was one for the corn farmers of this country - and we DO NOT NEED IT - its cheaper to export it in from the countries that make it from sugar cane ... no difference between Rep and Dem ... We have coal and the means to process it cleanly and that is what is happening under cover - the rail roads are pulling in a nice fat bundle hauling it only they are short on cars and our rail system is a mess ...
Thats what I expected the last 6 administrations to be have been doing ... instead we have rep's like Waters, Bagdad Jim and etc. The Clinton administration instead removed one of our largest clean sweet coal fields from being mined here in the west ... put it off limits ... No, I expected our leaders to tell the greenies to go to hell and approve oil drilling off the coast, approve wind farms off the coast, I expected them act like leaders with "balls" and do what was and is best for the nation not for a bunch of briding lobby hacks and union crooks ...
I would even suggest that they knew very well about the peak oil problem back in Clinton's Administration and some of the current policies are developments and building on actions started during that Administration. I certainly don't agree with everything the President does, and I get downright angry at some things, while some things I think are pretty good. That doesn't mean he is constantly breaking the law so he can create a police state, steal elections, become a king, plot to bomb the WTC, or practice genocide to further the interests of the U.S., as many liberals would have you believe. Oh, by the way, I also get pretty pissed off at things the Democrats do and say too. I just don't categorize all Democrats as stupid...more like, simple.
But today we have a very persuasive media and a pathetically ignorant society who believe that everything they hear from the media is well-researched truth without applying any discursive reasoning or attempts at validation to the information heard. They have been conditioned not to see the forest for the trees. It is obvious to even the most casual observer that the media also doesn't seem to want to find any good in the President -- and it's almost impossible to keep anything a secret. I believe the MSM, in many ways, is actually a threat to the security of our country.
* amen ... we need to do two things immediately 1) Deport all illegals 2) JAIL every congressional memeber until their trail comes up ... they refuse to tell on one another ... fine ... round them up and jail them while everyone of them is investigated and cleared ...
When I find a disparity in understanding with another America, whether Democrat or Republican, instead of angrily debating points or whining to them about "what a criminal Bush is" I tend to attempt to educate them on the issue. I have taken the time to become well enough informed on the subjects to help them out. It seems to work better that way.
* As a Republican I find that a Democrat when they find out I am a Republican leave me alone refusing to talking, do not confuse me with facts attitude - I just spent 6 days in the hospital and listened to Rush in the mornings ... a number of the Nurses refused to even take my temperature shifting it off to others ... now thats hate ... two did talk with me and when I admitted I was a Republican and yes I did vote for Bush and no I was sticking by him never returned ... but that was Ok because I gained the attention of the good nurses and got better care ... not a one of them the good, ugly and inbetween ever heard of "peak oil" -
Peak oil and environmental issues won't be solved in a competition between Republicans and Democrats. We are all in this together, like it or not. Multiple points of view are what make America tick. And don't worry, you'll get your chances to get more elected officials that share your point of view again, and again, and again in the future....if in fact those points of view are shared by the majority. If they are not, then why not try to educate the majority rather than criticise them? Pull instead of push.
In the meantime, stick to discussing the data on oil depletion and options for preparation. That's what's important.
* AMEN ...
i still think they don't get it. it's unfortunate that the republican part has launched its war on science. that, and a few other things (war) is enough to make some of us lapsed republicans.
Karavans,
Must be something in the air 'cause I was thinking on the same question this morning.
The Mission Impossible scene kept replaying in my head, You know, the one where the invisible higher up tells Mr. Phelps (or "Ethan" in the latest Tom Cruise rendition) that, for obvious reasons we must disavow all knowledge of your activities and then the patriotic drum beat kicks in ... no more questions, that's it .. for God and country.
I have Republicans friends who appear to follow the same DISAVOWAL ethos. One never looks back at the pain and destruction you caused because everything is done for a higher cause ... for democracy ... for our non-negotiable American way of life ... for our national security ... no questions asked. It is that type of grin and suck it up soldier mentality that drives them. It has no words. It is a code of silence. Us versus "them". It is allegeance to your mob boss if you need to look at it in a Tony Soprano way. It is a feeling. It is something in your gut. Either you are a "man" and do what's got to be done no matter what, or you're not a man, you're not a patriot, you haven't got what it takes to sacrifice all for patriotism's sake.
The great disconnect that I always find between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats want to "Intellectualize" everything whereas Republicans approach the issue from a more stoic, reptilian perception of the Universe. You don't negotiate with those kind of people, with those that hate our freedoms. You preemptively hit them before they hit you.
There is a certain logic to that tough guy approach. It can't be intellectually dissected or attacked on a rational basis. It's a feeling, not a logical equation. Maybe that helps shed some light on it.
IMHO, the vast voting masses work off of emotion rather than intellectualized reason. Pain at the Pump is "pain" pure and simple. It does not lead to deep dive analysis of strategic economics. If you try to present the masses with an intellectual argument, it won't work. You've got to give them an emotional hook to hang their leanings on.
I think this is where we most fail with Peak Oil. Hubbert linearization is a highly intellectual form of argumentation. It sails right over the brows of the grazing herds.
IMHO, they did an excellent job of appealing to the limbic brain layer of soccer moms. Did you catch the timber of the narrator's voice and those shots of soccer mom lovingly loading her brood into the SUV? I'm not making fun of this. I think it is going to score big points emotionally with the voting masses. Al Gore is going to come across as a condescending academic stiff and Big Oil/Coal is going to come across as the ones who are lovingly caring for mom's most precious cargo, her dandelion blowing daughter. If you are laughing at this, you simply don't get it. Try to put yourself in the shoes (or hooves) of a female sheeple. View the video from that perspective. Understand how it tugs at your maternal heartstrings. Understand that you liked that song in high school about "Don't know much bout geography". Understand that you don't know much 'bout Technology, but you do know/feel much about loving your kids and protecting them by cuddling them into an iron fortress SUV. Then you finally grok how powerful the CEI video is.
Don't laugh at it. Come to understand how other people perceive it --those who are not PO/GW aware.
Everybody who uses words like that loses a lot of credibility points with me. If you can't talk without condescending, and setting yourself up as the shining torch of enlightenment, just shut the fuck up. You are making it harder for the people who are actually working hard to change people's minds.
"just shut the f@#$ up"
Sounds like the "pot calling the Kettle Black" to me.
I get it. In your mind, some noises are superior to other noises. Your expletive deletables, for example, are really contributing to the exchange of insightful ideas. On the other hand if someone says something you disagree with, they have no right to say it. Got it.
In that case, go Dick Cheney yourself, you sheep's hind hole.
This small exchange of nasty words is a good example of the issues the US is facing.
Do you guys realize that you are both Americans? Do you realize that with only a few words, you guys are ready to beat the living shit out of eachother. Well, blog the living shit out of eachother, that is.
It seems to me the US is so divided, that they cannot decide anything anymore, just because of the other guy.
Now, remember what mom told you: No fighting in the schoolyard. Both of you: Apoligize, and bring some more constructive arguments to the table.
Come on, you can do it!
;-)
And don't shoot me, I'm from Old Europe. (Wherever that may be)
But sure, constructivism it shall be!
Your apology is accepted.
Now let's go back to dissecting the CEI Energy clip
1. Scene 1: Green Park, young people walking with backpack, relaxing on picnic blankets, playing.
Piano music: light and happy, slow beat like breathing slowly
Female voiceover: "There is something in these pictures you can't see ..."
- Scene 2: young woman blowing bubbles
- Scene 3: young girls skipping rope
- Scene 4: back of young woman athlete running down a beach, pony tail flopping like a Gazelle's tail
Female voiceover: "It's essential to life"Female voiceover: "We breathe it out" ...
STOP
What have you noticed so far Sherlock?
A) Most of the people portrayed are female
B) Main theme is youth and vitality
C) Connection to "you" and love of "life" is made
D) You becomes "We"
That was fast, wasn't it?
Obviously your eyes and ears did not pick all of this up. Right? right?
Let's keep going.
Female voiceover: "We breathe it out" ...
- Scene 5: Young girl blowing dandellion seeds off plant
- Scene 6: Tall green trees
Female voiceover: "Plants breath it in"7. Scene 7: Gazelle leaping over fields, running for their lives, tails flopping behind
Female voiceover: "It comes from animal life"
STOP
Did you notice?
More female forms, young, healthy
Repeat of "life" theme, run for your life
Let's keep going.
- Scene 8: Ocean waves crashing "The oceans"
- Geiser gushing "The Earth"
- Oil rig "and the fuels we find in it"
Hold on, weren't those a few little white lies? CO2 doesn't come from the fuels "we" accidentally find in mother earth. Nor does it come from the oceans. Oceans are net CO2 absorbers. And it is "We" who have to burn the fuels in order to make CO2 out of them. Should we let the film maker get away with these twistings of the truth? Well, we have no choice, the clip keeps racing on ...Let's fast forward:
Female voiceover: "The things WE NEED"
Female voiceover: "The people we love"
Wait. Did you catch that last scene?
Mother piling her 2 daughters into SUV, one with school backpack, the other with the soccer ball?
Good. Now you are finally paying attention.
Who is the target audience?
Hint, it's not you Kven.
Play it oops again Sam ... it ain't that innocent
In the end it's a matter of "We" and "life" pitted against the evil invisible politicians who want to label CO2 as a "pollutant"
My gosh, that's as evil as trying to call Vitamin A a toxin!
(p.s. that's a pun. Please don't write to explain that in large doses A is a toxin.)
Point is: this film was cleverly collaged together to make an emotional appeal to the voting female population. It uses a lot of visual cueing to identify who "we" is. It zooms in on love of life, love of our way of life (did you catch the scene with the black woman doing backbreaking labor?), lighting our life and loving our daughters. All that in 60 seconds. Imagine if you had given them more time.
Mother piling her 2 daughters into SUV, one with school backpack, the other with the soccer ball?
Good. Now you are finally paying attention.
Who is the target audience?
Hint, it's not you Kven.''
Who makes the buying decisions regarding SUV's?
That is the target audience.
The Brown Shirts did not have right wing think tanks.
They did not have focus groups.
They did not have computerized image splicing.
They did not have mass broadcast TV.
They had not developed mass media manipulation into a well honed weapon thanks to decades of research (in marketing of consumable goodies).
But that said ... (I hate that brain tease, "that said"),
step back and try to see the bigger picture.
What is the bigger picture?
It is Gore "intellectualizations" versus the emotications of the propaganda machine.
It is US election year 2000 all over again.
It is US election year 2004 all over again.
Gore and Kerry intellectualized (so did Dukakis).
Karl Rove sent "mixed messages".
Who won?
Who did the emotional herd head for?
Answer: They (we) went with their (our) emotions: fear of fear, love of life, valuation of values, follow the decider man --the non-flip/flopper.
I am not making fun of the sheeple because I am one of them. I am sheeple. You are sheeple. We cannot avoid it. It is built into our evolutionary makeup.
Those of our primate ancestors who stuck with the ape troop and followed the alpha dominant decider monkey, survived. Those that went it alone usually got eaten by the tiger. Thousands of generations later, here we are in the "21st Century" and yet still behaving like the herd animals that we are beneath our facade of fashion and our claim to computerized dominance over nature.
Study the CEI tape again.
How many pony tails do you count?
If you are a herd animal, you follow the tail in front of you.
Run for your "life". Without question.
Do what is natural.
Breath in.
Breath out.
Relax.
Stop thinking.
Stay the course.
CO2 is good.
Ex-politicians: Bad.
Got it? Get it? Good.
Have not seen either and hope to be a paying customer on line at a theater near me when it finally shows. Who knows. Maybe Gore will beat Tom Hanks (Da Vinci Code) at the box office one weekend. That would be a really "inconvenient" truth for Ron Howards if it happens. Imagine, science outselling religion. (I still like Opee though.)
My sense is that a good number of conservatives hold convictions about the world that you could characterize as "providence". A belief that, on the whole, things are going to work out because there is a purpose to our existence. That things are destined to work out, somehow.
Fortunately, up to this point things have worked out! Unfortunately, if things don't work out with peak oil, I think we'll then get further pronouncements of destiny, but they'll be all negative at that point, instead of productive responses.
If peak oil hits quickly (short plateau) I'm assuming that we'll get a "lurch to the left" in this country and the left will want "community responses" to every imaginable problem. That "market mechanisms" will get tossed out.
It's one of those paradoxical truths of our Universe that if things had not worked out, "we" would not be here having this discussion.
Ask yourself this: Are the Mayan kings meeting now to discuss Peak Oil as well and the inevitability of things always working out?
I wonder if the Mayans had Republican and Democratic factions who argued with each other about how to distribute their everlasting wealth.
The standard Democratic argument looks like this: The oil companies are manipulating prices to make gas more expensive so that they can enrich themselves, and the Bush administration is pro-oil and won't regulate them to force prices back down. If Clinton were still around, this wouldn't be happening.
In my opinion, the Republican reading is much closer to the truth, and involves less denial. It recognizes that the cost of oil has a real basis in a growing supply-demand gap. Republicans also seem to more quickly grasp the importance of fossil fuels to a modern economy.
I regard the Democrats as worse than useless on resource scarcity issues, because they tend use them as an excuse to demogogue. Republicans are merely useless, since they are factually wrong about some quantitative matters, like the size of certain reserves, the cost of extracting them. It seems to me that it's going to be much easier to convince Republicans of the seriousness of the current situation, since it departs less dramatically from their existing narrative.
That being said, I think that "bad news" is currently viewed as a net benefit for Democrats, since it's one more avenue to attack the policies of the Bush administration. So Democrats, for the next six months, will be in a mode that actively searches for more bad news and tries to find ways to assign it to Bush or Congressional leaders. In the short run, that makes Democrats much more likely to play up the issue if they're in the know about it. (But in the minds of most voters, I think "evil oil companies" still resonates more powerfully.)
At the other end, I suspect some Republican strategists are well-aware of the impending crisis, and want to keep quiet about it. They'd rather that it suddenly be discovered after the Democrats win an election. If if were discovered now, it would be part of Bush's legacy and make the Democrats the "trusted party" on a matter of grave national importance, rather like FDR was able to turn "Hoover's Depression" into a permanent political asset for a generation.
That's morally questionable behavior, but I doubt that a hypothetical "Kerry administration" would be behaving differently. A party in power wants to wear a smiling face, and a party out of power wants to stoke the furnaces of doom and gloom. Try to reverse that logic, and you become Jimmy Carter running against Reagan.
Agree with you that our whole political system is geared to getting the best lier and misleader into office.
What we see here is the end product of predatory Darwinism at work. The most blinkered, aggressive, blustering, lying, conniving, money grubbing, pandering, robbing, muck-slinging politicos are the most successful, and naturally rise to the top of the barrel. The same is true in the corporate world.
Honest, hardworking, quite, humble, and generous people are considered weak or stupid somehow, and therefore "unsuccessful".
"In a democracy, you get the government you deserve."
One answer: Dr. Martha Stout says %4 of the American population are sociopaths. I figure that pretty much covers the PR and lobbying industries, plus some room left over for serial killers and conservative think tank fellows...
http://www.greythumb.org/blog/index.php?/archives/80-Eugenics-doesnt-work.-Ask-why,-asshole..html
Excerpt:
Think chickens and trading floors folks. Enron was a trading, brokering, and investment company. (Go ahead, shudder some more.)
Everyone knows that there are many things you can do in any corporate environment to give the appearance and impression of being productive. Enron's corporate environment was particularly conductive to this: it's principal business was energy trading, and it had large densely populated trading floors peopled by high-powered traders that would sit and play the markets all day. There were, I'm sure, many things that a trader could do to up his performance numbers, either by cheating or by gaming the system. This gaming of the system probably included gaming his fellow traders, many of whom were close enough to rub elbows with.
So Enron was applying selection at the individual level according to metrics like individual trading performance to a group system whose performance was, like the henhouses, an emergent property of group dynamics as well as a result of individual fitness. The result was more or less the same. Instead of increasing overall productivity, they got mean chickens and actual productivity declined. They were selecting for traits like aggressiveness, sociopathic tendencies, and dishonesty.
After a couple rounds of this selection experiment, these mean chickens could be heard on recorded intra-office phone communications laughing about "those poor grandmothers" they were ripping off via market scams. They changed the company motto internally from "Enron: Ask Why?" to "Enron: Ask Why, Asshole."
Essentially your difficulty lies in your assumption that most people are capable of thinking rationally when in reality the majority of people spend most of their time thinking in a `conventional operational' way.
As we grow up we develop through a variety of stages of understanding and interpreting the world. Whilst we never operate entirely from one stage, each way of being in the world is very different from the next.
Large worldwide statistical studies have shown that we all develop through the same stages in the same order regardless of culture. How each stage is expressed can have vast surface differences, but the underlying mode of thinking is quite easy to pick up with a bit of practice.
I am simplifying here, but roughly speaking we grow through the following stages.
Sensori-motor, magical, egoic, conventional, rational, pluralistic, integrated etc...
It sounds as if the friends you are talking about are essentially operating from the conventional stage, along with 40% of the western worlds population. This way of seeing the world essentially involves believing whatever our `authority figures' tell us is true. In other words, we `parrot' them. Who our authority figure is depends on our up-bringing and is essentially very hard to be changed by outside sources without at least some development up to rational thought (30% western world population). It is important to remember that no one operates from only one such mode of thinking. Your friends are probably quite capable of some rational thought, especially in areas that they have a strong interest in.
If you want to help them to understand about the worlds plight, then finding out what aspects of their psyche are capable of rational thought and then translating the problem into it is one way to reach them. For example, maybe they are really into football. Try and draw up an analogy between the football world cutting off its base and ignoring its supporters, destroying the game. (Excuse my lack of knowledge about football.)
Having said all that, in order to have a true appreciation of global issues like global warming, multiculturalism and peak oil actually takes another step into pluralistic thinking (the ability to appreciate more than one line of rational thought simultaneously even if they appear contradictory). And the solutions take at least Integrated thinking...
Skywick,
Very well put.
Fearless leader says, "eagle legal immigration"
and sudenly all of MSM is parroting the same noise.
Fearless leader says, "dicted ta oil"
and for one shining moment we bird brains are repeating the same noise.
But its all meaningless pigeon cooing. Nothing sinks in and sticks.
I'm curious. Where did you get that figure of 30% for rational thought? Isn't that overly optimistic?
They roughly broke the western world up into (memory may not be perfect and yes it does not add up - this was due to margin for error.) :
sensori-motor (less than 1%)
magical (less than 5%)
egoic (10%)
conventional (40%)
rational (30%)
pluralistic (20%)
integrated (2%)
> integrated (<0.2%)<br>
If you want to read up then this is the place to start.
There is also a lot on the web about `Spiral Dynamics Integral', an offshoot of Spiral Dynamics popularised by Ken Wilber. It is a simplified and slightly adapted model which I have some disagreements with, however there is lots of free material on the web if you look for it.
Increasing populations will enable developing countries to industrialise and provide cheap labour to support western lifestyles. With global warming, it´s cheaper to maintain growth to build higher sea walls and better air conditioning, then cut back fossil fuel use. The concept of realities of environmental constraints on human actions simply does not rise above these voices at present - and maybe will not until some serious SHTF.
In biological creatures, you can have a cancer - it can take advantage of local conditions to grow very quickly, but it obviously isn't in the interest of the host for the thing to even be there in the first place.
In economic terms, you can have the same thing. Generally people act in their own interests, and corporations do likewise. There is also the question of whether it is in the common good for a corporation to grow, or for that matter for it to grow too quickly. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. Examples of bad growth are all over - think of Enron as one of the worst examples, but there are plenty of others out there. The problem is that we really don't have any good mechanisms to add a reality check to what goes on in the world around us. It seems like the entirety of the Federal government has been bought and paid for by the corporations so that they can do what they please, and the common folk just have to lump it.
I'm not sure belief has much to do with it -- it's the system that requires it. Without growth you have regression and shrinkage (of wealth, primarily) and the system doesn't react well to that.
Just put the CEO in a pit, and use a CO2 fire extinguisher nearby.....
The ads were not made for persuading "you".
You are not in the target demographics.
The ads are clearly targetted at soccer moms.
They are roughly 50% of the vote.
As Abraham Lincoln said:
you can fool some of the people some of the time ...
and as K. Rove probably said:
but really folks, you only need to fool 51% of the people and only on one day, election day.
That's what it's really about.
Laughable for whom?
Yes, of course, I personally find them silly and totally lacking in scientific basis.
But Sally Soccer Mom doesn't spend her spare time scouring through the latest edition of Nature or Scientific American.
Far more important is knowing how Britney is developing her child juggling skills:
The question is how will the CEI clip play to Britney's America?
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/17/attack-on-gore/
I liked this one:
63. #60 reminds me of Jared Diamond's "Collapse" - how advanced, cultured civilizations simply run right off the cliff of existence. Just what was the last man who cut down the last tree on Easter Island thinking? My guess: "I don't give a crap, I'm going have a big fire and then I'm going to eat your mother - how'd you like that, Grog?"
Comment by TerrytheTurtle -- May 17, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
Oops I think we did it again
They made us believe oil was our friend
Oh babies, babies
It might seem like we're addicted
But it doesn't have to be that serious
'Cause to lose all our minds
That's just so typically us
Oh babies, babies
CHORUS:
Oops!...we did it again
We played with our cars, got lost in the game
Oh baby, baby
Oops!...We think oil is like love
That comes from above
We're not that innocent
You see our problem is this
We're dreaming away
Wishing that hero technology truly exists
We cry, watching the days
As pain of the pump inches our way
Can't we see we're fools on a highway
To nowhere babies
That is just so typically us
Babies, oh babies
Repeat CHORUS
http://odograph.com/?p=555
i get the humor of these ads on some level, but in the context of 'politicization of science' it just hurts. the 'deniers' have no shame.
If you look at it, there have been 4 cycles of cooling and warming of +/-5 degrees C over the past 450,000 years, and I'm betting there weren't CO2 spewing humans to blame back then, so why should they be to blame now?
We are in the MIDDLE of a warming cycle, that still has +5 degrees C to go. Of course we are seeing global warming.
See my site for the full details.
you certainly don't seem to be a climatologist, as the argument you make on your site is absurdly simplistic:
"...to suggest that the past 200 years of mankind burning fossil fuel and releasing CO2 into the environment is somehow responsible for global warming and that the earth has always had a stable temperature before this is a post hoc fallacy. CO2 could possibly be adding to the 15,000 year period of global warming that we are currently in. But it is obviously not the main cause. With or without CO2, we are going to experience warming. So we had better acknowledge it, and adapt to it. Trying to keep temperatures at the levels seen in the past 200 years will not be possible, no matter what we do. We are living in the stable adjustment period between two periods of rapid warming clearly seen in the past 4 cycles. Sooner or later, global warming will kick in with a viciousness we can't even comprehend. But not because of anything we did to cause it."
Did someone say post hoc fallacy? Yes, Milankovitch cycles play a big role, but in the short term there is strong evidence that anthropogenic effects are playing a huge one. I don't see most of the people who worry about climate change claiming that "the earth has always had a stable temperature before this". The point is that we're destabalizing it more, more rapidly, and to certainly dire consequences. Just because the sun's going to explode eventually doesn't mean we shouldn't be vigilant re: nuclear war.
And for the record, I'm not a climatologist either. But I realize the limits of my own understanding within a specialized scientific field, and quite frankly on an issue like this -- e.i. of extreme gravity -- I'm content to educate myself as best I can and in the end defer to scientific consensus. Which in this case does exist.
Please see my comment below.
So how the heck should I be labeled? Conservative sure doesn't mean what it used to.
Yet the entire world:
agreed to phase out CFC's and adopt the new refrigerants. So your cynical friend is implying that everyone in the whole damn world went along with DuPont just to help DuPont's market position in the USA alone? That's absurd.
Then again, in Galileo's time there were cycnics about the world going round the sun theory --yet another spoof by scientists that clearly went against common sense and was proven wrong by massive evidence that emerged in later years! Probably Galileo's patent on the telescope must have been expiring in Italy back then
Disclaimer: The only reason I watch Fox News is to get an idea of what the "other side" is thinking. The only way to defeat them is to understand them.
Please read this presentation by Jean Laherrère (pdf) from page 44 onwards.
This first half of it is here (pdf).
Who exactly was standing there millions of years ago taking measurments all around the planet of temperatures and CO2 concentrations?
What instruments did they use?
As Laherre says in Part-1 of his presentation:
I read somewhere that the best ice core measurement of CO2 levels goes back only 650,000 years. How does Laherre's graph get to go back millions of years? Just curious. No harm in asking questions is there?
See also this May 2006 Znet article: "the group of international experts says there is now overwhelming evidence to show that the Earth's climate is undergoing dramatic transformation because of human activity"
Smiling Vinyl Institute "Vinyl Institute" representative: "Vinyl is made from chloride. Did you know that you have chloride in your body? How can that be dangerous?"
I also have potassium in my body and bananas are full of the stuff. I guess it would be okay to drink potassium permaganate - its so purple and pretty. No? Ok, then maybe we can inject it...
I have some ignorant Canadian questions for the American posters.
If I am Republican am I allowed to talk to Democrats?
If I am a Democrat am I allowed to NOT blame everything bad on the Republicans and call everything else dumb luck?
When speaking about any issue, ever, can my comments be taken at face value, without regard to my political or ideological leanings?
Are Americans without a clearly defined set of political loyalties taken seriously by anyone with such loyalties?
Jus' askin'
If you are a Democrat you must talk about the upside of all your policies without mentioning any possible downsides, costs, or risks.
If you talk about issues and do consider cost/benefit then you are a useless intellectual!!! And you have no hope of getting anyone to take you seriously!!! There are two parties and no are not in either one of them. Stay in Canada.
Next to me was a long time Republican.
Everyone else at the table (including me) are leaping liberals.
Despite his right-wing leanings, I like my Republican friend. He is brilliant. PhD from a top notch Ivy league school in the USA. Smart as a whip. Very well read on history, science and general matters. He knows I'm a peak freak and I know he believes the ice pack is thickening in Greenland. OK. Fine. We still accept each other.
Just for fun, I was baiting my Republican friend about some politics. In the middle of the discourse he announced, "George Bush will go down in history as one of the best presidents we ever had." (And he is very sincere about this.) Me? I don't care. If you think GWB's puss should be carved into Mount Rushmore, fine. It's just talk. But the other liberals around the table turned into hissing snakes. The venom was so thick, I could not believe it. Just say one kind word about the enemy of all humankind and the fangs come out.
So if you want to understand what the politics of Democrats versus Republicans is like in the USA, think of this:
There is no respectful dialog among disagreeing friends. It's pure venom. And if truth be told, the Demo's are not much different than the Republicrats. They both voted for shock and aweing Iraq before they voted against it. They all voted for tax cuts for their well off campaign contributers. It is only the mindless masses in the middle that believe there is a difference. The powers to be in the USA don't care who wins ... just as long as it's not Ralph Nader (a third party candidate who is often blamed for letting Twiddle Dee win instead of Twiddle Dumb).
But it may be inevitable. As Tainter noted, ideological strife increases as collapse approaches.