Two quick political notes...
Posted by Prof. Goose on July 24, 2006 - 10:23pm
Those looking at the tags before they read this may think I'm insane for putting those first two names in the same post, but I can assure you that I am not.
First, check out our new ad (left side) from BarackObama.com, which takes you to Obama's Senate webpage and a discussion of FERA '06.
Second, Andrew Sullivan finally saw An Inconvenient Truth. His reaction? He recommends it and re-joins the cacophony calling for a large increase in the gas tax, as well as greater R&D&I.
(Of course, Sully also gets in the relatively long line of people taking shots at Al Gore and his attempt to pull a "political Madonna," which also seems to be prevalent in the 'sphere as well. C'mon folks, he invented teh internets!)
“We have only two modes—complacency and panic.”
—James R. Schlesinger, the first energy secretary, in 1977, on the country's approach to energy
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
I attended the Skeptics Conference (Michael Shermer) at Pasadena last month. Shermer made the same Gore joke during his introduction speech. So, during breaks, I asked attendees (randomly) when Gore had made that claim. Most hum & hawed and said he probably did it when he was running for Prez.
A very small number - at a Skeptics Conference!! - knew the facts, as explained at Snopes.
I like him, but he was a bad candidate. There's a little too much self-aggrandizing (and revisionism) in ATC for my taste as well...but hey, it's his flick.
The last does have energy related consequences, since Putin apparently has banned US/Brit oil corporations from bidding for contracts in parts of Russia.
As many have pointed out here and elsewhere, Bush was able to charm the media into overlooking his own glaring deficiences while his enablers played up every trivial "fault" of Gore. How dare he wear beige suits!!
Unfortunately, you get what you pay for. We bought a mean-spirited, selfish, not-curious nor compationate dope who bribed us (you) into voting for him with irresponsible tax cuts.
Even more unfortunately, his people have been so effective it may be too late to undo what he hath wrought.
And then there is PO and GW.
Enjoy the relative calm before the Doom and Gloom,
-PoP
why do you hate America and freedom to have beer with the president ?
"Why isn't there a 'nice package' on the left?"
Perhaps because reality rarely conforms to a "nice package." Witness The Oil Drum, for one...
My wife and I were trying to analyse this the other night, and we came to the conclusion (at least I did) that the democrats are made up of too diverse a group of interests to easily formulate a "package". Try it for yourself -- come up with a short message that appeals to all the Dem groups. It's hard. (And not just smearing the other side).
It's not THAT much easier for the Rs, but it is easier.
The Preservatives would be for saving old houses, "back to the basics", anti-GM foods, pro-union, pro-gun, and things that our "founding fathers" believed -- i.e. all things agrarian or old-style industrial.
The Catalysts would be for more free trade, pro stem cell research, "privatizing" government, pro gay rights, eliminating quotas, pro-immigration/immigrants -- i.e. all things that promote change from the historical norms or status quo.
These parties would make more sense to me, and I think, reduce the conflicts that have built-up in both current parties.
You really ought to read the first chapter of The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. There's plenty of evidence to prove that the election was stolen by disenfranchizing thousands of black voters in largely Democratic districts in Florida by having Choicepoint incorrectly label them as felons. Perpetuating this "nader stole it from gore" crap just makes it easier for them to keep stealing elections.
ROFL -- and you called my post crap!? I guess I should have used the word "sabotaged" instead of "stole". Did *you* vote for Nader?
Votes aren't guaranteed to any candidate, the candidate has to actually earn them.
OK, re-stated: There are various ways to sabotage your opponents in an election -- some ways being illegal and some sabotage is caused by "luck" (e.g. bufferfly ballots), etc, etc. Whatever.
More importantly, there are various way to sabotage your "cause" -- and Nader succeeded in this with distinction!
I'll assume you voted for him.
So you got one assumption right but to assume that "my cause" was sabotaged by Nader is to assume that Gore's "cause" was my own which I wasn't convinced it was.
But back to my main point, saying Nader "stole" the election from Gore takes away from the REAL theft which was disenfranchisement of black voters which is a MUCH more important problem.
Of course the "spoiler" problem could easily be fixed by the Democratic leadership if they helped push something like instant-runoff voting through but I doubt they really want to do anything that helps third-parties and independents gain more votes.
Unprecedented: The 2000 Presidential Election
Who was it that said, I would have written it shorter if only I had more time ???
Forming an 8 word message is hard hard work.
It takes more than a village.
It takes a hundred think tanks.
The Democrats don't even own a think pistol.
"Compassionate Conservative" is two words, and alliterative at that.
It probably took many think tanks and focus groups to determine that these two-word couplets would resonate with the voting public at the critical time.
Most Democrats are too "intellectual" to understand that the voting public does not do "intellect".
We follow the crowd. We "stay the course". We don't "cut and run" from the herd. We don't "flip flop". We are all of one vision. We are the proud, the few, and busy being all that we can be.
Either you are with us or you're against us.
Simple as that.
Simple is as simple does. (-Forrest Gump)
That's all you need to know about their party, right there.
Fairness and Justice, For the rest of us! -- Vote Democrat
I read your snopes link. Explain to me the difference other than diction if I state "I invented the question mark" and "I created the question mark"
matt
Nothing reveals more about your character than to push this blatant lie. It tells me you buy into the right wing noise machine without even checking the facts. It tells me that you would ignore the important work that Gore is doing regarding telling the people about Global Warming in order to pick petty arguments that you people are clearly too ignorant to make.
You scum probably were among the whiners and whingers crying about Clinton's blowjob and are still talking about it today AS IF THAT MEANS SHIT IN A WORLD WHERE WE WERE LIED INTO A WAR, A WORLD WHERE OUR SOLDIERS ARE GETTING KILLED FOR A COMPLETE LIE, A WORLD WHERE IRAQIS ARE BEING KILLED FOR A COMPLETE LIE.
This sort of BS tells me we have little to no hope when it comes to gaining any acceptance regarding informing the public about peak oil. Why would anyone believe people who continue to push this lie, who continue to try and bend the truth in order to make it seem that the lie is true.
Such sad, twisted creeps.
here is another uncontribution to the peak oil debate
while I totally agree with your sentiment, (hell, I can't get over the polarizing statements on the cBS tv news about the huge conspiracies of all major oil producers to take our oil right at the start of ww4. and the cantarell news at the same time? to much for my paranoid mind) I do enjoy the mix of folks here. it seems to be common ground. There is a problem,peak oil. peace loving or piece loving we all seem to be here
and as I've said to my friends around these parts. If you realize the wars in the middle east are about oil and can stand behind them I have much more respect for you than someone who thinks this is about freedom democracy or christianity
sorry I've been playing music with friends for about five hrs. that means about 4.5 hours of drinking beer and
I still have not seen Inconvenient Truth though I want to. I do not need to be convinced GW is real, but I would like to address it's property status with the democrats. Is Gore noble? Is his only goal to spread awareness. He has stated he does not intend to run again but I call BS and think he is using GW for a publicity campaign. Meanwhile Bush acknowledges GW and makes no significant policy change. Politicians are for themselves and aside from a few issues (abortion, gay mariage and other red herrings) which really have little impact on the future, they all act the same. Gore is a robot and Bush is a puppet. We need an (matt savinar though I hate his rhetoric) unknown to run for office.
Matt
matt
I imagine we'll get our own wallace, by and by.
Are you sure that is the wish you would make?
Ha! Ha!
Monkey genes still making us crave for the savior alpha male.
Will not work ever again or may be only in the form of warlords and godfathers if not everything is wiped out.
Would be nice if we could find some OTHER ways, I don't see any yet.
.
"Gore is a robot."
Not in this. Got some passion going.
"He has stated he does not intend to run again"
He doesn't; he doesn't like the political game. And his mission is GW, so all the other BS would get in his way, even tho he would get a more powerful place to speak from.
I think he sees it as a diversion from GW, and PO.
However, I'm signing petitions to draft him :>)
Rat
Or someone like Al Gore, who while certainly not perfect, has a grasp on the problems that really face this country, like global warming. It doesn't matter so much what a politicians motives are, you can say they are noble or ignoble, in the end what matters is what they do. We can't afford to spend another 4 or 8 years with someone like Bush who either has no plan, or has a bad plan, for addressing energy/oil/petroleum and the closely linked global warming.
We need a new paradigm and will only change the status quo by supporting grassroots activism. Time for a bottom-up societal reorganization.
A gas tax increase was impossible in the face of a "Contract with America" Congress more concerned with bringing Clinton down than actually leading. But is Sullivan unaware of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, which Gore did champion, and which despite various issues was making reasonably good progress until it was killed in 2001, in the first 100 days of the current administration (BTW, I don't agree with the contention in the link that the hydrogen fuel cell is particularly promising)? Had Detroit fully embraced the idea they might not be bleeding red to the tune of billions per year. But the short term appeal of sticking all of your eggs in the basket of putting makeup on a truck was just too hard to resist.
As I remember hearing it - in 12 years of GOP Congress they have held exactly 1 (one) hearing on the subject of global warming. And surprise, surprise - that hearing was an attempt by the Republicans to completely destroy the results of a study on statistical grounds. Apparently they were attempting to hammer a report that at the time was a few years old - and they did quite an effective job... Only problem was that by the time they got around to holding the hearings there were a whole slew of new studies supporting the premise of the original one they were so busy skewering...
12 years and 1 hearing in Congress
That's hardly Al Gore's fault.
"Utah Phillips once said, "The earth is not dying. It is being killed, and the people killing it have names and addresses." In one sentence, Utah Phillips told us more about global warming than Al Gore has told us in a lifetime of writing and speaking, let alone in An Inconvenient Truth.
Needless to say, Gore offers no names and addresses. Gore's "who" discussion is limited to population. He seems to imply that the issue is the growth in population combined with busy people being shortsighted, leading to some giant incompetency "accident." That makes it easy to avoid digging into the areas that would naturally follow from starting with "who" - which should lead to dissecting the relationship between environmental deterioration and the prevailing global investment model that is such a critical part of the governance infrastructure and incentive systems."
The Source of Hopelessness
A Review of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
That's a "who" other than "population."
Names are given.
Are you noble? I call bullshit. I think you are mainly
hear to satisfy your childish need for attention and
to pontificate with a hollow sound. I bet it really salves
your weak self-image and self loathing to be able to criticise famous people.
You say Gore is a robot. I say you are the south end of a horse going north.
What we really need are fewer boy-men
like you who haven't even bothered to see the movie
but are qualified to call Gore a robot.
Then you swagger on to say we need a Matt Savinar. No wait... you hate his rhetoric too.
It is more important to you to satisfy your
transparently needy ego when you boldly plan
re Global Warming: "to address it's property status with the democrats."
My my we are important. The world awaits your keen inquiry.
What, going to the national caucus are you?
Pathetic.
Gore is an actual human who is working for progress. Bush is a war criminal and thief. There are no equivalences here.
Interesting item:
Putin plan to shut out US oil giants
The trade talks failed, George W. Bush suggested that Russia become a democracy "like Iraq", Russia has 25% of the world's natural gas supplies, the US has no coherent natural gas energy policy, Putin is laughing all the way to bank!
I would be laughing myself if this wasn't so tragic, if these so-called "leaders" of ours weren't such self-defeating morons, if LNG were going to be really "fungible" in the future, etc.
Oh, hell, might as well laugh anyway when power grid blackouts become the norm.
After all who's side is the US on? I thought it was imperically Israel.
Damage control/Public relations
That doesn't really qualify as damage control in my book, as the bombing will assuredly resume as soon as she leaves.
The 'damage control' I was referring to was the belated effort to salvage whatever tatters that remained of the US reputation for "impartiality" in being a "fair arbiter" in the region. Even staunch supporters of Israel were starting to comment that the US wasn't even pretending to care about a destroyed city and massive civilian casualties.
In my view, her trip was a PR move -- nothing more, nothing less
Read John Robb for more discussion on 4GW (4th generation warfare).
I agree but I would add that Israel did not handle this well at the start. Hurt the fragile legitimate govt. of Lebanon too much (and really for no good reason - the right's claim that the Lebanese army would enter the fray is too weak - Lebanon does not even fly its own air force!!), with all the communication attacks up north and in central Lebanon.
Should have focused down south and/or whacked Assad and family in Syria across the head. Syria is almost like a forward airfield for supplies, men and money arriving from Iran.
Is it tragic, isn't it? As it is, rolling blackouts and extended power outages (Cali, Queens, St. Louis) might be the most important stories of the summer. When more major cities start experiencing power shortages, even the complacent morons among us will have to realize that something big is amiss.
A slightly different story is one I saw on Energy Bulletin about Zimbabwe. The crisis is in wheat production, but was precipitated by energy shortages. Zimbabwe is an early loser and has been priced out of the oil markets. That is an oversimplification of their situation, but here is the article.
http://allafrica.com/stories/200607210449.html
For some reason, I have a feeling that the gulf will be spared from a major hurricane hit this year. That's just my hunch (or my prayer).
The news organization I work for has a correspondent in Zimbabwe, so I'm well aware of myriad problems over there caused by major shortfalls in energy. It's a situation that will only get worse.
Other early losers in the energy race are Bangladesh and Indonesia.
Not only will the lack of the ability to procure sufficient energy resources to meet their needs start to become more of a trend among "developing" countries, but also the dearth of available capital to fix and expand their energy infrastructures.
And as for "leaders:" morons--yes. But I can't buy into "self-defeating." That implies they had some plan or objective to start with.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/on-the-outer--the-fuel-rates-sting/2006/07/24/1153593272736.html
The vulnerability map, as displayed, would correlate fairly well with a wealth distribution map. People on the water are much more likely to own their own homes, for example, than people out west. It costs a LOT more to buy closer to the water and people cannot simply 'gravitate' there. In Sydney, it costs a significant amount more to buy near public transport, for comparative distances from the city. Poorer people cant simply move there. People from rural area around Sydney complain that even the cheaper areas out west are too expensive compared to the rest of the state. People cant just 'gravitate' to expensive neighbourhoods. Just doesn't work. Also, properties out west are probably more vulnerable to price declines in a weak market (the buzz came off Sydney's housing boom several years ago and prices have been softly falling). Interest rates are going up next month and possibly again later in the year. People out west have bigger mortgages compared to income. All these factors conspire to make the west vulnerable.
Very little of the effect displayed is probably attributable to oil, and the effect cannot be teased out with this data. Certainly the oil price rises hurt people out west more than people in the east, but people out west were more vulnerable before oil prices rose, and most variation in the vulnerbility map would definitely be explained by pre-existing differences, not by the marginal effect of variation in oil price.
I am very well aware of Sydney wealth distribution. I have lived there and am married to an Aussie. I have also followed the housing market closely. I agree with everything you say. The academic study is about vulnerability to oil prices and interest rates. I just want to share it with people here. I think the conclusion from the map that people close to the center of town and/or transport infratsructure are less vulnerable stands though doesn't it. I haven't made any assertions about whether this is because people are richer or not.
Your arguement seems to imply that housing is cheaper in the vulnerable areas which would imply that the sensitivity to rates in those areas are less not more. So presumably the vulnerability in those areas is more to do with oil than rates. Also it is intuitively sensible to expect people far from transport to be vulnerable to oil. As such wouldn't you expect people to at least wish (or attempt) to gravitate toward central areas and places with good transport as oil pricese rise. As oil goes up it becomes economically reasonable to pay higher house prices in those areas to save on the transport bill. It appears a simple arguement to me. Did I miss something?
What conclusions aren't common sense? What conclusions do I need to check? You sound like a bitter Aussie who can't afford to buy a house... I hope you are not.
As a naive reader of your post, I interpreted (that would be mis-interpreted) your comments as claiming that the distriution of vulnerabilities in Sydney as expressed on the map were most significantly related to the price of oil. I made this assumption because we are at TOD. I wished to express, particularly for readers not familiar with Sydney, the contrary view that the vulnerability map presented has more to do with the distribution of wealth.
I do not disagree at all that those far from transport will be more vulnerable as a result in oil price rises. As you allude, vague hints of this effect are apparent on the vulnerability distribution map. I merely claim that this effect is small in contrast to other sources of vulnerability at this point in time.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/24/AR2006072400976.html
However, I am amazed that someone so brilliant would place such heavy reliance on hydrogen and ethanol. Of course, I have no doubt that he knows something (many things) I don't, but I am still skeptical of these two attempts to prolong the predominance of the automobile. The best strategy is to make the use of the automobile mostly a niche market.
Even with hydrogen and ethanol, our cities would still suck, unless of course, one just loves having most of one's habitat devoted to concrete.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/07/25/israel-airstrike.html
I have seen evidence in this forum of debate that reveals a deeper understanding of the politics and history of the Middle East. The idea that Hezbollah is the "enemy" because it is an organization in Labanon backed by foreign powers (Iran and Syria) and that this is somehow unacceptable to the West is a bit hypocrytical.
Just as Iran and Syria backs Hezbollah, the United States and others back Israel. The West also have occupying armies in Iraq and significant military bases in the region. Are we really any different?
They are the Axis of Evil.
We and our allies fight for the forces of Good.
It is just that simple.
It is just that simple.
Not everybody think so:
Please note that this is from a successfull American entrepreneur.
OTOH I understand that you may find it difficult to deal with people who think that : Seedless watermelon promotes homosexuality and asexuality
But if conversly... Ah! Hem! Well!
As for who will get the contracts...
Praise be to Halliburton! Halliburton is Great!
For more:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0531-02.htm