Wing and a prayer; or wing it and pray? This is the United States Congress you're talking about. Kindergarten? That would be a step up. • • • The GOP is going to fix a serious problem? I'd say thanks for the laugh, but it's not exactly funny. The problem Bush would face in doing so is that the solutions to this problem are bad for the people he's invested his office in. Your "libertarian" fear of liberalism is suggestive, but your "libertarian" support of conservatives is damning. The problem with that indictment, however, is that the people don't want leaders. They want puppets. And they reinforce that proposition nearly every time they go to the ballot box. The 2006 election, for instance, only demonstrated the people's irritation with symbols. Lieberman's return after being rejected by local Democrats accentuates the symbolic. Rather than take a risk, constituents sent an effigy back to the Senate. Lieberman is now a Republican tool, this year's Zell Miller, who will pander to the GOP and lie to the nation in a desperate show of his waning influence. Turning to the larger aspect of the issue .... • • • One dimension of the problem facing us is a typical story of life in America: a spectre looms somewhere "far off" in the "distant" future. And then one day we wake up and the darkness is upon us. Some folks might look back to drilling bans of twenty years ago, but this doesn't ring true. After all, it seems ridiculous to propose that both the peak crisis and the war on terror (leading, somehow, to Iraq) should work in such striking synchronicity. Facing the future, now, our options seem somewhat reduced: • Invest in the future, prepare for tough times, dig out. • Invest in extending the present, give only passing regard to the tough times ahead, and pray for a good outcome. The nuclear revival, wind power, and even promising new technological claims for solar energy all demand a development and implementation period. Several years have passed since we heard about a possible revolution in infrastructure—first presented through the Apollo Project, as far as I recall—that would apply internet-style routing to energy distribution. Imagine not only having an electric car (that runs on, say, electrons pared off from a gasoline-based fuel cell), but also being able to plug it into the grid and feed power back to the system. This is a fine proposition for consumers, but spells radical—even revolutionary—change for the energy companies. It is no wonder that we have not seen any visible progress on this front. Hemp-based lubricants? Fuels? The War on Drugs has suppressed any progress on one of the most promising biofuel sources we know. Wind power? Even when you're putting the windmills in the middle of nowhere (e.g. Columbia River gorge), you still face all sorts of local opposition, as NIMBY Syndrome has extended to cover a range of miles, relying solely on aesthetic concerns. After all, while I think these devices are enchanting—even beautiful—the people who live within, say, forty miles are still worried that they should have to see them at all. With plenty of oil land leased to the petrol companies undeveloped, it seems absurd that the solution should be to grant them even more land. After all, exploiting these reserves will do nothing to solve the problem in the near term, and the longer picture suggests relief will be only minimal. Perhaps, when that oil starts flowing, gas will only cost nine dollars a gallon instead of ten. Likewise, while nuclear power seems an obvious route, the infrastructure is not in place to exploit the possibilities both quickly and responsibly. Any solution seems to demand a certain lag time while we get the program up and running. In the meantime, energy prices will continue to rise, and where, exactly, will we find the money to handle the infrastructure challenges? After all, the only thing the GOP wants to do to taxes is cut them, and the only thing that seems generally acceptable about, say, military spending is constant increase. As some have noted recent drops in petroleum prices, I might point to a June opinion written by Michael T. Klare: Now, I don't know about where anyone else is living, but around here, the drop in gasoline prices coincides eerily with the administration's decision to sit down and pretend to listen to the Iranians. One can only hope that there is something genuine about this political maneuver, but the passing of time will bring us the answer, and any claim of clairvoyance is mere speculation. If the GOP and the energy companies showed any demonstrable, genuine commitment to actual solutions to the problem, perhaps this latest demonstration by congressional Republicans would seem something more than election-year theatre. However, such as it is, there is nothing about the Republican party that suggests they could do the people any good except by accident. As the parties become more difficult to discern, it should become clear that the problem of Democrats and Republicans is not merely a problem of political parties. In the end, the problem is the people's, first and foremost. If the Democratic party—long and falsely accused of being liberal—did something truly heroic, like actually swinging toward liberalism, then the people could genuinely give liberals their chance to succeed or fail in Congress and the White House. To the other, Republicans being Republicans is hardly heroic, hardly meritorious, and hardly surprising. One might suggest that the American people are well and truly fucked, but perhaps this is symptomatic of our Puritan heritage. Maybe if we had been a little less prudish, that fucking would be a bit less figurative. The past, however, is the past, and only serves to influence the future by explaining the challenges and demands before us. We see the challenge, perceive the crisis, but somehow it isn't yet real to many of my American neighbors. If it was, this election cycle would be more dramatic and genuinely exciting. It is, in fact, time for idealism. Peace, prosperity, and justice are nebulous terms for many. But it is only through such "high-minded", "elitist", and "effete" notions that we will find our way out of this labyrinth. Of leadership, few can disagree that we need it badly and immediately. But just because someone cries, "Follow me!" does not mean we should leap blindly into the abyss. The leader who promises and fights to bring us a better tomorrow has merit. One who would return us to the blissful ignorance and apathy of yesterday ought to be thrown over the edge. ____________________ Notes: Klare, Michael T. "The oil price villain? Bush". The Star. June 29, 2008. http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/450919 See Also: Greenwald, Glenn. "No Democrat wanted Joe Lieberman's endorsement". Unclaimed Territory. December 19, 2007. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/12/19/lieberman/
That is fine Sci-Guy, I figured out what you intended to say. Ok so you are saying that oil companies are leasing millions of acres of land for experiments? This is the first I have heard of it. I would think they have existing oil wells that would be much cheaper and much more suitable for experimentation on increasing productivity.
tiassa i have to disagree with you on one point. Nuclear power (well fission anyway) is as short term as coal and oil. So we bury the waste and it leaks killing how many? 100's? 1000's? 1,000,000's? what about the enviroment itself? how many species are we willing to see go exstint because a nuclear waste dump leaked and for the next 1000 years the land is dead. There is already a solor option being made in the US using Australian tech (which is how i herd of it) which can produce enough power to suplie base load for a city by itself. And it can produce power at night Im sorry but i have the australian bias against nuclear power
They are certainly putting forth more effort than the Democrats who refused to bring the topic up for a vote and then went on vacation. To me, the solution seems obvious. We need to do all we can to increase the supply of oil to deal with the short term crisis. For the longer term, invest in building new nuke plants, wind farms, solar, etc. Regarding the years it would take for oil to start flowing from areas where drilling is presently banned, that's not completely true. In some areas, they've already done the exploring and just need to start drilling. In others, they have capped old wells and just need to uncap them. Yes, completely new oil finds will require some years to put into production, but do you honestly think we'll not need that oil in a few years? As far as existing unexploited leases go, isn't it possible that some of those areas simply don't have oil on them or that the oil on them is so hard to get at that it's not yet worth going after? I agree that the Republicans suck. But right now at least they are addressing the issue! WTF have congressional Democrats done? Harrassed some oil company executives and made noise about banning speculation. Oh, and the talk of a windfall profit tax. All of that is counter-productive. Increasing drilling at least has the possibility of lowering energy prices. Whereas everything the Democrats have proposed will only drive prices higher! You are being far too partisan here. I'd say that statement is true for the US government and the vast majority it's various officials (elected or otherwise), not just the Republican party. Yes, one might most definitely say that. An issue you mentioned earlier really needs to be resolved if we're going to make any headway at all: This NIMBY bullshit is going to have to be put to an end. We need to stop allowing important projects to be brought to a stop by frivilous lawsuits or by the discovery of some new variety of snail. I mean, what could be more benign a source of power than a windmill? Yet jackasses don't like the way they look? Fuck them.
As opposed to all the brilliant problem-solving on the part of our Democratic friends. Or, are we supposed to explain their complete and utter failure in getting anything done as "all the Republican's fault." At what point in time are we allowed to actually expect anything out of this do-nothing Congress? If -- and that's a big "if" -- the Republicans are all to blame for this Congress's failure, then the Democratic [MAJORITY!] needs to strap on a set of balls and actually act like leaders. If they can't do that, then they should just pack up shop and go running back to mommy and daddy. My distrust and disdain for the Republican party is well documented. In the end, were I to chose the lesser of the two evils, I've said plainly that I'd grudgingly chose the Republicans. At least the core ideals are somewhat right. It's in the application and observation of those ideals where they lose me. The Democrats just lost me at "hello." To be fair, I did vote for our current Democratic governor, but his rival was black [and a crook], so I must be a right-wing racist. The minor point wasn't so much to "defend" the Republican party so much as to point out that the Democrats just don't give a damn. The major point being: Bush is a complete failure, has the lowest approval ratings of -- HELL! -- any president since records of these things started being kept, has bungled more noble ideas than Carter was even able to come up with in his term as President, and has pretty much helped piss-away the American economy. The Democrats in Congress should be running circles around him: bringing the troops home, denying him legislation, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. But what we have is a "wait and see" approach. And now, we're close to TWO YEARS of waiting and seeing what they could (and apparently, could not) do. So, while I don't expect the Republicans to actually get anything of value done (all by themselves, at least), it would be nice to have seen the two parties deny themselves their free first-class tickets home for four weeks of vacation and pretend to actually care about a matter that is causing people that I know and care about to struggle from day to day (my parents' $500 heating bill comes to mind). The USA is hemorrhaging more wealth in a single year than the entire "War on Terror" has cost tax payers. You'd think the Democrats would be all on top of the issue and making the oil-funded Republicans look like douche-bags. ~String
They are none of them libertarian, however. Which is your claimed stance. As long as you assume the Dems are all in a bloc as the Reps are, you can fool yourself in that manner. If you notice that the half of the Dems you most object to have been in practice conjoined and cooperative with the Reps you regard as the lesser evil, you might reevaluate your perception of what the "core values" of each are. The Dems are not a bloc, as the Reps are. The more libertarian Congressmen in practice (such as actual opposition to the Unitary Executive takeover) - which is where a sensible evaluation of core principles begins - have been mostly Dems for years now. And this GOP tantrum has absolutely nothing to do with solving problems - at least not problems faced by the country or its citizenry. Nor is it a recent revolt - it is SOP for the Gingrich Republicans, has been for going on twenty years.
Question: What is SOP? Because I know it as the initials of my favorite band (sop.org) So in politics, what does it mean?
That is utter and complete bullshit. Bob Barr, for instance, the current presidential nominee for the Libertarian party was a Republican congressman. Ron Paul, previously the Libertarian party nominee for president, was this year a Republican party hopeful. There is a whole wing of the Republican party dedicated to Libertarian ideals, myself included. When was the last former Democrat nominated for president by the Libertarian party? Can you name a single prominent Democrat that is Libertarian? And don't give me that opposition to Bush (the unitary exectutive) crap. They just hate Bush, there's no underlying philosophy there. The Democrats absolutely are a block and they tolerate no dissent. Look what happened to Lieberman, or Zell Miller. If you dare deviate from the DNC playbook, you're out. Meanwhile, there are pro-life and pro-abortion Republicans. There are pro-war and anti-war Republicans. There are social conservatives and Libertarians.
Zell was a Republican using the Democratic Brand. And the Dems did nothing to punish him. Lieberman, only left the Democratic Party when he lost the primary elections. Now he is an independent and gives the Dems in the Senate 51 votes when he decides to vote with the Democrats. But as you know he is supporting his friend, John McCain for president this year. You know Democrats tolerate dissent that is why it is hard to get Dems to agree on anything much less speaking points.
Yes, the Party Line. Now for Zell Miller, During the 1970s Miller was twice named a delegate to the Democratic National Convention, once in 1972 and again in 1976. In 1971 he was appointed executive director of the Democratic Party in Georgia and served in this capacity until 1973. In 1992 Miller was critically important to Arkansas governor Bill Clinton's campaign to secure the Democratic U.S. presidential nomination. After Clinton won the presidential primary in Georgia, he invited Miller to give one of the three keynote speeches at the Democratic National Convention. Placards reading "Give'm Hell, Zell" were distributed among the delegates as Miller gave a speech that was critical of U.S. president George H. W. Bush's administration. Later that year, Miller again actively campaigned for Clinton, who carried Georgia in his win of the November presidential election. Yes, Zell is such a Republican, hog wash. As for Lieberman, Lieberman was the Democratic candidate for Vice President, running with presidential nominee Al Gore, Lieberman was elected as a "reform Democrat" to the Connecticut Senate in 1970, where he served for 10 years, including the last six as Majority Leader Lieberman served as chair of the Democratic Leadership Council. Yes tell that to: Zell Miller Sen. Casey Benjamin Nelson Michael Schwartz, Thomas Eagleton Jennings Randolph
Notes Around Notes Around I do not deny the challenges. Rather, I propose that it is time to discuss realistic solutions to those problems; I refer here to my prior remark that, "The nuclear revival, wind power, and even promising new technological claims for solar energy all demand a development and implementation period." Nuclear waste certainly, at least I would think, falls under the development and implementation purview. Jonathan Golob, a local science blogger, discussed nuclear power recently. At my own blog, I compiled links to those entries in June, so that they would be easier to find. Nuclear power is not something we should engage rashly. But neither is it something we can discount simply for the challenges it presents. • • • I would contest this point insofar as the GOP effort does not appear to be genuine. It's something of a circus, and there are no useful suggestions coming from this demonstration. The entire energy discussion needs to be reframed into more useful and relevant terms in order to be substantial. While the Democratic leadership ought to be more assertive on this count, there is little to be gained from pursuing the current political discussion. • • • This is one of those tips of the hand that lend to ... but never mind. You address the point more directly. Suffice to say that one's opinion of the Democrats does not excuse the Republicans, nor vice-versa. This is what I find strangest about your outlook. Consider first, please, the nature of liberal and conservative in history. If we examine such conflicts throughout history, the defining aspect of the conservative movement is its attempt to preserve power, privilege, and wealth for a smaller group of people while liberalism has sought to extend justice, equality, and opportunity to larger numbers. Jesus Christ and Muhammad alike contested the elitism of the societies in which they operated. Mary Wollstonecraft sought empowerment for women. Lord Byron supported republicanism against monarchy. The list goes on: liberty and justice for all, the abolition of slavery, voting rights, employment ... we have reached what is a confusing time for many people in which, the larger issues having been settled in general within some societies, the more subtle aspects of what those issues imply are being argued over. I have before made the (semi-) joke that the difference between the Democrats and Republicans—and thus the reason for my sympathies to the former—is that when a Democrat acts like a Democrat should (e.g., liberal), things are supposed to get better for people in general, while whenever a Republican acts like a Republican should (e.g., conservative), things get worse for the people in general. Trickle-down is an excellent example: many people chose the core principles, but the operating reality is that the theory has, in practice, only exacerbated inequality in society. Raw numbers of millionaires may be up in American society, but the gap between rich and poor has increased even more. Furthermore, I would point out that as the Democrats become increasingly incompetent and ridiculous, this is because they are, in fact, continually moving to the right. An example would be a discussion some months ago examining the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act as an example of rightward drift in American politics. Where thirty years ago, conservatives worried about FISA's implications regarding civil liberties, that concern is now relegated to what are often derided as fringe sectors of the left wing. We have reached a point where the allegedly-liberal Democratic candidate for president has endorsed a position that in recent decades, was too far to the right for conservatives to stomach. • • • Funny you should mention Gingrich .... _____________________ See Also: Malone, Julia. "Gingrich joins House revolt over oil drilling". Atlanta Journal Constitution. August 6, 2008. http://www.ajc.com/fruita/content/news/stories/2008/08/06/gingrich_oil_drilling_congress.html
Regardless of the presence of a couple of libertarian - at least in claim - men in the Republican Party, essentially none of the core ideals of that Party - as revealed in its coherent and organized and deliberate legislative actions accomplished by bloc voting with few dissidents, or the pattern of their successive justifications - are libertarian. You will find more libertarian core ideals, and a larger libertarian contingent, among the Dems (especially visible since 06). That's one reason they don't as often vote in a bloc on major or controversial issues - why you see things like the Iraq war powers vote, or the FISA vote, with large factions defying the Party "leadership". Some do, some don't. The Reps as involved in this little circus here don't. From the media framing point of view, one of the interesting features is how quickly and universally the reserves involved have become described as "domestic". What is actually involved is transfer of the nation's oil reserves to multinational corporations, who will then sell the produced oil on the world market. Aside from the tax revenue, and whatever price can be obtained in the current panic for the reserves themselves, there's little "domestic" involvement. Oil produced by Exxon from ANWR little more belongs to the US than oil produced by Exxon from Nigerian or (soon) Cuban fields.
Any reasonable energy policy must include increased access to our domestic reserves. To call the Republican demand for a vote on this issue "a circus" and "not a useful suggestion" suggests to me that you're not taking the issue seriously. Yes, we need to develop alternative energy sources. But that will take time. To get us by between whenever these new energy sources come on line, we need oil. And claiming we'll see none of the oil for years is a lie. There is enough existing infrastructure to begin production immediately in many areas. Even if someone discovered cold fusion tommorow, it would still take years to utilize it effectively all over the country. In the meantime, we need oil. Lots of it.
It's the Reps who aren't taking this seriously (or anything else regarding the governance of the country) - WTF would a panic sale like this have to do with the current crisis ? It's a circus, in an election year. Are you familiar with Anne Korin in such matters ? perhaps you would take her opinion: it's "political grandstanding". Meanwhile, "access to our reserves" is beside the point. ANWR, for example, is more Japan's reserves than "ours". We don't have a national oil company - we're just talking about panic selling our reserves to Exxon et al, like every other third world crisis victim of these guys
Do you have anything approaching a coherent line of thought on this subject? We don't need to replace all of our oil from other sources, all we need to do is replace the 20% that comes from the Middle East. Even at that, any oil added on to the World Market, from a stable source will stabalize the market from disruptions in the Middle East.
Right, the coast of the US is an undiscovered goddamn Saudi Arabia. Liberals will never admit that ya know, because...they like...taxes or something.
That kind of statement shows you to be blinded by partisanship. Surely all the Republicans are not always unserious about governing. Not even one good one among them? Really? How is it a "panic sale"? We need more oil. We know where a bunch of it is. Why not go get it? I've never heard of her, but I did (per your suggestion) google her and read this article: http://energy.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTlmMjFjYWRjOWI3ZGI0MzUxZDJjYTBlMmUzOTc2Mzc=#more What she says there makes perfect sence, but it doesn't alter that fact that right now, we need more oil. Yes, develop electric/gas hybrids and whatever other alternative technology. But they do not yet exist. Right now, high oil prices are hurting our economy. So, right now, we should increase domestic production. Not at all. Increasing the world's supply of oil will decrease the price of oil world wide. We should also, of course, do as Anne Korin suggests and develop alternative technology to decrease demand. But one strategy does not exclude the other. We need both!
