Interesting question to Liberals.

[neonlyte]

The oil industry will tell you that this "limited supply" business is a myth. Just last week, there was a debate about this on NPR and a spokesman for oil said, "People have been saying for years that we're going to run out of oil, and it hasn't happened yet."

I remember attending a meeting 30 years ago with the late Sir James Goldsmith (founder Ecologist magazine & successful businessman) when it was forcast oil would run out in approximately 50 years. Oil will not run out in 20 years, it probably has 100 years of production left, on known reserves. The problem is demand will outstrip supply, sure you can pump it faster, that just makes it run out quicker.

The price of oil will spiral as resources become tighter. The cost of extraction will increase, Saudi Arabia is already having technical problems extracting oil from the worlds largest oilfield, the traditional method of pumping water in to extract oil is resulting in a oil/water emulsion which is expensive (compared with clean oil) to seperate.

I cannot see politicians telling electors, 'Hey people elect me, ok so fuel prices doubled in my watch, but under the opposition they would have trebled.'

Do you honestly think the American people will accept a doubling of fuel prices? We wouldn't in England, we had a fuel strike when prices went up 10c in 2001. But we have a safety net, tax accounts for some 80% of the price we pay for our fuel, undoing that linkage and spreading the tax cost around will provide some means of adjustment, you don't have that in the US to the same degree.

The issue is not that oil will run out, it is that the price will escalate to a level that will cause political upheaval. And the old tried and tested solution will be unwrapped, divert the publics attention, lets go grab 'our' oil.

Iraq is just a little skirmish, Saudi Arabia is being undermined from within, will the US let the Saudi reserves fall into the hands of terrorists?

 

[shereads]

Over here, it's all about the benjamins.

What's it all about in Britain, where you don't have Ben Franklin's face on your money?

 

[shereads]

Prediction: Saudi Arabia will assure that gas prices drop at the pump in the U.S., at an optimum point before the November election.

That was the plan, I'm sure. The plan seems to have backfired on the Saudis, so they may not be able to deliver for Dubya. But you can bet they'll try.

 

[neonlyte]

I thought handing over power a couple of days early was one of the first really intelligent things the administration has done. It really took the wind out of the sails of the insurgents who had promised bloody mayhem right before the "official" transfer of power was to take place.

-Colly

Then again, we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Taking the wind out of their sails is good strategy, they will regroup and act out another scenario, when they do, it wont be 'our' fault but you can bet your bottom dollar that 'we' will respond. An election in November guarantees that.

If an extreme act is committed against coalition forces they will have to retaliate to shore up the vote ahead of November.

Politics overshadows reason.

 

[neonlyte]

Prediction: Saudi Arabia will assure that gas prices drop at the pump in the U.S., at an optimum point before the November election.

That was the plan, I'm sure. The plan seems to have backfired on the Saudis, so they may not be able to deliver for Dubya. But you can bet they'll try.

I'm f***ed if I know. I'm reading JG Ballard - 'Millenium People' at the moment. Poignantly accurate portrail of how we exist and live with no control over our lives. I only visit UK now and again to remind me why I moved to Portugal.


On the Saudi thing, you are probably right though the balance is shifting like the sands in the desert.

One day Saudi will 'wake up' and realise it is control, it may be the ruling families, but more likely bloody insurgency from the people who live in the nation. Just how do you 'buy off' a ruling family that makes more money from oil every day than the rest of the world can print?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Then again, we shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Taking the wind out of their sails is good strategy, they will regroup and act out another scenario, when they do, it wont be 'our' fault but you can bet your bottom dollar that 'we' will respond. An election in November guarantees that.

If an extreme act is committed against coalition forces they will have to retaliate to shore up the vote ahead of November.

Politics overshadows reason.

If the insurgency is by foerign nationals, as much intelligence suggests, then the government of Iraq, being in the hands of Iraqis may cause them some problems too.

I think this action shows the first bit of looking ahead before acting out of the administration since the ground cmbat phase ended.

-Colly

 

[neonlyte]

If the insurgency is by foerign nationals, as much intelligence suggests, then the government of Iraq, being in the hands of Iraqis may cause them some problems too.

I think this action shows the first bit of looking ahead before acting out of the administration since the ground cmbat phase ended.

-Colly

I agree with your last para but suspect you are looking at it too optimistically.

For Bush and Blair it's a 'win win' situation. They have done the right thing ahead of time, Iraq cannot defend itself without coallition forces, most Nato countries have stated they will not send troops, any insurgency can be strongly countered by Bush and Blair at the requirements of the Iraqi government - getting them off the immediate hook of being an occupying power. Any attack against coallition forces will equally be strongly rebuffed to look strong, we will not turn the other cheek, it's weak ahead of the election.

Of course, in saying this I am not suggesting we should not respond to terrorist attacks, we have to defend ourselves, it is just that Bush and Blair have shifted the playing field for political expediency masked as doing the right thing.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I agree with your last para but suspect you are looking at it too optimistically.

For Bush and Blair it's a 'win win' situation. They have done the right thing ahead of time, Iraq cannot defend itself without coallition forces, most Nato countries have stated they will not send troops, any insurgency can be strongly countered by Bush and Blair at the requirements of the Iraqi government - getting them off the immediate hook of being an occupying power. Any attack against coallition forces will equally be strongly rebuffed to look strong, we will not turn the other cheek, it's weak ahead of the election.

Of course, in saying this I am not suggesting we should not respond to terrorist attacks, we have to defend ourselves, it is just that Bush and Blair have shifted the playing field for political expediency masked as doing the right thing.

Right or wrong, pollitically expedient or not, it was the smart thing to do. I am well aware that even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then, but I can at least hope it shows the Administration may finally be listening to people with a head ont their shoulders that is not there just for aestetic purposes

-Colly

 

[Pure]

IT's worth noting that 'sovereignty' on paper is the preferred US way of doing things.

South Vietnam had a 'sovereign' gov during the Vietnam war.

I've seen two figures for the proposed staff at the US embassY in Iraq: 1000, and 1700. {{Added: 1700 appears to be a common estimate}} Could that be, perhaps, the 'shadow government'?

Negreponte ran the US Embassy in Honduras during a lot of 'anti contra' and 'death squad' activity.

 

[cantdog]

I thought handing over power a couple of days early was one of the first really intelligent things the administration has done. It really took the wind out of the sails of the insurgents who had promised bloody mayhem right before the "official" transfer of power was to take place.

-Colly

Deuced clever. Saved their precious asses from an attack, without a doubt. Then they scuttled off to the 'plane and skedaddled. Quite slick.

 

[cantdog]

IT's worth noting that 'sovereignty' on paper is the preferred US way of doing things.

South Vietnam had a 'sovereign' gov during the Vietnam war.

I've seen two figures for the proposed staff at the US embassY in Iraq: 1000, and 1700. Could that be, perhaps, the 'shadow government'?

Negreponte ran the US Embassy in Honduras during a lot of 'anti contra' and 'death squad' activity.

Negroponte is a hyena. They let him off after the glare of Iran-Contra publicity faded, and the criminal returned to his role.

The sovereign government of Iraq is headed up by a man who worked for CIA for ten years. Not one occupation troop has left the country despite the end of the occupation. They still stop and question and search people in the streets just as they did the day before the "transfer" and little else has changed. Perhaps the embassy is bigger than we think, even. Are all these troops now supposed to be attached to the American embassy? If not, are they supposed to be there at the behest of the Iraqi government? Can they politely un-behest them and have them leave?

Also, a long list of American civilians, contractors and whatnot, is officially untouchable by the laws of the "sovereign" state of Iraq. Like the trading enclaves in China at the turn of the last century. A colonial situation.

cantdog

 

[Pure]

you got it. all smoke and mirrors and electioneering.



Factoid of the Day:

Negroponte ran an embassy of 1000 in Honduras, at one time. Now it's an embassy of 1700. PLUS all the independent 'contractors,' spooks, and interrogation speciallists.

Yes, Colly, the timing was not bad, but the substance is well...typical

 

[neonlyte]

you got it. all smoke and mirrors and electioneering.

Exactly!

The decision to pull out by the end of June was taken months ago by the Republican election strategists, it has absolutely nothing to do with what is happening in Iraq. Of course, if the coallition had managed to take complete control of Iraq and found WMD's, a different election strategy would have prevailed.

 

[Guest]

I'd rather have George W. Bush defeated than the capture of Osama bin Laden. The reason is very simple: al Quaeda has established a structure that is capable of surviving the loss of key personnel. The capture of bin Laden would have important symbolic value, but it would not put an end to al Quaeda or the terrorism it supports.

The defeat of George W. Bush would remove a president who took budget surpluses and turned them into record deficits. It would remove a man who would impose his fundamentalist values. it would remove a President who does not understand either terrorism or the Middle East. It would remove a man who has done more to encourage and recruit terrorists than any other.

The question is irrelevent. Bush's defeat is not logically linked with Osama's capture. Osama's capture will feel good, but will not end the threat. Bush's defeat would remove a man whom history will probably regard as America's worst President.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'd rather have George W. Bush defeated than the capture of Osama bin Laden. The reason is very simple: al Quaeda has established a structure that is capable of surviving the loss of key personnel. The capture of bin Laden would have important symbolic value, but it would not put an end to al Quaeda or the terrorism it supports.

The defeat of George W. Bush would remove a president who took budget surpluses and turned them into record deficits. It would remove a man who would impose his fundamentalist values. it would remove a President who does not understand either terrorism or the Middle East. It would remove a man who has done more to encourage and recruit terrorists than any other.

The question is irrelevent. Bush's defeat is not logically linked with Osama's capture. Osama's capture will feel good, but will not end the threat. Bush's defeat would remove a man whom history will probably regard as America's worst President.

Unless he gets four more years Bush isn't even in the running for worst president. He would have to beat out the likes of Grant & Harding and he won't be able to do that unless he gets a lot more time and a lot mroe scandals under his belt.

-Colly

 

[Pure]

trans said,

The defeat of George W. Bush would remove a president who took budget surpluses and turned them into record deficits. It would remove a man who would impose his fundamentalist values. it would remove a President who does not understand either terrorism or the Middle East. It would remove a man who has done more to encourage and recruit terrorists than any other.

trans-m, I sorta agree with your drift, and I agree Bush has fueled terrorism. But as to 'impose fundamentalist values'....

I agree with a recent analysis, i wish i could remember where, that the US is drifting right, regardless of whether Kerry is elected.
How long can one expect his coattails to be? Also, how liberal can be judges be, that he appoints, given the Senate must agree.

Further, even on 'terrorism': the point of 'terrorists' or 'freedom fighters' is to induce overreaction; to induce 'punishment' of the society from which the terrorists come, to induce military actions that are very costly, to weaken support of the society in the nation from which the 'fighters against terror' come.

So I don't know if being a Democrat is much of a guarantee against this, having seen the Kennedy Johnson war on terror/communism. Further, the Dems are thumping the military record of Kerry, for a reason. (Have you read Gen. Clark's book?-- he's now campaigning for Kerry.)

Further, although the neocons like to suggest Kerry would sit and play chess with Osama, there's every reason to believe he'd have to act decisively after the WTC. (Clinton claims he would have, after WTC1, if the FBI and CIA could have agreed.)

So, Michael Moore notwitstanding, the Bush issue is not the core one. His actions don't flow from HIS so called mind.

Factoid. Clinton, in the CNN interview, as an aside, said, iirc, "Well, Rummy was after me to invade Iraq." (i.e., on general principles.)

Anyway, without further rambling; my point is that a right wing Christian domestic agenda at least is something proceeding with or without Bush.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I'm in agreement.

For all the faults of the President, I have long believed in America such that I recognize that we have someone who is only human doing a job that not one person I have ever met could do. He is my President, and subject to all the criticism of the whole world (informed and otherwise). I, myself, have criticized things he has done, policies he has had... but I support my President (as I would support my country) and have faith that he is doing his best.

I know that I would rather have him running the country than myself.

I remember /my/ reaction to the towers getting hit. I stared, dumbfounded, at the television for a long time. I hope people learn to ease up on the man, honestly. He may have the hardest job in the world, and definitely has the one with the highest death rate.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I'm in agreement.

For all the faults of the President, I have long believed in America such that I recognize that we have someone who is only human doing a job that not one person I have ever met could do. He is my President, and subject to all the criticism of the whole world (informed and otherwise). I, myself, have criticized things he has done, policies he has had... but I support my President (as I would support my country) and have faith that he is doing his best.

I know that I would rather have him running the country than myself.

I remember /my/ reaction to the towers getting hit. I stared, dumbfounded, at the television for a long time. I hope people learn to ease up on the man, honestly. He may have the hardest job in the world, and definitely has the one with the highest death rate.

I've never been one for supporting politicians. They have naught but disdain for the American public, so why should I give them respect. (This is a blanket statement for both sides). After Watergate, we have a right to be cynical about our presidents and doubt that they have our best interests at heart. Furthermore, you can tell the presidents who are actually trying because they are the ones crucified by history with nothing more than a shattered dream and the disdain of other politicians for demanding to read the laws before signing.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I've never been one for supporting politicians. They have naught but disdain for the American public, so why should I give them respect. (This is a blanket statement for both sides). After Watergate, we have a right to be cynical about our presidents and doubt that they have our best interests at heart. Furthermore, you can tell the presidents who are actually trying because they are the ones crucified by history with nothing more than a shattered dream and the disdain of other politicians for demanding to read the laws before signing.

I do not know with any degree of certainty that all politicians have only disdain for the public. I mean, a good number of people in my family have been politicians, and none of them disdain the American public. A politician, beyond their job being demonized by people, is a person. Same as a construction worker or a prison guard or a tax attorney. As such, they deserve as much respect as any other human being, I should think... regardless what they do to make a living for themselves and their families.

That we have a right to by cynical and doubt our presidents does not actually mean that we should. I have a right to burn all my clothes, if I wanted, but it doesn't necessarily mean I ought to. I find it hard to know what our presidents have at heart in regards to the public's interests. I don't think anyone, but those presidents, actually know. Logically speaking, they would be the only ones who would, as none of us are presidents. So, I have to debate, within myself, my course of action in regards to them... and I choose to believe them to be men with difficult jobs, forced into the spotlight, trying to make a positive difference. Even if they fail at that goal, I find it does me no harm to give them the benefit of the doubt, or at least refrain from considering them "malicious, evil, ignorant, stupid, and wrong"... as I have no proof of those traits, either.

I also do not believe that one's standing in the history books is the indicator of one's intentions. Logically speaking, again, it is possible that truly good men with truly good intentions have been praised by their fellow lawmakers. It is also possible that truly bad men with truly bad intentions have suffered that disdain. Its not a particularly effective measure, it doesn't seem. History, I mean.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I do not know with any degree of certainty that all politicians have only disdain for the public. I mean, a good number of people in my family have been politicians, and none of them disdain the American public. A politician, beyond their job being demonized by people, is a person. Same as a construction worker or a prison guard or a tax attorney. As such, they deserve as much respect as any other human being, I should think... regardless what they do to make a living for themselves and their families.

That we have a right to by cynical and doubt our presidents does not actually mean that we should. I have a right to burn all my clothes, if I wanted, but it doesn't necessarily mean I ought to. I find it hard to know what our presidents have at heart in regards to the public's interests. I don't think anyone, but those presidents, actually know. Logically speaking, they would be the only ones who would, as none of us are presidents. So, I have to debate, within myself, my course of action in regards to them... and I choose to believe them to be men with difficult jobs, forced into the spotlight, trying to make a positive difference. Even if they fail at that goal, I find it does me no harm to give them the benefit of the doubt, or at least refrain from considering them "malicious, evil, ignorant, stupid, and wrong"... as I have no proof of those traits, either.

I also do not believe that one's standing in the history books is the indicator of one's intentions. Logically speaking, again, it is possible that truly good men with truly good intentions have been praised by their fellow lawmakers. It is also possible that truly bad men with truly bad intentions have suffered that disdain. Its not a particularly effective measure, it doesn't seem. History, I mean.

Sigh, I remember romanticism... Yeah, I'm a bit of a cynic when it comes to politics, mostly because I can only spare so much hope when it keeps getting thrown trampled in my face. As far as politicians, I know a few of them. A few of them I once called friends. They have all, without fail, had a cold calculation and zeal for power that I found disturbing. They remind me a lot of those really keen businessmen who hungrily stalk promotions and are quick to bite their fellow co-workers to get it.

As far as presidents, the problem I see is for the most part it's fairly obvious the type of person they are (praising by allies and demonizing by enemies aside) and the American public ignores it prefering to see them as God's chosen, like the old kings of Europe, or Satan's sent. They are a figurehead, a position to take up blame, where having the best hair and smoothest lies cinches your power. The problem is that this image position has taken an undue share of the power and thrown the balance out of whack. As far as my disdain example, I was essentially alluding to ol' Jimmy C, who while damned with a lot of bad shit going down actually did try and insisted on reading and understanding the laws before signing them.

The essential problem, though, I have with politicians is that they are in a profession of lies. Like salesmen, advertisers, and energy distributors, they get what they want by deceiving other people. And if they admitted this, then they would be like writers and film makers and honest. Instead they pretend to be honest or rather they pretend to be more honest than the people. If they just came out and said "we're going to lie to you, becuase we think you're all a bunch of ignorant dopes and want you to leave us alone to run the country," I'd have great respect for them. As it stands, well I'll be a cynic. Cynicism like lubing your ass before penetration. It hurts less when they betray and fuck you.

-The Black Romantic, Lucifer_Carroll

P.S. I save my romanticism for the big things: love, the possibility of some tiny piece of good in every person's heart, faith, environmentalism, science, and the belief that madness (individuality) is humanity's greatest trait.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Sigh, I remember romanticism...

Not to be argumentative, but I'm not speaking from romanticism. I'm speaking from rationality. I feel it belittles my position, a little, to refer to it as being merely idealistic.

As far as politicians, I know a few of them. A few of them I once called friends. They have all, without fail, had a cold calculation and zeal for power that I found disturbing.

To say that those you have known "disdain the American public" is a far cry from saying that politicians, by nature, all do. I was in disagreement to your previous statement. I have nothing to comment about, concerning those who were your friends, unfortunately.

As far as presidents, the problem I see is for the most part it's fairly obvious the type of person they are

Here is where, I think, we're going to fundamentally agree then. I cannot assert, with confidence, evidence, or proof, that it is, in fact, "faily obvious" what sort of person they are. I do not believe that people are that simple, nor do I believe that there are likely to be people who can "read others" with any degree of success--regardless their anecdotal evidence. On the contrary, I think its more evidentiary that its rarely obvious what sort of people they are... it would explain why opinions are so diverse and memoirs so telling.

They are a figurehead, a position to take up blame, where having the best hair and smoothest lies cinches your power. The problem is that this image position has taken an undue share of the power and thrown the balance out of whack.

On that, I'm afraid, I have to disagree by definition. The presidency has duties beyond "figurehead" and qualification beyond "hair and lies".

The essential problem, though, I have with politicians is that they are in a profession of lies. Like salesmen, advertisers, and energy distributors, they get what they want by deceiving other people.

Speaking as a philosopher (my discipline, my trade, and my passion), politicians are not merely a profession of liars. They are in the position of governing, which may include fraud (I wouldn't know, I have no degree of certainty what "politics" entirely entails as a necessity and does not... that's an epistemologically complicated question). But they are no more in the business of selling lies than your advertisers example. Advertisers are in the business of selling information to audiences. That the information can be fraudulent is no more indicative that they trade in falsities than saying that Toyota makes cars for white people (given that some white people drive them).

Like I say, I hate to seem merely argumentative, but its what I do for a living... old habits and all. I rather do respect your opinion, I just can't find rational congress with it such that I can agree.

Sincerely,

Joe
Logician, Philosopher of Ethics, Relational Frame Theorist.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Politicians, like lawyers, are liars by trade. It's why movies where a lawyer or politician finds himself incapable of lying are so funny. As president, lying is part of the job description really. I mean, think about it. You know a lot more than you are free to speak about. The media will always ask you about precisely the things you can't talk about. I think the only way not to lie would to be like Calvin Coolidge and develope a moniker like Silent Cal as your public personae. Of course in today's world you would be crucified for not talking.

-Colly

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I do not know with any degree of certainty that all politicians have only disdain for the public. I mean, a good number of people in my family have been politicians, and none of them disdain the American public. A politician, beyond their job being demonized by people, is a person. Same as a construction worker or a prison guard or a tax attorney. As such, they deserve as much respect as any other human being, I should think... regardless what they do to make a living for themselves and their families.

I agree with Joe. Politician bashing is fun and easy and feels good, and for sure they have more than their share of truly rotten apples, but there is such a thing as expediency and realpolitik too, and you can;t get very far in modern politics without learning to play the game. It’s part of a politican’s job and their life, and there’s smply no way anymore that anyone can be a regular Joe and honestly speak his mind and be elected to a high public office. The press wouldn’t let him and we wouldn’t let him. The best we can hope for is an appearance of candor, and we’re usually satisfied with that.

Nor do I feel that most of the evil in the world is done be duplicitous, self-serving people with disdain for the public. It's almost always done by people of high integrity who have an uncompromising vision of right and wrong and who are convinced they're acting in the public good. Those are the really dangerous ones. Making a few mill through crooked dealings is small potatoes compared to getting people killed for half-baked ideology.

What are the lines? “The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of a passionate intensity”? Something like that.

Personally, I don’t look for integrity and honesty in a politician as much as I look for competence and smarts. I’m not voting for a Sunday school teacher or babysitter, I’m voting for someone to do the incredibly difficult job of making the right decisions for the country. That’s enough for me.

---dr.M.

 

[Pure]

Politicians as liars? Surely you jest.

I don't have much to say on that line of thought, except to note that, in the US, never has a politician (of late) left the highest offices as other than a millionaire. (Many were, to begin with, so they merely doubled their wealth.) Some, indeed, do have a 'common touch', 'warmth', 'appearance of sincerity' and apparent 'love of fellow man'. I, too, would be warm and genial were money always flowing toward my bank accounts.

But I do wonder if the defeat of Bush would/will do much to stem the rightward Christian tide in the US politics.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Nor do I feel that most of the evil in the world is done be duplicitous, self-serving people with disdain for the public. It's almost always done by people of high integrity who have an uncompromising vision of right and wrong and who are convinced they're acting in the public good. Those are the really dangerous ones. Making a few mill through crooked dealings is small potatoes compared to getting people killed for half-baked ideology.

What are the lines? “The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of a passionate intensity”? Something like that.

---dr.M.

I think the line most used in that vein is "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".

I know it's a character flaw of mine, but I tend not to trust people that would lie to me. I turn on my cynicism every time an ideologue, lawyer, politician, or salesman starts speaking because I know the trade and the tools they use. It also helps to look and see what they do in our names. The calls for censorship, the pork barrelling, realpolitiking, gerrymandering, character assassainations, and outright criminal malfeasence sort of dulls ones trust in the glory of politicians. There are a few rare examples of men who try to stir things up and face the slings and arrows for it. John McCain on campaign finance reform and Gavin Newson (might have messed up on last name) on gay rights are two such examples.

To Joe, I didn't mean romanticism as an insult or synonym of naivete or anything like that. To me romanticism is having faith in people, a belief that there is good everywhere, etc. Basically, the opposite of cynicism. Thus, it may follow from a logical frame of mind, but it is still optimism and trust. (Romanticism=optimism, realism=measured cynicism, naturalism=pass me the gun (personal definitions)).

As far as the presidents, what I meant is that they often reveal character traits in how they act in their whoops moments. It is not full-proof, but you can get an idea. (eg Bush the 2nd is a frat boy through and through, Ike wandered through in the daze of a military man in unfamiliar territory, Teddy Roosevelt was the wanna-be cowboy, Carter the honest romantic who tried to change things and got pissy when he couldn't, Nixon the grim obsessive and borderline paranoid, etc.) All are different individuals, but all are recognizable in their character traits or flaws and how they solve problems.

As far as lying professions. They do lie. They have good reasons to lie. To a lawyer, winning a case equals promotion, higher pay, better jobs, whereas losing a case brings shame, termination, and if it was an important case, great difficulty in getting another job of similar pay. I agree I should have refrained from my blanket statement that they are all liars. But I stand by my position that those jobs reward lies and punish truth financially.

I don't believe you to be argumentative. I think we agree that politicians are just human beings, but we disagree on the fundamental state of humanity and the effect of power on it.