Friday, May 25, 2007

FORGOTTEN VICTIMS OF WAR

FORGOTTEN VICTIMS OF WAR: THE CHILDREN
There have been many innocent victims resulting from George W Bush's war on Iraq. The U.S troops are obvious victims, as were the brave U.S troops who lost their lives in Iraq. The thousands of Iraqi's who have been killed since Bush's invasion, are all victims of this senseless war, as are the remaining Iraqi people.

One group of victims that are seldom noticed are the children. The children's agency of the U.N better known as UNICEF says that insecurity in Baghdad and other parts have caused schools to close, and left hospitals and clinics nearly impossible to gain access to.

UNICEF reports that only 30% of Iraqi children have safe drinking water as damaged sanitation systems increase the threat of diseases such as cholera and diarrhoea, which is the second highest cause of childhood death in Iraq.

The constant bombings and kidnappings have claimed the lives of many Iraqi parents leaving the children susceptible to abuse and exploitation. Iraqi children seldom receive the help and support they need to cope with such anxiety and fear.

Of the four million Iraqi's who have fled their homes since Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, one million of those are children. Some two million of those Iraqi's who have fled have remained in Iraq. The remaining two million have fled to Jordan, Syria and other countries in the region, where they live in extreme poverty.

The Iraqi children are not alone. Thousands of U.S children whose parent have been assigned to the war lines of Iraq are also in need. Many military spouses live in poverty as the spouse is left to help make ends meet and raise their children.

Those thousands of U.S soldiers who were killed in Iraq and Afghanistan left spouses and children behind to cope with grief and life. This has brought added stress on an already heavily troubled life of a child.

It is of great question as to whether or not the Bush administration has taken into consideration how their actions have affected the children in the U.S and in Iraq. One has to wonder if the emotional devastation of a child's life was ever even a forethought.

As George W Bush shouts the servitude of sporadic altruism, he heartlessly ignores the effects of his military actions on the children of this war. Mr. Bush has decided to remake the world in his image, the very image of a man the world has grown to abhor. The life of a child is priceless, and the desires of madman are worthless. You Mr. Bush have proven to be worthless.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

George Bernard Shaw

212 comments:

  1. The New York Times | DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK | May 24, 2007 11:13 PM

    The House voted Thursday to drag into public view the role that registered lobbyists play in soliciting and collecting contributions for political campaigns, exposing for the first time one of the most effective ways that influence-seekers ingratiate themselves with lawmakers and presidents.

    The measure goes to the heart of how Washington does business by uncovering a hidden practice that sprang up as an unintended consequence of restrictions imposed by campaign finance laws. Because those laws cap individual contributions, now $2,300 per campaign, candidates have been turning to well-connected lobbyists to bundle stacks of checks to make up the millions they need to run their campaigns.

    It's about tikme.

    ReplyDelete
  2. AP | LAURIE KELLMAN | May 24, 2007 03:07 PM

    President Bush said Thursday he would address any wrongdoing uncovered by congressional or other investigations related to the firings of eight federal prosecutors, but added that new allegations have not swayed his support for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

    "If there's wrongdoing, it will be taken care of," Bush told reporters at a Rose Garden news conference. Congress and the Justice Department are conducting separate probes into the firings, which Democrats say were improperly political.

    After they get through with their no confidnece vote, they need to take one on Reid and Pelosi.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Six more US soldiers have been killed in Iraq, the military said Friday, as Congress grudgingly passed a 120-billion-dollar war funding bill despite plunging public support for the mission.

    While attention has focused on the hunt for three kidnapped American troops and the debate in Washington, military casualties have been mounting; at least 44 more US soldiers have died since the trio was captured on May 12.

    The death count rises daily.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Looks like the surge is in the wrong city. If the Shiite factions start fighting amongst themselves as the British withdrawal out, the entire country will collapse, because Basra is both where US supplies come thru, and the only place oil gets exported out to provide money for the Iraqi government;

    Militias to intensify battle for Basra
    By Basil Adas, Correspondent


    Baghdad: Armed fighting between the British troops and the Mehdi Army headed by Shiite cleric Moqtada Al Sadr, will escalate in Basra, Iraq's second-largest city, warned Iraqi security forces and military experts.

    The warning comes after London's decision to begin troop withdrawal from Iraq.

    Zaman Al Khuzai, a major general in the former Iraqi army, told Gulf News: "I believe Americans will shift some of their forces to Basra and other Shiite southern provinces in case the United Kingdom starts an early troop pullout from Iraq.

    Security situation

    "Americans will keep a track of the Shiite militias, loyal to Iran, to prevent them from getting a grip on Basra and control of the situation, particularly as the government of [Prime Minister] Nouri Al Maliki is impotent and largely involved with militia infiltration in the state's institutions." He alleged: "The replacement does not amuse Al Maliki and other Shiite political and religious leaders who want to surrender the full security file to the Iraqi forces, which are accused by the British and Americans of being loyal to the dominant Shiite militias."

    Sources close to Iraqi intelligence revealed that the Mehdi Army has mobilised itself and its supporters are preparing to return to Iraq immediately after an early pullout of British forces.

    Some do not rule out a coup attempt. Muaid Abdul Mustafa Al Dulaimi, an expert in strategic military studies, told Gulf News: "The Mehdi Army and rival Shiite militias will attempt a coup to seize control of the entire official military and security establishments in Basra and other southern Iraqi cities."

    If this happens, "the [militias] will be extremely powerful and stronger than Al Maliki's government, especially as Iran will back the militias in the south more than supporting the government in Baghdad", Al Dulaimi said.

    It does not seem that Al Dulaimi's analysis is fully true as some reports confirm that the British withdrawal is likely to unleash a power struggle among main Shiite militia groups like the Mehdi Army and their rivals the Fadila party which engaged in clashes recently.

    Some sceptics believe that the British and Americans have a role in creating the current conflict between the two Shiite groups to spark off an internal fight in the Shiite block.

    The security situation in Basra is growing critical and witnesses struggles for interests and power between the United States, Britain and Iran.

    The development may spur Americans to bring a strong central Iraqi government led by the former Baathists as its primary mission will be to suppress Shiite militias and end Iranian influence in southern Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Moqtada will soon enough own Basra. He's even come out of hiding now. He understands what our pResident and Congress don't seem to grasp-the game is just about over.

    As far as worrying about children? Chimpy only cares about them as long as they are fetuses. Once they've been born, buena suerte.

    ReplyDelete
  6. One in eight Iraqi kids will be killed this year.

    That speaks volumes about them "famibly values", don't it?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Los Angeles Times | Richard B. Schmitt | May 25, 2007 01:07 PM

    The Justice Department has broadened an internal investigation into whether aides to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales improperly took into account political considerations in hiring employees, officials familiar with the probe said Thursday.

    The expanded inquiry, conducted by the department's inspector general and its Office of Professional Responsibility, comes after testimony Wednesday by former Gonzales aide Monica M. Goodling.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This just in - George W. Bush has found his missing WMD’s - they were down at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue at Capitol Hill. They have been positively identified as Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV).

    Oh…you thought I meant Weapons of Mass Destruction? No, no, don’t be silly. There never were any of those. That was just some crap the Bush camp made up as an excuse to invade Iraq.

    I meant War Mongering Democrats….

    Pelosi and Reid say that this is a “first step” toward ending the war.

    So. Let me see if I’ve got this straight:

    The House and Senate have both approved giving this incompetent, lying, petulant little bully ONE HUNDRED BILLION DOLLARS to continue pouring down the death ridden rat hole that is the Iraq War and in return he has promised to remove the troops…when? Oh that’s right. HE DOESN’T HAVE TO WTHDRAW THE TROOPS AT ALL IF HE DOESN’T WANT TO.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Larry said...


    The Justice Department has broadened an internal investigation into whether aides to Atty. Gen. Alberto R. Gonzales improperly took into account political considerations in hiring employees, officials familiar with the probe said Thursday.



    Why do they need to broaden the investigation?

    Monica Goodling just admitted they did, live on camera, and under oath to the Congress of the United States.

    She confessed.

    Confessions usually indicate the conclusion of the investigation, not the onset of one.

    ReplyDelete
  10. AP:

    US home sales fell in April to their lowest level in almost four years as the number of unsold properties on the market ballooned to a record high, an industry survey showed Friday.

    The monthly snapshot by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) dashed hopes that the ailing property market could be on the cusp of a rebound.

    The NAR said existing home sales dropped 2.6 percent to an annualized pace of 5.99 million last month, marking the second straight monthly decline in sales. Sales are now at their lowest ebb since June 2003.

    April's sales pace defied most Wall Street forecasts which had predicted a sales turnover of 6.13 million homes and apartments.

    The group blamed the decline largely on tighter mortgage lending standards amid mounting home foreclosures.

    "The continued decline in existing home sales and the huge rise in inventories put in doubt the hopes that the housing market is stabilizing," said Joel Naroff of Naroff Economic Advisors.

    The glut of homes for sale across the United States continued to mount last month, rising over 10 percent from March to a record inventory of 4.20 million properties. That represents an 8.4-month supply at the current sales clip, according to the NAR.

    Walter Molony, an NAR spokesman, said the number of unsold homes on the market was at a record high while the monthly supply of unbought properties was at its highest peak since August 1992.

    The inventory of homes lingering unsold on the market has swelled by 23 percent from April last year.

    "The softness in this segment of the housing market will discourage new construction activity in the near term meaning that the housing sector will remain a drag on the economy," economists at RBC Financial Group said in a briefing note.

    More of the Bush economy.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I think its time to start handing out indictments.

    She confessed.

    Our Justice department and government sure does employ a different standard when it comes to enforcing the laws for itself as opposed to enforcing them for us common folk.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I'm ready for the indictments and then for the removal of Pelosi and Reid, so we can have the impeachment of Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Does anyone here actually think that if they were being investigated for a crime, and they confessed, that the reaction of the police would be to "broaden their investigation"?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Goodling confessed.


    Whats everyone waiting for?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thursday morning CBS News's Early Show criticized President Bush's latest justification for the Iraq War as being the first line of defense against al Qaeda, by citing an upcoming Senate Intelligence Committee report which states that the administration was warned before the invasion that a US presence in Iraq would actually increase terrorist influence.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Goodling not only confessed but she also brought Gonzales and Rove clearly into the mix.

    Two more indictments need drawn up.

    ReplyDelete
  17. The media black-out on the scandal involving DC Madam Deborah Jeane Palfrey is surprising in light of the lack of lawsuits being leveled at the Wayne Madsen Report website. Instead of Dick Cheney and the recently resigned Randall Tobias filing libel and slander lawsuits against the site, we see only their silence. Moreover, the Wayne Madsen site has been continually expanding on this story - making this either the scoop of the century, or the biggest fairy tale in DC history.

    Consider this: WMR is now reporting specifically who at ABC News' 20/20 became fully aware of not only Cheney's use of the escort service, but dozens more "high profile" names - culled from the phone records only since 2002 (the escort services full records go back to 1994). ABC's crack team was reportedly gagged by their bosses after concerned calls from the White House. This would be amazing if true, yet no White House denial has been forthcoming as of this writing...

    ReplyDelete
  18. In November of 2006, the Democrats achieved a sweeping victory of the midterm elections, winning back both the House and Senate on a platform of ethics and ending the Iraq war. Several months into power and the Democrats have already abandoned those two values and have traded an end to the Iraq War for $17 billion in earmarks and pork.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The U.S. military announced on Friday the deaths of six more soldiers in Iraq, underscoring President George W. Bush’s prediction on Thursday that a bloody summer lay ahead.

    ReplyDelete
  20. According to a recent poll on Daily Fuel Economy Tip, nearly 80% of people believe that oil and gasoline companies have manipulated the supply of gas in order to cause prices to shoot through the roof.

    ReplyDelete
  21. THE MAN WHO STOLE THE first DEMOCRATIC DEBATE Senator MIKE GRAVEL will be on our show tomorrow. We just did a 45 minute interview with Gravel, who is a 2008 Democratic Presidential candidate (and served 2 terms in the House. He was a Senator from Alaska too.)

    Gravel is a hero of mine; he is the only cadidate committed to telling the TRUTH and standing for his convictions.

    Please tune in tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.
    Live from Vegas on KLAV or on the web at:
    www.bashamandcornell.com

    ReplyDelete
  22. Worfeus Goodling was testifying under an immunity agreement, which makes what she said not something they can use to prosecute her for.

    She played DUMB for congress but knew before she went in she had committed criminal acts at DOJ and was isolating her criminality from prosecution, or at least trying, but if evidence existed PRIOR to her testimony, or separate from her testimony and not linked to it, she might still be prosecuted.

    More answers, more questions.

    The Justice Department's Inspector General has broadened his investigation of the U.S. attorney firings, The Los Angeles Times and New York Times report this morning, to cover Monica Goodling's and others' political hiring of career employees at the department.

    And there would seem to be plenty of material there for investigation. For instance, Goodling admitted on Wednesday that she'd openly taken political factors into account in hiring immigration judges.

    For good reason, those are civil service positions, not political positions -- and they're supposed to be governed by civil service laws (meaning people are supposedly hired for their professional qualifications, not their partisan ones). They handle matters like deportation proceedings and political asylum requests. And there are only 226 of them. As the NY Times points out, approximately 75 of those "have been appointed during the Bush administration," 49 of those during Gonzales' tenure. So there can be no doubt that Goodling's political hiring practices have had an impact on the nation's immigration proceedings.

    Now, in her testimony, Goodling said that Kyle Sampson had told her that there was no problem with taking politics into account in hiring immigration judges. And the reason, he said, was that the department's Office of Legal Counsel had said it was OK. But...

    Justice Department officials said no such opinion existed.

    They also denied Goodling's assertion that the hiring of immigration judges had been frozen after the department's civil division raised concerns about using a political litmus test.

    "There is no disagreement within the department, including between the civil division and the Office of Legal Counsel, about whether the civil service laws apply to the appointment of immigration judges," said Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman. "They do apply."


    As Marty Lederman puts it, "Something is happening here, but we don't know what it is. Goodling obviously knew that her conduct in this regard was dubious, and testified about it even though no one had raised any question about it previously, so as to ensure that her immunity would extend to this episode, as well. (She was very well-advised by John Dowd.)"

    To hear Goodling tell it, she was assured by the attorney general's chief of staff that there was a legal basis for stocking the nation's immigration courts with political loyalists -- when no such legal basis existed. And the Justice Department now disavows this activity all together. So how much did Alberto Gonzales know about this? And how much did the White House know? More questions...

    ReplyDelete
  23. PRESIDENT SIGNS IRAQ SPENDING BILL WITH NO TROOP WITHDRAWAL TIMETABLE
    ----------------
    Well, imagine that!
    *snark*

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thats pretty cool you guys got Mike Gravel.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Is anyone listening to the show???

    Mike Gravel rocks.

    He's smart, honest and on track.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Is this live. Can we ask Mike Gravel questions?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mike Gravel's got my vote.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Mike Gravel is a brilliant man.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm listening to the show but it just quit...I can't hear anything now!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Gravel was talking and it quit...

    ReplyDelete
  31. You and Doug knocked that one out of the ballpark today Lydia.

    EXCELLENT interview!

    The BEST yet!

    ReplyDelete
  32. It did that to me too Suzy, but it came back.

    You can listen to it tomorrow when its in the archives too.

    This was just a fantastic interview with Mike Gravel.

    They asked all the right questions and he gave all the right answers.

    It was brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Suzie-q and Worf -- THANK YOU for listening,

    That was just a glitch and it is being fixed now. In fact it will be up in the archives sometime today.

    xo

    ReplyDelete
  34. Worf, we pre-taped the Mike Gravel interview yesterday when his press secretary patched us in.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Right on, Lydia! I missed the live show but I am going to download the archived show. I would give anything if a principled man like Mike Gravel would have a chance in this sick political system we're saddled with.

    Publicly Funded Elections!

    How great would it be if candidates did not have to get the money to run from fat corporate cats? How much more could we get done while they were in office? Imagine if our elected officials were not beholden to Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Oil, Big Credit, Big Agra?

    We'd have good, affordable health care. We'd have cleaner air. Our so-called 'immigration problem' would vanish. We wouldn't be desperately in hock to the credit companies. And I bet my bottom dollar we wouldn't be occupying another country.

    *sigh*

    ReplyDelete
  36. Thats cool. I would have loved to talk to him.

    He sure liked you Lydia.

    He talked to you like you were his daughter or something.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Alicia Morgan said...


    Publicly Funded Elections!


    And there it is.

    Until we get away from "corporate sponsored candidates" we will never get a truly "good man" in the White House.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Hi Lydia:

    It was a super show! I really like Gravel after listening to him this morning. ;)

    I thought it must be a glitch...

    ReplyDelete
  39. Gravel is doing some few dare to do. He's speaking the truth as clearly as he can.

    He gave Congress a way to end the war.

    But Reid and Pelosi are more worried about vacation then they are the troops.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Hi Worf:

    Yes, he is speaking the truth and I admire him for that. :)

    ReplyDelete
  41. Alicia, thank you for checking in. When can we hear more about your book?
    xo

    ReplyDelete
  42. Just saw a report on BBC on the Chagos Islands, how we displaced all the happy people there, in order to build a military base in the 60's -- and how we ruined their lives on this island paradise.

    What Gravel said about the military industrial complex is so true, and I want him to write a book about it.

    ReplyDelete
  43. The Bush administration and the neocons stacked the government with un-qualified undereducated and inexperienced people based soley on their political affiliation.

    Whats worse, real men and women, with experience and training were denied roles, and sidestepped so they could place uneducated, unqualified and unexperienced inbreds like Monica Goodling into office, where she oversaw REAL prosecuters and judges who were experienced and educated.

    You remember Goodling. She's the nimrod who just confessed to doing just that.

    She's also the nimrod who decided to cover the breasts of our famous statue of Justice.

    :|

    She is supposed to be a real prosecuter, but she had no real experience and she graduated from Jerry Falwells MESSIAH college, a BOTTOM ranked private religious school, where reading the bible supercedes reading text books.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Goodling showed herself to be a hillbilly inbred neocon when she covered a HISTORIC, fine work of art, because she found the exposed breasts on the statue "offensive".

    This shows the level of uneducated bumpkins the neocons are made up of.

    Forget Venus DeMilo or other great works of art. We've got neocons who are "embarrased" by them so now we cover them up.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Pat Lang, an expert intellgence analyst on the middle east who was an expert in arabic and Iraq, who also was a Green Beret with 3 tours in Viet Nam under his belt, was interviewed by several of the necon fat cats.

    When Doug Feith interviewed him, Feith asked him if he really was an expert on Arab's and he said yes.

    Then Feith said, "Too Bad".

    ReplyDelete
  46. Here is a recount of the interview from Lang.

    It was at the beginning of the first Bush term. Lang had been in charge of the Middle East, South Asia and terrorism for the Defense Intelligence Agency in the 1990s. Later he ran the Pentagon's worldwide spying operations.

    In early 2001, his name was put forward as somebody who would be good at running the Pentagon's office of special operations and low-intensity warfare, i.e., counterinsurgency. Lang had also been a Green Beret, with three tours in South Vietnam.

    One of the people he had to impress was Feith, the Defense Department's number three official and a leading player in the clique of neoconservatives who had taken over the government's national security apparatus.

    Lang went to see him, he recalled during a May 7 panel discussion at the University of the District of Columbia.

    "He was sitting there munching a sandwich while he was talking to me," Lang recalled, "which I thought was remarkable in itself, but he also had these briefing papers -- they always had briefing papers, you know -- about me.

    "He's looking at this stuff, and he says, 'I've heard of you. I heard of you.'

    "He says, 'Is it really true that you really know the Arabs this well, and that you speak Arabic this well? Is that really true? Is that really true?'

    "And I said, 'Yeah, that's really true.'

    "That's too bad," Feith said.

    ReplyDelete
  47. And if you think thats something, just read this account of Lang's interview with Paul Wolfowitz.


    "I remember talking to [Paul] Wolfowitz, in his office, in the Pentagon, and telling him -- this was after the propaganda build up had started, before the war.

    I said, 'You know, these guys are not going to welcome you.'

    "He said, 'Why?'

    I said, 'For one thing, these guys detest foreigners, and the few who really like you are the least representative of the various breeds of people there.

    They're going to fight you, then, if you occupy the place there's going to be a massive insurgency.'"

    "He said, 'No, no, they'll be glad to see us,'" Lang continued. "This will start the process of revolution around the Middle East that will transform everything.'

    No, Lang told Wolfowitz, "that's not gonna happen. It's just an impossibility.

    They're not like that. They don't want to be us."

    ReplyDelete
  48. Worf, don't stop, please go on. Why did Feith say to Lang "Too bad (you know Arabic?)

    ReplyDelete
  49. No thats where they interview ended according to Lang.

    He said it was weird. No explanation. Just "Too Bad".

    ReplyDelete
  50. Lang said he felt like Feith was indicating that Bush was not "looking" for people with introspection into Arab culture.

    For what Bush intended to do there, he didn't need nor want people who could help us "understand" the Arabs.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Too bad he understood their language.

    Too bad he understood their people.


    Because "understanding" was the last thing on this administrations mind.

    ReplyDelete
  52. And did you read Langs account of his interview with Wolfowitz?

    Wolfowitz was Bush's war czar and the main architect of the Iraq war. HAND PICKED by Bush.

    Wolfowitz who never served a day in uniform dismissing the recommendation of an Arab expert and former Green Beret, like he was dismissing his 6 year old daughters random babbling.

    This is incompetence on a criminal scale.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Worf, thank you for these riveting posts. You just confirmed my whole thesis.

    ReplyDelete
  54. 4 years ago we told the idiot neocons that we'd be right here, precisely where were are now.


    And here we are.


    Iraq is the "QUAGMIRE" we told them it would be.

    Iraq is a "no win" situation, precisely as we, and every military expert out there told them it would be.

    Everything is EXACTLY as we told them it would be.


    And they STILL WON'T LISTEN to us.


    Their stubborn pride, and their inability to accept the fact that they did something wrong just keeps the wax stuck in their ears, and they just won't listen to reason.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Lydia Cornell said...
    Worf, thank you for these riveting posts. You just confirmed my whole thesis.


    I did?

    :D

    Cool.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Wanna here some truth Lydia?

    This is "my" truth.

    There is no "War on Terror".

    The only war is a war between Fundamentalist Muslim extremists and Fundamentalist Christian extremists.


    And the rest of us are just sorta caught in the middle.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Of course the term 'War on Terror' is idiotic and manipulative. We've been saying that for years. Doug and I term it "War on an abstract noun."

    ReplyDelete
  58. And you're right: it's the fringe lunatics who engaged in this war: extremist fundamentalists on both sides: Christian and Muslim.

    ReplyDelete
  59. And the rest of us caught in the middle.

    ReplyDelete
  60. I know you and Doug see that.

    Christians have been plundering Muslim wealth since the dawn of Christianity.

    They went under the guise of preaching the gospel of Christ, but their goal was to plunder their wealth.

    Convert or die was the cry of the mother Church at rome for a thousand years.

    And now today, modern day Christians, lusting after wealth and power seek to plunder the muslim nations once more, this time for their oil.

    Our chant this time?

    Convert (to democracy) or die.

    ReplyDelete
  61. When a Arab ruler doesn't want to sell us oil at a rate cheaper than they sell it to all of Europe, we stir up trouble, and dispose that leader, and try to get one installed who will sell us our precious oil at a rate we want to pay.

    Its like stirring up a hornets nest, trying to insert a new queen.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Lydia, i'll have to listen to the archives either later today or tomorrow,.....................But I just wanted to say I think it was brilliant to have Mike Gravel on.

    Mike Gravel is a man with NOTHING to lose.........in fact he could almost be considered a 3rd party candidate........and THATS exactly what we need, someone who will focus on REAL issues and put the truth out there.....The powers that be are always terrified of a man who has nothing to lose.

    Really looking forward to hearing your show.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Meanwhile Europe pays 6 dollars a gallon and doesn't complain.

    We on the other hand have to have our cheap gas.

    And our oil companies want their huge profits.

    And that means, the Arabs have to sell us their oil, at a ridiculously low rate.

    And if they don't want to, we kill them.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Worf those are some great comments...........i'll have to wait to respond till probably tomorrow or later tonight because i'm kind of in the middle of something now.

    Also I KNOW Clif follows Pat Lang fairly closely............so i'm sure he'll chime in as weell!

    ReplyDelete
  65. OBI WAN WORFEUS said...
    Meanwhile Europe pays 6 dollars a gallon and doesn't complain.

    We on the other hand have to have our cheap gas.

    And our oil companies want their huge profits.

    And that means, the Arabs have to sell us their oil, at a ridiculously low rate.

    And if they don't want to, we kill them."

    Well worf I think those days of cheap oil are VERY soon to come to an end..........and that scares me more than you know.........because once that happens life as we know it will be over as well and the fabric of our society will very likely break apart and degenerate into chaos...........all we need for this to happen is a catalyst such as a war with Iran or China et al dumping the dollar and causing a currency panic.

    This might be the last summer I can go on a cross country drive on the motorcycle and I will most likely take advantage of that.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Lydia Cornell said...
    Of course the term 'War on Terror' is idiotic and manipulative. We've been saying that for years. Doug and I term it "War on an abstract noun."

    Agreed it is idiotic.....Bush uses that catchprase to hypnotize and manipulate people and I cant stand hearing that stupid phrase anymore because what he is doing is the exact opposite he's creating more terrorists rather than fighting the terrorists that actually attacked us.

    Bush Abandoned Osama and the taliban to invade iraq for oil...........NOW they are taking back Afghanistan and threatening to take over Pakistan a country which ACTUALLY has WMD and Bush and his pack of Neo Con fools do nothing..............Because the war was ALL about oil nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Extra5/25/2007 1:22 PM ET
    Men in their 30s lag behind fathers in pay
    There's been an interruption of the 'up escalator' that traditionally has lifted successive generations to new financial heights, researchers report.

    By The Wall Street Journal
    American men in their 30s today are worse off than their fathers' generation, a reversal from just a decade ago, when sons generally were better off than their fathers, a new study says.

    The study, the first in a series on economic mobility undertaken by several prominent think tanks, also says the typical American family's income has lagged far behind productivity growth since 2000, a departure from most of the post-World War II period.

    The findings suggest "the up escalator that has historically ensured that each generation would do better than the last may not be working very well," says the study, which is scheduled for release today.

    Video: Mobility malaise

    The study was written principally by John Morton of the Pew Charitable Trusts, which is leading the series, called the Economic Mobility Project, and Isabel Sawhill of the Brookings Institution. Other participating think tanks are the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute and Urban Institute.

    In 2004, the median income for a man in his 30s, a good predictor of his lifetime earnings, was $35,010, the study says, 12% less than for men in their 30s in 1974 -- their fathers' generation -- adjusted for inflation.

    A decade ago, the median income for men in their 30s was $32,901, 5% higher (after adjusting) than 30 years earlier. Sawhill said she isn't sure why men's wages have stagnated.

    "It seems there's been some slowdown in economic growth. It's possible that the movement of women into the labor force has affected male earnings, and it's possible that men are not working as hard as they used to."

    Challenging the 'rising tide' scenario
    The study suggests that absolute mobility -- the rate at which an entire generation's lot improves relative to previous generations -- has declined. But within a particular generation, individuals can still get ahead if relative mobility, the rate at which the rich and poor trade places, remains high. Poor fathers may have rich sons, and vice versa.

    The report also says that between 1947 and 1974, productivity, or output per hour, and median family income, adjusted for inflation, both roughly doubled. Between 1974 and 2000, productivity rose 56% while income rose 29%. Between 2000 and 2005, productivity rose 16% while median income fell 2%, challenging "the notion that a rising tide will lift all boats," the report says.

    Sawhill said several factors could explain the divergence: a growing share of income going to the highest-paid workers, or to profits; an increased share of labor compensation going toward benefits such as health care; or a decline in the number of wage earners in the typical family.

    This article was reported and written by Greg Ip for The Wall Street Journal.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Well, the worst I think would happen Mike (unless China does try to force an economic collapse of the US, which is NOT in their best interest), is that the US might have to start paying the same as the rest of the world for our oil.

    Gas would go up to about 5 or 6 bucks a gallon, and then auto manufacturers would be FORCED to make more fuel efficient vehicles, (like most European countries have) and we'd see reduced greenhouse gas emissions and possibly an economic slowdown.

    Of course, with the demand to make more fuel efficient engines and fine alternate fuel sources, we might just see an economic surge from it, as new businesses pop up everywhere to meet with the new technologies.

    ReplyDelete
  69. If the computer industry boom of the 90's taught us anything it taught us that the BEST way to stimulate a stalled economy, is the introduction of new technologies.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Worf it takes YEARS to design and develop new fuel efficient cars that can be mass produced on a large enough scale..........the shock of $6-$15 dollar gas would put half the nation out of work and cause a depression and mass starvation and riots.

    THINK ABOUT IT, people making minimum wage couldnt afford to pay $15-$30 to drive to work if thats all they will make and food and all shipped goods will go up exponentially as well..............who is going to spend $10 in gas to buy a $2 burger at Mcdonalds......it would cause massive bankruptcies and unemployment and the starving masses would riot or try to take their food and THAT would be a loon like GWB's opportunity to declare martial law, seize total power and become a dictator like he has ALWAYS wanted.......................reason it out and it isnt as outlandish and crazy as it sounds!

    ReplyDelete
  71. I really don't think it would be that bad Mike.

    If you're right, thats not saying much for us and our ability to adapt.

    But I don't think it will be. There are new technologies already on the market, that would simply require refitting at manufacturing plants to create.

    The rush to new technologies would mean new tax dollars and grants, education and research, manufacturing, refining, supportive technoligies...

    The list goes on and on.

    I don't think you're giving Americans enough credit for their capability to adapt to a national emergency. In WW2, my mom worked in a factory that was never intended to manufacture airplane parts, but within months they had it outfitted for all sorts of new stuff.

    We adapted.

    And that was in 1941.

    I think we could handle it again.

    ReplyDelete
  72. We know HOW to build more fuel efficient vehicles Mike.


    We just don't WANT to.

    ReplyDelete
  73. A couple of years ago people were predicting the same time of economic collapse you are now if our gas prices climbed to 3 dollars a gallon, and that hasn't happened.

    We're still pluggin along.

    A little poorer maybe, but we still get by.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Understand now Mike, I am not talking about inflated prices to pad rich oil executives pockets.

    I am talking about paying a fair market value for our oil from the Arab nations.

    When we start doing that, we'll cease to feel the need to meddle in their affairs, because purchasing oil won't be a problem.

    ReplyDelete
  75. We won't need to prop up US friendly dictators to sell us oil at below bargain basement prices, and they in turn will not want to kill us for ousting their favorite Sheik.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Oh sure, the economy will take an initial hit. Trucking will slow, production will slow, etc.

    But that won't last long. Manufacturers will raise prices to offset the increased shipping costs, employers will lose employees seeking higher wages, which will drive up wages across the board, and people will adjust to the increased cost of living.

    Poorer people will feel it more to be sure, as they invaribly do, but perhaps we can come up with a tax subsidy for low income families.

    Someone paying 300 dollars a month now for gas, will simply have to pay 600 dollars a month for the same gas, so vouchers or tax breaks can help her for the poorer among us.

    But at the same time businesses will be scrambling to be the first to produce new fuel efficient vehicles. Auto sales will go through the roof, as people trade in their SUV's for more fuel efficient vehicles.

    Think about it. If you drive a car that gets 15 mpg, and trade it in for a car that gets 30 mpg, then you would still be paying the same for gas at 6 dollars a gallon as you did at 3 dollars a gallon. Your out of pocket expense would be the same.

    I'm not saying it will be easy, but the flip side is to continue to extort our oil at theivery prices from the arab nations, and a continution of the killing.

    Given the two I'm willing to tighten my belt a little, and drive a little less.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Just got back from a little visit to Howard Berman's house, with a passle of like-minded progressives, to express our displeasure with his non-vote. He wasn't there, but we hung out with our signs and banners along Magnolia Blvd. for a couple of hours.

    Thanks for asking about the book, Lydia! It should be done by July 14 (Lord willing!), and hopefully in bookstores by November. I went to Berkeley last week to talk to Dr. George Lakoff, the 'framing values' guy - he was fascinating.

    Basically, the book is about why conservatism is dangerous for democracy. For years now, the conservatives have claimed that liberalism is what's wrong with America, and I couldn't disagree more.

    I think conservatism can be boiled down to the idea that inequality is acceptable, and that some people are better and more deserving than others. This is in direct opposition to the ideas our nation was founded on. And the idea of accepting authority for authority's sake has brought us literally to the brink of destruction. We need to address the concept of blind obedience and how dangerous it is.

    I also talk about the authoritarian follower personality, which is the most comfortable with a conservative worldview, and the danger of them being sitting ducks for the amoral people who use them for their own selfish and destructive ends. I believe that most conservatives honestly are trying to be good people, but they are wide-open to being used for bad ends. They are the chickens who are voting for Colonel Sanders.

    I'll send you an overview.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Our government will need of course to impose tighter fuel restrictions, and remove the loopholes created to permit SUV's and other large vehicles to bypass the requirements.

    Americans will have to give up their beloved SUV's but since they won't do that, they'll do the next best thing, and come up with SUV's that meet with the new fuel requirements.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Alicia Morgan said...

    I also talk about the authoritarian follower personality, which is the most comfortable with a conservative worldview, and the danger of them being sitting ducks for the amoral people who use them for their own selfish and destructive ends. I believe that most conservatives honestly are trying to be good people, but they are wide-open to being used for bad ends.


    Brilliantly stated. I feel the same thing about most of them. They honestly believe they are good men and women, doing Gods work or whatever, but they just don't get the concept that our killing innocent people in Iraq is no different than the terrorists who killed innocent people here on 911.

    Because they are good people in their daily lives, they don't believe they could do wrong on a larger scale. They feel if a good man does an bad thing for reasons he feels are good, then the "thing" he did is not bad.

    Its a scary thing to look into the mind of a neocon. You are to be commended.

    I'll look for your book.

    ReplyDelete
  80. worfeus here is Pat Langs website;

    Sic Semper Tyrannis 2007

    I read his, Juan Cole's, since both read Arabic, along with Larry Johnson's to get a non reichwing understanding of what is going on.

    ReplyDelete
  81. I will have to get his book Clif.

    I really was amazed at his recounts of these "interviews" with Bush administration officials.

    ReplyDelete
  82. BTW if the peak oil is here, there is NO way we can "improve" gas mileage fast enough to make up for the short falls, especially since most people don't run out and buy new cars, and a hell of a lot of people won't since they got out sourced or down sized since Bush came to power.

    I also read the Oil Drum daily to keep up there. (especially since they are mostly Insiders in the oil industry who post what they know and try to figure out how fast we w8ill be in trouble when the rest of the planet figures out the oil is going to get more scarce and expensive year after year.

    Most of them have scientific degrees and real world experience and are much better than me explaining why ethanol and hydrogen won't save us once the oil starts to run out. (which some believe it has).

    ReplyDelete
  83. There is no defense for their dismissal of the analysis of experts in favor of the opions of their church buddies.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I have seen much of these predictions Clif but I just don't see our economy as that fragile, and I have seen how easy it is to convert to alternative fuels if a company really wants to.

    In Utah, a company called "Newspaper Agency Corporation" handles distribution of the two major newspapers for Utah. The Mormon Church Owned, "Deseret News" and the Salt Lake Tribune.

    NAC distributes these papers throughout the state, and employs a fleet of light trucks and vans that numbers in the thousands.

    Well about 15 years ago, the State of Utah approached NAC and offered them huge tax and cash incentives to convert their entire fleet of vans and light trucks to natural gas.

    And NAC took them up on their offer, converting their entire fleet of thousands of vehicles in less than a year, to all natural gas.

    And they still do to this day.

    It wasn't hard. It didn't hurt business. And no one busted a nut over it.

    We can change.

    And we will. When we decide we have to.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Inflating fuel prices to pad the pockets of oil executives is criminal.


    But at one point, we need to start paying more for our oil in the middle east, and stop meddling in their governments just to get someone into power who will sell it to us cheaply.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Worfeus peak oil is supposed to hit sometime between 2005(yes I know it was a year and a half ago) and 2020, with peak natural gas a decade behind it, with NOTHING non the horizon to replace what OIL does for the modern industrial "just in time" society.

    It has NOTHING to do with money or even human ingenuity, but the laws of Physics, Chemistry and a little about geology.

    The laws of physics limits what is possible and chemistry demands carbon atom bonds for the most productive fuels, especially hodro carbon bonds. Gelogy limits wjhere those hydro carbon bonds will be found, and we have found MOST of it, and used up quite a lot of it.

    Since the types of hydro carbon bonds we need are very energy intensive to create in a natural process most of them are found under ground where prehistoric oceans or large temperate or tropical forests used to be, but those processes take millions if not hundreds of millions of years to create what we have burned up in a couple of centuries.

    A simple way to look at it and a title of a book I read about it is, we ar3e burning millions of years of ancient sunlight in the fuels we use, and it will take millions of years to store up the suns energy in the same form again.

    The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight is the book, by

    ReplyDelete
  87. Here, you guys want to seem something funny?


    Andrew Card gets booed


    This isn't just a "handful" of protesters being led out by thicknecked and thickerheaded republican goons.

    Its like the entire freakin school.

    :D

    Theres hope for the future yet.

    ReplyDelete
  88. These kids are a lot smarter than I give them credit for.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Clif.

    For what we've spent on the invasion of Iraq, we could have provided a government subsidy to convert practically every car and truck in America to electric or natural gas.

    If we wanted to, we could do it.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Imagine if the government said, instead of spending a Trillion dollars invading Iraq, we instead used that Trillion dollars to convert the entire country's automobiles to electric, and trucks to natural gas hybrids.

    We had the trillion dollars.

    We had the time.

    We could have done it.

    We still can.

    Just do it.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Other countries, like Finland and Venuzuala have done it.

    Are we saying that we're not as smart as Venuzuala?

    We can do it.

    We just don't want to.

    ReplyDelete
  92. If the government announced today that it was setting aside 1 Trillion dollars to pay for the conversions of every gasoline vehicle or trading in for a new vehicle to electric, then timelines would be issued. You'd get a notification in the mail when to take your car or truck in and either trade it in or have it converted.

    It would create massive employment opportunity on a scale not seen since the dawn of the personal computer. A huge industry would be created overnight, and a thousand peripheral supporting industries and opportunities.

    This country would see a revitalization that would open a whole new world to us.

    Alternate energy could become the cyberboom of the century.

    ReplyDelete
  93. The job market stimulation will be just like the PC boom.

    The demand for trained technicains, engineers, inspectors, designers, mechanics, etc, will fly through the roof.

    Training schools and classes will spring up to deal with the new demand. Certifications and accrediations in the new field will be in high demand, and millions will flock to these new high paying positions.

    It happened with the PC industry. In 10 years, this country went from having virtually no computers, to not being able to function without them.

    It can happen again.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Carbon fuels can be all but eliminated.

    ReplyDelete
  95. All the ideas have been worked out. They're in use in other countries.

    No one here wants to implement them. We're all too busy talking about all the bad things that will happen if we dare to try.

    Well I don't buy it.

    If Finland can do it, we sure as hell can do it.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Electric trucks can recharge on major highways using a power rail, similar to the one used by most subways and trams. This one would be buried, and connected to on trucker only lanes. This would eliminate the need to stop to refuel.

    Electric cars, motorcycles. Everything electric.

    And once we start making them, they'll just get better and better, faster and faster.

    Within a decade we'll wonder how we ever lived without them.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Wouldn't it feel great to be cruising down the highway, pedal to the metal and knowing you weren't spewing foul smoke and carbon into the air we breath?

    Wouldn't that be cool?

    ReplyDelete
  98. Say goodbye to the oil, say good bye to our problems with the middle east.


    Other than Israel of course.

    ReplyDelete
  99. In the united states there are roughly 400,000,000 hundred million people.

    Less than half the population own autos, so lets say there are 200,000,000 cars that require conversion. Lets say they build a standard electric model that costs $20,000 dollars.

    If they replaced all 200,000,000 cars with electric cars, and just GAVE the new cars to people, it would only cost 400 Billion dollars.

    We spent that much in our first year of war in Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
  100. God gave us great wealth.

    What we choose to do with that wealth is how we will likely be judged.

    We could have chosen to remove our dependency on foreign oil, and taken that almost 1 Trillion dollars we've spent on Iraq and converted our nation to electric cars.

    But instead, we chose to spend it on war.

    ReplyDelete
  101. War to control whats left of the oil.

    ReplyDelete
  102. If we'd choose smart, instead of stupid, we can say goodbye to our dependence on the middle east, and have clean air in the process.

    But we need to do it now.

    While theres still enough oil to make the transition smooth. If we start now, we can do it BEFORE the oil runs out.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Worfeus,

    United States — Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)

    Number of motor vehicles about 250,000,000, of whgich the majority are over 5 years old and it does not make sense to replace the power plant if the vehicle has achieved the five year mark, especially the larger heavier US style of auto, and SUV.

    New electric cars are far too different to make any attempt to switch plausible, especially the ones using the wheel as part of the electric motor eliminating the entire power train, and using the newly empty engine compartment for battery storage.

    But they are still in the development stage, with only a few demonstrators and test vehicles for now ramp uptime five to ten years.

    A very interesting one is being created in California(where else?)

    Here is a article about it;

    The Tesla

    a bit expensive at the moment.

    another article about a Phoenix company working with a new battery for his conversions;

    Phoenix Motorcars

    The battery pack;

    Altairnano Reveals Battery Pack Details

    When they get to the point where an electric car will do 70 go 150-200 miles between charges and recharge in less then 1/2 hour to full charge it will sell.

    I Europe they are going for smaller diesels which are much more efficient then gas engines;

    From the oil drum

    The little stratified charge 1.5 and 1.6's routinely made 50-55 mpg w/o turbo. Still have one. Today's 1.2liter. 3cyl. and 3 l. per 100k is better than that. Do you think it'll ever show up in America?

    (BTW this car gets 80 MPG with a small diesel motor), but it ain't a honkin' SUV or probably won't do 0 - 60 in six seconds so most Americans won't "want" it because they have been trained NOT to want a small fuel efficient car.

    ReplyDelete
  104. And even with around 250,000,000 motor vehicles we still have 4 parking spaces nation wide for every car we have here.

    ReplyDelete
  105. clif said...
    Worfeus,

    United States — Population: 301,139,947 (July 2007 est.)

    Number of motor vehicles about 250,000,000, of whgich the majority are over 5 years old and it does not make sense to replace the power plant if the vehicle has achieved the five year mark, especially the larger heavier US style of auto, and SUV.



    Well I'm not sure where you got the figure but unless we lost 100 million people last year thats wrong. Last year I believe the census was 399 million.

    But no matter.

    Its moot.

    Your auto figure is almost identical to mine. I guessed 200 million. You have 250 million.

    Ok fine.

    NONE of that negates what I said.

    Here you are making an argument about not being able to refit older model cars, when I clearly said we could just "REPLACE" the cars.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Clif said...

    But they are still in the development stage, with only a few demonstrators and test vehicles for now ramp uptime five to ten years.




    Thats just not accurate.

    Electric cars are already in use and have been for years. They had an entire fleet of them in California which we've discussed before.

    I have read dozens of accounts of how this technology is in use, including race cars and all sorts of other alternative fuels.

    The technology is already out there.

    ReplyDelete
  107. OBI WAN WORFEUS said...
    If we'd choose smart, instead of stupid, we can say goodbye to our dependence on the middle east, and have clean air in the process.

    But we need to do it now.

    While theres still enough oil to make the transition smooth. If we start now, we can do it BEFORE the oil runs out."

    I couldnt agree more with essentially all of what you just posted.......my only ammendment would be that the oil isnt going to RUN OUT for decades, and if we go all out with a multipronged effort that we devote ALL our resources to we can make the transition without a collapse of civilization and a regression from a complex society to a far LESS complex one.........HOWEVER that transition will be FAR from smooth, we have very likely reached Peak Oil or are close to it, where Supply exceeds demand and the transition will be a very painful one for the roughly 50% of our country that cant afford $10-$15 a gallon gas to get to work and to heat their homes and buy food.

    Basically till we move away from an oil based economy oil and the things derived from it will become a luxery ONLY the rich can enjoy.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Now lest you think i'm ALL doom and gloom I agree completely with you that the transition to MORE fuel efficient cars could be a boon that will save the Car companies............I've been saying that for months to Larry and Clif.

    ReplyDelete
  109. And since you mentioned the Telsa, here are the statistics on the Telsa Roadster.


    0 to 60 acceleration in 4 seconds

    135 mpg equivalent, per the conversion rate used by the EPA

    More than 200 mile driving range

    Fully DOT-compliant: crash tested, with airbags, crash structures, etc


    And this is their FIRST model!
    Now true this car is expensive, but the technology is there.

    All we have to do is adapt it and refine it.

    Here. I think the words of Martin Eberhard, the owner of Telsa says it best.

    Will an expensive car make any difference to global carbon emissions or to our oil dependence?

    The answers, of course are no and not much.

    However, that misses the point. Almost any new technology has high cost before it can be optimized, and this is no less true for electric cars.


    Martin Eberhard

    ReplyDelete
  110. However your statement that we can adapt and weather te storm needs to be examined further...........gas has roughly tripled since 2002...........how much MORE of a rise till it breaks the camels back and destroys the bottom 50% of the economic class in this country.

    Your absolutely right it might be a boon for the Auto companies.........but think what it will do to fast food companies, retail and low wage manufacturing as well as those making minimum wage.............$10-$15 a galon gas could make the unemployment rate go to 30%-40% and banrupcies and forclosures go through the roof.........1/3 of the country could be starving..........think how much food prices will rise if oil and gas were to quadruple AGAIN food gets shipped in same for manufactured goods.

    ReplyDelete
  111. Worf we need a government that leads us in the right direction by supporting viable technologies with tax breaks and subsidies until the mass production and adaption is in place for them to be profitable...................THAT will NEVER happen with Bush and the Neo Cons in power they are in bed with big oil and will NEVER help us to doiversify AWAY from oil.

    They would rather fight wars and murder for oil than invest in technology to end our dependence on oil..............the Trillion or so we end up spending in Iraq could have been spent tp move us beyond oil and end that dependency but the Neo Cons crave war and death and power above all else.

    ReplyDelete
  112. I made more than one "statement" Mike, and your summarization using the "weather and storm" analogy doesn't exactly do any of them justice.


    My position is clear on this, and you ignored my entire premise.

    My premise is simple.

    We cannot continue to extort oil out of the Arab countries just because Americans want cheap gas.

    And just because it will impact our economy is no excuse either, nor is the hardship it might place on the poor.

    Those are necessary evils created by our own greed and corruption, and our reward for that greed and corruption was 911, and all that followed.

    When we stop extorting oil at highway robbery prices from the Arab nations, then maybe they'll stop wanting to kill us.

    Why do you think they sell it to us at far less than what any other country is paying? Cause they like us?

    We need to stop meddling for oil, and pay like everyone else. That will help curb the terrorism threat. If we don't want it to impact our economy too hard, then we need to get smart, and do all the other things I have painstakingly laid out here tonight, that will not only help offset the impact on our economy it will likely even help it grow.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Mike said...

    .........but think what it will do to fast food companies, retail and low wage manufacturing as well as those making minimum wage.............$10-$15 a galon gas could make the unemployment rate go to 30%-40% and banrupcies and forclosures go through the roof.........1/3 of the country could be starving..........think how much food prices will rise if oil and gas were to quadruple AGAIN food gets shipped in same for manufactured goods.


    Well as you said in the preceding sentence, gas has nearly tripled, and yet I can still buy a big mac for a dollar.

    Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  114. And by the way, please be sure to quote me accurately. I never suggested 10 to 15 dollars a gallon.

    If we pay what Europe pays for their oil, we're looking at about 5 bucks a gallon.

    It won't destroy our economy.

    ReplyDelete
  115. But once more let me stress, I am not talking about the oil companies raising their rates and paying the Arabs the same. I am talking about the oil companies increasing their rate merely to compensate for the increase paid to the oil rich arab nations.

    And once we start paying more, people will drive less, people will drive more fuel efficient cars, car sales will go up, as middle class Americans everywhere trade in for more fuel efficent cars, the demand for fuel efficent cars will naturally climb, and auto manufacturers will cash in on the race for the most efficent model automobiles, including developing new hybrids, etc.

    People are afraid of change. But change must come in this situation, as Clif has so carefully laid out.

    If change must come, better we start now then let it force itself upon us.

    ReplyDelete
  116. OBI WAN WORFEUS said...
    I made more than one "statement" Mike, and your summarization using the "weather and storm" analogy doesn't exactly do any of them justice.


    My position is clear on this, and you ignored my entire premise.

    My premise is simple.

    We cannot continue to extort oil out of the Arab countries just because Americans want cheap gas.

    And just because it will impact our economy is no excuse either, nor is the hardship it might place on the poor."


    My position is 100% clear as well........or at least "I" thought it was.........and that position is that i agree with what you said 110%

    Dont read things into what i said that arent there.........we NEED to start diversifying away from oil YESTERDAY I was merely pointing out that this process will be extremely painful for the poor and it is something we need to consider and factor in...........I was in NO WAY advocating that we should keep murdering and fighting wars in the Middle East for oil.............I am against that horrible destructive murerous policy with every fiber of my being i THOUGHT that was fairly clear from my posts...........If it wasnt then I hope i made it clear NOW!

    ReplyDelete
  117. Paying the Arabs a fair price for their oil and thus stopping our meddling in their affairs will not only curb terrorism, it will push us into alternate fuels and technogies that might take decades to invent and migrate to otherwise.


    I hate to be cliche', but necessity IS the mother of invention.

    ReplyDelete
  118. But let me just say this oil prices will rise weather we choose to pay fair market price or levy taxes or not because demand is exceeding supply.........I STRONGLY feel we need to get out of the Middle East and Raise fuel economy standards for cars, build LNG terminals, build as much solar, wind and Nuclear as possible and use clean coal technology..................But as i said before we can not let the poor starve, freeze, lose their houses etc.........we need to consider how to intelligently manage the transition so there is not riots and chaos...........I strongly believe Bush wants this type of chaos so he can declare martial law and seize ultimate power and become a dictator.............I think that is the MAIN reason he wants to attack Iran because he thinks its a way to salvage things........he thinks that the chaos induced from the oil shock will allow him to declare martial law and become a dictator.

    Think about the Special powers bill he tried to push through and the patriot act........then think what attacking Iran would achieve thats the ONLY positive thing for Bush it could ever achieve he craves this war.........Think WHY???????

    ReplyDelete
  119. Worf said "Well as you said in the preceding sentence, gas has nearly tripled, and yet I can still buy a big mac for a dollar.

    Go figure."

    Ok, your essentially creating my position for me for some reason........i'm not arguing or opposing you i'm almost in complete agreement with what your saying to summarize the ONLY thing i essentially disagreed with is your saying it will be a smooth transition if we start now............I think it is 5 years too late for a smooth transition but we NEED to start the transition ASAP.

    just because I say it will be a painful transition for many does not mean I am against the transition, support the oil companies or want us to meddle in the arrabs affairs, land or business.

    Now for the above quote I assume you are essentially saying gas has tripled and fast food has not gone up yet............I feel a good analogy for that statement is the people of New Orleans saying two years ago that they havent had a devasting hurricaine YET........so it means it wont happen............or opponents of Global Warming saying nothing that devasting has happened yet so Global warming is neither catastrophic nor proven.

    Just because the camels back hasnt broken yet doesnt mean it wont with a few more straws.

    Now i think i'll call it a night since you apparently feel the need to assigning me a position and obviously feel I am an opponent or pessimist when I am more accurately a realist that just wants to examine and consider the implications and discuss a reasoned response to a policy we both agree on.............The problem with the Neo Cons is they dont think things through and they dont care about the poor and lower middle class......among MANY other things!

    ReplyDelete
  120. No Mike. I wasn't thinking any of that.

    I did think you were debating the idea of paying more for our oil at first, but you cleared that up.

    I'm glad we do not disagree, but even if we didn't agree, I wouldn't consider you an opponent.


    chill

    ReplyDelete
  121. Mike said...

    The problem with the Neo Cons is they dont think things through and they dont care about the poor and lower middle class......among MANY other things!


    Well I'm not a neocon and I always think things through.

    And I'm no Mother Teresa but I'm not exactly Ebeneezer Scrooge either.

    ReplyDelete
  122. OBI WAN WORFEUS said...
    No Mike. I wasn't thinking any of that.

    I did think you were debating the idea of paying more for our oil at first, but you cleared that up.

    I'm glad we do not disagree, but even if we didn't agree, I wouldn't consider you an opponent.


    chill"


    LOL............no harm no foul.........of course we are entitled to disagree, I welcome other opinions whether they agree with mine or not, thats what good discussion is all about.........I just felt there was some confusion as to what my position was and I wanted to clarify that you had my position wrong.

    If you notice from day one I have praised Jimmy Carter for taking big steps to diversify us away from oil dependence, he GREATLY lessened oil demand and our dependence on foreign oil and brought down the price SIGNIFICANTLTY which brought down inflation and helped create a 20 year economic boom..........its not his fault the presidents that followed took us off the path he put us on and moved us in the wrong direction BAC K to imported oil.............and Carter was maligned as a terrible president because failed policies many of which occured before he even became president as well as a war that occured BEFORE he became president tainted his presidency.

    Its interesting how Neo Cons blame Clinton for the terorism and poor economic performance that occured on GWB's watch yet hold Carter responsible for things that happened PRIOR to him being president.

    And like I said before we are certainly entitled to disagree........however my point was that in this instance we are clearly on the SAME page.....I despise the Neo Cons and Oil Barons running this country, they have done irreparible damage have put us on the wrong path and make me sick to my stomach..............We need to get out of the Middle East, treat them fairly and with respect even when what they do is something we do not agree with and does not benefit us and WE NEED to clean up our own backyard and stop meddling and worrying about their backyard.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Worfeus gas in some European countries works out to $7 a gallon, and you NOT thinking how much it would take to produce 200,000,000 cars, which is what you need for what you propose.

    It would require changing how the US auto industry works and what they attempt to produce to make their money plus changing the entire support structure of the auto industry both pre-production and post production including the energy system for feuling the new cars because the 120,000 gas stations don't do it at the moment.

    That along with restructuring the entire auto repair system because gas engines ain't in the mix, which means the repair garages and muffler shops will be obsolete at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  124. No Clif, I AM thinking about what it would take.

    It would take the same kind of industrial ingenuity, innovation and commitment that we showed during WW2, when we converted thousands of civillian plants and factories to manufacturing war components.

    You guys talk like I am saying snap your fingers and its done.

    I'm not. But it can be done. If a fleet of 5000 trucks can convert the fleet to natural gas in a year, then we can do the same type of thing on a grander scale. It will happen incrementally, but if we made it a goal, within ten years our country could be off of gasoline.

    ReplyDelete
  125. I don't think there is any question about it. This country needs a "Moon Landing Project" focused on getting off the oil. The simple fact of the matter is that there is going to be great pain if we do it now, and great pain if we do it later. If we do it later, we stand the chance of having the great pain be a whole lot greater, as we become more and more dependent on imported oil. Let's get it the hell over with.

    ReplyDelete
  126. I remember when the catalyctic converters were ordered for all automobiles, and they said we couldn't do it.

    Sure it is a much lesser thing than changing the entire power plant, but the fact that we did it, and we did it so efficiently, that it proves that it can be done.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Jolly Roger said...
    I don't think there is any question about it. This country needs a "Moon Landing Project" focused on getting off the oil


    Thats exactly what I have been trying to say. Its that type of commitment, that all or nothing approach that moves mountains.

    Just because Bush misused the principle doesn't mean the principles wrong. Just do it smart. Plan it out, set milestones and make it happen.

    We could do it if we were committed. But no ones committed.

    ReplyDelete
  128. clif said...

    That along with restructuring the entire auto repair system because gas engines ain't in the mix, which means the repair garages and muffler shops will be obsolete at this point



    No I disagree. They will "adapt".

    Businesses will need tax breaks for refitting, training, etc, but it could be done, and not as dificult as people think.

    All it will take is money.

    And by my calculations, a Trillion dollars is a good number to start with.

    ReplyDelete
  129. The same amount of money we will have spent on the Iraq war by this time next year.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Worfeus NG won't work because we use most of what is produced at the moment in home heating, electricity production and fertilizer production for agriculture, if we started to burn it as a fuel it would run short before all got what they needed.

    We need to convert to small diesel cars like Europe has which can get up to 80 miles a gallon at the moment, then in the long run more public transportation and electric vehicles.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Companies like Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin and other companies that helped us get to the moon, can get involved and help spearhead the improvement and honing of the technologies.

    Initially we'll probably see hybrids, and later on, more and more pure electric, as the technology is perfected.

    Perfected by Americans.

    Cause thats what we do.

    ReplyDelete
  132. I strongly disagree with switching to diesel. It takes two gallons of gas to make a gallon of deisel fuel, and it burns filthy.

    We don't need to follow Europe.

    We need to surpass Finland.

    ReplyDelete
  133. We need to take the lead.

    We need to show the world that the US is STILL the leader in new techology.

    We need to show them we're still the "go to guys".

    Hybrids. Then fully electric.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Unless of course you're talking about SoyDiesel.

    ReplyDelete
  135. But we need to start TODAY.

    We need to outlaw the sale of Hummers and large SUV's. We will phase them out over the next ten years, but they need to stop selling them today.

    We need to push electric, electric, electric, because our dependence on oil, foreign oil, is whats causing the wars.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Believe me, if we spent the money, we could make cars that run on nose hair.

    We need to spend the money.

    Lets start with ONE TRILLION dollars, and go from there.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Imagine what pumping one trillion dollars into our economy right now would do for us.

    You think this transition would be hard, but thats because you're used to underfunded projects. (probably residual from your military years, lol).

    But with a Trillion dollars, we could build cars that ran on marmalade and crapped dandylions.

    The only real barrier, is the money. Business and private citizens will need help with the transition. If the money is there to help them, then it will work.

    ReplyDelete
  138. Worfeus I don't know where your getting your info, but they have "cleaned diesel up, and the Europeans produce quite a few cars which run on it, Mercedes produced a gull winged car which made quite a splash, and some European racing teams race diesels instead of gas engines and win doing it.

    In Europe and other placed diesel will lead the way until alternates come along, which is why the US imports gasoline from Europe now a days if we didn't we wouldn't have enough gas to feed our over grown SUV's and super sized sedans.

    ReplyDelete
  139. The US is the only place where the dinosaurs of the auto industry still rule the roads, the rest of the planet lead the way we follow now a days because the CEO's and politicians allowed us to fall behind and morons like Reagan wanted the good old days instead of looking toward the future and innovating back when it really would have helped.

    Reagan is one of the primary reasons we are in the quandary we are today, and the reichwing still worships the stupid old foole.

    ReplyDelete
  140. clif said...
    Worfeus I don't know where your getting your info, but they have "cleaned diesel up,



    Metrobus.

    All you have to do is look at the thick black smoke.

    But you're right, in Europe they have new SoyDiesels and such that do burn cleaner.

    Problem is, you still need oil.

    We need to go straight electric.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Jolly Roger said...
    I don't think there is any question about it. This country needs a "Moon Landing Project" focused on getting off the oil. The simple fact of the matter is that there is going to be great pain if we do it now, and great pain if we do it later. If we do it later, we stand the chance of having the great pain be a whole lot greater, as we become more and more dependent on imported oil. Let's get it the hell over with."

    I couldnt agree more with what you just said Jolly!

    ReplyDelete
  142. clif said...
    Worfeus NG won't work because we use most of what is produced at the moment in home heating, electricity production and fertilizer production for agriculture, if we started to burn it as a fuel it would run short before all got what they needed.

    We need to convert to small diesel cars like Europe has which can get up to 80 miles a gallon at the moment, then in the long run more public transportation and electric vehicles."


    Clif Natural Gas WILL work if we use it along with electric/hybrid technology to power our cars and use a combination of wind, solar, nuclear and clean coal to generate electricty.

    ReplyDelete
  143. What we need to do is take about 100 Billion dollars, and fund a new "Manhattan Project".

    Lock the smartest and best designers, engineers, chemists and electrical engineers, etc, into a campus.

    We give them the a Telsa Roadster, and tell them not to come out until they've redesigned it to do everything it does now only cheaper.

    ReplyDelete
  144. No Worfeus they can make bio-diesel, which is getting quite a bit of study, especially diesel from algae, which looks promising,

    some studies say you can get 100,000 gallons of diesel from one acre of algae, as opposed to 370 gallons of ethanol from an acre of corn.

    ReplyDelete
  145. Understand they don't have to invent anything, just take the Telsa Roadster and reverse engineer it and do it better.

    Does anyone in this room actually think that after a year of fully funded research and development, our best and brightest minds would come out scratching their heads saying "we just can't do it"?.

    ReplyDelete
  146. clif said...
    No Worfeus they can make bio-diesel,


    No what?

    I've been talking about Bio-diesel all night.

    ReplyDelete
  147. Mike there is not enough solar panel production, nor near enough wind electric generation companies (the waiting list is two years at present) and nothing except a large infusion of cash which the large utilities and coal producers will fight tooth and nail to prevent.

    Your trying to restructure the entire society, which some rich powerful groups will fight which is why it is not done yet, Reagan started the blockade and the reichwinmg follows like lemmings till we all suffer from it.

    ReplyDelete
  148. clif said...
    and nothing except a large infusion of cash which the large utilities and coal producers will fight tooth and nail to prevent.


    And there Clif just made my case for me.

    Thats what I have been saying all night. Thats why I repeated capitalizing the figure ONE TRILLION DOLLARS.

    If we fund them, they will run.

    ReplyDelete
  149. clif said...

    Your trying to restructure the entire society, which some rich powerful groups will fight


    So?

    Let em fight.

    We can fight too.

    In fact, its time to take the fight to them.

    ReplyDelete
  150. We have the capability right now to make cars that get 80-100 MPG.........all we need is the govenment mandate to make that happen.........unfortunately barring impeachment that wont happen till 2009.

    Couple that with a mandate to diversify our oil use to almost nothing and replace it with natural gas, nuclear, wind, solar, clean coal etc...........it would be painful and take over a decade but it will make us masters of our own destiny instead of beholden to people who despise us for a commodity.

    Not to mention the transition will be beneficial to the environment and combat or slow global warming, plus like worf said it will likely revitalize the auto industry and spark growth in new industries that create jobs particularly if the decent paying R&D and manufacturing jobs are here in America.

    ReplyDelete
  151. Mike said...
    We have the capability right now to make cars that get 80-100 MPG.........all we need is the govenment mandate to make that happen.........


    Amen.

    And that means money.

    Imagine if we took the trillion dollars we spent on Iraq, and spent it to assist auto manufacturers and owners with making the transition.

    ReplyDelete
  152. clif said...
    Mike there is not enough solar panel production, nor near enough wind electric generation companies (the waiting list is two years at present) and nothing except a large infusion of cash which the large utilities and coal producers will fight tooth and nail to prevent.

    Your trying to restructure the entire society, which some rich powerful groups will fight which is why it is not done yet, Reagan started the blockade and the reichwinmg follows like lemmings till we all suffer from it."

    Your right Clif there ISNT enough Solar or Wind production............WE NEED TO CHANGE THAT ASAP!

    And Worf is absolutely right if the powers that be fight this neccessary and beneficial change we need to take the fight to them..................THIS NEEDS TO BE AN ELECTION ISSUE............I think its just as important as Iraq........in fact I think its the root cause of the Iraq war!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  153. In Maryland off whats known as the 270 corridor, is a building owned by British Petroleum.

    It is entirely solar powered.

    Its a huge building. And its very attractive. And its all solar.

    ReplyDelete
  154. No worfeus they won't "run" cause Jimmy Carter said what you said, and look what they did to him, and how the reuichwing and their corporate sponsors attacked everything you have proposed.

    They will use slick ads and sound bites to foole the sheeple like they have done for years, and attack people like they do aL Gore at the moment and AEI will just hire people like they do for EXXON to oppose the new initiative like they are still fighting global warming even though Greenland the arctic and antarctic are all melting.

    I don't disagree with what you say, but understand how they will fight back with the MSM corporate ads and spin machines to make almost everything looks wimpy and foolish to the sheeple.

    It's going to take a complete over haul of both the political machine and public airwaves before the lies and spin are silenced.

    And far too many people are invested with what we have now to give up easily even though we NEED to change.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Worf said "Imagine if we took the trillion dollars we spent on Iraq, and spent it to assist auto manufacturers and owners with making the transition."

    You know i've been saying this for a year or two now...........thats why I was so pissed off when the dems caved and gave that money to fund the war.............its like wasted money being flushed down the toilet that could have been invested in alternative energy!

    ReplyDelete
  156. Mike said...

    in fact I think its the root cause of the Iraq war!!!!!!

    Exactly my original point.

    End the need for their oil by spending the war funds on migrating off of oil, then we kill two birds with one stone so to speak.

    ReplyDelete
  157. Guys the 80-10 miles per gallon are diesel motors, gasoline is a smaller molecule (less hydro carbon bonds to exploit)so it has a smaller potential energy inherent to the chemical bonds it contains, If you want to surpass 50 MPG you almost have to go diesel....

    ReplyDelete
  158. clif said...
    No worfeus they won't "run" cause Jimmy Carter said what you said, and look what they did to him,


    You just love saying "no worfeus" don't you, lol.

    Clif, the meaning of that expression, if you fund it, they will run, had nothing to do with anyone running.

    The CARS will run.

    In other words, if we put the money into re-engineering existing electric car technology, it will work.

    The cars will work, or in other words, they will run.


    LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  159. clif said...
    Guys the 80-10 miles per gallon are diesel motors


    You and Mike were talking about this.

    I did not endorse nor mention the 80 miles per gallon. I want no miles per gallon.

    I've been talking about electrics all night.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Gas is normally C8H18,

    Diesel is normally C12H26

    If you look there are many more Hydro carbon bonds to break release the energy and create CO2 and H2) out of it.....

    ReplyDelete
  161. You keep talking about improving fuel emissions Clif, and I am talking about electric.

    The entire premise of the last 70 posts I've made tonight, is completely centered around the concept of getting off of oil right away. Making the change and getting away from dependency on the middle east.

    Doing so will curb terrorism.

    We can't do that by investing money in technolgies designed to improve petroleum products.

    ReplyDelete
  162. clif said...
    Gas is normally C8H18,

    Diesel is normally C12H26

    If you look there are many more Hydro carbon bonds to break release the energy and create CO2 and H2) out of it.....


    Interesting stuff to be sure, but still irrelevant to my point.

    We need to stop investing in improving fuel standards and start investing in getting off petroluem fuels completely.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Worfeus I'm a realist, and don't see the powers that be in either party stepping aside and giving up their place at the trough to do the right thing, they all have failed since the late 1970's and I don't see very many willing to change what gets them into office right now, and the powers that pull the strings of the politicians and own the MSM ain't gonna give up their cash cows either.

    I agree we need to do what your saying, but I don't see the public demand nor the political will for somebody beside Gore to push for it, and look how he is treated daily by both the MSM and reichwing.

    I can't see HOW we get what you say need to be done past the powers that be both inside and outside the gobermant of the sheeple.

    ReplyDelete
  164. We've been trying to improve petroluem consumption for 30 years now and we've gotten NO WHERE.


    Cars in the 1970's got better mileage then they do today!

    My old Datsun B10 got like 38MPG on the highway.

    Hard to find a car that can do that today.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Worf said "We need to stop investing in improving fuel standards and start investing in getting off petroluem fuels completely."

    Well if your point is that with massive R&D funding we can eventually have all electric cars that dont use any gas..............I think you are probably right........however we are not there yet while WE DO CURRENTLY have the technology to get 80-100 MPG.

    See I was not proposing this as a solution or end game............what I was proposing was a transition technology till we can migrate to all electric or hydrogen or something better.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Worfeus until we get a major companiy with a mas market putting out electric cars we need to do what we can to stretch what we presently use.

    Because until then we will continue to burn 20.5 million barrels of oil each and every day in this country.

    We only produce 5.5 million barrels our selves. The rest needs to come from someplace, or we need to get a whole lot more efficient till the electrics start rolling off the assembly line.

    ReplyDelete
  167. clif said...
    Worfeus I'm a realist, and don't see the powers that be in either party stepping aside and giving up their place at the trough to do the right thing


    Well sorry, but that sounds more like defeatist to me.

    You're just giving in.

    You're finding all the reasons you can to say it won't work, then just tossing your hands up in defeat.

    Lydia's right about one thing.

    What you focus on "grows".


    Just remember.

    If you believe we can't do, or if you believe we can do it, you're right.

    ReplyDelete
  168. clif said...
    Worfeus until we get a major companiy with a mas market putting out electric cars we need to do what we can to stretch what we presently use.


    I disagree.

    We need the government to fund new technolgies, and stop trying to strech the MPG.

    I just got through pointing out how ineffective that approach has been for the last 30 years.

    For 30 years the government has been subsidizing billions of our tax dollars into improving gas milage and alternate hybrid petroleum products.

    And none of it works.

    We need to take our money, and fund a technology we KNOW that works, that is electric.

    ReplyDelete
  169. We need to do what I said earlier, and fund a new Manhattan project.

    The Manhattan project took someone elses work and built on it to make the Atom Bomb. We did it in a year.

    We can do the same thing with the electric car.

    Just get the best and the brighest, give them a working Telsa Roadster, and tell them to not come out of their lab until they've tweaked it to where we can mass produce them for the general population.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Worfeus, I can't change the id-jets who keep putting the reichwing and sell out democrats in power, and neither can you.

    anmd those people ain't about the truth as we all have seen time and time again.

    The congressional hearings about the high gas prices failed to even study before they asked questions other wise they would have known we haven't built new refineries because they upgrade and extend those that exist and in the last decade have added the equivalent of 10 new refineries to those that already existed.

    But it is politically expedient to tell the sheeple what they want to hear instead of the truth.

    Just like they did in 2002 and 2003 to get their war for oil they wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  171. Well gee Clif, why don't we just all join hands and walk into a chopper blade together then?


    Sorry buddy, but you won't get me to second that kind of terminal philosophy.

    It may not be perfect, and people may never be perfect, but I still beleive we can make it work.

    And I still believe democracy works.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Sorry Worfeus, but call me when you get congress off it's dead ass and fund an electric car over the objections of the right wing, and large sections of ther democrats who are beholden to the auto industry like John Dingle and others.

    I don't disagree that something needs to be done, but I see a hell of a lot of people in power who work daily to make sure it don't happen.

    How do you plan to get around the power they wield?

    And get them to work against the interests they perceive elects them.

    Because until you can do that they won't step aside and allow things to change.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Does the congress suck?

    Sure.

    Is change difficult? Sure.


    But people are fed up, and I think change can happen.

    If Al Gore is elected President, which is a distinct possibility, then you watch how fast we're all driving hybrids.

    ReplyDelete
  174. I have watched this country get lead down stupid path after stupid path for ther benefit of a very small minority for the last quarter century, and don't see anything which is changing that even with the 2006 election.

    Just like the roaring 20's too many believe things are fine so they refuse to look at reality until it runs them over.

    ReplyDelete
  175. I have this thing Clif, I just hate defeatism as much as I hate blind optimsim.

    Realism is one thing. For instance, knowing when you've lost a war is a realistic.

    But saying we're never going to change the congress? A lot of these schmucks are up for re-election soon. We can vote them out. We can flood their offices with calls and letters, we can petition and address, and protest and march.

    Sitting back and saying nothing will change won't get us off the hook.

    We''ve all got a peice of this pie on our chins.

    ReplyDelete
  176. I disagree.

    Worf said "We need the government to fund new technolgies, and stop trying to strech the MPG.

    I just got through pointing out how ineffective that approach has been for the last 30 years.

    For 30 years the government has been subsidizing billions of our tax dollars into improving gas milage and alternate hybrid petroleum products."


    While I agree with you that the government needs to fund and promote electric car technologies................Your dead wrong that the government has ben funding and subsidizing improving gas milage and hybrids for 30 years...........the very opposite is true in fact I believe it was around 1979 the last time fuel economy was increased and the government has done next to nothing to subsidizxe hybrids...............now lets see since Carter left we have had ALL repug presidents except Clinton and oil and gas were quite cheap and not an issue under Clinton..........the repugs are owned, bought and paid for by big oil and you will NEVER see a change while they hold the reigns of power.

    ReplyDelete
  177. IF GORE runs then I would believe change is possible, till then we are stuck with Hillary and Obama who I am no longer impressed with.

    Edwards is better and if he starts to show some chance of beating Hillary things might change. till then I hold no hope for this country except for more trouble as the economy slowly sinks into the crapper and the rich CEO's and wall street bankers pick it's bones(along with their right wing enablers).

    ReplyDelete
  178. OBI WAN WORFEUS said...
    Does the congress suck?

    Sure.

    Is change difficult? Sure.


    But people are fed up, and I think change can happen.

    If Al Gore is elected President, which is a distinct possibility, then you watch how fast we're all driving hybrids."

    I agree Al Gore would put us on the right path and end our dependency on oil............That is why i feel he WILL RUN!

    ReplyDelete
  179. And everytime we talk about a major deal, you've got a list of 50 reasons why it won't work.

    You're negative that way, and I think defeatist.

    You may be right on many occasions, but some of your rightness is just America living out a self fullfilling prophecy.

    An engineer looks at an impossible problem to solve, and then proceeds to write out a list of ways to solve it.

    Think like an engineer.

    ReplyDelete
  180. I have Worfeus, but engineers also look for the gremlins in the machines to eliminate them, however we have far too many gremlins in both our political, public air waves and societal processes, which use common misconceptions to gum up the works and prevent change, and getting the bible thumpers and reichwing money whores to let go alone with the NRA and bigots is more then I see possible except for either a melt down AKA 1929 or some other super societal bitch slap of the masses.

    ReplyDelete
  181. But I do understand the frustration.

    I hate Reid and Pelosi.They're worthless tubs of lard and with lazy good for nothing people like that in congress, I see why anyone would think change can't happen.

    Its just I have seen change before, and I know it can happen. I believe if we focus on what needs to happen, it will eventually happen.

    Never take our eyes off the ball, and never settle for comprimise.

    No more money into petroluem research. ALL our money into alternatives.

    ReplyDelete
  182. When Bush and the Neocons are arrested and or impeached, their ties to big oil will be illuminated, and the country will change.

    I believe that with all my heart.

    ReplyDelete
  183. I watched the right take over this country ever since the late 70's and they have changed so much and taken control of so much of both the MSM and political machinery of both parties it will take something large to change the sheeple to think for themselves and look at what is really happening, till then they want more American Idol and more credit.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Well good discussion tonight guys.

    Gotta run.


    Hey Clif did you listen to Lydia's show today? Mike Gravel was on. It was great.

    ReplyDelete
  185. And you're right Mike.

    Gore WILL run.

    ReplyDelete
  186. Worfeus I don't believe either Bush or Cheney will be charged nor impeached, both for reasons to do with a necessary time line which is shrinking and the political realities of the DNC which is running the congress.

    Gonzo will be held onto as long as Bush can, especially if he can keep Gonzo till this fall when the political campaign season opens up and it sucks the oxygen out of the MSM so they play who wants to be president like they are trying now to ignore the realities of Washington for the most part.

    The DNC wants to play for power like the right did in the mid 1990's and they think they can set up a smarter version of the GOP machine which ran this country since 1998, and they think they can keep the more corrupt sections of the party under control unlike the GOP was able to do.

    ReplyDelete
  187. He isn't doing the talk show circuits to sell his book.

    How do I know that?

    Because he never talks about it.

    Instead he talks about Bush, the economy, the war in Iraq, health care, and about running for president.


    He's running.


    He's just smart enough to keep people guessing till it gets closer.

    ReplyDelete
  188. clif said...
    Worfeus I don't believe either Bush or Cheney will be charged nor impeached,


    Well , you know where I stand there.

    I believe it will happen and I believe it will happen this year.

    And I'm standing by that prediction.

    ReplyDelete
  189. As more and more truth comes out, there will clearly be no other alternative.


    Impeachment will be a given.

    ReplyDelete
  190. And I will say this.

    Everything I had felt would happen this year to facilitate the impeachment, has happened.

    Some of it almost exactly as I had anticipated.

    Right down to the George Tenet turning on Bush and the administration.

    I not only saw that, I wrote about it in here.

    ReplyDelete
  191. Worfeus I hope Gore runs even though he used to be a central figure in the DLC when he was in the senate, and It would overjoy me if Both Bush and Cheney were impeached, but given how Watergate overwhelmed Nixon, and the mistakes he made trying to limit the damage, Rove won't make the same mistakes which is why Gonzo is so important to the process, because he controls the keys top a special prosecutor, which is what it would take to get both Bush and Cheney.

    The congress has already shown themselves lacking the testicular fortitude to take either Bush or Cheney on for real.

    ReplyDelete
  192. I saw Tenet turning on Bush, in a waking dream, and he was doing the talk show circuits, talking about how the administration screwed up.

    I pictured that, in my mind, 6 months before it happened.

    And last year, I saw in my mind, the image of a newpaper, with Bush and Cheney on it, and the words in big black letters, IMPEACHED.

    Sometimes I'm wrong, but thats what I saw.

    ReplyDelete
  193. clif said...
    given how Watergate overwhelmed Nixon, and the mistakes he made trying to limit the damage, Rove won't make the same mistakes which is why Gonzo is so important to the process, because he controls the keys top a special prosecutor, which is what it would take to get both Bush and Cheney.



    Those are excellent points and I can't disagree with you there.

    But you left out that it looks like Congress may be ignoring the President because they are aware of that very same sound reasoning you just so articulately spelled out, and are focusing all their energy on removing Gonzales.

    The senate has to confirm the new nominee and the new guy would be under so much scrutiny that they'd probably get what they want.

    ReplyDelete
  194. But you're right on the money there, and that is exactly what it will take.

    I just think the congress may be pulling a fast one on ole dubya.

    ReplyDelete
  195. They might not have the votes in the Senate to impeach Bush or Cheney, but I'd be willing to wager it wouldn't be too hard getting enough to remove Gonzales if he is impeached in the House.

    ReplyDelete
  196. The senate has to confirm the new nominee and the new guy would be under so much scrutiny that they'd probably get what they want.

    which is why I said;

    Gonzo will be held onto as long as Bush can, especially if he can keep Gonzo till this fall when the political campaign season opens up and it sucks the oxygen out of the MSM so they play who wants to be president like they are trying now to ignore the realities of Washington for the most part.

    Before this, because the spin after this fall will be why impeach, he will be gone after 2008, so why waste all the time and energy when we have a war to stop.

    The LONGER Gonzo stays the shorter the time line gets before there is not enough time to get a special prosecutor for impeachment and to hold hearings let alone convince 16 GOP senators to vote for impeachment.

    ReplyDelete
  197. And if God forbid they manage to get a real Attorney General in there, (you know, like one who knows the constitution and stuff....) then God help Mr Bush.

    ReplyDelete