October 4, 2005
LEARN TO DEBATE LIKE A LEFTIST:
'I Want To Make Sure That They Know I Can't Be Pushed Around' (Kevin Reece, October 3, 2005, KOMO 4 NEWS)
Ken Potts calls himself a patriot. That's what his front yard tells you too.Metal American flags are staked in the ivy beside the driveway. A red, white, and blue pinwheel spins near the front sidewalk. One flagpole flies the American flag. A second flagpole carries the banner of the Army's 101st Airborne.
Even his mailbox on North 185th Street in Shoreline sports the image of the Airborne's screaming eagle.
But he says that in the last year the mailbox has been blown up twice with fireworks. The house has been egged. Paint has been thrown on the house too. The flags have been torn down and ripped up more than once.
And the 101st Airborne flag has had the word "murder" and a swastika written on it with a permanent marker.
"It's really difficult for me to see something like this and not feel sad," Potts told us of the vandalism that started around election day last year. Especially, he says, since the 101st led the charge in World War II to defeat Nazi Germany.
But the biggest insult to this house with a permanent Bush-Cheney placard attached to the second story and a collection of mostly Republican election signs in the side yard, is the spray paint someone left on his vinyl siding this past weekend.
In two-foot tall letters on the side of his house facing Meridian someone painted "Bush Nazis."
"Where do they get off calling the President of the United States a Nazi," he said.
And they do get off on it, no? Posted by Orrin Judd at October 4, 2005 11:59 AM
When did people forget that founding fathers believed that criticism of government was the most patriotic thing a citizen could do? That they believed that there should be a revolution every 20 years? That they erected a government that was unique in the world in the rights that it granted its citizens to check power, including the right to protest?
Bush might not be a Nazi, but his family sure made a whole heck of a lot of money from them, along with a long string of brutal dictators since. And like the Nazi's, his administration has played on the racist attitudes and cultural bigotry of Americans in a neverending mission that has so far wrecked two countries, and possibly America's future.
So everyone, ignore everything bad you ever hear about the Bush administration, and bow in praise of our fearless leader! You are either with us or against us!
Franz:
Please don't--everyone's going to accuse me of making you up. I post a story about the Left resorting to vandalism and calling people Nazis and you say its "criticism" of the President. It's too caricatured.
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 12:33 PMFranz is your Julia Roberts, OJ?
Posted by: John at October 4, 2005 12:40 PMJust a little background; Ken lives in the area where US Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash) got her start on the school board. The area is rabid Democrat. There is very little "debate" or discussion, there is a lot of vandalism toward anyone who would buck the status quo. Ken's house being on a well traveled and easily accessible intersection gets more than most.
Posted by: paul at October 4, 2005 12:54 PMFranz:
How many people died in the Soviet Union while FDR played footsie with Stalin?
You say that it's OK for people to commit acts of vandalism because Prescott Bush had business dealings with the Third Reich. You forget that, in this country, we don't hold people accountable for the misdeeds of their ancestors. That's actually one of the things that makes our country great, but I doubt you'd be willing to see that. Several times during his administration, President Bush has said that the the realpolitik policy of making nice to dictators that weren't Communist during the Cold War was very short sighted and also immoral. When are you liberals going to say the same thin about your habit of coddling every brutal dictator that just happens to hate the US? The Saddam-love we've seen on the left is only the most recent incarnation.
Mr. Potts story is a common one in the Greater Seattle area. It is especially bad in the northern areas like Shoreline, Greenlake and the U district. Cars and homes with pro-Bush stickers and signs were frequently vandalized in the months leading up to the election and the election outcome has only angered the vandals. I admire Mr. Potts' persistence but I removed my "W'04" bumper sticker after the election to avoid getting my car keyed or tagged with spray paint.
Posted by: Patrick H at October 4, 2005 12:56 PMYou can't stifle their dissent. But if you dissent from the dissent, prepare to be stifled.
Posted by: Mike Morley at October 4, 2005 1:10 PMCompare and contrast. There is a yard within eyesight of the Mayport Naval station festooned with Kerry paraphernalia -- has been since the election. So far as I can tell, nothing has been touched.
Posted by: curt at October 4, 2005 1:14 PM. . . because Republicans won't stoop to that level.
Posted by: obc at October 4, 2005 1:16 PMI live one county to the north of Mr. Potts. There's a big sign on one of major thoroughfares near here supporting personal Social Security accounts, which has been up for quite a while. This weekend, I took off of it a very slick, professionally made large sticker that said in huge letters "brought to you by your friends the Nazis!"
Posted by: Timothy at October 4, 2005 1:24 PMWhen did people forget that founding fathers believed that criticism of government was the most patriotic thing a citizen could do?
Another day, another patriot:
"Some claim a place in the list of patriots, by an acrimonious and unremitting opposition to the court. This mark is by no means infallible. Patriotism is not necessarily included in rebellion. A man may hate his king, yet not love his country." --Samuel Johnson.
For your reference, Franz, that's the same Samuel Johnson who said "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel."
Posted by: joe shropshire at October 4, 2005 1:29 PMDefacing private property or howling at the moon were not what the framers had in mind. Hard for me to imagine an intelligent discussion with the left as represented by folks like Franz. You are certifiable, my friend and I will fight to the death to defend your right to remain free while nuts. Just don't hurt yourself.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,CVt. at October 4, 2005 1:29 PMPatriotism having become one of our topicks, Johnson suddenly uttered, in a strong determined tone, an apophthegm, at which many will start: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." But let it be considered that he did not mean a real and generous love of our country, but that pretended patriotism which so many, in all ages and countries, have made a cloak of self- interest.
Posted by: boswell at October 4, 2005 2:15 PMJust so; and just for emphasis, whoever it was who trashed Mr. Potts's place, and then walked away with that smug little self-righteous feeling for having done so; was indulging their interest in feeling smug and self-righteous.
Posted by: joe shropshire at October 4, 2005 2:23 PMFranz' defence of vandalism and slander in the name of patriotism is like the leftist who defended his shoplifting as "anticipatory communism".
Posted by: Peter B at October 4, 2005 3:09 PMIn the eyes of much of the Left Mr Potts was guilty of "taunting" and so was punished accordingly.
Here in Falls Church (a Democrat stronghold) a man put up a cutout of the president on his lawn. A few days later it was trashed. He's since put up another one which so far has survived.
Bush signs were rountinely trashed here during 2004, not that there were too many to begin with. "Tolerance" only goes so far.
Posted by: George B at October 4, 2005 3:20 PMWhoah, you guys all came out of the woodwork.
I'm not going to try to fight off all of you, in OJ's latest attempt to criticize criticism (funny) by propping up a straw argument to prove that liberals and lefties are idiots.
I'm not defending vandalism, but it seems that this site likes to pick out the worst examples of protest and pick them apart as if they were representative of an entire class of evil people.
Here's a view that's a little more representative, and I'd like to hear what some of you have to say (OJ, you should really post this):
http://www.zmag.org/Zmag/articles/jan02albertchomsky.htm
Heres a good quote:
The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then.
-Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: Sandra at October 4, 2005 3:38 PMSo Franz thinks everyone in the comments to a post on Seattle-area vandalism is ganging up on him personally, and responds by posting to an interview with Noam Chomsky?
C'mon Orrin, spill the beans: you've brought in a ringer to boost your reader comments and traffic. ;)
Posted by: Ed Driscoll at October 4, 2005 3:40 PMRemember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. -John Adams
Posted by: Sandra at October 4, 2005 3:42 PMGod forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... And what country can preserve its liberties, if it's rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.
-Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: Sandra at October 4, 2005 3:54 PMExperience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
-Thomas Jefferson
Wow. The Brothersjudd discuss Noam Chomsky. I nominate Lou and Raoul to argue for the defence.
OK, Franz, I'll bite. Let's start with oil. You and Noam say Iraq was all about oil, which, of course, would have flowed if the UN had just lifted the sanctions, which the US opposed for years. Strange behaviour, eh? (Do you know how the oil industry works? It's an international market. You don't get it for free because you invaded some place. Whether you buy Canadian, Texan or Saudi oil, you pay market price.)
But why, if you think this is all about profit and oil, does the U.S. keep traipsing half-way around the globe to unstable and dangerous places to get it? Why not just grab Mexico and Canada and maybe Venezuela?
Posted by: Peter B at October 4, 2005 3:59 PMSandra,
So if I'm reading your quotes correctly, you're saying that Jefferson and Adams would be in favor of vandalizing the private property of someone whose opinions they disagreed with?
Posted by: Ed Driscoll at October 4, 2005 4:02 PM"founding fathers believed that criticism of government was the most patriotic thing a citizen could do"
You mean the ones who adopted the Sedition Act?
More to the point, I do not believe that any of the founders ever said anything like that. If anyone can point to something that supports this assertion, please do so.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at October 4, 2005 4:03 PMEd
That would be a tough call, because both Adams and Jefferson were big on protecting property rights as well. But, if you read the quotes, I think Jeffersons quote indicates that he doesn't care if people have to lose their lives to keep the spirit of protest alive. Adams, I'm not as sure about.
So I guess vandalizing propaganda would be held in higher esteem by the founding fathers than blind support of the current regime.
"Whoah, you guys all came out of the woodwork."
Uhm, we've all been here for quite some time. You're the lefty troll, one of any number that "come out of the woodwork" when Orrin posts something demonstrating the Myth of Liberal Tolerance.
Posted by: Governor Breck at October 4, 2005 4:15 PMPeter B.
The sanctions were in effect to weaken Iraq.
Yeah, it is for the oil. We might not be pumping it now, but we will.
Saddam was not a threat, WMD's were not there (except the ones we knew we sold), the democracy is an obvious front, and there are far worse abuses of human rights being committed this very second than what has gone in Iraw for the past 30 years under Saddam (20 of which, were with US support).
Oil will soon start to run out, and when it does, whoever controls it will be the most powerful in the world.
In questions of power, let no more be heard of confidence in man but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution.
-Thomas Jefferson
Oil will soon start to run out, and when it does, whoever controls it will be the most powerful in the world.
And yet Saddam was not a threat. Hm.
Posted by: uquesiton at October 4, 2005 4:23 PMHe was less of a threat to world security than our current unrestrained militarism, the effects of which we will see long from now. Saddam had only attacked Iran (our other enemy) and Kuwait (which it historically had controlled before the British redrew the map).
Saddam was mostly a threat to his own people; like so many other brutal tyrants who go unpunished. How many innocents around the world have died as a result of US aggression? I'd say the difference is about a hundred fold.
Sandra,
"I guess vandalizing propaganda would be held in higher esteem by the founding fathers than blind support of the current regime."
Is that your opinion as well? Assuming it is, if four years from now Hillary or another Democrat is president and your house or car is defaced, will you still feel the same way?
Posted by: Ed Driscoll at October 4, 2005 4:39 PMYes, because I hate the Democrats almost more than the Republicans; as do most of the "lefties" in the US who have longed realized how useless the Democrats are.
Posted by: Sandra at October 4, 2005 4:45 PMI forgot about Saddam attacking Israel; one of the richest countries in the world, who we send more aid to than any other country, every year for the past 50 years. Can somebody tell me why?
Posted by: Franz at October 4, 2005 4:47 PMWhat's with all the petit-bourgeouisie up in here? These people fight for their slavery as if it were there freedom.
Posted by: KarlMarx at October 4, 2005 4:51 PMSandra,
So you don't mind if your own property is vandalized or destroyed in furtherance of "debate"? That's the spirit!
Posted by: Ed Driscoll at October 4, 2005 4:52 PMFranz,
"I forgot about Saddam attacking Israel; one of the richest countries in the world, who we send more aid to than any other country, every year for the past 50 years. Can somebody tell me why?"
Actually, I'd interested to hear your own thoughts on the subject.
Posted by: Ed Driscoll at October 4, 2005 4:54 PMIncidentally, wading through the comments frm Franz, Sandra, and heck, even Karl Marx(!) this post's title certainly wins the truth in advertising award...
Posted by: Ed Driscoll at October 4, 2005 4:55 PMFranz:
saddam was no threat to us, he just wasn't a popular leader, so we got rid of him.
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 4:58 PMFranz: I sympathize with you only because I was at least as deluded as you are now some 25 years ago. The only difference then was it was Reagan instead of Bush. My suggestion to you is to stop considering the SWP and WWP as authoritative sources of news content.
Sandra: So if I correctly follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion it would have been perfectly acceptable, patriotic even, for someone to have torched your house or murdered your parents because Bill Clinton intervened militarily in Yugoslavia?
Posted by: MB at October 4, 2005 4:58 PMOil will soon start to run out, and when it does, whoever controls it will be the most powerful in the world
Yikes, that sounds like one of SPECTRE's evil villains talking. Franz, old buddy, if that were true, which it isn't, then wouldn't that be that one darn good reason for the war? Or are you rooting for someone else to be the most powerful in the world?
Posted by: Peter B at October 4, 2005 5:03 PMNo need for a hypothetical, MB. So Sandra: Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols were patriots, then?
Posted by: joe shropshire at October 4, 2005 5:06 PMsandra:
Do you have anything to offer besides hatred of nearly all Americans?
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 5:14 PM"Wow. The Brothersjudd discuss Noam Chomsky. I nominate Lou and Raoul to argue for the defence."
Hey. What did I ever do to you? I haven't even commented on this thread.
But thanks for giving me the opportunity to say:
Go-Go White Sox!
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at October 4, 2005 7:13 PMThe sanctions were in effect to weaken Iraq.
Correct, but not with an inevitable invasion in mind.
The hope was that Saddam would get tired of being weak and poor, and comply with the terms of the cease-fire that he signed in '91.
However, the UN and various officials therein decided pretty quickly that personal enrichment was better than saving the lives of the ~350,000 people, mostly children, who died as a result of the prolonged regime of sanctions.
That is the inevitable result of allowing third-world people to run an important and/or wealthy organization - you always get corruption.
Yeah, it is for the oil. We might not be pumping it now, but we will.
We ARE pumping it now.
Iraq is now producing more oil for sale to world markets than it was BEFORE '90 - a fact that you could have learned in THIRTY SECONDS, by Googling, IF you were interested in having informed opinions.
WMD's were not there (except the ones we knew we sold)
America has NEVER sold WMD to Iraq, a fact that, again, anyone can learn in THIRTY SECONDS.
...the democracy is an obvious front...
Obvious to all... Except to Americans, Iraqis (both those in power, and the opposition groups), the Lebanese, Egyptians, Syrians (particularly Sunnis), Iranians, and especially to al Qaeda.
A rational person might take the above as a reason to reconsider whether the Iraqi's nascent democracy really IS a "front"...
...and there are far worse abuses of human rights being committed this very second than what has gone in Iraq for the past 30 years under Saddam (20 of which, were with US support).
Worse than mass executions of children ?
Worse than videotaping people being dunked in vats of acid, or thrown into plastic shredders ?
Worse than watching your wife and kids being raped and tortured ?
You are an ignorant fool, and I only say that because Orrin would delete this post if I revealed your true nature in graphic terms.
BTW, the U.S. only "supported" Saddam for ten years, from '80 to '90...
Again, a fact that anyone could have found out in THIRTY SECONDS, if they were interested in being informed...
And now, a bolus of ignorance and poor reasoning skills:
Oil will soon start to run out...
Oil isn't going to run out for centuries, at the current rate of growth of consumption.
However, I'll give you a pass for being ignorant regarding that, since learning THAT requires as many as ten hours of research, which is two to three nights worth of television viewing for the average American, and consequently this particular myth is very widely believed.
What IS going to happen is that $ 70/bbl will be the new norm for world oil prices, although not for another decade or so.
...and when it does, whoever controls it will be the most powerful in the world.
Not even close.
The civilized world uses geologically-extracted crude oil now because it's CHEAP and CONTAINS A LOT OF ENERGY, but there are many, many alternatives to using geologically-extracted crude oil.
Those include, but are not limited to:
Lab-manufactured crude oil.
Biodiesel and alcohol.
Nuclear energy.
Solar and wind power.
Coal, of which the U.S. has a 300-year supply.
The reason that most of the above are currently in such limited use is because the civilized world's infrastructure has been built around crude oil for ninety years now, and it'll cost A LOT to change.
However, once oil gets so expensive that switching will be a bargain, then we'll create a new, multi-fuel, multiple energy-stream infrastructure.
Once THAT has been accomplished, oil will be reduced in value from "black gold" to "black silver", and, while controlling reserves of crude oil will still be valuable, doing so will not make any nation or society a "world power", much less the MOST powerful.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://brothersjuddblog.com/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 4, 2005 11:39 PM
Franz:
How is rampant militarism a "threat"? Surely we can argue about it as a policy, but a threat? If we were killing 1000 militant Arabs and other radical Muslims a day, many would feel safer. If we killed Mugabe, Chavez, Castro, and even Zapatero tomorrow afternoon, would we not be safer? If we killed 1000 Indonesian radicals tomorrow, how would that be a threat?
Please explain.
Posted by: ratbert at October 4, 2005 11:53 PMFranz is afraid that rampant US militarism might result in more nations like modern Germany and Japan, or (Heaven forfend) Poland and the Czech Republic. Instead, we should eliminate the threat so that we get more paradises like North Korea or Vietnam. What Iraqi wouldn't vastly prefer such a result?
Posted by: Annoying Old Guy at October 5, 2005 12:44 AMFranz:
Does it ever bother you that the hysterical hyperventilating that emanates from your extreme branch of the Left whenever America takes any proactive national security steps is regularly and demonstrably wrong in every particular?
Posted by: Matt Murphy at October 5, 2005 1:50 AMRemember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. -John Adams
And yet America has somehow managed to stagger on for 217 years.
John Adams must have been referring to celestial time when speaking of "soon".
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
-Thomas Jefferson
Again, when speaking of America, "slow" must mean "at the pace of mountains crumbling into dust", since 21st century America is noticeably LESS tyrannical than was 18th century America.
at October 5, 2005 4:25 AM
Michael:
It is an article of faith among the left everywhere that America is on the cusp of decline and fascism, and that everybody else is set to overtake you, if not conquer you outright in a fit of justifiably enraged resentment. Their whole worldview collapses without it. I'm now old enough to have seen that one come and go many times. Sort of like wide ties.
Posted by: Peter B at October 5, 2005 6:53 AMConservatives should put out bait cars with cameras in them. It could be a fun form of non-violent hunting.
Posted by: RC at October 5, 2005 7:07 AMMichael,
We had no plans on invading Iraq when we pushed through the sanctions? Please, give our leaders more credit than that. Are you familiar with the Project for a New American Century?
When I say that "we aren't getting any oil out of Iraq" I didn't mean "0", I meant that the potential for oil, and natural gas, is largely undeveloped. You could find that out yourself, too. Doesn't it sort of strenthen my argument, either way?
America has never sold WMD's to Iraq? That's a bold lie, unless you are ignorant of how the US has worked to censor various UN reports that show certain deals between American companies and Saddam. Here's a good summary.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/USmadeIraq.html
It's hard to put a value on human suffering, and I'm sure that there has been much suffering in Iraq (arguably, much of it at the hands of the US), put in terms of pure QUANTITY, there no comparison between the US foreign policy of the last 30 years and what Saddam has done. Like I said, the difference in human lives alone is a hundred fold; AND WE (i.e. the US) SUPPORTED HIM (i.e. Saddam) WHILE HE WAS DOING MOST OF HIS SLAUGHTERING. (
The democracy is a front; if believe its true, good for you. I used to believe in Santa Claus.
Oil isn't going to run out for centuries? That's the first time I've ever heard that. Conservative opinions give it till the end of the century. Some people think its happening right now.
The key point is that it doesnt matter when it runs out, what matters is when demand exceeds production capacity. I know of the alternative, the problem is that none of them are feasible to supply our current energy needs, nor our future needs, not to mention the energy needs of the rest of the developing world. And meanwhile, the oil companies are going to keep pulling record profits for a long as possible. If you aren't a little scared about the upcoming oil crisis, you are a little ignorant, deluded, i.e. whatever adjective you threw at me right back at you.
Franz, my friend, the road back begins in the nonfiction section at your local library -- just start reading randomly. For now, here's a little food for thought:
http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/People/julian_simon.html
Posted by: curt at October 5, 2005 9:43 AMCurt,
Yeah, I'm familiar with the bet. Unfortunately, it really has nothing to do with the supply of oil.
Except its comment that the scarcity of tungsten for a while was due a cartel that controlled most of its sources; like OPEC.
Differences; some metals are reusable; oil isn't.
Metals have a very limited number of uses; oil has a part in almost every economic decision we as individuals and as a society make.
The bet is really of no consequence in oil discussions; its very short term; it is not comparable to every natural resource; if you are comforted by it, I feel sorry for you.
How about bait cars that explode? You know, like the ones Iraqi "freedom fighters" use against Iraqi citizens.
Posted by: obc at October 5, 2005 10:07 AMWhat commodity has run low since they made the bet?
Posted by: oj at October 5, 2005 10:08 AMPeter B,
We are already in a state of fascism, you guys just haven't realized it yet.
I am not crying out in fear of justified attacks from other nations; I saying that there are many problems being ignored by our entire political system, the policies of which are only functioning to keep wealth concentrated in the hands of am increasingly fewer number of powerbrokers; in almost every country.
Like Michael pointed out, there are alternative to oil, so instead of spending $200 billion+ in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think maybe we could pour a couple of billion more into the kind of research that would make these alternative more feasible?
Do you think maybe we could work to strengthen the multilateralism of the UN, rather than undermine it at every step? Do you think we could support democratic movements in other countries, instead of suppressing them for selfish interests?
We won't spend more money on research, because oil companies are happy with their monopoly, and we won't support the UN, or democratic movements, because the wheels of our machine run a lot smoother when they are greased with cheap labor and resources from the third-world.
Not trying to get all communist on you, but the have's are really screwing over the have-nots right now; You guys probably know this (but don't see it as a problem), but I just hope you can at least see the ways the haves are screwing over themselves.
Franz,
Your reply perfectly illustrates the reason for my suggestion that you consider rejoining the reality-based community. Just because you believe something to be true doesn't make it so.
In this instance, your belief that oil is "different" is not based on any empirical evidence. The evidence of the past 5000 years is that oil will never "run out," and that in the unlikely event it becomes scarce (i.e., pricy) better substitutes will be invented and implemented.
Posted by: curt at October 5, 2005 10:30 AMInterestingly, almost no one on the right has heard of Ehrlich's rematch proposal. He made a list of 15 benchmarks that he was willing to bet would worsen from 1994 to 2004. The environmentalist had learned a lot about how the world works since 1980, so he carefully picked 15 propositions on which he was highly likely to win. For instance, his #11 wager was: "The oceanic fisheries harvest per person will continue its downward trend and thus in 2004 will be smaller than in 1994."
Posted by: Franz at October 5, 2005 10:33 AMWhat evidence? I'd really like to see it, and I hope you aren't going to send me a link to Neo-Con Quarterly.
Oil won't run out; it will just be extracted at a slower and slower rate, until it becomes more expensive to extract it than its worth.
There have been many oil wells (including the first one discovered in the US) that have dried up since we started plundering them.
We are eons away from having the technology to solve a fraction of our worries in light of running low on oil; gasoline, heating, plastics, fertilizer, pesticides, etc. all have no viable substitutes.
I guess all I can conclude with, is that we shall see. I'll bet the companies will start to claim they are running out long before they do, and we'll see the price rise gradually instead of what is predicted to be exponentially, until some world catastrophe (war, environmental) really screws things up.
Franz:
He actually turned down the rematch. Fisheries are a good example of why Malthusians are always wrong. We just grow fish on land now.
Even the Sa'uds have more oil than they thought:
http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2005/09/i_just_know_the.html
Posted by: oj at October 5, 2005 10:46 AMFranz:
If this is a fascist state why aren't you in a camp?
Posted by: oj at October 5, 2005 10:56 AMFranz:
When do you believe that the UN sanctions started ?
PNAC is the map to the 21st century.
We are eons away from having the technology to solve a fraction of our worries in light of running low on oil...
As I indicated earlier, we ALREADY HAVE the technology to solve any oil shortage problems.
However, as there are ">a trillion barrels of oil waiting to be tapped in the U.S. alone, we won't be running out for some time yet.
...gasoline, heating, plastics, fertilizer, pesticides, etc. all have no viable substitutes.
Yes, they do.
You may wish to take up curt's suggestion.
Here are three more places to start:
Produce gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other petroleum products out of coal.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 5, 2005 11:10 AM
There is no reason to trust what any goverment says about their oil supplies. Kuwait and the Saudis have gone back and forth for years; adjusting in order to increase production, prices, etc, in compliance with OPEC.
Why am I not in a camp? I'm not, because we don't need to have camps located in the US when we have bases all over the world.
Just like slave labor, prisons have been outsourced. Much more convenient when its offshore.
Franz:
When do you believe that the UN sanctions started ?
PNAC is the map to the 21st century.
We are eons away from having the technology to solve a fraction of our worries in light of running low on oil...
As I indicated earlier, we ALREADY HAVE the technology to solve any oil shortage problems.
However, as there are ">a trillion barrels of oil waiting to be tapped in the U.S. alone, we won't be running out for some time yet.
...gasoline, heating, plastics, fertilizer, pesticides, etc. all have no viable substitutes.
Yes, they do.
You may wish to take up curt's suggestion.
Here are three more places to start:
Produce gasoline, diesel, jet fuel and other petroleum products out of coal.
Posted by: Michael Herdegen at October 5, 2005 11:18 AM
The sanctions were, of course, the alternative to invading, but killed 500,000 Iraqis, making them far worse than the invasion.
Posted by: oj at October 5, 2005 11:35 AMMichael,
The sanctions? Around the time Iraq invaded Kuwait.
PNAC basically spells out that the US would need a major terrorist disaster to mobilize public support for a war in the Middle East. How funny, thats what actually happened!
Yes there are substitutes. But are they VIABLE? No. I have to disagree. Excuse the personal reference, but I am a chemistry major, and the kind of research going on in response to these problems is truly amazing, and interesting.
But no one has yet to find a way to synthesize organic cmpds on such a massive level that it would be able meet our current supply needs, let alone what the needs are expected to be once we actually need to. There is a lot to be optimistic about, though, in a lot of the research. But we are a long ways a way, and one thing for certain is that worldwide consumption will have to decrease incredibly even with these alternatives in mind.
So are we funding this research, or exploring the alternatives available to us? No. Are we sinking billions in a war so that we can continue our reliance on a resource that will eventually run out? Yes.
Funny thing about oil is that it is really hard to estimate how much you have life; but you do know when the well is starting to run dry. So I'm pretty skeptical about the 13 trillion number.
What we really need to do is start thinking about combinations solar and nuclear power as soon as possible.
Franz;
Here's a classic example of your detachment from reality:
Do you think maybe we could work to strengthen the multilateralism of the UN, rather than undermine it at every step? Do you think we could support democratic movements in other countries, instead of suppressing them for selfish interests?You can't do both. The UN is the biggest supporter of oppressive dictatorships on the planet. Supporting democratic movements in other countries is the same thing as undermining and opposing UN multilateralism. Go look at the composition of the UN Human Rights Commission.
Then there's your claims that
- We're already living under fascism
- There are no camps because we've outsourced the fascism
Give it up, folks. It's like arguing with a recent convert to a particularly opaque and joyless revealed religion.
Posted by: Twn at October 5, 2005 11:58 AMFranz:
U.S. consumers in 2001 spent 10.0 percent of their disposable personal income (after taxes) on food. This figure compares with 11.6 percent in 1991, 13.0 percent in 1981, and 13.4 percent in 1971.
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.htm
Posted by: oj at October 5, 2005 12:11 PMYou go, oj. Once in a great while one can clobber a university student hard enough with enough facts that his head starts hurting so much that he actually starts to think.
Posted by: curt at October 5, 2005 12:36 PMYou have to admit that you couldn't buy entertainment like Franz accusing us of being ignorant know-nothings and then making clear that he's never heard of the Gulf War.
Posted by: David Cohen at October 5, 2005 7:22 PM