 |
|
| |
|
|
|  Paying for War at the PumpPosted on May 20, 2008
What’s it got to do with the price of gas? Would some reporter with access to the Republican presidential candidate please ask John McCain why he wants to continue President Bush’s Mideast policy when it has proved so ruinous for American taxpayers? Because McCain is determined to ignore our economic meltdown and shift the debate to foreign policy, shouldn’t he have to explain why an open-ended military presence in the Mideast will make us economically and militarily more secure when the opposite is clearly the case? Let’s not waste too much time on the military side of the equation. The argument that troops on the ground have made us militarily more secure is absurd on its face. American resources and lives have been squandered in an inane effort that McCain aptly criticized before becoming a presidential candidate. As a Senate watchdog, he distinguished himself by sharply denouncing one defense contractor boondoggle after another in cases involving hundreds of billions for modern weapons that had nothing to do with fighting cave-based terrorists. But as a presidential candidate, McCain now unabashedly apologizes for every twist of the downwind spiral of the Bush administration foreign policy, from wasteful weapons to inhuman torture. McCain’s strategy is clearly that of distracting attention from the calamitous economy by sounding the demagogue’s alarm about enemies at the gate. This week, McCain again blasted Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on the grounds that he underestimated the threat from Iran while ignoring the vast increase in Iran’s power—an increase actually resulting from Bush eliminating Iran’s only effective enemy, Saddam Hussein. The other winners in this folly have been the oil kingdoms that Hussein periodically threatened, led by the Saudi royal family. Seizing upon the opportunity presented by the 9/11 attacks, Bush knocked off not the Saudis, who had produced Osama bin Laden and 15 of his hijacker minions, but rather the royal family’s sworn enemy in Iraq, who had absolutely nothing do with 9/11. And how did the Saudis thank us? Just check the price of oil, which has increased more than sixfold since 9/11. On Friday, Bush went to dine at Saudi King Abdullah’s bizarrely opulent horse farm and pleaded for an increase in oil production, but to no avail. Bush received the same rebuff in April 2005, when oil was selling for $54 a barrel. On Tuesday, it sold for $129, and the price rise is a good measure of Saudi gratitude for the Bush family’s unwavering support over past decades. Saudi Arabia’s oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, couldn’t have been more condescending when he turned down Bush’s request with the observation that “presidents and kings have every right, every privilege, to comment or ask or say whatever they want.” He added at a press conference, “How much does Saudi Arabia need to do to satisfy people who are questioning our oil practices and policies?” Enough to get the price back down to where it was when we saved your sorry oil-well excuse for a country, you ingrate, Bush might have retorted. But our bold leader was too polite for anything like that. “He didn’t punch any tables or shout at anybody,” said Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal. “I think he was satisfied.” Why? Instead of pointing out that the Saudis could easily open their spigots in gratitude for our keeping them in power, the president threatened the Saudi king not with an invasion but with a U.S. recession. “My point to His Majesty,” Bush warned in an interview with The New York Times before encountering the great man himself, “is going to be, when consumers have less purchasing power because of high prices of gasoline—in other words, when it affects their families, it could cause this economy to slow down. If the economy slows down, there will be less barrels of oil purchased.” He’ll show them—we’ll have a recession, our families will suffer and, boy, will the Saudis be sorry. A regular Teddy Roosevelt. There is no better measure of the failure of Bush’s foreign policy than that, five years after we conquered the second-most important pool of oil in the world, the American taxpayers who paid for this grand imperial adventure are rewarded with skyrocketing prices at the pump. At least when Bush first hyped his Iraq invasion plan, he had Paul Wolfowitz telling Congress that Iraqi oil would more than pay for it all. Not so McCain, who is so charged with imperial hubris that he is willing to commit to a 100-year lease on Iraq without expecting a penny in oil revenue in return. Robert Scheer’s new book, “The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America,” will be released June 9 by Twelve. Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. |
Joe the Plumber to Report on Gaza—Seriously
Email
Print
Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
TwitThis
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By Conservative Yankee, May 30, 2008 at 4:18 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
By PatrickHenry, May 29 at 12:33 pm #
Re: and I find that while
“Their decendents voted for Bush no doubt.”
Report thisThey voted for Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. maybe you’re right!
By PatrickHenry, May 29, 2008 at 12:33 pm #
Their decendents voted for Bush no doubt.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, May 29, 2008 at 4:57 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
and I find that while some of what cyrena writes above is with-out-a-doubt true, some of her thesis needs work.
Studebaker was building fuel efficient cars back at the end of World War II. People didn’t want them, they couldn’t do 0 to 60 in 5 seconds.
The Nash corporation also built very economical cars The Metro got 35 MPG in 1955 it was a 2 passenger “Business coupe” and wouldn’t do much over 60 MPH top end. very few of them sold. People wanted Big, flashy and fast, the Nash was none of these so the company merged with Rambler, and made a fuel efficient family sedan. I remember one of the Scout den mothers owned one, it could hold 9 and with it’s three-on-the-tree six option got 25MPG anywhere, highway, city, BUT the company offered no air-conditioned vehicles, they shunned power windows. In an era where cars were judged by the amount of chrome, (the Buick Estate Wagon had 700 lbs of chrome that year) the height of the tail-fins, and the cid of the engine, the Nash Rambler just didn’t have the “testicular fortitude” and the company faded into history. Henry Kaiser offered a choice in the 50’s his car was efficient comfortable, and versatile. The Henry J was the first car with a “hatchback, and with the optional side mounts, it could be converted to a station-wagon. The rear seat folded down, and you couls carry a 4X8 piece of plywood. It used the rugged six cylinder engine from Willys and had seats made of pure USA grown cowhide which Kaiser got for free from slaughter houses.
No fins, no speed, on sales.
People remember the Stanly Steam car, but did you know there were other steam car companies? Dobel lasted into the 1930’s My first ride in a Dobel ave me my life long fascination with steam. The car weighed 5000 pounds, and got 40 MPG anywhere. It could our accelerate a gas engined car, and was so quiet that the builder had to create a humming sound” so pedestrians would hear it coming.
Were you aware that the first vehicle to obtain the speed of 60MPH was an electric car? That the first vehicle to obtain 120 MPH was a steam car?
Back when Henry ford was still a boy working his daddy’s farm, and the Internal Combustion engine was still a plaything for the very rich, Electric Carriage & Wagon Company of Philadelphia built a fleet of New York taxis.
People had plenty of choice, they just “Chose incorrectly”
Report thisBy cyrena, May 28, 2008 at 7:57 pm #
This is the only reasonable part of the message…
”...At the same time, if you, a manufacturer, continue building fleets of nonhybrid gas guzzlers, you are condemning yourself, your employees and shareholders…”
WHO has refused to build a vehicle of any size, that can only be operated with fossil fuel based energy? WHO is foolish enough to believe that the Auto Industry and the Oil Industry haven’t been in cohoots the past 3 decades, to make sure that you keep coughing up the money to create the Halliburton’s of the world?
WHEN has the American public ever had a CHOICE in the vehicles that they purchase? WHO is responsible for the fact that we have NO mass transit system?
(this was always my fathers greatest ‘rant’ when he was alive.) He’d go on and on about the fact that American auto makers simply built whatever they wanted to build and told us, take it or leave it. (we took it). This is why I guess my dad was the first one to ever buy a Japanese made vehicle, (according to him, they at least ASKED us what we wanted first, and then built to suit), and refused to ever buy another American made vehicle for the rest of his life. It’s impossible to claim that he was ‘anti-American’ but he sure was pissed about feeling forced to buy what he knew was less than what could be made available.
So yeah, we can blame the folks who buy guzzlers. (though I’ve never owned one). And now, we can make the new scapegoats China and India, since they’re finally beginning to use some of the same substance themselves. (though India has built cars that can operate on compressed air). But at the end of the day, the US still uses 3 times more than the rest of the world COMBINED in fossile fuel based energy, and produces that must more of the worlds environmental poisons.
So, what the candidate should be saying, should be directed to the corporate oligarchy, and telling them to come up with something better than what they have been. In other words, find another way to earn your profits. Figure out how to work the water, the wind, and the sun, to make all of this shit move. Otherwise, we’ll just all have to stay in place. Threatening us with overpriced gas so that Halliburton, and Exxon-Mobile, and Chevron can continue to take food out of our mouths until we starve to death, isn’t gonna do much other than that…starve us to death. At that point, I guess India and China can have it all.
So yeah, everytime we look back and say ‘if only we had done the right thing’, we should be acknowledging that ‘the right thing’ would have been to develope alternative techology using renewable energy sources, even though it wouldn’t have made such a few people, so very, very, very, wealthy.
And yeah, we would be in a different position today.
Report thisBy Washington-Bubble, May 28, 2008 at 2:27 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Abutaza,
Report thisI couldn’t agree more with your position what a canidate_should say. The high prices of gas as well as goods in the US is, and has been putting significant strain on the the lower and middle classes and the US is now at a significant crossroad. We are past the point of given the choice of making a change, (as we could have started in the 70’s), instead we are at the point of having to make a change. I’m a firm believer that the technolgy has been developed yet I feel that it has been shelved in favor of lobbyists and the goverment who are hooked in with oil. Why thirty years later auto manufactures produce vehicles that get just about the same milage as their 70’s counterparts is beyond me, worse yet is that we, as a nation, demand that auto manufactures produce those vehicles. If you tell me that after all these years that auto engineers have only been able to make marginal gains in mileage I’m not buying it. What it comes down to is that we know, (at least I do), that Congress, Senate, the President, and lobbyists aren’t going to look out for you, the average citizen. If change is going to occur, (it had better), than it takes all of us to change the ones that are making the decisions. It was stated by someone in another country that their goverment was afraid of its citizens..in the US its the other way around and he felt it should not be this way. How true this is of other countries I’m unsure but I’m fairly confident that in the US our goverment isn’t worried about any sort of uprising like you see in Germany or France when an unpopular policy is attempted to be put in place. I’m fairly low key but even I’m at my wits end watching this trainwreck we call our goverment at the moment. It would probably bother me less if they didn’t feel the need to place its citizens squarely on the tracks.
By abutaza, May 28, 2008 at 3:14 am #
A much better article on oil. It is OUR problem, and here is a reasonable solution. From today’s NYT (truncated due to 4000 character rule)
Truth or Consequences - Thomas Friedman
Imagine for a minute, just a minute, that someone running for president was able to actually tell the truth, the real truth, to the American people about what would be the best I mean really the best energy policy for the long-term economic health and security of our country. I realize this is a fantasy, but play along with me for a minute. What would this mythical, totally imaginary, truth-telling candidate say?
For starters, he or she would explain that there is no short-term fix for gasoline prices. Prices are what they are as a result of rising global oil demand from India, China and a rapidly growing Middle East on top of our own increasing consumption, a shortage of sweet crude that is used for the diesel fuel that Europe is highly dependent upon and our own neglect of effective energy policy for 30 years.
Cynical ideas, like the McCain-Clinton summertime gas-tax holiday, would only make the problem worse, and reckless initiatives like the Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep offer to subsidize gasoline for three years for people who buy its gas guzzlers are the moral equivalent of tobacco companies offering discounted cigarettes to teenagers.
I cant say it better than my friend Tim Shriver, the chairman of Special Olympics, did in a Memorial Day essay in The Washington Post: So Dodge wants to sell you a car you dont really want to buy, that is not fuel-efficient, will further damage our environment, and will further subsidize oil states, some of which are on the other side of the wars were currently fighting. ... The planet be damned, the troops be forgotten, the economy be ignored: buy a Dodge.
No, our mythical candidate would say the long-term answer is to go exactly the other way: guarantee people a high price of gasoline forever.
This candidate would note that $4-a-gallon gasoline is really starting to impact driving behavior and buying behavior in way that $3-a-gallon gas did not. The first time we got such a strong price signal, after the 1973 oil shock, we responded as a country by demanding and producing more fuel-efficient cars. But as soon as oil prices started falling in the late 1980s and early 1990s, we let Detroit get us readdicted to gas guzzlers, and the price steadily crept back up to where it is today.
We must not make that mistake again. Therefore, what our mythical candidate would be proposing, argues the energy economist Philip Verleger Jr., is a price floor for gasoline: $4 a gallon for regular unleaded, which is still half the going rate in Europe today. Washington would declare that it would never let the price fall below that level. If it does, it would increase the federal gasoline tax on a monthly basis to make up the difference between the pump price and the market price.
To ease the burden on the less well-off, anyone earning under $80,000 a year would be compensated with a reduction in the payroll taxes, said Verleger. Or, he suggested, the government could use the gasoline tax to buy back gas guzzlers from the public and crush them.
But the message going forward to every car buyer and carmaker would be this: The price of gasoline is never going back down. Therefore, if you buy a big gas guzzler today, you are locking yourself into perpetually high gasoline bills. You are buying a pig that will eat you out of house and home. At the same time, if you, a manufacturer, continue building fleets of nonhybrid gas guzzlers, you are condemning yourself, your employees and shareholders to oblivion.
What a cruel thing for a candidate to say? I disagree. Every decade we look back and say: If only we had done the right thing then, we would be in a different position today.
Report thisBy Escovado, May 26, 2008 at 4:15 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The United States has plenty of light sweet crude oil in our own territory, but Congress won’t allow us to drill for it.
We desperately need to build more oil refineries, but Congress won’t allow us to build them.
It is simple economics: no oil supply + rising world demand = high fuel prices. Duh!
And by the way, within sight of the southern tip of Florida, Cuba has contracted the Chinese to drill for oil in the largest new reserve discovered in the Gulf of Mexico. As always, Congress wont let our oil companies drill there even though most of that reserve is in our territorial waters. Thats oil WE should be getting for ourselves.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, May 25, 2008 at 4:12 am #
Hemp is just another one of those examples of our pigheadedness causing us to be left behind. Canadian hemp farmers are now grinding the seeds and selling them in US health food stores…but US farmers are still not allowed to grow it.
The last major court case on industrial hemp farming was settled with the argument that guerrilla gardeners could hide their illicit marijuana plots inside industrial hemp fields…never mind that cannabis botany and the dictates of the marijuana commodity market would keep any marijuana grower at least 5 miles away from industrial hemp fields.
In Europe, they build houses and cars out of the stuff…hell, they even let you smoke it if you want to.
I hold little hope that the leaders of this country will remove their heads from their asses: exposure to the light and fresh air would probably kill them at this point.
And here, here, Expat…intelligence is the KEY ingredient that we are missing.
Report thisBy Washington-Bubble, May 24, 2008 at 11:35 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Expat wrote:
” would suggest that as long as they are using alcohol to extend their oil they are dependent on oil. In addition; Brazil just discovered a huge find off their coast. Its deep water and expensive to exploit but its there and huge. Brazil is not dependent on imports, but they are very dependent on oil. My point was; we need to get off of the oil express. So, whats your point? “
In the end that too is my point Expat. But what brought me into this thread was trying to figure out why the US is investing so heavily into corn ethonal when it does not pack the same energy as sugarcane ethanol. If the plan is to go with ethanol you may as well go for something that will produce_more energy than what your trying to replace or enhance. Corned based ethanol is a failed plan before it leaves the drawing board…yet the US goverment is all for it. What are the odds of that an who is driving that train? Surely no one looking out for the long term or the public…I’ll go out on a limb and say that money is involved though. I agree that we should be looking for an alternative that takes oil out of the loop and I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that we already have such viable alternatives but they are being shelved at the moment per big business and the goverment request. My point, at least in regards to ethanol, is if your at least going to push an ethanol plan, go with a plan that actually seems to be better than the fossil fuel that your replacing,(at least in terms of energy, we’ll leave out other issues such as pollutants for instance).
(As a side note I didn’t see on your last post a “reply to” link. Not sure why that is but I just replied to another in the thread.)
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, May 24, 2008 at 9:07 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Nabih Ammari, May 24 at 8:12 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re:“Paying for War at the Pump”
The devaluation of the dollar relative to the “credit worthiness” of the Government is a defacto tax. since the devaluation has almost reached 50% since 2001, that is a large amount of wealth transferring to the government. It is the equivalent of burning to ashes a 20 dollar bill, presented to you against a 40 dollar debt.
since (by many accounts) gas would sell for 2 2001 dollars, that gives the government $2 in credit for every gallon of gas sold using a dollar base.
Since US motorists purchase 388.6 million gallons per day (assumedly using devalued dollars) that translates into almost 777 Million dollars worth of monetary credit every day. Estimates of the daily costs of the Iraq war range from 199 million to 364 million a day. So theoretically the government COULD finance the war from gas sales alone, and have enough left over for a luxurious hide-out in South America for all these criminals after the war, and this administration have faded into history.
If people truly understood the ramifications of a “floating dollar” they would tar and feather this bunch of crooks! Unfortunately, those who understand this level of theft are often the self same folks who profit from the float. Folks like Hill-the-business-shill, token, and G.I.Joe.
Report thisBy Nabih Ammari, May 24, 2008 at 8:12 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Re:“Paying for War at the Pump” by Robert Scheer.
It seems to me,just reading the above Re I have the impression that the huge increase in prices of gasoline drivers of vehicles pay currently at the pumps is for the sole purpose of financing the war.Of course,such an impression is not true.The war in Iraq is being financed by a huge debt borrowed from foreign countries.I wish that Mr. Robert Scheer has chosen a more appropriate title,reflecting the actuality of where all that huge increases in the prices of gasoline really go to.
The above Re has other holes in it,As subjected to scrutiny may not hold water.
Report thisSincerely,
Nabih Ammari
An Independent in Ohio.
By Expat, May 24, 2008 at 7:04 am #
I would suggest that as long as they are using alcohol to extend their oil they are dependent on oil. In addition; Brazil just discovered a huge find off their coast. It’s deep water and expensive to exploit but it’s there and huge. Brazil is not dependent on “imports”, but they are very dependent on oil. My point was; we need to get off of the oil express. So, whats your point? We as an oil importing country are essentially screwed by the speculative market and the speculators, so as long as we continue this path to our own destruction, there must be an alternative. The alternative is to get off of the oil addiction. Whats your problem with that?
Report thisBy GoldenT, May 24, 2008 at 6:56 am #
This week’s Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing featuring testimony from well-known hedge fund operator Michael McMasters revealed a “London Loophole” at the core of excessive speculation causing rising energy prices.
Supply is not the issue. Rather, it is a deranged European aristocracy backing the filthy British Empire attacking the Posterity of the American Republic through the fraud of free markets (much as has been the case for, oh, 250 years now). Of course, having a bunch of Tory lackeys in the White House does not help.
Other than CNBC and LaRouche, scarcely a word has been reported about this week’s historic Senate hearing!
This, I believe, is the bigger scandal…
Report thisBy Washington-Bubble, May 24, 2008 at 6:23 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Expat, Research how Brazil accomplished this and how they are not dependent on oil. As it has already been accomplished by another country I’d have to tend to disagree with you that this would not get us off of oil dependency. What the US has lost is a our problem solving techniques..or perhaps we haven’t really lost them as much as they’ve been bought out by our friends in Washington by industries that could care less of the results of their decisions effect the whole of its citizens. That is probably more the case…
Report thisBy Expat, May 24, 2008 at 6:22 am #
I would add: This country is so averse to “hemp” that you would think it’s a terrorist plot. We’re so fucking stupid we don’t deserve to live. But I do hope we survive…........maybe…...
Report thisBy Expat, May 24, 2008 at 5:52 am #
Fat chance. Locked and loaded is part of the solution. But intelligence is the key ingredient and there, we are lacking. Make sure you don’t get too comfortable; it screws up diligence something awful.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, May 24, 2008 at 5:38 am #
Another alternative that for some reason got cast by the wayside. I think is also could be used for paper, animal feed, fiber for clothing and oil not to mention the pharmacutical value.
I hope the leaders of this country get their heads out of their asses and utilize the natural alternatives before us.
Report thisBy hippy pam, May 24, 2008 at 4:49 am #
Sheeple…that is what we are…we just keep on keeping on….and the rich get richer…and the SUV drivers and the MOTERHOME drivers just keep driving..
Report thisand they go to YellowStone to see the sites…or Up North to camp…etc.etc.etc.-WE NEED TO STRIKE..
STOP BUYING-STOP SHOPPING-You will not be any different than MANY I KNOW..except THE ONES I KNOW JUST CAN’T AFFORD GAS-HEALTH INSURANCE-FOOD-let alone a car to get any where.Like my friend said to me the other day-“Sure I saw the ad for the VACATION AT YELLOWSTONE-But I will NEVER SEE IT-I can’t afford the trip.”
Profit also feeds price…They KNOW THE SHEEPLE WILL PAY THE PRICES THEY CHARGE CUZ SHEEPLE DO NOT WANT TO GIVE UP THE LIFESTYLE THEY ARE ACCUSTOMED TO.
By Expat, May 24, 2008 at 2:39 am #
While this is all well and good; how does alcohol get us off our oil dependency? The solution is not cheaper oil; however, we are paying the price for not heeding the warnings of the 70’s. Alcohol substitution is the same as a dieter switching from ice cream to an artificial non-fat substitute. It doesn’t really solve the problem does it? Until we face the daunting task of changing our behavior this remains a game of smoke and mirrors.
Report thisBy Washington-Bubble, May 23, 2008 at 2:51 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thanks Gang for a little more insight as to the possibilities of using sugarcane. I can see Cyrena point on the hard labor aspect which would have to be factored in but what troubles me more,(and why should it as its nothing we haven’t seen before), is that the deciding factor isn’t research, science, or what benefits the masses in the long term,(even the short term). Its all based on what is dictated by lobbyists which is a sad commentary of the workings of the US political system. Granted its always been this way but with the situation that we as not only a nation, but globally we all face you’d think that for once the politically system could break from its usual way of dealing with issues. Even sadder I suppose is that tax payers shrug this off as a “what are you going to do” situation. I’d take a guess that if “American Idol” was canceled there would be rioting in the streets yet real world issues don’t even raise and eyebrow.
Report thisBy cyrena, May 23, 2008 at 12:59 pm #
Ah Fadel,
You made me chuckle with your post. I was dumbstruck myself, to discover this post from Howard.
Meantime…Cuba is an EXCELLENT choice!! I’ve often considered it myself. Great minds think alike, eh?
How’s your Spanish?
Report thisBy Fadel Abdallah, May 23, 2008 at 8:20 am #
Howard, this is the most sensible post you’ve ever written. I am even surprised about your honesty in giving Brazil the credit about sugar ethanol. When I first saw your name there at the top, I thought first, that you’re going to brag about another of Israel’s achievements and blessings it brought to this miserable world! This is so because never before you have posted anything that does not relate to Israel. That’s why I consider this post of yours of a very special value.
Forgive my sarcasm! But, as a Zionist expert and propagandist, I really want to know from you how Israel, without oil, has managed to run its third or fourth biggest ranking military machine in the world without oil! One little thing I know is that it receives a good part of its oil supplies from Iran, which it’s badly etching to attack and destroy! Are there concrete plans for Israel to physically occupy Iran, to at least maintain the oil flowing?!
And by the way, have you happened to read the joke about Moses (peace be upon him) lamenting after talking to a “Bush” that he was lost in the desert for forty years, to end up in the only piece of land in the vast Middle East that has no oil?! I’ll be happy to repost it for you if you missed that!
Having said this, I am really happy to see that we are seeing eye-to-eye for once, especially the statement you made in your last paragraph.
And thank you also for informing me that there is a “sugar lobby.” Is sugar-rich Cuba part of that lobby?! I hope so, because since I can’t go back to my Israeli-occupied hometown, Cuba would be one of the top choices of mine for retirement in few years! I know they have an excellent health care system. And I always been an admirer of Fidel Castro. And now with their sugar-rich economy, it might be the paradise on earth I’ve been searching for all my life!
Shalom, cousin!
Report thisBy jackpine savage, May 23, 2008 at 6:58 am #
To sum up some of the comments below. The US doesn’t have the climate for sugar cane, what sweeteners aren’t made from corn come from beet sugar. (Caro, MI is the home of Karo syrup…big beet farming region.)
Cyrena is also right that working a cane plantation is nothing that anyone really wants to do. It has environmental positives because of its habit, but those positives make make for manual labor negatives.
Corn was chosen by lobbyists. What we need to remember is that ethanol is just alcohol. You can make alcohol out of any plant substance. Drinkable varieties need to come from edible plants, but the denatured alcohol you rub on a cut generally comes from wood chips.
If your stock has a low sugar content, some form of sugar must be added. That’s why sugar cane packs so much punch. Corn has a fairly high sugar content too, but not that high. The other reason is that more of the plant can be used with sugar cane…so the alcohol yield/acre is much higher.
In other words, we could make ethanol out of any crop if we’re willing to add sugar to it. So we might choose a crop with a large yield/biomass and add low grade beet sugars. Think hemp, perennial grasses, etc. The agri lobby won’t stand for those solutions because those plants have very little profit for the agribusinesses. They don’t want farmers making money off of crops that don’t need fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides (or GM seeds)...that’s where their profits are.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, May 23, 2008 at 6:46 am #
Aside from the clearing of rainforest to plant sugar plantations, you’re dead on.
There are other benefits…at least with sugar cane. Sugar cane is generally a no-till crop: this keeps carbon in the soil. It is also such a fast grower that fertilizer use is minimal and its growth shades out competing weeds before they get established…hence little use for targeted herbicides.
Corn ethanol is the wet dream of big agri, it meshes perfectly with the vertical integration of Monsanto, ADM, etc. It also gives them room for GM crops that sometimes get backlashed when grown for human consumption.
Report thisBy cyrena, May 23, 2008 at 6:02 am #
Just a thought here…you might wanna check out who it is that is doing the labor in Brazil on their sugarcane producing, (and it is HARD labor) and find out much these sugar plantation slaves DO NOT get paid for their hard work.
The reason the US doesn’t grow that much sugar anymore is because they had to give up the plantations with their free slave labor. When you actually start paying somebody to farm the stuff, it’s not that cheap.
Report thisBy Howard, May 23, 2008 at 5:30 am #
Brazil, which is a country almost our size has done it using sugar ethanol. Done what. Becoming energy free of imported oil. We can grow it here or grow sugar beets which will also work. Or import it from Brazil or countries in South or central America. Corn ethanol will not do it. Just a fraud to set up corn refining plants here in this country at taxpayer expense. It will not lower gas prices any more than 10 cents a gallon. Sugar ethanol will head it back to a $1.00/ gallon, which it is in Brazil.
But the sugar lobby and the oil lobby do NOT Want us to use or buy sugar ethanol from Brazil or import it from any of our neighbors in our hemisphere. So they keep a sky high tariff on our importing sugar. No we should keep the Saudis and the Mideast in business.
Documentaries on Discovery channel and the History channel + articles in the NY Times have shown how Brazil using sugar ethanol has done it Sugar has 30 times the punch, mileage, and energy of corn. Using corn will also increase costs of our food.
All this shows how very powerful our oil and farm (sugar ) lobbies are in keeping sugar out with a tariff that helps those businesses obscenely. Imagine.
Report thisBy Paul_GA, May 23, 2008 at 5:19 am #
Here’s the link I spoke of; just copy and paste if you need to:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/117/story/35360.html
Report thisBy Washington-Bubble, May 22, 2008 at 7:45 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Paul_GA wrote:
“So the corn farming people have lots of clout in Washington City”
Paul, if indeed this is what it comes down to, and no, I would not be shocked if it did, it’s a sad commentary that our political system would support the corn lobby over a possible plan that actually has the potential to produce more energy than what the corn would produce. It’s sad in the sense that at this stage of the game we must do something yet our fine elected officials pander to the short sighted goal of the lobbyists over possible long term solutions for the masses, (which technically the elected officials are suppose to be representing). My thought isn’t that sugarcane ethanol is the answer to the oil issue, I am just questioning at what point do we, elected officials as well as the masses see that we need to really look at alternatives and this may involve actually going against what a lobbyist wants. As an aside isn’t there enough open space in the US for corn and sugarcane? I mean, aren’t we presently paying for farmers_not to grow crops? *sigh* Something has to change…
Report thisBy Paul_GA, May 22, 2008 at 7:17 pm #
I recall reading some time ago, WB, that there isn’t that much sugar grown in the USA; that corn provides nearly all of the sweetener used in American-made soft drinks, candy, junk food like Twinkies, etc. So the corn farming people have lots of clout in Washington City; thus, corn for ethanol. That’s also how they keep Brazilian sugar-cane-based ethanol out of this country.
I clean out my history files at intervals, but if I can think to find the article again, I’ll post the link.
Report thisBy Washington-Bubble, May 22, 2008 at 4:03 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
This may be a litle off topic but relates to original post. Brazil is producing ethanol from sugarcane which produces 9 times the energy that a gallon of gas produces and has been doing this for some years,(They started on this plan in the 70’s..they wisely saw the handwriting on the wall). How did the US arrive at using corn for ethanol? Is it purely that we can’t grow sugar cane here? Was it a plan put out there by someone that would like to see a fuel alternative to gas fail? (I’m skepical of any idea that comes from the goverment..I’ve seen this too many times in goverment over the years). When a country such as Brazil is not dependent on foreign oil wouldn’t one look at how they achieved that when looking at alternative fuel sources for their own country? How did we get sold on corn to produce ethanol and why is the goverment so eager to support this idea?
Report thisBy Political Insurgent, May 22, 2008 at 2:45 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
...Plenty of that go around, I might add.
Normally I like your articles, Robert, but I can’t really agree with this one. Why should Saudi Arabia supply our oil addiction just because of political politeness? I’m glad they screwed Bush over, this could be just the kick in the ass the US needs to evolve away from using oil. If only all the other countries we import oil from could take the same route.
[fantasy]An oil blockade against the US, what a marvelous idea. Not only would it severely cripple our economy, curbing civilian AND military transportation, but it could force a no-doubt panicked and desperate US into less of a “guns ‘n bombs if you don’t do what we want” stance on everybody. For once, there might be a little peace in the world without the US meddling in everyone’s piddling affairs.
And all because those silk swaddled hypocrites in Arabia decided to pull a Bush and be selfish. Finally Saudi arrogance will do some good in the world! And to add insult to injury, they’ve got all kinds of US sponsored crap down there from Whoppers to ordnance. Yippi-i-o-ki-yay and Alhamdulillah, SUCKAAAAS![/endfantasy]
But let’s take a detour back to reality. Whenever the oil dries up, which should be rather soon, I’m sure this article will seem quite hysterical. If we’re sitting in the 23rd century and still haven’t evolved beyond coal and fossil fuel, I can’t really say I’d be surprised or sympathetic towards anyone except the hapless citizens who have endure the result of political BS. The US, Saudi Arabia and Israel can go suck some lemons. Maybe when the oil dries up they can make some fuel out of their lemon flavored spit and sell THAT for a couple bucks.
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, May 22, 2008 at 1:44 pm #
Another Bush endrun to justify our occupation in Iraq? Raise the gas price.
Bush was buying 70,000 bbls per day at the prevailing rate for the strategic petroleum reserve (SPR), it was canceled by congress.
I was under the impression that oil companies were to cede oil to as royalties to the SPR for drilling on public land. I wonder who the oil companies pay and how much do they pay for that oil taken from public lands, public coastal areas, the gulf of Mexico.
South Africa produces it own oil from coal for $35 per barrel and their coal contains more sulfur than US coal. Extensive tar sands similar to the ones in Canada have been revealed in the Western U.S. why hasn’t the U.S. or the oil companies acted on this?
I guess another severe recession or depression will have to occur before our corrupt government acts.
Report thisBy KYJurisDoctor, May 22, 2008 at 1:36 pm #
... KILLING US, silently!
Report thisBy Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, May 22, 2008 at 12:49 pm #
You’re absolutely right. You can’t on the one hand say you’re for making money, for capitalism and for making profit under the American system and then, on the other, damn the oil companies for making record profits.
All you have to do, if you believe in the system, is call your stock broker and invest in oil. Too bad if it now appears a little too late but, take heart, no matter what a share costs now, it will turn a profit for a long time in the future.
Those who don’t want to play the game, stop using oil.
Report thisBy abutaza, May 22, 2008 at 12:46 pm #
That visceral dislike of a people you do not know .
..has led you to write a very sloppy article, loaded with faulty reasoning, and enormous omissions.
Consider Saudi ingratitude. Should they, and could they increase production 50%, and postpone the day of reckoning for another few years? Or are they like that proverbial friend who takes the car keys away from their drunken friend? Yes, the oil companies and the Wall Street speculators are picking up some rather large crumbs from the table, but the central issue was never mentioned an enormous omission: China and India, and all the other Third World countries who want to achieve First World consumption standards. How are they to be accommodated? Ever since the first warning shots in the 70s, the worlds #1 energy glutton has strongly resisted any rationale curtailment of our consumption as well as the development of renewable energy resources to replace that which is not renewable. A President, hat in hand, going to meet the man, is not a solution. Apparently the only answer is for the gods of the market place to perform their magic, and, as we say in war, sorry about the collateral damage.
The war in Iraq is another matter, one that we both strongly oppose, but linking the increase in gasoline directly to the war is equally faulty. It might rate a 10% causation of the cost.
Mr. Sheer, you write some great columns, and usually I find myself in admiration, and total agreement. How about tossing this faulty draft in the can, overcome that gutra phobia, and speak to the central issues. Your fellow columnist, Thomas Friedman, who I usually disagree with about 50% of the time was oh so right when he suggested a $1 a gallon tax, that would be used to improve Americas energy position, back when gasoline was $2 a gallon, amazingly only 3-4 years ago.
Report thisBy G Davis, May 22, 2008 at 11:47 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
All this by people who have totaly ruined the country in their business as usual rape of the Serfs.And in the end the Stupid Americans will vote Mccain in with their brain washed right to vote sham even though it’s fixed! Hopefully by some miracle somebody will get in that will chamge the policies of this Neocon trainwreck of America and put this failed country on the path of healing before it’s too late,and it probably already is!But all the while supporting some fraud called Isreal that stole a peoples country and refuse to let them live backed by American funded terrorism against women and children by Blackmail from some scam that guarenteed funds for life,by some fabricated sham! Since there is probably no end in sight for the Neocon profit maker war on terrorism.And the thanks from our Democratic human rights abuser terrorism funders Saudi Arabia,To continue to shaft Americans that fought to let them keep their Oil fields.The only thing I hope for is that if we attack Iran,They do indeed have nuclear weapons,and will use them against Isreal and the other Arab western puppets!Mabye then the pchycos that lead this failure country will see what they have started in order to make Billionaires more money!And if you remember when Clinton was President it was aknowledged that SS-20s had indeed rolled into Iran from Azerbahnzhani.
Report thisBy Howard, May 22, 2008 at 11:35 am #
yeah Man, and Israel causes the darn sun to come up in the east, too. Rediculous is right !
Report thisBy ocjim, May 22, 2008 at 10:47 am #
Seventy percent of Americans want out of Iraq. So why is grandpa McCain still a viable candidate?
He is Bush III and look what Bush II has done for us. We seem to forget the connection between oil and global warming, for example.
For almost a decade now, the world has suffered chaos and environmental indecision due to pillaging, imperialistic American leadership. Furthermore, we have been saddled with irresponsible oil-men running the executive branch of our government.
But actually we cant say that Congress has done nothing.
Congress passed the 2005 Energy Policy Act, mandating 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol be produced by 2012. Corn farmers were ecstatic, and promptly produced a record 6.6 billion gallons last year. The Energy Act of 2007 increased the mandate to 9 billion gallons by 2008, and ramped it up to 36 billion gallons by 2022.
So, isnt that good? Well, unfortunately that is a big part of why food prices have gone through the roof. You remember we mentioned that grain prices were doubling and tripling.
Ninety-five percent of ethanol is produced from corn. Seventeen percent of the U.S. corn crop went to ethanol. Furthermore, producing biofuels increases pesticide use, is inefficient, does not prevent climate change and competes for land that could be used to grow food for humans. Because our government subsidizes the growth of corn for ethanol, guess which use gets precedence.
Our farm-state representatives did realize that ethanol would get them re-elected, but did not consider that growing corn for ethanol uses more resources, including natural-gas produced fertilizer, a finite resource.
So where does this all leave us? The global market answer is higher prices for commodities, food shortages, and a looming recession.
Some experts are already looking at the prospects for a new world order with resource-rich countries having the advantage.
The major energy-surplus states are few. Ten oil-rich states possess over 82 percent of the worlds proven oil reserves. Their rank by volume: Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Russia, Libya, Kazakhstan and Nigeria. Three countries have the bulk of natural gas. Russia, Iran and Qatarharbor have almost 56 percent of the world supply.
So who can cash in on the dramatic rise in global energy prices? In 2005 the oil-exporting countries collected an estimated $970 billion from importing countries. Giant investment accounts are filled with yens, dollars, and euros to be used for acquiring valuable assets around the world, including US corporations, buildings, and infrastructure.
What are we doing? Our answer is to spend $12 billion a month in Iraq, supposedly for sweet deals for American oil companies.
The utter stupidity of Iraq is all around us and McCain, even a bigger chicken hawk than Bush, is considered a viable candidate!
Report thisBy Ray the investor, May 22, 2008 at 10:31 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The message that the witch hunt against the oil companies the democrats send, is that it wrong to invest in America. Now that the democrats pass a farm bill that pays the farmers to keep food prices high yet persacute oil companies for making a profit.
Report thisI do not understand except that the ag industry gives more money to democrats then rep. Sounds like Mexico to me.
Where you can buy your congressman.
By felicity, May 22, 2008 at 10:18 am #
Gas is 12 cents per gallon in Venezuela. Amazing what can happen when government holds the reins of corporations.
Report thisBy wildflower, May 22, 2008 at 10:06 am #
Re: What If?
Imagine how much better off we would be today if GMs EV1 electric car program had not been axed. Technology and resources would have increased and a majority of consumers would be driving hybrids by now. Our environment would be cleaner and greedy oil tycoons would not have the power to hold consumers hostage at the gas pumps. With fewer greedy oil tycoons around to manipulate elections and manufacture conflicts, individuals like Bush would not have been elected and there would be fewer wars and conflicts in the Middle East. With fewer wars and conflicts in the Middle East, our countrys resources and tax dollars could have been applied toward more important and beneficial things.
Report thisBy Moe, May 22, 2008 at 9:52 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Stupid! Iraq is pumping now more oil then what it did under Saddam.
Day 1: Bush’s Fault
Day 2: Iraq War
Day 3: Halliburton
Day 4: Bush
Day 5: Oil Companies
Day 6: Congress takes recess
Day 20: Bushs War
Day 21: Cheney
Day 22: Oil Companies
Day 23: Dont dig for more oil
Day 24: Oil companies make to much money
Day 24: ????
Pelosi, Reid and all other Dems are a bunch of fools if not hypocrites.
Click on the following link and take a laugh.
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/press/releases/April06/ Rubberstamp.html
Report thisBy jackpine savage, May 22, 2008 at 7:51 am #
Has anyone seen the new Oil and Gas Industry ad campaign? I caught it in this week’s Economist. The full page ad points out that oil profits are really our profits, because so many of us own stock in the industry through mutual funds and 401K’s, etc.
So there you have it…it isn’t Saudi Arabia’s fault; it isn’t the Bush administration’s fault; it isn’t Detroit’s fault; it isn’t Big Oil’s fault. It’s your fault. (Since i don’t participate in Wall Street, it isn’t my fault, hence “your” not “our”.)
If your retirement savings is built upon oil profits, what right do you have to complain about pump prices? Do you even know if you are a part owner of the companies that are involved? If you found out that you were profiting from this situation, would you divest yourself of those investments? Will you take the time to find out?
I understand that it’s no fun to accept responsibility, and i know that the American Way dictates that it is always someone else’s fault…but someone has to take responsibility sometime.
Report thisBy Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, May 22, 2008 at 4:58 am #
Even as I write our beloved congress is sitting down with Big Oil to get them to explain why Americans might be complaining about the high price of gasoline.
WTF?
It’s the “American Way” to make a profit. Congress has been largely instrumental in enabling Big Biz to max their bottom lines for their shareholders and CEO’s. And throw in a little extra in the form of tax breaks and subsidies, all at workers’ expense.
Now, because they “sense” that working class people are “feeling” a litte “discouraged” about the cost of filling their tanks, and they want to “appear” concerned and “pro-working class”, they invite Big Oil in for a “scolding.” Do you think after the hearing, they give each of the reps a voucher to fill up their tanks at the local Mobil station, since they already had the “lube job?”
You gotta love this country!
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, May 22, 2008 at 4:19 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Of course the price of oil is related to “the market”
AND, guess what. the market favors the seller.
China and India are set to eclipse the US in oil purchases probably in 5 to 10 years.
Oil now has many more uses than simple refined gasoline. Here’s a fact you won’t hear often, If ExxonMobil gave the gas away for COST of development and production, a gallon of self serve Regular would cost 7 to 8 cents less than it does this morning. The BIG oil companies do a volume business. Their profit is in increased sales.
and if there are indeed financial Illuminati, they are probably betting on the small retail oil market rather than “big oil”.
Report thisBy Jeremy Sandiego, May 21, 2008 at 10:32 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
http://www.americahappens.com
Report thisBy cyrena, May 21, 2008 at 7:21 pm #
“What happens when the cost of essential items exceed the income were able to create and bring in?”
Well Joe Politico, this has been happening to me and several million others for the past several decades.
So, I guess what we’ve been waiting for, is for the question to be put to the middle and upper classes. Good timing. I guess they’ll finally have to look around.
Meantime, those several million others of us are already pretty experienced at surviving without essentials that our incomes don’t cover. Maybe everybody will just have to move into their factories, or whatever other plantations they live on. If they’re lucky, the Fascists will allow them to keep working, and maybe throw them a bread crumb or two from time to time. (The Stalin regime was never too good about feeding the workers in his concentration camps).
Still, I guess it’s better than being exterminated, just for the hell of it.
Report thisBy Shallel, May 21, 2008 at 6:33 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Beware another false 9/11 to nuke Iran!
You know the ol’ 10 Kton Nuke? Portland? Seattle? Galveston? Sears Tower?
(Recently acquired by Larry Silverstein.)
Maybe they’ll just simulate a nuke, like the simulated the jetliner crashes on 9/11.
You fell for it then, will you fall for it now?
What do you think the price at the pump will be then?
Investigate, Impeach, Incarcerate!
Report thisBy Joe Politico, May 21, 2008 at 5:28 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The price of oil continues to rise, as does the cost of gas and food, while the dollar continues to decline and what we’re able to actually afford shrinks.
Working longer and harder isn’t the correct solution because all we seem to do is still generate and produce a finite amount of income.
What happens when the cost of essential items exceed the income we’re able to create and bring in?
Already around the globe there have been riots over Being able to access afordable food and fuel costs.
While I’m sure unlimited profit at the expense of others is what motivates some individuals, but it is not what the majority of people want and desire.
And while I don’t have all the anwsers, I recognize the rising costs of essential items can only get so high before there is corrective action.
There is no need for riots over food and fuel when a better logistical process can be put into place that gets affordable food and fuel to everyone everywhere.
Report thisBy 5 dancing shlomos, May 21, 2008 at 4:30 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
price of oil is result of the aggressive war. the price of oil is due to the speculators. the price of oil is a result of america’s aggressive threats to iran and venezuela. the price of oil is due to the worthless dollar. the price at the pump also has to do with gouging by the oil cos.
the price does NOT have to do with the saudis.
Report thisBy jbart, May 21, 2008 at 3:52 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
There are several partial solutions that are both viable and,through proper planning/commitment,will help to offset the increases caused by the supply vs. demand causality.
We have “enormous” amounts of “refinable” oil in Alaska and an “already paid for&constructed;” pipeline set up for delivery back to the “other” 48 states. We have not yet started to extract and transport this “owned” natural resource. But, a few questions comes to mind. What are we waiting for? When can the American taxpayer expect to get the benefit of the tax dollars allocated for this initiative? This article, if referenced, may help support these questions but, as the state of our country is starting to drain my energy. So I am left to simply point you all to the additional information on the subject, all you need to do is just GOOGLE the subject. The link offered is intended to just WHET the appetites of those parties interested in the subject. If you’re one of those interested parties, there’s a lot of more detailed info available to you. Here’s the link:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,94 4310,00.html
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, May 21, 2008 at 2:14 pm #
I’ve heard the estimates and if you figure air cap, tanks, humvees, helo’s, and the numerous flotillas just piddling around burning fuel oil, 66 gallons per soldier per day sounds right.
66 x 140,000 = 9,240,000 gallons per day in this folly. I bet whoever is selling the POL (petroleum/oil/lubricants) to the military is most likely charging rates far above anything we’ve seen yet.
Ron Paul was right when he said that the U.S. leaving Iraq and closing the majority of overseas bases would cause a drop in oil prices of over $20 per barrel and that was when oil was $80/bbl.
We need to pull the plug on Iraq and bring our troops home, the sooner the better.
Report thisBy TadK, May 21, 2008 at 2:05 pm #
I see you have been reading the scripture of the finincial illuminati. Impressive analysis.
-
Why isn’t the price of oil related to the market for oil?
Report thisBy PatrickHenry, May 21, 2008 at 1:53 pm #
Israel buys their oil from Iran.
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_silvers tein/2008/04/israels_tehran_connection.html
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, May 21, 2008 at 1:25 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The Saudis are NOT the problem, neither are the Oil companies They both deserve to make a profit… when is the last time you gave away something of great value to a stranger who really doesn’t like or understand you?
1.) We get most of our imported oil from Canada.
Report this2.) Shale oil is harder to refine than “light sweet crude”
3.) The Wall Street speculators are pushing the price of oil up.
4.) Due to speculation the price of oil on the world market is +$20
5.) the value of the dollar is dropping due to OUR policy on shifting currency. This means staples (like oil and imported food) will increase in price directly proportional to the dollar’s drop.
By Carl Olson, May 21, 2008 at 12:59 pm #
The ghastly price of Iraq occupation is the skyrocketed price of gas. By occupying Iraq, the U.S. has taken over all government functions, including the membership in oil cartel OPEC.
The Bush Administration has enthusiastically supported OPEC’s price-raising oil production cutbacks ever since the occupation in March 2003. The U. S. has cut back oil production in Iraq below what Hussein produced.
Right now both Republicans and Democrats in Congress support this OPEC help by the U.S. This includes Senators McCain, Obama, and Clinton.
Who will speak up for the suffering publics of the world?
Report thisBy dale Headley, May 21, 2008 at 12:29 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The only problem with Robert Scheer’s analysis is that it assumes that Bush is not, in actuality, in a conspiracy with the Saudis to keep the price of oil high. Why? Because the oil companies want it that way and George Bush is a puppet of the oil companies. It is one explanation (other than ineptitude) for why Bush objected so weakly to the high oil price. It also explains why, immediately after the 9-11 attacks, the only folks allowed to fly in the U.S. were members of the Saudi royal family and delegation.
Report thisBy cyrena, May 21, 2008 at 12:19 pm #
Fadel, we’ve talked about numbers 1 and 2, and that makes sense to me. I’d never even considered number 3, about that whole thing being a smokescreen, but it does make sense.
Because, in spite of it all, The Bush Dynasty is making money hand over fist from our misery. And, they’ve been in bed with the Saudis for decades.
There’s a reason why it’s usually Dick Cheney that has these visits with the King and the others, especially since the moron bush II is now ‘in charge’. Before, it was always bush I who made these visits and arranged these deals.
That said, bush II being as stupid as the puppet King was probably just following Dick Cheney’s plan anyway.
Report thisBy cyrena, May 21, 2008 at 12:05 pm #
Ya know, this is exactly correct. They do this stuff everytime. It annoys the hell out of me too. I can take everything except the insanity.
So, while I’ve conscientiously avoided the ‘I told you so’ for so very long, I think that’s gonna become my new mantra. Bush says if you say enough times, (typical fascist technique) it’ll sink in.
Or, more specifically, they figure they can create new realities by just repeating the same propaganda over and over again. So maybe we should just go on the defensive, and start repeating the truth over and over again, and maybe that’ll work.
If not, I’ll just keep saying “I told you so” even if it only makes me feel good. Gonna be assailed either way anyhow.
Report thisBy psmealey, May 21, 2008 at 11:47 am #
Yep, its gonna get worse, and most of us still are not in any way prepared to weather that epidemic. Heads buried for far too long, or otherwise worried about the chickens that Rev. Wright already told you were coming home to roost.
Didnt believe him, eh?
The worst part about all of this is that the jerks on the right (and the lumpen idiots who support them) will find a way to blame the liberals for it all when it comes crashing down. So, not only do we get assailed for being cranks, conspiracy theorists or America Haters when we suggest things that are difficult to hear, when things go into the toilet, they’ll say we were the ones in control of it the whole time.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, May 21, 2008 at 10:33 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
And how did the Saudis thank us? Just check the price of oil, whi